Reviews written by registered user
Draconian_Clown

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Time to avoid Stone's movies, 30 January 2011
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is a bad copy of the first one. They even appeared to use the same lines, set-ups, scenes and so on. I did give him a three star rating for trying to reproduce what it might have been like to watch Goldman & Morgan survive while Bear and Lehman died. Stone correctly portrayed the scene as one involving more cronyism than business acumen.

But gads the cast was terrible! Douglas seemed totally unlike himself. Brolin was worse than ever and unbelievable as a mogul. It was sad, sick and depressing that Stone used Wallach as some whistling cadaver. And Sarandon appears why? Did Stone bring her in as a part of their Friends of Castro support group?

The ending was strange for Stone. It was too neat and tidy and happy and all cornball-like. Stone used to make good movies and then he went political and might as well work for Disney or the DNC.

19 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
New Hawaii 5-0 is the Paris Hilton of TV Cop Shows, 2 November 2010
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This thing is a train-wreck. Island's Top Cop, governor's right hand, and his team look and act like they're hanging at a sports bar. Mcgarrett and Danno are badly miscast, way too young looking and without any presence as serious men, much less cops, and their script has them acting like a high school show offs.

Danno cracks jokes and acts half-drunk, storming around like a puffed out jock on his first beer, while Steve tries to talk sense to him like hes the only grown up ... this, in every crisis? I half expect Danno to start farting and eating his boogers to capture Steve's ire.

Kono seems asleep or incompetent. What is her team skill? It must be personal hygiene since the others cannot shave, wash, or even comb their hair.

Remember: these silly people are supposed to be an elite law enforcement team! These is a reason cops act officially!

I'd say Chin is only team member believable in this ridiculous rendition of a lame-old cop TV series.

Other than that, its OK. I like what they did with the music and Hawaiian photography. Its cool that they employ some real actor as a guest star. Too bad the producers didn't put some effort into making the show. They're trying to fill big shoes with baby feet.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Less is Better, 28 February 2006
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I loved this movie! It is for all of us who suffered through compulsory Shakespeare in school. The needless suffering of intentionally disastrous endings marked Shakespeare's tragedies. Those stories were so horribly sad on every level that they reduced life and all its ambitions to an expectation of sorrowful failure. Everyone dies for little or no reason. I totally hated that crap! This is apparently a story related to Hamlet. I never knew it existed. I noticed the similarities straight away and kept anticipating needless tragedy. Needless tragedy never came. I don't know if I would have liked it if not for my knowledge of Shakespeare's Hamlet and my general contempt for needless tragedy.

The story followed an almost fable-like formula. It was production on the fly with a great economy of scale. That is to say the scenes had just enough to carry the story and no more. The fight scenes and swordplay are very different from today's carefully choreographed, terribly graphic violence. During one of the fight scenes, I wondered if this scrappy, badly improvised fighting was actually more realistic than what we normally get from big productions. All the real fights I have seen looked nothing like a movie fight due to the considerable clumsiness of the fighters.

This movie had witty and clever moments. I thought they fit well within the main context of a revenge plot. Of course, they could have spent more money and had a larger production but why bother? I think it would be cool if Royal Deceit could run this summer in place of Shakespeare in the Park's Hamlet. It could make people happy for a change.

This reminded me of some delightful Viking tales I discovered decades ago. Tales of individual heroism, conquest, love and so on. Fables are fun! And finally something not completely nihilistic from IFC. What a relief that was.

2 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
When in Rome ... Do like the others?, 26 May 2005
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was hoping to see some fairness in this film. By fairness, I mean that the film would offer at least some representation of the entire circumstance of the war in Iraq. However, this film depicted an entirely negative view and joins the majority of mass media in an agenda of political commentary (with some nice digs at globalization just in case their audience forgot that globalization - read: the USA - kills trees and hurts kittens). This commentary must, by definition, be anti-American regardless of circumstance and in that it loses it's credibility. The producers used the crowds to pursue that agenda. These crowds of people would act however they were supposed to act in front of any camera depending on what expectations were set; I say this with all due respect for a people whose country is being occupied by a foreign army.

The purpose of this war may be lost to all but history but this movie is simply too awash in blue paint to be taken seriously by any other than the politically aligned.

Nice timing on the Roman Empire connection!

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Fantastic Film Restoration, 15 December 2004
10/10

This movie is a unique glimpse into the culture of the period. One outstanding item is the depiction of a clan-type organization who acts more as a community secret police (seriously flawed in their self-righteous and heavy handed rule) in general than as a specifically racist group. I had always heard about this being their main historic role because in many parts of the country where these groups existed, there were simply not sufficient numbers of minorities around to pick on and by their nature these groups had to pick on someone.

The film's treatment of sexuality seems far more erotic just in the suggestion of nudity and intimate touching than today's practice of "anything goes" sexual contact and the full nudity of multi-millionaire, artificially enhanced actors. I know old-timers and conservatives have been saying this for years but seeing this movie proves the point.

I was so interested in the acting that I really didn't care about the plot. Also, the film is so well restored that it is almost in 3-D.