Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Outstanding Film with cinematography performed by a dancing monkey
4 August 2007
This is an excellently written, well-plotted film, expertly acted.... and filmed by a 2 yr old monkey with a camera mounted on his head, who also suffers from arthritis and epilepsy.

Pros: Matt Damon turns in another expert acting job as Jason Bourne, the federal hit-man with no memories of his deeds or his origin. The fight scenes are amazingly well done (at least...I think they were) and Damon's portrayal of the capable, highly intelligent, yet befuddled Bourne is amazing to see (when you can).

David Straithairn shows up as a new character and his level of acting has never been better. Julia Stiles is at her best in this film. Joan Allen, Scott Glenn, and Albert Finney also show up and provide amazing stellar performances.

The plot is extremely well-laid out and the writing captures both the modern world and the HIGHLY imaginative view of espionage, CIA, and the NSA that Ludlum invents for Bourne. In short, perhaps the only danger in this film is that some people may actually come away believing the CIA and NSA actually have all these godlike abilities due to the talented writing.

Cons: I'm not joking about the monkey. This is, with the possible exception of Blair Witch Project, the worst filmed movie I have EVER seen. Every film I've ever seen was filmed better than this one from major motion pictures, indys, car commercials, local used car ads, porn, and things filmed by my dad on vacations.

When The Rock came out, I was particularly hard on Michael Bay for having the "shakycam" effect placed on every car chase to "up" the action level. Sadly, Bay still thinks this works and it becomes the only negative aspect of many other films like Transformers. If I cant see the action because you've made it into a blur, it doesn't have the same effect on me. This is not realism.

In this film, director Paul Greengrass takes this to a new level. We don't have the "wandering realistic" camera only in chases and fight scenes, now we have it throughout the entire film. Even in close ups of people you'd like people to see (like the ever attractive Julia Stiles), you cant see her for any more than a second or two because the camera has bounced all over the damn place as if its on a yo-yo or a pendulum.

A discussion between two characters, with no action value at all, in a quiet cafe, is filmed as if someone has handed the camera to a small child. This child was told to just "hold the camera and point it at those two guys" and meanwhile he's sucking on a lollipop and running around the table.

I have seen POV porn films that were filmed with more artistic integrity than this...and I HATE those things because of this very thing: You cant see anything. The first 30 minutes of the film were so painful for me to watch that I nearly left the theatre.....which would have been a shame, because whats happening in the film is so good.

My advice: Wait until it comes out on video and listen to the dialog from the kitchen. Its an amazing script.
30 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alexander (2004)
3/10
Don't let the defenders fool you
7 August 2005
Don't let the defenders fool you. This movie is atrocious and it has absolutely nothing to do with Alexander's sexuality. His sexuality (questioned by many critics, I happen to believe he was homosexual) is one of the very few things about this movie which is well-written.

The battle scenes are few and far between. The scenes we do get (Gaugamela and India) are haphazardly put together at best. The rest of the film seems to rest on the bizarre concept that Alexander is only conquering the world to escape his mother.

Angelina Jolie (and why is she cast as Olympias??), normally the bright spot in any film, doesn't help the picture. She has been given the direction to use some sort of anachronistic "Transylvanian" accent that would do better in a Hammer Dracula movie than in this piece.

Val Kilmer looks as if he wants to leave the film as soon as possible and the only real genuine emotion I felt during the film was pity for him.

The blonde wigged Colin Farrell is far worse. He seems to jump back and forth from a caricature to an absurdity with great ease and lightning speed.

Even Anthony Hopkins could not save this film.

I give it a 3 because, after studying ancient history for most of my life, the computer generated scenes of Alexandria and Babylon are one of the few joys to be had in this film.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hercules (2002 Video)
9/10
Would have been a fun movie even without the sex
3 February 2005
Bought this movie after enjoying the equally good Space Nuts. A fantastic movie which is so often a rarity in the world of adult films. This is a fun movie and good for several good belly laughs. I'd recommend this to anyone who is not or has not been a fan of adult films and for someone wishing to explore the world of adult movies, this is a perfect starter.

The film tells the tale of Hercules ( a real dummy in this picture ) and his inept friend Theseus who follows Herc after his employers discover that he has lied on his application to be a eunuch.

Particularly entertaining is the modern narrator telling the " literary " version of the story and Julia Ann playing Hera often interrupting with her side of the story.

As I said above, a fun movie even without the sexual aspects.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Why do they keep giving my heroes sidekicks?
29 July 2003
Why? Why are we forced to see James Bond with an equal competitor/sidekick? Why are we now forced to see Lara Croft with one as well?

Why cant these heroes be heroes in their own right? Why do we feel the need to eclipse them with other actors?

This is my main complaint about what could have been a fantastic movie. The film is leaps and bounds over the first movie which, while fun, had its plot and intelligence problems. This film outdoes all of that, but now forces you to watch as the once super heroine Lara Croft is now forced to play second fiddle to her sidekick, Terry Sheridan.

Why?

I thought Lara was supposed to be a female role model? a strong female figure in the action movie community? Now we see her being saved by a man on at least two occasions when in the games and in the previous movie she could have saved herself. This is just as sickening as the Halle Berry intrusion into the world of 007. These are powerful characters and should be. Thats why they are our heroes. I'm all for humanizing them a bit, but why make them impotent and reliant on some throwaway character?

It is after all, Lara's name at the top. Not Terry Sheridan. I think the filmmakers would have been wise to remember that.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Robin Williams busy?
22 November 2002
Couldnt they have just gotten Robin Williams to retread this obvious stinker.

Wow...what an amazing waste of film. This film is full of cliches and and if you've seen Dead Poet's Society, you've seen how this crock could have been done far better.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Surprise by Jennifer Connelly
13 January 2002
A fantastic film with fine performances by all its actors, A Beautiful Mind keeps you both entertained and amazed by both the intricacies of the plot and the stellar performances of its actors.

Russell Crowe turns in a magnificent performance as John Nash, a mathematician with an amazing set of problems ( both in real life and mathematics ) that he is forced by circumstances to solve.

While I am used to seeing stellar performances by Mr. Crowe, what I was amazed by was the absolutely stunning portrayal of Nash's wife by Jennifer Connelly. While many have often stated that Ms. Connelly was talented beyond her previous screenwork, she proves that without doubt in this film. So often in the past Connelly has been used as a pair of breasts to be seen struggling against fabric or more often bared to titilate male viewers. Here, however, she shows for all time that her talents transcend the physical beauty she embodies.

Jennifer Connelly is the anchor for this film and I truly hope we see more of this kind of work from her in the future.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unbreakable (2000)
5/10
Even at 106 minutes....way too long
10 August 2001
This film could have been made as perhaps the greatest Twilight Zone episode ever made. However, it was made into a drag of a film. The film falsely sets up suspense by doing nothing for long periods of time.

Much like other " science fiction " movies of late trying to recapture the days when SF didnt mean guns and explosions, it missed the mark. Like Dark City and Gattaca before it, it had a thirty minute message and tried to stretch it into a full-length film.

Again, a great idea, but why did it have to be a movie and not a TV show?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Easily the worst film
20 April 2001
This film has to be the worst film I have ever seen in my entire life. It is inconceivable that a major motion picture studio would actually release this film after viewing it once themselves.

Obviously, the feeling was that Tom Green ( who makes Pauly Shore seem like Sir Laurence Olivier ) could carry this with his popularity ( something I have never understood from the start ).

Hopefully, this will be the last time this ever happens.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystery Men (1999)
8/10
A must see for comix fans
10 August 1999
Anyone and everyone who has ever had any exposure to comix or superheroes in general should see this movie. Its a clever take-off on all the comix you've ever read.

May not be anywhere near as funny for non-fans. The older couple ( read late 50's ) did not seem impressed.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Notting Hill (1999)
6/10
Somewhat funny, but weak ending
7 June 1999
The film starts off as a rather humorous romantic comedy. Roberts' character meets Grant's character and falls in love and then is beset with the problems of her fame. The trouble I had with the film is the shlocky ending. It seemed as if the writers of the film had written a sad and quite realistic ending, took a poll, and decided to change it. The existing ending seems spliced on and does not fit the established characters in the film at all.

All in all, its a funny movie, but the ending totally ruined it for me.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed