mage121179

I was so excited to see this film. I guess I thought it was going to be something like "Requiem for a Dream" or "Human Traffic". Instead it is this cheesy little rip-off film, with a sex, intoxication and pop culture, oh boy! Yeah, it even started off good... nice cinematography, perfect editing, excellent camera-work... then it all when to sh*t. Why did we have to see some guy ODing and suddenly getting better when meeting a crazy quack of the medical kind? Why did we have to see Dick acting like a Dick? Why did we have to see 5 minutes of Europe on fast-forward with a guy who ended up having nothing to do with the story? Why did a girl commit suicide who had NOTHING to do with the story except she could be easily mistaken for Laura? Yeah, I know about the note and the glances NOW, because the director had to put flashbacks in to remind us! The moral of the story? Even free movies like this aren't worth my time.

Having never even see a preview for "Red Dragon" or read the book, I feel I went into this movie with a mind free from prejudice or any knowledge of plot twists and turns. However, having seen "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal" I couldn't help but think I had already seen most of the movie.

Norton is an excellent actor, and easily masters this role. Fiennes is also quite haunting as a tortured soul, and it is easy to relate to almost all characters involved, even the reporter. But Hopkins seems to be imitating his role in "Silence of the Lambs", rather than actually playing the character. The scenes in the basement were almost silly, like a Saturday Night Live skit or something from Loaded Weapon I. But maybe it's just because the scenes have been recreated so much, they don't hold the same meaning as they did when Silence first came out.

possible spoilers----The plot moves well, and keeps the tension alive, but the predictability was a bit annoying. Part of the problem was that the plot imitates previous movies (Hannibal bargaining with clues to get more freedoms from "Silence of the Lambs", Dee acting like Bates from "Psycho") and so many other aspects (victims' home movies, diary of clippings and drawing, using personals to send messages, murders relating to dolls) that the movie seems somewhat recycled. But since the style and suspense was more than adequate, I will overlook the lack of originality. SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!! Just one last note (and spoiler, but this is bothering me) - If Dolarhyde did not shoot himself toward the end (in the fire), where did the splatter of blood come from? Did he just throw a glass full of blood on her face or something?

So far this summer only Minority Report has been worth seeing. After getting my hopes up so many times after this it just doesn't seem worth it. I thought, "ok, big dragons, lots of fire, action, seeing the human soul as it is bared to meet a tragic outcome." Good, right? No, this movie WOULD have been good, if they would have spent a bit more time polishing out some horrible flaws, making the story a bit more original. For god's sakes how many "save the earth from monsters" movies do we need?

SPOILERS So how many serious flaws do we have? WAY too many to make the movie watchable. First of all, giving the history through cheesey flashbacks and little clips here and there were not enough to provide a real clue of where or why there were in the situation they were. First of all, the clothes all look like dark-ages peasant clothing, but if they still had a TIME magazine wouldn't they have some jeans and t-shirts still around too? Where did the dragons come from? How can there only be one male? Wouldn't there be a male hatchling among the eggs? Where does the army get their electricity for their little computers and such, and where do they get gas for all the cars/tanks/helicopter? I mean, they use their vehicles A LOT and if they can't find food where is the gas coming from?

When the first dragons came onto the scene, why couldn't the world deal with them then? Don't you think a missile or tank shot would've shot the first few down, and it would've never escalated to that level? WHY CAN THE DRAGONS KILL OFF ALMOST ALL THE WORLD AND THE ARMIES, BUT 3 PEOPLE WITH CROSSBOWS AND AXES CAN KILL THEM????? Why do the rest of the dragons suddenly disappear just because the male is dead. AND WHERE ARE ALL THE WOMEN IN THIS MOVIE???? Are they implying only one woman would live through a dragon infestation, or is it just some sex discrimination in the movie biz? Women extras aren't THAT hard to come by!

If you are too stupid to not question these huge holes, then you will probably be very entertained by this movie. But for those who think while they watch, you will be nothing but disappointed.

If you've already seen "Men In Black" and "The 5th Element" then you certainly don't need to see this. They just blended these two movies into a crap smoothie. Absolutely no originality, no flavor, no reason to see this movie unless it's free and you are bedridden. Otherwise, go for a walk and save your money.

Word for word, it followed the book. Some people may see this as a good thing, but the best film adaptations of books are the ones that take the FEELINGS and THEMES from the book and transform them from the written format to the screen. This movie, however, was like listening to a cassette of the book with silly little special effects and poor animations carrying out the actions.

For a kids movie, this was entirely too long. I had a time sitting through the dull 2 1/2 hours, and I'm an adult. There was no plot, no action, just a whole bunch of character development. Maybe the next 2 movies will be better now that we've got all the characters, the school, the history, the animals and the spell components established.

This movie was poorly made, horrible to watch, and left me wondering why I didn't turn it off or stop watching. I guess I was waiting for a moral or a point. But in the end, it was just watching endless brutality and disgusting acts of violence and perversion. If you liked Faces of Death, this movie's for you. But honestly, I can think of only 4 people I have ever known that would make it 20 minutes into this movie without turning it off. I don't like censorship, but this movie should've never been made.

This is the best in the series so far in my opinion. George Lucas seems to have learned from the mistakes he made in Episode I and more than makes up for them in this movie. Everything is better, the characters, the action, the emotions, the plot development. The only problem I had with the movie was the dialog. It all seems so predictable and cliche, and mostly referencing to other movies. Sure, it's funny when Obi-Wan says "Anakin, you'll be the death of me someday", but it reminded me more of the Jay and Silent Bob movie with all those clever little quips. Of course, I still gave it a 10, because it is so perfectly done in every other aspect.

This movie is almost like someone tried to take 3 blockbusters: Jaws, Jurassic Park and the Abyss, and mold them into a big heap of steaming poo. Not only did it use every cliched situation such as a big storm to prevent rescue, most of the staff being gone for the weekend, and mad scientists trying to play god, but it even used phrases like "Elvis has left the building". And it took 3 writers to make this??? <spoiler> Overall, I gave it a 2 just because it made me laugh so hard when Samuel L Jackson got eaten mid-speech. God that was hilarious! It's a good movie to use at bad movie festivals, or just to torture people you don't like.

This animated feature is a beautiful telling of a Russian fairytale. Ivan aquires a magic pony, and the story progresses in a similar manner to "Puss in Boots". Beautiful artwork, fantastic style, from an era where kids films weren't as ugly as they are now. Still entertaining at any age.

I was hopeful of this film, because I generally like period film dramas, and I thought an asian brothel might provide an interesting look at a new culture to me. However, the style and plot of this film made it unbearable to watch, and with each fade to black I prayed it wouldn't fade back in again.

The costumes and sets were beautiful, but the audience is not allowed a good enough look at them. With poor lighting and absolutely no close-ups, we are left with a vague impression of what the location and people look like. Another problem with the lack of close-ups is the inability to see the emotions of the characters. We hear a lot of crying, but that's about it. I felt no empathy for the characters, because I couldn't even get a picture of what they looked like, much less how they were feeling.

As for the pace of the movie, I don't think it goes anywhere. It has no plot, no driving force, and no interest in character or story. It's like someone just stuck a security camera in a brothel. How can you call that art or entertainment?

Perhaps if I was living in Vienna in the 1920's I would be able to appreciate this film more. But there are a few flaws that might still will not rank well with me.

This film is an example of the Neue Sachlichkeit movement in Germany, leading to a number of "street" films, supposedly demonstrating how real life can be more interesting and horrible than anything made up in the movies. G.W. Pabst was one of the biggest supporters of realism, and so in his movie "Die freudlose Gasse" he tried to avoid symbolism and artistic influence, and just give a documentary-like presentation.

His goal seems to fall short though, in the excessive acting reminiscent of Reinhardt's theater style, and in the corny Hollywood type ending. I can't seem to identify with any of the characters because they're just silly stereotypes of the kind of people Pabst wanted to portray.

Overall, there is just to much melodrama for a work of realism and not enough creativity to keep it interesting.

I usually judge movies by how they make me feel, if a scary movie can make me scared, it's a good movie. If a love story can make me all warm and fuzzy, it's a good movie. When I first saw this movie, I wasn't really sure what kind of movie it was going to be. The camera movements set me off guard at first, but after a while I got used to it. And then, GOOD GOD! Someone being slowly shot to death is the last thing I wanted to see! And somehow, in it's magnificent way, it hurts so much to watch! I actually walked out for a few minutes during that part. What I think is really remarkable about this is when people are dying left and right in the typical Hollywood film, we don't give it a second thought. But in this movie, we can actually feel empathy for the characters involved. I don't like watching tragedies. But it takes a lot to make a movie with such powerful scenes.

The first time I watched it, I was not impressed. Though the painted scenes were pretty and the plot was interesting, it never really got to me. However, after watching it a few times I would actually rate it among one of my top movies of all time. The most striking thing about this movie is it's ability to capture an eternity of love in 114 minutes. Not only that, but the movie confronts just about every good and bad thing there is about life: love, children, depression, suicide. This movie is a representation of humanity and what it means to love someone.