Change Your Image
stodruza
Reviews
The Fountain (2006)
Exceedingly bad
The only thing good about this movie is Hugh Jackman. There was no hook in the story from the very beginning, which makes one say the writing was awful. It was awful throughout; too intellectual, not enough emotion, no emotional core to the film, but apparently that's Aronovsky. Maybe he'll do better with Robocop, which might be more for him, after all. Sad to say after Requiem.
Apparently not a good idea to make a large Sci-fi film for 35 million with stars. This film should have never been made. Bad effects, bad cinematography (a surprise actually), and terrible production design because everything looks phony including the colors in the frame. I understood the hubris part on the part of the main character at the resolution after trying to conquer death the entire film, but after being bored on the verge of pain for the entire film it is an intellectual insight that can hardly make the film worth it. It's like a long, boring, painful trek up a mountain that when you get to the top you discover that, in fact, look, the sun does set in the west. Amazingly bad pretentious painful movie, oh sorry, film.
Tender Mercies (1983)
A unique movie
This movie is unique in that it doesn't show the process of Mac excavating himself from his tough former destructive life. Before I saw it I though that's what it was going to be about. And it is, but it keeps it off screen to such a great degree that it defines the film by that cloaking device. It's interesting.
What this accomplishes is it smooths it out for us to enjoy on the first viewing, and I appreciated that. No screams, etc. We can kind of get into the story rather easily. The musical theme helps do that. Fame consumed Mac the first time around, and now he is careful. An honest film, but I feel it might loose something by not exploring the process more by which Mac gets better. Or maybe it gains something. I guess that's what the love a good woman can do but that's not too clear. I liked it. A good film.
Diggers (2006)
Lack of real meaning means insignificant storytelling
With all of its good qualities; the honest acting, the pleasant real ambiance, this film climaxes regrettably with the violence unleashed which is built into the story, sadly enough, which sinks it, and it has nothing really to say. That's how life for these clam diggers is: Drugs, smoking, drinking, fighting, releasing their tensions through sex, which can't in itself make meaningful art.
The protagonist leaves at the end and so what? We feel nothing. I liked this film all the way until the fight, but you know...the violence was built into the script with the husband character. Screenwriter should have taken the story somewhere else more meaningful. Otherwise, an excellent film.
Pred dozhdot (1994)
Time never dies, the circle is not round.
But this film's construction is, like the cycle of war. Brilliant, as of course is the film. Gotta do ten lines.
This is one of the best anti-war films ever made, on par with Bardov's Prisoner of the Mountains, which I recommend to you, along side Susan Beir's Brothers.
Should be required viewing for all politicians...The art in this film is immense, from the film stock, to the lighting, acting, story, in essence, a perfect film. Have to wonder about people who don't appreciate it, much less enjoy it on some level. Brutally honest film about the consequences of war.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Iv'e never seen such honesty on the screen, have you?
This is the most enjoyable Woody Allen film that I've seen. Wonderful, open, honest, film about people searching for meaning through relationships with others. Would have been very nice if the people involved had in fact forged out a more meaningful life for themselves, but at least they got a taste of something real, and I suppose that is more than many. Those two girls going back home at the end of the film is actually interesting, because we know when they come back nothing will ever come close in feelings to what they had. So the ending actually works. The world needs more fearless and honest screenwriters and filmmakers! What a treat this film is. What a treat.
Prozac Nation (2001)
Prozac Nation
Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star."
The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in.
Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.
Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.
Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.
Michele Williams is also superb in her role.
Offret (1986)
Nobody's camera is as subtle as Tarkovsky's
In his book Sculpting with time Tarkovsky writes:"The dominant, all-powerful factor of the film image is rhythm, expressing the course of time within the frame."
This is why Tarkovsky is so great.
When he is working with powerful and perhaps less obscure forces, like he is in The Sacrifice, this technique is wonderful.
Everyone gets something different from his films, and how many films can you say that about? Like different interpretations of an abstract painting.
Really unique approach to narrative. I haven't' seen anything like it.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Not post-modern smoke and mirrors
Charlie Kaufman has come up with what I think is his best film. He has a wicked shameless idea, and in Eternal Sunshine he sets his widgets on the board and puts them in motion. And what do they do? They hurt, they insult, they blame, and they cry. And at the end none of that changes. The pleasure in this film for me was minimal, yet holistic, which is to say Kaufman did his job. The idea behind the images is a thoughtful one and one, I believe, worth seeing played out on the big screen. What one hopes one takes from this film, in addition to the ride, is a thorough understanding where heart and mind fuse for an instant or maybe a few minutes while the film lingers in one's consciousness, is that most people walking around these days are sick, seriously sick organisms who not only want to function as normal people do, that is to say find love and happiness, but don't realize that they are sick. That's the danger to normal people, and to themselves. We can understand them, sympathize with them if you want to, but comprehend that it is only when they develop understanding regarding their problems, as the people in the film did, that they can begin to come into their own sunshine.
This film is just so sad. But the message is twofold, for me anyway. The intended one by Kaufman, is that that's the way it is, and it's o.k. Another film should really start when this one ends, in which those two live their lives together, at least for a while. How would it be to look at that? Making do with sickness, co-dependency, childhood neglect, trauma , and finally finding someone who will still try to love you. Hm. Yeah. The second thing I get from it is that this is such the other side of the coin. Life is so Amazing, so beautiful, if you're healthy, of course, and can escape these travails. Unfortunately it's not a choice for everyone who finds themselves in this situation. But if your not like these people, as I am not, the best that I can do is stay away from them. They're kind of hard to spot right away, aren't they?! Especially when you're young.
This movie is astounding. In a way. You have to keep closed the entire time and let it open you up in the end for you to appreciate it, and understand it. Not the way I'm use to looking at films. Sickness, Co-dependency, it's everywhere according to Kaufman, welcome to urban America! I'm watching this film and thinking the whole time, God, a bunch of sick people going through the motions of trying to find love and failing miserably. Great. And I get to watch it all...but in the end it makes sense. I was also thinking "Post-modern smoke and mirrors," but, no, what this film says is that' the way it is, these are the kind of people who are around, and for me anyway, BE CAREFUL, right? Why can't you open up to this film? So much bad energy. So sad. Better to think about it. It will hit you in the end, though.
W. (2008)
Good entertainment.
The problem with the film is that it lacks both perspective and gravitas; instead of taking a comprehensive purview on Bush's failed legacy it opts for showing him for the idiotic buffoon, which he is.
The only one shot bothers me in the film, I think, and that's the one of Laura Bush in that bathroom. Why show her in nearly a full shot simply because you can? Another shot which maid me think was that shot of Jack Daniels being thrust in the camera to hammer home the point, but hey if the man was a drunk why not! The last shot of the film is what cinema is all about; tying up the whole idea in a single image.
I don't understand what people are saying about having empathy for Bush. You watch this film not like another narrative but like history, and surprisingly the film somehow doesn't' let you laugh. I saw it with an older more sophisticated audience and only one person laughed once. The reserved unemotional realistic performances and the quick pace attribute to that, and that's to Stone's credit. This film is good entertainment, just as the Bush years have provided if, if, one doesn't realize this single man's devastation on all the people living on our entire planet.
Superbad (2007)
Supersad
I don't know why I don't like this film. I mean, it's about two guys who are long time friends and want to get laid. And it doesn't turn out to be that hard for them because the girls like them in this film. I still don't know why I have antipathy for this film, but it just makes me sad. Maybe because that guy was so angry through the whole film and their relationship was kind of weak, even though they realized they loved each other. Co-dependent, OK, I just didn't like this film. Where is the center of good in it? Nowhere. So they were co-dependent. So that nice looking chic wanted to get with the mean guy, OK, OK. Sometimes girls go for outspoken angry personalities. That's OK. I understand that. But why didn't I like this film? I guess it's everything else. Life doesn't' seem like this. This is an escapist fantasy and not funny at all. It is not a dramedy but a drama it seems. What's the film's meaning? What does it mean? For me, it wasn't a fun ride, just made me kind of sad and I watched it with not a little contempt in my heart. That can't be a good thing.
My Kid Could Paint That (2007)
very berry sad
I hate the media! Poor Marla!! This American circus pops up in a culture or in a culture without a culture and runs its apoplectic course until it tumbles off the side of a cliff and finally blows up. Money, Money, Money! Take money out of art and what do you have? Art. How many of us see art in our daily lives on a regular basis? A bare sincere smile devoid of any irony, clouds flying by addressed to the North Pole? How many thousands was that woman willing to pay to relive a childhood feeling! Art is necessary but we can't believe that a child can do it because the show must go on. Keep the media circus going. Destroy a soul. America has been more than willing to pay that price easily for nearly a century without even a hint of a desire for self-reflection much less regulation. Remember those hate letters! What a sad century when the Dow Jones is the barometer for the national self-worth.
The American media is a Juggernaut so we know we have to be careful. These unsuspecting parents were not. First identify it, then if you can't control it and it doesn't serve your immediate ends, kill it. Good job 60 minutes! I'll be sure to tune in next week!
When Leonard Coen sings, "Stop up the hole in your culture...When they say 'repent,' I don't know what they mean." Now we know know what he means.
The Big One (1997)
Michael Moore is the man and you can too!
Ten years later and the consequences of the corporate greed and American National Naivitee have borne fruit. The country is in a depression, all of the manufacturing jobs are outsourced, and I.O.U.S.A a lot of money. The champions of film are really Robert Greenwald, Jareckie, Furguson, Chomsky, Archbar, Abott, and Moore, and a few others; the ones who make powerful social documentaries such as this so anyone who cares can take notice, educate themselves, and get fired up! The real problem in film is to get people with a conscience and lots of money to start to fund features that are as socially explosive as these documentaries. I have a few in mind. So far no one has turned up. Except the Canadian guy who funded Battle in Seattle who new he was going to loose money. Where are these Champions hiding, if they exist at all? The real pleasure of this film, for me anyway, are the two sill shots of the of Chaiman Phil Night and Steve Forbes. Look into their eyes! What cowards! What Nowhere men! That's just awesome.
The Last King of Scotland (2006)
Excellent historical fiction
I do believe it was the editor's fault that this film was not even nominated for an Academy award. Should have won in my opinion instead of The Departed, but Scorcese was due.
How many times can he cut to James McAvoy's face for reaction before the film becomes as heavy-handed as a leaden spoon? Excellent film really which moves a bit too fast for me.
Was there enough coverage in this film? Hard to say without seeing all the footage. Really impressive that it was apparently made for eight million considering its scope and quality. Leave it to the English to keep the costs down.
Battle in Seattle (2007)
This is a very good film
What a surprise that there are actually people interested in making films like this. I must question, however, as the head activist did in the film, what these activists actually accomplished? I believe it is better to work with one's brains than actually provoke such direct antagonism in order to achieve the goals which this film so proudly and courageously professes. A general strike would be the vehicle to get people's attention, but I am not sure that these are the kind of groups with so much hatred which would attract a general demographic. They should try to become calm and rethink their long term strategy. The correct overview of the ensuing five years of the convention at the end of the film points to the fact that no significant gains were made.
That, and work with young people, not old, to get them thinking and about and acting on the problems of our world. It would be great if they could be reached before high school, but most probably in high school and college is where the ideological education must be perused. All in all a very good film which does make people feel as well as think.
Brideshead Revisited (2008)
No story taking shape
When there was no story taking shape ala motivations and moving the plot foreword in any meaningful way well into the film, I began thinking that this was a story about the overwhelming forces which are out of the characters' hands that shape peoples' destinies. But that wasn't quite right. Religeon is a nebulous indefinite obstacle in this not very dramatic theater piece. Why did the main character feel he had to let go of his long sought after love interest at end of the film? I didn't get that at all. After longing for her the entire film and finally getting her, he lets her go?
It was true that the Ryder character although a bit luminous and likable didn't belong to any "club." That is a problem with any protagonist, someone who throughout the film does not take a stand about anything. And the worst part is the film makes you pay attention as if it has a point to make. Let me rewrite it and I'd give Ryder a purpose of shattering the number the mother did on the kids and him getting together with both of them. When they get back from Venice the forces of antagonism are strong indeed.
Transsiberian (2008)
Farce
It is true that the way in which Mortimer plays her character she is almost totally irredeemable. This is somewhat of a surprise because I thought I saw her before, and I did, in Two Brothers and a Bride, which she did quite a good job. I read that she has no formal acting training, but that certainly didn't stop her in the first film. It must be in the way which she played Jessie, and the brutal murder which was half-heartedly justified and didn't help either. She was not very sympathetic.
It is ridiculous that the detective lets Jessie and Roy go in the end without finding out where Carlos was. He had to answer for the that money! Why would he protect the two of them if he was crooked like they all are? There are worse foreign actors who play Russians and Kingsly did an almost acceptable job. And Abby finding the money at the end? What@?! I'm sure she would have gotten to a hospital in real life much less gotten the money! But really with what is written the film slips into farce.
Stealing America: Vote by Vote (2008)
No use crying over spilt blood.
Was Bush really elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004? Was he really our president all these years? Would the Iraq war have happened if Gore and Kerry were rightfully elected presidents? Watch this documentary and decide for yourself. If all the votes had been counted in both elections, the answer would have been no. According to this doc. But hey, maybe its makers are crazy. Maybe its all fantasy. We all wish it were. No in America, Never. The land of Truth and justice. Red, White, and Blue, Forever.
Did the supreme court defecate itself all over America in 2000, not willing to count all the votes in Florida? We are reminded once again and it still stinks and will forever.
The cowardly Democrats are also revealed for their spineless selves and make Republicans, who at least are willing to cheat and fight for their misguided ideology seem like deserving conquerors. If there is anything true in America, ever, it has to be fought for. Just like the civil war. Hands have to get bloodied, comfort zones obliterated, and Reagan's Pollyanic dream delusions finally crushed.
Viva Revolucion! (the quite type, you know, that will make those five criminals on the supreme court seethe enough to institute martial law to defend their bogus religion and then, and only then, the right to bear arms will finally be justified. Go see this doc!
Surfer, Dude (2008)
Hey Dude, mellow out :)
I like films like this more and more.
Not much to say, this film won't stress you out, won't make to many demands on you, like a surfer girlfriend, and you don't have to even pay that much attention.
The goats, you gotta enjoy the goats. You didn't enjoy the goats?
I don't know what lest to say, like the movie itself.
Mellow out, enjoy life and enjoy this flick. A rumpas through the sun with McConaghey as the leader of the tribe.
Could have had more surfing. Music was alright. I liked it.
This film works because it is a blueprint for a life that definitely has its appeal. Be Your own man, surf, get the girls, be true to yourself, enjoy life, be one with nature.
Sideways (2004)
This is a contemptible film.
Please look at a_franklin's review of this film. I can not say it better so I will limit my review to a couple of comments and observations. a_franklin says that if you genuinely enjoyed this movie you should be ashamed of yourself. I wouldn't quite put it like that, but the sentiment is this: If you did, you should take a chance and look into the reasons why you enjoyed it. Chances are, you looked past many, many things. I think about them and it makes me sick. Oh, by the way, the film sucks too.
People enjoy films for many reasons, actors, realism, aesthetics, even just given the chance to feel something for a change. Anything. I'm convinced that Americans look to entertainment to have meaningful experience. If you live in the states, you can't argue otherwise. The story's meaning is atrocious. There really isn't one complete unit of meaning in this film, but if you put all the pieces together, it's pretty scary.The fact that it was nominated for an academy award is even scarier. The center of good is non-existent in this film. Welcome to the pleasure dome.
Pineapple Express (2008)
The best comedy ever made.
Pretty cool, ay!? Not much to say, just got back from the film, at least...a couple of girls sitting next o me laughed, really dead house. One has to see this movie on Friday night, for sure. People just sat there in front of me. 2 of them. I hardly noticed they were there, because they never made a sound.
This was a great film because it lets you feel. You can relax and open up and enjoy life. People are so frozen these days they just sit there in the theater. I don't even smoke out. The concession you have to make in order to partake in this disbelief are the murders, which are too real at times, it seems. Couldn't they have made the gunshots quieter? This is the best comedy ever made. I laughed my head off. Why did the screenwriters decide to sell drugs to fourteen year olds? Smoked so much they didn't think about it. Movie builds a really good case against legalizing drugs, actually, and surprising that it carried some serious heart.
About Schmidt (2002)
Pathetically American
This is a terrible film. 22 dollars a month can buy you an ounce of redemption. That is the controlling idea of this sad story. What's so sad about it is that it is true. I can't stand these people. The American Experience seems to breed them. Is this a reason to make a film featuring them? I don't think so. What's the point, the're everywhere.
Really, truly
utterly
pathetic. And sad.
It's the script and Nicholson's assuming assumptions regarding the righteousness of this character why the film doesn't work as a cautionary tale. If he played it more loose and without his usual assuming manner, then the film stood a chance. This is the umpteenth time Payne has put verisimilitude on the screen and widely missed the mark.
Would have been an OK film if it worked in that way, or a pretty good dramedy if the character arched more.
Uptown Girls (2003)
A good dramedy.
This is actually a nine or eight star film if you are open to it.
The critics have lost their capacity to enjoy films, much like the Fanning character in the movie. But, for them, sadly, there is no redemption. Fanning is brilliant, every time she opens her mouth she touches your heart. Murphy is very good, and as one IMDb user has written, "adults probably wrote it off as a 'kids movie' and the kids didn't understand the emotional plot line"....interesting explanation as to why the film did only 37 million domestically.
Who is the audience for this film? What age? Women, from fourteen to thirty, probably. The only fault I can think of is it moves too fast to get to the story, and a few more nuances would have made it a little more palpable. I liked this film.
Mamma Mia! (2008)
Mama Mia!
Why not make a film like this with young actors instead of old women who are not funny? Maryl Streep is miscast in this role. She is very difficult to look at, and would be a better cast as a which in Narnia, or something. Young, healthy, energetic women, that's the way to go in a musical!
I have never wished anyone ill in my life. I hope they loose their shirt on this film. Try as they might to ruin the great ABBA songs, they fail mainly if you exit the theater in time! Good luck!
Terrible film.
Awful film.
Starting Out in the Evening (2007)
Interesting, Intelligent film.
This film hits some beautiful notes. The pace is intimate and honest. I wish the screenwriter was able to take the main relationship between the author and the grad student into another direction though, something, well, more extraordinary. I'll let you think about that.
An intelligent film never the less. One almost has to watch it not for the controlling idea but rather, for the bits and pieces of what is said between people, because these are pretty real characters who do turn into people.
The film does not revolve around one dramatic value, but manages to cast some light in various places which shimmers nicely all around. Good job.
Friday Night Lights (2004)
Inocuous, ineffective film. They know what the're doing.
Apparently this is a very hard film to make well. It very well maybe an impossible film to make well. I haven't read the book, but by all serious accounts it by and large dismisses and does not articulate the main argument in the book. Impossible for two reasons: It would take an Oliver Stone in his Midnight Express devotional mood to make it, and apparently not Grazier and Berg.
Is being stuck in the realities of Football Texas as bad as a Turkish prison? No, but at least there you know you are in prison. In the realities of this film you do not realize significantly the quality of that which binds you, which is the failure of this film. In the end it can't have it both ways. To have all of the expectant beats of a traditional sports movie, and have the desired ironic effect. You get exited as you watch this film by all of the sounds and reactions, and those realities aren't shaped with irony by the screenwriter. Can they be? Very tricky to do I think. In the end we are suppose to come away with... is an insurance salesman, so and so is has twins, they lost the football game...and what? Everyone in this film lost, even the likable coach who was the inadvertent orchestrator of this institutionalized brutality that we have been conditioned to accept as normal so those unfortunate "normal" people who are everywhere can get there anger out by first investing their emotions in, then watching young men, so unlike themselves, time has proved, bludgeon themselves every week.
Oh, now they cash in on the fact and we are reminded that it's a true story. That surely has to give it some more credibility. Did you know...this actually happened...
Oh, oh, the critics lauded the film, and it made money, oh, oh, I like it when I touch it cuz she moan a l'il bit/ Jeans saggin' so I can see her thong a l'il bit.
Chingy knows where it's at and he says it. These filmmakers hide and distort it pretty well. They might be "Gettin' it" in their personal lives, but on screen, well its a different matter altogether isn't it.
A really a muddled effort and message.
Impossible to make maybe also because of the economics of film. Who would pay to see one of the sacred cows of American culture (football) beaten and demolished on screen? I would, maybe you would too, but unfortunately not enough people to pay for the film and let the people at Universal keep their jobs, or so they timorously believe. What a great film that would have been! Hard to write well, impossible to make, but at least worth the work and effort.
You see you have to hate it and enjoy it at the same time both in traditional ways the filmmakers believe.
So you get the watered down bittersweet Koolaid to sip on. It won't kill you, but might make you wonder, hopefully at the duplicity of film's meretricious, ineffective creators. Hollywood's sharp understanding of the economics of the lowest, common, safe economic denominator time after time. The false thin facade of Grazier, Berg, and co. that if it has the veneer of truth that it's all good. They know what their doing.
The irony here is, though, that I think the people involved were considering and are considered being involved in a "cutting edge" non commercial venture film, because this film is not intrinsically commercial. Go figure. In which case they just didn't have the know how to do it right, or perhaps their ideological baggage kept them from seeing the correct path because I think they think they made a great or at least a good, maybe even a very good "against the grain" film. Probably an amalgamation of everything.