Reviews written by registered user
|23 reviews in total|
The movie is very slow and very deliberate. It tells the tale of
primarily two people (master and pupil) in a little hut on a small
lake. And it is broken down into 5 chapters, each jumping about 10-15
years between chapters.
It is just a simple story, master slowly teaching his pupil. Teaching one principle at a time as the master and student grow older.
It took me a few minutes to get into the mood and pace of the movie, and actually start liking what I was seeing. But I think after seeing the simple story of the first "Spring" segment, it caught my attention and made me interested in what was to come.
Entering this movie, I had pretty low expectations since most of the big
summer blockbuster movies often are pretty weak efforts. Also, I felt like I
had already seen the movie since I'd seen the trailers for this movie about
5000 times. So, I already felt like I knew the plot of the
But, I enjoyed it. It won't be on anybody's Top 10 list of best movies of the year, but it works for the exact reason alot of people go to see a movie. For two hours of entertainment. It was an enjoyable 2 hours.
The movie isn't perfect and I'm sure people can comment upon the weaknesses of the movie. And there are some. But all in all, I was able to suspend disbelief in this movie and enjoy the movie.
I really loved the first movie when i first saw it when it came out nearly
10 years ago. It was one of those movies that no one has ever seen or heard
of, or at least seemingly. So, when I saw the poster and then the trailer
for the sequel, I was excited. You don't get the chance to see sequels to
movies like this very often.
So, this was one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year for me. I just saw a sneak preview of it yesterday and it works on exactly the same levels that the first one did. It is simply just these two people walking the streets of Paris (Before Sunrise was Vienna iirc) talking, talking about life, romance, people, love, relationships. The movie relies on acting and dialogue. Aside from the views of Paris, there isn't much more to it.
And I loved it. It was a wonderful movie.
And I love movies that rely on acting and dialog to make them work. I saw another Ethan Hawke movie recently, "Tape" which follows the same principles. "Death and the Maiden" was another one that I loved for the same reason. "Glengarry Glen Ross" yet another.
I knew next to nothing about this movie going in aside from the basic
premise of Nicole Kidman's character going to a small town. And that it was
considered a very good movie. That's about it.
Usually, i want to know nothing about a movie that I have decided i want to see. In other words, i don't want to know what happens in the movie before I actually see it. That's the cool part about seeing older or foreign movies since many times I will know little about them aside from basic plot.
Now, here, i kinda wish I had known how this movie would be filmed, since for the first 15 minutes of the movie, I kept wondering if i had stepped into auditions for the movie or had walked into the filmed play version of the movie. I can't recall seeing any other movie filmed like this. It really shows how important cinematography and sets are to a movie. Not much.
Because this was an amazing story. This 3 hour movie felt like it was 80 minutes (As an aside, i just saw a 80 minute movie and it felt like 3 hours). It is an interesting and fascinating tale about human nature, as explored in this chalk-lined town set in some soundstage. It almost felt like a filmed "book on tape." I feel like I just read a book.
It took me a couple days to figure out where Vol 2 would rate in the
Tarantino universe. I'd rate Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and both Kill
Bill's as 10's on this site but... I would consider Kill Bill Vol 1 about
the same in quality to Reservoir Dogs, whereas Vol 2 is similar to Pulp
Fiction. Since I think Reservoir Dogs is better than Pulp Fiction, I then
also think Vol 1 is better than Vol 2. But it is just fun to split hairs
like this, since all 4 are great.
But Vol 2 is a splendid movie, completely different in style to Vol 1, but just as great. It was just one of those movies that I wished would never end. It is one of those few great movies where I didn't want each scene to end because it was so interesting and memorable.
It's just fun to see a director at the top of his game, and it is amazing how a director can make 5 movies (well 4 if you count Kill Bill as 1 movie) and have 4 of them be instant classics.
I saw this film at the Phoenix Film Festival but unfortunately I was
watching another movie right before it and missed the first couple minutes
of the movie, and also any comments the director made before it
So, I saw this movie as documentary. It was filmed like a documentary, it was shot like a documentary, and the people seemed completely real. Only afterwards during the Q & A did I realize that this was a drama, or maybe a mock documentary. It appears that the lead actors were... well actors playing a role. Though, of course, most of it was drawn from within. But there was an outline of a story beforehand.
This film was just interesting. I think about half way through the movie was when I realized how good this film was. The lead (Rick Gomez) did a great job.
In truth, I still don't know exactly was *real* and what wasn't. For example, I two leads (Rick and Jenny) did get married though I presume that the melodrama in the movie was not real. I think. I'm not even sure. Amy Redford (Robert's daughter) did a really good job as the "fixer" of other girl's boyfriends and hence, I assume all of that was story. But it was interesting because these actors would interact with non-actors while they were in character.
All in all, a very interesting film.
I saw this at the Phoenix Film Festival and was my personal favorite (of
ones I saw). The two leads (Lauren Fox and Thomas Jay Ryan) were memorably
good in this to the point where I would start to look for other movies
those two actors.
The story revolves around Eris and her study of conspiracies from silly ones to ones that are more believable.
It took me a few minutes to get into the movie because the print wasn't the best, and the director said that the movie was in the process of being put on film, so i would like to see it again. But the story was quite mesmerizing in how Eris (Lauren Fox) studies these conspiracies, gets involved with these conspiracy theorists from this bookshop, and spirals downward almost into insanity as she starts to see these conspiracies and becomes paranoid in the process.
I just saw the feature length version of this film ("Up For Grabs") at the
Phoenix Film Festival. It is a really interesting and humorous tale of
two grown men who fight over ownership of this baseball. Adding to the
entire silliness of this situation are the various funny and interesting
characters and witnesses and people surrounding this story.
The movie opens with the actual footage from the Keppel Tape (which shows Barry Bonds' 73rd homerun and the mad fight for the baseball. It then goes and gives some background on Bonds' attempt at breaking the record and telling the stories of the people who caught Roger Maris' 61st home run, McGwire's 70th and Bonds' #70 and #71.
Then the unfolding of this fight over the possession of this baseball. The first time director weaves the tale really well. Most of the tale revolves around Alex Popov, the man who caught the baseball and lost it in the mad scramble. Less time is spent with Patrick Hayashi (the man who found the ball) but that is due more to him not wanting to talk to the director.
The film starts off slanted towards Popov and his claim but gives both sides of the story fairly and ultimately the journey of the story leads to the belief that the ball should have just been shared equally. And that is the ultimate verdict.
It is a very interesting contrast between Popov and Hayashi. Popov is an extrovert, hungry for media exposure, ready to fight what he thinks is right. I almost came to dislike Popov. Hayashi is the introvert and he was cautious in his involvement in the film.
I really enjoyed the documentary. I would think any baseball fan, any fan of human interest stories, a slice of life type story would be interested in this comedy and saga about this $4 baseball.
I just watched the movie and only until I came on here did I realize this
movie was supposed to be a comedy. That is funny which this movie never
This is just another one of those uninteresting movies. It had potential to do something with several potentially interesting storylines but the makers of the movie never made them interesting.
Probably one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I was hoping it
would end within 10 minutes of starting. The movie is essentially 2 hours of
Ralph Fiennes looking nuts and mumbling. That's it.
In retrospect, I can see that the story was actually quite interesting and the story did perk up when the story with Gabriel Byrne/Miranda Richardson and the boy evolved. The themes and ideas of the story may have been interesting if I had been interested in the story at that point,
But watching the main part of the movie was watching paint dry. The movie never grabbed me into this world or into the story. And I was grateful when the credits finally rolled.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |