Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Inside Man (2006)
8/10
Entertaining Movie
29 July 2007
I enjoyed the movie. I recorded it and had to go back over the ending a couple of times.

Denzel did a good job playing the sleazy detective with a dated pencil mustache.

Jody Foster is such a good actor that you wish she had a bigger role. She has all those moves that make her performances seem so real. With just the narrowing of her eyes and firming up her mouth she tells you she's irritated. No loud exclamations, no bulging eyes. Just simple indications.

It was pretty obvious why the robbers dressed the hostage in painter's clothing like theirs. Spike, who is a fairly competent director goofed here. He gave away some of the cleverness of the ending. He should have waited to change the hostages clothing until the hostages were let go. I knew too early what was in store with the hostages. Spike Lee forgets about the little nuances and busyness and his movies suffer for it.He needs an assistant to pick up all the little details that make a good movie into a better one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Music
10 June 2007
I enjoyed this movie very much. It was a nice little thing that required no thinking. I thought Hugh Grant was super. As always his character's wit and humor made me smile and laugh. But the biggest surprise (for me) was how much I enjoyed his singing. I liked the movie mostly for the music. The plot was cute, amusing, not complicated. The music, and the singing by Grant made the movie for me.

As always, Drew Barrymore added a nice touch. She worked well with Grant. A good combination. Just being herself, that is, her movie self, added a nice romantic softness to the story.

I liked the way the sex scenes were handled. There was no phony acrobatic lovemaking. No titillating glimpses of private feminine parts. And only one (though brief) passionate, wide open-mouthed kiss. I hate those scenes one sees in some movies; close-ups of wide open mouth, tongue lashing kisses along with clothed sex acts.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Copy Cat?
14 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this a vote of 7 only because of Charlize Theron. She's a good actor and looks good on the screen. Reeves played Reeves. He was the same character as all his other movies.

I was a little troubled and puzzled. I've seen a movie called "Autuum in New York. Seems unusual to have two very similarly plotted movies so chronologically close together. I was troubled because I kept comparing the two movies as I watched.

I was entertained by both movies. I liked Autuum in New York better though. Richard Gere seems so much more a varietal actor. I liked Theron more than Winona Ryder.

Did Theron lose weight for this movie?
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good story....bad art work
27 December 2006
The story line was good. But the "arty" type of filming...the darkness, the almost sepia color....ruined it for me. I have 25 year old tapes of movies that look better that this film.I don't know why it was necessary to use cheap "art movie" tricks to enhance the film. It was very distracting. And difficult to watch. The thought running through my mind was I could have got all the story from a radio version for all the good the film did. Sometimes dark to the point of "dead air".

I thought Hank was good. He played the role just as I imagined the character was in the book. He was good! I thought Audrey Tautou's character was rather wooden...but again maybe the darkness hid her work. Even Jean Reno wasn't his usual good self. He seemed unsure of his role.

I hated all the tricks...the blurry scenes...Why, Why did he do it. Ron it could have been a great movie. I would have liked to see Mel Gibson do this one.

All in all, I would expect this film to do lots of time on Sundance channel. And get passed over by a lot of viewers in the years to come. Too bad...Tom Hanks did a good job.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kinsey (2004)
5/10
Both dull and interesting
11 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I found the movie somewhat dull. There were interesting segments, however. They mostly involved scenes with Laura Linney. The main actors were good....talented. I think my problem was the story line..but then how do you turn someone who loved gall wasps into a romantic character.

I tried to read his "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" when it first came out. I expected something titillating, but it was more than I could handle. I didn't get too far into it. The movie, to me, was much like his book. Liam Neeson portrayed him as a kinda boring professor. And...was it necessary to show the homosexual scene...it seems like you can't see a movie nowadays that doesn't have some homosexual incident in it....maybe much more than the proportionate occurrence of homosexuality in our society. And it doesn't seem to have been an important thing in his own life. I suppose I'm getting bored with homosexuality in movies...all my heroes appear to have been homosexuals..oh well...
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mitchellville (2004 TV Movie)
7/10
Too surreal for me
14 September 2006
I saw this film just recently. I watched it like I observe some paintings. What's it really all about? Wishing I could make some logical sense of it. It seemed a bit contrived to me. I guess I'm one of those viewers who like a beginning, a middle, and an end....all nicely wrapped up, logical, and with little or no mystery after the film ends. The story seemed to be about a guy and a girl and a wrong. I like it when the guy gets the girl, and when a wrong is righted. But I was left with questions. Did the guy get the girl? Was a wrong righted? I was also puzzled by the sterility of the sets. Was that because of budget concerns or part of the contrived imagery.I liked Mr. Harkrider a lot.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Troubled ending
4 September 2005
I liked the movie. As I watched it I thought it is the best thing Depp has done (my opinion). But I was confused by the role of "the girl". Who was she? Who did she represent? The ending was so anti-climatic my first thought was "Is this a pilot for a series?" I was also confused by the end of the thing. What happened? I assumed he entered the ninth gate...so what! I have to blame the ending on the director. He must not have shot enough scenes to "flesh out" the ending.

But I really liked Depp. I loved the sets. Really cool. And of course Frank Langella....he's a favorite of mine. And he was his usual well-played slimy self.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deadwood (2004–2006)
A trip back in time to a real gold mine camp
8 May 2005
I'm addicted to Deadwood. I look forward to Sunday nights when I'm transported back in time to a very real camp called Deadwood. To me, Deadwood seems to be what the West was really like. Rough, vulgar, profane, greedy, mean. And then the surprises: the crusty doctor with his reluctant morality. Swearengen, the unknowable spider, spinning his web. Could there be a hidden gleam of ethics behind his unethical surface? At least a kind of self-serving ethic.

The whores are a little too attractive to be the kind of whores I'm used to seeing in the old photographs of the West. But they do provide a semblance of decoration to the scenes they are in.

The Chinese (apparently) man is just great. I've known men like him. They are for real.

Bullock, the seemingly knight in shinning Armour was slow to develop into a real person; conniving, greedy, lustful, vicious.

I love the reality of the shabby, dirty clothes everyone wears...and of course as it should be. I imagine getting clothes cleaned or even getting new clothes was pretty impossible.

I love the lighting on the sets. The dreary dimness, the smoky candles and oil lights. It is so real! As to the profanity, it belongs there. I've been in locker rooms as a kid many years ago. The language of Deadwood is just like it was in those locker rooms. I remember the guys in the steel mills where I worked while in high school. I imagine the profanity is the same today when rough, earthy men associate with each other. Without the profanity the scenes would be like some of the "clean" romantic movies we see and hate.....where the man and woman have sex with all their clothes on, in a very tidy manner....sort of playing "Let's Pretend".

I hope HBO continues the series next year and the years after. But it seems that this year may be the last. At least the action, the story line, seems to be nearing a climax, with nowhere to go thereafter.

tjsante@sbcglobal.net
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A real treat!
28 January 2005
I saw this movie when it came out. I was studying for a midterm at Ohio State University, and my house mates and I took a "movie break". I loved it then, and loved it even more today when I saw it for the second time.

One of the wonderful things today is that I felt I knew everyone. I had met Ferrer in Columbus in the 60's when his acting career seemed to be waning. He was doing Don Quixote in Man of La Mancha with a traveling troupe. He was wonderful.

I had also enjoyed just about all the productions that were abbreviated in this movie. Howard Keel, Rose Mary Clooney, Gene Kelly, Jane Powell, Cyd Charisse, and on and on. Old friends from my youth even though most of them never met or knew me.

I love biographical musicals. Music that we hear sometimes today and wonder...now where did I hear that...why do I know the words. I love music that tells love stories, unlike today's music which seems to be mostly social comment.

Someone once said that a musical is a success if the audience comes out of the theater humming the signature song. Well, we've all been humming the tunes in this movie for many years. Sure the music is from other productions, but I loved it that they were repeated in this movie.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hated it
9 September 2004
I thought the sexual relationship was revolting and completely unrealistic. To make matters worse, they showed all those closeups of Hopkins, with all his sagging jowls, his wrinkles, his bald spot, and his tummy pot. His character was just an ordinary man, seemingly without the necessities that attract certain women to older men. And the gorgeous Nicole, coming on to him? And the producers, director and writers expect us to take the relationship seriously. I kept wondering what Hopkin's character was paying her for all that sex.

AHrrrrgggg. Yuck. Even Sean Connery couldn't have made this relationship realistic.

As to the story, Hopkins again is miscast. He's a fine actor, even a wonderful actor, but he's just not a black man passing for white. Nicole was her wonderful self. When did she become such a wonderful actress? She can play just about any role, it seems.

The story is sorta believable, but the actors don't seem to complement each other. They just don't fit!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cold Mountain (2003)
10/10
I liked it but I didn't like it.
9 September 2004
How is it possible to like and dislike the same movie?

The plot is very much like that Jody Foster thing, Sommersby, only not as good. Nicole was great....Jude was adequate. They didn't give him many lines...is there a reason for that? Generally, he's a pretty good actor. She's so elegant, his character is so country bumpkin. It makes one wonder what they see in each other.

Romance between two such was only successful in Lady Chatterly's Lover.

I think the dislike comes about because the movie is too long. They could have told the story in two hours.

The story is good. Good locations, good filming. The character actors were great.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the Cut (2003)
Interesting film
7 March 2004
I enjoyed the film. If Steinbeck wrote dark stories he could have written this movie. There are interesting characters revolving around Meg Ryan's character. The writer and director have developed them beautifully. There's the prostitute sister, Kevin Bacon's crazy man, the work-a-day blue collar detectives, the black guy in love with his teacher, and lonesome, depressed Frannie (Meg Ryan). Her acting is sensitive and played down. She does a perfect job portraying a sad, lost New York fringe person.

The cops are believable. They seem like all the stories about cops we've ever heard. Almost cliché cops.

The sad ending makes you wonder how can the two characters portrayed by Ryan and Ruffalo survive. Will they go on to marital bliss, or sleazy moments of stolen sex.

I was bothered a bit by the scenes of nude Ryan. I would lose rapport with the character and think, "That's Meg Ryan". the effervescent Sleepless in Seattle girl I fell in love with. The awkward cute Kate in "French Kiss". I guess this is a new Meg Ryan.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed