Reviews

This is one of those wonderful films where everything comes together. The acting and the writing is by far the most impressive elements of this film. William Holden and Peter Finch should have both received Oscars for their performances, instead of just Peter Finch. Faye Dunaway pulls of the most dynamic and emotional characters she has ever played.

The true brilliance of this film is that all elements of it fade appropriately behind the actors and their messages. The film is completely a work of storytelling and, at least for the writer, stunning clarity of message and purpose. Political films come and go but few remain in the annals of film because of their effectiveness at their own message.

The cinematography, editing, sound, costume design, art direction and production design are all quite simplistic. In some scenes the film can be accused of being almost ugly. However this all lends to the back-washing of the film so as to allow the message to ring loudest. In my opinion, Sidney Lumet took this just a little too far and thus I give it a 9 instead of a 10.

This is certainly a film for the history books. Every connoisseur of film should be exposed to this movie at some point in their life. If you happen to be cynical, then you will love every minute of this movie as its stark view of life in the 1970's (and onward) touches the hard of even the hardest of cynics. For those educators out there, GREAT film for classes on Media and Politics.

Some people loved this rendition of Lewis Carol's work, others completely hated it. It was by no means a stunning success. I could spend the next several lines explaining what went wrong and what went right, but I won't. This isn't that type of movie.

I recommend this for a very simple reason. The movie is full of great talent. Great performances? Not really. But great talent. The enjoyment of this movie is watching some of the true greats in playful roles. If you watch this expecting great acting performances and great cinematic moments with inspiring music then you are a fool. It was never meant to be anything more than a delightfully fun experience with great moments. (Sammy Davis Jr. as the Catapillar is a great example.)

I can't describe this any other way than to say that Harry Harris got some of the most recognizable faces of Hollywood to put on stupid costumes and act crazy. Even if you don't recognize many of the names on the cast list you should watch it anyways. Several faces will be familiar without your knowing their names.

My major criticism (and warning) many of the songs are very hokey. In some scenes its damn annoying. Most people who demonize this film attack the music first and hardest. Its up to you to sit through the musical numbers you don't like and enjoy the rest of the film. IF you accept this adaptation for what it is and watch it for the right reasons, I guarantee you will be pleased you spent the time.

The Village manages to do absolutely nothing original or interesting.

Where many reviews focus on the plot and its various elements, this one will competely ignore the plot and focus on the Artistic elements of the film.

As usual, M. Night Shyamalan provides a very well-crafted setting for his story. On a fundamental level, there is nothing out of place or odd. However, that is this films greatest flaw. A society completely isolated, which has been around long enough for children to be born and raised, and there is

ABSOLUTELY nothing unique to this village other than the prohibition against

the color Red.

Limiting the set and costume design by dropping a color is a nice touch, but there isn't much story behind it. On a political level, the society is as communal as they could possibly make it....very Red if you follow political color schemes.

In short, Shyamalan's greatest asset in his film-making has always been his eye for detail, color, and visual ploys/plays. It just doesn't happen in The Village. It is lack-luster at best. Music is bland, cinematography is

unimpressive. Costume Design and Set Design is at the level of a badly funded stage play.

Take all of this and combine it with an unimaginative scrupt and you get

nothing special.

On to Acting: Joaquin Phoenix does an effective enough job, but it is not up to his usual standards. He seems less than interested with the world that

Shyamalan gives him, which I blame the director for more than the actor. Adrien Brody does an exquisite job playing Noah Percy. The character

illuminates a drab screen and ands interest and intrigue. The true gem of this film is Bryce Dallas Howard. Her character is vibrant, well-acted, interesting and commanding. She pulls out of the script a

performance that was frankly better than this film deserved. Expect her to thunder onto the Hollywood main-stage as soon as she gets a role worth

playing.

Her performance, along with Adrien Brody, help keep this film from being a

dismal failure. Add to it an acceptable, visual concept, and you get a 4 out of 10.

Tim Burton creates a masterpiece of visual intrigue. A modern-day film-noir that pulls together every element of film-making in a manner that would make the

masters like Hitchcock and Welles jealous.

Every bit of this films masterwork exists in the set design, art direction, cinematography and the haunting original score by Danny Elfman. This is not to belittle the efforts of the director and the actors, but to reiterate the fact that Sleepy Hollow drives on the visuals that create the entire feel of the film.

The acting is worth note. The cast includes some of today's well known british actors. The villain, crafted by Christopher Walkin, is less than well acted but understandable as the character is limited which gave him little breadth to build more interest for the Hessian outside of him being headless. Christina Ricci and Johnny Depp deliver good performances that meld nicely

together. The rest of the cast plays nicely and offers the feel of a fully integrated village society. Beyond that, several of the characters were formulaic, which is the films biggest problem. Another 25 - 30 minutes would have added more

time for the characters to be played as deeper and with more interest.

Of particular note, are the ethereal and simultaneously stark scenes which are the flashbacks of a young Ichabod Craine. These offer further hint to the visual masterwork of Tim Burton. Clearly an Auteur and a master director, Tim Burton gives us what will likely be one of his greats.

Shakespeare in Love is one of those films where every element comes together. However, it is to what level they come together that leaves it at less than perfect.

The Art Direction/Production Design, Costumes, Sets (in short the total

package visually) created a convincing and beautiful rendition of Elizabethan England. Was it an excellent rendition? No. The Designers used the said

elements to accentuate specific characters, and almost ignored others. Only the sets of the theatres, Greenwich, and the de Lesseps House were tended to with great care.

The score is less than memorable, yet it gets a Best Original Score win? Cinematography was done well enough, but there are whole scenes that frankly

could have been visualized better.

Acting: The acting is what makes this film play better than it prolly should. Rush, Wilkinson, Fiennes, Paltrow, and Dench all gave stellar performances. Rush, Wilkinson, and Dench clearly created characters that were, sadly, far

more interesting and entertaining than Paltrow and Fiennes. One of my biggest complaints with this film is that the supporting characters and cast are more interesting than the lead characters and cast. This is the biggest problem for the movie.

On to Writing: Tom Stoppard is an under-appreciated genious. His work is

interesting, thought-provoking, and always very carefully articulated. This film is very well crafted from beginning to end. The script, along with Dench, Rush, Wilkinsin, and Director John Madden's vision come together to make a classic.

So, why the criticism? This film is at a level [8 out of 10] where it is stale to say "great this, great that." At this level of filmmaking, it is necessary to tear apart what it could have done better to indicate the difference between 8, 9, and 10. because of the aforementioned problems, while excellent Shakespeare in Love

nets only an 8.

This is one of those Made-For-TV's that simply touched the hearts of American audiences when it was released back in 1984. I fondly remember this from my youth and highly recommend watching it if you can find a copy somewhere.

Jean Stapleton, Andy Gibb, and Don McManus give strong performances.

For those that don't remember, this is a classic little murder mystery put to song. The main story concept is that the main characters all meet for a will reading during which the guests find out they are directly or indirectly in line to inherit.

The fun and singing grows as guest after guest [and servants too] slowly start dying.

Any review of Troy must be necessarily long and complicated. It is one of those films that gets some things remarkably right and other things remarkably wrong. The result, imbalanced film-making and lengthy reviews.

The Cast:

Well, so far many have said this and I will add my voice to theirs: Brad Pitt??? Were they thinking? Pitt is a far better actor than most people criticizing this performance grant. But, this was not his performance. They tried harder to match body-type than Screen-Actor type and it hurt the film and Brad Pitt.

Orlando Bloom does a decent job but nothing close to what this kid is capable of. His acting is better than in LOTR and Pirates . . . so he's improving but, sadly, don't expect much from a Paris that comes off more pathetic than necessary

[Blame the script for this as well].

Brian Cox has a good performance but it is shadowed by the sheer brilliance of Peter O'Toole's job as the tragic king of Troy. Undoubtedly, O'Toole will land another Oscar Nod [Supporting of course] and he probably has his best chance of winning one in more than two decades. Eric Bana could surprise us with a

2nd Supporting Actor nod for Troy with a performance far better than many

anticipated. He captured the passion and reverence of Prince Hector in a way that shames most of the other cast members.

I can sum up the ladies of the cast in one word: Forgettable. None of the female characters stand up to their Male counter parts.

The Rest:

Cinematography is well done. Especially when one considers the Cinematographer was strapped with demands to make this film look like a marriage between Gladiator and LOTR. Wolfgang Petersen did a good job working with his Cinematographer to get, what in my opinion, are the best possible shots for the script in many areas.

Art Direction/Set Direction and Costume Design are well done. If you are a historian, archaeologist, or other purist prepare to be disappointed. The Costumes, while authentic looking, are authentic for other armies and other times. If accuracy is the issue, this stuff fails. If a unified wholistic image that is awe-inspiring in areas and captivating in others, then this stuff succeeds. In short, your degree of satisfaction is based on what degree of historical accuracy you are looking for.

Nothing special by way of the Script. Part of Pitt's and Orlando's failure is due to unremarkable lines and even awkward dialogue moments. Editing, Visual Effects, Sound, etc. all acceptable, even well done in areas but nothing so wonderful that we are talking multiple nominations for this film.

And, finally, the Score: James Horner is a great composer but this film's score is nothing more than a glue-job of pirated scores and themes. It is mainly influenced by Gladiator with echoes of even the Hercules/Zena t.v. series. Even more alarming is the direct cut of the main theme of Stargate for the final sequences of Troy and the burning of Achilles's body.

[On a historical accuracy note: There was a lot of Egyptian-like elements in the film. No doubt the use of the Stargate score meant to echo that.]

The Summation:

In short an enjoyable and well put together film. Serious issues in the script and the casting [more the fault of the casting director than the actors themselves] causes distinct problems. Definitely worth seeing once.

6.5/10

The Last Emperor is one of the best films of the 1980's It is one of those rare examples in which every element comes together to create a film that is well- rounded in its excellence.

Winner of 9 Academy Awards, the Last Emperor is without a doubt the greatest

of Bernardo Bertolucci's career. The film traces the life of the last emperor of China. He ruled from early 20th century through to the Chinese Revolution in

the 1940's. Rich in historical moments, and culture, The Last Emperor is a

visual masterpiece that accurately depicts the costume, architecture, and

traditions of Imperial China. It is these elements, the costume/design, Art Direction, etc. that help make The Last Emperor what is was and undoubtedly

will remain.

However, the film is not perfect and, in fact, has several flaws. First, and absolutely foremost, the acting is nothing great. Peter O'Toole and John Lone do decent work in the film but nothing great. This is certainly not one of Peter O'Toole's better roles. Arguably the practically emotion-less characterization of many of the characters in many of the scenes is part of the screenplay and

represents the dignity of the Chinese soul. However other films have done this well without having its characters seem tired and empty [Such as Raise the

Red Lanterns]

The story is well written but it is VERY slow [and VERY long] I do not see any reason to blame the scriptwriter but instead believe that Bertolucci needed to address the tempo of the film. Granted the tempo is what he wanted and I think that is the film's greatest weakness. In areas, the film is downright boring. This is, as I stated, no fault of the writing but instead of the director's intention to have this pace for the film. And, arguably, that is a cultural artifact of the Imperial Chinese culture. The methodical, ritualistic feel is authentic but too baneful for a film.

7.5/10

WARNING: If you are not up to a nearly 4 hour epic that is slow and methodical I strongly urge you make sure you are watching the Theatrical Release it is

under 3 hours. The DVD is the DIRECTOR'S CUT and is over an hour longer

than the theatrical release.

Van Helsing is another example of one of those plot concepts that simply fell apart because too much budget and time was spent on the effects.

Some things worth noting:

The opening sequence has some of the most stunning black white

cinematography since Schindler's list.

Throughout the whole film the Art Direction/Set Design was done excellently. Costume and Design was also done well. In short, the film was aesthetically

pleasing. [Incidentally, depending on the quality of this year's film on average, Van Helsing could find a nomination for Art Direction]

Acting: Kate Beckinsale fakes a great Romanian accent. The character of her brother is well acted and one of the few highlights in this film. Worthy of particular praise are Samuel West and Shuler Hensley. Their portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, respectively, are so accurate to earlier portrayals of the characters it is practically chilling.

David Wenham: Nice job on his part. Nothing award-winning but he designed

and acted his character well. Most of the funniest moments are due to his

delivery of lines and mannerism.

Key Problems: Plot: Too much is left unexplained. Particularly, Van Helsing's relationship to

Dracula. Attempts a mythological explanation for the Van Helsing character fail due to the lack of good plot exposition. Simply put, by the end of the film you get the feeling that three or four scenes, which are necessary for the plot, were cut from the film. What was intended to be interesting, almost mystical, simply fails to be

anything but confusing. Even with a good understanding of Christian

mythology, the film leaves blatant holes unfilled. [on a side note: what was with the reference to the Bavarian Illuminati? Talk about dropping symbols for nothing and not tying it to any plot point.] Like The Mummy and its sequel, the film had several one-liners and comedic

moments but many of them were flat, obvious, &/or simply not funny.

Acting: Kate Beckinsale did good work with the accent but the character is so much

more than that. Moments of power and moments of weakness oscillate with the

character. What starts as a smart and strategic character makes blatantly stupid decisions followed by being smart and tactical. Multiple personalities? Maybe. Her fault or the writers? Probably both.

Hugh Jackman was acceptable but, unlike in other roles of his, he seemed to

just walk through the lines. Comedy of this sort, like in the Mummy & its sequel, requires a great deal of effort on the part of the cast and it just didn't seem like that effort was there.

In summation: Save your money ! ! ! This film is worth renting, mainly for the one-liners. Diehard monster-movie buffs will want to watch this for the

Frankenstein-opening and a few other scenes.

Edward Zwick's The Last Samurai is one of those films worth seeing.

Regardless of how it sounds [that being "Tom Cruise goes to Japan"], it is much better than I and other thought it would be.

Before I go any further I want to make one point: The story is accurate to

Japanese culture on a superficial level. That being said, it is very easy to criticise this film because of its accuracy to cultural matters. Is it historically and culturally accurate? Depends on how deep you look and how much you know.

Suffice it to say, the film's accuracy was sufficient for it to not be a significant [not even minor] problem.

Moving on: As it has been said about many films in the past few years, it is unfortunate for Last Samurai that Lord of the Rings came out the same year.

This film would likely have swept Art Direction, Costume Design, and Sound. It also would have garnered nomination a nomination for Cinematography.

Visually, the film has perfectly integrated and flowing imagery from beginning to end. Ignoring minor issues there is really nothing to complain about in depth. The Score is phenomenal. Hans Zimmer should have been nominated for his

work in this film.

Of the many things this film excelled at, the costume design was by far the best of it. [In particular, the Samurai armor.]

Ken watanabe is another good point. His work in this film will undoubtedly be the start of a prolific career in Hollywood filmmaking.

Problems: Well, quite simply, there is nothing that stands out. Many have criticized Tom Cruise's performance. Is it necessary? Not really. Could the role have been done better? Well, sure. But that's true about most roles. Cruise did a good job. Writer John Logan could have given the character a bit more depth and, in

doing so, given Tom Cruise more to do. Then, criticism of Cruise could be

warranted.

In short, the best criticism one can make of this film was that it could have done with another 30+ minutes of character exposition and study which would have

given the characters more depth and turned the roles of Cruise and others into Oscar-worthy endeavors.

8/10

It is truly rare to have a director make no right decisions. From the very

beginning, to the very end, this film is one bad decision after another. Bad camera angels and shots. Oppressive music. Unnecessary scenes, edits, and

badly placed character exposition.

Emilio Echevarria and Billy Bob Thornton are the only highlights in a weak cast that made every moment seem forced and led to a complete lack of sympathy

for anyone. You can argue that Thorton and Echevarria are redeeming

qualities, but why suffer this whole film just to see them? Watch something else with them and be grateful you avoided THIS.

Am I being to harsh? Well, let me put it this way. You pan the camera over a beautiful sunset in Texas. Red hues illuminate the clouds amidst a deep blue sky. A tranquil, almost serene, moment that could awe the audience and create a beautiful backdrop to the coming war scenes at the Alamo. So, what does

director John Lee Hancock do? He allows a loud, literally oppressive

Orchestral moment by composer Carter Burwell.

There is no point to continuing to list the endless awkward or just plain bad scenes.

Peter Jackson's concluding film of the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece of film making. For now, let's ignore the storyline.

'Return of the King' is one of those rare films that excels at every aspect of the film making process to make an across-the-boards excellent film. From

costume design and Art Design/Production Design to lighting, cinematography,

visual effects, sound effects, sound, etc. etc. etc. 'Return of the King' is a solid example of film-making at its finest. The sequence in which the Beacons are lit is probably one of the most cinematically beautiful moments on film in the past 10 years (if not more).

Peter Jackson had a vision that was the Lord of the Rings, and he stayed true to that vision from beginning to end. Part of the greatness of this movie is that unceasing dedication. The attention to the slightest detail is the key to this film.

Without a doubt, this film deserves Oscars for Art Direction, Costume Design, Score, Song, Visual Effects, Sound and Sound Editing, Directing and Best

Picture. [Of particularly odd note, is the lack of a Cinematography

nomination...although its efforts in the first film were recognized then.]

This is epic film making in the finest traditions of Cecil B. Demill and others. Without a doubt, Return of the King will go down in Hollywood history as a

shining moment of the first decade of 21st Century film.

Now on to Acting: Was the acting great? Yes. Why so few awards?

Simple. Return of the King's cast is irrevocably tied to each other. Each

character, and therefore each individual actor, interconnects in a manner not unlike a quilt or afghan. Should nominations have been received? Probably. [especially for Astin and Hill]. Although with no individual cast member out- shining the rest, it is not surprising that no nominations were received. With luck, they will receive credit for Best Cast from the SAG - a fitting symbol of how close and well balanced the cast actually was.

Now, on to the story. Yes you can point to inconsistencies between this and the book. And yes, you can have an endless debate about whether 'Return of

the King' can stand alone or it is irrevocably tied to the other two. It is all unnecessary. Perfect adaptations are a pariah and artistic differences should not be a strike against a film's value for its own sake. 'Return of the King,' is a brilliantly crafted war and adventure story. Written more like one of Hollywood's great History screenplays, the story is rock solid with believable characters, situations, and a rich history.

If you are the type that likes good fantasies, histories, and/or war movies. Definitely watch the whole trilogy. If not, see 'Return of the King' to experience the new masterpiece from a master director.

In this less than thrilling story about the killing spree of Aileen Carol Wuornos, director Patty Jenkins gives the audience just under two hours of standard film- making. Monster has no real energy. With the exception of the power of

Charlize Theron's portrayal of Aileen, the film is empty and tiresome. Christina Ricci's performance is o.k. but looks of delight and allure are so reminiscent of Wednesday Addams that she never really creates a solid conception of her

character for audiences that have enjoyed her work in the past.

Monster is one of those movies that you see for a performance by a brilliant rising star. Beyond that, the film seems true enough to the real story but wholly uninteresting. To complicate matters, the screenplay villifies and sympathizes with the plight of the two ladies. Normally the groundwork for a great film, it fails in monster simply because it doesn't build enough interest around the

supporting characters and the circumstances of the lives of Aileen and Selby.

See it once for Theron's performance then forget about it. Likely to be

remembered for Theron's first Statuette but that's it.

With an acclaimed director, stellar cast, and stunning locations, Cold Mountain had the makings of a masterpiece. Unfortunately significant screenplay

problems, a lack of interesting dialogue, and simplistic filming kill the film.

The opening sequence of jumping forward and backward in the story's time- line was fine but went no where. The interesting "play" on practically being mute by choice for Law's character looked like a good concept but what should have been a critical symbol and foreshadowing is used miserably with litte

impact / connection to the characters that do lose their voices (literally or metaphorically) later in the film.

The screenplay weaknesses do not stop there. Frankly, the dialogue was

weak. Only one of the characters had strong dialog, and compelling speeches. With the exception of a well-acted character by Renee Zelleweger, the dialogue was simply not worth listening to.

The Cinematography and editing was effective enough, and the costume/ design, while not worthy of awards, was realistic. In short, the film looked o.k. and was cohesive. But that is it.

Kidman, Law, and an impressive supporting cast did well [with what they were given] but it was obviously that the entire cast [but Zelleweger] was starving for lines. What a waste of talent.

In summation. The characters were empty, the shots standard, and everything else overwhelmingly unimaginative. Characters got shot, and the audience

didn't care.

The best thing about Cold Mountain was clearly Renee Zelleweger's work.

Overall, Open Range is a well made western. All the elements of film come together successfully enough to create an interesting story about settlers of the West vs. the nomads of the West. But, this does not save it from critical story problems. First and foremost, the relationship between Sue and Charlie is

forced. The odd conversation ending in Charlie's line "I meant everything I said to you" (or roughly that) seems to suggest a scene that the whole

audience slept through.

The dog is a good idea to create a "softer" character for Charlie...sadly, Costner and the dog share so little screen time together the connection is failed and the shots of the dog in the "rolling, flowing, fields" seems redundant and awkward. (The cinematography seemed to be lacking in this and other scenes.)

Robert Duvall does a good job, but nothing Oscar worthy (unless it is a

REALLY light year.) Costner, Gambon, and others are acceptable. . . though

the parts are flat and the dialogue is not inspiring. Bening seems out of place, and I would almost think that she would agree. A disappointing performance

out of a good Actress.

In summation, with obvious story/screenplay problems aside, it is an

acceptable enough film....but I would be surprised if it faired well during the Awards season.

There is a growing library of films that re-make, revision, re-do, and otherwise re-show many of Shakespeare's plays. In this case, Taming of the Shrew is

done as a 1990's love story between a not so interested "Shrew" and a boy

equally uninterested in her. It has its moments with some good one-liners but that is about it. Regardless of the fact that it gains its inspiration from a Shakespeare classic, this is no different from the many Teen-love comedies

released as films and television series.

It is still worth the cost of a rental but don't expect anything great. Of the Shakespeare-to-film movies, this is likely the worst or very close to it.

12 Angry Men is one of a few films that take place in, essentially, one location. Such a story requires, first of all, an intriguing Script. Second, it requires great acting...and that is exactly what it has.

Certainly one of Fonda's best, 12 Angry Men earned every single one of its Oscar Nominations.

As this film is nearing fifty years old, it is slipping away from current audiences -- which is truly unfortunate. Anyone interested in court drama cannot miss this film. Furthermore, anyone who can appreciate a witty script with real characters and excellent verbal warfare will enjoy this film.

Definitely the best film Milos Forman has made since Amadeus. Jim Carey brings Andy Kaufman to life on the silver screen in an acting job that sends shivers down the spines of those who are old enough to remember Kaufman before his death. the movie is cinematically pleasing, very entertaining, and as true to Kaufman and his style of comedy as possible. Even if you were not a fan of Kaufman, this movie is a good choice. Look for it to make strong showing in the nominations for the Oscars.

Amadeus is one of Milos Foreman's masterpieces. It is the story of the life of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The movie is visually stunning. As a costume drama it is very accurate to Vienna during the time of Mozart's life. It has a rather questionable ending (for the purpose of historical accuracy) and leans toward the belief that Mozart was slowly being poisoned to death. However the movie does not claim to be a biography so it cannot be marked because of this. I gave this movie a 10 because it is so well put together. Everything from costume to set design to cinematography, editing, and directing is astounding. The acting is also decent to great. This movie is definitely one of the best of the 1980's. It is a must see for any music fan as well as any fan of the great historical Dramas of Hollywood.