Reviews

It may not be said that this is M. Night's greatest film. People will look at it and compare it to the height of his twist ending in the Sixth Sense; people will assume he's following the same old, same old song and dance, and conclude that it's not as good because the twist was not as unforeseen, not as viscerally chilling. These people are missing the point entirely. This is a vastly more appealing film than any I've seen in a long time because it works on more intellectual levels than most films do. The horror in this film, the scary things in this film are not the creatures in the forest, as you are led to believe. The scary thing is the machinations that are in place perpetuating seemingly sane and intelligent people to create a utopian society that is held together by an all abiding fear of something false. Indeed, what drives us to perpetuate lies and fear in the pursuit of peace and happiness?

After all, the realistic suspension of belief is not so hard to swallow. One has only to consider the Amish in reference to the cherished adherence to an antiquated way of life. One has only further to consider the array of cults that have risen and fallen within the past few centuries to realize the lengths we intelligent creatures will go to create our own bubbles of order and harmony. If you had more money than God, were fed up with the violent tendencies of such a vast and volatile society, and were traumatized by the brutal death of a loved one, would you not consider creating your own paradise; your own utopia. And so our committee of the Village, an apparent group of traumatized therapy patients, decides it can create a Utopia under the leadership of Hurt's Walker. A modified Amish village where love, community, equality and justice are admonished above all else. A community that thrives on peace. And it seems as though they are successful for a time in their experiments; their children are the beneficiaries of this slightly twisted grip on the truth. These children are pure of intent and of good character. They may be altogether stunted in their relational skills when compared to our own modern context, but within the context of the reality that these committee members have created, they are pure. They are honest and forthright. They are loved and supported. Men and women receive equal standing in the eyes of all. The committee is comprised of an equal amount of men and women, none above the rest. Those crippled, either of mind or body, do not receive unfair treatment. All are special, all are wonderful.

The inherent problem of any utopia is the abiding construct that is holding the society in place. The safety and security of the Village is not merely kept by a fence and security watch, it's kept by controlling the minds of the innocent. By creating and enriching a palpable fear to challenge the utopia, so that its benefits are not soiled by divisive perspectives of the world. So the question is posed, and the true conundrum revealed: Is it acceptable? Just as in Huxley's "Brave New World", do the lies and fears of this utopian bubble justify the bliss and purity and happiness that are enjoyed by the oblivious trapped within it? In the end, is this not what any idealogy is; a group of people perpetuating lies, partial-truths, and conclusions about the unknown to ensure peace of mind, social stability, and happiness in the lives of those idealogical adherents?

Take this one step further, which I have no doubt the intellectual aptitude of M. Night was intending, and again, as in "Brave New World", we have an allegorical tale that is creating a simplified mirror of ourselves. M. Night has not simply told this story to entertain us. He is trying to show us who we are and how we work, whether you see it from a religious standpoint, or a political, even an economic one. Whatever ideals you cling to, whatever faiths you have, the question is posed; is it better to blindly believe those and accept the benefits of it, or is it better to know the truth, even though it can be cruel and violent? We are the village, in whatever capacity our lives are filled with ideals and faith. Whatever irrational, brave, or loving things we decide to believe, and whatever counterparts we choose to ignore, we are all of us constantly creating a utopia for ourselves within our own perceptions; we are all of us trying to attain happiness by organizing our perspective. Some by striving for happiness today; some by looking for happiness tomorrow; and some by waiting for happiness until some unknown time and place. I know some will find these espousals far-fetched. Its only a movie, perhaps a silly one at that. But I think M. Night is offering you so much more than just a movie this time. He makes no final judgement on the morality of the experiment; indeed might I present the question again: Should this be allowed? Is it morally acceptable to allow lies and fear to produce peace and happiness in your life? We are Ivy, blind and unaware of our own blind faith, and we have for a moment realized ourselves outside of the bubble and are unsure what to make of it. What will we now do?

This movie was terrible! How can so many people laud this film? I don't get it. Where do I start. Sheesh. First of all, it was shot like a student film that just happened to have some major stars and a primo set. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the indie film scene. In fact I love the indie film scene. In fact I thrive on the indie film scene. But guess what. Just because something is made poorly like a student film, doesn't make it an indie film, and even if it did, doesn't mean the indie crowd has to swoon over every indie film that's released. You can't attribute the poor film exposure, the clunky storytelling, the blatant 'envelope pushing' sex scenes, and the absolute absence of any kind of filmmaking style to the fact that its an independent film making a statement, because its not. In fact, at its fundamental level, The Cooler is the essence of a Hollywood film; it's a gaudy, regurgitated story (try Leaving Las Vegas meets Casino), with absolutely unnecessary nudity, and some stupid subtext about a guy's luck that always seems to turn just when the writer can't seem to figure out a logical way to save the hero. Could you define a hollywood film more to the 't'?

I was thoroughly disenchanted by this film. Fine, ok, the acting by almost every player was superb. Funny, the script must have had some potential to hook the likes of Baldwin and Macy (both fantistic and complete with their portrayals), and of course, hooking two stars like that, you can practically reign in any other minor star you want in hollywood. Unfortunately, your potential on the page does not equal a great film. As many first time, or first few times directors, the story is anything but developed. Wayne Kramer can't seem to establish any kind of pace to the movie and juxtaposes full on dramatic, super reality scenes (like casino), with surreal, "magical", luck driven scenes. Its awful. Are we watching a drama or a fantasy? No doubt superstition has long driven many people in Vegas (and it would seem that goes for the 'old school' Casino owners themselves), and if that was the strain Kramer was going with, he should have stuck with it. Polluting it with gritty 'who knows what's going to happen next' reality scenes undermined any belief I had suspended in the magic of luck.

The film had a very episodic nature to it, something like P.T. Anderson's 'Magnolia'. The difference is, Anderson knows how to pull his film together into a cohesive, consistent story, one that stays true to the pace it sets, and is constructed with an ability to understand the story as a whole, as well as how all the little pieces fit together. I got the feeling Kramer never really got a grasp of the story he was telling. The man controlling the camera (ie. the director) has to use that camera to tell the story. Kramer may develop into a great director one day, but in the meantime, he needs to focus on figuring out how to create a story with one consistent style that is simpatico with the story he's trying to tell.

My suggestion would be to visit a few more indie film theaters, or visit some festivals or something. There are so many extremely talented storytellers out there. Yes, maybe I'm being a little bit nitpicky. And yeah, sometimes it sucks, because when you're nitpicky, most films suck. But the thing is, when you see the really good films, the ones that make you forget that your sitting in a theater, you're floored and the experience is all but palpable. You see, I don't nitpick as habit in all films. I nitpick because a film is so lopsided, it makes me aware that I'm in a theater. It makes me aware of an inconsistent style, or obvious plot holes. So all you Cooler fans out there, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. Kramer's the one who mismade the film. Get mad at him, then go see something like Lost in Translation or The Girl with a Pearl Earing, which are both great examples of indie film at its best.

I just finished reading about 20 reviews that praised this film to no end. I am astonished. Please, take it back one and all.

Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this was a terrible film, or even mediocre. It was a good film. Stronger than most films. But it was so pale in comparison to the first one. Fellowship cleverly blended action, epic grandeur, and down to earth emmotion. I felt like I knew the characters of the fellowship. So Pete changed a few elements, it bettered the story. It flowed well. It was paced well. It gave us a chance to care for the characters and at the same time understand the intricacies of the plot of the film. This I was expecting from the Two Towers, and it seems like it was all thrown out the window, which baffles me since this film was shot interspersed with Fellowship.

Towers suffers, in my opinion, from overkill in the postproduction sessions. Whoever was helming this portion lost sight of how to treat an audience. I have not read the book, so I don't care about changes, I care about story structure. Do I understand what is happening, do I get to know the people, do I care for them when they are in peril? This is all a product of pacing which I feel was sorely lopsided in this film. Characters fundamentally changed. Gimli was not comic relief in Fellowship, why now? I wanted to breath more with Eowyn. She seemed like such an amazingly strong character, but we're with her less than two minutes and she's crying and she's a mess and we're suppose to feel sorry for her, and I don't even know who she is. Peter's strength of sticking with people in Fellowship, of just giving them some conversation to let us trust the characters, to let us want to pull for them is lost in Towers. It's cutticy cut all over the place. We never stay with a single shot for more than a few seconds. The scenes with Frodo, Sam and Smeagol are the only ones I felt connected to the characters. I know this was a three hour film, but I think there was entirely to much time spent on setting up fight scenes and special effects. We understand there is a war coming. We can conclude that Helm's Deep is going to get it's booty kicked. We could have had half as much fighting building up to Helm's deep and twice as much character development so that when the fighting happened, we really did care about the outcome and not whether this scene looks as real as the last one.

Another thing. This film had no structure. No beginning, no end. It was just three hours of middle. Now I understand that it's the middle book, but it's still a movie unto itself. Again, I just think whoever was in charge of post work was staring at it for so long, he was unable to objectively see whether or not the film was paced right, whether or not the characters were developing, whether or not character's introductions were faithful to the character's initial performance. I mean, thanks to poor editing, Faramir was a joke.

On a plus note, most of the acting was well done(although I do think editing is responsible for choosing some innappropriate moments of humor in the middle of an intensely dramatic scenes, which undermined any power the scenes may have had). Of course, the 2 hours and 45 minutes of special effects are amazing(but we could have used less), and the music is spectacular-- Kudos to Howard shore for an amazing score, the theme for the people of Rohan is breathtaking with it's keltic fiddles.

So, people, don't empower Pete. Don't let him make the third film with even more special effects and less dialogue. We gotta make sure he's gonna give a spectacular closing chapter. Let the characters become the center piece of the story once more. And it's up to us to tell him that. No more thoughtless praise of all the special effects. Lets crack down. We want a good movie with people we care for. All of us together now.

Well, no spoilers contained herewithin because I couldn't finish this awful excuse for an "epic film".

Oh man, I'm crying. I was really expecting something big. I mean I had just seen such epics starring Heston as Ben Hur, The Greatest Story ever told, and The Greatest Show on Earth. THESE are grand epics that truly craddle Heston's grandiose. But not this piece of pooh pooh. From the opening scene this one's a stinker. For about two seconds I tried to excuse the low grade of the film due to the fact that it was made in '61. "Films were made different back then", then I recanted in my head. Who can forget the brilliance of Lawerence of Arabia(albeit '62). It's film quality did not make the sets and costumes and visual appeal nil. Ugh, how dissappointing. This film suffers the same disease as the New Planet of the Apes. Horrible, and I mean puke invoking, directing. I don't believe this director knew his elbow from Heston's face. There's is a wonderful attempt at complicated cinematography, a wonderful attempt at grand spatial construction with people and the camera moving in fluid motions filling and unfilling the screne. Had they only been FOR something. Heston's performance rings stale from such putrid direction. Like any actor, he's only as good as the director's knoweldge and gifts of direction. *sigh*, oh well, I guess it's back to the Ten Commandments tonight(go De Mille).

Woa woa woa.

We have some real malice in the comments below. Ya think they'd work for disney or something. I mean don't get me wrong, Disney's done some great work over the years, but it ain't the fifties anymore, and we don't have to keep making animation in that mold. I think Dreamworks has created a very original and fresh picture here. A fantasy animation, very much for adults, moreso than for children. Everyone I've seen the film with, thought it was riotous. Hilarious bits interspersed with very real emotion, thanks to the incredible graphics. Something you simply can't achieve with animation. You can't achieve realistic, round characters with pen and ink, which I felt they succeeded with in Shrek. And if the cutting adult humor and great effects aren't enough, watch closely so you don't miss two great ongoing jokes. First, the constant and hilarious satrical parodying of fairy tales(Gingerbread man:Do you know the Muffin man, Farquaad:The muffin Man? GBM:the muffin man, Farquaad: Yes, I know the muffin man, who lives on mulburry lane?) and second, the wonderful rips at Disney, be it the massive "compensating" Dulochland, the terribly long lines, the info center which reminds us, "don't make waves and stay in line, and we'll get along just fine; Duloch is the perfect town", or even magical ending which is taken directly from Beauty and the Beast.

Many reveiewers were upset, and thought the tearing at Disney was hate driven, and it very possibly may be, but when I was watching it, I didn't feel hatred for Disney, I felt a healthy sense of outside perspective on the unbelievably silly things that people don't realize they endorse when they buy Disney. I hope Shrek does very well, despite it's "negative" messages, according to other comments, for if we had no type of editorials or parodies of the insane pop culture we buy into, there would never be any type of reform or self assessment, nor any type of consumer consciousness, and we'd simply buy whatever the big companies told us to. In that right, I think Shrek was extremely successful, and on the flaky, silly, just a Saturday night movie with friends side, I also think it was successful, as it provided more than it's fair share of laughs. Plus I found it very "layered", but not like pies or parfe, only like onions.

I guess I'm goin against the flow here. Everyone thinks to seem this is a cute wonderful little tale. Although I think the film is decent for 1960(you wanna see real special effects and psychological mind numbingness, check out Psycho), it lacks a whole hell of alot. I don't read much, and I'm adamant about not comparing the film to the book, but assessing the film as it's own entity. Unfortunately, when a movie is filled with as many plot holes, inconsistencies, and downright silly plot points as this one, you may find it necessary to refer to the book, merely to try and aid your proccess in understanding the lost potential in this film. The essence of what Wells is saying in the book is sorely missed in the film, as the filmmakers seemed to have solely based the film about the nuclear threat of the late fifties. The Time Machine is nothing about war. It's about people's views toward each other, and how class separation over thousands of generations undermined the great human race into a species of oblivious, mundane, mediocre, couldn't care lesses. Wells does a beautiful job of describing the frailties of both the Eloi and the Morlocks, and does a wonderful job of making a point that they are essentially the same, neither is the bad guy to the other. Both live out of ignorance. Both are innocent as children, and Wells draws strong parallels to these descendants of the decadent aristocracy, and the supressed and opressed working class people, forced further and further beneath the surface. he also does not hint at a hopeful recovery. As the Time Traveller leaves the future, he realizes quite plainly that these are no longer homo sapiens. Possibly some inferior degradation, but their damage has gone far beyond psychological damage that can be reveresed with a mere three books. The only hope for the Eloi and Morlocks, would lie in a change found thousands of years earlier. Therefore it was quite foolish to try and add a "happy" open ending where the vigil Time Traveller is going back to save humanities future. You obviously cannot make the book verbatim into the movie, but you can try and do justice to Wells brilliant observations of the human spirit and behaviour, for surely, there is a brilliant movie with these themes prevailing, just waiting to be made.

I just have to say there are some people in this country who are just morons! That's all there is to it. After seeing this wonderful film, I log on to trusty IMDB to get the scoop on it, and the first 2 comments dog the movie.

All in all, a wonderful epic, that is visually consuming, meticulously executed, and wonderfully acted. Well deserving of it's 1996 best picture Oscar. If you like realistic settings, people, locations, situations, and stories, then you will like the English Patient. Wish I would have caught this one in the theatre. Oh well.

10/10

This may not be the best film you ever see. It may not even be the best film you see this summer, but so far, it's the best comic book adaptation made. Although a bit short(leaving a few character's slightly underdeveloped), a nice quick paced adventure. Excellent direction. Great acting all around. But the big Kudos of the movie goes to Hugh Jackman. Dougray Scott was originally cast as Logan, but got hung up in overtime on the set of MI2. GOOD!! He was wretched in that movie. He would have made Wolverine horrible. Hugh Jackman made me a believer. He WAS Wolverine. If you've read the comics, then you know his sharp personality shined in this movie. Kudos, Jackman! Very well developed motivations(for the most part) with many parrallels and extensive groundwork for sequel(sequels maybe?). Keep them coming. 8/10.

"Ugh! Horrid!" Oh boo hoo! "Whee-skan-sin" accents are harder to understand than english ones, garrepito_27. This movie was an excellent excerpt from this hullabaloo we call life. It doesn't always have high outcomes. It doesn't always have spiritual epiphanies. For some of us it has a lot of sex, and the rest of us a lot of dreams. It has relationships with people we don't like, can't understand, can't stand to be without, and sometimes follow for no reason whatsoever. This movie is life. It's not entertainment. It's art. It's not meant to take you and make you feel better or worse about yourself. it's meant to take you out of your life and let you experience someone else's. No expectations, no promises, no fake endings or fake possiblities. Just reality. This movie is about life, not entertaining you! And on a side note, aside from being beautiful, Kate Winslet is the best actress of this generation and earning her place in all time.

I just finished voting and was amazed that someone had voted this movie a one.

Did this person actually see the movie?

Probably not. They were probably making out with their significant other and were annoyed at all the interupting sound effects, thus leading them to give it a one.

As a young very not famous filmmaker, I would classify myself under the realists. I like movies that take as few dramatic liberties as possible; that take real events and try to tell them to a mass amount of people.



One thing that I liked about this movie was it's conflict. Very seldom in life do we have one prevailing enemy stopping us from our goals and ambitions. Which is what makes the villians in movies like The Patriot and Gladiator seem a little bit convenient for the conflict making our leading men heroes. Life doesn't have villains (aside from the occasion bully in school), it has people with real problems and real emotions. The Perfect Storm grabbed me from the beginning with it's real, scruffy, weather-worn men to the gripping ending with all of these mens losses and triumphs. The villain was life itself, and at the same time it was the hero, the vehicle that allowed these men to give and take and experience. Good story, good storytelling, good acting, lack of over simplification and formulaic plot twists. A solid 10 of 10.

That's right, if you like explosions every 5 seconds, gimmicky "plot twists", horrible dialogue, unintelligible accents, and absolutely no surprises, then you will love this movie. And to you, it will be a perfect ten. But, if by chance, you like intelligent movies with skilled acting (Jude), stuntwork that pertains to the story (Gladiator), in depth character studies (Magnolia), gripping plot twists (Fight Club), or anything else that classifies as art in the film world, you'll probably give this movie about a four like I did. It reeks with cliches, and unlike the first Mission Impossible, it has a scattered plot that never actually redeems itself. De Palma used confusion and a variety of locals scenarios to pull in the viewer to a thrilling climax on a speeding train. Woo merely gets Tom Cruise to do some incredible stunt work and calls it a movie. Yes, the special fx are great, yes, the motorcycle scenes were jaw dropping, and yes, who cares that nobody could screech to a halt on the front wheel of their yamaha and still pick four passengers out of a moving car with only four bullets in real life. But, I've said it before and I'll say it again. No amount of spfx, stuntwork, or popular music groups on the soundtrack can make up for a poorly executed plot. And on a personal note, I usually enjoy Hans Zimmer's scores. He's very versatile. From As Good as it Gets, to Prince of Egypt, to The Thin Red Line, he is great at crafting the music to the visuals. But fresh off the heals of composing the score for Gladiator, so brilliantly referencing "Mars", as well as utilizing Lisa Gerrard for the ethereal feel of the supernatural, Zimmer seems to copy himself with a similar sound that cheesifies the closing of MI2 instead of empowering it.

It seems Cruise (Mission: Impossible 2) does better with De Palma(Mission: Impossible) and Cage (Snake Eyes) does better with Woo (Face Off).

4 of 10

Just shoot me now and get it over with. From the second this movie started, I hated it. Awwwww. An attempt at a dramatic sihlouette backlit by the sun. AWWWWW. And as the James Dean they chose an Anit-Dean. Van Dien seemed to mimick facial expressions Dean used in his films. STOP ALREADY! Stop imitating his facial expressions, you dope, and get into his philosphy. Become the character, screw the director, screw yourself. All that matters is that character. The worst part about it, they took real events from Dean's life(which you think would make it more authentic) and managed to make them seem like they were written for a tv movie. How pathetic is that. The movie is choppy and stale. There's no emotion, no heart, no soul. And what was up with Van Dien saying 20 ways till sunday, near the end. Fine, so Dean was heard saying 20 ways till sunday now and again. Doesn't mean you're doing character improvisation by repeating it. I would give it less than a one, but it had real events in his life, and that porsche spyder was near identical.

I gave this movie a 7 out of 10. Granted, Nick Ray does a rather well job. This movie started the teensploitation movement so heavily felt in the past 5 years. The difference is Nick Ray and of course, James Dean. A typical portrayal of family life in the mid 50's, Rebel was a little thin at times. Natalie Wood annoyed me a lot. I really can't blame her. She was only sixteen and I doubt she would have defied Nick Ray, so she performs too often forcing what was most likely Ray's instruction. Mineo is better, harboring geniune emotions. Cory Allen and Dennis Hopper are the only goons who aren't stereotypical buffoons. But rising above it all, defying Nick Ray and even his fellow actors at times.. is Dean. His screen presence sucks your attention. Who could ever forget the staircase dialogue, "for once, I just want to do something right!" Dean's acting is a 10 and then some.

Here's why this movie fell very short of its potential(I don't read much, so I don't care WHAT the novel was like). 1. I think Brendan Frasier copied his Encino man from Lambert's Tarzan. It was stiff, and while his Tarzan call was a little more realistic, he had no humanity. 2. They screwed with the story. Maybe that's how the book goes, but for as long as I can remember the first utterances of Tarzan were "Me tarzan, you Jane". Jane is the first human tarzan encounters. I did like the natives a bit more than the shoepolished midget pigmys in Weismuller's version, but those bows and arrows were a bit cheesy. 3. Tarzan is primarily a love story. I'm sorry, but the love interest enters over an hour into the picture. That qualifies her for a supporting role at best. Supporting roles and leads don't fall for each other, not enough screen time, sorry. Not only was Andie McDowell's vioce over pathetic(most likely because her strong southern accent couldn't be masked) the chemistry scale between Tarzan and Jane was a whopping 0. I never believed they loved each other, which made the Belgian dudes closing voice over, quite frankly, silly. When Tarzan sees Jane for the first time in the jungle, he feels an urge, if you will, a feeling he's never felt before. Jane brings out the humanity in him, and he brings out the untamed side of her. Its this chemistry that compells the story of Tarzan. Not that Lord Greystoke's dying wish is to keep his land whole and that johnny boy is going to do it for him. Even a good face lift couldn't help this movie. It needs massive internal reconstruction. Oh, and could we possibly shoot more in the jungle, or at least use camera angles that don't show off the sound stage like qualities of the place. Final judgement, 4 out of 10. Sorry Tin-man, and by the way, if you want to see real acting, drop Lambert and check out Leonardo Dicaprio.

In this day and age, hollywood cranks out hundreds of films made for one purpose. The almighty dollar. The first thing that caught my attention while watching this film is its lack of any entertainment value from the very beginning. No gimmicks, no effects to draw your money. This is possibly the best movie I've ever seen. In fact, it is more than a film, it is an experience. Jude progresses so that its closing moments strike so much agony into your heart, you are changed. It is the type of film you can only experience once. Any added viewings would only be analyzing it. Jude is the epitome of what true, high, fine art should accomplish. A feeling you can never recreate. If you enjoy art you will love this film, and if you look for entertainment, you will be so shocked by it, you will never look at films the same way. Since seeing Jude, all other films seem bland and heartless. The final punch is so powerful it will make even endings like those in The Rear Window and The Sixth Sense seem mediocre and even predictable. Anyone with 3 dollars or a library card should do themselves the favor and experience a piece of life only found in this movie.