Reviews

I am not a film critic, so the insightful comments of others here are best read if you're looking for artistic commentary etc. What I do know is that The Conversation is an excellent suspense film. Hackman is great as Caul... a brilliant performance from one of the best actors of our time. And it's always entertaining to see Harrison Ford in his younger days. An excellent suspense film... it might be a bit slow for the Playstation 2 generation, though a short attention span is no excuse for disliking this film.

Bottom line: it's easy to see why this film was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1974, losing out only to Coppola's other great film that year, The Godfather II.

The Bottom Line - 2.5 out of 5

"After Henry" is a mid-grade Britcom. Britcom fans such as myself will enjoy seeing Prunella Scales (Mrs Fawlty from "Fawlty Towers"), as she is a fine actress and does admirably here. However, the show isn't memorably funny, the premise of multi-generational households is a well-tilled one and there's little new here, and the remaining cast is mediocre. The general impression left on the viewer after several episodes is that it's a rather run-of-the-mill program.

As an American who loves Britcoms, I try to watch and rent all that I can find on telly and in vid shops. I don't have the luxury of comparing "After Henry" to the regular programming that British viewers see each night. My comments on the show are in relation to the shows I have seen. The best shows would include "One Foot in the Grave", "Blackadder", "Fawlty Towers" and "Red Dwarf". "After Henry" is clearly not in that lofty class, but is passable. You could certainly find yourself watching worse... and better.

Last year's Blair Witch Project was a smashing success, earnings-wise. But that success was built almost entirely on hype, which managed to hoodwink most moviegoers into seeing an irritating, unscary, and weak film. The movie had some of the lowest exit polls recorded, and with good reason. Expect the same from the latest (and hopefully last) installment, Book of Shadows.

I wouldn't have seen this movie if someone else hadn't paid, which tells you what I thought of the original. This time, the plot is weak, the acting tired, and the reliance of reputation of its predecessor to enthrall audiences is not only shameful but pathetic. In fact, the scariest thing about this flick is that someone thought people cared enough for the first one to support an entire series of films. The fact that the producers began spewing out computer games, nooks, sequels and other gimmicky marketing ploys shows you what the real force behind these movies is... and it's not making good film. It's all about cashing in while the getting's good.

A disappointing opening weekend for this movie could spell doom for any sequels (one hopes). But who's really surprised here? The producers? The studio? That's what they get for listening to their own self-created hype. Let's hope they bury this tired corpse soon.

We all know the story already. For some reason, God thinks that the French should be spared the oppressive force of the English (why God 'mysteriously' gives up the French to the Germans countless times in later years is another question all together). Joan is appears to lead them to victory. Besson, who has created a number of memorable films, tries to spin a great epic in the manner of 'Braveheart'... but it's hit-and-miss. I was hugely disappointed.

Milla Jovovich, who was very good in "The 5th Element", is practically unbearable here. She should probably win an overacting award. And her strained voice sounds like a teenage boy just entering puberty... very grating. I can't imagine anyone following the real Joan if she had the same personality and demeanor of Milla. They'd get too tired of her whiny, holier-than-thou attitude.

'The Messenger' would make a decent rental, but not a purchase.

Whew, what a stinker. This wasn't scary, creepy, or intriguing, the characters were irritating and moronic and generate no viewer sympathy towards them, and the story and its conclusion left those of us who haven't seen the website (which gives MUCH NEEDED background) scratching our heads in confusion.

If you're expecting a really classic, scary horror film, you're going to be really disappointed. And as exit polls are indicating, a lot of us are really disappointed (60 percent of the 600 polled who said they "couldn't wait to see movie," ended up giving the film a C, and those who were just accompanying their friends, and who, presumably, had no strong interest in the film, gave it an F). That pretty much sums it up.

Here's the quick take... pretty decent special effects; a beautiful house; great performance by Zeta Jones but lackluster Liam Neeson; somewhat confusing script; weak story with lots of holes in the plot; hokey ending.

The truth is, this film could have been scary, but wasn't. The ghost had a good deal of menace, but the explanation of what he did in life is scant and doesn't give the viewer a sense of creepiness or horror that you'd expect an evil ghost to give. Hence, the audience laughed a couple of times where laughter wasn't really called for. This was also due to the lackluster plot, which contained some cheezy lines. I could go into how some of the various effects were nice but misguided (a ghost who can turn statues to life could easily dispose of house guests without the elaborate nonsense as seen in the bedroom/ceiling/spike sequence). As for the acting, Neeson's understated acting was perfect for "The Phantom Menace" but here seems ineffectual. Zeta Jones is great, and Taylor does a solid job.

When the movie ended I felt strangely unsatisfied. Movies like the Haunting have a way of creating hype and promise in previews, and most always have a way of being a disappointment. It's too bad, because there was great potential here. If you're really looking for scary, go see "The Blair Witch Project".

I like Stanley Kubrick. What director can boast of such a wide variety of films and styles while maintaining such a high level of work? Few, and Kubrick was one of them. The man was a filmmaking genius. No one can argue that point. However, we CAN argue the merits of individual films within a lifetime of work, and EWS would have to rank as a major disappointment when measured against Kubrick's past achievements.

The film was beautiful visually. Kubrick certainly had his own vision, as every good director does, and his fans certainly won't be disappointed from this perspective. As far as the craft of making films goes, EWS was often fantastic. However, the actual story drags in places, which isn't good for such a long film. In fact it was so much so that I heard some of the 30 or so patrons in the theater begin to make comments to the screen about it. Some movies are meant to be interactive, with cheering and such, but when a film generates only "get on with it!" and lots of "sheesh"es, it's not a good thing.

Sydney Pollack was extremely solid in his role. Nicole Kidman's rear end did a fine job. And the whole scene of the orgy party was very well done. Another highlight was Alan Cumming, who provided a much-needed wake-up and comic relief as the hotel clerk. But these were not enough to save the film.

I suppose that we should all play nice and rave about EWS, seeing as the master filmmaker died just after its completion. And I suppose that we should also go along with some fawning critics and claim this is a wonderful film, worthy of praise alongside truly amazing Kubrick films like 2001 and Dr Strangelove, because, after all, it's his last film. We should, I suppose, also ignore Nicole Kidman's weak performance (her pot smoking scene was laughable, and performance generally shallow), Tom Cruise's overwrought emotional performance (which was, barring the often senseless crying and whining, nicely done), a piano soundtrack that threatens to cause insanity, and a totally inadequate and weak end scene. Why? Well, it was Kubrick's last film, of course.

Baloney. The truth is, unless you're serious Kubrick fan, or a die-hard Kidman or Cruise fan, you're bound to be disappointed. Like mystery? It's here only as a misleading force. Like romance? Look elsewhere. Want drama? There's some, but it's fairly bland stuff. EWS takes on many angles and delivers on precious few of them. True, it's nice to have someone take a "mature" look at sex and relationships, and to do it intelligently and seriously. Intelligent films are a good thing, when done right. There are elements of genius in this film, but it simply doesn't come together in a way that relieves the boring stretches and overshadows the weak performances and ending.

I can't imagine that this film is going to be a favorite among the general movie-going public. I'm sure that that's just how die-hard Kubrick fans would want it, and that's great for them. However, to fans like myself who have enjoyed Kubrick's work in the past, and had high expectations for this film, it's a disappointment. Looking back now I can't understand the secrecy or hype around the movie. And I'm guessing that neither will most movie fans.

I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.

Perhaps you've heard about a few less-than-stellar reviews for the latest Star Wars film. Considering the hype and expectations of this film, you could be certain that a number of reviewers would be exceedingly tough on the film. Well, ignore all of that. If you enjoyed any of the previous installments of Star Wars then you'll enjoy The Phantom Menace.

We all know George Lucas and his style of storytelling... let's just say that he speaks better with visuals than with words. But what visuals! This has got to be the most visually stunning film ever made. Lucas has done on film what Tolkien did in novels... created a wholly believable, realistic universe. To be able to translate that to film and to do so convincingly is an amazing achievement. Chances are that you'll find yourself wanting to see this film a couple of extra times just to see all of the scenery, creatures, the pod race, and the light saber duels again.

The dialogue isn't exactly Shakespeare, and the character development and relationships aren't exactly deep. Then again, the Star Wars series isn't about that sort of thing. Shakespeare in Space might be an interesting idea, but its time has yet to come! What we have in Menace is a decent script with solid characters, respectable acting and a heavy reliance on visual storytelling ... by the way, this is also what we had with the other Star Wars films. We might gripe a bit about how the story is too adult for kids and too childish for adults, but that's something that we can live with, considering the end product.

My biggest gripe about SW:TPM concerns the comic relief character, Jar Jar Binks. He is at times irritatingly childish, and made me recall how I thought the Ewoks really detracted from Return of the Jedi. He does manage to be amusing at times, but his accented English was so muddled that I didn't understand 1/4 of what he said. Also, his body movements smacked of a computer-generated effect, and not so much a living, breathing being. I found myself wanting less Binks silliness.

A minor gripe is the short-lived career of Darth Maul, who made for quite the menacing, animalistic, evil dark force. He had great potential as a precursor to Darth Vader's dark side. But his on-screen time was exciting, and his light saber duels were eye-popping and thrilling.

In the end, this film isn't going to satisfy the viewer who thinks Ingmar Bergman is the greatest thing in filmmaking. However, any viewer who enjoyed the previous Star Wars films will be very pleased with Menace. This is a movie for fans, not for critics, and it should enjoy much-deserved great success. When the film is over, and you're swimming in a sea of fantastic images, excited thoughts of what will come in the next film, and trying to figure out when you'll come back to see Menace again, you'll realize that you were entertained for 2 hours and the time flew by. I wish I could say that about most movies I see.