cglassey's Reviews

Nobuta wo produce (2005)

10/10

4 June 2006

Fascinating and quite realistic dealing with important issues in Japanese schools such as: popularity, social conformity, and trust. Not to mention some universal issues of friendship, and betrayal. Lots of plot twists in this series, and some unusual changes in characters.

I fully agree with previous comments about the great job Horikita Maki did as "Kotani Nobuko". She really inhabits that role, very convincing acting.

According to http://wiki.d-addicts.com/Nobuta_wo_Produce this series recently won some major awards: 47th Television Acadamy Awards: Best Drama, Best Actor: Kamenashi Kazuya, Best Supporting Actress: Horikita Maki, Best Director, Best Script, and Best Music. Well deserved awards. As of June 2006 this series is apparently available on Japanese DVDs.

8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

9/10

A delightful adaptation

6 March 2006

Warning: Spoilers

This is a funny, well acted, beautifully photographed film version of the play. Kevin Klein as Bottom the Weaver was super as was Michelle Pfeiffer as Queen Titania. I read (before seeing the film) that Calista Flockhart was not up to the material but she plays her part (the ditsy Helena) spot on. I've seen a better performance for Puck, however the sight gags (such as riding in on a giant turtle) are priceless and Mr. Tucci does maintain a suitably impish expression.

Two scenes with Mr. Kline are especially noteworthy, first when he tries to convince the playwright (Peter Quince) that he, Bottom, can play every part in the play. This is a ham actor which doubtless William Shakespeare knew well. The second is when Kline wakes from his dream and thinks about what happened. There is real thinking going on behind his eyes and Kline acts this out with a clarity which is lovely to watch.

All in all, a joy to watch, well worth the spending of two hours time on the "foolish antics of these mortals (and immortals)".

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

The Red Violin (1998)

1/10

A poor excuse for a film...

10 August 2005

This film goes wrong in so many ways. Main problems: 1) Lack of a small group of characters which the audience gets to know and care about. Instead we are given tiny snap-shots of a host of characters who appear, wander about the film for five or ten minutes, then disappear. 2) The one character who we see (in small bits and pieces) throughout the film is the art expert. He turns out to be a crook. We know nothing about his life. We know nothing about his past. He is just a temperamental jerk who lies to his employers and then steals from them. My emotional investment in his character was just about zero. Why should the audience care about him? What did he do that was in any way admirable or even interesting? 3) The director lavishes vast amounts of attention on the painting of the violin and at the end the pay-off for the audience is... revolting. I'm sorry but I did not feel at all uplifted or enlightened to find out why the Red Violin is red.

A film just about the violin maker might have been interesting. A film just about the life of the orphan virtuoso might have been interesting. A film about the conflict between the love of classical music and adherence to the idiotic Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution might be interesting. But a film about all of these AND MORE is not a film that is interesting. It is a mess. In trying to tell lots of stories, it ends up telling none of them.

Bottom line: I'm sorry I saw this film. I'm sorry I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. This film gets my lowest possible rating.

21 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

6/10

Only occasionally funny. A huge mess of a film

12 June 2005

This film rang false to me on several levels. The characters seem realistic and have realistic problems but they do unbelievable things. Is the film a comedy? If so, then why do so many people die in the film (at least 2 on screen, at least 15 off screen)? If this is a comedy, why does Bill Murray's character talk about being washed up and act washed up. He is a depressing character to be at the heart of a comedy.

Is the film supposed to be a drama, a serious portrayal of an aging adventurer who doesn't know when its time to give up? If so, why are the underwater sequences shot like cartoons with animated fish and fake underwater sets? And what possible character would lead his largely incompetent group of divers in a commando style raid on a suspected pirate hide-out? Its absurd. Little in the film suggested Murray's character would even consider such a course of action. Where is his background in the U.S. Navy Seals that might explain behavior? The film is a mess. Parts are funny and the hints of a good film are in this but overall, its a failure.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

4/10

Painfully stupid, avoid bringing your brain to this movie...

26 September 2004

One thing I really want out of a movie is rationality. I'm willing to accept alternate worlds but the worlds have to make sense internally. They have to be true to their own laws. This film is so utterly devoid of internal logic and rationality it was actually painful for me to watch.

If you think about it, after the film is over, just about nothing makes sense. Why are robots attacking New York City at the start of the movie? Why are the German scientists from "Project 11" being abducted? Who is in control of the robots? Why does the Sky Captain have a military installation on US soil just a short drive from New York City? How can Sky Captain can fly his small two-seater plane from New York to Tibet? Why does the giant rocket ship have a "get rid of cargo" button?

Visually I didn't like the "nearly" black & white look to the film. Are color images hard to create on computer? This must have been a deliberate choice by the creator, Kerry Conran. It didn't work.

I enjoyed Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. I enjoyed the five minutes which Angelina Jolie was in the movie. Giovanni Ribisi's character was annoying and unbelievable but not a major problem.

Compared to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" this film is not even close. Raiders was a very well put together movie. Everything in that movie makes sense, the characters are all believable and they all make believable choices. By contrast, this film is utter nonsense from start to finish.

This film is what I imagine a very geeky 12 year-old boy, on a rush from too much candy might dream up. "wouldn't it be cool if giant robots attacked New York City?" Well, yes, it would be, but why are the robots attacking? To steal generators from beneath city streets? Hello! Earth to Geeky director: if you have the infrastructure to build hundreds of 60 foot tall flying robots with energy-beam weapons, you don't NEED to steal industry from anyone!

Bottom line: So utterly illogical, so breath-takingly irrational, its worth seeing as an example of how NOT to make a science fiction film.

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

Touching the Void (2003)

7/10

As a documentary - great. As a movie - so so

13 September 2004

Warning: Spoilers

Which is it? Is this film meant to be a film, a piece of art which tells a true story of determination? Or is this a documentary. A "visual and audio" companion to the best-selling book of the same name?

As a film, it is not as good as it could be. It undercuts most of the drama thanks to the people themselves appearing on camera (and in good health) narrating the story. Also, the narration tells a great deal while showing us visuals which support the narration.

As a documentary (which it seems to be), its very compelling and engagingly told. Still, since clearly the two climbers made it back alive, the story lacks a real sense of triumph or catharsis.

I must say, I don't see why the two men at the base camp didn't head back up to the foot of the mountain to see what they could find. If they had done even a small amount of hiking back towards the mountain they almost certainly would have found the injured man. The other climber didn't know his partner was dead. All he knew was that he had fallen when the rope was cut. Why didn't he go back and check once he had recovered at base camp? Cutting the rope seems to be me the right decision, not going back to check for a body or something, seems wrong.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Cuckoo (2002)

8/10

A small film but well worth the time

29 April 2004

This film is set in a part of the world that I have never seen and I'd like to thank the director for making an engaging film with this setting. The film makes no effort to explain at the start and for the first half hour it was not entirely clear what was going on. Later the Finnish soldier is FAR to forgiving of the efforts by the Russian soldier to kill him. As far as I'm concerned, one attempt to kill me is quite enough, the Finn by contrast laughs off three different attempts. That is idealism taken to an absurd dimension.

The three characters all speak a different language but since I don't know Finnish, Russian or Saami, I couldn't tell when they were communicating and when they weren't. The subtitles could have more clearly indicated this fact.

All that aside, the acting was good, the Saami girl was quite compelling in her "calling the dead" scenes. All in all a good film about something most people know nothing about set in a strange and wonderful location.

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

Possession (2002)

2/10

A terrible failure of a dramatic film, it has no drama!

29 April 2004

This film fails a number of levels but the biggest failure is that it lacks any drama. Thanks to the foolish way the story is plotted we already know what happened in the first 5 minutes of the film! Because the story is told both in the year 2000 and in the year 1850 (approx) we know that the "famous poet" has no lasting relationship to the other poet. And we also know (because its a film) that the two Victorian poets HAVE a relationship because otherwise the movie wouldn't have been made. I blame the writer and the director for failing to see that you can't have a drama without giving the audience some reason to care about the characters.

I surely didn't care about the two Victorian poets. I also didn't care for either of the two modern scholars. All the characters in the movie were paper thin with nothing but affectations instead of actual personality.

If you are going to do an historical film then you have to make the audience care by giving meaning to the lives of the people you are filming. In this film all meaning and drama that was possible in the lives of the Victorians was removed by the constant intercutting of the modern-day scenes. Never, never do this! The constant intercutting of the modern world kept reminding the viewer that the past is dead and the actions by these dead people ultimately made no difference to anybody living today (because if it had, the modern day scholars would know about it).

Bottom line: if you are looking for entertainment there is nothing good to say about this film and no reason to watch it. If you are film school student then this should serve as a great example of how NOT to make an historical drama.

Lessons: Do not intercut the present with the past. Do not give away the story at the begining of the film.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hidalgo (2004)

8/10

Very very good film, great family entertainment

13 April 2004

Hidalgo is a great family entertainment which is well worth seeing.

Downsides: It dragged a little in places. Viggo whispers some of the dialog so you will miss it without perfect hearing. The movie is not based on anything like a real story.

Goodsides: Well thought out. Real emotions by a real character. The "rescue the daughter of the sheik" was very nicely done.

For me the emotional high point comes when the main character, Frank, is at the end of his strength and he kneels down in the empty desert and chants a Souix (?) prayer to the ancestors. This is a man who for most of his adult life denied his Indian background but now, had nothing left to turn to. That moment was deeply moving. The truth is all Americans are part Indian because the Indians, mostly unwillingly, helped make America what it is today.

Many people have only been able to find themselves by pushing their bodies to the limit in some race or contest. This movie captured that idea. Americans are mixed. We aren't pure. But we are stronger for that mixing, not weaker.

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

The Road Home (1999)

6/10

Very odd movie-making

12 January 2004

This is a very pretty film but it is far from a great movie. It has some nice aspects to it but the problems are huge. First, the central part of the film (the effort by a young girl to attract the notice of a new school teacher in her remote mountain village) is totally lacking in drama because we are told, over and over, that the two characters marry and have a child. So, what could have been a drama is instead nothing but nostalgia. Second, there is no relationship between the young girl and the school teacher. They meet (on film) exactly two times and only have perhaps 5 minutes of dialog. The rest of the time the camera is focused on Ziyi Zhang's admitedly beautiful face, or the camera follows her running through the woods, or follows her walking to the well, etc. This is NOT a love story, instead it is about a beautiful, uneducated young woman's single-minded quest to gain the notice of a young man.

A love story would show you both characters, this movie is completely one sided, it is totally focused on the young girl. I really had to wonder what the attraction was between the two. Yes, she is beautiful, a good cook, a fine weaver, and she is in love with the new teacher. But what does he want? What does he care about? Who is he? We, the audience really know almost nothing about him, all we know is these educational mantras he says to his students. These mantra are all about learning and knowledge and yet his wife shares none of these goals or beliefs about writing, reading, or learning in general. So, what does he see in her? Her own mother tells the girl that she has no chance to win him and reason would say she is right. Yet it happens and instead of exploring this strange event, the movie robs it of any drama and never explores the relationship between the two characters.

Why the movie spent fully 40 minutes of run-time on the present-day is a mystery to me. It was uninteresting, it added little to nothing of my understanding of the characters.

All in all, a failure of a movie. Pretty, good potential, but a wasted opportunity.

7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Vertical Ray of the Sun (2000)

5/10

Dull, with little to recommend it but the visual look...

28 September 2003

This film compares poorly with "Yi Yi". While it has some visually lovely scenes (especially those around what I think is Haiphong Bay), the film is badly hurt by the lack of meaningful dialog in the film. It is also hurt by a lack of resolution to the action in the film (such as it is).

A good drama not only contains interesting characters who you care about, it resolves the issues that come up in the film in a meaningful way. This film is a bad drama. The characters are largely uninteresting, their problems are not very interesting, and not much resolution is offered in the film to the problems.

For me the sub-plot of the husband of the oldest sister and his second wife who lives on a raft, that was interesting. And the dialog between him and the old man who ferries him out to the island was actually thoughtful. Sadly, that comprises less than 15 minutes of the films running time. For the rest we have these seemingly endless scenes in which the twins (brother and sister) wake up, exorcise, say a few words to each other, and then go across the street for some breakfast. These "wake up" scenes don't lead much of anywhere. Very little is said, nothing happens.

If you are going to do a movie about sexual attraction between a brother and sister then make that movie. Instead all of these scenes are a waste of our time, the brother has no interest at all in his sister and she is actually involved with a man who we see just twice in the film (I think he has two lines of dialog, period). What was the director trying to say in these scenes between the twins? I have no idea.

As far as I can tell, the director really has nothing to say. He shows some traces of visual flair but as a writer, he is a failure. Perhaps he should try adapting someone else's work?

I'm going to praise "Yi Yi" here. That film created problems in the lives of the characters and then resolved them. Things happened, there was forward progress. People grew and developed during the year which the film covers. By contrast in this film, there is no growth, no progress, problems are brought up and not resolved. In drama, problems are resolved with dialog, people talk, they come to an understanding, the world is changed. In this film, people don't talk, or when they do we (the audience) doesn't hear it, or only one person says anything and we have no good idea how the other person thinks about what was said. This film is a perfect example of bad drama.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

7/10

Slightly better than average kid/boy film

12 August 2003

I saw it with my 3 sons, age 10, 8, and 4. They all liked the film so I think it works with the target audience (they ALL liked the silly dog character...).

As an adult I really liked the look of the film. The "sets" were beautiful, from Atlantis-like cities to the strange and wonderful land of chaos. The ship looked great and you could see they spent a lot of time and effort on animating the rigging and sails.

The characters were only so-so. Sinbad's boyhood friend, the Prince, is a fool. Sinbad himself is jerk. Eris, Goddess of Discord was great.

The story was weak. The real Sinbad was a merchant of Baghdad who went on many trading voyages to India and beyond and came back home each time wealthy and filled with incredible stories about his travels. Sinbad was not a pirate or anti-hero, he was a merchant: clever, brave, and lucky. I have no doubt that there was a real Sinbad from around 850 C.E.

The Sinbad in this movie is basically a run-of-the-mill (Greek) pirate. Fast talking, fast on his feet but not much for planning or introspection. Absurdly, these pirate are wealthy, and the crew is honest and loyal to Sinbad. Also, oddly to me, the pirates are from all over the world (China and Mexico being the farthest from Greece) and talk about retiring to the islands of Fiji (?!). Couldn't they come up with some excuse for this multi-cultural pirate crew?

Still, despite the flaws, the movie worked well for me. It showed care, attention to detail, and some flashs of visual brilliance. It might (barely) be worth owning. Not as good (by a long shot) as "Finding Nemo" but better than "Monsters Inc".

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

Hero (2002)

7/10

A silly film, not in Crouching Tiger's league...

29 July 2003

Warning: Spoilers

This film seems to me to have been made in part because of the success of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. While it shares many good qualities with the famous Ang Wang film, "Hero" is not successful as a coherent film.

Hero has many beautiful scenes, it seems to have been created by a painter as different scenes are dominated by one color then another. However, to my eye it seemed far too formal, to arty. For me, Ang Wang's fight scene staged in the bamboo forest works, while Hero's fight scene at a lake just left me unmoved.

While parts of the film are enjoyable to watch, the film has many flaws. Among these are (spoilers ahead):

1) Jet Li's character is uninteresting. He is called "Nameless" and he has no past, no loves, no hates. There is almost nothing to explain him or his behavior in the film. Jet Li is a an actor with almost no emotional range but I thought he did well in this film, he just had almost nothing to work with.

2) The army of the soon-to-be Emperor of China attacks a town by shooting arrows at it. This is really, really, silly. You use arrows to harass and kill enemy soldiers, you don't "shell" a town with arrows because it won't do any harm and arrows are expensive and time-consuming to make. You don't waste them by making pin-cushions of wooden buildings.

3) We see Flying Snow stab and seriously wound her (former?) lover Broken Sword three times. Once as Jet Li tells it, once as the soon-to-be Emperor imagines it, and once again as Jet Li tells it (supposedly the truth this time). This is too many times. It didn't mean much the first time, it meant less the second time and the third time the director showed the event I couldn't have cared less.

4) The most interesting character turns out to be Broken Sword who actually has a change of heart as a result of fighting the future Emperor and chooses not to kill him when he had the chance. This pivotal event takes place in the past and we only learn of it near the end of the film. Broken Sword's change of heart is really the emotional heart of the film (since Tony Leung really CAN act). By the end of the film I wished the film was about Broken Sword, not Mr. Nameless.

5) Mr. Nameless's story turns out to be a tissue of lies, his skills are largely unknown, all his fights are "fake" and by the end of the film I had no interest in his fate. What a terrible choice it was to make Mr. Nameless the main character of the film.

6) The first emperor was, by all accounts, a ruthless monster. It is no accident that the ruling power in China (nominally the Communist Party) supported this film. Just about the only tangible benefit they brought to China back in 1948 was unification. Millions dead, decades of economic failure but at least they united the country. In the film this human monster is presented as a misunderstood noble idealist. Dream on...

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

Charlotte Sometimes (2002)

7/10

Enjoyable, very modern

2 March 2003

I just saw this film on Sundance channel (TV). I thought it was an enjoyable film, the main character is a passive intellectual but I've known people like him and he rings true to this time (around 2002). The dialog is very believable, many things that are said aren't true, though the characters might want to believe they are.

These characters seem to be L.A. "slackers", though at least we see the main character at work upon occasion. He doesn't seem to take it very seriously, and his garage is the most laid back garage I've ever seen. The two girls seem to do little but travel and have sex. Would this story make more sense if it was set in Hawaii as opposed to Los Angeles? Perhaps.

Its a languid film but I think I learned something real from watching it. 7 out of 10.

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

Undercover Brother (2002)

9/10

It's a comedy, and I thought it was very funny

3 June 2002

This is not a drama, its a comedy. For me, good comedy has to be funny but not stupid. I really enjoyed this film. It didn't insult my brain and parts of it were really, really funny. Speaking as someone who grew up in the 70s, I found the music was especially enjoyable and added a great deal to the film.

Some highlights: the golf-cart chase, the cat fight between Sistah and White She Devil, and the ad for the General's chicken. There were many more funny moments.

Behind the humor, some serious points about race relations were raised (and quickly shot down). In its small way, this film is an indicator of improved relations between blacks and whites in the United States. The film pokes fun at just about every racial stereotype you can think of and is fairly even-handed. I think its a good sign when writers can poke fun at both sides.

Acting was good, especially Aunjanue Ellis (Sistah), the only capable operative in the B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D. Denise Richards was great looking (as usual). Eddie Griffin, the lead, was good, but seemed a bit "flat" at times.

Its worth pointing out that without a decent grasp of black culture and racial stereotypes, this movie won't be as funny. I don't expect this film to age well, but for 2002, this is good fun.

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

The Scorpion King (2002)

8/10

Great fun, does not require thinking...

22 April 2002

I had a great time at this film. I didn't expect much but I was hoping for a worthy "action" film along the lines of "Conan the Barbarian". "The Scorpion King" is just about as good as that "old" classic of swords and adventure. This film is about as fast paced as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", there is never a dull moment. However, it wasn't totally exhausting to watch, there were some moments when you could catch your breath.

Is it for kids? It features lots and lots of sword fights but no gore (my thanks to the director). It features quite a number of good looking young women wearing not a whole lot of clothing but no nudes. In fact it looks a great deal like a modern video game (think Jedi Knight but set in 2000 BC). I expect my boys will enjoy this film.

As to the actors, based on this film I like "the Rock" better than a number of other of so-called "action stars" (such as van Damme or Segal). "The Rock" could well become the next Schwarzenegger, after all, Arnie wasn't a very good actor when he started but he had a sense of humor. The Rock seems to have a sense of humor too. He seems human, even if he doesn't look very human. Kelly Hu did well and looked great.

Bottom line: good clean fun, promotes violence but what else is new?

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

Bring It On (2000)

8/10

Cheers for the film that walks a fine line

21 May 2001

This film is actually quite good and well worth the time to watch it. The idea was originally a documentary but with no takers, the writer turned it into a drama and I think the result is more than one could have hoped.

The girls are cute and all but there is a lot of skill and talent involved in their "cheer routines" and the movie doesn't down-play their work nor make it super serious.

For me, the best parts of the film show the relations between the really talented but poor cheer squad from East Compton LA and the much richer and more famous squad from San Diego. The idea of popular culture stealing from black culture was handled well in the context of these cheer routines. There is a lot of truth to the "stealing" charge and the movie doesn't get angry but, in an amazing movie moment, the white heroine's squad loses to the slightly more talented black squad. I found it very refreshing and very "un-American" (or at least, un-Hollywood).

The second best sequence in the film is when the San Diego squad hires a choreographer to teach them a new cheer routine. This "Bob Fosse" wanna-be is a truely funny "angry actor" and his routine is bad and he insults the cheer-girls, its just really, really funny.

Great acting, great cheer routines, very intelligent. The film is really only marred by the fact that cheerleading isn't that important. This is not a film about earth shaking topics with tragic actors and huge emotions. Think of this instead as a delicious desert, it tastes great and its made with quality ingredients.

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

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (2000 Video Game)

9/10

A great computer game (not a movie)

23 April 2001

Baldur's Gate II is a great computer game. One of the last great games to use "sprites" and "tile sets" instead of "3D objects" with bit-map surfaces. This is NOT a movie. It is a PC game. A very good PC game. It won many awards for computer games.

The voice acting by David Warner (as the main bad guy) was very good. The sound-effects were great. The visual art was stunning in many places (especially the underwater city, the underground city of the Drow, and the temple district of the main city).

7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Monkey King (2001– )

3/10

A mixed bag, weak in many key areas

14 March 2001

Lost Empire, a VERY strange title for a retelling of the old Chinese classic adventure "Journey to the West", is a mixed bag of a film. David Hwang's screenplay is in many respects a sequel to the original story, as opposed to being a modern rendition of the original story. I regard this as a mistake as I believe Mr. Hwang lost more by giving up on the original characters than he gained by having a modern setting.

Good points: The lovely Ling Bai did a good job as the Bodhisattva of Compassion (Kwan Yin). Some scenes with Monkey and the "Scholar from Above" went well (mainly the scenes when Monkey rescues his subjects on Flower Fruit Island). Some interplay between "Sandy" and the "Scholar from Above" was funny. Some of the art design for the palace of the Jade Emperor was good (but NOT the throne room, yuk!).

Bad points: Too many explosions. A really ugly and totally wrong portrait of Confucius (I could go on for some time but I'll stick with this key point: Confucius was a materialist. He had no interest in religion and spirits. He was only interested in how a good state was run. The depiction of Confucius in this movie is totally at odds with EVERYTHING that Confucius stood for.) The last half-hour of the movie was anti-climactic, over-wrought, and uninteresting.

Deeper problems: Journey to the West is, at its core, at Buddhist story about the quest to attain enlightenment (along with the fun stuff about beating demons). This story (Lost Empire) takes place AFTER Monkey and Sandy have achieved their ultimate state. They are both "supposed" to be enlightened beings. The problem with this is that a) they don't act like enlightened beings, and b) there isn't much drama possible when you are enlightened. You can really tell the weakness in the writing when Kwan Yin has to tell Monkey's old teacher that "Monkey HAS been blessed by the Buddha". If you need a 3rd party (a goddess no less) to convince other people that you have become enlightened and have been blessed by the Buddha, well, its clear to me that the story is saying one thing, but doing another.

In fact, none of the characters behaves "in character". At least not like the characters that you enjoyed when reading "Journey to the West".

Deepest problem: the story (Lost Empire) is trying to both be and not be "Journey to the West" at the same time. Its trying to both be true to original ideas and be "modern" and up-to-date at the same time. Its trying to be a sequel that retells the original story. It is, in short, a total mess at a very deep level. -- Colin Glassey

21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

In Harm's Way (1965)

5/10

Decent "late" WW2 movie but not "accurate"

31 January 2001

This film is a "late" WW2 film (filmed 20 years after the war ended). It does try to put a human face on the U.S. Navy's side of the war as opposed to the earlier "praise the conquering heroes" Hollywood war films that were produced in great numbers both during and immediately after the war.

The problem for me was the whole "this story is just a representation of the real events". In my opinion, I'd rather you give me the real history or make something up with your own names.

The only thing that was accurate about this film with the Perl Harbor attack which started the war. Everything else was just "synthetic", a conglomeration of events that happened across the Pacific war but are brought together for this film about people who aren't real. Nimitz was a real person with strengths and weaknesses of all men. So was Halsey, and Jess Oldendorf and Raymond Spruance. Why not tell one of their stories? Instead we have John Wayne's character "Rock" who has traits of some of these men but is not real.

To make matters worse, they talk about real things and mix them up with their "made up" things. The worst was inventing a battle between Rock's invasion force and a Japanese fleet which included the Yamato. This never happened. So the writers took a real famous Japanese battleship and gave it a fake history. Why?

For an example of a truely GREAT "late" WW2 film, take a look at Patton. Nearly everything in "Patton" is true, or a reasonable approximation of the truth. Not only do you get a see a great film when you watch Patton, but you get to learn something about a great American General. "In Harm's Way" is like the inverse of Patton. Its not about anyone and you don't learn the real history of the Pacific War when you watch it.

I given it a 5 because of the fine acting helps make the film watchable.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cast Away (2000)

9/10

A good film. Worth the journey

10 January 2001

I like Tom Hanks, I like him in this film. I usually enjoy Zemeckis films, I enjoyed this film a lot.

The best part is indeed the "stranded on an island part". Hanks is no superman, just a reasonably intelligent guy who got lucky. Lucky to survive a "landing on water" (which for big jets is usually fatal) and lucky to be washed across the reef and onto an island. Lucky also to be able to survive significant puncture wounds that would kill most people through infection. You have to have a strong constitution to survive daily contact with a coral reef. It looks so peaceful and beautiful, but it is very dangerous (the book "Castaway" by Lucy Irvine is a good read and may well have been an inspiration to Hanks and company).

The boat escape from the island was pure drama, getting over the big wave was such a thrill.

Remainder of the film was not that interesting but I thought the ending was effective.

I gave it a 9 out of 10 stars and I would be glad to see it again.

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

Dune (2000)

8/10

Very faithful to the book, good viewing...

6 December 2000

Having been a LONG time fan of the book (widely regarded as one of the top 10 SciFi novels of all time) I was very happy to see this mini-series as it was a lot like reading the book.

Dune is a complex novel featuring a detailed political society, an interesting ecology (some people think this is the finest "ecological" novel, but it is more than that), some ruminations on the nature of destiny and the future of mankind, and more. The mini-series confines itself to a very detailed replication of the plot of Dune and gives some insight into the politics and a bit of attention to the nature of "destiny".

I like the actors here, especially the German who played Stilgar and the two English actors who played Jessica and Irulan (yes I know they are women, actress is out of vogue these days).

I liked the costumes a great deal. You can really tell that a master designer was at work here. The Spacing Guild costume, the Imperial household costumes (except for Fenring), the Stillsuits of the Fremen, all excellant.

Changes that I liked: Baron Harkonen is not the disgusting creature we saw in the horrible movie version. The Harkonen in general are not as evil as they are in the book (good thing for a mass audience type of film that this is). I liked the expanded role of Princess Irulan, it is a change that makes sense given the book, which she "in a sense" wrote.

Special effects were not "perfect", especially scenes of people walking across the computer graphic background of sand. Most of the special effects worked fine and were superior to the movie (I did like the glowing blue eyes of the Fremen, nice and wierd).

Bottom line: 6 hours IS long enough to do justice to the novel "Dune". Read the book, it is a great novel. But this mini-series really does add to one's appreciation of the novel. Unlike most movie hacks of great novels which try to compress the complexity of a book into 120 minutes of film time, this mini-series is a quality, well thought out adaption of the novel, made by someone who obviously loves the book. Three Cheers for this Dune! -- Colin Glassey, Dec 6, 2000

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

Traffik (1989)

10/10

One of the best dramas created for TV

14 November 2000

Warning: Spoilers

Traffik is a really well done 6 hour drama about drugs (circa 1987). It tells three stories, in parallel, about how opium is grown in North-East Pakistan, how drugs are smuggled from Pakistan into Europe, and finally, how people addicted to drugs spiral out of control. All three stories are told realistically and with empathy. You see enough of the characters lives to understand how ordinary people can get sucked into a life that is really immoral.

These aren't card-board cutouts, the opium grower is trying to feed his family in a dry area filled with guns and other opium growers. The drug smuggler is a rich German with no heart but his wife (one of the three main characters) is just an ordinary woman who has to choose between leading her life "the old way" or giving up. Finally the main character, the government minister has the toughest role as he must deal with the emotional devastation caused by his own daughter. She slips into the world of drug addiction and starts stealing, suffering from ill-health, attacking her parents emotionally, all so she can continue to satisfy her craving for the drug (heroin) that is destroying her life.

Traffik is one of the best dramas I have ever seen on TV. The scenes in this show will remain with you for a long, long time. Highly recommended. -- Colin Glassey.

9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kundun (1997)

A dull movie that explains almost nothing about Tibet

12 June 2000

This movie is basically a failure as a dramatic experience. The plot is virtually non-existent. The viewer will learn almost nothing about the real internal struggle of Tibet. The music (by Phillip Glass) is unlovely and grating after the first hour (yes, I don't like Mr. Glass as a composer, give me Steve Reich any day). I can't fault the visuals of the film, parts are lovely, the depiction of life inside the Potala Palace of Lassa was nicely photographed.

As a movie, as a art form that seeks to combine visuals with human acting and sound to create a "film" this is a failure. There was no acting to speak of (with the notable exception of the man who played Chairman Mao. I believe this is the very first time I've ever seen someone "perform" Mao and I found it fascinating). There was no plot, just short little scenes from a life.

The comparison with the film "Gandhi" couldn't be more unfavorable to "Kundun". In my opinion, "Gandhi" had it all: super acting, brilliant visuals, stirring music and the incredible story about how one man helped India gain its independence. By contrast, "Kundun" has nearly no acting, music I never want to hear again, and a plot that shows one small boy being pushed around by older people for his entire life.

Minor note: Heinrich Harrer, the man who wrote "Seven Years in Tibet" does not show up in this film. Instead it is the Dalai Lama who is shown running the movie camera (a task which Harrer performed). The film "Seven Years in Tibet" is vastly superior to "Kundun".

Political note: One thing is certain, the Tibetan practice of investing political power in the hands of a child, raised from a very young age to be a Buddhist monk is seriously flawed. From 1937 till 1950, a critical period of world history and critical for Tibet, the country was, in theory, ruled by a child (first a regent acted for the child, then a senior council acted for him). Perhaps no one could have saved Tibet from a victorious Communist Chinese government, but if Tibet had real political leadership during the intervening 15 years, it might have had a chance at independence. Obviously the Dalai Lama can't be blamed for the system which he "inherited". He tried to make the best of situation for which he was personally and educationally ill-equipped to handle. Its sad that he failed, but not surprising.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Insider (1999)

Wow! A great, thoughtful film, intense drama

22 May 2000

This is a remarkably brave film considering the times we live in, where justice can be bought and companies put out of business just by filing law suits, and where concepts like morality and ethics are words which don't matter at all in the face of the almighty dollar.

This film is a gripping drama that has the added value of being true in its essential nature. Wigand's testimony was critical for the exposure of "Big Tobacco" as a set of companies that knowingly lied to the American public about the effects of their products on public health.

The characters are very well handled, everyone was convincing and did a terrific job of "being" these people. I thought Pacino was terrific and was surprised that he did not get a nomination for best actor.

For me the best scene was where Wigand is about to be deposed by the Attorney for the State of Louisiana (or was it Mississippi?). It made me cheer for the system of states that we have now, where corrupt judges from one state are not able to shut down justice in another state (i.e. just because big tobacco has several judges in Kentucky in their pocket, other states are able to carry out their own investigations, thanks to state's rights).

Bottom line: I would urge all citizens of the United States to see this film. It is an accurate depiction of the system we live in today. Its not a pretty picture, but it is riveting, and maybe, things can change.

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

cglassey

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed