Slays reviews
 

Okay, I'm making this thread because some of my reviews have been buried because nobody watches some of the movies I review, or, they hate the review. Since I wrote them, I don't desire their loss. Because of that, I'm creating this thread to hold them all. Any new reviews I do from now on will go in here.

Elizabeth
 

Elizabeth ****

http://www.newdvd.cc/images/dvd2/dvddr118.jpg

After seeing the ad I’ve mentioned before for cheap DVD’s, I was lucky enough to find a personal favorite of mine, so of course, I swept it up. I searched for a thread dedicated to this movie and found none, so here goes.

Elizabeth (1998) is a sweeping tale about how Queen Elizabeth I came to power during the 16th century. It stars Cate Blancett in the title role, Geoffrey Rush as her second, and most trusted advisor and personal security guard Sir Francis Walsingham, Joseph Fiennes as her lover Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Christopher Eccleston as the villainous Duke of Norfolk, and Sir Richard Attenborrough as her first advisor Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley. The acting, costume design, art design, and cinematography are all exceptional, and am blown away by the music done by David Hirschfelder.

I’ve always been a big fan of Blanchett’s and I believe that this is her defining role. I remember when Fellowship of the Ring came out and everybody fawned over Liv Tyler and her amazing beauty, I found Blanchett so much more appealing. I still do.

The movie begins the story showing Princess Elizabeth as a Protestant whereas her half-sister, Queen Mary Tudor as Catholic. The Vatican is desperate to keep Catholicism the principle, and only reigning, religion in England, and sets to undermine the chances that Elizabeth ever wears the crown. Among their allies is the Duke of Norfolk, and from the beginning, we are to understand that he is her most dangerous enemy. Elizabeth is already in love with Robert Dudley before she ever becomes Queen, and afterwards shows that a Queens love can be a poisonous thing wrought with its own danger. After she becomes Queen, Sir William Cecil becomes her advisor by default and insists that she becomes wed for the good of the people, England, and to secure her throne from dissenters.

I really could sympathize with Elizabeth. She was a woman who was thrust into power before she was ready, and came to find out that England was without a standing army, any trustworthy allies, or anything left in the treasury. Everywhere she turned she was confronted with enemies who didn’t want a Protestant heretic on the throne. Until the day when Sir Francis Walsingham became her new advisor, she was at risk. When he gains her ear, you could tell that the worm was about to turn, and I personally, had a rush as he took charge and delivered her from her enemies by smiting them in one fell swoop. Afterwards, she became the Queen of England that is to this day the most beloved Queen of all; The Virgin Queen.

Elizabeth is a powerful story full of powerful performances, and is close to being my favorite Rush performance ever, though that is so hard to define, because even when he’s in a movie that isn’t that great, he still is.

Kate & Leopold
 

Kate & Leopold **½

http://www.cyber-cinema.com/gallery/kate&leopold.jpg

I’m almost embarrassed to write my opinion on this matter. I searched the forum for a previous thread about Kate & Leopold, not only did I not find a thread about said movie, I couldn’t even find a single post on the subject either. My only conclusion is that this movie didn’t warrant any opinions at all, though that confuses me because I found that I really enjoyed it. I’ve never really considered myself a slacker when it comes to my tastes in movies, but now I’m wondering. Have I lost my senses? My goodness, next I’ll think 2 Fast, 2 Furious is one of the greatest movies ever made! Maybe I should just calm down and write what I feel and let doG figure out the rest.

Kate & Leopold is another Meg Ryan romantic comedy vehicle with Hugh Jackman, yet it switches gears a little bit and doesn’t make her a sweetheart to beat all sweethearts. It’s also a time travel movie of sorts, though that’s really only a backdrop compared to the romance. I read roger Eberts review before starting to write this and I liked what he said about this, “The movie is not really about time travel anyway, but about elegant British manners vs. American slobbiness.” That hits the nail on the head I think.

The movie is funny, though not often in the laugh out loud way, and its romance is sweet and classy. It’s not about lust, or even animal magnetism, but about a woman being treated in a chivalrous manner that today’s society says they don’t need, or want, though often suspected that most really do. It reminds me about the rides on the train that I often take, and how there are only %5 of the men that will still give their seats to women who are left standing, and of that %5, many will only do it for a pretty one. I am on of the men that still do, and still feel that all men should.

I really enjoyed seeing Jackman in this role and has given me more respect for his acting abilities. Not that it is an Oscar caliber performance, but it certainly isn’t an action role either. I haven’t really seen him in anything besides X-Men, and his smaller roles in movies like Swordfish. I have found that I really like him as a leading man and am looking forward to further stretches from Wolverine. I also am a fan of the two supporting actors in the film, Live Schreiber and Breckin Meyer. Both of these guys are great, and I hope only excellent things for them. On a side note, I hope Meg doesn’t keep up with her lip ballooning. I hate fakeness, and am worried that she’ll turn into a plastic hag like Melanie Griffith has.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys Romance/comedies.

Pumpkin
 

http://www.workmall.com/flags/united...files/us-t.gif Pumpkin ***

http://www.dvdreview.com/news/images/pumpkin.jpg


Pumpkin is a movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously, though it certainly pretends to.

Carolyn McDuffy (Christina Ricci) has a perfect life. She’s the favorite at her sorority, she has the most wanted man on campus as her boyfriend, she’s rich, and very popular. She also doesn’t have a clue about life. That is, until she meets Pumpkin Romanoff (Hank Harris). Her sorority decides that their charity of the season will be a Special Olympics knock-off where they will help the special athletes’ train. Pumpkin is a wheel chair bound young man, who is apparently retarded, though that is never clearly defined. When Carolyn first meets him on the field, she is obviously out of her element. She acts like she has just been paired with a very big and very creepy spider. At one point she begins to scream, because he keeps trying to communicate with her, and she has no idea what he’s really trying to do.

This is the point when the movie becomes absolutely painful to watch. This is not a politically correct movie in any sense of the word at all. Carolyn herself is completely self-absorbed and unfeeling about anything other than her own feelings. She is selfish, immature, and stupid, even though she scored 1400 on her SATs. Slowly Pumpkin starts to change her. She believes that he is the only person who understands her, and sees that she is actually a good and often misunderstood. Pumpkin is the only character in the movie that stays on track with who he is. The other members of the cast constantly change from villainous to compassionate, and I was never really sure how I felt about the characters. For example, Carolyn’s boyfriend Kent (Samuel Ball), starts out more sensitive than Carolyn does. When Carolyn wants to set Pumpkin up on a date, she decides on her other handicapped friend, who is actually over-weight and not really handicapped at all. When her friend begins to cry, Carolyn gets angry and Kent is there to sympathize with the friend and gets angry at Carolyn’s insensitivity. Later however, Kent is the one who is oblivious to other people’s sensitivities, and Carolyn is there to get angry about it.

Pumpkin makes fun of movies that go over the top with “special” people as characters, and it is often hard to define if it is humor or plain meanness behind the plot. I don’t want to give anything away about what happens to the characters, because that is really what is so good about this movie. It is so unconventional, that it is extremely hard to really know what is coming up next, and how the different characters are going to behave from one scene to the next. Sometimes they’re compassionate, sometimes they’re cruel, and almost always they’re fun to watch.

I personally love the twist ending, and would be greatly interested what others think about this movie. I really enjoyed it, painful or not.

Rain
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new8/new_zealand-t.gif Rain ****

http://www.quinnie.ch/img_film/RAIN.jpg

Rain is an independent film from New Zealand inspired from a book of the same title by Kirsty Gunn, and directed by Christine Jeffs. It is a coming of age movie about a 13-year-old girl named Janey (Alicia Fulford-Wierzbicki) who is on summer vacation at a cottage built by her father (Alistair Browning) along side a pleasant seaside location. This is not a comedy looking at the lighter side of life from a young girl’s perspective, but rather a somewhat sad commentary of a child who lives in a household that forces her to desire to grow up too quickly.

During the day she and her little brother, Jim (Aaron Murphy), spend their time fishing and swimming in the ocean. At night she serves cocktails to her parents friends as they hold their nightly parties. There, she watches her mother (Sarah Peirse) flirt with a local photographer (Marton Csokas) and begins to wonder whether her parents are in love with each other anymore.

Janey is bright and pretty and loyal to the well being of little Jimmy. Her parents sleep in late every morning and wake up to fresh drinks with lime. Janey is already the caretaker in a lot of ways and she seems to not resent in too terribly unless her mother starts to act motherly. In one scene, her mother asks her to sit by her and give her some snuggles to which Janey replies, “I hate that!” Her mother replies that she always used to like to snuggle, but Janey retorts that it’s the drinking that she meant. Statements and attitudes like this don’t slow down her parents at all however. It’s obvious that her parents love the children, but it’s equally obvious that they still put themselves first.

When Janey spies her mother and the handsome photographer going further than the harmless flirtations, she starts to become aware of her own sexual power. A young boy who is a son of one of the party goers is enamored of young Janey, but instead of her responding to his feelings with her own, she practices her power over men on him, resorting him to do nothing other than flee in various states of panic. All the while, little Jim watches from the background, idolizing his older sister, but not understanding why she is acting differently.

Eventually, Janey decides that the handsome photographer might be the ticket to her adulthood. At different points in the movie, he offers her sips of his drinks and spots cigarettes to her. He is the only person who treats her like she is a woman, which is what she craves. Even though she despises the way her mother is seemingly betraying her father, she still has a desire to emulate her. In time, Janey proposes to the photographer to take her picture, and he can see that she might just have something else in mind. At this point, many other films might vilify the man for even considering spending a moment alone with a pretty 13-year-old girl, but instead, it is more honest than that. He falls under the spell that Janey has perfected by watching her mother and practicing on the young boy. He seems unwilling, yet powerless to resist her temptations, even though he may believe she’s over her head. Sexual desire is a powerful thing and it is responsible for many a downfall, which unfortunately, this movie provides.

Rain is a sad story throughout, but it’s also absolutely beautiful in its brutal honesty of unhappiness not being cured with sexual gratification. None of the characters involved are bad people. They are only human with their own faults which most of us can recognize within ourselves. Christine Jeffs direction is exceptional using very little music and a lot of dialogue that is right on key with what you would expect in a modestly dysfunctional family. It is also a gorgeous film using the weather to match the temperament of the characters. It uses brown as its primary color to everything, which to me, can be a bit depressing, but it fits in with the style and mood of the film. I wholeheartedly recommend this film to anyone who has also grown tired of the usual Hollywood fare.

Tadpole
 

http://www.workmall.com/flags/united...files/us-t.gif Tadpole ***½

http://4.18.158.29/profj/images/tadpole.jpg

I absolutely adore this picture! Tadpole is a smart, funny, and hypnotic, coming of age film that uses a higher form of speech than most other films of this type. Oscar is a brilliant young man that falls in love the only way he knows how: obsessively. I too thought that the entire cast did wonderfully in capturing the people they were supposed to portray, and was enthralled with the witticisms that each of the characters purged from themselves in a never-ending fashion.

The restaurant scene was almost too painful to watch, but watch I did. I wound up being overjoyed the way Gary Winick, the director, handled the material. Even though it is more acceptable in our hypocritical society for a young man to seduce, or be seduced by, an older woman compared to its opposite, it can still be dangerous ground to tread. Tadpole handles this with wit and respect. It all seems a little unrealistic the way the characters behave, but you never know. There are billions of us sharing this rock, so who is to say in what way everyone else would behave. Not only is this movie funny and intelligent, it is also very erotic in nature. Whenever there are scenes where Oscar gets close to a woman, it looks real. So real in fact, that it almost seems like voyeurism.

One thing I noticed when I picked up the DVD is that the back cover completely misrepresents the film. It portrays it as a romp where Oscar is fighting off both women, and showing a picture proving that. Another thing is the way the front cover is airbrushed making the women look younger and wrinkle free, whereas the movie shows them as 40 something year old women, wrinkled and beautiful anyway. It actually angers me that the studio decides to do that to capture people’s attention. What’s wrong with the truth? What’s wrong with showing Sigourney Weaver and Bebe Neuwirth as they really are? They’re lovely without the subterfuge. Oh well.

Igby Goes Down
 

Igby Goes Down ***½

http://www.unitedartists.com/igbygoe...mages/igby.jpg

Igby Goes Down is a wonderful film that honors JD Salinger’s Holden Caulfield, the anti-hero from the classic book, Catcher in the Rye perfectly.

Kieran Culkin stars as Igby, a 17-year-old rich kid who is sick to death of the phoniness of everybody around him. His father (Bill Pullman) is a schizophrenic who has been in an asylum for the last six years and who also haunts his dreams. Igby sees his father as a heroic figure and proves that a child’s memory can embellish reality and skewer facts. His mother (perfectly played by Susan Sarandon) is a domineering fussbudget who constantly berates Igby for not being as perfect as her other son (Ryan Phillippe) who Igby sees as a fascist pig. Igby is constantly dropping out of schools, smoking pot, and letting everyone know around him that he feels nothing but contempt and hatred for them. When his mother finally gets tired of all his problems, she sends him to military school. Igby, home on vacation, runs away to spend time in New York city, much like Holden did in Catcher in the Rye. That is when he sees life for what it is. Utter crap.

He hides from his family in a studio that is owned by his money hungry and always fashionable Godfather (Jeff Goldblum) who lets his mistress (The always lovely Amanda Peet) live there for sexual favors. Igby is invited to his godfather’s home for the weekend where there is a party for the social elite. There he meets the first girl he will ever fall in love with (Claire Danes) as she is a hostess for the caterer hired for the party.

Meanwhile, his mother finds out that she has breast cancer and it is too late for any hope. Igby’s reply when he finds out is “Good!” Throughout his time in New York, Igby learns about betrayal, pain, and irony, in many inventive and interesting ways. He learns also, that a person can only rely on ones self and trust should not be lightly given.

Igby Goes Down sometimes seems like it is unsure what type of movie it is supposed to be. At times it is a comedy of a type that resembles Airplane, and sometimes it is more of a Greek tragedy. It is full of exceptional performances and witty dialogue that comes at you with a pace not unlike a Nascar race. Culkin proves that he has the ability to act well and though the film is full of A-list stars, it is he who steals the show. I saw in another thread where a member thrashed Phillippe for not doing his role justice. I disagree with that assessment. His character has gone through as much trauma as Igby, but he deals with it differently. He is unfeeling and stoic. I utterly believed him.

Igby Goes Down is directed by Burr Steers who you might recognize as the second guy on the couch during the first shoot-out in Pulp Fiction. This is a stellar first attempt for a new director.

Monsoon Wedding
 

http://www.photius.com/flags/thumbnails/in-t.gif Monsoon Wedding ****

http://www.ondarock.it/cinemarec/monsoon.jpg

Monsoon Wedding centers on a large Indian family during the final days of preparation for the arranged marriage of Aditi Verma (Vasundhara Das) and Hemant Rai (Parvin Dabas). The father of the bride is Lalit Verma (Naseeruddin Shah), who is struggling with patience with the wedding planner, P.K. Dube (Vijay Raaz), and is terrified that he made an unwise choice in P.K. and that he will be embarrassed in front of his soon-to-be In-laws. In short order we meet other central players within both families including Adita’s beautiful (I’m quite smitten with all three lovely ladies) cousins Ayesha (Neha Dubey), and Ria (Shefali Shetty). Ayesha makes it plain that she has an overwhelming attraction for a family friends son named Rahul (Randeep Hooda) who shows up early from Australia to help the father prepare, even though Lalit can only call him and idiot most of the time. Ria, who was damaged as a child by another family friend who happens also to be a benefactor towards the family, struggles with the past while she sees the same man showing attraction to her 11-year old cousin. Meanwhile, P.K. falls for the family maid, Alice (Tilotama Shome), a pretty young woman who stands quietly in the background and spends her time trying on her masters jewelry. This is, to me, is the most heartwarming segment of the entire movie.

As the guests arrive we have to figure out who’s who on our own, but it really isn’t all that hard. It reminds me of another excellent film I saw recently, Robert Altman’s Gosford Park. In both movies, we are introduced to a large montage of players and are invited to just sit and listen while they go about their own preparations and introductions. As they meet each other, we do as well. As they start their own sub-plots, we are drawn into their world and become attached. By the end of the movie, I felt compassion for all the central characters and wished nothing but wonderful things for them.

Mira Nair directed Monsoon Wedding from an original screenplay written by Sabrina Dhawan. It gives us foreigners an in-depth look at current Indian culture, which most of us may be naïve about. Declan Quinn’s cinematography is astounding in the way she uses color to captivate our senses in a way that the usual Hollywood film doesn’t.

Monsoon Wedding gave me a reason to smile for two hours, and also made me feel sorrow, regret, and pride. Almost all of the characters I would feel privileged to know, and now I want to marry a beautiful Indian woman like the ones in this charming and lovely film. I recommend this movie to anyone out there that wants to see a movie that cares about the people of a wonderful family and dazzles the senses unlike most Hollywood fare.

Italian For Beginners
 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...gs/da-flag.gif Italian For Beginners ***

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/615italian.jpg

Six wounded souls get together for a beginner’s course in the beautiful Italian language. The first is a Pastor named Andreas (Anders W. Berthelsen), who is sent to a small town church in Denmark to take over another Pastor’s position after he loses his faith. Andreas had lost his wife six months earlier due to illness and doesn’t plan on staying long or getting to know anyone. The next person we meet is Jørgen (Peter Gantzler) a man with no mission other than being depressed and wondering why he is impotent whenever he gets a chance to bed a woman. His friend Hal-Finn (Lars Kaalund) is the third; he is a grown orphan with a short fuse and a large chip on his shoulder. Jørgen is supposed to fire Hal-Finn, his best friend, from the restaurant he manages because he cannot stop from yelling at the customers. At that same restaurant is Giulia (Sara Indrio Jensen), a beautiful Italian girl who prays to god every day for a man to marry. Then there’s Karen (Ann Eleonora Jørgensen), a lovely hairdresser who is battling through watching her alcoholic mother during her last days. Rounding it off is Olympia (Anette Støvelbæk) a clumsy baker who has a cruel hearted father at home that makes her life a living hell. These six people have suffered and lived with loss, and each of them are utterly alone in the world. That is, until they start their beginner’s course in Italian.

Italian For Beginners was written and directed by Lone Scherfig, a Danish woman with few writing and directing credits to her name, but she completely hits the mark with this charming movie. The movie is shot with what looks like a camera used in soap operas and infomercials, which at first threw me off a bit, but only because I’m not used to it. Yet, it works just fine. There’s also no music involved, it completely relies on realistic dialogue, and the depth of each of the characters. All the actors involved do a wonderful job of not making this movie a standard romance, but more of a voyeuristic view into complex and sad lives. At times I really felt sorry for the people in the film, and at times I almost felt like cheering that they could finally find some measure of happiness. It is truly a warm-hearted movie that draws you in and makes you genuinely care for the people involved. I recommend this film with much love, which is easy, because after watching it…I was in the mood for love.

Glad you decided to consolidate these. I think we have alot of similar tastes, although I must admit to not seeing neither Rain nor Italian for Begineers. I will definitely make an effort to see them soon due to your reviews, I am sure I will enjoy them. How about a review on a movie you did not like, just for balance?

This is great, Brian! I'm looking forward to reading through these (I don't have time right now, but I will). :cool:

Love your reviews :D

Cate Blanchett is one of my favourite's also, I loved her in "Bandits" that movie reminded me of my life, oh should I have said that!

Rain was very interesting, I also felt like the characters were realistic.

What can I say about "Monsoon Wedding" :D

I have put the other movies on my must see list.

Now waiting for more reviews, really enjoyed them, keep it up. :D :D :D :D

My "to see" list is getting longer and longer... :yup:
Great job Bri… :)

Madadayo
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new9/japan-t.gif Madadayo ***

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/asia...dayo-front.jpg

I must admit that I am a filthy American pig who has not seen many “foreign” films, not counting British or Australian films, which I’ve seen a larger number. However, after the disappointing influx of crappy American big budget films, I’ve deemed that perhaps I’ve been missing out. Especially when there are so many respected members on this forum who swear by them. Now I’m making a point to watch as many “foreign” films as possible, starting with one of the most respected director’s that ever existed. The reason I chose Madadayo first is because it was the only Kurosawa film available to me at this time.

Madadayo is a film about a professor near the end of WWII who after retiring, finds that all his pupils adore him. Actually, worship might be a better word. Its time frame spans the next two decades of the professors (Tatsuo Matsumura) life after retirement and the dedication of his pupils within his life. Every year they have a birthday celebration in his honor where they ask him in unison, “Mahda-kai? (Are you ready?)”, and after he gulps down a huge glass of beer in one breath answers, “Madadayo!” (Not yet!).”

This is an extremely sentimental film, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. Not that I’m bashing it, because the movie is actually quite effective of moving me and forcing a grin onto my face. Where it seems to be silly sometimes is whenever the professor speaks, every single member of the class laughs uproariously, and when he loses his cat and becomes extremely depressed, the movie spends close to thirty minutes investing itself to this one particular development. Yet, when the conclusion to that segment comes to a close it is done very sweetly, and the pessimistic part of myself, which quailed during this whole segment, was completely moved. Not in a way where I felt like shedding tears, but in a way that just made me feel glad for the professor. I was able to internalize it and relate rather well.

This is Akira Kurosawa’s last film. According to many American critics’, it is a fine conclusion to a stellar career. Even though I have not yet seen any of his other films, I can believe it. I liked this movie better than all the other theater releases I have seen since the beginning of last summer, so if it isn’t his greatest, some of his other’s must be phenomenal. I already know that the next couple of his films that I’ll see are Rashomon and The Seven Samurai. If anyone can recommend others, I would greatly appreciate it.

The Last Samurai
 

THE LAST SAMURAI **½

http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/empire/...ers/501593.jpg

A vision of a white tiger battling Samurai, and winning. Eyes open and we meet one of the two principal characters of The Last Samurai, Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe), the leader of a fugitive Samurai army. The other, a survivor of numerous battles, Cpt. Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) is considered to be a great American warrior. He is also a soldier that is haunted by war and the brutal truth of how senseless it can be.

Cpt. Algren is hired to train the new western style Japanese Army, who will be responsible to crush the rebellious Samurai’s. Algren, who is hardened by numerous battles and numbed by many bottles, agrees to kill whomever anyone wants, as long as he is commanded to, and paid for it. Thus begins the sweeping saga of a man who has lost his honor and the path that he follows to reclaim it.

The Last Samurai wants to mean something. It wants to give us a message that cannot be mistaken, but I couldn’t tell what that message was. At times, it seemed that it wanted to prove that western idealism is the root cause behind the death of a nation’s heredity. Sometimes it seemed that its point was that technological warfare made war less honorable. Yet, there also seemed to be a message that to die for tradition is to die honorably, regardless whether the tradition is right or wrong.

The Last Samurai is Dances With Wolves without the greatness. Exchange native Americans with Samurai, add evil American pigs with one valiant American dissenter, throw in a man who is the enemy and then becomes the best friend, and a pinch of love interest between the ex-pig and a lovely native, and you’ve got the recipe right. I couldn’t see any real originality that made it its own movie. I was distracted with how obvious their similarities are and that took much of the enjoyment away for me.

There are also many implausibilities within the story. How a man could train to become a Samurai in such a short amount of time is remarkable, the battle sequences, although beautifully choreographed, are ridiculous in their presentations, and the ending is so egotistical it is pathetic. Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe both do well with their characters yet neither are particularly noteworthy. I’ve always liked Cruise just fine, but I really don’t consider him to be one of the greats. His so-called powerful performances have never effected me, but they have seemed believable enough.

I can easily see this movie being a heavyweight when it comes to Oscar time, though that has never really impressed me either. I stood outside the theater after the movie was over and I listened to what everybody was saying about what they just saw. The popular consensus was that it was a brilliant movie that was one of the best of its kind ever made. I just can’t see it. I’d rather watch my Dances With Wolves DVD. After all, it is the same story.

Good review, and I agree about the message being vague. I think they got confused whether or not they actually wanted to make a point and just let it go thinking "Oh, they'll get what we mean."
What did you mean about the staging of the battles being ridiculous though?

Lord S, Kurosawa is a great place to start. I often think we're actually deprived coz we speak English, seeing as how so few foreign films make it to our screens. In other countries the dubbing industries are so advanced (and/or the tv/theatre budgets more limited in some places perhaps ;)) that a wide range of movies are more accesible and available. (something that pleased me greatly recently is that a long-term friend, who balked even at "el Mariachi" when we hired it - despite it being his type of film, is now in love with foreign movies coz of City of God [alright, admitadly still his type of film, but it's a start :)]).

I have to recommend...

Yojinbo: (made into a fistful of dollars - and to be honest i prefer the original) - enigmatic performance from the lead, samurai code explored in a classic way, and classy (even silly) edgy wooden-block japanese music throughout. You can clearly see the influence in westerns.

Ran: Re-working of King Lear, meshing perfectly with Samurai/feudal-japanese culture again. It's long re-inactments of the battle-scenes i didn't think were totally necessary, but they're well made and well shot. But the main attraction is the acting from the central characters. The King gone mad and the fool at his side worked perfectly. And the honour holds up the swaying human flesh like a stout rod. Great recreation.

Kagemusha is another one that seems ok, but i've watched it twice and never got to the end. Plenty of space and politics like the others. If i got to the end i don't remember it tho - so perhaps not this one eh? ;)

I've seen The Hidden Fortress and Madadayo, I've got holds on Yojimbo, Ran, Rashamon, Ikiru, and The Seven Samurai. I'm looking forward to all of them.

Nice reviews, Slay!

I'm curious. Reading Brian's review on Madadayo, which I haven't seen, and the episode with the cat, it reminded me of the Vittorio De Sica film Umberto D, which I haven't seen either. I know that in Umberto D the main character is looking for his dog at one point in the movie. Is this cat episode in Madadayo being Kurosawa's way of paying homage to De Sica or the entire Italian neo-realist movement?

[edit] I just discovered your review on Monsoon Wedding, Bri, and since I don't want to double post....

Yes, this film is a gem. I don't know if it is simply because I have watched close to none Indian films before, but this one was really refreshing and something new (to me).

Even though this family isn't representative of the Indian people as a whole, I thought the film succeeded brilliantly in creating a bond between the characters and me, as a member of a western world audience. Despite the differences in cultures or perhaps because of the similarities in cultures.

I also liked the music very much. And the women. :randy:

Ok, yeah. Some of this did seem a little exaggerated.

More great reviews Bri.

Now that I have a little bit of time I wanted to contribute...

I loved both Elizabeth and Kate & Leopold. I wasn't sure if I should just copy and paste my original posts from your other review threads to here or not. I didn't want to over do it for you.

Monsoon Wedding
I loved this one also. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it, but I do remember getting really drawn into the characters. So much so I was very irritated with the engaged daughter when she had the triste in the car with her ex married lover. I really liked her and thought of her doing something so completely stupid a few days before her wedding...welll...I wanted to slap her. Hehe...I guess that’s the sign of a well written and acted movie, when you get wrapped up in the characters. :p

I also was caught up in Ria. The underlying story of what happened to her as a young girl, her feeling protective over her cousin, not feeling like a ‘real’ daughter when the secret is out and the father still wants her to attend the wedding despite how uneasy she would feel. This movie ended perfectly too. I loved it.

Italian for Beginners
I just saw this and wanted to thank you for reviewing it. You’re right, the way it’s shot and the fact there’s no music threw me a little too at first. It's almost like taking a video camera into these peoples lives...but the actors and actresses were so wonderful...they made these tortured souls so believeable. You quickly get caught up in their lives. It didn’t take long to get used to the way it was shot.

This was a really fresh and engaging movie. Thanks for the tip and recommending it Bri. :yup:

Yi Yi
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new12/taiwan-t.gif YI YI ***½

http://www.albany.edu/writers-inst/graphics/yiyi.jpg

Yi Yi follows a Taiwanese family as each one tries to make sense out of life. Each one has their own story but we are shown just how similar all of their lives are. The Story begins with a wedding where the brother of Min-Min (Elaine Jin) is getting married. After the ceremony, their mother, who lives with Min-Min and her family, is found lying near a dumpster outside their condominium. Nobody is sure what really happed to the mother. They assume she was taking out the trash and had a stroke doing it. Regardless of what she was doing, she is now in a coma, and that causes the family to stop and think.

Ting-Ting (Kelly Lee), the teen-age daughter, takes the fault on her own shoulders and starts to lose sleep. One evening, after everyone goes to sleep, she sneaks into her grandmother’s room and asks the comatose woman if she had forgotten to take out the trash. We see early in the film that Ting-Ting did indeed take out all the trash herself, and want to weep for this poor girl who can’t remember and blames herself.

NJ Jian (Wu Nienjen), the husband, is a manager of a software company. He is morose and laconic and wanders through the picture wondering all about the what-ifs in his life. When he was young, he was to be married to Shelly (Elaine Jin), but he runs away shortly before the wedding. During Min-Min’s brothers wedding, NJ happens to run into Shelly in the lobby of the hotel where the ceremony is taking place. The first thing she asks him, after thirty years, is where did he go? Why did he leave? NJ has no answer to give her, but he desperately wants to find out the answer for himself, and to understand whether running may have lowered his chances for happiness. His company is also in financial trouble. He is recruited to get Japanese software giant to sign on board with his company to produce and market some video games that might save the company. NJ meets up with Mr. Ota (Issey Ogata). Who resembles a Japanese Bill Gates, and finds that Ota might have some answers that he’s looking for, just by being the man he is.

Yang-Yang (Jonathan Chang), the youngest child, is a boy who is constantly teased and harassed by the girls at school. He is also a deep thinker for a child his age and begins to question his father how anyone can know truth, when each person can only see half of the picture. “Daddy, I can't see what you see and you can't see what I see. How can we know more than half the truth?" NJ has no answer for that, so instead, gives his son a camera. Yang-Yang uses the camera to help people who cannot see the whole picture actually see it. They cannot see the backs of their heads, so he takes pictures of them to prove that they do exist. Chang is perhaps one of the sweetest young boys to ever star in a motion picture. At the end of the film (I’m not giving anything away here) Yang-Yang reads a letter to his grandmother. It is a very sincere, powerful, and heart wrenching, scene and sums up all of the family beautifully.

Yi Yi is a movie about introspection and regret. It is also a story about quiet acceptance and courage. But above all, it is a story about life. Through the four family members, we are able to see that each generation has always had to suffer the same questions. Each generation has always had regrets and had to deal with loss. All of us search for the truth in our own way, and often we don’t find the answer, but if we’re lucky, we can accept the truth we are able to find out.

Kaaterskill Falls
 

http://www.workmall.com/flags/united...files/us-t.gif KAATERSKILL FALLS **

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima...2711_thumb.jpg

Ren and Mitchell (Hilary Howard & Anthony Leslie) are taking a short vacation at a cabin in the Catskills. On the way to their destination they decide to pick up a hitchhiker named Lyle (Mitchell Riggs) who apparently is unable to gain lodgings for himself. In a moment of kindness, they offer a meal and a bed to the quite and rugged Lyle. It is obvious in short order that tension starts to build between the two men whose differences are worlds apart. Mitchell, Ren’s husband, is an anal-retentive man who lives his life by schedules. He is also a pure city boy who enjoys nature as a weekend warrior. Lyle however, is a true nature buff, who is highly adaptable to harsh environments, and shows contempt for Mitchell and his type.

Kaaterskill Falls is touted as being a thriller, though it really isn’t. It centers on Ren, who obviously loves her husband, but cannot help herself from having an attraction to Lyle. She shares to Lyle that before she met Mitchell, she was a modern hippie girl that was about to start a commune with a girlfriend, but instead was “saved” by Mitchell, and given a normal and productive life.

While watching the film, I naturally assumed that I would be on the husband’s side, but he turns out to be the prickish type, but he is just threatened by Lyle, and with good reason. Lyle obviously has designs with Ren, and I slowly began to build an expectation of violence. The movie is slow paced and never really delivers in the way I was expecting. Most of the movie is dialogue with no action at all, not that a movie needs action, but this movie by its own admission, is supposed to have it. At the end of the film, it tries to deliver with a real twist ending, but instead of my being shocked and pleased, I was confused and let down. I didn’t hate the film, and can recommend it slightly, but there are many better Indies to spend your hard earned dough on.

To Live
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/ch-t.gif TO LIVE ****

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscu...zhe/huo_p1.jpg

To Live is an astonishing tale of a family living in China during the communist revolution and beyond. It really isn’t centered on what these changes of politics does to a family, but rather what strengths people who love each other have, and what they can endure.

The time is the late 1940s and Fugui (Ge You) is a gambling addict. At home he has a wife, Jiazhen (Gong Li), a young daughter, and his parents. They all see his gambling as the ruin of their family, who are landowners slowly losing what fortune that remains to Fugui’s gambling problem. Then, in one night, he loses their property, his wife and child, and all of his dignity. All of a sudden, instead of being called Master, he is selling trinkets he was able to rescue from his home before it was taken over, on the snowy streets. After time, his wife and child come back with his newborn son, who the wife teasingly names “Don’t Gamble”. Fugui has learned his lesson and has no desire to gamble again and promises his wife that he will give her the life she desires; A quiet life together.

Through the next four decades we watch all of the hardships of their lives together through some of the most tumultuous times in China’s history. I read up on this film and found out that the director (Zhang Yimou) and Gong Li were both banned from working in film for the next two years, because the Chinese government was upset at the portrayal of the brutal truth of those times in this film. They were even banned from speaking about this film. There hasn’t been very many movies made in China by Chinese about Chinese. It is only beneficial to the world at large that it is happening now and that we are allowed to see what things were really like for these people with our own eyes, through theirs.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a must-see film. It is an epic from beginning to end with exceptional direction, beautiful cinematography, and wonderful performances. I found it easy to love all the characters and when they suffer crushing setbacks, I felt like my own life was torn asunder. I could also see why people under a communist regime become so loyal to the cause. To Live, I expect, pulled no punches when showing us Mao’s totalitarian control over the way of life for millions of people, who begin to think as one. It was amazing to me when wedding ceremonies are performed; the families sing Mao’s communist theme with tears in their eyes. They worship Mao, then their God, in that order.

Fugui and Jiazhen show that life is the same regardless of what type of world you live in. One only hopes to live happily and with love. Even when there is loss there is hope. I love this movie.

Ah wow, cheers your lordship. I've wanted to see an "honest" chinese-made film for ages. The only other one i've seen that wasn't HongKong-made/controlled (i don't think) was about the transition from rural to industrialised/capitalisty living (but unfortunately i can't remember the name). All i can remember is that the central figure is a wife who starts taking her produce to town in a truck, and we see the growing competitive city life through her eyes. And she called her neighbour, or possibly her drive-less husband, "the pig". (and i don't think i made it to the end, coz it started at around two in the morning). And now i've lost my teaching job (mainly coz of doing things like that ;)) - i've lost my chance to get inside Chinese people's heads (which i was failing at anyway :rolleyes: ). Nice one man. That's a must-see. (and Yiyi is one i've heard about and wanted to see. Classy. There goes my list growing again :) :rolleyes: )

The Scent of Green Papaya
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new/vm-t.gif THE SCENT OF GREEN PAPAYA ***½

http://www.fantasium.com/images/cover_arts/FOR8943.jpg

A ten-year-old orphan walks miles from her small village in Vietnam to go to work for her new Mistress (Truong Thi Loc ). She quickly adapts to her new life and learns everything that she needs to know from the old servant (Nguyen Anh Hoa) that helps her to keep her family running smoothly. She watches everything quietly and absorbs everything she needs to understand them. Her name is Mui (Lu Man San) and she is the most genuinely sweet girl I have ever seen on film. She finds beauty in just about everything. She can sit and watch a stem of a papaya bleed after being picked, watch a tree frog sit on a leaf, and watch an ant work, and find beauty in all of it. Her eyes are always wide open, soaking in everything around her, and there is almost always a soft smile on her lips. Even when the youngest child in the home teases and terrorizes her, she is still able to smile and not succumb to resentment. The Mistress falls in love with this beatific child and sees her as the daughter she had lost.

The Scent of Green Papaya is a quiet film that uses beautiful scenery and the lull of the sounds of wildlife to speak for Mui. She is a girl of few words and is often shown to be in the background. She does her job well in that sense. As the family suffers, Mui suffers, but nobody notices. This isn’t a standard servant movie where there is someone that mistreats, or a servant who fights for their own individuality, but rather, an honest look at a life of servitude. For that reason alone, this movie stands above its contemporaries.

Before we know it, Mui (Tran Nu Yen-Khe) is twenty, and the family can no longer afford her. She is sent to work for a family friend who Mui falls in love with. I won’t give away what happens, but I can tell you that the film follows the earlier segments lead, and doesn’t follow standard formula. It has a very satisfying conclusion that is not only sweet, but real. This movie is a gem that is beautiful to watch, quiet in its portrayal, and has a central character that is easy to love. If you’re tired of explosions, sex, and murder, give this movie a look.

Great reviews, Slay.

Glad to see you loved Monsoon Wedding. Along with The Pianist, and The Fast Runner it was one of Kong's three favorites of 2002.

Kong is also on the same page as you concerning Yi Yi, but, shamefully enough, Kong hasn't seen the other films you've reviewed.

Man, you have to see To Live. It's one of the finest films I've ever seen. I picked up a copy of The Pianist, expect a review this week.

Kong will check it out soon. Kong's seen two of Yimou's film (Hero, and Ju Dou) and liked them both a whole lot. The next to of his that Kong plans on watching are To Live, and Raise the Red Lantern. Kong'll let you know his thoughts when he sees them.

Damn, I made an error here. I saw The Pianist in the theaters. I thought you were talking about The Piano Teacher by Michael Haneke. I liked The Pianist quite a bit as well.

I just finished watching,

Igby Goes Down:

It is the kind of quirky movie I like, I thought that Kiren Culkin was really good and much better looking than his older brother, Ryan Phillippe I thought was so good, that I was really getting to dislike his character.

I also liked the soundtrack.

Hey LordyLord what a great new avatar :D

Great Thread!

Well done Slay! There are a few now that I'd like to see based upon your reviews.

Sorry, I hadnt gotten around to commenting on this thread yet because I've been trying not to read reviews for movies that I havent seen already and thought I might like to see [reading the scenario before hand can ruin what little surprise there is in a lot of movies, unfortunately], but it's interesting reading the variety of movies you've been seeing lately, Slayton. The only two I've seen on the list so far have been To Live, and Scent of Green Papaya. To Live is great, and one of my very favorites of Zhang Yimou's movies. Right up there with Shanghai Triad and Red Sohrgum. What I liked about Scent of Green Papaya was how we get the feeling of being a fly on the wall in that family's household. Keep em coming.

Yeah, let's see if you can fit any of them into your tight :eek: porn schedule.

I don't have a schedule. I have a porn reel constantly running in my head.

What I want to know LordyLord, do you sleep, eat, work, go out of the house? You seem to devour movies and books a phenomenal rate, I am lucky to get in one movie per day, and read that happens 10mins before sleep, what is your trick.http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-008.gif

Cinema Paradiso
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new9/italy-t.gif CINEMA PARADISO ****

http://www.paramount-abilene.org/mar...cinemapara.jpg

There are two different versions of Giuseppe Tornatore’s Cinema Paradiso available today. There is the original 1988 release that Harvey Weinstein, CEO of Miramax, trimmed nearly an hour of, then there is the more recently released Director’s cut. The DVD has both versions on it and I watched both of them last night. Many critics agree that the edited version is the better of the two, but I think it all depends on what mood you are in when you sit down to watch it. The shorter version is a more uplifting film about a boy and his surrogate father who creates a love of movies in the boy. In that version the boy has two loves: film and his surrogate father. The longer version is also a love story. As the boy grows, he meets the only girl he will ever love, and that changes the entire dynamic of the film. Now the boy has three loves: film, surrogate father, and the girl. The longer version is a sweeter and sadder tale, because it focuses a lot more on the love affair. I really enjoyed both.

The first act of Cinema Paradiso is set in Sicily at the end of WWII. Alfredo (Philippe Noiret) works at the local Cinema Paradiso as a projectionist. When he’s not splicing the films on loan to the theater to edit out all the scenes the local priest deems unworthy (kissing scenes mainly), he is fighting with young Salvatore (Salvatore Cascio) who routinely bothers him in the booth. In time Alfredo comes to accept Salvatore and takes him under his wing. Salvatore is completely obsessed with movies, as is the entire township, and wants Alfredo to teach him how to run the projector. I’m reluctant to give away too much of the first act, because to know too much would rob you of its charm.

The second act consists of a teen-age Salvatore (Marco Leonardi) and his growing relationship with Alfredo. He also meets Elena (Agnese Nano), and quickly falls in love with her. Here is one of the glaring differences between the two versions. The shorter version treats this segment as an unimportant tidbit in comparison to the longer version, and doesn’t put too much emphasis on the importance of this love affair in relation to how Salvatore turns out later in life.

The third act is the bulk of the difference between the two versions. In the shorter version, 90% of this act is gone. It consists of the grown Salvatore (Jacques Perrin) and his visit home after an absence of 30 years. I don’t want to give away any of this segment, because it is one powerful part of the movie, and having unasked questions answered are what makes this act so powerful. If you stick with the edited version, you’ll miss pretty much all of this part.

Either version you choose, you cannot miss. This is truly a beautiful tale, regardless of which you choose too watch. My advice would be to watch the original 1988 theater release first, then watch the Director’s cut. There is a certain magical appeal to the original version that may be impossible to ever regain if you watch the longer cut first. There will be answers that you will want answered after watching it and that’s where the Director’s cut comes to the rescue. Either way, you will be enchanted by this beautiful story.

Elling
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new9/norway-t.gif ELLING ***

http://www.cinemaniak.ch/images/elling.jpg

Elling (Per Christian Ellefsen) tells us that he’s always had two enemies, dizziness and anxiety, they follow him wherever he goes. He is found hiding in a cupboard at the beginning of the movie after his mother dies. Elling is 40 years old and has never had to leave the house, and with good reason: he can’t handle it. The welfare office takes him to live in an asylum where he meets Kjell Bjarne (Sven Nordin), a huge, 40-something, lumbering man who has been institutionalized his whole life and dreams of the day he can lose his virginity. Kjell and Elling become friends after time and when the welfare office thinks they are ready, they are moved into an apartment together and told to try to be productive. Together they try to make it on their own and not to have fits when the phone rings.

Many other movies that have mentally handicapped people as their central figures find it necessary to have them either teach “normal” people a thing or two about humanity or have them so deeply rooted in sentimentality that there is a saccharine coating on the roof of the mouths of the audience. What is so wonderful about Elling, is that it doesn’t pander to those standard conventions. Elling is crazy, and he knows it. He wants to function, but he has nothing to teach anyone, and doesn’t try to. Kjell is the same way, though he is the lesser insane of the two. The situations the two find themselves in are realistic to a fashion, it is a comedy after all, and it doesn’t get sentimental in any way. I found that I had a slaphappy silly grin from beginning to end of this quaint film, and was thoroughly satisfied by its conclusion. I readily recommend this film.

Fox and His Friends
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/new/de-t.gif FOX AND HIS FRIENDS ***

http://www.dvdforum.nu/images/filmer/foxandfriends.jpg

Fox (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, who also wrote and directed the film) is a gay carnival worker whose boss, and lover, is arrested at the beginning of the film for tax evasion. Fox is a blue-collar worker that has very little education and absolutely no refinement whatsoever. He’s also rough around the edges and doesn’t prove to be all that sensitive of a man. One thing that he really loves is to play the lottery. The day that his lover is carted off, he meets a distinguished gentleman who wants to spend some time with him alone. On the way to their interlude, Fox begs the man to stop at a convenience store so he can buy his lottery ticket. The next thing we know, we are with Fox and his new socially elite friends celebrating his winning $500,000.

The person he likes most out of this new group of friends is Eugen (Peter Chatel), a handsome, young, gay man that lures Fox to himself. At first, Fox thinks he is the dominant man in the new relationship, and tries to take control of Eugen by intimidation. In time, Fox learns that he really is only a sheep in a den of elite wolves. They know the difference between salad and dinner forks, they can speak French, and know how to dress. Fox finds his self-esteem shrinking all the time, but seems incapable of doing anything about it other than watching himself in disbelief.

Fox and His Friends is an ironic title, because none of these people care about him. He is being fleeced and he seems more than glad to help them do it. If he tries to stop them, he only shows his ignorance, and that ignorance is what he is most ashamed of.

I felt for Fox, and could relate to him after a fashion. I’ve personally been in situations that were over my head by being with serious gangsters with guns. You seem them smirk and can tell that the private joke between them is all about you, but fear stops you from saying anything. It just might start something that you’re afraid of, and all hell can break loose. The acting by all concerned in the film is spot-on. They had the looks between themselves and it was obvious that Fox could see it, but was afraid to acknowledge it. He could only play along in a game that everyone was aware of and wasn’t about to disrupt.

Fox and His Friends isn’t a fun film, but rather a depressing tale of a loss of ones self. It also shows what can happen to a person that isn’t used to the white-collar wolves that inhabit our world, and who will surround you when you gain means quickly. At first, I didn’t like Fox, but could tell quickly that he was all an act. He was king of the mountain in his world and he figured that his rough and arrogant attitude would transfer itself easily into the new world he was so quickly thrust into. Unfortunately, he had no clue what he was in for.

Again I ask DO YOU SLEEP! i can't keep up with you, my list of must watch, is getting bigger and bigger, you need to come to my house and I will make you rest, sleep relax, etc etc.

Great reviews, I am just jealous of your ability to do so many things. ;D

I'm still unemployed. Over the weekend, I'll watch four or five movies and one a night during the week. I write the reviews for them on the weekends. The movies are free because the local library has tons of indie and foriegn DVDs to check out that nobody wants to. So, during the week, I'll stop by the library at the beginning of my job search, and stop again at the end of it. I have about 30 DVDs at any one time. My reading I do during the day while I'm in transit. I can't really afford all the gas to look for work, so I stick to the train and the buses. That's a good time to read. I have a few more foriegn films here that I need to watch like, Happenstance from France starring Audrey Tautou from Amelie, The Piano Teacher from Austria, and Son of the Bride from Spain.

I saw Cinema Paradiso some years ago and I remember that I liked it a lot. I suspect that I watched the shorter version because I recall thinking that the first act was absolutely beautiful and heartwarming while the second act was a bit of an anti-climax. It's a really long time since I saw it and maybe my views about it would be different today, but I think I would like to check out the longer Director's Cut. Maybe then it'll make sense a bit more.

Sorry for shouting, just mucking around. Thanks for that LordyLord.

Hope you get a job soon. :yup:

I like the idea of having 30 DVD's at anyone time to watch, keep it up, really like this thread. :D

Lord Slayton-Have you watched The Piano Teacher yet? I've got this on video, it's brilliant.

I watched it last night and I'm still trying to figure out what it is exactly I'm feeling about it. I'll write my review tonight.

Oh, this will be interesting... :) I will wait to give my opinion until Slay gives us a review on it though.

Hey Brian, I'd like to see a review of Wonderland (2003 - Starring Val Kilmer)

I wanted to write it tonight, but I haven't the energy. I do want to say that I'm awfully grateful to you for all the responses you've given my reviews in this thread and my war movie thread. It's really nice of you to give me support with my amatuer reviews, and for your constant positive input.



Sure, I guess I should watch it sometime first though. Thanks for the nod, man.

Sure thing! This is a movie forum and I love to discuss movies! And the ones you've seen lately happen to be interesting to me and your reviews are passionate. It's nice to see threads devoted to other films than Matrix. ;)

The Piano Teacher
 

http://www.theodora.com/flags/au-t.gif THE PIANO TEACHER ***½

http://www.twinkle.com.hk/intposter/poster/e1835.jpg

It’s not easy to describe The Piano Teacher, actually, it’s just as hard to interpret. I watched it the other night and have been racking my brain to figure out an appropriate review for it. One thing I am certain of is that The Piano Teacher is a descent into madness. It is an excruciatingly real and often uncomfortably voyeuristic view into the mind of a woman who can see the oblivion of a degenerative sanity that she is sure to face and completely helpless to stop.

The woman in question is Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert), who teaches piano at the Vienna Conservatory and takes out all of her frustrations on her pupils by day. At night, she slinks into the world of perversion, often going to the local porn shop to smell the discarded tissues left behind in the boothes. Erika lives with her mother (Annie Girardot), who is domineering and obsessively nosy. There she soaks up abuse like it is a salve. At night, they share a bed together so the mother always knows where Erika is, and if there is a time when she is gone past her regular schedule, the mother calls every few minutes to keep some semblance of control. Erika’s father is in an asylum, and we never meet him. The likelihood of heredity being part of the cause for her mental illness seems apparent, and the constant abuse from her mother only makes her collapse all the more probable. Erika is obsessed with Franz Schubert, who wrote a sonata about a man who sees the brink of his own sanity and can only watch helplessly as he loses his mind. Furthering my opinion that Erika is aware of what is happening to her.

Enter the young and charismatic Walter Klemmer (Benoît Magimel), a young engineering student with a flair for the piano. After seeing Erika at a recital, Walter becomes immediately obsessed and quickly tries to seduce her. Little does Walter know that getting to know Erica is the same as opening a Pandora’s box. I am loath to tell any more of the story than this because the shock value of what happens is what gives the film its edge.

There are many different interpretations of The Piano Teacher. Many of them see this as a tale of sexual repression, self-mutilation, S&M, and morbid erotic obsession. I personally think those are just the by-products of Erika’s impending loss of sanity. Part of the reasoning behind the different interpretations might be because there are two versions: the rated R version and the unrated version. The unrated version shows explicit scenes of self-mutilation and pornography. Regardless of how it is interpreted, it is not a movie for the easily offended or the prudish by nature. Isabelle Huppert’s portrayal of a woman on the brink is absolutely phenomenal. I cannot, for the life of me, see any of the contemporary actresses from America doing the role any justice. Annie Girardot’s role as the somewhat insane mother is noteworthy as well. The ending of the film is of the type that causes great debate. It just ends. It cuts off at a point where we are robbed of any closure or follow through. There is no way of knowing what happens to Erika specifically, but we do know that she is lost. I would say that the only person to know what is going through Erika’s mind at the end is Erika herself…and she’s not telling.

In America
 

IN AMERICA ****

http://www.thezreview.co.uk/posters/.../inamerica.jpg

Jim Sheridan has a proven history of making emotionally charged films filled with powerful performances. My Left Foot not only secured him as a respected director, it also made Daniel Day-Lewis into an international star. A few years later, Sheridan followed up with the critically acclaimed In the Name of the Father which cemented his and Lewis’ stardom for good. Now he, along with the help of his two daughters Naomi and Kirsten, follow up with In America, which is being heralded as this years best film.

In America is based on Sheridan’s family’s immigration to New York City during the mid-eighties. It is told narration style through the voice of the eldest daughter Christy (Sarah Bolger), older sister of Ariel (Emma Bolger). It is through her eyes that the story unfolds.

Johnny and Sarah (Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton) only wish to start anew. They have recently lost their oldest son Frankie, and the assumption is that their move to New York is a way of escaping all the things that remind them of him. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work.

Sarah tries to be strong. When Johnny mourns, Sarah is there to tell him to “act” happy, if only for the children’s sake. Sadly, she is acting as well. Sarah has privately assumed all responsibility for Frankie’s death and breaks apart when she looks into her husband’s eyes. They are the eyes given to their dead son. Sarah hopes for peace of mind, yet it quietly eludes her.

Meanwhile, Johnny, who is a struggling actor, suffers with a debilitating pain that inhibits his acting, his ability to play with his girls, and utterly destroys his faith in God. “I asked God to take me instead of him and he took us both” He informs his neighbor “He left me in his place. I’m a ****ing ghost.”

The neighbor is Mateo (Djimon Hounsou). A Nigerian artist who screams at his canvas as he paints his demons. Mateo isn’t as terrible as he seems though; he is a gentle and angelic giant of a man. It is the kindness of the girls that he finally finds some peace and the kindness in him that gives Johnny and Sarah some semblance of healing.

The children are the only ones to show any signs of reasonable coping skills. Ariel at times will become sad, but with the standard child resilience, bounces right back. She is a wonder and a joy to watch. Christy assumes the responsibility of giving strength to her family, evident in a particular scene when her father calls her to his knee and begins with, “Baby…” Christy quickly interrupts with, “Don’t you baby me. I’ve been carrying this family on my back for over a year now!” Christy, it seems, is able to cope better because she hasn’t lost her faith in God. She believes that her brother is in heaven watching over her and granting her wishes. It is a lovely sentiment.

In America is a true to life telling of grief and loss, but it also shows that through pain there is still hope, and maybe even joy. Considine, Morton, and Hounsou all deliver solid performances, but it is the sisters that are the real presence and the very soul of this beautiful film. The ending of the film is one of the most sincerely sweet and poignant I have ever seen. If there was any question whether I was going to give it three and half or four stars, that scene made my mind up for me. There will be times while watching this movie where you will laugh, and at there will be times when it may move you to tears, but regardless of either of those things, you will love this family.

Nice review of The Piano Teacher, Slay.

It is indeed a challenging film and I am sure a lot of people find it not only provocative but even offensive. I liked it very much and the film owns a lot of its greatness to Isabelle Huppert, one of the world's greatest actresses. As Brian said, she is phenomenal.

I have only seen this film once and it's been a while now, and I've got a feeling this is one of those films you should see more than one time to suck in everything there is in it. The film raises several questions. Why is she doing this to herself? Why is she letting the student treat her like that? What are the reasons? The relationship to her mother is really interesting too.

The humiliation theme makes me think a bit of Ingmar Bergman and I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Haneke's a fan of the old "Angst-master". But Bergman was always determinded to entertain and Haneke seems to have an almost sadistic relationship to his audience. But in the case of The Piano Teacher the strong scenes aren't there for the simple reason just to shock us, but I think to show us "Look! These are PEOPLE! LOOK, DAMNIT!!" ;D . He's certainly not compromising and it is so refreshing to see a director who doesn't compromise. Most films are made to keep us comfortable in our seats when we have sat down in the theater and this one makes us twist and turn.

I have (I think) only seen one film by Haneke besides The Piano Teacher, the equally disturbing Funny Games. My first impression after having seen that film was that I was pissed off on Haneke. Then I understood that he probably had me just where he wanted me. I will not give away the story but it's about a couple of really sick guys who use families from a upper-middle class/upper class area for their "funny games". At the same time as the film feels like a furious attack on this clique of society it's a good depiction of pointless violence and terror. The film also plays with our expectations on films. Haneke makes us believe he is making another thriller with a point when there is no point at all.

A really interesting director.

Very nice review for In America. As you know, Kong is totally in love with this movie.

Kong just saw The Last Samurai and totally understands where you're coming from on this one. Personally, Kong enjoyed himself very much, but it certainly isn't the most original of films, and it had quite a few cornball moments, as well as cliches. Nevertheless, Kong found himself engrossed in it...

Piddy,

I agree with your Bergman comment completely.

I'm curious about your take on the ending.



Kong,

Thanks for the positive comment. I liked Samurai as well, up to a point. There were just too many things that bugged me. I feel like I should give it another half star, but I also feel like I should stand by my original impression. Time has gone by since my viewing and that can sometimes cause regrettable forgiveness. For example, I watched A.I. again last night. When I saw it first run, I thought it was beautiful and Haley, well shucks...that kids better at acting than most adults, but it was awfully heavy handed and the never ending music got to me. I thought last night that maybe I was being to hard on it and would have sworn that I liked it more than I did to begin with. After viewing it I remembered all the things I felt the first time. I'd give it ***, but more for Osment and the look than anything else...aside that the story is very original.

It was a while since I saw it, as I said, and I'm kind of in a hurry now too. But I think one of the reasons, and one of the most simple ones too, is that she deals with stress and failure by punishing herself or humiliating herself. It's kind of a relief for her. But I know that there is more to it than that, and I'll be back to this discussion tonight. And I really should see this film again soon....

Peter Pan
 

PETER PAN ***½

http://romanticmovies.about.com/libr...erpanpubcc.jpg

Wendy Darling (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is a beautiful young girl who is discomfited to learn that her Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) wants her to put away childish things and start on the path towards womanhood. When the handsome young rouge Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter) awakes her during the night and asks her to come to Neverland with him, where there is no fear of ever having to grow up, she readily agrees. This begins the seemingly all too familiar tale of Peter Pan, though that is also where the familiarity ends.

This version of Peter Pan, directed by P.J. Hogan, stays much more faithful to the book written by J.M. Barrie, and proves that most of us have never seen the real story of Peter Pan before. The Disney version, which most of us have associated as a faithful rendition, took away the darker elements of the tale and made it more kid friendly. Doing it that way took much of the power away from Barrie’s vision and left it saccharine and flat. Hogan decided that he wanted to bring that power to light and offer us a more bold and daring story that is not only eye candy, but thought provoking as well.

During the last few years, filmmakers have brought us an assortment of true to life movies about pre-teens and teen-agers. In doing so, we are reminded of how much more mature their emotions are than we think. Wendy falls in love with Peter and would give herself to him utterly if she knew that he loved her back. Unfortunately, the magic that keeps Peter eternally young also keeps him from having these more mature feelings. He’s stuck with boyish feelings, and before the arrival of Wendy, never noticed that he was missing out on anything. This creates a sadness within the film that never truly goes away, and which has never been shown to us before.

Another more daring approach to the film is how Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs who also plays Wendy’s father) is portrayed. In the Disney version, Captain Hook, is just nasty. There is no depth to his character, no explaining why he is the way he is. Now, however, we see a deeper insight into his motivations. It’s more than just blind hate that fuels Hook. He seems infatuated with Peter and Wendy. He feels forlorn and lonely, especially when Peter focuses on Wendy instead of him. He is envious of Peter’s youth and vitality and seeks to destroy what he lacks within himself. There are times in the movie where the viewer can almost relate with him and almost feel pity for his loneliness. But in the end, he is also just plain nasty.

There are many things about this movie that I liked. The kids, who star as Peter and Wendy, are two of the loveliest kids to ever grace the silver screen, and they can also act quite well. Tinkerbell (Ludivine Sagnier) acts more like an evil imp than a fairy. Disney she is not, engaging and cute she is. Isaacs really proves that he is an exceptional actor by giving us such a fresh outlook on the man called Hook. The special effects are scrumptious to look at and I never felt that any of it was over the top, or filler for the lack of good story telling. There are a number of scenes that had me laughing as well, especially when Smee (Richard Briers), Hook’s First Mate, is involved.

Peter Pan is a movie that works well for kids and adults alike, making it a perfect film for the family to see together. It is beautiful, exciting, funny and at times sad, but most of all…it’s the real Peter Pan.

Thanks for the Peter Pan review, Brian! I was looking forward to taking my daughter to this film this weekend but the review in our local paper blasted it for the poor child acting! After reading your review, my faith the film has been restored! I'll let you know what I think after I've seen it.

A local critic in Portland blasted Jeremy Sumpter's performance as well. The thing is, the kid has a mild lisp, so it sounds like he's not speaking well, but it is just the way he sounds. It's the same thing Shwarzenegger went through often with his accent. I thought he did pretty good, I could easily feel what he felt.

Ludivine Sagnier is in this? Awesome! Kong loves her.

Kong will probably see this sometime this week; he didn't think it looked to good, but now that it's gotten fairly mixed reviews he figures there's about a 50/50 chance he'll enjoy himself.

http://romanticmovies.about.com/libr...erpanpubbb.jpg

I doubt you'll like it Kong. You're to cynical. ;D

But Ludivine is so cute!

I agree, she really played the part of Tink perfectly. She doesn't speak in the movie, only pantomimes her intentions, and makes Julia Roberts attempt look pathetic in comparison.

Great Peter Pan review Slay… I was undecided if I wanted to see it or not but now I think I will check it out… :)

I'm not sure I'd give it as many popcorn bags as Slay did, but it was highly entertaining, and I thought the child actors did a fine job, contrary to a review posted in my local paper.

I was surprised that there were only about 20 people in the theater (opening holiday weekend; Sunday matinee). :confused:

Ludivine Sagnier is easily the worst thing about Peter Pan.

Just saw it and thought that Sagnier's "Tink" could've been a bit stronger, but at least she had the spritely look. Kong must disagree with you on the count that she's the worst thing in the film, however, the worst thing is most certainly the completely uninspired, generic, cornball "humor" that is only effective at distracting (of which Sagnier is guilty of adding to). To be fair, there were two or three jokes that worked.

Other than that though, it was a pretty entertaining picture.

Hmm...I laughed more than a few times. Oh well. It is, after all, made primarily for children (which I kinda am). Shame on them for not challenging you more. *wink-wink*

I just saw To Live and wanted to thank you for recommending it and your review and comments were right on target. I absolutely loved it...my eyes are still red and puffy. I just took a few quotes from your review to emphasize to anyone that "this is a must see film." Talk about a movie having a heart...this movie makes you feel period.

Thanks again Bri.

Kong isn't really mad that the humor is aimed at a young audience, but do they really have to throw them the same old jokes? It was so uninspired, like they just watched an old Nickelodeon TV show and wrote down the gags and then tossed them in. Pixar has been successful at making things funny for adults and kids, and if they can do it, others can too.

Cold Mountain
 

COLD MOUNTAIN ***½

http://www.movie-source.com/posters/270p.jpg

Cold Mountain begins with an epic battle in St. Petersburg where the Union Army commits one of the most tragic blunders ever know in military history. Within the Confederate ranks is Inman (Jude Law) who receives a near fatal wound, while trying to save the life of a friend from home. After the battle, Inman starts his long recovery in a military hospital where he gets a letter from his love back home. A volunteer reads it for him and he hears that his love is dealing with her own tragedy and only wants him to come home. After hearing this, Inman decides that after he recovers, he is going to desert and walk home. Seeing that his home at Cold Mountain is hundreds of miles away, it’s obvious that it is going to be a very long and arduous journey.

The love back home at Cold Mountain, South Carolina is Ada (Nicole Kidman), a preachers (Donald Sutherland) daughter who has been brought to the country after leading a socialites life back in Charleston. Seen through a series of flashbacks is the budding romance between Ada and Inman and the power of their love at first sight developing between them. After that, the movie splits off to tell two different tales. One is the journey of Inman and the other is Ada’s journey of independence.

Inman’s tale is somewhat like Homers Odyssey. His journey is long and full of interesting characters played by highly recognizable stars. Most notable are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Natalie Portman. Hoffman plays a reverend with the morals of an imp and Portman plays a war widow with a newborn struggling to survive the elements, starvation, and rouge units of both armies who come to claim anything they want from her in the name of the Union or Confederate Armies. Portman’s short time on the screen is what I consider to be the films most powerful performance. I thought that Law did an excellent job as a man that is psychologically worn and often exhausted or grievously wounded. Only a couple of times did his real accent come through, most often he did just fine.

Ada’s tale is equally compelling. After her Father dies, she finds that she is ill equipped to run a farm and quickly finds herself in poverty. Through the compassion of a neighbor friend (Kathy Bates), Ruby (Renée Zellweger) is sent to teach Ada how to live on her own. Ruby is a tougher than nails type of woman who talks like a sailor and works like a lumberjack. As far as I’m concerned, Zellweger owned this movie in all respects. Every scene she was in centered around her whether or not it was even about her. She certainly deserves at least the nomination for Best Supporting Actress this year. I don’t want to spill the beans too much about either segment because the joy is in the discovery.

Cold Mountain was directed by Anthony Minghella, based on the book by Charles Frazier. I recently read the book so as to compare the two, and found that it is indeed faithful to Frazier’s vision. Though this is a period piece about the civil war, don’t expect a lot of battles to be played out. This is more of a human-interest study than it is a war movie, though the opening sequence is one of the best battle sequences I have ever seen belonging to this genre. The scenery is beautiful to look at and the score is enriched but not overdone.

I can easily recommend this movie even though there are moments during it that are fairly predictable, and a couple of the characters (the villainous Ray Winstone most of all) appear to be from the same cut-out as many others. I can forgive it these things because it is so well acted and thought provoking throughout. I really enjoyed this film.

I'm really happy that you liked it sweetheart. :yup:

I just saw Cold Mountain and I absolutely loved it. Although I had to stay in line for a while (which I don't mind), It was worth it. Your review is top notch.... an excellent addition to your review thread.

Cold Mountain (2003)
 

I'd have to say that Cold Mountain is probably one of my favourite movies of the year. It's got its flaws, of course [it's very glossy], but most films this year have had, and it's also got some really redeeming factors that make it stand out for me personally.

Aside from the picture's general technical excellence and wonderful performances, I also thought that the character arcs [especially that of Ada] were extremely clear, and wonderfully executed by Minghella's script and actors. Towards the end of the film, when Ada goes out to kill a turkey, I suddenly realised how far she had come personally, a transformation that stands on its own as much as it does as part of the film's major plot and subplots. It was a nice moment.

I also really liked the more complex [though not overly complex] ideas that littered the film. How does war change a person? How can you go back to the life you once had after something like war, which impacts upon you in such an extreme way? I found the film's presentation of wartime quite interesting, especially considering the number of war films this year that failed to present war as anything deeper than a matter of "good vs. evil". As much as I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [and I did enjoy it], I must admit to having been really refreshed when Cold Mountain took a more complex and sophisticated route.

And I really loved its structure. It reminded me of The Good, the Bad and Ugly a lot of the time. And for that reason I consider it more of an Anthony Minghella Western than I do an Anthony Minghella Civil War movie.

Peter Pan

I loved it. As a one time visual artist, this film blew me away. From this perspective, I saw a use of strong complementary colors (particularly oranges and blues), analagous patterns and artistry (the Parrish-like scenery) that provided a visual K.O. and I'm not even taking into account the story yet.

Back to Parrish... his most famous works were done in the early 1900's, about the same time that the world saw the Cottingley Fairies and the time of the original publication of Barrie's novel Peter Pan. I suspect the inclusion of these elements was an intentional 'hat's off' to the dawn of the 20th century.

Tinkerbell's antics and the obligatory farting sequence that grace all movies aimed at kids today (Hollywood thinks we still laugh at that crap) couldn't ruin the film for me (though it tried).

Nice review Slay, as always!

I agree. She seemed...I dunno...either trying too hard, or more juvenile than the rest of the movie. But that may just be me. I really loved the movie though. I've seen it twice now.

As for Cold Mountain, I really liked this as well. The performaces were great, as was the look of the film. It felt a lot like The Odyssey to me (which I liked a lot). I LOVED the sub-plots in the movie.



Sidenote: Did anyone notice that Jack White from the White Stripes was in this movie?

Does anyone know the name of the actor that played the albino henchman of Ray Winstone?

Great reviews Slay!

Silver, your comments are right on the mark. Ada's story about personal growth was exceptional, and it really wasn't a war movie at all.

I'm really glad you enjoyed it Toose. The books ending is considerably different:




I read the book Peter Pan after I saw the movie, as well as Cold Mountain. In Peter Pan, the way Tink was portrayed was spot on. With the exception that in the book she kept yelling out (in tinkle noises that only Peter could decipher) "You Ass!!!". I thought this version of Tink was adorable, especially the scene where she sprouts the little horns.

I did notice Jack White as Goergia, he did a good job, though his part was rather small. Charlie Hunnam played the evil albino, Boise. As far as the ending of Cold Mountain, they were only following the book and the movie shouldn't be panned for it,

I caught the foreshadowing. It's just a personal preference thing.

I won't fault the film for following the source material (in either case), but it takes off of my personal liking of the movie. Not a whole bunch though, especially in the case of Peter Pan. Tink's portrayal didn't really turn me off to the movie, it was just my least favorite part of it. I should also like to mention that Jason Isaacs scored BIG points with me on both of his well played rolls.

And thanks for the info about the albino! :cool:

Nice Cold Mountain review; Kong gives it the same rating.

The one thing that turned Kong off from the movie most was the characters that Renee Zellweger, and Philip Seymour Hoffman played. They were so obviously written as comedic relief exacters that it created a very calculating tone to the overall story. Zellweger at least overcame this to a great degree with the delivery of a superlative performance but Hoffman was obviously struggling under the weight of a character manifestly designed to create some level of levity. This is probably more a fault of the book than anything else, but having not read it, Kong can't say for sure.

At any rate, it was a very good movie.

I can see your reasoning with that point. However, there are people in real life that, by their very mannerisms, are comic relief. With Zellweger's character, I could easily believe that that is just the way she is naturally, so I didn't feel distracted. With Hoffman, I agree with you more. Even under duress, he was comedic by nature, and that was less believable. But he wasn't like that always...the tree for example. I don't know it's been over a week since I've seen it. I thought he did admirably. Portman is the only character that made my heart hurt though, she was a shining moment in the film. I haven't seen her do so well since all the way back to Leon. I'm glad you enjoyed the film, Kong.

I actually really enjoyed Zellweger and Hoffman in this. Sure, they weren't completely on the same note as the rest of the movie, but I liked seeing them very much on the screen.

Zellweger for sure was enjoyable. Kong wasn't criticizing her at all. It's the way the parts were written that Kong didn't like. Hoffman never quite overcame the writing, but Zellweger did.

The Butterfly Effect
 

THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT **

http://www.butterflyeffectmovie.com/...y3/image/3.jpg

Let me begin by saying that I am not an Ashton Kutcher fan. Actually, I was the president of the “I hate Ashton Kutcher Club.” Well, not really, but you get the point. I went to see The Butterfly Effect more out of curiosity than any real desire to see the film. Could Kutcher actually pull off a role where he was to be taken seriously? Could he actually be believable as an intelligent human being? Would he say, “Dude”? I wanted, so very much, for all the answers to be negative because I really, really, don’t like him. Though he wasn’t that great, he wasn’t that awful either. I was thoroughly surprised to say the least.

The Butterfly Effect is a time travel story with a twist. Instead of traveling in time physically, Evan Treborn (Kutcher) can somehow travel back inhabiting his own body and manipulate events in his life, which have effects on the people around him as well. The story begins with his childhood, where strange things happen to him that no one is able to figure out. Strange fugue states make his life difficult but not entirely unlivable. Later in life, when he is in college, he tries to find the reasoning behind these blackouts and stumbles onto his talent. I say stumble because his ability is never explained, even though it shows him on the road of enlightenment.

Evan’s main motive for going back in time is to fix the things that he had done wrong that may have led to the tragedy involving the first, and only, girl he has ever loved (Amy Smart). It is through his compassion for her that a series of events transpire that prove that he has not the wisdom to play God, though he keeps trying when things go from bad to worse.

There are a lot of things wrong with this movie, first and foremost is the fact that the entire theory behind the time traveling doesn’t work. The way that he does it and the effects that are generated are implausible at best. I don’t mean that time traveling itself is implausible, but the effects of it portrayed in this movie contradict each other from scene to scene. Whether Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber, who both wrote and directed the film, didn’t see these contradictions, didn’t care, or thought the audience would not be swift enough to catch on, is something to be debated. All I know is that it just doesn’t work. I won’t go into detail here because it would ruin the movie, but if you stop to think about it after seeing the film, you will probably find that these contradictions are quite apparent.

Another thing wrong with this film is that none of the actors involved are very good. Ashton Kutcher has about as much talent as a bag of paint chips, and Amy Smart in her different guises are about as believable as Satan on a snowboard. The other two central characters affected by Evan’s foibles are equally bad, regardless of what age group they belong to. All four characters are shown at eight, thirteen, and adult ages, and all are mediocre at best. I don’t wish to be needlessly cruel, but no matter how intense a scene was supposed to be, I could feel absolutely nothing. There is a scene where Amy Smart screams and cries and flails her arms about, but there isn’t a single tear in her eye. Not even a promise of one. I thought I was watching some has-been TV show from the eighties the acting was so poor. Nevertheless, I will give it a single mark in its favor because I could tell they were all doing their best. Call me a softy. Actually, there was one aspect of Kutcher’s character that was totally believable, that is that he is a wuss. Throughout the movie he gets his ass kicked, runs away, and begs people to protect him. It makes me wonder if that was the only part of the character Kutcher could relate to. Who knows? But in this movie he would have ran away from a cross-dressing Nazi dwarf killing a puppy.

So, I’m sure you’re wondering, “Apart from the poor acting and the ridiculous concept, what else did you love about it?” The answer to that is that it ended. Okay, okay, I’m being a bit harsh. To be honest, I don’t think I walked away any dupister than I already am, and I did find that I actually did enjoy it a bit, and above all…you can really tell that everybody involved with this project tried his or her best. It was a bit of a failure, but I’m going to give it a “fair” review because of the effort put into it. There were a lot of things I didn’t like about it, but there is one important thing that I did like. Ashton Kutcher didn’t say, “Dude!” Not even once.

Dude... that was one good review... :D



Sorry, I couldn't resist... ;)

Thanks for the Butterfly thingy review, but i will wait until it comes on pay tv. :rolleyes:

I understand. U bitches must do 'dat ***** sometimes. ;D

Thake this...http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-039.gif...from one of the "U Bitches" :D

Great review, Ashton is terrible again it seems, and I want some cool smilies like Neb has!

Brian I love your reviews alot. Though, with The Butterfly Effect, I have been waiting to it see for a long while now. I am going to have to wait and see it to then then, come back to your review. ;)

The Big Bounce
 

THE BIG BOUNCE **½

http://images.art.com/images/product...0/10116268.jpg

From the mind of Elmore Leonard (Get Shorty, Out of Sight), comes the next adaptation from one of his many novels. Directed by George Armitage (Grosse Pointe Blank, Miami Blues), The Big Bounce is another story of who is scamming who and who can you trust. This one is set in the lush tropics of Hawaii where nary a cloud shows its face and only the beautiful reside.

Jack Ryan (Owen Wilson) is a construction worker and a part time thief. After a problem with a co-worker (Vinnie Jones), he finds himself out of a job and wondering where his next score will come from. Meanwhile, the foxy Nancy Hayes (Sara Foster) bides her time as a mistress to the wealthy, and previously boss of Jack, construction mogul Ray Ritchie (Gary Sinise). Nancy knows where Ray stashes his laundered money on its way to oversea accounts and all she needs is a partner to get it, fortunately there’s Jack.

What makes matters a bit, if not a lot, difficult are the presences of Judge Walter Crewes (Morgan Freeman) and Ray’s right hand man, Bob Rogers, Jr. (Charlie Sheen). Both of these men routinely get in the way of Jack and Nancy’s plans, though one does it unwittingly and one may, or may not, have ulterior motives of his own. That’s the whole plot of The Big Bounce; that no one knows who is part of a scam, or even a larger scam, and that betrayal may be around the corner at all times, but no one knows from which direction, or if at all, it may come.

I liked The Big Bounce, but not nearly as much as I like Get Shorty, Out of Sight and Jackie Brown. The predecessors are much wittier and smarter over all, and show themselves of having much richer plot lines. There isn’t as much pizzazz with The Big Bounce compared to the other movies, with their other directors and screenwriters, and the dialogue was kind of blasé to boot. I remember having a better sense of timing and delivery listening to the conversations with the older films, yet the lack of these things didn’t make me dislike it at all. Even though it is flat in comparison, it does well with what it has to offer, or at least well enough. I would consider The Big Bounce a perfect date movie. Even if you miss something, you still can follow along well enough. It also delivers some funny moments, but nothing like Travolta knocking a bad-ass bodyguard down a flight of stairs.

As far as the acting is concerned, no one can ever say that Morgan Freeman has ever given anything but a worthy performance in his career, and even though I’m not a huge fan of Owen Wilson’s slow delivery, he does quite well as a down and out petty thief and ladies man. If there is a weakness as far as acting, it belongs to Sara Foster. She is absolutely one of the sexiest con women in modern film, but there is absolutely no depth to her performance. It seems that she is not only eye candy, but ear candy as well. Most of her performance is silly girl with a motive. I assume that she would need to be much sharper, when it comes to dialogue, if she is to be the central, and smartest, scammer among the lot. However, she is the only character that seems to never have anything deep to say. It’s kind of a let down. But me, being a red-blooded man, forgave her easily since she is just so entertaining to look at.

Overall, The Big Bounce is a fun, light-hearted film, that doesn’t have much depth, but has texture. Even though it doesn’t have a lot to say, it says what it does have with a little flair, and a lot of fun.

Monster
 

MONSTER ****

http://romanticmovies.about.com/libr...onsterpubk.jpg

Monster is an intimate look at Aileen Carol Wuornos’ (Charlize Theron) transformation from victim to victimizer, and also a realistic look into the mind of a serial killer. Raised in a home of constant abuse until the tender age of thirteen when she is thrown away like so much trash, Aileen turned to prostitution, the only profession that offered her any hope of survival. Years later, she sits on the side of a freeway where she decides that she’s had enough and is ready to commit suicide. What saves her and condemns 7 men to their deaths is the chance encounter with the only person to say, “I love you” and to mean it. Selby Wall (Christina Ricci) is that person, a lonely young woman who is desperate to escape her religious zealot father who wants to cure her from her homosexuality. Their meeting is the beginning of the end for Aileen who sees Selby as a way out of her destiny, and will do anything to keep her.

There are three things that I feel need comment in this film, the first being the fact that the ever lovely Theron turns in her most powerful performance to date. Not only does this role prove that she has the chops to play the meatier roles, but it also shows how Oscar worthy she really is. Theron has usually been cast as second fiddle to the male lead in just about every movie she has ever been in. She’s also usually glamorously beautiful, but without much depth. I’m not saying that’s her fault, but that’s the work she seems to be offered more often than not. However, in this movie she is a powerhouse. Not once did I see an actress up on the screen, I saw Wuornos. The realism that she lent to the role is phenomenal given the range of emotions that Wuornos went through during her time with Selby. There is a scene near the end where Aileen tries to tell Selby that she didn’t mean for things to turn out the way they did, and she can barely get the words conveyed through the racking sobs that she can’t stop. It seemed voyeuristic watching that. Like I was accidentally eavesdropping on a conversation that I wasn’t invited to be privy to. That’s just how real she was.

Secondly, there have been a number of reviews and comments on how poorly Ricci did with her role. I couldn’t disagree more. She has been accused of being wooden and insincere portraying the emotions of Selby. Again, I couldn’t disagree more. I believe she played the role perfectly. Selby was never in love with Aileen as much as Aileen was in love with Selby. Aileen saw Selby as her savior, the person that gave her life a meaning, and brought her back from the edge, for that reason she fell in love completely with the force of a charging bull. Selby, however, saw Aileen as a person that could rescue her from a tedious life and give her some excitement. I believe that Selby was more in love with the idea of adventure than she ever was with Aileen herself. I think she may have thought she loved her, but it was never as powerful as Aileen’s love for her.

The last thing I’d like to touch on is the reasoning for the title. Some have said it is Aileen’s moniker because she was a killer, while others have said it was named after the roller coaster she mentions in the movie. I have a different idea of why the name was chosen. I wonder if the title is really a question and not a statement after all. Monster does a superb job at showing us the making of a killer. Aileen wasn’t born bad, but with a life that had never shown her a break from abject misery, she was led down the path to hell, rather, shoved down. Even during her killing spree, we can see that she isn’t evil in the way you would say someone like Hitler was. She is full of despair, anguish, and a deep rooted rage. Being shown how human Aileen was may be hard to accept, because if we acknowledge that circumstances in her life made her the way she was, then how fair is it to call her a monster? She was really just a person, not too different from you or I, but the life led was amazingly different. How would we have turned out if we were dealt the harshest cards imaginable like Aileen was? Sometimes, to make matters even worse, people are born with chemical imbalances in their brain that causes them to behave violently. It may be their nature because of this defect to behave that way, but is that really their fault either? This is a difficult topic for many people because in order to accept it, they would have to humanize even the worst people known in history. Maybe it is easier to just call her Monster.

READ ANOTHER REVIEW OF MONSTER BY LONER, HERE

The Triplets of Belleville
 

THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE ****

http://www.sonyclassics.com/triplets/images/photo.gif

Thank you Sylvain Chomet! You just gave me one of the most enjoyable movie theater experiences ever!

The Triplets of Belleville tells the story of a grandmother’s desperate rescue of her grandson, who is kidnapped to help a mafia boss make a killing in the betting industry. On her journey she meets the triplets, a musical troupe that was all the rage from what appears to be the twenties and thirties. It’s hard to tell when and where everything, and everybody, actually belongs, because it all is so unique and completely original. It’s as if I was watching a story set in a parallel universe that merely resembles our own. If there is any other animated film style that resembles the style used here, I would have say that Ralph Bakshi’s brand of animation would be the closest. Some have compared it to early Disney and Looney Tunes, but I only saw that in the opening sequence, which is a black and white showing of the triplets in their heyday. After that, it loses any similarities all together.

To call the film a comedy is a vast understatement because it is so much more. Some of it is sick, some of it is twisted, then all of a sudden you find it endearingly cute. It tends to not settle for any particular trend and just runs the gambit of all genres. I was literally stunned by the vast array of styles used in interpreting the story to the screen. It is luscious and barren at times, and completely defies any stereotype that could possibly be attributed to it. One moment I was so charmed by Bruno the lovable dog that I was feeling all warm and fuzzy, then the next scene comes on where the triplets are licking frozen frogs on a stick making me feel kind of creeped out. I liked the way they made a number of the characters animal like, and then made others completely inhuman.

One of the strengths of the film is that there is so little dialogue. Never in the history of Disney movies has that ever been attempted. There is perhaps only 30 words spoken in the entire movie, Chomet completely respects the audience by doing it this way. Another major strength is the music. It’s absolutely enchanting. I’ve never really heard music quite like this before. It’s melodious, lovely, and at the same time, eerie. All I can say is that all the people who worked on this project really knew what the hell they were doing and made a masterpiece that is in a class of its own. In the history of animated film, there is nothing out there quite like this.

I wholeheartedly recommend this film to everybody. You will never see a film like this again, unless Chomet decides to get the same group together again to work some more cinema magic.

An incredible, insightful, thoughtful review. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/rock2.gif hey, where did that one come from, I haven't read that one yet I am talking about 'Monster' LordyLord, this will look an odd post, oh what the heck. ;)

Hey Brian, what a outstanding review on Monster. It has to be the best one I have read in this forum! Why?? Well, I have seen Monster and I love the film. Your review is totally outspoken about it and I agree with Neb'....insightful and thoughtful :yup: :cool:

Awesome review Bri... Thank you… I am definitely going to see this one…

Bri...when I read your review for Monster last night I thought 'Wow', your review is amazing. You're fabulous at this. Unfortunately, I'll probably have to wait to see this movie on video whenever it's released.

I like your review of The Triplets of Belleville as well. I'll definately try to see this on the big screen. I don't get out much to the theater, but I love animation and you just wet my appetite to see it.

Thanks for taking the time to write such great reviews Bri. You have a real talent for this.

Dirty Pretty Things
 

DIRTY PRETTY THINGS ***½

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,208923,00.jpg

Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor), an illegal immigrant from Nigeria, and Senay (Audrey Tautou), a Turk with a temporary visa, both try to make ends meet working in a posh hotel in downtown London. Senór Juan (Sergi López) runs the hotel in a way that invites prostitution and other varieties of minor crime, anything to keep the customers happy. But when Okwe attempts to fix an overflowing toilet, he happens to find that a human heart is the source of the problem and soon discovers that there is more than minor crime happening in the hotel. Okwe is a man with moral integrity, so when Juan tells him to forget what he found, he is unable to, and instead begins an investigation to uncover the truth.

I really enjoyed this film. It is a bittersweet tale and Director Stephen Frears (The Grifters, High Fidelity) doesn’t follow the thriller standard by including any car chases, guns, or sex. What he relies on is exceptional story telling and the strengths of the actors. Instead of being flashy, it is quiet, but there is still a modest intensity as the story unravels.

Ejiofor is an exceptional actor. I hope that because of his work in this movie that he will get more starring roles. He certainly proved to me that he could carry a film. There is so much that he can convey without words just by the expression that he wears. He plays a man with a past who works hard for a motive he won’t share, that is, until his friendship with Senay strengthens and he feels compelled to tell the truth.

Tautou, who was so charming in Amélie, delivers a worthy performance of a desperate woman who only dreams of making it to America. Everybody wants to use her, with the exception of Okwe, and struggles with everything she has until, in a desperate act, she caves and agrees to something she should never have considered. Fortunately, there is a man like Okwe in her life.

This film could easily have fallen into typical stereotypes, but Frears didn’t let it. That is good news for us, the viewers, because instead of seeing something just like so many other films, we get a more unique experience that is much more rewarding.

Dancer in the Dark
 

DANCER IN THE DARK ****

http://webenic.enic.fr/~enicine/coup...ark%20site.jpg

Dancer in the Dark is the final installment in Lars Von Trier’s A Heart of Gold trilogy, the first being Breaking the Waves with Emily Watson and the second being The Idiots with Bodil Jørgense. Each movie in the trilogy features a female lead who makes a tremendous sacrifice for the people they love. In this movie, the woman is Selma Jezkova (Björk), an immigrant from Czechoslovakia who, after falling in love with American musicals, makes her way to the state of Washington to live the American dream.

Selma is sweetness personified with an ability to escape the harshness of the world by going into her own mind and turning life into the musicals that she loves so much. She needs to save all the money she can get her hands on because she is inflicted with a hereditary disease that is making her go blind, and she has passed on this disease to her adolescent son. If she can save enough money, then he can have an operation on his thirteenth birthday, which will arrest this debilitating condition. Selma works at a factory as a punch-press operator during the day and also fastens pins onto cards as a supplemental income. She sacrifices everything for the dream of saving her son from sharing her fate. The only source of enjoyment for her is to be in a local pay of The Sound of Music. At first the director doesn’t like her because she sings funny and doesn’t appear to be able to dance all that well. However, Selma has a way about her that makes everyone love her, and in short order, he’s among the people who do love her.

Selma and her son live in a small trailer on Bill and Linda’s (David Morse and Cara Seymour) property and they give her a break with rent. Bill supposedly has a large portion of a considerable inheritance left, so they don’t really need Selma’s money. Everything is going as planned for Selma until the day Bill betrays her in a way that is truly horrible. After that, life falls apart and Selma goes into her fantasy world of musicals more and more.

Trier made a movie quite unlike any other that I’ve ever seen. He seems to have a knack for that. This movie is shot with handheld camera’s except when the movie jumps to Selma’s fantasies. When that happens, the color brightens, the cameras are stationary (actually there are a hundred cameras at all different angles to give the viewer every perspective possible), and everybody breaks out into song and dance. Björk choreographed the dance routines and wrote all the songs used in the movie. It’s all very impressive and would mean some good fun, except the story is so terribly sad.

We, the viewers, can easily see that Selma is an angel of epic proportions, but by the end of the film, we are forced to watch the unraveling of her life and see almost everybody point at her, accusing her of things that she could never be capable of doing. I wanted to weep for this poor, lovely, creature, but in the end, just watched her descent into oblivion. Dancer in the Dark is a terribly depressing film, but excellent in spite (or because) of that. Björk shines as an actress and plays her part flawlessly. She has said that this will be the only movie she will ever do. Too bad for us.

Thanks for the nice comments guys, I appreciate it.