Reviews

Wilby Wonderful is a generous-hearted dark comedy drama with down-to-earth characters in realistic, hum-drum, inescapable life situations. The pace of the film lets us see into the emotional lives and conflicts the characters must deal with; there's a lot of quirky humor, and lovely shots of people's faces slowly changing as their feelings catch up with their minds.

All the actors do a great job. Ellen Page is solid and appealing; Sandra Oh is heart-breaking, contained and gorgeous.

If you like off-beat stories and solid, ensemble acting you will enjoy WW - it's a lovely way to spend a while.

The Eclipse has lots of good things about it, but in the end, the pieces don't hold together. Part of the problem is the editing and writing. There are many long shots - beautiful - with the most peculiar music playing, a mixture of bad Benjamin Britten and Philip Glass, and it goes on and on, setting a vague, angsty, weird mood. The story is a wisp, and the writing, while good, doesn't fill the film. The interior sets as well as the gorgeous Irish country side are beautiful, but some scenes are so badly shot that you can hardly see what's going on.

I kept watching because - besides expecting a payoff - the acting and characters are appealing. Hinds is great - he holds a lot in, myriad emotions flicker across his face, he clearly has a large interior life. The female lead grew on me, although her character is odd and prickly. Quinn, fabulously good, plays a character who's just a plot device to get the others in the right places, but he's so vivid, full-realized, pathetic and despicable at the same time, that the plot should have served him better. When the three leads get together, the film changes, and it's charged, strong, unpredictable, real, surprising.

We care about the emotional subject - unresolved grief, the spiritually or psychologically open states we can find out selves in, and how to move on and in to our lives. But it's as if half the film got left on the editing floor - the half with more acting and less music. It's like there are holes in the movie, filled with music. I know there was more there, but we can't see it. Worth checking out anyway for the acting.

It's hard to categorize this one. BV is a screw-ball comedy set in France at the beginning of WWII. It's about charming, endearing people driven to do crazy things for good and bad reasons, and about being selfish and self-interested in the face of tragedy. The actors are all excellent, attractive and believable. BV is fast-paced and intriguing, with plenty of action and complicated relationships. The sets and locale are fun.

It is hard to reconcile the humor and mad-cap adventure with the certainty of the enormous ruin about to be inflicted on everyone - but you don't need to try. Just as magic surrealism can make more sense than realism, the humor here, the heart of the film, affirms the desire and hope that life must go on. It's done very well.

You MUST see Scarecrow if you are a fan of Pacino's or Hackman's. Don't read one second more, go out & rent it NOW. If you are undecided...

Where to begin. Cinematography: takes you right into the center of the story and every scene. Music: backs up and deepens the action. Must pay attention to: all the extras - the faces are incredible. It's as if you are seeing people from all times/any times, Dust Bowl types, Americans on the lam, losers, down and outers, wannabes. Plot: some will say this is the weakest element, and it is if you want a strong narrative with a climax and resolution - a literary approach. But if you let yourself believe in the director and actors and the whole experience, the plot works beautifully, because it supports what the movie is all about: two men who come to love and trust each other.

Acting: astounding, intimate, uncomfortable, heart-wrenching, funny, poignant, vivid, memorable, aching, disturbing. The characters played by Hackman and Pacino, Max and Lion, are complicated, inarticulate men totally down on their luck. They may never be up on it. We get to see them from the inside out, feel their despair, rage, dyspeptic, desperate hope; see them implode, explode, reload and go on. As their relationship changes every minute, underneath the surface squabbles and discontents a strong foundation is laid. The emotional experience is subtle, believable, realistic.

Two scenes among many are standouts - dinner with Max's old friends, and the strip dance in the bar - watch the interplay of expressions on the faces of Max and Lion and the bar crawlers as you listen to the music.

This movie is what art is all about: going into another world and living it from the inside. I feel bigger and better for having seen it.

This flick has it all: bad guys, really bad guys and the worst guys. Lots of action, fast and plot-driven. Excellent cinematography, concise, tight, vivid. Good music. Two of the most fun chew-up-the-scenery action crash scenes I've ever seen - the thresher and the truck. Great characters, esp the leads, played by Hackman & Marvin.

Hackman is fantastic and memorable as an utterly loathsome, disgusting, frightening villain, who keeps a twinkle of charm that makes him even more despicable, and who shows his callow, wormy heart at the end. Marvin plays a straight-ahead get-it-done knight-errant - you know nothing is going to keep him from his quest.

The content of the film is not for everyone. Very strong stomachs are advised because the story is utterly amoral. But if that's your hunk of hamburger, you can't do better than biting into this one.

This is one heck of a sleazy time. If you like slumming, want to be blasted by a steam cleaner cuz you feel so dirty, like to wallow in slop, enjoy slimy scum bags, can't live without paranoid fantasies, then this is your two hours of mayhem and muck. Let's hope you never see Nic Cage look this creepy again - like someone attached it to the wrong end of a shop vac that sucked out a honey bucket. Cage is either very ill or an ex-actor inexplicably still acting.

You will enjoy the film if you're a BIG fan of Cage's, Herzog's, or if your expectations for B movies are D or less. The mistake Herzog made is that we don't care enough one way or the other about any of the main characters, plus he rode on the Abel's coattails. Years after seeing Harvey do BL I remember EVERYTHING about that guy, and how wonderfully loathsome he was. Cage's BL? - gone already.

This is a very easy fun flick with moments that tug your heartstrings or maybe make you think of bathos, but that's OK, you will enjoy yourself anyway.

The cast is uniformly great. Meryl really shines, Alec throws himself around in an endearingly annoying way, the kids are all smart, the houses are gorgeous, the architects are capable, the hotels are comfy, the food looks scrumptious. That points out the big flaw: these folks - unlike 95% of America - have no money problems, no looks problems, no taste problems, & no time problems.

If that doesn't bother you - it didn't me, it's after all a fairy tale - you will enjoy every minute.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen!

Simplistic,pandering, silly, plodding, inaccurate, full of awful stereotypes - painful! shameful!

Whatever is good about it - others have pointed out the great makeup for example - is way overshadowed by the utterly stupid and vacuous premise of the film. The short story may be wonderful. The conceit of the film is ridiculous. It's one of those movies that tells you the characters love each other, but we don't feel it. We are told Momma loves her Benjamin, but we don't feel it. Benjamin himself is really quite the jerk.

The heavy poorly done accents alone almost do in this one alone. I am not sure why Southern accents inspire such derision, but this movie has set back another decade or two anyone taking Southerners seriously.

I saw this because I have heretofore enjoyed all of Brad's movies. Not a fan of Cate, but she can act. They are both awful in this. I blame that on the idiotic story & execution. At its best it's sentimental, empty pap, at its worst it's pretentious, bloviated, false and offensive.

Hard to take this one at all seriously. Quentin was def attempting something, but he didn't carry anything off cohesively. It's a mishmash.

Tongue-sticking out refs to cowboy movies, good bit actors but dopey big ones, great cinematography and mostly good editing but some BIG goofs, plodding plot. Never has Hitler looked so simply wrong, or been played so buffoonishly to no effect. Churchill was unrecognizable. Brad is a hoot & that's not good. His accent is distracting, poorly done and laughable, and he looks like he's got marbles tucked into his cheeks.

The highlight, if you can call it that, is Nazi villain Landa, played very well, if over the top. IB is a lot like baseball: lots of standing around covered up with overdone dialog followed by a lot of action that's over very fast. Enjoyable silliness for the most part, it's definitely entertaining, but you will need a few beers to smooth over the long boring bits, and at about 2 1/2 hours, there are quite a few. If you smoke a lot of dope & are into sci-fi, this could be just the ticket to fritter away an evening.

Like other viewers, I had hoped & expected this film would have more depth and bite. The actors are all excellent; Spacey in particular, lizard-eyed, creepy and half-asleep.

Those that shaped the final cut made choices to tone down the black humor. That was a mistake because nothing, least of all the military, really gets spoofed, so the film becomes more like a fantasy of what clever people think is a fresh take on the war economy.

You'll have fun watching this - Clooney is very good, ditto Bridges, MacGregor has always left me cold but he plays goofy well. Just don't expect any real commentary on real events. It's more like a fond, "hey, ain't those guys cute!" shaggy dog tale.

This was lots of fun, if slow to develop & move forward. Minor quibble because of excellent acting from all leads, & equally good supporting cast performances. Apt, oddball choices of songs commented on the action and characters. There are brief scenes of intense gore, but you can close your eyes for a second.

I agree with another poster that parts of this don't mesh as a whole, but it didn't bother me because of the film's almost happy-go-lucky vibe, a little wistful and silly, funny in places. It was saved by balancing those elements or attitudes with a fresh take on 2nd rate mobsters in - not that I agree, since I was born there - a second rate burg. The local color is done well - it's very particular to SI, though not the whole story.

Seymour Cassell was especially good - it's great to see a guy who's seen it all display depth and nuance in what's essentially a light but highly entertaining flick.

If you like off-beat, unusual films, and directors who aren't afraid to go out on a limb, and sharp small characters, you'll have a good time with this one.

This director will one day make a great movie. This isn't it. But it's worth seeing for the stellar performances, particularly by the incandescent Savane as Solo. All the actors are excellent - Diana Franco Galindo, as a ten-year old is great. The textures of life, the little details that tell you what the characters lives are really like are very well done. Bahrani has good ideas, artistic vision and technical prowess.

You could compare him with the Dardenne brothers. But they have mastered the roughly-hewn, realistic, pithy story, and they have developed their own unique, humanistic and supremely crafted way of telling their stories. In their films, the characters and their lives pull the story along. Their films pulse with thrumming heart-beats. GS doesn't.

I almost don't want to criticise Goodbye Solo, but I must because I think Bahrani can do better. GS doesn't gel all the way. The heart is there, the intention is noble, yet it's as if the director needs a better pair of glasses on to make us see his vision. GS was way better than Chop Shop. Let's keep our eyes on this guy.

If you like interesting ideas wrapped up in a fast, clever & quick flick, if you like action, it's here. If you like gore & gushing geysers of gook, they are all here. District 9 is great, and will definitely become a classic sci-fi movie.

Other reviewers covered the comparisons to Blade Runner - I'd agree, but would give BL more points. But this is more FUN. Other reviewers went into the intellectual part of this - but this is more FUN.

It's well-crafted, fast, has great editing, decent character development, and most of all, we viewers find ourselves shifting our POVs and allegiances naturally - the other becomes us. A well done trick, adroit and effortless.

There's other stuff, like how easy it is for the powers that be to devise an interpretation of events/people that has nothing to do with reality, but which yet becomes the dominant reality. This is not labored over in the film, just a comment I'm making by the wayside, the one that's littered with prawns.

The CGI is phenomenal, the acting is good, the pseudo-documentary feel tells us there is someone in the future looking back at this time, who still doesn't know all of the aftermath. Sequel?

I love movies. I love cats. I love off-beat quirky weird movies. I will try almost anything once.

This film - turned it on, watched for 2 mins, flipped through the scenes & put it back in its case.

Why? Low production values: (not a killer category always) not great in this flick. Amateurish acting: ditto. Pointless POV: yes, really bad. & I have a strong stomach & like tough action movies. The stuff in this one was cheap,crappy "humor" - not funny, not original, not worth describing. Unappealing lead: oh, yeah, in every way.

Cat? not around.

Do not bother!

I've got good news, & I've got bad news.

The good? Michelle is very fine - convincing sad mommy, Barbie cute, emoticon deluxe. E.McG - not around enough. There must have been an editing mess with this one. The first part of the film suggests he would have had a bigger role. Our loss.

The bad? THIS IS NOT AN ACTION MOVIE!!!! It's a ruminative, junky, maudlin, meandering mess masquerading as an action movie. No guts, no punch. It takes a long time to say - & you will be half asleep at this point - that, gee, Osama should just listen to the sad mommas out there & he wouldn't be such a bad dude. Aww!

NO. This is idiotic. Terrorists are NOT good daddies. Not possible.

The whole thing takes a long time to develop & then falls apart in bathetic babbling.

Is that what makes this seem thoughtful? OK - excellent acting by all concerned, great sets, lovely cinematography - but the script -? We don't know anything about anything - that's a profound summary of the motivations of the characters. There is nothing to grab on to, nothing but perhapses and maybes. This makes the film a big fat failure.

The subject - molestation of minors by priests - is horrendous and awful. So why the mealy-mouthed treatment? What's the point? Perhaps to say that without proof we are in doubt? Then why bother with the film - really, a big effort for no return.

I was very disappointed that such a serious topic, and so much hooplah about a film, with such great actors, resulted in so little. It was a waste of time.

Great, funny, buddy movie!

Excellent action, funny jokes, off-beat, fresh morbid humor (hang around after the first shocker - it gets funnier but no grosser).

The 2 leads are perfectly matched, & their characters develop to show the depth of the values they share. That sounds rather high falutin' for such a tough, fast, violent flick, but these guys are really knights in disguise. And the twist in this film is that the superficial differences that keep the dialogue tense and quick underscore that they both just want the same thing - their kids, a job & someone to smile at.

I loved the hockey angle, and while I'm sure many of the Canadian jokes sailed right over my American head, the twisted, subtle and clever patter smoothed that right over. Lots of jokes, visual, verbal, situational and character-driven. The French-speaking police chief is a priceless buffoon, and there are many excellent bit parts.

A lot of women may not like this one for its intense violence & sweat-soaked action. Not me - I say, get a 6-pack of your favorite beer & get ready to have a great time.

Director & actors: Sequel PLEASE!

Excellent actors & moody, pretty lighting can't save this pseudo-romantic claptrap from plopping fatally into a mucky bucket of bathos. This mishmashed murk of a movie misses its mark & leaves you wishing your fast forward did triple-time.

It's got tons of ambiance, and the lighting is interesting, although it looks like powdered Fruit Loops got sprinkled over every scene. None of these characters connect with each other; they say they want to, but it's only the lighting that makes us foolishly expect that one of these dolts is a half-baked person.

Smart, solid & creative actors did their best with an aimless story, especially Rachel & David, but the film is devoid of originality, wit & real emotion.

If you're a big fan of C Lahti - see this - her face is wonderful, catching myriad emotions with depth & grace.

The rest of it is lame - low plot, leads that die, ideas not followed through, unsatisfying characters going half-way, no pay off.

Campbell Scott, while easy on the eyes resorts to two tones - one flat & the other flatter.

Supporting cast has little to work with in the way of story, development or location. There is nothing redeeming about any of the film except for Lahti's acting.

You'd be better off browsing in the romance section of the used book store.

Lots of fun - an adult movie that keeps you guessing about how the characters will understand themselves. A sort of farce, a sort of mordant comedy, driven by id, but on the surface well-mannered & careful, this film features a quartet of talented actors who consistently entertain & provoke us to think about what lies beneath our own happiness - or lack of it.

The weakest link is Rachel McAdams - luscious & pretty but not sexy-juicy. David Wenham is underused - he's such a creative, pithy, strongly male actor it's a shame his part isn't larger. Minor quibbles as the film works extremely well as it is. The sets & costumes are perfect, except that Brosnan's hair style is more '65 than '49, but maybe he's just ahead of his time.

Brosnan is excellent as slimy snake. Chris Cooper is great, & believable as a man driven more by his fantasies of love than by really feeling love. But why not a few hot necking scenes at least? For a movie about sex & love, there are NO sex/love scenes, except for one half-lit dark second or two.

Patricia Clarkson - wow - gorgeous, the most interesting character in the film really; nuanced, layered deep expression of real character. The wise one who sacrifices most - she's the one that really loves, despite her protests to the contrary.

See it - you will be entertained, provoked, & perhaps finally comforted, in a slightly twisted way.

DDL is beyond excellent, no question, & all the other actors are superb, as is the cinematography, the sets, costumes, the music, everything but the plot. Lots of psychological holes, little depth, all is superficial greed & muscular domination without showing us motivation. We are "told" the whys, but we can't see under skins of the characters.

& that's why it's such an unsatisfying film - by the time get to see the final scene & appreciate the acting (again) we feel cheated. Because we are left with a desolate, bitter drunk who's hurt himself more than anyone else. & we've heard that one before, & with more punch, panache, brevity & passion. I didn't need to sit through this long film to get that pay off - it's not enough, cuz I coulda been watching Escape from New York & drinking a beer!

And what bugged me most, & leads me to believe the director had no idea how to use his considerable resources, is that Ciaran Hinds is utterly wasted - he could have added some dark depth & a show of dedication in his relationship to the man we see baldly as a liar & a scoundrel. Hinds is shot so he almost slinks off the screen; perhaps his small on-screen time is due to editing down a cumbersome film & keeping the action moving. Pity. There isn't any meat on them dry, dusty bones we get to pick out in the oil fields.

Here's another guy who had it going & lost it - Istvan, that is.

Harvey is only allowed to be one dimensional, smarmy, smirky & silly.

Stellan does his best but only gets one camera angle when he's sitting down, so he looks pathetic - quite amazing when you consider his physical presence & intense often frightening eyes.

Furtwangler was anything but pathetic. & you can bet that the real F, who looks to our eyes like the quintessential dork, was charismatic, awkward, intense. Stellan doesn't capture the toughness & autocratic power a great conductor has, but I blame Szabo for that.

The only good bits in the film are the well done secondary characters - they are appealing & convincing.

I think the big problem is that Szabo thinks he's doing us a favor by blandifying the subject so as to be fair. Wow, what a crock. Give me a strong opinion, I don't have to agree with you.

We hardly know by film's end anything about what motivated F to either be a hero or a bastard. So maybe this director should do stuff like "Being Julia" - a slight story that had some juice.

The subject of the film matters so much, that he does so little with it makes it more of a failure.

Unless you love the idea of Harvey looking like a Xavier Cugat wannabe, skip this boring thang & go straight to something with more social significance, like My Cousin Vinny.

Nils Gaup created the original Pathfinder. It's only on VHS tape, it may be very hard to find, but find it you should because it's beautiful, rich, exotic, heartfelt, exciting, frightening, strong, clear.

When you've finished reading reviews of this film, find reviews of Gaup's & read them! I noticed that the director of this new version credits Gaup for having inspired the new Pathfinder. Pitifully, he wasn't really inspired to make a good film, because he he punctured & deflated a timeless story made by a real artist.

This current version modifies the story line but doesn't improve on it, & takes the bare-bones of a common experience in all cultures - the rough male hunters with better weapons killing the settled, family-based tribal groups, & turns it into a sappy, unconvincing, feckless exercise in Big Bad Guys & Nice Good Guys.

You will enjoy the original - the reality of the story will feel somehow familiar. You may remember playing hide & seek as a child, or simple chasing games, thrilling precisely because they are real. You will admire & appreciate the young man who becomes the Pathfinder in the original - he defines what it means to have greatness thrust upon you. You will like the elder who instructs the young man. You will appreciate the silence of the snow, the forbidding landscape, that everything's made by hand, the view of primitive life that is yet not so different from ours in its simplest elements.

The original Pathfinder features dialog in Sammi, & uses exotic looking actors. The village people are fresh, simple. Watching them almost feels like a documentary.

The bad guys in the original are very scary - big, strong, dark, relentless. They have lots of big metal swords, they have tough clothing, they have good boots. All those details are done artistically & beautifully. The scariest thing about them is not their "beserker" outlook, emphasized in the remake, but the hard fact that they have planned out the annihilation of their prey dispassionately. You don't simply hate them, you fear their strength of will & their vision of utter destruction.

The young hero is as terrified as anyone would be by seeing these cruel & massively powerful killers come closer & closer to his loved ones. How he handles his fear, & what he does to become the Pathfinder, is especially what's missing from the remake.

But I'm not going to even talk about this current version since I think it's not worthy of conversation. As an adventure movie, it's just OK, nothing great. But you might want to see Conan the Barbarian instead.

Nope, there's nothing remarkable about the new Pathfinder, but if it gets Gaup's film released on DVD, it will have been worth the effort it took to make it.

Watch it if you must. But then, Please! Find the original!