Reviews

It's not hilarious. However, some of the sequences follow tried-and-true comic methods and are very effective at making you laugh. It does leave one wishing that more thought had gone into some of the comedy, however. In short, there is some cleverness, but it only comes in little bursts, rather than benefitting the movie as a whole. See it on video, where the cost is much lower.

I was expecting non-stop action and didn't get it. Simply because a movie doesn't live up to my misled expectations doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, however. I found this movie to be one that possessed some really good things and some really bad ones.

First, the movie does have some horrible expository writing that the actors could have done without. I don't think that directors can take the "but this is an action movie!" stance, since both good writing and good action buildup have coincided peacefully and rightfully in other movies.

Second, I can't help but contrast the camera angles with those of Mission: Impossible 2's. Obviously, in Gone in 60 Seconds, the director wanted the audience to feel disoriented. I think he went a tad overboard. The result was too disorienting. Woo was able to find a good balance; the director of Gone in 60 Seconds was not.

Third, knowing of the original, I was excited about a multi-million remake. The director should have taken some hints from the movie's predecessor. I wanted to see cars crash, spin and soar. The only true chase was alright, but it leaves you begging for more and wishing that there was more true action in the movie overall.

Fourth, although the writer knew that there had to be multiple antagonists to be pitted against the strong protagonists, they turn out to be weak, and in some cases, ill-fitted for a movie where the audience is expecting chases to happen in cars, not on foot (see the movie, you'll see what I mean).

Fifth (onto the good things), despite the extensive and numbing expository, there were some very subtle parallels plugged into the plot. The villain's salvage yard versus Otto's restoration shop is one for example. There was at least, some thought put into the writing after all.

Sixth, the contrast of and tensions between the young and old generations was also delightful. For me, that was one of the best things about the movie.

So, I'd give it a 5 out of 10. The action was good, but the camera angles stank. The writing had some very good ideas plugged into it, but the exposition and protagonist/antagonist conflict were ludicrous. So, see the movie and enjoy it. It's not a pure action movie, but it's neither a drama. If you want a one-time thrill and don't care much about what is said in a movie, this one's for you.

Simon's carefully written dialogues are truly electrified by Matthau and Burns. You can literally hear the script crackle. There are few movies out there that can develop such a relationship between the actors and the script. For example, the famed reunion scene could have been a lot duller with less-quality actors involved. Matthau seems to had been born to play Willie Clark (of course, Oscar moreso in the Odd Couple), and with all of the little idiosyncracies and mannerisms that Matthau crams into the character (the line where he is arguing that he is with it since he lives in the city whereas Lewis lives in the country that Lewis is "out of touch" is the quintessential example of this) make this one of the best performances I've ever seen of any actor in any role, be it comedic or drama or whatever else. Period. Matthau and Burns work excellently together; the contrast they portray accentuates Simon's superb knack at creating comedic conflict. This movie is simply one of the ultimate "must-sees" and does demand a rightful prestigious place in the pages of film history.

This art film and commentary on England's severe adjustment pains after decolonization is at least interesting. It was purposely made to be a decentralized movie, but it seems that it could easily be argued that Rafi is the central character. This makes me wonder if the author's point actually was communicated accurately.

I agree that the sex scene was a bit much and very unnecessary (although I love how it was put sarcastically to a rag-tag chorus singing "My Girl"). However, other scenes make up for that relatively miniscule part of the movie (such as Sammy listening to "Erlking" while Rafi is scared for his life--one of the funniest and most intelligent scenes I have ever seen). The attraction to this movie is the imagery, cinematography, and writing. This movie has attracted a cult following amongst sociologists; they claim that the movie is arguing that postmodern identity formation is more fulfilling that modern identity (don't worry if you're not acquainted with these terms, it's all garbage and only fulfills their egos). Rafi is the most certain about who he is, but this results in him being the most ignorant out of all of the movie's characters. Whatever. I think that they are reading too much into the movie. To me, this movie is an exaggerated attempt to reveal what it is like to be a "former colonized" individual trying to live in your colonizer's country, as well as how the decolonized country (in this case Pakistan) ended up as brutal as the colonizers were (England). It was necessarily exaggerated and therein the absurd and violent scenes created hammers this point home. Would I reccommend the movie? Only if you haven't better things to do, like wash your dishes or play parcheesi. If you want to see some nifty camera work, by all means rent the movie. If you're looking to be easily entertained, forget about it.

This farce of old bad sci-fi (a la Ed Wood) is a welcome diversion to reality. It's flashy, it's mind-numbing (in a very good way), and it hauntingly keeps your eyes on the screen. It's also anti-climactic, but hey, doesn't that just help the farce to be more closely tied to its basis?

I do think that the film can be taken somewhat seriously, but it shouldn't be in that thumb-your-nose-at-the-world kind of tone that so many critics unfortunately use. I love the large assembly of performers that Burton compiled that just go to vault the spectacle of the whole movie into the ridiculous. That's a good description of the movie--ridiculous (but in a GOOD way).

The whole movie has an overblown feeling to it. Everything that happens is comprehended to be an impossibility, and I reacted by laughing. It is humorous, but it is not a movie to search for one-liners in. It's the idea behind the movie, and not the dialogue, that makes the movie humorous. The martians are evil, and humans simply can't or don't want to comprehend that. Tim Burton used that idea to present the film in his own bizarre way.

Just "SEE!" it.

"The Big One" is entertaining and has a glimmer of the ingenuity used to make "Roger and Me," but it just doesn't match up. Michael Moore steps on his soapbox and grabs his mike and blabs at the viewer for 25% of the movie. Although this makes his ideas clear as a bell, it doesn't do much for the movie. I wish that he had shown his ideals through filming others rather than himself, as he did with "Roger and Me."

Still, this movie does have some wonderful things about it. Moore's ability to go anywhere and ask anything is commendable and the result is amusingly scary. Whatever you do, see "Roger and Me" first.

Possibly one of the best documentaries ever made. Michael Moore outdid himself and revealed what an insane world we live in. Although it is comical, it does invoke feelings of outrage, fear, and dismay. If you haven't seen it, see it as soon as you can.