Reviews

This movie is hardly ever brought up, but when it is I feel the need to fervently defend it. But that is not an easy thing to do when faced with the reality of quality of the film. I have no problems with slow films, in fact I love films that are delibrately difficult and slow paced, I consider it athlectic movie-going to watch things like Syberberg's "Hitler", or things like "Out 1" "Berlin Alexanderplatz", or movies of conventional length but maddingly slow like "The Disappearance" or the films of Bresson or Terrance Malick. This film is slow, and I can't take any points off for that, but at times it does feel like there is no purpose to the pacing. The most used word to describe the film is pretentious. There is not doubt the film "flirts" with pretension, but I feel there is validity to the idea, the plot and the story, but I can understand why people might be turned off by it. It is frivolous in its poetics, and if you are a person concerned with the immediate or the political, you'll probably hate this movie, but if you like loose or experimental narrative and ambiguity of motive this film will appeal to you. Two things the film has going for it is one; the acting. It's uniformly strong, and Richard Dreyfuss is in it more than most people will tell you, but he isn't the start as the box art would lead you to believe. And two; the use of music. Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne" is use to great effect in the film, and in a way that is the truest visual representation of the meaning of that song. But above all the greatest thing about the film is the concept it plays with. A man obsessed about making a film about the second coming of Jesus, but as a woman. it is fascinating to watch this unfold, but I do have to adimit the pay off is disappointing. In the hands of someone like Nicholas Roeg, Bunuel, Bresson, or Malick this might have been one of the greatest films of all time. As it is now it's an interesting film, and an infuriating viewing because your left wondering what could have been.

First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's "The French Connection", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seconds", and with his "French Connection 2" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.

GPeoples-2 Made a comment about the lead actor's "rudimentary's make-up". The fact is Barrualt used no make-up, or camera tricks in his transformation. Barrualt was one of the most respected mime artists ever to live, displaying his talents in "Les Enfants du Paradise", and this brilliant film. His transformation is absolutely brilliant, and quite shocking to watch. Jean Renoir was one of the best directors who ever lived, and the fact that he made this brilliant made for TV film so late in his career, 1959, is a testament to his talents as a director and storyteller.

If you can get a hold of this film I don't think you'll be disappointed.

To start off with, I actually liked this movie, and at first I couldn't understand why some many people hated, but upon reflection i can see what some people reacted to so harshly.

One thing I liked about the film is the simple story, or more accurately, the atmosphere. M. Night has always been better at creating a mood than fleshing out a story, but the premise of Lady in the Water works for me: It about people reacting to a fairy tale happening in real life. This concept probably put a lot of people off, the fact of the matter is this concept hasn't been used a lot (but it has been done before, i.e. Peter Weir's "The Last Wave", a deeper and more philosophical film), and people aren't used to it. Like I said, I liked it, but most of my friends thought it was stupid.

The main thing that people hated was M. Night's own acting in the film, and on this I agree. He was without a doubt the worst thing in the film. It was a disgusting example of self-indulgence and self-importance, and more than that, he's just a terrible actor and he should stop.

The one thing that I really had a hard time stomaching was the extended sequences with the party band, Silvertide. They were so awful I wanted to walk out of the movie. Picture a blonde version of The Black Crows with even less talent ripping through and f*(^king up a version of Dylan's "Maggie's farm".

Those few things aside, the rest of the cast was great, I thought the story was simple and decent enough, the "film critic" part with Bob Balaban was funny, but M. Night was asking for it with that one, and the movie as a whole was entertaining.

M. Night started out as the new golden boy of Hollywood with "The Sixth Sense", but many have felt he's lost his touch. The truth is he hasn't lost his touch, he just hasn't grown as a director. With "The 6th Sense", "Unbreakable", "Signs", "The Village", and now "The Happening", he keep tilling the same field. it's getting old. "The 6th Sense" was great, mostly because it was fresh, "Unbreakable" was entertaining for me at least due to the comic book references, but "Signs", "The Happening", and especially "The Village" were just plain terrible. "Lady In The Water" was a nice diversion from his formula, but it's getting tired. Perhaps M. Night would benefit from directing a script written by someone else, and not built around some moronic "twist" at the end, and most definitely not acting in it.

OK, let me start off with a confession, I do not like Edward Norton. I do not like him as an actor, and I do not like him as a person. I believe he is the product of all the worst aspects of the misused and misunderstood practice of method acting, and I think he's an egomaniac and a terrible "Film maker", see "American History X" for what I mean. So lets get to "The Hulk". This film was of course going to be compared to Ang Lee's commercial and critical failure "Hulk". I myself did not like "Hulk", but I have to admit that it had more to do with the writing and the story than with the actors and film makers. "Hulk" actually had some original ideas in how to present the mythology of a comic book on film. The cast i felt in that movie was actually good, they just had a crap story to work with. "Hulk" was really an overwrought soap opera between the title character and his father, which to be fair in 80's the comic did explore Banner's relationship with his father and it explained his anger issues.

Now we come to the new film "The Incredible Hulk", he we have a story less melodramatic, but somehow even more hollow and lacking in any intelligent subtlety. Edward Norton can not write. let me put it this way, as a writer Norton is a great actor, and as an actor, Norton is a great paralegal (please someone get that joke). Much was made about Norton writing a draft for the film to give the character more depth, but its not there. Also, Norton has made a huge deal out of not promoting the film as he feels its poorly made, the editing in particular. On that we can agree, but I have no doubt in my mind he could only make it worse. With "American History X" the director found it unbearable to work with Norton and left. Norton than re-edited the film, and gave himself more screen time and took the focus of the story from the white power movement and it's complexity and frightening aspects, to his acting abilities. "The Incredible Hulk" is edited perfectly naturally and well, so all Norton could do is add more footage of himself, and less of the actual Hulk. There are no opportunities to do and dialectic Eisenstien editing in Hulk, or and Bressonian elliptical editing, its just not that kind of movie.

I understand not every film needs to be "Au hasard balthazar" or "The 400 Blows", but even the summer blockbusters can be smart and entertaining, but "The Incredible Hulk" is neither. Unfortunately I believe most people don't care how crappy a movie is, just that is has lots of CGI and explosions, and they'll be happy. I on the other hand will be making better use of my time watching Willam Friedkin's "Sorcerer" on DVD, or "Mon Oncle Antoine" when it comes out on CC.

"I don't know about you, but I think I enjoy John Cassavetes the person more than Cassavetes the filmmaker; his films are very hard to take & they don't always work for me. (For one thing, they display a terrifying misogyny that has been remarked upon endlessly.)"

Any one who finds misogyny in any Cassavetes film, is a dangerous person who is complete ignorant, and should not be listened to. No one ever portrayed human beings, of both genders, more fairly and more accurately, than Cassavetes. It takes a complete idiot to find misogyny in his films. Not one of his films, Shadows, Faces, Too Late Blues, A Woman Under The Influence, Gloria, Big Trouble, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Opening Night, or anything else you care to name has anything but love for people. Sometimes people are not portrayed as the greatest or nicest people, but people are rarely anything more than human.

I watched and advanced screening of this, and I have to say it was horrible. I had hoped for something just decent, and was rewarded with something closer to being punched in the face. The actors were terrible, the jokes were stupid even for your average "Office" fan. The only thing that the cast can be commended for is the fact most of them don't try to emulate the original cast, although the girl who played Agent 99 was an exception, she's good looking, but also shallow, moronic, stiff, unfunny, and just plain untalented. As I said they can be commended for not trying to recreate the original characters, but this is the problem. Those actors, god rest Don Adams soul and thank goodness he isn't alive to see this, were so amazing that you keep looking for them in this movie, and bless their little untalented heads they just can't pull it off. Underwelling to say the least.

The comments made by thesnowleopard from Scotland are absolutely ignorant. Don't listen to his claims of knowledge of science and anthropology. He knows nothing about these fields, and even less about film. The film is great, and the science used in the film is well informed. Of course they take liberties, but then again it's a film, a story. Not to mention that in 1991 an Iceman was discovered, of course it wasn't alive and this plot point is dubious but again it's a movie, and similar events unfolded as in the film. I think if you suspend your disbelief for a moment you will see the strong points of the film. Enjoy the film, it's well done, and the acting is superb.

dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York does not know what he is talking about. The fact is, he has only seen the Franco version and has nothing to compare it to. The work print floats around occasionally, and it's a million times better that the Franco version. How can anyone call a film crap, when they have never even seen it. Don't ever listen to people that stupid. The fact is that you should even write a review if you have only seen one version of the film, and have no knowledge of the production history, the comment about Wells never intending to release it, is the most ridiculous, ignorant conjecture I have ever heard. No film make spends nearly 10 years of his life making a film, for it to just be a personal toy. He had plenty of projects that never saw release, The Deep, The Other Side of The Wind, etc. The main reason the film was never completed is that one of the principle actors died.