Reviews

Let me get all the stuff I didn't like out of the way first. First, when compared to the other Jack Ryan movies, this one's a little different. It's less intelligent, more action oriented and still pretty good. The major difference is that Jack Ryan is an analyst in the others. In this one, he says that he is, but we don't see him do that too much. For the most part he tells people that they're wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why? Because he knows things that he's not able to put into words. I really expected him to yell at one point, "I'm the damn protagonist, which means I'm right."

At a couple points in the movie, I was a little disappointed when the story took us back to Jack Ryan. I found the other interactions much more thrilling. This was only a couple times though, and the parts with Ryan aren't particularly bad, so it's okay.

The bad guy tells us all his plan. He doesn't tell it to us by capturing our hero and subjecting him to an overly elaborate death. But he just says it. Sometimes in meetings with his associates and other times just sitting in front of his computer with an internet cam pointed at him. Who's watching? I tried not to concern myself with it.

Now to the good. While it's not as intelligent as the other movies, it's not stupid either. I really liked the relationships that were set up and I am looking forward to another movie or two with the same people involved. Ben Affleck wasn't his usual smarmy self. This is not the Ben from Pearl Harbor and Armageddon. He's not the Ben of Chasing Amy either, so don't get too excited.

The supporting cast is excellent. Morgan Freeman gives the same quality performance that we've come to expect. Liev Schreiber turns in another great supporting role. Philip Baker Hall does what he does best (looks like a man on his death bed). And Ciaran Hinds (the Russian president) gave a performance that could have easily been played over the top, but he was very deliberate. It was good.

There are some things that are rather unbelievable. It was very difficult for me to watch some of the scenes of terrorism after watching similar ones in real life. And then there's the whole idea of it being a young Jack Ryan, but not a prequel. Minor complaints. Overall it was certainly a respectable movie that exceeded my expectations.

I'll admit that I saw this movie because of The Full Monty. Well that, and I wanted to support the big theater chain's decision to bring in a lesser known movie instead of filling yet another screen with Spider-Man. But here's the main thing; I wasn't expecting The Full Monty.

It was a nice little movie that's just plain fun. It's got funny characters that are enjoyable to watch. It gets a little off track from time to time, but overall it's a very funny movie.

Here's a dilemma facing any filmmaker in following up a success:

If you make something different, people will inexplicably compare the two as if the second was a sort of sequel. They will always say the second is not as good as the first.

If you make a similar movie, people will call you unoriginal and accuse the second movie of being a rehashing of the first. This will happen faster than you can say "Guy Ritchie."

It's okay to compare the efforts. But this is not The Full Monty, and it's not even in the same vein as The Full Monty. Reading people complaining about The Full Monty being better is about as bad as hearing people compare every movie where some one kicks something in slow motion to The Matrix.

Okay, here's what I was thinking when I went in, based on what I'd heard and from the previews:

1. Too much CGI. It's too distracting for a whole person to suddenly become an effect.

2. Questionable casting. Okay, I wasn't sure on this one. I'm not familiar enough with the Peter Parker character to have known ahead of time if Tobey was an okay choice.

3. Great script. I'd just heard that this was a really good story filled with rich characters who we'll really care about.

4. Sequel coming. Warners screwed up Batman, so now there's room for a Marvel character... let's bleed this property dry! Profits! WOO HOO!

Now that I've seen the movie, let's examine these one at a time:

1. CGI: It wasn't that bad. I was very surprised by how good it looked and how it added to the sense of wonder. I found myself actually thinking "that's ep]ing cool!" So there's no worry here. Spider-Man, while he never moves his mouth (even when yelling the requisite NOOOOOO!!) does swing through the city in a manner befitting a superhero.

2. Casting: I have absolutely no problem with any of the casting (even Randy Savage was good as Bone Saw). Anyone who can't see Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man has missed the point. You should only have to see him as Peter Parker. That's been a real problem in super hero movies. You should cast the secret identity, not the hero. Christopher Reeve is Clark Kent first, and Superman second. And I feel that I should mention JK Simmons (simply because everyone else has). He was funny. It would have been very easy to slip into Perry White mode, but he avoided that and came out as the anti-Chief.

3. Script: This is where it was lacking. The whole movie is nothing but cliche after cliche. We have to have MJ be a sweet wholesome girl who would only go for a nice guy. She's the type of girl who would never waste her time with a jerk. Oh, and she has to be dating the biggest jerk in the world. Why? Well, that's what you do in movies that take place in high school. Now Spider Man makes his appearance. The whole city thinks he might be a bad guy at first. Why? Well, that's what you do in super hero movies. While the dialogue wasn't filled with little inside jokes that made you want to wretch, the characters weren't fleshed out enough. I do see potential for the future. Which brings us right to

4. Sequel: They're out to make money. We all know that. But there's a difference between something like this and something like X-Men. Now I'm not going to pretend to know what went on behind the scenes of either of these movies. But the feeling I got from watching them, was that X-Men was just trying it out. If it worked well and made enough money, great. Let's try it again. With Spider-Man, I really got the feeling that they were just making sure that a sequel could be made, that this was nothing more than a money making machine to them.

I almost liked this movie. I really wanted to. But overall, it's not worth it. I'll see the next one, and maybe it will have been improved. But this is far from the best comic book movie ever made. If you want good comic book movies, check out Ghost World, From Hell, or Unbreakable.

I never liked Bill Paxton. He was just that guy in all those bad James Cameron movies and the worst movie of all time (Twister). Then I saw a little film called A Simple Plan. It was then that I took notice of what he could do with the right material. That film, and this one, are the right material.

We've got a story told in flashbacks to a simpler time (I believe it was 1979). A time when your older brother looked out for you. A time when Dad worked hard and was happy to see you at night. A time when Dad asked you to kill people with an axe because they were really demons. Yeah, Dad's gone nuts... or has he? Okay, it doesn't really lead you down that path of "he's nuts...no he's not...yes he is...no wait," which is why it's good.

Before I go any further, I have to address something that's really bothering me about people's reviews of this (and some other recent films). If a film has a twist at the end, ask yourself a couple questions:

1. Is the twist believable?

and

2. If you were to remove the twist, would the movie be any good?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no," then you've got yourself a bad movie. There seem to be two groups of people on this issue. We've got the people who think that any twist at the end equals a brilliant piece of cinema. And we've got the people who figure out the twist and automatically discard the movie as junk because they saw it coming. Ask the two questions above, and you'll know what kind of a movie you've got.

With Frailty, the answer to both questions is a very big yes. The only problem I have with the film is that it seems to suffer from first time director disease. That is, Bill Paxton seems to have been thinking for years about certain plot devices and particular shots he'd use if he ever got the chance. I can certainly forgive that in this case though. By making Dad a very loving father, it makes the film disturbing. As much as I like the characters of Hannibal Lecter and other suave villains, there's just something really creepy about Dad.

This was a really nice surprise. Mainly because movies that come out at this time of year usually aren't that good. But already, I've seen two movies this year (Frailty and Panic Room) that have actually got my heart pumping. In this day of comic book movies and teen sex dramas, it's very rare for a suspense movie to have this much suspense.

There's been an epidemic in movie theaters over the past few years and it must be stopped. A simple reference to another movie does not equal funny. More often than not, it's a simple ploy used to elicit any response from the audience. This leads to entire movies being used as references to other movies. If it works for one line, or even a whole scene, it should work for the whole movie, right? No way.

Scream was a good movie that ended up being successful. Sequels ensued. By the time they got to the third one, the franchise had mutated into the same kind of movie that the first one was poking fun at. If you understand this concept, then you'll understand Showtime without seeing it.

Showtime is nothing more than a bad buddy cop action movie that spends half the time talking about how stupid movies like that really are. The concept is simple and I'm not going to bother getting into plot summaries when there's a whole other section for that. I'm sure you know what it's about. It sounds like a very funny idea. And, indeed, the previews made it look like a hilarious and fun movie. But here's the problem; in order to successfully poke fun at buddy action cop movies, you have to give the audience something other than mind numbing dialogue and stupid action sequences. The parts that are supposed to be "real," and not manufactured by this television show, need to be different from the rest of the movie.

I'm really tired of movies that are constantly saying that there's a message behind it, or there's a concept that they're going for, but they never come close to delivering. It's like the commercials for psychic hotlines where they have the person saying, "It works! It really really works!" Meanwhile the small print at the bottom of your screen says "NO IT DOESN'T." In Showtime, we have Robert DeNiro saying stuff like, "Being a real cop isn't like what you see in the movies." But when he strays away from the show and does his "real" cop work, it's just another lame movie.

I really hate it when I agree with Roger Ebert, but this is the best film of the year. It's such a powerful portrait of these two people that it's stuck with me for days after seeing it. At first, I didn't want to write anything here for it because I couldn't find the words to express my admiration for this fine film. But then I started thinking about the oscars, and how Sissy Spacek is going to win for 'In the Bedroom.' I have to say something about that.

In the Bedroom is also a very good film. And Sissy Spacek turns in a wonderful performance. But it's a supporting role...nothing more. That film is about the relationship between a man and his wife told mainly from his perspective. And Tom Wilkinson should win the oscar for his part. But Sissy Spacek should not have even been nominated for lead actress. Halle Berry's role is not only a leading one, she nailed it perfectly.

I can't really get into what kinds of things she does in the movie without giving away too much of the plot, but she runs through an enormous variety of emotions in this film to create a very believable character who we end up sympathizing for. In the beginning of the film, we get to know both Hank and Leticia. And we find out that they aren't very good people. But through them finding eachother and what they do for eachother, we end up hoping for the best for the two of them.

And as for the sex scene that everyone is talking about; I admit that, normally, when a director says that the nudity is important to the film and the characters, I'm very skeptical. But, in this case, it was completely necessary to show how both of them were simply trying to drown out all their other emotions.

Unfortunately, Sissy Spacek is almost as much of a lock for the oscar this year as Julia was last year. It's really sad that the oscar for best actress is going to go to the completely wrong person two years in a row. (It went to Julia Roberts last year over Ellen Burstyn who gave the best performance by an actor or actress in the past ten years) It's clear that the people who vote for these awards haven't even seen all the films nominated when such large mistakes are made.

This movie belongs on the Lifetime television network. But, seeing as Denzel Washington is in it, the movie went to theaters. This movie is designed to make you weep. It tugs at your heartstrings with the precision of Rob Reiner, and the overly-simplistic message of an after school special. Sure, it takes a while for them to settle on one message (universal healthcare, eh?) but that's pretty much it.

Note: in the scene with the hostages and John Q sitting around talking, I really thought that they were trying to set a record for how many liberal hot-button issues that could be brought up in one scene.

So, let's start racking up the cliches, shall we?

1. First cop on the scene is an older gentleman who the rest of the force makes fun of for being old...but we know better, don't we? At least he's not retiring in a couple days.

2. The police chief is a media hungry, sound-bite hound who does nothing but what looks good in the press and is at the beckon call of the mayor. And we get all this within Ray Liotta's first 90 seconds of screen time.

3. The woman who turns John Q down for the transplant is evil. How evil?, you may ask. Well, let me tell you...she smokes. If you haven't been paying attention to movies for the past ten years, that means the character isn't a very nice person.

4. John Q's friend spews forth every catch phrase and buzz word that stupid people clamp onto when they don't truly understand a situation. (He actually says, "For those of us whose last name isn't Rockafeller..."

5. The hostages represent a very eclectic cross-section of the health care industry and of society at large. The bad guy in there isn't just a woman beater...he smokes too.

I could go on, but that would involve giving too much of the plot away. This is a stereotypical hostage/parent on the brink/soap box melodrama. And it also reinforces an idea that has become commonplace in films over the past several years: It's not a national news story until Jay Leno makes a joke about it in his monologue. And now, the John Q heart transplant dancers!!

"You can't take the law into your own hands!"

So says some guy from some government agency to Arnold. In the preview, this seems like typically horrible dialog for an action movie. However, I was surprised that, in the context that it was used, it wasn't too cheesy.

I saw a 'behind the scenes' thing on HBO and everyone involved was saying that this was something really different for Arnie. Why is it that people say that about every movie he's in? They're all the same! But that's okay. We're used to it. In 'End of Days' he played an alcoholic. We knew this, not because we ever saw him drunk, but because some one brought it up every ten minutes. These are things that we've come to accept about Arnold's movies. So stop telling us that this is something new.

At least, that's what I've felt for a while now. This movie is a little different. It's not a stretch, or anything radically different. But it isn't the exact same thing that Arnold's done before. It is, however, the same thing we've seen from other people before. It seems that he looks at what is popular, and he does his version of that. People like government agents, I'll do 'Eraser.' People like supernatural stuff, I'll do 'End of Days.' What's all this I hear about a movie with a twist at the end being brilliant? I suppose I'll do 'Collateral Damage.'

So is it good? Is it bad? It just is. One thing I am glad about is that is was rated R. I am sick of movies being cut down to PG-13 simply because some people feel that things should be accessible to the "family." Cutting stuff to do that ALWAYS detracts from the quality of a movie. I've actually heard directors say that they needed to take the energy level down on a scene in order to qualify. Why would you want to do that?

Yes, this movie's release was postponed. We all have our own opinions on that and nothing, not even seeing the movie, is going to change our minds.

One final note: Am I the only one who, when watching Cliff Curtis, can only think, "You know what I think? I think you're stealing gold." ?

If Sean Penn hates the idea of the Academy Awards, why would he star in a movie whose only purpose is to get an oscar for it's leading man. Let's face it, people who play mentally challenged people win awards. And the only explanation for some one intelligent, like Penn, accepting a role in a movie that has such a mind numbing script, is that he wants to win an oscar.

I wasn't going to bother writing anything on this movie until I read how a lot of people were actually falling for all this. Although I don't understand it, I accept the fact that Julia Roberts and Adam Sandler movies make lots of money. But I can't let something like this go unchecked. Was the acting good? Absolutely. Even the kid was amazing. But I'm expecting to see a picture of Sean Penn as Sam on a macaroni and cheese box because this movie is the cheesiest.

We've got the evil social services people trying to take away Sam's daughter. Booooooo. Why is it, that certain professions are always portrayed as the bad guys, unless they happen to be a main character? Lawyers, cops, social workers, accountants and many more jobs are always evil people unless the movie is about them.

We've got a high priced/stressed out/fast talking/workaholic lawyer who just might have her life turned around by helping out Sam. In fact, it seems that everyone who Sam meets will become a better person after getting to know him. That is, except those evil social workers. Booooooooo!!!

Yes, this is an interesting concept. Yes it was made quite well. I liked the use of the steady-cam. But the script was transparent and self-important. It's a movie that's filled with scenes that try and make you cry. That's the real problem, it's a collection of scenes designed to push you over the edge. But it lacks the consistency that could make it a truly powerful film.

Note to Sean Penn: Snubbing the oscars it's any more cool when you're invited, than when you're not.

It was weird seeing Tom Wilkinson without an English accent. But (unlike Ewan McGregor in Black Hawk Down) you get used to it pretty quickly. He was amazing. Sissy Spacek was very good too, but the role wasn't that big and it didn't leave her room to do much.

After seeing this film (just like when I saw Mulholland Dr) I was treated to hearing other people from the audience saying what they felt. "I hate it when you go to a movie where only two things happen." "I almost fell asleep." and my favorite "It was a TV movie that I would have changed the channel on."

It really does upset me to hear stuff like that. Not because I have a different opinion, just because I can't stand masochism. These people know what kind of movies they like, and they should have known better before going to a film that critics have been raving about. If you hate art-house films, you will hate this movie. You will be bored. You will write user comments that demand your money back (that's still very original, really).

Let me make a deal with all of the people who hated this movie:

You stop complaining about how boring movies like this are, and I won't say anything bad about Julia Roberts' movies anymore. It's a really good deal for all of us. But then again, I stopped going to see Julia's movies a long time ago. Maybe I'm just psychic, but somehow I knew that America's Sweethearts was going to be bad. So I didn't see it. You too can apply the same logic. Anytime you see a commercial for a movie where the voice over guy says that a critic called a performance 'ground-breaking', 'brilliant', or 'oscar-worthy', don't see the movie, and don't complain.

As for In the Bedroom, it is a truly wonderful film. And Todd Field should be very proud. There is room for improvement in the actual photographing of the film, but it's was quite competent. Tom Wilkinson gave a brilliant, ground-breaking, and oscar-worthy performance. It's definitely a subtle film that will keep you interested (so long as you don't require Matrix style fights every ten minutes). And you will feel for these characters. What more could you want?

I heard so much about this movie when it was out in theaters, but unfortunately, I live in a city that has only two theaters that will play the really good movies. The rest are cineplexes that have nineteen screens and show Harry Potter on five of them. So I had to wait for video. For a movie shot on video that's pretending to be a tv show, watching it on video isn't so bad.

The movie was going along just fine. I was enjoying it and reveling in how some one else hates the idea of reality tv as much as I do. Then there was the extreme violence. When they started showing the reigning champion and her 'greatest hits,' I almost got sick. There's just something about shooting on video that gives a movie a brutal honesty to it. Watching something on film, you feel removed from the action taking place on screen. But with this, you're right there with them and it's a little disturbing. If I were to watch it again, I'd probably be able to laugh at the funny parts, but during the fist viewing I was adjusting to the style.

As much as I like what the movie has to say, and as much as I did enjoy it, I have reservations about it. Not because of the violence, but because it was a little redundant. It really has just one point to make about tv, entertainment and the public's appetite for violence. It's a satire and it goes on a little long for that. Instead of putting several "episodes" together in order to give a movie-length marathon, a short film that contained just one half-hour episode might have been more effective.

To combat this problem of the novelty getting old fast, the humor is added. However, the humor doesn't really seem enough to carry it. I suppose the real problem is getting the viewer to want to see the story carried out to the end. And while I was interested in how the story would play itself out, I wasn't affected by it in any tangible way. I did enjoy the movie and would recommend it for a rental, but I can't look at it with the same awe for originality and enthusiasm as I did with a movie like The Blair Witch Project.

I've never read the books (don't chastise me, I've gotten enough already) so instead of comparing the film with the book, I will compare it to Harry Potter.

Both are:

Films with magic & mystery

Set-ups for sequels

Being accused of being too long

Adaptations of incredibly popular books

Treading the fine line that separates good films from Dungeons & Dragons

The major difference is that Harry Potter is a filmed adaptation of a book, whereas Fellowship of the Ring is an actual film unto itself. Sure, Fellowship had an ending that didn't complete the total story line, but Harry Potter gave you more of a feeling that this was simply the first of many stories.

The real difference is in the motivation. Harry Potter was clearly made to capitalize on the popularity of the books. There's nothing wrong with that. I liked the movie, but you can tell that it was made in order to keep all the fans of the books happy and to make sure that they'll be back next year for the sequel. Why else would you hire a director with no personal style. Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is clearly something that Peter Jackson (along with everyone else involved) really wanted to make. They worked hard and it shows.

Another major difference was in the language. Both contained characters, objects and places that, if you're not familiar with the back story, were just plain confusing. Harry Potter dealt with this by holding our hands through the long explanations. Fellowship just plain showed us everything and made sure that, if we didn't understand something, we wouldn't be lost.

Though it was easy to follow the action and story, I was still left with a few questions. Like I said, I didn't read the book so I'm not familiar with all the characters already. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know what Middle Earth is. Really, is there also a Left & Right, or a Top & Bottom? And those elves, is there a specific reason why they had the highest cameo to character ratio? And why was that one friend of Frodo's even there? It seemed like his only purpose was screw things up and nearly get them all killed.

And a final word about the acting. That kid they got to play Harry Potter wasn't bad, but he wasn't particularly good either. Elijah Wood, on the other hand, really had that `I'm about to die' look down perfectly. He'd better have, he's got it more than half the time.

Open your eyes...

That's the opening line. I think too many people were thinking about how the original version was called 'Open Your Eyes' instead of actually listening to that line. Simply put, if you watch this movie and you pay the slightest bit of attention, you will not be lost. The film's third act wraps everything up in a neat little package that even fans of Adam Sandler movies can understand.

So, given all of that, was the film any good? Yes.

I normally hate movies where the preview begins with, " [insert male name] had the perfect life...until one day..." but this one was very good. The first act of the film does set it up to be one of those movies where some stupid crisis comes up that turns this self-absorbed man's life around, but it ended up being so much more.

I am really surprised that Cameron Crowe did so well directing this type of film. Let's face it, from Say Anything to Almost Famous, his films have never tread on the same ground as this one. And Jason Lee was great, as always. His role was one that could have been lost in the whole rush of the film if he hadn't played it so enthusiastically.

Vanilla Sky reminded me of Mulholland Drive surprisingly enough. Both take you on a trip that seems to defy explanation. However, Mulholland Drive is clearly the superior film (as it does not require a quick summation complete with flashbacks and visual aids), but Vanilla Sky is definitely a film worth watching...and watching again.

The only potential problem with this film is the backlash it might incur. The general movie-going public (who made 'The Grinch' the top grossing movie last year) is probably still mad at Tom Cruise for making them "suffer" through Magnolia. I don't mean to come off as one of those people who try to sound superior because of their movie taste, but I don't think most people will like this film.

"Tom Cruise had the perfect career...until one day..."

I didn't read the book. I'm not saying that to show how unique this perspective will be, I'm just saying that I can not comment on how it compares to the book, nor do I think anyone ever should with an adaptation.

I've never liked Chris Columbus. He's always lacked any sort of vision or style...unless unbelievably hokey is a style. But with this, he obviously had a good script (still not commenting on the book) to work with. With this movie, we have our typical first chapter in what is obviously going to be a series. It's not leaving you with a cliffhanger or anything like that, but one can never get away from the feeling that this is all set up for things that will happen in the distant future. Well, maybe not too distant, but beyond the end of this movie.

So the real challenge for this movie is to make us care about what might happen to these characters later on. I suppose that was accomplished to a certain extent. Mostly I was rather interested in the story and hoping that, before the future get here, these kids take a few more acting lessons. Don't get me wrong, they are quite good, but that little girl needs to stop over annunciating every last word. Outside of that, I see some great potential. Is it cruel to pick on these defenseless kids? Maybe, but I'm not the one who put them on screen with some of the best British actors ever. I know if I was twelve years old, I wouldn't want to be up against Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt, Maggie Smith, and Richard Harris. (wow)

Next, I know it's a kids' movie, but do we really need a scene where, one after another, the three kids show their individual talents? It's mildly contrived (we need some one who has studied, now a good broom flyer, and finally we need that comic relief guy who plays chess). And my final complaint before I get into the good stuff are the names of the characters themselves. The names of bad people and things are stuff like: Draco, Voldemort, and Slytherin. This is much like what Hawthorne used to name his characters (Chillingsworth anyone) and it's just plain silly. Think of it this way, would the name Hannibal Lecter conjure up a bad image in your mind before you saw The Silence of the Lambs? Maybe a little, but not to the point where you would immediately know that, "he's the bad guy...BOOOOOOO!!!"

As for what was good, I don't mean to repeat what others have said, but that Quidditch game was great. I think it really got the feel that it was going for. The effects were very good for the type of movie that this was. Sure, they didn't look all too realistic, but it is a movie about magicians and wizards, so let's not get too carried away. And, like I said before, you can't deny that the story was interesting. I thought it opened up a whole new world where things were different enough for us to continue asking questions. But it wasn't so erratic that you just gave up on following any of it (see Tomb Raider). Overall, it was a rather enjoyable experience. I do wish I had seen it that first weekend though. I ended up seeing it this afternoon (a Monday) and I was the only one in the theater. This does need to be seen with other people.

And most importantly, while that Macaulay Culkin look-alike, Draco, came dangerously close, there was no Jar Jar Binks! HOORAY!

I saw this in a theater full of old people. Don't ask me what they were doing at a David Lynch movie because I don't know. Not only did they seem to insist on talking during the film, but once it was over, they felt the need to express their disdain for it very loudly. I heard a lot of "What was that about?," "How awful can one movie be?," and the always popular "That was a huge waste of time." I witnessed a great work of art being wasted on a large group of people. I'm not saying that they were wrong. I'm just saying that people who react in that extreme probably should have known better than to show up in the first place.

The only thing worse than hearing all of the people complaining about how non-sensical this film was, is listening to people trying to explain it. Face the facts, this is not a film that benefits from knowing what's going on. You could watch it a thousand times, and come up with a different explanation of the events that unfold every time. None would be wrong. And we shouldn't look to David Lynch to explain what he meant by any of it because what he meant was for us to enjoy the ride. We hear a lot of filmmakers say that they want to leave you with more questions than answers, but it's normally not true. Though the plots may be confusing, an explanation normally shows up in the last ten minutes that is very definitive. Mulholland Drive offers us nothing of the sort and is true cinema.

Watching this film, to me, is like going to a museum. I've never been able to understand art work. But there have been plenty of things that I really enjoy. I'm not going to even attempt an explanation as to what happens or even as to what an overall theme might be. I just know that I'm going to watch it several times again. While I never got into Twin Peaks, I think I really would have liked to see this developed as a television series. And I'm sure that it would have been acceptable to television censors. The scenes with nudity were probably from the additional parts shot to make the pilot into a feature.

If you're wondering whether or not you should see this film, you probably shouldn't. We all know how much David Lynch we can take, and on a scale from 'The Straight Story' to 'Eraserhead', this is past Eraserhead. If you've never enjoyed what you like to call 'artsy' movies, then you have no right to say bad things about this film because you were stupid enough to go to it anyway. But for those of us who are willing to let go and simply experience a film instead of watching it, this is a great time.

Like many of the reviewers for the Redux version, I will start by saying that Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite films of all time. However, Apocalypse Now Redux belongs in the lower portions of the rankings along with The Matrix and Twister. Well, maybe not that bad, but it really upsets me to see a great film ruined.

I'm normally the first person to defend a director's right to do with a film what he or she pleases. But in this case, I feel that Coppola has, since going through the hell that was directing this film, become a completely different director who makes nothing but terrible movies like Jack and Godfather Part III. Therefore, he shouldn't have been allowed to go anywhere near this film again. This restriction would have been out of fear that he would do exactly what he did. He reduced one of the greatest pieces of pure cinema into a summer blockbuster, action, buddy, popcorn movie.

Think about the first time you ever saw Apocalypse Now. Think about the sense of wonder that washed over you as you followed Willard down the river into the unknown. Getting to the point where you knew you had to simply accept all the things that were happening around you was the point of the entire first two thirds of the film. It was after that point, that you are brought to realize that you must do something. You must try your hardest to affect the outside world that you seem to have cut yourself off from. This was (and still is) a brilliant film.

Now imagine if that huge flow of precious emotion that you were feeling the entire time was reduced to a feel good movie about a bunch of guys on a boat going to kill some one. Imagine plenty of things blowing up real good. Imagine Kilgore turning into a whiny freak who just wants his surfboard back. Imagine Willard developing a sense of friendship with the rest of the guys on the boat. Imagine a slapstick moment of gratuitous sex. In your worst nightmare, you can not imagine how low Redux sunk compared to the original.

The first major change that shows up is the assault on the village with Kilgore. I have to admit that I thought it looked much better. It seemed to be a little easier to get a hold of. However, I didn't realize that the rest of the movie would be just that. Apocalypse Now was a film that begged to be seen several times. It was hard to follow, not because of poor writing or editing, but because that's the nature of war and becoming a killer. Redux is as straightforward as movies get. It's up there with the original theatrical release of Blade Runner. Redux takes the stance of "We need to spell everything out for people so they don't feel confused." If some one watches a movie and hates it based solely on the fact that it's hard to follow at first, you shouldn't want them as an audience.

It's time for people who enjoy films to start demanding good films. Why do we have to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator in the audience. Sure, we can let stupid people have their movies like Armageddon, Tomb Raider, and The Animal. But don't turn a great film into dumbed down trite. You always hear about studios retooling movies so as to make them more marketable. I understand that studios have to make money, so let Julia Roberts and Adam Sandler churn out movies for stupid people and use those profits to make ten good films that you won't mess with.

ps. The French Plantation scene was actually a pretty nice addition.

I knew that Antoine Fuqua had a good movie in him. Let's breakdown his career: He directs music videos (most notably, Gangsta's Paradise) then he gets tapped to do an American version of the Hong Kong action film. The Replacement Killers was alright, I suppose, but it certainly didn't live up to its predecessors. Then he gets stuck directing a movie with Jamie Foxx in the lead. That had disaster written all over it (Jamie Foxx is absolutely great in supporting roles). But with Bait, you really could tell that Fuqua had talent, even if the material wasn't good. But now, with Training Day, he's given a prime opportunity to show us what he's made of. And it's clear that he's got a good career ahead of him.

This movie is a real treat in this time of what seems to be one bad movie after another. It's very funny at parts, but not to the point where it's a comedy that gets all serious at the end. Denzel is, of course, great. I really don't understand why people keep making a big deal out of his performance though. Sure, it's the first time he's played a bad guy, but I honestly can't think of one time when he's given a bad performance. He's always great, so this shouldn't be a surprise. What is a surprise is Ethan Hawke. For once he's not playing the brooding, misunderstood guy. He plays this one like it should be and that was the big acting surprise (not seeing Dr. Dre as a cop).

Normally, when a movie has a revelation towards the end, it changes your whole viewpoint on what happened earlier. But, without giving away anything, with this movie, it just makes you uneasy about the events that are to come. I've also read a few people talking about how the very end is a little hard to swallow. It makes perfect sense if you really paid attention to the rest of the movie. And I'm not talking about "if you blink, you miss the key point of information." This film is about setting a certain mood and state of mind. Both from the director and from the characters. If you let yourself get into it, the whole movie is a really great experience.

Like I said before, this movie is very funny. But the action in it is some of the best in a while too. It's not all about special effects and messing with your visual perspective. Most of the action is shot in a way that allows you to follow it from start to finish.

I loved the cameos too: Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Macy Gray, Tom Berenger, and that guy who played Redbud in The Usual Suspects. They were fun, but not distracting. Overall, I guess the movie does have it's flaws; it does seem to drag a little in parts. But it is still a great movie worth watching. While this is Antoine Fuqua's first really good movie, I hope he now has the ability to get better and better projects. I've never ended a review with a pun before so I won't call his first two movies training days. That would just be wrong.

That's not saying much, but I did enjoy this. If you've ever played any survival horror game (eg. Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, Silent Hill, etc.), you know that they all try to be like movies. Some of them lift things directly from movies. Here we have, as far as what I've seen, probably one of the first movies that takes a lot of cues from these types of games. I do understand how ridiculous that sounds considering John Carpenter helped invent the survival horror/adventure genre with movies like Halloween and Escape From New York. But this movie seems more like these games than like Carpenter's previous works.

Just look at the premise: Military type team gets sent in on what should be a simple job only to find out that there's no one there. And they see remnants of terrible things having been done. Blood trails, hanging bodies, strange contraptions, etc. What really happened gets revealed slowly throughout the story by strange characters that we come across. Are they who they say they are? Who knows? All we do know is that there will be creatures and guns...lots of them. Oh, and overly simplistic music. Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that John Carpenter likes to do his own music. And he does better than your average Joe off the street could, but not by much.

As for the creatures, they're your standard survival horror type. Never trust a people whose language consists of two syllables.

John Carpenter always expects us to accept certain things in his movies: Some of the most valuable real estate in the world has been scrapped and turned into a prison; The Vatican hires vampire killers; Having green eyes can change the world; And stunt men can act. In this movie, he wants us to believe the following: Mars is being transformed into an earth-like planet where you can breath without an air tank; As if to say, "we tried it one way on earth, let's go the other way on Mars," women are the dominant gender while still looking sexy in uniform; And stunt men may not be able to act, but they can run around and scream really well.

Like with other Carpenter films, this one is not there to make you think, but the cast keeps the fun of it at a level where it's still entertaining. The movie doesn't insult your intelligence to the point where you're suffering through the weird camera angles, flashbacks within flashbacks, and explosions that don't seem to have a reason. Instead we enjoy watching Ice Cube and the woman from Species (yes, I'm too lazy to look up the spelling of her last name) go through the motions of 'Ethnically Mismatched-Different Sides of the Law-Buddy-Action-Science Fiction-Adventure Film # 3,891.' Coming soon, the funny guy from Scream and the African American guy from Saturday Night Live in # 3,892.

I saw the sneak preview of this movie a week before it's national release. So I was in a packed theater filled with other people who have loved Kevin Smith's movies from the beginning. I'm really GLAAD that I saw it in this fashion. It was really a great way to say goodbye to these characters that have been with us for going on eight years now.

That's not to say that it would have been bad under other circumstances. It's just that I had recently seen Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes and I was the only one laughing when Heston's character said, "Damn them all to hell." So it was very refreshing to laugh along with a theater full of people when some one asked Dante, "Are you even supposed to be here today?"

As I continue on, it's important to remember that I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith's work (I even thought the Clerks cartoon was great). But I really see this movie as a way of him getting all this out of his system so that he doesn't have to make these movies anymore. He'll now be able to make, let's be totally honest here, REAL movies. I always thought that he could have a good directing career ahead of him if he could move on.

It's like when you write a really nasty letter to some one, but don't mail it. You just want to say it so that it doesn't stay bottled up and manifest itself somewhere else down the line. Thankfully, for us, Kevin Smith did mail this one. Good night sweet princes of mirth, Jay & Silent Bob. We'll all miss you. (Oh wait, I forgot about my DVDs...Snoogans!)

Do I agree with the other negative comments? Yes, but, for whatever reason, I liked this movie. I did not like Waterworld, it was plain old not interesting. But The Postman kept me intrigued. I agree that it was too long (the portion in Bethlehem's boot camp didn't need to go on that long). I agree that it was unbelievably pretentious (what was with the slow motion letter grab from the kid?). I think that Kevin Costner has done one too many post-apocalyptic adventure films. But I still enjoyed watching it.

This bizarre occurrence remains a mystery to me. Maybe it was the fact that Costner's character, was about my age. That is, in the year that the film takes place, I'd be about Kevin Costner's age. And in that environment, I could see myself taking on that role to a certain extent. Not the reluctant hero that he was. I'm talking about the first part, where he was the drifter. That was cool. But, of course, Costner is ALWAYS the reluctant hero.

When Will Patton's character read from the inspirational 'grab the brass ring' drivel that gets forced on management students today, he cried. That was funny as hell. It reminds us that a little chaos from time to time is a very good thing. Because if that's how we're to be remembered, I'd rather have a post-apocalyptic adventure.

Let's begin by saying that The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite movie of all time. That said, I was kind of upset by the fact that a sequel was being made. (I'd appreciate no one pointing out that Lambs was a sequel to Manhunter and destroying my fantastical world I've built up for myself) So I set out to find a reason why it would be horrible. First, Jonathan Demme wasn't returning to direct; that's it! It couldn't possibly be good, right? Oh, but Ridley Scott is going to do it...DAMN! Well, Ted Tally isn't going to adapt the book; that must be it. Alright, they got David Mamet...DOUBLE DAMN! Now while Anthony Hopkins is coming back to play Lecter, Jodie Foster isn't going to play Clarice; that's the end all-be all of reasons why this movie shouldn't be made, right? Especially considering the list of replacements they were talking about. I read about Sarah Michelle Gellar and Gillian Anderson. Two actresses that I like, but certainly couldn't play Clarice Starling. Then, out of nowhere, they dropped the bomb on me. Julianne Moore... [unbelievably foul expletive deleted].

So going in I had some really high expectations for Julianne Moore. And all I can say is that she surpassed them all beautifully. Jodie Foster was great, but given that she was not going to play Starling again, we move on. And there is absolutely no one who could have done any better than the incredible Julianne Moore. Then I found out that my favorite actor was also going to be in it, Gary Oldman.

Now, given that the performances, directing, and screenwriting were all top notch, we move on to whether the movie would be good or not. We can not let ourselves forget that you can get all the great actors you want together and it still isn't necessarily going to be any good (ie. Copland). When you love a movie as much as I love The Silence of the Lambs and you've seen it as many times as I have, you can't help but wonder what happens next. And that's all I wanted to see this movie as. These two characters (I suppose 3, if you count Barney) were so well developed in Lambs that, had they never crossed paths again, I would have been content watching them live out their days separately with nothing of consequence happening. That being said, the movie was much more than simply what happened next.

A complete departure from The Silence of the Lambs was necessary and that's just what they did. It's a different kind of movie; one filled with not just disturbing images, but situations as well. Without Tak Fujimoto's cinematography, the movie has more of a straight-forward presentation of events to it. This gives it a very unsettling tone in certain parts. I really did like this movie. While you can't really say whether it was better than the first or not because they were different types of films, I suppose I can say that I enjoyed this one a lot more than I expected to.