Reviews written by registered user
|18 reviews in total|
One never knows what to expect out of rock films. Going into Tupac:
Resurrection, I half expected another mediocre blaxploitation groaner.
other half expected a gushy MTVish drool-fest out to promote the
artists, including current corporate media darling 50 Cent.
Resurrection is neither. The producer is not some slick Hollywood mogul with no understanding of rap except as a source for making a quick buck. Instead, Afeni Shakur, the late rapper's mother, takes charge. As both executive producer and the dominant force in her son's short life, her personal agenda impacts every frame. Like all documentaries, this is an extremely one-sided account, and it is likely due to her input that the movie downplays the darker aspects of Pac's self-destructive downward spiral after his move to Death Row Records. Nor is the film harsh enough on Tupac's seemingly endless capacity for paranoia and irresponsibility.
Fortunately, she also makes the crucial decision not to dwell on more tired hash-rehash of so called East Coast/West Coast rap war, which the movie clarifies as less of a reality than a media event. Nor does it choose to linger on the numerous rumors and conspiracies surrounding Tupac's murder.
Shakur and director Lauren Lazin wisely decide to let Tupac's voice carry the film. Lazin wisely refrains from using the masterful, propagandistic gimmicks of a Michael Moore documentary. There are no distracting interviews or massively-edited montages. As a result, the movie has a lyrical, sacred tone. History has mystified Pac as a martyr for West Coast gangsta rap, although during his lifetime he only released one such album. Few choose to remember that Death Row was the twilight of his life, that he spent the first half-decade of his career recording in the East where he grew up. It is here that the film takes its cue.
Resurrection lays bare a magnetic, arrogant, charismatic spirit that immediately affirms why Pac remains one of rap's only true megastars. Though the film is not hard enough on how his growing obstinacy may have hastened his demise, it does not shy away from the controversy, the premonitions of death, the sex abuse conviction, and the inflated ego. The result is a well-drawn sketch of man aware of his genius but haunted by demons, a tortured soul navigating a realm more thuggish than he was at his core, a contradiction which plays as a general commentary on rap's manufactured images.
This movie's production value alone easily outclasses nearly every other cinematic work that has ever pretended to be about hip-hop. It bears little resemblance to How High or Belly or to the shameless self-promotion of the vanity project 8 Mile, which was so sanitized as to kill any revelations it might have made about its star Eminem, the most high profile rapper to yet arise. I don't understand how someone could praise 8 Mile for its beauty and honesty (it isn't) and then criticize this film.
By contrast, the sincerity of Resurrection solidifies Pac's reputation as `the only rapper that matters.' It shows why he is peerless and maybe the greatest artist the genre has yet produced: whatever can be said about his music, as an intelligent personality there is simply no one else in his class. He is so much more painfully relevant than all star rappers, and the sharpness of his observations on everything from politics to poverty leaves dust in the eyes of all his contemporaries. He represents a paradigm that has become all-too-rare in a musical form now dominated by cartoon images: a constructive rather than destructive point-of-view.
A ball of contradictions, Tupac is finally much more complex and brilliant than most people would expect. People are uninformed and uninterested in hip-hop probably will get little out of this movie. Those who know will realize that the biggest tragedy is that not that Tupac died before reaching his full potential, but that other young black men with similar sensibilities rarely reach his level of visibility. 9.5/10.
Writer William Goldman and director Rob Reiner do Hitchcock proud with
this one. It has all the elements: a seemingly innocent place and
situation invaded by a growing sense of sinister dread until a
breathtaking climax. The intelligent script is peppered with moments
that will either make you cringe or make you laugh, depending on how
morbid your sense of humor is. It is a harrowing movie to watch the
first time around. The crew has done a good job of making you feel Paul
Sheldon's pain. Few films torture the audience like this one. In fact,
I venture to say this is the best film of its kind since "Psycho"
thirty years earlier.
The acting is good all-round. Farnsworth steals every scene he's in with his sardonic and relentless sheriff - he did not get enough accolades for what would have been a routine part in a lesser actor's hands. Caan is solid and underplays beautifully, and the inimitable Kathy Bates carries the film with her alternately hysterical or ridiculously-sappy Annie, the psychotic Sheldon fan. Her performance is a throwback to Hollywood's old days - it's not subtle, not quiet, and borders on over-acting. This is not method acting, this is showing off. But Bates makes it work, investing Annie with enough pitifulness to make the character complex and, thus, hold the role together. This movie is famous, of course, for making Kathy Bates an overnight sensation as everybody went into the movie wanting to see what Sonny Corleone looked like as an older man, but left with accolades for Kathy Bates on their lips. She is absolutely terrifying and unforgettable in this role and perfect for it.
Brilliant performance that elevated a 7-star thriller to 9-10 classic status.
The phrase "this is a must-see film" is so overused it barely bares any
meaning anymore (One of my best friends told me "Spiderman" was a must-see
film earlier this year...gag.)
Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" may be the first, true, without-a-doubt must-see film since "Schindler's List." It is so meaningful -- so subversive and so different from a lot of the ewonderfully entertaining but ultimately empty tripe on the screen nowadays -- I don't know how he got this movie so widely distributed.
It is NOT a gun-control movie; I have some conservative friends who liked it simply because Moore makes a point to not make this a gun control movie (Moore is in the NRA, an accomplished marksman, and understands the complexities of gun culture). It does start as a gun control movie, but ends up in a completely different place. The whole point is that it can't be the guns, so what is it that makes Americans so violent?
This is not as affecting as Moore's other masterpiece, "Roger and Me," but it is even more important. Whether you agree or disagree with Moore's questions, at least this film asks a vitally-important question. In times like these, we need more thought-provoking movies such as this. I do not always agree with Moore, but I was moved by the courageousness of this film.
One of the great non-fiction films of all-time and easily one of the top three movies of 2002. 9.5/10.
spiderman was so frustrating for me, because it was halfway there. it
a script with dialogue and characters so ridiculous it begs to be
as total fun, action-filled camp like the old batman television series.
instead, the filmmakers took it too seriously, and tried to take a
sophisticated approach, like the batman movies.
the result is a confusing, relentlessy-mediocre film in which the audience doesn't know what to feel. everything is hybrid. you have peter's uncle, who is a serious character, then you have his aunt delivering camp lines like "eviiil! eeeeviiil!" you have a well-done spiderman costume next to a green goblin that looks a kids' action figure. is mary jane supposed to be a funny stereotype, or is the character just badly-written? we never know.
people have blamed kirsten dunst for being a bad actress, but who could possibly deliver such lines as "I better run, tiger!" with any degree of competence? this is one of the dumbest roles ever written for a female actor of any generation. i doubt most respectable actresses would fire their agent if even offered the role, which is a throwback to the kind of girlfriend's you'd find i a 30s B-movie. i applaud kirsten for even trying.
this is the perfect example of what happens to a script after its been through development hell. this movie had floated around hollywood since the 80s, too many people put their version on it, and the result is just "blah." neither good nor bad, this is the kind of movie you see and never think about again, or the kind you love as a child and then deny later on.
no wonder James Cameron, Ang Lee, Jan DeBont and David Fincher all declined to direct the script. it really is bad. sam raimi, a very capable director, nearly saves it with his refreshing sense of style, but he didnt go far enough. it's not bad, it's not good, it's your typical 5/10. yawn.
It appears only time will redeem The Ring. The response to it reminds me of
the hoopla surrounding Blair Witch Project: mixed reviews from critics, a
pleased audience, followed by a swift and bitter backlash.
Like Blair Witch, film history will no doubt be more fair, since again we find audiences going into a movie expecting an American horror film, like I did, and coming out with something rich and layered.
Unfortunately for an audience used to simplistic, straightforward stories, The Ring becomes something much more complex. It's not a linear, Aristotelian story. It's very Eastern in its use of circular time, of yin-and-yang. Everything is not neatly wrapped-up at the end. It leaves you with a myriad of questions and a bad taste in your mouth.
That bad taste is why it took my friends and I multiple viewings and several discussions to decide if we liked The Ring or not. It begs for -- and holds up under -- multiple viewings. This is a movie for careful viewers. Important details and lines are delivered only once, and even then they are mysterious. Certain elements have double- and sometimes even triple-meanings. Your understanding of it hinges on being able to interpret symbols.
In other words: there's a lot of figuring out to do. What critics are calling plot holes I call vagueness. A plot hole means that the explanation is just not there: it's a goof. In The Ring, it's all there, it's just not all-spelled-out. There's a difference.
If you're the type of person who likes your movies wrapped in pretty paper and handed to you in a bow, do not bother investing time in The Ring. This is not a cheap horror movie. The horror may be choppy, jumpy, maybe even old. But the meanings are very subtle, and the meanings are where the meat of this movie lie.
And to be fair to the movie, lots of it is damn scary, too.
I don't think anything like this has been seen on the American screen before. This is a higher level of film-making. Bojan Bazelli's cinematography, which does not deserve to be an afterthought here, is masterful...this is one of the best movies ever made. 10/10.
The Ring is not a horror movie or even a thriller. This is definitely a
"chiller," an emerging genre which seems to be blossoming after the success
of The Blair Witch Project. Like other movies of it's ilk, it combines the
sometimes sickening fright value of horror movies with the thrillers' unique
way of packing a suspenseful detective story into a ticking-clock ("i hope
they make it...i hope the make it...").
It's a distinctly non-Hollywood kind of filmmaking, I can't think of any of the popular chillers of the past few years that has been particularly satisfying for an American audience so used to nice, neat endings. The one that came closest to tying everything up, The Sixth Sense, is also the most celebrated, interestingly enough.
Yes, a lot goes answered at the end -- some of it is deliberately ambiguous, some of it begs questions that actually SHOULD have been answered, and a lot of it can't make any sense. This movie's biggest flaw is asking questions that it never even attempts to address, let alone answer.
But plot is not the strength of this film. It's strength is an impending sense of dread -- the waiting for the horror to happen -- and this movie is so great for making you feel that dread almost constantly. There are great stretches in the film when nearly nothing "scary" in the traditional sense happens, but looking around in the theater at all the covered faces, you would think somebody was getting knocked-off every three minutes.
Kudos to the director and the cinematographer Bozen Bazelli for creating what I think is the most visually-arresting movie since Requiem for a Dream. I recently saw a preview of the director's upcoming project Butterfly, which, despite being a science-fiction melodrama, is just as hard on an audience as The Ring. It's what you see and how it is shot that frightens you, rather than you what know. Zimmerman's score is incredible -- I just bought it today, and I saw the movie last night.
There's nothing here to challenge last summer's The Others as the best of the new chillers, neither will this film keep you up at night (like Blair Witch did if you saw it before the hoax was exposed). But it is a feast for the senses, and well-worth the money, which is true of few movies these days. Ignore the plot holes, and just LOOK.
Not a bad film, particularly in its historical importance. Reportedly, the
Warner brothers and Edward G. Robinson all fought to make this film, which
was made at a time when Americans, remembering the devastation of WWI, were
still wary about entering another European conflict.
Structured a little strangely -- we don't get enough of our favorite character, Robinson's, who is a prototype of the thirties G-Man. He has some great lines, particularly when cutting down the bad guys. It's interesting to see him on the right side of the law for once, and equally interesting to see Paul Lukas, best known for playing the anti-Nazi hero of Watch on the Rhine, playing a German sympathizer.
An almost-unrecognizable George Sanders steals the show (doesn't he always?) as a hardcore Nazi soldier.
The movie is heavy-handed propaganda which becomes almost comical with its over-dramatic narration and failure to recognize the irony in its supposed hate of propaganda. The narrator does offer up the movie's most hilarious line, describing how the Germans manufacture "mass stupidity."
i dont know what to say. this movie...was horrible. the most predictable, fake-looking piece of hogwash...i have no explanation for the money it's making...this makes millions and the others and moulin rogue dont...im...speechless...
Lord of the Rings??? Ha! This was the best movie from that year, hands
down...better than Moulin Rouge, Monster's Ball, Shrek, In the Bedroom, A
Beautiful Mind and all the rest. Many people have compared this movie to The
Sixth Sense, but note: this movie was written BEFORE the Sixth sense ever
came out. Alejandro had this eerie little gem planned for years, which makes
it even more of a marvel.
This is also the superior movie because of the all-around great acting that Sixth Sense lacked in places. Fioluanna Flanagan -- an all-time underrated character actress -- plays the maid with stunning precision. Compare this to her other great "maid" role in the TV movie The Legend of Lizzie Borden. And Eric Sykes as the bumbling-yet-creepy Mr. Tuttle does extremely well, delivering the movie's funniest line...you'll know what I'm talking about. It's made hilarious simply because of his pitch-perfect delivery.
Also, these child actors, Akina Mann & James Bentley, are unbelievable -- I kept wondering where on earth the casting director found them. They're sort of a dark version of the Mary Poppins kids and every bit as good if not better. Bentley, especially, manages to be cute and terrified without also coming across as annoying and over-the-top like other, more-acclaimed child actors.
Nicole Kidman is gorgeous here. She's really hot. Besides that, I do believe Kidman's performance here is inferior to the role in Moulin Rogue -- people simply think this one is better because it's a dramatic film (most people do not realize how hard it is to do comedy well, let alone musical-comedy). In fact, this movie is more of a dramatic chilly family melodrama that horror. It's not really scary or even suspenseful; that is, even if you figure out what's going on early on, the tension and the dramatic storyline will still keep you watching, as happened to my best friend when we saw it. However you count it, Kidman is definitely a goddess, starring in the two best movies to come out of one year.
The Others is just well-done, nothing fancy, but with a few brief moments that will have you screaming at the screen. Well-acted, extremely well-written (very, very rare nowadays), and brilliantly directed...this is one of the best movies ever made in my opinion.
what a boring movie.
i was warned it's not for people who haven't read the books -- and have no interest ever doing so. i should have heeded those warnings.
i was grateful enough to run into Elijah Wood not once, but twice, a few months before this unfortunate movie (video game?) came out. we chatted both times, and he was such a cool guy and i was so charmed by him that when I realized he was starring in this, i rushed to see it.
i wish i could see him again to ask him what he thought of the script.
the good: Elijah Wood (vastly underrated as an actor; he carried this), Ian McKellan (i have long suspected and am now convinced that he can play any role, in any movie), production value, and Gollum (just as i imagined, so creepy!)
the bad: i could go on for a while. i'm still p***ed they didnt do the hobbit in live-action. its the only one i read, and i thought (im clueless) thats what this was. aside from that personal problem...where was the plot? i mean god. how many times did we have to watch the same scene...fix, six? gandalf waxing poetic about the evil (insert place) of so-so inhabited by the terrible (insert obstacle0 so-and-so. its like watching dungeons and dragons, except they never die and have to start over.
and come on, the "special" effects. was it supposed to look like a computer drawing? that really ruined it, unless thats what they were going for...? plus, i dont get what the fairies had to do with anything (although liv tyler is really cute), and i really wish the movie had an actual ending.
and i know its a fantasy, but how can they defeat all those things over and over again where thousands before them have failed? and if the ring is actually that powerful, why do i care about them anyway? if theyre invincible, it works, but theres no story. and if theyre not...then they shoulda died. but, whatever.
i guess you either have to be in the mood, or be a lord of the rings fanatic. my aunt, one such fanatic, keeps telling me that the 2nd book was the best, so im hoping it will live up. it was nice seeing my acquaintance-in-passing elijah onscreen. but id rather have been playing zelda or even mario brothers. i hope the next one has an actual story. i'm certainly not paying 12 dollars for a IMAX ticket again though.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |