nilsslarss

With this film you can feel three stars are on the wane and are choosing their material out of desperation. Kate thought "Cameron's in it, so it may be a hit"; Jude thought "Cameron's in it, so it can't be bad"; Cameron thought: "Jude and Kate are in it and have British accents, so it may do for me what Notting Hill did for Julia". But obviously they did not read the script, especially the notes "to be ham-acted". Cameron ham-acted the first scene so brilliantly I am surprised she was ever offered another acting job (in fact, she was just given the speaking role in various Shreks afterwards). Kate managed to act through the first scene but then stuck to her safe laugh of wonderment throughout the rest of the film (but what else could she do when presented with the psycho-look lover to replace the manipulative lover?). Jude slimed through the role asleep in preparation for his destruction of "Sleuth". This sort of British-movie-for-Christmas should now be declared officially dead. There is nothing good to be said about money being invested in bad scripts, bad acting and bad films.

Although the acting and dialogue are not much, this film does offer an interesting reflection on life in the 1930s. The scenes of Tonio walking around New York give an impressive picture of New York from its good and bad sides. The city has a more realistic feel to it than you can find in many American films of the time. Peculiar too is the fascinating mixture of Christian and pagan ritual in the Dolomite town. The pagan festivities have a rawness to them that one no longer experiences in the processions and celebrations of modern-day German speaking areas. As the film was made in 1934, there is obviously some propaganda involved, but it is nevertheless a unique documentation of the time.

What I really enjoyed about this movie was the dialog and repartee. Hollywood never seems to worry about dialog, so it was a joy to listen to these characters talk to each other. Two dialogs stick out: the one between the Sikh and the police, and the argument after the quiz. A lesser director would have left them out, together with the concentration on detail such as the protocol concerning police reaction. However, somewhere along the way, Lee lost his touch, and the last part and the ending were a disappointment. Besides the dialog, the acting was also brilliant. Denzel Washington is in a class of his own; the interrogations were masterly; and rarely has an actor laughed as well as he did after "sticking his shoe up the white man's ass". I even liked Jodie Foster (no whiny voice with pinched nose) ...

Racism: I have been surprised to hear people thinking there is reverse racism in the movie. Just because the hero is black and the corrupt people are white; usually the hero is white and the corrupt people are white. So it was one little change. Anyway, the character who came off worse was that loud-mouthed boy with his barbaric computer game.

Holocaust: As a German I am a bit sensitive about the Holocaust being used as a shorthand for a quick emotional sensation. Too many movies deal with the terrible moral choices people had to make at the time and with the aftermath of suffering in a way that is very superficial. I hope this is one of the last movies that does so. Titanic managed to get in a survivor who was over 100, so the last Holocaust survivor/evildoer in a movie may yet be to come (Evildoer: ca. 2020; victim ca. 2030: damn, that's longer than I thought!) There are plenty of other moral dilemmas and ways of suffering and getting corrupted in this world. Please use them instead. If you want to make a movie about the Holocaust, fine; if it is a cheap thrill, leave it out!

I am still wondering why they called the film "Elizabeth". Would it not have been better to have called it "Fictional Elizabeth"? Absolutely nothing in this film bears any resemblance to the real Elizabeth.

Then I realized the director was just angry that someone had made the film he wanted to make: "La Reine Margot". Now that was an excellent film about French history which depicted the real events of the time in a wonderful way. Damn, thought poor Shekar Kapur, what to do? Well, this film is made for the Americans, and they know nothing about English history, and come to think of it, neither do most English people. I shall simply take the story (well, the bloody bits; don't want to get caught with plagiarism problems) and dump it in England. Now Elizabeth's reign was wonderful and exciting but there were not a lot of massacres and assassinations going on: Ah, who cares? Let's have lots of blood and gore. Hmm, and while I am at it, would it not be brilliant if Elizabeth resides in 11th century Durham Cathedral (bit draughty but lovely columns!) instead of in a comfortable 16th century palace? Throw in a few reference to the Virgin Mary and hey presto, film with lots of action and philosophy and I only need wait for the plaudits. Phew, that was easier than I thought! I just hope nobody asks me why I called the film "Elizabeth"? Hope nobody knows anything about her reign; if they do, they're in for a shock ....

This is an unusual sci-fi movie in that it was made in the 1990s but looks like it was set in a movie made in the 1980s ... surely cyberpunk movies had moved on by 1995?

By and large, it is really bad. I like Keanu Reeves a lot; his limited acting abilities make him paradoxically a great hero (as in "Speed" and "Matrix"). One really wants to believe in him, but here he is acting against his clothes: somehow the suit does not match the shirt collar, and the collar is too narrow for the tie, and the suit hangs rather than sits. And someone gave him a terrible haircut. I am always amazed that actors survive this sort of nonsense, so well done, Keanu!

I have now seen this film twice and enjoyed it each time. A friend of mine said she was annoyed by the film: she wanted the love story to have a happy ending, and I think that is precisely why this film remains with you afterwards; you keep thinking "what if ...".

Strangely enough it reminds me of the Dutch film "Spoorloos", whose ending with the hero buried alive haunts you for days afterwards. BBM was similar: you feel as though you have witnessed Ennis bury himself alive and you feel suffocated by his insistence on cutting himself off from all his feelings. Days later you keep thinking, why ...

It is strange to see what an effect the love of two utter losers (and I really don't use this term pejoratively) can have on so many people watching the film. Despite everything that happens, you go away thinking this is one of the great love stories of the cinema. You keep hoping that Ennis will reach out to the light that is Jack and finally take what will nourish him; but instead he remains in the dark. In the end Jack dies, and Ennis connects his death to the murder from his childhood; I wonder whether this is also not a reflection on the sense of his death: would it not have been better for Jack to have died a death which had meaning (i.e. to die due to his love) than to be the victim of a random accident? If they had lived together, murder might have been the outcome, but death was the outcome anyway.

It takes the death of Jack for Ennis to achieve his anagnorisis: at the end he changes his plans because he realizes it is important to make gestures to those you love (here his daughter) and finally at last he can blurt out the heart-rending last line (which still does not manage to articulate the words he needs). Like all good film love stories, the loss is what makes you feel the love.

So, a haunting film (but perhaps too easily so). Not my favourite by Lee (The Ice Storm works on a so many different levels), but his best love story and one in which he coaxes difficult performances out of his actors.

One thing does nag me: would this film have succeeded if they had used actors who were closer to those in the short story rather than the two most handsome young men in Hollywood?

Why does everyone want happy lovey dovey gay movies with a positive ending? This film plays with all the stereotypes, raising your hopes and expectations and then keeps dropping you back where you started. Ari meets Sean, but misses the opportunity; Ari is drop-dead gorgeous, but still will choose the quick w**k with an older guy down the back alley. What a change from other gay movies, where two beautiful people bore us to death for an hour and a half. And the film moves so well between comic and tragic: from the taxi driver scene to the police station, while Alex just shrugs it all off with that winsome uninvolved smile knowing nothing is ever going to save him. Ari is so self-absorbed and self-destructive that he is one of the great anti-heroes of cinema. And his self-recognition when he says while cruising at the docks "I am a sailor and a slut and shall be to the end of time" is one of the best endings of any film ever. Gay life can be harsh and brutal so you'd better get used to it! But at least it is always edgy and vibrant ... and kudos to Alex D for carrying this film so well! Being good-looking alone would not have made this character so memorable.

This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.

I am really shocked to see that people thought this film was funny. I can deal with farce, stupidity, slapstick, and a lot of bad taste. But this film was mind numbingly bad. Should it ever make its way to TV, I will take drugs or have a lobotomy beforehand to see if it makes the experience better. There was not one redeeming feature in this film: neither acting nor story nor dialogue nor nothing ... I watched this with a very mixed bunch of people and nobody laughed once during the wasted evening. Having read how so many people enjoyed this film makes me realise that we are due for more of this rubbish from Hollywood. At least there is fodder for the masses!