Reviews

I watched this movie when it came out and I really loved it. I loved the characters because they reminded me of myself or of my friends I either had or wished I had. Granted, the story has no grand significance nor does it attempt to. It's simply a tale of a few delinquents living their weird lives in London trying to get something out of life, whether it's a fix, a job, or a pair of shoes.

I loved this film. It's so full of suspense, I was amazed to look at the time and see that it was only an hour in. The acting is superb and the chemistry between Brad Pitt and Robert Redford is very effective, at times they seem like father and son. The plot is very sophisticated and full of twists, pretty much all of which work. If you liked films like Salvador, Heat, or Patriot Games, you will appreciate this masterful film. For what it attempted to do and what it has accomplished: 10/10

Doesn't suck. Nothing memorable here, though. Everything, including scenery, dialogue, plot, and acting is very formulaic. Music, oh my goodness, it's the same old songs they use in EVERY movie about the 50's. Anthony Hopkins is great as always. As far as everyone else is concerned... Every character is underdeveloped, and a lot of questions remain unanswered. By the time the "secret" is revealed, it's not important anymore. Yup. just another predictable, unmemorable, Hollywood flick.

There is not a single redeemable quality about this 1.5 hour flick. You've seen it all before, many many times, so every shot and every scene is predictable to absurdity. Maybe if the makers of this movie were not such control freaks who tried to control your every emotion, it would have some innocence to it, some spirit of adventure. As it is, it feels like you're watching coins drop into a slot machine. I don't know why they keep making this crap and, frankly, I don't care anymore. Whatever this was supposed to be... it ain't. 0/10

One of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Period. It's an amazing psychedelic and cinematic adventure that is hard to describe. It's like taking a trip without dropping acid. It is an original, clever, superbly acted and directed film. 10/10

I just finished watching The Crying Game and, I must say, it is worth all the hype. It has a great deal of twists and surprises, and yet manages to maintain its plausibility throughout. Notwithstanding the excellent action and suspense, it is a story of love and of human nature, that is masterfully shown here as infinitely multifaceted. 10/10

I found "The Mind of the Married Man" to be mildly entertaining, at best. It is extremely reminiscent of "Dream On" (1990), another HBO original series. However, while the latter was both quirky and original, this one is not. The humor is rather narrow, being directed at a very specific audience, and the characters are neither believable nor realistic in any way.

Bridge on the River Kwai is an excellent film. It succeeds where recently made movies like Thin Red Line failed: it shows the awful madness that is war without the blood and guts element, which, by the way, almost always misses the mark. War is insane not because of what it does to our bodies but because of what it does to our minds. Great performances from William Holden and Alec Guinness. Definitely worth seeing at least once.

This movie depicts, in very general terms, the story everyone knows. At times inaccurately. In a film like that, it is good to have a strong subplot. Just to make things a bit more personal, you know. The way it is, I doubt many people will actually sit at the edge of their chairs (especially given Russia's current state of affairs) biting their nails in suspense. Excepting those who have lived through that historical horror show. Steven Culp is a dead-ringer for Bobby Kennedy, whom he portrays. Bruce Greenwood is unbelievable as JFK. And Kevin Costner is, as always, great as Kevin Costner.

Interestingly enough, while at the Soviet Embassy, Costner exchanges words with a woman, who is just as terrified as the Americans. That was a hint on a plot I would care to see. Maybe in the 70's or even 80's, a one-sided view like this, at a crisis of such humongous proportions, would have gone over well. But in 2000, when the enemy doesn't even exist, it's unforgiveable. Of course, the real facts and what actually went on on the Soviet side will probably forever remain a mystery, but who says you can't use your imagination?

The movie was extremely slow and bland. I could not have been farther from liking the protagonist, which I think is essential in a movie about the survival of an individual; I could not relate to him in any way. I found the movie unbearable and stopped watching it 30 minutes in.

This is one amazing film. Everything fits: superb acting, great music, and the odd-ball of a plot. I have to admit, I was expecting much less, but the movie turned out to be a real gem. 10/10

The premise was great. The actors were great. The characters were weak and flat and the only times when it seemed like they were round, were due to the acting abilities of the actors who played them. The screenplay was weak as well. I'm not going to reveal any vital info here. The movie goes along pretty well until the major sucker of all, the ending. Everyone who advised you to turn it off right after the interview at the end was right.

Colors is not a bad film. But after all the hype I've heard, I was expecting to see something more captivating and thrilling. Colors is not. It is pretty flat, predictable, and very outdated in its portrayal and understanding of gang violence. Colors has no real point (other than the absolutely obvious one), nor does it make you think in the end. Nevertheless, Duvall and Penn are alright to watch, although poor editing makes you wonder why some scenes were kept (such as the love making scene between Penn and the "homegirl") and others left out. 4/10

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever caught a glimpse of on TV. It's so un-funny and tasteless I wonder why they dug it up at Comedy Central, more than 10 years after this stinker came out. The members of the audience are given plastic cover-ups, while Gallagher smashes melons with maul on the stage.

Granted, this isn't the greatest sci-fi film ever made, but it's not the worst, either. Yes, the plot is derivative, but how often do you see an original plot these days? Sure, it's not an excuse, but in a small picture like this it all works out. The weakest thing about this movie is that the whole "wow" in characters' reactions to the aliens is missing. However, I like the warm feeling this relatively low-budget flick gives you, and the action scenes are not bad at all.

These are just some of the words I would use to describe "Six Feet Under." The subject matter is as old as time itself, but the way in which it is dealt with is quite original. There's a great deal of dark humor and sarcasm involved in the show, and some of its aspects are rather morbid, but you can't help watching. It's like a car-wreck you can't turn away from, only here you don't feel that badly, having looked. In short, I would recommend it. "Six Feet Under" is not for everyone and you may not like it, but at least you won't say that you can't relate.

This highly preposterous film is a pathetic attempt at recreating the mood and quirckiness of "Ironiya Sudby" (1975). Even the plot is somewhat similar. However, while in "Ironiya Sudby" excellent acting was on par with the intelligent and very tasteful scenario, here, relatively good acting meets a plot that at times seems to have been borrowed from a play written by a 3rd grader. The dialogue appears badly ad-libbed for the most part of the film. The plot-holes are simply astonishing at times (for example, Sofya bequeathing the jewelry to her newly found grand-daughter and NOT to her own daughter with whom she, an invalid, has spent most of her life, or, Sofya sudenly starts walking to no one's awe). I have no idea what effect the directors went for in the slapping scene. I found it shocking and disturbing.

The film's target audience is well-defined, and the main feeling throughout the picture is that of nostalgia. The attempts at symbolism were perhaps the most laughable, of which it will suffice to mention "the boy who lives upstairs" / angel-cupid. The only thing that saves this film from being a total disaster are, perhaps, the three actors. They do a decent job of portraying their implausible characters and Irina Kupchenko is quite charming as Tatyana. Had this film been more thought-out and the plot elaborated on, it would have made a worthy installment into the genres of both romance and comedy of life (i.e. socio-economic Realism); however, standing as it does, it is (ironically) a nostalgic reminiscence of an era of movie-making that has gone by.

I'm not going to waste your time with comparing this flick to the original British film. All I will say is that this movie is quite bad. The dialogue is ridiculous, the special effects and gimmicks are annoying and pointless. Action scenes were OK, but the way most of them were shot rather defeats the purpose.

The fact that this show is not funny has nothing to do with the fact that it's old. "The Honeymooners" was made in the 50's and it's still funny. "Get Smart" was made in the 60's and it's still funny. "Gilligan's Island" is not, because, above all, the show served to portray the idealistic and utterly fictitious social milieus of the late 50's - early 60's America. Any attempts at plots or humor were secondary, which is obvious to any viewer to whom the show bears no nostalgic value.

This film will never fade with time, because it's a true classic.

It is as relevant today as it was during the Great Depression, when it was made. It's funny and touching at the same time. Everyone who likes cinema should see this beautiful picture.

This is the best adaptation of any novel I have ever seen in my entire life. Jane Austen's characters vividly come to life as the enigmatic story meticulously follows the text of the novel. The performances are simply fabulous, and although the film may seem lengthy, the experience is well worth it. Watch it and, trust me, you won't regret it.

This film is simply great. One of the reasons I like it is that here romance is not reduced to some sappy idealistic fable, but is instead shown as realistically as life itself. There are no fantastic events or stretches of plausibility here. Just great performances and a well-written story. In short, this is what real movie-making is all about.