The film is a documentary about Mike and Claire Sardina, song revivalists famous for performing the works of Neil Diamond and Patsy Cline respectively. It shows this loving couple and their passion for music and performing. We see the tragedies that befall Mike and Claire's family in ways only life can supply. We see them at their most irresponsible, their most fragile, their bravest, and their best. Does the film have a happy ending? Does any life have a happy ending? All that is to be said is that they lived life on their terms for good or bad. Whether they triumphed or not is up for debate. What is undeniable is that they persevered.
Reviews
20 Reviews
Transformers
(2007)
A battle between nostalgia and common sense
1 July 2007
In my adolescence, I once thought that THE TRANSFORMERS: THE MOVIE (1986) was one of the best films ever made. Age and access had not yet tinged my movie-going experience. Such is youth, forever sentimentalizing our early lives and its subjects. Many of us who grew up on these Hasbro heroes still hold them in reverie, regardless of the profound silliness of it all. But we've all been young, and boys will be boys in love with their toys.
For followers of the series, how much you love Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS will depend on how much you have grown up (and probably how many decibels your eardrums can take). It seems natural that many of us who collected toy autobots and decepticons might have had great interest in the fields of science, as the mechanics of how these robots transform required inquiry during our younger years. So if you're like me, watching this movie may not only reveal an on screen battle between good and evil, but also one's own personal battle between nostalgia and common sense.
I know that I shouldn't be applying logic against a concept that was never meant to be logical. Optimus Prime, Megatron and their ilk were not meant to be opposing leaders of a mechanical alien race set against a space epic. They're cool toys representing the fanciful idea of having normal everyday vehicles transform into humanoid mechas. That's killing two birds with one stone in toy marketing.
The problem is that the level of detail and seriousness the film initially builds up begs us to consider its plausibility. The movie's opening sequence of where a decepticon infiltrates a US military base (apparently in the Middle East) is well-executed and as convincing as can be. Explanations on how these mechas are able to speak English are humorous but (barely) believable. And the initial electronic strategies the decepticons use to hamper US defense systems make sense.
But when the deeper questions are asked, the house of cards falls apart. These robots transform to blend into earth's general populace, but why did they ever need to transform in the first place? Was there an evolutionary advantage that morphing gave them on their home world or are they just God's toys? Why do they speak to communicate as they are electronic beings? If they can reach the earth through space, why do they travel slowly as grounded transport? Couldn't they all have chosen aircraft functions to replicate? And why in one inexplicable scene are they reduced to comedic stooges hiding from a kid's parents in his backyard? Surely these and other queries are supposed to be ignored, but my inquisitive side keeps on tugging on my id. If your inner child wins out however, there are worthy sights to behold. The transformers themselves have been bravely redesigned, which is refreshingly the correct choice as opposed to keeping their original forms. Though some characters from the cartoon series will be familiar, the vehicular alter-egos have been totally revamped to fit current tastes (and toy franchising needs). Mecha battles engaged in Los Angeles are at times breathtaking, none more than Starscream's low-flying dogfighting maneuvers. Fans will likely warm to some in-jokes (a decepticon police car motto), a jab at "My Little Pony" (a fellow Hasbro franchise), and surely, hearing Peter Cullen's voicing of Prime.
Speaking of which, this gloriously authoritative father-figure lacks presence and warmth. Animated characters by their very nature more stylized and symbolic; highlighting their traits to an almost elemental level. How ironic that Optimus Prime in all his CGI glory projects less heroism and gravitas than his hand-drawn version. Perhaps it is our youth that taints our view, plus the all-to realistic detail of the film's special effects makes him look more of a machine and less of a hero (or maybe it's because now we can see his mouth move?). Shia LaBeouf, as the young Sam Witwicky who stumbles onto the robotic conflict, is the only well-rounded character worth following. He keeps it interesting, but can only do so much.
From a cinematic view, Michael Bay was born to direct this movie. He just loves toys, as not one of his films to date has had an unexploded vehicle. In filming convincing human dynamics however, he hasn't got a clue, as evidenced in one scene where he tries miserably and awkwardly in getting us to feel bad for an autobot's capture. His methods have deteriorated as he irritatingly refuses to stop using shaky camera movements during conflict, and dozens of slow motion sequences, mistaking disorientation and distraction for a frenzied perspective. For the life of me, I don't understand why he cannot just let the action speak for itself.
As you can see, I've grown up a bit too far from my guilelessness to enjoy TRANSFORMERS. I do not disdain this kind of entertainment. Truth be told, its writing is better than I thought it would be, but its fancy façade can't hide its flaws for those who want more substance. I find Prime deserving of better treatment, but considering its source, this might be as good as it gets. So enjoy it if you can. I tried and couldn't.
For followers of the series, how much you love Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS will depend on how much you have grown up (and probably how many decibels your eardrums can take). It seems natural that many of us who collected toy autobots and decepticons might have had great interest in the fields of science, as the mechanics of how these robots transform required inquiry during our younger years. So if you're like me, watching this movie may not only reveal an on screen battle between good and evil, but also one's own personal battle between nostalgia and common sense.
I know that I shouldn't be applying logic against a concept that was never meant to be logical. Optimus Prime, Megatron and their ilk were not meant to be opposing leaders of a mechanical alien race set against a space epic. They're cool toys representing the fanciful idea of having normal everyday vehicles transform into humanoid mechas. That's killing two birds with one stone in toy marketing.
The problem is that the level of detail and seriousness the film initially builds up begs us to consider its plausibility. The movie's opening sequence of where a decepticon infiltrates a US military base (apparently in the Middle East) is well-executed and as convincing as can be. Explanations on how these mechas are able to speak English are humorous but (barely) believable. And the initial electronic strategies the decepticons use to hamper US defense systems make sense.
But when the deeper questions are asked, the house of cards falls apart. These robots transform to blend into earth's general populace, but why did they ever need to transform in the first place? Was there an evolutionary advantage that morphing gave them on their home world or are they just God's toys? Why do they speak to communicate as they are electronic beings? If they can reach the earth through space, why do they travel slowly as grounded transport? Couldn't they all have chosen aircraft functions to replicate? And why in one inexplicable scene are they reduced to comedic stooges hiding from a kid's parents in his backyard? Surely these and other queries are supposed to be ignored, but my inquisitive side keeps on tugging on my id. If your inner child wins out however, there are worthy sights to behold. The transformers themselves have been bravely redesigned, which is refreshingly the correct choice as opposed to keeping their original forms. Though some characters from the cartoon series will be familiar, the vehicular alter-egos have been totally revamped to fit current tastes (and toy franchising needs). Mecha battles engaged in Los Angeles are at times breathtaking, none more than Starscream's low-flying dogfighting maneuvers. Fans will likely warm to some in-jokes (a decepticon police car motto), a jab at "My Little Pony" (a fellow Hasbro franchise), and surely, hearing Peter Cullen's voicing of Prime.
Speaking of which, this gloriously authoritative father-figure lacks presence and warmth. Animated characters by their very nature more stylized and symbolic; highlighting their traits to an almost elemental level. How ironic that Optimus Prime in all his CGI glory projects less heroism and gravitas than his hand-drawn version. Perhaps it is our youth that taints our view, plus the all-to realistic detail of the film's special effects makes him look more of a machine and less of a hero (or maybe it's because now we can see his mouth move?). Shia LaBeouf, as the young Sam Witwicky who stumbles onto the robotic conflict, is the only well-rounded character worth following. He keeps it interesting, but can only do so much.
From a cinematic view, Michael Bay was born to direct this movie. He just loves toys, as not one of his films to date has had an unexploded vehicle. In filming convincing human dynamics however, he hasn't got a clue, as evidenced in one scene where he tries miserably and awkwardly in getting us to feel bad for an autobot's capture. His methods have deteriorated as he irritatingly refuses to stop using shaky camera movements during conflict, and dozens of slow motion sequences, mistaking disorientation and distraction for a frenzied perspective. For the life of me, I don't understand why he cannot just let the action speak for itself.
As you can see, I've grown up a bit too far from my guilelessness to enjoy TRANSFORMERS. I do not disdain this kind of entertainment. Truth be told, its writing is better than I thought it would be, but its fancy façade can't hide its flaws for those who want more substance. I find Prime deserving of better treatment, but considering its source, this might be as good as it gets. So enjoy it if you can. I tried and couldn't.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
A truly "Great" movie
10 April 2004
Today's gospel reading allowed me to fully realize the sweeping power of Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. As I listened at mass of Christ's trial at the hands of Pontius Pilate, it came across to me as a banal rerun, with its uninspired narration, its hokey delivery, and its laughable choreography (`Crucify him! Crucify him!'). How odd that I never took serious notice of this before. Though I'm sure that the Catholic Church and its orators have good intentions in retelling this story, it still tires itself out due to its familiarity and our complacency.
Ever since I was indoctrinated into the teachings of the Rosary's Sorrowful and Glorious mysteries, their events had always remained distant and somewhat legendary. Not so much in the sense that they were larger than life, but that they seemed unrealistic. It was nice to know that Jesus was the Son of God, that he healed the sick, forgave those who sinned, and came gloriously back to life after much persecution.
But this was a Jesus that my schooling shaped as a perfect person: a man without sin. Christianity teaches that he was both God and man, and that he could be both at once is its central mystery. But to have human quality, he would have had the gift of free will, which would have burdened him with temptation and weakness. The Jesus I knew never once showed this quality, which made him remote to me. We were often told that if Jesus could go without falling to enticements, so could we.
Yet how could I aspire to follow his works if I could not relate to his faultlessness? How much risk and dread was there in his crucifixion since he had predicted his own demise along with his triumphant return? I have seen countless movies and passion plays depicting him as a calm man in the face of certain death, almost impassive to his scourging, sound on the cross, and mostly expressionless in his manner. Where was the humanity that he embodied? The empathy? The sacrifice?
I do not consider myself a devout Catholic. I don't believe in religion, but I do in God. I don't think Jesus is a being of the Holy Trinity, but I do feel he has a touch of divinity, for no man in his right mind (in Jesus's time) would have done the things he did unless he had a say from the big guy upstairs. I have been an altar boy, a communion server, and gospel reader at some point in my life, but I have learned to question my beliefs and now see religious conviction as a dividing force, as opposed to a unifying one. I don't go to Church because I abide by its rules, but because it's the only way I know how to express my immense gratitude to God for the blessings he has given me (it's also my way of showing my devotion to my family).
Now with that out of the way, I can wholeheartedly say that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, for the first time in my life, made me realize the enormity of Jesus's sacrifice and the poignancy of his tenets. This is not the first film that dwells on Jesus's humanity, (Martin Scorcese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is a great film that focuses on that subject), but it is the first I have seen that gives intuitive and truthful feeling on Christ's passion and death. Other films I have seen on the subject seem more like proselytizing instruments than honest reflections; with their depictions of Jesus's milieu looking more like holy Church cards as opposed to the impoverished Middle-Eastern territory that it was. It is has an incredible power to move those who know what Jesus is all about (for those who don't, it might be difficult to sit through), and it inspired in me such deep sense of grief, realization, and admiration. No film has done that for me since GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES and SCHINDLER'S LIST.
One factor that contributes to the film's effectiveness is Mr. Gibson's desire for authenticity. I say desire because no version of Christ's dying days can be called `factual' (no movie is factual, not even the best documentaries), so any critic citing historical errors is beating a dead horse. His use of Aramaic may be historically inaccurate, but does it heighten the feeling of actually being there? You bet.
It's not just the ambitious production sets, language use, costume designs, and effects (both makeup and special), all of which are labors of love. But it's also in the interpretation of well-known biblical dialogue and occurrences. Remember that much of the discourse that goes on the New Testament is oratory, sounding like a play (another reason why its stories seem legendary). In THE PASSION, many conversations have been fashioned to fit its more sensible approach, in order to see how people might have actually acted and conversed in Jesus's context.
One glaring example is the way it brings to life Mary's relationship with Jesus. In a warm scene where Jesus crafts a table, Mary asks him whom is it for. Jesus answers with a light-hearted wisecrack that puckers Mary's brow. That's when I realized that this movie is special, since Mary and Jesus are given a screen relationship that any mother and son can relate to. Not as divine beings destined for greatness, but as good souls in the midst of a great upheaval. Other conversations in the film observe the same genuineness found here, without major speechifying.
In accord with this more levelheaded approach is the film's violence, which is unparalleled even for an action movie. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times, who praises the film, still observes, `This is the most violent movie I have ever seen.' Since he's been reviewing movies for more than a quarter-century now, that's quite a statement. It does not contain the amount of limb-flying, splatterhouse gore that you can find say in KILL BILL, but the personal violence that it shows perpetrated against Jesus will make you look away. From his scourging at the pillar, right up to when he is brought down from his cross, the maiming committed against him in this film is grotesque, but it serves a purpose.
That purpose of course is to highlight Christ's humanity and suffering (words that many Christians meet with rolling eyes). This is not the Jesus in white swathes with a glowing halo and a burning heart. This is a simple decent man who was poor and who lived in a poor country. Even if you do not subscribe to his philosophy, the movie, at the very least, evokes sympathy for this man who clearly does not deserve the mutilation and death he is resigned to. How could I hold back my tears as I saw Mary see her son undergo such arduous torture? How could I not cry in agony as they forced him to carry an overbearing cross after massive blood loss? How could I not grieve after hearing his simple humane teachings before seeing him nailed to the cross?
Many people will argue whether the amount of bloodshed in this movie is justified. I found it strangely necessary. The bar of film violence has been raised so high in the passed two decades that it is hard for audiences these days to grasp how sadistic Christ's death really was. How can one vouch for its brutality? To apply 20th century mores to those who lived 20 centuries ago would be silly, so how vengeance was applied back then could be a hell of a lot more cruel that we could possibly fathom. In any case, James Caviezel's performance in allowing such cruelty to come to life is amazing. Not only does he convey intense suffering, he also effortlessly suggests warmth and gentleness without seeming saintly in the film's several flashbacks.
I remember watching viewer reactions on the news right after the film's opening day. One priest summed it up best for me: `A lot of people think the movie is too cruel. But the world's a cruel place.' Many critics have accused THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST of having a massive amount of violence that is self-defeating, but I believe there's a method to Mel's madness. Buried in an avalanche of torturous sequences is Jesus's tender wisdom, which is stronger than any tear of the flesh. Mr. Gibson magnifies these principles of love through images of hate with great skill and heartbreaking ardor. The film challenges us: can we love one another in the face of such hatred? For those who believe in Jesus, the answer resounds loudly.
Note: I have read many reactions claiming THE PASSION is anti-Semitic. All I can say is that for every hateful stereotype of Jew you can find here, there are more than a few depicted as ordinary decent people. You have Caiphas as the lead Jewish elder who wants Jesus dead, along with several mean-looking grumpy men. But there were other Jewish elders who were shown as appalled at the unjust hearings Jesus's had been forced to attend. You have an angry mob, but you also have throngs crying for mercy. You have Simon who helps Jesus carry his cross, the woman who wipes Jesus face. Besides. Yes, Jesus was killed, but he never resisted, even when he was given several opportunities to do so, because he knew his death was his purpose, in order to wash away our sins. The Jews didn't kill Jesus, we all did.
Ever since I was indoctrinated into the teachings of the Rosary's Sorrowful and Glorious mysteries, their events had always remained distant and somewhat legendary. Not so much in the sense that they were larger than life, but that they seemed unrealistic. It was nice to know that Jesus was the Son of God, that he healed the sick, forgave those who sinned, and came gloriously back to life after much persecution.
But this was a Jesus that my schooling shaped as a perfect person: a man without sin. Christianity teaches that he was both God and man, and that he could be both at once is its central mystery. But to have human quality, he would have had the gift of free will, which would have burdened him with temptation and weakness. The Jesus I knew never once showed this quality, which made him remote to me. We were often told that if Jesus could go without falling to enticements, so could we.
Yet how could I aspire to follow his works if I could not relate to his faultlessness? How much risk and dread was there in his crucifixion since he had predicted his own demise along with his triumphant return? I have seen countless movies and passion plays depicting him as a calm man in the face of certain death, almost impassive to his scourging, sound on the cross, and mostly expressionless in his manner. Where was the humanity that he embodied? The empathy? The sacrifice?
I do not consider myself a devout Catholic. I don't believe in religion, but I do in God. I don't think Jesus is a being of the Holy Trinity, but I do feel he has a touch of divinity, for no man in his right mind (in Jesus's time) would have done the things he did unless he had a say from the big guy upstairs. I have been an altar boy, a communion server, and gospel reader at some point in my life, but I have learned to question my beliefs and now see religious conviction as a dividing force, as opposed to a unifying one. I don't go to Church because I abide by its rules, but because it's the only way I know how to express my immense gratitude to God for the blessings he has given me (it's also my way of showing my devotion to my family).
Now with that out of the way, I can wholeheartedly say that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, for the first time in my life, made me realize the enormity of Jesus's sacrifice and the poignancy of his tenets. This is not the first film that dwells on Jesus's humanity, (Martin Scorcese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is a great film that focuses on that subject), but it is the first I have seen that gives intuitive and truthful feeling on Christ's passion and death. Other films I have seen on the subject seem more like proselytizing instruments than honest reflections; with their depictions of Jesus's milieu looking more like holy Church cards as opposed to the impoverished Middle-Eastern territory that it was. It is has an incredible power to move those who know what Jesus is all about (for those who don't, it might be difficult to sit through), and it inspired in me such deep sense of grief, realization, and admiration. No film has done that for me since GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES and SCHINDLER'S LIST.
One factor that contributes to the film's effectiveness is Mr. Gibson's desire for authenticity. I say desire because no version of Christ's dying days can be called `factual' (no movie is factual, not even the best documentaries), so any critic citing historical errors is beating a dead horse. His use of Aramaic may be historically inaccurate, but does it heighten the feeling of actually being there? You bet.
It's not just the ambitious production sets, language use, costume designs, and effects (both makeup and special), all of which are labors of love. But it's also in the interpretation of well-known biblical dialogue and occurrences. Remember that much of the discourse that goes on the New Testament is oratory, sounding like a play (another reason why its stories seem legendary). In THE PASSION, many conversations have been fashioned to fit its more sensible approach, in order to see how people might have actually acted and conversed in Jesus's context.
One glaring example is the way it brings to life Mary's relationship with Jesus. In a warm scene where Jesus crafts a table, Mary asks him whom is it for. Jesus answers with a light-hearted wisecrack that puckers Mary's brow. That's when I realized that this movie is special, since Mary and Jesus are given a screen relationship that any mother and son can relate to. Not as divine beings destined for greatness, but as good souls in the midst of a great upheaval. Other conversations in the film observe the same genuineness found here, without major speechifying.
In accord with this more levelheaded approach is the film's violence, which is unparalleled even for an action movie. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times, who praises the film, still observes, `This is the most violent movie I have ever seen.' Since he's been reviewing movies for more than a quarter-century now, that's quite a statement. It does not contain the amount of limb-flying, splatterhouse gore that you can find say in KILL BILL, but the personal violence that it shows perpetrated against Jesus will make you look away. From his scourging at the pillar, right up to when he is brought down from his cross, the maiming committed against him in this film is grotesque, but it serves a purpose.
That purpose of course is to highlight Christ's humanity and suffering (words that many Christians meet with rolling eyes). This is not the Jesus in white swathes with a glowing halo and a burning heart. This is a simple decent man who was poor and who lived in a poor country. Even if you do not subscribe to his philosophy, the movie, at the very least, evokes sympathy for this man who clearly does not deserve the mutilation and death he is resigned to. How could I hold back my tears as I saw Mary see her son undergo such arduous torture? How could I not cry in agony as they forced him to carry an overbearing cross after massive blood loss? How could I not grieve after hearing his simple humane teachings before seeing him nailed to the cross?
Many people will argue whether the amount of bloodshed in this movie is justified. I found it strangely necessary. The bar of film violence has been raised so high in the passed two decades that it is hard for audiences these days to grasp how sadistic Christ's death really was. How can one vouch for its brutality? To apply 20th century mores to those who lived 20 centuries ago would be silly, so how vengeance was applied back then could be a hell of a lot more cruel that we could possibly fathom. In any case, James Caviezel's performance in allowing such cruelty to come to life is amazing. Not only does he convey intense suffering, he also effortlessly suggests warmth and gentleness without seeming saintly in the film's several flashbacks.
I remember watching viewer reactions on the news right after the film's opening day. One priest summed it up best for me: `A lot of people think the movie is too cruel. But the world's a cruel place.' Many critics have accused THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST of having a massive amount of violence that is self-defeating, but I believe there's a method to Mel's madness. Buried in an avalanche of torturous sequences is Jesus's tender wisdom, which is stronger than any tear of the flesh. Mr. Gibson magnifies these principles of love through images of hate with great skill and heartbreaking ardor. The film challenges us: can we love one another in the face of such hatred? For those who believe in Jesus, the answer resounds loudly.
Note: I have read many reactions claiming THE PASSION is anti-Semitic. All I can say is that for every hateful stereotype of Jew you can find here, there are more than a few depicted as ordinary decent people. You have Caiphas as the lead Jewish elder who wants Jesus dead, along with several mean-looking grumpy men. But there were other Jewish elders who were shown as appalled at the unjust hearings Jesus's had been forced to attend. You have an angry mob, but you also have throngs crying for mercy. You have Simon who helps Jesus carry his cross, the woman who wipes Jesus face. Besides. Yes, Jesus was killed, but he never resisted, even when he was given several opportunities to do so, because he knew his death was his purpose, in order to wash away our sins. The Jews didn't kill Jesus, we all did.
Hulk
(2003)
The most introspective of the Marvel superhero movies that have come out so far
24 June 2003
Of all the big name superheroes Marvel has to offer, HULK is one of the easiest to gravitate to. It's not hard to find what makes him appealing. Superficially, he is an unstoppable raging behemoth whose strength is rarely matched. This alone would be an obvious foundation for a film franchise. What is surprising (and ultimately refreshing) about this one is its willingness to explore the depth of the Hulk's dilemma. If the film's jade giant were absent from this movie, its story could still be the frame for another.
The movie starts with an army scientist named David Banner who performs genetic experiments for the government. He carries one out on himself before fathering his son Bruce. After a few years into Bruce's childhood, a tragic event occurs, which results in David's incarceration for 30 years and separation from his son.
Upon maturing, Bruce also becomes a scientist. Instead of his father's obsession with genetics, he develops a fascination for gamma rays and nano-med (almost subatomic medicinal) technology. He becomes victim of a lab accident that unleashes the Hulk; partly due to genetic mutation he inherited from his father, who just happens to work on the base as janitor, recently released from his sentence. To make things more interesting, Banner's co-scientist, Betty Ross is his former flame. And she just happens to be the daughter of General Ross, the man who jailed David Banner during his family's tragedy. It is this terrible event that holds the key to why Bruce transforms to his monstrous side, and to how their reunion will end.
The movie starts slow, with admirable character development. By the time the Hulk appears, everyone's motivations are known with each personality sharply distinguished. Ang Lee loves showing humanity and human frailty in his stories as he has done exceptionally in EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, THE WEDDING BANQUET, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, and THE ICE STORM. We discover the hidden storylines, the human aspects that can be just as interesting as the action. We discover that Bruce and Betty have both had fathers that they could never count on (that's probably what brought them together). We see David Banner and General Ross not primarily as power hungry males, but as caring fathers as well. We experience Bruce Banner's awkwardness and inability to express himself adequately, which makes us understand all the more why he begins to `enjoy' transforming into his raging alter-id.
Though it's true that the Hulk doesn't appear until 45 minute into the movie, once he does, the action hardly stops. Sure there are scenes of destruction, but they are calculated, punctuating turning points in the movie, instead of bombarding the audience as mayhem in others. The backdrops upon which these action sequences are set upon are breathtaking. The battles rage from an underground base, to the vast majestic Monument Valley landscape, all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge and even to the very stratosphere. I can still vividly recall Images of the Hulk clashing with `hulk-dogs' in the California Redwood forests and him being chased by helicopter gunships in a concave rock formation in the Arizona desert.
People remember Ang Lee for CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, which many consider (present company included) to be the greatest martial arts picture ever made. It left such big shoes to fill, even for Lee (At one point TIME Magazine labeled him, `America's Best Director'). Those who recall CROUCHING TIGER remember its sublime images of combat, but what set it apart in its genre was its poetic character involvement. We cared deeply for Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien, for their values, and for their quest for the green destiny. Lee does the same for HULK. In exposing its characters to danger, he wishes to reveal the gravity of their situations. Hardly ever does anyone utter a mutter a snappy line, emote a mushy sentiment, or deliver a cliché expression.
Compare Bruce Banner's discovery of his newfound abilities with Peter Parker's (of SPIDER-MAN). He reacts with deep fear and confusion, whereas Parker reacts with excitement and exhilaration. The latter may be more amiable for audiences, but if I found out that I was growing microscopic claws on my fingertips and spewing webbing from my wrists, I'd be freaking out. Spider-Man has the comfort of shooting off a few quips along with his webs as he confronts his foes. Banner, along with other characters in HULK have no such luxury. The movie is not without joy though. It has several humorous moments, none of them in a light-hearted sense though.
It should be said that this picture was blessed with a great cast. Eric Bana (BLACK HAWK DOWN & CHOPPER), who has star written all over him, conveys inner turmoil-slash-solidity very effectively as Bruce Banner. The ever-beautiful Jennifer Connelly reprises her wife-of-a-brilliant-but-mentally-unstable-scientist role from A BEAUTIFUL MIND as Betty Ross. I thought her main purpose was to appear as a captivating yet unreachable beauty for both Banner and the Hulk, and she serves her role perfectly. Nick Nolte has to my mind never given a bad performance, and he appears valuably scruffy and deceivingly two-faced as David Banner (he could be confused for one of the hulk-dogs). But of all of the main players, Sam Elliot (THE CONTENDER, WE WERE SOLDIERS, & THE BIG LEBOWSKI) impressed me the most with his controlled and palpable intensity as General Ross. At one point, with his glistening complexion and bulging neck veins, he looked more intimidating than the Hulk.
The movie has a lot of other assets. It has a memorable score by Danny Elfman (who also did BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN). It has beautiful cinematography by Frederick Elmes (THE ICE STORM). It has wondrous visualization by using split-screens like window panes in comic books, such as several angles in one shot, or one window opening up into another (this is the most inventive use of the technique since Brian De Palma's FEMME FATALE). It also has buried moments of lyrical dueling between different characters. When Betty Ross says, `You weren't that hard to find.' and Banner retorts `Yes I was.' that instant carried a greater emotional weight. You'll understand it once you see it.
Fans of the Hulk (like me) will be familiar with the several storylines that have been amalgamated into the screenplay, one of them being David Banner, who is Bruce's character in THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series (speaking of which, Lou Ferrigno, who portrayed the TV Hulk, appears in a cameo with Stan Lee). The rest I leave up to the `Hulksters'. But for all the pluses that HULK has, the ones that I will take home with me are its ideas. That the Hulk is not just rage, he is pure innocence. He only smashes when provoked. He is a near mindless brute, but when calm, he is a child. He smites tanks that fire at him as a toddler would kick a toy after tripping over it.
As a character, the Hulk is the ultimate childlike id, the source of all instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs. As a film, THE HULK is the most introspective of the Marvel superhero movies that have come out so far. The X-MEN films have had the disadvantage of having too many characters, resulting in too many protagonists to follow. SPIDER-MAN and the BLADE movies were all about entertainment. Many comic book films barely touch on their themes, but HULK actually wants to deal with the issues it raises. No wonder I gravitate to it.
The movie starts with an army scientist named David Banner who performs genetic experiments for the government. He carries one out on himself before fathering his son Bruce. After a few years into Bruce's childhood, a tragic event occurs, which results in David's incarceration for 30 years and separation from his son.
Upon maturing, Bruce also becomes a scientist. Instead of his father's obsession with genetics, he develops a fascination for gamma rays and nano-med (almost subatomic medicinal) technology. He becomes victim of a lab accident that unleashes the Hulk; partly due to genetic mutation he inherited from his father, who just happens to work on the base as janitor, recently released from his sentence. To make things more interesting, Banner's co-scientist, Betty Ross is his former flame. And she just happens to be the daughter of General Ross, the man who jailed David Banner during his family's tragedy. It is this terrible event that holds the key to why Bruce transforms to his monstrous side, and to how their reunion will end.
The movie starts slow, with admirable character development. By the time the Hulk appears, everyone's motivations are known with each personality sharply distinguished. Ang Lee loves showing humanity and human frailty in his stories as he has done exceptionally in EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, THE WEDDING BANQUET, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, and THE ICE STORM. We discover the hidden storylines, the human aspects that can be just as interesting as the action. We discover that Bruce and Betty have both had fathers that they could never count on (that's probably what brought them together). We see David Banner and General Ross not primarily as power hungry males, but as caring fathers as well. We experience Bruce Banner's awkwardness and inability to express himself adequately, which makes us understand all the more why he begins to `enjoy' transforming into his raging alter-id.
Though it's true that the Hulk doesn't appear until 45 minute into the movie, once he does, the action hardly stops. Sure there are scenes of destruction, but they are calculated, punctuating turning points in the movie, instead of bombarding the audience as mayhem in others. The backdrops upon which these action sequences are set upon are breathtaking. The battles rage from an underground base, to the vast majestic Monument Valley landscape, all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge and even to the very stratosphere. I can still vividly recall Images of the Hulk clashing with `hulk-dogs' in the California Redwood forests and him being chased by helicopter gunships in a concave rock formation in the Arizona desert.
People remember Ang Lee for CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, which many consider (present company included) to be the greatest martial arts picture ever made. It left such big shoes to fill, even for Lee (At one point TIME Magazine labeled him, `America's Best Director'). Those who recall CROUCHING TIGER remember its sublime images of combat, but what set it apart in its genre was its poetic character involvement. We cared deeply for Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien, for their values, and for their quest for the green destiny. Lee does the same for HULK. In exposing its characters to danger, he wishes to reveal the gravity of their situations. Hardly ever does anyone utter a mutter a snappy line, emote a mushy sentiment, or deliver a cliché expression.
Compare Bruce Banner's discovery of his newfound abilities with Peter Parker's (of SPIDER-MAN). He reacts with deep fear and confusion, whereas Parker reacts with excitement and exhilaration. The latter may be more amiable for audiences, but if I found out that I was growing microscopic claws on my fingertips and spewing webbing from my wrists, I'd be freaking out. Spider-Man has the comfort of shooting off a few quips along with his webs as he confronts his foes. Banner, along with other characters in HULK have no such luxury. The movie is not without joy though. It has several humorous moments, none of them in a light-hearted sense though.
It should be said that this picture was blessed with a great cast. Eric Bana (BLACK HAWK DOWN & CHOPPER), who has star written all over him, conveys inner turmoil-slash-solidity very effectively as Bruce Banner. The ever-beautiful Jennifer Connelly reprises her wife-of-a-brilliant-but-mentally-unstable-scientist role from A BEAUTIFUL MIND as Betty Ross. I thought her main purpose was to appear as a captivating yet unreachable beauty for both Banner and the Hulk, and she serves her role perfectly. Nick Nolte has to my mind never given a bad performance, and he appears valuably scruffy and deceivingly two-faced as David Banner (he could be confused for one of the hulk-dogs). But of all of the main players, Sam Elliot (THE CONTENDER, WE WERE SOLDIERS, & THE BIG LEBOWSKI) impressed me the most with his controlled and palpable intensity as General Ross. At one point, with his glistening complexion and bulging neck veins, he looked more intimidating than the Hulk.
The movie has a lot of other assets. It has a memorable score by Danny Elfman (who also did BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN). It has beautiful cinematography by Frederick Elmes (THE ICE STORM). It has wondrous visualization by using split-screens like window panes in comic books, such as several angles in one shot, or one window opening up into another (this is the most inventive use of the technique since Brian De Palma's FEMME FATALE). It also has buried moments of lyrical dueling between different characters. When Betty Ross says, `You weren't that hard to find.' and Banner retorts `Yes I was.' that instant carried a greater emotional weight. You'll understand it once you see it.
Fans of the Hulk (like me) will be familiar with the several storylines that have been amalgamated into the screenplay, one of them being David Banner, who is Bruce's character in THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series (speaking of which, Lou Ferrigno, who portrayed the TV Hulk, appears in a cameo with Stan Lee). The rest I leave up to the `Hulksters'. But for all the pluses that HULK has, the ones that I will take home with me are its ideas. That the Hulk is not just rage, he is pure innocence. He only smashes when provoked. He is a near mindless brute, but when calm, he is a child. He smites tanks that fire at him as a toddler would kick a toy after tripping over it.
As a character, the Hulk is the ultimate childlike id, the source of all instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs. As a film, THE HULK is the most introspective of the Marvel superhero movies that have come out so far. The X-MEN films have had the disadvantage of having too many characters, resulting in too many protagonists to follow. SPIDER-MAN and the BLADE movies were all about entertainment. Many comic book films barely touch on their themes, but HULK actually wants to deal with the issues it raises. No wonder I gravitate to it.
One of the worst movies ever made.
5 February 2003
(This was my review of the film when it came out two years ago - The Flipcritic)
I haven't seen Bagong Buwan yet, but I've already heard Cesar Montano's stunning onstage complaint that it should have beat Yamashita for best picture. I thought his tirade was in bad taste, done in a very disrespectful way. Though the manner in which Mr. Montano ranted is something I disapprove of, after seeing Yamashita: The Tiger's Treasure, I understand why. Looking back at the film, I tried to find something, anything, redeemable about it, and could find little. This movie is the Philippines' industry version of Pearl Harbor, only worse (if you can believe that). It is practically, and I say this with careful observation... worthless.
The movie is about an old man named Melo (Armando Goyena) who wishes to lift his financially troubled son out of his legal predicaments. Lolo Melo keeps company with his grandson Jobert (Danilo Barrios) who longs to return to the Philippines where he grew up. Lolo Melo then reveals to Jobert that he was among the Filipino prisoners who were ordered to bury the infamous Yamashita treasure during World War II, and thinks that this may be a way to bring his son out of the hole he's dug himself into.
Then things get awry. Lolo Melo gets kidnapped, his son is killed, and his grandson is left with his wits (which aren't much) on how to find the treasure and his grandfather. Upon returning to Manila, Jobert and his friends are taken against their will by a mysterious treasure expert (Albert Martinez) who works for the government, and has his own reasons for finding the treasure with the help of Lolo Melo's diary. One of Lolo Melo's captors, Naguchi (Vic Diaz), is also in search of the hidden treasure, with the strong-arming tactics of his henchman (Rustom Padilla). This all leads to the finding of the hidden treasure and a totally senseless ending.
I hope I didn't spoil the picture for you, because believe me, my synopsis is substantially more intriguing and exciting than seeing Chito Roño's follow-through on film.
I really tried to like this movie. I kept an open mind from the start, but this movie was relentless in its audacious stupidity. It started well, but kept on going downhill, and then plummets once you get midway. It was agonizing. I was groaning, laughing, and sliding down my seat onto the floor. The film is timed at less than an hour, but if feels as if I was listening to a dissertation (but less interesting) by the time I got through. At one point, I wanted to throw my popcorn at the screen. In fact, for all those sitting about me at the time, I would like to apologize for my behavior. This movie is so so so bad, that if you're unfortunate enough to see it, you should ask for a refund (or at least get back the entertainment tax that you paid for).
Where do I begin?
The writing? It has a few good moments but mostly bad. One distinct example is Lolo Melo's diary, which isn't really a diary, but a really good research paper/speech on Yamashita and Japanese involvement in the Asia Pacific region during World War II. Upon listening to Lolo Melo's diary musings, you think he wrote it for the audience than for himself.
The screenplay? Puh-leeeze. I was hoping against the usual Filipino cliches, but they're all there. E.g. An abundance of speeches instead of real dialogue, the military arriving too late, lots of shouting matches.
The story? Mishandled. There are several subplots and characters that were unnecessary and downright annoying. Consider Jobert and his ex-girlfriend. The director establishes a relationship between the two from the start, and teases us with a hint of young romance, but in the end, it's just cake-mix. Most of the events that unfold have no coherence, no fluidity, leaving the film not so much as confused, but unfocused and lacking any real momentum. It's as if the film were bogged in a quagmire.
Characters? My God. An article in The Inquirer says that three generations of actors were cast for this film. Two would have been enough. The young actors in this picture are one-dimensional, ill equipped, annoying and utterly useless. Mere window-dressing to draw in younger audiences. The two ex-lovers never resolve their issues (heck, they never deal with them). None of the teens ever solve anything. And there is one particular teenager who at first makes a few funny wisecracks, but then becomes so unrelentingly annoying, that you root for the villains to kill him (never a good sign).
Fortunately, one of the rare good things in Yamishita is its special effects. Not great by Hollywood standards, but convincing and ultimately impressive (if you've seen other Filipino films with FX as of late). The Japanese bombing raids and CGI warships are well done (but make-up less than 1% of the movie). But one of the most jaw-droppingly ugly, mistimed, unnecessary, and hilarious scenes in this movie, is caused (I assume not on purpose) by a special effect. It's in a car-chase scene and sticks out like a sore thumb (You can't miss it). When I saw it, my eyes rolled and I asked Claire if I could leave the theatre. I've seen Sesame Street effects more convincing than that one.
There are other gems in the film. Armando Goyena, who used to be a matinee idol back in the 50s, projects a warmth, and calm center which the film is built upon. Albert Martinez is rock-steady. He's always been a good actor, and displays a solid professionalism. Rustom Padilla is not bad as the evil lackey, and gives more than one could ask for, but he has very little to work with (not to mention has a really silly hairdo - looking like a punk version of Squall from Final Fantasy VIII). But the actor who stands out most is Carlo Muñoz (you may know him from the "Hello Billy" telephone commercials) who plays the young Lolo Melo in World War II flashbacks. His performance is a welcome surprise that conveys the sadness, anger, fear, and hope Melo feels during his war experiences. Sad to say, Danillo Barrios can't act, but he does his best. It's just that his pain and sorrow is reduced to strained moans and shouts of "No!" or "Lolo!" or "Dad!" or "Huwag!" or any other one-word reaction you care to come up with.
When the film started, I asked Claire if she had something I could take notes with because I forgot to bring my notepad for the screening. But twenty minutes into the movie, I'm glad I didn't. I could've run out of ink on inconsistencies, blunders, bad editing, bad writing, stupid comments (see? I'm doing it now!), etc. It's good to know that we're finally catching up with big-budget movies with the advent of cheaper applications for CGI graphics. But it's disheartening when we take big steps backwards in storytelling and screenplay writing.
An article in Malaya says that Yamashita is the most-expensive Filipino movie ever made. Too bad it is a huge failure, as an adventure, as a drama, as a thriller, even as a historical perspective (maybe not as a comedy, but I don't think it got the laughs in the right places). Even in summoning deep down hatred for past Japanese atrocities it fails, because of it's feeble execution. It's such a monumental waste. It has the pieces with a good story-base, and solid actors, but it has almost no passion, no drive, and zero intelligence. One example: According to the movie, General Yamashita plundered gold and treasures from several Asian countries. But gee, I didn't know that those countries printed their names on their gold bars... with sloppy font... in English??? Need I go on?
Why are teenagers portrayed as such dim-witted, whining, spoiled brats in Filipino movies? What do they solve without guns? Why is the only thing on their minds about what they're love interest is thinking of, or about what smart-ass remark they can come up with next (especially when they could die)? Does Jobert help his Lolo Melo in any way at all? How can an African-American be a doctor in the Philippines during World War II when they were discriminated against in the Armed Forces during that period? Why does the cavalry come to the rescue too late? Why are there no people around when a car chase is going on? How does getting all that gold increase the value of our exchange rate by 94%? Why do Filipino films value shortcut solutions and not dealing with problems directly (e.g. Solve Lolo Melo's son's debt with gold)? And most of all, if this movie was so expensive to make... WHY THE HECK IS THE DUBBING AND EDITING SO HORRENDOUS??? I've seen foreign films with better dubbing.
These are just some of the infinite questions you'll ask of this movie if you go see it. I'm not sure if Bagong Buwan is better, but awarding this film the Best Picture, Best Story, Best Editing, Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography Award in the Metro Manila Film Festival, is nothing short of a travesty. No... a mockery of the Entertainment industry (which is quite difficult because it's already atrocious). Would you call Pearl Harbor the best American film of 2001? It's downright wrong.
Yamashita: The Tiger's Treasure is the most insulting Filipino movie I have seen in a long time. It starts nobly, loses its focus, and goes on half-heartedly. Even its inside jokes at the Philippine hostage crisis near the end seem cruel (except for the Korina Sanchez spoof, which I really enjoyed). And even though Lolo Melo is someone we care about, the movie slowly drains it away that by the end, we're glad it's over (maybe if they blew up the teenagers, there would've been a standing ovation). I think we all know why it won now. But I find Yamashita as valuable as the four-letter word found in its title
No offense to the General.
I haven't seen Bagong Buwan yet, but I've already heard Cesar Montano's stunning onstage complaint that it should have beat Yamashita for best picture. I thought his tirade was in bad taste, done in a very disrespectful way. Though the manner in which Mr. Montano ranted is something I disapprove of, after seeing Yamashita: The Tiger's Treasure, I understand why. Looking back at the film, I tried to find something, anything, redeemable about it, and could find little. This movie is the Philippines' industry version of Pearl Harbor, only worse (if you can believe that). It is practically, and I say this with careful observation... worthless.
The movie is about an old man named Melo (Armando Goyena) who wishes to lift his financially troubled son out of his legal predicaments. Lolo Melo keeps company with his grandson Jobert (Danilo Barrios) who longs to return to the Philippines where he grew up. Lolo Melo then reveals to Jobert that he was among the Filipino prisoners who were ordered to bury the infamous Yamashita treasure during World War II, and thinks that this may be a way to bring his son out of the hole he's dug himself into.
Then things get awry. Lolo Melo gets kidnapped, his son is killed, and his grandson is left with his wits (which aren't much) on how to find the treasure and his grandfather. Upon returning to Manila, Jobert and his friends are taken against their will by a mysterious treasure expert (Albert Martinez) who works for the government, and has his own reasons for finding the treasure with the help of Lolo Melo's diary. One of Lolo Melo's captors, Naguchi (Vic Diaz), is also in search of the hidden treasure, with the strong-arming tactics of his henchman (Rustom Padilla). This all leads to the finding of the hidden treasure and a totally senseless ending.
I hope I didn't spoil the picture for you, because believe me, my synopsis is substantially more intriguing and exciting than seeing Chito Roño's follow-through on film.
I really tried to like this movie. I kept an open mind from the start, but this movie was relentless in its audacious stupidity. It started well, but kept on going downhill, and then plummets once you get midway. It was agonizing. I was groaning, laughing, and sliding down my seat onto the floor. The film is timed at less than an hour, but if feels as if I was listening to a dissertation (but less interesting) by the time I got through. At one point, I wanted to throw my popcorn at the screen. In fact, for all those sitting about me at the time, I would like to apologize for my behavior. This movie is so so so bad, that if you're unfortunate enough to see it, you should ask for a refund (or at least get back the entertainment tax that you paid for).
Where do I begin?
The writing? It has a few good moments but mostly bad. One distinct example is Lolo Melo's diary, which isn't really a diary, but a really good research paper/speech on Yamashita and Japanese involvement in the Asia Pacific region during World War II. Upon listening to Lolo Melo's diary musings, you think he wrote it for the audience than for himself.
The screenplay? Puh-leeeze. I was hoping against the usual Filipino cliches, but they're all there. E.g. An abundance of speeches instead of real dialogue, the military arriving too late, lots of shouting matches.
The story? Mishandled. There are several subplots and characters that were unnecessary and downright annoying. Consider Jobert and his ex-girlfriend. The director establishes a relationship between the two from the start, and teases us with a hint of young romance, but in the end, it's just cake-mix. Most of the events that unfold have no coherence, no fluidity, leaving the film not so much as confused, but unfocused and lacking any real momentum. It's as if the film were bogged in a quagmire.
Characters? My God. An article in The Inquirer says that three generations of actors were cast for this film. Two would have been enough. The young actors in this picture are one-dimensional, ill equipped, annoying and utterly useless. Mere window-dressing to draw in younger audiences. The two ex-lovers never resolve their issues (heck, they never deal with them). None of the teens ever solve anything. And there is one particular teenager who at first makes a few funny wisecracks, but then becomes so unrelentingly annoying, that you root for the villains to kill him (never a good sign).
Fortunately, one of the rare good things in Yamishita is its special effects. Not great by Hollywood standards, but convincing and ultimately impressive (if you've seen other Filipino films with FX as of late). The Japanese bombing raids and CGI warships are well done (but make-up less than 1% of the movie). But one of the most jaw-droppingly ugly, mistimed, unnecessary, and hilarious scenes in this movie, is caused (I assume not on purpose) by a special effect. It's in a car-chase scene and sticks out like a sore thumb (You can't miss it). When I saw it, my eyes rolled and I asked Claire if I could leave the theatre. I've seen Sesame Street effects more convincing than that one.
There are other gems in the film. Armando Goyena, who used to be a matinee idol back in the 50s, projects a warmth, and calm center which the film is built upon. Albert Martinez is rock-steady. He's always been a good actor, and displays a solid professionalism. Rustom Padilla is not bad as the evil lackey, and gives more than one could ask for, but he has very little to work with (not to mention has a really silly hairdo - looking like a punk version of Squall from Final Fantasy VIII). But the actor who stands out most is Carlo Muñoz (you may know him from the "Hello Billy" telephone commercials) who plays the young Lolo Melo in World War II flashbacks. His performance is a welcome surprise that conveys the sadness, anger, fear, and hope Melo feels during his war experiences. Sad to say, Danillo Barrios can't act, but he does his best. It's just that his pain and sorrow is reduced to strained moans and shouts of "No!" or "Lolo!" or "Dad!" or "Huwag!" or any other one-word reaction you care to come up with.
When the film started, I asked Claire if she had something I could take notes with because I forgot to bring my notepad for the screening. But twenty minutes into the movie, I'm glad I didn't. I could've run out of ink on inconsistencies, blunders, bad editing, bad writing, stupid comments (see? I'm doing it now!), etc. It's good to know that we're finally catching up with big-budget movies with the advent of cheaper applications for CGI graphics. But it's disheartening when we take big steps backwards in storytelling and screenplay writing.
An article in Malaya says that Yamashita is the most-expensive Filipino movie ever made. Too bad it is a huge failure, as an adventure, as a drama, as a thriller, even as a historical perspective (maybe not as a comedy, but I don't think it got the laughs in the right places). Even in summoning deep down hatred for past Japanese atrocities it fails, because of it's feeble execution. It's such a monumental waste. It has the pieces with a good story-base, and solid actors, but it has almost no passion, no drive, and zero intelligence. One example: According to the movie, General Yamashita plundered gold and treasures from several Asian countries. But gee, I didn't know that those countries printed their names on their gold bars... with sloppy font... in English??? Need I go on?
Why are teenagers portrayed as such dim-witted, whining, spoiled brats in Filipino movies? What do they solve without guns? Why is the only thing on their minds about what they're love interest is thinking of, or about what smart-ass remark they can come up with next (especially when they could die)? Does Jobert help his Lolo Melo in any way at all? How can an African-American be a doctor in the Philippines during World War II when they were discriminated against in the Armed Forces during that period? Why does the cavalry come to the rescue too late? Why are there no people around when a car chase is going on? How does getting all that gold increase the value of our exchange rate by 94%? Why do Filipino films value shortcut solutions and not dealing with problems directly (e.g. Solve Lolo Melo's son's debt with gold)? And most of all, if this movie was so expensive to make... WHY THE HECK IS THE DUBBING AND EDITING SO HORRENDOUS??? I've seen foreign films with better dubbing.
These are just some of the infinite questions you'll ask of this movie if you go see it. I'm not sure if Bagong Buwan is better, but awarding this film the Best Picture, Best Story, Best Editing, Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography Award in the Metro Manila Film Festival, is nothing short of a travesty. No... a mockery of the Entertainment industry (which is quite difficult because it's already atrocious). Would you call Pearl Harbor the best American film of 2001? It's downright wrong.
Yamashita: The Tiger's Treasure is the most insulting Filipino movie I have seen in a long time. It starts nobly, loses its focus, and goes on half-heartedly. Even its inside jokes at the Philippine hostage crisis near the end seem cruel (except for the Korina Sanchez spoof, which I really enjoyed). And even though Lolo Melo is someone we care about, the movie slowly drains it away that by the end, we're glad it's over (maybe if they blew up the teenagers, there would've been a standing ovation). I think we all know why it won now. But I find Yamashita as valuable as the four-letter word found in its title
No offense to the General.
Attack of the clones is right.
16 May 2002
There is one point in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of The Clones, where Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) comments, "I've got a bad feeling about this." He couldn't have put it any better. It is this kind of exhausted dialogue that permeates the movie, worsened by the fact that almost all the human characters display almost no vigor, no drive, no purpose. For all its dazzling imagery, AOTC is surprisingly boring, until the last 40 minutes that is.
I've read several reviews claiming that the visual texture of the film along with the complexity of its plot make it the best of the series. Why? Is a science-fiction movie considered great because of its special effects? Hell no. No matter how good a movie looks, it is the characters that drive the story, otherwise we might as well just be watching video games. A good plot also matters, but if the characters cannot move it along at a pace which the audience finds acceptable, then it's dead in the water.
I will not attempt to explain the plot since it is basically a labyrithian (but not incomprehensible). Aside from a spectacular chase sequence, the first hour of the movie is as exciting as a fifth-grade history lesson. All the characters talk about what has happened, what is happening, and what might happen. That's it. Sure the transitions between dialogue show fantastic scenes, but what a waste. The visual energy quickly dissipates into boredom once the politicians start to speak (perhaps this is the only realistic thing in the movie).
Consider The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring. Sure it was three hours, and a lot of explanation was required for many moviegoers to understand what was unfolding. But every character had purpose, an identity. It was as if something truly great was at stake. In AOTC, the actors come and go. They recite, not embody. Their personalities are so similar that they themselves are clones in their own way. I guess I cannot really blame them since almost all of their scenes require them to be performed in front of blue screens.
The story is interesting, but told drearily. It is supposed to revolve around the romance between Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman - The Professional) and Anakin Skywalker. If you thought the first act was bad, the romance in the next is breathtakingly fake. I haven't seen a love story this yucky since Pearl Harbor. When Amidala tells Anakin, "I love you..." I just don't buy it. What did she see in him (other than a teenager whining all the time)? This is what a former Queen (with term limits apparently) finds attractive? And how could anybody fall for his flimsy lines?
Amidala: How you've grown! Anakin: You've grown too. Grown more beautiful.
Then they have a scene where she runs through the plains painfully reminiscent of The Sound of Music (which really made me laugh). He does a balancing act on an alien cow to impress her. And they end up in each others arms rolling on the grass.
Pardon me while I throw up.
Consider Spider-Man, where the relationship between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson really seems authentic. Peter doesn't need hokey lines to get with MJ. He shows his concern by encouraging her when she is down. By being their when she needs him (it probably helps that they were both a couple in real life). There is virtually no chemistry between Portman and Christensen to work with, that it's best just to look away.
I have a major problem with Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge). They have disgraced their iconic characters. If you disagree, watch Episodes IV, V, and VI to see the presence of both Alec Guinness (as Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones and brought to life by David Prowse). How these young versions will evolve into the later ones is a complete mystery to me. After seeing the movie ask yourself these questions: Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan? Christensen as Darth Vader? McGregor seemed more Obi-like in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. His performance here is more annoying. Since when did Obi-Wan become a smart-ass? As for Christensen, all I saw was whine whine whine. I have to admit, he tries very hard, but he is wrong for the part. I can understand how the movie shows the causes for the beginning of Anakin's fall to the dark side. All the elements are there. But his rage, passion, and presence are underwhelming.
What truly amazed me is how the non-human characters have more depth than those that are human (not a good sign). R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) is still the cute reliable and ingenious little robot that we all love. C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) is still the arrogant chatterbox that he is. Yes Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) is still annoying, but at least he has a personality (try describing the traits of the human characters). And Yoda (Frank Oz) is still the wise beloved icon that he is. I'm glad that they animated him through CGI. We are finally able to see him move, and in the film's climactic scenes, he becomes involved in an action sequence so unlikely, that is impossible not to smile at (even laugh at) upon seeing it. He nearly saves the movie.
The non-human characters are not the only things more lively than the human actors. I have to admit that I have never seen better special effects in any movie, than in AOTC. The visuals are jaw-droppingly rich, detailed, deep, and alive. The city-chase sequence, the planet where it never stops raining, an alien arena, and the clone war battle scenes will have audiences agape with awe. I especially liked a space-chase scene between Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) and Obi-Wan through an asteroid field. I could not believe the quality of the asteroids, each having their own path and rotation. And the complexity of their collisions is magnificent.
Technically, AOTC is a breakthrough. It is probably the first film where an entire virtual world has been created with human actors inserted within (as opposed to the opposite which has been the prevailing trend). The effects flow seamlessly, but sad to say, that doesn't mean they look real. The more three-dimensional the effects become, the more unconvincing everything seems. The alien gladiator action has all the impact of a G.I.Joe cartoon. And a sequence involving Anakin and Amidala within an alien assembly line left me feeling empty. Yes, everything looked in order, but Anakin's movements looked too choreographed, when he's supposed to be avoiding danger.
The best episode of the Star Wars series was V: The Empire Strikes Back. Not only was it a visual wonder at the time. But its plot was completely unpredictable (what a shock it was to find out Darth Vader's secret!). But AOTC is most of the time predictable. Most of all, it has no life. Where is the charming arrogance of Han Solo? The determination and feistiness of Princess Leia? The innocence and hope inspired by Luke Skywalker? The calming wisdom of Ben Kenobi and Yoda? And the menacing force of Darth Vader? Where is the style? The flair? The joy? These are what made Star Wars the greatest space-opera ever made. Sure AOTC looks great, but like A. O. Scott (NYTimes) says, "So what?"
I've read several reviews claiming that the visual texture of the film along with the complexity of its plot make it the best of the series. Why? Is a science-fiction movie considered great because of its special effects? Hell no. No matter how good a movie looks, it is the characters that drive the story, otherwise we might as well just be watching video games. A good plot also matters, but if the characters cannot move it along at a pace which the audience finds acceptable, then it's dead in the water.
I will not attempt to explain the plot since it is basically a labyrithian (but not incomprehensible). Aside from a spectacular chase sequence, the first hour of the movie is as exciting as a fifth-grade history lesson. All the characters talk about what has happened, what is happening, and what might happen. That's it. Sure the transitions between dialogue show fantastic scenes, but what a waste. The visual energy quickly dissipates into boredom once the politicians start to speak (perhaps this is the only realistic thing in the movie).
Consider The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring. Sure it was three hours, and a lot of explanation was required for many moviegoers to understand what was unfolding. But every character had purpose, an identity. It was as if something truly great was at stake. In AOTC, the actors come and go. They recite, not embody. Their personalities are so similar that they themselves are clones in their own way. I guess I cannot really blame them since almost all of their scenes require them to be performed in front of blue screens.
The story is interesting, but told drearily. It is supposed to revolve around the romance between Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman - The Professional) and Anakin Skywalker. If you thought the first act was bad, the romance in the next is breathtakingly fake. I haven't seen a love story this yucky since Pearl Harbor. When Amidala tells Anakin, "I love you..." I just don't buy it. What did she see in him (other than a teenager whining all the time)? This is what a former Queen (with term limits apparently) finds attractive? And how could anybody fall for his flimsy lines?
Amidala: How you've grown! Anakin: You've grown too. Grown more beautiful.
Then they have a scene where she runs through the plains painfully reminiscent of The Sound of Music (which really made me laugh). He does a balancing act on an alien cow to impress her. And they end up in each others arms rolling on the grass.
Pardon me while I throw up.
Consider Spider-Man, where the relationship between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson really seems authentic. Peter doesn't need hokey lines to get with MJ. He shows his concern by encouraging her when she is down. By being their when she needs him (it probably helps that they were both a couple in real life). There is virtually no chemistry between Portman and Christensen to work with, that it's best just to look away.
I have a major problem with Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge). They have disgraced their iconic characters. If you disagree, watch Episodes IV, V, and VI to see the presence of both Alec Guinness (as Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones and brought to life by David Prowse). How these young versions will evolve into the later ones is a complete mystery to me. After seeing the movie ask yourself these questions: Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan? Christensen as Darth Vader? McGregor seemed more Obi-like in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. His performance here is more annoying. Since when did Obi-Wan become a smart-ass? As for Christensen, all I saw was whine whine whine. I have to admit, he tries very hard, but he is wrong for the part. I can understand how the movie shows the causes for the beginning of Anakin's fall to the dark side. All the elements are there. But his rage, passion, and presence are underwhelming.
What truly amazed me is how the non-human characters have more depth than those that are human (not a good sign). R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) is still the cute reliable and ingenious little robot that we all love. C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) is still the arrogant chatterbox that he is. Yes Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) is still annoying, but at least he has a personality (try describing the traits of the human characters). And Yoda (Frank Oz) is still the wise beloved icon that he is. I'm glad that they animated him through CGI. We are finally able to see him move, and in the film's climactic scenes, he becomes involved in an action sequence so unlikely, that is impossible not to smile at (even laugh at) upon seeing it. He nearly saves the movie.
The non-human characters are not the only things more lively than the human actors. I have to admit that I have never seen better special effects in any movie, than in AOTC. The visuals are jaw-droppingly rich, detailed, deep, and alive. The city-chase sequence, the planet where it never stops raining, an alien arena, and the clone war battle scenes will have audiences agape with awe. I especially liked a space-chase scene between Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) and Obi-Wan through an asteroid field. I could not believe the quality of the asteroids, each having their own path and rotation. And the complexity of their collisions is magnificent.
Technically, AOTC is a breakthrough. It is probably the first film where an entire virtual world has been created with human actors inserted within (as opposed to the opposite which has been the prevailing trend). The effects flow seamlessly, but sad to say, that doesn't mean they look real. The more three-dimensional the effects become, the more unconvincing everything seems. The alien gladiator action has all the impact of a G.I.Joe cartoon. And a sequence involving Anakin and Amidala within an alien assembly line left me feeling empty. Yes, everything looked in order, but Anakin's movements looked too choreographed, when he's supposed to be avoiding danger.
The best episode of the Star Wars series was V: The Empire Strikes Back. Not only was it a visual wonder at the time. But its plot was completely unpredictable (what a shock it was to find out Darth Vader's secret!). But AOTC is most of the time predictable. Most of all, it has no life. Where is the charming arrogance of Han Solo? The determination and feistiness of Princess Leia? The innocence and hope inspired by Luke Skywalker? The calming wisdom of Ben Kenobi and Yoda? And the menacing force of Darth Vader? Where is the style? The flair? The joy? These are what made Star Wars the greatest space-opera ever made. Sure AOTC looks great, but like A. O. Scott (NYTimes) says, "So what?"
Visionary
11 July 2001
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
**** (four stars)
Every so often, a movie milestone comes along. Disney's `Beauty and the Beast' was the first animated film to make of computer generated images (CGI) to a sweeping effect. Then came along `Toy Story' which was the first completely CGI animated movie. `Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' is a notable landmark in its attempts to replicate human actors with CGI ones. But that's not what makes it special.
I have never seen a movie like this. Disney's `Dinosaur' comes close, but when you see prehistoric creatures talking when they have no real capability of speech, it kind of ruins the moment for you. No such ridiculous moments are found in `Final Fantasy'. I have run out of superlatives to describe how stunning the film looks. You will never see a movie as visually astonishing as this.
What makes the film so wonderful to look at are two aspects: First, detail. Director Hironobu Sakaguchi (Director of the Video Game: Final Fantasy VIII) shows how much he cares for this project by the richness of his images. You can tell that a director loves his work when he puts so much into all the little things. No CGI movie before this has put so much on the screen, thanks in part to technological advances in computer science.
Second, creativity. Sakaguchi seems like a wellspring of new ideas. The creatures, landscapes, cities, action sequences, weaponry, are so original. I've never seen images such as these, and his wealth of imagination is so welcome from the commercial excess and mainstream thinking of Hollywood. His creative energy is wondrous to behold. It is no wonder that this movie took 4 years to make from a collaboration of Japanese and American filmmakers (It's amusing to note that the credits show so many computer science titles e.g. Software Engineers and System Administrators).
The story revolves around Aki (Ming-Na from `The Joy Luck Club' ) a young female scientist who is trying to discover a way to defeat an alien infestation that has overcome the Earth. Her mentor Dr. Sid (Donald Sutherland) provides her guidance, and her love interest Grey (Alec Baldwin) provides her protection. They try to find 8 spirits which hold the key to the defeat of the aliens. But it's a race against time since General Hein (James Woods) wishes to destroy the aliens using a destructive weapon called the Zeus cannon.
I have to admit that the plot is not original, but it is told very well. Donald Sutherland provides a wonderful voice-over as Dr. Sid. He's always had the reputation of being able to sound so wise. He carries the emotional brunt of all of the characters. Everyone else is ok, but can anyone tell me that they'll watch this movie because of the acting? Mind you, the mood of this film is at times dark and cold, it may upset young ones, and is targeted toward mature audiences. It's not Disney.
Those familiar with the video game will recognize Sakaguchi's touches and spirituality. Certain names will sound familiar, even the way some of the characters dress. The underlying theme that he wishes to impart is that technological advances can get you so far but it is the spirit that truly drives humanity to its full potential. And it is that spirit that will help us reach our dreams. Cynics will not enjoy this movie very much, but its imagery is more than worth seeing. Final Fantasy is one of the best movies of the year. And can be described in one word: Visionary.
**** (four stars)
Every so often, a movie milestone comes along. Disney's `Beauty and the Beast' was the first animated film to make of computer generated images (CGI) to a sweeping effect. Then came along `Toy Story' which was the first completely CGI animated movie. `Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' is a notable landmark in its attempts to replicate human actors with CGI ones. But that's not what makes it special.
I have never seen a movie like this. Disney's `Dinosaur' comes close, but when you see prehistoric creatures talking when they have no real capability of speech, it kind of ruins the moment for you. No such ridiculous moments are found in `Final Fantasy'. I have run out of superlatives to describe how stunning the film looks. You will never see a movie as visually astonishing as this.
What makes the film so wonderful to look at are two aspects: First, detail. Director Hironobu Sakaguchi (Director of the Video Game: Final Fantasy VIII) shows how much he cares for this project by the richness of his images. You can tell that a director loves his work when he puts so much into all the little things. No CGI movie before this has put so much on the screen, thanks in part to technological advances in computer science.
Second, creativity. Sakaguchi seems like a wellspring of new ideas. The creatures, landscapes, cities, action sequences, weaponry, are so original. I've never seen images such as these, and his wealth of imagination is so welcome from the commercial excess and mainstream thinking of Hollywood. His creative energy is wondrous to behold. It is no wonder that this movie took 4 years to make from a collaboration of Japanese and American filmmakers (It's amusing to note that the credits show so many computer science titles e.g. Software Engineers and System Administrators).
The story revolves around Aki (Ming-Na from `The Joy Luck Club' ) a young female scientist who is trying to discover a way to defeat an alien infestation that has overcome the Earth. Her mentor Dr. Sid (Donald Sutherland) provides her guidance, and her love interest Grey (Alec Baldwin) provides her protection. They try to find 8 spirits which hold the key to the defeat of the aliens. But it's a race against time since General Hein (James Woods) wishes to destroy the aliens using a destructive weapon called the Zeus cannon.
I have to admit that the plot is not original, but it is told very well. Donald Sutherland provides a wonderful voice-over as Dr. Sid. He's always had the reputation of being able to sound so wise. He carries the emotional brunt of all of the characters. Everyone else is ok, but can anyone tell me that they'll watch this movie because of the acting? Mind you, the mood of this film is at times dark and cold, it may upset young ones, and is targeted toward mature audiences. It's not Disney.
Those familiar with the video game will recognize Sakaguchi's touches and spirituality. Certain names will sound familiar, even the way some of the characters dress. The underlying theme that he wishes to impart is that technological advances can get you so far but it is the spirit that truly drives humanity to its full potential. And it is that spirit that will help us reach our dreams. Cynics will not enjoy this movie very much, but its imagery is more than worth seeing. Final Fantasy is one of the best movies of the year. And can be described in one word: Visionary.
Raging Bull
(1980)
The 80's best movie...
17 September 1999
A must see. The greatest movie of the 1980's. Robert De Niro gives his most memorable performance since Taxi Driver. How does he do it? A real tragic story, which is characterized by most of Scorsese's works. But powerful. And how many actors would gain 40 lbs. for a role?
Deep Blue Sea
(1999)
Very very surprising...
12 September 1999
Suspense films usually are very predictable, but this film has some great surprises. And the suspense is sustained from start to finish. True that the premise is absurd. But the film is science-"fiction". And it accomplishes its goal of scaring the heck out of you. But beside being scary, it also is a lot of fun.0
Just put aside the disbelief, and immerse yourself. Virtually unpredictable and full of tension, this film delivers.
Cinemas showing this movie should install seatbelts.
Just put aside the disbelief, and immerse yourself. Virtually unpredictable and full of tension, this film delivers.
Cinemas showing this movie should install seatbelts.
12:01 PM
(1990)
Absolutely Frightening...
9 September 1999
A more realistic portrayal of spending an eternity in a repetitious cycle, as compared to "Groundhog Day" and other films of its kind. The thought of being in this situation is absolutely horrifying. Excellent performance by Kurtwood Smith.
Gable and Lombard
(1976)
Brolin is amazing in this film!
9 September 1999
At first, I could not believe James Brolin was playing Clark Gable, but he is dead on with his portrayal!!! He's a great reason to see this film. I don't know why this film is rated so low. It was sweet, entertaining and the ending was heartbreaking. It was also great to see the implications of not being a "moral" and "upstanding" actor in the film industry during its early years. It shows how much times have changed. It was also fascinating to see if Clark Gable really had a softer side in him, since he was probably the greatest leading man in the history of Hollywood and a symbol of American manhood during his time. In my mind, this film is wonderful.
American Pie
(1999)
Good message at the end... but tasteless nonetheless
6 September 1999
This film left a bad taste in my mouth (no pun intended). It has some great comedic moments, and they are done very well, but most of them are unoriginal. I'd like to comment on them further, but I would be revealing too much if I did.
Despite what most people think, the movie does have a good message for teens at the end. But it doesn't make up for most of the despicable things that were done during the rest of the film.
This movie is very funny, but at what price? Being tasteless. Despite getting a laugh out of this one, I wish I never saw it.
Despite what most people think, the movie does have a good message for teens at the end. But it doesn't make up for most of the despicable things that were done during the rest of the film.
This movie is very funny, but at what price? Being tasteless. Despite getting a laugh out of this one, I wish I never saw it.
Saving Private Ryan
(1998)
More than worthy of an Oscar...
25 August 1999
If the Pentagon and the U.S. Army could honor this film, how could this film not be recognized as the best of 1998? This is more than a movie. It is an incredible experience and a grim reminder: of how horrible war can be, and the sacrifices that were made by those who fought for us to be free. Thank you Steven Spielberg for making this film.
Dumb and Dumber
(1994)
It may be dumb...
25 August 1999
But this film has very very few peers in making one laugh out loud. Very few films have been able to make me laugh uncontrollably as did this one. And I never expected to take the movie seriously (Hey! Look at the title!!). If you don't laugh in this movie, you're devoid of humor. It's a high hit with it's low (and I mean low) comedy.
I'm still smiling as I think of its sequences. Go see it!
I'm still smiling as I think of its sequences. Go see it!
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
(1991)
The best action movie of the decade...
25 August 1999
This scifi action epic is the standard which all other films of its kind are measured against. It is to action as "The Silence of the Lambs" is to suspense. The movie of course is built around one man, Arnold Schwarzenneger, and is clearly his best movie. A truly unique and absolutely thrilling movie experience.
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
Beyond filmmaking...
25 August 1999
Perhaps Roger Ebert said it best... "Kubrick's goal here is not to thrill us, but to fill us with a sense of awe." And no film I have ever seen captures man's universal meaning in a film as does "2001: A Space Odyssey." From man's beginning to his probable destiny, Kubrick has captured the essential milestones that may have and what could still shape the very essence of humanity. And he does so very very much with so very little. This film, without computer graphics and hitech special effects, accomplishes more for the science fiction genre, than any other film of its kind, including the Star Wars Trilogy, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Contact.
For me, this is definitely the best motion picture of all time. ***** out of ****.
For me, this is definitely the best motion picture of all time. ***** out of ****.
Tarzan
(1999)
As of this writing, the best film of 1999.
11 July 1999
This movie draws a sense of awe throughout the entire story. Though its plot may be formulaic, it executes better than any other formulaic movie this year. This is the best animated film I have seen in the last 5 years since "The Lion King". The images are absolutely wonderful to look at. The music by Phil Collins is so powerful that it energizes the whole movie making you feel emotionally charged all throughout. I feel this film could have never been made in live action, since it gives a totally new perspective on what Tarzan may actually have been like, his movement, his upbringing, and most of all, his interaction with jungle family. The musical sequences by the gorillas were silly, but entertaining (it is a Disney film isn't it?). And Tarzan's movement through the jungle is so spectacular that it makes Aladdin's flying carpet escape from the lamp's abyss seem pale in comparison.
Though most of Tarzan's leaping, swinging, and tree surfing seem unrealistic, we have to keep in mind that this is an animated film, and since it is Disney's, thrills will be expected. Tarzan delivers exciting thrills, fills you with awe through the entire film, without sacrificing the story and the underlying theme. This is a WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL FILM. Go see it.
If you have to decide between Star Wars I and Tarzan, it's no contest... Tarzan is the film Star Wars I should have been.
Though most of Tarzan's leaping, swinging, and tree surfing seem unrealistic, we have to keep in mind that this is an animated film, and since it is Disney's, thrills will be expected. Tarzan delivers exciting thrills, fills you with awe through the entire film, without sacrificing the story and the underlying theme. This is a WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL FILM. Go see it.
If you have to decide between Star Wars I and Tarzan, it's no contest... Tarzan is the film Star Wars I should have been.
Scenes are visionary, Acting is flat.
5 July 1999
There are almost no memorable characters in this movie, except for Darth Maul. But he is limited to being a martial expert rather than a true evil presence in the movie. Everybody else seems to be so self-conscious of what roles they are playing than being the characters they are supposed to portray.
The story is an adequate setup for entire series. The visuals are astounding. The podrace scene is the true marvel of this movie. It captures the essence of how thrilling Star Wars really is. It outdoes all other action sequences in the episodes IV, V and VI. Lightsaber scenes are spectacular, although its ending is too easy to believe.
I commend George Lucas for his vision. But the actors selected for this film are badly miscast. Compare this cast with Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Luke Skywalker, and you'll go Quin Gon who?
Seeing R2D2 again was great!
The story is an adequate setup for entire series. The visuals are astounding. The podrace scene is the true marvel of this movie. It captures the essence of how thrilling Star Wars really is. It outdoes all other action sequences in the episodes IV, V and VI. Lightsaber scenes are spectacular, although its ending is too easy to believe.
I commend George Lucas for his vision. But the actors selected for this film are badly miscast. Compare this cast with Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Luke Skywalker, and you'll go Quin Gon who?
Seeing R2D2 again was great!
The Matrix
(1999)
Dark City is better...
26 May 1999
All the technical aspects of "The Matrix" are excellently done. The energy of this movie absolutely surges through its viewers. And the concept of how machines utilize human beings is intriguing. But it seems like a third act is missing. I desperately wanted to know what would happen if the heroes won, instead of having an open ending which seemed so unfair to the audience. After carrying the audience through a wonderful ride, "The Matrix" stops short of delivering a knockout punch. If you want to see a movie that is just as well done with an incredible ending and similar story line... see Dark City.
"The Matrix" could have been so much better... a souped-up version of Dark City... but it is still a visually intoxicating movie with an interesting plot. It is worth seeing. But if you've seen Dark City... you might be disappointed.
"The Matrix" could have been so much better... a souped-up version of Dark City... but it is still a visually intoxicating movie with an interesting plot. It is worth seeing. But if you've seen Dark City... you might be disappointed.
The Silence of the Lambs
(1991)
Scariest movie of the 90's
7 April 1999
"The Silence of the Lambs" is quite simply... the most suspensful and frightening movie of this decade. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is the most subtly terrifying psychotic movie villain (monster if you like) since Norman Bates. Though Anthony Hopkins only had a screen time of 45 minutes, his presence was the most powerful of any of his films. This is truly a scary cinematic masterpiece.
Tell Your Friends