Reviews

If you enjoy looonnnggg shots of meaningful looks, and action moving at a snail's pace, this one is for you. Intense personal emotional confrontations are probably up your alley as well, so even more enjoyment there. And the hand-held camera approach adds to the sense of excruciating intimacy that will add to your pleasure. Of course the acting is good, Olivia and company provide that. But for me, old-fashioned cod that I am, and male too which probably doesn't help, this movie is only vaguely enjoyable, in much the same way as sitting in a cafe watching people go past can be. There are the good, the bad, the ugly and the beautiful . . and the weirdos, if only we could distinguish them by their looks alone. And heavens, didn't those kids take a toll on Leda's looks, not to mention seriously affecting her accent. But yes, it was a refreshing change from the predictable redemption-is-on-the-way muck from Hollywood.

I scrolled in vain searching for an intelligent review of this movie. Yes, it's the story of a famous performer named Selena; yes, it's a cinderella story (up to a point); yes, Jennifer Lopez is great; yes, Selena herself was wonderful (to many) . . . This not reviewing a movie, this is rambling thoughts about the subject.

But the real point, the crux of the worthiness of this movie is not about the subject of it but the movie itself, please! If you want to go all weak-kneed about the real person watch a documentary.

And indeed the greatest problem with this movie - it does have its positives - is its genre confusion. For most of the time it is a drama/musical, a fictional reconstruction of a famous life, cheezy, cliched, sentimental, episodic if you like but that's fine. What's not fine is when this all collapses at the critical moment into realism . . . And not just simple realism but absolute realism, actual news footage. There is practically no build-up to the final terrible denouement, let alone an explanation or depiction. Even before that Yolanda, a key character, is not introduced nor explained, she is just suddenly there. And then she is a problem. Why? Where did she come from? How did she have such a position? What's the egg-ring all about? Why, in heaven's name did she do it? Welkl, teh answer's to be found, but not in this movie.

It is a fatal flaw. Didn't anyone notice? Apparently not. But I am not going to waste any more time on it. I've googled Wikipedia for the answers.

Write your own dialogue for much of this movie because you sure will need to guess what they're saying half the time.

What is it about these movies and their directors that they feel that to achieve realism they have to be unintelligible?

I don't think I understood even one word Woody Harrellson said, Christian Bates not far behind. Do we blame all this obscurantism on Marlon Brando?

So, come on, people, we need to understand what you're saying or better just don't say it at all and we may as well go back to the silent era and subtitles.

Subtitles? Did I say subtitles? What a great idea . . . Just make sure they're in yellow ot on a black background please.

Or get some elocutions lessons . . that's ell-oh-kyoo-sh'n, guys.

I don't know about the bad acting or the slow burn or the let down but what I do know about this movie is that they got the result of the race arse-up . . . Why?

Did a Canadian movie have to put the Americans in first place so they could get the financing, or the ticket sales.

Or does Canada just simply have to kowtow to the Americans in every regard . . . If so, shameful! What an embarrassment.

Anyhow, what I'm getting at is that AUSTRALIA won that race, the USA second, not the other way around! And it was an Olympic record, thank you very much.

The writer/producer would did this film a great disservice by narrating it himself. His voice has very poor modulation, slipping up and down in volume so that many words or syllables become lost. Despite having his accent I found myself needing to follow the subtitles in order to keep up with his narration. What a pity, an interesting documentary spoiled by either lack of a little more funding for a professional, or perhaps hubris.

This movie is, in a word, execrable. It is an offence to history or legends, to screenwriting, to common sense, to the art of the cinema and to any audiences that have the misfortune of having to be exposed to its nonsense. Others have outlined the nature of this movie's sins well enough and I don't wish to waste any more of my time on it than I want to, so i won't duplicate. The only reason I can give it the two points I have is because of some of the scenes that have been constructed in such a realistic way as to almost seduce us into ignoring the rest of its atrocious presentations.

To repeat: execrable!

This is not a review or comment on the story (why bother re-telling stories and plots in reviews anyway?) but on the film and its technique. And right from the beginning I would say I am only partly qualified to review it. This is because I could not watch it. This is my statement on (and my plea against) the whole hand-held camera culture and what it does to otherwise (possibly) perfectly good movies. It is an abomination. Perhaps the creatives thought it would give teh story the realism it deserves. Think again! The story carries the thrill, not the guy/gal carrying the camera in a sweaty hand. Now quite possibly those with brains that are not prone to seizures brought on by external neural influences (like strobe lighting eg) may find this movie exciting and half their luck. But for us folk who actually like to see a story told in a manner that, to say the least, does not actually distract us from the story, it is unwatchable . . .. very much like most other movies made with the infamous hand-held. Now there is a place for it, to be sure. But it needs to be used with great discretion. Or left to the undergraduates at film school as they find their footing for the reel world. Hell, it's not as if they needed to cut corners and save a few dollars on proper cameras surely! But that is how it comes across. So, sorry, had to give this one a miss, but I read the reviews and the synopsis and have a pretty good idea of it all. Just a pity I couldn't watch it as a movie.

It has been said already very well by others but I would just add my nickel's worth. This is a truly sickening movie that will leave you feeling much the worse for wear. If that's what you like, then go for it. But underneath the nauseating surface there lies nothing but nonsense. If it is an allegory, then I missed it. Please, if you ever get the opportunity, please make sure you never let me go to see it again.

So, if you enjoy movies that beat you over the head with a sledgehammer again, then again, and again, and again again, then this is a movie for you. Even better if you like your sledgehammer noisy, maybe a jackhammer?. It's OK to be gay, it really is, no I mean it, it is fine if that's what you are, be gay, it's OK by me, no argument there, not from me anyway, can't see how anyone could be upset by it, really, I mean it's OK . . .ad nauseum. It's a toss up what is most offensive about this movie: its offensiveness (oh, sure, of course that is what they want, push you to the edge, hey that's what art is meant to do, in't?), its banality, its noisiness,its racism (shades of, or is it meaningful reference to, Mickey Rooney's hideous depiction of a Japanese man in Breakfast at Tiffanys?), its idiocy or its breach of Rule1 scriptwriting 101 . . . don't preach to your audience . . . hey guys, heard of show don't tell? Guess not as this movie is whack-you-in-your-face listen to me and don't argue stuff. Entertaining? Only if your brain is empty and you need it filled by some dolt wielding a sledgehammer. In the later part of the movie after giving his sermon Dan Aykroyd's character suggests donating to charity, in this case AIDS research, as some sort of redemptive act. May we hope against hope that Adam and co. do just that with the proceeds of this abomination? Watch it and cringe, or learn. Earplugs recommended.

Anyone who finds this movie funny or in any way clever, humorous or for heaven's sake subtle needs a reality check. In a country where many thousands of lives are cut short through shooting homicides, including all those innocent children, the actions of psychotics, fanatics and the generally bad should in no way be lionized, sensationalized, glossed over or heaven forbid made to be humorous. I wonder whether the actors later regretted making this horror. And now with censorship extending to anything remotely racist it is time to get this type of atrocious movies off the programming. I would have rated it zero if zero was available. And in case you're wondering I did stop watching . . . nothing about the ending cold have salvaged it. Funny? You must be joking!

Nah, sorry guys, I don't buy into all the metaphorical, symbolic, metaphysical, spiritual justification for this episode that is put up as an excuse for what is a terrible piece of work. It's everything that Writing 101 teaches us not to do. Show don't tell remember? This is pure indulgence on the part of the writers or creators and a huge error of judgement. We don't need a sledgehammer explanation, a revisiting of scenes that we worked out for ourselves, thank you very much, and the symbolic fly . . . well quite frankly it was all very tediously silly. Out of character, out of tone. And teh attempt at the end to bring it back . . . sad. Thankfully it gets back on track soon enough.

Helen Mirren's star role can't save this load of rubbish. Implausible situations, constant out-of-character behaviour, implausible behaviour generally, wooden acting, stilted script, silly accents, bad dubbing, ridiculous story-line. Even a sterling effort by the dog doesn't hold it up. Whether it's the fault of the original novel, the translation or the script, or the direction, the result is the same - torturous time-filling- in. Don't even bother to ff. Next!

Cliché-ridden, wooden stereotypical characters, totally unbelievable situations, disjointed, emotionally shallow, patronising, platitudinous, visually constipated, trivilisation of serious issues . . . the only good thing going for this movie was the location - quite a nice cafe it seemed though near-empty most of the time and soooooo quiet . . . except when someone was screaming out obscenities . . . oh, and as usual the actors, in this case doing their best with such an appalling script. Did anyone involved in making/writing this gumph ever try doing some time in a cafe for example. What was it then . . . a try-out for a series . . . comical, outlandish vignettes of cafe society? Or just a limp attempt by a writer to describe their pathetic existence drinking coffees while they sat attempting to coax their imagination into second gear? I was reminded of Benny Hill, but a benny Hill taking himself seriously and so cooooool . . . . Abysmal.

I am not going to comment on this movie beyond asking why on earth did the director choose two actors who mumbled their way through much of their lines. And then direct the third actor who wasn't a mumbler at least to whisper a key line. Can anyone tell me what he said to her when they were hiding behind the car? Can anybody tell me what she said to him in another whispered speech when he sat down at their table the next day, not to mention why she would whisper something to him like that in front of her husband. This is not the only movie where I have experienced this problem which seems to be increasing due to the "hand- held" camera plague which is a parallel phenomenon to this mumbling plague, but this one was so egregious at key moments. Sorry, I didn't get any further . . couldn't bear it . . . Annoying!! I was dying to have Claire Bloom make a physical rather than just verbal appearance and bring some maturity to both the movie and the characters. Nice scenery.

Sometimes I wonder what it must take to keep some people happy with their movies. Here is a taut thriller with unexpected twists and turns, complexity and intriguing characters. Actors who you can't take your eyes off, locations to die for. I think perhaps some viewers simply want to be spoon-fed on the usual stodge so they don't have to think too much, just let their digestive system do all the work for them. There's no need for me here to go over any of the plot, scenes or theme as it's already been outlined. But it may be useful for me to point out that for some who may be Americo-centric in their outlook that there is another world out there, many in fact, than may not exist in your philosophy. This film is engaging, indeed compelling in its storyline, utterly believable if you know anything of the real world, the acting moving and impressive, the actors very easy on the eye as well, the action intense - those Asian mafia were truly menacing - and if it's a little too hard in your thinking to integrate a thriller with a deeper investigation of human relationships then perhaps this movie will be beyond you and you should stick with your usual suspects. Highly recommended.