secrets1

I really loved "Final Destination" and even heavily enjoyed "Final Destination 2" and was waiting anxiously for "Final 3" and saying that, I can't say how disappointed I was with this one. It's quite a dud! I thought with the idea of a roller coaster out of control would be automatic thrill ride, but the CGI effects were quite lame, obvious, not compelling and sometimes not even distinguishable and this was a major disappoint. With a storyline as silly as all the "FD" films have had, it has always been paramount that the effects of the original disaster which started the film be supreme. Well, here they are way less than supreme. The build-up is fine, but the payoff really disappointing, I hardly even blinked and eye and after it ended, just sat there, realizing it was a big letdown. The rest of the film contains mainly stupid, ignorant and moronic characters who we don't care at all about, so it simply become a wait and see game for the next death and how gory they can be. Well, they are gory, but are relatively quickly shown, so the gore is toned a bit. But that's hardly a compliment. With the other films it was always the anticipation of what was coming that worked, but here, I don't know, maybe they've run out of steam. James Wong directed the original and I thought he was a great choice to come back for 3, but perhaps the whole enterprise has lived out it's welcome. Again, I'm just disappointed. I guess there is some thrill about splitting skulls, crushing heads, impalement's, crushing bodies and such, but suspense needs to be established to make these things involving. And burning 2 moronic nymph laded coeds, is hardly fascinating when we don't care about them. I guess I could be impressed by the over-exposure of the breast implants on screen, but even that was a throw away. The film ends of a sour note with the deaths of all the main characters, but this too seemed added on, and they tried to figure out what to do to juice this up. As I can say is, I went in with tremendous hopes and came out sad, depressed, and disappointed with a film that failed miserably to live up to it's nearly 9 months of pre and post-production advertising. I guess this is my Final Destination.

I see more than 100 movies a year in the theaters, and with all the over-hype of this, I expected something truly great. Well, if you read through all these reviews, it'll explain the plot, so I won't waste time and re-do it, but I will say this...this film is a major disappointment. Considering Eastwood's last, great film, Mystic River, I expected something in that caliber. There is nothing in this film that holds up to Mystic. No, this film is not a complete loss, it does have good moments, but no great, or significant moments. It's all huff and bluff, but nothing more. The performances are fine, but not spectacular. And the script has to be one of the poorest scripts of a major film this year. It is juvenile and amateurish and far from the caliber Eastwood should be working with. It takes from classic great films like "Raging Bull" and "Shawshank' to name a few, but adds nothing to them and can't even match the brilliance of either of those truly classic films. Eastwood should have known better, but this is obviously a director out of his league and not fully comprehending what he wanted to do or say. When the narration fails under the weight of the great Morgan Freeman, you know you are in trouble. Swank does well, but her role is not terribly complex. I think back to the great Imelda Staunton, in 2004's Best Film "Vera Drake" .Now that was great acting!! And a truly great film. This film will receive a lot of Oscar noms and probably win some, but it's a sad commentary when a film like this is so over-rated and people seem to buy into it. Roger Ebert called this, the best film of the year, but he, like so many others, seem to be star struck and not really paying close attention to details, script, plotting or what is on the screen. I liked this film, well enough, don't mis-understand me. I'd give it a "B" on a scale from A-F. But "B" is hardly what I expect from Eastwood, and far from what I expected reading all these over-praising reviews. I have the real sense that many viewers, who listen to the hype, will leave the theater sad, disappointed, and wondering what all the chatter was all about. So do I.

Mike Leigh has done it again. I adore "Secrets and Lies", my 2nd favorite film of all time and Leigh strikes gold again in the emotionally draining, brilliantly directed study of a 50's era abortionist in London. Imelda Staunton gives, yet another in Leigh's film, outstandingly powerful and true performance as Vera Drake. She a inner-city housewife and mother, who spends much of her free time trying to "help out" the poor ladies of 50's London who are unable to get legal abortions. Some may consider this a hot-topic issue film, but it's moreover an independent study of a woman and her life, and how her emotions play in her world. Every nuance of this film is perfectly crafted, from every performance, to the sets, and the cinematography. The emotions overflow steadily, especially after the traumatic dinner scene where the police arrive for Vera. The look of horror that Staunton displays and changes as she realizes what is happening is acting and direction at it's best. Why is it American films aren't able to capture this from it's performers? I can't praise this film enough and truly believe that this will be my favorite film of the year. It's a shame this film got only a small release and audiences seemed unmoved by it. I don't understand it. Hopefully DVD will allow those who missed it to catch up with it and relish in it's brilliance. It will be a rewarding experience for all to see. I am praying for Oscar noms all around, but especially for Staunton. It is clearly and without any doubt, the best female performance as of this date, this year.

This is a stellar example of psychological film-making. Bale is superb in the role. His gaunt appearance is horrifying, but..as Charlize Theron did in "Monster" it's the entire performance that resounds. It's more than the look, it's the inner emotions. The script is stark, unnerving, and downright scary at times, and the ultimate outcome is "not" telegraphed way in advance. When it is revealed, it amazes by it's starkness and believability. The visual style of the film is outstanding, as is the supporting performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh, a great, underused actress. For those who loved "Memento" this is a similar example of "that" style of film-making, and for those who adored the TV show "Twilight Zone", this is in the same realm. I enjoyed every moment of this film and believe more people should see it. It's a shame it's getting such a limited release, because this should be a must see film for lovers of stylized and intelligent film-making. My vote 9 stars out of 10.

Well, I just saw the 3rd, and for my money, least effective of the Harry Potter films. The first were made by Chris Columbus, who created and held the interest of the famous books, and also delved into special effects magic to create exciting, and yet, somewhat dramatic films. This 3rd film, directed by Alfonso Cuaroz, who directed the far over-rated "Y Tu Mama Tambien", fails to understand the true efforts of the novels. He has created a dark and somewhat moody film, but one, also that has the slowest pacing of all 3...(and this is the shortest). it simply drags on, no interesting new characters..(one is an obvious villain from the start) and the other, Emma Thompson, no less, is so broad and silly, she fails to communicate the intricate comedy she attempts to. And the special effects here, as sadly disappointing. A creation introduced by Robbie Coltrane, looks pale in comparison to some of the greater effects in the earlier films.

Many of the original characters, as well, seems placed into this film, for no purpose that to fill space, and so that we have a recognizable face to see. This is especially true of the character Malphoy, who shows up here and there, and it seems totally thrown in. It has no real supporting reason to be there...(except to see Hermione slug him, I guess). This is not a bad film, but it's certainly far less than it's 2 predecessors. Also, the 3 leads are now starting to look..(and it shows) far too old for these roles. I understand they are growing in the books as well, but they all seem out of their reach in this movie. It's obvious this will be a smash hit, and that's fine. Mike Newell is directing the 4th, which will be out in 2005. I only hope, when the film comes out, it turns itself around, get's back to the real fun, excitement and entertainment of the books, and turns away from a over-zealous director, who thinks he knows best. Many will not want to diss this film and it's director, but I will, because, like all others, I pay to see these films. I'm not a hired critic who can say what he wants, even if it's isn't true, not to upset the masses. Some of us, need to speak the truth. I'm glad it's me. My rating on 1-10, would be a "6"....PS: The first 2 movies received a 7.

In reading some of the reviews here, I had to comment. I love rollercoasters and saw this in the summer of 77, expecting it to be something special. What I discovered however, was how sick the filmmakers..(Goldstone, director-Levinson/Link, screenwriters) were. What could have been an interesting and thrilling thriller turns sick within 10 minutes. At Ocean View Park, a roller-coaster is derailed resulting in the deaths of 2 dozen people. Not done with style, elegance or class, it was crude, repulsive and ultimately sick, designed only for people who think gruesome death and maiming are fun. The rest of the film reels after this, as it appears all they had in mind was the first crash and after that, they had nowhere to go. The acting, for the most part, especially Segal was good, but someone overdone and obvious. Helen Hunt's role is so small, it's insignificant, so I wonder why it's mentioned so much. What shocks me more than the utter sickness of the film, is how some members here seem to have enjoyed watching people die! It's been more than 25 years since this film debued, but I wonder about those people who enjoyed watching this. The film, past the opening scene, has some moments and the finale is suitable, but for me personally, watching people die is not my idea of fun...this movie wasn't played as a joke..(as some members have attested)..it was sick, degrading and disgusting. For those who enjoyed this, maybe a shrink is in the cards for you...wonder if you're children know you enjoyed watching people die. Previous disaster films of the 70's....(this was one, believe me) such as Airport, Towering Inferno, Poseidon and Earthquake also had deaths of characters on screen, but not to such a repulsive extent. It's one thing to make a film, show a horrible event, and do it with style, Roller-coaster doesn't fit into this category. This film was a financial failure back in 77, not even covering it's budget, but..(to quote a member) it has nothing to do with Star Wars...it's because some people were human beings, not animals, and were not interested in spending good money to watch slaughter. It's on DVD, not worth seeing, unless you meet the prior qualifications..if so, I pity you.