Delila's Reviews

[SamsoniteDelilah]

One chick's opinion. :cool:

Index:
2046 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=270456#post270456) (2004 - Wong) 4/5
The 400 Blows (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173030#post173030) (1959 - Truffaut) 4.5/5
Adam's Rib (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=177278#post177278) (1949 - Cukor) 4/5
Aguirre, The Wrath Of God (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173024#post173024) (1972 - Herzog) 4.5/5
Angels In America (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=178607#post178607) (2003 - Nichols) 5/5
The Apartment (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=177290#post177290) (1960 - Wilder) 4.5/5
Batman Begins (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=263518#post263518) (2005 - Nolan)4/5
Before Sunset (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=224722#post224722) (2004 - Linklater) 3.5/5
Being Julia (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=248441#post248441) (2004 - Szabo) 2/5
Big Fish (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173067#post173067) (2003 - Burton) 3/5
Brazil (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=195714#post195714) (1985 - Gilliam) 4.5/5
Buffalo '66 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=297798#post297798) (1998 - Gallo) 4/5
Cabin in the Woods (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=804868#post804868)4/5
Capturing The Friedmans (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173148#post173148) (2003 - Jarecki) 4.5/5
Chopper (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=241567#post241567) (2000 - Dominik) 4/5
Chungking Express (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=290299&posted=1#post290299) (1994 - Wong) 4.5/5
Crash (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=296329#post296329) (2004 - Haggis) 4.5/5
The Crime Of Padre Amaro (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173031#post173031) (2003 - Carrera) 3/5
Dark Blue (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=281375#post281375) (2002 - Shelton)
Dawn Of The Dead (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173061#post173061) (2004 - Snyder) 3.5/5
Day For Night (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=195966#post195966) (1973 - Truffaut) 3/5
The Debt (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=761927#post761927) (2010/1 - Madden) 4.5/5
Dirty Harry (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=260032#post260032) (1971 - Siegel) 4.5/5
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=221477#post221477) (2004 - Kaufman) 4/5
Finding Nemo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173170#post173170) (2003 - Stanton/Unkrich) 3.5/5
Finding Neverland (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=205521#post205521) (2004 - Forster) 4.5/5
Fitzcarraldo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=270215#post270215) (1982 - Herzog) 4.5/5
Flirting With Disaster (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173042#post173042) (1996 - Russell) 2.3/5
The Forgotten (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=248432#post248432) (2004 - Ruben) 1/5
The French Connection (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173183#post173183) (1971 - Friedkin) 1/5
Garden State (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=241117#post241117) (2004 - Braff) 3.5/5
Genghis Blues (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=305979#post305979) (1999 - Belic) 4.5/5
Get Carter (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=417596#post417596) (1971 - Hodges) 3/5
Hamlet (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=754023#post754023) (2009 - Doran)
Hedwig And The Angry Inch (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173029#post173029) (2001 - Mitchell) 4/5
House Of Yes (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173154#post173154) (1997 - Waters) 4/5
The Hulk (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173157#post173157) (2003 - Lee) 1.5/5
I Heart Huckabee's (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=200820#post200820) (2004 - Russell) 4/5
In the Mood for Love (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=327782#post327782) (2000 - Wong) 5/5
The Iron Giant (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=202818#post202818) (1999 - Bird) 5/5
Jean de Florette; Manon des Sources (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=245038#post245038) (1986 - Berri) 5/5
Kill Bill, vol. 1 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173052#post173052) (2003 - Tarantino) 3.5/5
Kill Bill, vol. 2 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173056#post173056) (2004 - Tarantino) 4/5
The Last Picture Show (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=182575#post182575) (1971 - Bogdanovich) 5/5
The Long Goodbye (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=284444#post284444) (1973 - Altman) 3/5
Lost In Translation (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173072#post173072) (2003 - Coppola) 5/5
The Machinist (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=271393#post271393) (2004 - Anderson) 4.5/5
May (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=235088#post235088) (2003 - McKee) 4/5
Malena (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173165#post173165) (2000 - Tornatore) 4/5
The Manchurian Candidate (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=190010#post190010) (1962 - Frankenheimer) 4/5
The Manchurian Candidate (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=177915#post177915) (2004 - Demme) 3.5/5
The Man Without A Past (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=180944#post180944) (2002 - Kaurismäki) 3/5
M*A*S*H (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=284440#post284440) (1970 - Altman) 3.5/5
Muriel's Wedding (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173160#post173160) (1994 - Hogan) 3.5/5
On the Waterfront (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=316426#post316426) (1954 - Kazan) 5/5
The Passion of Joan of Arc (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=178429#post178429) (1928 - Dryer) 5/5
Phantom of the Opera (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=224556#post224556) (2004 - Schumacher) 3.5/5
Picnic At Hanging Rock (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173149#post173149) (1975 - Weir) 3.5/5
The Player (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=284446#post284446) (1992 - Altman) 4.5/5
Raising Victor Vargas (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173902#post173902) (2003 - Sollett) 4/5
Rebecca (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173178#post173178) (1940 - Hitchcock) 5/5
Reservoir Dogs (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=178451#post178451) (1992 - Tarentino) 4/5
Return Of The King (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=178444#post178444) (2003 - Jackson) 5/5
Return To Me (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=192198#post192198) (2000 - Hunt) 4/5
Roxanne (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173048#post173048) (1987 - Schepisi) 5/5
Session 9 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=274030#post274030) (2001 - Anderson)
Shine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=248437#post248437) (1996 - Hicks) 4/5
Sliding Doors (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=263241#post263241) (1998 - Howitt) 4.5/5
Sling Blade (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=248282#post248282) (1996 - Thornton) 4/5
Spider (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173039#post173039) (2002 - Cronenberg) 4/5
Spiderman 2 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173026#post173026) (2004 - Raimi) 3.5/5
Strangers On A Train (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173431#post173431) (1951 - Hitchcock) 4.5/5
Straw Dogs (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173168#post173168) (1971 - Peckinpah) 3.5/5
Sullivan's Travels (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=233935#post233935) (1941 - Sturges) 4.5/5
Sweeney Todd (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=401108#post401108) (2007 - Burton) 4.5/5
Taxi Driver (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173423#post173423) (1976 - Scorsese) 5/5
The Tick: The Entire Series (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=196290#post196290) (2001 - Edlund) 4/5
Troy (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173046#post173046) (2004 - Petersen) 2/5
Truly Madly Deeply (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=184211#post184211) (1992 - Minghella) 3.5/5
Whispers of the Heart (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=334492#post334492) (1995 - Miyazaki) 4/5
Wit (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=248428#post248428) (2001 - Nichols) 2.5/5
Woman In The Dunes (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173428#post173428) (1964 - Teshigahara) 4.5/5
Wordplay (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=360844#post360844) (2006 - Creadon) 4.5/5
XX/XY (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173426#post173426) (2002 - Chick) 2/5

Related:
Roman Holiday (1953)/Lost In Translation (2003), a Comparison (http://www.mocieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=173418#post173418)
The Kathy & Mo Show (live theater coming to DVD) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=289665#post289665)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

AguirreOnce I settled into the pace of this film, I found it fascinating. Director Werner Herzog has created historical fiction (a favorite genre of mine) about a real man named Don Lope de Aguirre, who wrote a real letter to the king of Spain, informing him that he and his company were no longer the king's subjects. The rest of this film is conjecture on the part of Herzog, mixed liberally with local elements found during the filming - a retarded flute player, a tiny tree-sloth, an unforseen flood that carried away the rafts of the film crew... All of these were added to the film, with the effect that we almost get the feel of watching a documentary. Add to that the fact that lead actor Klaus Kinski shared a drive and a madness to rival his character, and you have a brilliant performance that borders on Fear Factor-esque reality.

The value of this film is its audacity, both in the portrayal of unswerving drive, and the reality of the filmmaking. Aguirre's madness and his drive are so interwoven that the psyche of the character is an impenetrable shell of audaciousness. He appropriates leadership of an expedition through mutiny and applies all available resources to his personal quest for power and fame. This is mirrored in Herzog's methods: filmed with one stolen camera on a budget of $360,000, Aguirre, the Wrath of God is a project that a more seasoned (read: saner) director would hardly dare. It is, in fact, a filmic record of an actual expedition; 400+ people spent 6 weeks cruising down the Amazon on rafts for the shoot.

The tales of Herzog's film and Aguirre's expeditions diverge at their ends, however: Aquirre never finds the City of Gold, but this film established Herzog as an internationally acclaimed filmmaker. I recommend watching once for the story in the film, and then a re-watch with the commentary, for the story of it.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This was great fun to watch! All the major elements are there, in force, in this excellent summer blockbuster: solid script, great performances, kick-ass soundtrack. I'd heard much of molinaMolina's performance, and it was indeed awesome. Also really enjoyed JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson and Rosemary Harris as Aunt May - both vivid, detailed performances. The Doc Oc contraption is excellent work on the part of the Fx crew, from conception to operation.

LOVED that MJ is not just a damsel in distress - "HEY! < whistle > I'm talking to you!" was an awesome moment! I picked up the soundtrack immediately after, and am especially liking the Dashboard Confessionals' "Vindicated", which starts the end credits. This movie is more than a sequel - it seems to complete the story begun in Spiderman in a really satisfying way.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

hedHedwig and the Angry Inch marks, as far as I've seen (and I've looked a bit), a turning point in what gets called "gay film". Previous films in this vein have been entertaining and had a certain charm and a somewhat poignant message about acceptance. The Birdcage focused on acceptance of people who are different, Torch Song Trilogy was more about acceptance of the hardships of gay life, and subsequent projects (Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, To Wong Foo, et al) in this genre have celebrated The Individual - the humor, the sensitivity/vulnerability and the style of "royalty". Consistently though, they focus on interpersonal relationships that are largely peculiar to the gay lifestyle.

That's the corner that Hedwig... turns. It's not about being gay. This is a story about self-acceptance.... about healing, and self-knowledge. It operates on a much deeper level than one expects. John Cameron Mitchell has given us a story about recapturing that which was lost - his own manhood, love of self. It's a fun ride, don't get me wrong. The music is awesome. I downloaded most of the soundtrack while watching the movie a second time. Visually, it's fun to look at - Hedwig's outrageousness is a given, but the film is also nicely peppered with symbolism, with cool animation and with glimses of true human beauty. I speak of Michael Pitt's lips. mrow.

Seen once, this movie is a fun, funny, charming musical ride. On second viewing, I got even more out of it, as the symbolism of Hedwig's pursuit of Tommy gelled for me. There are hints, in the writing and the photography, that Tommy is a part of Hedwig that he needs to understand... and have understanding from... in order to be whole. Seeing that happen is unexpectedly moving.

On a final note, I am pretty awed by John Cameron Mitchell, as his on-screen performance was foocking brilliant, and as writer/director, the supportive symbolism all came from his fertile little brain as well, and credits to a hugely creative intellect. I am already looking forward to his next directorial effort: Short Bus, in pre-production at this writing (6/14/04). IMDB says it's an exploration of relationships, through gender, art, other stuff... This I've gotta see!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

So much has been written of Francois Truffaut's ``The 400 Blows'' (1959) that I feel there's little I can add. Ebert's review (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/blows.html?cf0A010601=QUlEU0hFQUxUSFxjeW50aGlhZjphaWRzaGVhbHRoOq3OapwSTXJoIRNXvsg/je0=)touches on the major points and 400considerations that contribute to why this film is so important. To that I can only add that I enjoyed it very much. It's a story about a 13 year old boy with a yearning for an unfortunately undefined "freedom". Truffaut's own childhood is the basis, and for that I greatly admire his objectivity: this film never resorts to sentimentality, never attempts to defend the apparent descent of the main character into a life of crime. It's a straightforward story of a young man with a passion for life, told by a young filmmaker with a passion for cinema. One other thing I'm compelled to mention: the performance of Jean-Pierre Leaud in the lead is positively amazing. I have never seen a better performance by a first-time actor or any unstudied performer for that matter. I recommend watching this film and then a second time with the commentary. While the commentator's urbane drone gets a little monotonous, it can't dampen the love of Truffaut for cinema, nor the merits of this film.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This is a gorgeously filmed story that raises questions about the humane interpretations of "right" amaroand "wrong" in the lives of those committed to serving God. In the end, the church is crippled, innocence is lost and love is dead, so maybe it actually answers the questions as well.

Gael Garcia Bernal (Y Tu Mama Tambien, Amores Perros) shows again why he is one of Mexico's hottest properties: the kid is HOTT.... oh yeah, and he's also really talented. Opposite him is a newer talent, Ana Claudia Talancon, whose performance as the young woman who falls in love with a priest is detailed and moving. Other lumiaries of mexican cinema bring depth to the cast - everyone is excellent.

This story drags just a bit in the middle, as its attention is divided between the love relationship and the political aspects, but it's nothing to be put off by: overall, this is a very watchable story with an empassioned message, deftly told.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Rightly, words have been attached to this film along the lines of "perfect pitch", "well-made" and "brilliant"... also "bleak", "unsparing" and "disturbing". These are all good words for David Cronenberg's story of a schizophrenic man who confronts alone the childhood event that unalterably changed his life. spider

Small by design, every major character is played by one of three actors: Gabriel Byrne, Miranda Richardson (in a dual role, at least) and Ralph Fiennes. Rounding out the cast was John Neville, another favorite of mine, though I'll admit it's starting to creep me out that he's still around. He was old in the 80's, already...

Such a force in talent need hardly be reviewed. I'd only blather. They're each at the top of their game, and Cronenberg gives them room to prowl a bit in these roles. The performances are top-notch.

The script and the handling of it are what really make this film though. Intelligence and a certain respect for the illness in question elevate this story to a level appreciable to any viewer, lending force and meaning to the intriguing story we're told. This is a writer with a deep understanding of how film can convey experience as well as story line, and employs cinematic accouterments to afford the audience a view from the inside of a story, with all it's confusion intact.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Can you imagine if Patricia Arquette and Steve Buscemi had offspring? Think of all the teeth... fwdI had a little time to think of all the teeth, as this flick has a few slow spots. It also has several stand-out hilarious moments, belonging to Tia Leone and Lily Tomlin. Not between them, mind you, but they each have them... which is completely unsuprising, as they are two of the best comedic actresses out there. I want to see them in a movie with Joan Cusack. (paging Jen... there's our cast for whatever script we write) oops, again I've drifted off into my own thoughts...

Anyway, the basic premise is that Ben Stiller is an adoptee, looking for his birth parents so he can get a sense of who he is before naming his now 4 month old son. He gets distracted by a neurotic Leone and his wife, played by Arquette, is distracted by an old high school chum, now metro- homo- and somehow also bi-sexual. Leone is the adoption agency rep who is helping Stiller, only her info is wrong wrong wrong, adding up to sub-hilious hijinks. The good news is, when he does finally find his parents, they're played by Lily Tomlin (YAY!!) and Alan Alda (yay) and they're pretty damn funny. Oh and his adoptive parents are played by Mary Tyler Moore, in a very funny turn... and that guy who plays the dad on Just Shoot Me. If you catch this, be warned: the closing credits fearute MTM going down on Mr Just Shoot Me and frankly, I'm emotionally scarred.

All in all, this film is like when you order won ton soup and you get a huge bowl with one tiny but delicious won ton in it: ok, but it left me a little unsatisfied.

[Golgot]

Nice reviews SD.

Thanks for reminding me of Aguirre. Been meaning to watch that for ages.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

First of all, I have seen the man I'm going to marry: Vincent Regan, who plays Eudorus. He's married, I've learned, but his wife is into directors, so I'm going to need someone to distract her while I switch Kenneth Brannaugh for Vincent. I'll also need Kenneth Brannaugh.

With that said, everything about Troy is BIG. The scale is BIG. The cast is BIG. B-Pitty is HUGE. Unfortunately, bigger doesn't always mean better. The things that work best are the less-touted, more medium-sized performances, mainly Eric Bana's Hector, Rose troy1 Bryne's Brisius and Peter O'Toole's Priam. And the small performances were noticibly lacking direction. It's the little things, no matter how big the scale of the piece, that can undermine the project. Something like an extra grabbing two horses' bridles in the middle of an attack and then just standing there, waiting to hear "cut" is not cool in the middle of a film that aspires to greatness.

None of that is as big a problem as the miscasting of Pitt as Achilles. He has his moments with it. He just wasn't right for it and I'm still trying to figure out why. Oh, I know: because despite the enormous arms he grew for this, they've colored him like a girly-man. Petal pink lips and yellow hair and blue eyes... and bloodlust. It didn't come together. He didn't make it come together. Klaus Kinski he's not. By contrast, Bana's Hector is relatable, human, vulnerable at times, varied. It may even be a planned contrast that Achilles be more superficial, but Pitt's performance pays a high price if that was the idea.troy

The biggest problem I had though was with the direction. Peterson went back to theatrical roots in the staging of some of this, most notably the political discussions, but he should have revisited Basic Directing for a refresher on beats. There's supposed to be a build to every scene, and too many important moments are just barrelled through, making everything seem pre-ordained. It doesn't make for compelling storytelling.

Pitt wasn't the only odd casting choice. Of an array of principals, very few looked at all Greek. Hector's wife was so thin he risked lacerations just being within 2 feet of her... hardly the greek ideal. Helen, while certainly pretty, didn't seem terribly interesting. I did like that she and Bloom shared a bit of a resemblance, underlining their vanity and narcisism.

On the up side, the love scene with Pitt and Bryce was hott! The battles were good. The two-man combat scenes were positively excellent. Those jumps Pitt did were highly impressive. Not a lot of people can get that much air while toting a big sword! The stunts and fx were excellent. I very much enjoyed the Tumbleweeds of Doom. Kudos to the costumer, especially the footwear, and to the jewelry maker. I don't know what the makeup person was up to though, with all that eyeliner on everyone. We weren't in Egypt, for crying out loud!

All in all, there were some strong points, but this whole affair needed a bit more work. It could have been much improved, but it's not a painful way to spend three hours and it did introduce me to my sweet Vincent. Seriously, anybody know him or know anyone who knows him? Hook a sister up.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This is a story of self-love. It has all the trappings of a typical romance: humor and poetry and saxaphones... and the best mood-lighting of all time. You know that hour roxin the evening when the light turns gold and warms up everything in a rosy hue while the sky is turning a cool, dark azure? At least half of this movie happens during that hour. It's gorgeous.

But the point of it is that we all have something (or a few things) that we allow to stand as barriers to love. The main character, CD Barnes (played with aplomb by Steve Martin) has a gigundous nose. He believes that no woman will see past it. He believes this so firmly, that when he meets Roxanne, who views the world through her telescope, where his nose is indiscernable, he is completely willing to believe that she won't love him because of it. The thing he learns though, is that the thing that makes him different is the thing that makes him special. Just when it seems that CD's love for Roxanne will be squelched by his physiogamy, the whole town is saved by his extraordinary sense of smell. Once he learns to appreciate that part of himself that makes him unique, CD is finally ready to accept the love that Roxanne could easily have had for him all along. What a hopeful notion. No wonder they call this a 'feel good' movie.

The performances are a little uneven, suffering it seems from the director's failure to recognise the very point made above. Martin's performance is a classic blend of schtick and honesty. His physical humor brings the expected lightheartedness to the story but also pulls us in and makes us hope for CD. Darryl Hannah's Roxanne is not quite as sympathetic, but she has those moments when we see a bright, vulnerable woman. Rick Rossovich is the dumb-as-dirt object of confusion for Roxanne, the pretty boy that CD believes is what she really wants. (Nobody is listening when Roxanne says she hopes to meet someone with half a brain.) Rossovich is not quite up to the task, frankly. Oh, he's dumb, but he's so genuinely awkward in the role that he's barely tolerable. It's a serious "no contest" scenario, with this guy as Chris. Give me a George Clooney, and CD has someone to contend with, at least. And Shelley Duvall plays the Voice of Reason with heart and charm.

The writing is ok, though there's a bit of choppiness here and there. That scene where CD finally learns the value of his Buick-sized honker seems shoe-horned in, as does the lengthy scene where CD matches wits with a local bully in a pub.

All in all though, it's a very lovely story. Steve Martin's performance is highly relatable and it's a nice payoff when he finally gets the girl. (sorry if that spoiled it for any of you youngsters who were in diapers when this came out).

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Nice reviews SD.

Thanks for reminding me of Aguirre. Been meaning to watch that for ages.
Hey, Gg! :) Thank you.
I just watched Aguirre yesterday... really enjoyed it.
I'll be looking forward to hearing what you think.

[Sedai]

Hey excellent thread!! Looks like I need to dust off my review thread and put a couple more up to keep up! Well written and concise. Hope you stick around!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

kb1If you haven't seen it (though I think I may have been the last one), bail out on this entry now. To proceed is to read spoilers.

The quibbles:
1. The b&w fight scene with all the guys went on just a bit loooong. It was like a built-in pee break, just in case you forgot that the large soda at a theater is a 5 gal drum.
2. Question: what song is Elle whistling, when she's walking into the hospital? Is that from a spaghetti western or something?
3. When Uma wakes up from her coma... what was the thing with her looking at her hands?
4. I thought Michael Madsen was Bill. And I watched it twice and still thought that.

The stuff that rocked:
EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!!! Tarentino's style is so perfectly matched to the mood of a revenge piece that it's astonishing to learn the idea came from Uma. Everyone production-wise came through in spades on this - the music, the costumes, the photography, the fight sequences, the overall art of it... There are a lot of little touches, like the cross on Elle's eyepatch, that add style and humor.

Favorite Moments/Bits:
1. The sheriff's glasses on the dashboard.
2. The Bride's fake name, and the fact that we never hear her real one.
3. Sound effects... did this win awards for sound editing? The squeek of Vernita's head sliding down the kitchen cupboard, and the crunch of the cereal all over the floor; the mosquitoe's bite sound; the metallic knock on Uma's dome when she wakes up; and the sake being dropped off-camera at the mention of the name "Hattori Hanso".
4. "Pussy wagon?! Ff****er."
5. The blood dropping on O-ren when her mother is killed and the snow falling later, when she is.

Tarentino's fourth offering is great fun to watch. The performances are truly awesome. The fighting and stunt work is excellent and those sequences are shot pretty clearly, which has to be rough. Finding out during "The Making of..." that Uma was pregnant for the filming was a jaw-dropper.

Overall, it's a fantasy with great emotional payoff - not to be taken too literally or seriously though. This story hearkens back to the Spanish revenge tragedies of a century past, a time when "pc" was not a part of the vernacular.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hey excellent thread!! Looks like I need to dust off my review thread and put a couple more up to keep up! Well written and concise. Hope you stick around!
Thanks, Sedai! :)
You were one of the ones who inspired me to get this thing together.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Yeah!! This was just as fun to watch as Vol 1. The overblown nature of these characters is just as grabby is the first few we saw meet their demise. The parts fit together well - BB's "bang bang" invoking the song from the opening credits of Vol 1, for instance. The comparison of the two daughters, for another, serves to highlight the Bride's uniquely enforced sense of justice. This volume is more thoughtful than the first, with more emphasis on psychological advantage and emotional power plays, but still delivers in the fighting scenes and the enjoyment of watching the Bride overcome all obstacles to reach her goal. She's still the underdog, but look at Uma and her little muscles! She had to have worked really hard in prep for this. She looked capable of kicking some tail by the end. kb2

Tarentino did a number of nifty tricks with this two-parter, but I especially enjoyed one part of the structure in Vol 2: Taking a long siesta between release dates was a gamble. The audience has time to cool off and you risk your central character losing their sympathy. Enter Budd: reformed, it seems. Peaceful, even when provoked, he's beat his sword into a plowshare, or at least a pawn shop, and I was feeling a little sorry for him when NinjaUma showed up. Then we see him bury her alive and you know... I wasn't feeling so sympathetic any more. That sequence did a great job of reviving my will to see asses kicked. That Tarentino kid's kinda smooth.

I'm kind of glad I didn't see Vol 1 til last weekend, as seeing them for the first time a few days apart was pretty cool. Kill Bill is great fun to watch. It's a different world and the people are not like anyone you know... hopefully. It's not a world I'd want to live in, but it's certainly fun to visit from the safety of my sofa. Don't go in looking for a lot more than that. Sunday School's down the hall. But do be ready for a good time.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

http://images.killermovies.com/d/dawnofthedead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/dawnofthedead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/dawnofthedead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/dawnofthedead/poster.jpg
This "remake" is the resurrection of the first Dawn...'s tagline, but apart from that and people holing up in a mall against flesh-eaing zombies, it's a whole new show. It's also such a well-done example of the genre, that there too: whole new show. I've seen a splattering of zombie flicks in my day, and went into this one expecting Cheese.. I was very pleasantly suprised. Universal did a fine job, raising Romero's baby. The opening sequence alone established it as far superior to any movie of it's ilk, and that's probaby the true test for this genre: if you can get past the gratuitous opening sequence of nice, happy people in a f'ed up world getting killed by Whatever and not think to yourself "well, at least it's just a matinee priced ticket", you're sitting pretty. And I was. All the usual elements are there, but most of the cheese has been held.

Gone is the awkward dialogue, all the worse for it's delivery by non-actors.

Gone is the embarassing gimp-gait of the zombies - these are track star zombies, and suddenly they're scary. They also seem to have a clearer focus than zombies of byegone eras, and for that director Zack Snyder deserves a nod.

Gone is the painfully overdramatic and clunky soundtrack: this one is excellent and if you're listening carefully, it provides some comic backup to the unfolding events.

Gone too, are several highly predictable stock scenarios in the zombie genre, praise be. Others, among them the much-touted "social commentary" of the original, are relegated to their proper place within a streamlined story. Huzzah!

So what's left?
Well, we have a fairly classical array of characters, many more than the original, which apparently featured just four people. And they're played by actual gosh-darnit actors! I'm still reeling from the shock of it.

We also have a story line that is a little thin, but for the most part, the tension builds and the story moves along nicely. There's one rather roughly shoehorned-in scene with a girl and a dog, that accomplishes a few things, but it had the feel of a 3am rewrite. For the most part though, the characters are well-sketched and we get to care a little about several of the central ones.

And we have some positively AWESOME special effects. The pyrotechnics are just spectacular. I twice felt like cheering for things that blew up. The stunts are amazing. The head-splats against the van when the old lady showed up with her crew were just excellent. There's also a face that gets half blown off that was some great sculpting. And the blood dried like blood. All-around awesome job by the Fx team.

I especially liked the ending. The story continues through the closing credits, in a manner evoking Blair Witch and the fast-take scenes from The Ring, lending creepiness to the fate of the characters. Like 28 Days Later, we have the use of digital video, to world-disintegrating effect.

Oh, and it's all sandwiched between some of the best opening and closing titles in memory. I don't know why, but I love when those things are done well. The bar has been raised in this genre. It was high time, really, but all the ketchup-blood and clumsiness in the past made it all the more fun to see this done up right.

[allthatglitters]

Woah. I missed this thread- I really love the blunt style you have with your reviews and I look forward to reading more!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I laugh now, at the whimsical trailers... "Oh look, how funny... a car stuck in a tree!" Then, a good two hours in, once your ass fishis at one with the theater seat, they reach into your chest and give your heart a good, tenderizing <SQUISH!!!> I was woefully short on kleenex.

The thing is, I got the feeling that important points in the story around the beautiful, touching part were sadly lacking. This movie seems to miss greatness by just l---x---l that much. Personally, I had a little trouble relating to Crudup's poutybitterboy character. Ok, your dad told a lot of stories a lot of times. You weren't beaten or belittled, so like... lighten the hell UP already.

The treatment was gorgeous, though, in typical Burtonesque creepy lovliness. Speaking of which, whatup with the veins in Helena Bonham Carter's neck?? I was actually distracted by them! One day, the Reanimation on that chick is going to wear off and she's just going to fall into little quivvering pieces.

Anyway, favorite moments: the shot of Crudup's character swimming in the pool, as shot through the window with the pool at bust level on the reflection of his mom. (aww!) and the moment when Lange crawled into the bathtub fully dressed. (awww!!)

Overall, this is an entertaining movie, and the end is beautiful, but it just doesn't connect like I think it could have.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hey, Glitter!
Thanks for the encouragement. :)
Yeah, I calls 'em as I see's 'em.
It's just one chick's opinion, anyway, right?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

On first viewing, this movie has a great payoff in that final scene on the street. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) has been more or less emotionally isolated though this whole loststory. She spends much of her time alone, and her one attempt at reaching out, on the phone with her friend, is entirely missed. Bob (Bill Murray) spends most of the story befuddled behind the facade of his own stardom. He looks like he might cry during that photo shoot, yet his public image is the epitome of "good times". And he seems like a man whose life is passing him by with very little real involvement on his part. So that scene on the street, when Bob escapes from his limo and makes unapologetic, direct, serious contact with Charlotte... and she's moved to tears by it... is a major breakthrough for both characters. GREAT stuff! Yay for both of them! That was enough for me to walk out smiling, after the first time through.


litFor days after, I kept turning over the title in my mind: "Lost In Translation" and asking myself what was lost. The second time through, I took notes, and now, after 4 views, I have a list. Writer/director Sofia Coppola has created a movie with the charm of a 'little' movie, but with great depth. The crux of it is laid out in the Suntori shoot, disguised as comic relief: the director has a great deal to say about exactly what he wants from Bob. What comes through the translator is so brief and basic that Bob asks, with understandable doubt, "is that all he said?"

It's the sort of missed communication that happens around every one of us, daily, but is poignantly illustrated with the medium of film:
Put LIFE through the filter of a camera lense, and
ART becomes Entertainment
Whiskey becomes iced tea
Reality becomes image
NY becomes LA
Culture becomes couture
Johnny Carson becomes that scary little tv man
Charlotte’s curves become Ana Faris’ anorexia
Friendship becomes sex, in many movies, and we wonder if it will here…

In similar fashion, Bob's question is echoed later in Charlotte's question to him: "what about marriage? Does it get any easier?" She's asking "is this all there is?"

The answer to the question of what is lost is: detail. Detail is what is lost in translation. The appreciation for the details in a partner's life fades with familiarity and after 25 years.. or after only 2.. we fail to notice that they're smoking again, or what color the carpeting is. We stop caring if her scarf is long enough or what kind of shelves go into the study. This is pointed up pretty clearly several times, but especially in Bob's response to Lydia's probes about the carpet samples: “Whatever you like. I’m completely lost.”

scarlettGiven that there's that much profundity in this little movie, I have to laugh that there are people who claim it's not about anything happening.

Additionally, I have to say: I'm in love with Bill Murray's performance in this film. The moment when he and Charlotte first start talking in the bar, and she says, "25 years (of marriage)... that's impressive." The look on his face, before he even says anything... is worth a paragraph of subtext. It's just heartbreaking. Similarly, at The Worst Lunch, before either of them speaks, that defensive "I didn't do anything" look on his face is just priceless. I'm shocked at my own admiration. I really would have never thought he could pull that off, and seeing it from such an unexpected source is wonderful.

Charlotte herself is played to perfection by Scarlett Johansson. Having seen her previously only in Ghost World, it was great to see her range in this. The ten year career of this 20 year old actress serves her well, here.

Of no suprise is Giovanni Ribisi's turn as Charlotte's husband. This kid is brill and a fine piece of casting. He adds weight to Charlotte's side of the equasion.
lit2
The last thing I love about this movie is Japan. Of course the language provides comic relief. Beyond that, the two giggling local ladies in the back row of the waiting room were awesome. The contrast of cultures provides obvious meaning to the title, as our American protagonists are starkly contrasted against the locals. On a slightly deeper level though, this is an ancient culture which values honor... which is what this movie is about at its core. So, the happy ending, as I see it, is that that basic and valuable thing is not lost.

[projectMayhem]

3. When Uma wakes up from her coma... what was the thing with her looking at her hands?
I think she is reading the life-lines on her palms, and she can tell that she's been in that coma for however long it was. Nice reviews by the way.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I think she is reading the life-lines on her palms, and she can tell that she's been in that coma for however long it was. Nice reviews by the way.
Ah!
Thank you.
And, thank you! :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

friedmans
Director Andrew Jarecki's documentary of the effects of trial-by-media on a typical middle-class family is was one of the most provocative movies I've ever seen. It's hard to believe it's not staged. Any student of body language or psychology will find this fascinating. The bulk of the footage for this 107 minute film was shot at the time, by the family in question. We're shown a typical-seeming american family (obviously dysfunctional, but it's unclear just how much) under a microscope during a horribly stressful time, yet only once does any of them decline to appear on camera. The whole thing raises very intriguing questions about what is true, what is compromised, what is denial and the role of our legal system in skewing the whole mess into an unsolveable puzzle. This is by far the best documentary I've ever seen.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This is a really pretty movie, right at the edge of "visually dazzling", even. If you haven't seen it, it's a period piece set in 1900, about a few girls who vanish during a field trip/picnic. The acting is pretty good, if a little melodramatic, but then picnic1we're talking 1900, when melodrama was the order of the day. The costumes were excellent, as was makeup and hair. (Unusual in 70's films!)

The meaning of the movie is kind of an enditement of the conservatism of the day, which (perhaps) contributes to the hampering of the investigation of these girls' disappearance. Despite being laid out in the poem in the opening scene, that theme is pretty muddled, though. I was ok with that when I thought it was a depiction of an actual event. In that case, I'd think there would be facts they might want to include, even if it was a little unclear how those facts contribute to the story. But you get to the end, and there's the disclaimer that "any resemblance to anything real is a big coincidence" and I start asking "why did I watch this again??" miranda

They're not so much telling a story as laying out a lot of possibilities, none of which are really solidified. I get that it was Victorian times and people were very careful about what they presented to society, but as the unseen watchers, we're really not privy to much, either. For example, there's all this wierd lesbian energy that's hinted at, and sort of expressed, and MIGHT be a motivation in a murder, or else that girl just killed herself, or maybe she killed herself because she was a lesbianand we don't actually know which it is. It's entirely unclear what the story is. I think if it's fiction, then someone ought to decide which it was and tell the story.

It was fun to watch, though.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

parkerWhhhhooooaaaa! Odd little flick, but I really liked it. It's dark and twisted and had Tori Spelling. Freaky. My only complaint was that I think it needed more rehearsal, or a better director - not sure which - but the cue pickups were a little lacadaisical, which threw off the beats. Great writing, very funny stuff and the plot was cool. That business of JackieO's family kinda Gaslighting her into keeping mum... Good story! I think my favorite moment was the mother's line, "well of course I can MAKE chicken noodle soup, I mean it comes in a can..." hee! Parker Posey was awesome and Freddy Prinze, Jr was suprisingly good. He's not just pretty.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Meh.
I find it interesting that as soon as anyone says they didn't like this movie, they get bashed for not appreciating an "intelligent" film. How "intelligent" is the idea of a snarling attack poodle? How much more art appreciation do I need to value a storyline that chokes repeatedly with graphics of cells mutating? The same cells... mutating the same way... every ******* time? Is it because I'm stupid that I find it unlikely that all those guys survived helicopter crashes? Cause it does. Seem unlikely.

Also, David Banner ran amok. That scene at the end with the black backdrop looked like it was from "A Very Special Family Ties". And really, since he was plucked from nowhere and all the blame for this tragedy pinned on his ratty old shirt... I guess he should be allowed to run amok. hulkpezBut why make such a wacky change in the story? (If it's like that in the Marvel strips, my bad, but I think it's a stronger story when the scientist's own self-interest brings about the creation of the monster. It's a little more symbolic. It could have worked having his father be a symbolic representation of unmitigated ambition, but then the wheels fall off that later in the story. So we're left with crap, basically.)

I guess you could call it art that every part of the movies seemed to mutate out of proportion, like the cells in the exploding frogs. That works, I reckon. The name "Betty" though... that didn't work.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Remove all sharp objects from your home before viewing this film. My god, what a sad movie. murlelMy condolances to whoever had to try to pick one defining genre for this one. Tony Colette's performance is excellent. The writing... I'm of two minds. They did a perfect job of presenting what it's like to grow up a geek, but good lord, did it have to be so painful to watch? It's really a well-done movie, but it's so depressing... She does grow some ovaries at the end and show some character, and I was damn glad to see it, after all the cringing I'd done through the rest of the story. I'm not sure to whom I would recommend this as an evening's entertainment, despite the fact it was done beautifully.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Gorgeous! The town they shot this in, the people in the film, the lighting, the costumes, the fruit... malenaeverything was absolutely a visual treat. Which it kinda needs to be because the story is so sad. And it's so sad because there's so much truth to what this film has to say about beauty. Excellent performances from Giuseppe Sulfaro, who plays the 13 yr old kid, and from Monica Bellucci whom, inconcievably, I didn't recognise til the end of the film.

On second viewing: This movie attempts to operate on a lot of levels, and some of them are a bit swiss-cheesy. Bellucci's character, for instance, is a real woman who misses her husband, who needs money to get food, who is a living breathing person, but is very sketchily drawn as far as her passions and her desires. She's everybody's fantasy, on a second level... and in that, the fact she rarely speaks and makes so little contact makes sense and works. And she also represents the beauty and the innocence of Italy, and the prostitution, rape and decimation of that country by WWII. And on that level, her character makes sense all the way through. It would be a better movie if all three could somehow work all the time.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

strawEh.... There's been a lot of buzz on the boards about this one, and as horror genre goes, it's respectable. It capitalizes a bit on stereotypes (the drunk irish, the small town smalltownishness, the trampy girl, the brazen woman as the cause of trouble for her mate) but it's cool when Hoffman's character grows a pair and takes over. Hoffman was, as always, rock solid. Has anyone ever seen a movie where he wasn't?? I enjoyed it, overall. There's a decent build, and the story centers on the psychological, which is scarier than any monster, if you ask me.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I will admit to giggling at the beginning... when Nemo's dad is almost sucked into the propeller of the boat... only because I thought what a short movie it would be if that happened. But shortly after that, I was sucked in myself, and had a great time watching this one. The plot is compelling, the supporting characters are varied and vivid. The animation is gorgeous. But the high point for me was Ellen Degeneris' expertly acted character - a fish with no short term memory. Nevermind that she reminded me of my mom, she was ****ing hilarious. I was in tears from giggling over her attempts to speak "whale". Overall, a very touching, sweet and fun movie. I highly recommend it.

If you haven't seen it yet, do NOT look at the following pic:
http://www.hawaiistories.com/heidi/archives/TheyFoundNemo.jpg

[SamsoniteDelilah]

rebeccaIt's been a long time since I've had the impulse to applaud at the end of a film. I've seen some great stuff lately, but this is one of those that ends on such a high note. Really fabulous build, through the whole thing. Joan Fontaine was so meek for most of the movie that I wanted to shake her, but she grew 'nads finally, which was rewarding to see. Lawrence Olivier was really ahead of his time, stylisticly... he had a great sense of drama, but scaled it down well to the requirements of film. This story has a ton of great plot twists. I thought I knew what was coming, and we veered a whole lot from that, into almost a fresh story in the last act. Very fun writing. It's dated, only in the fact that no woman today would fail to fire that brooding hag of a house mistress. God, I loved hating her. Overall, this one's just excellent.

[allthatglitters]

http://www.reel.com/content/boxart/vhs/1306.GIF
It's been a long time since I've had the impulse to applaud at the end of a film. I've seen some great stuff lately, but this is one of those that ends on such a high note. Really fabulous build, through the whole thing. Joan Fontaine was so meek for most of the movie that I wanted to shake her, but she grew 'nads finally, which was rewarding to see. Lawrence Olivier was really ahead of his time, stylisticly... he had a great sense of drama, but scaled it down well to the requirements of film. This story has a ton of great plot twists. I thought I knew what was coming, and we veered a whole lot from that, into almost a fresh story in the last act. Very fun writing. It's dated, only in the fact that no woman today would fail to fire that brooding hag of a house mistress. God, I loved hating her. Overall, this one's just excellent.


Ooooooo....have you read the book by Daphne DuMaurier? I haven't seen the film yet though :( - oh but did you know that 'Rebecca' was the only film of Alfred Hitchcock's to win best picture?
Did they use Joan Fontaines's characters first name in the movie?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

HATED it.
The only reason to see this is for Gene Hackman. Mr Puffy-Face was in incredibly great physical shape, delivered a stand-up performance and was all-around impressive.
hackman
Otherwise... let's see:
Screeching tires? check!
Incessant car horns? check!!
Sexism? And how!!
Racism? BIG time!!!
Ridiculous fashions and enormous cars? You betcha!!
Machismo and not much else? BINGO.

Also, during the scenes where there was ANY conversation of any import, there was this sound effect of sustained violins that I swear I could feel in the fillings in my teeth.

I didn't want to turn it off, because it's a "classic" and I don't want to be ignorant about the classics, but all in all, I'd rather eat a live kitten than ever watch this again.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Ooooooo....have you read the book by Daphne DuMaurier? I haven't seen the film yet though :( - oh but did you know that 'Rebecca' was the only film of Alfred Hitchcock's to win best picture?
Did they use Joan Fontaines's characters first name in the movie?
They didn't use her name, and they were pretty slick about it. I haven't read the book, but I bet it's awesome. I'd be interested, if you see the movie, to hear what you think about how they compare.

Hitchcock is one of those filmmakers who really was ahead of his time. I took a class from someone who actually went with 'Hitch' and his friends to the premiere of Psycho. She said they were all excited before the movie, with the usual pre-show buzz, and afterward, no one knew where to look or what to say. They all thought he might be insane. haha! It seems like only by amassing a huge body of work was he able to establish that he wasn't nuts and did, in fact, know what he was doing. :)

[Holden Pike]

http://www.homevideos.com/photosdates/roxan.jpeg
The writing is ok, though there's a bit of choppiness here and there....the lengthy scene where CD matches wits with a local bully in a pub.

That scene is taken right from Rostand's play. A couple of those insults are even from Cyrano himself ("Kindly: Ah, do you love the little birds, So much that when they come and sing to you, you give them this to perch on?"), with hardly any modernizing.

It's odd that you don't even mention Roxanne is an ingenious and witty updating of Cyrano de Bergerac. Steve Martin's script is wonderful and literate, and even with the happy ending keeps the heart and wistful soul of the original great work, all while adding his own take on love. I think L.A. Story is an even better screenplay, and Picasso at the Lapin Agile is better than it, but Roxanne is such a well written piece.

[susan]

great reviews a nd i love the i found nemo sushi picture!!! keep up the good work...

[SamsoniteDelilah]

That scene is taken right from Rostand's play. A couple of those insults are even from Cyrano himself ("Kindly: Ah, do you love the little birds, So much that when they come and sing to you, you give them this to perch on?"), with hardly any modernizing.I didn't know that..... very cool! :)

It's odd that you don't even mention Roxanne is an ingenious and witty updating of Cyrano de Bergerac. Uhm... I guess I thought that was as plain as the nose on his face.

Steve Martin's script is wonderful and literate, and even with the happy ending keeps the heart and wistful soul of the original great work, all while adding his own take on love. I think L.A. Story is an even better screenplay, and Picasso at the Lapin Agile is better than it, but Roxanne is such a well written piece.
I loved LA Story. The other I have not seen, but with your recommendation, I will see if I can Netflix it.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

great reviews a nd i love the i found nemo sushi picture!!! keep up the good work...Hey, susan! Thanks!! Yeah, that pic came up when I was searching for a Nemo pic and it killed me. hee!

[Holden Pike]

The other I have not seen, but with your recommendation, I will see if I can Netflix it.

Netfilx won't have it. Nobody will. It isn't a movie, it's a play. A great one too.

It premiered in Chicago in 1993, and had successful runs all over the country. The plot concerns a young Pablo Picasso and a young Albert Einstein having a chance meeting in a Parisian bar in 1904, before either had gained fame and accomplishment. It also has a surprise cameo near the end of the play from another key 20th Century figure (hint: he wears blue suede shoes). It's about art and love and the thrill of new ideas. It's very witty, very funny, and just a great night at the theatre. I saw productions of the original cast in New York, most of that cast in San Francisco, and a new touring cast in D.C. Good times, good times.

There have been rumblings of a film adaptation here and there, but nothing serious. Until then, you can read it anyway....

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0802135234.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Netfilx won't have it. Nobody will. It isn't a movie, it's a play. A great one too.You're a twicky wabbit, Holden Pike.
They had it at Amazon.

It premiered in Chicago in 1993, and had successful runs all over the country. The plot concerns a young Pablo Picasso and a young Albert Einstein having a chance meeting in a Parisian bar in 1904, before either had gained fame and accomplishment. It also has a surprise cameo near the end of the play from another key 20th Century figure (hint: he wears blue suede shoes). It's about art and love and the thrill of new ideas. It's very witty, very funny, and just a great night at the theatre. I saw productions of the original cast in New York, most of that cast in San Francisco, and a new touring cast in D.C. Good times, good times.

There have been rumblings of a film adaptation here and there, but nothing serious. Until then, you can read it anyway....
That sounds positively brilliant! :) Thanks for the recommend. I will certainly check it out, and let you know what I think.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

rhI happened to see Roman Holiday for the first time, shortly after my 4th viewing of Lost in Translation. I caught a few reminders, the first time through, of the newer film. A second viewing, pen in hand, yeilded the following points, all of which are common to both films:

Had the pleasure of watching a most charming movie this afternoon? It?s a story about two people who are away from home, kindred spirits who see each other very clearly and come to understand and care about each other in rather whirlwind fashion, but while their connection is genuine and beautiful, it is doomed from the start by the commitments in their lives.

Opening scene, we meet our young heroine: fresh-faced and pretty, intelligent, educated, the embodiment of sweetness and decency. She is not alone, and yet terribly isolated, emotionally. Even when she allows herself an emotional outburst, the people closest to her are unphased and oblivious. Our heroine listlessly looks out her window over a strange city, and we feel how much she wants to experience the place... to connect to something. This is our introduction to the silent character in the piece: the city itself and the strange culture we?ll soon explore, and it isn?t long before she ventures out. We explore the city over her shoulder as she wanders the streets alone, rather aimlessly, taking in the history in the architecture, enjoying the food and music and interacting shyly with the locals. She begins a detached observer, but gradually allows herself to be affected by the charm of a new place ? purchasing a souvenir specific to the culture. She is touched at one point, by the written wishes of the people, and participates in the ritual herself.

At this point, she runs into a man she had met fleetingly, a little earlier: also a displaced traveler and a little older and streetwise than she, they form a pact to escape into the city and enjoy all it can offer together. They share a smoke, a few drinks, music at a party and escape a light-hearted scuffle in the city streets. He provides a safe means for her to escape her confinement and experience not just the city, but herself, in this new place. He assists her in a moment of distress, and amusingly attempts conversation in the local language ? naturally, the overall effect is charming as hell. ?Nice guy?, we find ourselves observing.

A third character provides counterpoint to the friendship of our happy couple: a photographer ? a bit shallow, bit of a flirt, but a good guy at heart, we see the contrast between the choices he makes in dealing with people and those made by our central characters. There?s the suggestion that he might not be entirely decent, bringing onto the screen the reality that our central characters have options that they actively decide (despite strong feeling) not to take. They do spend a night together, but fully clothed and nothing untoward happens. In the end, our hero chooses not to take advantage of this situation, and our heroine chooses to return to the duties of her life. We see the longing in him as he sits in his car and watches her walk away.

rh2This is a tale of a refreshingly different ?movie romance?. It was fabulously received, garnered an array of Academy accolades and launched the career of a lovely fresh face ? Audrey Hepburn, who won the Oscar for best actress in this film: Roman Holiday.

So, how does it compare to Lost In Translation? Easy: every point above is true of both movies. True, Johansson's character is not a princess, but a philosophy major (and really... same diff, no?) and she didn't get an Academy nod for her performance in LiT, but there's no missing the fact that it's launched her career. I found the similarities striking, and yet both are firmly enough rooted in their "present" days, that they feel different.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

tdThis is a well-told story of a guy holding on to the good in himself. De Niros Travis Bickle is a highly controlled, expertly focused character study that walks the line between obvious psychosis and a childlike idealism. It doesn't hurt that he looks really good, either. :D I like the irony of the ending, that only when he loses his grip on his humanity was he recognised as a "hero", calling into question what we consider "heroic", as well as leaving his state of mind a bit of a question mark.

Jodi Foster's performance has been deservedly lauded, and Cybil Shepard was annoying, but tolerable. In fact, this movie has a lot of familiar faces who went on to be charicatures, and it's refreshing to see them, back when they were focused on storytelling. Kudos to Scorcese on maintaining the realism in this piece - it was the element that most made it all sympathetic, and has helped this film to endure, despite all the heinous hairstyles.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I almost turned this one off during the first act. xxxyIt started out so sleazy and focused on these three primates-posing-as-humans that I could barely even relate to..... but it got better. The beginning of the second act begins with a palatte cleansing movie-sherbet moment - very funny scene where the main character, a filmmaker, is recognised by someone who's seen his movie... and asks for his money back. ha! It's also an indication that this main character has been dealt a few blows by the hand of Harsh Reality. Unfortunately, not enough, yet. That comes in the third act in an emotionally satisfying speech from his girlfriend. The movie doesn't answer the ultimate question of how it all ends for the protagonist, but frankly, I didn't care much. Which is the one major problem with this movie: the main character is a jerk and it's kind of hard to care about him, and by extension, the film. It's counter-balanced allllmost, by the emerging character of his girlfriend, but again, we aren't told what finally comes of them. It's passable, but not a great film. Nicely shot, but not beautifully made.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Bizarro. In a good way. This is a really creepy movie. It goes way beyond that, however, and explores the concepts of "capture", "escape" and "freedom". Adapted from his own novel by Kôbô Abe, this is a thinking (wo)man's horror movie. It's also got some hot erotic scenes, I'm not kidding.

womanThe acting is excellent. I'm not a fan of subtitles, because... well, if I wanted to read it, I'd just read it, ok? But in this case, the acting was so excellent that it bridged the gap to my ignorance of their language. Pretty big job. Kudos to Eiji Okada (as the entomologist) and Kyôko Kishida as the woman.

The other major player is Hiroshi Segawa's photography. This is a two-hour film about a guy who falls into a trap, but my interest was sustained through the beat transitions by the brilliance of director Hiroshi Teshigahara's photography. It's metaphorical, artistic, beautiful, haunting.. and conveys the frustration of the central character very effectively.

This one is not to be missed, and not to be forgotten.

[Mark]

In the absense of LordSlaytan's wonderful reviews, your quick and witty comments are very refreshing. You have a wonderful voice in your writing.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This was one of two shots that really grabbed me in this movie. The other is from a tennis match when everyone's heads are moving in unison and Our Antihero is staring right at the camera from the midst of the crowd. It's a glassessimple shot, and yet unnerving, which is a good starting piont for discussing this film. Strangers On A Train is creepy in it's conventionality. The premise could easily happen, much like One Hour Photo. The horror in this story - adapted by Hitchcock from a novel by Patricia Highsmith - is fairly natural human behaviour. It's extreme, and not polite behaviour, but it's nothing that doesn't literally happen every day.

The acting was a bit stilted on everybody's part... just a tinge of camp. I think the concept would have been better served with a straighter treatment. Also, the tennis match was a bit of a dead spot, but worth slogging through for the infamous "carousel scene", near the end. I'd hate to ruin that one for anyone, so I'll simply say: they got it on one take.

This is not one of Hitchcock's strongest films, but it is a good story. I'd recommend it as a study of early identity-theft flicks.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

In the absense of LordSlaytan's wonderful reviews, your quick and witty comments are very refreshing. You have a wonderful voice in your writing.
Hi, Mark! Thanks for the kind words.
On the MoFo review plate, Lord Slaytan's reviews are steak and mine are the parsley, but that's ok. I look good in green. :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Peter Sollett's directorial debut features a cast of unknowns, who put the flesh on a somewhat spindly skeleton of a story with such heart and grace that we are drawn into their world.vv Victor Vargas is a young man with a sweet soul, living in a world that demands a thick skin, going through the familiar growing pains of teenage sexual curiosity. Somehow, miraculously, this movie avoids the well-worn stereotypes and tells Victor's story with an unexpected freshness, frankness and charm. It's a sweet little movie that is honest and never cloying. Great performances by a lot of young talent, and grandma rocks, too! I offer this as the cure for Sex In The City -aholism.

[Aniko]

On the MoFo review plate, Lord Slaytan's reviews are steak and mine are the parsley, but that's ok. I look good in green. :)

I love your reviews and opinions Delila. Even if I saw Lost in Translation a little differently than you did, I still enjoyed reading what you had to say about it...very insightful. You have a nice way with words. :)

I haven't seen Raising Victor Vargas yet, but since you said the granny rocks, I will make a point to check it out. :)


By the way...parsley is always good to have around....adds a subtle flavor and texture to the dish. ;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I love your reviews and opinions Delila. Even if I saw Lost in Translation a little differently than you did, I still enjoyed reading what you had to say about it...very insightful. You have a nice way with words. :)
Your kind words have helped me recover from my shock over your not liking LiT. I'm back on solid foods again and everything. :p

I haven't seen Raising Victor Vargas yet, but since you said the granny rocks, I will make a point to check it out. :)
I can just about guarantee you'll love it. The kid who plays VV is so direct and charming. I didn't think I was going to like him or the movie, and I totally fell for both.

By the way...parsley is always good to have around....adds a subtle flavor and texture to the dish. ;)ha! Thanks for the encouragement, chica! xo

[SamsoniteDelilah]

The main thing I wanted was a good time, and a close second was to see the dynamic between the two lead actors. Remembering the all our adoration with which Ms Hepburn referred to Mr Tracy in her memoir, I found the scene pictured below to be ultimately rewarding.

pinky



Adam: Are you alright, Pinkie?
Amanda: I guess I'm ok. Why?
Adam: Well, I just wouldn't want to think of you being not alright.
Amanda: You know what you are? You're lovable.


I wonder if that looked like treacle to anyone who hadn't read her book.



This was a well-constructed script, with a healthy dash of panache which won an Oscar nod for the writers, married couple Gordon and Kanin. I expected a romp, and wasn't disappointed, but saw some unexpected depth as well. The one word that I'd use to describe the point of the movie is actually a little deeper than I anticipated: transition. The opening scene of the street clock marking the transition into evening... the cartoonish scene cards announcing "that evening",etc... kept the action going and the beats clear, but they also reminded me that this time was a transition into a new world of thought about gender roles. I thought the casting was excellent for that purpose: KH's Amanda was pretty and clearly a woman, but also athletic and dressed in sharp lines. ST's Adam walked the line between respectably masculine and 'big ***** cat' with enough grace that he didn't give away the crying scene at the CPA's office.

This movie was a stepping stone for Judy Holliday, who had been performing on Broadway in "Born Yesterday". Her reception in the Adam's Rib role sold her in the lead for the movie version of "Born Yesterday", for which she won an academy award.

My other honorable mention goes to David Wayne, who played Kip the letcherous neighbor. Great character, fun song, nice foil... I need a guy like that across the hall from me!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

apartmentThe Apartment is a pretty simple story of an Everyman of 1960 (Jack Lemmon) in a typical entry-level insurance job, a number-cruncher without much to set him apart... except an apartment he's willing to loan out to the big kahuna's in his office for their extra-marital romps. It isn't long til he meets the perfect goofy girl next door (Shirley MacLaine) and wants the apartment for himself. This is a fairly light-hearted little story with fun characters and an upbeat attitude. There is a slightly deeper level to it, in which you can ponder the "mensch" angle: "what would it take for you to stand up for your beliefs?" it asks... but it asks over a frothy drink with an umbrella in it, and it's a fun thing to contemplate. It's a highly enjoyable movie, and it got me thinking about a couple of things, too.

For instance...
I did a little research on the information in Bud's opening speech, and a comparison to today's corresponding data:

In 1960, population of NYC: 8,042,782
In 2002, population of NYC: 7,428,162

In 1960, 5th largest corporation: Consolidated Insurance (per Bud)
In 2002, 5th largest corporation: Enron

In 1960, pay for an actuary, level III (middle range) in NYC: $4924.40 a YEAR!
Same in 2003: $76.268.00 a year.

Then, rent for a mid-60's Manhattan 1 br, W of Central Park: $85/mo. (21% of the above income)
Now, for the same area: $2000 a month (31% of that person's gross income....suddenly it's clear the real reason we stopped wearing pearls and furs after the 60's!)

Then: instant coffee was hip
Now: it's all about the Starbuck's, baby

Then: nearly dead movie cuties got 10 sharp slaps from an MD and walked around for 6 hours.
Now: same girlie gets a hypodermic of adrenaline jabbed through her sternum by a drug-dealing Eric Stoltz.

Regarding Bud's morality, I think he had a sense of chivalry going on. I didn't think he enjoyed taking "credit" for banging a different woman every night, but rather that it was better the neighbors thought he (a single guy) was wild than for them to know that he was letting his apartment be used for adultery. He had a couple of moments where you saw that he had mensch potential, like when he said to Sheldrake that, "five bad apples is still a small percentage." He didn't just let him off the hook. I think Bud was a guy trying to figure out his own morality in a sea of new ideas about sexuality. 1960 was a bit of a turning point.

My favorite quotes...

he: Your mirror is broken.
she: Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look how I feel

bar floozie: Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring. Nothin'. No action. Dullsville.

Bud: I used to l ive like Robinson Crusoe, shipwrecked among millions of people. Then one day, I saw a foot print in the sand, and there you were.

[Tazz]

Nice! :)

[nebbit]

Thanks Delia for the great reviews, you realise that you have just increased my, To See List, thanks :cool:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Thanks Delia for the great reviews, you realise that you have just increased my, To See List, thanks :cool:
Now that's highly cool. :) My entire netflix queue (over 200 titles right now) consists of things recommended by people who know more about movies than I do. It's pretty awesome that all that enthusiasm gets spread around, no?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

manchuThis story interweaves themes of ambition, disparity between the classes/races, science fiction, politics and our current climate of fear and paranoia regarding terrorism. It's a lot to tackle, but director Jonathan Demme's updating of the 1962 classic is time well spent.

The main reason to see this movie is the performances. The cast does a superb job across the board. Of particular note is Liev Schreiber's turn as the candidate, which had suprising depth and an eerie resemblance to John Edwards at times. The story has been updated well, and resonates with the currently prevailing political climate. The sci-fi is a bit heavy on the -fi, but there is enough build to keep us engaged and Demme/Fujimoto conspire effectively to create a tension-filled world, particularly in the dream sequences, which start out very sketchy and confused, and eventually we see exactly what happened. I have not seen the original, so my perception of this film is uncomplicated by comparison. I think, overall, that it works well and is very effective as a thriller. The ads promise no one will breathe during the last 30 minutes. If you're willing to believe that's possible, then the hazy details of microchip implantation shouldn't bother you in the least, and even if it does, it's worth a watch.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This film is amazing. Carl Theodore Dryer's Le Passion of Jeanne d'Arc is a must-see for anyone with a true interest in film, theater or acting.joan

The Story In The Film
The story is taken directly from manuscripts of the famous trial, with very few additions. The real trial was comprised of 22 sessions of interrogation, over a span of 6 months. Dryer eschews the famous military deeds of our heroine, and the splashy accusations of sorcery, to focus on the trial itself, and the universal conflict between simple faith and politicized theocracy. He includes here only the moments from the trial that he considered "significant or typical", and condenses the story into one day.

The story begins with the opening of the trial. Renee Marie Falconetti, as Joan, is immediately captivating and will remain so until her last frame. This is an astonishing performance. Dryer tells the story almost entirely in close-up, and Falconetti shows us the soul of Joan with unvarnished (and un-made-up) openness. The result is one of the most moving performances I have ever seen.

Also of note in the cast is the founder of the Theater of Cruelty artaudmovement, Antonin Artaud, who plays the sympathetic but ineffectual young monk. As a student of theater history, I can't tell you how excited I was to see such a person do his thing.

The action of the film involves Joan being interrogated by a roomful of powerful figures bent on forcing her into a confession of heresy. They use tactics of debate, trick questions, forgery, bribery, blackmail, torture... and are confounded at every turn by the simple faith of their captive. In the end, they put her to death for her insistance that she will save France through a great victory and that God will deliver her, and one wonders if they ever saw that in her martyrdom, they bring about both these events.

The Story Of The Film
Criterion presents us with the dual story of Joan and that of the film itself. Like Joan's simple, direct connection with her God, this film was met with outrage and censorship because it did not echo the commonly accepted conventions of the story, nor did it support the politically motivated claims on Joan by contemporary French government factions. Dryer foregoes the depictions of the peasant girl hearing voices, and the virgin knight in shining armor, and instead gives us a starkly honest hour and a half with the psyche and the faith of the martyr.

joan2Also an echo of Joan's treatment in the film, the film itself was censored, cut, denounced and burned. The original negative was lost in a fire shortly after the film opened. Dryer's insistance on multiple takes paid off, in that a second version was cut together from alternate takes, but this too was thought lost to fire. For 50 years, the film existed only in the form of vastly inferior mock-ups, until 1981, when a dusty copy was found in a closet in an insane asylum in Copenhagen. (Have you ever?!) It was sent to the national film board, only to wait another three years before curiousity got the better of someone and it was discovered to be the previously "lost" second version. Now known as the Oslo version, and restored beautifully in 1985, we finally have this glimse of the height of silent film.

Dryer assembled a crew of trailblazers in the art of camera movement. The first sequence in the trial is one of maybe three establishing shots in the whole film, a 45 second dolly-shot that sweeps the entire courtroom. He uses extreme and conflicting camera angles to heighten the sense of disorientation that Joan feels. Her agitation is expressed in fast-cut changes in point of view. The film is comprised of over 1500 shots - double the average film of the 20's. The sets are simplistic, inspired by illuminated manuscripts of the day and the unbalanced proportions heighten the sense of things being askew. The near-constant close-up treatment of the actors echos the close-quarters combat that is the central conflict of the film. Crosses play a symbolic role, both the naturally-occurring ones and the manicured representations of them. Joan's nature is compared cinematically to flowers, birds and a crown that she weaves of straw. This is the level of detail that makes great film.

In my opinion, while this film has a great deal going for it in the acting and the compelling story, the thing that sets it above so many other films is the dedication of writer/director Carl Th. Dryer to truthfulness. The film cost 9 million francs. I fed that into a currency converter and without adjusting for inflation, that's nearly $2 million USD. He had a castle built with four towers, a moat and a drawbridge, city streets and a central square, occupying some 700 sq. meters and kept the cast on site for the six months in which he shot the film more or less in sequence. No makeup was allowed on any actor. Falconetti's hair was really shorn off for the final scenes (over her many protests), and a joan3stand-in really was bled for the scene following the torture. The monks really did have their heads shaved, despite the fact that they wore skull-caps that would have hid their hair. This prompted one actor to label Dryer a "certafiable lunatic", but the result of it all is such a fascinating piece of film.

Contemporary reviewers hailed The Passion of Joan of Arc as a masterpiece. I agree. They also regarded it as an "art film", and there I disagree: I think the universality of Dryer's subject and the fame of the story make it very accessable to a broad range of people. Catch it, if you can!

[susan]

thanks so much for all your reviews...i agree with you on the manchurian candidate...

[SamsoniteDelilah]

After waiting in line to get into line to wait some more, I was happy once again to be seated in the middle of a roomful of geeks who love this story as much as I do. I have immense fotrrespect for Peter Jackson, to take on this project in the first place, and to give it full and rightful treatment. I was very moved by the beginning of FOTR, because I honestly hadn't dared to dream that a filmmaker would be so faithful to the author's words, but there we were looking at Tolkein's Shire.

This is a beautiful end to the story. I liked the scope and the magnitude of Helm's Deep, and I also liked the contrasting treatment of the battles in this one: they seemed more personal and small-scale, even though the armies were huge and the effects spectacular. Those flying pieces of buildings had me paralyzed and breathless. As did Sam's battle with Shelob.

Since I last read these books years ago, events had conspired to obscure in my mind just how much Eowyn rocked. I now remember crying when I read that part of the battle, and it was one of many things that moved me to tears watching the movie.

I think part of why this is all so emotional has to be credited to the beauty in the details. The sets and costumes and the landscape and all of it is just so gorgeous that in the quieter moments, you're swooning over how pretty it all is, and then it's back to the action. You don't get a rest that way. It's very effective!

I do agree with the gripes about the Arwen story. It needed a little depth, while they were adding things. I also found it distracting that the front of Aragorn's crown reminded me of the Crystler Building. But those are both pretty small gripes. Overall... it's just wonderful.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hey, Susan! Thanks for reading! It kinda makes my day when people respond in this thread. :) I've been wondering what others throught of Manchurian..., not much seems to be written on it, so far. I'm curious now to see the original.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Great work by Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth, Reservoir Dogs is an excellent screenplay. I'd have added a little more dimension to one or two of the characters as they were fun and resdogsdifferentiated, but not very human (past quirkiness). Roth and Keitel escape that problem, mainly by really pouring themselves into the roles. It pays off. Keitel's maternal qualities beautifully outlined the irony of the piece. Overall, a terriffic first showing from director, Quentin Tarentino. I was very impressed.

Tarentino consistently, in all his films, makes great use of music. In this case, we have very creepy use of "Stuck In The Middle With You", and the one over the closing credits about "how can I cure this bellyache". It's reminiscent of Lynch using "Loveletter Straight to Your Heart" in Blue Velvet. When Hallmark used that song the following season, I nearly screamed.

The plot itself could hardly be thinner. They were showing interview clips during the commercial breaks and QT said the idea for the movie came from watching "The Thing", as the characters in that movie are locked together and have to determine which of them is the enemy. I agree that it could be a little more fleshed out, but it did hold my interest all the way through. It's a pretty classic example of a guy talking up a tag line and getting a film out of it. Tarantino knew how the game is played.

I was impressed with the way violence is handled in this. I appreciate the imagination on fx because I've done a few and have a hard time not getting jarred out of the story when the blood is the wrong consistancy or whatever. One of my favorite things was Mr Pink running outside and the rest of his story is told as sound effects under the final scene between Roth and Keitel. So cool.

[nebbit]

I appreciate the imagination on fx because I've done a few and have a hard time not getting jarred out of the story when the blood is the wrong consistancy or whatever.

Me too, what did you think of the unbeleivable dark red stuff on the face of Johnny Depp in ummm errr oh yes "Once upon a time in Mexico" :sick: :skeptical:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Me too, what did you think of the unbeleivable dark red stuff on the face of Johnny Depp in ummm errr oh yes "Once upon a time in Mexico" :sick: :skeptical:
I've blocked it from my memory! :p Anything that obscures the face of Johnny Depp is from the devil, no?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

After months of advance advertising for this, having seen and loved the stage versions, my (im)patience was answered with brilliance. Mike Nichol's Angels In America is http://www.hbo.com/films/angelsinamerica/img/photos/photo_angel_vertical.jpgtranslated to the small screen with ultimate care and beauty and the effect is just as moving as the theatrical experience. I also can't sing the praises enough of HBO for it's willingness to bring a piece to the general public that deals with such hard topics with unvarnished emotional honesty.

The cast is a work of art. Pacino, Streep and Thompson each have their own resonances from decades of film work, and those are well-used here, but don't for an instant overshadow the brilliant performances delivered by these actors. The triple-casting of both Streep and Thompson is meaningful in both instances, and subtly supports Kushner's grand scheme. I honestly can't think of a performance from anyone in this cast that isn't spot on, but the flat out **** YES!! goes to Justin Kirk as Prior. Prior Prior's material could easily be colored throughout by the line "poor me, poor poor me" and Kirk chooses instead to play the courage of his character, to very effective results, particularly in the dream with Harper.

I think the beauty of Kushner's script is that his focus is on the genuine struggle in his characters to be "good", by their own various definitions. Because he gives each their voice on that topic, he presents them and their various issues without judgement. Speaking as someone who was Mormon for 7 years, and who still holds a high opinion of the people and the religion (as religions go), and a person very familiar with the gay community and the AIDS situation, I consider it a marvellous and heroic undertaking to present all of this in a positive light, and with an emphasis on understanding. Truly beautiful and inspiring work.

[susan]

Hey, Susan! Thanks for reading! It kinda makes my day when people respond in this thread. :) I've been wondering what others throught of Manchurian..., not much seems to be written on it, so far. I'm curious now to see the original.


we bought the original in best buy for 10.00..interesting to say the least...same plot but different settings...and the ending has changed a bit...

i liked the both of them a lot and while i think the older movie makes a little more sense..i prefer the updated remake

[Caitlyn]

I've been playing catch up on all your reviews Delila… well done… :yup: … and my "to see list" is growing… :)

[Garrett]

Good job...


You should update your signature, no?

[Aniko]

Adams Rib...I liked your thoughts on it Delila.....and its one of my favorites with Kate and Spencer. Nice chemistry, good story, fun but still had depth as you mentioned. I also loved the court room scenes...in particular the circus lady lifting Spencer over her head to prove a point. And, towards the end when he’s still mad at her, but can’t help himself and calls her ‘pinkie’ in court....loved the expression on Kate's face. :laugh:

Also, from what I remember in a commentary once...Katherine is the one who pulled for Judy Holliday to get that supporting role. She was a treat to watch.


Return of the King...nicely written Delila. I also thought it was a nice ending to the series. I agree with you...Eowyn did rock and I wish there were a little more depth with the Arwen part of the story. I didn’t notice Aragorn's crown...but I do wish he was shown a more than he was....maybe more of him fighting with the army of the dead...dunno.

One very trivial thing...my dad noticed this (he’s very picky and I need to watch for it myself next time)...Frodo’s finger was cut off by Gollum, but at the end when the Hobbits are back in the shire and in the Tavern, Frodo’s finger is still there. I wonder if Hobbit’s grow their limbs back? :D


The Manchurian Candidate and Angels In America...I loved your views on these. I’ll make sure to see them at some point. I may wait for MC to come out on DVD though.

Susan....I haven’t seen the remake of “The Manchurian Candidate” yet and I’m curious why you liked the re-make better than the original. I’ve heard about some of the changes to the story and I’m curious if the re-make has as much of a dynamic impact as in the original...(the mother/son brainwashing/killing thing...and the ending were pretty powerful to me.) :)


Whew....I guess that's enough for now. ;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Susan~ great deal on that film! I'd be curious to hear why you prefer the new one, too.

Caity~ :) Thanks!! I look forward to your thoughts on anything you saw here. Or, you know, on anything you see elsewhere.

Garrett~ Good eye! I do need to update my sig. These last few were written previously and I just moved them here, and I have a few new ones I need to write. This silly "work" stuff keeps getting in the way. :rolleyes: Hopefully, today I'll get it all together.

Aniko~ How cool is that that KH was pulling for the fresh talent?! She's so cool. (On a side note: my new doctor looks JUST like her, at about the age of 25. My jaw dropped. My next thought was: I have to tell Annie! :p ) Regarding hobbits, yeah, and if you cut off a limb and count the rings, you can tell how old they are. ;) I'll look for the missing finger, next time through. I remember watching for that, because fx are cooooool, but I don't remember now about that scene. I know it's missing at the end when he writes the end of his book. hmmm...

[Sedai]

Damn girl!!!

Your thread rocks!! Love the index. I need to get writing!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

:D
You just made my day!

[susan]

One very trivial thing...my dad noticed this (he’s very picky and I need to watch for it myself next time)...Frodo’s finger was cut off by Gollum, but at the end when the Hobbits are back in the shire and in the Tavern, Frodo’s finger is still there. I wonder if Hobbit’s grow their limbs back?


annie...in answer to the above question, if you look very closely, you will see that frodo is missing only the top of his finger, a very little bit of it...it surprised me too because in the book, i believe gollum bit his entire finger off....i also thought that nothing happened to his finger

and now to explain why i enjoyed the remake of the manchurian candidate

the new one was very timely and more to the point of where we are headed in the future (big corporate takeovers) rather than an outdated reason as putting a mccarthy fanatic in the white house...(not that this reason was just as timely in the 60's and just as creepy an idea as the remake, just the thought of anything like this ever happening scares me to death)

i also liked the idea of the updated techniques that they used in the remake rather than the solitaire idea...

i thought denzel did a much better job as bennett marco, although the roles were slightly different in each...

i also thought that meryl streep did a bang up job as the scheming mother, although nothing can ever top angela lansbury's performance in the same role...

what struck me about the new one was liev schreiber's resemblance to laurence harvey..rob and i both commented on this

the ending of the original made more sense to me than the remake did, however

in both versions,the son knows that he's being manipulated and in both versions he does something about it....what he does in the original seemed more realistic to me than what happens in the remake....

[Tazz]

Nice Job Delila! :) :up: :up:
i think im going borrow The Manchurian Candidate from my library :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac, the Soup Kitchen Dame Who Loves Him, and finding peace and happiness in a new life.menwopast

This film has good and bad, both in the extreme.
First, the bad. (It's interesting enough to watch, so I'll end on an up-note.) I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead. No sale. In my experience, character is developed as people have experiences and learn from them. Remove all memory of the lessons learned, and it seems really unlikely that a person will suddenly turn into a stand-up citizen.

Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101. The cast seems not only to have never acted before, but give the impression they've never seen it done.

That said, it might seem unlikely that this one is worth watching. It is. The thing is, the story is told in a very human manner and with photography that adds visual appeal. The film is a good marriage of a bizarre situation, a poverty-wracked setting and emotionally supressed characters... all adding up (against all indications) to something that draws us in and makes us care what happens.

I don't know how.
Watch it and tell me!

[Tazz]

Grey-Ate Review Samsonite! im going borrow it from my library

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Cool, Tazz! Let me know what you think, eh? :)

[Golgot]

Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac...

Cool review SDelila

(It's hard to find a nickname for you y'know, btw. Isn't SD a dubious abbreviation in one country or another? So what else? We need some form of voting-poll type architecture up top of the thread. With options like, erm... Deliliamite? SamsonalDelite? Erm, someone suggest some...)

...I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead.

Not sure what you mean here about the new scruples. D'you mean the way he starts a new relationship despite having half-finished a previous one? He always had a work ethic, he still smokes like a chimney. What's changed? ;) (i've probably forgotten loads btw :):rolleyes: )

Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101.

Maybe the Finnish are all dead-pan like that? ;)

You've gotta love the way they shifted from pondering poetry to blunt realism without changing their expression or tone :).

I felt like the director wanted to lay down some continuity with the consistantly-dour/visually-deadpan tone, so as to make the other bright and absurd events along the way seem more realistic/hard-earned. (I think he might've been taking the micky out of Finnish tendancies a bit too. Dunno :we-need-a-shrug-smilie: ;))

That was one of the things that drew me in, i think. The strange mixture of surrealness and straightforwardness in both the presentation, events and dialogue.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Mssr de Got... :)

Cool review SDelila

(It's hard to find a nickname for you y'know, btw.
Thanks!
Re: my name... It's a quandry. I considered "Sam", but then a "Sam" signed up about 3 days after I returned to posting. Samsonite seems rather macho... Some have been calling me Delila, which I kinda like. Alternately, I'm quite fond of this smilie :blush: Which could do for my Prince-esque symbol. Whichever.

Isn't SD a dubious abbreviation in one country or another? Good heavens... let's not call me that, then.

Re: new scruples
There was some mention of his having stolen something at his job in his previous life. Also, yeah the relationship with the ex seemed like he'd never been invested in that marriage, but was genuinely in love with Llyudmilla, Queen of the Soup Zombies. ;)

Maybe the Finnish are all dead-pan like that? ;)I don't guess this film was promoted by their Bureau of Travel and Tourism...

You've gotta love the way they shifted from pondering poetry to blunt realism without changing their expression or tone :). I did have a sense that there was a comedic element to it, the bizarreness underscoring the unlikely thought processes. I don't know anything about Finland or their culture or politics (except how to say "I love you, ****head.") and that would probably inform foreign viewers a bit about where they were coming from with the ideas behind the script.

I felt like the director wanted to lay down some continuity with the consistantly-dour/visually-deadpan tone, so as to make the other bright and absurd events along the way seem more realistic/hard-earned. (I think he might've been taking the micky out of Finnish tendancies a bit too. Dunno :we-need-a-shrug-smilie: ;))

That was one of the things that drew me in, i think. The strange mixture of surrealness and straightforwardness in both the presentation, events and dialogue.Yeah, I guess that is what appealed to me, as well. You get the sense that there is poetry in the commonplace moments of everyday life... That the simple act of cleaning out a boxcar and setting up a living space can bring joy.

[nebbit]

Thanks Lila :cool:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Not accidentally, director/co-writer/editor Peter Bogdanovich's first major film met with critical success: ppp 8 Academy Award nominations, more accolates from critics and awards organization and the movie established the careers of Bogdanovich and several of his young stars. The Last Picture Show is a slice of Texan life in the 50's, just as war and television were ending one era and ushering in a new one.

The film's kicker title "nothing much has changed" provides an informative starting point for looking at the story. The film is partially a comparison between young adults and their older progenitors, and there's plenty of common ground.

The central character is 18 year old Sonny Crawford (played by Timothy Bottoms), a somewhat quiet, good-hearted young man. Sonny's interactions with the people in this forlorn little Texas town provide the trioframework for a year in the lives of a pretty broad array of characters, played with amazing verisimilitude by an excellent cast. We're afforded an intimate (sometimes very!) look into the motives and struggles of a town full of people straining aginst the slow tempo of small-town life. Hollywood provides them a glimse of glamour that they naively expect to find in their own lives, all the while failing to see the beauty in each other. The exception to this is a remembered affair between Sam the Lion (the emotional heart of the town) and the now "society" wife. She describes the import of that relationship in a speech to Sonny: "I guess if it wasn't for Sam, I'd just about have missed it, whatever it is. I'd have been one of them Amity types, who thinks that playing Bridge is about the best thing that life has to offer." Sam himself recalls their affair in (I'd say) the most touching speech in the film, as a wild time shared by two people who "were in deep". The speech brought an Oscar to the mantle of semi-retired western star Ben Johnson, who turned down the role three times before finally accepting with the comment that it had "too many damn words".

csBy contrast, Jacy (Cybill Shepard's debut role) is the only pretty girl in town, invited to all the wild parties and the object of desire of every man who sees her (and I'm not sure but I think Eileen Brennan's character kinda liked her, too), but she is having no fun. Her romantic pursuits are purely grabs for status, best summed up by her proposal to Sonny: "You just can't believe how famous we are. We're all anybody talks about in this town now...I want us to get married...Just as soon as you want to. Don't you want to?...I bet the whole town'll be knocked for a loop if we do. They'll never forget it."

Jeff Bridges handles the role of Sonny's best friend, bringing a charm and vulnerability to a character that is fairly unlikeable in Larry McMurtry's novel. Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burnstyn and Eileen Brennan bring depth, grace and passion to their roles.

The most important feature in this film, as mentioned above, is it's dedication to truth. Bogdanovich's script is fairly devoid of flowery language, despite the fairly profound subject matter. The acting is uniformly direct, unvarnished and very honest. On the recommendation of Orson Welles (a friend of Bogdanoviich's), the film was shot in black and white, for clarity in the depth of field, and those background shots root the story in the run-down reality of a sun-ravaged and almost forgotten town. Another deep root for the story is provided by the music chosen to play on radios, television and record players throughout, sometimes illustrating subtext and at other times providing ironic contrast to the emotional reality of the characters.

I'd highly recommend this as a look at how to effectively transform a novel to the screen. In the "Making of..." special feature, Bogdanovich recounts many times when he was informed that his script version was not up to par. "It's better in the book" met the response "then use the book" - a wise choice that paid off handsomely.

[John McClane]

My Goodness. Your a movie reviewing machine!! ;) :up: Good Job

[SamsoniteDelilah]

My Goodness. Your a movie reviewing machine!! ;) :up: Good Job
haha! I've written all of these since last December, but most of them were done before I started this thread. I had them in a cold, dark place elsewhere on the 'net. Here, they're getting sunlight and gentle spring rains. It's quite encouraging. :)

Funny you should turn up just now, as I was just reading your reviews. You're only in 9th grade?? You write really well. Keep up the good work!

[Piddzilla]

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/CoverArt/8530.jpg

Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac, the Soup Kitchen Dame Who Loves Him, and finding peace and happiness in a new life.

This film has good and bad, both in the extreme.
First, the bad. (It's interesting enough to watch, so I'll end on an up-note.) I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead. No sale. In my experience, character is developed as people have experiences and learn from them. Remove all memory of the lessons learned, and it seems really unlikely that a person will suddenly turn into a stand-up citizen.

Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101. The cast seems not only to have never acted before, but give the impression they've never seen it done.

That said, it might seem unlikely that this one is worth watching. It is. The thing is, the story is told in a very human manner and with photography that adds visual appeal. The film is a good marriage of a bizarre situation, a poverty-wracked setting and emotionally supressed characters... all adding up (against all indications) to something that draws us in and makes us care what happens.

I don't know how.
Watch it and tell me!

I have seen this one and I liked it a lot.
Here's (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=130232&postcount=2) my review of it.

As you may have guessed, I disagree with you about some of the things you've said in your review.

The way I see it Kaurismäki doesn't say that you will be a better person if you lose your memory. How can he say that when we don't even get to know the main character before he loses his memory?

And i wouldn't call the acting bad but rather different from the acting style that we see in most mainstream films.

But you can read all about my views about this film in my review.

[John McClane]

haha! I've written all of these since last December, but most of them were done before I started this thread. I had them in a cold, dark place elsewhere on the 'net. Here, they're getting sunlight and gentle spring rains. It's quite encouraging. :)

Funny you should turn up just now, as I was just reading your reviews. You're only in 9th grade?? You write really well. Keep up the good work!
I've been writing since March 20, 2004. I'm write ok. I can do much better.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I have seen this one and I liked it a lot.
Here's (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=130232&postcount=2) my review of it.

As you may have guessed, I disagree with you about some of the things you've said in your review.

The way I see it Kaurismäki doesn't say that you will be a better person if you lose your memory. How can he say that when we don't even get to know the main character before he loses his memory?

And i wouldn't call the acting bad but rather different from the acting style that we see in most mainstream films.

But you can read all about my views about this film in my review."The minimalistic filmmaking that goes through everything from acting to editing in this film doesn't feel forced or awkward. Maybe it is because I so stereotypically think it suits the finnish temperament." - Pidzilla

I wondered about that. :) Interesting.

While it's true that we don't spend time with the character before he's konked on the head, we do get glimses into his past in the way his ex wife relates to him, and the mention of his having stolen something at his old job. That's where I get the contrast with his more upstanding character, post-konk. Also: it was mentioned on the Netflix sleeve that he "discovers values he had never known". heh :D

[Piddzilla]

Oh right. I had forgot about that. But I still don't think it means that just because you lose your memory you will be a better person. I think it is more a criticism of society and that if you turn your back on society, which the main character is forced to do in a way, you will discover those values that ..eh.. Mr Netflix talks about.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Yeah... I see your point. I just have a bone in my head that makes me want to argue with people who say society is crap, though.

[Piddzilla]

Hmmm... Okay.

[Mark]

It's been over ten years since I've seen The Last Picture Show, but two things have inspired me to see it again soon: 1) Peter Bogdanovich's commentary on Citizen Kane and 2) your review. Thanks Delila!

By the way, I find it interesting that Bogdanovich is a semi-regular on "The Sopranos" as Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

It's been over ten years since I've seen The Last Picture Show, but two things have inspired me to see it again soon: 1) Peter Bogdanovich's commentary on Citizen Kane and 2) your review. Thanks Delila!

By the way, I find it interesting that Bogdanovich is a semi-regular on "The Sopranos" as Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist.:D Thanks for the comment, Mark! I had to stop myself from raving on about The Last Picture Show. I still feel I should say much more about Cloris Leachman's performance.

I watched the first few ep's of "The Sopranos" and really loved James Gandolfini, but the grinding banality got to me after a few hours (one of the hazards of catching these things on DVD, I guess). I think I'm becoming a prude in my old age. :indifferent:

Anywho, glad you enjoyed the review!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Bereavement is a tough subject. Anthony Mingella's directorial debut, Truly Madly Deeply addresses this heart-wringing topic with intellect and humor. tmdSimilarly, his lead actors are up for the very challenging task of exploring the emotions involved, and do so with honesty and dedication.

Nina (Juliet Stevenson), has lost her lover, kindred spirit and playmate, Jamie (Alan Rickman). Whether from the shock of his sudden and unexpected removal from her life, or the fact that they really did have a good relationship, Nina has been unable to move on and is losing her interest in life and is emotionally still married to her memory of Jamie. It's a memory that is increasingly idealised, until she is visited by his ghost. Through his visitations, Nina finally faces the realities of her relationship with her lost love, and realises she wants to live. Just about that time, she meets a kookily charming art therapist (Michael Maloney) - convenient timing, to be sure, but then we do tend to see things when we're ready for them.

This is a five-kleenex flick, but it's fun to watch. The relationship between Nina and Jamie is at points idyllic and charming, and also comments on the reality of even the best relationships. Michael Maloney manages to present an obvious threat to Shangri-La, but is so damn likeable that we don't mind.

On a personal note, I was thrilled to find that I understood a good 50% of the spanish. woo hoo! :)

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, this is one of my favourite Alan Rickman movies, I watched it a few weeks ago again, I used a few tissues. :D

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Thanks for the review, this is one of my favourite Alan Rickman movies, I watched it a few weeks ago again, I used a few tissues. :D
haha! Not suprising. It's really well done. With lesser talent, it could be schlock, but in the hands of these two, it's very effective. Rickman is so...... grrrrr.

[nebbit]

It's really well done. With lesser talent, it could be schlock, but in the hands of these two, it's very effective.

:yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup: :yup:

[susan]

thanks for the review...i love alan rickman...i saw this film a while ago and i adored it....just makes me want to see it again...

[John McClane]

Good review. I'm going to go check this film out.

[AboveTheClouds]

I shall also be checking this out.

[Golgot]

Yeah, tis quality. (And was filmed near me ;))

One of the amazing things about it is that Juliet Stevenson is in just about every single scene, yet she carries it so well.

Like you say D (that's the nickname i'm settling on for now ok? :)), with lesser actors it would've been schlock, but director and actors combine to full effect to make this as potent and involving as it is.

The guy who plays Stevenson's love interest does a good job too (tho i was always a bit annoyed by the dove bit. Ghosts, fine. Doves in that situation? Not believable :rolleyes: )

[SamsoniteDelilah]

John and Animal~ I'll be looking forward to hearing what you think of it. :)

GG~ you can call me D. I have to agree that the idea that he happened to have a live bird on his person is both unbelievable and a but unsettling. Otherwise, he was charming. I liked the hopping bit.

[Garrett]

You're right... they are scrunchier. Scrunchy is good.

[ipezdispenser]

manchuThis story interweaves themes of ambition, disparity between the classes/races, science fiction, politics and our current climate of fear and paranoia regarding terrorism...

Which was better the original or the new one?

peace

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I haven't seen the old one yet, am expecting it this weekend.
Rest assured, I'll let you know what I think. :)

[Prospero]

Great reviews, Sam!
I know you by another name, but I'll respect your right to have multiple personalities.

Please post more! The ones you've mentioned need to go on my Netflix queue.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Great reviews, Sam!
I know you by another name, but I'll respect your right to have multiple personalities.

Please post more! The ones you've mentioned need to go on my Netflix queue.
Thanks, Prospero! :)
Welcome to Mofo... drop me a line and let me know how you know me, m'kay?? The suspense is killing me.

[Garrett]

Which was better the original or the new one?

peace

Though that question wasn't directed at me, in my opinion, the remake is a hair better than the old one.

[Mark]

Though that question wasn't directed at me, in my opinion, the remake is a hair better than the old one.

With all due respect to the personal opinions of all, and with the understanding that I haven't seen the new one...

The old one is in the American Film Institute's Top 100, while the new one? Only time will tell.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Richard Condon's book was rejected as a film project by every studio in Hollywood. In doing so, however, it caught the interest of Frank Sinatra, which probably had as much to do with the movie getting made as the efforts of it's screenwriter/director team, George Axelrod and John Frankenheimer. In an afternoon's work, the team bought a copy of the book, wrote a screenplay, attatched Sinatra and started planning the making of The Manchurian Candidate. With a history like that, it's suprisingly high-quality stuff. It's also quite ballsy, attacking the pernicious and unweildy activities of the HUAC. For that it deserves the praises that have, eventually, been afforded this film.mcbw

At the time of its release, the only Oscar accolades seen were a Best Supporting Actress nod for Angela Lansbury (she won a Golden Globe) and a best editing nomination. In fact, the performances are excellent across the boards, handling Axelrod's somewhat stilted dialogue.. that is when he wasn't directly quoting Condon, whose dialogue was stilted and bizarro. The one area not acted well was the romance between Sinatra's Major Marco and Janet Leigh's Eugenie, but acting was certainly not the only problem with that. More on that in a moment.

Most impressive to me was the performance of Laurence Harvey as Sgt Raymond Shaw. Snide, condescending and "unloveable", Shaw is an actor's nightmare until we see his love of Jocelyn. Shaw plays both sides of that contrast with poignant grace, and the effect is heartwrenching when he loses his humanity. By that time we've seen how much of his life has been spent locked in the sarcophagus of his mother's ambition, and we want to see him breathe. The depth of this character makes for a very moving emotional center in the film.

This film is very much a product of it's time, concerned with the Korean conflict and the "Communist Threat", including a dose of American supremacy that might make your toes curl. The social mores are pretty dated as well, especially the roles of the women. Sexual undertones are underplayed, to pretty startling effect at one point. It's not unrelatable, but one does wonder how many more generations will relate without a study guide. I can see why an update was made.

The Women of The Manchurian Candidate
One gets the feeling, watching the behaviour of the women in this story, that any connection between real live women and this story's author is strictly hypothetical: he seems not to know any, based on the WEIRD way these characters behave. They're downright spooky.

Most prominently, we have Mrs Iselin, a ball-busting, pushy, obsessive manipulator who, in Condon's book, eventually seduces her son. This is "downplayed" (read: unseen) in the movie, until very near the end, when Lansbury nearly made me drop my teacup.

Eugenie is a pleasant enough character, but her beaviour is positively warped - breaking off an engagement after one very awkward meeting on a train. Having seen the modern version, I thought, watching their meeting, that it was fairly obvious that Eugenie had been assigned to hook up with Maj Marco: she initiates dialogue and works very hard to keep it going, despite his almost complete refusal to make eye contact. She is so intent on programming her address and phone number into his brain that we half expect her to pull out a whirling Mesmerizer and put him under her spell. This, after no more than 10 lines of conversation. Also in this 3 minute scene, out of nowhere they each inquire if the other is arabic. (WHAT??) All of this worked for me until the film ended and I realised Eugenie isn't an agent in this film. She's just a pretty woman who uses mind control as a matter of course. Sure. Don't we all? :rolleyes:

The only woman not suspiciously assertive is the object of Sgt Raymond Shaw's affections: Jocelyn. It's her love for him, however, that results in the deaths of five central characters by film's end, when Major Marco lets Sgt Shaw go after being swayed by Jocelyn: "I can make him well." So it seems perky and sweet aren't enough either.

Question for Frankenheimer, Axelrod and Condon: mysogenate much, boys??

[Aniko]

Another great review Delila! Angela Lansbury gave me the chills...especially towards the end. But, as you said...everyone was excellent. Keep them coming. :)


She's just a pretty woman who uses mind control as a matter of course. Sure. Don't we all?

I've tried to use mind control on my hubby, but it doesn't always work. :laugh:

[LordSlaytan]

That's every woman's form of witchcraft.

[Garrett]

The old one is in the American Film Institute's Top 100, while the new one? Only time will tell.

With all due respect to AFI and all of the knowledge that they have, their Top 100 lists don't affect in any way, how I feel about any movie.

[John McClane]

:up: Good review.

[nebbit]

Thanks for another great review. :D

[Tazz]

my brain says see the new one, but i really should see the old one. Anyways great REVIEW SAMMY! my second favorite girl on mofo ;)

[LordSlaytan]

See the old one first, let some time go by, then see the new one. Personally, I like them both quite a bit.

[Prospero]

Another great review, and very insightful. I like the original version a lot, but was always a bit put off by Sinatra's performance. Angela Lansbury and Lawrence Harvey are outstanding, though. (I like the remake quite a bit, too).

[Garrett]

my brain says see the new one, but i really should see the old one.

Ignore your brain and see both of them but like Brian said, see the old one first.

[Sedai]

Nice work Delila, as usual..... :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Which was better the original or the new one?

peace
That's a very tough question. I've been thinking about it for a few days now. There are areas where each has it over the other. I guess I like the older one slightly better, overall. Here's where I think each excels:

1962
More depth in the male characters
The garden club/murder scene is brilliant, with the double-casting and the spliced editing
Laurance Harvey's performance as Sgt Shaw is more dynamic
More intelligent treatment of the brainwashing

2004
More depth in the female characters, esp Eugenie
The buildup to the shooting is a hugely effective suspense sequence
Denzel's Maj Marco is better focused as a character (also: less "movie star", more "actor")
Better dialogue
Less reliant on the historical setting of the film


Thank you to everybody who responded. It's most gratifying to know you're reading! :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Return to Me is, itself, a return to the old-fashioned r2mromantic films that featured Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Bonnie Hunt's directorial debut stars David Duchovny and Minnie Driver, with an excellent supporting cast featuring Carroll O'Conner, Jim Belushi and Ms Hunt herself. If that's not enough, Ms Hunt also co-wrote the story (with Don Lake) and the cast is dotted with her family and friends from Chicago's theater circle.

The story could not be more predictable. The premise is kinda silly: guy falls for the organ donor recipient who got his dead wife's heart. The development is formulaic and features a few awkward moments where jokes fall flat. Sounds like a bit of a clunker so far, doesn't it?

Well, it's not.
Believe it or else.

This film is a remarkable showcase for the value of sincerity in storytelling. The thing that pulls us in is the unvarnished honesty with which the characters are played, and the reality in how they interact. This is the first time I've liked Mumbles Duchovny - not only can you understand every word he says (thank God I was sitting down), his acting is really detailed and honest and his character is relatable. Minnie Driver and Carroll O'Connor are two of my favorites and turn in strong performances here, but the show is nearly stolen by Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belishi. They play a married couple with an indeterminable number of kids and their improv theater background infuses the entire film with chaotic life and humor.

The charm comes from the details, here. The score features old standards and the setting, in Chicago, hearkens back to our grandparents' day, giving us the impression that romance is timeless and universal. The overall effect is a really charming and pleasant ride, even if you can see where we're going the whole time.

[susan]

thanks for the review...i saw this one in the movies and thought it was a lovely film....

[Prospero]

Cool. thanks for this review.
My wife likes this sorta thing, so I think I'll have to put it on my Netflix queue.

[nebbit]

The story could not be more predictable. The premise is kinda silly: guy falls for the organ donor recipient who got his dead wife's heart. The development is formulaic and features a few awkward moments where jokes fall flat. Sounds like a bit of a clunker so far, doesn't it?.

This sums up my feelings about this movie, sorry I didn't find it romantic at all http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/tongues/smile01.gif

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This sums up my feelings about this movie, sorry I didn't find it romantic at all http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/tongues/smile01.gif
Hehe... There seems to be a broad range of reactions to this movie.

[birdygyrl]

I just finished reading all five pages of this thread. You are the bomb. I, too, have added several of your reviewed movies to my Netflix queue. I wish I had your talent with the written word. You are so creative and expressive. I look forward to reading many more reviews. Thank you......Birdy

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I just finished reading all five pages of this thread. You are the bomb. I, too, have added several of your reviewed movies to my Netflix queue. I wish I had your talent with the written word. You are so creative and expressive. I look forward to reading many more reviews. Thank you......Birdy
Wow! I'm goint to print this post, frame it and hang it on my wall in a little spotlight. :) Thanks for reading, birdy! Your reply made my day!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

If you're craving a movie that will delight your eyes, tickle your funnybone, stroke your cynicism and stimulate your brain, watch Terry Gilliam's Brazil. brazil Be warned: you may need to watch it twice before it all starts to fit together. There's a slight muddling of things, due to the insanity of the central character, that can make this film a little tough to follow the first time through. Fear not, Gentle Reader: the other elements are so dazzling that you'll hardly mind.

Brazil tells the story of an everyman in an absurd world of buck-passing and computer bugs. He takes one small action to set a wrong right and inadvertantly sets himself against The System.

Jonathan Pryce stars as Sam Lowrie, office cypher. Sam is an everyman, an innocent caught up in the grim realities of a "retro-futuristic" orwellian world that eerily resembles our own. Newcomer Kim Griest plays Sam's love interest and Katherine Helmond does a brilliant (if horrific) turn as his salf-absorbed mother. Sam's hero and inspiration comes in the form of a subversive duct-repairman, played by Robert De Niro.

The supporting cast is fantastic. Look for a scene in which Sam accidentally steps on the foot of Kathryn Pogson's character for the best illustration ever of the old adage about 'no small roles'.

iii
Every frame of this film is art: a delicious visual collage of art movements of the 20th Century. The grim, overbuilt world created here is beyond detailed - it's baroque and surreal. Sam escapes from this into a fantasy world of equal proportions, breathtaking and seemingly inspired by Maxfield Parrish - so you know I wasn't complaining. :) Similarly, the soundtrack is gorgeous. The title theme, a haunting tune from the 1930's, was the inspiration for the film and appears throughout in various forms.

Anyone who has worked in an office in a big city will relate to this scenario. Consequently, they should expect nightmares after viewing... but they'll be gorgeous nightmares!

[Anonymous Last]

Great review!!! I just love the gorgeous nightmares.
"Gorgeous nightmares" (now that's a thought) Sometimes when the world has beaten me down, when I think all manner of evil has set itself in opposition to me, and I (for the life of me) cannot find two matching socks…that thought, and that thought alone, is the only thing that allows me to go on with my life.


Sam Lowry: How are the twins?
Jack Lint: Triplets.
Sam Lowry: My, how time flies!

I need to go to LA.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Great review!!! I just love the gorgeous nightmares.
"Gorgeous nightmares" (now that's a thought) Sometimes when the world has beaten me down, when I think all manner of evil has set itself in opposition to me, and I (for the life of me) cannot find two matching socks…that thought, and that thought alone, is the only thing that allows me to go on with my life.


Sam Lowry: How are the twins?
Jack Lint: Triplets.
Sam Lowry: My, how time flies!

I need to go to LA.
Thank you! :) Glad you enjoyed it.
I actually missed that little run of lines. That's hilarious. "how time flies"
You're coming to LA?

[Anonymous Last]

Thank you! :) Glad you enjoyed it.
I actually missed that little run of lines. That's hilarious. "how time flies"
You're coming to LA?


I would love to go to LA... and to meet Sophia Loren.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I would love to go to LA... and meet Sophia Loren
:p You silly thing.

[Anonymous Last]

:p You silly thing.
I actually submitted that post?

Whoops!


Thank you! :) Glad you enjoyed it.
I actually missed that little run of lines. That's hilarious. "how time flies"
You're coming to LA?


I would love to go to LA... and to meet Sophia Loren.

I pulled an edit out my pocket...

[Sedai]

Brazil is up in my top 20 favorite films. Gilliam is a magician and a maniac. I love most of his work...

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I was less-than-crazy about it the first time through. After a second viewing, I think I might buy a copy.

[Prospero]

I'm glad to see that you like this wonderful movie too.
A lot of folks just don't get it. More's the pity.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I'm glad to see that you like this wonderful movie too.
A lot of folks just don't get it. More's the pity.
Well, that's true of so many things, and yet if we all liked sushi, we could never get a seat at the bar.

[Anonymous Last]

Ya know how when you find that special someone…that one person who completes the puzzle that is you, the very last piece that just snicks into place and everything feels right, perfect, and whole? That person who makes you feel as though you could be standing in the face of the combined unholy armies of hell, the ’72 Pack offensive line, and the Deathstrike Razor-Merks of Galaculoa Prime 37b, Vader's force-death grip around your neck and you’d still feel safe?

You are, like, -- that.

When I read posts like this...Well, that's true of so many things, and yet if we all liked sushi, we could never get a seat at the bar. well... you make me want to take off my shoulder holster.

[birdygyrl]

I can't believe you reviewed this movie. I just watched it for the first time this weekend. I will admit that I was a bit skeptical at first, sat there scratching my head saying, "huh?" Then I finally realized that the more absurb it seemed to get the more I could see the message. I want to see it again soon. Thanks for another great review Delila. You rock. :up:

[SpoOkY]

I know you posted this so long ago, but I love your review because you really thought through the themes of the film and really made me realise the full depth of Lost in Translation. You were right about having to see it a few times, because each time you watch it, the more you get out of it. I suppose after I watch it like 10 times I may not get as much, until then it will remain one of my favourite movies to come out recently. :)

[susan]

excellent review of a great film!!!! you know that there are three versions of this film...the first brazil is the one released in the us with the 20 minutes of the european version lopped off...the second version is the european with with the extra 20 minutes and the third version is the one that universal cut up with the "happy ending" which is the worst...we have all three versions ..the third we taped from tv once we found out it was going on...

thanks for the review...didn't mean to go off like that...

[nebbit]

Thanks Lila for another great review of a great movie :D

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Anonymous~ You are easy to please. I like that in a man. ;)
Birdy~ look for more coincidences in seeing the same movies, because... well... I'm stalking you.
Spooky~ yay, another LiT fan! :D
susan~ I had heard vague references to other versions, so I really appreciate the 411! Thank you!
nebs~ omg your AV just broke me up! Thanks for the comment. :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

pppFrancois Truffaut's love of filmmaking is the main character in this film about the movie industry. The film itself is enjoyable, but not terribly deep. It's the story of a film cast and crew, shooting a quaint little movie in 5 weeks. If you've never been around a set, this is a great introduction to the chaotic pressure people are generally under, both personally and professionally. It's also a bit of a castigation of the splashy immorality of the Hollywood lifestyle. (The french title translates to "The American Night". hmmm.) The story of the movie echos the story in the movie, in a fairly light-hearted treatment in both cases.

The cast is fun. It includes Jacqueline Bisset, Jean-Pierre Léaud (a frequent Truffaut choice), and Truffaut himself, as the director. This film is the ancestor of a long line of other movies-about-movies, and deserves a watch. It's well-performed and unsentimental, but it's no masterpiece.

[Anonymous Last]

Anonymous~ You are easy to please. I like that in a man. ;)

I'm not too spoiled. Though I have my days.

[John McClane]

:up:

[nebbit]

Thanks for that little review, I don't remember seeing this film must keep my eye out for it. :yup:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

If you haven't seen The Tick: The Entire Series, you haven't seen tttFunny, my friends. I accidentally ordered it last weekend from Netflix and have never been happier to have screwed up a really simple task. The title's inclusion of the phrase "the entire series" is an appropriately tick-ish ironic nod to the series' cancellation, a week after it's debut. Sad and puzzling, considering it was a critical success, a hit with the fans of the comic, and had me roaring with giggles.

Translating animation into live-action is not for the faint of heart. Fans were hopping mad when they learned The Tick's costume would reveal his entire face. Those fears were laid to rest with the one-two punch of the casting of Patrick Warburton (best known as Elaine's boyfriend "Putty" on Seinfeld), and the mechanical antennae on top of his head. The combination is actually more expressive than the comic, to hilarious result.

Produced by Barry Sonnenfeld (Get Shorty, Men In Black), the series packs the wit, the wackiness, and the word wizardry (I barely had to oooreach for that alliteration) of the cartoon, with the added bonus of campy acting at an olympian level by the suporting cast. Arthur (the super...moth) is played by David Burke, with Liz Vassey as Captain Liberty and Nestor Carbonnel as Batmanuel.

The cartoon series met a similarly frustrating demise, as tv execs deemed it to be "not reaching it's target audience". It wasn't: kids have no idea how funny that show was. I did though, dammit, and if you did too, I heartily recommend renting this 2-disc set on DVD. The Tick: The Entire Series rivals anything I've seen for comic-book-spoof-silly-social-satire kinda fun. If you somehow fail to find it hilarious, you still get to look at Liz Vassey, and let's face it: worse things have happened to you.liz

[nebbit]

My husband loved this show :D

[Garrett]

I agree totally with your review... why do the funniest shows always get cancelled the quickest? It's a funny world, huh?

If you somehow fail to find it hilarious, you still get to look at Liz Vassey
:yup: :randy:

[susan]

thanks for the review...my husband also loved this show...as soon as he found out they were on dvd he ordered them...

[nebbit]

thanks for the review...my husband also loved this show...as soon as he found out they were on dvd he ordered them...

The two Roberts, they both have great taste, they married 2 lovely Susans http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage15/20.gif

[Anonymous Last]

That settles it... I am going to get myself a blue Tick costume for Halloween. Right after I return the Vicki Small Wonder costume I just bought.


I loved the Tick show.

[blibblobblib]

I consider it a marvellous and heroic undertaking to present all of this in a positive light, and with an emphasis on understanding. Truly beautiful and inspiring work.
Wonderful Review. Love it :yup:

EDIT: Im talking about your Angels in America review by the way ;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

http://www.tribute.ca/tribute_objects/images/movies/i_heart_huckabees/ihearthuckabees2.jpg
My mom's reaction: "that was in-sane".... is reasonably apt. I found it very enjoyable, and god I love the cast, but the story gets a little lost in social commentary in the middle. It's very funny and borders on poignant and profound with observations about life and perception. There were, to be honest, moments when I felt I was watching a dramatization of the forums here and that was a bit surreal. Ideas take the fore and motivations are discussed very openly in the world of this film. I appreciate the level of intellectualism in it, but it needed a slightly better balance on the side of the story itself. There's a Kaufman-esque balance on the cerebral that I can really get into on an intellectual level, but film is a medium with the ability to get several balls in the air (intellectual, emotional, visual, aural, semiotic, etc etc) and director/co-writer David O. Russell didn't get it all going here.

I Heart Huckabees is the story of Albert Markovski's (Schwartzman) search for the meaning in a string of coincidental meetings with a stranger. He believes this coincidence may hold the key to his workplace rivalry against Brad (Jude Law). Albert goes to an existential detective agency (a married couple played by Hoffman and Tomlin) and they tail him, bug him, interview co-workers and subject him to a sort of hypnotic psychoanalysis, in an attempt to uncover the connections that are influencing Albert's life. Their efforts are threatened by former student turned nihilist author Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert), whose newest devotee (Mark Wahlberg) is inadvertantly (coincidentally??) matched with Albert in a buddy-system arrangement. Confusing? Amazingly, no.

What Russell did do with aplomb, was pull together a cast who was up to the task. I loved the hell outta Jason Schwartzman in this. There's something about him that is off the beaten path. I am a HUGE fan of Lily Tomlin, so seeing her doing her thing always makes me grin. These characters were great, all of them. Hoffman's nurturing little persona was a great contrast to Wahlberg's angry fireman. Jude Law was the prettiest pretty boy ever (eyeliner notwithstanding), but he also brought humanity to the character that was refreshingly committed.

My favorite thing here was the one-liners. "There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity." heh!! There was much that was really thought-provoking. I recommend this one, provided you're going in with a basic understanding of existentialism and pop psychology.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review Delila, it sounds interesting :D

[susan]

thanks for the review...right now this film is in the city...i'm just waiting for it to come out here...and when it does i plan to see it...

[Prospero]

I want to see this movie. It looks like it's right up my alley.

Thanks for the great review!

[AboveTheClouds]

Great review, I have yet to see this, but your review has bumped it up on my list.

[Tazz]

I want to see this movie, but its not playing around me.

Great review sam! :up:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

This is a much bigger story (pun not intended) than I originally thought. igIt's animated and a story about a young boy who befriends a giant robot. Seems safe, right? Not too emotionally rough? Don't. You. Believe it. I won't spoil it more than that may have, but since it looks like a kids' movie I will say: it should have a warning on the box. I wouldn't show it to kids under age 10 unless you're willing to hang around and talk to them about it, after. That said, this movie is positively wonderful.

The Iron Giant is set in 1957, the year of Sputnik and the growing Cold War. Pride in the country vies against paranoia of things "foreign". The film looks at the propaganda of a byegone age with modern eyes, but the viewer can't help but notice that those old issues are our issues, today. Though not a traditional "war movie" in that there aren't armies battling, it definately makes statements about the cold war, and the assault of propaganda on what was once an unsuspecting public.

The story is a weaving together of several familiar stories: Frankenstein, The Elephant Man, Superman, Osiris, King Kong... not new material, but they're combined with such grace and skill that we get sucked in, anyway. Directed by Brad Bird, the animation itself is lovely - particularly the gestures, which made the more emotional scenes incredibly touching. The comedy is timed to perfection.

The voice work is spot on, in every role; totally honest, invested and compelling. Hogarth, the young boy who finds the Giant, is voiced by a young theater talent from San Fransisco, Eli Marienthal. Opposite him is none other than Vin Diesel as the Giant, in a brilliant use of his talent. Jennifer Anniston is the voice of Hogarth's mom, and Harry Connick, Jr. is the local beatnik artist with a good heart. The military men are voiced by John Mahoney and Chris McDonald, who is awesome as the meddling FBI agent.

Underscoring by Michael Kamen, and the Czech Philharmonic, provide a darker-than-usual score that affirms the depth of the themes in tihis "kids' story".

ig2The film is based on the novel The Iron Man by Ted Hughes, and was made into a concept album in the 80's by Pete Townshend, who's the exec producer on this animated film as well. Townshend's story featured a rangey plot riddled with Freudianism, and this story is considerably more cogent and a-sexual but I found it interesting that the story itself has been through so many incarnations. (Thanks, Tacitus for the info!)

Bird says he pitched the story to Warner Brothers with the tag line, "what if a gun had a soul?" He answers that question without a lot of sugary frip, but with huge emotional impact.

Rating: 5 kleenexes out of 5.

[susan]

loved this film...thanks for the review

[projectMayhem]

I love The Iron Giant. By far my favorite animated movie, and I can't wait to see Bird's The Incredibles.

[Aniko]

I love the The Iron Giant also. I've seen it quite a few times and have cried everytime.

Nice review Delila. I hadn't thought about the meshing of the stories of Frankenstein, The Elephant Man, Superman, Osiris and King Kong together. Nice insight. And, I agree with you on the voice talent by the way. They were all perfect. The first time I saw this Harry Connick, Jr. was the stand out to me. He has such a smooth voice.

[Anonymous Last]

I love the Iron Giant. I watch it with my daughter all the time.
It's one movie we can agree on.

[birdygyrl]

I had forgotten all about this film til your review. Thanks for reminding me what a good film it is.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I love the Iron Giant. I watch it with my daughter all the time.
It's one movie we can agree on.
I'm very curious how your daughter deals with the ... one part... can't remember how to do spoilers, dammit. I'll PM you.

Thanks for the comments, y'all! :)

[John McClane]

:up:

[blibblobblib]

You review the best films! I absoloutly love the Iron Giant. Ive been trying to convince my small minded housemates to watch this for a long while and they choose not to merely on the basis that its a cartoon. Oh what those fools are missing out on! Am a big fan of Brad Bird now and cannot wait much longer for The Incredibles.

Love ya review on I Heart Huckabees as well. Cant wait to see that, although were not getting it over here in the UK until the end of JANUARY!!! It disgusts me...

[Tacitus]

That's another for my 'to watch' list. :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Even the old man behind me was sniffling, by the end. img1Take kleenex, but by all means, see this film. This is the story of J. Barrie's experiences with the Llewelyn Davies family - the widow Sylvia and her four sons. Barrie takes them under his wing, and they take him into their hearts... to the detriment of his marriage and reputation, but they don't seem to care. The resultant story is Peter Pan, and this film interweaves that story with it's own conception with unsentimental genuine affection. This amazing balance is struck in (first time screenplay writer) David Magee's script, overseen beautifully by director Marc Forster (Monsters Ball) and acted with emotionally img2charged honesty by a superb cast. Johnny Depp turns in a very precise and vivid performance as Barrie. Kate Winslet is her always-skilled and beautiful self. And veteran of 7 films (at age 12) Freddy Highmore steals hearts as Peter, the sometimes ironic inspiration for Barrie's Peter Pan.

This is a period piece (1903 London), Depp does a Scottish brogue, it's a very emotional story.... every pitfall one could imagine, yet they're navigated with such seemingly effortless that only in retrospect did I realise how badly this could have gone. The story is one to get lost in. I look forward to the opening so I can do it again!

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I am looking forward to seeing this one, it has 2 of my favourite actors in it. :randy: :blush:

[susan]

you've done a great job with this film...i can't agree more and i love the pictures...

the entire cast is worth watching in this....johnny depp, kate winslet and julie christie are excellent....

[nebbit]

It hasn't started here yet. :bawling:

[susan]

It hasn't started here yet. :bawling:

technically, it hasn't started here either...only a sneak preview last night...

[Tazz]

Great review sammy!!!
I knew you were going do one.

My favorite out of the boys had to be Michael.
And i love when wendy(In the play) grabbed the Kite and then the camera moved around the theater.

Sam! we both at 1500 post!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Nebbit~ your favourites... let me guess... Depp and Hoffman? They're two of mine, too. Both wonderfully talented and, by all accounts, great guys to work with.

susan~ thank you! I came home just swooning. The photography and the story are both so beautiful. I'm glad you enjoyed it, too!

tazZ~ we rock! ::does the 1500 post dance:: That effect with the camera that you mention was really expressive, I thought. Good observation!

[blibblobblib]

I saw this tonight and absoloutly loved it. For the first half i started to worry that it could go very wrong, and too much "lets live in magical land" would have taken over, but from the fantasy on the pirate ship i loved every moment. Found it very hard not to shed a tear when the curtain lifts and Barrie shows us Neverland towards the end. Kate was amazing as always, she always plays a charater so well, its very hard not to care about them. Depp i found a little dissapointing, did anyone else find this? I just expected a little more oomfphyness (blibism) from him. Sure his accent was great, but not enough emotion for me. But, i guess he did a good enough job, i actually had to escort my friend out the cinema as her tears and mascara juice were blinding her eyes....i think a couple of moviegoers thought i had hit her.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Depp is a bit still (samism) in this. I liked it though, because there's so much whirlwind going on around him, and he's the observer, making poetic sense of it all and jotting notes.

Are you going to sit there and claim you didn't cry? Because I'll never believe you. Never. Personally, I walked out of the theater looking like someone had killed my dog. Which I really think happened because they didn't go over the top, as they easily could have. The line is very carefully walked here - one of Kate's specialties.

[Aniko]

I've been in a vaccum the past few weeks and didn't know about it. You've just made me excited to go out and see this. Great review Delilia...and encouraging remarks from everyone. I love Kate...and I'll be interested to see her and Depp together.

I'll make sure to bring my tissues. :)

[blibblobblib]

Are you going to sit there and claim you didn't cry? Because I'll never believe you. Never.
Fine, you want the truth? I'll TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I cried so much people thought i was having a seizure! When my friends tried to comfort me i wiped my snot all over there clothes by accident! Then... at the end i began crying so much i heaved and a little bit of throw up went in my friends popcorn! HAPPY?? NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH??!! WELLL??!

:bawling:

*runs away crying*

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Fine, you want the truth? I'll TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I cried so much people thought i was having a seizure! When my friends tried to comfort me i wiped my snot all over there clothes by accident! Then... at the end i began crying so much i heaved and a little bit of throw up went in my friends popcorn! HAPPY?? NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH??!! WELLL??!

:bawling:

*runs away crying*
I figured as much.
Crybaby.



Aniko~ I look forward to hearing what you think of it.

[Sedai]

You spit reviews out like Bullets from Holden's gatling gun....

:)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I set a goal for the year... It's one of the few New Years' Resolutions I'll be keeping.

[HellboyUnleashed]

great reviews. My parents told me if i reviewed all of the movies I watched very few of them would get bad remarks from me. They say the shortest book would be "The Movies Michael Didn't Like". Thats my name by the way

[Garrett]

I set a goal for the year... It's one of the few New Years' Resolutions I'll be keeping.

What is it?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hellboy~ I think it takes much more skill to find the good in things. That's awesome that you know enough about film to always find things you like in them. :)

Garrett~ 52 for the year... one a week or so.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

It's good. At the risk of seeming cutsie: It's "nice". I had the Kirsten Dunst Fan Club sitting right behind me, doing their utmost to sound like a riled henhouse every time Dunst finished a line. I'd have given my left tit for a vat of boiling oil by half way through the movie. So maybe that's got something to do with my response. Or lack thereof. I just don't feel like raving about it. And it seems like everyone else does.

imgThe central performances are very strong. Carey and Winslet are both very invested in this, and at times that's really challenging. Winslet's character could have been a rock-star wannabe in the hands of most of Hollywood, and she gave it just enough grounding to make her relatable. Kaufman walked the line with the character of Clementine between bullsh</>itter and genuine, and Winslet charged up both sides. Nicely done. I didn't relate so well to Joel. I think that's the main thing that distanced the whole thing for me, emotionally. He's so.... blah. He's certainly someone who needs a Clementine in his life, so I can understand his strong drive to want her back, but as to why she'd want him, I can't begin to guess.

The very strong subplot is also well-acted, though this is a weird role for Elijah Wood. Mark Rufalo and Kirsten Dunst are both on their game and well-cast.

The writing is some of Kaufman's best. He seems to finally have found a balance between cerebralism and emotion. This accounts for the attraction of the main story, and is underlined in the graceful subplot between the doctor and his assistant. Up til the scene with the doc's wife in the street, this is a love story about two people. The fact that Mary still feels for Tom broadens the scope and clarifies the message of the film. It's well acted, especially that tape of Mary. I might could have done with less of Rufalo, especially in his baggy old underpants. But that's another story.

The photography, palette, light, etc in this were gorgeous and gave the whole thing a surreal quality that supported the story nicely. I think that song at the end was really weak. Would have rather'd "Book of Love" by the Magnetic Fields, or something.

Like Lost in Translation, this film affirms good stuff - appreciating people for their entirety, and letting love win over fear. That's all good, but in this case there are a few small problems. Perhaps in time I'll come to love it, warts and all. (god, I hate that expression) For now, I give it 8/10.

[nebbit]

I couldn't understand what Kate's Character saw in Jims :rolleyes: great review Sammy :yup: :yup:

[susan]

there were a few things i didn't like about this..most of it was location...westchester became rockville centre and east hampton became montauk but that aside....

i have to agree with elijah wood..the only thing that he was doing there was making money...other than that...i thought the film was excellent ...

thanks for your review

[chicagofrog]

yeah! thanx/merci/danke and congrats/félicitations/gratuliere :) :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Nebbs~ we're so sensible. ;) You wouldn't believe the battle I had when that movie came out and I first wrote that (this is a re-write, after seeing it a second time). Glad to know you thought the same.

susan~ that would bother me, as well. Things set in LA get sort of blurry, location-wise, too, and it makes for a Brechtian moment when you're saying "he'd have to be in a JET to get there in 10 minutes!"

chi-froggie~ de nada/bitte schoen/I'm outta languages :D

[Sedai]

Great review Sammy. I really liked this film a lot, and didn't really find any issues with it, although the point you make about why Clem would want Joel in the first place makes sense...

[Tazz]

Great review! I loved this movie alot, i can't wait for the Collector's Edition to come out!

[Garrett]

I was a little bored when I watched this; it's good, but certainly not great. Nice review.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Thanks for reading, guys! :)
Sedai~ it wasn't a huge thing. Could have been fixed with a few little details, really. Sometimes, little things bug me though.
Zzat~ cool! Let me know if it has good commentary, ok?
Garrett~ the pacing got a little funny for me in the middle and my not caring about Joel started to accumulate into "blah". I liked it better the second time, though. Thanks for the comments.

[Garrett]

P.S. - Your index is falling behind.

EDIT Nevermind. I'm a lunatic.

[Mark]

One of the best things about this film is knowing that Kaufman isn't just a flash in the pan, never to be heard of again after a few good scripts. Not only was the script the best part of this film, but the promise of more of the like from Kaufman is encouraging.

Some of the things I loved about this film were the subtleties. As soon as Joel woke up to the car door shutting (to open the film), I knew in the back of my mind that that sound was there for a reason. Of course, there were a ton more. It's one of those films that would be fun to watch a second time, knowing what you didn't know before.

Thanks for sharing, Sammy (is that your official nickname?) :cool:

[7thson]

I think that the most amazing thing about "love" is that it is confusing. Anyone who says that love makes sense has never been in love. Great review.

[Anonymous Last]

P.S. - Your index is falling behind. ;)

Who's index?

Quit looking at their behind.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Garret~ heh! Welcome to the club.

Mark~ I'm good with "Sammy". :) Thanks for the comments, and agreed about Kaufmann. It's great to know there are script-writers focusing on the cerebral out there.

7th~ brother, you said a mouthful.

Anonymous~ I don't think you're supposed to give advice that you would never take.

[nebbit]

Anonymous~ I don't think you're supposed to give advice that you would never take.

Anonboy gives advice ;)

[Anonymous Last]

Excellent advice, thank you.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

There are a few problems with the film, namely that the musical direction is sadly American Idoled up toward the beginning, undermining the talents of the leads. They shine in later songs, but at the start they pay the price for the slight dumbing down of the music. The other problem is the crowd scenes, which lacked energy and focus.
pto
Aside from those problems, this film has much to be praised. The cast is excellent. Minnie Driver practically steals the show as Carlotta and Miranda Richardson lends exactly the right mystery to the ballet mistress. Emmy Rossum is introduced as Christine and Gerard Butler as the Phantom - both are clearly capable of excellent performances, but both suffer early on from poor musical direction. Both have shining moments later in the film, however. Patrick Wilson is well-sung as Raoul.

The photography (excluding the crowd scenes) offers some very cool effects, particularly the very grainy black and white of the "present day" auction scenes. One of the best touches in this film is the makeup. Both the deformation of the Phantom and the age makeups on Richardson and Wilson are excellent.

Overall, this is fun to look at, nice to hear. The story is well-told. It's not spectacular though, and it should have been.

[John McClane]

Hey nice work. :up:

[nebbit]

Thanks Sammy :D

[susan]

thanks for the review...will probably go see this one on new years eve....i haven't seen the broadway show so i've got nothinng to compare

[Garrett]

I'm looking forward to a review of The Life Aquatic if you get around to it.

Not that I'm trying to pressure you or anything ;)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

:D That's definately on my agenda for this week. I haven't gotten to see it yet, and I'm chomping at the bit!

[birdygyrl]

Thanks for the review. This movie was on my "probably" list. Now its on my "maybe" list of movies. I trust your judgement.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Time flies when you're watching these people have fun. bs 1995 saw the release of complete sleeper Before Sunrise, in which Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet on a train and spend a night together, walking around Paris and talking. They agree to meet again at the same place, in 6 months. Before Sunset finds the same characters, nine years later, as they are finally reunited.

The thing that makes this pair of movies wonderful is that these characters truly get each other, thoroughly enjoy talking with each other and take full advantage of the perfect setting for falling in love... and we're along for the ride. The scenery is gorgeous - as you'd expect of Paris. The acting is flawless. Both of these actors have matured and so have their characters. Both actors had input into Richard Linkletter's script, and the result feels true to the relationship that's been established. In so doing, they recapture the charming chemistry that made their first meeting so wonderful, and pull us in again.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review Sammy, I must see this, it only stayed a week out the cinema here when it came out. :(

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Thanks for the review Sammy, I must see this, it only stayed a week out the cinema here when it came out. :(
It wasn't here long, either. I just got it from Netflix. Thank god for them!

[Caitlyn]

Nice reviews Sammy D… I've been curious about Phantom and will probably make an effort to see it now… :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hey, Caity~ thanks for reading. I think it's worth seeing, just not spectacular. It's bound to get some Oscar attention, for costumes, makeup and music. The story is really sweet, though.

[Garrett]

It wasn't here long, either. I just got it from Netflix. Thank god for them!

How is Netflix? I've been tossing around the idea of subscribing to one of those online rental services for a while now.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

How is Netflix? I've been tossing around the idea of subscribing to one of those online rental services for a while now.
I seriously love it. I was renting 3-4 movies a weekend at Blockbuster, usually failing to return them on time, and paying around $100 a month for my movie habit. With Netflix, I usually have a new batch of movies every weekend, and it only costs me $20/month. They also let you make a queue of movies, so you don't have to try to remember the titles of things you mean to see.

[Garrett]

I hate to imagine how much I must spend renting movies from month to month. I imagine it's well over $100. I just might have to try Netflix.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

If you PM me your email, I will send you an invite and you can try it for free. You might get a free trial just for signing up, but if not, let me know.

[allthatglitters]

Nice reviews. I saw Phantom of the Opera new years eve. Thankfully I didn't expect much, but I still left the theater whilst Butler sang 'Music of the night', couldn't let a sub-par performance (in my hears) ruin my favorite broadway song.

It's not spectacular though, and it should have been.

Totally agree. Props to you for your great reviews.

[nebbit]

Love your new avatar Sammy, I love that picture of Marilyn, I have it in my office at work. :D

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Thanks Glitter and Nebbs! :)
Nebbit, it's one of my favorite pics of her, too. The series of three is great.
http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/marilynballetgdf-1.jpg

[chicagofrog]

1) The scenery is gorgeous - as you'd expect of Paris. 2) The acting is flawless. 3) Both of these actors have matured and so have their characters. they recapture the charming chemistry that made their first meeting so wonderful.

great review, Cindy!
i liked that movie a lot too, and twas funny to see it in the States and wonder if i was the only frog in the theater...
plus i appreciated her jokes about how she considers Americans and the difference between these and Frenchies... although she wasn't right in all she said...
plus i could connect with the story so well... and wish real life could be like that flick, since certain people don't get the kinda exceptional second chance that guy gets, although they're not less deserving than he is... but then he's American and she is French, not the opposite!
a few remarks:
1) Paris is not so gorgeous as they/the medias/the clichés about France and blahblah would want you to believe
2) HER acting, i can't help finding/feeling, is better than his
3) she has matured a lot (i saw the first movie with her like 15 years ago??), him, i'm not so sure, it seems to me he's posing all the time and trying to look good whenever he's talking
... meaning, i'd have loved that movie a lot more with another actor, but in part 1 too of course...
and she's a beautiful voice and is an interesting musician in fact, amazingly.

[John McClane]

I seriously love it. I was renting 3-4 movies a weekend at Blockbuster, usually failing to return them on time, and paying around $100 a month for my movie habit. With Netflix, I usually have a new batch of movies every weekend, and it only costs me $20/month. They also let you make a queue of movies, so you don't have to try to remember the titles of things you mean to see.
Great thing now though. NO MORE LATE FEES!!! If you need an extra day or two with your movies and games, you go ahead and take them. :) They said they're going to lose millions of dollars just by getting ready of the late fee dues.

[Garrett]

Great thing now though. NO MORE LATE FEWS!!! If you need an extra day or two with your movies and games, you go ahead and take them. :) They said they're going to lose millions of dollars just by getting ready of the late fee dues.

Too bad there isn't much of a selection.

[John McClane]

Too bad there isn't much of a selection.
It's good news for us video gamers though.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

great review, Cindy!
i liked that movie a lot too, and twas funny to see it in the States and wonder if i was the only frog in the theater...
plus i appreciated her jokes about how she considers Americans and the difference between these and Frenchies... although she wasn't right in all she said...
plus i could connect with the story so well... and wish real life could be like that flick, since certain people don't get the kinda exceptional second chance that guy gets, although they're not less deserving than he is... but then he's American and she is French, not the opposite!
a few remarks:
1) Paris is not so gorgeous as they/the medias/the clichés about France and blahblah would want you to believe
2) HER acting, i can't help finding/feeling, is better than his
3) she has matured a lot (i saw the first movie with her like 15 years ago??), him, i'm not so sure, it seems to me he's posing all the time and trying to look good whenever he's talking
... meaning, i'd have loved that movie a lot more with another actor, but in part 1 too of course...
and she's a beautiful voice and is an interesting musician in fact, amazingly.
Thanks, Frogman! :)
That would be interesting, seeing it in the states and being from there. I've had a similar experience watching American Splendor, but with the added jolt of recognizing one of the characters as someone I knew. Very odd experience!
I really liked Julie Delphy's voice, too. The song was ok, it worked for the film, but when I watched it the second time I wasn't too impressed with the song itself.

As to your points... (yay, I love points)...
1. No place is as gorgeous as they show you, unless you're getting the scenic view. There's always something just out of frame that you don't want to know about.
2. I agree, she is better.
3. I agree, he's Pinnocchio. But he's not AS self-conscous as he was 10 years ago, when I really hoped he'd trip and fall, just to see him move naturally for a minute. :D

[chicagofrog]

Samsonite, you and your thoughts are more gorgeous than Paris!

[Mose]

Delilah - Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy reading your reviews. I stumbled across them a few weeks ago and have slowly been working through them. While we don't always share the same taste in movies, we do share a love of the classics, particularly the comedies. Keep 'em coming!

[Anonymous Last]

Delilah - Keep 'em coming!

Yes...I agree!

[Aniko]

I love your reviews Sammy....and I love your new avatar (very nice). :)

I loved Finding Neverland and your review was spot on. I only wish I had taked tissues with me instead of my popcorn napkins. My eyes and nose were beet red by the end. :bawling:

Before Sunset....I probably shouldn't say it...but I didn't care for this at first. I'm not a huge fan of Ethan Hawke, but I liked Julie Delpy. I dunno...I couldn't get attached to the characters and found myself not caring if they got together or not and...and...hang on to your seat Cindybear....I turned it off halfway through. However...since you wrote such a wonderful review, you have me interested in seeing it again and giving this another chance. Keep up the good writing. :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

chicago, Mose, Anony, Aniko~ thanks, y'all! :D Your praise makes me glad I took the time to write.

Aniko~ I walked out of Finding Neverland thinking, "well, maybe I don't LOOK like I've been crying... Sometimes it doesn't really show. " and when I looked in the mirror, I burst out laughing because I was a complete mess.

And you're not the first person I've heard say that about Before Sunset. I had a huge debate about it with someone, in fact. :p It probably helped that I had seen the first one within the last six months, and I'm a total fangirl of it, even with EH's posing.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Preston Sturges was a genius. And not the nerdy, obnoxious kind. He was the kind you hope you get to hang out with, if Sullivan't Travels is any indication of the wit, intellect and charm of it's writer/director. It's the story of a filmmaker (obviously based on Sturges himself) with a successful career in comedy, who iiiwants to make a film about human suffering. In a hilarious opening scene, he pitches this idea to studio execs who convince him that having grown up in Hollywood, he knows nothing of human suffering. He then hits the road (with one dime in his pocket) in carefully-costumed hobo-wear, to find out how the other half lives.

As luck would have it, the "other half" runs right into Veronica Lake. Personally, I think there would be a lot more homeless guys if that were the standard fate. Long story short, our hero's fun little adventure turns serious when he's arrested and stripped of his studio-exec perks, and comes to realise that those comedies he made have real value to every day folks. It's both an emotional semi-autobiography and an appreciation of the virtue of sharing humor.

I lost track, while watching this film, of the number of times it made me laugh out loud. The dialogue is some of the snappiest I've ever heard, and well-delivered by all the cast, but especially by lead player Joel McCrea, famous for his work in westerns. Veronica Lake sheds her movie-star posing for an almost Meg Ryan sort of character, and she is utterly winning.

If you rent this, please get the Criterion version and watch the documentary on The Rise and Fall of Preston Sturges. I'd never heard of him before, and he was a ground-breaking icon of Hollywood. Definately someone worth knowing about. Having seen this, I'm looking foward to renting another of Sturges' films.

[LordSlaytan]

I love it when you review the classics. :)

Thank you.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

:D Gracias!
And, nice to see you back around.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review Sammy, I haven't seen this one, I will keep my eye out for it. :yup:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Lucky McKee's directorial debut, May is authentically different. It's a retelling of the Frankenstein myth, but it's done a little more organically in the sense that we see the leftdeterioration of Dr Frankenstein (May, in this case) and the events that chip away at any normalcy she might have had. Adding to the organic feel of it is the marvellous performance of Angela Bettis as May, who puts a very non-judgemental and intense focus on this character, and has the chops to give her depth and vulnerability.

At a quick glance, this is a low-budget, small-cast horror/thriller. The thing about this is that it's very well done, however. It does have a few moments that seem over-the-top horror for the sake of shock value, but for the most part the film stays eerily genuine. There's an exploration weirdness at work that elevates this piece. People who claim they like "weird" and seek to incorporate weirdness into their lives are contrasted with May, who is simply free-range loony.

I'd strongly recommend this as an intelligent horror flick.

[LordSlaytan]

Thank you, thank you, thank you...it sounds right up my alley.

Do you like Cronenberg films?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

The only one of his I've seen is Spider and I really liked that. I think that's reviewed in this thread, somewhere... I read the book The Dead Zone and liked it a lot. I like psychological thrillers. From the list, I think I should check out a few more of his films.

[LordSlaytan]

The only one of his I've seen is Spider and I really liked that. I think that's reviewed in this thread, somewhere... I read the book The Dead Zone and liked it a lot. I like psychological thrillers. From the list, I think I should check out a few more of his films.Check out my recent post in the "most disturbing film" thread. There are some good ones I mentioned there, plus some links to clips. I love his style, and it sounds to me that you probably are the type to appreciate it as well.

[Mose]

As always, great review D. I hadn't thought to look at the film from that perspective and it certainly sheds new light on the film. Quite frankly I was a little disturbed by some of the images, but I attribute that to me getting old and stodgy :)

[projectMayhem]

May is a great horror movie. One of my favorites from the last few years. It really creeped me out. Good stuff!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Check out my recent post in the "most disturbing film" thread. There are some good ones I mentioned there, plus some links to clips. I love his style, and it sounds to me that you probably are the type to appreciate it as well.
I'm "the type"? The weird type? Is that what you're saying, Lord? That I'm weird????

:D You'd be right.

Mose and Pyro~ thanks for reading!
Mose, I found some of it very disturbing, but it was disturbing with a point. Last week, I watched Audition and it was also VERY disturbing, but lost track of any point at all in it's quest to shock. So I see that as an important distinction.

[LordSlaytan]

I'm "the type"? The weird type? Is that what you're saying, Lord? That I'm weird????

:D You'd be right.Cute, but no. :)

I meant that you seem to be the type that enjoys movies that challenge you. There are alot of movies that to many are nothing more than disturbing and/or weird, but it takes a certain eye to see that there is a beauty buried within. For me, Cronenberg makes many films that fit that type of mold...and I love them.


BTW: You do seem a little weird, now that you mention it.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Cute, but no. :)

I meant that you seem to be the type that enjoys movies that challenge you. There are alot of movies that to many are nothing more than disturbing and/or weird, but it takes a certain eye to see that there is a beauty buried within. For me, Cronenberg makes many films that fit that type of mold...and I love them.
I do. Very astute observation, there.
I have a degree in theater, with a pretty heavy focus on script analysis and theater history. A lot of that carries over, thankfully, to film.


BTW: You do seem a little weird, now that you mention it.
heh heh heh....

[LordSlaytan]

I have a degree in theater, with a pretty heavy focus on script analysis and theater history.Eek! I've been emasculated!

I need my teddy bear. :(

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Oh, come now. It couldn't be that easy... :p

[LordSlaytan]

Oh, come now. It couldn't be that easy... :phttp://luceouro.tripod.com/evilwodt.jpg


I was married to the... PRINCESS OF DARKNESS.

...yes it is.


BTW: I hope you safety and happiness on your trip tomorrow.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

:) Thanks, Slay!

[Mose]

Mose, I found some of it very disturbing, but it was disturbing with a point. Last week, I watched Audition and it was also VERY disturbing, but lost track of any point at all in it's quest to shock. So I see that as an important distinction.

Finally, someone who agrees with me about Audition. For years people have been telling me what a 'great' film it was so I grudgingly picked it up and was shocked to find it was nothing more than an exercise in gory excess. Unfortuantely I unwittingly picked up another Takashi Miike flick, Ichi the Killer and surprise surprise... it was more the of the same.

Probably one of the most overhyped directors of the last 20 years... IMHO

[Sedai]

Loved the May review. This little known piece needs more attention, as everyone should see Bettis' performance....