Dune is one of those forgettable flicks during which one keeps waiting for something to happen, and nothing ever does. The plot? Basically, an uninteresting little fella goes to check out a desert. Visually, the movie is deplorable and difficult to watch - dark, blurry, dusty, smoky, no colour, very ugly. Keep some pain killers handy for the eye strain. There is no memorable dialogue here. The acting is mediocre and none of the characters will captivate your attention. While the film is not a complete disaster, one would expect much better from a budget of $165 million.
Reviews
74 Reviews
It
(I) (2017)
Where is the return as adults???
28 October 2017
The remake of the evil clown movie, i.e. IT... After trying to stomach too much gore, bullying, and violence and feeling unsatisfied by the lack of spine-tingling, I got about halfway through the movie and wondered when the kids now as adults would reunite to take on the evil. Needless to say, it never happened. Very disappointed. I prefer the original two-part movie which was a story of kids traumatized by evil seeping around town and trying to figure out what was going on. Years later they reunite as adults to face their fears and avenge their lost friend by finally taking IT on. It made an impression on me, as many of us as kids growing up sense that there is something not right about our town and return to it later in life to figure out what was going on. I feel the new IT blew it by axing this major plot point. Visually, it was decent as were the performances and it came close to engaging me but ultimately failed. 5/10
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
(2016)
Mostly Unwatchable
20 December 2016
Watching Star Wars Rogue One reminded me how stubborn the entertainment industry is. They come up with a bad idea, which is often a move backwards, thinking it is creative and ignore public backlash against it. First we got that hand-held, shaky camera idea which hasn't gone away. The newest "invention" is making movies so dark, we may as well have a radio play instead. Visually, Rogue One is way too dark making one strain the eyes to see what is happening which has become the trend in Hollywood. It's like Hollywood has lost all confidence in its movies and insults the viewer by letting him not see the actors and what is going on. Beyond this, the brightness and contrast are out of whack, colour is drained out, and it looks all blurry. Rogue One looks just horrible. It's very ugly and unattractive.
The second annoyance I had was the dialogue which was delivered in a very wooden style and way too long in most scenes. Okay, we get it, let's move on. The director had the actors ramble on and on when this was supposed to be an action/war movie.
The previous Star Wars films worked because the dark evil spirit and the contrasting good/light spirit were delivered not by tinkering with the cinematography but allowing us to see the actors' faces and thus the emotions, motivations, and attitudes that protruded. We could see how they treated each other, how they felt about each other, something we can't see in Rogue One because of the fogged up murk.
The film's only saving graces were Donnie Yen and the final battle scene. I give it 2 stars for those two out of 10.
The second annoyance I had was the dialogue which was delivered in a very wooden style and way too long in most scenes. Okay, we get it, let's move on. The director had the actors ramble on and on when this was supposed to be an action/war movie.
The previous Star Wars films worked because the dark evil spirit and the contrasting good/light spirit were delivered not by tinkering with the cinematography but allowing us to see the actors' faces and thus the emotions, motivations, and attitudes that protruded. We could see how they treated each other, how they felt about each other, something we can't see in Rogue One because of the fogged up murk.
The film's only saving graces were Donnie Yen and the final battle scene. I give it 2 stars for those two out of 10.
Star Trek
(2009)
Pubescent Trek
21 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen all the Star Trek movies, all episodes of the original series, and all episodes of The Next Generation. When I first heard about the premise for the new film, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand I thought it would be interesting to see how the original gang came together and some background of the original characters. But on the other hand I wondered why they were reverting to the past instead of moving forward with the saga.
The opening scene was visually stunning. And, visually, the film was a treat, comprising a heck of a lot of detail. But when the pubescent characters were gradually introduced running around recklessly with their teenage hormones, I began rolling my eyes. If the casting director had chosen good actors, things would have been much different. Simply put: the actor who played the young James Kirk can't act. Many of the actors were television stars. And bringing second-rate TV actors onto the big screen is never wise.
The other thing that I resented was the young Spock character. The actor did a fairly good job, but what was so admirable about the original Spock and arguably the draw of the original series was his lack of emotion. And using this against Kirk and especially Bones' emotional reactions was appealing. Any show works best when the characters are diverse rather than redundant. When you employ cultural imperialism by making Spock give in to the inferred superiority of Earth or human culture, you not only make things less interesting but give people a bad taste in their mouths. The film seemed to be saying, "Let's test Spock's logic by destroying inferior planet Vulcan and his mom and have him finally give into our superior human ways by showing lots of emotion." What adolescent stupidity! Finally, time travel has been done too much in Star Trek films. The story could have been just as good if the Enterprise had encountered a formidable ship from an alien race of the present. They did it obviously just so that they could have the older Spock in the movie. I thought it would have been better had they just opened with the old Spock as a narrator, reminiscing about old times and then saying, "I bet you are wondering how it all came together and how the original crew came together on our first mission." And then the movie goes into the story.
To sum it up, visually the movie was fun at times. But with annoying teenage recklessness, bad acting, Spock's outbursts, cultural imperialism, and tired time travel, this was a bad Star Trek movie.
The opening scene was visually stunning. And, visually, the film was a treat, comprising a heck of a lot of detail. But when the pubescent characters were gradually introduced running around recklessly with their teenage hormones, I began rolling my eyes. If the casting director had chosen good actors, things would have been much different. Simply put: the actor who played the young James Kirk can't act. Many of the actors were television stars. And bringing second-rate TV actors onto the big screen is never wise.
The other thing that I resented was the young Spock character. The actor did a fairly good job, but what was so admirable about the original Spock and arguably the draw of the original series was his lack of emotion. And using this against Kirk and especially Bones' emotional reactions was appealing. Any show works best when the characters are diverse rather than redundant. When you employ cultural imperialism by making Spock give in to the inferred superiority of Earth or human culture, you not only make things less interesting but give people a bad taste in their mouths. The film seemed to be saying, "Let's test Spock's logic by destroying inferior planet Vulcan and his mom and have him finally give into our superior human ways by showing lots of emotion." What adolescent stupidity! Finally, time travel has been done too much in Star Trek films. The story could have been just as good if the Enterprise had encountered a formidable ship from an alien race of the present. They did it obviously just so that they could have the older Spock in the movie. I thought it would have been better had they just opened with the old Spock as a narrator, reminiscing about old times and then saying, "I bet you are wondering how it all came together and how the original crew came together on our first mission." And then the movie goes into the story.
To sum it up, visually the movie was fun at times. But with annoying teenage recklessness, bad acting, Spock's outbursts, cultural imperialism, and tired time travel, this was a bad Star Trek movie.
Kung Fu Panda
(2008)
Finally a Film About China the Chinese Love
25 June 2008
There have been many films about China that the Chinese themselves didn't like. They didn't like Disney's "Mulan", they didn't like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". This list goes on. Westerners have westernized the stories or included elements culturally offensive or unintelligible, and humour that, in the Orient, just isn't funny. Well, all that has changed. Last night I went to see Kung Fu Panda in Shanghai (in English with Chinese subtitles). Shangahai is the biggest city in China. The cinema was packed. And from start to finish there was non-stop laughter, excitement, and joy. The humour was universally funny, the culture was dead-on, and the story hit home with the Chinese. They could relate to the characters and their situations. They laughed. They laughed until they cried. Visually, the movie was just beautiful to look at. As an adult, I usually don't enjoy watching cartoons. But this one was more fun I've had at the movies in a long time. The timing of the film's release with the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing coming up is perfect. A job well done to all involved with the making of this little gem!
A Series with Some Promise Crumbles Like a Tower
5 January 2003
The sequel to the fairly good "Fellowship of the Ring" falls apart at the seams, as most sequels do. While the irritating close-up of the supposedly powerful ring every ten minutes in the first film is removed, we get a character, more annoying than The Phantom Menace's Jar-Jar Binks, continuously saying "precious, precious" over and over and over again with a voice like someone scratching their fingernails down a blackboard. I wasn't intrigued by a single line of dialogue nor by any of the wooden characters. This is basically "The Mummy Returns" linked with what some consider to be classic literature, simply to give it credibility, and devoid of any interesting plot. Here's the plot: "Oh, look, there are some monsters. Let's go slaughter them. Ah, done. Oh, guess what! Some more monsters! Let's kill them. Oh, and you wouldn't believe it. More monsters...". Do yourself a favour and go for something with a bit more substance.
Austin Powers in Goldmember
(2002)
From Silver to Gold: The Strongest Entry in the Series
27 July 2002
I have seen a lot of movies in the cinema over the years. This one had the audience laughing harder and more often than any other movie I've seen in history. Much better written the the previous two Austin Powers movies, much more energetic, with never a dull moment, with a clever opening and a surprise ending, this really confirms the brilliant comedic mind of Mike Myers. Just awesome.
Hitman
(1998)
Jet Li and Gigi - Need I Say More?
15 July 2002
This movie is quite a treat. Li does an action-COMEDY film for a change! All of the actors in this one are just superb and well chosen. Before he dies, a Japanese tycoon, expecting to be gunned down, establishes a big reward in his will for the man who takes out his assassin(s). Of course, he does end up being killed, and a cool level-headed dude, in charge of acting upon his will, takes charge of the task and spills out the rules to the band of hitmen eager to win the reward money. A hillarious fat guy, pretending to be a bigshot conman, but who is quite unsuccessful in the trade, takes the rookie Jet Li under his wing hoping to cash in. His lawyer-daughter, played by pop superstar Gigi Leung, tries to straighten out her pop, and begins a platonic romance with Li. The movie's action, comedy, and acting are first-class: it'll have you in stitches at times, such as the teddy bear scene. However, it would have been nice had the romance between the Li and Leung characters been further developed: the ice skating scene was a real delight. Nevertheless, this was one of Jet Li's best movies and certainly a different turn for him.
Gosford Park
(2001)
The Most Pathetic Movie of 2001
8 July 2002
This is the only movie I've seen in the cinema (and I've seen many), that I actually walked out of the theatre. I was so bored, it was painful. The first 45 minutes were excruciating with really bad dialogue - not a single line of any wit or interest. It was supposed to be a comedy. No one in the theatre laughed at any point. After the murder finally occurred, I thought things would pick up. But they didn't. With all the new technology out there in the electronics and photography industry, this movie looked like it was filmed with a 1960's camera - the resolution was dull and gray. The actors themselves seemed like they were sleepwalking. No energy, no emotion, no interesting conversation or characters. Boring, lifeless, apathetic drizzle. 2/10
Star Trek: Enterprise
(2001–2005)
Melodramatic Sci-Fi Soap Opera
25 September 2001
The fifth and worst of the Star Trek TV series, which, since Star Trek: The Next Generation, have consecutively gone downhill since the passing of original creator Gene Roddenberry, plays like an over-acted, melodramatic soap opera, combining 22nd Century technology with 18th Century behaviour.
"Enterprise" is a prequel to the other series, taking place in-between present-day and the time portrayed in the original Star Trek series with Captain Kirk. An almost all-male crew begin humanity's first trek into outer space onboard the NX-01 Enterprise with Captain Johnathan Archer, played by Scott Bakula, best known perhaps by his lead role in the late 1980's TV series "Quantum Leap".
One would expect the crew to behave as would a team in any workplace in the real world, but we find them as red-faced hotheads constantly exchanging insults and throwing temper-tantrums. When the telling of a good story is suffocated by such characters, wholly lacking in self-confidence, that either trivialize or spazz out at every situation that comes their way, the viewer is simply left frustrated. "Enterprise" just doesn't take itself seriously, the most essential component of any attractive drama.
"Enterprise" is a prequel to the other series, taking place in-between present-day and the time portrayed in the original Star Trek series with Captain Kirk. An almost all-male crew begin humanity's first trek into outer space onboard the NX-01 Enterprise with Captain Johnathan Archer, played by Scott Bakula, best known perhaps by his lead role in the late 1980's TV series "Quantum Leap".
One would expect the crew to behave as would a team in any workplace in the real world, but we find them as red-faced hotheads constantly exchanging insults and throwing temper-tantrums. When the telling of a good story is suffocated by such characters, wholly lacking in self-confidence, that either trivialize or spazz out at every situation that comes their way, the viewer is simply left frustrated. "Enterprise" just doesn't take itself seriously, the most essential component of any attractive drama.
Rush Hour 2
(2001)
Turning the Tables on the Critics
8 August 2001
Rush Hour 2, easily the best movie of the summer, had me in such stitches that I went and saw it again the same weekend. Consensus seems to be that it is better than the original with which I heartily agree.
I was disturbed in noting how the general public has been responding to this film in comparison with the critics. Everyone in the cinema was rolling with laughter and on a high after the movie ended, unanimously talking about how great it was. In contrast, half of the critics seem to be giving it great reviews and half bad ones.
Let's turn the tables on the critics.
It is to be expected that some will love a movie and some will hate it; but what is startling is seeing the same movie on a critic's Ten Best List for the Year show up in another critic's Ten Worst List of the Year. This was the case for several movies last year.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly regarded "Dancer in the Dark" as the best movie of 2000, while Time Magazine listed it as the worst movie of the year. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was seen by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune as the best movie of 2000, while EW's Owen Gleiberman regarded it as the year's worst movie. Gleiberman listed "What Lies Beneath" in his Ten Best List of 2000, while Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times listed it as one of the worst of the year. The fact is that these people can't agree on anything.
It is appalling also that critics obsessed with a paralysis by analysis end up contradicting themselves. The aforementioned movie critic Roger Ebert gave as his primary reason for disliking "Rush Hour 2", a scene where the Chris Tucker character distracts a small army of security guards, by making a big stink about being treated unfairly because of his race, so that the Jackie Chan character can infiltrate the back rooms of a casino. Ironically, this was EXACTLY the same tactic that the Danny Glover character used in a scene in Lethal Weapon 2, a movie which Ebert gave 3.5 out of 4 stars. Go figure folks.
So ignore the critics and go out and enjoy Rush Hour 2.
I was disturbed in noting how the general public has been responding to this film in comparison with the critics. Everyone in the cinema was rolling with laughter and on a high after the movie ended, unanimously talking about how great it was. In contrast, half of the critics seem to be giving it great reviews and half bad ones.
Let's turn the tables on the critics.
It is to be expected that some will love a movie and some will hate it; but what is startling is seeing the same movie on a critic's Ten Best List for the Year show up in another critic's Ten Worst List of the Year. This was the case for several movies last year.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly regarded "Dancer in the Dark" as the best movie of 2000, while Time Magazine listed it as the worst movie of the year. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was seen by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune as the best movie of 2000, while EW's Owen Gleiberman regarded it as the year's worst movie. Gleiberman listed "What Lies Beneath" in his Ten Best List of 2000, while Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times listed it as one of the worst of the year. The fact is that these people can't agree on anything.
It is appalling also that critics obsessed with a paralysis by analysis end up contradicting themselves. The aforementioned movie critic Roger Ebert gave as his primary reason for disliking "Rush Hour 2", a scene where the Chris Tucker character distracts a small army of security guards, by making a big stink about being treated unfairly because of his race, so that the Jackie Chan character can infiltrate the back rooms of a casino. Ironically, this was EXACTLY the same tactic that the Danny Glover character used in a scene in Lethal Weapon 2, a movie which Ebert gave 3.5 out of 4 stars. Go figure folks.
So ignore the critics and go out and enjoy Rush Hour 2.
Kiss of the Dragon
(2001)
Surprisingly fresh and captivating (9/10)
13 July 2001
Luc Besson's "Kiss of the Dragon" wasn't above average in the action department, but it had a heck of a good thriller-like plot, and really good dialogue - much less cheesy than most films of the genre. I also liked the fact that it involved non-American cultures - Chinese and French - for a change. It doesn't hold back from over-the-top bloody scenes, which some may like and some not. I just loved the ending, during which we find out what the 'kiss of the dragon' is. Wow, what an ending! The corrupt French police chief was one of the most evil villains I've seen yet. And Jet Li could pull the third layer of skin out from under the first two on a rabid pit bull in heat without a scratch. 9/10
Citizen Kane
(1941)
Is it just to use cinematography as the sole criterion for "best film of all time"?
30 April 2000
Citizen Kane **½ / 4
This film is regarded by some as the greatest motion picture of all time. Most of these cite their one and only reason as its innovative and influential cinematography. This raises the question: is it just to use the latter as the sole criterion for stamping a film with the "all time best" label? A further question that may be raised: does a movie that is technically brilliant qualify as great without due regard given to its ability to entertain?
Although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and judging motion pictures is as subjective as it is objective and an art as much as an analysis, I'd like to identify several elements, which are universally considered to make a movie great: the enjoyment one is given by its plot, dialogue / script, musical score, depth of character, solid acting and directing, and cinematography.
In my view, an all time best film must be outstanding in all of these; Citizen Kane was not. Its plot was overtly dull and unsophisticated: reporters review the boring life of an uninteresting man who rose to prosperity. Citizen Kane had no memorable dialogue whatsoever (compare it with "Casablanca" in this department); its script was nothing special. Its musical score was a far cry from the creative genius of someone like Ennio Morricone, Leonard Bernstein, or even John Williams. There was absolutely no depth of character in the film-none that appeared had any heart or appeal. Its acting was only satisfactory. Mind you, the actors did not have very difficult roles to play. Because of this, one could not direct praises towards the director who had an obviously unchallenging job. This leaves cinematography. Influential? Yes. Innovative? Yes. The greatest of all time? No. Even "Touch of Evil", another Orson Welles' classic (and much, much better than Citizen Kane), had far superior black and white photography and use of shadows.
Does all of this mean that Citizen Kane was a bad film? No. Citizen Kane is an average film and, though overall boring, generally deserves a marginal "thumbs up".
This film is regarded by some as the greatest motion picture of all time. Most of these cite their one and only reason as its innovative and influential cinematography. This raises the question: is it just to use the latter as the sole criterion for stamping a film with the "all time best" label? A further question that may be raised: does a movie that is technically brilliant qualify as great without due regard given to its ability to entertain?
Although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and judging motion pictures is as subjective as it is objective and an art as much as an analysis, I'd like to identify several elements, which are universally considered to make a movie great: the enjoyment one is given by its plot, dialogue / script, musical score, depth of character, solid acting and directing, and cinematography.
In my view, an all time best film must be outstanding in all of these; Citizen Kane was not. Its plot was overtly dull and unsophisticated: reporters review the boring life of an uninteresting man who rose to prosperity. Citizen Kane had no memorable dialogue whatsoever (compare it with "Casablanca" in this department); its script was nothing special. Its musical score was a far cry from the creative genius of someone like Ennio Morricone, Leonard Bernstein, or even John Williams. There was absolutely no depth of character in the film-none that appeared had any heart or appeal. Its acting was only satisfactory. Mind you, the actors did not have very difficult roles to play. Because of this, one could not direct praises towards the director who had an obviously unchallenging job. This leaves cinematography. Influential? Yes. Innovative? Yes. The greatest of all time? No. Even "Touch of Evil", another Orson Welles' classic (and much, much better than Citizen Kane), had far superior black and white photography and use of shadows.
Does all of this mean that Citizen Kane was a bad film? No. Citizen Kane is an average film and, though overall boring, generally deserves a marginal "thumbs up".
Three Kings
(1999)
The Worst Film of 1999
1 October 1999
During the first half-hour of "Three Kings", I almost walked out of the theatre, appalled with its repellent adolescent humour. It kept trying to be funny and it wasn't in the least. The film keeps using the term "America" to refer to only one country throughout the two American continents. "Three Kings" glorifies racism, nationalism, fornication, exploding cows and human heads, and excrement. Absolute trash.
The Bells of St. Mary's
(1945)
Not as good as "Going My Way"
12 September 1999
As most sequels go, not anywhere near as outstanding as "Going My Way", especially because it lacks the lustre of interplay between Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald (the latter is absent in this film). Still any movie with Ingrid Bergman is worth watching. Crosby returns as the priest with progressive ideals who is faced with a ring of stuffy nuns. In short, good but not great. 8/10
Central Station
(1998)
Emotionally Constipated
29 August 1999
In order to review this movie and explain what I didn't like about it, I had to reveal some plot elements that might spoil it for those who have not seen it (including the ending). So, please read ahead only if you want to.
Central Station / Central do Brasil is a film about a boy whose mother is hit and killed by a bus and he has nowhere to go but to a dishonest elderly woman who earns a living by writing letters for illiterate people. She doesn't actually send the letters, though. The reason for this is not entirely explained although we are given her reasons from a few cases.
If you are a "realist" movie-goer you won't like the beginning of the film. You would expect that, after the boy's mother is killed, the police would show up who would locate the boy's relatives and place him at a home. We never see any police, not even an ambulance arrive on the scene. A little later, someone steals some food and runs off. He is chased by a man who shoots him. Again, where are the police? There are not even any security guards at the station as you would expect.
The film kind of gets going after this. After almost selling the boy (possibly for body parts?) we see the couple embarking on a quest to find the boy's father. We get to see the absolutely beautiful Brazilian countryside and the interesting characters that the woman and the boy encounter in their travels. We also see how the film uses the characters and events to make reference to Christianity (the boy's father is named Jesus and he is trying to find him).
However, when the boy, does find his two half-brothers, for some unexplained reason, the boy and woman keep it from them that this is their lost little brother whom they had been expecting. We WANT to see the joy on the faces of these two older brothers when they learn that this is him. But we never get to see this. We are led to believe that they are to find out when the old woman leaves, dropping off a letter the boy's mother wrote to his father before she was killed (although the two brothers were illiterate, but there was supposedly a picture of mom and son in the envelope). In short, the emotionally constipated ending without resolution leaves the viewer disappointed.
**1/2 out of **** (fairly good)
Central Station / Central do Brasil is a film about a boy whose mother is hit and killed by a bus and he has nowhere to go but to a dishonest elderly woman who earns a living by writing letters for illiterate people. She doesn't actually send the letters, though. The reason for this is not entirely explained although we are given her reasons from a few cases.
If you are a "realist" movie-goer you won't like the beginning of the film. You would expect that, after the boy's mother is killed, the police would show up who would locate the boy's relatives and place him at a home. We never see any police, not even an ambulance arrive on the scene. A little later, someone steals some food and runs off. He is chased by a man who shoots him. Again, where are the police? There are not even any security guards at the station as you would expect.
The film kind of gets going after this. After almost selling the boy (possibly for body parts?) we see the couple embarking on a quest to find the boy's father. We get to see the absolutely beautiful Brazilian countryside and the interesting characters that the woman and the boy encounter in their travels. We also see how the film uses the characters and events to make reference to Christianity (the boy's father is named Jesus and he is trying to find him).
However, when the boy, does find his two half-brothers, for some unexplained reason, the boy and woman keep it from them that this is their lost little brother whom they had been expecting. We WANT to see the joy on the faces of these two older brothers when they learn that this is him. But we never get to see this. We are led to believe that they are to find out when the old woman leaves, dropping off a letter the boy's mother wrote to his father before she was killed (although the two brothers were illiterate, but there was supposedly a picture of mom and son in the envelope). In short, the emotionally constipated ending without resolution leaves the viewer disappointed.
**1/2 out of **** (fairly good)
The Fifth Element
(1997)
The greatest Science Fiction Comedy ever made
27 August 1999
Earth, water, air, and fire require a fifth element to battle evil: life force. Loving life is not born from materialism; it is the darkness of materialism that destroys the love of life. Every few thousand years, as "The Fifth Element" reminds us, humanity develops an obsession with material things and this evil threatens the destruction of civilisation.
Fresh, bright, visually dazzling, "The Fifth Element" is the greatest Science Fiction Comedy of all time. Its inspirational message of love will draw tears, its uproarious humour will sap your breath from laughter, its action scenes, including the largest indoor explosion ever created for film, will have your amusement soaring. Starring one of the most amiable stars of the century - Bruce Willis - as well as Mila Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman, and Chris Tucker, this is one for all ages to savour. This movie is so much fun to watch that any flaws in the plot or in the editing are rendered wholly inconsequential. Its eccentric Dickens-like characters are an absolute delight, the dialogue is contagious, the soundtrack is brilliant, the international flavour the film gives with its varied races and accents rouses the heart with a glorious outlook on the future of the world, and the special effects are so breathtaking that the movie will look good on any TV set. This is one film of which one will not tire easily after repeated viewings. "The Fifth Element" is a winner.
Fresh, bright, visually dazzling, "The Fifth Element" is the greatest Science Fiction Comedy of all time. Its inspirational message of love will draw tears, its uproarious humour will sap your breath from laughter, its action scenes, including the largest indoor explosion ever created for film, will have your amusement soaring. Starring one of the most amiable stars of the century - Bruce Willis - as well as Mila Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman, and Chris Tucker, this is one for all ages to savour. This movie is so much fun to watch that any flaws in the plot or in the editing are rendered wholly inconsequential. Its eccentric Dickens-like characters are an absolute delight, the dialogue is contagious, the soundtrack is brilliant, the international flavour the film gives with its varied races and accents rouses the heart with a glorious outlook on the future of the world, and the special effects are so breathtaking that the movie will look good on any TV set. This is one film of which one will not tire easily after repeated viewings. "The Fifth Element" is a winner.
The Car
(1977)
A significant cut above films of its kind
20 August 1999
Now available, "digitally re-mastered", on video, "The Car" blows the lame adaptation of Stephen King's "Christine" out of the water. The effects were well done for this 1977 horror cult classic about a demonic double-fendered, low-roofed, black car of evil that mows people down. Not many explanations for its actions or reasoning are provided, such as why the "car" merely brushes the James Brolin character aside with its handleless door without finishing him off, which may either be a plus or a minus depending on one's taste. Perhaps the car, though obviously intelligent, is fuelled more by emotion than reasoning. The movie is a significant cut above many films of its kind, like "Killdozer", due to some spurts of intense action, emotional discharge (telling the car off in front of frightened kids in a cemetery), some surprises (check out the garage scene near the end), and some style (watch for the fire-shaped howling devil in the smoke cloud). It was interesting, also, to see good old Ronny Cox in his earlier days with shaggy hair and a lack of red-faced high blood pressure - the classic trademark for which his roles are now cherished. All in all, the movie was a job well-done.
The Nude Bomb
(1980)
Underrated
9 August 1999
Like the Austin Powers movies, "Get Smart" is a spoof of spy movies like the James Bond series, and "The Nude Bomb", made at the height of the Cold War, in the early 1980s, concerns Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, the guy with the shoe phone, pursuing the madman who has developed a bomb that, if exploded, would render everyone without clothes. This is an underrated movie and works well even with the absence of the original supporting cast from the 1960s television series. Almost, but not quite as funny as "The Naked Gun". 8/10
The Blair Witch Project
(1999)
Blair is merely "fair"
2 August 1999
I thought that "The Blair Witch Project" was overrated and not very scary. It is more about a bunch of incompetent university students swearing, yelling, and fighting than it was about a witch. While "Patch Adams" was much too polished a movie, this was much too raw. If they'd done a normal rather than documentary B-movie style and put in some more mature actors with cleaner dialogue who didn't spazz out every five minutes, it would have been much better.
Still, I liked the woods and the run-down house at the end.
Blair gets ** stars /4: FAIR
Still, I liked the woods and the run-down house at the end.
Blair gets ** stars /4: FAIR
Blood Simple
(1984)
Overrated drawl
2 August 1999
This confused piece of work fails to captivate with its southern drawl accents and sloth-like pace. Its attempts at suspense could use a heavy dose of caffeine. A lack of explanation of motives makes the whole plot seem contrived. In fact, throughout the film, the characters keep sluggishly changing their minds about their actions and the film doesn't give us a glimpse of their reasoning. It is simply a collection of snapshots of effects and an emptiness of causes and motives. For a much better film noir, see "Touch of Evil". 4/10
Rushmore
(1998)
Film ruined by teacher robbing the coffin instead of the cradle
30 June 1999
This could have been a very enjoyable film in every way, but one detail completely ruined the experience of watching it. The teacher with whom Max fell in love was 30. Max was 15. She rejected him outright because of the 15 year age difference. But she fell for the Bill Murray character (50 years old) with whom she had a GREATER age difference at 20 years. If they had chosen a 30 year old actor instead of Murray, it would have worked.
The Red Violin
(1998)
Way to go, Canada!
30 June 1999
While the vast majority of the world's films emerge from the United States, along with a handful from Italy, the U.K., France, and India, a country of only 30 million people, not well known for creating masterpieces in film, has come up with this jewel, "The Red Violin". Canada has generated scores of famous actors - Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Donald Sutherland, William Shatner, John Candy, and Neve Campbell to name but a few, but Hollywood's empire of film production has drawn them all down south, while, ironically, so many US films are shot in Canada (especially Vancouver).
In the past, Canada made the odd good, low budget film ("Who Has Seen the Wind", "The Grey Fox") but in the past decade, its government has been setting more funds aside for the development of its entertainment and culture industry. The result has been the creation of about one very good film per year ("Decline of the American Empire", "Jesus of Montreal", "Black Robe", "Exotica", and "The Sweet Hereafter" to name a few).
Just as Canadian film-makers borrowed England's Helena Bonham Carter in making "Margaret's Museum", the latest Canadian creation - "The Red Violin" - features a well known US actor - Samuel L. Jackson. Perhaps "we" have done this as a drawing card to attract attention to great films that, because they are Canadian made, run the danger of passing unnoticed outside of the country.
I glowed after watching this heart-galvanizing spectacle of beauty out of slight feelings of humble patriotism, seeing that my country really is capable of landing a winner in the movie making game. Everything is likable about "The Red Violin" - great acting, dialogue, production, cinematography, music (score), compelling characters, and interesting stories woven together into a work of art. And, just think, this was pulled off without Hollywood's gargantuan enterprise of talent, experience, and funding. WAY TO GO, EH!
In the past, Canada made the odd good, low budget film ("Who Has Seen the Wind", "The Grey Fox") but in the past decade, its government has been setting more funds aside for the development of its entertainment and culture industry. The result has been the creation of about one very good film per year ("Decline of the American Empire", "Jesus of Montreal", "Black Robe", "Exotica", and "The Sweet Hereafter" to name a few).
Just as Canadian film-makers borrowed England's Helena Bonham Carter in making "Margaret's Museum", the latest Canadian creation - "The Red Violin" - features a well known US actor - Samuel L. Jackson. Perhaps "we" have done this as a drawing card to attract attention to great films that, because they are Canadian made, run the danger of passing unnoticed outside of the country.
I glowed after watching this heart-galvanizing spectacle of beauty out of slight feelings of humble patriotism, seeing that my country really is capable of landing a winner in the movie making game. Everything is likable about "The Red Violin" - great acting, dialogue, production, cinematography, music (score), compelling characters, and interesting stories woven together into a work of art. And, just think, this was pulled off without Hollywood's gargantuan enterprise of talent, experience, and funding. WAY TO GO, EH!
In the Name of the Father
(1993)
Overdone
27 April 1999
Daniel Day Lewis is a masterful actor. So is Emma Thompson. This film is based on a true story and rarely has a dull moment. But it is marred by "melodramatic" overacting. It is overdone. The events that occurred are rammed down the viewer's throat. The film is pedantic. Yes, we are smart. We know that what happened was very unjust. The film doesn't have to keep hitting one over the head in presenting this tragedy as if we are too stupid to figure out that the arrested men are innocent. Duh!
The film is much too violent. We don't have to view every violent scene that supposedly occurred in actuality in order to get the point. Tone it down, folks!
Still, it is a good film overall. Police brutality has gotta go, eh Rodney King?
I give it an 8.
The film is much too violent. We don't have to view every violent scene that supposedly occurred in actuality in order to get the point. Tone it down, folks!
Still, it is a good film overall. Police brutality has gotta go, eh Rodney King?
I give it an 8.
Blade Runner
(1982)
An Artistic Masterpiece
26 April 1999
Well, with 70 user comments already, I feel intimidated to add one, but there are a few things I HAVE to say about this masterpiece. "Blade Runner" was unrecognised and the recipient of very mixed reviews by critics when it first hit the cinemas in 1982. It was the first big sci-fi film since "Star Wars" and its sequels and was unjustly compared to these very different kinds of sci-fi movies. It is only recently that it has been recognised as a great film. Its original soundtrack was unavailable until recently as well.
I remember watching the Academy Awards and being disappointed by the nominations and the results. Didn't Vangelis' ("Chariots of Fire", "Missing") deserve a nod for best film score? "Blade Runner" was nominated for best visual effects and, as usual, the Academy went for the SENTIMENTAL favourite, much less deserving of an Oscar. "Blade Runner" had virtually a whole city created by a computer (computer graphics weren't as easy to generate back in 1982!) while, the winner of the Oscar, "E.T.", simply had some kids ride bicycles in the air.
"Blade Runner" was not a film with a complicated and original plot with surprises and twists randomising the heart-rate of the viewer sitting propped up on the edge of his seat. Nor did the film have intensive dialogue and interesting characters. Its plot was simple. Its script was concise (although there are some memorable lines). Its characters were somewhat plain (except, perhaps, for J.F. Sebastian). But all these were meant to be, for Blade Runner was not intended to be a high-powered drama; it was meant to be an artistic masterpiece, a film about ambience and atmosphere, a film directed at creating particular moods in the viewer, a film intended to dazzle the eye and exhilarate the ear. And it succeeded at these aims marvellously. It is art and film noir at its best.
A gloomy, dark, rainy, depressing Los Angeles, in the future, is the scene of a "blade runner" assigned to bump off rebellious "replicants" - artificial life forms created for slave labour in space. The film opens with columns of fire spouting into the air next to flying automobiles and chillingly smooth melodic synthesisers from the composer Vangelis. It is crowded, smoky, and various ethnic languages have melded together in the local Creole dialect. I liked the idea, also, of the umbrella stems being fluorescent lights.
"Blade Runner" seemed to be a blessing on the actors that played in it; for, many unknowns became famous after the film and had the good fortune of winning roles in blockbusters. Rutger Hauer who plays the leader of the replicants became well known and starred in "The Hitcher". Sean Young, until this film, unknown, appeared in such films as "Dune", "Wall Street", and "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner. Darryl Hannah, another unknown, made it big in "Splash", "Roxanne", and teamed up with Sean Young again in "Wall Street". Edward James Olmos emerged from obscurity and acquired the role of the police chief in TV's Miami Vice series. He won a number of Emmy Awards. William Sanderson became "Larry" of "Larry, Darrel and my other brother Darrel" in the TV series Newhart.
I was sorely disappointed with the Director's cut of the film. One would expect a D-Cut to ADD footage, but footage was only removed - Rick Deckard's voiced over dubbing, the ending, and so on. All that was added was some silly dream of a unicorn. LEAVE THE ORIGINAL CUT ALONE!!! The D-Cut took away from the film's charm. Again: Leave the original cut alone! Why mess with it? DON'T!
I wish that more films were made in a similar spirit to "Blade Runner". Recently, "Dark City" re-captured some of its charm of it but lacked much of the old "Blade Runner magic", a great score to name but one lacking element. I give "Blade Runner" 10 out of 10.
I remember watching the Academy Awards and being disappointed by the nominations and the results. Didn't Vangelis' ("Chariots of Fire", "Missing") deserve a nod for best film score? "Blade Runner" was nominated for best visual effects and, as usual, the Academy went for the SENTIMENTAL favourite, much less deserving of an Oscar. "Blade Runner" had virtually a whole city created by a computer (computer graphics weren't as easy to generate back in 1982!) while, the winner of the Oscar, "E.T.", simply had some kids ride bicycles in the air.
"Blade Runner" was not a film with a complicated and original plot with surprises and twists randomising the heart-rate of the viewer sitting propped up on the edge of his seat. Nor did the film have intensive dialogue and interesting characters. Its plot was simple. Its script was concise (although there are some memorable lines). Its characters were somewhat plain (except, perhaps, for J.F. Sebastian). But all these were meant to be, for Blade Runner was not intended to be a high-powered drama; it was meant to be an artistic masterpiece, a film about ambience and atmosphere, a film directed at creating particular moods in the viewer, a film intended to dazzle the eye and exhilarate the ear. And it succeeded at these aims marvellously. It is art and film noir at its best.
A gloomy, dark, rainy, depressing Los Angeles, in the future, is the scene of a "blade runner" assigned to bump off rebellious "replicants" - artificial life forms created for slave labour in space. The film opens with columns of fire spouting into the air next to flying automobiles and chillingly smooth melodic synthesisers from the composer Vangelis. It is crowded, smoky, and various ethnic languages have melded together in the local Creole dialect. I liked the idea, also, of the umbrella stems being fluorescent lights.
"Blade Runner" seemed to be a blessing on the actors that played in it; for, many unknowns became famous after the film and had the good fortune of winning roles in blockbusters. Rutger Hauer who plays the leader of the replicants became well known and starred in "The Hitcher". Sean Young, until this film, unknown, appeared in such films as "Dune", "Wall Street", and "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner. Darryl Hannah, another unknown, made it big in "Splash", "Roxanne", and teamed up with Sean Young again in "Wall Street". Edward James Olmos emerged from obscurity and acquired the role of the police chief in TV's Miami Vice series. He won a number of Emmy Awards. William Sanderson became "Larry" of "Larry, Darrel and my other brother Darrel" in the TV series Newhart.
I was sorely disappointed with the Director's cut of the film. One would expect a D-Cut to ADD footage, but footage was only removed - Rick Deckard's voiced over dubbing, the ending, and so on. All that was added was some silly dream of a unicorn. LEAVE THE ORIGINAL CUT ALONE!!! The D-Cut took away from the film's charm. Again: Leave the original cut alone! Why mess with it? DON'T!
I wish that more films were made in a similar spirit to "Blade Runner". Recently, "Dark City" re-captured some of its charm of it but lacked much of the old "Blade Runner magic", a great score to name but one lacking element. I give "Blade Runner" 10 out of 10.
Tell Your Friends