bilahn

IMDb member since July 1999
    Lifetime Total
    75+
    IMDb Member
    19 years

Reviews

Another Gay Movie
(2006)

Truly Awful
The phrase "worst movie I have ever seen" gets thrown around a little too much by "reviewers" who have an axe to grind, but this wretched film would have to be on my short list of truly awful movies.

Raunch and grossness is OK - if the movie is well made and funny. Same perhaps for the simpering repulsive gay stereotypes in this move - if the movie were funny and well made.

But the movie is terribly written, is clichéd to the hilt, it's simply not funny in the least (with maybe 2 scenes a mild exception - one involving Richard Hatch and a good turn by the Mother).

What was nauseating and repulsive about this movie was not the bathroom grossness, but simply the spectacle of these very unappealing young men shouting the worst dialogue and hackneyed rubbish I have seen in a long time.

Terrible. Awful. Avoid it!

Berserk
(1967)

Of course it's a bad movie! (but not even that bad!)
Some people really have no sense of humor. I am talking about the ones who dissect the script and the acting, on and on, and say what a bad movie it is. OK, fine, on that basis, I give it a 4! But it's funny, it's campy, and doesn't commit the worst sin a movie can make, that is, it is not boring.

Actually I found it not as bad on its own merits as I expected. But in any case, the garishness, the 60s nostalgia, the unintentionally hilarious dialogue, and of course, most of all the inimitable Joan Crawford looking like a combination of Mae West and Divine.

If you liked Berserk and want to see another "bad" Joan Crawford horror fest, I highly recommend Straight Jacket, which I truly rate a 10!

Hairspray
(2007)

It's good, but I was a bit disappointed
First of all, I have long loved the original 1988 Hairspray and I haven't seen the stage musical.

I felt like I should have loved this version more, but I just didn't. It lacked any of the campiness and most of the absurd humor of the original, and between the dancing I kept wishing I was watching the original. I realize it is a different movie and what is the point of just redoing the original, but there really needed to be a way of capturing the edge of the first movie. To me, they did not do it, and that is the problem.

Nikky Blonsky did as about as good a job as anyone could, but lacked the sassiness of Rikki Lake. Michelle Pfeiffer was quite good as Mrs. Van Tussell - Christopher Walken - boring. John Travolta is the worst thing about the movie, he is absolutely awful. Only a real life drag queen can play the role of Edna.

The dancing sequences were certainly entertaining, well done and fun- but think of Grease - just not in the same class. Take away the dancing, and it is just a highly watered down version.

To be fair, Hairspray 2007 is not a "remake" of the 1988 film, but a film version of the 2002 Broadway show whidh was "inspired" by it. I can imagine the stage show would be naturally more exhilarating than the new movie. I know some who liked show without using the old movie as a comparison, but had more trouble doing that in this film.

My partner chastised me for constantly checking off comparisons to the original - but that's me - I have to do it. I can well imagine for someone knowing nothing of the Hairspray history, or who is able to forget the original, it will come off much better. But i think anyone who has spent the last 18 years watching Hairspray as one of their favorite guilty pleasures, is probably going to be disappointed.

I saw Evita and Chicago about 12 times each, not to mention the 1988 movie. Dreamgirls would be worth another viewing for me, if not more than that. I am glad I saw this Hairspary and it is worth seeing - but I wouldn't see it again. Something was missing.

Dreamgirls
(2006)

Everyone calm down!
Dreamgirls is neither the knockout sensation the large majority are claiming, nor the disaster and failure that the rest declare.

It is a very good enjoyable movie, with a lot of great scenes, superb performances and singing by Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy, certainly a decent realization of the show and then some.

But it does lack depth and a certain cutting edge, and the rest of the performances are rather bland. We certainly don't get a real feel to Motown here. Most of all it is no way in the same class as Chicago, a flawless movie, but still way above the mediocre.

I guess that comes to a B+ rating for me. Do we have to be so polarized in everything???

Apocalypto
(2006)

A new low in immorality
After The Passion, I didn't think it was possible for Gibson, or anyone else, to sink any lower. The Passion for me, was worse than a gratuitous slasher movie like Saw, because it had pretensions of seriousness, wedding violence to religious faith, using cinematic technique that was almost breathtaking in its achievement.

Apolcalypto is more violent and shocking than the Passion and the filmaking is of amazing finesse (hence my four stars rather than the zero it deserves). Yes the atmosphere is frequently thrilling and there are moments of brilliance like I have rarely seen. Gibson is one of the most amazing directors living today.

But at what moral price? There was much more to the Mayans than their well known brutality. This movie is racist and false.

I am not sure what the ending means but could it be the "salvation" of Christianity? Or of the beneficent entrance of the white man to tame the savage? What chutzpah. One might think it means that things are about to get even worse, but coming from Mel, I find that unlikely.

The Mafia were brutal too, but the violence in The Godfather is judicious and more than adequate to make the point. What is the point in reveling pornographically on the violence in the most lurid sensational way imaginable? Braveheart was far better than Apocalypto, because while the violence was still more than necessary, it was relatively judiciously employed and in the context of an important story. I actually saw that movie on TV stripped of the worst violence and it was very powerful. Do that with The Passion or Apocalypto and there is basically no movie left.

Let's not kid ourselves - pretensions of historical importance and a "message" are nothing but a smokescreen for what this movie is: A Horror Movie. And one that makes "Saw" look like Sesame Street. People are going to see this movie to see the violence. Yes, the movie is brilliant and gripping in many ways. All the more reason to condemn Mr. Gibson for using his formidable talent for bad purposes.

Movies like this are part of the problem, the glorification of violence as entertainment, and this case, with the veneer of seriousness.

Predictably, those who were bludgeoned into religious rapture by The Passion are singing the praises of Apolcalypto for its triumph of "family values". I find this sickening beyond belief. And how fascinating that Mr. Gibson has managed to make ultra violence noble, uplifting, and suitable for the entire family. Shame on him for subjecting people to things they would never choose to see otherwise. If people want to learn important lessons of history, there are many many better movies to chose from.

Shame on every critic who has given this movie a "100" because of its undoubted merits, without understanding its racism, inaccuracy and moral vacuousness.

I reluctantly give Apocalypto 4 stars for movie making merits. It really deserves a zero, and I think people should really consider whether they want to take money from their pockets to support this. I know I am ashamed I did.

Working Girl
(1988)

Gotta love the 80s
Working Girl is one of those guilty pleasures - Sigourney Weaver's Corporate Dominatrix role is priceless, and Melanie Griffith falling naturally in the (not so dumb) secretary role is equally alarming.

But what really kills me is this movie shows 80s Big Hair and shoulder pads at their most imposing! It is so extreme that you might think that this was a caricature movie made recently ABOUT the 80s - no-- this was made in 1988 and women really did look like this!

Beyond that it is a fairly decent and well made movie - the main strength being Weaver's acting and the aforementioned camp attraction. I am not sure what Antonio Bandares was thinking though.

Priest
(1994)

Intensely moving and moral film
I just re-watched Priest after 12 years, and I think it is even more powerful and relevant now it was then, given the scandals in the Catholic Church and the rise of religious militancy and fundamentalism in the world.

While occasionally teetering on the brink of preachiness and soap opera, Priest is saved by tight direction and very fine acting. It effectively shows the humaness of people in the Church, as opposed to how some would have you believe.

As a person not all attached to organized religion, I obviously find much to approve of here. But the strength of Priest is that someone who loves the Catholic Church for what is really is, the teachings of Jesus, and not what cruel, irrational and ignorant human beings have made of it will find much to be enriched by here. Priest is not anti-Catholic at all, not in the true sense of the word. Rather, it is anti human folly.

Of course that segment that is fundamentalist and inflexible, who cannot imagine - horrors! - that a Priest could be gay have and will continue to express their moral outrage and call this "hate speech."

As a final note, I also happened to read Roger Ebert's inexplicible review of Priest. If I hadn't seen his name on it, I would think it was written by Michael Medved. Since Ebert is generally religion neutral and very gay positive, I simply don't understand his outrage at all - very puzzling indeed. And he gives Mel's hideous Passion of the Christ, one of the most immoral and disgusting movies ever made (again most especially if you ARE religious) a perfect 10.

Evil Dead II
(1987)

Not as good as I remembered it
I remember thinking Evil Dead 2 was amazing back in the 80s when i saw it but re-watching it now it seems overshadowed by the later Army of Darkness, which is very similar in plot and intent but considerably more substantial, funny and clever, I think. If you have seen Army of Darkness, I think you may find Evil Dead 2 redundant. Both are basically satires of horror and not the least bit frightening! Bruce Campbell is an excellent physical comic actor, but he goes way beyond Evil Dead in Army of Darkness

I am interested now in seeing the original Evil Dead which I understand is more of a straight horror movie.

Solaris
(2002)

Neither bored nor enthralled me
I always find it interesting to approach a movie that has people so polarized - in this case "it was sooooo slow" vs. "uplifting and incredible." That seems to go for the critics as well. My reaction was neither.

I am predisposed to like this kind of science fiction - the low key and wonderful "Gattaca" comes to mind. I found the story very intriguing and atmospheric and it held my interest - at the same time I felt something was missing and it just wasn't as rich, complex and good as it should have been.

I am not sure why, I think the key for me is that I was not able to really get emotionally involved with the love story - and this is first and foremost a love story. I have trouble with most love stories, due to my own particular biases, so there has to be a lot there to really identify with it. I think the problem here was the casting and acting - it could have been a lot better. The woman playing Gordon was rather flat as well.

Also the script was a little too obvious.

All in all, an interesting film that I am glad I saw, but I can't really get worked up about it.

Koneko monogatari
(1986)

Cute adorable, but left a bad taste in my mouth.
Warning: Gives away the plot of the movie.

Yes, Milo and Otis is very cute and well done as many reviewers have said. I was enjoying it very much until near the end.

As far as the animal treatment controversy, i think a reviwer on Amazon pretty well debunks most of these concerns. Even in the 80s trick photography could do some pretty amazing things. I doubt any real harm was done to these animals. On the other hand, I am not sure standards in Japan in the 80s were what we would now expect, so I just have to reserve judgement.

My complaint is one most people won't care about, but I do; the movie's heterosexism. Now I hate to be in turn a homosexist; I do not mean to disparage marriage or raising children in any way, because I do not feel that way. I also hate to take a simple children's story and make it so darn controversial. HOWEVER, For the first 3/4 of the movie Milo and Otis is about male friendship, bonding, and heroism for each other. Then out of the blue appears "Joyce" who has absolutely nothing to offer Milo other than being female. Otis, who just saved Milo's life, is out the window. Milo doesn't care. Otis is devastated and goes off into the bitter cold snowy mountains, possibly to die. Is that a message to send kids - dump your closest buddy who saved you just for a girl? I am not suggesting they were "gay" cats and dogs, but this kind of hetero supremacy would do James Dobson proud.

Then it gets worse: Otis, out in the mountain, meets a girl-dog, and now he "understands what came over Milo." This about made me turn the thing off.

I think it is fine to make a movie about animals getting married and having cute kittens and puppies - i am all for it, but this ended up totally negating the whole feeling of the first hour of the movie. I don't object to Milo and Otis getting "married" but it should have been done very differently, and without such total disregard for each other, In the end, the deep bond between Milo and Otis, which I thought was what this movie was about, ends up being trivialized.

If you can overlook this issue though, (I can't) and assuming no animals were hurt, Milo and Otis is certainly a very cute movie and heartwarming for the most part.

The Guru
(2002)

Totally enjoyable, at least for me
This is the kind of movie, when I read the negative reviews, that I just shake my head. All the august discussion, criticism of script, "racism", "lack of chemistry", lofty analysis, and on and on. And critic Michael Medved, his "review" which is more of a hand wringing speculation over the real-life sexual orientation of Mistral, reaches a new height of ignorance.

A movie doesn't have to be a masterpiece of cinema to be enjoyable. Of course it is not a "great" movie. WHO CARES? I enjoyed this movie more than any comedy I think since Big Business (another gem trashed by critics).

Of course it helps if you understand and like Bollywood and Indian culture, and it helps a lot if you appreciate the sexy charms of the lead actor, who is shall I say, remarkably supple.

If you fall in that category, I guarantee you will love The Guru, die laughing over the musical numbers, and be totally charmed by the cheesy ending.

My only substantive criticism of The Guru as a movie, is that it gets a little slow in places, and I think more musical numbers would have been great.

If you are not interested, this movie will leave you cold. That's OK. But spare us all the literate dissection.

I give The Guru a 10 for a wonderful movie diversion!

The Da Vinci Code
(2006)

OK movie, what's the big fuss about?
The audience reaction to this movie is so polarized, and the critical reaction to universally negative, that I had to go see it just to see where I would fall. My impression is that the book is a great page turner, albeit written at a 10th grade level.

First of all, I have not read the book, so I found it a bit confusing. But it was a very handsomely made movie, fairly provocative, nothing really outstanding, but certainly not bad. I haven't a clue as to the total dislike of the movie by the critics, I have sat thru far worse. I imagine to someone who had read the book, and knew all the intricacies would find it a very good movie.

My partner thought it was an excellent adaptation, though of course the book, as usual "was better." As for the religious controversy, I'll let the religious fight over that. In my view, anything that puts organized religion in the bad light it deserves is OK with me, even if the particulars of this story are "fiction." I can see why true believers might not be too thrilled with it. At least no one is getting killed over it.

Overall if you liked the book, I think you will find the movie very well done and beautiful to look at. If you didn't like the book, you won't. For the rest of us, worth seeing at least.

All this furor going on is, to me, a tempest in a teapot.

Cidade de Deus
(2002)

Very Disappointed
Based on the near universal praise from critics and viewers alike and my interest in Brazilian culture, not to mention the buzz about the cinematography, I was eager to see this film, despite my lack of interest in violence as entertainment.

I was disappointed on all counts. City of God seemed very amateurish to me, and I am still trying to figure out what is so great about the camera work. Done in a cinema verite style, it never seemed to rise above someone walking around with a video camera. I suppose that is the point, but it was very slack and unintriguing to me.

None of the characters really got under my skin, they were merely shrill and unpleasant, and not in a "good" way.

Most surprisingly, the hype about the violence is unfounded, and I am very sensitive to violence. Yes, there is a lot of shooting, killing, and depraved behavior, but it was presented in a way that oddly had little impact, let alone gore. I felt like I should have been utterly horrified by the scenes portrayed, yet it came across as not credible or realistic.

City of God is certainly not a bad film, and it did have some moments of genuine truth and power, most notably in interactions with various girlfriends.

My overall impression of the movie: - a noble and decent attempt at movie realism in that "cinema verite" style that does not succeed due to the lack of skill of both the director and the actors. Yes, I hear many of the actors were amateurs - but it doesn't work here.

Guess I am pretty much alone here - but I will admit that I don't like very many movies made in the last 15 years or so, although there are a distinct minority that I will watch over and over again such is their quality.

Big Business
(1988)

Critics hated, viewers loved it. (Minor spoiler)
Big Business is one of the best examples of a movie that the critics hated, and the viewers loved. Such is the academic elitism of some critics. If a movie doesn't meet their rarefied standards of whatever it's a bad movie. Roger Ebert's review, for one, which is wrong headed on just about every count.

My point: Lighten up! No it is not the most original or classic comedy ever made. It is the talents of Bette and Lilly that make the movie. What might have been clichéd with anyone else is just priceless with them. " Never funny when two people just miss each other?" It is, when the two people are Bette and Lilly!

And "nothing happens" when they finally meet each other? Is he watching the same movie? When the four finally meet in the Plaza Hotel bathroom, I almost fell off the sofa laughing! I have no idea what he is talking about.

The script is more than decent - a work of art, no - but WHO CARES?

If you are in the mood for a light weight, but very funny comedy, I highly recommend Big Business.

Crash
(2004)

Pedantic and overdrawn - not worthy of Best Picture
I will admit right off to my bias. I loved Brokeback, and have seen it several times. I am gay and wanted it to win. I would rather see a so-so movie about something I am interested in than an outstanding movie about something I am not. And I think most people (movie critics included, except Roger Ebert who has the unique ability to move outside his own biases, even if I frequently disagree with his conclusions) are pretty much the same way. I have sat thru some pretty mediocre movies just because there was a gay romance in it. But Brokeback Mountain is one of the very best gay subject movies I have ever seen, despite some notable flaws.

With that said, I tired as hard as possible to be objective about Crash. But I found it to be heavy handed, contrived, and drawn in broad stereotypical strokes. It played like one of the better TV dramas. Actually, it seemed more like a diversity training film than a real movie: "In this section we see how Asians are often perceived as...." or "This is what African Americans have to deal with when confronted by city police..." We have heard it all before, it is not entertaining or fresh. I felt like i was being bludgeoned with the admonishment "Racism! It's racism! Everything was so obvious and laden with artifice. It just didn't ring true or engaging for me at all. Just about every single line and plot point in this movie is racially motivated. Do these characters do anything else? After about a half hour of this I wanted to scream "Make it Stop!" Certainly the issues raised in Crash are extremely important, but this movie is just overdone and without finesse.

On the plus side, there is fine acting and some interesting characters, and the movie is well put together, although nothing struck me as being terribly out of the ordinary.

Bottom line: Crash was boring!

I can only conclude that the Academy was either homophobic, was suffering from Brokeback fatigue, wanted to reward a home town movie, or maybe resented being dictated to about who the winner should be. Also Oscar often parcels out the major awards to several of the leading most deserving movies. That certainly happened this year.

Most likely reason: the heavy marketing strategy of the producers of Crash. It may not have occurred to everyone that not every Academy member sees every movie. It is almost like a political campaign. And i do think some of the more conservative members refused to see Brokeback Mountain. In the end, these awards don't mean a whole lot.

I am not one to play the "we were robbed" card, but when a movie has swept thru so many previous awards, and got such an overwhelming critical response (more than Crash), wins 3 Oscars, and then loses Best Picture, you have to wonder why.

There may arguably be a few "better" movies than Brokeback Mountain this year, but it should not have lost to Crash.

The Passion of the Christ
(2004)

Abhorrent, shockingly immoral
It is a sad day when families and children are going together to see a film like this - for me it qualifies as child abuse. Mel Gibson has an obsession with violence, and it is a real stretch to turn a few mildly descriptive phrases in the Bible into a virtual snuff film that Roger Ebert has called "the most violent movie I have ever seen." It is symptomatic of how great religions today are being refocused into instruments of violence. This movie shows human depravity at its worst, and has us believe it is part of God's plan. You don't have to take my word for it, many devout Christians I know are very disturbed by this film and condemn it. I know Catholics who refuse to see it.

It is interesting that I heard a "sanitized version" of The Passion was released - and no one came. Violence, like sex, sells.

I don't find this movie any more acceptable than the current movie "Hostel." There is no question that Mr. Gibson is an extremely talented filmmaker, in terms of style and cinematography this movie is quite astonishing, as is some of the acting.

All the more reason to be deeply troubled by this very unsettling movie. That such extreme violence was embraced by a huge number of Americans is very dismaying indeed. I am left incredulous as how so many people are "shocked and disgusted" by a beautiful love story like "Brokeback Mountain" and yet flock to see this gruesome slasher film, which is basically what it is, and come out "uplifted."

As a non religious person, I find all of this terribly depressing, but I am not here to bash religion - just religious extremism which I feel this movie represents. I honestly believe any sincere religious person of moderate views will feel the same way and see this as part of the rise of fundamentalism in the world. I feel tempted to raise my rating a little because of the quality of the filmaking, but this movie is so bereft of redeeming morality, I feel I cannot.

Making Love
(1982)

Not really a good movie, but "groundbreaking" nonetheless
With all the current hoopla about Brokeback Mountain, most people forget about this film that came out almost 25 years ago. While a pretty mediocre movie full of clichés and maudlin sentimentality, you have to give it credit for trying to make an important statement,and having its heart in the right place.

The romance between the two leads is far more explicit than in Brokeback: (romance, as opposed to any sex). The kissing is hot! I remember seeing it and people screamed at the first kiss. I hear there were near-riots in some cities. Hmm - is it that much better today, would they even make such a movie outside of the "art house" circuit. Apparently, it severely damaged Harry Hamlin's career. After this movie, Hollywood treaded much more lightly, and Brokeback is the first movie to come close to being this daring, although, as I comment in my review of that far superior movie, it is still somewhat watered down for acceptability.

A very interesting oddity from the past worth seeing, even if not a top notch movie.

Y tu mamá también
(2001)

Good, if not exactly a movie for me
This is a hard movie for me to review because I didn't find it very appealing or to my taste, yet i can recognize some of its merits.

Not appealing, because never having been a horny, foul-mouthed, heterosexual teenage boy, I had a hard time relating to their dilemmas. Vulagarity and drug talk is rampant, and they are not even nice to look at (which would have helped with me). I don't enjoy constant scenes of bad language, drug use, etc. Parts of the movie were almost at a "Porky's" level.

The sex scenes, while fairly explicit and not to my taste either, are quite overrated I would say. There isn't nearly as much of it nor is it as graphic as everyone is always commenting on, so i really don't know where that is coming from. There is really more sex talk and carrying on than the actual acts.

Having said all of this, the story of what these boys learn and the secrets that their woman companion hold is told with great visual interest, intelligence and ultimately I find the movie came to quite a satisfying ending, even if I had to endure quite a bit to get there.

In short, not a movie to my taste, but I can understand the regard in which it is held.

Kiss Me, Guido
(1997)

Just awful
My feeling is that anything goes in a movie, if it is funny enough and clever enough, and it is not mean spirited. Unfortunately this movie is so lame and unfunny that the parade of annoying gay stereotypes (and for that matter straight) is unbearable. Yeah, there are guys like this, but I don't need to watch a dumb boring movie to experience it. Only the lead female character provides some relief from this. Yeah, she may be a stereotype too, but she provides some real comic characterization.

This movie actually made me angry, and just contributes to the perception of gays as being funny entertainment for the masses.

A total bomb.

I, Robot
(2004)

Much better than average
I Robot, from the same director as the amazing Dark City, is visually amazing, with a "look" that is arresting and unique, even if quite similar to Spielberg's Minority Report. Furthermore, Will Smith is terrific, the perfect choice I believe, with his smarmy attitude, physicality, and considerable sex appeal. (Ok - he was very hot! And we get to see some of his amazing physique.)

I agree with some comments that the script and characterization is not all one would hope and expect, but I feel it is good enough, that combined with the wonderful look of the movie and the presence of Will Smith, makes for a thought provoking and very entertaining 2 hours.

The opinions on this movie seem to be quite polarized. I tend to be very hard to please, but I give I Robot thumbs up.

Chicago
(2002)

Only Fosse himself could have done it better.
I absolutely loved Chicago, for all the positive reasons stated by others here so I see no reason to repeat them.

Two observations however: In my opinion, this is a much better movie than Moulin Rouge for the simple reason that it relies on the old fashioned elements of lighting, sets, clever film editing, and especially real people, rather than the extensive emphasis on digital technology that was Moulin Rouge. I understand many people are fans of the later, but I simply am not.

Also turning a stage show like Chicago into a good movie would have to be an exceedingly difficult task. I can't imagine how it could have been done better than this. Yes, Fosse's choreography and directing would be more eccentric and intangibly special, but he's dead!

I have never actually seen the show, but friends of mine who have were duly and equally impressed. I myself intend to see it yet again, it's a blast!

Martha, Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart
(2003)

The real Martha is far more entertaining.
So was the E! True Hollywood Story. As with the Lucy biopic, the life of Martha Stewart does not lend itself to dramatic presentation, as interesting as her life may have been.

Also, she is a character that lends herself more to caricature than real imitation. It's impossible. Cybill Sheperd gives it a try, but all she manages to do is look passably like her.

If one of the Martha Stewart reruns had been on the Home and Garden channel, I would have changed channels and watched that. It would have been a lot more entertaining!

Lucy
(2003)

Mediocre
Lucille Ball was a great comedian, but her life really does not lend itself to a 3 hour dramatic interpretation like this. There just isn't much that dramatic that happened.

This biopic covers a lot of familiar territory, while adding nothing really new and interesting. There have been a number of documentaries on Lucy covering all this material, and watching the real people and archival footage is a lot more interesting than this play acting. It came across as a rote dramatization of events rather than an involving drama.

The script is not at all good, and the "recreations" served only to illustrate why the real Lucy et al. were comic geniuses and these actors are not.

Rachel York as Lucy fails to capture Lucy's essence. She definitely does not have her edge, especially as an older woman. As Ball approached middle age she came across as very tough and coarse, with a very raspy voice. (Though in fairness, I would think playing someone like Lucille Ball convincingly would be near impossible). Fred and Ethel are pathetic. And Bette Davis??!!

Danny Pinto as Desi fares the best. He really got the accent down, and had some of Desi's swagger if not his hard edge as well. Needless to say, Desi was no where near as thin, handsome (and young) as Pinto. Not that was really a problem - staring at him was the main reason to watch this!

Anyone expcecing something along the lines of the Judy Garland bio of a few years back will be sorely disappointed. Not even close.

Chicago
(2002)

Only Fosse himself could have done it better.
I absolutely loved Chicago, for all the positive reasons stated by others here so I see no reason to repeat them.

Two observations however: In my opinion, this is a much better movie than Moulin Rouge for the simple reason that it relies on the old fashioned elements of lighting, sets, clever film editing, and especially real people, rather than the extensive emphasis on digital technology that was Moulin Rouge. I understand many people are fans of the later, but I simply am not.

Also turning a stage show like Chicago into a good movie would have to be an exceedingly difficult task. I can't imagine how it could have been done better than this. Yes, Fosse's choreography and directing would be more eccentric and intangibly special, but he's dead!

I have never actually seen the show, but friends of mine who have were duly and equally impressed. I myself intend to see it yet again, it's a blast!

Adaptation.
(2002)

So overrated it makes my head spin
Ok, this movie is probably better written and more original than the average movie today, but tht isn't saying much. The amount of lavish praise given this film is so excessive it is simply beyond my understanding. I could name any number of movies that are more compeling (mostly from the past) that have "great" screenplays that make this look pretty sophomoric.

Now my subjective comments, which not everyone will share, obviously. This is a dark, unpleasant film with annoying characters that I neither cared about or "loved to hate." I cared nothing about the story or anybody that was in it. The viewer will have to make his own judgment on that.

I can understand how some might like this film tho I didn't, but to call "Adaptation" a masterpiece of filmakaing is ridiculous.

See all reviews