Reviews written by registered user

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

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
pretty interesting., 7 November 2003

Yeah, this film was pretty interesting as far as letting me see what really goes on behind the scenes while making a film. I guess the biggest reason why I liked it was because it wasn't so stuffy and polished--it gave the human side to film making. Tarantino and Clooney aren't represented as gods, but merely guys making a movie. I think that is very important and a big problem with films today--the human aspect of it is gone. But this documentary of the making of Dust till Dawn shows just the human side.

And it isn't centered on the main characters, but everyone, right down to the caterers. Also shows the complex side of film making, including the unions.

All together a pretty good film.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
haunting, 6 November 2003

I will forever be haunted by the eyeball image in the film--I just can't get that out of my head. This film's imagery really bored its way into my mind. I also appreciate that it did so while being so old. In my opinion, you don't need all the super special effects that are used in Hollywood today to get something that is cool and "real". If you need to verify this, check out Un Chien Andalou. However, although I say "real", it is a surrealist and experimental film. Keep this in mind when viewing.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
where's the people?, 4 November 2003

I found that the characters weren't fleshed out enough. They were like robots. This in turn made me unable to care for them, or what was going to happen to them. I don't think I remember any memorable dialogue or character interactions in the film.

Lonely Boy (1963)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
influential, 31 October 2003

You can see the influence this film has had on countless other documentaries, and even feature length films, when you watch it. The jittery, being right there style that is presented in this film was very new at the time it was made, and it was good. It wasn't merely presenting the facts, but presenting them in a way that shapes how the audience will react to them.

I thought the film was really exciting, even in 2003, and it is an inspiration.

Ararat (2002)
1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
good and bad, 27 October 2003

Upon my first viewing of this film, I generally liked it. There were some striking visuals, and the story needed to be told. However, I saw it a week later, and I didn't like it--I approached it more critically. Basically, the movie-within-the-movie takes away any emotion I would otherwise have had mustered through watching this film. As I watched and became involved, I would always be jarred into realising that I was watching a movie being made. Basically at the end of the film, I was left with the opinion of "who cares."

I have an open mind for all sorts of artistic endeavours and I usually can see what someone is trying to say. This film does say many important things that I value: freedom is good, oppression is bad, etc, but it doesn't have to be jammed down my throat until I gag and feel I must puke. To me, the plight of the individuals in the film was deadened and made superfluous by watching a movie being made about that plight. Every time you get into the story, and start to feel, some director says "cut!" and ruins your sense of the story trying to be told.

This film is too chaotic.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
pretty good, 26 October 2003

I liked this film because it put Rob Zombie's album covers into motion. Yes, this film is bloody, and full of gore, but it's fake. And that in return makes this film fun to watch. I especially like the homage to the classic 70's horror films. Some criticize this as being unoriginal and a rip off, but I don't think so. I feel it is a respectful thing to do, like playing a song in tribute. You take older material and put your own stamp on it, not because you are stealing it, but because you love it. This is an admirable thing for Rob Zombie to do.

Yes, it is true that some of the acting was cheesy in the film, and that at times it may have been hard to sympathize or believe the characters, but this is part of the films appeal. It's like the old drive in movies--it's fun to watch because of this. I also enjoyed how it takes place in the 70's--it added to the effect of the film. Thumbs up Mr. Zombie

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
engages the viewer...if you let it., 26 October 2003

This is a great film, if you are willing to be educated more so than entertained. There aren't any explosions, or bloody scenes, or steamy sex, or anything of that nature. There is just a story about four people.

I liked this film because it was minimalist, and you had to get everything through suggestion. Nobody comes out and says anything, it is up to the viewer to get it. The cinematography is great, with one of the best examples of the use of night and darkness to portray the film's theme. Though I am not from that generation, being born ten years after the film was made, I was able to get a picture of the underlying political and social atmosphere of that time in American History.

What a great film.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A great B movie, 24 October 2003

This film is a B-movie, and you have to keep that in mind when you watch it. Also, it is one of the best B-movies. With Stephen King's popularity and financial situation, this film could have had an almost unlimited budget. Also, anyone could have directed this, but he chose to do it--on purpose. What you see is the way he intended the film to look like: cheesy, more funny than actually scary, lots of fake looking blood. It's destined to be a cult classic. It was intended to be that way. The only thing I was disappointed with was that the DVD did not have more special features.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
not a true representation of the play, 23 October 2003

I found it hard to be sympathetic with the characters in this film, especially the character of Francesca/Marie. They just seemed to missing depth--I could not get into them. One of the reasons for this, I think, is that the pivotal rape scene was not filmed correctly. It appeared hackneyed while at the same time lacking drama. This scene is the basis for the entire film, especially with the flashbacks, and to have it appear lackluster and dull makes the entire film need something more. Moreover, for a dirty poor girl, Alison Pill is presented in the film as too clean and pretty. I could not connect with her in this context. This is not to say that the story isn't good. In fact, Thompson's play is quite engaging and was successful at making me feel for the characters. However, in contrast, the film was quite a disappointment. The film deviates from the original play too much and the meaning behind the story is lost.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Funny, 23 October 2003

I thought the film was funny, though maybe not as funny as "Holy Grail." I am not very satisfied with the DVD, however. I think more time and effort should have been put into remastering. I found that the colours were off. I also found that the outdoor scenes were excessively bright--so much so that it was difficult at times to make out what was on the screen. I also think the soundtrack could have been clarified as well. It was very difficult at times to make out what was being said. I don't think this is the fault of the movie as much as it is a lack of effort for making the DVD.

Page 2 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]