Reviews written by registered user
|28 reviews in total|
I saw Dominion about three weeks ago and I'm still thinking about it.
It's not the greatest movie ever made but it still was quite good
despite its flaws (such as the lousy special effects).
Does Satan influence humans to do evil? Yes, at least in the movie he does. He plays on anger and fear. He posses the young deformed native man but in a way he possess everyone and uses their anger, fear, and guilt against them. This is what made the film intriguing.
I also loved the idea of the church being built over a pagan site to keep the evil at bay. Churches have been built over pagan sites maybe not for that reason but that made the film quite interesting as well.
As Roger Ebert put it the "film takes evil seriously." You don't get that too often in horror films and in most American films. The film is not a jump at and scare you thriller it's scary in an intellectual way and that does not happen too often in films.
Well, I saw it and it's intense and powerful. I'll be honest, I am a
practicing Catholic, so I buy into the belief that Jesus is the Savior
of the World, Died for my sins, is God Incarnate, etc. It is a
beautifully made film. Some of the stuff with Satan does not work.
There are some historical inaccuracies but the film is a work of art
and not a documentary. Jim Caviezel who I loved in "The Thin Red
Line" (which is my favorite film of all time) made a great Jesus. He
is probably my favorite Jesus on film, though I loved Robert Powell
in "Jesus of Nazareth" (it's been so long since I've seen "The
Greatest Story Ever Told" that I can't remember what Max Von
Sydow's performance was like but I'm sure it was good). Is this
what Jesus really went through? Probably close to it. From a
Catholic point of view I like how the film showed that Grace exists
in a sinful and brutal world. I think the brutality was appropriate for
the film (though I would not show it to little kids). I think it is good
for people to know what Jesus went through no matter what they
believe about him. If he had not gone through what he went
through then there would be no Christianity. Some people would
say that is good, but there would have been no Francis of Assisi,
Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoffner, John
XXIII, or Oscar Romero. These people are all lights that shine in
darkness in which the darkness will never put out. (That's from
John Chapter 1). There would also be no great works of art like
Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel or some of the world's greatest
music the like Ave Maria (though that is about Jesus' mother) or
Amazing Grace. Probably the strongest point of the film is that it shows that
Jesus was a real person with a real personality. The flashback
scenes work really well. I would not have minded a few more
flashbacks actually. It showed that he loved everyone even though
there was a lot of hatred for him. As for anti-Semitism, I did not think it was. The Romans were
the real brutes. Caiphas and the other Temple priests were not
shown in a positive but they were not in the Gospels either. There
were Jews in the priesthood that did not like the way Jesus was
being treated and the same with the crowd some were bloodthirsty
and some were against it. One must remember that most people
living at that time were ignorant and illiterate. The priests told
them what to do. It would have been easy for Caiphas to entice the
crowds (assuming that is what really happened). Also there is
one scene where one of the Roman guards mocks Simon of
Cyrene because he's a Jew. The other thing that was really good is that it felt as though it
were real. It showed to the chaos of the whole Passion, basically.
Except for a few hoaky scenes involving Satan, the film is superb. 9/10.
Just saw this movie again for Halloween. It's a great little
Halloween movie. It's lots and lots of fun. There is a couple of
holes in the plot if one scrutinizes it too much. Johnny Depp is
superb as usual. Christian Ricci was good, too. Christopher Lee
showed up in brief cameo but at least he showed up. The actor
who plays the headless horseman with a head is the perfect actor
for the part. Visually it is absolutely beautiful. I loved the set
design and cinematography. It is gory and not everyone will like
that. The headless horseman does decapitate people, after all.
Highly recommended. One of Burton's best.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film which I just saw is extremely powerful. I, myself am a
Catholic so I found this film of special interest since it is about a
Jesuit Priest. The priest is a brave but flawed man. The theology
of the time was also extremely flawed. Especially the reasons for
converting people. But the film is all about the ending. SPOILER
ALERT: When the Native Americans tell the priest baptize them
because he loves them and not because baptizes them for their
conversion or because they believe it is a magical ritual that would
cure them. This almost moved me to tears. This is what
conversion and baptism should be about.
A lot of people on this site don't seem to like this film. I thought it
was really funny. Granted it was no masterpiece (though one
person on this sight thought it was) I really enjoyed it. A lot of
people did not like the serious aspects of the film. I thought that
worked well, too. It really would be hard being God for a week if
one got the chance. Also I loved Morgan Freeman as God, his
portrayal is not to far from the God I believe in. The parting of the
Red Soup really got me laughing. So did when Bruce had to deal
with prayers. 9/10.
I've always been a fan of Dracula and vampires, but I am no expert on Vlad the Impaler. I would be surprised if this as "true" or historical as the title suggests, but nonetheless it was a fun movie. The ending was cheesy but I probably would have ended it the same way if I made it, I just would not be able to resist.
I went to see this film one Saturday night back in May, without knowing much about it, just the basic plotline and the fact it had won the foreign film Academy Award. I'm glad I went because I absolutely loved it. It is one of the few films I can say that I really did not want to end because I was enjoying it so much.
This movie is very good, in my opinion. I actually saw it the day my
friendship with someone I had been really good friends was
ending. I went and saw this film and it took my mind off of the bad
stuff going on in my life at that moment. It was absolutely beautiful.
Some of the art in that film was breathtaking. That humankind with
all of its flaws is still able to create such beautiful works of art, both
the film and the art in the film, gave me hope then when I saw it
and still gives me hope now.
This Stanley Kubrick masterpiece still holds up well nearly forty five
years after it was released. Because it was made in 1957 there
are some dated elements, but it still a very powerful, sad, and
searing indictment against the insanity of war. It was not the first American film that was an anti-war film but it
was probably the first in a long time. Of course it was about a
terrible incident that happened in the French Army during World
War I. Americans weren't ready for a movie that might critique the
United State's army. The French were the "good guys" in WWI but
in this movie it shows a terrible general who not only tries to kill his
own men because they cannot fight like he wants them too, but
has three innocent men executed for cowardice as punishment for
not winning an unwinnable battle. It reminded me of a spoiled kid
who couldn't get his way so he lashes out on the other kids that
are weaker than him. Same mentality. Kirk Douglas gave a very good performance, as a man, soldier,
and lawyer who sees the injustice and cannot say much, but tries
his best to save these innocent men. When he tells the one
general "You can go to hell before I apologize to you or anyone
else!" it means a lot. Of course back in the 50's they did not use
that language as much so it meant a lot. The battle scenes were quite good for the 50's. I especially
liked the mise on scen in the general's mansion. Incidentally the young German singing at the end is Christiane
Kubrick, Stanley's third and final wife. I guess he found the right
woman, they were married in 57 or 58 and stayed married until his
sudden death in March 99, four months before "Eyes Wide Shut"
I saw this film quite a few years ago in a film appreciation class I
took. I am a Kubrick fan so I was interested in seeing it. The
acting is pretty bad in this film, but Kubrick was pretty much
producing this independently (in the mid-50's when that was not
done too often) and probably could not get very good actors. The
filmmaking was great. There were great tracking shots, wonderful
use of mise on scen, great long shots and close ups. In fact a lot
of sequences were similar to sequences in many of Kubrick's
famous films. Kubrick fans should see this movie at least once.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |