Reviews

Noting criticisms of this here, I've seen "wooden acting" and "slow pace" mentioned a number of times. Granted. It wasn't perfect, by any means.

However, I've watched the whole thing three times, and it seems to get better every time. Oddly, this was my reaction to the novel "Dune" also; I didn't particularly like it the first time, got into it the second and third times I read it until I appreciated it for what it was - a classic. This mini-series did its best to treat the book seriously, much better than the wretched Lynch 1984 version. (How anyone could like that one is beyond me. But, I guess, if you did somehow manage to like it, you won't like this one; too serious for you.)

I've never criticised any movie for not religiously following the book; you can't, frankly, especially if the book is long and intricate and written well before the movie. So, this one deviates at times, but not disastrously so. The "weirding" effect in this one was, frankly, "weird," and I didn't particularly like it. This one also toned down the "female vs male" paradigm, probably for PC reasons more than anything else. I've seen criticism of this movie for its "stereotypes" in this regard, however, and they are not justified. (As if all gender roles have to be compliant with current PC-esque attitudes toward gender equality, which have often given us "fem-male" testosterone-driven freaks as "role models," particularly in sci-fi.

The best thing this one does is portray how Paul becomes the Messiah, and how Jessica used the Fremen's superstitions to create it. The Harkonnens were much better than in Lynch's version; yes, their "grossness" comes across strong on screen, but remember they were gross in the book also. TV and film are visual mediums, so the base grossness comes across much easier and faster. Still, the Baron was dangerous in this one, unlike the freak in the Lynch version.

Watch this one, give it a chance. It captures the spirit of the book better than any effort yet.

Hollow Man's big weakness is the ending; the final 20-25 minutes of the movie turns into one more lame "he's dead - no he's not!" routine that anyone who's ever seen a slasher film has seen before.

Hollow Man does have it's strong suits though. Two things it does particularly well are the invisible effects and it's willingness to take on gritty subject matter. This is a Verhoeven film after all, so I guess the second point shouldn't be a surprise. The question of what an invisible man would do with his new-found power goes all the way back to Plato and the Ring of Gyges. Verhoeven's answer is -- rape, violence and murder. This is a turn off for some people, who criticize the subject matter as being beneath contempt. Two reasons why I think this is an invalid criticism of this film: 1) For all it's money, this is a B-movie concept, with all the gratuitous subject matter that comes with it, and 2) Real-life experiences when societal norms break down indicate that behaviors such as rape and murder escalate greatly, so the Bacon character's behavior, while often over the top, isn't all that unbelievable. Without the restraint of society, the Bacon character goes to satisfy every lust and impulse, including feeling up female co-workers, killing animals that annoy him, raping a sexy neighbor (a reportedly graphic scene that was cut in the theatrical release but will be on the DVD) and murdering potential threats to his plans.

Who will like this? Horror/sci-fi lovers, lovers of B-films and action movies. If those movies tend to not be your cup of tea, you will probably be better off avoiding Hollow Man. With the ending as weak as it is, you're not missing a great film anyway.

Honestly, as much as I've enjoyed Kubrick's stuff through the years, I put off watching this one, just because I thought I was going to hate it.

I didn't.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a superb film. It isn't in the "Strangelove/2001/Clockwork Orange" stratosphere; I think the best comparison to another Kubrick film would be "Barry Lyndon." Both "Eyes" and "Lyndon" are period pieces, both are beautiful to look at, both move very slowly (and thus turn many people off), and both are only indirectly "about" anything. In "Lyndon," we saw the life of a rags-to-riches-to-rags Irishmen. Here, we see a few days in the life of a wealthy American couple. What is the hardest thing to do in life today, if you're a wealthy person in our post-modern world? Stay interested? Separate reality from fantasy? That seems to be what Kubrick was saying, at least that's what I heard in the film. Of course, the sexual dynamic of man and woman is the most obvious theme, but I'll be different and state that I don't think that's really what the film is about. Kidman and Cruise's characters are so bored with life (and increasingly with each other) that they begin using sex as a weapon to tear into one another. Through a string of rather improbable events, they both "survive" intact, and at the end they both realize they've been lucky. Both of them step back from the fantasy-land they were driving each other to, and turn to each other in the end. Actually, for Kubrick, a remarkably conservative statement, I think.

Oh yes, maybe its just my somewhat indulgent sense of irony, but I for one think its wonderful that the last word ever spoken in a Stanley Kubrick film was "fu_k."

Here's to ya Stanley.

I was surprised that someone wanted to do another film adaptation of this book now that the Cold War is fading into the past. Even so, the situation still provokes real tension while watching it play out. I was born after the original Fail-Safe was made, so I didn't watch it until a few years ago. I found it to be an excellent film, and this one is a worthy follow-up. The live angle was also a gutsy move, and except for a few sound drop-outs, it was seamless. Let's see more live TV!

And metaphorically is how one must approach this movie. Just as imperial European powers confronted their "hearts of darkness" deep in the African continent, the United States finally had to confront its own in the jungles of Vietnam.

But if moral judgement was all Coppola had been trying to do, this would be remembered only as a pretty good film. What makes it a great one is that Coppola, following his character Kurtz's advise, does not judge, either the individuals in the film (including Kurtz) or the U.S. as a whole. I do not see this film as an overt condemnation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, just a brilliant look at the ramifications of that involvement. Nor is it an anti-war picture in any blatant way -- the attack on the Vietnamese village led by Kilgore and his choppers can be viewed several ways, depending upon what one's own feelings are. War is glorious, futile, exhilarating, chaotic, and savage all at the same time, and that sequence, the best shot sequence ever put on film, is all of it at once.

Finally, the use of music and sound in the film was incredible! From Wagner and the "superman-esque" scene we gradually evolve into a haunting almost new age sound before ending up with, fittingly, "The End" by the Doors. Along the way, Coppola builds up the appearance of Kurtz to an almost unbearable level; then Brando's off-beat, off-rhythm performance fits the almost un-earthly landscape Sheen and crew find themselves in.

I don't know if this is the best film ever made, but its damned close!

Probably not. And you're not going to get it with this video. Any aficionado of B-films must see this at some point; the combination of animated monster, porn actresses, David Carradine, and Arte Johnson is creative if nothing else about the movie is. In the end, it wimps out. It should have been a soft-core porn film with a horror angle centered on the lusty cartoon monster. Instead, we get one pretty good scene that fits that bill, then a lot of bad scenery chewing. Should have had more of the "Roger Rabbit" styled action.

I'm going to try and tread the great divide that seems to split everyone else commenting on the film. Was the film bad on purpose? Yes. Does that make it the greatest horror film of the decade? Not even close. But it did have its strong points, including some great "kill" scenes. (Yeah, I loved the shower scene too.) Your pre-disposition towards horror films and your mood when you see this one will probably determine whether you like it or not. Suggestion: don't take it too seriously, either pro or con. Just think "It's a B-movie" and go from there.

I will agree with those who say that the movie could have been better. There's an annoying tendency in movies lately to try and build drama with slow-motion photography and/or music from the soundtrack in painfully obvious ways. ("Does everyone understand this is a dramatic moment"? {music crashing in the background, people running in slo-mo}) AMX falls into that habit occasionally and deserves a few demerit points for it.

But forget all of that and watch the actors. All of them did an excellent job in this film. Norton is definitely the star of the show and deserves the praise he has received. The hateful gleam in his eye as he's being arrested was almost messianic. I also thought Avery Brooks did a fine job with his role, which all in all was too brief. He should have gotten more screen time.

Another plus for the film was that it usually didn't pull any punches. I mean, if you're going to look at the hateful, violent side of life, look at it. It also didn't get overly preachy, showing that even skinheads and gangbangers are seldom monsters through and through, just people with a lot of anger looking for answers in the wrong places. It is very graphic at times, with one death scene and one rape scene that are particularly brutal, but not sensationalized.

All in all, a good film. As with any film, you should appreciate what it is artistically first, then worry about any "message" second. AMX's message is obvious, and I doubt very many people, outside of neo-nazis and the Klan, are going to be upset by it.

I've noticed that most of the people who didn't like the film are from outside the United States. That's not unusual, I think; the movie would have more of an emotional appeal to Americans. But using a movie to voice your own rather bigoted attitudes toward a country is hardly becoming. World War II was a defining moment for the United States, and a very emotional one as well. Americans can be justifiably proud of what the United States accomplished during the war, just as Russians and Brits can be proud of what sacrifices were made on their behalf. I don't like chest-thumping jingoism any more than anyone else, but I honestly did not see that here. I saw pride, not arrogance. I saw American soldiers act cowardly, and German soldiers show mercy. Mostly I saw how combat has a debilitating effect on human beings, regardless of how "noble" the overall purpose is. World War II began in Europe, it did not begin with or in the United States. Any latent militarism or patriotism caused by the effects of two world wars on American culture ultimately owes its existence to the people responsible for starting those wars in the first place. I don't believe, however, that this movie or Tom Hanks intention in making it was vapid patriotism, anymore than his "From the Earth to the Moon" or Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" were. Some patriotism is legitimate -- dying to end fascism and the Holocaust, in my books, rates as legitimate.

While no show, including B5, is perfect, I think B5 came closer to capturing the "essence" of a good sci-fi book than any series ever has. The idea of having a story arc (beginning, middle, end) such as B5 had is an unusual one for an American series, but it made this show highly effective. Its storyline developing over a five-year stretch, B5 actually can be broken into 3 "segments"; the "bookend" seasons 1 and 5, in which characters are introduced in the former and the aftermath of the main story line is cleaned up in the latter, while seasons 2, 3 and 4 serve as the "meat" of the show. It is really in those seasons that the show hit its stride, but it wouldn't have been as complete of a series if it had not had seasons 1 and 5 the way they were.

There are some negatives -- the show has a penchant for throwing in some gratuitous (and generally poorly directed) fight scenes (in a manner similar to "The Prisoner"), and its humor can also be a little too "yuck-yuck" at times. All in all though, this series is for intelligent viewers of TV, regardless of whether you consider yourself a hard-core science-fiction fan or not. It also deserved better treatment than its Season 5 patron, TNT, gave it and its aborted follow-up, "Crusade."

Not a great film by any means (let's face it, how many great sci-fi films have there been?) but its not as bad as many have made it out to be. You can read a lot about current attitudes towards sexuality and gender nowadays by comparing commentary between the first and second films of this series. They are essentially the same film, with the first film having the advantage of overall better acting and, of course, being the first film. The second film actually has better effects, some of the same actors, but suffers from sequel-itis. Of course, its biggest drawback (in the minds of many) is that, unlike the first film, the alien/human predator is male. This means that he spends most of the film raping females, which reverses the situation in the first film. No one made much of a fuss about the sexual violence in the first film, because it was the Henstridge character committing it. But its there (check out Henstridge's attempted forcing sex upon the male in the pool and at the end for examples.) Anyway, if you liked the first and can put current hypocritical and politically driven sexual attitudes aside, you can enjoy this movie. Like I said, its not as good as the first, but its not that much different either.

After scanning some of the other comments, I think I'm more disturbed by some of them than I am this film! First of all, the battle scenes are spectacular, particularly the invasion sequence. (None other than John Keegan, famed war historian, has said that it is as realistic as your going to find on film.) Some here have criticized it for being to "amero-centric" (I guess that's a word?) because the soldiers are all American. This is not a fair criticism -- the soldiers landing on Omaha and Utah beaches WERE all Americans. The other beaches, Gold, Juno, and Sword, were landed upon by British and Canadian soldiers mostly. If you're going to criticize a movie, do it for it is, not what it is not. Of course, many other nations participated in WWII, but because they're not seen does not invalidate this film. The men who landed at Omaha beach were by far the hardest hit. The Normandy battles were not as large as Kursk, for example, but celebrating one battle does not somehow invalidate the rest. Criticizing it for that is childish and petulant. The movie does slow a little in the middle, but I did not see any "mushy Hollywood" type movie making. Your stereotyped Hollywood picture has a big soundtrack and lots of gratuitous pyrotechnics -- this movie had none of that. I have often criticized some of Spielberg's films in the past, but I have none to offer this film. It's not perfect (no film is) but its very good. An indirect kudos to Stanley Kubrick, whose influence I saw in a couple of scenes. Maybe that's just me, but it seemed "Kubrickian" in a quiet, indirect sort of way.

God, this was dull! Hmm, another bumbling muppet race defeats a technologically superior force, even though most of them don't know what they're doing! A saber fight at the end of the film -- well, I can forgive that one, at least it was well done. The effects are great, but what big-budget movie doesn't have nice looking effects now? The characters are just bland as hell, that's all. Liam Neeson picked up a big paycheck for this one, that's all.

Growing up Southern Baptist (and by the way, the Duvall character in this film is a Holiness preacher for those who can't seem to tell the difference between it and Baptist), I witnessed many revivals and church meetings in which people were "saved." As I grew older, I grew apart from religion in general and am an Agnostic now. But I have to say that I've grown tired over the years of always seeing evangelical believers (mostly Southern) portrayed as morons and bigots. This film does an outstanding job at showing a "slice of life" among poor earnest believers. Duvall's performance is outstanding and worthy of Oscars. The Duvall character is an oddity, but the events that flow around him are realistic to anyone who has grown up in an environment similar to the one shown. The last scene is the best portrayal of the "salvation" experience I've ever seen on film. The realism of the film seems to turn some people off; no, most of the characters do not undergo "change." How many people in real life undergo radical sudden change? Hopefully, films like this one and "Slingblade" will create a Southern Film Renaissance much like the literary Renaissance of the early 20th Century.

This one could have been good. Unlike "Robocop," however, Verhoeven is unable to offset the gratuitous violence with either sympathy, humor, or wit. "Starship Troopers" is supposed to be an ironic statement on the militaristic bent of our modern society. Irony has to have some subtlety to be really effective, and this movie is as subtle as a hammer blow to the head. Yes, the special effects are great -- anyone seen a big-budget motion picture lately that didn't have good effects? (If that's all its about, then "Asteroid" is an Oscar winner!) But you can't sympathize with any of the characters. The aliens are horrible, the humans are horrible. Take your choice. So you're left watching this one-dimensional movie that's so disgusting the irony is missed by those looking for it, and the violence is accepted (and applauded) by those missing the point. Do yourself a favor and grab a comic book -- at least your brain will get more out of it.

Only Kubrick could have pulled this movie off. Others have tried similar films; "Natural Born Killers" leaps to mind, and it wasn't all bad, but Stone is the apprentice compared to Kubrick. I realize that some people will automatically turn away from this film due to its violent content. I've never understood why people are so squeamish about seeing play-pretend violence being acted out (excuse me, its not real!) but to each his own. If you're one of those people, well, you've missed out on one of the best films ever made. Kubrick's ability to etch both images and sounds into the viewers mind is probably without comparison. While some fans of the Burgess novel may have been upset at some of the liberties taken, (just like Stephen King fans were with "The Shining"), you can't dispute the product is outstanding.

This movie will undoubtably not go over well with some, because most of the horror is mental. But it does have a little something for almost everyone, including a couple of really cool abduction scenes with aliens. The film makes extensive use of alien abduction mythology, while also showing a bit more intelligence about some facets of abduction myths than you would expect out of a movie. Jillian McWhirter is excellent in what had to have been a grueling performance.

I loved this film. It's got all the things you could ever want to see in a B-film -- fairly good actors chewing scenery, convoluted but interesting plot, some violence, a fast pace, and the strangest scene of all time! If you can find it, you should definitely check it out.

Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once.

I really like movies that mix horror/sci-fi/sex/monsters in them. I don't expect a great deal from them as far as cinematic brilliance goes, just a decent storyline and action. So, my criticism of this movie isn't that it doesn't live up to "Citizen Kane" standards. It just doesn't live up to B-movie standards very well. It seems to be caught between wanting to be a "sex and monsters" B-film and a soft-porn late night cable flick, with the result that it is neither one. As with most Full Moon Productions, the emphasis is more upon comedy than horror, but even there it simply isn't that good. Supposedly this is the first of a line of such films by Full Moon -- let's hope the rest have a little more of an edge to them.