Everyone I know who has seen it also loves it. I guess its just one of those films ;)

Sure, there will be people to go against the trend, or those who get over-whelmed by the "hype" and get disappointed.

Listen here you little weasel, you are good, we know you are not looking for compliments, submit a few reviews to a local or community paper, you never know, .http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/...ons/pencil.gif

That's an order ;D

:rotfl:


'Tis true M'Lord... we do know you are not looking for compliments... but you really are good and should give it a try... :yup:

2001: A Space Odyssey
 

2001: A Space Odyssey ****

Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, and Douglas Rain

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Country: UK / USA

Length: 139 min / USA: 156 min (premiere cut)

MPAA Rating: G

Released: 1968


I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophical content...I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does...You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film. - Stanley Kubrick

2001: A Space Odyssey resonates in people because it touches on the instant our wonder – not only our wonder about space, but also our wonder about time, our wonder with our relationship to the Deity perhaps – because you get as many interpretations of what the film means as you do almost people who have seen it. That’s true of almost any great work of art – if you see a Picasso, is it important to know what Picasso intended, or is it important to know what your relationship is, your emotional reaction is to it? - Keir Dullea


A film publicist from Columbia Pictures who was a close friend of Arthur C. Clarke urged Stanley Kubrick to contact the British science fiction writer in order to possibly collaborate on a film. Kubrick had already made up his mind that his next project was to be part of the science fiction genre because there had never been a serious epic science fiction movie made before, and he wanted to be the first person to make one. Teaming up with Clarke was perhaps the best thing that could have happened for them, and for us as well, because their collaboration brought the world of cinema one of the most enigmatic and controversial movies ever made, and still, after 35 years, remains as a bench mark for art house cinema.

Kubrick invited Clarke to a meeting in order to discuss ideas about a film and they decided together to make one based upon a short story called The Sentinel written by Clarke for a magazine. Their idea was to write a novel first, then adapt it to a screenplay later, but what wound up happening, was that both the novel and screenplay were written simultaneously and were finished around the same time. Kubrick took the tentative script to MGM in order to pitch their idea for the film, and because MGM was suffering such extreme financial problems, they quickly agreed to the idea and gave Kubrick free reign since he had proven himself a rather lucrative director. If these particular circumstances hadn’t existed, there is no telling whether the movie would have turned out the way it did. Kubrick began shooting on December 29, 1965, with much of the script still going through massive amounts of rewrites. It was to be almost three years before the film was complete, and three months after its original release, Clarke’s novel wound up on the shelves.

The premise of the film is this: Nearly four million years ago at the Dawn of Man, a mysterious black monolith appears, prompting our distant ape ancestors to learn how to use the first tools to kill for food and defend themselves. In a shot that is known to be the longest flash-forward in the history of the cinema, an ape tosses a bone into the sky, then in a flash, changes to the Orion III Spaceplane on its way to Space Station 5. Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), the Chairman of the National Council for Astronautics, takes a routine trip to the Moon. It is revealed to us that a four million-year-old monolith, named Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-One (TMA-1), has been discovered buried 40’ feet deep in the lunar crater Tycho. Obviously, it had been buried there intentionally. When exposed to the light of the sun, after millions of years in utter darkness, the monolith sends out a powerful electronic signal. Later we find out that the signal was directed towards Jupiter. Eighteen months later, we are aboard the first manned space mission to Jupiter. The U.S.S Discovery’s human astronauts, Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), are forced to consider disconnecting the super-intelligent, and English speaking, HAL 9000 computer (Douglas Rain) that runs their ship when it makes an error. Fathoming their intentions, HAL succeeds in killing everyone but Dave, who disconnects it and finds out about the previously secret discovery of the lunar monolith. Arriving at Jupiter, Dave discovers another black monolith orbiting the gas giant, and after flying into it, he is taken through a wormhole in space, eventually landing in a room that could literally be any hotel room on Earth. There he ages rapidly before encountering the final monolith, which turns him into a newborn Star Child and returns him to gaze upon the planet Earth from its orbit.

The story seems pretty straightforward doesn’t it? Well, it’s not. Because what Stanley Kubrick made, which could have been a simple science fiction tale, turns out to be a philosophical look at humanity, and what its potential role is in the cosmos. Not only that, he also takes a look at what our technology could eventually become. At the end of our evolutionary peak, we may create technology that actually surpasses us in its perfection, and then becomes the new masters of our galaxy. These points are only a small part of a larger mosaic of ideas and ideologies that make up the film. Clarke wrote a masterful science fiction story, that is beyond question, but it was Kubrick that made the film so much deeper and insightful. Take, for example, the scene when Dave is in the room near the end; he knocks the wine glass of the table shattering it, yet the wine remains. This is a symbolism of what the next phase of our evolutionary chain may lead to. The body is gone, yet the ‘spirit’ remains. It shows us that the next step would be to alleviate our need for flesh and to become sentient matter. Another part is during Dr. Floyd’s trip to Clavius. Onboard the shuttle, everybody is relearning things like walking, eating, even how to void themselves. We are only babes when it comes to this point in our lives, everything that we have accomplished to become masters of our planet is moot once we leave it and put ourselves within reaching distance of the heavens. I could go on like this all day, because the movie is literally stuffed with this type of imagery. Kubrick was never a man that put things in his films just for filler. Everything had meaning, and he enjoyed it when people had to come to their own understandings and conclusions. That’s why he made films; to make the audience think.

Some of the things that make this film so great for me are also what might make this film so boring and irritating for others. The fact that there is so little dialogue causes some people to leave the theater or to turn off their VCR’s. There are parts of the movie that go on for twenty minutes or more before a single word is spoken. Most of the movie is music that is painted with imagery. That may not make sense unless you’ve actually seen the film, but after viewing it, it will make perfect sense. Kubrick’s use of Johann and Richard Strauss’ music was the perfect choice for the film. Both men wrote music that penetrated the mind and went directly to the soul. It is music that invokes emotion and romance within the spirit of mankind; all who listen to it reaches a different level of consciousness. Since that is the entire idea of the film, there couldn’t have been a better choice. The music used when the monoliths are discovered is also superb. I can’t imagine what it would really be like to find something that proves, without a shadow of doubt, that an alien race has once visited our world. The music used when these discoveries are made is two separate tenor groups moaning and wailing to varying degrees and the effect is quite haunting. It creates an apprehension and can even induce a terror within oneself that I think is befitting to subject matter it represents.

So, the story is spectacular, the music is sublime, and the symbolism is exceptional. What are left are the awe-inspiring visuals. Consider this, when this movie was made man had yet to land on the moon. There weren’t any photographs of Earth yet in existence. Yet, Stanley Kubrick was able to paint a picture of space so accurately that it is beyond the scope of coincidence, and belongs in the category of pure wonder. Kubrick hired spacecraft consultants Frederick Ordway and Harry Lange, who had assisted some of the major contractors in the aerospace industry and NASA with developing advanced space vehicle concepts, as technical advisors on the film. With their help, everything in the film was changed from pure science fiction to soon to be science fact. To this day, 35 years later, almost all elements of the film are what actually transpire in zero gravity and space walking. Even the surface of the moon, which hadn’t been probed at the making of the film, is completely accurate to what was learned later. The idea of revolving forced gravitation is a concept that is implemented today, and what future Space Stations are to rely on. It is mind boggling to see a movie made so far in the past represent the current day so pitch perfectly. It is because of this, more than any other element of the film that makes it so easy for the film to stand the test of time.

2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick’s greatest achievement in filmmaking. With this movie, he strove to challenge a generation of filmgoers to look beyond the present day and to wonder what their role really was in the greater scheme of things. Not only did he do that for a single generation, but for all generations to come. More than any other film in history, this one still affects people in ways that can be life changing, or at the very least life affirming. It is a purely transcendent film that will probably never be surpassed.

Marvelous review Brian. I have been waiting for it..... I myself love 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was a little weird when I originally saw it (1983 I believe) , which was quite some time ago. As I watched it the second time, it all became clear. I honestly would give you rep points but I can't. :( ....I need to "spread points" out further before I can do so. You deserve 10x then what ya' got. :yup:

Great review LordyLord, what I really like about your reviews is the history related to them. http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/...ns/smiley6.gif

excellent review..thanks for explaining the premise..you've cleared a lot of things up for me...

and i love the layout..

yeah jrs, i get the same thing about the rep points...

Slaysiouslilliant dooood.

Excellant review. Thank you so much for instead of just concentrating on the movie itself reaching out into all the fragments that are involved in a movie, especially one of this caliber. It's really great because it becomes more than just a movie when we're shown the bigger picture, it becomes a journey that we see through the minds of others.

Thank you everybody. Though I think I did an okay job, I wish I could've done even better. This film is so awe-inspiring that I really couldn't put into words what I really felt about it. Kubrick was such a master.

My next review at Mark's moviereviews4fun is up. This week: Thunder Road. Check it out along with Mark and Dave's reviews as well!

I was lucky enough to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in a large cinema, and although I was too young, too understand most of what was happening, I was deeply impressed by its visual style and soundtrack. Regrettably, I haven't seen the film in a cinema since.
Btw, great review.

You're welcome Bri'.... and BTW, awesome avatar! :D

Yes, I too must "Spread some reputation around..." But Bri', this review is probably the best I've read on these boards. Thank You. Consider writing reviews for your local papers. It's not hard, trust me. Set up a meeting with an editor--even from a "local" rag--show him some of your work, and trust me; not only will you write for the paper, you'll get to see every movie free! It's quite wonderful, that press pass! Do It!

It's a GREAT feeling! Believe me, I should know. ;)

Ain't it though?!

Regarding 2001: A Space Odyssey:

We have one theater in our area that plays independent, foreign, cult, and classic films. I was lucky enough to see 2001 on the big screen a few years ago. Brilliant film. This is definitely a film that requires several viewings.

Great review, Brian!

Awesome review M’Lord… :yup:

The 2001: A Space Odyssey review I think is your best written review, I loved reading it. And you are so right about this film being awe-inspiring, it's the most brilliant film I have ever seen. Kubrick is indeed a genius.

Thanks again everybody, this certainly makes writing reviews enjoyable. If you wish to send me money, I'll supply my address right away. :D

I'm especially glad that you liked it Ezikiel, because I know how much you love the film.

Dang, Brain!!!! That was a wonderful review! :D

I can only agree with the others: Great review! Again! :yup:

It was a long while since I saw this film but I have thought about it from time to time. One thing that I thought about is the mix between different creation myths within the film. There is both the Big Bang/Evolution theme (apes millions of years ago) but also the theory of "a wonder" or something godlike coming to earth and "showing the way", so to speak. What do you think of this, Brian? (And all others too, of course... )

Thanks Beale and Piddy,

In answer to your question P,

The 'Big Bang' deals with the creation of the universe itself; the movie doesn't address that at all. As far as evolution goes, it doesn't show that we weren't born from a primordial soup, rather that a sentient race chose to help us along with one seemingly small step, yet epic in scope, and that is to awaken the creativity that we already showed hints of. Is that what you meant?

I'm ashamed to say that I have only seen half of 2001, it was one late night, I put it on, and was mesmerized, but, having consumed alcohol that very evening I found myself passing in and out of clarity, till I dropped into a slumber.

This is on the top of my to see list now, great review :)

:laugh: I can see that. This is not a movie to see drunk, tired, or in a distracted state. It can be a boring movie at times unless you are in the perfect mood for it. It's funny, I was reading user comments on IMDb, and it's pretty split right down the middle.

Half think it's a masterpiece of epic proportions (with half of them thinking that if you don't like it, you must be dumb), and the other half that think it's the most boring thing they've ever seen (half of them thinking that if you do like it, then you're a pretentious follower of the masses). It's amazing what kinds of absolute vehemence can sometimes be associated with this film and the people who view it. People were actually frothing at the mouth at both ends, but more so with the haters of the film.

Just another amazing review man. Props big time from this corner...

I am cutting another review today, Should be up by this evening. This time I think I might have a film that isn't reviewed on the site yet. :eek:

_S

I think the film is a masterpiece and I've have trouble watching the film in it's entirety before without fidgeting with some boredom. I believe that to consider a film a masterpiece you don't necesseraly have to like it to apprecaite it's quality.

I must reitterrate the other comments, Slay. Your review was great and helped to define the points of the movie I didn't quite understanding fully. I doubt anyone can watch this without missing some essential little detail here and there.

A film that makes you have to watch again and again with keen interest to decipher and download new information each time, is truly a worthy film.

Thanks Sedai for the, um, er, props. :)

I agree with you Revenant. There has to be some recognition when a film can be re-watchable at such a large scale in order to catch things you've missed, or to try and figure it out. Some people call that pretentious filmmaking (some accused Lynch of that for Mulholland Drive), but I don't. As long as it's intelligent and, in the end, decipherable to some measure.

When I buy a new video game, one way I rate it is by how re-playable it is. Some games really kick ass but after beating it, there's no more interest. I can't rate a game too highly because of that. But if a game can be beaten, then still makes you want to come back and do it again...then I rate it higher. It's the same principle for certain movies as well.

Eh.. I don't know.. Guess I'll have to check it out again before I try to be clever about it. But I didn't mean that the film addressed any theory in particular explicitly but more symptomatically. Let's see if I can explain myself... The apes four million years ago alone are a challenge to the biblical creation myth that states that the miracle that earth is was created in one day some thousands of years ago. The monolith on the other hand would, as I said before, represent some kind of alien kick in the ass for humanity - not what the christian scriptures preaches but more in sync with christianity than darwinism. The film isn't taking a stand for one theory or the other. It's more a mix between them all in a way... Not saying THAT'S what 2001 is all about, only that is what I've been thinking about.

Okay, I see what you meant now. My mistake, I didn't notice the, "/evolution". I only noticed the, "Big Bang".

I don't know if it being more Christian like than Darwinian really has anything to do with anything, but yes, I see your point. I think. What was your point? :laugh:

Actually, I never thought about it that way, because it is, after all, a science fiction film. Then again, it does touch on spiritualism (note that I didn't say religion) because the concept for the next phase of evolution is to leave behind the flesh and exist purely as ‘spirit’. It is never shown if it is Alien or Deity intervention, I guess that would be up to the viewer to decide. Kubrick himself said that he meant the movie to have multiple interpretations. There is a certain plot that is beyond question, but on the deeper level of the film is what many people need to figure out what works for them personally. What you’ve noticed about the similarities to both beliefs is a perfect case that what Kubrick intended actually worked. Wouldn’t you think so?

No. :D Kidding. Yeah, I guess... Only that every time I have a brilliant theory about a movie no one agrees with me. Same with Donnie Darko. :bawling:

Well, I'm not really getting your theory then. I see you say that both beliefs are exhibited in the film, kind of sketchy with the religious, but still there. I agreed with you and mentioned that Kubrick might have liked it that way because more people could relate to it, but it all dealt with personal interpretations. Isn't that agreeing?

And turn that frown upside down lil' guy. Here, have a cookie....I need one of Nibble's pictures. :D

Yeah, if you think that "Kubrick is ok with every single theory about his movie, even your little insignificant one, you miserable ****!", then, yeah, you were agreeing. ;D...

Ah, all I want is to be hailed as the possessor of the collected meaning of all art house cinema. Can I? Please? :)

Yeah, like the one with her in leather boots and whip in hand. ;)

Is that what you really got from my reply?

Your 'theory' is more of an observation, there's no way it can be wrong. I agreed with you. :confused:

No, you big dumb bear, that is not what I got from your reply. I got it!

Just making sure. :)

I should know better than to use regional slang on the web. :yup:

I liked your review :)

Don't cry, I agree with your Donnie Darko one, I think, must go back and read it.http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage14/6.gif

I read your review for 2001: A Space Odyssey. My mouth hit the floor and stayed there. How do you do it? Jezz it's going to be tuff to write reviews now and not say "I wish I could write like LordSlaytan." Keep up the good work and try writing for a local paper.

:D Don't take what I say too seriously.

Oh, I don't http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage05/8.gif

Hey there Slay man...

Wanted to give you a heads up that Yoda has set up the popcorn box rating system for us to use in our review threads. The VB command is on the VB page and you can see how it looks in my thread (as well as scope my new review ;))

btw, I like this avatar the best so far :yup:

_S

What does BTW stand for? I'm lost. *starts to laugh at himself*

by the way

Thanks!

Hey, where's your review for Dawn of the Dead and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ??? :eek:

I'm going to do them this weekend. I've been really tired with work and evening movies. I've been getting up at 6AM and not getting home until 10PM. Thanks for your interest though J. :)

I've been too tired to comment in Sedai, Beale, and Ezikiel's review threads too. I'm sorry guys, this weekend, I promise.

no worries bro, although Beale is....is..... :(

_S

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
 

Cast: Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Wilkinson, and Elijah Wood
Director: Michel Gondry
Writer: Charlie Kaufman
Country: USA
Length: 108 min
MPAA Rating: R (language, some drug and sexual content)
Released: 2004


We’ve all been through it before, and we all know how painful it is: the loss of love. That’s the premise of Charlie Kaufman’s newest fantasy filled movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The story is about two people who are polar opposites. There’s Joel (Carrey), a mild mannered man who quietly meanders through life hiding his eyes when people happen to look at him, and Clementine (Winslet), a vivaciously wild young woman who takes it upon herself to set Joel free from his self imposed normalcy. What happens to them is what happens to so many of us; the charm wears thin, arguments begin, and the romance wanes toward its inevitable conclusion. Sad and painful as that may be, these romances that we all strive for build character and teach us valuable lessons. That is, if we are wise enough to learn them.

Yet, at Lacuna Incorporated, Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Wilkinson) promises an end to all the suffering by systematically erasing all memories of the significant other who causes them. Clementine decides that the memory of Joel is too much to bear and has the procedure performed on her. When a note is mistakenly sent to Joel in order to inform him not to mention himself to her because it might be detrimental to the treatment, he understands why her supposed cruelty when he tries to talk to her is actually not cruelty at all, but forgetfulness. Joel, in a fit of passion, decides to have the procedure done to him as well, thinking that that would be a great way to get back at her. It’s a foolish notion, but who among us can say that we have always behaved rationally at the end of a love affair? During the procedure, Joel realizes that he doesn’t wish to lose his memories of Clementine, and against all odds, tries to escape the erasure in progress.

I’m having a hard time figuring out what to say about this film. It is so completely different from any other film out there; it’s impossible to find anything to compare it to. If you’re a fan of Charlie Kaufman, you probably know what I mean. He broke cinema molds with his unique comedies Being John Malkovich and Human Nature, then made new molds calling them his own with Adaptation. Just like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, they are worlds apart from any other films out there, including each other. Yet, this film in particular surpasses even his previous attempts. In large part due to Michel Gondry, who also directed Human Nature. Gondry is a veteran music video director, who has made some of the best videos out there. His knowledge of timing and inventive impressionism makes many of the erasure scenes unforgettable. It will be extremely disappointing if he doesn’t get nominated for an Oscar or Golden Globe.

Jim Carrey proves once again that he is more than just a clown; he is a gifted actor. In this film, he doesn’t give into his patented manic and zany persona, but plays a part that is true to many everymen. It is easy to feel pity for Joel, even though he asked for what he got. His realization that losing memories of Clementine will take away from who he is as a human being is poignant and equally sad, though because Carrey is so good at what he does, there is humor in the sadness as well; just like in life. Kate Winslet does an equally impressive job with her role as the wild girl than no man could resist. Both of these great performers are at the top of their respective games here.

While viewing the film, I noticed about twenty people get up and leave in the middle of it. I can only assume that they were Ace Ventura fans. It’s too bad that some people didn’t want to give this film a chance because of its lack of wackiness. After the movie was over, I hung around at the exit just to get a feel of the overall reaction to the film. I found that it was pretty evenly divided with a large number in awe and an equal amount of people feeling like they just wasted their evening. I actually anticipated this after about a half an hour of the film. The same thing happened when I went to see Paul Thomas Anderson’s wonderful love story Punch Drunk Love. The people who went to see the film because they were solely Sandler fans, left the theater feeling cheated, and even angry. It shows that the writer is receiving more recognition nowadays, and that makes me happier than a 14-year old boy in a brothel. Maybe, just maybe, a trend is happening that will undo the damage that CGI has done to the film industry. There should be a healthy balance with pizzazz and substance; there is no better poster child for that than this film.

Above all, what makes Eternal Sunshine such a wonderful film is its message. Love is what is most important in life, without it, we may as well not even exist. Joel figures that out during his treatment and tries everything he can to hold onto his darling Clementine, and whether or not he achieves his goal is unimportant, because the real achievement is that he learns that love is all we need, and more often than not, all we desire.

Thank you Mr. Kaufman.

your review is perfect- i couldn't agree more

i can understand why some people would want to leave..the movie does get very confusing after a while..i was a little until almost the end when everything falls into place...

this is jim carrey's best performance to date as well as kate winslet

another excellent review..i look forward to more

How do you guys put movies into words? I just can't see how it's possible. By the way everyone check out my October Sky Review . Also I'm writing another review for Hollywood Homicide. Boy it was funny as hell.

Great review Slay, I really loved this film. Charlie Kaufman never dissapoints in his writing, he's just getting better and better. This film is very excellent, especially because of the wonderful performances of Carrey and Winslet. Although I can't say I liked this better than Adaptation or Being John Malkovich, I will say that I enjoyed this one the best.

I seriously cannot wait till his next film, the Untitled horror project he's doing with the great Spike Jonze. It should be really interesting to see how Charlie will write a horror film.

Excellent Film, Excellent Review!

hey Lordslayton , can i reccommend you to review Once Upon a time In the West. i wanna know what u think of it.

Nice review Slay.

It has something to do with Slay being a talented writer as well as having a gift for perception of that which makes film great....

_Another winner bro!

_Sedai

Thanks everybody. Eternal Sunshine is a hard movie to write a review for because it really defies description. Oh well, here's another. :)

Dawn of the Dead
 

Dawn of the Dead ***

Cast: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Mekhi Phifer, Michael Barry, Lindy Booth, Ty Burrell, Jayne Eastwood, Michael Kelly, and Kevin Zegers

Director: Zack Snyder

Writer: James Gunn

Country: USA

Length: 100 min

MPAA Rating: R (for pervasive strong horror violence and gore, language and sexuality)

Released: 2004


"When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth."




I haven’t seen George Romero’s version of Dawn of the Dead since it was first released on video tape, so I really can’t say how faithful Gunn and Snyder followed the original story. I have heard that the original was more than a standard horror movie, but also a social commentary on American commercialism and consumption. Be that as it may, it doesn’t detract from the fact that this newer version is a fun, fun movie with its own strengths and message. The message of course is that if you run across a zombie that looks like Jay Leno or Burt Reynolds, shoot the hell out of it and laugh your ass off, because there aren’t too many things to guffaw at when the whole world wants to chew on you.

I am really impressed with new version of Dawn of the Dead. Usually, horror movies tend to be so ludicrous or so poorly acted that I just want to bury my head in my hands and take a nap before the conclusion of the film, but this one had me engaged from its fantastic opening sequence to its highly imaginative and stylish ending. Now, unless you shun television because of the fear inducing local news or the self-esteem killer of popular celebrity, you have never seen the trailer for this film which shows much of the opening sequence. If by chance you have missed it due to the reasons cited above, or you happen to be Amish (what the hell are you doing using a computer then?), the opening begins with Ana (Polley), a registered nurse in Everett, Wisconsin who is just leaving the hospital when her shift is over. When she pulls into her drive-way, she sees the precocious Vivian, an 11 year old neighbor girl who wants to show off just how adorable she is by showing Ana her newest rollerblading skill. Ana goes into her home, has amazing standing up in the shower while the water chafes your skin sex with her loving and perfect husband (who cares his name, he’s Alpo 5 minutes later), and lays down for a peaceful sleep befitting an Angel.

When morning comes, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, all is pure Disney until cute little Vivian enters the bedroom because either her television is on the blink, or there’s no more raw meat at home to satiate her new born hunger. Poor old no-name husband feels sorry for the bloody darling because he knows what its like to miss The Power Puff Girls and runs to Vivian’s side to consol her; then wham-o! No-name is running around with teeth marks in his neck and trying to scream, which is hard to do when you have a gaping hole in your throat. Somehow, Ana is able to put a door in between her and Vivian, who happens to still be hungry, and watches as her husband dies…and rises again. Instead of jumping joyously screaming, “It’s a miracle!”, Ana is fighting for her life because no-name would rather eat her instead of his usual bran muffin, which is wholly understandable. Ana barely escapes with her breasts still on her chest instead of in no-names gullet, runs out to their car, and there we get to see one of the coolest, “We’re not in Kansas anymore” sequences ever made. Her once peaceful and placid neighborhood is now an open buffet for the undead. Fire and screaming is everywhere she looks, people running for their lives, and other people running for their breakfast. Ana gets into her car just in time before her husband can goose her from behind, peels out of her driveway, and hauls ass to anywhere but there while her husband chases her, which he quits doing once he sees some other prey unlucky enough not to make it his Desoto. From a birds eye view, we see Ana driving pell-mell on the highway where she causes a truck to swerve into an old farmhouse causing a spectacular explosion…then the opening credits appear.

I was hooked, so was most of the packed theater there to see the show. I’ve got to hand it to Gunn and Snyder, because they really know how fish. I was baited, hooked, and reeled in only 10 minutes into the movie. The audience was thrilled. People were yelling, cheering, and laughing from beginning to end. Everyone was overjoyed with the special effects, the shock, and the dark humor that’s prevalent throughout the film. I really enjoyed the subtle humor used with the ‘muzak’ used over the loud speakers in the mall. For instance, when one of the survivors is checking the mall for zombie straggler’s, the muzak version of Shirley Bassey’s All By Myself is playing in the background. I kept expecting to hear Hall & Oats Man Eater, but they didn’t play it. Pay attention to the muzak, it’s a real treat.

I’m sure that you all know that the survivor’s make it to a mall and that’s where they make their stand, if you want to call it that. We meet the cop Kenneth ( Rhames), a big giant bad-ass with a shotgun and an attitude, Michael (Webber), a guy that first appears to be there to either be a living villain or weakling, but becomes a principle character with fortitude and intelligence, Andre (Phifer), who is accompanied with his soon-to-be-bursting-baby wife, Luda (Korobkina) and CJ (Kelly), a security guard who has a superiority complex and a gun. The rest of the people may as well have worn their red Star Trek uniforms, which doesn’t mean they all bite it, but that they aren’t the emotional center of the movie at this point. All of these actors did a very good job acting realistically in a setting of pure make believe. I especially like Webber’s role, who you may remember as the villain in Meet Joe Black. He is often cast as a smarmy, and arrogant jerk, but is cast here as the true center of the band of survivor’s. I always love it when actors are cast opposite of their usual type. Here he excels as the bravest and smartest survivor.

But, the true star of any zombie film are the zombies. I know that, you know that, and fortunately for us, Gunn and Snyder know that. No more of the lumbering hulks that are only dangerous if a character gets trapped or if the character happens to be a female, because she will surely fall down over and over again until the zombie catches up and at that point she will just scream with a hand over her mouth until…well you know. In Dawn of the Dead, as well as in 28 Days Later, the zombies have all taken track in high school. They run at blistering speeds, show acrobatic talents as they fly through the air, and swallow their food without adhering to the Surgeon General’s warning that every bite should be chewed 26 times. They also show a greater strength in their problem solving skills, unless, of course, figuring something out would be detrimental to the plot. I really dug these living dead guys and gals, especially when we are shown the multitudes waiting for the Mod Squad outside the mall. It is very convincingly frightening.

If you’re only there for the gore, you won’t be disappointed. There’s enough of that to keep even the most disturbed individuals anchored in their seats. There are also some really cool explosions, imaginative death scenes, a cute little doggy to feel afraid for, and a very large body count. It also shows why you shouldn’t play with Daddy’s chainsaw while standing up in a fast moving truck, just in case you weren’t sure. To be honest, I’m not much of a slasher or gore person, but if a movie is made where the gore is a part of the overall movie, and not the center of it, I can enjoy it. There are too many movies that rely on gore to keep the audience interested when they should be building relationships between characters we care about, telling us a story which is entertaining by itself, and by giving us a healthy balance of carnage and story. If more horror films followed the example laid out by 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead, there just might be hope for the waning horror industry. I might just become a fan again.

Nice Dawn of the Dead review. Just like you were hooked to the movie in ten minutes, I was hooked to your review in ten seconds ;)

The original Dawn of the Dead is a classic and it's easily in my top ten horror list. I haven't seen the re-make yet but I'm planning on seeing it this Friday. I hope my thoughts on the movie are as positive as yours are because some re-makes weren't meant to happen.

Sure, if I happen upon a copy again I will. I'll look into it. Thanks.

...and thank you T-850, I always appreciate and welcome your flattering comments. :)

Wow...you just made my heart melt Bri. I can't wait to see Eternal Sunshine now. It's really a pleasure to your your reviews. They're brilliantly written, but warm and fuzzy too. :)

Thanks Brian for the excellent review!!! I have been waitin' for it. Dawn of the Dead was great. I have not seen a good horror film in God knows how long. A horror film must literally make me jump in my seat in order to affect me!
I went with my friend monday night and we were prepared for a good time. I knew for some reason, way ahead of time it was going to be a knockout of a film :) . The entire theater cheered for the good guys and literally yelled (not everyone though) to the zombies, " Die MotherFu**ers!!" ....seriouslly!!!! :eek: We had a ball. On the way home, I picked up a copy of the George Romero's version of Dawn of the Dead on DVD.
I'm catching the movie again at theaters this week. :D

Now I REALLY want to see Eternal Sunshine....I think I want to see Dawn as well, as I enjoy a good zombie flick now and then (such as Return of the Living Dead ;))

Thanks sweetheart. I'm glad I can make you feel warm and fuzzy, but I miss the good 'ol days where I made you feel wet-n-nasty. ;D

...and thank you jrs and Sedai, I always appreciate your comments...and rep! :D

I just came home from seeing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I just adored the film. Carrey and Winslet with their beautiful portrayal of their love and affection for each other was just outstanding...their performances are breathtaking.
I myself, can't even think of what exactly to fully say about this oscar performing film. It makes me speechless.

I know it sounds like I'm always complaining around here, but what on Earth's with the quoting of entire reviews?! Jason, you damned goon, I'm talking to you [as per freaking usual]!

Keep it up, Slay.

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Your welcome.~

:laugh: You're sooo bad....
...and don't worry...you still make my toes curl.~ ;D


Now....where's your review of LadyKillers? I'm eager to read it. :D

I liked your review of Dawn of the Dead, and the only gripe I have with the film was that the zombie plague was supposed to have been caused by an infection and not just plain old death, which I think was an explanation no-one had asked for.

Slay, my girlfriend is curious.... who is the evil chick you have as an avatar

Thanks :)

_S

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks man, I will try.

Whew, you had me worried for a moment. :D

I believe Chris wants to write a review for this one.

I don't believe the movie ever did explain it. The TV showed people making conjectures, but that was it. If I remember right, Night of the Living Dead explained it all started because a meteor or comet had some virus or something attached to it or its tail?

She's my feminine side. I'm part teddy bear and rabid bitch.

Ana states once or twice that one needs to be bitten to be turned into a zombie, now I agree that's not an explanation, but it does imply an infection.

Go to Hell.
You know I'm right.

I totally agree with your review of Dawn of the Dead...and you're right because the crowd I was in the theater with was soo into the movie, and it was a huge theater, packed I might add.

I didn't know you were this much of a writer, LS. I'm impressed.

Thanks man. I'm a bit burnt out right now, but I try. Glad to see you here.

There's no sense in arguing with a little child. You can't seem to grasp the fact, others may have their own opinions towards films on someone's thread.

I watched this film last night, and this is a perfect comparison!

The film opens as if it is to be a black comedy, however, the only thing comedic about the rest of the film is the "witty dialogue that comes at you with a pace not unlike a Nascar race." Simple lines like, "You've come a long way, baby," as he lights Danes' joint, as well as "Instead of saying something or someone is funny, why don't you just laugh," are lines that define the dialogue you're talking about, in my opinion, LS. Culkin has given the performance of his life. Culkin nails the apathetic attitude, as well as the frantic and desperate.

The only problem I had with this film was not being able to develop enough sympathy for Culkin's self-destructative behavior. I'm assuming the filmmakers were attempting to establish the sympathy through the flashbacks of Igby's experience with watching his father crumble, but that wasn't enough for me. There came a point in the film where I was hoping for Igby to "go down."

I know what you mean, Mark. He is like Holden in that respect, and they both wear the label of anti-hero with pride. It's like an unsympathetic chronicle of his defining years rather than a story of someone who learns through tragedy. He's kind of a prick actually, but we like him because he's cool, and hate him because he's callous. Expecting a routine conclusion of his 'waking up', so to speak, is part of what makes it unique. It doesn't wrap up cleanly leaving us feel good inside.

I'm really glad you liked it though. Now see Tadpole if you haven't yet.

After reading your review on Dawn of the Dead, Slay, I'm now anticipating it's arrival here which could be anywhere between now and Christmas, your guess is as good as mine. I'm partial to a good horror flick but lately have been disappointed so your review has given me renewed hope. Great reviews, as always. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on The Day After Tomorrow and The Old Man Who Read Love Stories (sorry if you have reviewed them already; I was too lazy to go back over and read everything).

The first film hasn't been released yet, and I hadn't heard of the second until you mentioned it. Why don't you review it, bro?

Just curious Slay... when will your next review be posted? Or are you taking a break? I really enjoy reading every review you’ve posted and hope to see more.

Your Top 100 list has some great films and I’d like to see you review one of your top 20. Such as The Godfather, Yojimbo, Ben-Hur, Unforgiven, or Goodfellas.

Thanks T, I'll be posting one for Hellboy tomorrow, and maybe one for Spellbound, the recent documentary that is.

Take your time Slay. I’m looking forward to your Hellboy review.

Just saw Hellboy an hour ago and it was fantastic! Can't wait for your review Bri'. ;)

actually i'm pretty interested in it as well...we couldn't see it this weekend but i'm sure we will by next week...so i'm looking forward to your review

Maybe I'm bias but I think I will love this Cinema Paradiso , you do have an alarming cool interest in movies, if only you can convert my husband. Ciao !

Father of the Bride

Cast: Spencer Tracy, Joan Bennett, Elizabeth Taylor, and Don Taylor

Director: Vincente Minnelli

Writer(s): Edward Streeter (novel), Frances Goodrich, and Albert Hackett

Country: USA

Length: 92 min

MPAA Rating: G

Released: 1950

moviereviews4fun rating: A














Click here to read my review for Father of the Bride.

Excellent Slay! Keep 'em coming!

another great review..still looking forward to reading your alamo review..very creative in your use of pictures

Great review M'Lord... :) ... after reading your review and Mark's, I really want to see this one again... it's been much too long... :yup:

Oh, please.

Just be thankful that you've had the opportunity to see Rolf de Heer's The Old Man Who Read Love Stories. Don't expect that Brian [or anyone else] has. The film went through Hell just to get its Australian release – you can bet your bottom dollar that the Americans aren't going to see it for a long while yet [after all, they only recently got de Heer's The Tracker, which had a far less turbulent production].

Please, people: reasonable expectations, if you don't mind.

Excellent review Slay! You and Mark prove to be great film critics and you should be proud of that.

Another nice review Bri. It's a great movie...Spencer Tracy was perfect in Father of the Bride. I loved his strong man with a mushy heart....and trying not to show it, except where his daughter is concerned. I don't know why, but I also like that awkward scene when they meet the wealthy parents of Buckly for the first time.


Please, people: It never hurts to ask. We never would have found out that interesting piece of information about The Old Man Who Read Love Stories. Ask away. ;)

Outstanding review...:D

Awwww, heartfelt review from a Dad.

:up: :up:

Great job man. :)

_S

Are you taking a break for a while, Slay? What do you think your next review will be?

I'm hoping Slaytan is organizing his thoughts about Casablanca, which he has finally seen and of course fallen head-over-heels in love with (as every right-thinking cinephile does).

How insightful, that's exactly what I'm doing. I want to be sure to write something worthy of it. I had similar troubles with 2001.

Eventually guys, and thanks everybody for enquiring. :)

You just saw Casablanca Slay?

Yeah, for years I had assumed that it was the type of movie that I would never care for, but recently out of embarassment, I decided to watch it. I also picked up a copy of Gone With the Wind, which I also had the same assumption, but I haven't watched it yet.

I saw Casablanca for the first time Friday and have seen it a total of 6 times now. I guess I kind of liked it.

That's the exact same way I felt about it, but when I saw it I was stunned at how incredible it was. It is now my favorite film.