Reviews

Normally, I don't use the IMDb to lambaste movies that I don't like, but LIS was so bad that it has to be an exception. Until I saw this mess, I would not have believed that anybody could have created a movie this awful. This is the sort of garbage that gives SciFi a bad reputation. (Ed Wood could have done a far better job at a fraction of the cost.) LIS seems to have been aimed at just about everyone - lots of extravagant (mostly wasted) special effects for the adults(?) and a cutesy (i.e., ridiculous) alien and lots of omnivorous creepy-crawly spider monsters to entertain/scare the kiddies. Unfortunately, the director's aim is to poor that it all manages to miss just about everybody. Sadly, June Lockhart's cameo role was the high point of the movie, and after the ship left the ground the movie just went downhill. The time traveling near the end was so convoluted that evidently even the writers got totally confused.

I didn't expect a lot going into this movie, and I probably would never have bothered to watch it had it not been a freebie DVD that came with the machine. I can see why it was free - it was worth every cent that I paid for it. My rating: 1/10.

By the time this movie ended, I was beginning to hope that the Grim Reaper might pay me a visit to end my misery - if he came in the guise of Brad Pitt, of course. I don't think that I have ever watched a movie that took so long to say so little. As a rule, I find movies that deal with the supernatural highly suspect. This is particularly true of those that try to do so in a "user-friendly" manner as MJB tried to do. As always, Anthony Hopkins' performance was magnificent, but, unfortunately, that was about the only thing that made this movie bearable. Brad Pitt is a very good (if not, yet, great) actor, but his talent isn't enough to shine through this dim-witted romp through never-never land. He spends most of his time throughout the movie just standing around eating peanut butter, being coyly silent and smiling like the cat that ate the canary. The "cafe scene" early in the movie was very good, with good interaction between Pitt and Claire Forlani, but the rest of the movie was, well, just plain dead. In my humble opinion, don't waste three hours of your life on this one; let it rest in peace, the real thing will come soon enough. (6/10 thanks to AH)

.... I'll catch the conscience of the Bishop (to paraphrase Hamlet). 'Lilies' is a morality play about love, murder, and retribution - three themes that have dominated classical drama for millennia. But, although it borrows heavily from Shakespeare and classical Greek drama, 'Lilies' is in many ways new and experimental also. The manner in which the scenes of the hauntingly beautiful "imaginary" landscape of northern Quebec are interleaved with the somber gray of the "real" prison set in which the play within a play unfolds is nothing short of brilliant. I've never seen anything quite like it in a movie before.

The events that form the core of the play took place in Roberval, Quebec, in the summer of 1912: Two boys, Simon and Vallier, find themselves madly in love with each other while rehearsing a school production of "The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian." Their passion does not go unnoticed, however; Simon's father flogs him mercilessly, and their schoolmate Bilodeau watches them with increasing envy. In a final fit of rage when Simon rebuffs him, Bilodeau exacts a horrible revenge on the two lovers. Justice eventually catches up with Bilodeau, however, when he is held hostage in the local prison and forced to watch a play (written by Simon and performed by the inmates) that depicts the events of that fateful summer forty years earlier.

I really can't find much to fault about this movie - other than it's length - at only 90 minutes, it seemed too short. For the most part, the acting was superb, with special notice going to Brent Carver as the piteous Countess de Telly. In many ways his portrayal of her reminded me of an aging Ophelia, and one soon forgets that he is a man playing a woman's role. On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate 'Lilies' at 9.5. It is definitely a movie that should be viewed more than once.

This film makes a good attempt at portraying the Machiavellian intrigue and reign of terror that dominated so much of sixteenth English politics and religion, but in my opinion, it grossly oversimplifies the character of one of the most brilliant and complex women (or men either, for that matter) in English history. The fault definitely does not lie with Cate Blanchett, whose portrayal of the young Elizabeth is just as memorable as that of Bette Davis as the older monarch. Rather, I think that the problem lies with the attempt to depict such a confusingly dynamic historical period in a couple of hours. The BBC production of "Elizabeth R" (almost 30 years old now) did not suffer the same time restrictions, and did a much better job with considerably more historical accuracy. In my opinion, Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth R will long endure as the definitive portrayal of that greatest and most glorious of English monarchs. (Now is a good time for PBS to consider a re-airing of that venerable mini-series.)

"Harold and Maude" is one of the few films that I have had the privilege to see "cold" without any prior knowledge of or opinions about the film before having seen it. I fell in love with the movie after the first few minutes, and I have loved it ever since. Although it is obviously a product of the 60's/70's, its message is clear, simple, and still relevant: "Live life to the fullest, one day at a time, and don't sweat the small stuff." Harold and Maude may have been outrageously eccentric characters (even for the 60's/70's), but deep down they are two of the most genuine characters ever projected onto the big screen. The movie and its characters can only be described as "funky," but in a very natural and entirely unself-conscious way. Actually, the movie's eccentricity is its most remarkable and endearing quality; I don't think that anybody will ever be stupid enough to try to imitate it or (God forbid!) "remake" it. Obviously, it is high on the list of my ten favorite movies.

This is a brilliantly conceived and executed film about one of England's greatest composers and a watershed period in English history. The cinematography and editing are superb, and, for the most part, the acting is first-rate. The historical accuracy of the film is almost uncanny (down to the floor-pounding conducting with a massive "baton"). The movie has a "you-were-there" quality, and you can almost believe that you are actually watching the historical characters themselves. (I especially liked Queen Mary and her boorish King William.) The only "complaint" that I have about the film is that I had a nagging feeling of deja-vu that I was watching "Barry Lyndon" again (induced in part, no doubt, by the many candle-lit scenes, Murray Melvin's role as Shaftsbury, and Purcell's music for Queen Mary's funeral that figured so prominently in "A Clockwork Orange.") If you like historical films and/or grand costume drama, by all means try to see this film. (P.S.: I saw the film on Bravo; I'm sure that it loses a lot on the small screen, but I still rate it 9/10.)

I still have not recovered from the tragic news of Stanley Kubrick's death that came as such a shock to me on the morning of March 8, 1999. I am rarely moved by the passing of a "public figure", but that was an exception. Having been born in 1946, my "coming of age" is intimately associated with Mr. Kubrick's greatest films, "Dr. Strangelove", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and "A Clockwork Orange". It has always seemed something of a miracle (or profound genius) to me that one man, almost single handedly, could have created three of the greatest masterpieces in all of the cinema within a period of less than a decade.

Very, very few films are able to convey an equal or greater visual or emotional impact on successive viewings than they did on first viewing, but each of those films does. The passage of time has not diminished the genius or relevance of any of them in any way whatever; and in many ways, they seem even more relevant - or disturbing - than they did 30 years ago. It sounds like a cliche, but I do believe that I have lived in an era that has produced very few artistic geniuses - the only three that come to mind as having had a profound effect on my intellectual development are Tennessee Williams, Leonard Bernstein, and Stanley Kubrick. I must confess that when I first saw "2001", I was overwhelmed by the "space-time convolution" sequence (for want of a better description) near the end of the film, and I felt then that I did not understand it at all. But that one sequence etched itself into my mind so indelibly that I have been drawn back, again and again, to the film ever since. (In hindsight, I suspect that this was exactly the effect that Mr. Kubrick had in mind from the outset, rather than any specific or "profound" philosophical interpretation of the sequence.) That sequence is one of only three works of art that I can think of that, for me, can conjure up the illusion of a near "out-of-body" experience. (The other two being the final act of "Tristan und Isolde", and the trio from the last act of "Der Rosenkavalier"; all three are creations of almost indescribable audio-visual beauty and perfection.) In summary, good-bye, Mr. Kubrick. We shall all miss your towering, if hidden, presence, but we can take comfort in the knowledge that you have once again set out on your journey to whatever lies "beyond the infinite...."