Reviews written by registered user
cindycita76

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

Not Shyamalan's best, but still good., 11 August 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*DEFINITE SPOILERS*

A few months ago, I read a rumor of the Village's ending, which turned out to be correct. So, even though I had suspected what was going to happen, I still found the movie enjoyable through the end. The acting was great, the storyline interesting, and there were a couple of scares in there for me.

However, once the movie was over, my group of fellow movie-goers and I discussed at some length the problems of the plot, or maybe more correctly, the execution of the plot "twist." The main problem I had (as well as many other people, it seems after reading other reviews) is that the final "twist" hinges on direct evidence purposely given to the audience that it was the 19th century, which I think is unfair to an audience. Also, if no one other than the council knew "the truth," why would the rest of the village need to be told that it was the nineteenth century? They wouldn't know the difference if they were told it was 2004, but still lived life like people in the 19th century. However, if they wore modern clothes and lived off the land, I guess they'd just sort of be hippies, which would make for a boring movie. They'd have to call it "The Commune" or something. Another question is, where did all the other people in the village come from?

Not Shyamalan's best, but still good., 11 August 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*DEFINITE SPOILERS*

A few months ago, I read a rumor of the Village's ending, which turned out to be correct. So, even though I had suspected what was going to happen, I still found the movie enjoyable through the end. The acting was great, the storyline interesting, and there were a couple of scares in there for me.

However, once the movie was over, my group of fellow movie-goers and I discussed at some length the problems of the plot, or maybe more correctly, the execution of the plot "twist." The main problem I had (as well as many other people, it seems after reading other reviews) is that the final "twist" hinges on direct evidence purposely given to the audience that it was the 19th century, which I think is unfair to an audience. Also, if no one other than the council knew "the truth," why would the rest of the village need to be told that it was the nineteenth century? They wouldn't know the difference if they were told it was 2004, but still lived life like people in the 19th century. However, if they wore modern clothes and lived off the land, I guess they'd just sort of be hippies, which would make for a boring movie. They'd have to call it "The Commune" or something. Another question is, where did all the other people in the village come from?

Not Shyamalan's best, but still good., 11 August 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*DEFINITE SPOILERS*

A few months ago, I read a rumor of the Village's ending, which turned out to be correct. So, even though I had suspected what was going to happen, I still found the movie enjoyable through the end. The acting was great, the storyline interesting, and there were a couple of scares in there for me.

However, once the movie was over, my group of fellow movie-goers and I discussed at some length the problems of the plot, or maybe more correctly, the execution of the plot "twist." The main problem I had (as well as many other people, it seems after reading other reviews) is that the final "twist" hinges on direct evidence purposely given to the audience that it was the 19th century, which I think is unfair to an audience. Also, if no one other than the council knew "the truth," why would the rest of the village need to be told that it was the nineteenth century? They wouldn't know the difference if they were told it was 2004, but still lived life like people in the 19th century. However, if they wore modern clothes and lived off the land, I guess they'd just sort of be hippies, which would make for a boring movie. They'd have to call it "The Commune" or something. Another question is, where did all the other people in the village come from?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Worth watching, but still way too long., 12 July 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

**DEFINITE SPOILERS!**

Although I had seen the first two LOTR films at the theater, I just saw the final chapter over the weekend. I found watching the final chapter on DVD much more effective, as I was able to scan through the battle scenes as well as some other slow-going scenes.

However, no matter the unnecessarily long battle scenes, this film is worth watching for the final sequences alone. Here are a couple of my favorite scenes:

After the war for Middle Earth, the four Hobbits are back in the Shire at the pub, watching the rest of the Shire enjoying a usual good time. They hold their mugs of ale as if to toast their victory, yet it is obvious they are not the same Hobbits as they were before they left the Shire. The scene has no dialogue really, but the expressions of the four reveal a sad, "Now what?" attitude. If you've ever read biographies of those who participated in a real-life war, like WWI, WWII, or Vietnam, the attitude expressed in this scene is so realistic. They are alienated by their experiences to others in the shire and permanently linked to those who were with them through the ordeal.

The final scene (and of Sam back at the Shire again) of Frodo passing on was surprising (as I had not read the books) and reduced me to tears (more correctly, I was bawling), as it was so touching and probably one of the best definitions of "bitter sweet." It had to happen this way, as Frodo had saved Middle Earth at the expense of his own life. The idea of death was handled so beautifully that anyone fearing their own death could seriously find comfort in many of the scenes in this film.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Interesting Historical Documentary, 11 February 2004

I saw this film recently and found it to be extremely unique and entertaining. This is a silent film, yet the new score done fairly recently by Cinematic Orchestra (I think that's their name-a British band)allowed this film to be enjoyed by a more contemporary audience. I'm not sure it would have had the same effect on me if I watched the film in silence or even with some traditional/classical style music.

Since "Man" was made during the communist party and Stalin's First Five Years Plan (industrialization), the emphasis of this film is on industry and the worker as a tool to bring Russia into a top-producing country. There are LOTS of images of just about everything: the city waking up, people going to work, streetcars, trains, carriages, mineworkers, factory workers, homeless people, peasants, old people, young people, married people, divorced people, dead people (during a funeral procession), newborns (I mean new-there is a graphic birthing scene), canals, damns, buildings, telephones, elevators, beaurocracy--almost anything that is found in a city and everything that you can imagine happening in a city in a single day in 1929 is on this film.

Another interesting aspect is that the director breaks the "fourth wall" of cinema by taping the theater in which this film later was premiered and using this theater in the film. He also shows the editing process of the film being done during the film.

Funny, just don't expect too much., 19 January 2004

My husband and I saw this movie yesterday, when nothing else looked good. We had read the bad reviews, so we weren't expecting much at all.

With this mindset, I actually had a few really good laughs and an enjoyable time overall. Yes, there was gross-out humor, but the movie was basically funny and sweet. Whoever it was who wrote that the role of Hoffman's character was turned down by Jack Black was right on the money. I do think Jack Black would have been able to make Hoffman's character even more wacky.

I enjoyed the movie overall, and I would give it a B-.

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
This is why you don't fight when you're tired., 19 June 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS

I found this film to be disappointing, even though I like most of Wertmuller's movies. Giancarlo Giannini plays Paolo, a journalist, communist, and male-chauvinist. Candice Bergen plays Lizzy, a pretty feminist who wears the latest fashions, and the two meet during a parade in Italy where a misunderstanding between Lizzy and some Italians becomes violent, and Paolo winds up rescuing her. A bizarre relationship begins between the two, as Paolo makes fun of everything Lizzy seems to stand for--he thinks feminism is silly and he makes fun of the fact that she's a capitalist. Lizzy just thinks Paolo is an ass.

The more she despises him, the more he chases her, even from Italy to San Francisco. He has become a stalker, and it was kind of creepy yet still funny too. There is one scene where he's followed her to a dance club and this really funny 70's song comes on, "Cleopatra." I couldn't help but laugh, the song was really awful. Anyway, I think if this happened today, a woman would have filed for an injunction keeping this guy 50 feet away, but I guess the "drama of the chase" pulled them together. She ends up falling in love with him, of course.

Well, 10 years and one child later, the married couple is stuck in a rut. There is a group of people who act as a Greek chorus, making comments about the couple's relationship and sex life. The women in the group blame the husband, and the men try to brush off the couple's troubles. The point of no return is when Lizzy and Paolo begin to have sex, and Lizzy says to stop because...well... basically, she's bored to tears.

But instead of just being really nonchalant about it and ask if they could try to spice things up, she starts to cry and freak and apparently, their boring sex represents all the male oppression on women, yada, yada, yada, an argument starts, which then builds to a full-blown fight, with both of them running out in the rain, fighting over who is leaving. This is kind of funny too.

Lizzy tries to run away, but of course Paolo chases her, because he just can't leave her alone, and they both finally calm down and come back to their house, where Lizzy tells Paolo that she's going to leave him, but for now, he needs to get some rest because he's got a big day at work the next day. At the end of the film, they are hugging each other, all depressed and what not. That is one screwy drama-driven couple. Obviously they were attracted to one another because they are so different yet both strong willed, so why wouldn't this knock-down, drag-out fight lead to some good make up sex and that would be the end of it? No...instead, the ending is kind of ambiguous, with Lizzy saying that she's still leaving, yet it's obvious they love each other. They should have just gone to sleep instead of trying to have sex first.

They need to see Dr. Phil.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Mr. Nemo, 19 June 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I loved, loved, loved this film. This is Wertmuller's best film in my opinion.

SPOILERS Tunin is a poor farmer from the south who decides he must take over the role of Mussolini's assassin after his older, anarchist friend is killed by the fascists in his attempt to assassinate Mussolini.

Tunin meets his conspiratorial contact in a brothel, where she works undercover, so to speak. He also meets another prostitute with whom he falls in love. Wertmuller does a very good job with the romantic storyline as well.

Although Tunin's first reason for assassinating Mussolini was that he "hates tyrants," he also was doing it to get revenge for his friend, but also he hoped that in this act he would "beome" someone. This story had a more universal theme of how people try to become "someone" when they feel like a "no one," and it also makes you wonder how many people there are that were like Tunin, trying to change things and failing to the point that no one even knew they had tried in the first place.

Sadly, in the end, Tunin remains an unknown, and it is so sad, yet the ending is so well done, and I really think the original title is much more powerful than just "Love and Anarchy" because of the ending. At 10 o'clock in the morning, in via dei Fiori, in a well-known brothel... he is no one. I love Giancarlo Giannini, and he does a really good job in this film playing a different character than his usual Wertmuller characters.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Wha...? Maybe I'm not cool enough to understand this movie., 20 May 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this movie in a Fellini and Wertmuller film class I am taking. I have to take this class for my degree, but I'm a history major, not a film major.

***SPOILERS****** I did not understand this film at all. I thought there were some sequences that were actually pretty good (Steiner's suicide or Marcello meeting his dad), but there were other scenes, particularly the final "orgy" scene that left me completely baffled. Why the hell was he feathering that woman? I know he was drunk, but still, it was very odd. I didn't get it.

Is it that there's nothing "to get?" Maybe. I like how the plotline lists this movie as a story of 'a partying man who falls in love with a movie star.' That was only about a 1/3 of the film. I know that the movie was intentionally episodic, and that each segment could have been a "mini-film," but it left me feeling confused. I think if it had ended with him meeting Steiner's wife at the bus stop, I would have liked it better, but that stupid orgy scene at the end was just bizarre. I did not get it. I guess I'm not cool enough to appreciate te art of this movie.

Good acting, depressing film, 5 May 2003

I rented this movie over the weekend, and was impressed with the acting by Jennifer Aniston, Jake Gyllenhal, and the rest of the cast. I found the characters and the story believable enough, but the movie was just so damn depressing. I feel like I need to watch something really funny to counteract this movie.


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