kon-tiki-2

"Woodstock" was meant as a documentary about the famous 3-day 1969 New York rock festival of the same name, but it's really more valuable as a record of 1960's hippy culture. This is unquestionably the best film to capture the spirit of the 60's. Between musical acts, the camera meanders through the audience and the enormous outlying crowds to interview spectators, or just eves-drop on the scene. This is the most interesting, entertaining, and eye-opening aspect of the film.

Several of the musical performances are memorable and deserve mention: Richie Havens' awesome concert opener is a classic--you could watch it a hundred times and still get goose bumps--pure magic. Jimi Hendrix comes pretty close to magic also with the final musical number. His frenzied rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" is incredible, and a fitting closer. Country Joe and the Fish and Joe Cocker are also memorable. A few of the musical acts don't seem to fit: Sha-Na-Na comes across as a weird oddity--(a throwback to the fifties), and Alvin Lee's "Ten Years After" is just too long and boring. Most of the other performances are so-so, but worth watching.

Overall, the film captures the mood, spirit, and music of the times better than any other. I would also venture to say that this may be one of the very best documentaries ever filmed on any subject. The depth of coverage is spectacular -- fitting for such a historical event. A great movie!

Lost Weekend was a daring film for its day, and won Best Picture for its gritty look at a typical alcoholic on a three-day drinking binge. Ray Milland gives a very memorable performance in the lead role and does an amazing job shifting between sobriety and drunkeness. This film is a great illustration of what can happen when drinking gets out of hand, and how it can ruin lives. Doesn't seem dated at all. Should be required viewing for high-school students.

This is hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen. I only sat all the way through it because I kept hoping that there would be something redeeming at the end. Something to justify the intense violence and sick "humor". There was nothing. The ending left me cold and feeling sick. Perhaps that's what Wes Craven wanted. To all the people that "loved" this movie: you really need to ask yourselves what you loved about it. You need to think about it very carefully and do some serious soul-searching. Personally, I actually felt violated after watching it. One of the few movies I've actually regretted watching. There was simply nothing positive to be gained from it. Moreover, I honestly believe that this is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible movies ever made. The studio never should have released it. How anyone could ever voluntarily sit through it more than once will be an eternal mystery to me. The most frightening thing about it was that it was a big hit.

I know people will accuse me of "misunderstanding it" or other such crap, but let's examine the facts: what this movie is really about is greed, abo ve all else. Wes Craven's sick and horrific fascination with intensely graphic images of human guttings and dismemberment is truly shocking. He tries to sugar-coat it's stench with a little humor mixed it. He knows that makes it more palatable. He markets this dangerous mixture to impressionable youth, not caring about the consequences. Not caring that the human mind (especially a young mind) becomes desensitized to violence the more it's exposed to it. He wants this movie to be "cool" and seen over an over. He know he can achieve this by making it extremely violent and horrific. Rebellious youth will flock to it. They do, and he succeeds, not caring who he's harming, as long as he's getting rich. That's practically the definition of evil, if you ask me. To Wes Craven: shame on you!

Maybe I'm just some old-fashioned, backwoods moron who's really uncool and beyond all hope... but will somebody please explain to me what's so entertaining about watching young people getting graphically hacked to pieces by a knife-wielding maniac? Why is this supposed to be funny? Why is this considered by so many people to be "cool"? This attitude embodies everything that is wrong with our society. I'm not a fascist, nor a religious right-wing republican in favor of censorship, but this type of garbage just should NOT be made. It's as simple as that. No good can possibly come from it.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone - even to a mature adult with a strong stomach. Truly horrible!

I liked this movie when it first came out. As a teenager, I saw it about seven or eight times (there was nothing else to do on weekends.) About twenty years went by before I saw it again, on cable. How time dulls the memory! "Star Wars" now has an odd, nauseating effect on me: the 70's haircuts, laughable costumes, cheesy dialog, fake visual effects, corny music, uninteresting soap-opera plot... (I could go on and on.) I sat there, before the flickering screen, enveloped in "Star Wars'" suffocating stupidity, wondering how in the hell I could ever have liked this thing. I finally came to my senses and turned the channel after hearing John Williams' irritating "Darth Vader" theme for the 600th time in the first 40 minutes. Why George Lucas decided we needed to hear this high-volume musical cue EVERY time we see Darth Vader on screen is beyond me. Maybe he just thinks his audience is extremely stupid and is incapable of remembering that Darth Vader is supposed to be evil. I don't know...

It would be easy to dismiss this movie as nothing but fluff to entertain kids (because that's all it is, and all it was ever intended to be) but unfortunately, for many people, this thing has become their religion. Folks, get a life before it's too late! It's just a movie.

This was a great movie -- no question about it, but it shouldn't be listed as #1 on the "Top 250." I whole-heartedly agree with many of the others who commented along these lines. How could anyone possibly put this film above "Citizen Kane," "Casablanca," "2001," or even "Shindler's List," or "The Godfather"? It had all the right qualities: a great story, terrific acting, good musical score, etc., but it just doesn't stack up against many other truly great films. I guess it just got the most 10's in the voting... Popularity has its advantages.

That aside, I felt as if the story could have been structured a little better. That was the movie's only real flaw. Because we only find out about how Andy pulled off his "redemption" after the fact -- and it's all told later, through Red's narration, we never get any of the excitement of rooting for Andy, fearing for him, etc., wondering if he can pull it off. We are left as oblivious to it as the warden was. Had the audience been in on it, it would have been a much more satisfying film to watch, and the ending would have been all that more sweeter. Compare this film to "The Great Escape" and you'll know what I mean (another film deserving a higher ranking!)

A fine example of a movie trying really hard to be a Rubik's Cube. When a movie starts tripping over itself just for the sake of complicating the plot--that's when I throw up my hands and say, "Enough already!" It stops being entertaining and enjoyable and begins to be nothing but a chore. I tried to like this movie, but after being introduced to about 300 characters who all look and act alike (their names even rhyme, for God's sake!), and when the plot demands that we memorize all sorts of details about each one of them to follow the story, that when it stops being fun. I felt like I was working overtime just to keep up with this mess.

When the ending is finally sprung, and I thought about it in the context of the rest of the movie, it should have all made sense, justifying the over-complicated story, but it didn't. Holes opened up large enough for houses to fall through. It seemed as if the writer just threw in the most unlikely possibility to astonish the audience. After the maze he leads us through, it's easy to forget why this doesn't make sense. It's a real cheap shot.

Let's say it right here and now: David Lynch is a genius. I don't care if you love him or hate him, you can't take away that simple fact. "Eraserhead" is his masterpiece -- the most original and personal film ever created by any film maker. It's as far from the forgettable fluff of mainstream Hollywood as you can get, and as weird as it is, it strikes a chord deep in the human psyche. I don't think anyone could experience this film without being deeply moved. This beautiful, industrial nightmare comes as close to depicting a fever dream as any film ever could, or ever will! David Lynch pulled out all the stops to make "Eraserhead" as perfect as any film can be, and it shows. It is a great work of art in its own right. The characters and setting are unforgettable, and are as strange as they are familiar. The story is slow-moving, but steadily builds with the fury of a small hurricane. The film walks a tightrope somewhere between the reality of the world we know, and "someplace else." Where that is, only David Lynch knows for sure. Lynch is a fine example of a film maker who isn't afraid to take huge risks. That's how masterpieces are made. "Eraserhead" is the proof.

One of the most disappointing films I've rented recently. After reading all the glowing reviews, I had expected something at least as fun as the first "Back to the Future" movie, but boy, was I ever let down. First of all, this movie doesn't know what it's even about. There doesn't seem to be any sort of viable conflict to justify anything that goes on. The story changes direction several times, but never comes together to add up to anything. The main theme appears to be that the corrupt and decadent 1990's culture is a vast improvement on the boring and innocent 1950's that we've seen depicted in so many old television shows. What kind of message is that? That aside, this movie is far less entertaining than those same old programs that it makes fun of. The dialog is tedious, the acting shaky, the musical score forgettable, and the visual effects passe. We've all seen the TV commercials where everything is black and white and yet one person is in color. That's what this whole movie is based on. The whole story and all the hub-bub is built around exploiting this one simple visual effect, which gets old really fast. If you're thinking about renting this loser, forget all the Hollywood hype and save yourself a few yawns: put it back on the shelf and find something better. It won't be hard.

It would be easy to say this is the best film ever made, but I don't believe any one film can claim that honor. This is easily one of the best films ever made, however. I couldn't say enough good things about this movie! It has it all: a terrific cast, tight direction, a riveting story, wonderful musical score, beautiful locations, and best of all, characters you really care about and cheer for. So compelling, its three-hour running time seems like twenty minutes! My all time favorite movie -- I doubt it'll ever be topped. Sadly, films of this quality and scope simply aren't made any more. If you haven't seen "The Great Escape," you're missing something very special!