Reviews

Being a big fan of the series, I came away disappointed from viewing the movie. The innovation that hallmarked the series was simply missing from the movie.

The characters did a great job holding up their roles. The action was in tune with my expectations, and so were the special effects. It moved at a fair clip, and there was always something happening, although sometimes a little disjointed, to hold the viewer's attention. The fight sequences can rank with some of the best martial arts movies out there, and the attention to detail was immediately noticeable.

With all this going for the movie, I was surprised to find myself disappointed after the viewing. I think it was simply due to the fact that the storyline was extremely simplistic and simply did not match the caliber of the production of the movie. It just didn't seem worth all the trouble to the Alliance to cover up what turns out to be the "secret" in the movie, nor worth all the trouble to the crew of the Serenity to unmask this secret. The movie could have definitely been more intricately plotted, as anyone having watched the Firefly series will agree.

I do hope they make a few more of these movies, as the producers seem to have retained all the other components (besides creative storytelling) that made the series such smashing fun. The potential to regain the grand adventure of the high-flying series is definitely there - and it would be criminal to leave it untapped.

The way I look at this movie is, what if Anthony Hopkins had NOT starred in it? How good or bad would it still have been? The only answer I can find is that the movie would have been the absolute pits. AH sustained this movie from start to finish. Without him, it would not be worth the cost of blank DVD disk.

The story was blah, the other actors were more blah. Claire (Susan) was unbearably saccharine and inept to the point where she made me wince with embarrassment. That constant flitting of her eyes up and down and left and right.. ugh! Coupled with her shifty smile/grimace, it was enough to bring out the barf bag. I cannot understand how this can be anyone's definition of emoting.

Brad Pitt didn't have a whole lot to do, except stand around looking impassive and making monosyllabic dialog. Wouldn't have been any better/worse if they'd picked the other actor best suited to playing a lamp-post - Keanu Reeves.

In terms of storyline, it was just passably interesting. "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty was more interesting, in the same theme.

I watched it on AMC too, and cussed my way through every commercial break. Just wanted the damn thing to finish, so I could check it off my to-watch list. In the end, I wasn't sure whether I cussed more at the commercials or at the movie itself.

I read the book when I was a kid, and I found it to be very disturbing. I didn't really care to think why.

Watching this movie as a grown up (especially as a grown up trying to think about anything BUT work) made me ponder several things about human behavior. For instance, what makes one person lead and another follow? Why is there almost always just 2 prominent sides to a situation, even though there are people involved whose opinions may be of varying shades of gray? Isn't it strange that once you commit an act of taboo, that it just makes it so much easier to do the next time? Why is an act that is morally reprehensible to perform individually, become so much easier when it is done in group? Where does one's individualism go when "mob rule" prevails ? I think the movie did a good job of bringing out the "beast", but it didn't surpass my initial impression from reading the book. The acting was commendable, given the age and experience of the actors, and the classic novel they were trying to portray. Ralph was just superb, trying to lead with "reason", but watching his leadership ebb to a much more terrifying alter ego. The relentlessness and inevitability of his fate was captured in all its horror when he is told "They're going to hurt you, Ralph".

Its hard to write a review about just the movie, when the story itself (as told in the book) is what makes the biggest impression. The movie is rich in metaphors - innocence lost, war, society in general, right and wrong, etc. In closing, I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for fear, but not of the sensational variety that 'horror movies' are generally associated with. Its a black and white movie, made in the 60's, and stars a bunch of scrawny kids. The fear is what you have to not watch - but live.

Another movie that amazes me. I watched this with a bunch of friends who enjoy Asian movies (Ichi, Hana Bi, Ikiru, Oni Baba, etc.) and the verdict was unanimous - this is one vastly over-hyped movie. That was our honest opinion. There was simply nothing redeeming about this movie. It appeared to be have been made by someone with a severe hangover, or someone with a bad bout of attention deficit disorder, a 15 year old dsylexic, or probably someone with all of the above traits of genius. Granted that this movie may have gone against the grain of most contemporary movies of the time, but that alone does not qualify it to be judged as a masterpiece.

Storyline: Utterly predictable Acting: What acting? Effects: looks like a one man job - carpenter/painter/decorator/director Music: One song that I could not listen to again, after 2 renditions Dialogue: Arf arf! Snarl! Yapyapayapyap...

The only thing that makes sense about this movie is that Seijun got fired after delivering this kind of fluff once too often.

I can see the elite connoissuers raising their eyebrows in disdain at such an unsophisticated take on such a universally agreed upon work of genius. That's fine. Its an honest opinion, whatever else its not. It did not click for me.

I guess I'm going to be the outcast here and say this movie was a major disappointment in just about every category. I watched the Criterion version, OOP and therefore expensive, and simply don't get it. What qualifies this to be nominated for Oscars? If this one claims Oscars, then there is simply no award that would do justice to 'The Terminator'.

OK, let me not compare this to any other movie. How does it weigh on its own? The dialogue - agonizingly flaky and juvenile. The FX - blasé. The storyline - predictable to the end. The acting - remarkably unremarkable.

To its credit, there were about 5 minutes of film that stood apart from the rest. The 'robot demo' at the executive meeting, and Murphy's bloody demise. The savagery in both cases was well captured and made a point. Everything else was script-out-of-a-can, acting-out-of-a-can, plot-out-of-a-can, etc. For e.g., how does Robocop prove its battle-worthiness on the mean streets? By foiling a convenience store holdup and a rape. These 2 scenes were so tired and clichéd - they're standard procedure in just about every cop and robber movie ever made.

There's a lot of discussion and appreciation in these forums about the 'humanity' of Robocop. OK, so he forgets his folks, but figures out their/his address from a computer and wanders through his abandoned old house, and is programmatically unable to enforce the law on his creators. I'm sorry, but for me, that's hardly a portrait in humanity. C'mon folks, if you look real hard for something, you'll likely wind up imagining its there. If it had the least shred of humanity, for example, it wouldn't go letting loose its guns for target practice when its partner (who rescued it, btw) is sleeping just a few feet away, dog-tired.

The ending was completely predictable and unworthy of any subsequent contemplation. Its hard to not compare this unworthy conclusion to a real one-of-a-kind classic - The Terminator. The conclusion there was nothing but humanity, as best a machine could manifest. It was a conclusion that made me reflect, and feel, and imagine, long after the movie was over.

In closing - I am not saying that this was a lousy movie - For it's time (1987) it was OK. I am saying that this is a vastly over-hyped movie that simply does not do justice to the accolades it has gathered. It is as good a movie as Tango and Cash, or Black Rain, or Dirty Harry. There is much better scifi out there - like the Alien series, The Terminator, The Matrix, Donnie Darko, etc., and what the heck - even Disney's Tron.

That Criterion picked this to represent a high point of scifi cinematic accomplishment - is simply unfathomable. This gesture is not just a matter of conferring unwarranted and unworthy credit, it is additionally an affront to the real giants of scifi that have carved their names forever in cinema, our hearts, and our consciousness.

What is most striking about this movie is the ethereal photography that effortlessly that transports the viewer into a harshly beautiful locale, affording a fascinating glimpse into the lives of folks in a village in a timeless and desolate corner of Iran. That is the positive.

The negative is overwhelmingly the irritating and emotionless main character. Less of an annoyance, but nevertheless a negative, is the lack of any consistent symbolism, meaningful psychological representation or even a satisfying denouement.

The leading character did not appear to be optimally cast. His character portrayal was completely underwhelming, and I found myself becoming increasingly weary of hearing his whiny voice go and on.

That's another thing about this movie (and "Ten", also by the same director) - endless prattle. The opening shots of this movie are simply spectacular - very unique scenery that I was content to watch unfold, never mind the story. But then the "Engineer" and his pal start their yak and it kills the mood. They just talk for the sake of talking - no direction, no pauses, no point, just one over the other. I think this and other subsequent portions of this movie would have been more effective and dramatic by the use of silence. The entire movie lends itself very strongly and naturally to silence, rather than incessant, pointless and distracting conversation.

The kid in the movie is good, but once again - the lines he is forced to deliver are sometimes so unnatural and garish as to make the viewer wince. No kid that age would speak like that! (Same comment for "Ten").

All in all - a mixed bag. Nothing very symbolic or enigmatic here that is worth the watching. But if you watch it with lowered expectations, you will vastly enjoy a glimpse into an another world - an insulated world of community, rustic reality, open spaces and open hearts. And that is definitely worth something.

I don't have much to add to what has already been reviewed, except that this movie is "The One" ;-) A heck of a potboiler of a movie, with a touch of class! Sheer entertainment all the way. Truly amazing imagination on the part of the directors. 'Mortal Kombat' meets 'The Good, The Bad, The Ugly', meets 'Pulp Fiction' meets 'Dumb and Dumber' meets '36th Chamber of Shaolin' meets 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' meets .. What a blast! Full marks for originality, full marks for copycat spoofing, full marks for grace, elegance, superb acting, special effects and entertainment value.

Oh, and full marks for Kung-fu :-)

This is even classier than an Alfred Hitchcock presentation. Intelligent, gripping, taut, and very convincingly portrayed. I wish more actors of today understood the fine line between good acting and overacting. Every character in this movie is balanced, measured, and entirely believable. That, for me, is the best thing about this movie.

The plot is novel, and sustaining. True, if you take it apart under the magnifying glass, you may find discrepancies in a few places, but that by itself is quite insignificant, given the movie's other merits. There is enough suspense, storyline, drama, and great acting to make this one of cinema's all time greats.

I have deliberately not reviewed the storyline here, for the benefit of those who have not watched it. A truly good movie like this should not give anything away. Just an encouragement to the hesitant, that this is not a movie you will regret watching. If you are a lover of classic, intelligent cinema, of course. Maybe even if you aren't, come to think of it!

Yechh! Richard Pryor is funny? I think not. I almost stomped on the DVD when I was done watching. Then decided to use it as a coffee coaster to remind me not to buy before renting.

Real comedy has got to consist of more than just gaping pop-eyed and gesticulating wildly. If not, it quickly deteriorates into boredom and irritation. I cannot understand what others found funny in Richard Pryor's performance. Give me one memorable quip of his from this movie. One memorable scene of his that makes you chuckle when you think back about it. I cannot think of even one. In this particular movie (at least) he is nothing more than an immortal bore, a hack trying too hard to amuse, an actor with zero histrionic ability, and a total lack of any consequence.

John Candy on the other hand is a born comic. His body language, acting talents, and facial dexterity are truly cut out for hilarity. Unfortunately, even his presence does little to uplift this celluloid catastrophe.

The storyline is absurd. Got to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days without gaining any assets or destroying any assets. OK, what is so hard about this? Lots of reviewers have already provided tons of possibilities. Rent an island or a theme park for 30 days, and bring your friends and family along. Oh come on, this is not even worth the exercise of thinking about. There are SO many possibilities.

A movie with not a single redeeming factor. Bah!

Some movies stick in your mind because they are good. Some others because they are bad. Very few manage to persist because they are of no consequence, and yet are highly touted. The Royal Tenenbaums achieves this latter distinction very well.

What I got out of it was a story that pretty much runs in any average household. Marriage, divorce, estranged kids, remarriage, angst, falling in love, falling out of love, etc.

The blurb claims that the movie has an underlying theme of redemption - the divorced father trying to get back to his family, not so much for reasons of love, but rather for material gain (he is flat broke). His trying to wheedle back in with his wife and kids requires him to try his best to sabotage his ex-wife's relationship with her other prospective suitor. Eventually, he realizes that that won't cut it, because he's pretty much a cur deep down inside, just as he was when he got divorced the first time.

Well, it doesn't really make for a movie, in my opinion. Maybe a chapter in someone's journal (which is kind of what the movie is based on, BTW). There are a few kinks thrown in, such as hints of incest (if step-siblings can be considered candidates for incest), an interracial relationship, promiscuity, drug addiction, an Indian manservant, etc. Unfortunately, none of these seem to blend in with much conviction or harmony, and simply come across as tedium-relieving contraptions, and don't really mean much otherwise.

I've read other reviews that this is a "dark comedy". I've pondered it, but to me, it was neither dark nor comedic. All said and done, I'm kind of bewildered why Criterion backed this one. This simply does not contain enough artistic originality to make the cut, in my opinion.

Here is the irony of this movie. It aspires to be creepy, at the same time is tagged as "not for kids". Now if I WERE a kid, I probably WOULD be creeped. But as an adult, possessed with an adult mind and hide, I cannot however remotely, begin to creep or crawl from this one :-)

I were to describe this in one hyphenated word, I would say: half-baked. None of the actors are convincing. The special effects are anything but. I expected this to be a tale with a twist. But its as straight as straight goes. A bell here, a whistle there, and the tale comes to its fairytale end. Good triumphs over evil. But your 6 year old could've told you that.

It belongs in the bargain bin and although I don't feel that my $4.99 was wasted, I can't say the same about the potential this movie presented.