Reviews

I caught this film on the Independent Film Channel, having no idea what it was. My reaction to this movie progressed as follows: mild boredom, strong boredom, some interest when they get to Loch Ness, confusion, (looked up film on IMDb), some amusement, then finally disappointment.

The first 20 minutes of the film are dull as dishwater and don't work either as documentary or docu-parody. Endless footage of Herzog's party and the filmmaker wandering around aimlessly. Once the joke really starts to kick in (basically when we get on the water) there are some mildly amusing moments. But the cast is rather wooden throughout, and the joke is ultimately spread too thin. Herzog is simultaneously not famous enough to really hold my interest or for me to get all the in-jokes (which are over-explained anyhow), yet too famous to "become" the role (would a real producer second-guess this formidable film legend?) A nice try but ultimately it's not really funny.

Best hacker movie? Well, it doesn't really seem like a hacker movie to me, more like a high-tech caper movie, the kind which has been done better (more recently in Mission Impossible or even the Ocean's Eleven remake).

The film centers around the search for a high-tech MacGuffin, and takes its time with the setup. In fact, the whole first half of this film is slow going, and has a whole lot of plot holes for a film that relies so heavily on plot. (a scientist invented something that "any government in the world would kill for" and guess where he keeps it!?!?!?)

However, the film is redeemed by a riveting 2nd half, and performances by a near-legendary acting ensemble, all of whom have done their best work elsewhere, but are still fun to watch. Somehow this is a film that seems better in one's memory after you've seen it, rather than in the actual watching.

P.S. It does seem to me that the climactic "sneak" was pretty much stolen by Mission Impossible, and I have to say, M.I. does it better.

The subject at hand -- the reception of black immigrants by small-town America -- is an important subject indeed. The filmmaker does a pretty good job of getting different perspectives on the situation without demonizing either side. He seems to have been present at all the major events of the situation and got some extremely good footage, especially quotes from former Lewiston mayors Jenkins and Tara. (by the way, he should have fact-checked spelling of 'Kaileigh Tara')

There's a serious problem, however, in the editing room. The editor imposes what might be called a "bad MTV" style on the film. He has a habit of interrupting sentences, cutting people off, and jumping back-and-forth between people on opposing sides of the issue in a confusing, irritating manner that does not shed any light on anything. One example of many: Maine Governor talks about his upbringing, and a white supremacist talks about, um, something. Back and forth about 4 or 5 times between them in short bites. I found it hard to concentrate and understand what they were saying.

Another bad habit is showing apparent stock footage of OTHER white supremacist rallies without attribution. He definitely makes it seem that several violent demonstrations might have taken place in Lewiston; they did not. He also cuts back-and-forth between the two rallies (one for peace and one for hate) in such a way that it is not entirely clear to the viewer which one is onscreen at a given moment.

Finally, I suggest that the filmmaker gives disproportionate screen time to the white supremacist and outsider David Stearns. While at the time his presence might have seemed provocative, I expect that over time he will have largely become a forgotten footnote in Lewiston history.

"Something" has "gotta" be one of the most over-rated films of the year. The story is trite and predictable, the characters are unsympathetic wealthy people with wealthy people's problems. Many critics have claimed this film is elevated by its stars, but I don't buy it. Neither Nicholson nor Keaton is acting in any sense other than playing themselves. They obviously had a good time on the set, and several scenes do sparkle with the humor and freshness of friends having a good time. But it's like watching a party at someone else's house. I wasn't engaged in a believable story, and I wasn't having a good time.

What does the daughter -- or the mother -- see in Nicholson's lecherous character? What does Nicholson's character -- or Reeves' character -- see in Keaton's flighty la-de-da "Annie Hall" reprisal? I couldn't tell.

I'm no mountain climber ... but I have seen a few mountain-climbing movies! This film has the stunning feel of authenticity about it. There's no dumb grafted-on plot a la "vertical limit", just a true-to-life tale of endurance and survival. Several scenes gave me the jaw-dropping reaction of "how the heck did they do that??" This film is the best outdoors/adventure film I've seen since David Breashears' 1998 IMAX production "Everest."

It occurs to me that the theme of this movie is life ... the exhilaration of life (mountaineering "makes you feel more alive," says one of the climbers) and the preciousness of survival. In that, the movie is a perfect antidote to another film I saw recently, "City of God." In that, young lives are snuffed out again and again for no good reason. In "Touching the Void" we understand how important it is to just keep going, no matter how difficult the obstacles, no matter how bad the pain.

I'm no mountain climber ... but I have seen a few mountain-climbing movies! This film has the stunning feel of authenticity about it. There's no dumb grafted-on plot a la "vertical limit", just a true-to-life tale of endurance and survival. Several scenes gave me the jaw-dropping reaction of "how the heck did they do that??" This film is the best outdoors/adventure film I've seen since David Breashears' 1998 IMAX production "Everest". [this review needs to be ten lines long for no apparent reason, so I have to add some filler at the end of the review, sorry about that. I don't think this requirement is realistic or fair, but here I have to do it]

Yes, I will concede that this movie features me of the best acting ever put on film. And Eastwood is a highly competent director. But allow me to point out the negatives ...

The plotline hangs on a highly improbable coincidence. Not only improbable, but not particularly convoluted or twisted -- or one that the audience has any clues to be able to figure out. I realized soon enough that what is "obviously true" wouldn't be true here -- that wouldn't be much of a movie. But the actual plot solution is not nearly as complicated as one might imagine, or hope. Sorry, I don't want to get too specific, so as not to spoil it for anyone.

Secondly, Eastwood is a competent director, but not particularly interesting, really. A few of his tendencies are starting to become cliches for him -- the overhead helicopter shots, the camera panning to the sky when we see the dead girl, the way he hits us over the head with flashbacks (just in case we are too stupid to remember them) -- I feel like I saw it all in A PERFECT WORLD, which is, for my money, a better film.

I'm sure that this read better as a nove with BIG FISH is that film fantasy sequences have been now, so much better. After LORD OF THE RINGS, it's hard to impress with fantasy sequences. So they fell kind of flat, rather than wondrous, or whatever they were supposed to be. I think it would have worked better if the father's stories were less fantastic, more realistic.

However, the ending really did work for me. Not to spoil it, but the scenes of the people from the father's life coming together and telling THEIR stories of HIM ... now that was heart-rending.

However, I have to ask (rhetorically, of course). Ewan McGregor after 30, 40 years grows older to look like Albert Finney. Danny Devito (etc) after 30, 40 years grows older to look like ... Danny Devito with grey hair??

Unlike some highly praised non-English language films I can think of, (um, like FAST RUNNER), City of God features dynamic cinematography, brilliant editing, and just-plain-cool film techniques. The first five minutes are among the best cinema I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). It's a masterpiece, a movie with no digital effects but nonetheless on a par with LORD OF THE RINGS for its depiction of a world utterly alien to me. And it's based, apparently, on a true story.

But it's a tough ride, and definitely not for those who don't like violent movies. A good test: if you appreciate Peckinpah, Tarantino, and Scorsese, this is probably up your alley. Beware, though, this film has something more horrible than any of those directors: graphic scenes of children killing other children.

I've read so many good reviews of this film, and I agree that it is great to see a thoughtful and interesting film about human relationships. There are so many admirable qualities of LOST IN TRANSLATION that I hate to pick at it. But still ... somebody has to. ;-)

The characters are very priveledged, and their problems seem to trivial to me. Murray's character has a family and a film career (or at least he had one), and is making $2 million for a week's work. Boo hoo. And Johansson's character has a Yale degree and is tagging along on her husband's business trip, and he has no time for her because he's working. Because his client paid for him to go to Japan and work. How boring to stay in Japan for a week with no commitments and (apparently) plenty of money. Boo hoo.

Ultimately, I think this would be a much better film if Coppola were a few decades older and actually had something to say about marriage and relationships.

The top acting and effects talent in Hollywood can't make up for a

weak story. I expect Spielberg felt obligated to carry on after

Kubrick's death, without much thought to whether the story was

worthwhile. Why would anyone want a child "mecha" anyway? Do

you really want to be caring for a child for the rest of your life, a

child who never grows up, even into your dotage, and have to leave

him for your heirs to care for? And to have it love you -- and

apparently love only you, nobody else, there's a guilt trip waiting to

happen. Too much responsibility, if you ask me. Amazingly

ambitious, beautiful effects, flawless acting, great music,

technically superb, like so many top notch Hollywood product

these days, marred by so many little (and big) plot implausibilities,

mostly in the film's 2nd half.

Startup.com is a valuable and interesting picture of the rise and fall

of the very early days of the Internet. Basically, if you're interested in

the subject matter, you'll probably find the film interesting; if you're

not, then you won't.

But on the whole it's an interesting picture of how a lot of big

venture capitalists trusted two inexperienced kids -- just out of

school -- with millions of dollars. We see Tom and Khalil grow

from awkward kids into modern businessmen, and we see what it

does to their relationships. Interestingly, the two partners spend

most of their time obsessing over money, and their own future,

without much care for what happens to the people around them, or

for each other.

No, this film does not connect all the dots for you. Some plot points

are left dangling or unexplained. But life's like that, you know.

This under-rated gem comes from Steven Soderbergh's "wilderness" years. A solid, well-made film, "King of the Hill" has

none of the splash that charaterizes most of S.S.'s other work; no

kinky plot twists, narrative tricks, or dazzling camera work here.

What this film does offer is a deeply felt portrait of realistic people

in realistic situations, which itself is more than you'll get from most

films these days. Don't expect to be dazzled or swept off your feet

by "King of the Hill;" but don't be surprised if you find yourself

thinking about the poor protagonist and his richly rendered life and

times for days after you see the film.

P.S. Don't miss music star Lauryn Hill as an elevator operator.

Well, the writers of LIFE AS A HOUSE didn't much care for

credibility. Let's see, man gets fired and smashes up office, still

gets full severance pay (and he gets cancer the same day, boy!);

young woman enters shower with young man she barely knows,

unbidden (you know, that happens to me all the time); man's room

in Ocean View hospital (all the good hospitals have prime

oceanfront property, you know) has a great view of his own house;

and many more I won't mention for fear of spoiling the fun. The

characters' motivations seem more the mechanizations of a

Hollywood screenwriter than the actions of actual people.

The sap here is not quite as thick as in those 70's-80's weepies,

but still hard to swallow. In its defense, LIFE AS A HOUSE boasts

some good performances and has its heart in the right place.

Probably the audience who will appreciate this the most is parents

who are working out issues with their teen sons.

My 2.5-year-old is mesmerized by this gentle tale of young children testing their independence and discovering giant animal friends in the forest. The pace is slow and deliberate, and there's nothing overly disturbing, although the mother is in the hospital and the young child gets lost (and found). The theme of secret giant animal friends is compelling and younger children will likely be swept away.

Well, if you ever doubted the auteur theory, you should check out

"Moulin Rouge". This film is definitely the product of someone's

specific imagination, not a film made by Hollywood committee.

The first half of Moulin Rouge is very nearly a great film, with some

sequences that truly astonish. In particular, the number which sets

up the play-within-the-movie, and the stunningly funny number by

Jim Broadbent are dazzling.

However, after the Broadbent number the film simply runs out of

steam as it creeps toward its glaringly obvious conclusion. A lot of

the 2nd half could have been cut out without anyone missing

anything. I think the problem is that the film's wafer-thin plot is not

noticed during the dazzling first half, but becomes just annoying

enough as the film continues.

Still, this film is a must-see if you fall into any of the following

categories: --film buff --musicals buff --"Strictly Ballroom" buff --French history ca 1900 buff

My rating: 8/10

Mountaineering is an inherently risky, exciting sport, with plenty of

opportunities for drama, controversy, exotic locations, and

eccentric personalities. The success of the book "Into Thin Air"

demonstrates this.

This film is a mishmash of cliches and contrivances: the rescue

plot, the revenge plot, the backpack-full-of-nitroglycerine plot (see

"Wages of Fear", France, 1953). Plus the film is overly long, and it

still manages to leave out important plot points.

My least favorite contrivance: the gimmick of having characters

carry cans of explosive Nitro is an implausible excuse for having

lots of explosions. After all, what's a Hollywood blockbuster without

explosions? Mountaineering is dangerous and risky enough

without adding silly Hollywood gimmicks.

If you really like the subject matter, the IMAX film about Everest is

far superior.

My rating: 5/10

Because of the generally negative response from the press, and

my disappointment with such recent Coen Bros films as Hudsucker and Lebowski, I went into this film with low

expectations. I was pleasantly surprised to find this my fave Coen

film since Raising Arizona, which from me is high complements

indeed. What really makes this film for me is the fact that it is

utterly different than anything I've seen in a while. It's like the

Coens were out to shoot an old Warner Bros depression-era

picture with their own keen sensibilities. The look of the film is

lush and stunning, and the real pleasures of the film are in the

details and faithfulness to time and place. I am glad I caught this

in the movie theatre; I imagine it will lose some of its appeal on the

small screen.

My first thought on seeing this film was, "oh, this is what

PHANTOM MENACE should have been." This kind of magic/martial

art film was obviously a big inspiration for Lucas' Jedi Knights and

light saber fights. The story is simple and timeless, and the effects

are breathtaking. While it seems uncharitable to find fault with the

film, I would have liked a little more plot development ... perhaps

the stunning reviews made me expect a little more here for the

"head" as opposed to the "heart." Still, it's easily one of the best 2

or 3 films of 2000.

I'm sorry, but I don't get this movie. Yes, the effects were highly

polished and professional, but plotwise this film was senseless.

At first it seems like a satire on "politically correct" people who

would pretend not to notice that your adopted child is of a different

race ... or species. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the

film has no such pretensions, that it really is just a dumb,

predictable story about ... about how a family comes to accept a

highly intelligent rodent as part of the family. Huh? Lucky for the

mouse that his "brother" just happens to build miniature models of

boats and cars ... that actually work.

Quite intriguing for anyone who's done any measure of camping or

outdoors exploring, where some measure of improvision is

required. Great work by Tom Hanks.

On the other hand, the scenes in civilization are rather pedestrian.

This is a thoughtful, sweeping epic which re-visits Hollywood's

conception of the outdoors, Native Americans, and the West for the

90's. And Kevin Costner hasn't been quite so good since.

Although slow and plodding in parts, the pace is suited to the

subject. It's about the serenity of nature, about man's relationship

to the outdoors, and men's relationship to each other. This film is

truly one of the "modern classics," to use that marketing phrase.

This is one of those stinkers that is just fun to watch. It's become a holiday tradition in our house. Of course, the best version is with the "Mystery Science Theatre" figures making their inane comments. However, in any form this film is a must for any lover of terrible movies.

This is one of those films that falls under that category of

"review-proof." I find it difficult to know what to say. It delivers all the

action, thrills, sex-appeal, and humor that you might expect, all

covered in a very thick coat of irony with a completely

incomprehensible and irrelevant plot. The pitch meeting must

have gone something like, "It's the Spice Girls meet the Matrix!"

This film is definitely rooted in 2000, and was made with a

completely contemporary sensibility. The computer effects are as

much the star as any of the humans in it. Once upon a time, action

films made some sense, and humans actually performed the

stunts. Now it's all so programmed, right down to the stop-motion

slo-mo sequences, so that you can see Cameron Diaz' face

Photoshopped onto the digital action figure.

Witty, clever film, but not quite as good as the IMDB voters would suggest. Basically the plot is pretty standard outsider-who-is-not-what-he-seems-inspires-townspeople-to-do-great-things kind of thing, with lots of chicken jokes thrown in.

And while I appreciate the subtext of the satire of the factory farm methods, I'm not sure this was really an intentional goal of the film, nor does it go far enough. England's small farmers are not nearly as heinous as American practices. Cal it an anti-meat tale for kids.