Reviews

Okay: full disclosure. First, I knew this two-parter was going to be terrible before ever I watched it. I skimmed the reviews. I visited the Wikipedia page. I blinked a few times and reminded myself that it was a Scify production. Then I shrugged, clicked through to Tahmoh Penikett's IMDb bio, and, while staring at his Blue Steel headshot, said to myself, "We'll just crack a bottle of wine and enjoy this silliness for what it is."

Subsequently, after having pregamed with a couple of pinot noirs, I loaded up part 1 of this goofy film. And I was neither disappointed nor surprised. dmaboyer says in their review that that whether or not you enjoy this film depends on whether you're a "Riverworld" purist. Pfft. I've never read the books, and I'll be the first to admit that this was a tremendously stupid adaptation. Things blow up. Matt Ellman is shirtless, but only for about... ugh, 20 seconds. People drag themselves out of a river. Alan Cumming has a blue face but does not transport. I honestly couldn't tell whether Matt was the protagonist or the antagonist. There is a steam-powered riverboat... no wait, a nuclear fusion powered riverboat. There are historical figures, courtesans, genius engineers, conquistadors. Apparently there is the apocalypse, but Riverworld's occupants don't arrive in a linear fashion so we never get to see it. There are token *gAY MeN AND PEOPle oF COLOr*. The effects and direction are awful. White people with large armies even manage to ruin the afterlife. A scene- gnawing Bond villain, a secondary female character tragically in love with Matt, an unfindable blonde love. Ugh. The cast seems to be composed of otherwise talented Canadian actors reciting horribly, despicably deadpan lines from a script that drips with sexist undertones.

And frankly, friends, after a bottle of wine, I'm inclined to think the high point of this poorly written travesty is the scene - possibly contractually obligated - wherein Tahmoh Penikett does a bit of boxing practice while chained up by Francisco Pizarro, with a definitive focus on the laces of Matt's military boots. (Yeah, I have no problem admitting that it wouldn't be a satisfying Penikett production without a few delightfully precise bounces and jabs. My only regret is that, in this movie, they are delivered while his shirt is still ON.) The rest is just filler. Why are all these dead people from the past and future in the same world? Is this some kind of inside joke about Battlestar Galactica? Are you mocking mac and cheese as a comfort food? Can I insert a picture of that guy from "Ancient Aliens"? Honestly, it doesn't matter. Everyone's apparently dead.

And I haven't yet found a way to watch part 2, but I assume I'm not missing much. Perhaps someday I'll get around to it, and I assure you, I'll update this review if I do. In the meantime, my advice? Watch this movie for the same reasons you'd watch "Stonehenge Apocalypse," and at the same level of intoxication. Don't heighten your expectations, and you won't be disappointed. There's too much to laugh at.

I'm stupendously glad that I didn't pay to watch this film (hooray, freebie coupon at Redbox!), because it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. Like so many other crappy horror films, the four main characters can easily be typified as the "virgin," the "nerd," the "jock," and the "slut" - all white and college-age, of course. They are obnoxious to each other. They use ableist and racist slurs in casual conversation. They act like jerks to the fifth character, the obviously creepy "caretaker" (which is always a /great/ idea, right?) They go on vacation to a rural site without preparation or backstory. Their acting is simultaneously wooden and over-the-top.

What happens? Um... the main character has ghostly visions, there's a little bit of running around in the woods, and then some people get stabbed. There's some backstory about a dead aunt and a super-Christian father who may or may not have murdered his family based upon Bible passages, but it never gets explained. The spoiler warning on this review is because I just gave away the whole movie with this paragraph. Literally, the film has no plot other than what I just described. I'd give it zero stars if I could. There weren't even any scary scenes or jump-scares, much less psychological thrills of any kind.

That having been said, there is one minor reason to watch this film! You could use it as a drinking pregame (try doing a shot every time Mark is a complete jerk, or anytime Sam has a vision) for watching "Cabin in the Woods," a genius film in which Joss Whedon lovingly and brilliantly parodied crappy "horror" flicks exactly like this one. But don't try watching this movie for its own merits - because it doesn't have any.

"... you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave!"

This movie might have been better had it ripped off more of that song. That's not to say that all of "1408" was a farce on "Hotel California": this was an original Stephen King story, after all, and there was no pink champagne on ice (rather a bottle of whisky)... and there were a lot less plot holes in the song. But in any case, if you substitute "Nightman" for "Creepy Voice on the Phone", you might end up with the basic plot of "1408".

You can read the basic plot of the story anywhere: angsty, moody writer Mike Enslin (our fabulously miscasted John Cusack) forces the manager of the Dolphin Hotel (our fabulously casted Samuel L. Jackson) to rent him a "haunted" hotel room. The only way this story differs from any other predictable haunted-hotel-room tale is in the way backstory is used: we get to know a lot about Enslin and how he became obsessed with the occult, ghosts, and hauntings, more than in the original Stephen King story.

However, the movie's fatal weaknesses are in (a) the main character himself, (b) gaping plot holes in the story, and (c) the fake plot twist halfway through.

Mike Enslin might be a fairly engaging character to some--he's funny, intelligent, and cynical. But a few scenes, in particular, were heartwrenchingly beautiful, and we come to feel very deeply for the star of this horror flick in a way that is just fundamentally unfitting, and the worst part is that this feeling ends up being thrown out by the end. There's no denying that Cusack is a great actor: but it totally broke the pace of the movie to have a heart-wrenching memory scene of Enslin's dying daughter Katy, right in between an earthquake and a flood. It simply didn't fit, particularly when, ten minutes later, Enslin lies under a sofa and started maniacally laughing.

Now, take "Identity", a 2003 horror film in which Cusack starred. His main character there was extraordinarily sympathetic, but that empathy didn't clash with the plot and action in the way this one did.

The crucial problem was this movie had as many plot holes as Pennsylvania has deer, not to put too fine a point on it, and THAT was where the heart-wrenching just didn't work. No one survives more than an hour in the room, and yes, the clock does begin a countdown from sixty minutes--but not until Enslin has gone over the room with a fine-tooth comb and a UV lamp, and an electrician has fixed the thermostat. Sure, no electronics work in 1408--except Enslin's computer, which somehow manages to pick up wireless even when the rest of the building somehow disappears. Yes, the room is playing with Enslin's psyche and bringing his daughter into the mess--but then why drag in the one extremely short and pointless scene with his father? And though Jackson's line of "That is one evil f#@%!ng room," might suffice for Enslin and for most moviegoers, I would have been pretty happy to find out just what is ACTUALLY going on in 1408.

I won't spoil the ending action, or even the stupidest fake plot twist to ever fakely twist a plot--go somewhere else in the movie comments for that. And I'm not going to lie: I really did like this movie as a noncommittal horror film, and I even enjoyed those heart-wrenching scenes between Enslin and Katy. (I can only hope they show up again in another Cusack film in the future.) But ultimately, the elements of fine acting and crappy horror just didn't mix well, and it really just became a noncommittal horror film, with no potential, and hopefully (oh God, please) no sequels.

Besides, all that kept running through my head were the words to "Hotel California." "Last thing I remember, I was running for the door... I had to find the passage back to the place that I was before..."

Well, this movie had it.

There were the characters: an endearingly earnest journalism student, Sandra (complete with glasses and a retainer to be sexy and dorky at the same time), and a charmingly rich aristocrat, Peter Lyman, who just happens to love an American accent. I'll not deal with Woody Allen's character, who annoyed me inordinately, but whom other viewers might love because of that obnoxiousness.

Then there was the fun plot. A journalist comes back from the dead and tells Sandra that Peter might be the Tarot Card Killer of London. She pursues the story, and romance, of course, ensues. There were so many places the plot could have gone... that it didn't.

The lines were predictable; the romance between Peter and Sandra was hopelessly unlikely and utterly boring; the final plot twist was something any hack filmmaker could have thought of; the resolution of the film was not so much of a resolution as the gasp of the dying windbag, another joke for Woody Allen's character; finally, so many media laws were broken that any respectable journalist watching the film will just cringe.

If you're expecting anything from Hugh Jackman, you might as well just give up and pretend that Peter Lyman is Leopold, Duke of Albany, and indulge in the sight of his rippling pectorals: that's about as much of his personality as we get. It's as if the whole movie is built around mocking this kind of English character: rich, cultured, eccentric, loose, and hopelessly attracted to American girls. It's truly a crippling role.

In any case, whether you're approaching this as a romantic comedy, or a lesson in journalism, it's probably going to be a disappointment. And if you're desperate to see Scarlett Johansen and Hugh Jackman as the really talented performers that they are, I suggest you rent "The Prestige". It might not be a comedy, but at least it fulfills its potential.

At first I was hesitant to rate "V For Vendetta" at all, given that many reviews of it said, completely sans details, "Five Stars!", or the ubiquitous "Two Thumbs Up!". But eventually I decided to rate the movie after all, because "V For Vendetta" is visually spectacular, excellently casted and acted (if you can avoid seeing who plays V until the end of the movie, please do so--it helps you to avoid obvious stereotypes between V and other characters the actor has portrayed), and "actiony" enough to satisfy those who come only for that facet of the film. However, what really makes "V" such a glorious cinematic experience is the fact that it goes beyond the screen and drags every current political debate into the picture.

In a society which is only going to get more liberal, we are shown a picture of the future, where the fascist leader (whose physical characteristics and leadership qualities show him in more than one way to be a caricature of Adolf Hitler) violently tortures and executes British gays, lesbians, minority races, and religions other than the Anglican Church, and supports wars on other countries, including America. It is the worst kind of conservative government, one which even bans beautiful works of art (including the Koran), and the people of the country are obviously miserable and disgusted. Immediately we sympathize with Evey, whose average Britishness is only surpassed by her loneliness, and we feel further intense disgust for the government which oppresses her.

Along comes a fellow who (a) is quaintly reminiscent of a burned Edmund Dantes, winning our sympathy, (b) is strongly supportive of the minority/gay/lesbian/religious cause, but fancies and courts our heroine nonetheless, winning our love, (c) is quirky but obviously intelligent, winning our respect, and (d) can rhyme, quote Shakespeare, and throw knives like nobody's business, winning our utter delight. V embodies everything that an audience looks for in an action hero: despite the fact that he wears a mask and wig for the entirety of the movie (I might actually have left the theatre if Evey had demasked him), he is physically fit and there is no doubt to the audience that he can kick the living daylights out of henchmen.

Then comes the catch: Yes, V is an incredibly attractive character to the audience (and of course, so is Evey), and yes we understand that he fights against fascism, dictatorship, racism, genocide, and Rechtsextremismus. But V is nevertheless a terrorist, and I mean for that word "terrorist" to carry just as much strength as it would describing a member of Al-Qaeda or the ULA. V straps a bomb to his chest and takes it into a crowded television broadcast building, then kills security guards and, ultimately, a person (one of several) whom he dresses up just like himself, in Guy Fawkes costumes--an innocent civilian. V indirectly, albeit unaffectedly, kills several people later in the movie by sending out more Guy Fawkes costumes and encouraging Britons to wear them. Undoubtedly, the Parliament building is evacuated on the Fifth of November, but its final glorious destruction is almost more disturbing in its emotionlessness. He kills, steals, destroys, lies, kidnaps, and--and this is probably the most heartbreaking, stereotypical, terroristic facet of his character--seems to think that every man, woman, or child in Britain would die for their country.

Upon my first viewing of the movie, I was simply awed and pleased; upon reflection and further viewings, I realized the implications of V's actions: the entire movie's message is that "Terrorism is justified when an oppressive government is in sway." Imagine if the Christians in pre-Constantine Roman times had begun killing innocent Roman citizens in defense of their religion, rather than peacefully warring with Christian philosophy. Furthermore, imagine if the Jews in Berlin had strapped bombs to their chests and destroyed central parts of the city, then killed Hitler, after their Jewish compatriots in Warsaw were taken to Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Treblinka. Certainly the Holocaust would have ended more quickly, but the Jewish population of Europe would then have been labelled forevermore as terrorists. Terrorism, in the United States, is considered to be an absolutely forbidden tactic of fighting, and the paradox in "V for Vendetta", what absolutely boggles my mind, is that terrorism is GLORIFIED, through fantastic characters, extreme visual effects, and cinematic tricks that beautify plot action.

Whatever your political convictions, "V for Vendetta" is a film every American who cares about the modern world or the future should see. Even being set primarily in London, and entirely in England, it brings forward the main points of America's politics today, beautifully linking our arguments concerning religion (it might be noted that the Church of England, in this film, is portrayed as totally corrupt and unreligious), war, terrorism, the gay/lesbian stand, and whom we should trust to run our country.

The issue between this film and its American remake, "The Birdcage", is not whether the second film glossed over the issues of homosexuality. French culture in 1978 simply did not allow a diplomat's daughter to marry the son of a nightclub owner, regardless of whether or not the nightclub was a drag club or not, or regardless of whether or not the diplomat was the secretary of the Union for Moral Order. Molinaro's point about Albin as a drag queen and Renato as his partner was made quite well, and several of the scenes where Albin "goes straight" are quite funny--but they weren't really the point of the movie.

But this film couldn't be PERFECTLY remade, retaining all of the original facets of the French movie. Mike Nichols couldn't possibly have made a comparison about the two cultures clashing in the film, in 1996 America. ANYWHERE in 1996 America, for that matter, not just "South Beach" Florida. If you criticize the movie on those grounds, it's not quite fair. Molinaro's original was made to amplify the horror of the culture clash, by using a gay pair as the groom's parents. Nichols' remake is meant to ONLY accentuate the fact that Armand and Albert are liberally gay--flagrantly so--and not that they aren't in Kevin Keeley's class.

The original is better for audiences who want something deeper and more meaningful, in that sense; but it doesn't mean that the remake is any worse for it. "La Cage" is less of a farce than "Birdcage", and that was intentional. I give both about the same rating--that is, excellent.

I didn't have very high expectations for this movie, having been disappointed with Troy, and exasperated with King Arthur, and disgusted with Alexander. What a pleasant surprise! What first struck me, as other users have mentioned, was the incredibly two-sided views they gave of the Christians and the Muslims. People were not bad guys because they prescribed to one religion or another: they were evil because they misused their power, and were foolish. Even living in the Western culture that I do, I loved being able to deeply dislike several Christian characters in the film, and I felt only respect for the Muslim leaders--especially for Saladin, of course.

Then, what continued throughout the film, and most impressed me, was the performance given by Edward Norton, my very favorite screen chameleon. I watched the entire movie with no clue who played the masked king of Jerusalem, and realized about ten minutes before he died, that whoever the actor was--he was wonderful. His entire face covered by a silver mask (except for a three-second flash which was clearly NOT the actor's real face), that character managed to evoke more of my emotions in his half an hour of screen time than Orlando Bloom did throughout the entire film. As I watched the credits at the end, and discovered Edward Norton in them... as the king... I realized just how much that particular performance had affected me. Even Richard Harris, as the comparable character in Gladiator, Marcus Aurelius, can't hold a candle to the way in which the King of Jerusalem was acted. (The fact that Edward Norton has never played such a character adds to the magic.) Of course Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson played fantastic characters, but nothing spectacular, compared to some of the work they've done.

I considered giving the movie only a nine out of ten, because of the Sibylla character. Eva Green was entrancing, but I just intensely disliked her character in the context of the film. But ultimately, I had to give the movie a ten out of ten just to raise up the paltry 6.9 average rating it has right now, because it drew tears to my eyes, and made me think. Everything was excellent, especially the casting, and the film is good enough to hold up as an model for other historic war films. I think it has passed up Gladiator in my estimations.

If you want a plot summary, read some of the other reviews, because I don't want to regurgitate what they're saying. All I wanted to add was that this movie tops any of the Dracula films ever created, and actually goes so far as to make me appreciate the book more

Yes, the book. This is the ONLY Dracula movie ever to stick almost directly to Bram Stoker's novel, and it does so with only one variation. In the novel, Mina Harker never has an affair with the Count, and never speaks to him except from at her husband's side. For that matter, nothing of Elisabeta was ever mentioned; obviously all of this just popped out of Francis Ford Coppola's head, and I admire that. Other that that... the movie follows the book practically page by page, through Jonathan Harker's journal, through Mina's letters, through Jack Seward's diary, and through Abraham Van Helsing's letters. You can say what you like about how boring Keanu Reeves was, or how over-the-top Winona Ryder was, but I believe that the characters in the film were excellently copied from those in the book, and that the movie was extremely well casted. (Jonathan Harker WAS boring, and Mina WAS a bit melodramatic, by the way...)

I can't say which I like better, the book or the movie, but I can at least admit that Count Dracula is my favorite Gary Oldman role. The special effects and costuming are fantastic, and the supporting cast is amazing, as well. Anthony Hopkins's is the most true portrayal of Abraham (and the recently renamed "Gabriel") Van Helsing, of any other in film, and you can only love his eccentric-godfather sort of role to Jack Seward. The diversion of the film from the EVIL of Dracula, to his more human side, is much different from the book, and is both refreshing and attractive.

I have nothing more to say, except that any person who reads the novel, must next see this movie; it brings ideas to the mind that the book alone did not. Thank you for your time, and enjoy the show.

I actually watched this for a French class, so I was getting the original dialogue, and not a translated English version. On that note, I didn't even know Anthony Perkins spoke French, much less acted in French movies, until I caught the advert for the film on TV5's website. I think about half of my joy actually came out of that--that and the fact that it's a French movie set in London. The rest of my eight stars come from the incredibly stupid and cheesy dialogue (which I loved), especially the scene in which Harry-Perkins' character-tells Penelope-Bardot's character-that he is a spy, and another man is, too, and that he has lied to her. She responds, "I love spies: they're tall, and handsome, and smart, like you!" After watching the Maxwell Smart sort of demeanor that Perkins gives off, that line made me laugh like crazy. The ending makes it even better, in retrospect. The reason I've got a spoiler tag on this comment is because of the particular scene I absolutely have to mention. Harry is, at one point, absolutely sure that Penelope's grandmother has been murdered; he runs to her house, and runs to the grandmother's room. He stops short at the door, horrified, as he sees a pair of feet sticking out from behind a corner. At this point, we know the grandmother's got to live, because she's witty and fun, and let's face it, this isn't a real spy film. The only thing I could think of during this scene was Norman Bates parading around the basement of the Bates Motel, with a butcher knife, his mother's dress, and a wig, screaming at the cops. I had to stop the movie to get a hold of myself. Any fan of Maxwell Smart would enjoy this movie--get the French version with English subtitles, and it will be all the better.