SLR-3's Reviews

Lust, Caution (2007)

3/10

13 October 2007

This film is marketed as a thriller. Don't fall for it. Long and tedious this is anything but a thriller, and is a good example of why one should not try to make a full length feature based on a short story.

The textbooks for university courses under the heading of "womens' studies" often claim that all sex is rape. Ang Lee seems out to prove this true. There are a lot of sex scenes. None of them have anything to do with love or tenderness.

The main character's motivation for her actions at the end of the story is either obscure or absurd, depending on your viewpoint.

Thumbs down from three of the four of us who attended.

18 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Moustache (2005)

2/10

Come on, people, you're being had!

20 September 2006

Everyone is trying to be so sophisticated with their analyses of this film - as if it's some sort of legitimate puzzle to be solved. This is not "2045" nor "8 1/2" nor "M. Hire." This is a filming of sequences of events which cannot stem from one another.

Folks, the reason the director has no answer to the question of "what is this film about?" is that the film makes no sense. The viewer has no idea what's happening, especially at the end. What is the reality of the situation? No way to know. And no reason to care. This is food for thought? Not. This is nonsense.

Even giving it a 'bye' for making no sense one cannot forgive the flaws in the story line. Why would Marc not show his wife the picture immediately? Why did he not try to follow her to his mother's house? What reason does he have, really, to doubt himself.

Worse, the film, though short, drags. I thought he was on that dang ferry for a week!

8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

4/10

The worst HP film by far.

22 November 2005

What was Mike Newell thinking when he turned down the original idea of having two long films for this book? This one, despite its wonderful performances by Gleeson and Fiennes and yes, at last, even Radcliffe, is a dismal failure. And it's all at the feet of the director who chose to leave out many scenes which were important to the next book, and a few that were important even to this one.

Further, for the first half of the film, Newell either allowed or directed Gambon to read his lines as a harsh Dumbledore - which is totally out of character.

Mike Newell - shame on you. We could have had something magnificent. You chose to do the easy thing, instead of the right one.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Flightplan (2005)

3/10

Makes no sense at all

27 September 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Somewhere in this film (probably before it was edited) there might have been a halfway feasible story. But we don't see it on the screen.

********************* SPOILER ALERT ****************************

Don't read further if you haven't yet seen the film. The plan for the hijacking makes NO sense whatsoever. It is possible (barely) that a little girl was not noticed getting on the plane; not noticed by the antsy, head turning kids in the seat ahead of her; not noticed when she and her mother moved down the aisle and to the back of the plane - yes it's possible. But there is no way the hijackers could have counted on that. And yet they did. For had somebody seen the child the plan would not have worked out as it did.

There are other plot problems as well but they are less intrusive.

The cast was wonderful. The pacing was off because the director chose to have an unending plane search instead of any real insight into the hijacker's plan. (Were we supposed to know who Avian or Avianics or whatever the name was were? I sure didn't) Gave it a three.

9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

1/10

Unbelievably bad

31 August 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This has not been a good summer for movies, but this was THE worst - yes, even worse than "Bewitched".

Three of us went: two men, one woman (that would be me). About twenty five minutes into the film both of the guys wanted to leave. I gave it five more minutes and then I, too, gave up. In seven years of movie-going together this is the first time we walked out on a film (we even stayed to the end of "The Avengers") Why? Because it wasn't even remotely funny. The first five minutes are fine. The character of Andy seems likable and the camera work is quite good. We chuckled. Then the whole thing went downhill. These guys are unbelievable. No one acts like that and even if they did no one would be laughing at them. Tell me what's funny about a bunch of guys pissing in public? What's funny about a fellow being such a bad lover he gives the girl a whack in the nose resulting in a nosebleed? Had I gone to the film alone I'd have figured it was a guy thing - you know, like the Three Stooges. But the guys I was with couldn't believe that anybody would give high marks to this one. We all voted it a ONE. Would have been ZERO but that wasn't a choice.

46 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Melinda and Melinda (2004)

3/10

Just *Yawn* awful

23 March 2005

Three of us attended this film and all three were bored.

We found the film both confusing and dull, which is a strange combination indeed.

The idea is a good one to be sure but the story lines were unnecessarily confusing. Did the tragic Melinda kill her husband? Then why was he still fighting for total parental control?

The acting was stiff - except for Melinda herself who was over the top. Every word out of Will's mouth seemed like it ought to have come from Woddy's.

I'm a real Woody Allen fan but he missed the mark on this one.

1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Aviator (2004)

2/10

A film totally without soul

31 December 2004

Watching this film was torture.

First there was the soundtrack -- tinny sounding music from the big band era which seemed to be coming from schoolroom intercom speakers. Then there was Scorcese's constantly moving camera. What's up with that? He actually made me feel seasick. I had to close my eyes quite a lot during the film.

But worst of all was the treatment -- a story totally without soul. It's fair to compare it with Franco Zeffirelli's recent "Callas Forever" which was a touching tribute full of love for the subject matter. There was none of that in Aviator. Scorcese seems not to have liked Hughes very much, which is too bad as it made us uncaring as well.

I gave it a 2. Hubby (who was the one who wanted to see it) gave it a 3. You might want to give it a miss!

67 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Callas Forever (2002)

9/10

A truly touching tribute

18 December 2004

This is a clever and effective way to honor Callas. Zeffirelli has given us the Callas he knew and the voice few of us have heard properly until now.

Fanny Ardant and Jeremy Irons were perfect in their roles. It was fun to see Justino Diaz as well.

You could tell who the opera lovers in the audience were by those who laughed at the Renata Tibaldi line. There were actually very few at the showing we attended.

Four of us were in our group and all gave it 8's or 9's.

5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ray (I) (2004)

9/10

Ray is a very, very good movie.

6 November 2004

It's entertaining. The music is excellent.

Jamie Foxx is awesome as Ray Charles. He has the mannerisms down pat. I met Ray back in the sixties when I worked one of his concerts, so I know perfectly well what he looked like. But Jamie (who doesn't look like him at all, really) made me forget that I wasn't watching the real Ray Charles.

I gave it a nine.

Catch it if you can.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Japanese Story (2003)

9/10

This film is extraordinary

6 February 2004

This is the sort of film that you must commit to. If you sit in your seat and analyse it, without getting involved in it, you will be disappointed as some of the folks were according to these comments.

I feel sorry for anyone who did not find this film to be absolutely exquisite.

For those of us who appreciated it, no words are necessary. For those who did not, no words will suffice.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Under the Tuscan Sun (2003)

5/10

Scores low on the romance scale

19 October 2003

Been wanting to see this since it opened. Finally got hubby and his friend to go, and they really liked it a lot -- but I found it trite. Every trick in the book -- including a kitten.

I objected also to the overwhelming theme of "woman must have man to be happy" that absolutely pervaded this film. In a well drawn, genre romance the fellow ought be as desirous of a mate as is the woman. Here, none of the men she hooks up with seem to need her at all. And she seems to be unable to be whole without a man in her life.

Tuscany is beautiful, but we knew that.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mystic River (2003)

5/10

A tough call

16 October 2003

This one's a tough call. On the one hand, it was a nearly perfect film; direction, acting, camera work, music, all as close to faultless as one could want.

On the other hand, there's the story. It's a gut-wrenching look at the lives of three men and their families in their darkest hours. Because the acting (especially Penn and Robbins) is so good, you do care about the characters. The story is well constructed with a beginning, a middle and an appropriate end. But there is nothing to be learned here, no redemption, no nuggets of wisdom to be had. Unlike the equally gut-wrenching "A Shop on Main Street" (to which I gave a 10), Mystic River is a story without a point. We left wondering why we had put ourselves through it. I wouldn't do it again.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Freaky Friday (2003)

8/10

Fun and well done

9 September 2003

What a lark! Definitely the best acting I've seen in a body-swap movie. Both hubby and I thought it was very good. It moved right along, the camera work was excellent and acting first rate, especially Curtis who did a spot-on job playing the teenager. As a feel-good movie it is quite satisfying.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

9/10

Best of the Summer

5 August 2003

A wonderful film, full of joie de vivre. Well shot and brilliantly acted and directed -- but it's the story that wins. Kudos to the writers. EastEnders fans will spot some current and past cast members. It's a total delight. Go.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Seabiscuit (2003)

2/10

Every schlock trick in the book

31 July 2003

Great cast, excellent story, fabulous camera work -- all hit hard on the head by the Great American Bludger. There wasn't one scene fading into another without some kind of tacky segway. Every one of the crucial initial meetings of any two main characters was hokey.

All they needed, to make total trash, would have been an outdoor dining scene with the trees lit with blue christmas tree lights. How'd they missed that trick. one wonders?

8 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Identity (2003)

1/10

Why can't I give it a ZERO?

1 May 2003

I really HATED "Identity" though everybody else liked it. The acting was fine, camera work quite good. It was one of those David Lynch kind of things -- you think you're watching one kind of movie and it turns out to be something quite different. (Oh, you're trying to figure out who the killer is? Nope, ya can't do that -- we're not playing by those rules -- ha ha gottcha)

Keep in mind that I also hated "American Beauty" (Yeh, Dad should be delighted that his daughter is dating the drug dealer next door), "The Fugitive" (Uh oh, nothing has happened for a while, lets flash a bloody knife stabbing the air to keep them awake -- or maybe put the camera in a chopper and fly over the edge of something really high) and "Shakespeare in Love" (See how I have this camera dolly? See how I can make it move all the time?) -- and am therefore not to be trusted.

5 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Blood Work (2002)

6/10

Gripping -- until it breaks down at the end

15 August 2002

This is a fascinating film: great story, excellent acting, well shot. So for the longest time whilst watching it I thought it the equal of "In the Line of Fire". But it is not.

The problem comes towards the end, once McCaleb has figured out the identity of the killer. Any sane person would have called for backup. McCaleb chooses to go it alone and so we are treated to the requisite scene of cat and mouse in the fog -- combined with child in jeopardy.

At that point what was an original and artful story turns banal.

But it's worth going to see for the first 3/4 of the film.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

9/10

They're Alive! Thank you.

18 January 2002

I first read LOTR in 1967 and, like so many others, was afraid to see the movie lest it disappoint. The casting of Ian McKellan convinced me that the film was not being made by idiots. Indeed, it was not.

Peter Jackson has made an epic a bit long on battles and short on meals but one must admit that meals, however dear they are to Hobbits, do not make interesting visuals.

This was a very fine film, extraordinarily well cast, beautifully shot and perfectly acted.

Frodo lives!

Thank you, everyone.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

5/10

Beautifully filmed. Poorly told. Shame on you all.

10 December 2001

The film version tells a weak story. Harry never has to work for anything (money, quittage, the stone itself.) Instead, he is rescued by a centaur, is freely given a great deal of cash, is suddenly in possession of the stone.

Additionally, we do not know the true power of the stone. At no time does anyone seem to be in real danger from it. We have to wonder what the fuss is.

And -- cardinal sin here -- Harry does not seem to grow at all. He is exactly the same little boy at the end as he was at the beginning. This after a Hero's Quest?

And dumblesticks to Richard Harris -- who phoned in his role.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

K-PAX (2001)

4/10

Not an honest movie

23 November 2001

This just doesn't track. Whichever conclusion one wants to draw -- is Prot and alien or a human -- is nullified by actions which would prove the other conclusion. There are two many events which are mutually exclusive with respect to Prot's identity. Give it a miss.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Memento (2000)

9/10

Clever, absorbing -- a must see film

18 April 2001

This is a great film. It is entertaining, to be sure, but also thought provoking and intelligent. I thought I had the "truth" figured out -- and indeed I did...except for the REAL truth, the unexpected culprit.

If you like puzzles, if you liked M. Hire, go see this one.

Kudos to the writer.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Tailor of Panama (2001)

5/10

Bloody boring!

11 April 2001

Boorman is one of my favorite directors, LeCarre a favorite author, and the acting in this film is first class. But it fails to satisfy. It is too much the thriller to qualify as a character study, and too slow and character driven to qualify as a thriller. It is clever, to be sure, but the plot is totally outrageous -- the end in particular is unbelievable in the extreme. The pacing drags SOOOOOO much. Several members of the audience near me fell asleep!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

1/10

One man's toxic sludge is another man's potpourri. Give it a 1.

21 November 2000

Maybe this is an awful movie, or perhaps it's just bad. Whatever, it's no fun at all. It's dark and gloomy with cardboard characters (except for the Grinch) about whom we care nothing. Too much is made of too little. The evil things that the Grinch chooses to do are merely stupid. We don't see the enough of the tender side of the Grinch to like him much.

But the dog -- the dog is very good. And Kudos to the "Dog Ear Technician".

3 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Contender (2000)

3/10

Don't waste your money - stay home and watch West Wing

26 October 2000

The contender is well acted. That being said, there is nothing else to recommend it. The story idea is sound, but was ruined by what, in literature, would be called "purple prose". The end is preachy and unbelievable. I looked at my watch at least three times during the movie -- you will, too.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Blood Simple (1984)

7/10

Don't look for a twist

15 July 2000

This is a very interesting film indeed. It's an edge-of-the-seat thriller, wonderfully acted and cleverly shot. The story doesn't win awards; it's very straight forward and left me wishing for a twist at the end.

This new (2000) Director's cut is excellent for the "scary movie" buff.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

SLR-3

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed