Reviews

So this guy has done "the struggle to maintain intellectual purity and integrity in an insane world," "the struggle to maintain the purity and integrity of human relationships in an insane world," "the struggle to maintain the purity and integrity of artistic discipline in an insane world," and with this film "the struggle to maintain the purity and integrity of the creative process in an insane world," and done all of that very well, and IMO without much "pretense" whatsoever.

This is not a horror movie, not Rosemary's Baby, not scifi, and certainly not a story about a crazy man and his ingénue wife living in a house that gets burned down after their baby is eaten by the man's fans. It's about the struggles of the disparate but necessary aspects of a -single- mind trying to create within the confines of contradictory elements within it, and the challenges faced in repeating that process. As such, it does its job very well.

This movie is a comedy in the Greek sense, in that the artistic process runs through its calamitous paces to be reborn anew with hope for new creation in the future. In this way, it is a very hopeful, inspiring film. What happens to the characters is not the point, but the backdrop, and this is so obvious in so many ways in the film that it beggars the imagination viewers could pay so little attention as not to "get it."

The husband and wife are different aspects of the same artistic process within the "house" of the artist's mind. It is not necessary to categorize them strictly as Yin and Yang, Kierkegaardian "Either Or," Heideggerian "Earth and World," or Hesse's Narcissus v Goldmund, though there are similarities to those as well as many other of the great existential/artistic dichotomies.

Fair-minded viewers who have themselves struggled with these questions should rewatch this in light of the above "disparate but necessary overlapping elements of one whole" interpretation, and they may find they enjoy the film far more.

I don't blame viewers for being disappointed, as the film was mismarketed probably purposefully, but it is a very good film and delivers its true message well.

Take every fantasy cliché' you've ever seen or read, repeat those in a dull soap opera format that plods from subplot to subplot, and you have "Game of Thrones." Why are way too many of the character in shows today written as female characters regardless of the actual sex of the character? giving lots of dialogue a "prissy," "catty" tone that rings hollow like a soap opera? Where are the male characters speaking and acting like men do? I simply can't imagine feudal warlords having prissy repartee like modern HS students, yet "Game of Thrones" is full of it. Fantasy themes are supposed to be at least as much action as character or dialogue driven. This show is 95% talk and 5% action. GOT is dirt cheap to make and formulaic.

Season One wasn't all that bad, but the second season of this show is one of the worst examples of "hook the audience, then bleed them out slowly and rip them off" I've ever seen, straight off a midway. It may be the worst season of a television program I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.

Avoid this if you are over 14 or under 14 and reasonably intelligent.

As others note, there was lots of real history going on during this period, yet we are privy to none of it in this movie. We are instead served an endless buffet of "rehashed victimology theme #853" the female audience seems to endlessly crave even after 30-40 years of the same old schlock.

The Duke has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and the movie is merely a litany of his oppression of the protagonist. If these "Burning Bed" type movies ever contained more than a Star Wars level of black hat white hat moral ambivalence, discerning viewers would take them more seriously. As it is, they are to be either collectively laughed or yawned at other than in Jr. College Women's Studies departments throughout the land, where I imagine this movie gets lots of play.

If you were hoping to learn about a female historical figure, her place in history and accomplishments, this isn't it, just a very stale soapy theme in pretty wrappings. Ladies, will you please tire of this dreck? It's been 40 years of it, how much more do we have to endure?

Saw this on the pay per view. Not much of a horror movie, more likely intended as a "kult classic" among junior college Women's Studies departments across the vast diploma mill hinterland. Can't imagine any realistic audience for it elsewhere.

Most likely made as a crafty "white knight" technique to seduce earnest feminists not much older than the thoroughly implausible protagonist. Sweet irony.

Tedious, plodding, low budget without charm, the only suspense is will she castrate the guy or not? and after about five minutes of it, the viewer just doesn't care. I'm sure the vamp/bad gurl HS crowd loves it. Avoid, even if you get it for free on pay per view.

Spend enough money on marketing, "virola" and shill reviews, and you too can turn a dog into a blockbuster. "X Men: First Class" is the latest example of the precipitous decrease in the quality and intelligence of Hollywood product.

Why is it so HUGE then? Well, when you consider several thousand people are involved with any big budget movie today, all of whom have friends, family, and some degree of vested interest in the success of the film, and how easy it is to flood the sites like IMDb with outright LIES... it's simple to figure how we keep getting fooled by an army of liars. Oh there's also the fact that they obviously bought the critics and are spending money they should have spent on ACTORS on a deluge of TV spots.

Some specifics, if you need the overlay to say "Moscow... Russia" when the scene changes to a "Red Square" environment and might have otherwise puzzled, "Hey wait, is that Moscow, Russia? or Moscow, Texas?" stop reading and go see it, you will love this movie. It was made for your demographic.

If on the other hand you expect decent acting and direction in your comic book movies, together with some comic relief, an intelligent script, and effects that allow you to suspend disbelief instead of looking at your watch during the big CGI scenes, this movie has -none- of those things, not one iota.

Kevin Bacon? great actor, awful comic book movie villain. Rest of the cast are no-names, and it shows, painfully. The script is trite white hat/black hat fare, dredging up the Nazis in case you "Moscow, Russia" folks can't figure out who the bad guy is. Maybe three comic relief moments in the film, no one in the packed theater with me laughed... ever. In fact, I suspect everyone else in the theater was busy looking at their watches with me.

Painful and very dishonestly hyped here and elsewhere.

"When will this turkey be over?"

Every once in awhile you will see a movie that is full to the brim with acting talent that can do nothing collectively to save the awful script and direction. This is that movie.

This is neither a psychological thriller nor does it have any suspenseful elements at all. The story would make a very mildly interesting ten-page article in an unsolved crime magazine, but should never have been made the focus of an entire movie. One is left to wonder how movies like this get funded and made, and the only plausible explanation is someone with deep pockets had animus against the Marks family.

Don't be fooled by the cast. Avoid.

Not an extreme Peter Sellers fan, but appreciated his work in many movies. Actually bought the disc in a bargain bin, and it is the first movie I've ever bought that I have thrown away outright after viewing it.

Unfavorable biographical portrayals certainly have their place, but when it becomes obvious in the first few minutes of a film that something is "wrong" with the way the protagonist is being portrayed, that there is unrealistic animus, and then as the film progresses, blatant, bizarrely fanciful character assassination is the result, that is reprehensible, disrespectful of the dead, and disrespectful of a great comedian.

Someone had it out for Mr. Sellers when this movie was made, the only thing they could have added would be Sellers sodomizing a child or pushing a concentration camp prisoner into an oven to complete the extent the hacks who made this film went to rubbish Peter Sellers.

How do I know that this movie is irredeemably negatively slanted? After all, I never knew Sellers and have not done any serious research. Sellers was a star, but not an indispensable one, not a particularly powerful nor wealthy one. No human being could behave as the film portrays and actually get work or remain married for even a month, the portrayal is that vile. A king or billionaire -might- pull it off, not Peter Sellers. If the man was as insane and evil a sociopath as this film claims, his career would have been over long before it started. The portrayal of Sellers in this movie makes "Mommy Dearest" look like Mother Teresa.

I didn't think Rush did a good job. The considerable talents of Watson and Theron were completely wasted, surely Britt Eklund has more personality than was portrayed in the movie.

Admittedly, entertainers have a reputation for eccentricity and being difficult to work with, some more than others. This film goes far, far over the line though. You will likely not enjoy watching this, and have been warned.

I rarely gush about contemporary movies, but going to make an exception for "The Joneses." There are just too many good things to be said about this movie, can't believe some of the naysayers' comments.

Every aspect of this movie stands out, particularly the production values. The movie and actors are -beautifully- shot and directed in a way reminiscent of some of my favorite Australian movies ("Sirens" comes to mind off the bat). The fluent editing and score carry the viewer through at just the right pace, no artificial "camera angst" inflicted on the audience, no fits and starts, the feel is of a "cool road trip" wondering what will be seen next as opposed to the noxious "shaky cam" hyper-realism that plagues many movies today. Every single scene was well set and interesting. The script is excellent, casting excellent. Bravo Mr. Borte, and special kudos to Pam Mickelson (casting), Nick Urata (music), Susan Jacobs (music direction).

The acting is superb, from all cast members. Duchovny manages to tone down the Californication wise ass persona into a still snarky, but also genuine and lovable one of a lovesick man at a crossroads in life. Demi Moore, also a crossroads character, is outstanding as the hardened careerist who gradually cracks under Duchovny's persistent charms. The chemistry between Moore and Duchovny is sizzling and sincere. Cole and Headly are pros at the top of their game as usual, perfectly subdued as foils who manage to bring humor and warmth to their roles in every scene. Lauren Hutton is a perfect icy corporate dark-suit without becoming a typical Hollywood evil business caricature (amazingly the movie is devoid of political slant, so refreshing not to be banged about the head by some too-earnest filmmaker's agenda). Heard and Hollingsworth seem like old pros in measure with their youthful beauty and exuberance. Both of them are so otherworldly gorgeous, yet they rise way above eye candy status.

To the allegory part, this movie, moreso than American Beauty, captures the modern American suburban condition and dilemma, and unlike American Beauty, manages to do so free of ideological baggage and heavy-handed clichés. By keeping the tone light, we never feel "preached down to," or proselytized. The movie is devoid of an "us v them" feel that lots of modern allegories contain, and is more wryly structured as "us v us." Ironically, the message of the movie is most applicable to the deluge of viral marketing devaluing the internet as an information source. The sales method in the Joneses is identical to the way entertainment is marketed on the net currently. Will coin the term here "virola," ("viral" + "payola") to describe the obnoxious phenomenon. Movies like the Joneses memorialize what is going on without stepping on too many toes, a great way to inoculate, entertain and save the internet (and other media) just a bit at the same time.

Could go on and on about this film, could write a whole review about the symbolism tying the "fake family" to "the average real consumer culture family," will suffice it to say that the fake family is pretty obviously symbolic of all of us in our consumerist tendencies and in our desire to be socially accepted. We are all of us the "Joneses." Had always hoped someone would do a treatment reminiscent of the Talking Heads song "Found a Job," (worth googling the lyrics if you liked this movie) and the Joneses is pretty spot on in doing that.

I did take one star off a perfect ten for a "test audience" type ending that seemed tacked on. The movie should have Duchovny and Moore heading their separate ways having made their individual decisions.

This review is admittedly gushy, if you think it's shill hype, read some of my others and you will know instantly it's fo real.

I keep hoping I will wake up having seen one of the top three movies of all time, and was only dreaming of being duped once more by the payola-ridden viral-fest that the rating of entertainment on the net has become.

"The Matrix" is an example of an intelligent comic book treatment on film.

"Mulholland Drive" is an example of an intelligent film about dreams.

"Inception" is neither, but currently rated miles above both by the IMDb shills. Go figure.

Besides its conceptual shortcomings,"Inception" is just not a very good movie from a technical perspective. Overlong and overacted by the entire cast in an effort to bring some life to this "snooze," even high dollar action scenes and CGI can't liven it up. No comic relief, none whatsoever, to allay the squirming in the theater seat wondering when it will ever be over.

The "love interest" subplot is head-scratchingly extraneous to what might have been an interesting corporate espionage thriller.

Leonardo D. can not carry a movie any more to save his life, in fact the entire cast is miscast. If you disagree, dream that Tim Roth or Gary Oldman was cast in the lead and tell me I'm wrong.

I have never seen a television show start out with such promise in its first season and then degrade so precipitously in its second.

The first season (10+) of this show is a truly original achievement, blending the masterful creation of suspension of disbelief for a highly improbable premise, the darkest humor, high irony, excellent writing and character development, brilliant acting, and bone-chilling suspense together to create a masterpiece. I could not stop watching it and was reminded mostly of the best Hitchcock while sitting their jaw-dropped and reeling, completely addictive and brilliant television.

The second season (4, being charitable) of the show crosses the line into absurd elements that prevent suspension of disbelief, pares out the black humor by at least 80%, contains only very obvious "Dickensian" level ironic elements, devolves into a formulaic "hyper-dialogued" progression from "soap drama moment" to "soap drama moment," stops all meaningful character development cold, hampers the actors (who for the most part are very obviously phoning in their trite, yawn inducing lines... but still manage to do a good job), introduces banal and unnecessarily derivative subplots seemingly geared to a teenage/young female vampire melodrama audience (office dalliance, ill-fated romance, etc.), removes all of the nail-biting suspense and replaces it with "are we there yet?" mild annoyance, in short castrates the show and drains all the testosterone right the hell out of it... quite a feat.

Does the marketing machine insist on feminizing every single good fictional show appealing to a heterosexual male audience these days? Why yes it does. Apparently men don't watch much fictional television these days and no one cares if we do because we aren't that susceptible to advertising and branding (unless it's pickup trucks, beer or golf equipment).

The progression from "Breaking Bad" Season 1 to Season 2 is as if one's favorite season of "24" was followed by a season in which Jack Bauer goes around and ties up all his past romantic interests ala "chick flick" methodology, wholly derivative and destructive of the show's premise and potential.

Caveat, I have not seen Season 3, and have no real incentive to unless extreme changes and reversions to Season 1 form are made.

Caveat 2, beware of marketing shill reviews on IMDb, there's obviously quite a bit of viral marketing at play on this title. Any awards this show wins or has won are attributable to the brilliant first season, not the second.

"Don't be greedy" sums up the depth of this movie. All the rest of the baloney is big budget window dressing. The movie rotates through hiding the ball annoyingly and revealing too much. None of the potentially interesting plot tangents are developed yet the trite ones are hashed and rehashed to excess.

The charm of DD, as others have pointed out, was in the schizophrenia device,the humor woven into the fabric of the movie, and most importantly, the acting. There is enough wooden acting in The Box to attract a giant mound of martian termites.

The biggest problem with suspending disbelief during this mess is the glaring question, "why would a technologically superior power capable of taking over the government need to do any testing at all?" Awful failure of a movie.

Characters put me to sleep, you have an ambitionless, dull man and the ethically challenged (but not evil enough to be fun) woman he falls for.

She is portrayed as mildly personality disordered at first, flat affect, somewhat avoidant. Then suddenly, Shazam! she marries some guy a mere couple of months after breaking up with our hero, and after leading him on during a 10 month "friends with benefits?" type deal.

So which is it, is she personality disordered? or just an opportunistic shrew who used the guy as a placeholder while she searched for Mr. Right? I don't think they intended the audience to ask this question, it's just a gaping continuity error that actually ruins the suspension of disbelief.

As I sat groaning with boredom at the tired "indigenous population" theme hacked up all afresh for the new decade, I pondered on many possibilities concerning these particular "not so little" indians: Wonder what their life expectancy is? infant mortality rate? death rate from barbaric maturity rituals? etc., all typically left out of the deification of the indigenous population theme in every Hollywood treatment of such... wonder why? Next time we go back, lets be sure to take more beads, firewater and smallpox laden blankets. Maybe that's upcoming in AvaTwo, "Big-Little Horn." Oh, and let's not forget the Idyllic ecosystem, where every entity is quite literally "plugged in." Intellectually and politically dishonest tripe with no character development (I want my legs back! I am an evil military man! I am a thoughtless corporate wonk! I am the fiery, independent femalien! I am the crusty and arrogant scientist with a heart of gold!).

Finally, Giovanni Ribisi is miscast more thoroughly than in any of the thousands of roles in any of the thousands of movies I've ever seen.

A perfect movie for the WalMart masses.

4 stars for good 3D.

Say what you will about this film, watch it, then watch a current equivalent. It will be a stretch to find one, maybe "The Departed" or "The Good Shepherd" are close. Three days later, betcha you will remember this movie and the characters and will have absolutely forgotten the current equivalent, and this is no dig on either of those fine movies, but rather a testament to the compelling nature of "Year of the Dragon." Yes, the film has many flaws, but I believe it rises above them successfully to achieve greatness. "White Powder Ma," wiretapping nuns, real Chinatown in its beauty and strangeness, The "voicebox" mafioso, are among the many compelling images contained herein.

Despite all the nitpicking about technical elements, I believe what annoys people most about this movie is its moral ambiguity. The white and black hat pablum of spoon-fed Hollywood mediocrity is absent. Would that more ambiguous movies were produced challenging us to wrestle with the issues portrayed instead of preaching to us. Also, contemporary audiences just don't have enough patience to appreciate thorough character studies. For example, witness how many IMDb reviewers pan "Deer Hunter" for developing the characters fully before getting to "the action." This is a movie that contends favorably with many others when one is looking for something to review, it presents a new revelation with every viewing, and few movies, especially current movies measure up in this respect. Yes, it can be a jumble at times, and much needed flavor was obviously left on the cutting room floor, but still it is an excellent movie. I crave a "director's cut" of this film.

They just don't' make em like this any more.

This movie is the flawless realization of the potential of motion pictures. My awe at the mastery and craftsmanship that went into its making grows with every viewing, especially this time in Bluray.

Got the Bluray today, and on the off chance that someone reads this who hasn't seen this cut of 2001, this disc alone is worth upgrading your player. Watching it reminded me of listening to Dark Side of the Moon for the first time on a great stereo years ago.

For all you sad people who are bored by this masterpiece, I surmise you have never been to a museum (or on the off chance you have, tried to rush through to "see everything" in a couple of hours), have never sat and watched a sunset to its fruition, have never carefully read a poem, have never spent a few seconds looking into someone's eyes before kissing them, etc. Please try some of the above as you are obviously missing out on much of the beauty of life. Or just do what you will most likely do and re-watch Shawshank Redemption on cable or maybe Titanic from your "classic" DVD collection.

Have never read the books (skimmed one), but eventually do see the movies, which have all proved moderately entertaining and coherent, great for kids... until this boring, disjointed mess.

This movie is singular in my viewing experience in that it introduces so many different interesting themes (presumably better fleshed-out in the book), yet steadfastly refuses to develop a single one of them to any meaningful fruition, not one. From the war that is presumably going on, to the romances, to the potions professor, to Snape's and Malfoy's dilemma, the school days of the antagonist, etc., every theme in the movie is half-baked.

The actors all know the script is crap; we have seen them capably execute their roles in other Potter movies. In this one, they seem to be stumbledoring over each other in bewilderment.

It's as if the script were generated by some parsing software that only had access to every fifth page of the book, and one needn't have read the book to get this feeling.

By the end, I was hoping all the characters, not just Dumbledore, would be consumed by some plague of Voldemortian excess. And incidentally, is anyone else tired of the unwarranted obeisance to Harry Potter in these books and movies as "the chosen one?" Shouldn't he have to crawl down off a cross or some-such before being deserving of such messianic worship? haven't seen anything equivalent justifying this character's godlike treatment by all the other characters. Is this some inside joke of Rowlands'?

It's time for something new. Ms. Rowlands has made plenty of money, as has the studio and merch machine. Time for Harry Potter to do us all a favor, wave his wand, and vanish from pop culture. With this movie, the shark (or manticore as the case may be) has been rather obviously jumped.

This is not an allegory about racism, not any kind of novel sci-fi concept, and not the 44th best movie ever made. It is a waste of film and an insult to any objective viewer.

Instead of walking out, I stuck around to see just how deep the layers of nonsense and vapidity could go on this smelly onion. The layers go deep, all the way to the nothingness where the core should be. There is no kernel of truth, wit or cool in this monstrous failure. It is hard to single out the problems with the movie because literally every concept in the film is either outright stupid, banal or utterly nonsensical.

At first blush, one might think that a child wrote this script, and that a child directed the movie. But then you wonder how a child would conceptualize concentration camps or some of the social relations, and you finally realize that adults must have been responsible. Retarded adults, mentally stunted adults, but adults nonetheless.

It's as if some CGI factory came up with the prawn costume, and this was the best concept the money men could come up with to put the costume to use.

There is one possibility, that the film was made as rubbish on purpose so that the inevitable sequel could shine in comparison. A retarded idea, yes, but one has to watch only a little of this movie to realize that most of the budget was spent on marketing and none was spent on writing or concept work.

This movie will hurt your brain. I had intended to stay at the theater and see another movie, but my aesthetic sensibilities and intelligence were so assaulted by this dreck that I had to just come on home.

IMDb, police thyself. The time has come for you to step up and stop the co-opting of this once very useful site. People will be fooled for awhile longer, but the end of your credibility is nigh if measures aren't taken. Stop allowing this site to become the pawn (or in this movie's case, the "prawn") of marketing shills. It's disgraceful what this site has become.

The most disturbing aspect of this movie's plot is understated perfectly. This creature recruits her next servant from children "her own age," who fall for her, serve her and love her as they age (and she doesn't), and are then consumed by her when they become too old to be useful. Oskar is doomed to this same fate as the movie ends. She could easily turn Oskar into a vampire and they could be together forever at the same age... but she doesn't want that. She wants her next thrall. How many cycles has this creature been through and how old is she really? Brrrrrr.

Best vampire movie I've seen, manages to blend in lots of the vampire lore without becoming trite. Original and truly horrific. Didn't find anything about their relationship sweet, touching or tender at all, just manipulatively macabre and unwholesome. Bravo.

Lots of good gags in this movie, but mediocre timing and delivery of the gags keeps it at "just average" funny. Just spamming gags can get some laughs, but gag "escalation" is what gets people rolling in the aisles, this movie doesn't have it. See "Something About Mary," "Happy Gilmore," or more recently, "Pineapple Express" for how to do it right.

Proper escalation could have had the kids using what they learned from their role models to create gag setups at home, with women, etc. When the kid opens up the tent and sees the boobies, he should apply a lesson learned from his role model as to how to touch the boobies and get away with it, not just exclaim tritely.

Mr. Rudd, you have the right idea here, best wishes with the next one.

Decent 80 minute movie compressed into 120 minutes. I don't care if it's Spielberg, Eastwood or Ed Wood, a movie produced and directed by the star is not going to be a good movie due to scene bloat.

Awful acting (or was it just growling) by Eastwood also. Pat Morita would have done (and did) better. This really is a weak Karate Kid knock-off, had they acknowledged this by putting in at least one "wax on wax off" line, it would have been marginally amusing. As it stands, it's just marginal.

I wonder what people who rate this way up in "Godfather" land charge studio hired marketing firms to do that. Is overhyping films on IMDb the "$80 an hour miracle job" they advertise on Facebook that is taking the country by storm these days?