Reviews

WALL-E is the third love story in a row from Pixar, and they just keep getting better at it, as it seems with everything they do. It's only been 2 years since they first made us fall in love with machines falling in love in "Cars," yet they have outdone themselves this second time around, pairing two robots separated by centuries and light years of space.

As with "Cars," the folks at Pixar have gotten us to care so deeply about a pair of machines that during the most touching, romantic moments, the audience was absolutely quiet. At several points in the film I could sense the baited breath and hear the sobs.

I'm sure that by now you are familiar enough with the storyline that nothing needs to be said here about its particulars. I will add that it was amazingly unique and quite strong, even though there was barely any dialog between the main characters.

What I think was best about the film was the depth of involvement I had with the characters (which the audience clearly shared). I had just come from a more packed showing of "Hancock" and though it was fun, I just didn't care for the characters nearly as much, even though they were human---well, sorta.

The visual effects in "WALL-E" were as brilliant as any CGI to date, and there is an imaginative "dance" that is fun to watch. As always, Pixar has done a great job of mixing the very realistic & gritty with the soft & cartoonish.

If you have to choose only one movie to go to for the next few weeks, "WALL-E" is hands down the pick to make, even over "Hancock."

And, if you are just coming around to collecting Pixar films on DVD, in my opinion, this is a tie for first with "Finding Nemo."

I saw this film in 1979 with my three best friends from high school, probably right after we went swimming at the quarry and before cruising Marymount College for girls and getting into fights with their West Point boyfriends. Though it was a virtual reproduction of our lives, we were serious movie buffs and were able to distance ourselves and give it an objective review: a damn fine "coming of age" film with a smart script and solid acting all around.

As I watched it again recently, I noticed more funny bits than I had previously, especially in the scene when Dave's parents get romantic: she plucks the flower from her hair as she drops into bed, and he sheds his pocket protector full of pens... I also appreciated more the nuances of the relationship between Dave and his dad, and the scene with them after Dave's race with the Italian team wasn't as mushy this time around.

Not quite an 8 out of 10, but I think the current 7.6 rating is well-deserved, and would have given it a 7.5 myself if I could have.

Whether still young or now old, many small-town and college-town guys who grew up with a tight circle of best friends will relate to this movie, but it's not so much a "guy-flick" that their girlfriends and wives won't enjoy a look into the lives and emotions of young men that women rarely see.

If you are not a devotee of Malick, don't waste your time on this one. You won't get it and you won't like it. If you liked that other con-job of Malick's, "The Thin Red Line," which was admittedly better than this film (but that's not saying much), you'll want to like this one, because it's more of the trite crap that passes for high-art cinema these days.

If, as I do, you genuinely like artistic, metaphorical movies such as those made by Bergman, Fellini, and Godard then I think you will be mightily disappointed by this pretender. The problem, I think, is that Malick tries to straddle two worlds of cinema, believing he can bring high-art to the average movie-watcher, or action-drama to the avant-garde, and he fails at both. If the soldiers in "The Thin Red Line" weren't a bunch of mournful, whussy poets, he might have had a decent war film, or if he had put his warrior-poets on a metaphorical battlefield using experimental staging techniques, like Lars Von Trier, he might have made a good art-film.

As with the English colonists & the Native Americans in "The New World," the two cinema cultures do not mix. The whispered, prosaic narratives by Smith (most wrongfully played by Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher) are trite, uninteresting, and only serve interrupt the flow of the story, where the action & dialogue were doing a sufficient job.

The only reason this film was nominated for anything was because the nasty old men of Hollywood just wanted to see Q'Orianka Kilcher at the award ceremonies in a tight, designer dress. Note almost all nominations were for her.

Admittedly, the cinematography was outstanding, and the camera-work in the battle scenes truly enhanced the feeling of being in a disorganized melee, but that's just not enough to support a dreadfully boring and otherwise false film.

Neil Marshall is perhaps not as prolific as fellow members of the so-called "Splat Pack," (Alexandre Aja, Darren Lynn Bousman, Greg McLean, Eli Roth, James Wan, Leigh Whannell & Rob Zombie) but in my opinion, his two full-length films ("Dog Soldiers" & "The Descent") have already put him at the top of that list. Marshall treats the genre with more maturity, I think, than most of the above directors, and his strong background in drama pays off. While I understand this genre is not big in character development, Marshall brings just enough to add dramatic tension between the characters and make us care about their fates (as with Sarah & Juno in this film).

The special effects are excellent, the splatter is not crazily over the top, and the editing is smooth. It also looks like Marshall did some serious research in spelunking for this film, and cinematographer Sam McCurdy did an awesome job with the low lighting in the caves and conveying a sense of claustrophobia. I wish I could comment more about how he handles the subject, but I can't do it without spoilers.

This is the first film of this genre (including "Saw 2," "Hostel," "The Hills Have Eyes," "The Devil's Rejects" and others by fellow Splat Packers) that I have given a rating above 7 (7.2).

Without giving away too much, there are Cherokee legends and other Native American stories that do support the concept in this film...

I am not a big fan of romances, but in this case I gave it a try because of director John Boorman ["Excalibur," "The Emerald Forest," "Hope & Glory, "Deliverance"] and actors Samuel L. Jackson ["Coach Carter," "Star Wars: Episodes 2 & 3," "The Red Violin"] and Juliette Binoche ["Chocolat," "The English Patient," and the 1992 remake of "Wuthering Heights"].

This film was in the better half of Boorman's, while Jackson and Binoche gave top-notch performances. The supporting role of Dumi, played by Menzi Ngubane was excellent, as he acted both as foil and antagonist between the couple.

I think the weakest elements of this film are in screenwriter Ann Peacock's dialogue and in the construction of the Anna Malan and brother Boetie characters. The first for taking on just a little too much burden of responsibility, especially in one somewhat uncharacteristic scene at one of the hearings with a particularly gory testimony, and the latter for being incomplete when a key development occurs that should have played more into the storyline and into Anna's reactions.

From what I've heard about the book by Antje Krog, I can understand why anyone who had read it before seeing this movie might be disappointed, but it was certainly clear to me by the marketing that this was a romance and not a cinematic litany of the horrors of Apartheid.

Given the turbulent background of Apartheid and the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission proceedings, along with other clues, I was also expecting this to be an adversaries-fall-in-love story, which is the type of romance that I like the most. The collective incidents which drive Anna and Langston together are neither contrived or turgid, and fall comfortably in between, especially because they are juxtaposed with events based in reality. There is one most significant turn at one of the hearings, which, given it is true, would bring any two adversaries together, in peace if not in love.

I don't want to give away anything about the extent of their romance, except to say that how it ended up was a pleasant surprise and quite satisfactory. I wish I could recommend two other good romances that end so similarly and satisfactorily, but I would give away the surprise.

This film is certainly worth a rental or two, worth showing to friends, but I suppose the disturbing nature of the background events might keep some people from buying it for their home library, but if you bought a copy of "American History X," I think you might want to buy this one.

The last good film Stuart Gordon made was 1985's "Re- Animator," which I also give a 7 of 10.

I mention the former mainly because this film is just as gripping and disturbing. This is not a horror-movie like the former, but it is "horrific" with its peculiar violent realism.

Not much by way of character-development for the protagonist, but in this case, the less said about him the better, or we may not come around to be sympathetic with him when it counts. What we do know of the character Sean Crawley is pretty damn ugly, but unknown actor Chris McKenna has a screen presence that makes him somewhat likable, or at least puts us in his corner in the end.

This film is not a good choice for mixed company, much less a date, but worth watching when home alone and prepared to be wonderfully disturbed.

Though this is a "heroic epic" telling of the Golden Age of China, director Ping He does an outstanding job of blending depth of character with period- and action-realism within only 115 minutes.

The springboard/wire-fighting is kept to a minimum and is subtly crafted. These are heroes who have skills far beyond the ordinary, and the fighting effects merely convey that without rubbing it in or going over the-top.

Every major character is developed in this story except for the young monk, and you'll understand why at the end. We even spend a little time with Lai Qi's 3 loyal soldiers and their families, getting to understand what they've been doing and what is important to them.

The plot does involve a magical object, but there are only two scenes with associated special-effects, which were as nicely done as any Hollywood CGI. The first time, it is essential to developing the story and our understanding of why these men will fight so hard to protect it. The second time, only to establish its proper role in the epilogue.

There is a hint of a love-story, which I find unnecessary in films like these, but I didn't moan or groan here because it is kept deep in a minor subplot and used primarily to demonstrate that the protagonist is not truly a criminal or a bad man. Not that Ping He doesn't know how to tell a good love story, as he did brilliantly in 1994's "Red Firecracker, Green Firecracker" (Pao Da Shuang Deng). I think he was forced to add it, and simply relegated it to the lowest priority.

I don't understand how someone could like "Jet Li: Hero" or "Crouching Tiger..." better than this film, unless they have little taste for dramatic, action-adventure epics, and must have a perfectly happy-ending every time. I thank thee, Buddha, that Hollywood hasn't taken over the Chinese film-making industry!

Aloonda this movie.

Movies like this are not meant to be taken seriously, so please don't get caught up in the fact that dinosaurs & cavemen didn't coexist, blah blah blah.

Professional enough casting to pull off this little spoof without a lot of over-the- top or otherwise bad acting. Ringo Starr, Shelley Long, and even John Matuszak do a great job with their characters. Dennis Quaid is a good enough actor with good comic instincts, but I wouldn't say he is perfect for the part, though I can't think of anyone else who would have done better at the time. Evan C. Kim as Nook, the only character to speak English in the film, is probably the best cast part in the movie, with the possible exception of Richard Moll as the abominable snowman, but you really can't tell it's him through the makeup.

The stop-motion dinosaurs are fantastic. They add to the production value rather than detract from it, and I'm glad they didn't go for the digital technology available in 1981, which would have detracted by trying to be more realistic and failing. I get laughs every time I see the bits with that one howling, crowing & hooting dinosaur on the cliff edge.

There is conflict in the plot even though no one really comes off as a "bad guy," not even Tonda, who is somewhat of a beneficent tyrant.

The love story doesn't carry the movie as well as the idea of "Bo-Bo," or friendship & tolerance.

I've seen this movie for under $10, but even at $15 I'd say it was worth adding to your collection, because it is funny, inoffensive, and can be enjoyed by many different viewers. The only other movie of this ilk I can think of with such wide appeal is Support Your Local Sheriff.

I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.

Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.

I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.

Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)

Vampires vs. Werewolves. What could be better for a fan of either or a fan of both? Unfortunately, this movie does not deliver in what could have been, and should have been, one of the coolest vampire/werewolf movies ever made.

The whole movie seemed to meander, even in the action scenes. I think there wasn't enough time dedicated to the screenplay, though it seems like the storyline and backstory had been well thought out. This led to the feeling that a lot was implied but left out.

Beckinsale looks great in her catsuit and cape, the sets were simple and stayed in the background, but the special effects left a lot to be desired. The werewolf transformations were terrible, and not much more advanced than those in "American Werewolf in London." I think they should have sped it up just a little bit more and that might have passed muster. I think it was silly that the professional vampire "Death Dealers" would stand around in the middle of a fight and wait a few seconds for their opponent to transform into a werewolf. It would have been better to have the transformation occur in the middle of combat, allowing the editor to cut a lot and break the special effect up into more believable bits.

I recommend that if you are a vampire and/or werewolf fan, go ahead and rent this move, but please don't spend $20 on it, or you will regret it.

This is a great film to have in your collection and to pull out when you have guests with varied tastes. Fantastic screenplay, staging, pacing and, most of all, incredible acting, all come together to make this a nearly perfect film. Someone says, "I don't like Westerns," you tell them this is a western "spoof" and really more of a brain-over-brawn and romance than a western in the classical sense. Another says, "I'm getting tired of romantic-comedies," you tell them that it's not the main storyline, and the romance is just another part of the spoof. There are some well-staged and funny action scenes and lots of witty dialogue. Whatever a person likes, it is in here; and whatever a person may not like, there is not so much of it in here to dominate the movie, and so much else to enjoy. Get this one in your video library as soon as possible...

You cannot judge this quirky movie by the standards you use for the rest. Off-beat right from the start, this film defies all the paradigms of film-making and must be judged in its own category, with titles like Eraserhead, After Hours, Harold & Maude, Miracle Mile, Barton Fink...

There is little more that needs to be said about the plot except that it is about a young man with a rather bizarre gimmick trying to make it into stand-up comedy.

I would see all of the other films mentioned above before picking up this one, which definitely trails the bunch though it will likely still be enjoyable to fans of the bizarre.

Do whatever you must to "suspend disbelief," and let this movie wash over you. Ewan McGregor does a stupendous job with the character though the plotting is a little thin. Nolte comes off a little over the top for my taste. Don't get caught up in the details and this film will entertain you.

The Cold-War may be over, but that doesn't mean a thing to the poignancy of this film in regard to human nature and the military mindset. Even if you are not politically-minded or care much about the nuclear threat, you will find plenty of entertainment in this satirical work by director Stanley Kubrick and actor Peter Sellers (who does a fantastic job of playing several roles in the film). This immortal movie hasn't a boring minute or a single flaw I can think of. I never thought I could be so entertained and feel so good about the end of the world.