Reviews written by registered user
|130 reviews in total|
This is a clever movie, no doubting that. However, it is not the best film of the year (1998). It makes number 10 of my top ten list of 1998. Here's why.
1)Gwyneth Paltrow. She is completely unconvincing when she is the guy. How did she get all that hair into that small wig? ( I know I am nit-picking.)
2)John Madden's direction. He simply did not deserve the nomination over directors like Sam Raimi, Todd Solondz, and Bill Condon.
3)The predictability. We know how this movie is going to end, because we know how Romeo and Juliet ends. It puts such a strain on such a long (not too long) movie.
I am not saying that there is no merit in this movie. It had a very witty script ( which still didn't deserve the Oscar over Life is Beautiful and The Truman Show) A great score, and magnificent performances by the rest of the cast.
7/10. Final word: See it once, though you won't be missing much if you don't.
Let me preface this by saying a)- I did not like Star Wars & b) I haven't seen the other two.
Having said that, I didn't have that high of expectations for this movie. It didn't reach those expectations. Jar Jar is annoying ( I don't care if he's supposed to be). The acting is abysmal (not the actor's faults. They were given horrible dialogue)
I expect this film to recieve Oscar nominations for best Visual Effects, Sound, Sound effects, film editing, and maybe costumes.
Final warning: This is not a thinking person's movie!! ( no offense, but it's supposed to be mindless entertainment but doesn't even rise to that)
This is a savage, tense, sadly funny, and amazingly sad movie about the relationship between Martha ( Elizabeth Taylor) and George ( Richard Burton), as revealed to us over a booze ridden night as Nick and Honey ( George Segal and Sandy Dennis) come by for a 'nice' visit.
This is an emotionally draining movie, as when it's over, one is exhausted. The revelation is a particulary stunning. When watching this movie, you get to see why it became the first with all the cast members nominated. You see why all should have won ( Taylor and Dennis did). You witness what is easily one of the best debut films of all time. Do not watch it by yourself. This intense film needs to be watched in groups, I guarantee you, because afterwards you will want to talk to somebody.
To clarify on a comment made earlier, The AFI list wasn't for just American films. It was for English Language films. Otherwise a number of films wouldn't be on it ( The three David Lean films, the Stanley Kubrick films etc).
I loved Lawrence of Arabia. I have to mention that I saw this on TV, not the big screen, so I can't really comment on the cinematography. I thought the writing was great, even if it was historically inaccurate ( I don't know if it is). Peter O'Toole is great.
A movie where I can see why people liked it, but I simply wasn't one of them. First of all, Tom Hanks performance deserves praise. His performance was dead on and wonderful. The supporting actors deserve praise as well ( especially Gary Sinise). The film editing was great as well.
The movie itself did not move me like the Shawshank Redemption did ( both released in 1994). The writing in Shawshank was much better ( one award of the six Gump won).
The story of a simpleton floating through life doesn't appeal to me. There seemed to be no forward drive, and Robert Zemeckis seemed to want to create a surreal world ( where people are hurt, but not too badly) and ground it solidly in realism, which just doesn't work.
I thought it deserved Best Actor, Supporting Actor, and Film Editing. The other three should have gone to other films
I think this film deserves to be called a masterpiece, however, I do not think it is the greatest film ever made. It does rank in my top ten of all time, but not number 1. What really detracts from this movie is Orson Welles, the actor. Look on any list of a hundred best performances and his name is never on it. For a reason. His directing is magnificent, as is his writing, but his acting does not deserves accolades. Joseph Cotten, however, is nothing short of remarkable.
I think this movie represents everything good about film. My favorite film and Humphrey Bogart's best performance. So many lines have passed into everyday language, so do yourself a favour and go see this timeless classic.
This film is what science fiction is all about. Hollywood released two sci-fi films in one year that I thought to be great ( Gattaca was the other). Jodie Foster is simply sensational, and James Woods gives another scene stealing performance. For those who didn't like the ending didn't understand it. It was giving you a choice, to agree with Ellie or to disagree with her. You can argue the static was proof, but so many things could have happened. I am not a big fan of Robert Zemeckis, especially after Forrest Gump. This movie redeemed him in my eyes. I went to this film with high expectations, and Contact was better than I thought it would be. A thinking person's sci-fi.
The only film which matches this film noir is the Maltese Falcon. I have to give Barbara Stanwyck a lot of the credit. She gives a sizzlingly sexy performance, and Fred MacMurray is more than up to the challenge. Talk about crackling dialogue
This film is shot entirely in a small room ( with the exception of approx. 3 mins, in the beginning and end) and is the perfect example of characterization. One of the three best films of 1957 ( the other two being Paths of Glory and Bridge on the River Kwai) this is a brilliant movie. One of the few films where one set is an asset, this shows both sides of a coin when juries deliberate. The acting, especially by Henry Fonda, is stunning. IF there was an Oscar for best ensemble cast, this movie would have won it. Why it wasn't on the AFi 100 is beyond me ( and I agree with most of the choices). In the end, what makes this film so great is its humanity, and it shows us that we all need humanity.
|Page 12 of 13:||      |