Change Your Image
Chirofun
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Prestige (2006)
OMG I want my 130 minutes back!!!!! EVERY NANOSECOND OF IT!!!!
I can't seem to find a "minus" number on the review score, and believe me, I tried hard to find a way to get one for this profoundly overrated insult to the intellect and sensibilities. I see a lot of movies. I usually like movies that make me think. I usually like movies with plot twists. I usually like movies with suspense. Notice I did NOT say I usually like movies that make me THINK I want my time back, movies with more plot HOLES than the even astronomical amount of plot TWISTS, or movies that force me to SUSPEND disbelief light years beyond preposterous. That's not quite what I had in mind when I made my ultimately embarrassing decision to watch this movie, or worse yet, subject my wife to it as well. It's not enough to apologize to my wife...I apologize to all spouses everywhere, and I STILL don't feel cleansed.
Oh. Did I mention that this waste of both the U.S. and British economies is unrelentingly and disturbingly dark? Hmmmm. Lemme think...which character did I care about LESS. Impossible to decide, because I COULDN'T have cared less. Ya know...wait a minute, that's not fair. It's not the ACTORS I didn't care about. It was the writers, director, and producer of this insult to humanity whose feelings I refuse to spare. How did this movie ever get conjured up??? The term "Movie Magic" is perfectly antithetical here, although The Prestige DOES succeed in getting your brain to disappear. The fact that this got an 8.5 rating on IMDb is either a parlor trick or a typo. At least I hope so, anyway. If not, I weep for the future, and will despondently have to dismiss all future ratings without exploring the "Hated it" reviews first. Honey, if you're reading this...I love you, I didn't mean to hurt you, and please forgive me. In fact, YOU get to pick the next one. Don't worry, darling, WHATEVER it is, it'll seem like The Godfather to me after this.
Kameradschaft (1931)
Another little known treasure of a film
I already know that I can't add anything to those who have already reviewed this film...and why not , you say??? Because I saw it about 30 years ago on VHS and haven't seen it since, so I would be woefully remiss on the details. YET....I NEVER forgot it and have told NUMEROUS people to REMEMBER THE NAME (back in my day it was "Kameradschaft" and not "Comradeship" as it is "known" today) in case by some chance SOMEWHERE they may stumble upon it. I, myself, "stumbled upon it" in the foreign films section of the video store, and I had never seen it anywhere since until a few used VHS tapes came onto Amazon. The only reason I picked it up was because it was from something like Janus Films or the Criterion Collection or something of the sort, and I figured if it were from 1931 and they obviously "re-issued" it, then it must be pretty decent. So I read the liner notes on the back of the box (because they're always so perfectly accurate in their critique of the film...please note heavy sarcasm) and it seemed like a very interesting premise. I was sold enough to give it a shot. It remains one of the films I STILL talk about to this very day, and even tried listing it on my Facebook profile, but of course, Facebook apparently never heard of it either, and there was no cover page, so I had to list it as one of my favorite films with a picture of a strip of film instead of a cover. LOL. Anyway...I digress.
Here's the main reason I'm writing. Something I saw on TV tonight triggered my memory of this film, so I decided to see what IMDb reviewers had to say about it...ALL 9 OF THEM. Sheesh, I wish we could get the word out. Be that as it may, I was happy to see how it got such good reviews. Now here's the REAL reason I'm writing...one of the reviewers wrote...and here's the spoiler alert "(Note: Apparently the ending is cut on most prints, where the French rebuild the mining gate, closing off the men once again. This is a brutal turn of events, and may have made the film a better overall film, but I would have lamented it souring the positives vibes of the final sequence, so in short, I'm glad it was clipped.)". I have no beef with the reviewer because I can see how he or she could feel that way. However, I, myself DID find the ending of the ONLY version of the film I have seen (where they DID "close off" the connection of the two mines once again) to be the major STRENGTH of the film, and I was SHOCKED that it had been "cut" from later versions. To me, it DID make it a better overall film, because the ending seemed AMAZINGLY profound to me, and one I NEVER forgot. Although the "upbeat" ending will appeal to many, I thought the original ending was EXTREMELY POWERFUL because I just shook my head in sad disbelief that the wall was shown being sealed off again (not even a "gate", but rather a large steel opaque plate). I took this as the filmmaker's way of adding a really stunning "twist" to the plot, and at the same time, saying "WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT JERKS YOU ARE BEING???" And to me, THAT is what both impressed me about the screenplay AND moved me emotionally (although there were PLENTY of emotionally moving scenes in this film) all in one jaw-dropping brief final shot (did I really just see what I thought I saw???)
So...I'm happy to provide another good review for this film (in whatever version you see), and I hope my take on the ending is food for thought.
Insomnia (2002)
Saw the original....Next night saw the remake.....SEE THE ORIGINAL
I don't really want to say the remake is a "bad" movie. If I hadn't seen the original first (the Norwegian original), I probably would think the Hollywood version was just a LITTLE bit better than it was. However, having seen the original, I was disappointed in the remake and that brought the flick down a peg. There are some HUGE differences between the two, although basically the same plot, of course.
It seemed to me that the remake had the potential to be EVEN BETTER than the original, which in my opinion was GREAT. Hollywood movies tend to be "bigger" all over than their foreign counterparts...more action, faster paced, more animated, better movie sets, more "blockbuster" if you will. Having said that, I really don't go for the whole Schwarzenegger explosion chase scene mow 'em down with your machine gun good guy bad guy thing anyway (OK I'll give ya Star Wars...but that's pretty much it....and please note it's Schwarzeneggerless). My biggest fear was that Hollywood would turn this into yet another F bomb loaded bang bang shoot 'em up cop story. My worst fear was pretty much confirmed. I'm not a prude. I'm not against violence in film (IF it ADDS to the film and is NOT "gratuitous.") But the GREAT thing about the original is that the LACK of "blockbuster" elements makes it a really TAUT, TIGHT, TENSION FILLED, PSYCHOLOGICAL SLOWBURN, and THAT made the "creepiness" of the film much more visceral and consistently sustained throughout (maybe along the lines of something like "Blood Simple"?). Moreover, the ending of the original film was the icing on the already delicious, well crafted cake.
It wouldn't be fair to kill the remake completely. The plot line sells itself, and there are more twists and turns in the remake (perhaps TOO many to suspend disbelief, though). Maybe this is simply because everyone talks so much faster than in the original and it's faster paced, and therefore there's more room to insert "more bang for your buck". It's not ALL bad, though, because Al Pacino was excellent, and Robin Williams was the best thing out of EITHER movie (that man is actually a comedian???...with a MAJOR LEAGUE creep factor like THAT??? He was impeccable.) There's more "banter" in the remake, and the Robin Williams character was expanded, and those were pluses. However, it just doesn't make up for the typical, Hollywood "let's throw this in and that in and have police cars racing with sirens blaring" (when it's unnecessary and counterproductive if you want to actually SOLVE a crime) "and if we throw enough stuff in we'll have an action packed thriller alright...and who cares about suspension of disbelief anyway as long as we can make it so we have that climactic bang bang shoot 'em up at the end?" Sighhhhhhh. Ugh. I should have known. What a letdown.
You certainly won't sleep through Insomnia (2002), but sadly, this one is MUCH more "predictable" ("formulaic") than the original (1997), and it's frustrating. It could have been so very good, and it had the potential to be even BETTER than the Norwegian original (as excellent as it is). On the bright side, SEE THE ORIGINAL, do it on a night where you're not in a rush, and turn the lights out (no pun intended on that "bright side" thing, although it DOES work for the film's very clever 24 hours of daylight reverse film noir motif now that I think of it). I'm not a horror movie fan, and this is not a horror movie...but the original was actually quite creepy in several ways, you will not have to suspend disbelief ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH, and it DEFINITELY is engaging despite the relatively slow pace (in fact the "slow" pace actually ADDS to the "taut", "creepy" feeling in general). The best compliment I can give the Norwegian production is that it certainly is a WELL CRAFTED piece of film making. See it. The 1997 original doesn't disappoint.
Lone Star (1996)
One of the truly GREAT films...such a shame it's not well-known
I think John Sayles, for the most part, makes great films. This one, in my opinion, is his best. In fact, I think it's a masterpiece. I just got done watching it for the second time (I had to find it on DVD from the LIBRARY of all places...how frustrating that such a great film isn't widely available in video stores), but I have been telling people about this film at every opportunity for about 10 years now. Oh it's not that I feel real cool telling people to go find and see a great film that they've never heard of (although I must admit I do), but more that Mr. Sayles so often gets forgotten as one of the greatest writer/directors ever, and it's such a shame he doesn't get the notoriety he deserves for making such great films. He often uses many of the same actors in his movies, but then again, why shouldn't he...they're always terrific (and by the way, why don't THEY get more notoriety, too?) After all these years, Chris Cooper is finally becoming well known as an excellent actor (and is getting more roles as a result), and as usual, he's tremendous here in playing the lead role. In fact, I've never liked Kris Kristofferson, but he is SUPERB in this film, and I cannot possibly imagine anyone playing the role of Charlie Wade any better. You can get the plot line of this movie from many of the other IMDb comments, but it's not simply the intriguing plot of this movie that makes it so great. It's the way the film is woven and the atmosphere that is created throughout (a John Sayles specialty.) Granted, it IS a character study with general societal overtones, so it may appear "slow" in comparison to big budget special effects action movies, or kick-in-the-groin comedies (our unfortunate obsessions), but if you stick with it for just a bit, you'll find the beautifully crafted tapestry unfolding through the characters with riveting intrigue. It's really a pleasure to watch a film take bits and pieces of many different stories (and with flashbacks mixed in as well) and slowly but surely lead you to the edge of your seat as it ties all the different subplots together until you gradually begin to realize what a GREAT film you're watching and you can't wait to see how it's going to turn out in the end. One of the exceptional things about this film is that just when you thought the ending was quite good, and you got to find out the truth, it turns out that the FINAL closing scene is the REAL payoff, and it's even BETTER than what you THOUGHT would be the ending. I've been telling others to see this outstanding, exceptional film for about 10 years now, and will continue to do so at every opportunity.
Prince of the City (1981)
Why is this film not known as one of the greatest of all time???
VERY rarely will you see a film as emotionally gripping, intellectually stimulating, realistic, and well-acted as Prince of the City. It is AMAZING to me that it didn't win the Academy Award. Everyone knows "Serpico" (a good film), "The French Connection" (a very good film) and so many other good (and not very good) films, yet for some reason that remains sad and frustrating, this film remains virtually unknown and unappreciated. It's not a good film. It's not a very good film. It's a GREAT film. With all due respect, how Foxion in Houston could call this a "passable cop story" and "not the film other comments would have you believe" is not only misleading, it borders on irresponsible.
By the time you read this, you're most likely already familiar with the plot. Just in case you're not, here's the synopsis....It's based on the true story of a highly decorated NYC narcotics detective (Danny Ciello) who has a crisis of conscience after years of using effective but illegal (and immoral?) methods to obtain the many major drug busts that he and his partners have accomplished. He decides to help federal anti-corruption prosecutors in an effort to once again become the "good cop" he started out to be and always wanted to be. By confessing some of his own transgressions, wearing a wire for the feds to get more corrupt cops, and vowing to "never give up his partners or the deal is off", he figures his soul will be cleansed and he can contribute toward helping stop at least some police corruption, thus making him a "good cop" again. However, once the wheels of justice start to turn, a very large and tangled web gets woven and spins out of control as more and more people get implicated and "strictly by the book" prosecutors who know nothing of how things work "on the streets" (and simply don't care), begin pressuring Ciello for more and more details (including info on his partners) as events further unfold. Being that Ciello has already "confessed" to them some of his transgressions, and being that he will have to perjure himself on the stand to protect both himself and his partners (thus jeopardizing his credibility as a witness and thus the entire government's case), Ciello is backed into a nightmarish corner that he never imagined could happen. Thus starts an ongoing series of further moral and legal crises that Ciello has to somehow face under extreme duress while things continue to fall apart in his world, sometimes with tragic consequences.
Now...let's break down the common criticisms of this film: 1) "It's a bit long." Sighhhhhhhh. Lawrence of Arabia was long. Ghandi was long. The Godfather was long. Gone With the Wind was long. I don't hear anybody complaining that THOSE films were "a bit long." A great film is a great film no matter the length of it...and let's face it, there's a LOT of material to cover in this film and it does so brilliantly while keeping the viewer engaged. 2) "Treat Williams was too emotional and overacted." Sighhhhhhh. Someone who was as successful as Detective Ciello at such a young age HAS to be passionate (emotional) about the things in his corner of the world or they simply would not get accomplished. The unfathomable amount and intensity of emotions this man had to deal with are portrayed impeccably by Williams not only in spoken delivery, but in body language and facial expression as well. It's simply a "tour de force." 3) "They never tell you WHY Detective Ciello turned state's witness." Sighhhhhhhhhhh. So what??? As it turns out, upon being interviewed, the real-life detective upon which the movie is based (Detective Bob Leuci), states that to this very day, he can't put a handle on exactly why he decided to turn "rat" (and if you actually THINK about what you watched in this film, you'll realize that it's not simply a matter of "becoming a rat" as several others have described in their plot assessment.) Besides, if you read between the lines of this film, you'll realize the most likely "WHY" rather easily.
Bottom line...this movie is extraordinary. It's intellectually stimulating, morally fascinating, and extremely well-acted and well- crafted, not to mention it has a TREMENDOUSLY powerful final scene that's just perfect. How it didn't get nominated, let alone WIN, "Best Picture of 1981", and how it remains virtually unknown, simply seems incomprehensible.
Le roi de coeur (1966)
I looked forward to seeing this film but was disappointed.
I think this film had great potential, but I couldn't help but be disappointed for several reasons. First of all, let me just state that I'm not a teenager (I'm a 48 year old with a doctorate, so it was easy for me to get "the point" of the film) and I'm not at all foreign to foreign films. I know this film has had critical acclaim and has withstood the test of time in video stores, so I just figured it had to be something special. While I love the premise of the film, and I love the story line of the film, I found that the way in which the film was presented was so incongruent that it undermined the very strong message it intended to bring forth. Here are my concerns: 1) While I understood that the film was presented in "whimsical" fashion, I could not get past the fact that such a serious subject was being presented in such a silly, often slapstick sort of way. I found that so annoying and incongruent that it completely undermined the "power" of the film for me. 2) While the music presented a good avenue for all the "carnival-like" scenes with the asylum patients, it was difficult to get past the fact that the music was being PLAYED by these mentally ill patients, not only in very skilled and professional fashion, but they all just HAPPENED to know how to harmonize both the vocals AND the instruments as if they had been practicing these pieces all their lives (and their were SEVERAL different songs.) It just seems to me that it would have been MUCH easier to suspend my disbelief if they sang and danced along to a few phonograph records that could have been played at the asylum repeatedly (and which they could know by heart) or even if they just SANG the tunes and didn't PLAY the instruments. 3) While it was wonderful that the patients dressed up in the abandoned clothing of the evacuated townspeople, it was difficult to overlook the fact that all the clothing fit so perfectly and that severely mentally ill people could dress themselves to the nines. I just wish that the director put even a FEW patients in clothes that were too big or too small or in colors and patterns that didn't match. Again, it made suspension of disbelief too difficult to allow for credibility in a film attempting to make such a powerful message. 4) While I understand the film is supposed to be whimsical or humorous at times, I really didn't find the dumb slapstick of the bumbling high command, as well as the dumb slapstick of the "sane" soldiers to be funny during those times, and was only able to find it "somewhat amusing" at those times. I really wish I could have enjoyed this film more, as I feel it had such great potential...but ultimately, I felt it was way too silly and (forgive me) "stupid" in the sense that the vehicle used to make such powerful points was both incongruent and inappropriate, thus rendering impotent a film with potentially devastating political importance. For those videophiles who want strong anti-war messages with more sophisticated and lethal humor, I would recommend "Dr. Strangelove", and for those who want strong anti-war messages without being "whimsical", I would recommend "Platoon", "Breaker Morant", "Galipoli", or the tremendous but sadly unknown 1932 "Kamaradschaft".
Must Love Dogs (2005)
It's funny, it's cute, and that's all it's intended to be
I'm finding it hard to believe that so many people on this website trashed this movie. Some of you really need to get over your pseudo-intellectual film school student snobbery, and others of you need to appreciate the humor in something other than a Three Stooges short. Yes, I'm male. Yes, I'm 48 years old. Yes, I have a doctorate. Yes, I've seen several movies (including foreign ones that are NOT the dubbed versions) that many of you haven't even HEARD of, never mind that they have more profundity than some of you would be capable of "getting"...and no, I'm NOT embarrassed, nor should I be, in divulging that I've also seen my share of light romantic comedies over the years. Look, light romantic comedies are just that. If you wanted to see Citizen Kane, then you should have gone to a revival theater in Greenwich Village somewhere, and if you wanted to see least common denominator humor because it's "funny," then go to your local Blockbuster and rent Tommy Boy again or a movie where there are at least THREE uproariously "funny" kicks to the groin. As some of you (thankfully) appreciated, there's a lot of cute and quick-witted banter in this movie, as well as some things that are funny simply by facial expression alone. The acting is just fine in this movie throughout, if not better than average. While I DO agree that there are some elements that challenge one's suspension of disbelief (something common in ALL romantic comedies if not movies in general), and some parts WERE in fact predictable and sappy in a "romantic comedy formula" sort of way, that does NOT make this a bad movie. Listen, I LOVE the movie "Clerks" and I defy you to name me a movie that has more "forced" dialogue in it than THAT...yet THAT movie is a RIOT. Why? Because the scriptwriting has inherently funny "banter" in it. That's why. Do yourselves a favor and just keep it simple before you believe these ridiculously overanalyzed negative reviews. If you're in the mood for a light romantic comedy, this one's a good one and will do what it was made to do...entertain you. There's nothing wrong with "cute and funny" when you're in the mood for it.