Change Your Image
drhickmann
Reviews
La leggenda del pianista sull'oceano (1998)
This movie is absolutely pivotal
I have been having trouble lately in choosing good movies to see using the IMDB ratings. I had thought that the input of hundreds if not thousands of people would on balance reveal the quality or lack thereof. The rating for this movie proves my assumption was wrong and therefore the movie is absolutely pivotal for me. It tells me that there is no reason any longer to waste time at IMDB reviewing the ratings and user comments, looking for the top 100 of this and that type of movie. It's about as reliable as those corny referrals at Netflix that once you see e.g. a French movie they think you want to see any French movie. This movie is so pathetic that words don't serve me in explaining the depths of mediocrity it has reached while the readers write glowing reports and ratings to the tune of the current 7.5 out of 10. Ladies and gentlemen this high of a rating is insane! The acting is poor, the characters aren't developed, the story is clumsily handled and incoherent, the directing is god-awful, the music is utterly forgettable and the timing is dreadful. For anyone here with an IQ of 100 or above, disregard this sleep-inducing, over-rated by IMDB users, sophomoric nonsense.
Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)
Beautiful film; weak story
The film is beautiful; the lighting and color make it look like a running collection of 17th century paintings. The acting is brilliant save for Colin Firth who for some reason was rather wooden and apparently did not receive any meaningful direction. But the story is another thing altogether. It moves very slowly with very little dialogue. The key idea that Vermeer would rather just paint for himself (what artist wouldn't) but had to do so to make a living for his family was not developed fully and left me wondering exactly what was on his mind all the while. The transition from low-class maid to artist's right hand was botched completely, and the patron's antics were very difficult to understand. But if you love Scarlet Johannson, as I do, her handling of subtle shades of countenance and the beautiful sets and scenes are enough. But it would have been oh so much better had the story held water.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
I have come up with a single word which answers everything
I've struggled with how to summarize this strange movie and have come up with a word that I believe describes it for most viewers and will help those who would enjoy it and those who would not. Simply, the movie is absurd. If you are turned on by absurdity, as some apparently are, then by all means see this film. But if you understand the commonly excepted meaning of absurdity, don't waste two hours of your life with this drivel.
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
A fun story, and true, apparently.
This is a fun movie because it's a great story, based on fact, and kept my interest all the way. What's not to like. The acting is just fine and the story moves along nicely. The only people who wouldn't like this are the the esthetes looking for a message. Go see it and enjoy.
About Schmidt (2002)
Deeply flawed but at least makes you think
I didn't particularly enjoy this movie because I wanted it to get up and go but it merely went away. I take it as a depressing, cynical, condescending look at a retired insurance actuary's life in retirement. It was an indictment of midwestern life, its people, and the way they act. This aspect was done much better in "Fargo". In the first place, Schmidt was a simpleton, a dolt who couldn't comb his own hair - not particularly accurate for the actuaries I've known who are generally brilliant people. The gloomy panning of the Omaha skyline is a not too subtle cheap shot at the midwest, as is the entire movie and its characters. The in-law family and the wedding scene were actually quite accurate in depicting the goofiness some people and families display at functions in everyday life. It wasn't particularly interesting to watch such people and I wonder if the makers of this film understand that we see movies to be entertained, not bored by the underbelly of society. This movie wants to say that Schmidt is a hopeless dolt who cannot handle his retirement and his life and whose emotions are so bottled up that it looks like he's ready to explode at any minute. Is this enjoyable, instructive, meaningful, entertaining? I think of it as just another pretentious attempt to create a classic of filmdom while managing to bore the Hell out of the majority of us viewers. Consider the bonus material on the DVD. There are long strings of text as preambles to the outtakes that we have to wade through before viewing them. A simple suggestion to the director - how about you telling us about each outtake with your voice instead of forcing us to read the drivel that precedes them? Yes, we're forced to read that material and we're forced to think about Schmidt's dilemma, not all bad, but it is so utterly depressing in the process that on balance we are not stimulated or entertained and if we don't have either of those we are not pleased with the experience. Giving it a rating of 6 is very generous.
Adaptation. (2002)
Extreme disappointment
This movie is unwatchable for the average movie goer. It is of no interest and of no intellectual value whatsoever. You will have wasted two hours of your life. There is a sickening feeling when, during the last five minutes, you realize this is all there is. Arrange to do anything, anything, for two hours rather than view this ridiculous excuse for a movie. There, I've met my minimum four required lines, which is really three too many.