binaryDigit
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
21 years
Reviews
Winter's Tale (2014)
Not as bad as many make it out to be
First some background, I'm a guy, a shoot 'em, blow 'em up, Clint Eastwood luvin dude. I do appreciate however a good romantic story. Also, I have NOT read the book, heck, never even heard of it until now.
So that said, here is my take. The haters seem to fall into three major categories.
First, there are the "loved the book, hate the movie" types. Since I never read the book, I can't speak to this, other than to say, "Sorry, it's not the book, it's a movie". I always tell my kids that the medium of film is radically different than that of pulp and what "works" in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. Given that, one should go into a movie with an open mind, even if you've read the book.
Second, there are the "I never read the book, the movie didn't make sense". Now that I can talk to. I never did find myself all that confused. I think falls in large part to the fact that I never assumed the movie was supposed to be based on reality. I mean come on, given the rather obviously "fantastic" aspects of the story, it's not meant to be taken seriously. You're given an overarching concept (basically the power of love to do amazing things) and if you buy in, then the particulars are not really all that important. If you can't get beyond that, or simply don't buy into the central conceit, then you won't like the movie because it rides that wave for all it's worth.
Third are the folks who thought the movie was too schmaltzy. Now that I would at least partially agree with. That said, again, the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that it wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It's fair that if one does not go for that kind of thing, then you won't like this film.
All that said, I thought it was a "good" romantic film. My personal criticisms fall mainly on the somewhat wooden acting and the overall lack of "feel". That's right, despite all I said above there was just something about the film that just never really drew me into the characters. For some reason I never really felt truly emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't hate them, I did care, just not nearly as much as I thought I should. I also thought some of the acting was a bit forced and this might have contributed to not being able to lose myself in the characters. Almost like the actors did a good job of "acting" like the characters but never quite crossed into "being" the characters.
So if you're willing to accept the movie for what it is, an unabashedly romantic film that weaves religion as an integral part of the story, then I think that you will enjoy the film. It's not perfect by any sense of the imagination, but IMHO it's not nearly as bad as some folks are making it out to be.
So that said, here is my take. The haters seem to fall into three major categories.
First, there are the "loved the book, hate the movie" types. Since I never read the book, I can't speak to this, other than to say, "Sorry, it's not the book, it's a movie". I always tell my kids that the medium of film is radically different than that of pulp and what "works" in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. Given that, one should go into a movie with an open mind, even if you've read the book.
Second, there are the "I never read the book, the movie didn't make sense". Now that I can talk to. I never did find myself all that confused. I think falls in large part to the fact that I never assumed the movie was supposed to be based on reality. I mean come on, given the rather obviously "fantastic" aspects of the story, it's not meant to be taken seriously. You're given an overarching concept (basically the power of love to do amazing things) and if you buy in, then the particulars are not really all that important. If you can't get beyond that, or simply don't buy into the central conceit, then you won't like the movie because it rides that wave for all it's worth.
Third are the folks who thought the movie was too schmaltzy. Now that I would at least partially agree with. That said, again, the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that it wears it's heart on it's sleeve. It's fair that if one does not go for that kind of thing, then you won't like this film.
All that said, I thought it was a "good" romantic film. My personal criticisms fall mainly on the somewhat wooden acting and the overall lack of "feel". That's right, despite all I said above there was just something about the film that just never really drew me into the characters. For some reason I never really felt truly emotionally invested in the characters. I didn't hate them, I did care, just not nearly as much as I thought I should. I also thought some of the acting was a bit forced and this might have contributed to not being able to lose myself in the characters. Almost like the actors did a good job of "acting" like the characters but never quite crossed into "being" the characters.
So if you're willing to accept the movie for what it is, an unabashedly romantic film that weaves religion as an integral part of the story, then I think that you will enjoy the film. It's not perfect by any sense of the imagination, but IMHO it's not nearly as bad as some folks are making it out to be.
The Forgotten (2004)
The very definition of "Hollywood ending"
My comment to my wife after watching the film was "if aliens came to earth and wanted to know what was meant by the term 'Hollywood Ending'", then they would just have to watch this film to find out.
As previously mentioned, the first half of the movie is interesting. The often used premise of "what is reality" and the thought that that which you hold as real runs counter to what everything and everyone else around you feels. In many ways it's much like "Jacobs Ladder" in that respect.
The second half really however degrades into what feels like a made for TV SciFi channel one hour series. The ending is truly awful and makes absolutely no sense. I think my wife summed it up best when she said "the ending didn't fit the movie whatsoever, but I liked it anyway because it made me feel good". Yup, I likened the ending to something you'd see in a Star Trek episode, going along interestingly enough, and then the perfect pat ending sprouts up in the last 5 minutes and makes everyone feel good to be human. I didn't mind the "open endedness" of the ending so much as the total sense of non congruency once the pieces are laid out in front of you. It's like getting to the end of the puzzle, and instead of having missing pieces (which you can at least fill in in your head), you have pieces left over from two other seemingly related but different puzzles.
The acting was serviceable, with Julianne Moore turning in a "Riplyesque" performance (whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective) but Gary Sinise basically walks through the movie (while bearing an eerie resemblance to Steve Jobs in the beginning). The other actors move the plot along, but nothing worth saying anything more about.
Oh, this movie has one of the best "jump in your seat" auto scenes ever!
As previously mentioned, the first half of the movie is interesting. The often used premise of "what is reality" and the thought that that which you hold as real runs counter to what everything and everyone else around you feels. In many ways it's much like "Jacobs Ladder" in that respect.
The second half really however degrades into what feels like a made for TV SciFi channel one hour series. The ending is truly awful and makes absolutely no sense. I think my wife summed it up best when she said "the ending didn't fit the movie whatsoever, but I liked it anyway because it made me feel good". Yup, I likened the ending to something you'd see in a Star Trek episode, going along interestingly enough, and then the perfect pat ending sprouts up in the last 5 minutes and makes everyone feel good to be human. I didn't mind the "open endedness" of the ending so much as the total sense of non congruency once the pieces are laid out in front of you. It's like getting to the end of the puzzle, and instead of having missing pieces (which you can at least fill in in your head), you have pieces left over from two other seemingly related but different puzzles.
The acting was serviceable, with Julianne Moore turning in a "Riplyesque" performance (whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective) but Gary Sinise basically walks through the movie (while bearing an eerie resemblance to Steve Jobs in the beginning). The other actors move the plot along, but nothing worth saying anything more about.
Oh, this movie has one of the best "jump in your seat" auto scenes ever!
Session 9 (2001)
As interesting as you want to make it
A lot of people have weighed in, I loved the movie, but it has many interpretations, and mine disagrees with many, but so be it. See this movie and think about it, about what it says (not so much how it says it), it can be VERY disturbing if you do.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Joy-Lyn, who said Gordon had MPD? I didn't get that impression. Instead, I thought the point was that many people (everybody?) has that killer personality inside of them, it's all in how it manifests itself. Remember, he was supposed to be the ROCK, but even someone who is outwardly strong can, because of circumstance, lose control to this "being". This movie actually validates your comments about MPD being a primarly female personification of a deep mental disorder. Gordons (a males) personification was different, he DID NOT exhibit MPD, he was always Gordon, right up until the end.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Joy-Lyn, who said Gordon had MPD? I didn't get that impression. Instead, I thought the point was that many people (everybody?) has that killer personality inside of them, it's all in how it manifests itself. Remember, he was supposed to be the ROCK, but even someone who is outwardly strong can, because of circumstance, lose control to this "being". This movie actually validates your comments about MPD being a primarly female personification of a deep mental disorder. Gordons (a males) personification was different, he DID NOT exhibit MPD, he was always Gordon, right up until the end.