8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Don't read anything about the film (including this sentence) if you haven't seen it.
19 September 2001
There is no big twist at the end of the film; everything you've heard is a lie. Sorry, but if you're constantly hearing that there is this fantastic ending to the movie, you can pretty much guess what it's going to be – I mean the story is about a boy WHO SEES DEAD PEOPLE. Don't get me wrong it is really well done and even if you do figure it out, like myself (do I win a prize?), you may well forget it throughout most of the movie.

Bruce Willis plays child psychologist Malcolm Crow. After being shot (So, he was shot) by a former patient who he has let down professionally, he is desperate to help a young boy, Cole (Haley Joel Osment), who shares similar symptoms and has a habit of seeing dead people (So, the boy sees dead people).

The cast is strong throughout, although at times Willis has a misleading and out-of-place sinister expression.

The film isn't traumatisingly scary. The scariest moments are largely thanks to the excellent chilling music score.

The secret ending, as I said earlier, is very well hidden if you don't know there is one, and maybe even if you do, thanks to brilliant directing from Shyamalan. The scene at the restaurant is wonderfully done, and the crucial draw back after Malcolm being shot at the beginning is perfect.

8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Face/Off (1997)
10/10
Cage and Travolta give the performances of their life in one of the best films of their life-times
19 September 2001
Face/Off - now there's a movie. Do you know what's great about this movie? Everything. But the very, very best thing about the movie is the performances given by Nicolas Cage and John Travolta. The energy and panache that they both put into each of the characters is outstanding.

The concept of the film and the plot are strong, and the action scenes are as dynamic as you could hope for. Lot's of chasing and shooting, gives the whole film a very 007 quality to it, but in a way that is much more exciting than any of the last dozen Bond movies made.

You don't have to love high adrenaline action, though to love this movie. I know this because my Mum really enjoyed the film and she enjoys things like needlework and gardening, and although the film didn't include any of these particular elements in it, she does tell me it had some underlying sentiment in the story line which made the film for her. Although, I suspect that really she just enjoyed Travolta and Cage and their big guns.

A brilliant, brilliant film.

10/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hannibal (2001)
8/10
Good film, good look, good killings
18 September 2001
In my humble opinion, ‘Hannibal' is as good as, if not better than, ‘The Silence of the Lambs'. What? Burn him! It is, however, clearly different to it's predecessor in many ways. It's a lot more – I don't know – fun. Which is presumable why people don't like it as much. I lie – people do like it, just not enough to immortalise it as a ‘classic'; it's a bit too ‘fun' for people to include in their mental top ten movie lists. This matters very little, except that comparisons are bound to be drawn between ‘Hannibal' and ‘Silence…'.

And already I've fallen into the trap of comparing the two. In an ideal world I would review ‘Hannibal' on its own merits rather than constantly comparing it to ‘Silence…', but an ideal world this is not, and so I will continue…

Stylistically the films are very different. ‘Hannibal' is just as dark as ‘Silence…', but it's a different kind of darkness. It is a glossy darkness. The whole film has a very sleek, shiny feel to it. It would be very hard for ‘Hannibal' to share the more gritty, realist appearance of ‘Silence…' considering the beautiful European scenery. Julianne Moore plays a different Clarice Starling to Foster – one that fits the sleek, shiny mould of the film. But enough of all this visually dynamic mumbo jumbo, let's get to the good stuff – the killings. And this is where ‘Hannibal' excels. Not just killings, but gruesome disfiguring as well. I won't go into details, you can watch the film, but it is top stuff. But all the killings in the world could not satisfy me if they weren't done with the impeccable charms of the world's favourite cannibal. Anthony Hopkins plays the part of Hannibal magnificently.

In conclusion ‘Hannibal' stands alone as a very good movie. Whether or not it's a very good sequel however, I really could not care less.

8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Traffic (2000)
4/10
Visually outstanding cinematography manages to distract everyone from the fact that Traffic is as dull as dishwater.
18 September 2001
Traffic is an important social realistic film. How do I know this? Because this movie is more boring than church. You can stuff it full of as many fancy filmic techniques as you like, but you're never going to get a good film out of it.

And stuff it with fancy filmic techniques they do. Traffic looks fantastic. The colour filtering makes it visually striking. And the editing – the editing is excellent. I didn't realise editing could be this good; I just thought that editing was editing. But that's the thing – I don't go to the cinema to be stunned by the editing. The last thing I want to be focusing on in a movie is the quality of the editing, but it's just so much more interesting than the plot and the dialog.

And in retrospect I wonder how I can have found the plot as dull as I did – it's a movie about drugs, with lots of guns and raids. It is, in fact, quite an achievement to make this movie as dull as it is. And it's not the achievement of the actors. Everyone puts in good performances, extremely good in some cases.

You can understand the critics being full of praise for the film, because cinematically it is wonderful. But whilst falling over themselves to congratulate Mr Soderbergh and worshipping him as their one true god, what the critics have all failed to notice is that as a piece of entertainment, TRAFFIC SUCKS.

4/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The whole damn country's going to hell.
18 September 2001
Truly inspirational, a classic masterpiece, and other such clichés don't do this film the justice it deserves – but it doesn't matter, we all know just how amazing it is, anyway. Blar blar blar, great screenplay; blar blar blar, great directing; blar blar blar, some of the best performances you may ever see from a vastly talented cast (Bening is exceptionally exceptional).

But, OK, let's pretend you don't know how great the film is; let's pretend you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the inspirational cinematic experience that is American Beauty – here's how the story goes:

One average American man realises that his life stinks. Well, he's known it for a while, but in the past he's always accepted it. After smoking dope and excessively masturbating over his daughter's school-friend he rediscovers the joys of hacking people off, flipping burgers and hacking more people off. Meanwhile, his neurotic estate agent wife is also unhappy and decides to vent her displeasure by screwing a rival estate agent. All of which could psychologically scar the daughter – oh too late, she's about to run of with her drug-dealing boyfriend who's been kicked out of his home by his homophobic nazi dad. It's all going to end in tears.

Bang.

10/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
7/10
Very good action-comedy, plain and simple
17 September 2001
What? This isn't a deep, thought-provoking piece of cinema? Why you do surprise me. No, it won't have Oscars being thrown at it left, right and centre for best cinematography or best screenplay, but as far as entertainment goes, Rush Hour 2 hits the spot. It is a very good action-comedy, plain and simple. The action scenes, and there are plenty of them to boot, are bursting with high adrenaline excitement. But what makes the film is the all-important comic chemistry between the two leads.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Insanely brilliant and brilliantly insane.
29 June 2001
All hail Spike Jonze for he is a genius. Not content with being the undisputed king of music videos, he's set his sights on full-length-feature-films. One might imagine that the often surreal, always innovative humour of his short music promos might not transfer across to a much longer production – like hell. ‘Being John Malkovich' is a fresh exciting stroke of genius.

John Cusack is Craig Schwartz, an unemployed puppeteer looser guy. In order to earn a living he is forced to find himself a regular job, only it soon becomes apparent that regular it is not. Working as a filing clerk on floor seven and a half, Craig stumbles across a portal into John Malkovich's head. No, really, that's what happens. Anyway, he turns this into a business venture with help from the beautiful Maxine (Catherine Keener), whom he lusts after. Maxine is more interested, however, in his wife, Lotte (Diaz, like you've never seen her before) but only when she's being John Malkovich.

Don't worry if this all sounds a little strange to you, it should do, it's probably the most surreal film ever made. I obviously can't give all the credit for this to director Spike Jonze; Charlie Kaufman is the genius that wrote this insanity. He's the most acutely imaginative and ingenious man of our time.

With such a fantastic cast the acting is of course superb; everyone's brilliant, especially Malkovich himself. Well obviously, you say, he's playing himself – yes, but he's also playing himself being played by an increasingly psychotic puppeteer.

Monkey flash backs and a restaurant full of Malkoviches are highlights of the insanely brilliant and brilliantly insane movie. If you thought that Spike Jonez could never top the Daft Punk talking dog video, you have never been so wrong in your life.

10/10
142 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
9/10
Nobody can be told what the Matrix is - it is fantastic. Sorry, that's really corny.
27 June 2001
During my first viewing of The Matrix, I believed that this was quite possibly the best film ever made. Maybe it was the cool evening air against my tired head, or the hard ground beneath my sore bottom, but in retrospect I was almost definitely wrong. It is however a really great sci-fi action film.

The story revolves around one Thomas Anderson (Reeves), or Neo if for some strange you prefer, and for some strange reason he does. He is introduced to fellow ridiculous name barer Morpheus (Fishburne) by the attractive Trinity (Moss). Oodles of special effects and numerous fight scenes later, Neo has pretty much saved the world.

The acting is fair, with the film's best performance coming from Hugo Weaving as the evil Agent Smith. Everyone is excellent in the fight scenes.

The movie is visually astounding. The special effects aren't there just for the sake of special effects, and it is the imagery that they create which makes the film stand out among its rivals. See for example the scene of the matrix as it is in reality, with Neo wired up as a battery.

To get the full-effect of the film, personally I'd advise watching, as I did, on a small projection screen in a tent with lots of people chairing for Carre-Anne Moss and advising Neo `Take the red pill', `No, take the blue pill', `Take both'.

9/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed