Reviews

This film is one of the more important films of this age, especially for countries such as the United States where new stations such as Fox News dominate the airwaves. I am very surprised that a film with stars such as John Leguizamo giving great performances, and the support of Alfred Molina, that this film isn't receiving wide distribution in the United States.

The film exposes the fringes of Ecuador by setting the story in one of the country's poorest areas, the province of Los Rios in its filthy capital Babahoyo. Against this backdrop we see a group of journalists from a Mexican news station known for its program "Una Hora con la Verdad (An Hour with the Truth)" confront some of the harsh realities present in these areas. In their efforts to expose the life in los Rios, they learn how little they actually know about the people there and how difficult it can be to provide the Truth for their viewers.

I had difficulty with the first hour of The Deer Hunter. My two problems concerned technicalities and length. In a three-hour movie, I feel everything should function in the narrative or inform the viewer's understanding of the narrative. That being said, I felt there was a lot of fat that could have been trimmed in the very opening of the film, and especially the wedding. Meryll Streep's first appearance seemed unnecessary, her getting a drink with Robert De Niro's character, the very opening with the truck, and various shots could have been cut down-production companies might have seen Cimino's future mistakes with Heaven's Gate coming had they paid attention to these issues. I also felt at first that the cinematography and sound quality were poor. It didn't look visually real when I felt it should have, and there seemed a lot of audio inconsistencies (ie background noise that changed from shot to shot). THAT being said, these concerns were soon put to rest when I saw the reason for cinematography that wasn't aesthetically pleasing. Once Mikey, Nicky, and Steve went to war, I realized that this movie was meant to seem like a documentary in a way-no fancy cinematography so the viewer could notice a certain amount of work put into aesthetics and think more about that than context. I felt like I was there and everything was shot on location and the Russian roullette scenes were really happening. It seemed to me the most real portrait of the Vietnam War I've seen, and I now appreciate movies like Full Metal Jacket which didn't resonate prior to seeing the Deer Hunter. Christopher Walken also gave his most powerful and unforgettable performance that he has not outlasted since. I wasn't watching Christopher Walken; I was watching his character Nick. This movie is not to be missed, and you won't forget it.

In Big Fish, Tim Burton deals with actors more than he has in any other movie. There is more dialogue between actors, and there is also a voiceover, placing more emphasis on human beings than Tim Burton's imaginative creations that we've seen in his other films. That being said, Burton fans will not be hugely disappointed. Burton's imagination does indeed color this movie to make it even better than Daniel August's novel. He makes a giant look like the size he is in the story (unlike Lord of the Rings' failure to make the hobbits look small enough at times) and employs stunning cinematography (that's more the director of photography but obviously Burton was working closely with him). The freaky living beings and odd situations common to this film as well, giants and circuses and siamese twins and a land like eden with delicious apple pie. Where in other Burton films the dialogue seems unresolved and out of nowhere at times, this time when that happens it makes sense because the movie is just myths and the story of people trying to make sense of the myths. Danny Elfman wrote another wonderful score, the movie has a great feel, and impeccable acting (Ewan Macgregor, Helena Bonhman Carter, Jessica Lange, Steve Buscemi, and Albert Finney all did wonderful jobs) Unlike other Burton movies, this one is not gothic or pulp at all. It's brighter, but it maintains the signature Burton darkness, and it's a good family movie. Like some Burton movies, it's also a bit moralistic, which is not always my personal preference. But I definitely recommend this one to everyone. Check it out.

Never have I seen a movie so flawless. In my opinion, this installment is by far the best of the trilogy. Often with movies, especially those based off books, I'm thinking "oh I wish there was less of that, and more emphasis on that." Not the case with the Return of the King. This movie was perfect. Every aspect about it was stunning and beautiful. Don't let the three and a half hours thing turn you off. It's an amazing experience to see this movie. If it doesn't sweep the Academy Awards it will be a travesty.

This movie does a good job and achieves its purpose and ends up very intriguing and compelling, but man are these some weird people that are involved with the spelling bees. When Christopher Guest makes his mockumentaries, I now see how similar they are to real documentaries. The people in this film are so much like the deranged out-of-it people in Waiting for Guffman. It's a comical film and a compelling one at the same time.

This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre.

It's unfortunate I haven't seen the non-director's cut which didn't omit the voiceover narration. Because the director's cut is pathetic in terms of the story. The book is a very good book, not one of the best I've read, but very good, and not a difficult book to translate into a film. The makers of this film achieved the most difficult part about making the book into a movie-the special effects, cinematography/visuals, and recreation of the world from the book. All that was left was the story, which at least with the director's cut, is completely ignored by Ridley Scott. The only similarity between the book and movie is a few of the characters and the general premise. Otherwise everything from the title to the question that lies at the heart of the novel--"What constitutes a human being?"--is neglected. Watching this movie after reading the book was like watching two hours of absolutely nothing happening. I think it's okay for movies to take creative freedoms from novels, but to neglect as much as in this situation is a horrible idea, and since rather than taking creative freedoms, Ridley Scott just omitted so much action that was already plausible because it had been created in the novel. But he wanted to make it more boring because he thought his audience needed simplicity, yet I don't know how I would've appreciated or understood completely what was going on in this movie had I not read the book.