Change Your Image
webbbarton
Reviews
The Son of Monte Cristo (1940)
The story of WW II in Europe?
Since this comment compares the entire plot of the movie to World War II in 1940, don't read this if you are avoiding spoilers.
I could not help noticing while watching the movie that the basic roles of the characters in the story match very closely to the major nations' roles in the war going on at the time.
Gurko Lanen - Powerful, corrupt, ruthless, uses spies, back stabs - he is clearly the Germans
Zona - Strong heart, good intentions, pure but realistic. How can she win against such overwhelming force? - the British, who, at this time stood alone against the Germans.
Baron von Neuhof - Allied with Zona, outwitted and imprisoned - The French
Prince Paul Pavlov - Signs a secret treaty that protects Lanen against a war with the French, secretly 'selling off' the citizens of Lichtenburg (who represent the Poles (or perhaps all of the free peoples of Europe), I think) - The Soviets (who else?)
And finally - 'The Torch'/Count Monte Cristo - The savior that is willing to risk his life for Zona, even though he has no interest in Lichtenburg - his ambition is to fight oppression wherever it lies - The USA
Naturally Stadt represents the German SA (Ernst Rohm) that was betrayed by Hitler after building the Nazi party into a viable force, and also obviously the Gestapo (German secret police).
Remember that in 1940, The Soviet Union was NOT at war with Germany. In fact, the Germans and Soviets conquered Poland and divided the nation in accordance with a 'secret' clause in their Non-Aggression Pact.
It is so similar that I can't imagine that the movie wasn't a veiled attempt to encourage the USA to join the war on the side of Britain.
In fact, the plot of the movie even has The Count lending money to Lichtenburg. The USA was officially neutral, but certainly mostly Anglophilic at the time, which would be consistent with this theme.
Maybe I am reaching a little bit, but I have a strong feeling that this is the case.
Does anyone know of any official connection? Has this been discussed before?
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Totally underwhelmed
I understand the concept of poetic or author's license and I understand that a movie is not a documentary. What I wanted to see was an updated version of Tora, Tora, Tora - NOT this mess. The real attack here was an attack on our concept of history. No one man did or could EVER have fought in The Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor and then flown a bomber in the Doolittle Raid. That is just so incredibly absurd I almost walked out right there.
I gave it a 3 because it had some really cool scenes. But that's all it was - a few cool scenes with a bad plot and a bad love story wrapped around it. And it was not historically accurate past the most basic facts. The true personalities and concerns of the major players in the battles were NOT accurately represented.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004)
Greatest video game to date, bar none
As of the time of this posting, this is the greatest video game ever made. I have nothing more profound to say than that. What makes it great is that it does not get repetitive, and it is long and you feel like you are in control, and every thing that you do is recorded in the stats. You can make it any game that you want to, because there is so much to do and so much to see. Calling it simply a 'game' is not really fair - there is a captivating story like in a movie, there is 'arcade style' action, there are puzzles to solve and you must think on your feet. Clearly it was designed to allow you to explore what it is like to be a criminal. The game world is actually very huge. There are miles and miles of highway and blocks and blocks of cities. I have been playing for days and days and I'm only about 20% done. I'm not very good at the game but man is it fun! I just can't imagine a game that will top this.
Two Girls and a Guy (1997)
This is art. Maybe you get it, maybe you don't.
Because no two people on earth have the same experiences, everyone gets a different impression of what they are viewing. Please don't take personal offense at what I have to say.
This movie is as artistic as any painting in which the artist(s) has bared his (or her, please sub for either gender) soul. Regardless of how bare your soul is, many people, perhaps even MOST people, will not understand. They will not understand the characters' reactions, they will not understand the choice of words, they will not understand that what they are looking at is intensity and not merely intent.
Before I make my point, some info on the reviewer:
I just saw this movie for the first time, I viewed it alone. It stopped me in my tracks. I saw it on the 5.99 cart and picked it up for a 'rainy day' movie. It was meant to happen.
I am in my mid 30's and have seen a lot of films, and have always been fascinated with both the mainstream and the not-so-mainstream films. I agree with the possibility that this may be so intense because it may very well be simply a portrayal of Robert Downey Jr.'s real life. He has an interesting life. See?
There are a lot of intertwined dynamics happening here. At the beginning Lou is excited about having a boyfriend (we find out why she is excited later) and Carla doesn't really want to call Blake her boyfriend, until she has to. Interesting because ***STOP - SPOILER*** Lou ends up running out but Carla remains true. This movie has a central question. If you love someone, can't you forgive them for anything? Even lying? Some people can't. Some people can. If you can, then you are in Carla's world. If you can't, you are with Lou. I think this makes it a deep movie. Since this was filmed in '96-97 when lesbianism was in vogue in the techno club scene (ask me how I know) it was OK for Lou to go both ways. Some people will be shocked. Some people won't.
Some people will scoff at this film for 2 minutes and move on, feeling un-entertained. Understandable if you can't identify with the generation, the scene, the situation or the characters (that's actually a lot, a whole lot; I think it will be difficult for the majority of the population to truly identify). I can identify with it all. What DO you do if you meet two people that both really seem special, even to the point of love? Some people think it impossible. Some people don't. Well, my impression was that Lou did not really feel love. Maybe nobody did. Maybe Blake and Carla did. It was art. Art doesn't provide answers. Art leaves the answers (and the impressions) to the viewer. 10/10, I was entertained thoroughly.