Cathz's Reviews

The Matrix (1999)

6/10

A big disappointment, but still enjoyable

24 January 2005

I'm afraid I have only to reiterate what others have already said on here - 'The Matrix' is hugely overrated. I, like others, did enjoy it for its sheer escapism, sense of adventure and regular conventions of good vs. evil. There is a great deal to admire in it - the stylistic qualities, good soundtrack, and of course special effects. The fight scenes - to begin with - are fairly mind-blowing, but throughout the 3 films as a whole there are far too many of an almost identical nature. It seems the choreographers ran out of different moves & poses.

Onto the less good - as I agree with others, the utterly pretentious and convoluted 'morals' or 'underlying themes' of the film. It seems like just another of a particular ilk, that seeks to confuse the viewer as much as possible, to hide the fact that there is very little intelligent substance in there. As others have noticed, the basic philosophy running through the 3 films has been expressed many times before, only without the needless drivel that is heard in 'The Matrix'. This becomes more apparent in the second film, I must admit, but what IS there from the very beginning, and what annoys me most, is the OVER-CONSCIOUS nature of the film as a whole. It appears set up, from the first, that 'this is going to be a landmark film' - there is a sense of over-importance and worthiness which is, frankly, unconvincing.

Not only this, but the dialogue is cliché-ridden, some of it reminding me distinctly of old Bond villain lines, recycled and delivered as if Shakespearian quotes; "I will enjoy watching you die" etc. Unlike others, I found Hugo Weaving's performance one of the weakest. The best way to describe it, in a word, is over-acting, and possible one of the worst accents in movie history. I will give credit to Joe Pantoliano, and most of the cast are reasonably likable, but the characters themselves are weak to say the least, and as others have commented the love story is both shallow and superfluous to the plot.

In short, I was disappointed with this film as I went into it with an open mind and was ready to enjoy it, from what I had heard from others. However, it fails to deliver on many levels and the over-complicity of the 'philosophy' ruins what enjoyment could have been had from a pretty good and interesting premise. On a final note, I would have to say that the dark glasses - not given a purpose in the film, as far as I can tell - are the ultimate example of what this film really succeeds in: IMAGE. Apart from that, it all seemed rather wasted. I'll give the first instalment of the trilogy 6/10, for pure entertainment value!

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

6/10

I beg to differ, sir

26 April 2003

Okay, I was sceptical about this 'masterpiece' before I even saw it, so no surprise that I am not jumping on the bandwagon. This is not a fantastic movie, in film-making terms. It is, however, a fantastic cult for those obsessed fans to indulge & immerse themselves in.

I may be a hypocrite because I am a huge Star Wars fan, but whereas SW was, in its time, quite in its own league, with LOTR I see many different influences, such as Excalibur (the Arthurian legend) and most of course many biblical similarities. It presents in an overblown way a very tired genre & very tired themes which are no longer exciting or unique.

The special effects in LOTR are, admittedly, spectacular, as was also the cinematography. But these elements alone cannot make for a great, landmark film, as so many people suggest. My comments may be wasted as I am absolutely in the minority - those people, like me, who know that LOTR is not for them usually don't bother to see the movie, let alone vote for it, which is why this film has such a ridiculously high rating.

LOTR is certainly not as good as SW, let alone better. Consider also the 30 years which have elapsed in cinematic progress & advances in technology. What's more, LOTR drags on needlessly & ends abruptly in an obvious promotional ploy to get viewers to see the next film. The cast-list may look impressive, but I found some of the acting (most notably from Lee & Holm) to be rather too much overacting and, as others have said, almost in the comic-book league. Credit though to Viggo Mortensen who, well, provided the film's only backbone & something to make you keep watching.

I perhaps would not be so critical, was it not such an overhyped film which seems to ensnare its victims like flies. Once somebody considers themself a fan, as I have so found out, it is frankly impossible to make them look at it objectively & regain their common-sense. In my opinion, it is a fairly likeable & almost exciting adventure film, 6/10 at the most.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Red Dragon (2002)

7/10

As good as horror gets for me **may be spoilers**

20 October 2002

Warning: Spoilers

OK, I'll admit it right away, I'm pathetic with horror movies & throughout this film at the cinema, I had my jacket on my lap, ready to cover my eyes at any moment! I was much relieved then that 'Red Dragon' very much saved me the bother - it wasn't too scary at all. From me, this is not a criticism, it actually meant I could enjoy the movie rather than sit there scared out of my wits.

I knew it was going to be a decent film as soon as the credits came up on the screen - I never imagined such a vast array of talented actors would appear in a prequel to such a controversial horror flick, but then I guess that's the pull of SOTL these days. As usual we have two fantastic British guys as the main 'baddies', a clean-cut Edward Norton as the sympathetic lead. All were exceptional, including Emily Watson, as usual excelling in a difficult role, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as a perfectly wimpering 'loser' - even Harvey Keitel with his minimal screen-time was able to show great presence. In my opinion, both Norton & Keitel's roles should have been more along the lines of Tommy Lee Jones in 'The Fugitive' - an intense and energetic detective intent on catching his villain. With the lack of intensity in 'Red Dragon', (more the script's fault than the actors' I think) the film somewhat lost what could have been a nail-biting edge, particularly in the middle stages. With a rather terrifying beginning few scenes, showing the bloody scene of the first crimes, the director didn't seem to capitalize on the thrilling pace which had built up (perhaps he didn't have the balls!) Instead, the film seemed to drift off into too many broad daylight scenes with as much suspense as a Sunday morning in a market town. Perfect viewing for a wimp like me!

Some elements of the film really did work for me, others completely baffled me. The idea of incorporating William Blake's paintings & poems was interesting and added an extra dimension to the plot, however it does seems rather unfair on Blake himself to label his imagination as the work of a maniac. His pictures, though fantastical, may now be seen in a somewhat evil light to those viewers of the film who are not familiar with his work, which to me is rather wrong. But that is beside the point - it was a clever touch, and one of many.

Things which flummoxed me were: 1) how on earth *2* people could escape from a building high in flames, much unscathed 2) what possessed Will & his family to return to live in their Florida home, not only when Hannibal has their postcode at the ready, but before the bones in the fire had been confirmed as those of insane serial killer Dolarhyde, (is it just me or is that is just too unbelievably stupid?) and, 3) why Hannibal seemingly had a supernatural hold over one of the musicians, at the very start of the film. Since I've never seen SOTL I am quite fascinated as to this point - if anyone wants to e-mail me the answer, I'd be most grateful!

Anyhow, that's my opinion, a good horror film which wasn't too scary for me - not a common thing! 7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

5/10

Much better than I expected

18 April 2002

Before seeing this film, I had heard some pretty hard criticism and general bad vibes about it (only 1/5 in our TV guide!) It just goes to show that with low expectations, you are much more likely to be pleasantly surprised.

By no means does this film deserve a bashing. It's well-directed and photographed throughout, with some stunning African sunsets and also a brilliantly stirring score from Jerry Goldsmith.

Val Kilmer, I personally love the guy (maybe not for all the right reasons) but once again here he proved that he is a very fine actor. Val has never looked better, and his Irish accent was, I believe, not at all bad. He didn't over-do it which is why I think his performance so lifted the movie. It's great to see Val able to give a character such depth and feeling which in most of his movies hasn't been possible. It is a crime that Michael Douglas is billed first in the cast list - it seems however good Val is, he is never given credit for it. As for Douglas, he was okay I guess, but I generally thought he ruined the dark tone of the movie after it was going so well (what was a would-be American cowboy doing in the African plains?)

Perhaps 'The Ghost and the Darkness' is not so entirely original - for me it bears a slight resemblance to the 1990 film 'Mountains of the Moon' and sometimes even 'Zulu'. Some characters, particularly Tom Wilkinson, are somewhat stereotyped - the mean, cowardly and unsympathetic English 'baddy' which we've seen so many times before. The script is not great either, but this does not spoil the mood of the action. After all, when stuck face-to-face with a roaring lion, you are unlikely to recite Shakespeare! However, there was some typical-Douglas wishy-washy sentimental tosh in there which I thought was unnecessary. Also, Val Kilmer and Emily Mortimer do not make a very believable couple.

This aside, I found it a greatly enjoyable and moving film. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys serious action-adventure and of course any fans of Val... Perhaps animal-rights activists should stay clear though! 6/10

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

5/10

Much better than I expected

18 April 2002

Before seeing this film, I had heard some pretty hard criticism and general bad vibes about it (only 1/5 in our TV guide!) It just goes to show that with low expectations, you are much more likely to be pleasantly surprised.

By no means does this film deserve a bashing. It's well-directed and photographed throughout, with some stunning African sunsets and also a brilliantly stirring score from Jerry Goldsmith.

Val Kilmer, I personally love the guy (maybe not for all the right reasons) but once again here he proved that he is a very fine actor. Val has never looked better, and his Irish accent was, I believe, not at all bad. He didn't over-do it which is why I think his performance so lifted the movie. It's great to see Val able to give a character such depth and feeling which in most of his movies hasn't been possible. It is a crime that Michael Douglas is billed first in the cast list - it seems however good Val is, he is never given credit for it. As for Douglas, he was okay I guess, but I generally thought he ruined the dark tone of the movie after it was going so well (what was a would-be American cowboy doing in the African plains?)

Perhaps 'The Ghost and the Darkness' is not so entirely original - for me it bears a slight resemblance to the 1960 film 'Mountains of the Moon' and sometimes even 'Zulu'. Some characters, particularly Tom Wilkinson, are somewhat stereotyped - the mean, cowardly and unsympathetic English 'baddy' which we've seen so many times before. The script is not great either, but this does not spoil the mood of the action. After all, when stuck face-to-face with a roaring lion, you are unlikely to recite Shakespeare! However, there was some typical-Douglas wishy-washy sentimental tosh in there which I thought was unnecessary. Also, Val Kilmer and Emily Mortimer do not make a very believable couple.

This aside, I found it a greatly enjoyable and moving film. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys serious action-adventure and of course any fans of Val... Perhaps animal-rights activists should stay clear though! 6/10

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Knight's Tale (2001)

2/10

30 March 2002

I had been anticipating seeing this film as soon as it came out to rent, and I cannot begin to describe my intense feeling of disappointment even seconds after it had began.

I am a regular movie-lover and I do not often completely bash films or claim them to be worthless, but I really can't think of anything to praise about this film. My initial reaction was (as is so often the case nowadays) that there is absolutely nothing new here, in fact it is simply a convoluted mixture of old cinema recipes flung together in an undignified heap. There were a couple of scenes which seemed to be carbon-copies from 'Gladiator' - particularly inside the dungeon towards the end (anyone remember Commodus thrusting the knife into Maximus before the last fight?) There was also a bit of 'Shakespeare In Love' in there (soppy love poem anyone?) and also echoes of 'Excalibur' of course. What these other films have though are excellent scripts, something which 'A Knight's Tale' most certainly does not.

The acting astonished me, it was so remarkably bad. Not so much Heath Ledger himself, who although bland was at least watchable. But who the hell are Shannyn Sossamon and Alan Tudyk?? In my opinion, they ruined this movie. If the directors were so short of actors for these main roles, they could easily have found two 14-year-old British kids with absolutely no acting experience, and would still have produced better performances. It is a sad thing to see such talent as Laura Fraser, Paul Bettany, and particularly Rufus Sewell and James Purefoy, go to waste and be part of such a farce as this. 'A Knight's Tale' is one credit on their filmography which I think should be forgotten and forgiven.

In short, this film has been weighed, it has been measured, and it most certainly has been found wanting!! 2/10 (one star for Rufus, one for James, and that's generous!)

6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Top Gun (1986)

7/10

Not the bomb I expected

22 February 2002

For a few years now I have kept telling myself I'll have to watch 'Top Gun' sometime. That is, until today, when I finally found a couple of hours to waste. To be honest, this film really didn't work for me - by no means is it bad, just an average popcorn action movie with many obvious flaws. My reason for seeing it in the first place was, quite simply, Val Kilmer, so you can imagine how disappointed I was to find his part cut down to a minimum.

Tom Cruise is the all-American, perfect-teeth good guy who wants to prove himself. Val Kilmer is the cocky, sometimes arrogant, win-all-the-medals bad guy (for most of the movie at least). I may be biassed of course, but I found Kilmer's character, as the unflinching "Ice Man" to be much more interesting than Cruise's "Maverick", who for much of the film raced about on a motorbike or smiled as cheesily as possible in Kelly McGillis' direction. The love scenes were, for me, tedious to say the least. I would have given the film a much higher rating if only the unnecessary and shallow romance was edited out. I have a great deal of respect for Kelly McGillis in other films, such as the brilliant 'Witness', but every time she appeared in this I loathed the sight of her.

The dogfight scenes towards the end, and other flying scenes throughout, were one of the few positive aspects for me. I may be mistaken, but I do think it was an attempt to re-enact the climactic end to 'Star Wars', when Luke Skywalker and the rebels set up their assault on the Death Star. Only here, I found it a major annoyance to my viewing that I could not at all tell who was flying which plane. Once I'd figured out the colours of Cruise and Kilmer's helmets, the film was over and it was time for the corniest ending I have ever seen.

I suppose if you have ever flown a jet, or take a great interest in flying schools and such like, you may find some merit in this movie. If you want some cheap entertainment and don't mind sitting through some very amateurish humour and bad dialogue along the way, then you might as well give it a go. It's the type of film everyone should see just once - after all, everyone's heard of "Top Gun" so it's good to satisfy your curiosity.

I found it ironic that at the end of the day, Val Kilmer was the real Top Gun. Tom Cruise was simply a flashy fly-boy. It could have been excellent with two such leading actors. But for me, the only real highlight was seeing Val Kilmer emerge from the shower with only a towel on... That and the topless volleyball are, I think, all I got out of it. Tom Cruise fans, see 'Mission:Impossible' instead. Kilmer fans, go rent 'Tombstone'. McGillis fans, watch 'Witness'. That's just my advice anyway.

6/10.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mummy Returns (2001)

7/10

A fantastic piece of entertainment!!

20 October 2001

I saw this film twice in the cinema with my friends, and hell, somehow I enjoyed it even more the second time!! What can I say about the action? It is fabulous from start to finish - especially the scenes in London, featuring Tower Bridge and the British Museum as you've never seen them before! The little mummies are superb as they scuttle along buildings, and there are also some thrilling chase sequences through the forests!

All acting is first-rate in this film - Brendan Fraser I find just the most likeable hero, Rachel Weisz looks even more stunning, Patricia Velasquez is perfectly bitchy, John Hannah is again the typical English clown, and Arnold Vosloo adds another dimension to the character of Imhotep - I even felt sorry for the guy in this film! And how could I forget Freddie Boath, who does an excellent job as an amusing though stereotypical boy-scout-type kid. Also look out for a scene-stealing turn from the airship-pilot, but the star of the show just has to be Horus, the kestrel!

The special effects perhaps vary in this film, from breathtakingly-brilliant to downright pathetic. I particularly found the scenes in the airship, flying through the sky, very dodgy - surely that's a cardboard cut-out in the background?!

But did I mention the music? This film has a fantastic soundtrack, which I made sure to buy, and adds even more merit to a remarkable adventure.

Overall, I'd give this film at least 7/10 for pure entertainment value - it may not be a cinematic masterpiece, but it rivals the likes of 'Star Wars' as the best popcorn movie ever!

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Traffic (2000)

7/10

A very impressive, serious movie

19 October 2001

Having anticipated seeing 'Traffic' for a long time, I found it all in all to be well worth the wait. For a start though, I would have to admit that I do not consider this film to be a masterpiece in any way. It has some outstanding good points, and gives quite a realistic slant on life - and yet some major flaws just spoil the overall seriousness of the issues involved.

First of all, I just HAVE to mention Catherine Zeta-Jones' performance throughout this movie. Although her actual acting of the role is excellent (in fact, perfect), I have never heard another actor/actress speak in American, English and Welsh accents all in one movie! It is rather a shame I found this so noticeable, because otherwise I feel she had surpassed herself in this film.

Meanwhile, Michael Douglas I found to be extremely likeable, which is a new thing for me. Benicio Del Toro just once again convinced me that he IS the most interesting and intense actor around at the moment. I don't believe he has ever made a film where he has not put absolutely everything into his role, and this is no exception. Beni, even as a less-than-white character, always carries a strong screen presence which commands a certain respect and admiration. Don Cheadle is impressive, Dennis Quaid is also pretty good, and I was surprised to see a cameo from Albert Finney (how strange to see him in this movie!)

The drugs issues in this movie are, on the whole, very true to life and almost depressingly realistic. I watched this film shortly after a shocking incident at my school which I found this movie echoed perfectly. As portrayed by the daughter in 'Traffic', it is often the rich kids, with too much brains and money for their own good, who end up turning to drugs and crime. However, in other respects this movie was rather shallow. I found the typical all-American 'lets-all-smile-and-forgive' ending extremely disappointing and in a way it seemed to erase all morals and messages that the film was trying to get across. In my opinion it would have been better to keep this film a warts-and-all story, which was done impressively with the Mexican scenes. If director Soderbergh had perhaps been a little less warm-hearted and given this film a more brutal edge, I perhaps would agree with his winning the Oscar. As it happens, I feel Ridley Scott was wronged after re-opening a whole genre with 'Gladiator'. At least they got it right with Benicio Del Toro - a subtle, masterly performance which surely should seal his star status.

6.5 out of 10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Way of the Gun (2000)

7/10

Beni fans must see this film!!

18 October 2001

OK, I admit it, I only rented this film because of Benicio Del Toro and I only really liked it all because of Benicio Del Toro. But what struck me most is how little I got to see of him. Bearing in mind he is the second lead in this film, his brilliant acting skills are not given nearly enough chance to shine. That being said, the interaction between Beni and Philippe is worth a watch for sure - it's just a shame too much time is handed to the likes of Juliette Lewis, who in my opinion completely ruins this movie. 'The Usual Suspects' was great because it didn't try to do what it surely couldn't - mix macho fight scenes with sentimental rubbish. 'The Way of the Gun', I feel, falls short in this area. I, for one, wasn't interested in any kind of sub-plot involving a stuck-up middle-class couple. What I did like were the pure, excellent action sequences, particularly during the first half of the movie, and a bloody end sequence reminiscent of the spaghetti westerns. Of course, every minute that Del Toro is on screen, he simply is the epitome of coolness, and showing nice touches of humour as well.

Overall I'd give it about 6.5 out of 10 - but it could well have been 8 were it not for some unnecessary scenes involving unnecessary characters.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gladiator (2000)

10/10

The best movie of 2000!

13 January 2001

I was lucky enough to see Gladiator on the big screen, and I'm glad I did because it was an experience to remember. I believe this is one of the most brilliantly made films I have ever seen, and I could not point out a single flaw. The cast was exceptional, not least Russell Crowe, moody and magnificent in the title role. Joaquin Phoenix was also utterly believable as the twisted Commodus. I had never heard of Connie Nielsen before, but found she gave a very convincing performance as Lucilla. British fans will not be disappointed either, for an excellent support headed by Oliver Reed and Derek Jacobi adds even more strength and depth.

The story itself is powerful enough, helped along by some truly awesome special effects. The view of the Colosseum is so real and yet purely digital, the battle scenes are sometimes gruesome but always breathtaking. Finally, a masterful score by Hans Zimmer gives this film its heart-wrenching edge and brings out every emotion in the brutal tale.

Anyone who thought this an over-hyped blockbuster in the way of 'Titanic' is utterly mistaken. It is a masterpiece and historical epic that brings back the true meaning of cinema. I only hope that the Oscars can do it justice, if for once they get it right.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

6/10

The World Is Not Enough... but 19 Bonds are

13 May 2000

It's quite amazing that more Bond films are still being made after almost 40 years, and if you watch 'The World Is Not Enough' you can see that they have indeed overdone it all. Every joke and every action-piece - however spectacular - is nothing new. We've seen it all before, and done just as well if not better.

No disrespect to Pierce Brosnan though, who in my opinion gives his best performance as 007 yet, and also Sophie Marceau, who makes a perfect villainess. I can't say the same for Denise Richards however - a believable Lara Croft, yes, but nuclear scientist?? Still, the late Desmond Llewelyn as 'Q' has made a fine last performance, and I think the films will lose something without his memorable presence.

Overall, this film is very watchable for pure entertainment value, but I hope the Bond producers will consider calling it a day before they ruin what was, in the beginning, a great phenomenon.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

6/10

Good film, no masterpiece

13 May 2000

After the tremendous amount of hype, this film has no chance of living up to it. Sure it's good, but it's not a masterpiece as critics would have you believe.

Still, there's no doubting that it has the finest of casts: Joseph Fiennes, for instance, makes a perfect young Bard whatever some might say; Judi Dench is magnificent in her cameo role; Colin Firth is a dastardly bad guy; even Ben Affleck manages to fit in; and many other familiar faces, such as Martin Clunes, Geoffrey Rush, Tom Wilkinson, and Mark Williams from 'The Fast Show' provide the laughs (well, at least a smile.)

As for Gwyneth Paltrow - well, you can't deny that she gives an excellent performance, but compare it to Cate Blanchett's far more moving portrayal of 'Elizabeth', and I think you can safely say the Oscar was questionable.

Overall, it may baffle you as to why this film should be labelled a 'comedy' (in my opinion, there is just far too many sloppy love scenes), but for an enjoyable and superbly-made costume drama, it definitely deserves some of the praise it has won.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Emma (1996)

4/10

A synthetic adaptation

13 May 2000

I was surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.

How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!

I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.

19 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tombstone (1993)

8/10

What's up, Doc?

13 May 2000

Even if you're not at all familiar with the Wyatt Earp legend, or with Westerns particularly, this remarkable film can easily draw you in to an obsession with both. The depiction of the time and place seems thoroughly authentic, and the acting is top-class - while Kurt Russell makes a fine central character, Val Kilmer displays effortless cool as Doc Holliday, and Michael Biehn is suitably menacing as gunslinger Johnny Ringo. The fabulous script allows every actor to shine, and many of Doc's lines especially will stick in your mind, such as "I'm your huckleberry" and "Isn't that a daisy?"

My only criticism would have to be the love story in this film - it just doesn't work. And while I would praise it for trying, the fact is, there just isn't room for much romance in the genre.

Should Val have won an Oscar? Of course he should. But the one thing we all know is that the best man rarely wins. But never mind - justice is coming, and hell will follow with it!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Usual Suspects (1995)

10/10

Hand me the keys, you...

6 May 2000

There's one word for this film: AMAZING! The plot is deceptive and ingenious, and the entire cast is exceptional - particularly of course Kevin Spacey, who proves himself a remarkable actor - but also Gabriel Byrne and Stephen Baldwin, as two guys who get more than they bargained for. Also full merit to Pete Postlethwaite as the mysterious Kobayashi.

I really couldn't pick a single hole in this film. It's faultless if ever a film was, and I recommend it to anyone and everyone who hasn't experienced it.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

9/10

Clint's coolest performance

6 May 2000

In this world, there's two kinds of people, my friend - those who like spaghetti westerns and those who don't. Personally, I think this is one of the greatest films ever made. Nothing can match Sergio Leone's masterful direction, the twangy score by Ennio Morricone, or the ever-cool presence of Clint Eastwood. It's near enough perfect. There are also memorable performances from Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef, who as always has an air of menace about him. The film is also packed full of memorable moments - such as the climactic final showdown - and there is plenty of wry humour to keep you amused as well as amazed. Idiots? It's for you!

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cathz

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed