Reviews written by registered user
|30 reviews in total|
This film, also known as "Beastie Boys", is a rather frank depiction of
the host/hostess industry in Seoul. We have a big brother and little
brother relationship in the two main characters as they "entertain"
wealthy, older women in Seoul. As we follow these leads, they start off
charming, if flawed. They're cool. They flirt with women, wear
expensive clothes, and seem to not have a care in the world as they
smooth-talk their way into the lives of their clients. Their shallow
and materialistic lifestyles eventually catch up to them, however. We
eventually get to see the uglier and more violent side of these men.
One is addicted to gambling and lies. The other begins a rather
unhealthy relationship with a call girl. Eventually, both of these
stories come together.
While Korean dramas can possibly be seen as melodramatic to Western audiences, this film delivers a strong, emotional punch that never seems forced or unrealistic. At the same time, the movie can be slow in spots, but it is certainly worth a rental.
I have just returned from seeing this wonderful little film. From the
summary, it is obvious to most that not only is this, for the most
part, a children's film, but it borrows from the classic "girl trapped
in another world as a metaphor for growing up". We're even treated to a
brief shot of a man juggling glass balls a la David Bowie in
"Labirynth". The obvious "Alice in Wonderland-esquire" story makes
things a bit predictable since we've seen it several times, but if one
were to sit back and enjoy the magic and the characters, then enjoyment
is practically guaranteed. It is a very family-friendly movie because
At the same time, the art crowd will instantly recognize the names of Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean. Gaiman is the author of such novels as "American Gods" and "Neverwhere" and also is a comic writer that reached fame with his metaphysical masterpiece series "The Sandman". McKean, likewise, is a famed graphic designer and also worked with Gaiman on "Sandman". They have both collaborated on children's books as well. McKean's brilliant design work and Gaiman's delightful characters are evident throughout. Those seeking more cerebral movies will not be displeased.
The only negatives of this movie is that it slows a bit in some places and the effects are sometimes "too pretty" and might be a distraction. These are only two small drawbacks in what is otherwise a great film. I know I will not be the only one hopeful that this will be the first in many movies that will be involved in the Jim Henson Company's comeback.
Many people on this board forget to realize that this is a B-movie. The plot is supposed to be insane and it certainly delivers on its mission of weirdness. Yes, the performance of the lead female is a bit stale, although it's possible she was meant to be that way, given the apathy of her character. If not, then she is the only real drawback to the film. The rest of the cast are decent enough for newcomers and the cinematography is gripping. Kansas never looked so good. The movie has an early John Waters feel to it with a twist of David Lynch. While not very gory or as disturbed, fans of the first Evil Dead or Troma films would still enjoy this movie. The character of Cherry alone is worth the price of the rental.
Last night, I saw what could probably be the best comic-to-film adaptation ever made (or anything-to-film adaptation possibly). I say this because it stuck to the source material verbatim. Dialouge was spot-on and the look of the characters along with the compositions of the shots directly followed what was in the original series. I think there were only two scenes cut form the film that probably should have been included for a bit more characterization, but it still remains faithful. True, this movie may still not be for everyone. It is brutal and insane. Those who don't follow film-noir may not understand the claustrophobic atmosphere and the dreariness and people who may not be comic readers may not understand the dark humor and the insane action/seeming lack of physics. Despite this, it is a modern mastic in both storytelling and effects. The story may seem hateful or cynical to some, but I would argue that it is quite the opposite. Each main character willingly walks into situations that he knows will have dire consequences, but chooses to do so anyway due to the kindness of a stranger (Marv), loyalty to friends (Dwight), or simply out of a sense of justice (Hartigan). They make sacrifices when they could simply walk away and are given the chance to do so. As for the effects, the digital green screen provides a fitting backdrop into this world while not taking too much away from the action due to the desire to shove eye-candy down our throats. Some shots seemed a bit awkward, but for the most part, it enhanced the story rather than became a distraction.
I'm one of the few film buffs out there that thinks Tarentino was overrated. Pulp Fiction was a good movie, but I never thought it deserved the status that it has recieved. The same goes for the other movies he has written or directed. I've always seen them as just a bunch of homages smushed together with a lot of f-bombs and n-words thrown in in order to be edgy. With Kill Bill, I will now take it all back. Yes, the homages are still there, but it seems like he has transformed them into his own much more than he did with Pulp Fiction, IMO. There is little dialouge, which is in more with the tradition of HK action movies. Instead, more emphasis is placed on emotion, which leads to some very powerful performances by all (even the character of Budd, who actually only has one line of dialouge and is only briefly shown in flashbacks, yet he might be my favorite character). There's still some witty comebacks and wordplay, so QT fans won't be too disappointed, yet he no longer steeps to the overuse of profanity as he did before. As for the music, it was brilliant and I hope to get the soundtrack. It helped make the movie even that much more emotional, rather than simply being there for effect. All of this combined with non-stop action makes a movie that will have you on the edge of your seat! Oh, and the cliffhanger ending?... you WON'T see it coming.
After watching camp-fests such as the Batman and Superman movies (as well as most super-hero films), this was a refreshing breath of fresh air. This movie is probably the most realistic superhero movie made so far. You get the feeling that these are normal, everyday people with everyday problems. The only difference is that at least two of these people have super powers. You don't have goofy dialouge like "Chicks dig the car" or lame scenes of Richard Pryor skiing down a skyscraper. Instead, you get VERY believable characters who have to deal with deaths in the family, living on their own, or their best friend going out with their dream-girl behind their backs. I think everyone who watches this movie can find something to relate to.
I was extremely disappointed with this movie. I have loved every single one of Kevin Smith's movies up to this point. This movie seriously lacked the intelligence of Smith's previous movies and he sees to now be regressing to become one of his imitators. If there wasn't some juvienille and unfunny fart or gay joke (and those two jokes were the only ones in the movie), there was tons of pats on the back by Smith and Co. as they self-congratulate each other. At the end of the movie, Kevin more or less admits it's a horrible movie but he has his "revenge" when Jay and Bob go beat up all the critics who didn't like the Bluntman and Chronic movie. Kevin even manages to degrade his own previous films. At one point, Holden McNiel (from Chasing Amy) says at one point, "Days like this make me feel ok about dating a lesbian" as if the dramatic events that happened in that movie were meaningless. The only good parts were the few connecting scenes to the previous films and a couple movie spoofs. If you're a Kevin Smith fan, watch all the movies from Clerks to Dogma and then just stop.
I thought EWS was a very good movie and was a fitting end to Kubrick's outstanding career. Of course, I'm a big fan of Kubrick and I knew what to expect going into the theater (long establishing shots, surrealism, and hidden meanings). For the casual viewer, this movie would be seen as very boring and almost pornographic. It's unfortunate that some people are not willing to open their minds to something so different. This movie was not about sex, it was about faithfulness.
I'm actually surprised that there isn't about three hundred comments on this movie (check out Kubrick's other movies to see what I mean). This movie is hysterical at some moments and really causes a lot of tension the next. It was wonderful! Of course, all of Kubrick's movies are. 9 out of 10.
I don't see how people can hate this movie. The directing was great (even by today's standards) and the acting was very good. This movie shows that you can't buy happiness. Not only is Rosebud the childhood sled that Kane wants back, but it is also symbolizes how Kane kept trying to find fufillment in his life.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |