Reviews

I just watched the DVD last night and I have to say this is an excellent movie. All the acting is top-notch - Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti are especially good, Rufus Sewell is also great.

Jessica Biel however is (in my humble opinion) miscast. She looks great and does a nice job in her scenes. But I really found it hard to accept her as the SAME AGE as Edward Norton. And yet the entire story is based on them knowing each other and falling in love at age 12 or 13. They would have to BE the same age, right? Or maybe he's one year older, but no more than that.

Since Biel is in real life 12 or 13 years younger than Norton, it just made it even more unbelievable. An older actress (how about the German actress - Franka Potenta!) would have been a better choice in this movie.

Other than that I highly recommend "The Illusionist" - you'll probably want to watch it more than once.

I was never a fan of Kevin Smith before this movie. But I found Dogma an absolute delight and I laughed all through it, even the parts I didn't "get." This is definitely a movie to be seen more than once, because you can't possibly absorb it all in one viewing. As stated in earlier reviews, the references to Catholic catechism and parochial upbringing abound. I'm sure that Kevin Smith was taught by nuns and clergy, because he's constantly poking fun at things that I experienced in Catholic school. The actors are all having fun in this movie, even if they have no idea what it's all about. Jay and Silent Bob have real parts in Dogma, as opposed to Chasing Amy where they appear to be "talking extras." By the way I never saw Dogma in the theater, but it works as a video because some of the funny lines go by so fast you have to replay the tape to get the full meaning. I can't wait for the next Kevin Smith flick, and I'll definitely spend the 8 bucks!

I was somewhat disappointed in this movie, but not because of the Catholic doctrine or philosophy. The characters made frequent reference to Pittsburgh, and indeed most of the story takes place here (my hometown). Needless to say my ears and eyes perked up. I scanned every scene for recognizable settings, buildings and skyline. Alas, not one setting was familiar to me and I had to accept the fact that the movie was not shot here, not even the second or third crew "fillers". The scenes and settings that were used in the film were not at all place-specific, it could have been Anytown, USA. If that's the case why give the setting a recognizable city-name? Just call it something generic, like River City, or Oakville. This may seem like a petty complaint but I was nevertheless disappointed in the film. On the other hand I always watching Gabriel Byrne work and he turns in another fine performance as the cynical scientist/priest. I think the ending would have meant more if he had found out that the girl (Patricia Arquette) actually had the dead priest's rosary in her possession. Maybe his faith would have been restored. But instead it becomes a showdown between the "good priest" (Byrne) and the "bad priest" (Jonathan Pryce) that I thought was kind of hokey. Of course, good triumphs over evil, the true believers are vindicated, yada yada yada.

OK, I saw "Europa, Europa" in the theater for the first time about 7 or 8 years ago. I always thought it was an amazing story about a young Jewish boy-man who survives WW2 masquerading as a Hitler-Jugend. I was moved to tears at the end of the story (but I won't give away how it ends). Anyway comparisons to Schindler's List and other movies are inevitable.

But I was so intrigued by Solomon Perel's story that I checked the book "Europa, Europa" out of the library and read it for myself. Now having read the book, I watched the movie again and I can tell you that many facts and details of Solly's life were changed to make the movie more dramatic and concise. "Europa, Europa" the movie was not in anyway described as a documentary, so you can take the dramatic moments with a grain of salt. They rewrote most of it in the process of making the movie. I don't know if these alterations were done with Perel's knowledge or permission. But he is shown at the end of the film, so he must have known that the movie was being made. All I can say is, the real truth is even more amazing than the fiction. Read the book for yourself and see what I mean!

I've read over most of the comments here, and not many people have mentioned the special effects in "Sphere." I thought they were spectacular, and they really saved the film. I feel bad for Michael Crichton, who's one of my favorite writers -- but "Sphere" was not one of his better efforts. I actually sort of cringed when I heard they were making a movie out of it.

But turning the so-so book into a not-half-bad movie meant getting some decent stars and making the story believable. I'm telling you, the special effects made this movie fun to watch. I could watch more sci-fi flicks if they were as fun as "Sphere" but I don't think the credit goes to Crichton for this one.

I've read over some of the other comments posted here, and I must disagree with those who suggest that Walter Matthau might have played better against Jack Lemmon. I'm a long-time fan of James Garner, ever since his wonderful portrayal of Bret Maverick in the late 50's, and of course his later work in "The Rockford Files." James Garner was far funnier in "My Fellow Americans" than Jack Lemmon, partly because Lemmon plays a better straight man most of the time. I didn't enjoy the bathroom humor that was overplayed in this film. But I did enjoy the give-and-take of the Democrat/Republican liberal/conservative jokes that permeated. I suspect that this aspect was probably more difficult for non-Americans to follow. I agree that Lauren Bacall (always a pleasure to see) and Wilford Brimley were wasted in this movie. But all-in-all it was fun to watch and I would recommend it to those who enjoy political and topical humor, and who like watching "old pros" in action.

I never saw "The Brothers McMullen" in the theater, but I just watched it on video. I have to say that I liked it in spite of its flaws. It just had this superficial, breezy feel to it, like it's really not a movie but a pilot for a sit-com. All it's missing is the laugh-track.

The stories about the three brothers were well done, especially Barry's story (the middle brother). But I kept thinking the most interesting character in this story is the dead father, and he's not even in the movie. The brothers mention their father several times, usually in some disparaging way. You don't find out many facts about him, except that their mother never loved him. Apparently the sons didn't love him either.

The three brothers are desperate, each in their own way, to not end up like their father. The dead Mr. McMullen was characterized as an alcoholic, wife-abusing, stern and unhappy man. And yet Mr. McMullen had no trouble committing to one woman, which apparently Barry can't manage to do. Mr. McMullen remained faithful (apparently) in a 35 year marriage and raised 3 sons, which oldest son Jack can't bring himself to do. Mr. McMullen remained true to his religious and cultural upbringing, which youngest son Patrick is about to turn his back on when he splits for California.

So maybe that father wasn't such a failure after all. The sons won't realize this until they become husbands and fathers themselves. But they haven't reached that point yet, they're still growing up and figuring things out. It's nice to see how they help each other and take turns giving "parental" advice to each other.

I'd like to see this same story with these same characters, told 20 years before, and 20 years after the time of this movie. I'd like to meet the mother in Ireland as she greets her American grandchildren. Now that would be an interesting sequel.

"City of Angels" is much easier to watch than "Wings of Desire." Most Americans cannot deal with the deep emotions and philosophical aspects of "Wings of Desire" -- at least not in a movie that is supposed to entertain. But since "City of Angels" was made for American audiences, it is lighter, brighter, and more accessible.

The love story between Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage is engaging if not totally believable. But how believable can this story be, anyway? Let's all play "willing suspension of disbelief" and let the story tell itself. Other reviewers have commented on the beautiful cinematography, and superb acting. In particular I enjoyed the soundtrack which I think adds a lot to the movie.

The ending was sad, yes. But it was a good story, a good cry. It didn't ask too much from me. It was easy to watch and enjoy.

I give this movie a 10. I'm a longtime fan of Jeff Bridges, and this is one of his best. Jeff is the only good guy surrounded by bad guys and worse guys. Even the women are treacherous, except Swoosie Kurtz, who plays a kind of pathetic, lonely secretary. "Against All Odds" is a remake of an older film, but they've done a nice job updating it. There are so many twists and turns in the plot, it will keep you guessing right up to the end.

I don't want to give anything away, but there's a great car chase scene that will have you on the edge of your seat. There are some nice scenes of the ruins at Chichen Itza (in Mexico) and the beautiful island of Cozumel before it became a tourist trap. The soundtrack is great too.

I've seen this movie at least 10 times on video, maybe more. When I first saw it in the theater in 1984 I hadn't even heard of James Woods before. He is truly a plus in this picture, in fact all the cast is really good. Even though this is in the category of "Romance" it's not a chick-flick. Guys will like it too.

It's an advantage to watch this movie at home on video. You can back it up if you need to catch the little history lessons this movie gives you along the way. Let's face it, most Americans are pretty clueless on the French Renaissance (what, you mean they HAD one?)

It's cool to think that the three musketeers got middle-aged and flabby, they worried about kidney stones and hair loss. But when the chips were down they could still get it up (their swords, I mean).

Regardless of your feelings for Leo D., this is a good story and it is well-acted. You will learn something about French history in spite of yourself. And you might possibly become a fan of Alexandre Dumas. I'm heading out to the library now to check out that book. More likely I'll get the audiobook and listen to it in the car.

I'm a big fan of Gerard Depardieu, but he couldn't have carried this movie himself. Gabriel Byrne, John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons were all terrific. And Leo was . . . well, he was Leo.

Let's face it, Woody Allen stopped being funny or relevant about 20 years ago. This movie has some likeable things though, number one being the "dream" cast. I watched it in video format, so maybe the experience would have been different in a theater, but I didn't like the musical aspects. It's so 40's, you know. Maybe that was the point. Woody tends to do things like that.

Anyway, the inter-connectedness of the stories and characters was better than most ensemble type movies. I thought Woody did a good job directing this, and as I said I found it enjoyable. I give it a solid 7.