Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Jules and Jim (1962)
1/10
oooooh wow, it's truffaut. how exciting!!!
8 September 2005
of course i knew before going into this movie that it was going to suck. i mean, since when have french new wave films been anything more than useless camera tricks trying to cover up a terrible and incoherent story? i am so sick of people treating these french new wave guys as if they were gods. there's more to film-making than long takes and spastic editing. the most important thing obviously being the ability to tell a story. which is apparently a feat too complicated for these people to understand.

enough with my diatribe about french new wave in general, let me talk about this particular garbage. for starters, i have to discuss the crazy gay undertones that dominate our introduction of jules and jim. i mean, i know they're good friends and all, but what is up with their excitement to take a shower together? and their slap fighting later on at the beach? not that there's anything wrong with that. but i just thought it was weird and completely pointless to have in the movie, especially considering the fact that we're supposed to believe that they're in love with this woman later. While the whole movie is a mess, i'll just go right to the end. how many times does it take for someone to realize that a person doesn't love you? the characters were so unrealistic and completely ridiculous in their attempts to leave each other and them come back, and then leave and come back, and leave once again....only to come back. END THE MOVIE ALREADY!!! i feel like i can't mention the whole coming back thing without speaking of when jim comes back and catherine pulls out a gun and tries to shoot him. wow, this scene has all the grace and tension of a Uwe Boll movie. i guess now we know where he got his inspiration from. and then he grabs the gun and jumps out the window?!?!?!?!? wtf? OK, i'll admit that was dumb but the fact that he goes back and meets with her again as if nothing happened? word? is that what guys in France did back then? not to mention that he later gets in the car with her to go for a drive. when there's obviously only one place for the car to go.......especially once you realize they're on a half-mile long road with a broken bridge, while they're driving at a whopping 10mph. which leads to the car going off the bridge and into the water. at least that part was funny. if i ever have to decide between watching this movie (or any other french new waves for that matter) or having my eyes removed with a dull razor......well, i just hope that i'll get a good seeing eye dog. that's it, i'm done.
34 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ugh, why are movies like this still praised?
25 August 2005
OK, Let's get the most important thing out of the way right now. I understand that this film is a Neo-Realism piece, but seriously.......come on. Just because you make a film in a certain way doesn't give you an excuse to make it unwatchable. The shots were all seemingly shot with different cameras (none blended well at all), the subtitles only tell viewers about half of what is actually said (not like we care, as i've said......the movie sucked), and the two lead actors look too similar to differentiate later in the movie. Now you people can over analyze this garbage all you want. But you can't honestly tell me that it merits anything even close to resembling an ounce of respect from anyone who's ever seen a movie before. That's it, I'm done.
12 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
May (2002)
1/10
SOOOOO Boring.... Is it over yet?
18 July 2003
I rented this movie thinking that it would be a cool twist on the horror formula, with an independent flavor thrown into the mix like "Ginger Snaps." I tried to give it a chance, but the movie was so slow and the main character so annoying and awkward that I started to hate it. Nothing happens in this film until the last 10 minutes, which worked in "Carrie" but not here, especially since the payoff is nothing worth remembering after the film is finally over. Instead of spending money on this trash, rent some older horror movies that at least have some camp value, rather than taking themselves so seriously. With the obvious exception of the "Scream" series, nothing good has been done with the horror genre since the 80's. With films like "May", it's easy to see what the problem is.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not too bad for direct-to-video.
14 July 2003
I really wasn't expecting much from this movie when I rented it, but when I started watching it, I realized that it wasn't that bad at all. The movie is fairly solid all the way through, with some surprisingly good special effects for such a small movie thrown in as well. Granted that all the suspense and horror elements from the first film are gone and have been replaced by a standard road rage action film along the lines of "Joyride" minus the horror. There's even a twist that most people won't be expecting, that is if anyone else watches this film. Overall, it's not bad, but it's not good either. If you are desperate to see a halfway entertaining movie, then watch it. Otherwise just wait a few months for it to air on TNT or USA.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed