Change Your Image
survivor-2
Reviews
The Sixth Sense (1999)
what's all the brouhaha?
that's right why???? what is so good about this film? I can't figure it out for the life of me. Well I can. The ending is. and the little hints pointing to it during the film. And Haley Joel Osmont, he's good. But the oscar nods (apart from HJO) simply go against all belief. Best film??????? please. Best script. How obvious. people see the ending and the hints (the script was probably written with the ending in mind, so the hints are easy to place) But what they fail to see is that apart from those the script is decidedly average at best, with forced or sometimes outright bad dialogue, and hardly any excitement at all. And then there's directing. This gets a directing nod???? this kitschy oh I dunno. It just makes me mad that this average and kitschy directing gets nominated when Paul Thomas Anderson does not. And finally Toni Colette. She annoyed me the whole film. Every scene with her was like the ultimate proof of what I said before. (though that might have been her dialogues as well, butr even then, just look at Angela Bassett in Strange Days to see just how overblown and absurd dialogue can still be made great - Can you imagine 'I see the earth opening up and swallowing us all' sound believable? It did there, Toni Colette doesn't even come close)
But now don't get me wrong, I don't think the sixth sense is a bad film. It's just ... average on all accounts. and if you already know how it's going to end, well it's not even worth a rental anymore :(
Joan of Arc (1999)
BAD, thank god for Dustin Hoffman (might contain a minor spoiler, but I don't think it really is)
I don't know if many of you are familiar with the history of this film. You see it started out years ago as the pet project of director extraordinaire Kathryn Bigelow (Strange Days, Point Break), which she finally got to make, with french money and Luc Besson Producing. Until they were at odds about who should play the lead. Bigelow wanted Claire Danes, Besson wanted his wife Milla Jovovich. So out goes Bigelow, and in steps Besson. Or if you wish out goes the passionate writer-director who had been dreaming of this project for well over ten years, and who would have undoubtedly brought us a truly great movie (she always does that, even with the weakest scripts)
But what do we get instead? A senseless and very very bad movie. take Milla Jovovich. Her Joan of Arc looks (the whole film) like she's about to cry (she does it at least once, which was a relief actually) she is just whining and looking at everyone as if to say give me what I want or i'll cry and tell everyone you've raped me or something. But it gets worse. The movie has a tendency to repeat itself after every ten-fifteen minute. We get a battle, battle is won or lost. Joan wants to continue to fight, but the generals don't, Joan whines, next battle and so on. The movei has one saving grace in the form of Dustin Hofman who has a small part near the end, but even that is almost ruined by the stupid reverb effect that sometimes is and sometimes isn't placed on his voice. I suppose it haf a deeper, symbolic meaning, but in the end it destroyed the one saving grace of the film. Still Dustin made me add another point to the score. I gave it 2 instead of 1
Oha, and milla? Only days after the film she and Besson started (/were? not sure) a divorce. What a waste
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Worst film I ever saw (and I've seen lots)
I don't know how to put this, but I was appaled at this film's extreme badness. Everything seemed to be in place for a great film, you see. especially the cast. I had just seen Jeremy Irons in Lolita and was anticipating a lot from him and the other cast members of MAN. How wrong was I. whether it was the cast itself, or their annoyance with the ridiculous script and dialogue I can't tell, but this film is easily the worst stinker I've ever seen. Oh and an honorable mention goes out to Judith Godreche, whom I'd nominate for worst supporting actress ever.
You see I enjoy films. I even enjoy bad films. Most of them. I thought Godzilla was supremely bad, but I enjoyed it. But this is one of those few films that I was just angry at having spent money on. So far there's only 4 other films that has happened with for me (Asterix & Obelix Contre César, The Avengers, The Runaway Bride and The messenger: The Story Of Joan Of Arc), so for your mental health avoid this (and the others mentioned) AT ALL COST
Strange Days (1995)
too good for words
It's simple really. Strange days is magnificent. It's gripping, exciting perfectly directed and acted and the atmosphere is yet to beaten. Why do I say all this? simple really. I think it's the best film ever. I do. Really. Never before Strange Days had I seen a movie with as little pretence as Strange Days. While lots of people will argue that, for instance, Pulp fiction is at least as good, I will always counter with "and pulp fiction really likes to show it". Pulp fiction oozes best film, whereas Strange days earns it. Right from the gripping first minutes up to the climatic countdown to 2000 it just takes you by the throat and doesn't let go. Especially noteworthy is the acting of the then fairly unknown ensemble cast, especially Ralph Fiennes and Angela Basset in the lead roles and Tom Sizemore as Max are really amazing. Something that always bugs me when reading negative reviews about this film is pointing to it being unrealistic and the story being weak. I disagree with both of those. Strange days is uberrealistic, and forces us to think about ourselves. Those people saying the movie isn't realistic should check their own state of denial. Strange days simply shows what an excalation of rascism, which I believe is currently happening, will do to a nation. And to those who say the script isn't good I have one word: sub-plots. While indeed the basic idea is just good-evil, the small sub-plots make the whole script more than worthwile. I have seen the movie five times now, and I have noticed small details which, before, I had missed everytime.
So if you haven't yet seen this great movie and are open-minded, go see it now.
You know you want it :)
Astérix & Obélix contre César (1999)
why oh why?
Let's make one thing clear. This movie isn't as bad as I expected. But then, I expected it to be about the worst piece of trash this side of alpha centauri. You see, the critics around here universally trashed it. Worse so then anything I have ever seen (including Godzilla and the Man in the Iron Mask), so I was very, very wary upon entering the theatre. But hey, this is Asterix, one of the greatest comic books ever, It can't be that hard? Well it was. It sucks. Big time. It's filled with unnecessary and even annoying special effects (beams out of the eyes when hypnotizing - puh-leeze) to show off the budget. It's got the biggest plotholes I have ever seen in a movie (how does this stupid slave who just pretends so be a psychic know how to hypnotize), unfinished or gratuitous subplots (Laetitia Casta as Falballa is obviously just in it to show of her boobs, because there is no connection whatsoever to anything in the movie) and to top it off some laughable masks and make-up to make Asterix & co look like the comic counterpart.
There are some saving graces though, in three shapes. First, obviously, Benigni. Depardieu is also pretty decent (if nowhere near really good) as Obelix and German actor Gottfried John is Caesar, both in looks and the way he acts.
Still avoid if you can. It's one of the worst and most unfunny movies this year.
The Thin Red Line (1998)
Powerful, but not for everyone
Well, I don't really know what to say about this movie. It's easily one of the best I've seen. but I can't really express why. So I'll just address some criticisms. first: no characters. This one's easy. There aren't supposed to be any. All the characters just represent a human. They are all just parts of our human psyche (for instance Nolte is frustration and Kotias is humanity in my opinion). Two: there is no plot. Yes there is. Just look a bit further. It's about the development of a man in the front of war (and I don't mean just caviezel, remember, the whole cast represents one man) third: it's pseudo-philosophy. This is utter nonsense. I study philosophy, and Malick used to teach it. He knows what he's talking about. And read Nietzsche and compare him to sgt. West (Penn). Fourth: It's boring. Look at 1-3 and watch the movie again with them in mind. Now I've so far seen it twice and I have to admit, the first time I saw it (at 22.30h) I didn't really get it either and I got one nagging feeling, which I get every now and then after seeing a movie. So I went to see it again at a more decent hour, and I realized there was nothing wrong with the film but with the way I had looked at it the first time. How much I'd missed.
And if you still don't like it now. Then I guess it just wasn't for you. This is just like any art not for everybody. Remember, there's still lots of people who say picasso's work is ugly.
Lolita (1997)
Powerful, moving, imperfect. Nabokov would be proud
I don't really know what I can say about this film. Being Dutch-speaking It had taken me some time to get to grips with Nabokov's book (still one of my favourite books of all time). The movie is in my opinion the best possible adaptation of the book. This doesn't mean the movie is perfect, far from. But it's as good as book adaptations come. The cast is nearly perfect. Especially Jeremy Irons, who is appropriately tragic and funny, and newcomer Dominique Swain (most people will remember her as the teenage daughter in Face off) as Lolita. The movie is very much like Nabokovs novel a combination of a love story, a tragedy and a lot of Irony and sarcasm. There is one fatal flaw in this film though, which stops it from getting a 10 mark from me. The ending. The overly theatrical death scene of Quilty. While (like the rest of the movie) following closely to Nabokovs very words (the playing piano...) it should have either been a lot more (sarcasm) or a lot less theatrical. Still that's not enough to spoil a truly great film.
Now as you may have seen I'm Belgian. Remember, Belgium is the country that started all this paedophilia witch hunts. So when (surprisingly) the movie opened here, I saw a review in one of Belgium's most important weekly mags (Humo) who were furious about this film. (and gave it zero out of four possible stars). There main reasons were these: one you don't make this sort of movie post-dutroux(The belgian child molester), second you don't remake a kubrick movie. There was no word on Nabokov's book or even the movie itself. I was furious. First of all their two reasons for destroying this film are invalid: the movie was greenlighted quite some time before the dutroux-scandal and it's not I repeat NOT a remake of a Kubrick film. It's an adaptation of one of the greatest works of fiction of the 20th century! I hope people will dare to see this for what it is and not for what they think it is. And I also hope the Oscar voters dare to nominate it . There are at least two spots more than deserving of an Oscar: best actor (Irons) and best adapted screenplay.
Boogie Nights (1997)
There's only one real reason why this was is one of my favourites
Really, there is. Forget the magnificent acting and directing. There's only one reason why this film is really good. It's honest. Totally honest. It shows people at their best and at their worst. But it shows people. Real people. Or as real as you can get in a film. It never overdoes the good or the bad sides. it's just honest and real. Just make sure you don't watch it with some small-minded fool who refuses to see that and just sees porn actors, gay people ("again those gays" - this IS a quote) and others snort coke. Keep an open mind and enjoy this.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
smarter than it looks. look deeper people!
I've just finished reading the comments on this film and noticed two peculiar phenomena: 1) people either love it or hate it and 2) no matter what everybody seems to miss the point. the first statement is of course easily verifiable, so I'll only comment on the first one.
everybody seems to be thinking this is either something like a Mel Brooks-type parody or just a comical film. It isn't. It's so much more than those. sure, it's got predictable gags and one-liners, but they aren't what's funny about the movie. neither are the direct James Bond inspired thingies (dr Evil? number 2? slow killing contraptions?) They are indeed predictable and mostly quite stupid. But simply saying that, and judging the movie by it is not doing it any justice. The point wasn't the joke, it was killing the joke over and over. The point wasn't the obvious spoof. it was the whole movie not the single parts. it was the subtle direction parody, not dr. evil. It was ... the fact that it's not a '60s or Bond parody, but a parody of the nineties. of our way of life. It was also a parody of every comical movie available by simply taking a joke and then making it ten times dumber, more obvious and generally unexpected because of this, and then repeating the joke ad nauseam and ultimately killing it. It's...
oh, did I like it? of course I did. You could too. just try a little harder :)
Strange Days (1995)
too good for words
It's simple really. Strange days is magnificent. It's gripping, exciting perfectly directed and acted and the atmosphere is yet to beaten. Why do I say all this? simple really. I think it's the best film ever. I do. Really. Never before Strange Days had I seen a movie with as little pretence as Strange Days. While lots of people will argue that, for instance, Pulp fiction is at least as good, I will always counter with "and pulp fiction really likes to show it". Pulp fiction oozes best film, whereas Strange days earns it. Right from the gripping first minutes up to the climatic countdown to 2000 it just takes you by the throat and doesn't let go. Especially noteworthy is the acting of the then fairly unknown ensemble cast, especially Ralph Fiennes and Angela Basset in the lead roles and Tom Sizemore as Max are really amazing. Something that always bugs me when reading negative reviews about this film is pointing to it being unrealistic and the story being weak. I disagree with both of those. Strange days is uberrealistic, and forces us to think about ourselves. Those people saying the movie isn't realistic should check their own state of denial. Strange days simply shows what an excalation of rascism, which I believe is currently happening, will do to a nation. And to those who say the script isn't good I have one word: sub-plots. While indeed the basic idea is just good-evil, the small sub-plots make the whole script more than worthwile. I have seen the movie five times now, and I have noticed small details which, before, I had missed everytime.
So if you haven't yet seen this great movie and are open-minded, go see it now.
You know you want it :)