Reviews

Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.

This film puzzled me. At first I thought it was going to be a film about gun control, and then it turned out to be more like Michael Moore's personal journey in trying to figure out why the murder rate in America is so much higher than in other countries. Moore explores gun culture, music, video games, the media's portrayal of violence, and a wide range of other things, and in my opinion he doesn't come up with any terribly profound discoveries. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, and there are some very emotional montages of real-life events in here that really got me teary-eyed.

However, it's in what seems to be Mr. Moore's vanity and irrationality that things go astray. Throughout the movie, Moore himself seems to admit that he can't quite pinpoint exactly what the sources of America's violent society stems from (although he does indicate that the American media plays a pretty big role, which is understandable).

Nonetheless, for some reason Moore still tries to villainize organizations and individuals who really have no clear role to play in the whole issue. For instance, Moore thinks it's "right" for K-mart to take bullets off their shelves nationwide because the Columbine killers bought their merchandise there. This move presupposes the belief that "selling bullets implies a higher murder rate", as that would be the only rational reason K-mart should take the profitable merchandise off their shelves. The confusing part is that earlier in the film, Moore went to a Wal-mart in Canada and marveled at the fact that the store sold bullets freely and yet Canada's murder rate was still incredibly low--thereby suggesting that stores selling bullets did *not* imply a higher murder rate. The worst part is that Moore is glaringly inconsistent in his logic: when he examines music artists like Marilyn Manson, he determines that they can't be a cause of why the American murder rate is so high because kids in other countries with less crime also listen to Marilyn Manson; why, then, does Moore not think that this same kind of argument is valid when applied to stores selling ammunition?

Similarly, the role that the National Rifle Association and Charlton Heston play in this film is extremely vague. Nowhere in this film do I see a concrete reason for why the NRA should be blamed for the unjust murders of innocents in this country. There's a pretty big distinction between using a gun for self-defense and using it to hurt innocent people, but Mr. Moore doesn't seem to attend to this.

Part of the problem with this movie, I think, is the fact that Michael Moore is tackling an extremely complex subject. The reasons behind America's high murder rate is vastly more complex than the reasons behind General Motors' abandonment of their plant in Flint, Michigan (the topic covered in Moore's superb first effort, "Roger & Me"). In "Roger & Me", it was easy to identify the GM CEO as the villain, which accordingly made it easy to identify with Michael Moore as the hero. In the issues covered in this film, however, there are (understandably) no clear villains, and the ones Michael Moore classifies as villains seem more like innocent bystanders to me (or at the very least, potential villains whose guilt is assuredly not verified), which makes Moore himself seem all the more villainous for relentlessly chasing them down.

I didn't enjoy this one much.

The film featured very little character development--for instance, Gene Hackman acted pretty well, but I had no idea where his character's motivations were coming from, so I couldn't understand him or relate to him at all. By the end of the movie, most of the characters were still in the exact same psychological state that they started in (they had no "arc"). Since everyone was incredibly boring and flat, I never really got attached to any of them or cared about their fate.

The plot was so-so; there weren't really any big "twists" in it and it wasn't particularly unique or provocative, which would be OK with me if it weren't for the fact that there isn't much else of interest in the rest of the film.

Sure, the movie is "gritty", but that alone doesn't make a movie worth watching. There are plenty of detective dramas I've seen that weren't as gritty as this, but the fact that they had excellent plots and/or interesting characters whom I came to care about made those movies vastly more entertaining than this one. Put simply, there was very little in this film that drew me into its world, besides some beautiful cinematography and a great car chase scene--possibly one of the best car chase scenes I've ever seen, actually, but it still didn't redeem the movie for me.

Well, let me start out by mentioning that I've only read the first 100 pages of the Fellowship of the Ring, so I'm not really in a position to compare the film to the book. Despite this, I'd like to make some comparisons. Which could be a very stupid decision on my part, but what the hell. Just take what I say with a big chunk of salt.

In comparing the film to the book, I'm not concerned about technical details--I don't get hung up over the fact that the plots of the two movies may be slightly different. I'm more interested in the feeling and mood. In this vein, I would easily call the movie "action-packed", but I would not say the same of the book. One of the things I really admired about the small part I read of the book was, well, the "patience" of it all. Maybe that's not the right word for it, but one of the things that set LOTR apart from other fantasy novels for me was the way Tolkien used the English language, and the way he paced the story. Everything I read had a very balanced, restrained mood to it--even parts that had a lot of action. For instance, the dark riders in the book evoked in me not a sense of horror or outright thrill (as they did in the film), but more of a malicious kind of mysteriousness. And that mysteriousness was subtle, or at least restrained: the less Tolkien used language to concretely describe the actions and appearances of the riders, the more scary they seemed in my mind. For me, at least. And although I only read 100 pages of it, LOTR didn't really seem like the kind of work that would focus on battles and fighting mayhem quite as much as the film--in fact, as I recall, those hundred pages I read didn't mention a single one.

Well, anyways, that's just a few examples. In the end, all I can really say is that the film was very visceral and intense, and what I read of the book was not. The special effects were wonderful, but many times the film was just visually over-stimulating, flooding me with so much eye candy that my eyes just went sort of "numb" to it all and I got bored. And sometimes I felt as though substituting some special effects with more traditional techniques--such as cutting, changes in cinematography or more abstract visual presentation (e.g. showing the shadows of the dark riders instead of what they actually looked like), or simply the removal of the effects--could have made parts of the movie more immersive. A few of the characters were paper-thin, such as the dwarf Gimli, and a few were just underdeveloped or a little confusing because they didn't have very much screen time, like Galadriel.

All this isn't to say that the movie didn't have its memorable moments; in fact, it had many. Although some of the action scenes in the movie got very tedious and routine, some of it was also incredibly cool. Although nothing in the movie was really tear-jerking for me, I did share the joys and laments of some of the more well developed characters. All of the performances were great. And knowing what I don't like about the movie now, I imagine I'll focus more on the positive aspects of the film when I see it next, and I'll probably enjoy it a lot more. For the time being, though, I do wish the film shared some of the "patient" style of storytelling that the book had--it would have been very interesting to see, say, Wim Wenders or Jim Jarmusch direct this--but at least the final product was far better than most other fantasy films I've seen.

This is the best movie about drugs I have ever seen, along with Gus Van Sant's "Drugstore Cowboy".

I loved the directing; in particular, I liked the documentary-like feel of the movie because it made me feel like I was watching a documentary about real life, not a Hollywood movie. This helped me get really attached to the characters (although much of that is, of course, due to the script and many other factors); normally when I'm watching a movie, I'm thinking "well, I wonder if they're going to kill this guy off now" but in Traffic I was surprised to find myself actually caring about the characters as though they were real people.

One of the greatest things that I think Traffic has going for it, much moreso than other anti-drugwar films like Drugstore Cowboy, is due to the potential impact the film has on the general public. Most drug films I've seen are very liberal and are geared towards a younger audience; I would be fairly reluctant to show Drugstore Cowboy to my 50-something mother, for example. However, despite the fact that some say that we know everything Traffic tells us about the drug war, I think there are a lot of people who don't know everything Traffic tells us about drug war, and Traffic is the best movie to enlighten them precisely because it's so accessible to all audiences--not just to the Green Party supporters who think drugs should be legalized, but to anyone concerned about the drug war, whether they're ultra-liberal, ultra-reactionary, or somewhere in the middle. For instance, my mother saw Traffic and said she learned a good deal from it.

Another thing I liked best about the film was its sympathy (and realism) in portraying all parties involved--most of the main characters who used or trafficked drugs weren't portrayed as the "no-good punks" or "heartless profit-mongers" that the elderly have often stereotyped drug users and traffickers as, and most of the main characters who were fighting the war on drugs (particularly Michael Douglas' character) weren't the blind idiots that young liberals have often stereotyped government officials as. Of course, such stereotypes do come from reality, so they should be in the movie to some extent, and they are: but fortunately most of those stereotypes weren't the main characters that the film focused on. Rather, they were embodied by the individuals who shaped the environment around the main characters, which I think was a great idea.

Someone mentioned that they thought the idea of the "valedictorian drug user" was a total cliche in Hollywood, but I don't think that could be further from the truth. Maybe I haven't seen the same drug-oriented movies as everyone else, but I can't recall a single film other than Traffic in which such intelligent and downright "dorky" people--people like my friends, who play trivia games answering questions about Greek playwrights on their laptop in their spare time--were avid drug users. In my opinion (and my mother's, actually), the film's portrayal of teenage drug use was actually one of the most poignant parts of the movie.

And as for those people who were disappointed that the film didn't mention the legalization of drugs: I think this movie is meant to portray the problems with drugs and the drug war; it is not meant to offer solutions. Furthermore, the film would've had to be extended by at least an hour if it even delved into the issue of legalization, and moreover it probably would've freaked out conservative audience members to the point that they wouldn't listen to everything else important and eye-opening that the film had to say. It also probably would've had to take a stance on the issue of legalization if it brought it up, and since legalization is about as touchy a topic as abortion or euthanasia, it's probably a good idea that the film didn't address it. Taking a stance on such an issue would've undoubtedly branded the film as being either liberal or conservative: and in my opinion, the greatest asset of Traffic is that it essentially denies itself a political stance, which is a rarity amongst drug-themed films.

I still don't know what to think of this film. Maybe I'm missing something. I revere Bjork as a goddess, but this movie just didn't touch me. Many actions of the characters seemed illogical (normally I don't mind this, but this was happening to the extreme), and contrived in the sense that I felt as though the director was trying desperately to make me feel sorry for the main character.

The musical scenes were a refreshing and unique addition to the movie, although I was expecting an excellence of choreography and directing more along the lines of Bjork's "It's Oh So Quiet" music video; the musical numbers in this movie seemed very clunky in comparison to that masterpiece, but maybe they were supposed to be that way and I'm just missing the point of the film. (On the other hand, maybe Spike Jonze--the director of "It's Oh So Quiet"--should've directed this.)

The colors and texture of the video were also disappointing for me, but that was probably Von Trier's intention... The muddy palette, along with the handheld camera and the digital video compression artifacts and the "cut & paste" style of editing made the film seem more like a documentary, and in that sense the realism was enhanced, but at the same time ... the colors were just so vomitous, and the poor quality of the digital video made it seem like the theatre was playing a pirated MPEG version of the movie off the Internet. This isn't really a complaint; I guess it's just a matter of personal taste.

Bjork's acting was superb, and so was her music. In fact, I think everyone in the movie did a fine acting job--it's just the script that made the film seem illogical and contrived to me.

Maybe my expectations for this movie were just way too high, or I was missing something crucial when I watched it. Still, when I watch a very good tragedy, I don't only feel sorry for the main character, but I also feel like I've gotten this sort of "portrait of humanity," or been given something to reflect on--at the very least, something more than simply feeling sorry for the protagonist. With this movie, though, I just ended up wondering why the hell things hadn't gone differently, and as a result I felt as though the director had set up this "crash course" for Selma just so I could feel sorry for her, and nothing more.

Still, maybe I'm just missing something and I need to see the film a second time to really appreciate it.

The thing I liked most about this movie is that nearly every time I thought the movie was slipping into a cliche, it managed to hurl itself the opposite direction and make fun of the cliche that I thought it was falling into.

Because I'd heard this movie compared to Pulp Fiction so much, I was comparing it to Pulp Fiction a little when I saw it... I definitely liked the humor in this movie more than Pulp Fiction's; not only was the script excellent, but the lines were delivered in such a way that even if I knew what a character was going to say, I laughed out loud because of how well they put it. The way the director used cutting to reveal new information made the jokes even funnier. But what makes this humor more entertaining (for me) than Pulp Fiction's is its taste... Both movies seem to make fun of cliches and genre & cultural conventions, but Go's is a bit more tame. For instance, in Pulp Fiction, I thought it was funny to see the big bad crime boss get his butt kicked, but not to see his butt get raped. In Go, just when I think that the humor's on the edge of going too far, it stops and turns to something else.

Anyways, I found this movie to be very enjoyable, and the pop soundtrack was great. It's definitely a refreshing change from most of today's formulaic comedies where I constantly find myself waiting for the movie to end.

Ever since I saw this for the first time when I was a kid in the early 90's, I always revered it as one of the best comic book movies of all time, up there (in my opinion) with "X-Men", "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm", "The Crow", and a handful of others.

Well, I don't know why I did that. I just saw it for the first time in several years, and it was pretty boring. The visuals are beautiful to behold, the costumes and set design are nothing short of perfection, but that's about it... Much of the dialogue is rather corny, and character development is severely lacking. I particularly hated Vicky Vale, who is nothing but a blonde cardboard cutout with absolutely no background or personality and does a lot more screaming than talking; since much of the story revolves around Vale, it makes the movie a lot more boring, and I was constantly wondering why Batman was in love with such a robot. Even the Joker's character is a bit confusing, because I couldn't really fathom how such a serious, suave, gritty psychotic gangster could suddenly be transformed into this laughter-crazed lunatic with a twisted sense of humor. I thought the personality of the young Joker-to-be chronicled in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" was much more believable as a precursor to the Joker than Nicholson's rendition of Jack Napier.

The Elfman score is good and fits in well, particularly the main Batman theme. However, the Prince music really dates the movie: if this film didn't have that music, it would have a very timeless atmosphere, which is the kind of thing that Gotham really needs, as evoked in "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" and the rest of the animated series. As it is, the Prince music is the film's only cultural artifact that makes me feel like I'm looking at Gotham in the 1980's.

Even the action sequences are rather silly and contrived, saturated with things that just "look cool" but utterly destroy suspension of disbelief due to their unfathomable lack of logic... Masters of action like John Woo and James Cameron can make the utterly unbelievable seem quite believable, but either Tim Burton can't do this or the person who designed these action sequences just plain sucks. Or maybe my expectations for this movie were just way too high and I was criticizing it far too much.

In any case, I saw "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed it much more than this: it had better character development, better dialogue, better action sequences, and the visuals were superb (though it's still not quite as gorgeous as this movie).

I'll start out with what I loved about this film. Technically, the visuals are beautiful; the way that computer graphics are integrated with traditional hand-drawn cel animation gives the movie a very unique look and feel. The animation is also very fluid. The soundtrack is excellent and fun to listen to, definitely a refreshing change from the classical score of most American animated films (although I'm sure it's the kind of thing that I'll look at in ten years and find incredibly cheesy, but nonetheless I'll still revel in its nostalgia).

This film's story is very good. The premise of a tale that takes place after Earth has been destroyed is incredibly dark for an American animated film, and that also makes it very unique and refreshing, because most films of this sort aren't very dark at all. I'm sure this makes the film very marketable to today's generation of post-grunge, angst-ridden adolescents, but at the same time the movie isn't just "dark for the sake of being dark": the unusual, hopeless atmosphere is genuinely intriguing and makes you feel empathic towards the entire human race, not just the main characters, and it also serves to effectively evoke the themes which the story touches upon--the loss of a home and the absence of unity, the meaning of hope and its relation to trust. The characters are deep and interesting, with dark sides and emotional complexities that aren't usually present in films of this type. As I hinted at earlier, the story is also unique in that it centers around the hopelessness and redemption of an entire race, not just the main characters--and this is carried throughout the entire film, because at the end of the movie, you're still interested in the fate of humanity, not just whether the main characters live or die. This is different from most animated films like Disney's "Aladdin," in which the focus is clearly on the individuals: you really want Jafar to die because he's a selfish worm and he's trying to kill our heroes Aladdin and Jasmine, but you're not so concerned about the fact that Jafar is a despotic tyrant who will ruin the lives of millions of people if he isn't stopped.

The only thing that crushes this film is the way the story is executed. Most of the dialogue is very poorly written and cliche, which makes characters' otherwise interesting emotional complexities seem trite and generic. Character developments are believable and even innovative at the level of an abstract storyline, but are made thoroughly vague and unexplained through the movie's terrible scripting. For instance, in the movie's love story subplot, the transition that occurs when two of the main characters turn from casual friends to intimate lovers is completely abrupt and unexplained; there actually is no transition, because in one scene they're friends, and in the next scene they're lovers. There are many more parts of the movie that could've been made much more immersive and believable if only the writers had added or changed some of the dialogue.

As it is, Titan A.E. is still a refreshing film for me because of its dark atmosphere, unique story, gorgeous visuals and great soundtrack. If only the script had been much better, this movie could have easily been one of my favorite animated films of all time.

Well, I don't know. I was expecting the same kind of profound statements on drug use here that I found in "Drugstore Cowboy," but for me it was more of a fun look at drug culture. The visual imagery, use of color, and surrealness of the protagonist's hallucinations are superbly done and a joy to watch. The fecal humor, on the other hand, is not. Human excrement is about the only thing in the world that really sickens me, and there are two or three scenes in this film that never made me want to take a crap again. I think the film could've evoked that yummy fecal imagery in just as effective a way if it were left to the viewer's visual imagination instead of being thrown in our face (literally), but that's just me... I'm probably just a chicken that can't stand the sight of poop.

Personal problems aside, the performances are great, many of the (non-fecal) scenes are incredibly funny, and I like the fact that the film has neither a pro-drug nor anti-drug attitude. Rather, you get equal parts of both sides, a feel of both how great and horrible it would be to be on heroin.

But what made this movie "fun" rather than "profound" for me was, I think, the fact that I never really got attached to any of the characters--they were all very enjoyable to watch and had interesting and extreme personalities, but they were all portrayed as caricatures rather than as three-dimensional individuals with emotional complexity. This is partially due to the perspective through which we're watching the film--we see the world through the eyes of a heroin addict named Mark Renton. He's always referring to his companions as his "so-called friends," meaning that his friendships are ones of pure convenience. As a result, none of the characters ever have an emotional conversation with one another, or reveal any honest emotional content at all. The advantage of this was that I was really detached from the characters and had the ability to laugh at their misfortunes, but the downside of it was that I couldn't really relate to any of the characters at all because of it; my lifestyle and outward behavior is completely different from theirs, and I never got a chance to look into their head because they never expressed their thoughts or feelings, so I just couldn't relate. I suppose that Renton is a possible exception to this, since the film is told through his point of view and we hear all his thoughts.

So, I guess my only valid complaint about the film (the poop problem is just a personal "pet peeve") is that I can't relate to any of the characters except Renton. Everything else about the movie makes it really fun, but not too profound or insightful because I just can't perceive most of the characters as human beings. Maybe that will change on a second viewing, though. As it is, however, the film is definitely worth watching for its superb visuals, its caricature-like individuals, its humor, and its portrayal of drug culture... Though for me, it's still not as blatantly brilliant and heartfelt a statement about drug use as Gus Van Sant's "Drugstore Cowboy."

This is one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen, partially because of its homoeroticism, because the fact that the protagonist is practically a stalker, and because of the very mature, realistic, and touching way in which the film depicts the story and its characters. The film is funny in many places, but for me, it was mostly a drama.

I've never seen a movie quite like this before. It's the kind of film that wasn't necessarily entertaining for me, but undoubtedly intriguing and thought-provoking. Definitely worth a second viewing.

Sure, I enjoyed Rushmore better, but this was still a very enjoyable film for me. I love Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson's focus on underachievers; it's very refreshing, honest, and sincere. The people in this movie aren't glamorous movie stars with perfect bodies and sharp minds, but at the same time they're not depressingly unmotivated drug addicts either; they're utterly mediocre individuals and are very interesting because of it. In particular, Owen Wilson's character is very interesting because, although he is a total underachiever, he thinks he is destined for great things--and rather than ridiculing him, like a conventional comedy may have done, the filmmakers have chosen instead to sympathize with him, or at least to portray him in an unbiased light. In other words, he's depicted as a human being rather than a comic relief device. All the characters in the film are very humorous, but they never feel like they're just "funny factories" that churn out one pre-fabricated joke after another without having any personality or emotional complexity.

As with Rushmore, the soundtrack to this movie is awesome.

If you like films with strong plots that really motivate the story, though, you might not like this. I thought the movie was more of a character study or a "road trip" story than a film with a definite message or purpose.

Well, after seeing 4 or 5 other high school comedy-dramas, I found this one to be the worst of the lot... Not that it's a bad movie, it's just bland, particularly compared to the others I've seen--American Graffiti, Dazed & Confused, Sixteen Candles, American Pie, Clueless (by the same director as this film), and a few others. The themes covered in this movie are just like the other ones, the main one being the discovery of "true love" as more important and more worthwhile than sex. The characters seemed pretty uninteresting compared to the hilarious caricatures populating "The Breakfast Club" or the more emotionally complex characters from "Dazed & Confused" and "Clueless." For me, Sean Penn and Judge Reinhold were the only really hilarious people in the film, and I never really got emotionally attached to anyone.

The only thing I really valued about the film was the fact that a bunch of famous 80's actors are in it, and it's an interesting look at the culture of the time period. Other than that, it was pretty boring for me. Maybe it's just because the more recent high school movies I mentioned have used this movie as a template, copied from it and improved on it to the point that the original just feels generic.

I've never been to a rave before, so I can't say anything about how realistic this film is.

I've also never used drugs before, but I really liked the way drug use was portrayed in the movie... One of the characters mentions that when it comes to drugs, it's best to be "baked not fried," which I interpreted as "using not abusing." The parallel threads we see evolve throughout the film observe people who don't use drugs at all, others who use them, and others who abuse them... All but the last case end up decidedly happy and content. But the film also remains very open minded and non-judgemental about the abusers; it refuses to condemn them, but rather it simply shows the results of what they do and allows the audience to form an opinion of these people on their own.

Another interesting theme I noticed was the fact that although raves are a great experience, there might be more to life than having a good time... One of the ravers explains how she has spent her entire life going to raves and has enjoyed herself, but somehow feels unsatisfied about what she's doing with her life. The idea that people must face fear in their lives in order to be content is presented, but a conclusion is never made, once again allowing the audience to use the film as "food for thought" and figure it out on their own terms.

The soundtrack to the film is great, as are the visuals... The movie has a very energetic feel to it that really made me want to be at a rave, even though I might not end up liking it.

If you want an interesting slice of American filmmaking and generational portraits from the 1950's, 70's, and 90's, I suggest consecutively viewing American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and this film. All of these films are done in a fairly similar style (following multiple story threads at the same time, being non-judgemental about the characters) and have a very feel-good atmosphere about them while still portraying the atmosphere, lifestyle, and challenges of a generation in a very interesting and entertaining way.

I recently saw this movie for the first time since I had seen it in theatres nearly ten years ago, when I was in the fifth grade. I was expecting very little, mostly just watching it for nostalgia.

Well, I got a lot more than nostalgia.

This was still a really fun movie to watch, almost as fun as it was ten years ago. The production and martial arts work is done by Golden Harvest, the same company that made a lot of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and other Hong Kong action films; so the action in this flick is well done and really fun to watch.

The costumes are done by Jim Henson's company, and look very, very nice--in my opinion, even better than the aliens in The Phantom Menace, which look a bit too "clean" and "polished" to be very realistic in my opinion... Splinter and the turtles actually look gritty here, like they really live in a sewer.

Sure, the movie's campy at points, what do you expect from a film that's made for kids? The thing is that a lot of the lines that are supposed to be funny actually *are* funny, although part of this might be due to nostalgia. Surprisingly, though, this movie has a lot of drama in it, and some serious themes are addressed; friendship and teamwork, of course, but also the problem of troubled youth in modern America. The enemies the Turtles face aren't just "evil bad-guys," but misguided children and teenagers who have been estranged from their families because their parents are so busy working all the time that they don't spend any time with them, so these youngsters have gone elsewhere to find a sense of belonging. This makes the conflict in the TMNT movie much more two-sided and interesting than "Batman versus the Joker," as violence isn't the only solution that the Turtles resort to when facing their enemy. Of course, The Shredder is still the Embodiment of Pure Evil and it's fun to watch the interplay between the good guys and bad guys on that level... But the other great part of this movie is the redemption of the youngsters. Sure, it's melodramatic and campy, but it's well-executed in my opinion. The development of the unstable friendship of the four turtles is also carried out really well, and Splinter ain't no Yoda, but he's still an awesome (and very funny) father figure.

The plot is excellent, involving some nice tie-ins to feudal Japan, and the characters are very well-developed, unlike the cardboard characters featured in most other comic book movies. Overall, I know a lot of my enjoyment for this movie comes from nostalgia for the Turtles, this movie definitely isn't Oscar material or anything, but I would have to say that it's still probably one of my favorite comic book movies of all time, ranking (in my opinion) just behind the masterpieces like the first Batman movie, X-Men, the Crow, and some others.

This film is what I expected it to be: a light-hearted drama with some comedy. The movie doesn't attempt to handle the issue of alcoholism in quite as deep (and therefore depressing) a way as films like "Days of Wine and Roses" or "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," the only other two movies I've seen about alcoholism, but at the same time it is does handle the issue in a serious and mature manner. The way the movie switches between the seriousness of substance abuse and the somewhat comic nature of the addicts at the rehab clinic gets kind of confusing at first because you don't really know if the movie is trying to make you laugh or listen, but ultimately you learn to accept all the characters as human beings, whether they're supposed to be comic relief or not.

After reading some of the comments posted here on the IMDB, I have no idea why some people expected a movie about an alcoholic woman going to a rehab clinic to be a laugh-a-minute comedy. This movie is more of an uplifting drama with comedy mixed in, and anyone who goes to it expecting nothing but laughs and escapism will probably not enjoy it much.

The dialogue is horrible. The characters are cardboard cutouts, formed from mixes of genre stereotypes and characters from bad Mel Brooks movies, and none of them are really developed at all through the whole film, with the possible exception of Leloo. Because of these things, it was impossible for me to care whatsoever for any of them.

The theme of the film--basically that we should make love, not war--is ignored for most of the movie and then shoved in our faces at the very end in a very trite manner. The romance between Willis and Jovovich is extremely underdeveloped. Although many of the things that happen in the movie are funny, many of them are also rather predictable and a few even seem like they were taken directly from an episode of Full House.

The film did have its positives, though. The visuals were gorgeous, and the direction (cinematography and editing) was quite nice. The junk airship was really cool. Watching Leloo make chicken was very funny.

But all that wasn't enough to make this movie any better than mediocre. Altogether, this movie is very shallow, predictable, and because the characters weren't developed enough for me to care for them throughout the course of the film, it was very boring to sit through.

I think that the problem with making a feature-length feature of the X-Men is that the X-Men are an ensemble cast. Instead of only really having one or two main protagonists to develop, as is the case with most comic-book movies like Batman and Superman, this film has to develop an enormous number of characters. For the 1 1/2 hours that the movie runs, I think it does as good a job as it could in developing the characters that it chooses to depict from the comic book series. The adaptations of the characters are well placed into "the real world" of live-action film; they're not these spandex-clad commandos where every one of them knows some sort of martial art and has bulging muscles. In fact, they're more or less normal people who are different from us only because of their mutant abilities. That makes them much easier to relate to for a live-action film and also makes the premise of the X-Men much more believable in a real-world context.

Altogether, I do wish I could have gotten to know the characters a little better, but there's only so much you can tell about so many characters in just an hour and a half; I guess I wish the film was a bit longer and had a little more character development. As it is, though, the movie is one of the best comic book adaptations I've ever seen; the action is good, the characters well-done, and the dialogue is very effective, funny, and doesn't insult the intelligence. Also, the issue of Mutant persecution, particularly its relationship with the Holocaust, is executed very well, although it would've been nice if Magneto wasn't so vilified and if his side of the story was sympathized with a little more.

All in all, this was a very enjoyable movie. Congratulations to Bryan Singer and his team for making a great film!

The most disappointing thing about this film is Lana, the character that Rebecca De Mornay portrays. I have no idea why anyone would be attracted to her for any reason other than her body, because everything else about her is utterly bland and boring. She doesn't seem to have too many thoughts in her head, all she really seems to think is that people shouldn't be judged by how much education they have--which is a fine thought, but she doesn't have many others. She never really seems happy, or sad for that matter, mostly just indifferent throughout the entire movie, even when she's having sex with Cruise. Except for when she's getting angry at her old boss, she doesn't seem to have any kind of personality whatsoever. Altogether I really have no idea why Tom Cruise's character is interested in Lana beyond her usefulness as a sex object. And because Lana is supposed to be the catalyst that causes Cruise's character transformation, it makes the whole story much less effective because I have no idea why or how such a robot could ever have such an effect on Cruise.

Besides that, the movie is reasonably interesting and entertaining. The whole "what the f**k" theme is fun, but the movie would've been much more fun if De Mornay's character had a lot more depth.

Well, at first Julia Roberts' character annoyed me. She was completely devoid of tact. An early scene in the movie in which Ms. Brockovich goes through a trial quickly reveals most of this negative side and although you understand that she's not in a very good position in her life, you don't have an overwhelming amount of sympathy for her, which is good. The rest of the film reveals that, despite her flaws, she's quite a humanist and will fight brutally to get what she believes is justice; not only that, but her flaws make her a very interesting and entertaining character.

Unlike more complex law dramas, this film doesn't really get into what the true meaning of "justice" really is or any of that philosophical stuff, but then again it doesn't need to. The story is pretty straightforward, and it's told in a very elegant way. There are a few holes, such as why it seems as though Ms. Brockovich doesn't reveal to her family that she's *helping* people (as opposed to merely working 24/7) until near the end of the film, as well as a few other odd breaks in communication, but nothing major.

Another thing that sort of annoyed me was the way that Ms. Brockovich is portrayed as the "genius" behind the whole case and basically does all the work while everyone else putzes around. But hey, what can one expect from a Hollywood melodrama.

For me, the most interesting things about the film are definitely the characters portrayed by Roberts, Eckhart, and Finney. They're all very human, and reveal some interesting things about a person's appearance (including their manner of speaking) versus what they're really like, beyond a merely superficial level. In particular, I like how the movie makes a point of implying how much of an illusion cuss words are, how little they tell us about a person who uses them, and the way that someone who never uses them at all and speaks in the most eloquent manner can be hundreds of times more cruel and immoral than someone who uses them dozens of times in a single sentence.

The only problem I had with this film was that it seemed like it was trying to convey several different messages but it never seemed to glue them all together. When I started watching this film, and from what I had read from the back of the movie box, it seemed like it was going to mostly be a film about the unlikely friendship between two people, about how two very different individuals can share many things in common. As I continued watching the film, more themes creeped in, such as the nature of oral tradition and exaggeration/lying within it, what it means to be a Native American in the middle of the nation that oppressed your people, and the nature of fatherhood and forgiveness.

The film ends up addressing or at least giving us something interesting to think about for all of these issues, but it just seemed like too many themes to address in 90 minutes. It seems as though the last issue I mentioned (fatherhood/forgiveness) ends up being the most prevalent one, but it seemed like it was touched on so mildly that I didn't quite understand its resolution beyond a very basic, generic level.

By far the most valuable thing about the film, for me, was its depiction and perspective of modern Native American life and culture. It adds a great deal of insight, humor, and uniqueness to the film, particularly considering the fact that this was the first major film entirely written, directed, co-produced and starring Native Americans. In fact, I really think the film would've been a lot more interesting if it were just about the two characters going out into America to perform some inconsequential errand, and building a friendship along the way, learning from one another's perspectives on Native American life and culture. As it is, the whole fatherhood element really adds a lot of extra baggage to the film that didn't seem to fit well into its 90 minutes of storytelling.

Much of my dissatisfaction for the film, however, could be attributed to the fact that I had very different expectations for the film when I started watching it. Because the movie deals with so many themes, I think it's worth at least a second viewing so that one can take it all in. Regardless of its perceived flaws, although it's not an entirely coherent film to me, it still offered a very insightful perspective to Native American life and culture, and it was very enjoyable to watch.

This film is very entertaining. In the world of action films where the plot serves merely as a vehicle for the action, this movie stands out because it's the other way around. The story is very engrossing and has so many unique twists that you're always on the edge of your seat, wondering what's going to happen next. The film also makes use of genre archetypes, such as with the character of Azul, so that it can create audience expectations and then break them by showing that the person really doesn't fit an archetype at all. However, at the same time many characters stay with their archetype, so you never really know what to expect from anyone in the film.

Rodriguez's use of cutting is brilliant, and it really shows how much more powerful and evocative straight cutting can be than following people around with a steadicam. The editing gives the film a Woo-like sense of pacing; the action is given in small doses between long intervals so you really savor it. Rodriguez's use of subjective point-of-view, such as playing a tire-screeching sound as the camera stops tracking, adds a lot of humor to the film, particularly when you least expect it. This is a rare action flick that doesn't take itself too seriously, and that makes it even more enjoyable to watch.

The approach this film takes to storytelling is interesting, but somewhat confusing. I've never seen a cross between a science fiction film and a period film set in the Victorian era, so this was a refreshing change of pace; but many aspects of it were not handled well.

The way that a person in the present can communicate with someone in the past isn't outlined very well, although I've only seen this movie once and maybe I need to see it again. Communicating with someone in the past has something to do with something called "DNA memory" which I don't quite understand. I consider myself to be fairly well-informed about the general concepts of computer science but the way that Emmy explained her interfacing with individuals and memories from the past seemed quite cryptic and unintuitive... I don't really mind the fact that this isn't explained well--plenty of unexplained, far-fetched science fiction premises can still yield a viewer's suspension of disbelief--but the contact between present and past seems to be taken in stride rather than as something utterly magnificent. If I suddenly found out how to talk to my favorite historical figure and see his or her memories on a screen, I would be quite a bit more excited than Emmy, her husband, or her strange mentor. This is one of the film's biggest incongruencies, and it destroyed my suspension of disbelief.

Although I do appreciate the fact that the director attempted to integrate the digital technology (the uses of which Ada Byron predicted) into the film, it didn't seem to work that well at all. The backgrounds looked very two-dimensional (partially because no characters ever travelled much within a shot, and very little tracking and panning was done to give the environment a three dimensional feel, though such camera movements must be nearly impossible when the digital environments are two-dimensional to begin with). The fire effect in particular looked incredibly fake as the rest of the digital environment didn't respond properly to the flickering of the flames, so altogether the cinematography in the Victorian era was horrendous and reminded me of something from old CD-ROM adventure games like Phantasmagoria or Gabriel Knight II.

The portrayal of Ada's character was very well-done, however, effectively displaying both Ada's desires and modern ideas as well as her imprisonment by social standards and the people around her. In particular, her final speech near the end of the film is very well done.

One of my complaints about the film, however, is that none of the male characters really seem to be fleshed out at all; they're all very two-dimensional, without too much depth or personality, which really makes the film seem very gender biased.

Although I did enjoy the film overall and I thought the blend of science fiction and period filmmaking was a novel idea, I really think that this could've been a much better experience if the science fiction premise had been dropped entirely and the movie had just been a period film. I actually like science fiction very much and I'm generally not interested in period films dealing with repression and social mores, but Ada's character is particularly interesting because her interests are so modern--they have so much application to today's world and today's ideas.

I think that by adding the sci-fi premise to the film weakened it overall; with the ubiquitousness of the Internet, today's audiences generally know the ways in which computers can be used and this film's hasty, fleeting vision of someone in the present communicating with someone in the past only adds confusion to the film, not a sense of wonder about Ada's conceptions and the potential of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. I rather would've spent more time learning about the different kinds of ideas that Ada had from her point of view. As it is, the film spends so much time divided between the present world and Ada's world that it doesn't really have enough time to fully develop either of them.