Reviews

Absorbing, but too long, the final action sequence is boring and leaves the viewer desperate for it all to be over. The ending is overly, and mistakenly sentimental. Same problem many sequels have: just too many threads being packed into a story that can't contain it; they didn't know where to go with some of the excess so it just sits there, leaving you to wonder why it was in there. They all make some sense in the context of the film, but looking back, I expect that they're staging a sequel or two (because that's how Ridley Scott rolls).

But...absolutely visually and aurally stunning. Same brilliance of the first one, done better. Some innovative CGI--it falters here and there but is well worth the price of admission. They did a great job of referencing the original in many ways without making it a copycat or seem stale.

Overall, very successful. Will win the Oscar for Visual Effects for sure. Maybe the sound awards and cinematography, though it'll be race against Dunkirk.

It will do pretty well in the theaters, I think.

Vastly overrated.

Like most works of this type, it's best viewed by fifteen year olds who can be wowed by messages that they haven't seen before.

But for most adults, you've seen all of this before, often done much better.

It's not terrible, of course, and there is much to recommend it. Tilda Swinton, of course, and Chris Evans does a good job as well, as well as most of the other major character. And there's some neat execution (an aquarium on the train) but they don't really add up to much. Enjoy it, just don't expect to have any incredible revelations along the way.

You would think that with the mob, the Catholic church, machine guns, hookers, hit men (and women), full-frontal nudity, screaming inside a church, the lead actress crying that "I'm a whore!", a stuttering priest and a uniformly attractive cast that there'd be a reason to get excited about this thing. Alas, you'll only be disappointed unless, like me, you want to see it because you've heard only bad.

Although it's shot in a made-for-TV style, there a couple of interesting camera shots (set in Mexico) and even a moment or two where there's promise of the story kicking in. Unfortunately, after the first ten minutes or so it's too late to recover.

Poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived. If it had been just a little worse, it could actually be good. Otherwise, you can find a better way to spend a couple hours of your life.

I understand that <i>Two Arabian Knights</i> also survives in the CNC (the National Center of Cinematography), an archive at the Bois d'Arcy in France.

However, I have never pursued it there, so cannot guarantee the accuracy of that. I'd be interested to know if anyone does get access to this film.

IMDb wants me to type a minimum of 10 lines, and although I understand what they're getting at, it's almost impossible, and not very useful, in this particular case, so I am simply typing this paragraph to get around that. Presumably a reviewer will delete it for me.

Just three quick questions:

1. Can you imagine someone saying that Paul Giamatti is a BAD actor? 2. How old do you have to be to completely lose sight of the fact that movies for kids (you know, the kind starring Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes) are not the same as the movies that you might like? 3. Is there any reason to wonder why some reviewers are unemployed?

The kids are cute, the scenarios are unlikely at best, and that's what makes them funny (c'mon...the bad guy sleeps with a monkey doll!) and the story makes sense within the world it creates. It's not Gone With the Wind, The Godfather (I OR II!), no. But, it's "probably" not supposed to be either. It's fun enough, even if some of the kids out there don't get it. Trust me...

Rod Lurie, who next directed the great Joan Allen vehicle, The Contender, obviously got some on the job training on this, his first film. He's stuck with a limited budget and in over his head with the story, but there are some very good moments.

I originally picked this up because the cast and story were interesting and I was keen to see how the casting of Kevin Pollack as the president was going to work (i.e., it's either going to work or be very, very funny).

The story revolves around the political and personal decisions revolving around a potential military action on the part of the U.S.A. I believe that we are too often a society that says "kill 'em all" about it's enemies. Lurie is completely effective at making us feel how dangerous and painful a decision like that might actually be.

The main cast (Kevin Pollack, Timothy Hutton, Sheryl Lee Ralph and Sean Astin) is wonderful. Lurie could have eliminated most of the rest of the cast from the story and really sharpened the story. I would, however, like to see more of Clotilde Courau. There was just enough of her featured in the first half of the film to pique my interest in her work.

As an aside, listening to the director's commentary is fairly painful as it is full of inaccuracies (he claims Timothy Hutton as the youngest Oscar winner ever), misguided/unnecessary comments about the condition of the U.S. Military (hey, I don't really know we're at, and it's obvious Lurie doesn't either) and advice on how to make a movie (after just his first time out). I also got tired of hearing about how financially well-off he is. On the other hand, he is frank about his mistakes with the film and you get a sense of what he was driving at.

Black Hawk Down could easily have devolved into a flag-waving Rambo-type affair very easily. All the elements are there: Good-looking, young, white American soldiers, faceless black Muslim enemies, a Vietnam-like setting, hyper-violent film-making, a young idealist Sergeant, an experienced heroic Colonel, a stern General, etc. One can imagine the damage that would have been done to this story in the hands of the wrong production team (say, Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay instead of Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott).

Like all *great* war movies, and most war movies in general, Black Hawk Down is an anti-war film. It does this by telling only one overall story: the true story of these soldiers in a fight against their "assigned" enemy. Whether the fight is just, or necessary, is basically irrelevant to the story. For what reasons things go awry is also generally unimportant. The fight is shown form the perspective of the American soldier, leading to a `good against bad' conflict. Within the American ranks, there are no `good' or `bad' players. Mistakes are made, to be sure, but there is no intent behind it. What matters is the ferocious fight the characters find themselves in and what it feels like to face that terror.

I'm not sure that Black Hawk Down is a great war film, but it can pack an emotional wallop on the order of All Quiet On the Western Front and Platoon, and its action sequences are as realistic and direct as those from Saving Private Ryan. If you saw it and didn't like it, reconsider why not, as you are depriving yourself of a powerful experience.

Yes, the movie deals tangentially with the payola scandals of the 50's (truly a big problem in the entertainment industry), but only as one of the many lies hinted at in the title.

The two main characters (Renfro and Bacon) do *nothing* but lie. They are balanced by the purity of the other characters (Flockhart and Schell).

Schell's character was a little underwhelming and the work by Renfro was, at times, uneven, but both were generally excellent. My only other quibble was with the settings of the film. As a Clevelander (where the story takes place and the film was shot), it's easy to understand the where the scenes took place and how the story was built around them, but I'm not sure that an "outsider" would understand the implications to the story of those different locations (the neighborhoods, the market, etc.).

The real find is Calista Flockhart. She gives a wonderfully nuanced performance, sweeter and deeper than anything you'll see on Ally McBeal. Interestingly, Flockhart spent time working on stage at the Cleveland Playhouse, so was well-suited for the role in a way.

Joe Eszterhas is not exactly known for his subtlety, but this movie is a small triumph for him and portends better things from his pen in the future.

Although it doesn't quite hold up to it's "e-quel," "A Fish Called Wanda" featuring the same cast, this is quite a funny movie. The storyline clearly doesn't matter much, it's simply a device to hang some great performances on:

Kevin Kline is typically compelling (playing two roles), Michael Palin, who played a virtually non-speaking role in "Wanda," is riotous here as a zookeeper who won't stop talking. However, it's the imagined sexual chemistry between John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis that steals the show for much of the movie. There is one very funny scene of Cleese dropping a series of Freudian slips as he is flustered by the sexy and very forward Curtis.

If you pay attention, you'll hear some echoes of classic Monty Python sketches ("it's just a flesh wound, sir"), so if you're a fan of that and all that followed, don't miss this one.

Most of Logan's run plays (and plays and plays and plays) like a cleaned up "Flesh Gordon." Watching it, you get the feeling that they cut out the sex scenes and deleted the cheesy soundtrack before releasing it. This is not to say that it is an erotic or even vaguely sexually-charged film at all. Aside from the Peter Ustinov character "Old Man," everyone is under thirty years old, fit, good-looking and white. Layer on the gratuitous female nudity and the over acting, and you've got a porn film, no doubt!

I wanted to see this because it won an Oscar for Visual Effects in 1976. There are some very good moments for this, but the movie may best serve as the dividing line between what came up to it and what came since: in 1977, George Lucas unleashed the Star Wars phenomenon on the world.

All in all, it's not a bad movie, just fairly typical fair from the mid-70's in too many ways that goes on a bit too long. Even Peter Ustinov, who starts off with a bang, ends up overstaying his welcome.

Although it's been a top rental in the stores, I couldn't remember Rules of Engagement being in the theatres. Now I know why. This easily goes into the worst movies of the year list (along with Romeo Must Die). Some specific complaints:

1. The opening scene where Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson play twenty-something Vietnam War soldiers (Jones by cleverly pulling a hat down on his head). We then join them thirty years later, where they look exactly the same.

2. Somehow, we're supposed to feel compassion for a soldier that not only order the killing of soldiers as well as women and children, but also presumably lost the lives of many of his own men. Now, I'm no military expert, but here's my question: Why, since they were vacating the embassy anyway, didn't the soldiers take a _safe_ defensive position to protect the workers while escaping via helicopter. Let the Yemen's shoot at the building all they want, for goodness sake. I would guess they would get bored and stop eventually. Ridiculous.

3. The plot just seemed to be a random sequence of scenes that only loosely made sense.

4. Most of the other criticisms have already been noted. I'll repeat just one: How, in God's name did they find the Vietnam guy from 20 or 30 years earlier for the trial?

Friedkin, Jones and Jackson should be cause for excitement in a movie, not a constant rolling of the eyes!