MovieMan1975 Reviews

First Knight (1995)

It's a shame it's so awful!

[4/10 · 25 July 2018]

Where to start with a historical action-adventure-romance based on a legendary myth, directed by..... Jerry Zucker. I don't think they could have chosen a worse director. Ok they could have, but Zucker woefully lacks the vision to helm a blockbuster like this. And it shows - from the drab lifeless cinematography, to the awkward casting of Richard Gere, to the redundant costumes, and a production design that shows the foam and screws the set was put together with. We can go on and on.. from Jerry Goldsmith's half-assed score, to the awful dialogue, and a villain that encapsulates every cliche in the book... including a DIRTY FACE! Because how would we know that Malagant is the villain if they didn't make his face greasy and smear it with dirt????

Right off the bat, the movie opens with a 20th century American Lancelot, swordfighting to show off for villagers, or for money? Can't be sure... the scene serves no other purpose than to show that Richard Gere is a master swordsman, as long as his sword looks lighter than a feather. Everything about this scene seems phony and fabricated. Not a single moment rings of 6th century authenticity. This movie can't even decide with millennia it is set in, with weapons from the 19th century, costumes that look 16th century, etc... SO HORRIBLE. lol I get it that this movie isn't for historic authenticity.. but come on, at least display the slightest modicum of attention to historic detail. Its like they got a huge budget, spent it all on Sean Connery and Richard Gere, painted a giant foam castle, and then had to make do with props and costumes already available. I doubt that's the case, but that is what the movie looks like! Recycled from other movies. Richard Gere as Lancelot could go down as one of top 5 worst casting choices EVER. The man is a mediocre actor, and an even more insufferable movie "star" who coasts on his milquetoast leading man looks. He has the charisma of a retarded puppy. Didn't anyone see King David? Were lesson NOT learned from that casting???

The ONLY redeeming values this movie has, is Sean Connery as Arthur and Julia Ormond as Guinevere. Both sparkle in their poorly written roles, and you could tell than in a better movie, this could have been top career performances from them, but they get buried in the mediocre production and Richard Gere's anachronistic presence.

I cannot think of a more disappointed movie, its so bad. Skip this entirely and just stick to EXCALIBUR, a masterpiece, or even Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, which is at least a pretty good action movie with some cinematic flair. But this FIRST KNIGHT is a turd of the first order.

Paul, Apostle of Christ (2018)

Quite moving & poignant

[9/10 · 24 March 2018]

This movie is far better than your typical Bible or 'faith-based' movie; I admittedly had some low expectations going in to see it and was very surprised by a quality film with a beautiful message. Not for one second did I feel that this was preachy or 'Bible-beating'... it was more pure and authentic and humanist. The acting is top notch, with Jim Caviezel, Faulkner, and Olivier Martinez really giving some nuanced and layered performances. Nobody phoned in their roles, you could sense a level of passion and commitment to the story. The music was also excellent, a gorgeous score that was paired with some nice cinematography and production design. The movie looked good and sounded, but importantly - it felt good. Lots of films in the devotional genre tend to end up being mere dramatic recreations of the gospels, but this one, while delivering authenticity, was not as concerned with delivering a 'live-action experience of the Bible' so much as striving to express the true message of Paul. That message, the one that is basically Christ's Sermon on the Mount, is the crux of the film. This gives it an emotional heft that is quite poignant. I wasn't so moved by the characters' actions and the story in so much as what they were feeling in their hearts and what they were expressing. Dammit this movie hit me right in the feels and I already know it will linger with me for days. That is a good sign that I just participated in some human art. Won't win any Oscars, and sadly probably won't light up the box office but this is a fine and beautiful movie with an important and relevant message for the world today.

Mr. Turner (2014)

A perfectly impressionistic biopic

[10/10 · 12 January 2015]

This is truly one of the best films of 2014.

Mike Leigh delivers yet again another piece of true artistic cinema. This film has a richness & depth that is so grossly lacking in most Hollywood films.

Some of the most sublime dialogue I have heard in a long time. Each word is so carefully chosen and spoken by the actors. Brings shame to Hollywood for honouring such trashy tripe like Django Unchained... apparently you can win an Oscar for writing pages of the word moth*rf*ck*r and n*g*er, but a true piece of literature such as Mr Turner is overlooked. makes no sense.

From the gorgeous cinematography, to Mike Leigh's perfect directing, to a towering performance by Timothy Spall.... its hard not to rate this film as one of the best biopics of an artist ever produced.

In a year full of very interesting and competent biopics - The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Big Eyes etc... MR TURNER slays them all with pure excellence of cinema.

The way that Leigh creates a film as impressionistic as the paintings of Turner himself,is a testament to the passion and artistic integrity of the filmmakers and their subject.

never boring for one second, with a production design as authentic as it gets, Mr Turner delves into how an artist distills the world through his mind's eye - analyzing light and colour in a way that revolutionized painting for the next century.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Contrived Pretentious Lifeless Style over Substance

[7/10 · 27 June 2012]

Moonrise Kingdom is charming, quirky, cute, affable, well-composed, sentimental, nostalgic and pragmatic; and I HATED IT. When it comes to Wes Anderson films, there are three guarantees: children will act like adults, girls will carry around suitcases, and parents will not understand - Moonrise Kingdom cashes in on the Anderson promises with much aplomb. If you have never seen a Wes Anderson film you might find Moonrise Kingdom to be magical and unique. If you have seen Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums, Life Aquatic, and Darjeeling Limited, you will find Moonrise Kingdom to be a tired regurgitation of a one-trick-pony director who will forever try to recreate the popular and artistic success of The Royal Tennenbaums, his truly benchmark work. Anderson is a very creative artist, who freely steals from French New Wave and Italian Neo-surrealism, to craft highly choreographed and visually intricate films that specifically show the audience exactly what Anderson likes and how he likes to show these things; he is an artist who works exclusively in a personal space and so far hasn't compromised his personal artistic vision. And there is also the rub! Anderson is incapable of working outside his space; where he once filmed "outside the box"...he now is trapped in this box and ironically appears no longer able to think outside that box - he is a hostage of the aesthetics and style that define him. A tale set in the 1965 about two pre-teens who fall in love and escape into a boy-scout fantasy of an adventure, Moonrise Kingdom, while displaying the very artistic template that made him a favorite of cinematophiles, is also incredibly lifeless, pretentious, contrived and frankly, poorly written. A stand-out cast featuring Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, and Frances McDormand are wasted on underwritten cardboard cutout characters that are weighed down by hackneyed clichés and insipid dialog. I do give kudos to the main two leads - the children - they give the film its only signs of life; Kara Hayward would not look out of place in a Goddard or Fellini piece. While the story is mainly about unhappiness, disenfranchisement, and the ubiquitousness of love vs. duty, it also provides no real substance regarding these themes, meandering along until its trite conclusion. Moonrise Kingdom is a film that suffers the failure of style over substance - in so much as Wes Anderson's signature moves such as tracking from perfectly composed room to perfectly composed room, are now too obvious and no longer meld in the wholeness of the cinematic aesthetic, but instead point out, too glaringly, that you are watching a Wes Anderson film. There is a difference between suddenly seeing a Stanley Kubrick image and saying "oh yeah, this must be a Kubrick film" to watching a Wes Anderson film and throughout the entire film you are drubbed to oblivion with the fact that you are watching a Wes Anderson film. Within 10 minutes of the opening, I was tired of seeing what I was watching - it was so contrived and such a shameless display of idiosyncrasy that the film became a quest to find something new and fresh in it, and unfortunately there is none to be found. With a script that is full of humor but none of it funny, full of quirky characters but none of them interesting, and full of pretty visuals that add nothing to the story, Moonrise Kingdom seems like the death knell of the prototypical Wes Anderson film. But I doubt this will ever stop him - I applaud his artistic integrity and refusal to compromise with mainstream Hollywood, but ultimately he is becoming Quentin Tarantino - a one-note carnivalist forever trying to recreate the success of his early work (Reservoir Dogs is still by far Tarantino's best work and all subsequent films are the recyclage of Pulp Fiction, the film where QT blew his entire artistic wad, just like Anderson did with The Tennenbaums) by insisting on a personal style that is adored by many but offers nothing new to the medium through which the artist tries to communicate. Like Bill Murray's character, when told to stop feeling sorry for himself, I ask... "why?"

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Arguably the best movie ever made

[10/10 · 25 March 2010]

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre may quite possibly be the greatest movie ever made. Yes, it is that awesome.

Every element is either perfect or near-perfect (only the limitations of that era would allow an element to be only "near" perfect).

The black and white cinematography is gorgeous. Very crisp and clean, with excellent compositions. Its one of those elements that works so well, because you barely notice the camera-work. This is not flashy like a Scorsese movie, this is subtle and effective.

Great music. Not the most memorable score ever, but way above average.

The story is absolutely timeless - a grinding, unapologetic and philosophical deconstruction of the most base aspects of humanity; and not a very positive one either. Greed, desire, jealousy, vanity, paranoia are all the key words in describing the issues that the screenplay tackles. The movie also deals with some other concepts like the American work ethic, the pioneering spirit, progress, paradise lost and found, etc etc etc. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This movie really digs deep into the human experience - raw and harsh at its core. Other movies have dealt with these themes, some effectively some with nothing but clichés. The best of them - There Will Be Blood, Network, Wall Street...are all bastard children of the granddaddy of them all - The Treasure of the Sierra Made.

Acting. While Bogey is best known for Casablanca and the Marlowe detective thrillers like The Big Sleep, TTofTSM is the pinnacle of his career. That character embodies all that is great about Bogart's acting talents. The grime, the gruff, the bad attitude, the wicked looks...its all there; Bogey at his best. But.... then there is Walter Huston. This actor steals the show like few actors have ever done before. His performance is not only flawless, it almost breaks the 4th wall - its as if the filmmakers are suddenly staring you right in the face and letting loose on you. Walter Huston - his performance and his character define this film; and elevate it to the next level of absolute greatness. Kudos here must definitely go to the writing. The lines that Huston delivers are devastatingly poignant yet savage. He has some of the best dialogue ever put on film; none of it is dated, in fact it is so modern and ahead-of-the-times that is almost seems out of place for a movie in the 1940's.

For a movie almost 70 years old, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre can still hold up against any of the modern classics, in fact it still trounces 99.9% of all movies released today. This film should never be forgotten or brushed aside, it should be put on a pedestal as one of the great works of art of the 20th century!

To Kill a King (2003)

A fine film

[8/10 · 7 April 2009]

To Kill A King, is a fine underrated historical drama. The story of Oliver Cromwell's complex friendship with General Fairfax, set against the backdrop of the war against King Charles I, is an engaging and dramatic one. With vivid and memorable characterizations, excellent production design, the film evokes a time of change and reform, and also of chaos and brutality. While not quite the epic of Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander, the film still has much sweep while maintaining a cerebral chamber drama feel. The costumes are top notch, the locations and sets authentic, and with crisp cinematography and competent editing, an intelligent and passionate script comes to life and engages us in this story of English civil war in the age of discovery and reform. Tim Roth is absolutely terrific as Oliver Cromwell. Not only does he physically convey the man, he brings the sufficient gravitas and seething rage that brings the character to life on the screen. Equally well cast are Dougray Scott as Fairfax, and especially Rupert Everett, who steals the show as King Charles I. My only complaints about the film is that it is too short - I was left wanting to know more about the events that led to the King's defeat and Cromwell's rise to political power. We are thrown smack dab in the middle of the story, and as someone who is familiar with the background, I was able to pick up and go with it. But for someone ignorant about English history, the script may have been quite confusing at first. But I will say that it is usually a good sign if a film leaves you hungry for more of the story, not for lack of it, but for feeding the viewer's imagination of how grand the context was, and being so successfully immersed in it, like To Kill a King does, you simply want more knowledge of the drama. A little-seen, underrated but excellently performed and well crafted historical film

Faith: Pope John Paul II (2005)

One of the best made-for-TV miniseries ever

[10/10 · 29 December 2007]

What a beautiful, interesting, and touching film.

Perhaps the greatest man of the 20th century, and humbly, John Paul II, most certainly deserves an accurate depiction of his life times.

From his modest beginnings as a conservative playwright and actor in Poland, to his fight against the Nazis and for the jews of Poland, to his epic struggle against the evil and cruel communist empire of the Soviet, this film manages to create an engrossing condensation of his life.

While John Voight is the star of the film, as the older Pope, it is Cary Elwes who steals the show with his exquisite and nuanced performance as a young Karol.

Not directed with any particular flash or style, the film is very competently made (aside from some weak cgi "crowd shots"), containing much historical accuracy and definitely giving the viewer an epic feel - Karol's struggle during WW2 could make a movie on their own, and once Lek Walesa enters the picture and they struggle against communism begins, the film certainly reaches heights of epic proportions.

This film should be shown in classrooms, not for theology, but for its historical significance.

A beautiful and touching film full of emotion, intellectual reasoning, and great performances from top-notch artists.

American Gangster (2007)

Unoriginal Boring Disappointment

[7/10 · 5 November 2007]

American Gangster may be the most boring, unoriginal, flaccid film that Ridley Scott has yet to make.

Coming from the man who created Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and Blade Runner, it boggles my mind as to why this film was not infused whatsoever with his signature style, pacing, and panache.

This film tries so hard to be a sweeping epic crime saga, but in the end, cannot hold a candle to any Martin Scorsese work, for instance.

American Gangster is dull. Its also boring, pointless, flat, limp, and completely cliché ridden.

A combination of Serpico, Dead Presidents, Donnie Brasco, Goodfellas, Carlito's Way, and what have you... this film ends up being a mishmash, using mostly the boring parts of the aforementioned films.

None of the characters of very engrossing, with Denzel Washington's character coming across as inauthentic and about as deep as a puddle of water in the Gobi.

Interestingly enough, the film has no major glaring flaws, a testament to Ridley Scott's experience and craft. The script is acceptable, but lacking any style or idiosyncrasy and lacking any real depth. The story has no message, no meat - its just a random story; even having it based on real events gave it no gravitas. The acting is also acceptable, but lacking any bravado. Crowe is his likable credible self, showing flashes of energy - but unfortunately his character is nothing but a poor man's Frank Serpico. Denzel somehow totally misses the mark. His character is seriously underwritten, and Denzel gives us one note for almost 3 hours - and that is mostly of his now trademark "self-righteous African American". Despite being the "bad guy" in the film, Denzel does not give us a true villain. If the moral ground of this character is supposed to be grayed, giving us an anti-hero, its not. At least not sufficiently to give Denzel proper ammo to work with. What we get is a murderer and drug dealer, who is not such a bad guy because he buys a white man's mansion for his mother. Somebody please hold the bucket whilst I puke in it.... The rest of the supporting cast is also serviceable, but like the leads, lacks any true punch. One exception is Josh Brolin, who gives the one memorable turn as a crooked cop. The look of the film is interesting - a kind of grayish beige-ish wash out... as if you are looking at "cleaned up" 70's footage. However, like everything else in the film, the camerwork lacks the ballet and balls of Ballhaus or Richardson, for instance. Considering how Ridley Scott has taken the visuals of most his films to the limits, its a major disappointment that he decided to make the aesthetics of this film to be one dimensional.

The generic title of this film should have been a red-flag that American Gangster was going to be a flat, cliché-d, overlong flaccid crime "epic", with no interesting visuals, a boring pointless story, and characters devoid of any interest.

Babel (I) (2006)

Most overrated film of 2006

[6/10 · 15 January 2007]

Should have been called Babble.

Cuz that's all Innaritu did, just babble some pointless stories. I'm a fan of his work, and loved 21 Grams, but this has to be one of the most disappointing pieces in a long time. 2 1/2 hours of my life I want back. This is supposed to be a film about communication. It really isn't. The Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchet storyline delves nowhere into themes of communication. They are even able to freely communicate with the villagers where they are stranded. The deaf-mute Japanese girl storyline is way too obvious. And kinda kinky. But in the end, in a really sad angsty emo kinda way. Made me throw up in my mouth a little. The Morroccan family with the rifle storyline? it kinda went nowhere fast, and forces you to watch a pre-pubescent boy masturbate to thoughts of his little sister naked. It added absolutely nothing to the film. Maybe an homage to Bertolucci? lmao The Mexican nanny storyline definitely had the best acting. And the most tension. However, the plot is ludicrous, and what is an attempt of commentary on the illegal alien situation in America falls flat, due irrational behaviour on part of the characters. Their decisions are their dooms. There is no miscommunication here. Thus no theme of communication. And if, as Innaritu claims, this is a film about communication, then wtf? We have no film. We have Brad Pitt propping us some lame melodrama with vacuous star power. Worst Film of 2006.

GO SEE CUARON'S: CHILDREN OF MEN, INSTEAD

Short Cuts (1993)

OMG, Altman is amazing

[10/10 · 13 October 2005]

I am gonna be brief. It is pointless to get into plot and story. It is enough to say that this film is a patchwork of Raymond Carver shorts, á la Robert Altman cineastic collage.

This film is incredible. Absolutely outstanding in every way possible. It is almost 4 hours long and yet I seem to be able to watch it over and over. Next to Glengarry Glenn Ross, probably the greatest acting ensemble (and most eclectic) ever. One of the great masterpieces of cinema of the '90's, and of all time.

Altman is the master. Truly engrossing stuff with wickedly good performances. Also absolutely hilarious, very funny stuff.

'Nuff said, watch this movie if you are a true cinephile.

Transporter 2 (2005)

Pretty bad....

[4/10 · 26 September 2005]

"Suspension of disbelief" is applied to movies such as the most excellent James Bond movies, or Indiana Jones,... but not The Transporter 2. A terribly plotted action movie that has action soooo ludicrous that the movie becomes, well... completely cheezy and ludicrously bad. Even the FX were terrible. The characters were so clichéd and cookie cutter C-movie level. This shoulda be straight-to-video. Jason Statham is somewhat a likable hero with some screen presence, but in the movie, he turns into Neo from The Matrix, literally even flying at some points. Really really lame acting from the entire supporting cast... Horribly painful dialogue and plot points.... It didn't even look good... I don't even feel good writing this.

The first Transporter film was one of the better action films of the last coupla years (along with Jet Li's cradle to the grave, and Die Another Day for ex.), this trash, was disappointing at best.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Some people just shouldn't watch movies anymore

[10/10 · 14 June 2005]

I appalled at all the bad reviews of this great film. Too much Matrix, MickyD's and MTV crap people!! You have forgotten what is art and what is bread and circuses. The people apparently have the attention span of 2 year olds and probably think that Brad Pitt is actually really a thespian.

Gangs of New York once again proves Roger Ebert's statement true "Martin Scorsese cannot make a bad film" (like it or not, Ebert IS the pre-eminent film critic of the last 15 years). This film should have swept the Oscars (with what 11 nominations!!), and NOT Chicago (a pretty sweet movie unto itself, but doesn't even hold a candle to G of NY )

I have three words for you haters: Daniel Day-Lewis (okay one word and a hyphenated double)

DANIEL DAY-LEWIS

When he taps his glass eye with the knife, I get goose bumps, it is so good.

A great epic by the greatest living filmmaker on planet earth

Auto Focus (2002)

Hogan's Hardcore Sex Hero

[9/10 · 29 May 2005]

Wow, is Greg Kinnear nothing short of amazing in this film or what! An incredible performance as Bob Crane, seriously virtuoso. When, towards the end, he visits his agent and is all messed up, and starts saying "sex is normal. I'm normal" - Kinnear reaches a pinnacle in his young film acting career. I have always felt that actors ascend to the next level of craft and stardom when they breakthrough with a biographical role; see - Denzel Washington in Malcom X, Ben Kingsley in Ghandi, Robert Downey Jr in Chaplin, Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia. And now Greg Kinnear has made that leap with Auto Focus, a well-crafted and seductive film by Paul Schrader, Hollywood's last bastion of non-sugar coated filmmakers. Basically the story of Hollywood's most intriguing unsolved murder, Auto Focus also pulls back the curtain on "good guy" Bob Crane's lecherous and painfully discombobulated private and secret life. What is also amazing about this film is how is records the birth of video and the VCR. Bob Crane turns out to be one of the pioneer "users" of this technology. When we see or hear video, video cameras, or VCRs, we probably automatically think of home movies, recording episodes of Star Trek, or the Star Wars prequels' lack of cinematic quality. When Bob Crane heard about video cameras and VCRs, he automatically thought of sex. Though the film makes no mention of it, it is quite prophetic in showing us how the technology of video created hard-core pornography and turned it into a billion dollar industry. If you think about it, nothing has profited more from video than porno, and nothing ever relied so dearly on video like porno. Bob Crane instinctively felt this, though he never was a pornographer, so to speak; he knew that sex and video can go hand in hand. Unfortunately, this was also his downfall. Like most Paul Schrader writ or directed films, by the end you get that queasy feeling, the feeling you get at the end of Goodfellas, the feeling of sadness that this great ride is over and the feeling of emptiness and loss that all that greatness came crashing down. Bob Crane's descent into moral madness can be sickening, especially when juxtaposed with Hogan's Heroes. I almost felt the desire to shower, to cleanse myself after viewing this film. I love movies that produce reactions from me, movies that linger for days. This is one of them.

Cutthroat Island (1995)

Best Pirate movie evarrrr

[8/10 · 29 May 2005]

Hey, I like pirate movies. Could be just the history geek in me. Also gotta admit that I like some Renny Harlin films (Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger are amongst the greatest action films of all time). So basically, all I can say about this much much maligned film is this: the best pirate film ever made. Hands down.

The interesting thing here is that, since this movie is in the Guiness Book of records as the biggest money loss in cinema history, how come studios didn't learn from it? The critics savaged the film, and no one saw it. So why do they keep making over-bloated rubbish movies?

Ahoy Matthew Modine and Geena Davis!! swab the poop deck and bring me some rum!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Star Wars critique - a lesson in uselessness

[2/10 · 23 May 2005]

What is the point of writing a review of a Star Wars movie? Nothing. No matter what is written, everyone will go see it, maybe even twice or three times, and Lucas will make another gazillion dollars. Incredible, because along with the first two installments, this movie is not very good. But it is Star Wars, and it is filled with out favourite characters, so we love it anyways. But boy is it bad.... I thought Episode I was lame and childish - bad: JarJar, Midichlorian, the pod race Episode II held great promise but ended up being a Beverly Hills 90210 episode with space violence - bad: one-liners, Natalie Portman's acting, most of the acting, dialogue, "gladiator" scene with the heroes escaping chains to fight a multitude of lame aliens. Episode III held the most promise of all the films. After two lame prequels we finally were gonna able to bite into the meat of the story and delve deep. Boy was that a mistake to believe! This is probably one of the most illogical movies I have ever seen. There isn't much in it that makes sense, that fits the grand scheme. And some things are completely irrational and illogical. If I am fighting with lightsabers on a volcanic planet, why would I wander on to some overhanging piece of metal where I can suddenly start tight-rope walking, and then resume my saber fight. When Luke and Vader fight on the precipice of Bespin's ventilation shaft, it makes sense because you see how they got there, it had a logic to it. In Episode 3, this logic is seriously missing. I found myself laughing out loud at some of the action scenes - they were that ridiculous. The big battle scenes have no sense of danger or purpose, but the set pieces do have some grandeur that lacked in previous battle scenes of the prequels. How is it possible that in the middle of a chaotic and very dangerous space battle (opening scene), Annakin and Obi-Wan can focus on those stupid buzz droids without having to worry about other attacks from other ships. One minute everyone is targeting them, the next, they are off playing "sweep the buzzdroid off my wing". Totally silly. Once again Natalie Portman is horrendous and useless in the film. Did she just not try? or does she have no real talent and gets by with looks and croneyism? On the other hand Ewan McGregor is a truly redeeming aspect of the film. He is the one actor who managed to truly inhabit his role in all the films. Hayden Christensen is a great actor too, put his part is so "half-written" he never gets the chance to truly show his transformation from jedi to Vader - all we get is stupid "look at me, I'm a model" looks - kinda like if Derek Zoolander had Jedi powers, or if Brad Pitt from Troy made a cameo appearance in a monk's cloak. This is one of the major disappointments of the film. No one cares and wants to see Annakin and Padme play teenie bopper movie-of-the-week melodrama for the weak minded. We all want Annakin going bad and becoming Vader. And we do get treated to that, its just not good enough though. The reasons for switching to the dark side are almost comical, they are that lame. The murder of the Jedis? A joke. Supposed to be the great tragedy of the story line, and it comes off as unimportant, almost happenstance. And cmon, can these soldier clones really kill all the Jedis with a couple of blaster shots. What should have been the major plot point of the 1st act, becomes a throwaway scene. The jedi have become incompetent and quite unwise. They haven't seemed to make a wise choice in any of the movies. Put Annakin on the Jedi council before he becomes a master, thus infuriating him and creating a schism between him and the jedi - wise it is not Master Yoda!! Oh, and Sam Jackson didn't want Mace Windu "to die like a sucka". Sorry Sammy, you did! These movie are simply not thought through well enough. The story lines lack cohesion, there is no logic to anything in it, and in the end, it turns out that the Jedi kinda suck. Shame on you Georgie, you are capable of much more thought and passion. This is not meant to be a review, more of just a rant. I love Star Wars and I wanted to films to be better than any other ones. But they are not. They are watchable and fun, but they did nothing to cement this mythology into our cultures. They have become as disposable as a BigMac or the Matrix sequels, or the Nightmare on Elm street movies. With as much freedom as Lucas has on a movie set, why he choose to take the easy cash cow route instead of making scifi art is astounding. All I can say now is - stick to Star Trek - a much better, more thoughtful and satisfying film franchise (even is ST10 was a lame ending for STTNG).

A Perfect World (1993)

Really good but kinda pointless....

[8/10 · 23 May 2005]

I find it hard to critique this movie. There isn't really anything wrong with it, except that is has no real point to make. Actually, it has a point, but somehow Clint Eastwood, as masterful a director as he is, was not able to effectively communicate it. Or perhaps this is the script's weakness... I cannot make up my mind so we'll leave it as this - a very well written but ambiguous script that Clint perfectly recorded on film, without fully comprehending its subtext. I originally saw this in the theatres and was disappointed. But I know that my disappointment was a result of anticipation, because CLint had made Unforgiven and Costner Dances with Wolves. So when I saw the previews, I thought "this is gonna be a masterpiece, more Oscars for everyone!!". But it wasn't. What I saw instead was a very restrained and quite touching film that barely starred Clint. So now, 12 years later, I rented it on DVD, ready to now enjoy the film, without the misguided anticipation, as I should have in 93. Yet somehow, I had the same disappointed feelings. I enjoyed the film - first rate cinematography, excellent use of locations, wonderful depiction of Texas in the 60's, great cast, fine dialogue, precise editing etc... BUT NO POINT. Clint Eastwood has turned out to be one of the great American film directors. He shows amazing restraint and astounding sensitivity, with a keen eye for composition, and tasteful aesthetics. This is no exception. Costners gives one of his best performances, going against type and actually anchors the whole film (I have a feeling CLint's role shoulda been way smaller than it was). The boy, Buzz, is wonderful. I hate most child actors and performances, but this one is excellent, simply because the kid is real and believable, not because of any inherent talent (like Dakota Fanning for example). Laura Dern is also great in an under-emphasized role. The main problem here is that this skillfully filmed story only touches the surface of its themes - morality, justice, professional and human relations. The characters were created in order to deal with these issues, but they cannot, given that half of them (Clint and Dern) do not get enough screen time to delve into the themes. The father-son relationship between Costner and the boy is touching, but not enough to give the movie its point and weight. I kept waiting for something a little more philosophical and cerebral. For instance the theme of modernization, embodied in the new high tech trailer and the discussions of policing methods, goes nowhere, fast. When it is mentioned that their tools will be used to protect Pres Kennedy when he arrives for his infamous Dallas parade, I thought, OK here comes some political-historical subtext - but it never came... The theme of moral ambiguity, remains, well, ambiguous. But this is not like the euthanasia in Million Dollar Baby, where CLint lets the viewer make the moral judgment. Because of the sweet relationship between Costner and the boy, our judgment becomes muddled, because we are cheering for them. Then what about CLint, Dern, and the cops? Their roles remain so underdeveloped, it is impossible to use the characters as our cinematic moral measuring stick. So, in conclusion, this is a fine and quite watchable movie, that might leave you feeling unsatisfied because it doesn't quite stimulate the mind as it should, but rather effectively stimulates the emotions, which I feel should be secondary in this film, with this story.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

One of top 100 greatest films of all time! and it's based on a play!

[10/10 · 18 April 2005]

I cannot believe this film is rated below an 8

What else can be written about James Foley's adaptation of David Mamet's Pulitzer prize winning play other than devastatingly scorching.

Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin, Kevin Spacey, Alan Arkin, and Jonathan Pryce: perhaps the greatest acting ensemble ever put before a camera, collectively portray employees of a real estate agency- the sales department. Some of the greatest characters written in the 20th century cinema. Lemmon, 'the machine' Levene, is the old hero, now on a steady and sharp decline. Revered by others. Pacino,Ricky Roma the hot shot. He keeps an arm's length from everyone. Alan Arkin, George, is simply the loser. Never was hot, never will be - totally hopeless. Ed Harris is Dave Moss, a fighter, kinda like DeNiro in Raging Bull. Not hot, willing to do anything to reach the top. Like a rabid pitbull. Frustrated and at the boiling point. Kevin Spacey, Williamson, is the manager. A puppet of the owners, a real pencil pusher. But at least he doesn't live off of door-to-door sales. Alec Baldwin, in his greatest performance of his career, only taking up a mere 10 mins of screen time, tears the screen to shreds and burns the film up with one of the most incendiary, provocative, foul-mouthed, scene-chomping speeches ever. I was 17 when I saw this in the theatre and Alec Baldwin blew my mind with that scene. In college we used to watch this film over and over and rewind the speech 10 times over. We knew every line, every gesture. Jack Lemmon's face when Baldwin yells "Put that coffee down! Coffee's for closers". Or "You see this watch? this watch costs more than your car".We would kill ourselves laughing, that's how much we loved it.

Mamet's character driven screenplay delves into the place in our souls and in our psyches, where desperation exits. The men live off of selling near useless Florida real estate, and their tool is the cold call - the hard sell. Lemmon, Pacino,and Bladwin are true masters. Gold belt senseis of the cold call. The bullcrap that they can unload is remarkable. Stream of consciousness. Lie upon lie. Smug and greasy. Pacino's monologue to the hapless gimmel Pryce, leads to tangents about pedophilia, and the stench of urine in subways. He wields a cheezy brochure of the properties like it's Shakespeare, with a picture of a fabergé egg on it. Lemmon meanwhile desperately stands in rain drenched phone booths, creating illusions to the listener like a verbal ballet. When he worms his way into one of the lead's house, he plants himself on the couch and grabs a stuffed animal he sees there. That little thing he does there, that gesture; in those 3 seconds, his character's conflict is symbolized. Though the guru to all younger than him, his decline is turning into an avalanche, ready to bury him. He is so desperate he resorts to the cheesiest, phoniest, approaches. It is heartbreaking to watch. Drama not unlike that of the great Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides. Classic human fare. Alan Arkin is slightly type-cast as the bumbling, mumbling, passive, loser. He has done it so many times. But this has to be the apex of that characterization for him. Ed Harris is so full rage, spitting venom (and literally spitting on Al Pacino during his farewell speech, his "farewell to the troops"). It is literally one of the most expletive laden tirades ever projected in mainstream cinemas. You are just waiting for his ears to smoke and his head to explode. Gut wrenching. Williamson, is subject to, by Roma and Levene, the harshest tongue whippings ever. Ferocious, nasty, derogatory. Spacey is literally humiliated by these masters of bulls**t. He most certainly gets his comeuppance; and later, a pretty nasty little service return of his own. Much is written in these reviews about the swearing in the film. Swearing, in Mamet's works, is part of the syntax of those worlds. It is almost like the curse words become subtext. It is like the plié in his abusive ballet of words. But nonetheless, umbrage can be made about this matter. It is after all, foul swearing, carpet-bombed from a writer who uses it as his key verbal motif. You simply have to accept as Mamet's artistic license and move on. It is one of those things that you simply cannot let ruin the experience for you. Mamet is widely considered one of the greatest living playwright and screenwriter in the English language. Just consider the swearing as part of the stylization of the cold-caller salesman language.

The narrative of Glengarry Glen Ross takes place in one evening and the next morning, and is mostly in a dingy office and a Chinese restaurant. Superbly light, and with an awesome jazz score, it has great camera moves that highlight, accent, punctuate, and round out the actors' performances. My favourite motif is the subway that rattles by - at crucial moments of crucial dialogues. It is interesting to note, that the director, James Foley, who superbly crafted this ensemble piece, never really became an A-list director. All the elements are there, perfectly and purposely assembled - the sound, the image, the performances. Perhaps, Mamet did more directing than the writer normally would? Or did the real cinema pros - the cast - just take the ball and run, literally directing the film themselves, so used to playing those roles on stage, with the exception of Pacino and Baldwin. Another note of interest, is that I have seen this film numerous times, with a variety of people, and have yet to meet a female who liked it. This seems to categorize Glengarry Glen Ross as perhaps one the more masculine, testosterone soaked, man-only films ever. Like wild male animals fighting it out in the jungles. Despite that, I say this is definitely a must see for guy and gal cinema lovers all over.

The Christmas Star (1986)

Read the cast list for heaven's sake

[17 April 2005]

Yes, a small gem of a Canadian film. Ed Asner is great as usual. I saw it as a little kid (one of my classmates - also once a friend - starred in it. It has been rerun countless of times since and still holds up the test of time. Not a great piece of cinema - but as far a family films and Christmas films go, this is one of the best.

For all the "reviewers" who keep adulating about Barrett Oliver's performance and how he was the best child actor of the 80's - well here is a shocker: Oliver does not star in this film!! He is confused with the talented Nicolas Van Burek. Please get the info straight before you subject us to your opinions...

Clearcut (1991)

Devasting and thought provoking

[10/10 · 17 April 2005]

Without a doubt, one of the more realistically shocking and provocative films I have ever seen. One of the most important "lost" independent films ever. Definitely ranks in the top 5 best Canadian films ever.

I don't want to describe it too much, because it is best viewed with virgin eyes - no expectations.

The short summary is that a logging company has gone too far with its clear-cutting of the great Canadian woods, now subject to native Indian terror attacks against the loggers. A nebbish Toronto lawyer gets involved in the case, and meets a mysterious Indian (the always wonderful and most talented Graham Greene). What follows is a harrowing and devastating journey not only into the ancient woods of Canada, but into the darkest recesses of the human soul. Anger, rage, revenge, violence, redemption, tolerance, and ECOLOGY - all words to describe the feelings and attitudes of this shocking film. A definite MUST SEE! - unfortunately though, this is one of the rarest films made in the last 20 years. Never shown on TV, and pretty much unavailable on VHS (forget DVD, at least as far as I know it was never released on disc). Best chance is to pick it up in Canada at an art-house vid store. If you do ever see the box, don't miss the chance, rent it! Clearcut is proof that cinema is and always should be, the leading art form of our society. Films like this challenge, provoke, and serve as catharses. They have a purpose, and it is more than just to entertain. I was 16 when I saw it, and it changed my view of the world, in a positive way. It made me aware of issues while helping me explore the human psyche. Probably one of the few R rated films I would recommend that young people view (supervised of course) - it might actually enlighten them on issues of violence and rage in society.

WATCH CLEARCUT BY ALL MEANS!

SUPPORT Canadian CINEMA!! It should be so much better and richer than what it is - what is wrong with Canucks? Egoyan, Arcand, Jewison and Cronenberg cannot be the only popular cinema talents in one of the greatest countries on earth?!

Cloud Above the River Ganges (2002)

Hard Core

[7/10 · 15 April 2005]

A harrowing and unrepentant film about heroin addiction. Not much to describe here, the film speaks for itself. It takes place in modern day Budapest, Hungary, and follows an IT worker who cannot overcome his heroin addiction, while being helped by a woman (honestly, there is no reality or logic to explain why this beautiful and "together" woman would even give the time of day to a sh**t-in-his-pants junkie -but this is Balkan film-making, hence the suspension of character(istic) disbelief). Harrowing, unforgiving, shocking, and at times beautiful. Director Dettre deeply delves into the dark side of human psyche - definitely reminds me of Abel Ferrara (The Bad Lieutenant) films, while also featuring a character (the female) that represents hope, love, forgiveness, and the incredible turning of the moral blind eye. Not for everyone - this films contains numerous scenes of graphic nudity and full-frontal genitalia (male only unfortunately), and a really disgusting defecation scene. Definitely eastern European cinema fare. A typical American viewer would probably be turned off by the abysmal depression and melodrama of the film.

NotaBene: If you actually do have the courage to watch this film all the way through, keep in mind the incredible and ultra-realistic performance of the lead actor - when the film was released he was in a drug and alcohol induced coma and later died.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Aargh Matey! Ahoy and swab the poop deck!!

[10/10 · 9 March 2005]

A fantastic piece of film-making. Authentic, exciting, well-acted, with incredible production values. Definitely one of the internationally top 300 films of all time.

I have seen the last 9 Peter Weir films and all of them have not been less than impressive achievements in cinema. He proves himself with every film and this once certainly ranks amongst his best. He has shown to be one of the best "well-rounded" directors ever - no particular style or genre recognition, but a mastery of the essentials: character, story, scene, sound, and picture. In essence, flawless film-making.

Master and Commander is an astoundingly well cast film. Russell Crowe as the stoic, heroic, staid, foxy Capt Lucky Jack. He fits the role like a glove and chews through the role like Brando in The Bounty or George C Scott in Patton. Chris Rock at the 2005 Oscar made a profound statement (in the form of chicanery of course) when he said that historic epics should not be cast without Crowe in the lead role. How absolutely true that is. Even though his tour-de-force performance was in Michael Mann's stylized chamber drama The Insider, Russell Crowe is on the straight path to be being forever typecast as the "gladiator-like hero". He fits that role perfectly - the role of a character that has been the favourite of movie viewers for generations - the historic hero. From Chuck Heston in Ben-Hur and El Cid to Brando in Julius Caesar to Richard Burton in Becket to Kirk Douglas in Spartacus to John Wayne in The Alamo to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi to Denzel Washington in Glory to Mel Gibson in Braveheart to Crowe in Gladiator; and so it will continue for as long as cinema exists. And at this phase, Russell Crowe seems destined to take that role to the peak, he was born to be this type of movie star. The rest of the cast is equally well-cast, with the exception of Paul Bettany as the ship's doctor, who sometimes cannot hold his own in scenes with Crowe and allows himself to be overshadowed. The smaller supporting roles of the ship's crew is also cast with actors who seemed to truly have come from a ship - weathered and grimy and full o' pee and vinegar. Of particular note is the characters of the midshipmen, the youngest of the crew. These children belong to aristocracy and are sent on the ship as part of an education experience. The young actors chosen are simply amazing. Child actors are very risky, with great potential of being the all too evil "precocious" or "cute". These kids managed to play kids, yet show amazing maturity, ability for insight, leadership and at the climax - heroism. I was quite impressed. Nothing cheezy or corny here..

As far as the production goes, rarely is this much attention to detail displayed in cinema. You can almost smell the hemp of the ropes as they squeak, or feel the ship sway in the ocean.

Peter Weir has given us a wonderful action filled historic aqua-epic.

A View to a Kill (1985)

A View to a Thrill!!

[10/10 · 20 January 2005]

Seriously underrated and lambasted by critics, but in my opinion one of the best Bond films. Moore bowed out of the series, just in time (well, at least close to it...) and with a serious bang. Christopher Walken is deliciously evil and psychopathic as Mack Zorin, the Nazi engineered genius looking to take over the tech industry by destroying Silicon Valley with a major flood disaster and earthquake. He is definitely one of the best movie villains ever. Along with some of the best music scoring of all the films in the series, including the fantastic Duran Duran song which epitomizes the 80's, the final showdown between Zorin and Bond on top of the golden gate bridge is breathtakingly exciting. I get goose bumps watching the ending! Many people hate this entry in the 007 series, calling it cheezy, clichéd, and that Moore is just too hammy and way too old. I disagree. I claim to be a true Bond-phile, having seen every film many times over, and have read every one of the most excellent (and quite different from the films) Fleming novels (btw the Fleming short story View to a Kill is actually the basis for the films Live and Let Die and For Your Eyes Only) and find that this is definitely one of my favourites. A great watch with amazing music, villains, and final action sequence.

Open Range (2003)

An under-appreciated but wonderful film!

[9/10 · 19 January 2005]

I am not gonna get into the details of plot and story. But I will write that this is a wonderful film, I have seen it twice and was thoroughly engrossed and enraptured both times. Excellent cinematography and music. Costner, Duvall, Benning and the irascibly great Michael Gambon are perfectly cast. Duvall is a real treat to watch, he chews up the dialogue like the cattle on the free range. Though I would classify Open Range as a neo-western, it is not as nearly as dark as Unforgiven or The Missing, just as it is not charmingly fun like the Sergio Leone epics. But like Unforgiven, it is a tale of morality, honour, honesty, loyalty, and ultimately, the end of the western age. Thoughtful and moving, I found it to have quite an authentic tone to it. Without the grandiose moralistic philosophising of Unforgiven, the simplicity of the characters and their dialogues contain the essence of their time and setting. The relationship of the two leads is as good as an classic Buddy Film, really giving the viewer the sense of the necessary camaraderie of cowboys "lost" in the openness of a fading society of violence and a rapidly closing vastness. The extended gunfight at the end, is one of the best ever, with Costner choosing new and unique camera angles (no closeups of eyes) giving the realistic p.o.v for today's sophisticated viewer. If you are lucky enough to watch this with digital home theatre sound, the gunshot foley effects are tremendous! Though sadly overlooked at awards time (Costner is no longer to power player in Hollywood he once was), this is definitely one of the best movies of the year, and a classic in the genre of westerns. This movie represents the true essence of Midwestern America in the late 19th century, perhaps more than any movie, since Dances with Wolves and Unforgiven. A must see for the refined intelligent movie viewer. No popcornism here! 9 outta 10 for Effort, Execution, and Meaning

Troy (2004)

Major failure. Brad Pitt IS Derek Zoolander in Troy

[7/10 · 16 November 2004]

Not too much to say about this much-anticipated but seriously disappointing epic. Brad Pitt's performance can go down as one of the worst ever. He actually does a great imitation of Ben Stiller in Zoolander throughout the picture. Who ever thought that this California surfer-dude type with minimal acting talent could actually bring the stoic yet complicated heroism required for the role of the great Greek hero Achilles. Possibly the worst casting ever! Brad's acting is criminal in this movie. The epitome of junk-food lollipop Hollywood cinema. It could just as well as been Britney Spears as Achilles, with same effect. On the flip-side, most other actors are quite good, especially Eric Bana as Hector.

The music in this movie is horrendous, sappy, syrupy, and recycled from Jurassic Park and Star Wars. It made me sick to my stomach when this cheesy cookie-cutter music swells during the battle scenes. ugh!

The cinematography was also less than par. When everything wasn't CGI and actually human, the footage seems over-exposed. Close the iris 1 f-stop Roger Pratt! What were you thinking? The film had no visual lavishness, no colour-play, no truly great pictures to look at. Let's not even mention the story! Who on earth gave Peterson the right to kill off Agamemnon??!! Homer and Aeschylus are rolling in their graves.

The movie might be more than tolerable if it weren't for Brad Pitt.