Reviews

Black hawk down does well with the depiction or war, it certainly is better than Saving private Ryan in every way. Visually it comes very close to the 'real thing' and seems very accurate. It is also very exceptional in that it conveys some tones unheard before, the tones that tell about the fallibility of the US army. This in my opinion is very good and healthy, critizism is always good.

But the problems lie with the depiction of the crisis, the film makers are unable to take a good look at the crisis from the somalis point of view. Also I wish there could have been more emphasis on the futility of the situation because now the action in the film makes it too adventurous and Rambo-like. It also has a 'Readers Digest'-feel about it, with the moral being that Americans equal 10 or perhaps 100 somalis.

I saw this one in the movie theater and kept cringing through the whole film. This film is so full of moments and actors etc. which done a little differently would have made me like the film, perhaps. The film isn't 'Gigli'-bad, it is fairly typical of Camerons new found style of making three digit milj. - budget films. I liked the original Terminator, it worked even if it sometimes looks a bit dated. The Titanic looks outdated already, and it doesn't have much going for itself except the remnants of the marketing campaign. 1/10.

Well now, I made the mistake of reading some of the earlier reviews about this film and I have to say that some of these people should stick with their Mortal Kombat 2's and Terminators because this film is light years ahead of both of them. Well I suppose Terminator isn't that far behind because it started the 'killer-robot-bleak-future'-trend but the fact that Hardware surpasses it in about every level makes the difference. Ok, some people prefer the mother, some the daughter, I prefer Hardware because it delves deeper into the themes and highlights many philosophical aspects that Terminator fails to grasp.

But about the film itself, the plot should be clear to the readers of this review, if not go see the film. It's a great plot and perhaps the best post-apocalyptic-film around. The cameos are great, the soundtrack is effing superb, acting is great, casting is great, technicalities are great, directing is effing superb. The effects might not look so great to todays CGI-bred hordes that go look at the Jurassic Park 7's and Mortal Kombat 9's and whatnots that Hollywood churns out like spam. To me the metallic, REAL, steamy and grimly industrial look of this film is what makes the difference between it and the cartoon-like CGI-effect films.

If you walk out on this film you only have your popcorn-fed brain to blame, and make sure you see it more than just once. Oh and BTW, I don't think that this film is too 80's looking or anything like that, people who say things like that obviously have a very narrow perspective on the visual outlook of films.

So why the f*** isn't Richard Stanley making a sequel to this one?

I refer to this film as a reporter film since it reminds me of Salvador and some other similar films were reporters are the main characters and the film unveils through their reporting experience of the horrors of some country. The Killing Fields is not a very good reporter film, it doesn't have the effectivity of Salvador and also I have a personal dislike of Sam Waterston, I am not sure why this is so. Maybe because I have seen him in so many b-level tv-movies and shows such as Law&Order and his somewhat preachy posture in his films.

The story is an important one and it deserves to be told but the film doesn't suck the viewer in very well, possibly this is due to the fact that the Cambodian/Kampuchean conflicts are not as widely known and filmed as is e.g. the Vietnam war. Anyway, I suppose the film is good in that it tries to tell an important story and enlighten the audience.

Something that was said by an earlier reviewer caught my attention, even though the film doesn't focus on the support that the NVA gave to Pol Pot and his movement I would definately not deem this film as false because of this. Also the fact that it was the Vietnamese army that finally toppled Pol Pot's reign is an indicator that he was not a very popular figure in the _very_ shattered sphere of communistic countries. I do not see this film as particularily anti-american or anti-nixon, the most poignant points are made about the actual acts of genocide committed by the Pol Pot regime.

Anyway, this film is a fictive tale of horrific events that still haunt the lives of millions of Cambodians. 5/10

This is a film about a military outpost guarded by soldiers who are mainly from Britain and are attacked by a Zulu army. While the battle scenes are well done and the atmosphere stays tense the film is somewhat devoid of any real message. I could not completely enjoy the film because of the dated attitude it seems to have about the incident. The film has a Peckinpah-esque feel about it but it isn't able to show the whole story behind the events. Apparently the prequel sheds some light on the situation but there should have been more background in Zulu as well, granted that the film is as long as it is. If the viewer of this film knows about history, then this film can be looked at from other perspectives then just as a heroic tale of courage of the British forces.

This film by Tarkovsky depicts the story of Ivan, a child partisan in the eastern front during the second world war. The strength and immersion of the film are quite amazing, although it was made almost forty years ago it has not lost any of it's power and is still absolutely gripping. The dream sequences are especially powerful in the way they show the history and state of mind of the young Ivan.

The acting is very good and so are all the other aspects such as editing and cinematography that is exceptionally good. Overall the film is an example of directorial excellence, from a very simple story Tarkovsky is able to build a larger history with obvious references to christianity. Questions about humanity and the nature of humankind are in the center of this film and there are many reasons why this is one of the best war films that exist.

In very much the same way the world came close to total devastation during ww2 this film comes close to being the definite war spectacle. Films like Saving private Ryan don't compare well to the ambience and tension of this film, although the story does not achieve very high marks. The film should have delved deeper into the characters, now only the captain of the submarine is the only real character. There would have been many real life stories that could have given at least as much exitement as this story did. I'm not too pedantic but some things about the story did not seem to be quite truthfull.

On the whole a good film especially on the atmosphere department, with better characters and a better, more realistic story this would be my no. 1 war film of all time. (8/10)

A film that is based on Nathaniel West's novel and is unjustly forgotten. The story is very much about the psychological influence of Hollywood on people and has not fundamentally aged at all. The final scene is the culmination of the underlying issues, I recommend reading the book in order to discover this poignant story in its entirety.

I think it is ok to compare this film with Saving Private Ryan, or with any other film for that matter. Together they show something about war but even more about typical, grand Hollywood productions. Where Spr tries to tackle the visual side of ww2, Trl goes for the more thoughtfull aspects. I felt that Trl was better of these two large, war spectacles that in my opinion should have done more in order to achieve any kind of place as classics in the more intellectually enlightened world of today.

With Trl I occasionally felt that Malick would have done right if he had not tried to tackle all the characters from the novel, sometimes it is not the right way to go. The film could not ultimately take the story and the theme far enough to make me genuinely appreciate it. If there was a lot of footage shot that did not make the film it would be nice to see it included in a directors cut or a tv version, I'm sure that would give a more fuller picture.

Credibility is not the strongest point of this film, it isn't the strongest point of the novel either but what I think this film and maybe even the novel managed to do was to entertain. Sure there are holes in the plot, there really aren't that many scripts that are totally immune to close scrutiny. I guess they should be but according to a view shared by many writers and directors once a reasonable level of realism has been reached it isn't terribly important to go all the way.

In my opinion this film is light years ahead of the "remake" that can only boast about decent looking opening credits. DotJ is an interesting picture of France or at least Forsyths vision of it. Although based on real events the story is pure fiction and should be looked as such. As a plain thriller this is a good film once one sets the expectations on the level of reality rather low.

As much acclaim that have been given to Manhunter and SOTL I find that the films just owe too much to a genre filled with mediocrities. Although both the films are very interesting when looking at the process of bringing a novel on the screen the main interest in my opinion lies with the novels. As the Red Dragon was interesting as an introduction into the world of Lektor/Lecter, SOTL started to repeat the form, making the book and the film both predictable and not so much new and innovative.

Manhunter may look a bit cheap in comparison with SOTL that was made in the 90's with a large budget as it was intended as a mainstream film. But my criticism of the Manhunter does not lie in the lack of a grand budget but rather in the handling of the story. As Mann follows the novel fairly extensively, the film could still use more material from the book. The look of the film might also be better, with the Miami Vice images just making me head for the exit or for another channel.

The story could elaborate more about the character of Dolarhyde but even the novel doesn't really go that far in the philosophical dimensions that are there in my opinion. In my mind the book builds on crime fiction tradition very much like the film does and even if that isn't necessarily bad they both still fall short of a place as any kinds of classics. Still occasionally effective Manhunter stands as an evidence to the fact that even Michael Mann can do something worthwhile when he stays away from TV-series and epics.

I remember seeing this film in -92 and not being terribly amazed by it. With time though it has become a long time favorite of mine and I am yet to see such a combination of talent on a serial killer film as there is in this one. It is actually one of the few films that could have easily been a lot longer since the story had apparently been modified for the screen. The main theme of the film relies very strongly on the character of Hannibal Lecter and Hopkins should have had more screen time.

In retrospect the script, which is well adapted from the novel, doesn't really offer anything new. Much of the story is to me pretty standard crime/serialkiller fiction. Otherwise all the other technicalities of this film are well done and especially the music by Howard Shore adds to the eerie mood. The film works well as a kind of horror/thriller combination. I hope that the sequel will have a good story and a good cast.

This film is in my opinion one of the few really great Finnish films. I think the longer version for television is by far better then the short movie version. This work of art has stood the test of time and is still today very meaningfull. The acting, especially the amateurs used in various roles emphazise the overall impact of the film. No matter what one thinks about the actual events that took place this film conveys something universal about humanity and should be appreciated by a wider audience.

When I sat down in the movie theatre to watch this film I had a momentary vision. I roughly knew what the plot of this film was going to be. I knew the ending too. And I could guess the last line as well before Nicole's character says it. And now I feel like this film didn't do anything that hadn't been seen earlier. The only thing that kept me really in suspense was to see if Stanley in his old days was going to break down in front of the commercial power of the starring duo and simply be happy to make a film without ambition.

I hope that is the case since this film didn't live up to my expectations. I just didn't like the story. On the other hand one can defend the film by saying that everyone sees it differently and that many of Kubricks films draw their greatest strength from individual scenes and sometimes from individual images and that only time will tell if this is a good film.

Kubrick has shown a lot of versatility in his career but somehow I have the feeling that acting has always been the weakest link of his films and although not a total failure Cruise and Kidman only manage to annoy me. I suppose the theme is sexuality and the Cruise character is in a way caught in the middle of this spectrum of sexuality and everything that goes with it. Sounds interesting but basically falls short of a good script. I didn't enjoy the music that much either. But even so the film is definately not bad, it is probably one of this years best films on the big screen.

This film dares to disgrace the reputation of the original. But on the other hand as re-makes go I can not remember seeing a good one so I guess that is an excuse. However there is one thing about this film that is really pretty good. The opening credits! Those credits were really among the best I have seen in recent films and they really left me eagerly waiting for at least fairly good entertainment that unfortunately never materialized. A total failure with some of the overrated American actors doing what they usually do.

I like this film so I have nothing to say what others haven't said already. But I have heard that some of the dancing in SitR is very much influenced by some of the lesser known films with African American dancers doing the routines. As this in no way is intended as critique toward the film, it would be nice to see some of the acclaim go where it should go.

I had high hopes for this movie and indeed, this film shows that it is possible to make films that can be more popular then American films, at least in Finland. I think that this is a pretty good film although I do not agree with many things about it. To mix a love story with a war story is in my opinion a big mistake, a blatant attempt to bring in the female movie goers. And to show that even if the lieutenant is out of control he really does not have to pay for it, except by loosing a couple of his men. I'm glad that they showed that even prisoners were shot but somehow the final message of the film is very mixed up. What are they trying to say? An officer can lose control on the battle field and that is good? Religion made the difference between the Russkies and the Finns? Russkies were mere bystanders in the war? A good film but somehow it is just a collection of things that were quite rare in the war but are displayed here as if these things happened all the time. Could have been a lot better.

The more I think about this film and read differing reviews about it the more I feel it wasn't meant for me. I'm a Finn, not American. I don't know if Spielberg meant this film as a last hoorah for the G.I.:s, but to me that is what he made. All right the film does have something to tell for everyone: in the insane theatre of war one should try to do the right thing, have courage to do it, that your actions have consequences, war as a whole creates nothing but bad feelings and probably something else too but nothing that has not been told earlier.

And I suppose that isn't so bad, I mean there have certainly been worse films. But what does bother me is that Spielberg set out to do a film about what war is really like and to me, he failed. Yes I have seen the opening scene and to me it was more about exploitation and action film then about anything else and not even very memorable action. Even if one would skip all the omissions and strange things about the film (in the landing scene no naval artillery support, no air force support and the illogical German tactics in the final battlescenes) to me the main plot is a strange curiosity that only serves to illustrate that the average soldier wasn't that interesting or important. Apparently with some links to reality the main plot remains distant and odd to me.

With Oscar, block-buster, critically acclaimed material as ww2 with all the gore how could Spielberg go wrong? First of all the acting. Well I could not stop wishing there would have been some lesser known actors used, maybe even amateurs. A lot has been made out of the cinematography and yes, it is good. Although to me it is not so effective when there is apparently too much money to make a film and then the camera work tries to make it look more realistic. As ww2 films go this film is a far cry from "Come and See". Yes I do admit that flag waving is a common problem among ww2 movies, I just wished that Spielberg could have avoided it.

Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.

A truly profound look at the short period of time during which a young boy is forced to face horrible things in Soviet Union during WW2. A gripping, poetic vision, that has a personal edge to it, unlike most Hollywood war films.