Reviews written by registered user
|42 reviews in total|
"The Life of David Gale" started very bad for me. Sleazy soapy acting by Kate Winslet, poor dialogues and something that looked like a more-than-a-cliche courtroom drama. And then a slight but nice change. Kevin Spacey came in, and along him, also his character David Gale. Spacey's performance brought Gale to life and intrigued me with his philosophy and thoughts on life. So this brought us to murder and rape accusations and then, once more, everything started to look like a 100-times-before-seen court trial movie. But who could guessed that we're gonna face more changes once again. At the end, "The Life of David Gale" seems a little bit exaggerated Spacey vehicle, but still has a solid point and explanation that puts him higher from usual popcorn flicks. So, a pass for this one.
Well, this is something truly original. And I mean it in every possible positive way. Nothing but a praise for a director who gave us some amazing and spectacular directing. Cinematography itself is a pure piece of art, something very rarely seen on screen. "Hukkle" is cinematic experience that looks like the greatest (mute) documentary ever put on celluloid, but if you concentrate just a little more, you'll notice that this is actually a serial killer thriller... Not just a surprise of the year, but maybe the best movie of the year.
I'm truly amazed how much movie can be stupid. This isn't just a bad film, but a torture for any man's intelect, and one of the worst pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Disastrous acting, no directing and absolutely no script. A blasphemy for eyes.
Yes, we can see here some fascinating editing and directing but that's completely taken from Aronofsky's films "Requiem For a Dream" and "Pi". Besides that there isn't much in it. We get to see good performances from John LeGuizamo and Brittany Murphy but the story that surrounds them is to pointless and idiotic that I can only say: they wasted good parts on a movie like this.
I heard nothing but a praise for this Blatty's directorial debut, and mostly I can only agree with reviews like that. When I say mostly, I apply to the last scene of the movie which sort of explained the hole thing. It dissappointed me a little, 'cause if you ask me, you just can't explain the unexplainable and can't think the unthinkable. The life of faith and belief is something very deep within and it will always stay like that. So, either you're believer or you're not. It's all a matter of choice. Blatty shouldn't forced the conclusion, 'cause there are no miracles like that in real life, only persons inner life. But, when we throw away simplified ending, we're left with an extraordinary motion picture, the movie with brilliant dialogues, unforgettable characters, black humor, nail-biting drama, psychology, philosophy, theology. Blatty managed to put together so many different subjects and direction approaches that its a real shame that he directed only 2 films. A very unique experience.
Its a real rarity today to see movies that so much depends on its screenwriter. "Adaptation" is, without a doubt" one of them. This is completely "one man show", and when I say one man show I mean Charlie Kaufman show. For me, Spike Jonze is here nothing more than a vehicle for Kaufman's extravaganza. We can see some very noticeable improvements here than in the first Jonze-Kaufman flick "Being John Malkovich". While the first one went all the way downhill after no more than half an hour, "Adaptation" stayed strong for more than one hour. And, unfortunately, the last half an hour are again meaningless and ridiculous. Kaufman is obviously a writer that suffers from originality-sindhrome. That shouldn't be wrong, accept in case when that same originality becomes just an excuse for no meaning. Kaufman is full of ideas, but it seems that he doesn't know what to do with them. He lacks philosophical depth and simple rational thinking, and that's why he failed to deliver one more time.
This film received very good reviews and it's even got a screenplay award in Cannes. I'm still not able to figure out why. This is not even close to Loach's best works such as "Riff-Raff", "My name is Joe" or "Land and Freedom". This is a story that's been retold more than a thousand times before. Here I couldn't find a single moment that has a message that stands on its own. Not to mention that the whole movie is nothing but a complete rip-off (was it intentional I don't know) of Truffaut's classic "400 Blows" (especially the last scene which was literally taken from its inspirational origins). Loach's directing is very good (and so are the protagonists) and he did made his point but I question myself why should I watch this when I got Truffaut and the message that's universal and always hits the target.
The comparison to David Lynch's "Eraserhead" is important but only in an opposite way. While Lynch's first feature (and still the best) relies strongly and almost only on directors vision and artistic "feel" (without any philosophy, just a free thought) this one found an inspiration in poetry and tried to transcend it into a living world. So, the wrong approach is more than obvious. How can anybody turn poetry into a motion picture. The answer is: only if you approach the film the same way as some poet might approach his poem - with senses and instinct, nothing else. And that is where the Quay brothers failed. They tried to put poetic vision into a hermetic space and, of course it doesn't work. Photography and acting are excellent but they are not much important here. For me, the whole scenery and the plot is unnecessary and got very little to do with the philosophy of dialogues. It is just there to fill the visuals. And then you end up with something that's not exactly a film but not exactly anything else either. Still, true artistic films are so rare today, that even a weak one is more than welcome in a world of superficial art. Let's just hope that it will be better next time, for brothers Quay and for us.
Hippy philosophy in space. That could be done only in crazy seventies. The great surprise is that it still works. Basic idea and the approach to the subject are excellent, with the exception of the middle of the movie. It seemed that Trumbull and Co. didn´t know what to do with it and it ended up with a lots of empty walk and unimportant scenes. Fortunately, "Silent Running" is not a long picture, so it wasn´t that unbearable. But I still think that the whole premise would work much better on some short film. Still, very good idea (humane and philosophical), the best role of Bruce Dern career, and we even got Hewey and Dewey which are hilarious. Even after so many years I found my self sometimes staring into the space and looking for some lonely space shuttle with the loneliest robot you can imagine. (The last scene is simply unforgettable)
O.K. So this suppose to be gore version of Bergman´s immortal master piece "Virgin´s Spring". Someone said that this is like one of the most shocking cinema experiences of all time. Yes, it´s shocking, but far from that status. For me, the acting in "Last House on the left" is so bad and laughable, that it ruined almost every possibility to consider this film "the shock of the century". And, I really couldn´t see the point of making a horror remake out of such a unique film, when the original itself was strong, frightening and powerful enough without a single blood spilled. But still, this one can hold on its own and, no matter that Craven is no Ingmar Bergman, "Last House on the Left" stands as a inspirational, disturbing achievement and a genuine dark satire of the 70´s. And its recommendable without any doubt.
|Page 1 of 5:||    |