Change Your Image
snowball-15
Reviews
The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996)
This did not age well
These days it is painful to watch a smart, charming, and cute character played by Garofalo being so incredibly insecure that she would resort to asking a model friend to impersonate her. It was used for laughs back in 1996. The character of Thurman was also written badly, making her really stupid, also for laughs. And those traits were shown as if these were women's fault and nothing else when there is a whole culture that makes women feel unattractive and lack confidence. And in the end, they are made to apologize for it. All of it is presented in the movie as normal, if slightly amusing. This is a movie that better be forgotten because women and girls deserve to be treated better by society instead of instilling insecurities.
Babylon 5: Sleeping in Light (1998)
Logical, but boring as hell.
I see here only one not glowing review and this is why I would like to chime in. While the episode does provide a logical conclusion to the series, it is barely watchable. It is trying to milk you for tears and nothing of interest happens. Granted, in real life a similar story would have likely had an ending like that, this is not a real life. This is science fiction, which should shed an original light on a human nature while inspiring us and making us say "wow". And for 5 years it did. However, only now, after watching the Babylon-5 finale, I do fully appreciate what SG-1 writers did with their finale "Unending". While individual stories and arcs were not always as great as some in Babylon's, SG-1 finale was far superior and incomparably more watchable. Adventures still happened, and they ended going towards another day of work - possibly another adventure, with hope and with a message that life goes on and there are still things to do and future to make. Babylon people just got sad and got on with their lives. Their lives after the series were not by all means boring, but the ending dwelled on the sad and made me only yawn. Don't get me wrong, I am not against sadness, I am for better writing about the sad things. This was a huge disappointment, after 5 brilliant seasons - just a boring blip trying to manipulate you into squeezing a tear.
The Ugly Truth (2009)
Not bad at all.
I was surprised that it was getting panned by the critics. I guess most of them like their comedies to be firmly in one category without any suspicious genre mixing. This movie tries to marry romantic comedy with crass male oriented one. I thought that it actually was not that bad at all. The fact that the main male character, played by Gerard Butler, spews lots of crude stuff about men wanting only sex and not wanting gals to behave needy, is nicely balanced in the end, when he himself falls for the Katherine Heigl's character, even though he knows her to be not the natural pleaser and admitted control freak. The plot works because most of the stuff Mike (Butler) spews is for shock entertainment, although it does contain some universal grains of truth. Like men fall in love with their eyes first and only then discover the inner qualities of the ladies. Like no one likes being criticized, especially in the beginning of the relationship. That sex is important. In the end, both main characters are very decent human beings making some silly mistakes (ok, the gal makes most of them, but I am not offended, she found the guy who cared for her despite all the tough talk) and getting in some funny situations. Both have been in the situations the viewers can relate to, being hurt in previous relationships and having tough time finding the right person. It was not the best comedy I have ever seen, but it was highly enjoyable.
4 (2004)
Original idea, lousy movie-making
The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.
Persuasion (2007)
Not worth the time.
I was looking forward to this adaptation as Persuasion is my favorite Austen novel. However I was bitterly disappointed. This version is infinitely worse than the one from 1995 with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. Introduction of the characters is so unclear, one keeps wondering who is who till the middle, the lines from the end are put in the middle for no reason, motivations of the characters are never explained. Running all over Bath without a hat? How this could have been possible? I know they probably tried to show the passion which made Anne to forget all social rules, still I am not buying it, it was very clumsily made and should not have been handled this way. The general impression is that they tried very hard to cram the whole thing in 90 minutes and did not really care whether remaining information made sense or not. My advise is to skip this adaptation and watch 1995 instead.
Copying Beethoven (2006)
Boring, inaccurate, uninspired
I have read some great reviews and decided to give this movie a try. What a severe disappointment! First of all, it is immensely boring. There is no good story like in Amadeus or Immortal Beloved. Then there are lots of musical mistakes. When he is shouting "B-flat" he is playing something else. The correction Anna talks about at their first meeting can not be really done, it is a dud, used by the screenwriter to attract attention to Anna's supposed composing gift. And then of course is the matter of Beethoven being completely deaf and unable to read lips in 1824. He used the paper pads to communicate then! Music recording was also far from perfect. I honestly do not know what to watch this movie for, when there is nothing to be enjoyed. I wish directors wishing to make period films would make more research. Or find better stories.
Anderusen dôwa ningyo-hime (1975)
True to the original story, sad but graceful and beautiful
This is a very sad and beautiful tale, the way Hans Christian Andersen has intended it to be. Even more sad than this though is that mass audience now knows only the dumbed down Disney version, which actually is a clear case of plagiarism. What else is it if it takes the original story and changes the ending??? Of course the rights to do that were properly purchased, at least I think so. But now we do not even have a chance to see true version ever released on DVD, as it justly deserves.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
A war movie very much worth watching
It is a very good movie, I did not notice that it was actually more than two hours long. Perhaps it was more emotional for me than for other people, since my grandfather perished in the siege of Stalingrad.
The movie has superb acting as well as few flaws.
Jude Law gave wonderful performance, he looked 100% Russian soldier during the siege, thin, dirty, desperate. I liked Joseph Fiennes's Othello like jealosy, when he saw Vassili and Tania together. Rachel Weizs and especially Ed Harris were superb too.
Visuals of battle scenes and pictures of city devastation were stunning, the war was bloody and ugly, like every war really is.
I am quite surprised that nobody here mentions the most obvious goof, the fact that Nikita Khruschev NEVER was neither commander in chief, nor major officer of the Stalingrad front. In fact, he was a political officer like Danilov during the war. I am not even sure if he was at Stalingrad at all. It almost escaped my mind, why would screenwriter put him in this position, when I realized that Khruschev is well known in America. He famously gave speech in United Nations and put missiles in Cuba. While the real mastermind behind Russian victory in Stalingrad (as well as the whole WWII victory on Eastern Front in Europe) was general Georgiy Zhukov. But who would know him in America, except for geeks, watching the History Channel? Given the fact that movie slightly exagerrates with painting Russian Army black, perhaps it is not too bad, that Khrushev will take the blame instead of real hero Zhukov. Though Khruschev's son is a history professor and naturalized American citizen now, I think he has a strong case for libel. Anyway, the movie is fiction, not a documentary, at least here Russians won, not somebody else (case in point, U-571).
As many people have already pointed, movie also downplays the fact that Russians fought for survival and defended their motherland and did not always have to be motivated with bullets from their own political officers.
In spite of these obvious flaws, I still think that this is a great movie. It shows courageous and noble people as well as the scum. And what is the greatest thing, that now Americans will learn that Russians fought in WWII too! Seriously, this movie might get few people read something about this period in history. Martha Stuart would have said that this is a good thing. Don't you think so?
Everest (1998)
Perhaps worth watching in IMAX theater, but not on video...
When I bought it on DVD, I was expecting more. More beautiful scenery at least. Bonus material sometimes is more interesting then the original movie, especially the "Making of" part. Other bonus parts were disappointing too, like 360 degrees overlook from the top is simulated, that is not what you expect considering the fact that they managed to get IMAX cameras there on top. I think they gave too much time to human stories of the climbers and the story of the killer storm on Everest. In the end we got little about people, very little about tragedy on the slopes and definitely not enough of beauty of the mountains. I ranked it 4 out of 10 only because some beauty was still present.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
A war movie very much worth watching
It is a very good movie, I did not notice that it was actually more than two hours long. Perhaps it was more emotional for me than for other people, since my grandfather perished in the siege of Stalingrad.
The movie has superb acting as well as few flaws.
Jude Law gave wonderful performance, he looked 100% Russian soldier during the siege, thin, dirty, desperate. I liked Joseph Fiennes's Othello like jealosy, when he saw Vassili and Tania together. Rachel Weizs and especially Ed Harris were superb too.
Visuals of battle scenes and pictures of city devastation were stunning, the war was bloody and ugly, like every war really is.
I am quite surprised that nobody here mentions the most obvious goof, the fact that Nikita Khruschev NEVER was neither commander in chief, nor major officer of the Stalingrad front. In fact, he was a political officer like Danilov during the war. I am not even sure if he was at Stalingrad at all. It almost escaped my mind, why would screenwriter put him in this position, when I realized that Khruschev is well known in America. He famously gave speech in United Nations and put missiles in Cuba. While the real mastermind behind Russian victory in Stalingrad (as well as the whole WWII victory on Eastern Front in Europe) was general Georgiy Zhukov. But who would know him in America, except for geeks, watching the History Channel? Given the fact that movie slightly exagerrates with painting Russian Army black, perhaps it is not too bad, that Khrushev will take the blame instead of real hero Zhukov. Though Khruschev's son is a history professor and naturalized American citizen now, I think he has a strong case for libel. Anyway, the movie is fiction, not a documentary, at least here Russians won, not somebody else (case in point, U-571).
As many people have already pointed, movie also downplays the fact that Russians fought for survival and defended their motherland and did not always have to be motivated with bullets from their own political officers.
In spite of these obvious flaws, I still think that this is a great movie. It shows courageous and noble people as well as the scum. And what is the greatest thing, that now Americans will learn that Russians fought in WWII too! Seriously, this movie might get few people read something about this period in history. Martha Stuart would have said that this is a good thing. Don't you think so?
Indochine (1992)
Beautifully done epic
This is a wonderful very tragic movie about love triangle set against French fall down in Vietnam. I was actually quite surprised at one of the comments, which roughly said that the Vietnamese girl falls in love with French officer for no reason at all. Does not everybody know that love always happens for no reason at all? That is why many famous love stories are tragic, people tend to fall in love with completely wrong people, from different perspectives.
I did not seem wrong to me that Elaine was "mothering" her Vietnamese workers. Remember "Gone with the wind"? How Scarlett's mother was treating her slaves, tending to them when they were sick? I believe that many people felt that way towards their slaves/servants/workers. Elaine grew up in Vietnam, she thought about it as her home and Vietnamese as her people, though in a bit simplistic way. What I am trying to say, is that her relationship with Vietnamese in the movie does not look untrue. Perhaps to some people it just looks politically incorrect these days, when most people think that colonization was all that bad. It is too complicated an issue and the movie was not about it. On the contrary, the movie wins while portraying both caring and cruel French people in Indochina, not painting only with black and white colors, rather raising questions, than giving simplistic answers. It is rare in movies these days. This movie is done with impeccable European charm and gets 10/10 from me.
I am ready to defend my viewpoint at the Message Boards any time.
What Dreams May Come (1998)
Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made
I hate this movie. I have never ever hated movie this much. Two hours of absolutely heartless tear jerking with a sugar coating of special effects. Throughout the movie I had a feeling that somebody wanted to manipulate my feelings. I have recently lost my father, which made watching this crap totally unbearable. If only I could give this movie less than 1 out of 10... Avoid at all costs.
The 10th Kingdom (2000)
good entertainment with minor flaws
I must admit that I could not wait to see the next part. It is definitely a worthy piece of TV entertainment. I think that an Evil Queen character was not so much evil after all. For most of screen time she argues with the Troll King without doing much else. The person called Evil is supposed to do a bit more evil. I would say that her character was underdeveloped. And there is one thing which I disliked very much. Should even a fairy tale include a piece of court room drama these days? I think that is was totally unjustifiable waste of time aside from the problem of American obsession with courts and lawyers. This made me give this feature only 7 out of 10.
The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000)
Some dream projects should never come true
This film should never have happened. I personally found it extremely corny when Jennifer Love Hewitt was trying hard to copy THE Audrey Hepburn. All the faces, all the remarks of hers were somehow making all this looking so cheap. I am not a movie critic and I can not put a finger at what exactly is wrong with the movie. Biographies are extremely difficult to be put on screen. There are good examples though, "Chaplin" is an excellent one. But The Audrey Hepburn Story makes me think that some legends should be left alone and never made into movie. It is just that some studios can not find anything original to entertain with and some starlets think that they can fill the shoes of the goddess. Don't you people get tired of knowing too much about celebrities?
Zavtra byla voyna (1987)
A story about 16 year-olds meant to perish in WWII
That is a wonderful movie that breaks your heart. The story takes us in the last autumn before Germany invaded USSR. A group of high school kids with their eternal business of first love, classes, leaders and dreamers is suddenly thrown out of peaceful existence. A father of the most likable girl is taken by KGB and she has to renounce him publicly. She can not betray him and so she invites all her true friends (those who did not desert her for being a daughter of the enemy of the state) for a picnic. She does not say so, but t is a farewell. After that she takes an overdose of sleeping pills. In an unbelievable twist of fate (KGB almost never released its victims) her father is released in few days. The story runs about a week, but boy, how fast this kids had to grow up. It is like the innocence of their existence was lost. One day they lived in the most perfect country, where justice and equality ruled, or so they were brought up to believe. And next they new that it all were lies and innocent people were destroyed by regime without mercy. There was also problem of loyalty. Who do you stay loyal to, your friend or your country? The movie ends with few laconic lines of information what happened to the rest of the class during the war. Somebody was burned in a tank, somebody was hanged for participation in resistance, somebody became an ace pilot. It is a great movie, see it if you have an opportunity. May be you would learn something you did not know about people from the USSR and about this period of history.
Morozko (1965)
Non Russian adults would not like it,it was not made for them
First of all, it was a bad idea to bring it for audiences outside Soviet Union. This movie was based on Russian fairy tales for LITTLE children. And it was made with whatever technical means were available in USSR in 1964. And they were far from great. Do not watch it, because most of you would hate the quality and would be lost in the poor translation. I loved it when I was a kid, I still do, but it is a nostalgic thing. P.S. About guy wearing lipstick. The whole thing was meant to be a grotesque. Clown paint their faces, it is the same kind of thing.