Reviews written by registered user

6 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

158 out of 234 people found the following review useful:
What film making is about, 17 August 2006

This is incredibly entertaining and solid piece of film making, by Scott Frank. The film travels on a road that its laid out for the audience to see steps ahead, but that never matters, b/c you are constantly in suspense over what will happen to the incredibly well drawn characters in the film. Frank also shows tons of directorial flair to accompany his writing prowess. The whole cast was amazing, Matthew Goode is completely unrecognizable and is perfect in the film. Jeff Daniels again dons a Beard and steals his scenes, every line of his dialog either makes you laugh, think or just compels the movie forward, and Joseph Gordon Levitt again proves why he is capable of being one of the next great movie stars. Go see this movie and tell your friends to do the same.

This is the kind of film Hollywood should be making,

The Midas Fish Factory, 30 May 2003

Pixar continues its string of brilliance, their dedication above all to story has paid off again. There second dedication to animation has doubled the pot. The film is poignant and comic, when its all over you can't remember how many times you were close to crying, and how many times you were laughing.

The film takes chances and puts itself out on a limb, it creates provocative visuals, it is not the bland production value that most animation is under today, instead it is a work of art.

25th Hour (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Spike Lee once again raises the bar, 9 February 2003

Spike Lee is an immaculate film maker, and with 25th hour he proves it again. The film is a technical gem, the cinematography, sound design, composing, acting, editing, all are top notch, this film is an instant classic, that contains raw emotion, brutal reality, combined with a sense of humour and a delivery that is so stylish and sensual that at times i wanted to chear.

Chicago (2002)
Surprisingly disappointing, 13 December 2002

I look at the other comments, which herald this as the rebirth of the movie musical. Apparently they missed little movie that came out a while back called Moulin Rouge.

That is okay.

I admit, that i must plead ignorance, i've never seen the stage musical of Chicago, and I can't say that i'm a huge Bob Fosse fan, but he has his moments. This film though, it's not terrible, its technically sufficient. The actors dance really well, the production value is through the roof, but many of the numbers fall flat. The actor's singing sounds like actors singing, their voices don't cut it. The story is compelling, but the characters are so despicable, and we're never given a reason to like them. The one chance of redemption i felt they had would've been in the songs, but the energy was never there.

The one character who was sympathetic, was the awesome John C. Reilly, typecast as usual, he still brings a grade a performance, but he's so helpless, and sad, you find it hard to care about him either. Don't get me wrong all the actors do turn in good performances, even Richard Gere, who i as a rule despise. The film never reaches that point where, i'm excited though. The tap dance scene, and Lucy Liu's fiery cameo are the highlights of the film.

Now I saw this film without high expectations, i had just heard that it was a contender. I was willing to like it, I wanted to, I love musicals. I did not compare it to Moulin Rouge until the next day, but looking back one has to.

Once again, I've never seen the stage musical, but the production seems to take many cues from Moulin Rouge. Example the opening sequences frenetic lack of establishing shots. The Red Roxie sign, and the whole advertising campaign, are all reminiscent of Moulin Rouge, but the film does not have the same passion, the one advantage it may have, is a more complicated and poignant plot. As Bill Condon (God's and Monsters) prefaced the screening I saw with, this film is about the circus of a trial like OJ, like, Clinton and Lewinsky, but it's not enough to carry the picture

Anyways if you read all that and disagree i'm sorry, its just my opinion, i think this movie was a technical achievement, but it left me feeling cold, and i would be insulted if this film was nominated for an oscar, and continued to get the praise its getting.

I suppose when the box office final tally is released, is when i'll see whether or not i was "right" or "wrong"

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
a bunch of talent, on 2002's answer to battlefield earth, 6 July 2002

John Woo, is one of the most prolific action directors around today.

Marc Ruffalo is an amazing actor who keeps getting cast in action movies, as a support, when he could carry a film on his own. Adam Beach, Native American actors, of talent are hard to find, so to cast anyone else would've been a shame, he's so much better than this drivel.

Frances O'connor is striking out left and right, may i remind you of "Beddazled" Brian Van Holt, after "Whipped" should be getting at least a few offers Nicolas Cage, seems to know how to pick movies not to watch, if he's not careful, he'll end up being another Kevin Costner, and everyone will wonder how "he keeps getting work" This movie, is sentimental drivel, i'm all about patriotism, i've always thought the story of the the navajo code talkers was cool, and i like to see native american representation, but this movie was awful, the first thing to pick apart would be the score, I think this film would've been ten times, no really ten times better, which would've made it viewable, and not a waste of my 2&1/2 HOURS, but no, every instrument stands out, so that you can't help but hear how forced the whole score is, and putting a super forced and artificial score, on top of a super forced and artificial script, where character development is a point of praise, kind of, but the film also lacks a narrative, a plot, it has a story, but theres nothing to tie it together, instead it's a series of scenes which move on for no real reason, other than they kill time basically, but no real narrative thread other than, Joe, likes Ben , everyone else learns to like ben, and kill japs,

The one part of the film that is a point of dramatic tension, the need to protect the code "at any costs", is so overplayed that it loses all efficacy. And then the action, okay, all this crap aside, my friends warned me, it was bad, but it's JOHN WOO, the name among names and he was just lost, he was trying to reincarnate the worst of pekinpah, he never took a chance with the film, the whole thing was so expected, and the comparison to saving private ryan, is ridiculous, Spielberg in the first twenty minutes of that movie, shows you the horrors of WWII, in a way that you never imagined, because he shows it to you without fear, he makes bold decisions, and more than anything else, the sound, and the camera work, are explicit, you're looking at this guy get shot in the head in a one shot, wide angle. The camera moves for a reason, time slows for a reason. the look of the film is okay, in my humble opinion, the film was over saturated, and would've benefited, from making a a distinct decision about what to do with the look, instead most of the film, looks safe.

All the talent in the film, is obviously taking it's cues from the money men, and the money men, don't know anything compared to woo, end of story

This movie is a real piece of cinema, 12 February 2001

I thought this movie was really good. I think it was received poorly at the box, simply because most people have a hard time sitting through a two hour movie that doesn't move forward. It's not supposed to though it's a character study. That's really all that needs be said.