Reviews written by registered user
buzzbruin

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

Page 5 of 5: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
49 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Munich (2005)
3 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Spielberg has lost it, 29 December 2005
5/10

Another disappointing effort from the director of Schindlers List his last good movie. Private Ryan started fantastic then fell apart, Now, ALL of Spielbergs movies are way way too LONG,he has become a classic egoist and makes no attempt to edit his flms or make them taut. Although not as horrible as Ron Howard whose sugary pap and inability to restrain himself, and whose goody morality is really awful, Spielberg has become a ham-handed movie-maker who makes a point, and then with contempt for even the general audience, makes it over again to make sure they got it. If ever anybody is riding on his reputation it his guy. The movie fails even on the basic thriller level, the background of the agents is shallow, and though many boring minutes are spent doing nothing, explaining the reasons why these agents do what they do is lacking. That the main protagonist would be sent by the toughest agency in the free world to do what he is s ent to do is ridiculous. A really fake Hollywood agent. I can say do not see this fim except by rental at home--this doesn't even rise to the level of a good t.v. movie. Perhaps, after seeing the New World before this film, made by a master of wit,sensetivity artistry and of unitingsound music and picture and with real genius was too much and overwhelmed Spielbergs pedestrian skills.

Closer (2004/I)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Really, Really BAD!!!, 20 December 2005

I have been in a committed relationship for many many years-IE I am MARRIED--I thought I could never HATE a movie as much as this one. I hardly know where to start. This movie has no concept of what real men-women relationships are like. The script was disjointed and clumsy, it had no concept of how to do flashbacks, the story line was so confusing but even MORE irritating. If the great Mike Nicols was a filmstudent I would gleefully give him an F--he should be ashamed of himself. I never once thought the 4 actors were REAL HUMAN BEINGS--I thought if them as Jude Law, Clive Owen and Natalie Portman--it is of course no surprise to me that Julia Roberts is a miserable Actress with no range or ability to convey emotion or any other human feeling, but I kind of liked Miss Portman before this movie, but she was so AWFUL she made the star of Showgirls seem like a superb actress--this performance should be placed in concrete, never to be seen in the world again. This movie should a lesson for all pretentious film students--it should be shown to every film student in the world as one of, if not the worst Hollywood movies ever made--filled with god-awful claptrap. As for the playwright=screen writer I never want to hear or see any of his work ever again.

Chrystal (2004)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A flawed film, 26 November 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Perhaps it is because my wife has had experience with poor Southern Whites that we found this film way too Hollywood. The characters were too clean and the lead seemed completely false to me. She seemed nothing but a Hollywood actress--her Clothes were to out of sync with the region, the writing was so muddled that one has no clear understanding of a cliché rising to the art of Tragedy--one had no understanding of the hatred between the chief bad guy and the hero. The portrait of snake was just filled with false notes and none of the characters were fully developed. The endings were just too corny to believe and appeared to be tacked on. The two kids were not even close to denizens of the deep south. Billy Bob Thornton was too clean-shaven his acting gave no sense of a life gone to hell. The one action scene was poorly done as a set-piece and seemed totally unrealistic to me. The writing and direction were shallow and not in the real world. The one encounter between the hero and villain was ridiculous and seemed more like a ballet than a brawl. If you want to see a great movie about the rural working class south see JUNEBUG.

Capote (2005)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A great film, 7 October 2005

A beautiful film, A great cast, with an award winning performance by PSH, a tourdeforce of capturing the essential Capote without making him a cartoon{which is what he came across as in his public appearances, people laughed at him and cringed at his persona}. Katherine Keener is as always a solid professional with a wide range of talent. The photography is simply breathless, capturing the vast lonely fields of Kansas. The only false note was Perry Smith--the actor portraying him was too pretty and sensitive. By far the better performance was by Bobby Blake who brought forward the menance and cheap criminal aspects of this guy, The actor in Capote except for the scenes in which the murders were portrayed came across as a simpering, weak zero. I didn't believe for one second that this person was a killer. As for the other criminal he as deeply portrayed in the earler fim. This movie was therefore unbalance but I suppose the director wanted to emphasize the relationship between Capote and smmith. One warning I am not now nor ever have been a film student-- therefore I don't like some films regardless of who made them.

8 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Polanski has lost it, 1 October 2005

I went to this movie because Polanski, I thought, would add something special. Boy, was I wrong! Even though he claims he made it for his children, that is no excuse for a really BAD movie. Let me count the mistakes/ O, Twist fell into a coal bin and had one smudge--no boy in the film got dirty, even the foundlings. The sets were Hollywood phony with fake, awful backdrops like St, Pauls. The country scenes were even worse. The movie looked like it was shot in Prague on movie sets, which it was. Bill Sykes was clean as a whistle and about as scary as my pet cat. Nancy looked like a high school girl instead of a Victorian England prostitute, Ben Kingsly was simply awful as fagan, with no personality charisma or acting ability. As for Oliver Twist he was pretty, but gave no impression at all, that he was having a tough life. he looked and acted like a kid from a private school in a school play. Bumble, the Beadle was just a total Zero. OT had maybe 50 words of dialogue, but fainted a lot, I guess that is a substitute for bad writing. The script was just awful with cornball words and phrases. The music score was straight out of those god-awful intrusive scores of the 30s and 40s. In all candor I beg you not to go to this movie or even rent the disc. This was the protyoical PHONY Hollywood movie--just awful!

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Bill Murray is a great Dramatic Actor?, 13 August 2005
1/10

Uh, NO! Bill Murray is a wonderful quirky comedic actor, but a drag as a boring, non expressive, cutesy semi-depressed unhappy shlub. Yes, I hated his performance in Lost in translation too. I don't get his expressions at all. This a sloppily written script directed with a slow AGONIZING pace. If Murray was a great actor he could fill the silence with expression. Total lack of emotion is not great acting nor a worthy movie--its just downright boring. The failure to explain motivation is all too common in Indie films and this movie gets a solid F in not giving us any thing about any of the characters except Dons friend--and that is all too sketchy. I did not believe for one second that DON was a great romantic person. There was no explanation of any of the women either/I think one of them was inferred to be gay, or was I wrong? I hate Frances Conroy because unlike Tilda Swinton, she has no RANGE as an actor, the douche bag person she plays in six feet under is the same goofball she plays in this hapless movie. To be up front, I am NOT a film school student, I thought Sharon Stone was shallow. and the Lolita girl was the most gratuitous use of female nudity I've seen ever.--again Totally unmotivated and unexplained. See Junebug if you want to see a superb Indie film.

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Beware of the critics, 31 July 2005
9/10

This film was an object lesson--it reminded me not to pay close attention to the professional critics--in other words not to be swayed by them before seeing the movie. Thecue cards were very helpful in keeping the various plot lines and characters straight. I found the various relationships, partnerships etc. to be fascinating. The director got incredible performances out of all the actors--there isn't a dud performance in the whole film. Some people complained of the length, but I found it refreshing--attention was paid to developing both character and plot developments and none of the people involved were weird, strange or unreal. I really cant single out any one actor as being better than anyone else. After suffering through Project Greenlights amateurs, it was a pleasure to see a real filmmaker at work Kudos to him and everyone involved!

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Loved this movie, 8 July 2005
8/10

Like Tully this is a gem of a Movie--funky quirky and off beat, but MS. July has a sure hand at writing and directing. The cast was uniformly excellent--the kids were great. Whats even better is I had never heard of the film or the director before today. It took the bitter taste out my mouth after funny ha ha. The editing was crisp and each scene a little gem. I didn't see myself yearning for the movie to along. Although the characters were unusual the writer-director made the come alive. Films like this keep my faith in Indie films alive. I don't thinks is good to require a minimum number of lines so please feel free to junk it!

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
I hated this movie, 9 June 2005
1/10

This movie should be shown to all film students as the perfect example of a bad movie. Although20 somethings might understand this movie it still seems bad to me, There is no explanation of any of the characters, background, family ambitions etc. The whole movie seems improv and BAD improv at that. The word amateur comes to mind with regard to the lackof a script, motivation of the characters. The whole movies is aimless, a mess photographically and absolutely excruciating to sit through.I have to care about people in an art form whether a movie, a play, or a book.I couldn't care less about these people. I have hired college students and 20 somethings for 25 years and never, ever met a single one as shallow, hopless and miserable as these people.


Page 5 of 5: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5]