Reviews

Incredible. Simply the most enthralling movie I've seen in ten years, subtitles and all. An unusually fulfilling love story, an engrossing mystery, and an anti-war movie with battle scenes more numbing than Saving Private Ryan, one whose horrors will be fully appreciated by anyone who has visited the battlefield memorial at Verdun. Wonderfully acted by Audrey Tatou and company, directed with thought and integrity by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, with a glorious cast of real people. I've been waiting for the release on DVD for months, and right there, in the middle of all the overblown, shopworn tripe coming out of Hollywood in popcorn summertime, this delicious flowering of the art of the cinema simply grabbed me and never let go. My faith in cinema is restored, and I now know why the lines at the Paris Cinema in New York were so long. And who knew Jodie Foster spoke perfect French?

Another movie about thoroughly unlikeable people willing to destroy other human beings for their own personal gratification; how utterly delightful. I generally like Julia Roberts, and think Jude Law is sensational, but I cannot get excited about an actor's skill in roles such as these. I don't want to know these people, I don't have any empathy for their mutually inflicted wounds, and anyone who believes this is "real", this is how it is, relationships always go like this is suffering the well-deserved maladies of the "I'm my hero" generation. There are actually real live people in this world who care about each other, who try not to hurt each other, who worry about what the "other" in their unit of two wants so that they can satisfy that need. This is sick, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice after 35 years of casual sex, multiple pairings and self indulgence has left them rolling in the gutter, exhausted and disgusted with themselves and each other.

I was surprised that even Roger Ebert didn't like this film. It was so cerebral, I would have expected him to gush. Well, I don't normally like those talky films that get critical acclaim and offer agonizingly slow story development, but once this gets going, it's fascinating.

Much has been said of the film's anti-Americanism, or more particularly, how this is an indictment of modern, fascist Amerika. I guess if you read Moby Dick and believed all the college professor's blather about how the St. Elmo's Fire was a homoerotic orgasm, you'll buy into that anti-American schtick for this movie. Personally, I don't see it. Dogville is some little, isolated Colorado town in the midst of the Depression; it could as easily have been any scared little town trying to maintain its existence in a harsh world doing existential battle against it. We've seen lots of scared little towns like this, with scared little people, on The Twilight Zone. It's a flaw of the human condition, not America.

The film is somewhat derivative of some of the intellectual conceits in others, particularly "Rashomon", "Woman in the Dunes" and, explicitly at the end, "The Visit." But it still grabbed me and kept me interested for nearly three hours. Really quite compelling overall, if slow to get going.

This is the greatest sea epic in decades, probably better than anything done by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Erroll Flynn, Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, or Gregory Peck. I was in awe of its historical accuracy, and thoroughly captivated by Russell Crowe's performance.

Those who carp about the story should probably carp about the book instead. To those who carp about its accuracy, however, I can only infer that they have not served in the Navy and know little of naval history. It is obvious Peter Weir does.

The first words uttered by Crowe when he comes on deck in the movie are, "Where away?" Those were some of the first words I heard in my young naval service 40 years ago, when I made the mistake of telling the Captain merely that we had a ship on the horizon. "Where away?" he fired at me; I looked perplexed. "Do you allude, Captain, to the transitive verb meaning 'to erode?'" I smartly replied. He did not find this amusing, and made me ask everyone on the ship what it meant. Fortunately there was an old Chief Signalman who had been around since before Pearl Harbor, who smiled and said, "I haven't heard that in years," and then explained it meant "What is the relative bearing and range?" Peter Weir has got it exactly right. And yes, Midshipmen might well be on board a ship at 14-15 years old in those days (17-18 today on a summer cruise between school years), and if it went to "General Quarters" as we do today or "drummed to battle" as they did then, well, the Middie was just in the thick of it.

This is just a wonderful tale, well told, with a nice surprise ending that gives the pleasurable prospect of an equally glorious sequel. I cannot wait.

If you liked My Dinner with Andre, this is your movie. If you fell asleep during My Dinner with Andre, bring a comfortable pillow. Too artsy for its own good, this is about accepting death, a subject done previously, except in this case the one doing the dying is an 8 year old, who hasn't had much living go before.

Nick Nolte has never been better in his gravel-voiced, scruffy dotage, and overall the cast is a group of fine actors who surely did a credible job for scale. But, while it was obvious what was going on in the child's delirious mind as he sank into unconsciousness under Nolte's care, the story was, forgive me, boring and confusing. And at the end, the soul takes off in -- what, a DC-3?-- with angels who have been searching for it, in kind of a reverse of Here Comes Mr. Jordan. I think I'll stick to Jacob's Ladder and The Sixth Sense for intelligible variants on the same theme.

I thought I'd hate this film. Over the top violence isn't my thing. Finally decided I should give it a try, and liked it so much I rented it twice, so my wife could see it too. Since I am not an afficionado of Hong Kong-style or Japanese-style or any other style action movies, and haven't ever seen a Bruce Lee movie, etc., I'm illiterate in the matter of all the homages Tarantino was paying. But I know a good story line when I see one, and the thing that was so interesting to me was that I found myself really caring about the Uma Thurman (Black Mambo) character and rooting for her in her justifiable quest for revenge. Considering what a killing machine she was, that was quite an accomplishment. Maybe Tarantino is just punk hype, and maybe he's only made 6 films to date (including Vol.2), but he's visually arresting and makes you ask why you identify with certain inherently evil characters when others (say Tony Soprano) fill you with revulsion. As to the mayhem, it was just a cartoon and not at all objectionable to anyone over the age of 6.

There are many fine performances in this movie, especially Renee Zellweger, Richard Gere and Queen Latifah. And there's that great score by Kander and Ebb. But if you've seen this on Broadway, the movie is no great shakes. It's less frenetic (and I would say, more intelligible) than the same director's Moulin Rouge, but if this movie takes the Oscar over The Hours and About Schmidt, it will be a travesty.

Let it be fairly said that this is a highly entertaining movie, with a wonderful storyline, good acting, and great special effects. Nonetheless, it did not bowl me over the way The Fellowship of the Ring did, and I suppose it's simply that the standard of the first movie was so high, wildly exceeding expectations, that it was hard for this movie to have the same impact. And somehow Frodo became less sympathetic in this movie, probably a reflection of the ring's growing power over him. Still, the battle scenes were wonderful, and I happily paid my money to see it. I don't think I'll buy the video, though, which says something about the difference from Fellowship, which I got as soon as it was available.

Rank order (1) the children's fantasy books made into movies, and (2) the comic-books-come-to-life, and where will Spiderman come in? Well, for those of you old enough, the Superman trilogy with Christopher Reeve would have to rank pretty high; personally I think Dick Tracy was tops among the comics, with fabulous color and cinematography, a story that could hold one's interest, and a really engaging star in Warren Beatty. The original Batman was pretty fantastic. I don't read comic books, but I'd have to say I liked even X-Men better than Spiderman. And among the fantasies, Lord of the Rings takes the all-time cake, and Harry Potter was pretty good too. Spiderman is a modest attempt; it wasn't good enough to make me want to see (or even rent) the sequels.

Having been kept up most of the night by viewing what other reviewers see as a "predictable loser", I think it's necessary to put in an affirmative vote. I'm a big "Blade Runner" fan; this is no more predictable, if no less. Nor did I find it odd (to answer another review) that there were so many vents in this 2079 world. After all, humanity has largely given up living under the open sky because of the constant attacks from an alien world, and has constructed shields over most of the cities. Homo sapiens presumably still exhales carbon monoxide; should we presume the widespread use of charcoal filters instead?

C'mon lets be fair to this movie. Gary Sinise and Madeline Stowe are first-rate, the lighting and special effects are first rate, the story -- beginning with major buildings coming down before our eyes, then the rise of martial law as humanity deals with constant warfare with an alien force which uses, among other things, replicant homicide bombers to assassinate earth's security forces and leaders-- well, it seemed a little too much like our future. Maybe that's why I don't remember anything about its release, a timing disaster after 9/11.

Look, I like artsy movies as much as anyone, but I didn't find this artistic, or enjoyable, or overwhelmingly complex and hard to understand and in need of three viewings, as so many commentators seem to. I thought the story was quite straightforward once you figured out what was real and what was a dream, and might have just been called, "The Face on the Cutting Room Floor" (thank you, Steve Goodman.) Won't say any more than that, as I don't want to give away its supposed secrets. I will say I find movies in which I can't figure out what's going on until half way through to be annoyingly frustrating, not artistic. "Two for the Road," (Hepburn/Finney) was a complicated story told through multiple backward/forward time jumps, and made perfect sense. "Memento" had a lot of similarities to "Mulholland," but made perfect sense. This movie just felt narcissistic, self-indulgent and badly edited.

What can you say when the young, dashing, up and coming lawyer,the extraordinarily handsome and highly unconventional Cary Grant, falls in love with one of the richest women in New York, thinking she's a private secretary and he should use the mansion's service entrance? Well, when her sister is Catherine Hepburn you can say there's bound to be a more interesting ending than he-obligingly-goes-to-work-at-daddy's-bank and counts-money-happily-ever-after. The stars are at their peak with great chemistry, and Lew Ayres and Edward Everett Horton give extremely fine supporting performances. This film has always been one of my anthems, and Johnny Case something of an alter ego; showed it last night to my 28-year old daughter, who loved Johnny Case and now has a better impression of her old man. A real treat of a movie, on a par with Grant's and Hepburn's best.

Was this the worst movie I've ever seen? Well, let's see, I'm pretty sure it's the only "1" I've ever assigned; I almost gagged when they broke in with "The Sound of Music" right there at the beginning, and it went downhill from there. So bad I decided to read the Wall St. Journal while this thing played on the DVD through my elaborate sound system. I think that if you saw "Cabaret" you saw this movie without having to bother. The Golden Globe Awards must be crazy.

If you aren't old enough to cherish the memory of Sid's Caesar's Show of Shows in its heyday, if you don't think Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Neil Simon, Larry Gelbart and the rest of his writers' room was the greatest collection of comic talent ever, and if you didn't watch most of the Army-McCarthy hearings, well, maybe this movie isn't for you. But you're just the one who should see if for its educational value. It tells us a whole lot about the golden age of television, of the country's torpor in the 50's, of the days when people who cared more for those dependent upon them than they did for themselves got run over by the corporate machine, and of the contrived and deliberate dumbing down of our national intellect. See this movie, and then rent some of the classic skits by Caesar, Reiner, Coca, Morris and company on DVD. You'll know why those of us who were there still die laughing the hundredth time we hear, "You have gespritzen on un general."

Nice job by Costner, understated in performance, probably because he didn't direct. But I don't really want to review the movie, which is good; rather I'd like to correct the history.

The actual destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850), which intercepted the Russian freighter Marucla during the blockade, was towed out of the naval museum in Fall River, Mass and put to sea under tow for this movie. Two different numbers were painted on her hull, port and starboard, so she could represent two different destroyers in the blockade for the film, and the DASH helicopter deck and ASROC were disguised because they were a post-1962 FRAM MK II conversion. I'm pretty involved with her, as an ex-crewman: I was the CIC and Intelligence officer from 1965-67. During my tour, there were still plenty of old salts around who had been on board during the blockade, and they told a different story than the world knows and the movie tells.

Their story is that the JP Kennedy was nowhere near Cuba when the blockade was instituted, but rather off Bermuda (1000 nautical miles, more or less); and as the freighters bearing missiles approached the island, the rest of the Navy was ordered to stand down so the JP Kennedy, namesake of the President's brother, could steam toward the island at emergency flank speed using the "war sprayer plates" for the boilers, always kept in the Captain's safe, and be there for the photo op of making the first interception.

At least the movie properly lays the blame for the chaos of two messages from Krushchev squarely on JFK and RFK's stupid idea of leaking the Turkey missile exchange gambit to a sympathetic press. And lest we forget, Sen. Kenneth Keating (R-NY) had been screaming about missiles in Cuba the previous December, but it was hotly denied by the White House until weeks before a mid-term election the party in power was widely expected to lose. Never switch horses during a crisis, they say...Indeed, the world little knew how close it came to catastrophe to satisfy JFK's political ambitions.

Awesome movie, with a really depressing, downbeat ending that's all too true to life. This is it, man. Not even "Seven" is as terrifying as this, and all the other devil incarnate movies, other than Rosemary's Baby, are puppy food in comparison. See it and be challenged, feel hope, take joy in the human spirit and innate goodness of some people, and then despair at the futility. Wonderful performances by Washington, Goodman, and all the cast. Never seen anything like it.

How did a fine, almost dangerous actor like Kevin Spacey get lured into doing this sentimental pot-boiler? He's very vulnerable, very closed-in, and very good as the man carrying a terrible burden of what happened to cause his disfigurement. Certainly, he's the best thing about the film. Helen Hunt -- well, I never saw her on TV, but I liked her in AS GOOD AS IT GETS. Here, she just reprises that earlier role, and so maybe the answer is she can't act. Osment? What's he going to do when he grows up and there are no more roles for disturbed/gifted/special children in need of adult help? And I hated the editing. The stories did not tie together easily. This has been done much better before (Magnolia, say, but there are many examples.) Normally, I like sentimental movies, from It's a Wonderful Life to Bridges of Madison County. Thought this was a poor example.

Everything I'd heard or read -- except Roger Ebert and Jeff Lyons -- said this movie was sentimental twaddle. It didn't seem likely, though, that this fine a director and cast could so thoroughly sink the ball in every water hazard known to movie making, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Actually, it's a first rate, uplifting tale of redemption through love and the act of rediscovering who you are. Matt Damon was wonderful in his role, adding another fine acting turn to a filmography that now includes a number of good guys (which seem to suit him well) and one stinker (Ripley), which may have been bad casting. He grows, he excels at self-discovery, and he's fun to watch. Theron had me transfixed -- in a world of post-pubescent female leads, none of whom will ever amount to diddly (or get another role) after the first onset of wrinkles at the mouth and a tummy, she has the glamorous aura of a genuine studio star of yesterday; and yes, she can act. Will Smith has been one likeable guy after another for years, and I like his smarts and his sass. As to Robert Redford's turn as director once again, he can continue to fight cynicism by waging a classy war for moral uplift through groundedness as long as he likes, and I'll love every minute of it, whether he's swinging a bat or a club, healing people or horses. I've had enough car chases, enough people trying to get laughs through farts and scatology, enough dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. This is a glossy, beautifully told, gorgeously photographed story that makes you feel good. Only one question bugs me -- why wasn't Jack Lemmon credited. His role as narrator was as big as anyone's on screen. There's a tale there.

Don't know what I expected, really. I guess I was hoping for something like Kagemusha or the original Seven Samurai. But Kurosawa's gone, and Mifune too, and this is Chinese rather than Japanese, so one should probably be grateful for the good acting and lush location scenery that saved this otherwise absurd martial arts picture. People cannot walk up vertical walls and fly, even if they go to special monasteries to meditate. You want fantasy? Try, "Ladyhawke." Overblown, overrated and beyond the pale.

It's not necessary to use many words to describe this movie, as it doesn't use many to tell its story. Awesome silence and aching loneliness mold and sculpt (literally) a man who must deal with cruel fate and cruel nature. The waves that come crashing in on his little island to imprison him as surely as steel bars are far more real, real looking and fearful than the computer-generated fakes in The Perfect Storm. This is the real thing. Tom Hanks is a shoo-in for a Best Actor nomination.

I loved this dopey movie. Funny,with an absolutely hilarious performance by Betty White, an appealing Bridget Fonda (for the first time in memory), and very likeable Brendan Gleeson and Oliver Platt. Bill Pullman was fine but the least of it. What's not to like? I mean, who wouldn't want to save an alligator that's biting people in half in an unspoiled lake 25 miles from anywhere in the middle of Maine? There are so many BAD time wasting movies out there, so much violent, or inane, or vulgar, or sadistic junk that this tongue-in-cheek tale with its dotty characters and clever ending just has to be viewed as one of those times to sit back and smile broadly without guilt. This is hard to pull off, and not to be minimized.

What a turkey!! At least the first Tom Cruise MI movie paid lip service to the constructs and concepts of the original TV series. This was nothing but the conceit of Cruise's ego. A boring virus story (done much better in The Andromeda Strain and even Dustin Hoffman's virus movie of a few years ago) becomes the excuse for all the trickery of boring recent James Bond movies combined with the violence of Terminator II raised to the nth power. I put on the DVD and after ten minutes realized I'd rather read pre-election coverage in the NY Times, and THAT's boring. It turned out to be perfectly possible to read same and watch the movie simultaneously, missing nothing of consequence because there was nothing of consequence.And there are the special features of the DVD, which attempt to make us believe that Cruise did all these rock stunts in Moab HIMSELF, 2000 feet in the air, with no net or rope, and made the same unbelievable jump about 15 times to get the shot right. Oh sure. Tell me another one.

Well, this is the lowest rating I've ever given a film (3). Boring beyond belief. It's not like the idea is new; in fact, I would think the producer of this film would have to pay royalties to the guy who wrote "The Thirteenth Floor", I think it was, with Craig Bierko. That movie was entertaining and suspenseful. This is just the worst. You like science fiction? see "Last Night." You want another film about a manufactured universe? How about "The Truman Show?" This was a total waste of time, and I'm afraid its rating as #31 on the all-time honors list, at this writing, is just a testament to the fact that too few people my age can really use the internet. Keanau Reeves better stop doing this stuff, 'cause, like McCauley Culkin, he's gonna outgrow them.