Reviews

If it wasn't for me seeing Jonathan Demme's filmography, I might never have heard about the Talking Heads. So I know the band is from the 80s, a generation whose music I simply cannot tolerate but hey, I was born during that time and I don't remember the music so I'm ok. I must mention however that even though the Talking Heads are from the 80s their music style is way out there. It doesn't sound like music from that era; it's a completely different kind of sound. Even though I wasn't impressed much by the music (except for `This Must Be the Place'), the film itself is definitely worth checking out.

Unlike most concert films they try to praise the performer with laser effects, explosions, and of course the glamour. Stop Making Sense is very different, extremely stylish yet very simple. The footage is composed of shots that the audience would normally see at a concert, meaning throughout the film we only see the staging area, not the audience nor the backstage or anything like that. As the band plays on stage, in the background are a compilation of images composed of photographs, locations, colors, and words. The main attraction of this film is the cinematography. The main stand out of the film for me was where David Byrne plays with the lamp as he sings This Must Be the Place. The low-key lighting of the film gives it an extremely serene feeling. Along with the dimming of the background and the lighting of each of the members blending into the darkness gives a different feeling to a concert film. A great example of this dimming technique is another Demme film entitled Swimming to Cambodia, featuring Spalding Gray.

So why did I decide to see Stop Making Sense? Well, because I like the films of Jonathan Demme. He has a very unique style to his films, such as the actors talking directly to the camera. To see a filmmaker of his status direct a concert movie was something I just had to see. An experienced filmmaker making a concert film seemed a bit awkward but the final result is quite rewarding. I'm glad to see filmmakers not indulge into one type of genre, its good for them to try something new.

If any of you people reading this watch Family Guy, you might recall and episode where they poke fun of independent cinema. It had black and white photography, a clown cooking pancakes and flipping them through the air in slow motion while a girl lying on a couch stared while smoking a cigarette. Obviously this doesn't make any sense at all, and that's exactly what Begotten is.

Don't get me wrong the concept of this film sounds great, God killing himself; mother earth-giving birth to the land, Son of Earth being tortured and whatever. Unfortunately the way this film is constructed lacks substance. Its just like that Family Guy segment, there is a lot of images juxtaposed but they don't give a clear meaning to what is going on. I appreciate films that make the audience think, but quite honestly if it wasn't for the closing credits saying God Killing Himself played by some guy, Mother Earthy played by some girl I met on the street, Son of Earth played by my friend Bob, I can assure you I might have thought this film was a complete waste of time and pointless. Those credits are the only thing that makes the viewer think there was some sort of intellectual thought behind this nonsense, unfortunately I still don't see any significance so I'll just say the director was just being a freak. If intellectualism was the director's intent, then I'm sorry because there is no point to this silly story.

If anything this is like a stylish black and white mess of a violent soft-core porn film. Why? Well that girl blows the dead guy in the opening scene and then starts masturbating. Afterwards you have some guys dressed in cloaks beating up the girl with sticks. Most of the time this film consists of these cloak guys dragging a nude person through all sorts of terrain. When they get tired they just beat him up. Hmm, when they stop to rest they beat him up. Great way of conserving energy!

I admire first time filmmakers for trying to make films in black and white, well its actually grayscale but Begotten is literally black and white. The use of two colors makes this film look extremely old. Like I said, the concept is great, but it fails due to poor direction. Maybe if the scenes hadn't been that long it might have been better. Well, quite honestly I take that back because I saw most of the film through my fast forward button and it was still very long. Critics that said this was a masterpiece, a brilliant work of art, and a revolutionary piece of cinema, I laugh at their silly comments. HA! Simply because they didn't want to seem as if they didn't understand the movie and didn't want to admit it to millions of people, they just had to say Oh, yeah great stuff. Geez, just admit you didn't understand it so call it crap, that's what I say. I still prefer Eraserhead over this film any day; at least you could talk some sense out of it. Well, David Lynch certainly brought a new breed of weird films. But, Begotten does succeed in being much weirder than Eraserhead. Begotten can be tedious, ridiculous, or brilliant, you decide.

`Alex's adventures are a kind of psychological myth. Our subconscious finds release in Alex, just as it finds release in dreams. It resents Alex being stifled and repressed by authority, however much our conscious mind recognizes the necessity of doing this.' - Stanley Kubrick 1971.

I read the novel when I was only in 3rd grade by my own free will. People would stare at me as if I was crazy or something whenever I would walk into stores and I had the book in my hand. I never clearly understood the book, probably due to the British dialect and the complex plot. But there were two words that stood out from the book 1. Droogs 2. Korova Milkbar. I remember I used to call my friends droogs for a while, and the Korova Milkbar fascinated me because I used to see pictures of it in books and it was something I've never seen before. The pictures I saw were so bizarre and psychedelic yet at the same time beautiful.

After seeing the movie I felt in love with it. It's the tale of Alex and his `droogs' whose motifs are violence and sexual pleasures from rape. Alex is a rude young man who is respected by his droogs because he is intimidating. Alex threatens them so much they can't take no more and frame him. Alex is sent to prison and is sentenced for 13 years. Alex tries to behave so that he can leave prison on parole. He studies the bible and learns that it is not entirely holy due to its repelling content. Murder, sex, violence, betrayal are some themes he finds within the `holy' bible. Alex later hears of a program the government is trying to conduct with a random inmate. The experiment will result in an individual never to perform any sort of violent crime ever again. Alex is chosen for this experiment. The process consists of strapping the person into a chair while they are shown images on a screen of extreme violence. For Alex this is heaven for him because that is what he did before going to prison. He saw beauty in violence. As days with the experiment pass by, Alex starts to feel the effects of the experiment. He starts to be disgusted by what he sees onscreen. The experiment is a success. Alex is then released a free man. He comes across all the people he made harm too and they claim their revenge on him.

This is without a doubt a very powerful tale of an `eye-popping dystopian vision' of the ultra violent, with an intelligent mix of classical music with the blend of violence. A tale that makes us feel sorry for the horrendous person that is truly Alex behind the government experiment. This is another film from Kubrick, the cinematic genius who made a masterpiece every time he picked up the camera.

I get asked many question to why I like this movie, but one of the most frequently questions I get asked is `Why do you like that boring movie?' my response is always `Because it's good'. I first saw this movie when I was in the 3rd grade. At the time I felt as if I didn't understand the plot. The thing I enjoyed the most out of the movie was it's spectacular space visuals and the highly popular psychedelic ending sequence. I must have scene this movie once every 3 years. Each time I saw it I hoped to try to understand the plot of the film even more. After seeing the movie over an over again I think I finally realized that the movie did not rely on plot but on visual story telling. This is more of an experimental movie. It tried to do something that was never done before in the history of filmmaking.

The movie starts off with `The Dawn of Man' based on the scientific theory of man evolving from apes. As the movie progresses we jump to the year 2001 in outer space and we are revealed how far man has evolved from once being an ape. This is a time where man depends on technology and the widely influential computer.

What makes this movie even more unique is the use of hidden symbolism. Another question I get asked is `Okay so if you like this movie so much and it's one of your favorites, what is the meaning of that big pole?' My response to this question could be extremely debatable and might seem offensive to some people. To me the black bar represents God. The pole first reveals itself to the apes. One of them stands out of the pack and fears it. After a minute of analyzing the pole it finally has the courage to touch it. In a later scene the ape is shown near a pile of bones. The ape grabs one of the bones and is for the first time filled with knowledge. This represents how the animal has learned the ability to reason and uses the bone as a weapon. The scene with the two rival packs explains how the one with the greatest technological achievements will triumph over others. The second appearance of the Pole is on the moon. Scientist go to the moon and try to determine what it is. One of the main things I noticed is how modern man treated the pole in comparison to the apes. The apes feared it and praised it, while modern man disrespected it by taking pictures of it as some sort of prize. The scientists are punished by the high pitched sound produced by the pole. The third appearance of the pole is when Dave deserts the mother ship and ventures to reach Jupiter. The pole is scene floating around near Jupiter's atmosphere, meaning God is watching over you, or God is everywhere. Finally the pole is in the final scene with where Dave is shown in his bed as an elderly man. The pole stands in front of Dave's final moments of life, this shows us how God never stops watching over us. The ending shows a baby in the womb, a perfect depiction of death and rebirth. Quite possibly this is the most accurate space movie based on scientific fact, unlike Star Wars and Star Trek.

Final note, 2001: A Space Odyssey is my all time favorite movie. It's made by my idol, Stanley Kubrick. 2001 defined the standard to what silent cinema is today. It doesn't rely much on dialogue but on visuals to tell a story. The movie does move quite slowly, and to many it's like `the most boring movie' ever made. But to a person that likes film and appreciates all the strange and original aspect of this art called film, 2001 will be a real treat. If you like 2001 check out another movie called Koyaanisqatsi, it's as equally impressive.

I have to start off by saying that I truly liked Schizopolis. It's unlike anything I've ever seen, in the traditional sense that is. In any case, I'm not a real fan of studio movies so Schizopolis was right up my alley. People might wonder what strived me into seeing this film. Well, it was by luck actually. I was looking at some movie matches for psychologically yet offbeat inclined films such as Dark City. I came up with one choice, Kafka. I saw that and it was a nice movie, I own a copy of it actually. Then when I looked up movie matches for Kafka I think I got Schizopolis. It was either that or I simply looked up what other movies this director named Steven Soderbergh had directed. Schizopolis seemed like an interesting movie, catchy name and incredibly high offbeat ratings, I couldn't go wrong. Well, I was right! By the time I finished seeing this film I was left entirely confused but amazed at the good piece of filmmaking by this guy named Soderbergh. Eventually I had to see some of his other films, and of course, they were as good as I had hoped. By this time I became a follower of Soderbergh and had to see The Limey opening day, again I was pleased.

Schizopolis is a self reflective movie Soderbergh style. Fellini 8 ½, Woody has Stardust Memories, Soderbergh has Schizopolis. According to what I have read behind the making of this film is that Soderbergh thought of quitting filmmaking once and for all after the critically panned The Underneath. His thoughts were put to the making of this film. The result is a film that is so absurd it left critics speechless because they obviously didn't know what to think of it. They couldn't really ridicule it because that would just mean they didn't understand it. Hence the introduction of the film `in the event that you find certain sequences or ideas confusing keeping mind this is your fault not ours'. Soderbergh is indeed a genius of avoiding negative feedback from critics and instead he mocks them indirectly. As for the film's moments, the introduction and closing of the film are highly amusing. The funniest sequence is probably when Soderbergh is making funny faces in front of the mirror. As for another funny portion of the film is when the Soderbergh characters speak with terrible Japanese and Italian dubbing.

This is definitely a film that is worth viewing. Its good to see a new type of cinematic film style from a filmmaker that is truly passionate about film. If you are looking for something new and inspiring cinematic wise, look no further. Come Early! Come Often!

I was waiting for the release of American Psycho when I first saw the trailer, back when I went to see Dogma in 1999. I'm a serious movie buff and when a film looks interesting; I go absolutely insane and desperate waiting for the film to come out. As time went by I started to see comments about people who saw screening at Sundance and so forth. Some comments were positive, some very negative. Nevertheless the good overcame the negative comments.

So the film is finally released and of course I'm anxious to see it. I go to the theater but it's sold out. So the next day I go to the theater and I'm in! As I saw the films I am overwhelmed by the beautiful imagery, style, characters, and so forth. Overall, I was very satisfied. My only complaint was the ending.

The idea of a man killing women in order to maintain a sense of sanity does sound a bit repulsive. Of course feminist groups will protest against this movie but there is a lot of missing information. The character Patrick Bateman doesn't only kill women; he kills men as well. He uses women as meat for sexual pleasures. Once he's done using them he eventually kills them. As for the men, he simply kills them out of jealousy. One thing about Patrick Bateman is that he hates people being more successful than him. So he strives to be superior to everyone. How so? By killing people. Even though some killings of his are rather illogical, some actually do make some serious points. His monologues before he kills his victims will help you decide whether or not his killings carry any sense of logic in them. Still, everything Bateman does has certain intelligence to it.

The ending was a bit of a let down. It seems that recent films tend to strive for the psychological ending, which I love. Fight Club had it; Stir of Echoes had it, the Sixth Sense, and now American Psycho. But American Psycho's lacked something. I am still not sure I understand the ending yet. I could have been that Bateman was actually insane and had to kill everyone to be at ease, or if his killings were all a state of mind- meaning he imagined and believed in them so much he thought they were real. Something that might have improved the film is if we could have seen what Bateman's secretary does after she sees his daily planner.

Chris Bale has simply come a long way from being the kid in Empire from the Sun. His role back then was Oscar worthy, and it's even more apparent that he deserves recognition for his role as an insane-psychopathic Yuppie from the 80s.

Overall the film is simply brilliant. It is a smart film and it is extremely well made. I'm just happy to see that an independent film such as this captivated the interest of many Hollywood mainstreamers. If anything we need more independent movies to get a wider audience. So far this is the best film I've seen so far this year due to a flawless performance by Bale, and the help of great direction. Lets hope it gains the recognition it deserves.

Film is a visual medium; words are not necessary to tell a story. Stanley Kubrick taught us that with his masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. He proved that visuals is all that really matters in film to tell a story that will cause people to make their own conclusions while also trying to maintain the sense of the director's intent. Godfrey Reggio also proved this with his masterpiece Koyaanisqatsi. Both of these films, especially Koyaanisqatsi are a perfect example of a modern day `Silent Films'.

Koyaanisqatsi is not a film in its traditional sense. There is no story, yet there is. I know it sounds ironic but let me explain. What is it that you see when you go see a movie? Images, montages of images put together to tell a story. Koyaanisqatsi is nothing but images put together to tell a story. Even though there is no dialogue what so ever, you somewhat understand what the film is trying to induce.

The film begins with a painting of what seems to be Hopi paintings on a stone. This could represent the birth of mankind. Then the next image is a space shuttle thruster, the evolution of man evolving to the extent that he has passed the limits of the skies. The first half of the film are images of Mother Nature. Meaning oceans, landscapes, and so forth. The second half is modern day earth with it's technological advancements.

You can see the images tell a story if you look closer. We begin with nature, no signs of humans or technology. It's a beautiful scenario. After the images of nature finish, the first thing we see is a tractor of some sort ejecting black smoke making it look intimidating and dangerous as it's own smoke slowly covers the entire frame. A beautiful yet fearful sight.

Modern day life has never seemed so strange. As I saw Koyaanisqatsi I realized this was modern day. But the way Godfrey Reggio portrays it onscreen makes it appear as if we are in a different world. Images switch from playing in fast speed to slow motion, and vice versa.

Accompanied to a beautiful score by Philip Glass adds even more beauty to the film. Glass is known for his offbeat style of music, by combining it with Reggio's bizarre style, it creates a masterpiece of film unlike no other.

Koyaanisqatsi is not a film for everyone. It takes a certain type of audience to appreciate a film like this. This is film is a piece of art form, if you want a true definition of what people talk about when they say film is art, this is the best example you will ever find.

There is so much to say about this film that I can't even think where to begin. All I can say that if there are any people out there that truly love film will appreciate Koyaanisqatsi. If you cannot appreciate what this film has to offer, then I don't think film is an area that can truly relate to you. Like I said before, this film is made specifically for certain types of people, its not for everyone. When a film of this caliber can make you laugh, smile, and evoke emotion, you know you've cared about it and it has meant something. Any filmmaker that can make this so through a montage of images is an absolute genius.

Buddy Boy is a psychological thriller on the same scale of Roman Polanski movies. While seeing Buddy Boy it immediately reminded me of a particular Polanski movie, The Tenant. Both stories deal with men looking abroad to the windows of others and noticing bizarre happenings. Thus causes the men to slowly go insane and therefore indulge themselves within their own insanity.

The story deals with a stuttering young man who is very reclusive and lives with his stepmother. He spends most of the time locked in his room. A perverse pass time of his is to look inside the apartment of a beautiful woman, played by Polanski’s wife, Emmanuelle Seigner. He falls in love with the woman’s image without knowing her. As the story develops they eventually meet and become friends. The young man continues to spy on the woman due to his lack of trust in her. As he peeps into the woman’s apartment, he begins to notice that she cooks human flesh and eats it raw. He goes over the woman’s apartment, only to discover that she is eating vegetables, I forgot to mention the woman is a vegetarian. The young man begins to think God hates him for making him see terrible things. Apparently the only time he sees the acts of cannibalism is when he is at his Peeping Tom area. This is the beginning of one man’s decent into madness.

I expected to see a particular type of stylish psychological film, instead I witnessed something more disturbing than what I usually see. Nevertheless it was an interesting movie. The style is ugly, its not elegant it’s simply ugly. So far I have not learned to like this particular style, I prefer something more elegant, meaning I dislike movies that take place in the rural areas of a metropolitan city. Despite the settings I thought the film was decent. It’s definitely a change of pace horror film instead of watching the typical teenage slasher Hollywood flicks. Which I don’t see but I’m sure they are terrible. Buddy Boy is a film that allows you to have your own conclusion, it doesn’t give you the ending, you create it yourself by what you saw from the flick.

While on a Russian tour, Archer; a young American tourist's experience takes an unexpected turn when he meets a mysterious woman named Lena. She has accidentally stolen a priceless work of art, and as events spin out of control Archer finds himself without a passport, accused of murder, hunted by the police, and pursued by a ruthless smuggler.

The main reason I saw this movie was to see Roman Polanski's performance as an actor. He was great in The Fearless Vampire Killers, The Tenant, and A Pure Formality. Like in A Generation, Polanski has a small role in this movie as well; nevertheless he proves he is a very talented yet overlooked thespian. As for the movie itself it's rather poor. It has the elements of making this a good thriller but the director aims for the Hollywood approach and it simply doesn't work. The use of young actors was a mistake in my opinion, if the protagonists would have been a little older the style of the film might have been more mature and we might have gotten a completely different movie. Instead we get a ridiculous film that doesn't really have any substance at all, and proper organization. The film leaves a great deal of questions unanswered; I can't even begin to explain how many holes were left uncovered. Basically it's just a sloppy movie. The only reason to see this is for Polanski. If he wasn't in it, trust me I would never have seen this movie.

I saw Fight Club opening night without wanting to go see it. A friend of mine pressured me to go with him so I did. When we were in the theater I was complaining about how bad this movie was going to be, mainly because these types of movies are not my taste. By the time the movie was over I was left speechless. The first thing that came to my mind was that from now on I was going to see every movie directed by David Fincher.

Fight Club is filled with so much energy its not even funny. It makes the audience want to be in the movie. The direction is absolute perfection. Fincher certainly has an eye for cinematography. Everything is composed so beautifully, with the help of computer generated graphics it makes the film seem even darker and more impressive.

Ed Norton has never been better as an actor. His performance as an insomniac is pure perfection. I'm positive enough to say that he will never be as good as he was in this film. Helena Bonham Carter is as usual, beautiful. In Fight Club it comes to show how the power of makeup can change a person's appearance. To many people her look may seem repulsive, but I think she looks attractive despite her role, I dug it. All I can say is that without her Fight Club isn't the same. Brad Pitt is a macho guy who is pretty much Ed Norton's character alter ego. I can't really comment on him, don't like the guy that's all.

All I can really say is that Fight Club is quite possibly one of the most energetic and memorable movies of the 1990s. Everything an entertaining movie needs is right here. Looking for a good time, look no further. Unfortunately this wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards which it truly deserved. If you ask me, Fight Club can kick American Beauty's ass any day! Like every other person out there, I thought the Academy Award nominees for the 99-year movies were terrible. Fight Club was the best picture of 1999

The Thin Blue Line was my first taste of an Errol Morris picture. I saw this in my Film as Literature class. At first I didn't want to see this movie at all. I though it would be like every other documentary where it has the narrator speaking, while there is old footage being ran, and pictures of the crime or whatever is being shown. Oh boy how wrong I was. From the first second you hear the music running and you see the captions An Errol Morris Film, you immediately get the sense that you are in for something good. How right I was in this aspect.

Never before have I ever seen such a stylist documentary. The film runs to the repetitive but moody music of Philip Glass. Along with the reenactments, the movie has an extremely surreal experience to it. Unlike 99% of documentaries, Errol Morris eludes to have narration, instead he lets the people say what's one their minds. In my opinion this is more effective because you get to hear the truth and not assumptions by the narrator trying to impose excessive remarks. I mentioned reenactments, let me explain how they work in Errol Morris movies. According to what the people on camera might be saying, Errol Morris tries to recreate those situations. This adds a very strange feel to the documentary experience. Even though you know these reenactments never occurred as they are shown, it helps you understand what the people are talking about. Furthermore it adds to the whole logic of seeing a movie, it makes it more artistic and more film-like. Another interesting feature Errol Morris uses is footage from movies, or cartoons. I have never seen these elements in a documentary. I was astonished by what I saw in this documentary. At every single second of the film, it keeps your attention intact. Careful if you blink, other wise you will miss something great. I liked this film so much I ended up renting every single documentary directed by Errol Morris.

On a final note regarding Errol Morris, every single thing he does is good. I'm just happy to have the privilege to be living at this time to witness such great films from him.

Before you go on reading my comments on Pirates I must advise you that this review is somewhat biased. I first saw this movie when I was in the 1st grade. My fascination with pirates is indescribable. I loved pirates; I bought toys of them, tried to dress like them and well.. I wanted to be a pirate when I grew up. Yes it was another one of my childhood fantasies. I wanted to be the next Captain Hook, which I learned to master and draw him better than Disney himself. Eventually I came across the movie Pirates at a local video rental store. Back in the day I just saw old movies for the hell of it (Also because 80s movies were terrible!). The only person I really knew whose films I was watching was Alfred Hitchcock. I wasn't aware that when I saw Pirates that I was actually seeing a movie by one of my greatest idols, Roman Polanski. The same occurred with Stanley Kubrick movies, I saw them but I didn't know he made them, anyways that's another story. Being in 1st grade, you can imagine I fell in love with this movie. I saw it over and over again. Then of course I completely forgot about Pirates.

18 years later I finally saw Pirates again, this time being aware it was directed by my idol Roman Polanski. Now that I am more aware with film styles I can say that Pirates is a good movie. Yes I know this was one of the biggest budget disasters of the 1980s but I guess it just didn't appeal to people. I consider this to be Polanski's effort of trying to make a Spielberg style film in an attempt to make it in the mainstream. Fortunately the effort is there; the public simply wasn't attracted to the concept.

The characters are memorable; they are quite possibly the most cartoonish and believable pirate characters in film. The story is decent, the theme of a pirate's greed for gold and how he will do anything to obtain it. The acting is good, yes there are a lot of goofy elements of humor, still it doesn't deteriorate the movie experience. There are two breathtaking things in this film. The first is the Spanish ship. Wow that's a beautiful ship! Second are the Spanish costumes. Those are the most impressive and stylish costumes I've ever seen in film. It makes the Spaniards look powerful and fancy. Pirates is a literal conversion from the typical comic book pirate character brought into film. For anyone who ever liked pirates as a kid or likes pirates, I highly recommend this film. With plenty of action and upbeat situations makes this the ultimate movie experience for pirate lovers all over the world. Hmm, I just said upbeat. Like every single Polanski movie there is always a depressing factor to his movies, which deprives the audience from having joy. So yeah there are upbeat themes, but the ending is somewhat sad in relation to The Frog. It was sad to see this movie again after so long, made me feel old. Oh well, I'm just happy I had a taste of Polanski movies when I was a kid.

Roman Polanski hit the peak of his filmmaking in the 60s and 70s. One of his most overlooked films from this period is Cul-de-sac. The film opens with quite possibly one of the most memorable sequences in film history. Two gangsters get stuck in the tide, since one of them is wounded, the other gangster goes out to look for help. The gangster tries to contact his boss from a couple's home. However, the gangster is unable to get a hold of his boss to pick him up. So for the meantime, the gangster and his partner reside at the couple's home. The gangsters begin to terrorize the couple, making them prisoners within their own home. Of course the couple tries to think of was on how to throw these gangsters out of their home. Along the way events start to take unexpected turns.

Cul-de-sac is an excellent example of Polanski's macabre mentality. He takes a serious situation and converts it into something hilarious. The most memorable character in my opinion is the wounded gangster. His presence (even though it's for a small amount) is what grabs your attention to the film. The irony of the couple is well constructed for it portrays a manly wife, and a womanly gentle husband. As for the predominant gangster of the film, his stupidity and wits makes the film a well worth experience. The film certainly hits its ironic punch during the last half-hour of the film. For any Polanski connoisseurs I highly recommend this film that is well worth watching.

I have seen every single Roman Polanski feature film ever made. I can strongly say that he is definitely one of the greatest masters of contemporary cinema. He is a director that doesn't follow one path of filmmaking. He specializes in thrillers, but he proved with Chinatown and Tess that he is capable of masterpiece filmmaking. Personally I prefer him as a cult status director. The subjects of his films are based on the macabre; this reputation has caused him to become one of the greatest and most controversial directors ever. As any Polanski connoisseur knows he fled to France and has reside there ever since. His last film was Death and the Maiden. A project he took because he needed the money. Nevertheless it was a good movie. Afterwards he disappeared from the face of the earth until he began filming a project based on the genre he was familiar with, a supernatural thriller based on the occult. This project is called The Ninth Gate. I was very eager to see this movie mainly because I love Polanski's movies. Now that it has finally been released here in the US I am happy yet sad. I went to see it opening night, which was this Friday, March 10th. I left the theater somewhat disappointed. It seems that Polanski has spent those years off partying in France. His style has somewhat been lost; his emphasis on creating a psychological thriller is not there. Instead we have a slow paced film which ends up looking rather silly. Some guy said that there were fighting scenes that resembled The Matrix's fighting scenes, I'm not sure which film he saw but there was nothing of the sort. There was however a shot where you seen Polanski's beautiful wife Emmanuelle Seigner fly, and kick some guy's butt. I don't know but I felt that was quite silly. The burning castle sex scene, which everyone keeps complaining about, is quite pointless although it does serve a purpose within the story. I really wanted to like this movie, unfortunately I couldn't find a good reason to, except that it's A Roman Polanski Film. The film had a lot of potential of being something great but it failed. Sure I was disappointed, but you have to love the film for what it has to offer.

I have seen every single Roman Polanski feature film ever made. I can strongly say that he is definitely one of the greatest masters of contemporary cinema. He is a director that doesn't follow one path of filmmaking. He specializes in thrillers, but he proved with Chinatown and Tess that he is capable of masterpiece filmmaking. Personally I prefer him as a cult status director. The subjects of his films are based on the macabre; this reputation has caused him to become one of the greatest and most controversial directors ever. As any Polanski connoisseur knows he fled to France and has reside there ever since. His last film was Death and the Maiden. A project he took because he needed the money. Nevertheless it was a good movie. Afterwards he disappeared from the face of the earth until he began filming a project based on the genre he was familiar with, a supernatural thriller based on the occult. This project is called The Ninth Gate. I was very eager to see this movie mainly because I love Polanski's movies. Now that it has finally been released here in the US I am happy yet sad. I went to see it opening night, which was this Friday, March 10th. I left the theater somewhat disappointed. It seems that Polanski has spent those years off partying in France. His style has somewhat been lost; his emphasis on creating a psychological thriller is not there. Instead we have a slow paced film which ends up looking rather silly. Some guy said that there were fighting scenes that resembled The Matrix's fighting scenes, I'm not sure which film he saw but there was nothing of the sort. There was however a shot where you seen Polanski's beautiful wife Emmanuelle Seigner fly, and kick some guy's butt. I don't know but I felt that was quite silly. The burning castle sex scene, which everyone keeps complaining about, is quite pointless although it does serve a purpose within the story. I really wanted to like this movie, unfortunately I couldn't find a good reason to, except that it's A Roman Polanski Film. The film had a lot of potential of being something great but it failed. Sure I was disappointed, but you have to love the film for what it had to offer.

I'm not quite sure what to think of Caged Heat. Don't get me wrong I think Demme is a magnificent director but this…Ugh, I'm not sure what to say. I read that Caged Heat was praised by critics, I could probably see what they saw in comparison to other girls in prison flicks. It didn't have that aspect of a campy movie. It had some style to it which is good. It shows that Demme had some sense of artistic view from the very beginning of his career. You can tell that he took time in planing out shots. The best example of this is when the camera is passing by the prison cells and you can see each inmate doing something different. Those are also signs of good directing. The characters are memorable and well developed. The movie doesn't aim for showing a lot of skin. Sure some of the girls are very attractive (especially the two blond ones), still the movie doesn't rely on sex at all.

I guess you can say this is a decent first attempt. Considering the budget he had to work with, I'd say its pretty good. Its good to see directors work their way up but never forget where they came from. Demme was grateful to be working with Roger Corman and it shows. He gave him a role in Silence of the Lambs. Nevertheless Caged Heat is nice to check out. It's great entertainment that's for sure. And isn't that what films are all about?

A delightful film about the love of two women-the owner of a model agency and her top model. On a photographic outing to another city, both have strange day affairs with married men. The film, as relentless as it is tender, is a deeply probing study into the psyche of desire. Bergman's success is derived from exquisite scenes of austere romanticism and painful irony. Rarely has sexual obsession been so accurately observed. Dreams is yet another masterpiece by Bergman, yet sadly underrated and unknown. For anyone who appreciates great storytelling, and masterful filmmaking should do themselves a favor and watch "Dreams". Note: Look for Bergman's cameo as the man with the poodle at the hotel.

What? Is a psychedelic fairy tale about an American hippie who wanders into the decadent environment of a seaside villa in Italy after nearly being raped while hitchhiking. She is given a room and, within moments, begins undressing under the peeping eye of a perverted former pimp played by Marcelo Mastroianni, which causes the hippie girl to embark on a mysterious sexual journey. Things are, at the very least, strange within the villa. One inhabitant constantly groans in his room; a mysterious voyeur watches the girl through a hole in her wall; two women wander through the terrace both wearing fancy hats but only one wearing clothes; and of course Mosquito played by the man himself, Roman Polanski. A day after the girl stays in the house, she starts believing she is having déjà vu, each sexual fantasy after the next haunt her over and over again.

I certainly don't consider this to be one of Polanski's best. Due to the content, it is rather sad to see a great actor like Mastroianni in such a poorly developed film like this. Polanski, a filmmaker that previously showed the world he could make great films then decides to make such a poor film as this. Then again this is a hippie film, so for the times I guess it was ok. Nothing impressive to say the least, but since I'm a Polanski fan; lets just say I was just curious to see what he had to offer.

Disney's Snow White & the Seven Dwarves is commonly called the first animated feature but 11 years ago before its release, at age of 23, Berlin born avant-gardist Charlotte Reinger designed the exquisite "silhouette film" The Adventures of Prince Achmed. Loosely based on the 1001 Nights (The Arabian Nights) The Adventures of Prince Achmed deploys elaborate cut-outs, early multiplane camerawork, and experiments with wax and sand to produce and exquisite visual feast. The fantasy world of sorcerers ad magic lamps, flying horses and an island lake where a princess and her attendants fly down to bathe using lace like wings comes to life in a breathtaking combination of images, color and special effects that will dazzle and enchant adults and children alike. The film was finished and had its premiere in Berlin in 1926.

I recently saw an interview on PBS featuring Martin Scorsese. In the interview he stated that he's been watching a lot of Italian films from directors such as Federico Fellini. After seeing Bringing Out the Dead I can see the resemblance between the film and Fellini's style. I can sum the entire movie's style with one word: Felliniesque. For those of you that are unfamiliar with Fellini's work he tends to turn reality in to a surreal fantasy world filled with archetypes. Bringing Out the Dead certainly does that with a little mix of Terry Gilliam. Since Terry Gilliam is another talented director that creates fantasy worlds and exaggerates, Bringing Out the Dead is what an episode of ER would look like if he were to direct one. Another great technical aspect is the cinematography by Robert Richardson, the man responsible for offbeat camera work such as Natural Born Killers.

In conclusion Bringing Out the Dead is a great film for those that like offbeat cinema and are simply looking for something different. I advise who ever sees this film to keep an open mind. If you are looking for a Felliniesque film of the 90s this is your best bet.

I remember seeing "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" back in the 80s when I was just a child. Every Thanksgiving they would show this at night time, since I was around 6-9 years old I couldn't stay up late to watch cartoons. But my parents made exceptions in these cases. Heck, I even recorded this on BETA! Thats right those tapes that are half the size of VHS tapes! Now that I'm older I wonder where time went, one day I'm a kid sitting on the living room rug watching Charlie Brown the next day I'm in my room hearing the advertisement on TV for the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving holiday special. Since I saw this when I was a kid I must say I was scared of the last portion of this presentation, the part where Charlie Brown camps out of a house. Damn that scared me! All I can say is that this is a classic for anyone who saw this as a kid. What's wrong with those people that gave this a 1 rating?!?! Some people just have problems.

I slowly became a Fellini fan, after seeing this film I began to question Fellini's taste for the absurd. This is a true non-linear film that portrays things that don't even make sense. Considering that Fellini is a grand master of creating fantasies out of reality, you have to like "Satyricon" for what it has to offer. Even if it does seem rather ridiculous, remember its suppose to be a satire, that's why the movie is entitled "Satyricon".

This is the film that made Fellini who he is. After he made 8 1/2 Fellini embarked on a journey of creating surreal fantasies. This film is very confusing to understand on the first viewing, to get the entire understanding see it more than twice. Once you understand this movie you will wonder why you never saw it sooner.

A perfect movie in every aspect, words cannot even begin to describe this phenomenon. Seeing this movie was pure pleasure beyond understanding. Experience it for yourself. Do yourself a favor and see this, I guarantee it you wont be disappointed. Thank you, Sir Ingmar Bergman.

This is a documentary to see if you are interested in how movies are made. Seeing the master filmmaker Ingmar Bergman direct his last movie was so sentimental yet sad. During certain scenes he was directing, you could see REAL drama in the actor's faces whenever they tried their best to impress Bergman. You could see a sense of humanity and the close relationship between the people on set. See this film, you won't be disappointed.