Reviews

No spoilers, just an expression of amazement.

After being disappointed by the trailers I'd seen, I went in expecting little, but was completely "wowwed". I will see this multiple times. I saw it amongst folks who had not seen the television series, and when I asked them if they had trouble following the storyline, they denied any. Having seen the series in the intended sequence, I was very impressed with this movie, and how it "fit" with the established television storyline.

Acting and writing were top-notch. Very good pacing and dialogue. The effects were excellent, and they fit into the story seamlessly, and were not an end unto themselves. Even though the story is completely self-contained, an opening was left for a continuing storyline. If a sequel is made, I will see it.

Somewhere George Lucas is wishing that he could still make a movie like this.

This movie has generated a great deal of arguing, bitching, and whining about this movie, and that's really too bad. Here's the simple truth (or at least my closest approximation of such): If your favorite movies like Van Helsing, Armageddon, or anything by Jerry Bruckheimer, chances are that you won't like Closer. You will likely enjoy Closer if:

1 you are able to honestly say that you enjoy going to plays, as this movie was adapted from a play, and it shows. 2 your prefer Decalogue-heavy movies 3 you want to see Natalie Portman's buttocks 4 you can tolerate a slightly higher than typical amount of "dirty talk" in a movie, as well as a few scenes that are more risqué than artistic (though they were probably trying {without success}to be artistic, or at least clever) 5 you are not expecting a typical Julia Roberts role, or a "happy" movie of any sort. 6 you are able to enjoy a story of people with moral and mental health defects and their attempts to get what they want at the expense of others.

This is a movie that is clearly not for everyone. My wife and I quite enjoyed it, though early on we had our doubts. The movie builds a momentum with several plot twists and time lapses that require some effort to follow, but we like that sort of thing.

Roughly half of the 30-or-so person audience walked out during the first 45 minutes of the movie. We're both glad that we stayed.

Most of Christopher Lambert's filmography reads like a guide to B-movie hell. I got conned into watching this by a friend years ago, and will be forever grateful. The story is solid, Lambert turns in an almost-acceptable performance, and most of the rest of the cast does well. My favorite thing about the movie is the (by martial arts flick standards) realism. The gaijin does not miraculously learn to swing a sword like a samurai in a matter of weeks, months, or ever. The action sequences are exciting and fairly well-executed (by 1990's b-movie standards, at least), particularly a ninjas vs samuri scene on a Japanese bullet train. Some of the characters have a bit of complexity, there are a few little plot twists, and the character interaction is often believable. They also answer that age-old question "who'd win a fight between a middle-aged ex-athlete with a few months of kendo training and a ninja who's just lost an arm and leg"? (Lamberts's character is a former fencer turned businessman, but that bit's cut out of the home video/DVD version, as is the monologue by Kinjo the ninja, which helps to serve---in part, at least, as an explanation as to why this movie, set in Japan, has almost an entirely Chinese cast). If you're in the mood for an fun, entertaining, semi-intelligent B-action flick, I whole-heartedly recommend this one.

Oddly enough, the writer of "Pretty Woman" wrote and directed this flick, which may explain why my wife liked it, too. Of course, the same guy did a flick called "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".

Saved is a movie that surprised me immensely by:

1) not being the vitriolic anti-Christian film it was purported to be in the media, and 2) demonstrating that McKauley Culkin still has that magic that endeared him to us all back in the 1980's (snicker).

The actors' performances were all very good, and while it was obviously an over-the-top satire, several nails were hit squarely on the head in the depiction of Christian school teeny-bopper culture (as a scarred survivor, I know this all-too well).

Saved was pretty darn funny, and I would recommend it to anyone who isn't still on a hunger-strike over Creed's switch-over to mainstream "secular" rock.....8/10 across the board, 10/10 for the teeny-bopper genre.

This movie definitely had some potential in the "feel-good" "chick-flick" genre, but the editing and direction combined for a ham-fisted mess, and most sit-coms have better writing. A cute idea, an excellent cast, and a total waste of time.

Rupert Everett, Kathy Bates, and Dan Akroyd were all well-cast, and handled the roles given them as well as humanly possible. The casting of Johnathon Pryce as the Sinatra/Elvis/Englebert Humperdink character might've worked with a better script, but as it was, it seemed either a moronic turn or a failed attempt at humor by way of mockery. The scenes with Julie Andrews breaking into song to calm riotous crowds were quite funny, and Meredith Eaton was a lot of fun as sex-crazed, hard-as-nails-but-with-a-heart-of-gold midget (the writers incorrectly labeled her a dwarf).

Misanglothropes will also find plenty of Britishness at which to point their condescending laughter.

I'm glad i "netflixed" it instead of having to live with the memory of handing over cash for this poor-quality entertainment.

This movie definitely had some potential in the "feel-good" "chick-flick" genre, but the editing and direction combined for a ham-fisted mess, and most sit-coms have better writing. A cute idea, an excellent cast, and a total waste of time.

Rupert Everett, Kathy Bates, and Dan Akroyd were all well-cast, and handled the roles given them as well as humanly possible. The casting of Johnathon Pryce as the Sinatra/Elvis/Englebert Humperdink character might've worked with a better script, but as it was, it seemed either a moronic turn or a failed attempt at humor by way of mockery. The scenes with Julie Andrews breaking into song to calm riotous crowds were quite funny, and Meredith Eaton was a lot of fun as sex-crazed, hard-as-nails-but-with-a-heart-of-gold midget (the writers incorrectly labeled her a dwarf).

Anglothropes will also find plenty of Britishness at which to point their condescending laughter.

I'm glad i "netflixed" it instead of having to live with the memory of handing over cash for this poor-quality entertainment.

Dollar for dollar (and there were a lot of dollars spent on this piece of garbage), this may be one of the worst movies of the past 5 years. A decent scriptwriter and director should have been included in the huge budget. Even as mindless entertainment goes, "Van Helsing" is a pathetic waste of time. I saw it for free, and I still felt ripped off. The story-bad, special effects-poor, performances by otherwise fine actors-fair to bad, dialogue-bad, music-inappropriate and annoying.

To paraphrase my friend Will Cockrell: -------------------------------------- 1) Take the money you were planning on spending to see van helsing, put it in an envelope.

2) Mail it to me.

3) Next time I see you I'll show you a picture of Kate Beckinsale in a corset, we'll watch about an hours worth of bad video game cutscenes, and I'll punch you in the crotch.

Same difference.----------------------

'nuff said