Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Possession (2002)
8/10
isn't this the di vinci code???
19 November 2003
Having just read the Di Vinci code and just watched this film,the similarities of story are uncanny. Of course, the character names are different, but who stole what from whom on this??? Gwenyth Paltrow is does a wonderful job as usual.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pale Rider (1985)
8/10
a nice remake of Shane
6 February 2003
See Shane. See Pale Rider. Pale Rider takes on a number of the themes intimated in Shane and tries to explore them more thoroughly. I would try to see these two films together so that you are familiar with the visual imagery.

A real treat. Well worth the time watching. You won't be disappointed.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shallow Hal (2001)
7/10
cute
29 January 2003
A far flung premise but has all the elements for a great 1st date flick or a stay at home and laugh out loud film where we can see all the goofs WE make in the dating scene.

You'd have to be shallow not to like this film's humor, though I'll be the first to admit it's no masterpiece. . .just fun and funny.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
John Q (2002)
5/10
the wrong ending
25 January 2003
They had us (sort of) in the palm of their hands, but the ending was a pathetic triumph of focus group indecision. Denzel Washington's character would have ended in suicide. THAT is the best ending for this film, the most realistic and the the most heart felt. The ending that the movie stuck to caters to the weak spirited Hollywoodisms that have caused most of us to be cynical about what comes from that movie making capitol.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
really bad film, but some beautiful nudes
15 January 2003
I can't say enough bad things about this film, so let's just say unless you have the uncut director's version which features some beautiful nudes, DON'T BOTHER! The script is camp, at best. Even some terrific actors can't make this storyline work. I got the feeling when watching that this must be a director who was trying to fit every gimmick he'd ever seen into one film. Uggh. Again, unless you have the uncut version and can fast forward to the nude scenes, DON'T BOTHER.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
well told story
3 January 2003
Though it seems apparent that this film could have gone in one of many directions, the director chose an enjoyable and fairly plausible one.

Every one "cheats" in their marriage is pretty much the theme, but forgiveness completes the circle broken by infidelity.

The story telling devices are simple---easy to follow and on some level "wonderous" to behold. If you are prone to a tear or two, get out a hankie. I just thought it was nicely done.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
complex beyond need
2 January 2003
each person three different ages edited together patchwork quilt style makes for a very tough viewing. sure some people are just shown at two different ages, but this is a very difficult film to buy into in one viewing, and frankly the second time around doesn't do all that much for me either.

If you are a big fan of how Spielberg tells a story, steer clear of how others tell this one!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
taut drama lynch style
26 December 2002
If you loved the work of David Lynch before, you will love this. Storytelling in this style is a lot more than sitting back to relax; you're involved in a quirky tale where every scene has some mysterious clue or innuendo that will make the story whole. This is a must see for a fans of avant guard cinema, but if you are a very linear thinker you may be left confused. The acting in superb!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Tough Guy, Soft Dames, Fireworks
12 December 2002
The story line when the film was made (1955) is credible, particularly at the time of the Cold War and strained international relations. This is good stuff and is James Bond without all the gizmos and gadgets. If you are a film noir fan this is a must see. If you aren't, then steer clear.

I found this at the bargain table at a local video store for sale and had to own it. You will too. If you like Sunset Boulevard, LA Confidential, and the like, enjoy this one!
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
. . .it's who you give your word to
9 December 2002
Outstanding example of the brutal west. This film set new standards for violence, though by today's standards this seems benign. Our Protagonists Borgnine and Holden set out to make a deal to be the deal that will finish their careers as bandits. They will retire. The war will move on to Mexico. We have an outside Protagonist in the chief of the Rail police and the play between the three main characters makes this a film more about the spirit of Men of the west than about Western men. Don't miss this outstanding classic. Watch it over and over again.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fan (1996)
3/10
wasted talent
6 December 2002
So sad to see the talents of Robert De Niro and Wesley Snipes go to waste. Anything for a buck I guess. The theme is plausible enough, but the editing of the film makes jumps in logic that just can't be. We see De Niro as a driven hot headed knife salesman, as a stalker, as a baseball has been and a derelict dad. How much worse can he be? Wesley Snipes is a mythic baseball player, loving father, superstitious superstar and must endure the fan wrath of a new city. Guess what happens? Duh. And to top it all off, it's boring. Even to a huge baseball fan like myself. Go to a bad restaurant instead and get food poisoning, you'll feel better about the time you spent.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tiresome
19 November 2002
1. No real focus to the film 2. What in the world did her relationship with her husband have to do with this film? 3. What did her relationship with other men have to do with the film? 4. The film was about the relationship between the boys and that is where the focus should have started and ended. 5. Sandra, we're still waiting for you to do a really good film!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
boring
29 October 2002
Mostly an excuse to get some work and to beef up a resume. Dafoe was predictably excellent, but the script suffers from intolerably unfulfilled promises. Oh well, this might have more appeal to the parolee and former felon community than I give credit. Go see something else, I wish I had!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
East Is East (1999)
7/10
Assimilation ?
16 September 2002
In a time when ethnicity was trying to sort itself out in the world (the '70s), this film takes the one group to focus on. Generally the film was brilliant, but there are portions that should either have been edited out or expanded (opening parade, the gay brother, the randy dog for example) to show more relevance. Best was the cinematic attention paid to the Khan and Shah families. The movie builds just to this one point nicely. As I suppose is the case with all abusive partners, there is a soft apologetic side. "I'll have a half a cup of tea" was a nice way for Mr Khan show that without showing weakness. Assimilation into an outside culture is nearly impossible across generations. This film takes us to a place where we can see some of the difficulties and the humor in being new to a society. East is East could be study material for any number of classes. Well done; I would like to see more.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Yards (2000)
7/10
too many main characters
10 September 2002
Nice idea, but the director wanted to tell too much about everyone and not enough about one or two characters. Did we really know enough about Leo before he arrived home? Did his mother really need to have a heart condition? Was it necessary for Erica to give her step father the respect ala Godfather. Couldn't this have been her real father? Just too much in one film. Focus focus focus!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed