diffusionx Reviews

Do the Right Thing (1989)

practically the definition of a must-see movie

[10/10 · 6 April 2001]

I have heard people describe Spike Lee as a second-rate filmmaker; all I have to say is that second-rate filmmakers do not make films like this. Do the Right Thing is a masterpiece in both style and substance, and Im hard pressed to think of a more powerful, earth-shattering film.

But first, let's talk about the style. The color palette of the movie is wonderful; while its mostly deep reds, they manage to bring home the feeling that the residents of Bed-Stuy must have been feeling on that day. The cinematography is excellent... it features a lot of weird viewpoints and angles, but they are used to great effect and manage to work within the style of the film. One thing that really managed to impress me about the film is the razor sharp dialogue... each character has their own style of talking, and it really works well. This is a masterfully written film.

Now the substance... this movie manages to spiral into a truly spectacular ending. Throughout, its easy to see the necessary elements building, and, when it happens, it hardly seems like a surprise, but that doesn't make it any less shattering. The way that each character acts defines this movie throughout, especially at the end! Spike Lee does a brilliant job here. The movie is interesting and well-made throughout; each of the characters are three-dimensional and feel like real human beings - their motivation is understood throughout.

Do the Right Thing is a brilliant movie that never lags and never lets up. It manages to be vastly entertaining and vastly powerful at the same time. It's truly an amazing achievement in film, and its a shame it was not recognized more for its obvious brilliance when it was released in 1989.

Happiness (1998)

Extremely Daring, but Falls Flat

[6/10 · 17 March 2001]

I give Todd Solondz an awful lot of credit for this movie. In it, he puts some incredibly powerful (and sensitive) issues at work, and he does so without ever giving in or copping out. And there is a lot of powerful stuff in this movie. For this, he gets a lot of credit. This is very much an ensemble piece, which weaves in and out of various different storylines, all of which do shed light into the personalities of the different characters. Each of the actors do a very good job with their roles, especially Dylan Baker (who played Bill Maplewood) In both of these manners, this is a remarkable movie.

Unfortunately, this is not a remarkable movie, for a few different reasons. It's not a great looking movie, but that's not a huge problem. Happiness just doesn't seem to come together... it just kind of sits there, unable to pull together all of its different threads into one remarkable whole. As such, Happiness misses the mark - and all thats left is a few remarkably powerful sequences (like when Bill talks to his son about the incidents) that dont really become anything truly great.

Ran (1985)

A Glorious Tale

[10/10 · 3 March 2001]

Ran is a movie I have wanted to see for a long time, and, after seeing it, I feel privileged. It is a grand achievement for Kurosawa, and a wonderful film.

As the movie unfolds, it is spectacularly easy to identify with each character - even the more malicious ones (this does the job of making one care about the good and despise the bad all that much more easily). Each character says what needs to be said to get the right thing across, and no more. The movie seems to be made gently, and with great care. And it's something that works, in every single shot of the movie.

One thing I love about Kurosawa films is how simple, but how effective the cinematography is. I cant help but mention it here. Compared to overdone and all-too-mobile camerawork in movies like Gladiator, Ran's camerawork is simplicity defined. For the most part, it simply sits there, as a casual observer. It doesn't move all that much, but that just means that, when it does, its all the more important. The way the camera moves in and out throughout scenes truly do enhance the movie, and give it even more life. Kurosawa truly was a master at using the camera to enhance the story, rather then just show it.

Yes, the performances are excellent. The sets and costumes are incredibly beautiful. The battle scenes are epic and have influenced many a director, I am sure. The tale is grand, epic, and amazingly well translated to the movie screen. But there's more to Ran then just that. It's just an absolutely stunning motion picture. It jumps out of the screen, and is full of life. And it's so much better than just about any other Shakespeare play adapted to the film screen (especially the overly pretentious "Titus") by Hollywood. Ran is a movie that needs to be seen. It's also a fitting exclamation point (he made other films, but this is his last "big" one) to the career of one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live.

Gladiator (2000)

Imperfect, but engaging and entertaining

[7/10 · 24 February 2001]

Gladiator strives to be more then a brainless big-budget action movie, in that sense, it deserves credit. The question is, though, does Gladiator actually manage to do this?

In a way, yes. The storyline, while fairly linear and lacking a huge amount of complexity, manages to give proper motivation to each character and it flows smoothly. There never is any doubt what a character is doing in any given scene. The characters are even well-defined, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of its ilk.

However, Gladiator does have its problems. There is no joy, and little emotion to this movie. Everyone who is in this movie is either vengeful, depressed, angry, or just plain said. It's a rather cold movie, in that way... compared to its fellow Best Picture nominee Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which exudes warmth and emotion), Gladiator is extremely cold and joyless. While the storyline does do a good job of saying why everyone acts like this, it still doesnt help the fact that the movie is extremely cold. Im not asking for a tacked-on love story, just a little bit more emotion then anger or depression.

Still, that aside, the movie does manage to stay entertaining. Some parts dont seem to flow quite well, but, for the most part, it is good. The many facets of what is going on (for example, Commodus' dealings with the Senate) are well represented, and Ridley Scott manages to do a good job of sticking with these topics and dealing with them.

Gladiator has its fair share of special effects, and they are very nice. Fitting in with the theme of the movie, however, much of it is filmed in drab earth tones. The early scenes are extremely blue or red, but never in between. Compared to a movie like "Titus" (to be fair, that movie only kinda-sorta takes place in Rome, but I digress), Gladiator is quite dull looking. Still, most of it does fit - the Colosseums look as one would think, as does everything else. But the movie definitely is not vivid, nor beautiful to look at. But it does look nice. A lot of the camerawork is good, but a special point must be made about some battle sequences (both the opening, and some effects used in the gladiator battles). There is just too much herky-jerky effects... enough to distract one from the actual event. In Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan, the camera moved around a lot, to be sure, but at least one still got a good feel for what is going on. With this movie, the cameraman fell so in love with these techniques that he neglected that people would actually want to know whats going on.

Still, in spite of these flaws (some more significant then others), Gladiator is a very good movie. It is entertaining (although it does get boring at parts) and it does tell a good tale. However, compared to a movie like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (the two movies do have a lot of similar elements), Gladiator does come out as being the inferior one. But, that doesnt mean it's a bad movie - in fact, its probably worth a spot in a movie fan's collection.

Titus (1999)

A Good Movie, But Thank Shakespeare For That

[7/10 · 17 February 2001]

Whether or not "Titus Andronicus" was Shakespeare's first play, it is still captivating. Sure, it may not be as brilliant as his later plays (and make no mistake about it - it is not), but it is still a fine story and it is well written. This is something that this movie does show. It is a very entertaining film, and it is a lot of fun to watch. While it starts off a bit slow, it quickly manages to pick up steam and stays watchable throughout. The acting is pretty excellent - the people in this movie obviously have a very strong grip on Shakespeare and show it.

Thankfully, the storyline here in "Titus" stays extremely close to the original story. However, I have a real problem with the whole "A Julie Taymor Film" bit. Put simply, she really did her part to damage the story. While the movie is beautiful visually, why is there such an odd mishmash of new and old? Now, I have absolutely no problem with placing a Shakespeare play in different periods of time, but "Titus" really stumbles with its mixture. I dont know why there is a mishmash of different time periods (there are cars and chariots mixed together throughout), but it does not work. It's actually quite jarring - it's impossible to fully immerse oneself in a movie which jumps back and forth in setting so much. The mix of old and new just doesn't work right - it never feels whole or solid, it always feels shaky and unsure - as if Taymor and the crew didn't know what anachronisms to work in where.

This is the biggest flaw in the movie, but its hardly the only one. There also seems to be a great deal of pretention involved, as there are quite a bit of self-indulgent camera tricks or sequences which seem to serve no purpose other than for Taymor showing herself what an imagination she has. Yea, a lot of the staging is very good, and the movie does flow pretty well, but there is too much... extra stuff going on. And it seems to get worse as the movie goes on - guns enter the film near the end.

Still, the shaky direction and pretentiousness of the film does not hurt the story, primarily because it is so entertaining. Sure, "Titus" is a film with some serious flaws, but it's also a film with a very good story and one that is, ultimately, worth watching. But don't thank Taymor for this - it's all Shakespeare's doing.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

A Great Achievement in Cinema; a Stunning Epic

[10/10 · 16 February 2001]

A lot of people would agree with the fact that the year 2000 was a bit weak for film, but Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon makes up for that. Put simply, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is an unbelievable film. What makes it so unbelievable is the fact that everything within is so captivating and so well done.

The storyline is interesting and captivating, but it remains fairly simple. The people who made this film did a masterful job of tying in the heart to every scene. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has that warmth to it that makes a good movie great. All of the actors do a great job of bringing this out. Crouching Tiger is so much more than a karate movie, or an Eastern take on the Matrix (something I have heard a few times).

The storyline moves through some of the most beautiful scenes I have seen in film. Every single shot in the movie is exquisite and a pleasure to look at. Of course, there are the fight scenes. These scenes are some of the most amazing I have ever seen on film; they easily eclipse the work of The Matrix, Woo-ping Yuen's last movie as fight choreographer. The actors move with such grace and fluidity; watching these people do battle is truly poetry. The fact that they perform larger-then-life moves simply becomes part of the movie.

Crouching Tiger has this aura of being a legend; a fantastic myth about a man's journey to get revenge. It's a myth where these warriors fly about with grace and skill. It's a myth where these same warriors do battle to find out what they really are. Ang Lee's brilliant direction certainly propels this. In fact, everything about this movie propels this notion. It's a wonderful, wonderful movie. Everything about it melds effortlessly together, and the end result is a stunning motion picture, and one of the best Ive ever seen.

Jack Frost (1998)

Absolutely Ridiculous

[1/10 · 28 July 2000]

The main problem with Jack Frost is that it is a movie that revels in its own stupidity. The movie's script loves to make jokes about the fact that the main character has become, of all things, a snowman. Nobody in the movie thinks. Everyone is an idiot, and the myriad of idiotic comments ("more stupider") just bear that fact out. It's not even entertaining - "Jack Frost" gets extremely tedious and boring soon after the "transformation" takes place (which is supposed to be where the "fun starts", apparently).

What's even worse is that the snowman here, which occupies a disturbingly large chunk of screen time, is not cute, or funny, or loaded with personality. This animatronic monstrosity is actually pretty creepy to look at. The sight of the snowman snowboarding (he is, like all the other 12-year old kids here, are capable of going down the slopes with skill worthy of the Winter Olympics), or playing hockey is enough to make one laugh out loud - but it's not because the situation is funny, or because the dialog is sharp. It's because the entire movie is so ludicrous to look at and watch.

Everything about this movie just reeks of the word "dumb". It has every cliche known to film. In fact, it's strange - this is a movie with a mildly interesting premise, but its execution is so devoid of imagination that it's not even funny. This is even more incredible when you realize that there were no less than FOUR writers working on the script.

For a kid's movie, Jack Frost also has a surprising amount of low-brow jokes, all of which are completely tacky and devoid of taste. It's hard to fathom exactly why the filmmakers decided to leave this stuff in, as it's not even funny. If they were trying to make it appeal to adults with a different layer of humor (like what Chicken Run did so well), they did, in fact, accomplish something completely different - they managed to turn a dumb movie into one that is insulting at times ("they wanted me to laugh at this?).

In short, Jack Frost is a movie that is cliched, boring, unfunny, and just plain ridiculous - suspension of disbelief has no place here in Jack Frost, because words cannot express how dumb this movie ended up turning out.

Rear Window (1954)

Superbly Suspenseful

[9/10 · 18 July 2000]

Rear Window is such a great movie because it manages to create suspense with ease, and manages to sustain that throughout the entire film. You only really see what Jeffries sees; and, of course, this guy must be feeling a little nervous seeing as though he thinks he knows about a murder. By making the viewers see it has he does, Hitchcock manages to make the viewer as nervous about the situation as Jeffries does.

There isn't much plot here, instead, it's one linear storyline with little tidbits from the other people's lives. Each of these stories are brilliantly complete in and of themselves, from Ms. Torso's freewheeling to Ms. Lonelyheart's... lonely heart. Still, this movie is, completely and totally, about voyeurism in every way. Jeffries's profession is about taking pictures of other people's situation. Him and his girlfriend are worried that they just won't work as a married couple, because of their vast differences in lifestyle. The murder plot unfolds carefully, and slowly (like a puzzle slowly being solved), and the viewer manages to see only as much as Jeffries does, in effect turning each viewer into a voyeur. Jeffries' paranoia ends up consuming just about everyone else he knows, and it all leads to a very suspenseful climax that does not disappoint the rest of the movie.

With Rear Window, Hitchcock manages to latch onto a subject that just about every person could be compelled with, and follows through with such precision and flair that is practically the norm for him. Absolutely one of the best movies ever made.

JFK (1991)

An Extremely Important Film

[10/10 · 16 July 2000]

The best thing about "JFK" is that, in spite of containing a ton of information, unfolding at a fairly slow pace, and being very long (the director's cut is 206 minutes), it still manages to be amazingly entertaining throughout. I don't know why - it could be because it is such a universal subject for Americans, but it could also be because its such a well-made film. Of course, it's probably a little bit of both.

The cinematography, editing (Academy Award winners in those categories), direction, pacing, writing, acting, music, everything just weaves together so beautifully in this movie. Everything present within "JFK" has meaning, and, thus, its entertaining to watch the entire thing, because you see and hear new things with just about every shot. It all builds up to the last courtroom scene, which is one of the finest bits of movie making I've ever seen. Ultimately, this final scene shows how important the movie is: Oliver Stone is trying to say that Kennedy's assassination (and subsequent cover-up) meant a lot more than the President's death. He also handled these parts so well that it didn't sound preachy or heavy-handed, it just sounds like the genuine truth.

Put simply, this is an exhilarating movie. It's also a film that could make a person think about things they probably didn't spend much time on before. For that reason, "JFK" is highly recommended.

Brazil (1985)

Barely watchable

[3/10 · 5 July 2000]

Brazil has a wonderful premise but nothing else. The idea of a future that is bogged down by endless red tape and paperwork is interesting. The ideas of the plot are interesting, and it seems to have, in theory, a lot of potential behind it (and would nearly end up writing itself). The problem with the movie is that it fails to come through and deliver on just about all of this.

Brazil is terribly boring. So much of the movie feels like dead space: almost like they could have cut about 100 minutes and accomplished pretty much the same thing. It seems disjointed and feels bland; the world here doesn't even seem all that interesting (despite good set design, it just doesn't work as well as movies like Dark City or Batman). The parts that attempt to display just how bureaucracy dominates this world is really do display that; but, I'm sure, on an entirely different level that the film makers intended: they slow down the pace of the movie to a grinding halt and never seem to end.

Brazil has its moments, but they are few. I think that I really enjoyed, at most, about ten minutes here. I loved the opening sequence (unfortunately, it gave me false hope for the remainder), and the first scene with Robert DeNiro was really good. He brought a type of vibrancy to the movie that it desperately needed; unfortunately, he was in the film for far too short of a time. If I had to sum up my feelings about Brazil in one sentence, it would be this: I could just barely stand it for the full duration of the viewing.

Strange Days (1995)

Engaging, but Uneven

[7/10 · 3 July 2000]

Strange Days is an interesting film, with a great premise. It also happens to be well-executed, for the most part. The LA of the future (well, future back when it was released in 1995) is quite dystopian in nature, and Strange Days manages to present all facets of that using Taxi Driver-influenced car rides through the city while observing the chaos on the streets. In many ways, Strange Days manages to create a real-life and convincing future, and it feels like a true place, with things going on independently of the events in the movie, rather than feeling like a movie set.

Atmosphere aside, though, the movie has many strengths. The plot is intriguing, and it flows quite smoothly. A lot of the dialogue is really quite interesting and gives the movie a nice feel (not to mention the actors do a pretty good job with the material). The characters are three-dimension and interesting. While the beginning parts were somewhat disjointed (at least in terms of plot), they did serve as an excellent setup. When the movie was its best (during the middle parts) there is a frantic sense of urgency that really drives the picture along. It's a very entertaining movie, and it managed to form an emotional link with me - always a good sign.

Unfortunately, it kind of goes downhill after that. Strange Days ends up resorting to awfully cliche ideas, complete with plot elements seen a million times in movies before. All of this mars what could have been a real classic film. It's too bad that Cameron and Cocks had to resort back to this, since the movie has so many strengths and so many great things that it could have built on. While the movie is still above average, it just isn't as superb as it could have been. Nonetheless, Strange Days succeeds on many levels and is well worth watching.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Err...

[6/10 · 23 June 2000]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was a movie that bitterly dissapointed me. I suppose it was alright, but with all the praise it has received (including being so high on IMDB's list), I expected more than I got.

The main problem I had with the movie was that I didn't care for the characters at all. Sure, there were some scenes that were interesting and provided a nice glimpse into one character or the other, but, for the most part, I couldn't find a way to sympathize with any of them. Jack Nicholson did alright in this film, but, at times, I actually disliked his character and what he was doing. As for the other people in the ward, they did a good job, but, again, I just didn't sympathize with them. Louise Fletcher, however, did a superb job as Nurse Ratchet; her icy demeanor was perfect. Again, though, I just didn't, well... dislike her.

I didn't find the plot, flow, or atmosphere to be strong enough to make up for the apathy I felt towards the characters (and one would guess that, in a movie such as this, it's critical to one's enjoyment that they care about the characters). While there were some great scenes in the movie, those scenes just weren't enough for me to really like the movie. I thought the movie was overall, bland and uninteresting, and certainly not deserving of all the praise it received.

Howards End (1992)

Not What I Expected...

[10/10 · 20 June 2000]

I figure that a lot of people didn't see Howard's End for fear that it would be a long, drawn-out romance. At least, that is what I was expecting (having never read the novel it was based on, and not knowing much about the movie). Well, I am pleased to say I am wrong - it's not a romance, and it just happens to be a superb film.

Howard's End took its time to develop, but it was consistent, and the characters were all interesting and well-defined. The script seemed to be quite sharp, and featured lots of interesting dialogue and a very strong story throughout. The acting was also excellent. Emma Thompson won a well-deserved Oscar for her role here - but just about every actor here did a good job with their roles, especially Helena Bonham Carter. And the sets! This movie was, put simply, a treat for the eyes. Every scene in the movie was rich and interesting. The different buildings, costumes, plant life, everything about it was beautiful to look at. It is one of the most visually impressive movies I've ever seen.

In short, I really enjoyed Howard's End - far more than I thought it would. The characters were all real, three-dimension people (no matter how minor). The storyline was quite deep and interesting. It was, quite simply, a riveting movie... from the opening scene to the final shot. Would I watch it again? Absolutely. It's a great film, and the best to be released in 1992.

Raging Bull (1980)

An Experience Unmatched in Film

[10/10 · 20 June 2000]

What makes Raging Bull so good is that it is a biographical movie that avoids the trap of hero worship. Martin Scorsese made a movie that is about a boxer, but it's not about boxing; rather, it's about the person. He obviously cared quite a bit about telling the story of Jake LaMotta, and the end result is a superb movie.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that Robert DeNiro gives one of the finest acting performances I've ever seen. Every time I watch it, I am amazed by how well he defines his character and how he becomes him in every way. Even minor scenes, like the first conversation he has with his brother, are so perfectly acted (by all parties) that it's a futile effort to stop watching the movie. In many ways, it is much like George C. Scott's portrayal of General Patton... DeNiro simply becomes his character and doesn't let up.

Everything about this movie is amazing. The supporting actors (Pesci, Moriarity, Vincent, etc.) are all superb and give extra layers of humanity to the picture (Pesci's performance here was even better than his in Goodfellas, in my opinion). The black & white photography is rich and interesting. The movie unwinds at a perfect pace and stays interesting throughout. The boxing scenes are true works of art. The power behind each fight is well-represented, and Scorsese does a superb job of showing exactly what is going on in LaMotta's mind every time he fights. Most movies would be happy to have one memorable scene that sticks with the viewer. Raging Bull has more than a dozen.

It's impossible to watch this film without feeling sad at the end. Still, every time I watch it I am in awe of how good it is. It's all too easy to sympathize with the characters (in spite of their flaws), and it's all too easy to be drawn into the storytelling and the uniqueness of the boxing sequences. Martin Scorsese is a master of film, and Raging Bull showcases it perfectly.

Fargo (1996)

Wonderful

[10/10 · 2 June 2000]

I love this movie; I love to watch it and revel in the details of a conspiracy plot gone wrong. The pacing of the film is absolutely perfect - it never lags, yet every scene present is significant in some way. While I hate to use a cliche, the movie puts you through quite a ride - one minute you are flinching at a particularly violent scene, the next minute you are chuckling at some banter between two characters.

The acting itself is superb; all of the actors who have major parts in the film (Macy, McDormand, Buscemi, Presnell, Stormare) manage to portray their characters in such a way to complement the storyline as it moves forward. None of them "steal the show", so to speak - every actor in the movie put forth a good effort and they all manage to work well within the context of the story. On top of all that, the fact that the film looks beautiful is a testament to the camerawork; it's hard to make endless amounts of white snow look good, yet Fargo does it, time and time again.

Everytime I watch Fargo, I am consistently amazed at how well done the film is. The entire movie is perfect entertainment, and the ending, while incredibly violent and dark, is superb; it's a great payoff as well as providing closure to the story.

It's almost impossible to believe that this movie did not win the 1996 Academy Award for Best Picture. It was robbed, plain and simple. Fargo is as flawless as movies come, and arguably the best movie released in the 1990s.

Hard Boiled (1992)

The perfect action film

[9/10 · 22 April 2000]

Hard Boiled is an excellent film; it does exactly what it is supposed to - provide an energetic film with plenty of action and gunfire. It does that better than just about any American action film to date, but Hard Boiled actually manages to do a bit more on top - the characters are actually fleshed out pretty well (for an action flick), and the storyline is pretty darn good, all things considered.

Still, it's the action sequences that are what you see this movie for, and, as such, it succeeds brilliantly. The final scene is one of the finest pieces of action movie-making I've ever seen, but the entire movie acts as a superb setup. Everything about it is well-done. The way the actors move, the way they shoot, and the way, they just, well... act... it all seems to be done with extreme care. And it all works. The entire movie is riveting, and a must see for everybody that likes explosive action films.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

A Dull, Boring, Overrated Mess of a Film

[2/10 · 9 April 2000]

I could see that the people that did Thomas Crown Affair were going for a stylish, intriguing, sexy, and classy film. However, it just didn't work. The different "action" scenes (like when Thomas goes to steal the first painting) lacks flair or style - I immediately thought of comparing it to the opening sequence of Michael Mann's "Heat", and I noticed how little flair this movie has in it. Rene Russo's character is amazingly arrogant and snobbish - she did a pretty good job in the role (although it was not all that well written), but it's hard to like her. Pierce Brosnan did an okay job but his character wasn't that likable. The "cat and mouse game" the two were playing wasn't all that convincing - it just didn't seem like they had much chemistry.

The sex sequences were overrated and dull, and they were also far too long - they didn't have to be in the film in this quantity. While I guess they were in there to try and emphasize the "cat and mouse" game that Brosnan and Russo were playing, the end result was just that the filmmakers were going for "shock value", because they were simply pointless.

This movie was also saddled with one of the worst soundtracks I've ever heard - sequences that were intended to be intriguing and exciting were stuck with some of the worst "jazz" I've ever heard in my life. The music deflated the movie a great deal.

In its credit, this movie did pick up at the very end (when Crown delivers

the stolen painting back), and it was enjoyable at the very end (although the music did hurt it a bit), but that doesn't help this too much (although I would have given it a 1 had the ending not been better). This movie lacked a sense of style to call its own, and it ended up being a cheap James Bond ripoff. Not recommended.

Seven Samurai (1954)

A Very Long Movie that Manages to Stay Watchable

[10/10 · 27 March 2000]

Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is 207 minutes long, yes, but it is a movie that gives back to the viewer every one of those minutes. It's a 207 minute long movie in which every single scene is necessary, and everything is essential to moving the story forward. In spite of being so long, it manages to remain eminently watchable because, save for a tiny bit at the very end, something new happens every single time. The characters are perfectly acted and all are interesting and fit into the story. The tale manages to stay simple, but epic in scope - it's easy to see the plight of the farmers, but it's also easy to see how scared they are of the samurai invading their way of life, especially in the beginning and middle of the movie.

Of course, Kurosawa's direction is brilliant - the movie never lags, is loaded with subtle symbolism and small details, and the camerawork is always right on and highlights the action while still showing the details around it that enrich each scene. It's easy to see that Seven Samurai really is one of the finest movies ever made - it may take quite a while to watch from beginning to end, but it is quite engrossing and a real treat to watch.