Reviews

For those of you that are strict Dirk Pitt fans please forgive this film. To enjoy this film you need to detach the Dirk Pitt from the Clive Cussler novels a bit and simply enjoy the movie.

It is a good movie, fun, funny, adventurous and satisfying. It moves along at a very good pace and is worth watching on the big screen. The teaming of Matthew McConaughey (Pitt) and Steve Zahn as Giordino works about 80% of the time and it really works well when they have the banter when things get hot. The plot is well written drawing much of it from the novel and throwing in some interesting twists and smiles.

I plan to put this in my DVD library for several reasons but mostly because it is a pretty decent action film that does not need language, nudity or large bloody events to move the story along – a rare thing these days.

I really wanted this movie to be better than it was. It had all the right elements – great dialog, clever situation, some good to really wonderful acting, good story line – but the sadness is that the director want a 'style' and that 'style' did not work. Like "Miami Vice" very few recall the stories but all recall the pastels and unshaven faces, "Crash" tried to capture the seedy part of Los Angeles, not by filming the grit but used technology to make everything gritty looking.

It's a good film. Following the same story type as "Go" or "Magnolia" it is a fascinating story of interwoven lives and how we all touch each other eventually. It uses the same basic theme that all conflict is a statement of prejudice and it is a roller coaster of emotions, some honest, come contrived. The cast is simply wonderful. Each character is believable. The funny parts are very funny and the sad parts are very sad. If you liked "Go" or "Magnolia" you will like this film every bit as much.

There is a very good style that operates in this movie, one that sets up the anticipation of event and then delivers, often by raising the goose flesh up for a few moments. But, alas, it is only style. The story itself lets the movie down. Comparing this to "The Ring" it falls below expectation and promise. Whereas the "The Ring" actually generated some type of emotion about the characters involved, and you wanted know what happened poor little girl, in this movie you hardly care about anyone, let alone the boy or the group of people that come into contact with the house and the spirits therein.

It's disappointing because it should have been better. It had a good cast and the story could have been developed move, but in the end the director shot for creating a mood and style and ignored his primary objective of telling a story.

Quite an excellent character study of what people will do to survive. Although not as powerful as other prisoner of war films such as "Seven Beauties" it stands out because of the performances of all the women and especially Susan Strasberg who does a magnificent job starting out as the young innocent girl, hiding the fact that she is Jewish, a bewildering task, and her agonizing evolution into a hardened guard.

Don't look for huge sets and gruesome scenes of gas chambers and ovens here. It's not that type of film. It's a simple story of the slow chipping away of humanity that dire conditions force. Dignity and nobility give way to cruelty and inhumanity and simple survival becomes a thing to justify as time goes on. By telling this type of story through the eyes of a young impressionable person is excellent.

Okay, against my better judgment I went to see the film and for about an hour and a half I witnessed a person obsessed with his absolute loathing for another person. My wife walked out after about 30 minutes and told me she would wait for me in the lobby, while she was there she tried to get her money back. There were two things that I would like to say about the film:

1. Moore needs to grow up. Yes, this may be a nail in the coffin of the demise of the Bush presidency, but any point he could have made was made moot by his obvious, repeated and childish assaults. By about 45 minutes into the movie it actually got boring. The pattern of beating a point to death became silly. Thanks Mr. Moore. You have made your point clear – you don't like George W. Bush, not only as a president, but also as a person; mostly as a person. Move on. (yawn)

2. The debates regarding who/what/when about the movie are moot. This movie is not about facts. Moore even said so on `The Daily Show' on 6/24/04. This is his `opinion', based upon the facts as he sees them about George W. Bush and he is going to present them as he `sees them' about someone he does not like. Several times my hand went up during the movie and ‘BULLS*IT' was uttered. It's not in what was said, it was how it was said. This is Michael Moore vs. George W. Bush. Do not make the mistake in thinking that it is anything noble. Like `Bowling' he is not after change, Moore is after extracting his pint of blood and does not care how it happens.

So, during the movie there were many who applauded and cheered Moore's statements on – that is to be expected. At the end of the movie there was light applause – expect also. What was not expected were many of the audience actually booed and said ‘BULLS*IT' out loud.

Moore is going to make a lot of money on this film. He may even take home a second Oscar (not because the movie is good – esthetically it's pretty poor).

He has demonstrated to me that he is a simple ambush artist that goes after wounded prey and after President Bush is voted out of office he will claim that it was because of THIS movie, not because Bush was simply not good enough for the task and it became obvious to the voters of the United States of America.

The last thing that this movie has done for me is convince me that being a conservative is a whole lot better than being a liberal, especially if Moore is now the standard bearer for liberals in this country. Woe is to the clear minded and rational liberals of the USA - you are now going to be lumped in with this sad, pathetic excuse for a human.

After catching this film on Turner Movie Classics last night I wondered what all the fuss was about. I remember hearing and reading about this film in the 70's and 80's as being one of the great grand-daddy's of anti-war genre. After sitting though it, all 85 minutes of agony, and hoping that every minute that this film will get better, I realized that this is simply a poor film. My expectations were higher, considering what these writers/directors had produced (Jules and Jim, Contempt, Weekend, The Wild Child, etc.) but what came out was worse than some sort of no or low budget sophomoric attempt to make a statement that fails. Even the attempt at humor, one of the brothers at his first movie, became a very cheap and childish shadow of Chaplin.

About 1/3 of the way through I simply gave up caring about either one of the brothers (or their moronic wives) and stuck with the film simply because I hoped that there would something that would elevate it from putting it the same class as two 10 year olds who got a hold of daddy's movie camera. It never did. Even the cast members who had lesser roles, the car salesman, the Italian woman, the communist girl, etc., all looked as bored as I felt. The young communist girl actually looked happy to be killed just so she could get out of this mess.

Plan 9 From Outer Space, move over.

A really nice way to spend an afternoon, The Core does not pretend to be a huge Sci-Fi mega movie, but rather a pretty good romp with some pretty nice special effects (the birds, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc.) and even like to poke at itself.

I love Sci-Fi movies where the professor or the hot-shot pilot don't have all the answers and yes, there are holes in this film that you could drive cities through, but really, who cares?

Sit back, munch on that popcorn, sip on that soda, and have just fun with this predictable, simple, yet enjoyable movie.

If you forget the book (as the writers did) and pull out the SciFi and make Brautigan a more normal person, what you have here is something like 'Stand By Me' with an elderly man as a mentor.

I did like the movie and it did do a great job in establishing character and plot, but it was not the book.

By all rights it should have been better because the source story was so rich. The second viewing forced me to look at it as a stand-alone story and it did do what it was suppose to do, but it could have expanded in areas that it did not (e.g., the 'rape' of the mother, the revenge, Brautigan's capture, etc.)

Oh well, maybe TV will get a hold of the rights and do a proper job in mini-series format.

In the same tradition of "Tremors" and "Men In Black" this film has some excellent dialog and action that make it a cut above most of the films of this class. Don't worry about the plot or some of the contrived situations, just sit back and enjoy this very funny movie with likable stars and some pretty interesting aliens.

Hmmmmm, about 1/3 of the way through you just might wonder who is stranger: the aliens, the college students or the military. Any way to cut it, it's a enjoyable romp that will be worth the $2 to $5 dollars you spent.

Visually this film is stunning. If you like the works of the surreal artists Eicher and/or Michael Parks then you will be treated to the combination of both. The real-life sequences vary from basic to repulsive with some images that will stick with you (body piercing is now re-defined in my vocabulary!) but it is the `dream' sequences that are the viewable part of the movie. Dump the acting and the plot. The acting is average and the plot is predictable. The dialogue is sophomoric. Hold out for the DVD or video.

Except for a few moments during the film and the great comedic theft by Alyson Hannigan "and one time, at band camp…" this movie is a waste of time. It's been done so many times by so many actors that these kids come off as cheap imitations of the kids who did this movie before them. Almost all of the jokes fall flat and lack the true emotion that makes comedy funny. I have to admit that the last 20 minutes was pretty funny, especially the scene with Alyson ("what's my name, B**ch!") and the scene with "Stifler's Mom" on the pool table but the rest of the movie was predictable and lame. It was NOT worth the hoopla and not remotely worth of comparison to "Something About Mary." Go rent "Risky Business" or "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" to get some REAL teen movie laughs.

Every once in a while a movie comes along and sets a new standard for the class. In this case "Saving Private Ryan" has achieved that place in two areas: the "war" movie and the "human condition" movie. On one hand "Ryan" does not mask, shield, or taint combat in any manner from the viewer and lets the experience of war happen in all of its stark reality. I have a feeling that any movie depicting war will use "Ryan" as a model from now on. The strongest message that the movie sends is that in war there is no motivating sound track and people do die horribly, without mercy, and often without reason. Drowning in eight feet of water within reach of the beach, applying a bomb that goes off prematurely and having no effect on the target, being shot by an unseen sniper, are all displayed without glory or the indication of some greater purpose being achieved in the end. What is left are those alive and those that are dead and those that are alive must live with the horror of what they have been though.

But, the really great "war" movies are not really about war, but are really about how people react to an extreme condition that they are faced with. In this case "Ryan" moves from one gender to another without the viewer realizing it. Much has been said and written about the battle scenes in the movie and far too little has been said about the emotion between the squad of soldiers and how they feel about trying to rescue someone they have never met. In the countless movies I have seen about the same basic topic this one tells the untainted truth about this emotion. The soldiers do it because they are ordered to but like every American soldier, marine, sailor, or airman that I know, they don't like it and they will let everyone know about it. But beyond that the film also shows the American combat soldier as they really are: crass, vulgar, dirty beyond belief, prone to raw humor. But where this film excels is the depiction of why they are how they are: long days of stress, fatigue, danger at every moment, living moment by moment. By the time the troops leave the beach and the horror there, the viewer accepts their condition and forgives their behavior and manner. Even the word "forgives" is bad word to use. The film generates the emotion in the view that these troops have "earned" the right to behave in any manner that they please. They have paid for that right 1,000 times.

But the humanity prevails in many ways, some large and some small: the raw emotion when one of their squad falls in combat, the sharing of gum from one mouth to another, the group resentment of those who have not been through the hell that they have been though, the appreciation of a piece of music that will relieve them of thinking of their situation for only a moment. It is these moments in the film that elevates the movie beyond a regular war film into a classic that other films will be measured against. I have seen "Ryan" four times now and it has not failed to generate a strong emotion in me every time. There are no heroics in this film. There is only an accurate display of humans, placed in a situation that is beyond belief, who do things because they have to, not because they want to, and to they best they can without reward or commendation. Their only reward is survival.

Drawing from a good book by the same name concerning a real battle, the film chose to concentrate on a single unit of the 101st Airborne during this engagement instead of the strategies and tactics of the battle. Fictionalizing the characters we see the typical group of soldiers, some new, some veterans, some black, some white, some Hispanic, conduct assault after assault on a hill for some reason that they only have a vague concept of. But instead of making the battle slick and interlaced with subplots about the possession of souls (such as "Platoon") or a work of art (such as "Apocalypse Now" or "Full Metal Jacket") the characters are real and the battle is believable.

Whether intentional or not, it is hard to identify individuals in this film. The viewer is aware that there are ethnic and class separations but identities are harder. I believe that this was intentional to some extent by the director so that the impression could be made that this could be any unit and the soldiers could be anyone that you may know. Like the faceless names on the Vietnam War monument during the opening of the film, these soldiers are essentially faceless forcing the viewer to place a face and personality that they are intimate with. The real star of the movie is the battle and the tragedies that resulted. As with the better, and more accurate war films, there are no heroics, just fear; there is no glorious flag waving over a captured fortification, just survivors.

Again, with the better war films it is the little stuff that separates the good ones from the "cowboys and Indians in battle dress" ilk: the radio operator calling in an artillery strike in panic and is reprimanded for not using proper radio protocol, the mud slide down the hill right in the middle of the battle, the officer trying to call for reinforcements and realizing that his radio was blown to bits along with his arm. All of these "touches" are real and give credibility to a film. In this case "Hamburger Hill" stands apart, and somewhat higher, than most films about the subject.

The tough things about taking a very good piece of literature and putting into a mass media format is that everyone does a comparison between the two and very seldom do people view the film as a separate piece of work. Such is the case of `The Stand' and its transition to film. The novel, which I consider King's best, was rich with character and insight that as of this date I am now re-reading it for the tenth time. King's depiction of the personalities, both minor and major, enriched the reading pleasure to such a point that, as other people have stated here, they really did not want the book to end.

Film, on the other hand, has to weave a story than sets up an expectation for the viewer that it will end, and, by the way, will end on time. A mini-series will add the extra irritation of prepping scenes that will punctuate a commercial break. Oh well. Trying hard to separate the book from the film is impossible and without further commercial interruption is my impression of the film.

The Bad Points:

Point #1: Gary Senise was too young for Stu Redman. Okay, he did a very good job but part of the contention of the book was Stu's age in relation to Frannie's and Harold's resentment that his `girl' (who was older than him) was stolen by an older man. This was key to the build up of resentment in Harold.

Point #2: Why in the world did they put two characters (Nadine and Rita) into one? Come on now, it was Rita's character that caused the revelation in Larry's character (and the death of his mother) to take in humanity.

Point #3: The genesis of Randall Flagg and Mother Abigail were not exploited. Two of the richest characters that King has ever written about were reflections of their persona in the book. This, to me, was the largest problem because, after all, it was `The Stand' between the two of them that the book was all about.

The Good Points:

Everything else. Like the translation of `For Whom the Bell Tolls' from book to film, the great book was a great book because it was a book. The film, although not great, was pretty darn good. Anyone, like myself, expecting a page-by-page, character-by-character translation of King's original work to a frame-by-frame re-enactment of `The Stand' will be disappointed, but not much. Well over the 80% of the magic that King created in the book was faithfully captured in the film for those who wish to find it.

For those who did not read the book, hey, this is a pretty darn good film and is worth your time. Forget the bad points that I mentioned, just sit back and enjoy one of the better films about the post-Apocalypse United States and the non-Max Max, non-nuclear devastation, non-invading armies, desperation of a handful of people whose souls are on the line.

Knowing what to expect before I even entered the theater, I was not surprised or scared by the events. As a horror film it rated pretty low on the fear factors although it did generate some interesting uneasy moments because of the technique used. The climax was well done and it did generate tension but the constantly shifting camera left me and my family pretty nauseated by about mid-film. And I didn't even have any popcorn. The good part of the film is that it broke a lot of rules that have governed cinematography for years. The bad part is that it will more than likely become some sort of film cult classic without really deserving it. I guess the part that bugged me the most was that I thought EVERYONE knew that if you are lost in the woods, follow the creek down stream until you hit some sort of civilization. I am a city boy and I know that! Those three characters deserved everything they got.