Reviews

Well, being a huge fan, knowing quite a lot of people in the Doors (full) circle and having been everywhere from Pere Lachaise to Rothdell Trail to Fairhaven Memorial... I have to say I did turn this on with a slight sense of anxiousness as to whether it would be another destruction of James Douglas Morrison's entire character as both the Oliver Stone horrorshow and the numerous vacuous "rockumentataries" have done.

However, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised in the main. If you're a hardcore Doors fan then despite the claims of previously unseen footage, you will have seen most of this, few people have been to Paris without bumping into the likes of Rainer Moddeman and other well connected superfans and blagging bootleg stuff and HWY and Feast of Friends have been pretty easy to secure for a long time now as have tapes of Critique etc. But, I was quite impressed with what Tom Dicillo did with the footage, not only was he sympathetic and judicious with it but he accented the narrative with it almost as good as Densmore accented anything Jim did. Clearly, for the eagle eyed, he used footage from other events to underscore a point on an entirely different event but that's just me being picky - ultimately, there is a finite amount of footage that could be trawled. He avoided a lot of the glaring pitfalls one could easily make in such a documentary - for example he didn't get too caught in the trap of juxtaposing events in the 60's with the events of the Doors (there was some of this but it was measured and relevant) and I thought Depp was okay with his voice-over although he was a little dour and the script was at times a little prescriptive and compartmentalised. I do however appreciate that the film has to be appeal to more than the hardcore afficianados and that a balance has to be struck so I think the film really does work well both for those who only have a loose interest in The Doors (or even those just interested in the era) and those more fanatical about The Doors.

I know that Ray (at least) backed this film vocally which gives it credibility from the get go and I you have to give the guy credit for using only original footage. That said, this probably reduces the "filmmaking" to that of an editor so I don't want to be too gushing but still, give the guy his due, the end product is enjoyable, reasonably balanced, it maintained interest and it definitely had some nice touches in it which as I said derived from clever use of the stock material. It wasn't just the choice of footage; it was the more the way it was deployed and paced.

Maybe if budget (or sensibilities) had allowed, the film could have encompassed some other original footage (or other stock footage even) for those Doors fans who want to learn more about the Doors landmarks - be it shots of Venice beach or Rue Beautreillis but what I am glad of is the fact that they stayed well away from including interviews with the usual crowd like Grace Slick etc. which I think would have corrupted the output.

I'll watch it (and review it) sober again and see whether I feel the same but all in all, to quote the Velvet Menace himself, "pretty good, pretty good, pretty neat, pretty neat".

Contrary to the opinions of the deluded army of comic reading Nolan fanboy geeks who have descended on IMDb, Christopher Nolan has entirely and irrevocably disappeared up his own self inflated backside with this movie. I say The Emperors New Clothes because the director will sneer at anyone who doesn't understand the film and he has thus created a perfect defence mechanism. I'm sure Di Caprio et al had in depth briefings about the narrative and can explain it verbatim but us viewers are left to work it out for ourselves. And it's so full of holes, so full of irrelevant tripe and so full of itself that it isn't easy. It's incredible that its been voted the 3rd best film of all time by IMDb users. I mean seriously, that's a joke. The fanboys all want to laud Nolan as the new Kubrick (another joke) but in doing so they have voted this tosh above ALL of Kubricks work. It's such a smug self congratulatory film from the get go and it just gets smugger as time drags on.

Now of course I appreciate that you can go too far in explaining every detail to the viewer with unnecessary script mechanics that insult the viewers intelligence. However, although you can go too far in explaining, you can also go too far in NOT explaining and expect the viewer to grasp in a single viewing what is a massively complex concept film - and one that's so badly flawed in so many areas for it to undermine the whole 'intellectual' nature of it. The idea of the film is OK and the film does have its moments but there are so many scenes that don't make sense that it spoils it entirely. I appreciate that 'heist' movies are usually procedural and that Nolan wanted to avoid that but in doing so he's created the most self-indulgent picture ever.

I could go on about the snow scene, the thoroughly implausible way these people not only do what they do but 'assemble' as a team, the oh-I'm-Christoper-so-considerably-cleverer-than-you-are-Nolan backstory with Di Caprio's wife but I'm not going to pick apart the scenes because I'd be here for hours and I haven't got the energy left after enduring this nonsense. Besides; everything could be spun that he meant this or that (he isn't as deep as he likes you to think). Inception is all fur coat and no knickers. It explains so little of what is going on that I left feeling angry. And I generally get these films so it's not a case of me being some moronic fool who struggles to follow the weather.

And billed as a completely original idea? Nah. There's obvious similarities with The Matrix, Dreamscape, Total Recall, Flatliners, Vanilla Sky, Pan's Labyrinth, Dream Demon and even one of the Star Trek Next Generation Episodes centred around the holodeck, all of which I've 'gotten' - the good ones, the bad ones, the ones you ponder for days afterwards. The fact is with this abomination I simply can't be bothered to think about it because I really don't care. I don't care about the characters, I don't care about the ending (which was excruciatingly predictable) and I don't care about how clever Nolan thinks he is. You're not mate. You've pulled a massive con with this film by creating a movie where you can call people stupid if they don't get it / like it. You get to sneer and snigger at the stupid little people. You've taken your previous successes to the movie execs and they've foolishly allowed themselves to fund your rampant self indulgence. That's what irritates me the most about this utter piffle. I understood what was understandable about this film and there are of course films where the intention is to purposely let the viewer fill in the gaps with their own imagination (generally a nice touch) but that simply isn't the case here. The story script and indeed most of the awful acting (outside of Di Caprio, Juno girl and Cillian Murphy) neither holds it together nor papers over the cracks of a weak script that's trying to be oh so deep... and badly failing.

This is over 120 minutes of my life that I will never ever get back and I simply couldn't wait for the film to end. I had lost all interest in any of the characters, their backstorys or indeed the 'mission' after an hour once I woke up to the fact that he was clearly unable to pull the film together into something coherent and genuinely contemplative. And judging by the rest of the audience and the people I was with, I wasn't the only person who left feeling bitterly cheated. I congratulate Nolan on creating hysteria, mass hypnosis and hype because he's clearly managed to brainwash a lot of the audience into making them think they've seen a clever film. That's the only inception.

Go and see this insidious fluff for a visual experience perhaps (even then; visually it's pretty overrated). But don't be surprised if you feel a strange peer group pressure to tell whoever you go to see it with that you understood it all when you probably didn't (or if you did; that you actually care and did so in spite of a dumb script).

Nolan is not nor ever will be Kubrick. Kubrick would have done this film justice - after he had rewritten the script, changed half the cast, removed 45 minutes of length and replaced it with sensible content that made the film engaging and cohesive. I fear the next set of people to be duped will be those who vote for this trite idiocy come the Oscars.

BTW I wager that Nolan watched Guy Ritchies Revolver and liked it. Congratulations Christopher, you have just descended to his level of filmmaking.

Meh.

I hated it.

The film from start to finish was product placement. Basically, it is an advert for Fed-Ex and Wilson.

I rate Tom Hanks but this was just so dire that it's soured him for me.

The only interesting scene was the plane crash and him consistently maiming himself, aside from that dullsville all the way. I wasn't expecting a rollercoaster of thrills and chills, I thought it would be really character based but I don't think that worked at all on any level.

Appalling movie and a wasted opportunity.

All I can say is that Amy Hathaway is an outstanding actress and I just can not understand why she is not massive. After her performance in this film Amy should have gone onto bigger and better things and be a household name by now...I am confounded as to why she isn't.

Great film anyway with an ecclectic cast including Benico Del Torro and Toby Maguire, I loved the whole ambience and sultriness of it. Very understated.

Oh man, what a film. I actually hate Oliver Stone and if it hadn't featured the cast it did then I wouldn't have bothered. As annoying as his style is at times in the film:- it still manages to hit the spot as a more than decent black comedy.

It is similar in style to both Downtown (superb black comedy where a man gets trapped in bad area of New York at night and just wants to get home) and Payback (where our Mel just wants his $70K, no more no less).

Going back to the cast, not only have you got great performances by Sean Penn, Jennifer Lopez (enough said!), Nick Nolte and Billy Bob Thornton (who really made his small part his own) but you also get a turnout from John Voight (typical Oliver Stone bulls**t character, why was he there? you got this, Natural Born Killers, The Doors all with wise old indian characters in them?#!), Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes (out of Romeo & Juliet)and that old chestnut; Powers Boothe. For those who have seen it...did ya spot Liv Tyler and Olivers son Sean Stone?

Anyway, the plot isn't exactly complicated (or even original, the final twist is stolen from another story) but it's good fun to watch...I could relate to how Sean Penns character was feeling...I wanted to burn down the whole town and kill everyone...the place was hell on Earth (unless you're a second generation redneck white bread trailer park kinda person, no offence).

Unless you work for the Arizona tourist board.....go see it.

4 out of 5

I think all High School Children should be made to watch this film without any cuts. It would be a hard lesson for some but ultimately worthwhile.

It would educate them against racism and show them how hard it is in prison. It would show them the absurdity of prejudice and that people can change, no matter how bad things are.

This is a magnificent movie. Edward Norton is absolutely outstanding.

You can see how passionate about the subject the writers Rose Troche and the fabulously talented Guinevere Turner were about making this movie and it must have been a labour of love for them.

I don't think this movie is just for gay women, I'm a straight man who enjoyed it too so it must have worked on a lot of levels. I thought it was a beautiful film with a lot to say and was very well shot. It made me a big fan of Guinevere Turner, I just watched Preaching to the Perverted with her in the lead role last night which I also enjoyed immensley...she has a lot of talent and obviously chooses her roles selectively.

It is an arty film which I think some people may watch with the wrong intentions...they will be disappointed but so what...they're not the people the writers intended the movie for.

I enjoyed Black Rain, it was an excellent film as I adore Ridley Scott.

However, The Yakuza starring Robert Mitchum and Ken Tanaka (who also played the lead Japanese character in Black Rain) is infinitely superior. Scoot obviously drew a lot of influence from Sidney Pollacks Yakuza and there are just so many similarities.

Basically, if you enjoyed Black Rain, Yakuza will surprise and enthrall you. It portrays a lot more of the reasoning behind the Yakuza traditions such as cutting off your little finger as a token of apology and why the swords are integral to their culture. It goes a lot deeper into the honour culture etc.

However, I rate both films.

Yakuza....a definate 9/10. Black Rain...a good 7.5/10.

Vintage Kubrick.

He was just so perceptive in the way he approached things.

The casting was just so good in this film and it displayed moments of very gritty realism far away from the overall satirical tone of the movie.

Every Kubrick film is an individual work of art and this particular piece is a timeless masterpiece and still relevent today. He approached a very scary and serious subject in the only way you sensibly could...with a sense of humour...the subject is just too evil to take seriously. By the dawns early light tried to but it just didn't work.

Kubrick's death was a blow to cinema as a whole.

I always imagine what it would be like to be in a situation like this and I just think I would commit instant suicide in a less painful way than being sliced into pieces or something and thus save myself all the stress, exertion and paranoia of trying to sneak through rooms full of traps in a vain attempt to escape. Resistance is futile and besides, I'm chlaustophobic.

Fortunately for us viewers, the characters in this film have more backbone than me and quite happily make an effort to escape even though they know that if they manage to get out of the damn cube they will face years of trauma counselling and nightmares. Fools...all of them.

Quite a scary concept this film and the Director pulled it of well...my heart was in my mouth quite a lot and there were a lot of tense scenes.

I cannot put into words just how appalling this film is from the point of view of a lifelong Jim Morrison/Doors fan.

Firstly, after seeing the movie in full (I walked out of the cinema the first time I went to see it), I amazed as to how Ray M and John D had gotten involved in the movie when they themselves could see how fictional it was. But then again, Ray and John were always Judas's to Jim in life so why not in death....even their versions of history have been bent to paint themselves in a less heartless light in my opinion.

Val Kilmer...what can I say. The man is wooden at the best of times and he was diabolical as Jim. If you have to make a movie then Jason Patric would have made a FANTASTIC Jim.

Oliver Stone, known for portraying history in Stoneworld Vision, came at this subject from a sensational and almost entirely incorrect angle. As someone who knows a hell of a lot about the history of The Doors I can categorically say that 80% of this film was fiction, 15% was a grossly distorted version of true events and the other 5% was to some extent true. I also hate the way Stone makes composites of characters.

I think this could be justified by some people if it was actually a good film anyway but it just wasnt. I never felt for a second I was in the 60's, terrible wigs/false beards, the wardrobe was consistently poor, the script was dire, terrible casting (in particular Kevin Dillon, Meg Ryan, Val Kilmer and what the hell was Billy Idol there for?) and the overall feel of the movie was all wrong.

However, Stone did pull some nice shots off from a cinematography point of view and there were some good choices of location. The score was obviously good (except when Val tried to sing) but that was to be expected surely.

He got the characters wrong, he got history TOTALLY wrong and he tried to ruin the memory of an intelligent man. He was only ever going to film Jim as The Lizard King but he didn't even get that bit right; Doors fans should know what I mean by that.

I hate this movie passionatly and could tolerate it if I thought it would help gain new fans of the music but I don't think it does.

If you want the real Jim Morrison/Doors then your best bet is to go read a book like Angels Dance and Angels Die or No-One Here Gets Out Alive (as flawed as that is).

Jim had a sense of humour but I bet it would be sorely tested by this pretentious, self serviant piece of fiction that dares to claim it is a rock documentary. I can only hope that when Stone meets Morrison in the next world Jim isn't too drunk to knock him out.

I was on holiday from England in Los Angeles in June last year and was lucky enough to get to go on the set of Angel at Paramount Studios because a friend of mine there Jeannie was one of the caterers for the production and I was helping her do the second meal for everyone as it was about midnight.

I must say that having been on set for a number of movies and shows; this was a particularly professional and polished outfit and I really enjoyed the couple of hours I spent there, I saw David Boreanaz and the Director etc, it was really good fun.

As for the show, its only just premiered over here so Ive only seen the first episode and I liked it, Im a big fan of Buffy any way(it's on TV right now actually) so it's great to have another show to watch every week on a similar theme. Plus it's set in L.A which is my favourite place on Earth so I feel right at home watching it!

I think its quite different to Buffy from what Ive seen, a little harder, darker and less lighthearted but I wouldn't have wanted to see a carbon copy anyway.

If you are a Buffy fan then you should enjoy this, even if you're not it's still a great show.

I've heard many times that Ridley Scott intended the film to hint towards Deckard being a replicant and if you watch the film with that in mind, then indeed, you can see the inferences.

It makes a lot of sense and gives Deckard and Rachael even more affinity.

Which in itself is as good a reason as any to watch it repeatedly.

Good film, I'm not a wrestling fan but I liked this movie. However, as a huge fan of the adorable Amy...I'm truly biased.

Great film.

The last film I watched where every character was a bad guy was The Bad Leutenant (or however you Americans spell that damn word) but I didn't enjoy that really even though it was a good film; it was rather disturbing.

This however was a breath of fresh air. If I had my way, there would be plenty of movies where the bad guys win and the good dies die a horrible death because that's reality. This is similar except there is a happy ending but hey...its a bad guy getting a happy ending so that's good enough for moi.

Surprisingly, Mel Gibson is actually good in this.

Mel re-cut this film from it's original and actually re-filmed parts....it would be interesting to see the Directors cut.

Anyone got the phone number for the agency the Asian escort worked for in this film? My kinda woman...

This film actually stirred emotions in me that I don't normally feel and I like films that can cross the line and do that...that's Abels gift if you could call it a gift.

Every character is evil in it. The world it paints is tough and grey (but it's a true reflection of real life). You feel uneasy throughout the show.

You feel absolutely no compassion for the main character brilliantly acted by Harvey Keitel. You despise him. You even get angry at the Nun for wanting to forgive her attackers. You wouldn't bat an eyelid if every charcter in the movie died a horrible death.

I hated every minute of this movie, the reality unsettled me. Go rent it, full marks for the realism.

This film is sheer eloquence and it will enthrall you. You don't have to like French films, you just need to know what it feels like to love someone so deeply that you would do anything for them.

There are two versions of the film...the one you want is the full length version, not the shortened one. Beatrice Dalle is fabulous and Jean Hughes Anglade is outstanding. I could go on about the film for hours but I don't want to take away any of the effect it will undoubtedly have on you.

By the way, it's a tragic love story (a scewed up Romeo & Juliet) which charts the descent of Betty into madness.

The only film to ever make me cry. A landmark in cinema history.

This film is pretty much a modern remake of Roman Polanski's 'Rosemary's Baby', just a little more glossy and well finished. Granted, it's a variation on a theme but the similarities are striking (even glaringly obvious in parts) but you have got to admit...the director and cast actually pull it off.

Keanu Reeves is actually pretty good in the film and Al Pacino is in fine form (however, Al Pacino only ever seems to play Al Pacino nowadays...the same mannerisms, the same persona and the same quirky characterisation...it seems the original method actor is just sticking to his successful formula).

The cinematography is outstanding and I had a nervous knot in my stomach throughout most of the film. The director moved the movie along at exactly the right pace and his timing in slowly revealing the plot at just the right time was impeccable.

Quite a dark, scary film that has something to say about human nature...go see it.

What a film! I knew nothing about it before I saw the film and was I surprised. It had me laughing non-stop throughout the movie so much so I thought I would choke. The audience even clapped at the end and no-one stood up until all the titles had gone up...I had never seen that before. Something About Mary is just pure slapstick but with a pretty good and reasonably coherent plot. The beautiful Cameron Diaz shines and Matt Dillon (in what is quite an unusual role for him) was outstanding. I never thought a film could be so funny (I usually dislike comedies) and I actually slid off my chair laughing in the cop interview scene. There really is Something About Mary.

Forget the awful series. Forget the even worse Hollywood remake 'The Assassin'. Remember Luc Besson's La Femme Nikita.

This has got to be one of the most stylish, moody and gripping films in existence. Luc Besson's direction is refreshing whilst the cinematography is simply stunning, particuarly the scene in the hotel where Nikita gets her first assignment. The soundtrack by Eric Serra is simply genius and actually adds something to the film...soundtracks usually seem to be an afterthought but refreshingly; not in this case.

The beautiful Anne Parillaud is perfect in the lead role (unlike Bridget Fonda) and the subtle romance between her and Tcheky Karyo is pure eloquence. The hugely talented Jean-Hughes Anglade (of Betty Blue fame) shines in this film but of all the male roles, Jean Reno (also fabulous in Luc Besson's Leon)is outstanding as the completely unbalanced Victor The Cleaner. Jeanne Moreau as Amande makes a notable appearence following years of contributions in countless films.

Luc Besson established himself as one of the leading innovative directors with this film and you can easily see why. This movie certainly rates among the top 10 films of all time.

I could pontificate about this film all day and all night but the best thing is for you to watch it yourself as a matter of priority...it is a 'must see'.

I'm off now to pursue a career in international assassinations.