felixoscar

As I heard about the young author of the novel, I was curious to see this "art house" film. Lots of elements sounded promising to me, most notably the idea of a youthful contemporary (and a bit odd)New Yorker returning to his roots in Ukraine, the home of my ancestors as well.

Although Elijah Wood's character is pretty one-note (albeit quite interesting), the film is populated with many intriguing people. Eugene Hutz portrays our narrator, Alex, who is just fascinating. His was an award-caliber performance, a splendid meshing of well-written character brilliantly brought to life on the screen.

This film starts nicely but builds throughout. The last hour-half so touching and so surprising (at least to me!).

Hats off to Liev Schreiber for transforming this small novel into a film with so many wonderful scenes. Seeing modern day Ukraine was, well, illuminating. Hope this thoroughly engrossing little gem has a much wider audience in its post-theatrical release.

So heartening to see others had the grand fortune of tuning into this seminal series. About a decade ago, I had the really good fortune to sit at a business dinner with series producer, the now legendary David L. Wolper. I thanked him for his creating this uncanny series, long before the nostalgic era (which we are still in) and ten years before the unexpected popularity of That's Entertainment.

He was really happy to hear this, a man who had produced so many landmark series, tickled that this early effort had stayed with a fan for so many year.

Now, as another contributer mentioned, where is TCM, or IFC to bring back this grand series? How about a DVD? So many memories still --- the scene from "A Star is Born", the grand 1937 version (although the film was in color, how ironic that this TV series, a full 25 years younger, had to resort to Black & White!). Scenes from "current" films, now more than forty years old.

Let's find out who owns the rights, call the Turner folks in Atlanta, and hear that gorgeous theme music (available on iTunes by the way).

Thanks to all those involved in the creation of this film! It was a difficult project to get off the ground, yet, after too many years of delays, Brokeback Mountain has emerged with a happy ending ... for its viewers get to see a masterpiece! This love story, with its rich psychological, political, sociological overtones, is still essentially about the power of human connections. Under Ang Lee's care, and the remarkable work of the two screenwriter(I had read the short story), a modern love story, among two unlikely protagonists, amidst the grandeur, and misery of rural America, unfolds. Hopefully, those many who took a chance to bring this film to life will earn many rewards.

SPOILER --- Several hours after watching this instant classic, I remain angry, disappointed at disturbed by Ennis' inability to alter his life. Things were hardly fulfilling for him by the mid 1970s: divorced, alone, "always broke", bored. He had a TV, he was aware that the world was changing, and he certainly yearned for time with Jack. Moving away from a failed life, just getting in a car and moving to California or Texas, Oregon, anywhere just to be with Jack, why the hell not? Being a waiter, a factory worker, anything!, as long as he had the one passion in his life with him, how could you resist? Clearly the demons that haunted him kept him from prevailing.

But enough armchair psychology, and let's get a couple million viewers, especially young men, into the movie theater to really be exposed to something different, striking, important and memorable.

Being partial to "talky dramas", I wondered why I had somehow missed this one (on Broadway as well a few years back). Perhaps I balked on the film as I was not, frankly, not a major Julia Roberts fan (although quite intrigued by the talented male leads). Gave this a try tonite and, to my delight, totally engrossed. And surely this the following statement is represents the view of a tiny minority --- Julia Roberts has never been better. Nuanced, real, adult, bravo Ms. Roberts!

Mike Nichols directing shall we say a new Millennium spin-off of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", all these years later, and exquisitely well. One of the rare post-age 60 directors in film history to still have that touch (rival Clint Eastwood another).

Jude Law and Clive Owen delivered what I had hoped for, three dimensional portrayals of real people. They are among my favorite performers (the latter would have been a swell James Bond). Natalie Portman really good, filling-out a quartet that merits lots of praise.

With all the absurd remakes crowding the screen, the one-note violence and puerile humor, the absurdly bloated "tentpoles" crowding the screen, how refreshing, how grand to see a film about four well fleshed out characters, flawed, annoying, sympathetic, foolish ... I rate this a 9 of 10.

Boy did I want to enjoy this one! Although there seems no reason to remake this venerable classic, with Peter Jackson at the helm (as in the talent behind LOTR:Return of the King) why not?

And as a middle-aged guy, I remain surprised at how sad I feel about the(inevitable) climax of the film, the fate of Kong. The grand creature and his interactions with Naomi Watts, struck a nerve. Seemed so stupid, so cruel, so wasteful to have that remarkable Primate wait so long for a human connection, only to turn it into a tragedy. So the "humanizing" of this fabled, but imaginary "character" affected me far more than anything else in the movie.

While the New York scenes at the beginning were a hit with me (Who would ever believe a 2005 movie begins with an Al Jolson song?!), you can almost feel the "get on with it!" restlessness of the audience. Then on Skull Island, we are rocked between truly exciting vs redundant boring scenes. And the plausibility problem: Gee, who would have thought people can outrun/hide between stampeding dinosaurs? That a playwright and underemployed actress had such upper body strength? That a 20 foot gorilla could be bitten repeatedly with no ill effect?

Things would have worked out better for me (and others?) if we went from 3plus down to 2 solid hours, with all Naomi/Kong scenes maintained, with more credible scenes, with the Adrien Brody given something interesting to do. OK, I give it a "7". And still mourn the white man's idiocy of destroying something so fantastic, so unique, so feeling as the Great Kong!

Boy was this a surprise! Although I have been watching films for over 40 years, and had indeed heard of this movie, this was my first encounter, wow! When done well, there is no other genre that satisfies as film noir and this one was aces. Frankly, don't jump all over me, but I had considered Kubrick quite over-rated, never a big fan of Dr Strangelove (saw it first at way too young age, then ten years ago, and recently ... sorry, did nothing for me). On the other hand, in high school watched in awe 2001:A Space Odyssey, a long awaited film that was not very well received by critics, but adored by yours truly. Sure Kubrick gave us the the overlong, but incredible cast in Spartacus, the dazzling but uneven A Clockwork Orange, and so on. But for me, I'll take Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, WilliamWyler, even peak Spielberg,and many others over Kubrick.

But with this low budget masterwork, I may have to think again. Too bad more 50's movies did not gamble by assembling a cast like this one! And although Philip Marlowe has been brilliantly done by Bogie and Mitchum and yes, Dick Powell, I wonder how Sterling Hayden might have tackled the role. Marie Windsor was overlooked for an Oscar nomination here, and Elisha Cook dazzling. Kudos to everyone and this precocious 27 year old director.

Even better than Asphalt Jungle ... but, alas, why did we have to wait almost twenty years, and Technicolor, to deliver another film noir of this brilliance ... Chinatown of course!

I would be hard pressed to name a trio of actors that I could be more excited to see than the stars of his film. Been rooting for Clarkson for years; we all know Sarsgaard is Oscar material in the years to come; Scott is (to me) even better than his dad. So I was waiting for this, via Craig Lucas, for a long time.

My cousin had warned me (we are both gay) that the play delivered a memorable first half (in a positive way) and just as memorable second half (in how bad it was). Clearly the screenplay did nothing to change this, alas.

The three leads were, no surprise, just excellent, and seeing them was well worth the time and cost. Oh PeterS, get back to work we need more of you! But dear Mr Lucas, when characters behave in ways that show no logic, it feels like a cheat.

Fascinating idea, beautiful setting, some splendid dialogue and then disaster sets. I say "6" and wish everyone involved great success in the years to come.

Just what is it with the public, and even the more discerning critics? This makes three art house films in a row that have been even better than I expected: Heights, Mysterious Skin and now the contemporary multiple story-themed Happy Endings. While I never thought these would break the $ 50 million mark, come on, all are truly superior story telling. Like the other two, Happy Endinds is involving, well-written and cost what, less than one-tenth of what puerile nonsense like The Longest Yard and The Island demand?

All three have gay characters, another link. All are modern stories. And all are brought to life by naturalistic, fine performances.

Lisa Kudrow leads a sterling cast, with several name performers who seemed eager to appear even in smaller roles; Someone I hardly know, Jesse Bradford, appears in two of the three films, with talent far beyond what was exhibited in more commercial work.

I could have watched another hour of this group of interlocking stories. As a fan of Altman's Short Cuts, there are indeed parallels here, but why would this "Endings" be considered so inferior? So prepared for talk, sit down and enjoy yourself, I sure as hell know that this one brought lots of pleasure to me.

Can it be that Holly Woodlawn is approaching sixty !? Well, why not, as Jane Fonda returns post sixty-five, along with contemporaries Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford and Billy Cosby. I suppose those others have used their talents to become film legends, names on the lips of virtually everyone past age forty (or thirty). But Holly, alas, a unique player at at turning point of gay/women's liberation, is just (for now) a memory.

Well that is too bad, and if we can get more people, ANYONE, to take a peek at this delightful, silly and charming (very) little film, Holly might manage a well-earned comeback. The film is (was) just a daydream, but boy far more entertaining than films costing literally a hundred times its tiny budget. So although we cannot bring back hilarious co-star Tally Brown, we should revive this little gem!

What a mess! Hazel Scott was a revelation, but everything else just a clunker. Like others hoping to finally catch this sixty year old curio, I was dismayed to see how truly dull and silly it was/is. As a major fan of Mae West, I wondered, come on, how bad could it be? And hey, how come our leading lady only gets equal billing with ... such second level comics? How did she get mixed-up in this? What was disheartening was Mae herself. Sad, unfunny, tired --- could that be Mae West, trapped in round after round of awful lines? No wonder her flight from films after this mishap. Even her work, at age 75ish in the bizarre but unique "MyraB", was better. OK, we still have all those pre 1940 films to relish, all is forgiven Mae!

Oh my, don't want to say too many bad things about a venture that involved so many talented people. But IMDb exists for frank postings, and I was so displeased with this movie that, forgive me film-makers, I really wanted to let off some steam.

The script was the core problem for me, it was so uninvolving, so slow at the start, and so absurd at the end. A first rate group of actors did bring life to their roles, but The Sixth Sense this is not (but then I thought Signs was not very good, ruined by an awful second half).

Ms. Howard was excellent in the only good role, while Adrien Brody sure has talent. But even for a mere 99 cents on Pay Per View I was ready to call this misfire off after sixty very long minutes. Poor Mr. Shyamalan may be getting budgets, and pretty good grosses, but he is seeming more like a one trick pony with every film. 2/10

Where has the time gone? Those thoughts raced through my mind during this compelling all too brief documentary. Hey, if I had been unable to relate to this who would?

Happily, I did and totally enjoyed it. My rebellious contemporaries were fun to observe, then and now, and the film has started some dialog among my long-time friends. While it is striking that two of the five actually had political careers (although small-time), I often wonder how I ended-up seeking the joys (comfort) of a corporate world - and boy was I a rebel (without drugs).

Surely part of my pleasure from the film was it holding a mirror of sorts to me, so I was pre-sold, I was bound to find this story engrossing. As for the film-making, good to see how a very small (relatively) investment could pay off in such high satisfaction, at last for this viewer. Was the budget a reason why the other dozen of the original group 1978 elected not to get involved in the project - ? Updates would be welcome.

A big admirer of Michael Mann (even Heat, and failed TV series Robbery Homicide), and always enjoy the talented Mr Cruise. As a Raymond Chandler lover, a mystery (action) thriller set in LA, I am already biased in favor. Jamie Foxx as a film actor is new to me, but eager to check his work out.

So ... what exactly went wrong? Certainly not the initial 90 minutes, which while hardly original and a bit far-fetched, featured a deliciously malevolent Tom Cruise and the usual Michael Mann flourishes. But then ...

SPOILERS (not detailed but don't look anyway!): Too many coincidences (and some you can probably figure out a mile away), turn something a bit different into an improbable, let's face it silly denouement. So while most of the film was, to me, Above Average, those last 30 minutes drag this promising enterprise lower.

I admit, the great majority of films released before say 1933 are just not for me. Of the dozen or so "major" silents I have viewed, one I loved (The Crowd), and two were very good (The Last Command and City Lights, that latter Chaplin circa 1931).

So I was apprehensive about this one, and humor is often difficult to appreciate (uh, enjoy) decades later. I did like the lead actors, but thought little of the film.

One intriguing sequence. Early on, the guys are supposed to get "de-loused" and for about three minutes, fully dressed, do some schtick. In the background, perhaps three dozen men pass by, all naked, white and black (WWI ?), and for most, their butts, part or full backside, are shown. Was this an early variation of beefcake courtesy of Howard Hughes?

How ironic --- a film buff, I tried twice to sit through the legendary British 1939 (color production) version. Hopeless, not for me. So with a new HD TV and this 2002 not well received (by critics and at the box office) version on, for whatever reasons, I thought I would give the newcomer a try.

Dazzling! Well-directed, expensive looking, top-notch. True, like much fiction (and the novel I suppose), it is far-fetched in stretches. Nevertheless, the movie captivated me, with Heath Ledger's (excellent work Heath) character that rarity.... SPOILERS SPOILERS STOP NOW ....

... a true, blood and guts hero. His apparent motivations for his pivotal decision early in the film was striking (it was not for love!), and yet he said he quickly realized he could not live with that decision.

A bit Lawrence of Arabia, a touch of Khartoum, but THIS version of the old British chestnut really grabbed me. Two memorable moments: The five second visual showing from above the attack on the ill-fated British contingent; and Wes Bentley's sudden hands on our hero's face, a moment of poignant recognition.

Minority opinion ---- this was to me a surprising "10" rated film, beautiful to look at, exciting, well acted and often touching.

Considering all the talent involved, it was hardly surprising to find this a first rate movie. Didn't you want to slap Bogart around ... well, that is actually what compelled me to make this entry. Among the handful of superlative cameo (say 2 to 8 minutes in length)performances I have seen in my 40 plus years of movie-going, Dead End features one of them.

Marjorie Main, almost as unlikely a film character (think Ma Kettle!) as one could imagine, turned in what I consider a masterpiece. Read that she repeated her stage role, and wow, that slap, that dialog and that role. Bravo!

Think of when this was assembled --- few American TV homes had color (none had remotes or a VCR or DVD or Web access). Censorship was still the rule in film (no bedsharing among married couples, no open mouth kisses approved). The closet kept the public's knowledge of the vital and vibrant gay Hollywood a secret (members including, in 1964, thirty five year film veteran, and MFL director George Cukor). Movie theaters in the USA were segregated among races throughout the South (and other places as well).

So put this film in the context of the time what do you have: a story from George Bernard Shaw, filmed in glorious color, at a massive budget, with an overwhelming and unique performance by Rex Harrison, and, if your taste, one of the mid-century's grandest scores. Watched it in High Definition TV, wow! A throughly entertaining classic it remains. Ah, and Audrey Hepburn. To me, this Oscar winner is a class act, dazzling of its time.

Maybe I saw a different film from the poorly received, notable box office failure released two years ago! Exciting, sad and provocative, this "inspired by events" movie was far better than I expected. No problems with Harrison Ford for me here (after all, his heritage is Russian on his mom's side), and Liam Neeson and the cast were just fine. This is not usually my favorite type of movie, but, watched on Pay Cable, came across as a solid entry in the genre.

Ironically, I may be one of the few who saw "K19" (dreadful title) after seeing Liam Neeson and Peter Sarsgaard in "Kinsey" (perhaps the polar opposite of this film). Talk about versatility (oh, wait, Liam was a strong leader in both). Sorry "K-19" failed to ignite positive reactions.

Having recently read, and thoroughly enjoyed, T.C. Boyle's fictionalized take on Kinsey, "The Inner Circle" (2004), I was eager to see how this version materialized. Well Bravo! Bill Condon has created another winning script, and found another lead actor to mesmerize the audience (as in Gods & Monsters). Liam Neeson brings to life this crusader, a man who surely revolutionized America ... and had his own special personal battles as well.

Evocative, enjoyable, credible. Laura Linney is excellent, as well, plus rising star Peter Sargaard is super. Hats off the the splendid cast. One criticism --- did not get to know most of the secondary characters well enough, this is a film where another half hour would have been welcome. But, hey, two memorable hours worth!

Kathy Bates can really act --- well we knew that. Rupert Everett is handsome and has screen presence, nothing new there. But who expected Julie Andrews, Dan Ackroyd, a fun dwarf (Ms. Eaton), several fun cameos, a youthful Peter Skarsgaard, and especially, the brilliant Jonathan Pryce!

Ms. Bates, really touching at the start, delivers a wonderful performance, front and center. True, it is a hodgepodge of ideas, and the contrivances are plenty, but this is a fairy tale in the most modern sense. And there are so many truly fine moments. Hats off to all involved, and hope Unconditional Loves eventually gains cult status.

It has been several years since I had the pleasure of seeing this one - and classics are often better the second time around. For a Yankee like me, the setting, the characters and the poignant story were a treat. Beautifully written, so well played and totally engrossing, how DID they do this for $ 5 million.

While not all of John Sayles inexpensive productions work for me, this absolutely entertaining film, with many things to say, should have taken in far more money and acclaim. Well, at least Hollywood writers had the smarts to grant Sayles an Oscar nomination for this one.

Super cast (Chris Cooper first caught my attention in this one), this rates a "10" for me. Enjoy!

How did this happen?! The other evening we caught the film noir Out of the Past. A first-rate period piece (1947) it was so engaging that we rushed out to see how this had morphed in the 1984 version. Things were promising as the modern version would be free of censorship, featured a promising cast, in color, and brought "Out" protagonist Jane Greer back in a pivotal role. So we were at least hoping for a reasonable translation, but oh boy, what a mess!

When Jeff Bridges is inadequate you know there are problems! The acting was uninspired. But the screenplay, awful. Characters were drastically altered (think Robert Altman's absurd take on Raymond Chandler's brilliant The Long Goodbye) and the storyline ruined. In a word, it stunk. Please, if they want to do it again, let's please stick with the basic, excellent original story!

How did this one escape me all these years? Pairing of Robert DeNiro (during his peak years) and Robert Duvall (who steals the film) was strangely overlooked (I was hardly alone nearly 25 years ago). What brought me to it was the recent death of writer John Gregory Dunne.

Had limited expectations going in --- but in retrospect, the setting, LA circa 1948, is one of my favorites. In some ways this is a companion piece for "LA Confidential" --- virtually same period/locale and with that "those was hardly the good ol' days" theme. Murder, amorality, the darkside of that bright city. The visuals were all gloomy, keeping the downbeat theme throughout. And while some call it slow moving, see it when you are in the right mood.

Brilliantly evocative, it made me feel good to be alive now, not then, when hypocrisy was rife (ok, it is now, but we are no longer a truly White Men Only society). A miserable world in an allegedly affluent society (take a look at how the Madame makes ends meet).

Kudos to the terrific supporting cast, especially to Rose Gregorio and Kenneth McMillan, and the under-your-skin Duvall (best I have ever seen him!). It ends a bit too quickly, but I say, EXCELLENT!

Almost all of the written comments seem "10" scores and yet the overall vote is not nearly as high. Perhaps it takes an articulate person to understand this grand movie must be judged in context --- as others have said, Talkies were not only a decade old. Do you think Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler will be remembered fondly twenty years hence? Well Who cares!

Garbo, unmatchable. Only 15 years of movie-making, our loss. But Queen Christina gives her one of my favorite movie scenes. That long, almost-silent shot (recently shown in the context of the under-rated "The Dreamers") is merely perfect. The music, the faces, the photography and then, the answer: "I am memorizing this room!".

Kudos to an early classic!

One of the early film noir masterpieces! As a major fan of Chandler novels, some of the lousy filmings (e.g. Marlowe, The Long Goodbye)are of a more recent vintage. But they had hit the jackpot with this one.

I do not see how those reviewing this film could fail to appreciate it - they are reviewing a film through a post-2000 prism. Set in 1944, censorship was the rule, even the novel had to be careful. Edward Dymtryk, his cast and crew, with a low budget (which helped create the necessary mood!) have done a sensational job transferring the book to the screen.

And gambling on crooner Dick Powell is akin today to putting Sean Penn in a musical --- to me he met the challenge brilliantly (although I still hear Robert Mitchum when I read Chandler). Wonderful supporting roles, as with the 1941 daddy of them all, The Maltese Falcon. Best of all, Claire Trevor, her voice, her manner, her style. Bravo lady!

Easily 10 of 10.