Reviews

My wife and I just finished watching this film on DVD (or I should say I finished watching, my wife bailed 20 minutes into it). We watch foreign films, we watch old movies, we watch indie movies, we watch a ton of movies.

This movie came to me as a recommendation from a co-worker who is old enough to have served in the Vietnam war. I was born as that war came to an end.

This film was okay. It might have been great in its day, but it holds up poorly now. Why? Well, there are other films I feel that have stood the test of time much better than "King of Hearts". Aside from Genevieve Bujold and Alan Bates, the rest of the cast are unknowns (even today). Alan Bates is supposed to be this great English actor, but I had not heard of him. I understand he does non-mainstream films, but still, he isn't that good. If he was, I would have heard of him. I know his contemporaries such as Peter Finch and James Mason.

The film is droll, sure, but I felt detached, which is the worst thing a director can do to his audience. I want to be able to experience what the main character is feeling, but "King of Hearts" is so simple, and Alan Bates so one-dimensional, that in the end, there were just moments that were enjoyable. To me, this is a relatively forgettable film.

The story was not complex or engrossing. A soldier is sent to disable a bomb in a town whose residents have fled. The residents of the insane asylum escape and become the town's residents. However, Alan Bates character knows they are from the asylum very quickly. He has dialogue with the patients, and there's an attempt to highlight that war is more insane than the mentally ill, and that the mentally ill are more humane and sane. Some other reviewer mention the theme of non-conformity, which I suppose was Alan Bates' character not being a part of the military in the end.

This didn't mean much to me because I'd rather watch "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" which deals with mental illness more accurately, and non-conformity more poignantly. I'd rather watch "The Deer Hunter" or "Platoon" or "Born on the Fourth of July" or "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Thin Red Line" or "Apocalypse Now" for the insanity of war. I get that "King of Hearts" is a light, gentle satire, but that also makes it boring in my book. As I said, I want more from a movie, and "King of Hearts" is just average--not bad, just average.

As for the reviewer who suggested that the younger generations (which includes mine) isn't concerned with non-conformity, I have to say that in my observation, the people I know who have tried not to conform end up being even more conformist than those who accept that life is inescapably conformist. Alan Bates' character may not have decided to conform to the military, but he decided to conform to be a mental health patient in the end, which has its own set of rules. I'd rather watch "Into the Wild" for non-conformity, and wonder about the sanity of that character. It's far more interesting to me.

In the end, it's all a matter of perspective and opinion and taste. I'm sure there are movies from the 1980's that have nostalgic value for me that do nothing for the generations younger than myself (or older than myself for that matter!) "King of Hearts" seems to have a place in baby-boomer's hearts.

So many reviews, so little time. I read many of the reviews here, and there are many dumb comments such as nihilism. I love nihilistic films. I don't have a problem with them. I don't find them shocking or surprising. "There Will Be Blood" is being categorized as nihilistic, but how can that be? What was the movie about? Really, what was the story driving at? Were we supposed to think that Plainview was justified, mentally ill or scum? He worked hard to get what he wanted and was extremely competitive, but isn't that TRULY American? Is that the American WAY? What about Eli's character? Were we supposed to think religion is a hoax and that if you are religious you get what you deserve? Are any of these characters likable? What are you supposed to think and feel when the film is over? I think it's a cop-out for Anderson to leave it up to you to decide. Why make a movie if you don't have a clear vision or something you want to say? I agree with all other reviewers who noted the slow pace, long scenes, irritating/incongruent soundtrack noise and underdevelopment of characters and plot. It makes me want to read Upton Sinclair's book "Oil!" to see if the book is equally as bad. I liked "The Jungle" and find it hard to believe that "Oil!" is bad, but the book isn't on a long list of classic literature, so maybe the story was doomed from the start.

I disagree with the reviewers who felt Daniel Day-Lewis over-acted. I felt he embodied the character but both the script and Paul Thomas Anderson were not able to give his character a direction. Paul Dano, who I've seen in several films, has yet to prove himself as a strong actor. I agree that he seemed weak in this film and even stilted, but I see that he only had a week to prepare for the role which was a shame for him.

I don't care what anyone says, Paul Thomas Anderson's best works remain "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia". He does not surpass them with "There Will Be Blood". I can only estimate the high praise for "There Will Be Blood" is due to a poor year in film. 2007 had to be one of the worst years yet for film. I invite debate from fellow IMDb reviewers to argue what films were so great? I'm an avid film buff and there were far too few great films in 2007. "Atonement"? Crap. "Juno"? Garbage. "There Will Be Blood"? Boring. "Michael Clayton"? Okay. So maybe only "No Country For Old Men" should be in the best picture category.

I like Paul Thomas Anderson the way I like Stanley Kubrick--both directors have made amazing films, and both have made absolute junk--need I mention 1975's "Barry Lyndon"?? Then again, I hope Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't become Robert Altman where his career is filled with a ton of average arty films punctuated by a handful of great films. Or maybe William Friedkin who blew his wad with "The French Connection" and "The Exorcist" and hasn't even come close since. Or maybe Francis Ford Coppola who only managed "The Godfather", "The Conversation", "The Godfather II" and "Apocalypse Now" before withering away.

Some recent nihilistic films that worked extremely well for me in terms of plot and character development were "Seven", "Heat", "American History X", "American Psycho", "The Departed", "The Prestige", "American Beauty", "The Road To Perdition", and yes, even "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia". "The Hours" and what the heck, I'll even add "High Tension" and "Wolf Creek" for good nihilistic measure.

Next time, Anderson, next time we better get a more original story in which we can get into the characters, no matter how nihilistic or depraved.

I just finished watching the Final Cut version from the five disc briefcase edition that was just released. I've also been reading the other reviews here. For me, my Blade Runner experience began in 1984 when, at the age of 12, my friends and I were allowed to watch this R rated film by our parents. At 12 it resonated with me, particularly the philosophical aspects of the story, namely that all life is just fleeting like tears in the rain. The film instantly became one of my many favorites, but not the only favorite.

As I've talked to more and more people over the years about films I find I am now in the minority when it comes to appreciating Blade Runner. I admit, and will not argue that, the film is slow paced. In fact, I'm not surprised that the slow pacing turns many people off, especially nowadays when everything has to be edit, edit, edit. As for the screenplay having inconsistencies and being too thin--well it just might. I guess what I experience when watching Blade Runner is a unique vision--Ridley Scott's vision--of a possible future where like Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", man has created androids in their own image, but they aren't happy. In fact, they are both angry and depressed that there's no purpose to life, that they have no control over when they will die and that the person who made them can't fix any of their problems.

So, I disagree with reviewers that say Blade Runner offers nothing to chew on or think about afterward. Yet, my wife completely didn't get Blade Runner. She just saw it as long, boring and confusing. Her perception focused on how Deckard's character is weakly written. How Harrison Ford did a poor job of acting along with Sean Young, Daryl Hannah and several others with the exception of Rutger Hauer who she felt did an excellent job of playing his role. She didn't like Vangelis's musical score and found it completely dated and inextricably tied to the 1980's. There is discord in this household tonight! To each their own. I think this is guy's film anyway. I don't know too many females that rave about Blade Runner (not even my wife). I also think that this film has a nostalgic value. I believe if you were alive and cognizant at the time this film was originally released it has a special place despite its shortcomings. I will always enjoy Blade Runner and its pessimistic view of life, after all pessimists are realists and closer to the actual truths in people and the world.

Come on people. Gilliam is not God. In my not so humble opinion he has not made a good film since 1995's "12 Monkeys". With each subsequent release he has given us less and less to think about and ponder. Instead, his projects have become increasingly vain--making films only he will enjoy, not us, his fans.

"Tideland" is better than the insufferable "Brothers Grimm", but not much better in terms of being entertaining. I was completely suspicious at the beginning of my DVD seeing Gilliam himself explaining what the film was going to be about. Why? He's never had to do that before. Perhaps it was due to the poor reception of "Brothers Grimm"? "Brazil" didn't have a disclaimer at the beginning.

The main disappointment about "Tideland" is that I found it tedious. The story was not interesting much like "Brothers Grimm" and "Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas". Boring comes to mind. Did Gilliam really think that a child actress would carry an entire film? I think she did a great job, but still.....that's all there was. The story didn't really go anywhere. I wasn't shocked by a single thing in this film, so I don't know what the big deal was that other reviews are so titillated by. I've seen far worse in films. Jeff Bridges is great, but the story doesn't involve much of him. It's mainly about this little girl who has been emotionally abused and neglected by her parents and how she copes with it. Gilliam doesn't give us anything to think about though--the story just is.

I sure hope Gilliam gets back on track some day. He had a string of solid films like "Time Bandits", "Brazil", "Baron Munchausen", "Fisher King" and "12 Monkeys". You've had your fun Mr. Gilliam, now it's time to give your audience what they want.

I just finished "42 Up" on 2/26/05 and have a few things to say about the film and the series.

First, it's the only longitudinal study of human development we have, and for that reason, no matter how boring or trivial some people may find this series, I find it to be extremely valuable. Especially when considering how people develop by age, socioeconomic status, education, ethnicity, culture and gender. I am unaware of any other study that has covered as much ground as the Up series has. 14 children, all British, taken at age 7 and revisited every 7 years from 1964 to 1998 certainly makes for an interesting study. If there is no "49 Up", Michael Apted can at least rest on what this study already has accomplished.

Second, it's amusing to me that at various stages the participants have no clue as to the importance of this study. Some of them decline to be a part of the project and others seems to really understand the value of participating in this study. If my wife and I had a 7 year old we would jump at the chance for him/her to be in this type of project. I fail to understand why some of the participants (Charles, John & Peter) continue to belittle, devalue and not take part in this study. Nick, Symon, Suzy and Andrew all participate, but with an air of sourness about what the study has done to their lives. As I stated, it's truly amazing how some of the participants have no concept of the psychological/sociological value of this study the participate in, they merely seem to be thinking only about themselves and how it affects their lives.

Third, there are a few annoying pieces to this series. One is that Michael Apted fails to explain why Peter is not part of the program anymore after "28 Up". You have no idea why he isn't in "35 and 42 Up". Michael doesn't even add a 30 second explanation!!! At least Mr. Apted explains what's going on with John and Charles, and why they are not part of the program. He failed in "35 Up" to mention why Symon was not interviewed! Yet, Symon re-appears for "42 Up" and all is explained. Another thing about this series is that it greatly improves around 21 and 28 Up as Michael finally organizes the stories so you can keep track of each person, and the technology advances as well as all the participants begin to have something to say about the world they live in. Still, Michael Apted could stand to not engage in flashbacks as much as he does and spend more time on the present. If you watch each show in order like we did, you do not need the flashbacks because you already know what has happened. These films should be viewed in order. Just watching "42 Up" is a mistake and a disservice. You need to watch how these people grow in order to see the whole picture.

My recommendation is, that if you are in the field of psychology, counseling, social work, teaching, etc. You should watch this series as mandatory to your education. If Mr. Apted continued with "49 Up" this year and then continues the series in the future, this project will be even more fruitful and valuable of just looking at how personalities are shaped and determine future choices and consequences.