Reviews

"V for Vendetta" is an interesting movie. The story unfolds slowly, setting up the main characters, their back story and the setting very well. It introduces connections to Guy Fawkes, the Count of Monte Cristo and more recent fair such as "1984". The relationship between V and Evey develops slowly as V plots his revolution, convincingly showing how someone might be torn between the goal of the revolution and the means to achieve it.

Halfway through, however, as V's deadline approaches, the movie takes a ludicrous turn. Evey's character changes abruptly. This change, as near as I can tell, is made only to move the plot (both movie and V's) along. Although we are shown the reasons for this change of personality, to me it rang hollow and the story suffers as a result.

"V" is an interesting movie to watch and to reflect on given today's reality. There are numerous connections to the present that the filmmakers obviously wanted to exploit. The means to that end, however, are distorted by some plot twists that I, personally, found unconvincing.

It's really not surprising to find out that the director of this drivel made his name in the land of TV commercials. The movie never really seems to be one whole, but rather is made up of several loosely related 'scenes' which attempt to move the plot along. Not that there is much of a plot to begin with.

The movie opens with a send-up of a Kahlua commercial with a jolly fat guy (Gal) sunning himself in the Mediterranean sun. You understand that he is relaxed and fully content with his inactivity and would be very happy to remain so for the rest of his retirement. This is the last time you understand ANYTHING in this movie.

There's the cliched recruitment scene (think "Tastes Great! Less Filling!"), a neither here nor there love triangle "mess" that never really goes anywhere except maybe sending you to sleep, and finally an inane bank robbery which still doesn't explain why Gal simply had to be involved. Don't just suspend your disbelief at the "action" in this movie, leave it at home. The less you think while watching this movie, the better.

This is a beautiful movie, visually if not in the underlining story. Hallestrom really missed the boat here, for this movie, the first 99% at least, is about tolerance and the evils of extremist religion. Most would agree that Catholicism, and most religions, are not about subjugating the lowly. It is the people in charge who misconstrue the teachings and traditions to those ends. And, I thought, that would be the message here. I was wrong.

The people of the 'tiny hamlet' are a happy people for the most part. Of the evils portrayed, only one is even remotely related to religion, and even then it is more the traditions of the town rather than the teachings of Jesus which create the situation. The real villain here is the Count. So why, pray tell, does Hallestrom forsake all that was built to take a cheap jab at the institution rather than the individual who is at fault?

For such a beautiful, and dare I say, sweet movie, the end result left a sour taste in my mouth.

I've read many of the reviews posted here, heard about this movie from critics, and even found a copy on the BFI 100 shelf in my local video store. And yet, I found myself sitting through a movie which made no sense and for whose plot I didn't care a lick. True, some of my issues could be resolved by a second watching, but really I have no interest in that.

Get Carter contains a plethora of characters, most of whom only play bit roles and are never truly explained. I still wonder at which of the many 'gangsters' Sid was! The back of the video box proclaimed a 'relentless pace'. Instead, the first 30 minutes leave you wondering just what in the world is going on. Now, I don't necessarily want a movie and its plot spelled out for me, but to leave the viewer completely in the dark is something completely different.

I would agree with many of the previous reviewers that the locations and action are highly realistic (with the exception of Caine's pathetic jabs to the stomach of his villains), but who cares about realistic portrayals when the movie is BORING?! And it doesn't help when the director decides to hide important dialogue with conversations in the foreground. Perhaps highly original in the 70s, the presence of characters, animals and architecture obscuring the view of what is supposed to be the object of attention only annoys.

I can only imagine, and shudder, at the version Sylvester Stallone may have recently made, but I, for one, plan to NEVER find out. If the original was this dull, I await to see the remake on the Bottom 100 list.

Twilight is a movie which demonstrates that, although casting is incredibly important in ticket sales and exposure, a poor script can still sink a flick. I never thought that I couldn't wait for a Paul Newman movie to simply end, but here I was proven wrong; and by a movie totaling just over 90 minutes. If you've seen The Maltese Falcon and every other private eye flick made since, you have seen this movie before - only better. Twilight's script is predictable from the first credits, the laughs visible far ahead of time, and the cliches simply too cliched.

Twilight brings little new to the genre and you would do yourself a favor checking out a classic instead.

I have absolutely no idea where the tagline used for this movie came from: this movie has nothing to do with a raunchy dog. Two scenes do not qualify for this kind of statement. Instead it is a wonderful movie which deals with immigrant culture, the conflicts which arise between the traditionalistic (nationalistic?) parents (in this case only the amazingly portrayed George Khan) and the rebellious children.

The plot illustrates that tensions which are present when a family is torn between conflicting belief systems. As is the case in real life, this is not a black vs. white problem. The father, a Pakistani immigrant, is divided between the culture he left behind and the new lifestyle which he has accepted as his own, however unwillingly at times. As an immigrant myself, it was very interesting to see how many of the conflicts portrayed paralleled my own experiences.

Tragic and hilarious through out, this is a highly entertaining movie. But don't listen to the advertisers. This is not that kind of movie.

I am by no means a Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, or of the genre in general, but I was simply blown away by the fight sequences. Some of the stunts I had never seen before, and even those that have long since become cliche continued to impress me. Although the plot was rather simple and at times I was confused as to Jackie Chan's character's intentions, I didn't watch this movie for its intellectual stimulation...

Incredibly acrobatic!

Although there is the obvious plot of the grieving wife, the movie is really about Poland under martial law. Probably unable to directly focus on such political topics, Kieslowski attempts to 'hide' this other side beneath a twisted Ghost subplot.

A dark movie, one that demands attentive viewing, this one will probably never be as successful as some of Kieslowski's other works, which have probably led its viewers to pick up this one.

I don't mean the comedy timing. This movie was good simply because it came out before anyone had any ideas of making a Dilbert movie. When it boils down to it, this is a movie about Wally, Dogbert and all the other crazy characters. Don't get me wrong, this movie is excellent, but had _Dilbert: the movie_ come out already, everyone would be bashing this clone, rather than laughing out loud.

This movie really isn't about anything. It COULD be a movie about a lonely man who has lost his loved ones, can't take care of himself, and is slowly dying.

It COULD be a movie about Hollywood's homosexual background, and the effect the coverups had on those making movies in the 30's.

It COULD even be a movie about some boring friendship that no-one really cared to see between a lower-class gardener and his lower-class, graduated to fame, director buddy.

Instead, it is simply a boring movie that tries to cover EVERYTHING, and instead does nothing. Tell me it really mattered that the main character was "the father of Frankenstein"! It didn't matter at all!

This COULD have been a movie about my gay uncle Freddy and his beefcake, meathead mechanic 'friend'. Most definately over-rated.

awful. awful. awful.

i wanted the studio to apologize for stealing my $8. at least i didn't buy any popcorn...

about the only horror movie cliche that wasn't used in the production of this dud was 'supernatural' silverware flying at the main characters. at times i wished it had. at least that way we could get to see everything all in one place.

It seems on the surface to be a romantic _planes, trains and automobiles_ but at times tried for something more, where it failed miserably. Some may like the nontraditional ending, but the attempts at "deep insight" into the world of marriage flopped around not really going anywhere.

But if you were interested by the story, the movie tried other methods to distract you. The unnecessary special effects, of which the falling rain was the most obvious, served to do nothing but annoy. The camera-work is erratic at best.

One note of caution, however. My movie experience as a whole was less than satisfying, sitting in the first row with a group of young'uns around...

With all the hype that this movie has gotten, along with the critics raving that it is "the greatest war movie ever made," I simply had to add my two-cents.

Outside of the first 15 minutes, which truly are incredible, the movie is unoriginal and unconvincing. I never felt that the really was a good reason for going after Private Bleached-teeth.

The tank battle towards the end was pretty good but for real wartime horror check out the German STALINGRAD.

And as far as incredible WWII films go, you simply can't live without having seen DAS BOOT.