Reviews written by registered user
|129 reviews in total|
As long has the art of film as existed, people have made film based on
classic novels. Some of them are pretty good, but most of them fail to
capture the heart of the the story. This film does not fall under the
latter category. This must the one of the best film adaptations of a
book I've seen. I admit I have not read the book, so for you who have
this might be a disappointment, or maybe you'll love it, I don't know.
But as a film, this deserves the title as a cinematic masterpiece.
I rarely expect much from such movies. I was expecting a simple film about an obsessed whaler seeking revenge. But I failed to predict the dept of this movie. The many character, all the individual conflicts, the dialogue, the symbolism, and the narrative was handled which such excellency. John Huston really did a marvel job with this film. I've seen equal and even better skills, but there are very few of them. And that still sets this film above hundreds of not thousands of other films. I guess this is a bit of a cliché, but still valid thing to say "they don't make them like they used too". Despite it's age, and some cheesy effects, it is all forgotten and ignored, as this film captivates you from the beginning.
this film deserves nothing but a 10/10.
This really is as people often refer to it, "the forgotten masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick". It surprises me that this film has been forgotten and overshadowed by his other films, as it is almost as breathtaking as 2001, and as well crafted as all of his later films. This should, and hopefully is ranking among cinema history's greatest epic films. The only other film of the same genre (and length for that sake), that captivated me as much as this film did, was Coppolas "The Godfather". This film deserves to be as revered and commonly know as that film is. It is of course not Kubricks all time greatest motion picture,but should still rank as on of histories greatest motion pictures, as should all of his films be. I cannot recommend this film enough, every frame of this film is like a beautiful 18th century painting, and it's use of music is nothing but stunning.It is a long film indeed, but that only allows us to enjoy more of the film, longer. I would recommend this to any film buff, but I warn you of it's complexity. This is not a film for everyone, definitely not todays film fans who seem more impressed by short, low-brow, action films, will not appreciate this film in a way it deserves. (Ironically this was the reason for it's box-office). However if you don't fall under this category, you will have missed out on a great deal if you have not seen this magnificent film. I give this film nothing less than a full 10/10.
This movie had a lot more than I expected. I think all of us have heard of this movie, especially because of James Deans fame after his early death. And with the title, it sound kinda corny. Far from it, this is one of the best 50's movies I've seen taking on many sociological questions about teen environments. I don't even know why the title is "Rebel without a cause", the cause is shown quite clearly. I don't think I've ever before seen such an old film depicting a dysfunctional family, sure compared to today it's not too bad, it it is still very well told. James Deans character Jim Stark is one of the most complex and enigmatic, yet still easy to understand and identify with character I've ever seen. From the very opening sequence his performance is great, and his character well portrayed. Of course this film has more than a dysfunctional family, but there are so many teen related problems in it I think I'd rather just say; "watch the movie". If you like drama, teen film, are interesting in sociology, psychology, or just plain like films, I highly recommend this film. I give it a 9/10.
To begin with, I must say I'm surprised this film was literally condemned by Christians. This is the most religious film I have ever seen. They should love and cherish this film, but they don't. This however is the reason I didn't like it. It's to religious. It's basically the same silly story we've heard a thousand times, only with a few differences. It's darker, looks more historically authentic, and it has a more human Jesus. The latter I was actually intrigued by, I had hoped for a more human Jesus, kinda like the Thomas Jeffersen adaptation of the gospel, but it was the same old magical Jesus only with more of an internal conflict. Yes, it is a well made movie. Scorsese really impressed me with his great directing, and Dafoe made one of the strongest performances I've ever seen. But sadly it is still the same nonsense story of magic, miracles, talking animals and cryptic messages. Only this time it is hidden behind a more realistic looking view. if you see it simply as a tale, a story, a myth if you like, it it great. But if you take it as religious, it is a truly dangerous movie.
I'm not sure what to think about this movie. The movie is at times funny, very funny, intelligent, artistic. But at other times it is simply, flawed, annoying, silly & stupid. The main character is an interesting character, I liked "the Dude". His friend Walter must be the most annoying film character I've ever seen. But he serves his purpose. But then again, you got Buchemis role, he just pops up now and then, never really contributes. The story was good, "the dudes" struggle was funny. But it just kinda ends up with nothing. I don't know. Some call it the 2001 of bowling and weed smokers, fair enough, it has a few clever trippy moments. But I don't know, it lacks structure. I give it a 7/10.
Compared to Tarantinos other movies (and yes I've seen all of them)
this is not the best one, in fact I would consider it his second least
good. However, that doesn't mean that it's a bad film in any way. On
the contrary, it's a damn good movie. Sure the story is very simple,
it's a heist movie on a very realistic and small level. yet the
directing is still better than that of most films. It's a surprisingly
long film, two and a half hours, but never a dull moment. So I really
don't have more to say, I recommend it. heck, if you're afraid of
Tarantino films because of his reputation for violence, relax you can
watch this one, except for quite an amount of swearing (which you'll
hardly notice) there nothing nasty in it. Pluss if you like this film,
which I bet you will, hopefully it will make you wanna see more
I give Jackie Brown a 8/10.
I can't believe some people said that this was worse than Kill Bill
volume 1. This is honestly much better than the first film. It actually
makes the first film seem bad in comparison, not that it is bad but you
know what mean. Kill Bill volume one was great. It had a few moment
that I didn't like but it was anything but bad. Kill Bill volume 2 hits
the spot perfectly. It really summarizes most, if not everything that I
look for in a "good" movie. It has cliché's, but that's the point. And
they're played out excellently. It has that campy feel to it, a common
trade in Tarantino's films. It even has a few 70's kung-fu moments
which I just loved seeing. I admire Tarantinos love for classic cinema
(or retro might be a better word). This movie unlike the first one has
a few funny moments, but still manage to stay serious. And I mean that,
it is a serious film. but then again, what revenge movie isn't. And I
must say I really loved the ending. It surprised me as well, which is a
rare thing to happen. I was sort of moved, or at least intrigued by the
ending, and for that I am very happy, because that is such a rare
So why is it better than Kill Bill volume 1? Well, I'll it's longer, hence manage to build up a better and more variable story. Secondly, I like the character better,a nd we finally get to see Bill. So I must say, Kill Bill volume 1 serve as an introduction, so Kil Bill volume 1 is what makes Kill Bill volume 2 so much better, because now we know what's going one. And third, if you for any reason should have read my review for Kill Bill volume 1, you would know that I criticized it's violence. I'm not against violence in any way, in fact it is important in many films. This is one of them. Unlike Kill Bill volume 1, Kill Bill volume 2 is not focused on the violence, butt he story. The violence supports the story, not the other way around. I understand Tarantino was trying to make a kind of anime live-action movie, interesting idea, but I felt it was over the top. Think bad of me if you wan't. But this movie, ditch that idea, and I could enjoy the movie, and even it's more violent scenes.
So what more can I say? I finished the Kill Bill volume 1 review by saying I'm looking forward to Kill Bill volume 2. Well I love this film. it should be considered a cinematic masterpiece, and is probably already a classic. 10/10.
When I first heard of Kill Bill in 2003, saw the trailer, etc. I though
this has to be crap. Just violence, and violence and no structure. then
I forgot about it. The a few years later I started looking into
Tarantino films. I saw his newest one, Inglorious Basterds, and I
though; "wow, this is pretty good". It was refreshing to see someone
with a unique and classical directing style. Then I saw Pulp Fiction
and Reservoir Dogs, and already I considered him one of the greatest
directors ever. Then after having seen Death Proof (not his best by the
way) I figured; " you know what? it's about time I sit down and watch
Kill Bill volume 1". So i sat down and saw it, and these are my
thoughts on it.
Despite not being the kind of movie I like, I really liked this movie. Okay that sounds weird, but it's how it is. Revenge movies, and Japanese movies, and especially anime is on the bottom of my like list, hate me if you wan't but I fail to see the attraction to it. However, this movie is so well made, I put all of that aside. The tag line "Tarantino's 4th film" as if it is very relevant, is well placed in it's context. When I saw Reservoir Dogs I though; "no way this is his first film! It's too good". He made two more films, and didn't disappoint, so his fourth movie surely had to be a cinematic masterpiece, and I personally think it should qualify as such. It has a visual style both corny and artistic at the same time. He really taps into the heart of a good exploitation film. It is a surprisingly profound movie.
But now that I've praised this movie, I guess the complaint should be written down as well. I only have one complaint about this movie, which isn't actually much of a complaint. The violence. And don't get me wrong, I am not against violence in films in any way. inf act I often think it's very important to make a good and shocking film. However I think that there is only one thing that stands int he way of Quentin Tarantino's artistic abilities; he's need for violence. His Grindhouse feature following Kill Bill; Death Proof proved this point. The violence got in the way of the story,a nd the story got less impressive. I understand Tarantino's need to channel his violence ideas through films, but I'm afraid he might go too far one day. this film an example of how that might one day ruing his films.
Having set that aside, I give this movie a 9/10, and finish by saying, I really look forward to Kil Bill volume 2.
Personally I didn't like the other Grindhouse feature "Planet Terror"
it tried to look like a bad cheesy 80's film, and that's what it did,
it was bad and cheesy. This movie however, while having some minor
flaws, succeeded in reproducing the old 70's 80's cinema feel and still
being good. It has that grainy look that old reel films had, but again
is watchable, unlike "Planet Terror" which looked like it was gonna
burn up every second. It's a simple story, some nut played by Kurt
Russel, like to kill young girls with his car. It's a stunt car and is
what he calls "Death Proof", not for the people he crashes into, the
one sitting in the drivers seat, which is himself. A simple story,
executed in true Tarantino style. It has long, realistic, but not
boring (well depends on the person) conversation, harsh reality, lots
of swearing, and well developed characters. My only problem with this
film, aside from some long and slightly dreary sequences, is the
violence. I normally son't complain about violence, sine I feel it is
both depicts the real world, and is often need to make a realistic
movie. But I sometimes feel that Tarantinos need for vi9olence
sometimes gets in the way of his artistic abilities. Sometimes it's
just there to be "cool". it's not supposed to be "cool", it's there for
the realism and the effect it has on an audience. I hate to complain,
but sometimes it can be just dumb.
It's a simple and entertaining film. A must see for any Quentin Tarantino fan, heck even Kurt Russel fans. And it was definitely the best grind house film. I give it a 8/10.
I don't know, I'm not gonna rate this. It is so bad, cliché's, bad duologue, but it's on purpose so i guess it is a good film? It summarizes really well how bad B-films in the 80's could be. It really feels like one of them so I guess it succeeded pretty well. I mean it has everything; cheesy duologue, meaningless trivial side stories. gore, gunshot platter that flies the wrong way, zombies ripping people apart. Heck it even got one of the weirdest sex scenes I've ever seen, would have been a classic had it actually been made in the 80's. It got zombies, a BBQ house, a one legged GO GO dancer, and a Tarantino cameo as a horny mutant zombie military man. If while reading this you're thinking "man this sound stupid", well it is and that's the point. So enjoy, or not. it's hard to judge to be honest.
|Page 1 of 13:||          |