Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Less than the sum of its parts.
11 July 2002
This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A cacophany of false notes.
25 April 2001
This film is a cacophany of false notes, most notable among them the casting of Liv Tyler, with script, direction and even cinematography cascading immediately behind that gross error. I suppose a two dimensional performance in a piece with no depth at all is still an accomplishment, but it doesn't save the movie, to my mind at least, from onrushing oblivion.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Concept 10, Execution 5
27 October 2000
Although the basic concept is an excellent one, the execution is not. In the hands of a Frank Capra, it would have been a smash. The plot goes seriously off track when so much time is spent with just one or two of the beneficiaries of the child's plan to better the world. Moreover, it's hard to believe the other characters have actually "paid it (or anything else) forward" because we see the child's do good attempts go awry more often than not. The audience, itself, is then required to make gigantic leaps forward to fill the gaps left by the writer. The ending left me feeling manipulated because I had no rooting interest in the particular relationship leading to it.

Despite these fundamental flaws, Haley Joel Osment, Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt do wonders with the material given them. Still, with a growing list of contenders for best acting in pictures that are also excellent, I don't see much reason to nominate them for an award, with the possible exception of a special tribute to Haley Joel Osment. In my opinion, he should have

received an award last year for his excellent performance in Sixth Sense. On the other hand, Pay It Forward's director, Mimi Leder, should receive a reprimand for misusing the talent at her disposal.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's good film stock spoiled.
27 October 2000
Many people who are not enamoured of golf say, "It's a good walk spoiled." This picture leads me to say, "It's good film stock spoiled." I could go on and say, too, "It's a lot of talent and money wasted." without fear of being too harsh. I actually tried to sleep through the lazily contrived and inept plot, but the music was very noisy, so try as I might, I couldn't dream up something more interesting. If there had been a spark of chemistry between the two principals, that might have made a difference, but Charlize Theron is too mature and just plain too much woman for Matt Damon. She was much better, more effective when she was paired with George Clooney and James Spader.

How is it possible for the Robert Redford who made Ordinary People so extraordinary to make this Legend so forgettable?
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An ethnic Thanksgiving stew
17 October 2000
What's cookin'? In this case, an ethnic Thanksgiving stew that simmers, always with good taste, until it is very well done. Director Gurinder Chadha illuminates a vast number of characters (a whopping 41 speaking parts) bathing them in the warmth of a vision that brings every individual to palpitating life. The families' foibles are portrayed with so much humanity that the audience surpasses ethnic boundaries to identify with them all. And Chadha shows us, in the best way possible - by example - how to embrace, and delight in, the diversity we find among the groups, within them and, consequently, within ourselves, too.

In this film, the food prepared in each family circle for Thanksgiving marks and defines not only collective differences and affinities but individual preferences and dissensions, as well. The dinners are lovingly prepared, sumptuously presented and equally tempting in many quite original ways, so much so that I was moved to suggest to the producers that a cookbook would be a logical item to promote in conjunction with the film. Not at all surprised, they responded that work on such a book was, in fact, underway!

I think Chadha should earn an Oscar nomination as best director for this film and the cast a nomination for whatever award exists for best ensemble performance.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tender and tough
11 October 2000
It was so pleasurable to watch this lovely film about the quest for friendship and loyalty in an often cruel and punishing world. Meadows has been described as a Midlands Scorsese; however, to my mind there is a vein of sweetness, naivete, in Meadows' work, as in the man himself, that is absent from Scorsese's films. He captures, with reason - since much of his material is autobiographical - the jocular and tender aspects of working class life while rendering vividly the violence that can also lurk there. His dramas are always holding and infinitely endearing in a tough minded way. In this film, Meadows' love is obviously directed at the valiant and caring mothers, but he allows the fathers of the boys, who appear never to get it right, to finally redeem themselves, each in his own way.

In talking with Shane Meadows, I learned that he recruits his actors from the 6 - 20 year old group of actors in his town, and that he is very proud of the fact that, by this means, he can help them take a step toward extricating themselves from their hard lot in life. Shane Meadows is a survivor and an artist, one who has the heart and the enormous ability to give heart to others who must still find their way. Bravo!!!
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An instant classic.
27 July 2000
Girl on the Bridge is an absorbing piece of film fiction and, to my mind, an instant classic. From the choice of its stars to the use of a gritty, many shaded black to white spectrum, it is a spellbinding expression of director, Patrice Leconte's, mastery of the art of filmmaking. Every throw of the knife notches up the suspense to an ecstasy of fear on behalf of the characters you come to love. This is an unusual romance that leaves the viewer enlightened and lighthearted without any sacrifice of reality.

The Girl is portrayed by Vanessa Paradis, who, in her person and in her manner, invokes memories of both Brigitte Bardot and Audrey Hepburn, a radiant, sensuous mix that is haunting and captivating. There's rapturous innocence despite her frequent and intense sexual encounters, and some part of her remains pristine throughout the most seemingly perverse scenes. Seduction for her must be emotional and intellectual, not merely sexual, because her body is routinely given, and through her experiences, we realize its satisfactions do not ultimately satisfy.

Although some scenes recall other great pictures of yesteryear, such as The Seventh Veil, Girl makes new, inspired use of beloved film moments to make its own statement: the human spirit deepens and expands to the extent to which it trusts in, and is dedicated to, love. To love is to risk, and in this film of heart thumping suspense, we come face to face with the dangers love entails. Love, like this film, is not for the faint of heart. I, for one, am looking forward to my second time. Many compliments to Patrice Leconte and his wonderful collaborators!
37 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed