Reviews written by registered user
imdb-3362

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

Page 1 of 2: [1] [2]

15 reviews in total

Saw Bill Maher's Religulous yesterday. Regular viewers of Real Time with Bill Maher and Bill's stand-up shows will know what to expect, and Bill doesn't fail to deliver. Religulous is a good-humoured attack on religious beliefs in general and the big religious organisations in the US in particular. Through a series of irreverent interviews with ministers, priests, rabbis, 'formerly gay' evangelicals and 'escaped' Mormons, Bill paints a picture of hypocrisy, lack of logical reasoning, evasive answers and rigid doctrine.

The way Bill approaches these people is certainly a breath of fresh air. There have been other documentaries dealing with religion, but even the most critical of these usually display some (innate?) reverence towards 'persons of the cloth', whether they deserve any or not. Not Bill. When a 'formerly gay' minister decides to hug Bill farewell, the latter simply inquires about a possible hard-on. When a group of men in a truck stop chapel decide to bless Bill and pull him into a prayer circle, he claims to be missing his wallet afterward, etcetera. There are plenty of irreverent and funny moments like that.

Still … it isn't all good. It's quite clear that Bill took a leaf or two from Michael Moore's and Stephen Colbert's editing play-books. Asking a difficult or trick question and substituting a likely answer with a puzzled or stupid look just to make the subject look goofy has been done before. It is funny when it's not overdone. In Religulous it is used a lot, and although it serves its comedic purpose quite effectively, it does look like a cop-out when done to death. Bill Maher is a very funny person, and religion hardly needs any parody; using editing tricks to stress either point makes it look a bit forced.

There is one other point that feels like a missed opportunity: Bill is so busy showing the downside and inconsistencies of religious beliefs that the case for atheism that he is clearly trying to make is underexposed. The documentary could easily have lost the UK rapper (who failed to utter a consistent thought), the Dutch cannabis guy (who failed to utter any thought until his hair caught on fire) and the gay Muslim guys (who failed to do more than sit there). That would have freed up ten minutes or so for people like Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens, both of whom are among the most eloquent and savvy defenders of atheism and critics of religious beliefs. They appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher numerous times, so they would undoubtedly have been happy to voice their opinion. It would have made Religulous into a more coherent atheist manifesto.

The rather one-sided (albeit humorous) approach fails to put Religulous into the 'ooompf!' class of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. It is preaching to the atheist choir (people who don't need to be convinced) and it will fail to cause even a slight dent in the religious mindset (people who only respond to strong-armed manipulation or even propaganda). Adding Richard Dawkins and Michael Moore as executive producers to the payroll of Religulous II might be a good idea …

This rates highly on my 'most boring movie ever' list. Went to see it with a friend, and we were actually on the brink of placing a bet on who would scream or run out first. By sheer determination, we made it to the final (and hardly deserved) credits without snoring.

One inconsequential, meaningless scene after the other, with 'look how interesting we edited it, and isn't this a cliffhanger' oozing from it. Unfounded pretense in its purest form.

I'm not fond of action movies at all, but this is ridiculous. Nothing happens at all, but we're supposed to feel at least ten intricate layers of tension all of the time? That's what the movie appears to suggest, but it does not deliver.

There's the guy from The Flying Doctors, or whatever that awful Oz soap my mother liked to watch years back is called. Hardly a credible character in what appears to pose as a psychological thriller/drama (which it isn't on any of its purported levels). And what are Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey doing down there? Was the movie shot on some kind of an Actor Sabbatical Trip Down Under?

That's the trouble with movies that aspire to be all moody, interesting and ambitious: too many famous faces (not necessarily fitting the script) are injected into it, and the final question is "Why didn't they get Pacino and De Niro as well, in a package deal?". It is an unbelievable mix of characters in an unbelievable, and in the end very shallow, story, which made me so tired that I actually had trouble sleeping the same night, and produced a throbbing headache the next day.

Quite an interesting solution to the troubles of small-town, rural America in the end there.

It takes a bit of getting used to the stark set, but the minimalist approach to the lowest common denominator in human behavior does work after a while.

Nicole Kidman executes her role with admirable precision, although the final scenes appear to hold the middle-ground between being contrived and looking for a quick and dramatic finish after two hours of walking pace. I don't think I was the only one who suspected that there was more to the gangster story that brought Nicole to town than 'just an occasion to get her there'. The movie managed to close the circle, but with a bit of a clank. Or with a bell, to remain in style.

The display of basic human avarice, meanness and lack of self-restraint is presented in a convincing way by the rest of the cast.

One thing that did bother me quite a bit was the uneven camera work. In a (somewhat overestimated and overused) attempt to pull the audience into the scenes by becoming 'their eyes', a lot of nervous and shaky images, especially present when performing fast 90-degree pans and when trying to keep up with a moving actor in close-up, presented at least me with a mild, but annoying headache after a while. I would have preferred a more smooth, 'steadicam' approach to this embellished (and slightly long) stage-play. After all, when I look at something up close, I don't usually shake my head all the time, nor do I rotate on my heels to look behind me. This is a dead and dull town; it doesn't need a speedy, giddy treatment.

Anyway, interesting exercise, captivating set of circumstances, and fuel on the fire of the misanthropists, who know they're right in the end. And who would have loved to re-enact the last chapter for real, had they not been kind fools at heart, and hating themselves for it.

8/10

Had this been a 'Britcom-proper' it probably wouldn't have been as funny as it is now.

The tragic elements woven into it make it so much greater. Admittedly, there are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of cringeworthy moments in The Office. Moments that make you put your hand over your eyes and look through your fingers, moments that make you gasp and look away, and moments that will make you go "Aaaargh! Noooo!".

Everybody (who is not David or Gareth) who has ever worked in an office setting (especially those who worked in several ..) will feel that The Office is a condensed and compressed series of events, but very true to life. Everybody knows David and Gareth, everybody wants to slap them and shut them up forever. Everybody feels for (and feels like) Tim and Dawn. And everybody knows that an office would be a downright suicidal place were it not for common foes like 'the boss' and 'the wannabe boss' to loathe.

Don't watch The Office if all you want is a quick laugh .. you would feel way too uncomfortable for that. The Office is a true slice of (office) life, a bit larger, a bit darker, a bit more painful, but ultimately more humorous than anything I've ever seen. Make sure you catch the Christmas special(s) as well, as that puts the icing on the cake and makes life slightly more bearable.

In my years as a student of political science at the university of Leiden, one of the professors used to rave about these series whenever the subject of British politics was on the agenda. And even though that professor wasn't the most humorous of chaps, his quotes and tales from the series always guaranteed a good laugh.

I recently got hold of the entire series, and even though I do view them with a somewhat scholarly mind (old habits, and such), laughing out loud is my usual response. So cleverly written, such an exquisite cast of characters, such a mild way of portraying profound cynicism ("A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist", dixit Sir Humphrey Appleby).

I will probably still look at it in ten, twenty, thirty years time (if I live to see the day) ... knowing that there will always be a Sir Humphrey Appleby, a Bernard Woolley and a Right Honorable James Hacker around somewhere preventing the series from becoming outdated.

I don't know if that's something to look forward to, but if it guarantees the same laughs, I'm all for it!

If Citizen Kane is the number one movie to see to learn anything about cinematography, this might as well be at number 2.

Delicatessen succeeds at creating a totally separate, consistent and believable universe with a very distinct atmosphere. The brown and green colors add to the weirdness of this universe.

Is it horror? Yes and no. Is it a comedy? Yes and no. Is it brilliant? Oh yes!

Everybody involved in the making of this picture gave it its best. The camera work is brilliant, the sets are simply amazing (with the final bathroom scene at the pinnacle), the editing and pace is breathtaking.

This could have been a very dark movie (and I guess a few Hollywood directors would have tried to turn it into a splatter movie and fail miserably), but the humor is just light, off-beat and hilarious enough to make it into a consistent and bearable whole. Every universe has its humor, and a strange universe has strange humor. Jacques Tati would have loved Delicatessen.

Julie's 'tea ceremony' without her glasses, the mattress spring test, Aurore's failing suicide contraptions, it's all funny as hell. I hope everyone who is even marginally involved in making movies gets to see Delicatessen and learns from its greatness. We could sure use a touch of genius in most of them ...

10/10

I really wonder what that 'six' rating is all about ...

This is a movie I have watched several times, and every time the overall silliness gets to me. The wonderfully goofy mock-intellectual conversations among the models, the recurring misunderstandings caused by differences in a model's skewed grasp on things and the actual reality surrounding them, microscopic cell phones .. it's just funny as hell. Owen Wilson, whose life consists of a series of gadgets, fads, drugs and leisure time only, Ben Stiller taking a trophy he did not actually win (Michael Jackson should have been hosting that ceremony ..). It's all good enough for me.

What I appreciate even more about this movie is the visual perfection. So much work has been invested into creating interesting sets and locations, great lighting and camera work, with the weird 'indoctrination sequence' in the day spa taking the cake. The great number of cameos adds to the mix - "Put a cork in it, Zane!".

Anyway, always enjoyable and a pleasure to watch. You can delve for deeper layers, like Ben tries to do for a day with the equally spike-haired relatives ("I'm not a professional television or movie actor!" - Jon Voight), but that's probably not what this movie was made for.

For entertainment, comedy and production values, I will happily concede an 8/10.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful.

There, I said it.

This movie turned a jaded sarcastic into a sentimental fool for two hours straight. And it's nowhere near Christmas. Can't we ask the United Nations to pass a global law giving only the Brits the right to make a romantic comedy-drama from now on? Bridget Jones' Diary times ten. On steroids.

Funny semi-cameos from actors you'd never expect to see in anything like this. Billy-Bob Thornton? Claudia Schiffer? Denise Richards? It all adds up somehow.

If you think you've seen enough of Hugh Grant, Colin Firth and Rowan Atkinson by now, think again. This is a stellar cast of British actors (with an American sparkle) capable of delivering a wide range of emotions and humor. Richard Curtis and Emma Freud pulled it off.

Did I say it's wonderful?

I just happened to catch this movie because it was on a PPV station and I had nothing better to do when it aired.

For me, it wasn't hard at all to sit right through it. It did help that when I saw the opening credits I noticed immediately that the movie was produced by Sandra Bullock, and that Hugh Grant was playing the lead male role. I knew right then and there that this was going to be a movie showcasing two comedy actors, not necessarily a high-value, high-production, high-brow movie, or even a movie per se.

In fact, the movie provides nothing more substantial than a backdrop (like a canvas with a city painted on it in old vaudeville shows) to enable these two to bounce some funny lines and probably improvise a lot. I bet the bloopers are pretty funny as well. Some of these lines would work well as a standalone joke, a one-liner or material for a skit about something completely different. Actually: the dialog is not even really related to the plot.

Not being a fan of romantic comedies at all (I prefer dark, moody, "European" stuff, and certainly no happy endings or giveaway plots), I did laugh out loud a couple of times, and if that's all I can get out of this movie, it's fine by me.

Yes, the movie is forgettable and the plot is ludicrous and the scenes are pretty detached, but as a series of skits/sketches against NYC painted on a curtain as the backdrop, it's good enough for me.

Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt.

I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English?

He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline.

The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'.

Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there.

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]