Reviews written by registered user
Walter Gamble

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
15 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Trust me, the plot fits together, 28 January 2002

Mulholland Dr. is a fast-paced, visually arresting, wonderfully acted, fascinating movie, that starts out surreal and becomes extremely surreal. But although the movie might not seem to make sense, there is actually a plot with a beginning, a middle and sort of an end; it's just told in a distorted, dream-like fashion. Just think about it, and you'll get it.

In chronological order, the events are: a nobody actress who's on the verge of making it big time (probably named Carmen) lets success go to her head, and starts ignoring her lover, a struggling actress named Diane. When Carmen has an affair with, then gets engaged to, her current director, Diane hires a hit man to kill her - but when she's about to be shot, a car accident leaves Carmen amnesiac and her potential assassin dead. Meanwhile, Diane is overwhelmed with guilt and kills herself.

She then takes refuge with Betty, an actress newly arrived in Hollywood, and the two of them try and figure out her past; and we have another storyline about a movie director who is ordered to cast a particular actress in his latest movie, or face dire consequences.

The reason this is all so confusing is because Betty and Diane are played by the same actress, and both directors are played by the same guy, and the actress who is blackmailed into the film is called Carmen; not to mention the waitresses who look identical to Betty and Diane (named Betty and Diane), and all kinds of events that repeat themselves in different contexts.

The way I see it, the first scene is the only literal scene in the whole movie - Carmen leaves the scene of an accident in a daze, all her memories in a blur; she then crawls to a nearby house, which she sees being vacated by an elderly couple, and collapses into a coma.

Then comes a long, vivid dream she slips into, which borrows elements from her own life, allowing her to see glimpses of what happened without them actually fitting into a story. She invents Betty as a composite of herself, Diane and a waitress she once met named Betty who resembles Diane. She puts in her director fiance, recreating at one point an anecdote he told her about his ex-wife. She also recreates the audition she once did for a failing producer and a washed-up director; and the sinister plot to put Carmen Rhodes into the film springs from Diane's plot to have her killed - specifically, the image of somebody being handed a photo of Carmen Rhodes and told, "This is the girl."

Then at last, Carmen's memories fall into place. Betty disappears, and the real events play out before her eyes.

David Lynch has given us a cinematic interpretation of that feeling we all get - when are haunted by a half-memory, those times where we know the size, the shape, the colour and the smell of a memory, but the memory itself stays just out of reach. We have the blue key, but we can't find the blue box. And then when we find the blue box, and open it, it all rushes back to us; and it feels as real and as present as it ever did. Neither part of the film, the dream or the recollection, is an actual event, it all takes place in Carmen's head, and even the recollection is an obviously falsified construction of Carmen's mind, only a vague version of the truth. We'll never know all that happened, but we know the truth behind what happened, and that's all that matters.

That's my interpretation, at least. I could be wrong.

The Mummy (1999)
Not that bad, dumb and crap afterall, 21 June 2001

When it came to the Mummy I did one of the most annoying, stupid and pretentious things possible, that is I saw the preview, listened to most the critics, and got on my high horse and refused to go see it, I made a mistake. Firstly though, on my defense, that was a pretty awful preview, but still I got into believing that the movie was a load of crap without even seeing it, and I owe all the mummy fans out there an apology for how I criticised the movie for no good or fair reason. But, anyway, with that out of the way I also think I did myself a favour because I had gotten my expectations of the film so low, that when it turned out to be quite enjoyable,quick and funny I was so pleasantly surprised it made go right out and see the sequel, which too beat my expectations. So maybe now I'll have to give all films a shot, except for Tomb Raider and Pearl Harbor that is.

3 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Did you know what it was about?, 16 April 2001

First of all I'd like to say that I thought that this film was a dull bit of krud (I'll spell it with a K if I damn well please) made watchable only because of Henry Fonda. But I have to ask, was this scripted? did anyone know what it was going to be about before they filmed it, because it seems to me that they kept swapping plots around every five seconds, then returning to one they'd already done because they didn't know what else to do. All I can hope is that the novel it was based on was just too big and over plotted that when condensing it into a normal length screenplay they had no choice but to smoosh it up. If you want a good Henry Fonda family drama I suggest you see On Golden Pond instead.

"Becker" (1998)
Thank you, thank you, thank you, 2 January 2001

I would really like to thank the producers of Becker, because after Seinfeld ended I was worried there would never be another non-continuously plot lined show again, that is another show that you could pick up anywhere, that you didn't have to worry about the two main characters falling in love and create a long running and dull subplot that will always end opposite to how you wish a show that leaves your "Friends", "Frasiers" and "Two guys and a girl"s behind, the only other shows of the sort are always animated, which is nothing that bad, I think the Simpsons is brilliant (I also love "Frasier" "Two girls and a guy" and Friends though). Oh yer, another reason to thank the producers of Becker, it's Bloody Damn Hilarious!

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
weird writing, 31 December 2000

I watched the show Weird Science the entire time it was screened in Australia, so naturaly I was interested in seeing the film that it was based on, nothing could have prepared me for what I saw. I did enjoy the film emensly, in that I was laughing my head off at it, but it wasn't because of well crafted and creative humor but more in the vain of the "what the hell's going on" type of humor that floods this film. I heard that it was written in just a couple of hours, which looking at it seems to make perfect sense seeings the plot is so loosley put together and the situations so far fetched it's almost as if John Hughes asked us to forget about logic for a couple of hours and just sit back and enjoy the ride, this I did, and I was not disappointed.

5 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 20 December 2000

I accidently gave this a ten, I don't know how I did it I must be more tired than I thought, because I was on my way to clicking onto 1 when somehow, using the most pathetic part of my brain, I clicked 10!!!. The one hope I have now from doing that is that maybe other people who gave this ten were doing the same thing as well, this could explain how this film got such a high average, barely less than 5!.

If you haven't gotten the idea yet, I hate this film, it is one of the most silly, childish stupid monsterous pathetic goes at humour i have ever seen, my backside could write a better film, and i can't even spell or sue good grammer.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
could of been alot worse, could have been ALOT better!, 20 December 2000

I love Harrison Ford, he is one of the most ruthlessly talented, charming and likable people to ever walk the screen, when I first saw The Mosquito Coast I was dumbstruck by his brilliant performance, how much I was led to hate the barstard, yet then I was in stitches after watching Working Girl when he and Sigourney Weaver were so good that they made Melanie Griffith look good. He has always been such a reliable actor, his films, even if not good for any other reason, are always entertaining, always fun, yet Random Hearts, while having a good director and several good performances, bombs out on almost every other level. The whole time I was watching the film I was waiting for it to pick up, for some proper tension to be built, or at least for someone to have a good line, yet instead I get more depressed people getting even more depressed. Hopefully the next time that Harrison Ford works with Sydney Pollack (if there is another time) they will bring something more like Sabrina or Presumed Innocent again.

3 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
So corny I couldn't stop watching., 18 November 2000

If they allowed one-word reviews on this thing, that's all I'd need: hokey. Right from the beginning I found myself positively spellbound by the unabashed hokiness of the plot, characters and dialogue, not to mention the embarrassingly dated costume and production design. Every scene startled me - they'd come out with so many stupid lines, maudlin heroics and old-fashioned cliches (often of a racist, sexist or jingoistic nature, even down to my first genuine encounter with a stern, monosyllabic Indian chief) that I couldn't stop watching it. Of course, it doesn't have any real entertainment value; the story and the characters are impossible to care about, and most of the scenes are dragged out beyond all reason. But it might be worth your while to check it out anyway, if just to be thoroughly appalled.

Good, great and wonderful, 15 November 2000

I had never heard of Andy Kaufman before I heard about this film. People keep telling me that this film is only for Kaufman fans, yet without ever really knowing anything about the man I got immense enjoyment from this film.

Okay I admit that alot of that could be because I am a huge fan of Milos Foreman (I even share my birthday with the 2 time best director Oscar winner)or the song with the same name (I loved that song without knowing who Kaufman was????) and ofcourse Carreys performance)

Jim Carrey is an actor who I've admired for years now, but it wasn't until this film that I truly learned how wonderfuly talented the man really was. I could get over it when the Oscars forgot him for the Truman Show, even though I cheered for him when he won the Golden Globe, for though that was one hell of a performance, it was nothing remarkable. But I could not stand it when they ignored him for this incredible terrific piece of work that, in a year of great leading performances such as given by Denzel Washington, Russel Crowe and Kevin Spacey, still deserved to beat the daylights out of the competition.

The only annoyance I really have with the film is not actually with it but the promotional work for it and the reception it got in that- IT IS NOT A COMEDY!!!!!!!!. This film has moments where it is very funny but it is not a comedy but a drama on a guys life as he strives to be him. American Beauty was sidesplitting at times yet everyone knows it's a drama. I guess if ever a film was going to be miss-understood,a biopic on Andy Kaufman was going to be it.

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Best biography in years-****, 13 November 2000

I have always been a huge fan of Robert Towne ever since I first saw Chinatown. I haven't seen a disappointing film of his other than Mission: Impossible 2, Without Limits was far from a letdown.

I'm not sure how much poetic license Towne used to make the film, for I never have been a fan of running or any other athletics and so have never really known anything about the characters, but like in the cases of The Insider or Quiz Show I truly don't care as long as he didn't get too muddled up in fiction.

The story is well told with great performances and a superb soundtrack, the greatest treat of all being Donald Sutherland's fantastic performance as Bill Bowerman. This bit of acting makes me wonder how once again Sutherland could be forgotten by the Oscars. With a career including such great roles as in M*A*S*H, Klute and Ordinary People, the fact that he is still cheated of even a nomination bewilders me, especially when this film came in a year where the only true competition for such a performance was Geoffrey Rush's scene stealing work in Elizabeth. (To all of you who agree with James Coburn's win, I haven't seen Affliction.)

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]