Reviews

This is a perfect movie for those who enjoy classic humanistic stories that weave well drawn characters, strong acting, and an engaging story of universal appeal. There are no car crashes, no killings or gratuitous violence. There are interesting plot twists, a light director's hand, and a story that takes you on a journey that makes the two hours pass too soon. The protagonist is a compassionate, wealthy surgeon with and marital problems who succumbs to amnesia. 15 years pass in which he has wondered the country as a vagrant. He eventually arrives in a remote village where he finds work in a flour mill and crosses paths with his past. It's a story that evolves and blossoms with grace, charm, and gripping emotional strength.

Being a fan of small movies, I was hoping that this one would be a good use of two hours. Unfortunately, this is one of the worst films I have seen in a very long time--without exaggeration. The story is of no relevance except to a small minority of middle-class, navel watchers, the quality cast is poorly directed to the point that their actual abilities become questionable, the cinematography has an amateurish feel even though it was shot by an accomplished cinematographer, and the editing is choppy. Watching this picture is like watching nails claw against a blackboard. You can't believe someone gets pleasure in doing it and you can't wait until it is over.

This is a garbled, ill-conceived piece of acting and film-making that only can be made because of the cast involved. And what a mistake they made. The vanity acting is so over the top that it is an embarrassment, and the directing is convoluted and filled with cheap gimmicks that are more typical of commercial film-making. While the Earl of Rochester may have been a talented writer and cultural radical for his times, this film is less concerned with that, and far more interested in camera mugging and shock-effect visuals. Mr. Depp speaks of the Earl as being above all honest and that it was honesty that caused his downfall. Well, one could say that the dishonesty of Mr. Depp's acting (and others) is the downfall of this film. I wager that this is a film that all involved in will look back at and ask themselves, "what was I thinking?"

One common complaint about this movie has been that it's hard to follow. This is not true. What is true is that the screenplay is deliberately written in a style that refuses to tell the story in a comprehensive fashion. Even if one watches this movie ten times, one will never understand exactly why Bob is tortured or who is torturing Bob, or how or why much of what is done. It is like we are watching shadows of characters, never really seeing them in full sunlight. While the writer clearly did this because Bob is a cloak and dagger type of guy, this is still the movies and as a story-telling structure, I found this technique to be unsatisfying, as did everyone I spoke to about this film. In addition, the characters lack depth, compassion, or interest. And then we have the Clooney interview in the bonus materials to conjure. For Mr. Clooney and the producers to say that the film is apolitical, with no villains, is simply laughable. Talk about spin. This film has good intentions and certainly the political issues are of concern, but the story is too convoluted and so the film is tedious and at times boring.

The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it plays like a "paint by numbers" project. Every plot point and all the character arcs are predictable, worn, and transparent. There is no edge, no interesting twists or insights, and the story and look is something out of 1950 television. While all of the actors do an excellent job and Redford delivers a believable performance for a change, the on-the-nose directing and lip gloss camera work cannot save this film. It's not surprising that its release was delayed and ultimately dumped into distribution, given that it cost over 30 million to make and that there was no way this turkey was going to see a profit. This is just another example of why there are so films being made today worthy of adult interest. The scripts are cobbled together based on a cookbook approach, then bundled with big ticket stars, and sold accordingly. When will it stop?

Is it a romantic comedy or a farce? In either case, it does not succeed as either or both. The biggest problem is the with the premise. The notion that someone will go to such lengths, and such financial expense, to help someone who is in dire need of medical assistance is simply not plausible. Afterall, the guy does try to kill himself within the first few minutes. And thus one watches this movie constantly thinking, "I don't believe this is happening". While the acting is fine, the characters are all to broad and the reason for the infatuation with the girl is never developed and so we have no understanding as to why these men are so consumed by her.

I like a good war story but this is not one. The film has a Disney look and the characters all look like they're acting. It feels like it has all been done before and a lot better, especially by David Lean. With a feel of a Hollywood set,combined with a make-shift love story, I never became involved, except when the shooting starts in the last 20 minutes. Up until then, I had my finger on the fast forward button a great deal. The actual war footage, and the fact that the raid was based on a true story is all that keeps this film from being ignored. Such an event deserves to have been given a better director. I did enjoy the bonus materials much more as they had interesting interviews with the real POW's, and the time-line of the pacific war was a good synopsis of what occurred. Too bad the film was not as captivating.

Robert McNamara was deceptive and cunning back in the 1960's, and he has not changed one bit. While I think Mr. Morris is a fine filmmaker and this film is worth watching for technique, Mr. Morris allowed McNamara a podium to rewrite history without challenge. In that way, this film is a failure and shows that Mr. Morris is not capable of rigorous, investigative reporting. McNamara at one point in the film says that whenever he went before the press, he never answered the question asked but rather answered the question he wished was asked. He does the same in this film and Mr. Morris allows him to get away with it. McNamara controls the moment and rewrites history to suit his needs. Anyone who lived through the years when he was Secretary of Defense knows that he personally lied constantly to the American people and he was, and is, guilty of war crimes (at least he admits to this point). As such, this documentary is a shameful attempt to seek forgiveness and is just another lie on the part of someone who wants us to believe that he was a peacemaker, when in fact he was a contemptuous war criminal.

Rarely do I see a film that I think unleashes the full potential of the cinema. Paradise Now is one. As I watched this film unfold, expecting it to deteriorate into propaganda, I was stunned at the maturity and sophistication of the story, politics, and the craftsmanship. If you enjoy the great Italian neo-realistic movies, this one stands next to them shoulder to shoulder. If you liked, "The Battle of Algiers", this is a more sophisticated and articulated film. Even if you are not politically inclined, it is a wonderful suspense film, with strong dramatic storytelling, humor, and details that provide layers of complexity. If this film were made by Europeans, it would be a runaway hit.

This films was a pleasant surprise for me. I was expecting a one-sided look at life in Israel, but the filmmaker made considerable effort to deal with difficult themes with a welcomed, distant perspective. I like that he does not choose sides in the Arab/Israel conflict but rather chooses to make both sides human. Thus both story and characters have shape and dimension that makes for interesting development. The acting is overall consistently good although some of the dialog is over-written. The worst part of the movie is in the ending where the filmmaker wraps characters and story up into a nice, happy, and forgiving ending--one in which a romance and forgiveness occurs that has no basis whatsoever for believing. To me, the ending was very disappointing and hurts the movie because it stoops to a "Pretty Woman" ending. It is not credible and, given the story's progression, undeserved.

God is great and everything happens because of God's will, both good and bad. The filmmaker wants us to believe that if you pray hard and long, God will respond and miracles will occur. This is the type of theme that allows the filmmaker to take great liberty with story. So when our hero gets into a money jam, no problem, he just prays and bingo, problem solved. This does not make for sophisticated story-telling. In fact, it becomes predictable very quickly. However, if you do not mind this message, which I consider to be troubling and no different then many films produced by the Mormon church, then you will enjoy this very human and well acted film.

This is a nice small film with one interesting character--Bill Murray. Mr. Murray does an outstanding job and he should have won Best Actor award. If it was not for his performance, this very mediocre script, that has no memorable lines, would have come and gone (except, perhaps, the writer/director just happens to have an important last name). It reminds me of "In The Bedroom"--another movie that hit a cord but really did not deserve so much fuss. People wondering around lost, and drinking too much, is not new, not interesting, and told in an uninteresting style. And what do they talk about that's worth our time? Nothing. It would have been better as a "Seinfeld" episode. While the photography and setting is a nice touch, and the understated acting is greatly appreciated, is there really a story here to sustain two hours? "Shattered Glass' and "Station Agent" are far better scripts, stories, and subject matter.

This film is better in all ways than "Lost In Translation" except for Bill Murray's performance. Shattered Glass is tightly scripted, well acted, well paced, and is truly about something. Why this picture has been overlooked is a mystery but hopefully with time, more people will give it additional respect. From the moment the film begins, the story and character arcs develop. The predicament unfolds without writer manipulation, the viewer witnesses the complexity of the problem from all sides, and the answers are not spoon fed. It is a thoughtful, well articulated examination of how journalists are sometimes forced to compromise their integrity in order to meet deadlines and to unfairly gain a competitive edge. The film resonates across all fields. A powerful, tightly constructed film.

This is a wonderful, historic drama that spans the period prior to the Communist takeover in China until after the Cultural Revolution. Told through the eyes of one family, it is a beautifully shot, engrossing picture with excellent acting and minimal melodrama. It is of course somewhat zealous in its political slant, but no more so than what someone from China would consider Gone With The Wind to be. If you like David Lean type of films, and if you like learning about history of other countries, then this film will not disappoint.