Reviews

I guess my main beef with "Rubber Johnny" is that it is a freak show: a weird crippled child dances for the audience. The style/design explored territory covered during the goth/ industrial scene since the 90's. The filmmaker is obviously talented - but I didn't find the film either shocking or entertaining, just obnoxious. The whole marketing and experience of the film had the subtext: "There's this weird pale mutant in the basement. Isn't that cool??" I guess the concept of a freak show put me off. All of that said, Cunningham is a genuine talent - and apparently has good marketers behind him. So, hope to hear and see more from him in the future.

How can people say that this was a good action film? For one thing, the lead, Ice Cube, is such a wuss! He constantly cowered before the bad guys and seemed to be in utter fear throughout the whole film. It would have been nice if he just fought back instead. Also, the Neil Diamond inspired soundtrack put me to sleep. Cube is scrawny, he obviously needs to spend more time in the gym - I don't think he was in very good shape before starting this film. Also, the moves he did (during what little action there was) seemed clumsy and things that my 85-year old grandma could do.

The overly-intellectual dialog was over the top. C'mon, this is an action film, not "my dinner with Andre". There was too much exploration of the pathos of eastern Europe, long-winded speeches about world peace and epicurean phenomonalism - I mean, who cares? I may as well just go watch Mulholland Drive with a bag over my head so that I won't be able to figure out what's going on.

Also, I think they over-did the homoerotic subtext - especially with Ice Cube and Williem Dafoe - I don't have anything against that - but I wonder if mainstream audiences are ready for it.

The film could have used a greater variety of gear - instead of just the usual car chases. For instance, there was not ONE SCENE that used a jet ski, when one could have been obviously used during a certain part of the movie that I will not reveal here because then that would give away the ending to the movie and I don't want to do that because although it didn't have enough action I don't want to ruin it for anyone else that wants to see it.

Soderbergh delivers again. It helps to be in the right mood to watch Solaris. If you are, take the journey. Soderbergh is aware of the right mood to strike, from the music and visuals of the planet, down to the restrained editing and spare use of visual FX.

This isn't a movie for idiots or those looking for the next "Terminator". Some movies aspire towards something more, and this movie is one of them. Thank God for Soderbergh. He writes, directs, edits, and does the cinematography. You don't need an army to make a great film, just a sober, mindful, skillful artist.

Also, I'm glad Clooney has decided to take on harder projects beyond films such as "Dusk to Dawn".

I want there to be as many different kinds of film as there are different kinds of books, and Solaris is a different kind of film indeed. It's the only sci/fi film since 2001 to truly share a sense of the infinite.

Donnie Darko has to be the most well written I've seen in a long time. I'd put it up there with American Beauty.

Most script writers know the basics of foreshadowing, setup/payoff and "make the audience wonder what the #&* is going to happen next". Donnie Darko employs these techniques with such virtuosity that I was absolutely stunned.

This film is destined for cult status (it's probably there already). I was surprised to hear that it only had a limited run in the USA.

Some films "know" they are bad, and they have fun with it. But Greenmail isn't fun, it's just average, in fact the most "average" film I have ever seen.

I just could not believe that the cops were supposed to be cops at any stage of the film. For one thing, they all look like they just went shopping at The Gap. They all have nice haircuts and manicures. They are all like fluffy cats.

The "police station" is actually the interior what looks to be Adobe Software's site in Fremont (if you know Seattle). My point is that it just simply doesn't look like a police station.

Now everyone just shopped at the Gap and they're all in their cubicles at the software company (err.. police station). Some strange faxes show up from the mystery bomber, a la "exposition". The cops read the faxes. It's in a nice font, since we are at Adobe Software, anyways. Boy, are the cops scared. One nearly drops his coffee mug.

Ok, there was one part where I really laughed. Basically they had to defuse a bomb, and the lead Gap-clothes cop says, "don't worry, I've done this before". She walks up to the bomb. Now all of them are supposed to be wearing these visors that cover their heads. Now OBVIOUSLY if there was a bomb nearby, wouldn't you want your visor down? But they are all just hanging out by the bomb, having a good ol' time. In other words, they aren't scared, they don't have their visors down, in fact some of the extras are just kind of hanging out near the bomb... which means NO DRAMA.

Wouldn't a real bomb squad be called in? Wouldn't the real bomb defuser be in an elaborate bomb-proof suit, while everyone else was a safe distance back? Wouldn't there be a little bit of tension.. at all?

It has some wonderful, experienced actors in it, but they cannot save it. Unfortunately the lead actress (forget her name) just cannot play a cop - especially a tough, bomb-defusing cop.

The script is laden with too much exposition (a ridiculous amount of exposition, in fact), and dialogue that consistently derails any dramatic tension.

Even the "prisoner", Baldwin, wears an orange fuzzy sweater from The Gap instead of a prison/jail jumpsuit. COME ON! These are supposed to be talented actors.

They had a large enough budget for explosives and decent actors, so I don't think the faults in this film can be chalked up to "low budget"-ness.

The difference between a great director and a mediocre director? See "traffic", and watch the scenes that can be done on a low budget. Compare. Contrast. And realize that Soderbergh deserves his success, while the director of "Greenmail" is a very average director.

Ok, to be fair, they make an effort with the gunfights, explosions, and so on.. but overall it is just one average boring film. Blah.

The Transporter is basically a standard action flick with some nice scenery, and better than average fight scenes directed by a Hong Kong action film veteran.

I always keep my standards higher, though, for a Luc Besson flick, because I always wonder if he will make another "La Femme Nikita". I guess that's the artist's curse -- never living up to your best work. Anyways, there are some Besson trademarks in the film, and the first 20 minutes seem promising.. but it's basically your standard action film after that.

I don't expect a great plot or romance in an action film - but I have to say the love story was kind of sick, considering she falls for a guy that basically delivers her in a bound, gagged, and in a duffle bag to some God knows what fate. But nope, instead of knocking him over the head, she makes him breakfast, and falls in love with him, all to a cheesy "love" soundtrack. Uhh... right.

In XXX, it's all a little tongue in cheek, which makes it great stupid fun. But "The Transporter" isn't tongue in cheek at all - it's too busy being a slick action film.

So go see "La Femme Nikita" if you want a "serious" action film - or go see "XXX" for fun, and just to laugh at all the stupid stunts.

Did someone order a truckload of the usual ****? Well, the "Transporter" has delivered.

"Tempted" sounds like a great idea. It's about a wealthy man who hires a young law student to "tempt" his wife, in order for the wealthy man to see if she's loyal to him. Naturally, the wealthy man is crazy jealous, and eventually there are a lot of dead bodies.

Burt Reynolds is by far the best actor on this film. For whatever reason Burt has gone through his own marriage troubles and he brings that out in staggering fashion. The movie was worth it because of Burt.

However everything ELSE about the film - the other actors, the script, photography, etc. etc. is very average.

If there's anything a lower budget film should excel in, it's the script - because that's where you make up for lack of money for the rest of the project. But it was clumsy, overworked, cliched, .. a draft that's been through too many Hollywood "story seminars" - there are too many clunky plot elements in a bland effort to liven things up, when it should have been fixed by sticking to the main story and improving the ACTING, and little details that add to the overall mood.

There's a subplot regarding a murder conspiracy that's majorly half-baked - it seems like the start of ANOTHER script by the same writer, but simply not out of the oven yet.

Most of the actor's emotions don't track well through the film - except for Burt. The supposed "feelings" between the law student and the wife always come off as hollow. Even when she's supposedly trying to kill him, they have one last sheepish meeting at a bar with awkward dialog - it doesn't make sense. Her motivation for sleeping with him turned out to be interesting though..

The movie seems to share a lot in common with "Body Heat" - an 80's film script touted as a winner by the king of script hacks, Syd Field. There's the wealthy husband, the beautiful but dangerous wife, and the morally ambiguous lawyer. The difference? Body Heat kept things simple - and William Hurt played the young lawyer.

In summary, watch it for BURT, man that guy can act. I found the whole idea of him creating a "self fulfilling prophecy" fascinating - it's almost like he relentlessly (and fatally) stabs himself emotionally and doesn't know why.

How can people say that this was a good action film?

For one thing, the lead, Vin Diesil, is such a wuss! He constantly cowered before the bad guys and seemed to be in utter fear throughout the whole film. It would have been nice if he just fought back instead. Also, the Neil Diamond inspired soundtrack put me to sleep. Vin is scrawny, he obviously needs to spend more time in the gym - I don't think he was in very good shape before starting this film. Also, the moves he did (during what little action there was) seemed clumsy and things that my 85-year old grandma could do.

Why didn't they just put Samuel Jackson in the lead role! He would have kicked butt and added some real action during the snowboarding scenes.

The overly-intellectual dialog was over the top. C'mon, this is an action film, not "my dinner with Andre". There was too much exploration of the pathos of eastern Europe, long-winded speeches about world peace and epicurean phenomonalism - I mean, who cares?

I may as well just go watch Mulholland Drive with a bag over my head so that I won't be able to figure out what's going on.

Also, I think they over-did the homoerotic subtext - I don't have anything against that - but I wonder if mainstream audiences are ready for it.

The film could have used a greater variety of gear - instead of just the usual car chases. For instance, there was not ONE SCENE that used a jet ski, when one could have been obviously used during a certain part of the movie that I will not reveal here because then that would give away the ending to the movie and I don't want to do that because although it didn't have enough action I don't want to ruin it for anyone else that wants to see it.

Per A. (per@alt.net)

If the producers read these comments, could you set up a DIY release through Amazon or something like that?? I'd buy it! Or, send a private IMDB message to per8. Thanks.

I saw this film at a Seattle film fest years ago, and it has stuck in my mind ever since. I've been waiting for it to be released on video. It is a wild ride!

Summary: A man with a very odd reading problem gets released from a mental hospital and is put in a halfway house. However, he has some very strange neighbors.. not to mention a prehistoric worm and an Indian goddess run amok. Visually outrageous.

Imagine watching the trip scene in "easy rider" for 30 minutes. This is one strange, daring film, at times hard to watch. Caveh's journey into psychedelic experience holds nothing back. He's very brave, or very foolish, I can't decide. Was the film done as an experiment? His motivation doesn't seem to be crass publicity ("hey watch me trip dude!"), but more of an attempt to capture an exotic personal experience in front of the lens.

Make no mistake, this is a well made, competent film with some good twists. It definitely drew me in and I wanted to see how it would end.

It's well done, but if you read other, overly-gushing raves about this film, I'd take them with a grain of salt - remember that this director is quite a self-promoter!

This has got to be the worst film of 2001, and I can say that confidently even though there's still eleven months left. Who knows how Tim Robbins or the director of "sliding doors" got talked into this train wreck of a film. With technical advice by Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) and a guest appearance by Scott McNealy (Sun Microsystems) you have to wonder what the (*#& is going on.

This is one of the most fantastic movies ever made.

I'm not kidding.

Essentially the movie is about corporate America vs. Australia. More broadly, the film is about American corporate imperialism and a country's attempt to resist it.

Eric Roberts plays the gung-ho American coca-cola executive ("the marines have landed on every continent except Australia.. AND HERE I AM!"), intent on establishing a coca-cola franchise in the heart of Australia. The stubbornly independent Australians resist the American businessman with their own brand of humour and subversiveness.

Watch for several layers of meaning throughout the film. Especially the "Waltzing Matilda" scene.

Notable quote: "We have bottling franchises in every country on the planet. Including the moon."

A brilliant movie that will change your life.. or a movie that you'll ignore.

To summarize, the film is basically about the beginning of a friendship between two women: a philosophy teacher and a younger pianist. The pianist wants to set up the philosopher with her father, who is already seeing someone else.

The resulting tensions play out at a summer cottage. The film is mostly dialog, and every feeling or impulse gets examined. Which makes sense, because of the bourgeois, self-involved bent of the characters.

I think the greatest point of action is when a dish gets nearly dropped (but it's saved and the characters then argue over who was to blame).

Although it has some pleasing insights, I wouldn't recommend the film to most people because it's simply too ponderous. Frankly it could use some comic relief. The fine country setting mitigates the over-intellectualizing somewhat, but Rohmer has made other films that are better.

In the 80's I watched this film as a 14 year old and it was definitely a must see - a classic adventure of teenage rebellion. The movie still held up well as I watched it again 16 years later.

Plot summary: "Ambitious (and mildly annoying) rich white boy meets stunning call girl who shows him how to live a little, and not listen overly much to his success-crazed parents".

Some of the soundtrack doesn't hold up - part of it is cheesy 80's. Tangerine Dream's "exit" is a classic electronic music piece but not everyone will get into it. But there's also some blues and rock thrown in. I guess it depends on whether or not you like 80's music.

This film has some great camera work - watch the lighting, how the actors are placed, subtle visual themes played over the course of the movie (especially the final few scenes, which I didn't understand at 14 but I sure do now).

Personally I can't stand Tom Cruise but the movie's good enough to overcome my distaste for him.

Directing: 7/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Story: 6/10 Acting: 6/10 Overall: 7/10 or three stars out of four