Reviews

Synopsis: Robert Duvall is hired to kill someone in Buenos Aires. As he waits for the guy to show up he learns how to tango.

The movie is pretty bad actually. As far as tango ambiance is concerned I would rather watch again movies at the National Geographic site (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0312/feature2/index.html). However complete tango danced as a background to credits is worth rental price.

Learned an interesting factoid: apparently in Argentina young attractive women are smitten with old goons. Food for thought…

4/10

The best comedy I have seen. The script is based on exceptionally observant novel by Ilf and Petrov and is translated to screen flawlessly. But wait, not only dialog is clever, this film is one of the best (or the best) physical comedies I know. My friend who does not speak Russian enjoyed simply watching acting by superb ensemble of actors. There is not a single false note through entire three hour run. I watch it again and again. Beautiful and smart! 10/10.

Like any high quality sci-fi this movie asks existential questions.

Is Clooney character going to be a "curiosity" puppet in Solaris hands? If so for how long? And then what (it does take energy to maintain his existence)?

He is obviously not the same person anymore - no fear of death or injury. Will his (his?) feelings for Rhea evolve? I bet they would have to change - different surroundings, different "Rhea". Would he still long for a baby of his own? Why? - He is quite possibly "Solaris" immortal (in his eyes).

Was it worth to step away from the hatch to loose mortal *yourself* in the ocean? It seems to me not, if his motif was to make a better effort at recreating happy life of *him* with Rhea (this reason is hinted at in the movie).

Now if his motif was exploration of alternative existence with a chance of not loosing his personality, and perhaps even returning to previous state (Orpheus-like), it could have been justifiable – who said that he is not already a figment of Matrix imagination? Why not try alternative Solaris universe?

There are no answers... Only choices.

8/10

What have started as gun-nuts comedy has evolved (via Socratic method, Marilyn Manson and South Park) into examination of culture of fear, but stopped short of asking why fear is cultivated in the USA.

Here are some of the questions raised in the movie:

Q. Why do people shoot to kill?

A. They are afraid.

Q. Why do people shoot to kill in America more than in other countries?

A. Obviously fear is cultivated in this country more than in others.

Q. Who profits from culture of fear?

A. Quite a few individuals. Let's put gun manufacturers aside, they just using the built-up fear to make living.

Q. Who profits from building-up the culture of fear?

A. The movie hints at politicians. At all levels. Indeed fear is handy diversion/manipulation tool. Economy in bad shape? – Make war on terrorism. Cannot afford child care, medical insurance? – You'd better worry about killer bees or gangs from Bronx invading you neighborhood. Hence media coverage of violent crimes (declined by 20%) increased 600%.

To illustrate the point a politician in Canada is interviewed as well as footage of Bush is presented.

Canada. Problems with social security? – Find solution.

USA. Problems with social security? – Bomb Iraq.

9/10 See also `Wag the dog' on the subject.

Cheers, Yoda.

PS An advice to militia men: Need protection from government? Try electing politicians whom you don't have to be afraid of. Try supporting that media, which exposes corruption in the government elected by you.

The further I am away from seeing this movie, the better, more relevant it gets. I just cannot help to draw parallels with anthrax scare, about-to-be-unleashed war with Iraq (including the man left behind bit), poor state of economy and upcoming elections. The movie this good at predicting real events has to be praised.

8/10. Should be watched as a double feature with "Bowling for Columbine"

Like well tuned instrument - all motivations in this film ring true. Teens: horniness, abandon, spur-of-the-moment recklessness, yearning for love, friendship or at least a piece of cake. Dying without religious zeal. The best movie since Hedwig. 9/10.

The reason for not having kids is because you cannot do yourself in? Maybe an intellectual possibility, certainly not something to be hysterical about. Just one of the examples when good acting didn't grow from material, as a result whole movie felt as an exercise in acting. Vapid Festen wannabe. 6/10

No life, no cleverness, just one never-ending fight against overwhelming forces of inept evil. Preposterous pontifications delivered by cartoonish characters are middle school deep. Boring and irksome. 5/10 for visuals

No life, no cleverness, just never-ending fight against overwhelming forces of inept evil. Preposterous pontifications delivered by cartoonish characters are middle school deep.

5/10 for visuals

Basically life is a rat race rigged before you show up. When you realize that, you have to get off this merry-go-round. Unless of course the rigging suits you. Nowadays it mostly does. Helpful referee advises to stop enjoying sunset to have a little rest before resuming the race. Provoking. 10/10.

Couple #2. Marriage of convenience– at a brooding stage of their marriage when eyes are wishfully kept wide shut. An ambitious `forward thinking', networking careerist who married for money a church mouse who had an abortion and helps husband to get in bed with influential women to advance his career.

Couple #1. An associate professor who could have been; who is married to president's daughter who is slightly crazy (lives with her imaginary 16 years old son among other things), screams a lot and sleeps around because it is `imaginary' unlike the `real' stuff with husband. Well, after two decades of nagging the understanding `spineless' prof snapped and marriage of love died on this night and became marriage of habit. OR, perhaps they reconciled with each other real selves and will live less exciting, more honest life? Hardly.

I have met couple #2, not #1. Great performances – 8/10.

Some movies are about the way they look. This one looks like a school play (like all of Smith's movies), but it has something to say (like most of Smith's movies) about the ever fluid border between `accepted' and `unacceptable' in love and in sex. It's all in your mind, Mr. Tweedy.

10/10 for clever monologues + 5/10 for poor acting = 8/10.

I could think of only four other movies on par with Titus: Hamlet (1996), Natural Born Killers, The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover, and Festern. Incidentally all five are about revenge. All present true human emotions on the edge without unnecessary shrills, have mesmerizing performances, daring visual style, supportive original score, and irresistible drive.

Back to Titus. A beauty. Taymor, Hopkins, and Lennix are outstanding. Preposterous, if taken literally, play. And no, `say no to violence' message is not in the original play. The tucked prolog and epilog sequences cannot right this wrong. 9/10

All great movies by definition are about our experiences or our anticipations, otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognize them as great. Significant part of this movie is about the way we die, which is of course a consequence of the way we live. Meet a searching agnostic (the knight), a self-assured atheist (the squire), a pious meek believer (the girl), a deluded Satan worshiper, a religious hypocrite, and a couple of characters who do not give a squat about god's existence. Send them on a journey through medieval country and watch them live and die. This is The Seventh Seal. There is also a model family, which walks off into horizon. It is this sugar coated bogus family, which slights the movie for me. 8/10.

Any `have-been-in-love' can tell you that we are in love with our dreams. When real person does not to fit our dream-mold we get extremely annoyed. This movie illustrates both notions on many levels. Excellent performance by both leads. Obnoxious score. Insipid boyfriend. Uneven tango scene. 7/10.

Warning. This is not an analytical film. Do not watch this movie if you have never been in love - the whole thing will make no sense. Sorry guys, there is more than sex here.

Setting visuals and music aside - true personalities inhabit this film. No wait. Sumptuous feast of visuals and music. Back to the characters. I knew both personally and closely the boorish husband and his refined wife depicted in this movie. I even know why she married him - succumbed to his persistency and her own romantic fantasies of being won by a daring suitor. Twenty years later – habitual marriage in which he repeats the same tried and trite maxims and periodically reminds her and her friends who is her master, while she habitually contemplates suicide and longs for a high spirited lover to rescue her from mundane life in the burbs. Sorry `Georgina', couldn't help you. Nobody but yourself can.

So much for romantic fantasies… Which incidentally do often lead to `romantic' murder, but that's another story.

9/10 - the real Albert is a bit craftier (has to be). I can assure you, my reader, from her perspective there is not a shred of emotional exaggeration in this movie.

The glitter wears off much too soon. Impressive in the theater, lackluster upon second, home viewing - there are no undercurrents to justify rerun. I actually found bonus features of DVD more interesting than the movie itself, not that I would watch them more than once.

"Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"

Discard quibble from the clueless and there seem to be no objections to greatness of this movie.

Comments from thegilamon were especially enlightening (about 40-60 comments before this one, savor the style too). I have to admit I didn't get that `other' love tension upon my first viewing. Perhaps because it is `unwholesome' to me as it would be to Li Mu Bai. I saw the trees, to be sure. I still think, perhaps wrongfully, the final leap was due to Jen's free spirit multiplied by teenager's idealism - she wouldn't fit the schooling. Come to think of it she wouldn't fit anywhere but those clouds.

9/10 (not 10/10, because I didn't get it first time)

Creativity versus Structure. Individual vs. System. Mozart vs. Salieris. The One vs. the Matrix. Living vs. Fitting.

Systematic destruction of the `inner child': protective mother - not unusual schooling (this usually includes overwhelming peer pressure (omitted as a factor in the Wall) – marriage - corporate team playing - death. `Is there the way out?' - Portishead.

Timeless theme explored most recently in the Matrix, except in the Wall the ending is more realistic. Usually the child is gradually and smoothly subdued to fit the team. Rarely the Matrix fails and the artist lives to be an artist and is broken as in the Wall (Socrates, Galileo) or drops out (Gauguin). Almost never he raises above and able to subvert the system (Pink Floyd, perhaps?).

Solid 10 out of 10.

It is not The Sting, it is in a way better, less elaborated and more amusing. Two con artists (Celentano and Quinn) bluff each other and anybody who happens to come across out of money and out of jail. Unfortunately DVD is missing a few amusing peaces. Still if you are a fan of easy cute fun, see it. Comedies age, this one didn't.

8/10

There is only one weapon against slime - truth. By the final, lasting impact, The Celebration is as good as One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest. Withstands multiple viewing. Excellent.

What do you think of yourself and who are you really? What is your role in your life? This movie asks curious questions. It does not give satisfying answers, but I appreciate the effort (7/10). Much better effort can be found in "The Magus" by John Fowles (if reading is your thing).

Without any ado here is what this movie about:

Mickey: I realized my true calling in life. Wayne Gale: What's that? Mickey: I'm a natural born killer.

and

Mickey: Mister rabbit says, "A moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers."

How many moments of realization have you had? Media angle of this movie is a vehicle for this simple question.

10/10.

I was unfortunate to see this movie with subtitles of woeful quality (white text on white background). I was fortunate enough to read the excellent script long before seeing the film. The movie is about roles we choose to play. The choice is not always conscious. Also this movie has one of the most arousing monologues put on a film. 9/10.