Change Your Image
saint#50
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dark Water (2005)
Slow and Boring!!
This movie could be everything but a scary movie...If your horror movie is based on a ghost, please make that ghost look scary and not a little cute little girl that just lost her mommy..Please!!!! The acting is good, but will be better for drama. During the entire movie the things that suppose to scare you were tons and tons of dirty water...so what?? At least you are a hydrophobic that is not going to scare you. And another thing: Did they have a low budget for this movie??? It looked to me that they repeated a couple of scenes...Or it was lack of creativity, because the scenes where almost the same, if not the same (She in from of the mirror taking pills, and the ambulances at the entrance of the building). This movie does not scare you at all! B-O-R-I-N-G: BORING!!!! Yes, another disappointment of this summer...What's up Hollywood???
Alexander (2004)
A VERY GOOD MOVIE
I think that being based on history, this movie did a pretty good job. It is funny to read people saying that this is not as good as Lord of the Rings or that they wanted more battles as in Brave Heart...Well, this is not a fictitious movie, full of computer animation (as in Lord of the Rings)...this is a movie with real people representing a legend. There is no way you can compare them both. Let's compare it with Troy, for example. This is a much better movie, where you get the sense of being amazed by the magnificent of this mithyc characters. I think the movie is very completed. It shows the politic aspect, the feelings and the reasons of the characters. The battle scenes where amazing. The acting was really good as well. Specially Angelina Jolie. She was great! I think Mr Stone made a really good job telling the story of Alexander the Great! And please people...stop destroying good cinema expecting to see a lot of blood or a lot of computer effects to consider a movie to be good. I give this movie an A-
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Headshots & Chainsaws...necessary.
Just after seeing Dawn of the Dead, I was left in shock and giddy postcoital glee. Man, I had SEEN a zombie movie. You know what, I had seen a damn good movie.
After 5 minutes of establishing the normalcy of the Wisconsin suburbs, we get the initial attack, which starts out with a scene more akin to the original zombie film Night of the Living Dead, then goes into mass destructionland via the last string of disaster movies.
The opening credits are the most powerful set of titles I've ever seen in a film. Scored to Johnny Cash's "When the Man Comes Around", they evoke feelings of genuine megadeth and apocalypse. I was reminded of watching the planes crashing into the WTC on 9-11. In fact, this is one of the first films that you will actually want to watch every second.
The plot picks up from there with the heroine escaping/meeting a weird cross-section of Americans en route to the refuge of the mall. Here, they escape the devastation momentarily through the trappings of the mall. These genuinely comic scenes alleviate the near-constant tension in DOTD. The plot picks up and gets more horrific, in a similar fashion to the original. Blah, blah--you know this part, so I'll skip it. I will say that the people in this movie are more sensible than in other zombie movies where they run around helpless to get eaten. The survivors, more or less, have survived for a reason--the ability to turn off their emotions and kill coldly.
The film as a whole was shatteringly powerful. The ricketing force of the whole package was overwhelming. This is the first horror film to update the genre to the level of style of other serious films from the 2000's. Forget that it is a remake; the plot is lifted, but the tone and visual style are totally original. In fact, this may be the most original film I've seen since Being John Malkovich. It seemed that, after the Texas Chainsaw remake and a slew of cruddy gore films with heavy metal soundtracks, the whole Gen X (or Y or whatever) attitude would never translate successfully into anyone's films beside Quentin Tarantino. Then, blam, here it is.
The handheld camera effects, believable characterizations, MTV editing, and overwhelming tone of nihilistic humor actually come together in this film. Gone are the 4th-barrier breaking self-references of the Scream generation, thank God. I was starting to think that the next trend in horror movies would be a lá The Ring: a revisionism of the golden era of horror cinema that would be serious and slow-paced. I'm glad I was wrong. Here, the director uses all the latest tricks to actually further the impact of the material. He also mocks his characters with the playful smile of doom. Nevertheless, the tension pervades the attitude; we care about these people because they seem real. In a word: ensnaring.
Say goodbye to the schlock of yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, we have evolved.
Cold Mountain (2003)
The worst movies are the ones that could've been better.
This film, which is by a director I admire, which features an opulent cast, which is technically beautiful, is one of the worst I have seen. I say that for two reasons: 1)Those excellent parts add up to a very dull and unimpressive film that seems so promising even as one sees it;
2)Miramax is going to try to run this as a best picture contender against ROTK, 21 Grams, and Mystic River, just like they did with Shakespeare in Love against Saving Private Ryan. God, please send them to hell.
I hope Minghella puts his heart into the next one. As this film deserves to flop just because it's so mediocre. Stay home and clean your toenails instead.
Mau Mau Sex Sex (2001)
Just about as fun as it sounds.
This is an excellent documentary that covers the sordid history of two exploitation filmmakers. The film is not a full-blown comprehensive study of exploitation film, but concentrates on the two sextagenarian filmmakers in question. It's as much a study of these viejo's lifestyles as anything; some of the best moments (besides the salacious, hilarious film clips) are of these guys walking around their apartments, looking for thermos lids and other non sequitors.
Mau Mau also has the distinction of being one of the first films shot, edited and distributed entirely through digital mediums. One reason for this was the filmmaker's desire to maintain financial and creative control over his own work. To that end, this film is a testament to the DIY ethic of true independent film. It just happens to be a damn good time as well.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Well...there it is.
Yup. Hollywood has made another expensive movie from an older movie.
Some of the scenes looked unrealistic, but expensive.
There were attractive people. (More than the earlier film, I might add.)
I paid $8.50 to see it.
I left satisfied that I would not have rather seen any other movie out right now.
My friends heartily agreed.
I feel that if I sneaked my cat into the theatre he wouldn't have understood.
I don't understand, either.
My lack of dissatisfaction for the film was average.
I don't know when I'll want to do this again.
I don't think I will buy this on DVD, but there are other films I don't own, also.
Yup. There it is.
JFK (1991)
It all comes together here.
Let it be said, this is Stone's best film.
Hollywood has been shirking the relentless pursuit of truth in this film for the last ten years. It was released to great controversy, but not the right kind. The media (vafenculo) played up the fact that Stone had 'tampered with history.' Isn't an artist required by definition to be uncompromising in his vision? I think that the questionable scenes based on witness testimony or the Zapruder film are not fictitious at all, by mere definition.
How much of the film is incorrect? Maybe two-five mins. total; this picture, however, is well over three hours. Three hours of historical revelation (at least it's revelatory for those who don't read books) and all the press can focus on is those couple of minutes that probably have more truth to them than most Americans would feel comfortable thinking.
The U.S. involvement in Central America and Southeast Asia were journalistic non-events, kept from public scrutiny by the corridors of power. That hardly nobody in this country knew (knows) about them in any detail is the fault of the Washington propaganda machine. That Stone puts 'JFK' into mass circulation and Americans knowingly permit the media to dismiss the film as controversy hype and inaccurate is much less than sheltered ignorance. It is sedition of the worst kind--an intellectual and social shirking of one's duty to eliminate falsehood from history and forbid the tampering of the collective consciousness around the world.
As Garrison (Costner in the film) says, "...it was a coup d'etat..." At least admit it.
Voyna i mir (1965)
The epic accomplishment of this film will crush your skull.
If you can find it, watch it.
Admittedly, the 7 hour plus running time is pretty daunting, but consider the source material. This film deservedly won the best foreign picture Oscar when it was finally released in the U.S. The fact that a Soviet film was able to garner such an award during the height of the Cold War is a testament to its greatness.
There are 3 intermissions to this, the Pangaea of all epic films, and each section draws the viewer in more than the last. The spectacle will blow your mind in a way that digital effects never will be able to do. To actually see the Red Army (and what looks like all of it) marching in costume over the expanse of miles into the distance will change any prior notions of spectacle you held. Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, whatever awed you before is chicken feed compared to the brutal grandeur of Bondarchuk's recreation of The War of 1812.
There are beautiful interludes of excellent acting amidst extremely costly sets--it's a shame I don't know Russian because those subtitles chew up a lot of exquisite scenery. The characters are fully developed, the direction is inspired (no run-of-the-mill static camera work in any of this).
They showed this in 70mm at The Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood last year. Before that it was 10 years without a screening in the U.S. We can't afford to let this shimmering prize of film history lapse. In a theatre, or if it is ever issued on DVD, this movie will deeply reward all those who watch it. There was nothing as grand as War & Peace before; there will be nothing on its scale ever again. Treasure this masterpiece...if you can find it.
Hollow Man (2000)
Don't you have something better to do than this?
Gee, have I seen this before? Multi-million-dollar studio project has stars, tried-and-true premise, bankable and gratuitous director, superlative CG effects and... NOTHING ELSE AT ALL. EVERY SINGLE LINE of dialogue is bad, but that's not why anyone would ever see this contrivance in the first place. What draws attention to the script's niceness above any eye-candy is the confoundingly awful delivery by all those involved. You will never believe that Elizabeth Shue has been nominated for an Oscar after seeing this. If she continues in the vein of this and The Saint, which was even worse, then the next logical step is to start showing her breasts in Skinemax after hours smut. The only good acting in the movie is done by a Gorilla. I found myself entranced by the special effects, but if they were to spend so much money and time to produce them, why undermine them with such a paltry excuse for a script?
Want a plot summary? A brilliant scientist procures a Dept. of Defense grant to turn himself invisible and then goes crazy and kills people. Wait a minute, let's start having competitions to see who can summarize it using the fewest letters possible! OK, here I go again, "Scientist-invisible-bad-death!" Roger Corman would be proud...
The Thin Red Line (1998)
This is perhaps the most laborious piece of drivel possible.
What a waste of film stock! This film has no characters which are memorable, no action, and no idea of where it is headed. Terence Malick keeps repeating the same old Buddhist mantra about how the world is bound by a common soul to the point of self-ridicule. Like it or not, the film is set during the middle of a large battle--there is no plausibility in putting a man on a hill hiding behind the cover of grass as bullets strafe his posterior and pretending that he is going to go into a deep ponderance of the "oneness of the universe." How silly! There is a better version of the same theme in the Final Fantasy 7 video game that my students rave about. Aside from sitting through all 3 tack-eyed hours of this film I have also dedicated the last few minutes to typing out my anger towards it on the computer; you are wasting time reading about it now, too. Let's stop this vicious circle and bury this film next to Wild Wild West and Ishtar. Goodbye, Thin Red Line.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
To quote Rod Serling, "this is one for the angels."
This movie is long beyond legend and worth every frame. Is T.E. Lawrence, the famous British officer and liberator of Saudi Arabia, serving his Queen and country or is he defecting to the Arabs? Does he know what he's doing? Is he being driven to madness under the political strains he has accumulated, or is the bloodshed getting the better of him? The movie poses innumerable questions about its hero, and then, quite perversely, doesn't see fit to answer them with any degree of explicitness. What it does do is to leave many possibilities open for debate. The film is almost four hours long (it its restored version), it features no females with speaking roles, it has a modicum of action, and the dialog is even sparse. Yet, if ever a piece of film warranted multiple viewings it would have to be Lawrence of Arabia, the pinnacle of David Lean's career. It also could be argued that the late Fred Young's cinematagrophy is the finest to be captured on film. This movie is to cinema what The Sistine Chapel is to interior design. Now, if it could only be shown on the big screen once again...
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
One for the angels...
I grew up believing that the greatest silliness the Academy ever managed was naming Annie Hall "Best Picture" for 1977. The Academy Awards are trivial in the grand scheme of things, true, but when The English Patient swept a few years back, I allowed myself to be pulled back in. This brief period of interest in the Academy came to an abrupt end, however, last March. Not only was Ryan stiffed, but the Best Picture Award went to not even the next-best film. Shakespeare In Love pales next to Elizabeth, let alone the greatest war movie ever made. Yup, from now on I'll let my heart and head guide me...to hell with lists. This, of course, is not the greatest lesson one may glean from Ryan; in this age of reckless exposure it is truly satisfying to hear Tom Hanks say that the memories he has of his wife are his alone. Some things need to die with us, otherwise our lives are mere vehicles. Don't think that this movie falls to long, distancing reflections about intangibles--that was The Thin Red Line. Everything here is grounded in the mud, blood and rusty mechanisms of war. That Ryan anchors itself so firmly, yet still evokes such beauty is its greatest gift. Maybe that's what we have been looking for in war films all along...an angel that greets us during the massacre.