Reviews

This film put chills down my spine, and a hundred smiles down my face. It's about people that are very rigid in their ideas, interests, and traditions. But...I think it is a lot more than that. It says that we should want to think of life as an opportunity for change...and that we should love life in these times, not wish we had it like the olden days---actually it gives so many messages (which I love) that are so ambiguous that I cannot really explain, just watch the movie...and don't listen to cynical critics.

Why is this film so excruciatingly boring? I think it's because it's not about anthing, but gambling...and who wants to sing about gambling. OK, OK...it has a love story, but it just doesn't seem feasible; I mean, either one of the couples. Musicals can so easily become corny, and when Sinatra and Brando are not on the screen, all the sparks fade. Compare it to "Swing Time" and "Singing in the Rain,"...I mean when I watch them I smile all the way through, but this is a highly over-rated movie. It's just not done well, and anyone who thinks it is has some delusions of neurosis.

O.K...the reasons why this movie makes me want to return my food from my stomach are: (1) classic movies should not be remade, because there are excellent scripts out there, and why take the chance to ruin a good thing; (2); it is filmed with actors and actresses that could never compete with such talent as Anthony Perkins and Vivien Leigh, and their decision to be in this film proves that they lack the interest in film as an art form (3); it is filmed in color, which takes away from the universal embolism that black and white has to offer, and we see to much blood, which distracts our real fears and transmits them into baseless gore. So we say "yuck" instead of jumping out of our seats. (4) It blatantly talks and shows different instances of sexuality, but the original showed implications of it, which did not distract us from the tone and plot of the story. IT'S A THRILLER!!!(5) It's just plain boring. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM...FEED THE HOMELESS...READ A BOOK...WATCH THE OLD VERSION...but please don't waste your intelligence on this gimmical movie.

If all of your perceptions are fixated on plot, and that is all you are willing to see; then don't watch this film, because you know nothing about the art, or trash, of good movies. But if you're like me and you love mood, atmospheric photography, and some quirky characters then watch this film. It reminded me of the real b-movie-noirs of the past---like "Out of The Past" and "Detour." Yes there's a lot wrong with it, but don't be a pessimist...just relax and observe the texture of it.

I was lucky enough to see the new version of this film, and it felt a little different, but in a way a lot better. Some of the people in the audience were extremely bored by the plot and they complained about the overlapping dialogue. But I saw a much different film; a film with such amazing visuals that I would even dare to compare it to the "Star Wars" trio or "Goodfellas." But you know all that. The film, at least this is the way I see it, is really about Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) and his sad fall from grace. He's like Darth Vador---he doesn't want to be bad, but he cannot help himself, because life gave him a raw deal. You can just say it's a film noir, but it's absolutely not...it's more of a portrait of a time and place...and Welles' career gone bad. If you see it you'll understand what I mean.

I can't understand why a lot of moviegoers keep saying that the plot of "Saving Private Ryan" is too thin. Any person who has seen a number of great films will realize that the plot doesn't really matter that much (I'm paraphrasing Hitchcock!!) It's the feeling you get from watching it and the characters that you can relate to. It's upsetting to see how ignorant some people can be, especially when there is so many great emotional moments in this film. And this film wasn't made for the Oscars, it was made for the soldiers, not heroes, of wwii.

This is a great film. Critics have said that it's mysterious; I think it's more suspenseful though, because we know and feel what Julie (Juliette Binoche) is going through. But it is mysterious in the way that we do not really know what she is up to. I love the scene where she gets locked out of the house and we are allowed to search her face for, what it seems like, several minutes. Wonderful acting! I also love when she is told that the lady downstairs is a whore and she should sign a petition to kick her out. Julie's response: "That's not my problem." Great Dialog. R.I.P. K.K.

It should be called: "I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago." When "Scream" came out, I thought that the studios would start to make films that mixed horror with satire. But now all we have is glossier "Friday the Thirteenth" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies. I think the horror genre is once again dying.

This is is not the worst film ever made. I mean, compare it to "First Wives Club," "Can't Hardly Wait," (To Throw Up--should be added), or any 80's based Burt Reynold's film. I don't think it's even bad.

It's great campy nostalgia. Yes, I laughed at it a lot, but in a way it could be considered art. It could be said that Ed Wood had an imagination that no other director has had. It's wonderful.

I've heard that this film's characters are homophobic. Homophobic? What does child molestation have to do with homophobia? And why do they call it unbelievable just because they took revenge on their rapist. How many people would do the same thing if they could?

"High Noon" is considered to be a great film. Why? The characters do not even have one-dimension, the plot is thin, and there's nothing that really compels the viewer. Compare it to "Shane" and "Unforgiven," and you'll change you're mind about it. Hopefully.

Scarface is one of the first great mob movies. Paul Muni plays Tony Camonte in a performance that never feels dated or boring; it bursts with sick energy. He makes these strange gestures, which he probably learned on the stage, to entice the other characters to play along with him; like he'll start making popping sounds, as he plucks his hand off his temple. He also shifts his emotions very abruptly, and you cannot really predict when he'll lose his temper, or when he'll act charming and witty. There is a scene when he directly implies to Poppy (Karen Morley) that he wants to have sex, and you can really see his great comic timing. His performance is ten times better than any other Cagney-mobster performance; so why am I the only one that knows it. Howard Hawkes directs with great vision and excellence. He made this into a very violent film for its time, but he also made some great visuals on the screen. Such as his use of the "X" every time someone is about to die or after they die. And who could forget that scene where the machine gun blasts the dates away on the calender. I think he was still learning how to make a movie, because some of the scenes just don't seem like they should be in this one. It never grows to the stature of "The Godfather," or "Goodfellas," but I think it's right behind them. And those films probably would have never been made if it wasn't for "Scarface."

I liked it the first time I saw it, then when I thought about it, nothing made sense. O.K., lets say Kevin Spacey's character made up the whole thing, then how come he includes Chazz P(the cop he's talking to) in his story. What if we all could figure the plot out? Does it really matter? Should we waste our time figuring out a stupid, confusing plot? At the end we're left with two great performances, (Spacey and Del Toro) and nothing else, because the filmmakers' main interests are in plot.

It feels kind of strange to critique the critics, but I'll do it anyway. What can I say? The show's funny, entertaining, and knowledgeable. If anyone loves movies, they will definitely be an inspiration. Thumbs Up.

This is one Hitchcock's best, except for that dumb final speech, which is entirely unnecessary. But it redeems itself with that final shot. Can you believe they've made another "Psycho?" This is the worst thing to happen to movies since Ted Turner wanted to colorize "Citizen Kane," but that never happened. This is happening. This just sickens me to think about it. And of course we're going to get those geeky teenagers that will make the film a profit. Gus Van Sant used to be a good director, now he's just another make-movies-for-profit-only director. SELL OUT!

George Stevens' "Swing Time" is one of the greatest musicals of all time. It doesn't have huge production numbers, or hundreds of people dancing along; and most of the magic comes from two great dancers, who evoke the kind of cinematic chemistry that hasn't been seen since. Fred, with charisma that can overwhelm you with joy and amazement; and that classy dame, named Ginger, who could...umm...just be lovely, which is all we want her to be. Oh yeah, they're pretty damn good at dancing too! I love how Ginger can dance in those high heels, and how Fred can do everything; I liked when he nearly floated through her white dress. And those 1930's melodies that they sparkled along with. The great songs are "Waltz in Swing Time," which is the first time we really see how good they are; "Never Gonna Dance," probably the best of their careers; "A Fine Romance," a catchy little tune (before it there is a scene where Ginger and Fred talk in a snow fortress, and the music makes it seem incredibly dream-like); "The Way You Look Tonight," is justly famous, especially when we see Fred's expression of relief; and "Bojangles of Harlem," which show three shadows that dare to keep up with Fred. So, is the greatest musical "Singing in the Rain"? Or is it "Swing time"? I think it's better not to compare because you might start seeing the bad parts of both. And who would want that?

I wonder how long it took audiences to see that the Sandler and Barrymore characters would end up together, or that they would go through a hundred misunderstandings, until they understand that each person loves the other person. I wish they would have never made "It Happened One Night" (1932), because ever since then horrible only-interested-in-movies-as-a-business film makers have been making crap like this. Adam Sandler plays a moron who is charming and stupid simultaneously. He can't act, so he has to make fun of himself in order to feel comfortable. As for Drew Barrymore, she plays a one dimensional air head. I'm not even going to analyze her character, because there's nothing there but a moron with a 90's due, in an 80's based movie. If Adam Sandler is going to try play stupid for laughs, then he should write another Happy Gilmore, not romantic comedies. I think people like to laugh at Adam Sandler, but never with him; I think it makes them feel a lot less insecure and stupid.

This is one frightening movie. It could be called a horror-fantasy-thriller. It appears to be a thriller, except for the very beginning where children's heads are placed around stars. Oh, yeah, and that spooky shot of that lady, I won't say who, under the water. And the fake looking set decoration. But the real fantasy comes when John (the main character) and his little sister set off on their boat ride. Their journey is one of fantasy and horror, as the evil preacher (Robert Mitchum in possibly his best film--I don't know--you try watching all of them) stalks them. O.K., they're on the boat, and we couldn't have been tripped enough, when John goes to sleep and then Pearl (the little girl) starts to sing a strange, etherel sounding song for what ever reason. And we see animals and insects that are used so atmospherically. It is a magical sequence of events. It just gets better and better from there. Why didn't Charles Laughton make another film? He could have been another Orson Welles. Oh, well...It's a great film.

Neil Labute's "In The Company Of Men" is considered by most people who have seen it one of the most sadistic films of all time. I think it's because Labute took away the idea that you have to show empathy for your sick characters. There's no shot of Chad or Howard with an expression of guilt, or we don't find out that they were abused as children. But what I think Labute was showing was that the business world is so much apart of "me, myself, and I" that they never have an urge to say "you."

Unrelenting fascination is what I have every time I watch this movie. It never seems old. It's in my mind, haunting me, with its unearthly music and its dark, oblique photography. And that great Orson Welles' speech, and also the best entrance in movie history to go along with the best exit in movie history. It couldn't be better. I can't even express how I feel in words. Watch it again and again, and you'll be dazed!