Reviews

I was so pleased when Michelle Yeoh won the Oscar. Something that should have happened with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I am so disappointed it was for this film. Whereas there are many good elements, ideas, characters in this film as well as a highly skilled production; the film is akin to making a stew of a variety of leftovers that turns out to be unpalatable to more discriminating tastes. The Banshees of Inisherin really deserved Best Picture , not this. A comparison between the two films would be like placing great art next to a cartoon. Both have their places but not in the same room. With that being said, I give this film a solid 6 which for me means it's good but not something I care to endure again.

The best part of this quartet of stories is the original song and its vocalist. Aside from that this is a good example of how good story ideas suffer from a lack of development, and well thought out execution. This could have been a decent production but it seems to have been filmed in haste. Even shorts can have good character development. The first of these stories had such great potential for being truly nightmarish but was lackluster, and trite. The second a waste of celluloid. What could have been a frightening character study was pointless. Number three was the best of the lot, clever idea that had some character depth and motivation. Good to learn from how not to make such films. Considering there were far superior anthologies of this kind this one is best left off your viewing list.

Robert Eggers is an outstanding cinematic talent. The Witch had great production values, though I found the ending to be predictable. Black Phillip was the greatest character in that film. This reflects a weakness of Eggers.

The Lighthouse, to date, was his most spectacular achievement. Characters are well defined given the enigma that is their lot in life. Here, the enigmatic quality of the story does not overshadow character development. It works to develop the characters, and what drives them.

The Northman is a hot mess. The storyline is confusing, and with many characters that are sketchy at best. So much of this film is murky. Visually, and thematically. The arc of the story needed to be clearer, as the film needs a good 40 minutes edited out. There is a good film here within the mess. Too bad it is buried in the monotony that it is. 5/10.

Paul Dano put in a great performance. Pattinson is disappointing. This movie is a dark mess. The last hour is good but does not reward the far too long buildup. Its success promises more of this... next time on the this bat channel...yawn.

We're The Millers is a typical summer comedy. The first half starts out poorly paced, gives little time to establish anything but roughly sketched out characters, and its crude, stereotypical jokes simply fail (and not just because they're crude but because the acting and direction is hurried and poorly conceived). The actors simply seem to be going through a routine. At this point it seemed to be a good idea for a movie gone typically awry. Once the Fitzgerald family enters the movie though, things begin to pick up and there are some genuinely funny (albeit mostly predictable) moments. Overall, the film is decent enough to pass some time.

Visually Brilliant at times (and not so much sometimes) but vapid and pointless otherwise. All this comes down to is a remake of Moulin Rouge!, which I think is a flawed gem, but without the humour or enthrallingly joyous and silly musical numbers. Luhrmann, who is a great talent as is the entire cast, has reduced Fitzgerald to rubble. I'd rather not rate this because I really don't know what to give it. At IMDb I'm giving it a 4/10. It's just not that good but to be fair it should be broken down between visual accomplishment and story. For the visuals I would give it 3.5 out of 5. It doesn't come up to the spectacle that was Moulin Rouge! but it's still quite good in that respect. As a story, Baz spends too much time on the romance and not the tragedy of the central character's folly. For that, The Great Gatsby gets a 1 out of 5. Next time maybe he can remake The Ziegfeld Follies.

If the tone set in the first ten minutes of Dull Shadows had been carried over into the last 110 minutes of the film, this would have been a very good entry in the Burton/Depp oeuvre. Instead, the tone changes drastically from Sleepy Hollow to a poor man's Beetlejuice. It's as if the opening sequence was directed by a skilled craftsman and the remainder by a skilled but inexperienced dilletante. The sets are excellent, as is the cinematography but the characters are underdeveloped and the actors underused. Depp puts in a carefully crafted performance as Count Chocula, but not Barnabas Collins. This is a disaster and the threat of a sequel is unbearable. Certainly, the original series was a bit campy but charmingly so. This film is just over the top in a very underwhelming way. Guess though that as long as it sells seats that's all that matters in Hollywood. As it goes this film is all dressed up with no where to go.

I would give this film 7 1/2 stars. It is a noble effort by Bresson but marred by his insistence on getting "natural" performances by amateurs. From what I have gleaned, it took numerous takes to get "natural" actions and reactions from the actors. Even the donkey does not always come across as purely natural but does seem charming under what must have been stressful conditions for it. What was intended to be authentic ends up wooden and disjointed. This breaks the natural flow of the narrative progression and ultimately makes watching the film somewhat of a task rather than a pleasure. Pasolini was much more successful in his use of amateurs.

Having said this, the film's strength is its story. The elevation of the everyday, of mundane lives that seem to be trapped by futility, and the heartbreaking tale of a humble creature subjected to the whims of those downtrodden by life. Indeed, the examination of what we would see as the joys and sorrows of such a creature is what makes this film worthy of viewing. To know and view all life as having value is central to this film's importance. Whether Balthazar is a Christ figure or not, he shares in the mystery of suffering and redemption and is indeed a cinematic Saint.

I am astonished at the praise this film is receiving. While I am very pleased that this is bringing much needed attention to the Great George Melies and his oeuvre, I wonder if I saw the same film others seem to have.

Yes, the film employs the best use of 3D to date though I wish there had been more scenes relating to Melies' cinematic work. The problems with this film is that the story takes forever to unfold and then really goes nowhere. Every moment that should have been heart tugging was really quite void of emotional buildup and anti-climatic.

I appreciate the fact that this is an ode not only to Melies, but to early cinema and all its wondrous melodramatic story lines. The poor orphaned boy. The bitter old man who finally opens up his heart and home. The villain who could ruin everything for the boy. All this and more are situations that should cause anticipation, longing, and hope in an audience but due to Scorsese's mechanical approach to these plot elements they are rendered emptily. Perhaps I expected too much. A story about George Melies. The Great Martin Scorsese who not only is a gifted auteur but a great cinephile whose childhood imagination must have been rife with vivid cinematic inspirations. It truly is not a classic but a grand footnote to what cinema once was and still should be.

The acting is quite uneven. The gifted Sacha Baron Cohen is off key throughout. Ben Kingsley is a great actor but somehow is not convincing as Melies. Perhaps this is due to the fact that these characters really belong in a silent film from decades past, acted by those used to methods employed due to the constraints of early filmmaking. As we venture more rapidly into our future, we seem to be continually trying to hold on to the past more and more rather than finding new frontiers to explore.

First off, how can there be spoilers about a film where nothing really happens. Very disappointing. I give it 6 because Elle Fanning's performance is very good and the film is competently made but Sofia Coppola needs to reexamine the great films about emptiness - try Antonioni's L'Avventura and Blow-Up as well as Fellini's La Dolce Vita. A character's empty life should somehow be portrayed and examined with substance. This is really not a completed film but just like the main character it too is looking for something, somewhere but apparently not during its runtime. I just hope this is not followed up by a film called Nowhere, because that's already been covered with this film.

What a complete letdown. A film with a few good, albeit sick, laughs. Some lesser 70s exploitation films out there are far more entertaining than this piece of professional amateurism. One problem is that Rodriguez is trying to make a statement about political/human rights issues in 2010 and in doing so seems to forget that he is making a quasi-1970s exploitation movie. His political statement is not lost on me and I appreciate his political and social lampooning but it detracts from the film. All the fun of Planet Terror is simply not here. It takes good acting to deliver a mockingly bad performance, and what is often on screen is simply actors going through the motions rather than the tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top work needed to deliver the expected grindhouse sleaze.

Aside from Amenabar's usual distortion of religious issues I normally like his films a great deal. An example of this would be The Others. Nicole Kidman's character twists Catholic thinking and teaching and I've never been certain whether that was intentional or if it came from Amenabar's own ignorance. Nonetheless, The Others was a brilliant and moody film with several great performances and a few good chills.

Agora is a wrong turn for the director. The storyline is simply plodding. The characters offer no emotional resonance. Perhaps in the hands of a better director whose intent was to flesh out these characters and their viewpoints on life and thought at the end of the Roman Era, rather than simply espouse a simplistic viewpoint of what are indeed complex matters (historical, philosophical, political, and theological) a better movie would have been produced. Propaganda most always lacks nuance and the result is usually a movie such as this.

Several good things of note for this film. It does well at recreating an ancient time and place, bringing an obscure historical figure (Hypatia) to focus, and observes the sad case of how the Christian faith became politicized during this time period. It certainly has inspired me to read more about this time and the characters the film portrays, to see what various historians say about the matters portrayed.

Here's hoping that Amenabar's next film is much better than this.

I am truly astonished at the average rating this film is getting on this site. This is not a great movie but it is a good movie with some genuine laughs. I enjoyed this far more than Date Night, which was also good and had a few laughs. I think Hollywood needs some lessons on comic timing and the such. Truthfully, this could have been a far better movie but when it works it works very well. Neil Labute demonstrates that he is a very competent director. The film is well paced, and the acting is from good to very good. It does not turn into a blacksploitation comedy at any time. So, OK it is not a masterpiece but it is worthy of a far higher rating than it is getting here.

Polanski is a master of subtlety, grace, and wit. His eye creates breathtaking and beautiful shots. His ear adds a malevolent and demented humor to the score of a film. There is most always something unspeakable, indescribable beneath the surface of a Polanski film. Something unnerving about the tone but never overbearing, or pounding the audience over the head with it. This is certainly true of The Ghost Writer. What I found surprising, not being familiar with the novel on which it is based, was the political statement being made. Humorously portraying certain key figures in the political environment of the last decade. In any other hands, this could never have been done so believably and deftly. All the key performances are on target. And how could they not be. For Polanski knows how to work with actors and guide them in creating such memorable characters. Ewan McGregor certainly fits his role seamlessly as does Olivia Williams. So many could learn from Polanski how a thriller needs to be constructed in order to hold an audience to the very end. The word entertainment means to 'hold in between' which is what The Ghost Writer does from beginning to its haunting and inevitable conclusion.

I must say I have never been a fan of Brian De Palma. As far as I'm concerned the closest he has ever come to a masterpiece was Dressed to Kill, and as with all his films, it eventually drowns in its style.

I picked The Black Dahlia up as a five dollar DVD thinking it might be of interest. I was unaware De Palma had been at the helm but what a hoot. I rate this film higher than it deserves for its pure comic value. This is a film that is so off that it's good. More opera than noir this would make a great stage musical. The characters are so over the top. Brian De Palma should not have translated the book into a noir film if he meant this to be taken seriously. But this was the time of noir revivals and I guess he felt obliged.

If one considers L.A. Confidential to be a masterpiece and a great interpretation of its source material as well as liking their film noir to be serious and dark; don't bother with this movie. Curtis Hanson did create a great film with L.A. Confidential, though the one thing I object to with many of the critiques I have read of De Palma's film is its confusing plot. L.A. Confidential has to be the most convoluted, confusing film I have ever seen. Any confusion in Dahlia's plot pales in comparison.

On the other hand, with a little imagination a viewer can transcend the film's intentions and amuse themselves with the comic-book grandeur of this piece. All that is missing is Batman and a few musical numbers. 3 1/2 out of 5.

With some reservation, I must say that this is the most satisfying piece of cinema I have seen in all of 2009. Yes, it is provocative and a bit too smug about it. But how can a filmmaker not be smug about such artistry, such visceral beauty, such brutal and raw characterization, such brilliant and brave acting. Yes, it could have been less graphic. We could have gotten the picture without having had to have been witness to the events in such a clinical fashion. The ending is somewhat enigmatic and open to debate. The characters are both detestable, though I did feel empathy for 'He' towards the end in spite of his cold, calculating arrogance through most of the film. Altogether though, Lars Von Trier is a brave soul and brilliant in all his madness, angst, and arrogance. Regardless of how much derision or indifference this film provokes, it is far more memorable than most of the cinematic offerings this year. 9/10

OK, it is 15 years after all the controversy has subsided and this film is essentially a footnote in cinematic history. I have never been a fan of Oliver Stone so I usually avoid his films. Ever since the disappointment I felt with Platoon, a film I ranked 7 out of 10, and the over the top, poorly acted TV mini-series Wild Palms I have not taken Stone too seriously. Platoon is a good movie, but I felt it was overly-lauded. But I digress here. Natural Born Killers is not what I really expected. In fact, I have never seen a film in which I have struggled so much as to what I think of it. I did not realize it was as over-the-top, and cartoonish. When people comment on feeling dizzy at hand-held camera shots in films I giggle. The first ten minutes of this film made me understand what they are talking about. This is not a movie. It is an overly extended music video for the MTV generation. I get Stone's point and I don't disagree. There are moments of brilliance in some of the things he does here but there is simply no emotion or element of awe or mystery to keep me compelled. The satire is overwrought. The narrative is too frustrating, and hyper to deconstruct. What I saw was an LSD trip that OD'd on SPEED. I must laud Stone for his nerve, and daring to bring experimental elements into his film. I can appreciate what he was trying here, and cheer the moments that worked. The acting is quite good. No arguments there. Nonetheless, this is a failure as a movie. Perhaps it would have worked if there had been no characterization at all but had been just a series of montages. If those we see were anonymous, and the main characters not portrayed directly but merely background characters celebrated by the masses. Maybe then it would have worked. Something more akin to Kenneth Anger rather than traditional Hollywood fare. The outcome for me is that this is a mediocre film with some greatness coming through now and then. 4 out of 10.

Of all the films slated for release this year, this is the one I was waiting for. Tarantino is unique in that he can borrow from so many genres and directorial styles, has an incredible ear for scoring his films, and of course can write dialog like almost no other. Much of this is true with Inglourious Basterds, and yet it just doesn't fit together like it has in past efforts. The magic is not there. The film has, what I feel, are three incredible scenes including the brilliant and nerve wracking opening sequence. One scene, in a restaurant, is as if Tarantino channels a very restrained Bunuel. The other, though a bit long, in a basement bar works for the most part and introduces an important character and some crucial plot development. It builds slowly to something important so its length is forgivable. None of these scenes, I hesitate to add, involve Brad Pitt. Mr. Pitt is a fine actor, but he is just a bit too much this side of parody here. Many of the other scenes are little more than filler. I can appreciate Tarantino's humour very much. I laughed hysterically through much of Kill Bill Vol. 1. It was riveting, compelling, and fun. Inglorious Basterds tries to be these things but somehow misses the mark. 6/10.

Sam Raimi is a talented man but this outing was very disappointing. Mixing camp, ooze, and horror is a delicate balance which was nicely achieved with the Evil Dead series. Here, the characters are played too straight for camp which makes the "scare tactic" affects of the movie out of place since most of them do not deliver even a jolt. The evil characters don't seem to be enjoying themselves which may have lent some credibility to the film's campy aspirations. Otherwise, the scares needed to be better paced in order to lend some needed dread to the events. Also, there is a big difference between nauseating and terrifying. Sick effects are just that and here induce ennui after about the third time. The result being Argento meets Disney. About 15 minutes of the film gives a thrill, but it comes too late and is then dampened by a predictable ending. 3/10.

I'm certain that if Tim Sullivan were to put his mind to it he could make a really good movie. He certainly has the technical finesse. All he needs to do is concentrate on character development, and plot. I suppose those items aren't that important in a yawn of a movie such as this since it's the thrill of seeing people brutalized in over the top ways that motivates most people to watch such sleaze. Nonetheless, even a good horror/slasher film needs suspense and ... horror. This is neither. The actors certainly are adept at playing the naive victims and cartoonish monsters. The comic touches are nice if somewhat clichéd. I guess I miss the point of most remakes and updates of films whether they be popular or cult. Having not seen the original, though very aware of its notoriety, this seems like an exercise in futility on top of simply being trash. Though I suppose if the source is trashy to begin with that would logically be the end result. Just predictable scenes of what would once be of a stomach turning quality, that's now just disgusting and boring.

Dogville is one of the most satisfying pieces of cinema I have seen. It is not for all tastes, but a triumph for the more literate crowd. Some may see it as anti-American. In reality, it is an astonishing examination of human nature with all its fickleness and blemishes brilliantly (and unnervingly) exposed. It could be called the "Anti-Our Town". The length of the film was not an issue with such incredible story telling. The set's minimalism is perfect and enhances the acting. The film is always conscious of being a story, and the narration only adds to its literary dimensions. The cast is stellar and Nicole Kidman's performance is both subtle and devastating. What an experience! 10/10.

Not having read Roth's novel I can judge this film only on its own merits. The performances by Hopkins, Kidman, and (especially) Ed Harris are fine. Kidman does a really good job - she never overreaches. Gary Sinise, a great actor, does the best he can with his character. I think the film is well made and has a beautifully understated quality to it. I only wish it had reached for more emotional depth considering its subject matter and the anguish that both Hopkin's and Kidman's characters experience.

The greatest flaw in this film is that as great as Renee Zellweger, Ewan McGregor, and David Hyde-Pierce are they just don't have the chemistry or screen presence of Doris Day, Rock Hudson, and Tony Randall. Beside that, this is truly a charming and very funny send up to the innocent sex-comedies of that era. And Renee's plot-twisting 10 minute speech toward the end is only beat by Dustin Hoffman's in Tootsie. 10/10.

For the reputation it has, Viva La Muerte is a terrific disappointment and a muddled mess that really does not in any way expose the horrors of Franco's Spain but rather exposes Arrabal's juvenile and pretentious preoccupation with perversity and cruelty. The story goes absolutely nowhere, and the characters have all the depth of cardboard. Even fellow "panic" artist Alejandro Jodorowsky (whose first release "Fando Y Lis" is based on an Arrabal play) had a notion of plot and was able to breathe life into the most bizarre characters and shocking situations. For my part I consider this a waste of perfectly good film stock.

It has been said that after completing Last Tango, Bernardo Bertolucci was eager to show the film to his mentor Pier Paolo Pasolini. Pasolini hated the film. Too bad Bertolucci didn't take direction from the controversial director and scrap the whole thing. This must be the most over-rated piece of squabble ever to make it big. It goes to show why few film critics are taken seriously these days, and it marks the decline of the art film. This film has been hailed as a great erotic masterpiece ... erotic? How about lurid, boring, stupid. The characters are unbelievable perverted fiends. The only thing of potential interest is the contrast between the Brando character and the girl's boyfriend and for that reason I'm willing to give it a 2/10 rather than 1/10.