Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
28 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
This film sticks with me, 9 June 2005

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.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Intense and Powerful Work of Art, 29 February 2004

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.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Lots of fun, 2 November 2003

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.

Black Robe (1991)
Powerful, 20 October 2003

*** 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.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I laughed, 20 October 2003

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.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Just couldn't resist the ending, 10 October 2003

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.

Beautiful Film, 5 October 2003

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.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Breathtaking, 5 October 2003

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.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Very good film and ahead of it's time, 2 October 2003

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"

came out.

28 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Acting is terrible but filmmaking is great, 2 October 2003

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:[1] [2] [3] [Next]