Reviews written by registered user

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

THIS was best picture from 1997., 1 March 1999

Screw Titanic, and as much as I hate to say it, my previous choice for best picture, Good Will Hunting. L.A. Confidential is the best film I've seen in at least the last 2 years. The fact that this movie didn't win best picture at the 1998 Oscars is a crime. Everything in this movie was Oscar worthy except, rather ironically, Kim Basinger. While she turns in a good performance, it certainly wasn't Oscar worthy. As is always the way with Basinger, she was playing the same character she always plays. She was no better here than she was in Batman. If anything her performance in the rather awful Blind Date was more Oscar worthy.

That aside this is a gripping movie with more than a few twists along the way. Guy Pearce was the standout for me. He does a fantastic job as Exley, and unless you knew (like I did) you'd have no idea he's Australian. Of course, to single out one actor is rather unfair as everyone is terrific in this movie, even Danny DeVito who I usually find annoying as hell. He is perfect as the sleazy magazine publisher.

If you haven't seen this movie, turn off your computer, and head to the video store RIGHT NOW! Don`t walk, RUN, and grab yourself one of the best movies ever made, and for sure the best movie of the last 2 years. As I said above, the fact that Cameron's incubus of a movie won Oscars over this just shows how totally screwed the whole Oscar voting system is. This movie should have beaten... no, CRUSHED AND UTTERLY DESTROYED the opposition.

My only regret is I waited this long to see it.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not for those who like tidy little bundles, 5 February 1999

This is a wonderful movie. Typical Lynch. I spent the first 45 minutes in awe. The movie losts it`s way a little at the mid part, but came back at the end. Yes, this movie doesn't make sense if you look at it straight on. On a diet of fluff that Hollywood feed us, a movie like Lost Highway will seem like weirdness as there is nobody out there making movies with any brains anymore. I'm a Lynch fan and he is my favourite director. While Blue Velvet is undoubtedly his best movie, Lost Highway easily ranks next to my second favourite, Fire Walk With Me. (For the record, I hated Wild at Heart.) Subtle visual metaphors, wonderful direction, pacing that works to perfection... This movie is terrific.

This movie will of course be slaughtered by a lot of people, due to the fact that most people like their movies to be tied up in a nice little bundle at the end. Life is not like that, and neither is this movie. Sure, the movie leaves you with more questions than answers, but what questions! A film to challenge you, a film to confuse you, a film to shock you, but more importantly, a film to show you what REAL direction and film making are about. In any other directors hands this movie would have either been way shorter, or boring as hell. (For an horrendous movie which is also long, check out The Horse Whisperer. HORRIBLE!) While there are long periods of silence, camera shots that last way longer than they would ordinarily, it all adds up to a film which creates a creepy, disturbing atmosphere which just doesn't let up until the end.

One footnote about the movie, it was fantastic to see Richard Pryor after all these years.

Way to go Lynch. Never surrender to the corporate masses. All the time directors like you around, there is hope for the movie industry.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Some people just don't get it, 3 February 1999

Given the level of negative criticism fired at this movie, I have to wonder how many people just don't get it. People say Stone is a hypocrite, and i`m intrigued to know how they come to that conclusion. Stone never set out to condemn the media for their portrayal of serial killers and the like, he made a movie to show up how sick and perverse society has become, and how the media panders to it. The whole tone of the movie is exaggerated, but the point still comes across. The media will make anyone a hero, regardless of the consequences. You can't look at the scene outside the court without thinking of the whole OJ Simpson fiasco. The media codemn with one hand, while clutching at killers with the other, since they know it is their life blood.

In Dreams (1999)
A suspense thriller that was neither suspenseful or thrilling, 14 January 1999

This movie was passable at best. The makers seemed to be going for a dark suspense thriller, and ended up with an uninspired mess of a movie. Whether this is due to the final editing, or the actual directing i`m not sure. With a better script and better direction this movie could have been an original, inspired movie. As it is, it pulls stock tricks out of the bag for scares, which inexplicably made a lot of the audience jump (the IQ levels of preview audiences must be dropping severely) when I and who I was with saw them coming a mile away. The film was also ruined by the fact that for some reason, the people in front of us wouldn't quit laughing. This would have blown the atmosphere of the movie... Had the movie created any. Annette Benning overacts horribly, and though he`s shown a lot in the trailers, Robert Downey Jr. is barely in it. Downey does his best with a pedestrian and formulaic script, but he doesn't seem to have the usual fire. All I can hope is it was the script, and not a post-drugs Downey that was the problem. (I am not advocating drug use, but I sincerely hope the drugs are not what fuelled his acting ability.)

This movie may be worth renting on video when it gets there, but I would NOT recommend paying to see it on the big screen. You will more than likely leave the theatre disappointed.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Good film, pathetic directing., 12 January 1999

This movie is terrific, but it's let down by some horrendous directing. Give the script to someone who knows how to direct, and it would be infinitely superior to this version. On saying that, given the choice of this or not at all, I`d choose this.

An intriguing movie.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Pathetic., 2 January 1999

"Let's ruin a really good book and play with our new computer."

Jurassic Park is horrid. While on first watching it is suspenseful in places (barely), it is so full of goofs and errors, some of which are blindingly obvious (did they not hire anyone for continuity on this movie?), that the movie is just ridiculous. The best part of this movie is Laura Dern's ass. I'd rather stare at that for 2 hours than this horrible rendition of what is a terrific book.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Slightly far fetched, but very good., 2 January 1999

Okay, so microphones can do interesting things to your voice, but the plot of this movie is just a little far fetched. Don`t get me wrong though, it's a great movie. It's a nice romantic comedy. Definite date movie.

Godzilla (1998/I)
157 out of 269 people found the following review useful:
Anyone who doesn't like this movie is wrong., 1 January 1999

I don`t know what people expected from this movie. High drama, perhaps Shakespearean dialog. This is an all out action movie that deserves way better reviews than it got. This movie could have been horrible, but the characters were pretty well fleshed for a movie of this type, and the makers actually went for the pathos angle with the creature. Rather than make Godzilla a giant monster, they gave the creature a personality with its behaviour, a personality that can best be seen at the Madison Square Garden explosion. For anyone to not find that scene poignant, they must be heartless. Add to this the great acting, and the "scientific" explanations (which was more than Independence Day ever managed) and this is a grossly under-rated movie.