Reviews

As close to an American masterpiece as it gets: honest, touching and politically charged, this film humanizes a point of contention that still matters to this day. Frank Langella gives a performance I did not know he was capable of: not mere impression, but a complete engagement in his character, an understanding at a core level of a man who is subject to as much caricature as any politician since Ceasar. Bravo.

This is the film that got me addicted to LMN. Over the top, 90210-like drama (with extra murder) encapsulated in a glorious 2 hour package. Like its ilk, you can ignore the last minute or two of network interference, and bask in the glory of sex-crazed nunnery-sin with exceedingly pretty people and cheese galore.

Frankly, I'm offended by the rating this film has received here. This is not only an exceptionally well acted film, a film that is shot not badly, and a film that has some iconographic moments, it is a brave film philosophically. It does not pander to any particular agenda aside from a slight humanism that is forgivable given the subject matter. It is somewhat populist, somewhat sexy and more frightening that most of the garbage being passed as horror these days. The sexual overtones are actually quite effective in the war-torn context, and add depth to the film that might not have been there if it was purely a polemic against Trotskyism.

Good stuff, and I congratulate the makers of this film for visual expansion and interpretation of an interesting, but dated, book.

I have to give this movie credit. It was one of the first non-english films that could so obviously be "pretty"... to use the screen as a canvas, and get me to go... okay, sure, do your thing.

Some filmschool or artschool or liberalartsdegree person took me to see this, and I was impressed. Occasionally those black-wearing aliens have a thing or two up their sleeve, and this is one of them... it reminds me of things I like in all movies.

This film is horrible in so many ways that I would hate to think of how long a review I could write.

But I won't. I will focus on one thing, simply to hint at how horrible this film is. The music. The music was absolutely chosen by director, who demanded that hip music only existed between 1976 and 1983. That period, I fear, was not exactly a stellar period. This film contains a dance number to AC-DC. Thats right. Because the kids absolutely LOVE David Bowie. And dance numbers. And, I may be wrong, but the romantic ending music sounded like Yaz.

I am stunned that this film was ever allowed to be made.

Occasionally, I will find teen movies charming, if not good. Examples that spring to mind are "Clueless", "Heathers" (which actually is good) and "Crazy/Beautiful". Given that I have been impressed with Ms. Witherspoon in the past, I thought this one would be worth a shot. It was not. This film is tired from the first frame on, and never relents in its unfunny cliches. Don't bother with this garbage.

This is not a film without flaws. At certain points, I cringe at some of the implications, at the juxtaposition of images and thoughts. If this film were on a different topic, I would probably dislike it.

That withstanding, it is a film about something so rare and exquisite, so moving, so profound: a hero. Muhammad Ali is the only man I can think of in the 20th Century deserving of this title. Just to look at him is to feel awe. His beauty, his conviction, his strength, his piety, all bound together in a contradictory but exquisite whole. Ali is a Whittman poem of flesh and blood.

Shortcomings of this film aside, I can watch it again and again, and cry every time. And feel both shame and strength, and perhaps some hope, when confronted with Ali. If I ever have children, they will watch this film, if only because I can find nothing else that I can say stands for what I believe in.

I have never really been taken in by classical music. When I first saw this film, I thought, oh! THAT'S why people like it. So I went and bought a few Gould CD's, listened to them a few times, and went back to jazz and punk shortly thereafter.

This film is an exceptional piece. The music is certainly the most important aspect of the film, but it so strongly highlights the character of Gould (who was one wacky Canuck), and the cinematography, that as a package, I found it a moving experience that superceded the music.

Basically a series of vignettes, with no coherent plot, but rather snippets of docu-drama, interviews, and a couple of animated sequences (one quite good, the other detracts entirely from the whole), this is a film meant probably not for fans of classical, but an introduction to the possibilities and drama of the virtuoso for media-children.

Although primarily another "crazy genius" film, it is truly a stunning piece overall. I strongly recommend this for any collection, no matter one's musical inclinations.

Although primarily another "crazy genious" film, it is truly a stunning piece overall. I strongly recommend this for any collection, no matter ones musical inclinations.

If you have not seen this in a few years (like myself) or even in the last 6 months, get thee to a video store now.

I figured for quite a while that DELICATESSEN was a better movie. I was so wrong. In fact, I won't say this is one of the greatest movies ever, but I will say, this is a PERFECT movie. Nothing out of place, nothing wrong, and includes everything right. The only thing missing are the tears. If this film made me cry, it would definitely become a film I watched weekly. As it is, I must simply stand back agasp at it, in awe and wonder.

Often you will read comparisons with Terry. This film makes Terry seem like a hack, like the maker of "Not another Teen Movie" (which I haven't seen, thank you). Yes, Terry definitely influenced the film making, like Hitchcock influenced everybody. But to make such a superb film, such a wonder, to go so far beyond Brazil in such a short time....

Go out right now and get the movie. If everything is closed, drive to new york and rent it.

I quite enjoyed this movie, although I'm no fan of Hoffman.

Yes, the villains were villainish, the rape scene was horrific. Although, as far as sexist rape scenes go, this was one of the better I have experienced. But still, a nice tight film that holds off on the violence until it becomes meaningful.

Actually, I enjoyed this film primarily because it was the Evil Dead without zombies. Watch em back to back and tell me otherwise. Tree = English thug.

Not enough slow motion blood for a Peckinpah film though. They could have extended the woman shooting the thug for at least 5 more minutes. *sigh* Sam, I AM disappointed.

I purchased this film primarily because of its historical significance. I was not expecting to like it very much. I had seen it a number of years back, and recall not being to interested.

I must have been tired when I saw it last. This is a very good movie. Yes, the acting leaves something to be desired, but the overall effect and impact of the film is excellent. I was grossed out, shocked, analytical and impressed all about. I could not wait to discover what would happen next, in an almost Hitchcockian fashion, and engrossed once the action got going.

I usually expect influential films to be somewhat passe, with the themes, shots and ambience stolen by other directors. I had thought this would be such a film, that I might look at and say "Okay, this was used by so-and-so and that was done by this guy way better in '87". Not so. I can't think of a more interesting gore film ever done. Better horror, perhaps, but gore? No way. This is definitive.

I loved most of the original movies. Heck, I loved the tv show too. I didn't read any reviews of this, and bought it on DVD because, heck, its Planet of the Apes, and made by (iffy) director Tim Burton.

I turned it off about halfway through. I don't care how many DVD gimmicks are on the disk, it will never get near my player again.

Boooooo!

Atom Egoyan's work is almost always about a distance from the immmediate events occurring. This film is no exception to this rule, but is heartbreakingly more accute in its treatment of the theme. Unlike the more popular films, there is no sympathy for the supposed main character, played by Atom himself. He is a dispicable, soul-less chap, without hope or redemption, lost in a fate of repetition that is of his own creation. Moreso than Egoyan's other films, this repetition is a fantasy, moreso than compulsion. Here guilt is as much at play as destiny.

This film hurts me.

A genre done to death that adds enough new elements to make it watchable. Granted, I don't see to many teen love flicks these days, but I thought the bad-girl/good-boy switch was well done. This may be primarily becaue Kristen Dunst was far better than I expected.

Although, I must say, I am sick to death of the "rich white folk", "poor minority" dicotomy. Not all white folk are rich and live in mansions, for goodness sake.

I expect better from Cronenberg... His obsession with the technological body clearly does not transcend into a cyberpunk sensibility. Aside from a few neat googahs (the toothgun being the one I'm thinking of), I found this as stilted and boring as the adventure games he was basing this on. It lacked the psychological fear of Crash and the psycho-chemical despair of videodrome. Yuck.