cbreyno

I refuse to examine films in reference to how they may or may not do justice to its original form if adapted from another medium. As far as I'm concerned they stand or fall on their own. Period. As an example from yet another medium, Radio, Orson Wells adaptation of 'War Of The Worlds' outstripped H.G.'s original. Go with the winner.

Wit is an example of film as chamber music, perhaps Bartok's 4th String Quartet masterfully played. It is beautiful. It is fearsome. It is not for everybody expecting idle entertainment. The subject matter is --- impossible to deal with --- yet yields an amazingly beautiful piece of work.

There are telling moments that assure me that this is a masterpiece. The 'Runaway Bunny', Emma Thompson's 'takes' done without sentimental flourish, a quote from Charles Ives's 'Unanswered Question', the researcher yet to become human, popsicles, Gorecki 3. This is the A team at work!

Mike Nichols is quite sensibly restrained, Emma Thompson is simply astonishing --- chamber music.

If you have a taste for adult films this is one for you.

No sentimentalism, no hollywood bedtime story, a confrontation. Everything is stripped down to essentials --- as one is --- nearing death.

If you are a ROMANTIC see this movie. If you are not --- stay away.

First off I loved it. It is dark, modern, and forces contradictions on you. Like living in todays world. Where everybody is killing each other for their own good.

The film is a variant on Romeo and Juliet except that Juliet doesn't get to meet Romeo --- exactly.

Juliet appears to be a graduate student in New York with an artistic nature. Romeo appears to come from a cultured background, is well read in poetry and music and practices a profession which is called "wet work" these days.

Romeo observes Juliet from a distance and writes her letters. Their only real "contact". In the hands of a different kind of film maker this story would descend into an awful obsessive-love/stalker piece of crud.

This film manages to steer clear of that polarity but makes no bones about the "unhealthy" environment in which Romeo moves and operates. It also shows us that Romeo's love at a distance --- which gives him hope --- is destructive to Juliet.

Ultimately what this film is about is posing a question: "In murderous times like these how can we expect to experience the beautiful things which fairytales tell us are real, good and true and ought to be our lot?" Worse, how can we expect "beauty" itself to survive?

This is an adult film. It deals with adult themes such as life, death, love and betrayal. It is not set forth as light entertainment.

Not only is this an adult film dealing with difficult material its possible that it will be totally opaque to anyone who has not lost a mate to the grim reaper. For such a person I think this film would be rather cathartic. It was for me. (Divorce is for children death is for adults.)

This film deals with two people finding how to survive the loss of their mates. I don't think its any kind of love story. It is a mystery involving betrayed love. What might appear as romance to a viewer is actually an expression of panic --- a way of denying a great void created by an airplane crash.

The the female lead fortifies herself with denial though occasionally she reaches out. The male lead tries to fill the void through attempting to comprehend all the details, all the secrets that are revealed by the sudden loss. The female lead would rather not know. There is a subtle but powerful line spoken by Harrison Ford: "Perhaps you didn't lose that much!".

In a way this film is more about class difference and snobbishness separating two people who have a shared, shattering life experience. In this light I found the ending appropriate and very telling.

This film is uncanny in how it conveys the intensity of experience. I suspect folks don't like it much because they don't want to empathize or even be aware of the levels of devastation human beings endure. On a reality basis I would assume that working EMT in NYC is a fast track to dehumanization.

The particular beauty of this film is its elucidation of ways the people within the drama(s) do or don't deal with being dehumanized.

I own a copy and have watched it many, many times and it still amazes me.

To put this very simply: its one of the best films I have ever seen. Since it operates at such a high level of psychological/emotional compression I'm amazed it got made let alone released.

Gee Whiz, a martial arts actor can't get no respect! Is it because he visits Dirty Harry territory? Is it because he tries to bend and twist the genre a little? I think Mr. Norris outdid Steven Seagall before the Seagall movies even happened.

Good for you Mr. Norris.

Now, the profile for criminals tends to be short, fat, ugly, stupid --- separately or in combination. So, why not a holdup in a cops bar?

As a Junior in High School I saw this film in 1951. It stays with me yet. Because --- it stood out from other science fiction movies as a first of a new genre.

The scary part of the movie is that one can see how incredibly naive and innocent we were then. The movie really is about an America of Collier's Magazine and the Saturday Evening Post; a Norman Rockwell America. An America where the Post Office wasn't yet the target of choice.

This movie is truly a time capsule.

This film is a classic. Period. Great actors. Great acting. Great story. Also timely as it holds up a mirror for us to see our current (post Soviet) selves in.

But wait a minute --- the journey homeward --- the perils encountered --- why does it all seem so mythic? Because this is a retelling of the tale of Ulysses (Homer) who is homeward bound (a perilous journey after the wars) to resume life with his beloved Penelope.

For those who have heard that this is a violent and racist film --- forget that. D-Fens comes into several threatening circumstances as he wends his way home and he reacts to protect himself, acting with violence when he is threatened with violence. I admit one must consider what seems violent to him. The toughs with the baseball bat or machine guns are clear enough examples. The McDonalds and Korean shopkeeper scenes require empathy --- the violence here is that nothing is as it should be (to him). Remember the Bazooka? The pawn shop episode shows D-Fens expressing moral outrage.

Nothing about this film suggests Violence Exploitation to me. It is all organic to the story. I think this film is an example of everything clicking together resulting in brilliance.

Uh, I liked it. A lot.

This film is a beautifully done story within a story --- film within a film. The author and friends take a train ride and begin to work out a film; its plot, its characters and their actions. As the story evolves the characters take on their own existence, reality becomes inverted; they weave their own story as author becomes audience.

It is a taste of the 1960's thinking of the Michael Caine foreign intrigue films, The Orient Express not to mention the Manchurian Candidate. In a way it thumbs its nose at the genre.

I saw it when it ran almost forty years ago and enjoyed it immensely. If you can find it --- check it out.

I'm glad I've lived long enough to see films like this be made. It restores faith in the idea of film as literature.

The story unfolds in a discontinuous fashion; it is not a traditional narrative. This is extremely appropriate since the main character suffers memory loss --- one thing doesn't stay connected to another. To offset this the main character leaves himself reminders to somehow help him to connect.

On one level it is a murder mystery. On another level it is an intense first person experience of life distorted by the malady of the main character. On yet another level it is a heroic quest for TRUTH. In his quest the main character intersects with people who have a use for him. As the film ends one may grapple with this thought: There are no absolutes!

I like and admire this film. It is a movie of ideas. It is actually three separate movies.

One movie is a dark adventure story (testosterone opera) very engaging in its own way. An unhappy fellow living in an empty world tries to master his fate.

One movie is a gripping psychological study of personality disintegration. Edward Nortons' character is searching, ever searching for something unaware that it is his own identity being sought after.

One movie is an Anarchist Tract: A Call To Arms! Remember If? In this movie we see an implementation of the idea that for a new, better order to exist the old one must be destroyed. Look for a happy face in an unexpected place. The thing that is missing in this movie is the Anarchist vision of the better world to come (Utopia).

Aside from the intellectual side Fight Club has tremendous energy. It will carry you away. At least it did me.

Brad Pitt has a taste for fascinating films: Fight Club, 12 Monkeys.

Dogma is an outrageously beautiful and funny movie. I do not see it as an anti catholic film, I see it as antagonistic to blind faith period. The Chris Rock bit about 'idea versus belief' puts it perfectly.

I do think the film owes a debt of gratitude to Luis Bunuel particularly in terms of "The Milky Way", "The Exterminating Angel", and last but not least "Viridiana".

No, Bunuel was not known for making comedies. But he excelled at hanging idiocy out to die of exposure.

I saw this film once 46 years ago and it left an indelible impression on me.

It brings out a strange and beautiful romanticism from the Capek novel. It delves into the angst that Szilard, Fermi and Oppenheimer might have felt regarding the development of the A-Bomb.

It takes you on quite a journey.