emorr

It's hard to classify this movie. Let's call it Gothic drama. There's really nothing scary. I'd say overall it's unsettling. You know this family is screwed when they leave their settlement to live alone. And there's no ambiguity - it takes a path and goes down it.

The acting is top notch. The story works when you realize what the end-game really is.

The music is downright creepy, creating a tone throughout. And that has to be the thickest woods I've ever seen that is not a jungle.

The very last scene sticks with you. It comes out of nowhere.

ed

Best picture? Really? It was average. What's worse is I've come to expect so much from Ridley Scott. The acting was pretty good, but it's just such a run-of-the-mill story: man gets stranded, but survives, people come to rescue him. Yawn.

It just seems to me Matt Damon could do this type of role in his sleep. And Ridley Scott could do the same in his sleep.

There was really no tension in the flick. You knew how it was going to turn out.

Not recommended.

ed

I read too many glowing reviews, which increased my disappointment I feel.

The good: the concept of the 5 loosely related, lurid stories is clever, as is them taking place all in the same desolate area. If you like creepy, graphic horror, that's also present. Also, very imaginative monsters in some of the stories.

The bad: It's not fleshed out enough. I don't need exposition, but these stories are so unexplained it's almost like they ran out of money when filming the picture. And it's so low-budget that it was hard for me to get invested in the characters. The entire concept of what this town might intrigued me, but nothing is explained and I came away wanting more.

Great concept, but lackluster execution.

I enjoyed watching this, and they make some valid points - they broadcast to their people the way we broadcast to ours, they want to show the damage of war, they're journalists first, etc. All quite interesting. The one omission I found was that they didn't address why they show terrorist broadcasts and play their messages. It was never addressed. Also quickly glossed over was their showing dead and injured American POWs, whereas we don't show images of that sort. But still, I'd recommend it to hear from the other side.

8/10

ed

Where the first was over-the-top with the humor and gore, the second is more somber in tone, the emphasis on dialogue and character building. I really enjoyed it. I disliked the first one.

There's much much less action in this film, but what there is is quite intense. He really hits for the fences with different techniques. One that caught my eye was his use of different film stocks. I enjoyed it and would recommend it.

This is more like a Tarrantino movie than Vol. 1, although the dialogue was better in the movies where Roger Avary was his writing partner, but still there are plenty of gems here to be heard. 9/10.

I was disappointed. It's merely average, and there's too much padding to bring it out to a 1 hr 45 minute length. Take the scene when the plane's touching down in Tokyo, or the final battle in the snow between O-Ren Ishii and The Bride. It's unique and stylish, but very poorly written. You can see how much ex-writing partner Roger Avary had to do with the dialogue, just compare this to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I just can't believe all the hype, especially from critics. But what astounds me are the posts on these boards. "QT is back", "QT is a genius", "10/10!", "Best movie I ever saw", etc. This board has to be rigged. An 8.5 rating and in the top IMDB 100?

Wait for the video. 7/10 (for uniqueness only).

Not really a gangster movie, more of a love story. Bob Hoskins performance is one of the best I've ever seen. The range of emotion he shows is broad. I wasn't too impressed with Cathy Tyson's performance, or Coltrane's. Michael Caine has 3 or 4 scenes, and at first he's shown as comical, but as the movie progresses you realize how dangerous the man is. I think Hoskins was nominated, and he definitely should've won an Oscar. I was glad to have seen this gem of a movie. 5 of 5 stars.

I left the theater shaking after taking this one in. It's not for everyone. I would not call it scary, but intense. There are some of the most horrific and brutal murders I've ever seen on celluloid in this flick. Not to mention some white knuckle situations. In all, I'd recommend it, if you have a strong stomach. I counted 7 walkouts during my visit.

Additionally, I've read many reviews - including some here - that state the last 3rd of the film with the soldiers doesn't work. I disagree. It is there to make a comparison to the "zombies". It works. You care for the characters in this flick. I liked the look of the digital video as well, it is not a detraction.

In all, recommended, 3/5 stars.

Don't read the last paragraph to avoid a slight spoiler...

The movie works on multiple levels: emotional, political, and social. Basically, it's the story of a man striving to maintain honor (paying his debts and not begging) and love (not abandoning his dog). I really don't want to say too much, you should view the film as I did - knowning nothing about it. This is a must see.

SLIGHT SPOILER: The final scene is bittersweet: the worst doesn't happen, but no resolution is offered - just like life. The last shot of the film is open to interpretation, but I took it to be "out with the old, in with the new".

Don't believe the reviews. I couldn't stop laughing. It's right up there. A must see. Believe me, you won't be disappointed. I'm going to see it again. The audience laughed so loud I missed things. I just can't believe how reviewers are killing it. If you go to a comedy, and p*** your pants, they did a great job.

The movie's depressing. But they might as well hand Jack his Oscar now, as he is cast against type, yet does an incredible job playing the Everyman. Only the very last scene contains hope, and they way they edit that scene is powerful. It was moving. But the rest of the flick is so full of losers and posers it really gets you down. I thought it was well done, but don't see it if you're already depressed going in.

SLIGHT SPOILERS: Enjoyable, but check your brain at the door. How can a white guy get all the way into the guerrilla zone in Columbia? On foot? Why don't the terrorists kill him when they know he wants to pummel them? Why aren't people killed during the numerous explosions at the end of the film? How can a fireman fight a CIA killer or trained soldier successfully? That's Arnold for ya. 6/10 for mindless entertainment.

MINOR SPOILERS: Well, everyone is raving about this film, but I didn't like it. It was very slow and plodding, and supposedly about destiny. I found the narrative to be very uneven. It seemed strange things were thrown in (the nurse jerking off a mental patient, the tracheotomy, the mother's death with the radio in the bathtub, etc). The beginning and ending framing of the friend who lives on the coast. I don't see it where destiny has anything to do with it. The woman forces her way into the man's life. I'd say the man was the Princess, because he needed to be rescued from grief, and the woman was the Warrior, who kept fighting her way into the man's life. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this. I didn't think much of Run Lola Run either, but then again, I could be missing the point. 5/10.

I read Ebert's review of this and was intrigued, but I have to say I was disappointed. The plot is so convoluted, and the accents so heavy, that I found myself rewinding the tape on several occasions. Recommend getting the DVD and turning subtitles on. Even then, you'll have problems following the plot. Basically, it's a serial killer murder mystery set at a mysterious university in the French Alps. I still can't figure out why the victims were tortured and murdered, and why the killer did it, or how the killer did it, or how the killer even existed. It's exasperating, because for awhile the movie draws you in, but the ending plot device is one of the oldest tricks in the book. I'd reveal it, but don't want to spoil it. You've seen it in many movies. 5/10.

This is a movie where you must pay attention to facial expressions and body language, but you must read subtitles (unless you're from Italy). The movie probably demands a second viewing. A group of rich friends yachts off to a island (more like a big rock) in the middle of the ocean. One woman disappears after having a disagreement over her boyfriend's infidelity. The woman is never found, and her best friend and boyfriend become lovers. The rest of the flick deals with the girlfriend's guilt, and the man's further infidelity. My cut is that it deals with the infidelity of feeling rather than sex. The movie abruptly ends. Meaning there is no resolution to feeling. Recommended: 8/10.

I liked it. Geoffrey Rush is always a joy to watch. Pierce Brosnan plays a cold guy in every movie he's in. Jamie Lee Curtis has no talent, and her looks and body are fading. Entertaining story of a tailor with a secret past settting up shop in Panama and a defrocked MI6 agent blackmailing him and screwing everything in sight, not to mention trying to rape everything in sight as well. Recommended: 7/10. Oh, and the ending wraps up a bit too neatly given the mess of the blackmail and lies that are told.

Well, it's 2 hrs 40 minutes. Color & B&W. Very slow scenes panning right and left. People talking about souls and the reason for being.

The setting is some decaying destroyed land where a meteor has crashed 20 years before. This area is now called The Zone. It is guarded by the military. 3 men decide to go to the Zone to find the Room where every wish is granted. FANTASTIC use of setting, with the zone being an overgrown, decaying, damp, and rotted area previously occupied by humans. The movie fails in setting up the danger of being in this Zone. It's only spoken about. The payoff isn't worth sitting thru. I've seen Solaris (loved it) and Andrei Rulbev (7/10). This merits a 6/10. For fans only.

Overall, I liked the movie. The movie is about love, but my take is not involving the woman, but between the two male friends. That's why it's called Jules et Jim, and not Catherine and Two Guys. Some of the editing I found to be choppy, maybe Truffaut was still learning. I found some of the "freeze-frames" to be gimmicky as well. The acting is absolutely outstanding, and you feel you're watching real people. Some good imagery involving a character walking downhill in the last shot, a burning dress, and a destroyed bridge. Recommended. 8/10.

Recommended, but you absolutely must pay attention to get anything out of the movie. The three main performances of Pearce, Panotolino, and Moss are outstanding. The story is told backwards scene by scene to the beginning, where the revelation comes. The only negative thing I'll say is that the wrap-up involves a long explanatory speech by one of the characters that feels like a wrap-up to you, the viewer. This left me feeling that I worked so hard to follow everything, and it was handed to me at the end. But that's small potatoes. See this flick, pay attention, and enjoy it. 8/10

I'm a John Carpenter fan. This movie was better than his last 3 efforts. It was really just a shoot-em-up, and not too scary. Just a bit intense in parts. Overall, I found it to be exhilirating, original, and entertaining. Good casting with Henstridge as a no-nonsense-druggie(yep) cop and Cube as a no-nonsense-arch-criminal. Funny as hell in a few parts as well. I'd give it 3/5 stars. Oh, one last thing: it's GRAPHICALLY violent.

It's a shame movies like this don't get made anymore. I've always been a muppets fan, but this movie surpasses the muppets. The movie is rich in detail (especially the swamp scene/introduction of Kira). You can see great care went into the making of the film. The film has an involving story, and doesn't tip it's hand. In other words, it's not "dumbed down" for little children. It is a bit on the short side, and I wished it was longer. I'm planning on buying the DVD.

...very enjoyable and moving stop-motion/animated movie condensing the life of Jesus into 2 hours. All the flashbacks and the temptation scenes are hand-drawn, all else is stop motion puppets. I felt there was a scene or two they could've added, but they were probably on a tight budget. Possibly the loaves & fishes, and the expelling the demon from the man into the pigs, and the dialogue between Jesus and the other two crucified thieves could've been added. I'm sure you'll see this on every Easter from now on. It's not preachy by any means, and very enjoyable. I also liked how Pilate was portrayed as an evil man, yet his decision with Jesus' fate was not based on his character. Temptation scenes with Satan were excellent also. Highly recommended.

Well, if you don't have anything else to rent, get it. It's got some entertainment value, but otherwise it's generic. Kudos to Angelina Jolie for taking a non-glamorous role. The thing that I noticed was that it has the obligatory studio ending added in, when, IMHO, the movie was headed in a different direction. There is a final shot of Ms. Jolie in a (reinforced) spaghetti-strap dress, also at the end. Proof-positive the studio interfered with the film. On DVD, there are some very loud noises that will scare the beejeezus out of you!

It clocks in at 2:15. Starts good enough. Extraneous plot device thrown in with bad cop going after Internal Affairs office. Totally needless. Biggest flaw comes when two grieving people whose spouses were cheating with each other and are killed in a plane crash attack each other lustfully at the airport...FOR NO GOOD REASON. It's called Random Hearts because they RANDOMLY put a romance in it! There is no good reason for the two leads to become involved - period. It would've been more interesting to show Ford's character's obsession with his dead, deceitful wife.

....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.