Reviews

Once in a while a movie viewer, (and I watch about two hundred films a year) comes across a movie that's so incompetent in its acting and story telling attempt that it is actually impossible to turn away from it just because you absolutely have to stick around to the very end just to see how absolutely bad it actually gets. If you know what kind of movies I'm talking about then add this one to the list at the very top. The only positive thing I can say about this waste of two hours is that the Dragon special effects are (grudgingly admitting so) halfway decent. The rest, assign to oblivion.

There is absolutely no question the this was a labor of love for Mr. Jackson and all who took part in it. A labor of love that all movie lovers are very grateful for. Even at such an extreme length when including the other two films. And even with all that was left out from the novels, especially Tom Bombadil. It is an achievement that should last forever. Even in my wildest dreams I never thought that it could look this good. Perhaps it doesn't pack the emotional wallop that the book does at times (see Eowyn's triumphant moment) but the visuals are so tremendous that you willingly overlook the minute negatives.

All in all a tremendous achievement. I honestly believe that we'll never see the like again.

I had seen "I Soliti Ignoti" a long time ago and I can't say that I remembered it well. But thanks the the Criterion Collection I came across it on DVD and have to say that it's one of the funniest films that I have ever seen.

A bunch of amateurish bunglers believing themselves to be capable thieves attempt a break-in of hilarious proportions. Gassman shines as Peppe the improvised leader of the pack, as these "Usual Suspects" move from one mishap to another.

Miss. Cardinale adds some real eye candy, as usual.

SEE IT!!!!!!!

I am not a winter person, no, not in the least, but there is wonderful imagery in this movie, in large thanks to Cinematographer Alwin H. Kuchler. One in particular has a runaway horse in flames with these "Shane like" majestic mountains in the background. I think that image will stay with me for some time.

This is a though story about mistakes that people make along the road of life and the answer is painfully clear even before it comes, that we can't change the past no matter how hard we try.

The premise is that a man swaps his wife and daughter for the claim to a gold mine. The story takes place years later in a moment of transition not only for the characters but also for the town which the holder of the claim has built, for changing times are at hand with the arrival of the railroad.

It's obvious that it's because of ticket sales that Westerns have become a rarity in films, and that's a shame, because there's a stark realism to the look of this western, the town and saloon give the impression that perhaps it was really like that once upon a time in the west.

If I can find fault with anything, it would have to be the pacing, which is slow to say the least, done deliberately to signify how we can't recapture the past it works against the length, by being too slow, I found myself wishing that it would speed up at some points, like when it lets us into side characters that I really had no interest in.

What works well is the knowledge of what happened in the past and the futility (and these characters know it's futile) to make everything all right. Most times everything can't be made all right. This is a wonderful example of that truth.

This is one of those films that seems to work often, even though we've seen the formula of the prodigious youth being tutored by the misunderstood genius elder.

I love keeping tabs on directors like Gus Van Sant, who seem to hit and miss alternately with his films. This is not a great film but I didn't feel cheated out of the two plus hours that I sat through it. What works primarily is a wonderful performance by Rob Brown IV, who with his first film proved to be a diamond in the rough.

Even though the ending is obvious, we're left satisfied even with its predictability, this is simply the kind of story that it needs the ending that it has, to give us anything else would be too much of a curve-ball, and totally unnecessary. Too bad that Hollywood doesn't feel necessary to provide more movies with three strong acts. Often we're teased with an interesting beginning and promising middle section only to have it all fall apart at the ending. Not this time.

It's too bad that the technology wasn't around back when Stanley Kubrick wanted to make this movie, because I can't help but believe that the end results would have been much, much better.

A.I. isn't a terrible film, and good thing that it ended when it did because another ten minutes or so and it would have been. There is much here that deserve praise, not John Williams uninteresting music though, what happened to this man? Has he forgotten what wonderful music he used to give us? The good stuff is an excellent performance by Haley Joel Osment, this kid has something going for him; namely talent. There is also some wonderful production design. But alas the bad overshadows the good. For two thirds of the movie we are taken on a wonderful adventure, too bad that David can't tell just what jerks his new family really are. But, and this is a big but (no pun intended) once the third act starts you are suddenly thinking, what the hell is this shit. This movie would have been so much better had we had never experienced this god awful third act. Why not end the movie at the bottom of the ocean? that was the ending, Steven, thank you and good night. We didn't need that moronic sub-plot of visiting aliens and the search for who man was. Who is man? an unfulfilled viewer after having to sit through this third act. And I'm surprised at this because Spielberg for the most part has already proven that he can do it, but not this time. What was he trying to do? Make us feel sorry for this kid? Well, we felt sorry for him, but not because his mother refused to love him but because he couldn't realize that she wasn't worthy of his love, and we realized this very early on.

For anyone who reads this, do yourself a favor and walk out two thousand years before it ends, (you'll know what I mean) and you will think much more of this film than if you wait for the credits. Believe me.

So, no Excalibur, no Merlin, a knight named Malagant which no one had ever heard of and last but not least Arthur, played by Sean Connery who is at least EIGHTY years to old for the part. At least there's the beautiful Julia Ormond to look at.

Two movies and a book. Rent Excalibur, that even if it's not a great movie I think it captures the Arthurian legend in a better satisfying way. And Lancelot du Lac (Lancelot of the Lake), also read The Mists of Avalon.

Two friends of mine exalted this movie to levels usually reserved for the likes of Citizen Cane. Little did I know. Now that I have seen it and have given it a generous 5 as a vote. I do know that my friends have not seen Das Boot. Probably haven't even heard about it. U-571 is just too damn convenient for its own good. Us, the good guys, the American that is, are going to invade the Germans U-boat. So it's convenient that there should be someone on board who speaks fluid German. They're stuck in a predicament so they save the German Captain, because it's convenient to have someone on board that can SABOTAGE you. Give me a break. For anyone that may read this do yourself a favor and skip this one and instead rent Das Boot by Wolfgang Petersen, which is no surprise that it ranks 39 in the Imdb top 250.

What a waste of two hours. I never understood the need for remakes and this one definitely gives proof to my non understanding. To say that that this is a bad movie would be to give it a practically a rave. This goes beyond bad, just think of how many starving children that could have been fed with the money that it took to make this tripe. First you have the Bond guy who steals a picture, and a (what the filmmakers thought) sexy investigator, perhaps less close ups so that we couldn't see the lines on her face, would have only improved this sorry excuse of a film. Anyway she's on to him from the beginning and we go through a series of dates, getaways, jealous fits, all culminating in an ending which is even dumber than the rest of the movie, if that's humanly possible. So he returns the painting, (sort of) but steal another in a way that not even Houdini could have done, (no wonder they don't show you how he did it)and they live happily ever after. Movies such as these are infuriating because they steal two hours from peoples lives and not even apologize for it. I think I may want to make a movie, for I couldn't do any worst than this piece of #*%@!!!

Sometimes there's an expectation about a movie that's hard to explain, and that can be said for this film. It is without a doubt the best film that I have seen all year and I write this at the end of September. This movie is a joy from beginning to end. It has without a doubt the best screenplay of the year, simply because everything rings true, every word, every scene. Cameron Crowe has succeeded in making long hair, drug loving rock stars, into people that you would want to meet and get to know. Having just seen the film perhaps is not the best time to write this, simply because there is too much Almost Famous running through my brain, but seriously I can't think of one moment that wasn't worth sitting through, because this is exactly the sort of film that makes the movie going experience all worth while. An inexperienced youth travels the road with an up and coming band, who are really lambs in wolf's clothing, and along the way we meet people that we really get to like. None of them come off as phony or stuck up, perhaps because it was all set before the stuck up era that we now live in, and that is the absolute forte of Almost Famous. It's set in a time when we all remember (who are of age) as being innocent and fun. Congratulations.

There's a sense of trouble about the girl from the very beginning, no doubt about it. She drugs up the naive young man and then she and her cronies perform a "small" procedure. (hopefully not trying to give anything away.)

I have just seen this short on IFC, and I find myself very disturbed by it. It isn't until the credits are running that everything falls into place. Except for one thing. Was this done out of need or profit?

Unfortunately X-MEN suffers from the same fault that all comic book movies suffer from and that is the dreaded origin plot line. Just once I would want to see something that begins its story some ten years into the super-heroes lives.

Having said that, I will say that there is hope and lots of it for future sequels, where these characters will be already defined and we all can get down to some serious action, which there is not nearly enough here.

Also there seems to be an abundance of sweetness. Rouge is sweet, her classmates are sweet, hell, even Wolverine is sweet, Wolverine? Isn't he a maniacal, deranged, psychopath? YES HE IS. But not here. (for future consideration)

My final vote is a generous 7.