Reviews written by registered user
|18 reviews in total|
This movie rocks. That Kubrick has died makes me very, very sad. Now, I'm
only left with David Lynch and possibly Terry Gilliam. Like Kubrick, Lynch
and Gilliam (and there are a few others, I know, but I'm trying to keep this
rant short) seem to understand one thing:
If you're really into making a great movie, you're usually going to run the risk of offending your Titanic-loving, Backstreet-boys-obsessed mainstream audience. The simple problem is that people too often equate entertainment with easy feelings. I'm sorry, but I absolutely hate the fact that every single blockbuster dictates my feelings to me. Listen, hey--James Horner has that fake chorus singing so happily; it sure is great that Old Rose is going to see Bill Paxton. yippee-yay! What a load of crap.
here it is, folks, plain and simple:
Titanic: three-hour love story that shows you how two young punks had a little fling before a ship sank (and THAT's the epic here?) Verdict: Loved by billions everywhere.
Eyes Wide Shut: three-hour love story that shows you how two married people came to terms with each others lust, and leaves you the space to interpret different sexual situations on your own. Verdict: Hated and despised by billions everywhere.
Well, fine. If all you people really want is to chew bubble-gum and watch stupid, cheesy relationships that have no substance, no character, and no depth, then go right ahead and bash Eyes Wide Shut.
Me? I'm building a shrine to Kubrick. Like it or not, the man never catered to the groundlings in the theater. He just made breathtaking films.
Ahead of his time, miles ahead of most audiences.
Anyone remember what happened when they first screened 2001: A Space Odyssey?
How do you spell deja vu?
I didn't expect to really be scared by a werewolf movie, but, nevertheless,
this one got me.
Why? I don't know. I'm so immune to horror movies these days, but when I went out and rented The Howling, I was delightfully surprised to actually be...afraid? Weird.
I've seen it several times now, and it gets me every time I watch it. Dante and Sayles did something right, because this movie is one of the most frightening, well-honed werewolf movies out there.
In fact, it's one of the only really scary werewolf movies.
How'd they do that? How did they make me so afraid of eating hamburger?
Okay, okay, so it's low-budget. Think about why (just for a second,
though--the movie really isn't worth that much thought). Were these two
cinema dilettantes millionaires? did they have slick access to millions? No.
They had, what? Thirty grand. So they made a movie with what they had. To
consider it a stroke of genius that they made something low-budget is to
give the filmmakers too much respect; they did what they could with what
they had. It was not a choice, but rather a necessity.
That aside, I would like to mention that although easily the most enticing part of the whole show, the pedestrian cinematography and is-it-real-or-is-it-not debate works as much against the movie as it does for it. I found myself picking the movie apart as it progressed, determining for myself the parts that showed it to be just a thirty-thousand pet project. Oh? Piles of stones? Hmmm...verdict? Cheesy! Of course this isn't real! But hey, she looks kinda scared...verdict? Cheesy! Who really swears that much when they really know what they want to say? Of course this movie's a fake! They're searching for their lines amidst massive quantities of vulgar expletives!
Final verdict: This is one for the marketing execs' books, but overall it's a gimmicky piece of crap, and I live in fear of what it may spawn. The Children of the Blair Witch? I guess it's time to start bringing Dramamine to the local multiplex.
This show gets me. It focuses in on all things human and all things frightful. I can't say enough good things about this show. When I hear that opening music and see that bird and the mill and the Twin Peaks sign--well, I know I'm home. If you haven't seen this show, you haven't been watching anything worthwhile.
I do apologize. I think this movie stinks to high heaven, and that depresses
me because I really like to be scared.
Problems: Linda Blair, spewing obscenities and foul liquids, is a heinous creature. But she's all that's good about this movie. The external characters barely hold my interest. And the whole debate/discussion about good and evil barely scratches the surface of anything called true discussion. Of course no one wants to believe in the existence of evil. Is that supposed to be a shock? The filmmakers seemed to think so, but I felt insulted.
Look--I know what horror is, and I'm the first one to jump on the bandwagon of chastizing people who equate scary with jumpy. I detest so-called horror films that teach the maxim of scariness being how often someone can really get you by jumping out from the closet and saying, "Boo!" Horror is a reaction, it's a mood, it's a feeling. Horror is looking at Raegan and saying, "That's Evil!" Horror is watching Rosemary of "Rosemary's Baby" realize what really has been going on with her neighbors, and just what it is they want of her. But to bring all this back to "The Exorcist", the truly horrific parts of the show are only two seconds long! For the most part, the viewer is stuck watching boring characters who have no flair, no substance, and no interesting qualities. And what of the scenes that end with poor exorcists dodging flying furniture and then never bother to tell you how the priest got out of such a situation? I do apologize, but this film is heinous. It's heinous, dull, and I really am mystified by all the attention people have given it.
Best horror film of all time? Gimme a break. Watch "Rosemary's Baby", "Alien", or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" circa 1978 and tell me you feel the same way. "The Exorcist" is no more a classic horror film than "Street Trash". Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Watching this film is like watching water pour. It has everything I love in a film: a great, flawed protangonist who lacks obnoxious self-pity and who is so easy to like it's eerie; a crackling script that refuses to get weighed down as films such as "Clockers" do; and the movie has incredible guts (consider baby Dawn and such things like dirty sheets at breakfast--where have you ever seen anything like that? Nowhere! No one else dares!). Everything about this film is fresh, original, and fun. Yes, I said fun. Sure, it's disturbing--but have you ever had such a great time being disturbed?
This movie remains one of Walken's best performances to date. Forget "Deer Hunter", he is one of two things that carry this film. It's him and the aliens, and that's it, but what a great film, anyway. The X-Files, though a good show, never quite reaches the level of freakiness that "Communion" has in moments like those in which Walken confronts the aliens. At one point, he states upon waking up to a suspected abduction that, "I don't want to think about that so, I go back to bed." There are so many classic lines of dialogue between Walken and the aliens that the movie reaches a point where it seems almost like a bizarre, personal delusion--portrait of a madman rather than alien abductions.
Ease the tension. Give it a 10-rating. I'm not sure if I could pick any
movie and claim it was the Best Movie of All Time. That's a great deal of
pressure. So I ignore such a label, and I watch the film.
"Citizen Kane" is powerful, but it's so well constructed as to give you multiple impressions of Kane that it's hard to realize how emotionally charged this movie is. I love it for lines such as Kane's explanation of what he would've been if he hadn't have been rich: "Everything you hate," he says. And I love the movie because of Welles's voice. You could look at this movie a hundred different ways, and the details would still remain to support you.
It's perhaps one of the most intricately-constructed films I've ever seen, and the honesty in the film is magnificent. This movie does make me sad, because among other questions, it asks this: "If you're remembered after you die for what you did, what you will it be?" And, to me, that's a very sad question to want to ask. A feeling that there is no absolute understanding between people. That it's all skewed by our own personalities. That who you are depends on the paper you chose to read.
How could anyone not think this movie is great? Best film of all time, whatever. The movie is brilliant, one way or another.
Cute, original, and funny, but lacking in a coherent structure. Avary's film has a lot of spontaneity, character, and wit--traits that made Tarantino such a big success--but he lacks Tarantino's most off-putting characteristic: Avary doesn't seem to want to be better than he is, nor hipper than he is. The flaw of his style is that "Killing Zoe" lacks enough serious development. After getting into the bank, the movie flattens out. It's still a romp, but I wouldn't say it's a fully-realized picture.
Admire this movie first for its effective chills. In ways that Stephen King movies have yet to truly master, Craven creates a demon through the use of children's singsong. Admire the movie further for its creativity. Freddy Kruger has power. It seems at times that he can do almost anything that pops into his burnt, child-molesting head. The concept is truly ingenious (who can fight sleep forever?), and Craven's images are definitely worthwhile (consider a bed spewing a fountain of blood that hangs on the ceiling, as well as a girl who, in the grip of a vicious nightmare, bounces around the ceiling herself). Creative and technically adequate, this movie is a true classic of the genre.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |