Reviews

This "documentary" is garbage. What is the intent of this film? That Manoj Night Shyamalan is intensely private? That he keeps secrets and expects the people who work with him to do so as well? So what? Aren't these the precautions of all successful filmmakers?

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

As I was watching the crew go through this pseudo documentary, I kept thinking, "Wow, look at how they're leading people," or, "I don't find this believable at all." Night comes off very rational, if a little eccentric. There's nothing dark about him, at least no more so than most intelligent and philosophical people.

In fact, I felt sorry for the way that the director and crew for this "whatever" kept stalking poor Night and his associates. And some of the people interviewed in the documentary were obviously brought in to simply add to the drama (i.e. Javier, the pizza guy). All these little mystical interludes are clumsly done, you can anticipate these events before they happen.

At three hours long, I think this whole film was overkill. I'm left thinking the same thing that Night said to the director, "You don't need an angle to do this. Just film a documentary about me and the work I do." If only the people involved in the making of this film had listened. Sadly, Night has even more reason to seek privacy now.

This is Michael Moore's strongest movie to date. He wisely chooses to remain off camera for the majority of it, letting the audience gather its own impression. Mr. Moore presents us with the accounts of soldiers and citizens, as well as media footage from 2000 through the present to help us connect the dots. True, he portrays Dubya and the Republican Party in a very harsh light, but it isn't unjustified. And the Democratic leaders aren't shown as saints, either. I urge everyone to see this immediately. Take what you will away from it. Hopefully Americans will stop being so apathetic and self-absorbed.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

While I really appreciated Mr. Moore's film, I wish he had delved a little bit more into the roles of other countries (such as vocal war opponents France and Germany) in "helping" Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Clinton administration's plan of action prior to the 9/11 attacks. Also, he could have done more to point out the duplicity of Saudi Arabia, a country clearly playing both sides. He barely scratched the surface on Saudi Arabia's culpability and hypocrisy.

Characteristic of his earlier work, there are some very uncomfortable and graphic moments in the film, but the public needs to see it. The US media is too complacent and/or stifled. Moore shows us what the media is afraid or unable to. The American public has chosen to sleep rather than being alert and better informed. This film is a wakeup call to American citizens, a rallying cry for change.

As an Indian American, I do not relate to this movie at all. I am in some ways still a ABCD, though I strive to learn more about my culture. However, this movie is unrealistic in the way that it depicts and deals with this struggle in the lives of siblings Nina and Raj. I found Nina's character to be very completely unlikeable, and Raj only slightly less so.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

My main objection is that neither Nina nor Raj learned anything by the end of the film. Their mother's death seemed to just be another negative event, not a turning point in their lives. Both the brother and sister came off as very self-absorbed and despicable, they simply sought to break ties in their prior relationships. The people they hurt were inconsequential. The viewer is left to wonder on the implications of Nina and Raj's actions. In the end, I felt I knew less about these characters than when the film began.

Michael Moore has always been a blunt critic of the corrupt politics and socio-economic problems rampant in America, and this film shows more proof of it. This is a movie that everyone in the US needs to see right now, especially as Americans become more paranoid and fearful of the rest of the world.

My brother, currently living in Europe, cited this film as the reason he's decided it's no longer a place he'd like to live and therefore left. Having just seen the film a few hours ago, I can clearly see his point. Bear in mind, this film can be quite bleak and grim in its outlook for the future. However, with Moore's tireless (and usually thankless) fight against ignorance and injustice, you will gain some insight on what exactly has lead to the current chaos around the world and in the US itself. The film was funny, but I also felt physically ill and angry after seeing it. Some of the film is very graphic and difficult to watch (i.e. dead bodies, people being shot). Do not let the disturbing nature of the film stop you from seeing it. It will open your eyes.

WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!!

This movie examines why crime and violence has risen so dramatically in the US since the nation's birth, in comparison to the rest of the world. The argument is that the root cause of the violence and increased crime IS guns. Specifically, the NRA's continued efforts to distort the 2nd Amendment to their agenda, thereby guaranteeing every citizen's right and access to bear arms in the US, has been a disaster for the country. The film also indicates that the US media needs to be revised and gun control is badly needed.

Before anyone argues against gun control and points out Moore's apparent hypocrisy (he is a lifetime member of the NRA, as he freely admits at least 2 times in the course of the film), Moore brings up a number of relevant points. First of all, he's joined the NRA to gain access to areas that would otherwise be closed to him, such as being able to tape at NRA meetings and interviewing head honcho Charleton Heston himself. The interview with Heston, which occurs at the very end of the movie, is both revealing and disturbing. Heston clearly comes off as both uncaring of the innocent victims of gun violence (in the film's example, a 6 year old girl killed by another 6 year old) and worse, a racist of the worst caliber. Furthermore, Moore heads up to Canada to compare that country's low crime rates (despite its equally well-armed citizens) and how Canadians' can feel so secure (to the point that they leave the doors to their homes unlocked at all times).

The film shows how the US media has focused on scaring the American public to the point that people are paranoid and distrustful of everyone else. The local and nationwide news focuses on violent crimes and thereby increases the public's fear and distrust. This is contrary to Canada, where the news is about social issues (health care, education...). The NRA further agitates the public by insisting that an armed society is the best defense against anarchy, yet ignores the very chaos and turmoil they've helped create.

The film also points out that American society is no more violent than any other current society or past society. He uses the British Raj, Nazi Germany and World War II Japan as examples of societies that were much more misguided in their respective eras. The question lingers, why is the weapons-bearing American public so much more disturbed than the rest of the world? The question will haunt you long after the film's end.

I like movies and books about Arthurian tales, because these tales contain so many of the elements that people find fascinating (adventure, good vs. evil, romance...). Excalibur is an interesting interpretation of the Legend of King Arthur. Interesting because much of the film is unintentionally funny, generally when director John Boorman was actually aiming for a serious moment. Granted, the movie was made in the early part of the 80s, so it's aged slightly better than many of the other fantasy flicks of that era. I do find the "fuzzy light" look of the film rather annoying, though I guess it suits the soft porn moments that Boorman insisted on including.

The movie score, which has Richard Wagner's works (Wagnerian operas in Arthurian times? Who knew!), is a surprisingly good fit. The movie's cast is generally suitable, though there are a few duds (Liam Neeson is truly awful here). Some of the lines in this film are also silly, which is where the unexpected laughs come in (SPOILERS AHEAD!).

An example of a hilarious line is in a scene with Uther Pendragon and Merlin (our famous wizard). Uther, who would become the father of Arthur, is besotted with Igrayne, the wife of another lord. With Merlin's magic, he goes to the lord's castle one foggy evening so he can be with Igrayne (the future mother of Arthur). My favorite line is stated when Uther Pendragon is told by Merlin to cross the sea to the castle. Uther expresses doubt about riding his horse across the open sea, but Merlin exclaims, "Ride! Your lust shall hold you up!!" Totally unexpected, totally ludicrous.

The movie is full of strange/funny lines like this, but others are quite beautiful and profound. The movie would be awful without the incredibly talented Nicol Williamson, who plays the slightly mad but very shrewd Merlin. He redeems what would otherwise be a campy movie. If only he had more screen time in the film, as he deserved. But much like his brief appearances, the film ultimately leaves us unsatisfied.

I actually like most French films, because they take their time to tell a story and there is a great deal of character development, unlike most of Hollywood's drivel. This movie disappoints because it doesn't have much of story or character development. The movie has three main characters, two boys (good friends), and a girl (the lover of one of them). The three wandering Parisian teens are completely shallow and selfish. They decide to go on a "kibbutz," a communal journey, in hopes of escaping their boring and supposedly depressing lives. SPOILERS AHEAD!!

You would think that their difficulties during their journey would enlighten them and make them grow up a little, but surprising it doesn't. Nor does it make them any more kindly towards others, especially their parents - the girl, Anne, particularly hates her mother, though it's never clear why. The story fails to get into any of their heads, so you don't feel any particular attachment towards any of them. I was slightly charmed by the actor who played Bruno in the movie. There's something interesting about him. Strangely enough, he looks very much like a young Dustin Hoffman. There's a love triangle that develops between the three teens, although it's never carried out. And pardonez moi, but the sub-titles leave a lot out at the end, as the movie's closing is a couple of sentences in French that fail to get translated into English...a big letdown.

Abysmally awful sequel to the original Jurassic Park. Both Michael Crighton and Stephen Spielberg must be furious at the deterioration of the series, based on the poor quality of this sequel...just go back and watch the brilliance of the first JP. Even JP II was better than this, and that's not saying much. If not for Sam Neill's involvement this time around, I'd have dismissed this one entirely. He's the only character I had any sympathy and admiration for, every other major character in the movie added nothing to the film. I especially kept praying that Tea Leoni's character would get eaten messily by the Spinosaurus throughout the film. Her constant screaming and whining was just annoying. Whatever happened to the smart and CAPABLE female character? Tea's character could take a lesson from Julianne Moore's character in JP II, now there was a tough lady. William Macy's character was too one dimensional and I couldn't understand why he still loved Tea's character. She's a shrew! The son was pretty self reliant, but a little too smart alecky. It was nice to see Laura Dern turn up in this movie, but her role is miniscule and is an utter waste of her talent.

It is obvious right from the beginning of the movie that the script was being worked out as it was being filming, which may be okay for other movies, but is inexucusable for this one. There are so many plot holes and inconsistencies, it's pitiful. I found the climax to be a bit hard to swallow, and a tremendous let down (like most of the film itself). Too "deux ex machina" for me. *WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!*

My real problem with the end of the movie is that it contradicts everything the previous JP films have set up. There's simply no way that the raptors would let the group go just because Sam emits a cry for help on that dinosaur artifact. Tea's character stole the raptors' eggs (why?), the raptors know this, and the raptors have not shown to be merciful in either of the previous films. Based upon their previous behavioral patterns, the raptors would have attacked the humans and at least killed and eaten a few of them (let them start with Tea's character).

The raptors' behavior in the climax makes them look stupid, which forever tarnishes their reputation as fearsome and intelligent creatures. You could actually say that for most of the dinosaurs in the movie, from T-Rex to Spinosarus to the Pterodactyls. Apparently the Pterodactyls are just like modern birds, since the ones in this movie fly right beside the rescue helicopters at the end, presumably towards the mainlands (why don't they attack the humans in the helicopters?).

And how did Laura Dern's character know where the hell the group was to be able to alert what appears to be the entire US Armed Forces to rescue them? Sam's character doesn't mention anything to her about locations in his desperate, too brief, and half inaudible distress call, there are tons of islands in the area, and the rescue parties get there faster than Speedy Gonzales. Finally, why couldn't the stupid parents do the same thing in the beginning after their son's disappearance and avoid this catastrophe of a movie from ever happening?!!?