Change Your Image
leeloo67
Reviews
Umrao Jaan (2006)
Excellent!
I've just seen this fantastic movie (twice in the theater), and the complaints I've heard about it completely escape me. It makes me wonder if they watched the entire movie, as the ending scenes are among the best ever filmed. For cultural reference and point of view, I am a 35 year old American male living in the United States and a fan of any good film.
This movie is incredible and an achievement in Bollywood film. There have been some really great movies coming out of Bollywood (and some great non-Bollywood is Black and Raincoat) recently such as Devdas and Lagaan. Both of those movies really showed off the best elements of typical BW, but both also had at least a little of the, well, cheese or melodrama that tends to show up in the standard Bollywood movie. Umrao Jaan had no melodrama (and hardly any comic relief either). The music and dancing element that is a staple of BW and in most movies seems to come out of nowhere was here given a foundation in reality and a reason for existence due to the main character's profession. Speaking of the main character, Aishwarya Rai as Umrao Jaan herself was perfect casting and she did an incredible job at real acting and never once hinted at melodrama. Most of the musical numbers belonged exclusively to Rai, and in fact she was in almost every shot in the entire movie.
One of the complaints is that this movie is too long. It was not too long but rather pretty average for BW, as it is only a few minutes longer than Devdas and is in fact shorter than Lagaan (at the time of this writing the run time was not given on IMDb.com, but my watch indicated about 210 minutes including intermission time). Another complaint is that it has too many songs. It did not have too many - there were six I believe which is about average for BW, and each one played an important part - especially the first and last songs in the movie. Besides their importance, the performances of the musical numbers were absolutely incredible - most of this was achieved on the shoulders of Rai - and after each musical number I seriously couldn't wait for the next one (hoping it would again feature Rai). Additionally, the songs themselves were absolutely amazing and fresh; real talent was behind the scenes here. The performance by Rai in the musical numbers was, to me, what completed the entire film.
I called this movie an achievement because it features only the BEST elements of BW while incorporating things that are new and different from the typical BW feature that only uplift it's credibility, reality, and entertainment value. The goal of the BW film is to transport the viewer to another reality, and this one does it better than any I've seen.
Crash (2004)
Nearly complete failure
I just watched Crash. This movie was way over the top and let me know almost right away it was not deserving of best picture. I was engladdened at first because it seemed like it might be another Magnolia type movie, but in the end the only comparison to Magnolia was the neat hippie music and the lack of resolution in many (try every one) of the story lines. Racism was a central theme, but as it pertained to this story it was a seemingly desultory, random element that was artificially injected at random points. The racism was extremely unnatural and forced and out of place in many instances. The result was that the movie came across not as being edgy and truthful like people are pretending this movie is, but rather ignorant and contrived at best. For example, the crack by Cheadle about "all those cultures getting together and deciding to park their cars on their lawns" was from left field and artificially inflammatory coming from a character who previously and thereafter gave us no racist indicators at all. There were no clues up to that point or after that he was racist or capable of such a statement (it was out of place in the conversation too), and the line had no place in his character or in the movie. And no, saying "everyone is racist and that's why he said it" is not true and not acceptable. The line was out of character, out of place, and therefore without taste. Some of the stories were good, but only up until race was artificially inseminated all over the screen. Additionally the whole movie was highly predictable. The scenes with the shopkeeper, the gun, the dead kid at the beginning of the movie, etc. - all predicted easily by me (and if I can predict events in a movie that is not a good thing at all). The clincher though that was the bizarre late night country music "I feel like picking up a random black youth in an apparent act of kindness and then ignorantly and confrontationally stereotyping him to his face even though it is out of my character and it was in fact my partner who was the racist one, not me" scene with Ryan Pillippie's character (who also presented no pre or post incident racist tendencies). What the heck was that? That should have been a deleted scene. On top of all this, the movie needed another 30 minutes at least to at least bring one or two more stories to conclusion. The Phillippe thing and the Cheadle Latino crack really bothered me the most though. I mean, I could buy the Sandra Bullock snooty rich white lady thing, but the rest was way too much. I think the fact that someone wrote a movie that says all people are racist says quite a lot about the writers and all the people involved, but says nothing about society as the movie had no realism whatsoever. The movie was almost complete in it's failure, but for Hollywood to admit that would mean so much more than just pretending it makes some kind of awe-inspiring statement about race. I hate to tell them and all of Hollywood that hailed this movie, but this has already been done and with more success (although still flawed) in the movie Grand Canyon. It is a far superior movie with race as the central theme. It was challenging and in your face and honest in the way Crash wishes it was, but with an inferior cast and far far less hype. If Hollywood really wanted to embrace racism being pushed to the forefront and being examined, then Bamboozled would have won best picture the year it came out (or at least been nominated).
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005)
Think Before You Shop
This movie was almost too all-encompassing. From China to the Catawba river here in my North Carolina; from a handful of multi-billionaires to the thousands they force into government support and health care aid; from customers getting robbed and murdered in the parking lot to union-busting. So much information was given that there wasn't any way to give any of it proper attention in 100 minutes. Overall they did a good job of giving in-depth detail about a few of the bad aspects of the company while still keeping you aware of the bigger picture of the ripple effect that just simply can't be adequately covered in a few minutes.
It starts off brilliant, with about a 5 minute video of a corporate Wal-Mart pep rally that really draws you in and makes you feel like Wal-Mart is great. They then systematically destroy every point made in the pep speech, counterpointed with sad hilarity by actual Wal-Mart commercials.
An interesting aspect is that the movie actually appeals to conservative-minded people. The first example of Wal-Mart putting a family owned business out of business was run by a family that were all conservative, with "Bush" stickers and stuff all over their cars, etc. Instead of the movie just spouting like a high tree-hugger about how evil corporations are, they just give good examples and stats (and show several personal stories) of workers who don't get paid enough, can't afford the overly expensive company health insurance, and are forced into welfare. Americans as a whole are affected - the shoppers and the employees. We ALL eventually pay for these "low" prices.
There are short-sighted and selfish people out there who blindly support Wal-Mart based on minimal savings on cheap generic merchandise (the "made in China" portion of the movie should be it's own full-length expose). They should see this movie, as it points out in a very simple way how people should at least know the effects of the choices they make and how a small savings might actually be adding to a bigger social problem.
The movie ends on a positive note, with examples of communities fighting and actually preventing Wal-Mart from coming to their town.
I just saw this (11/13/05) at a screening near me. Not surprisingly, most of the audience was of a certain lighter shade of skin, and the collection of cars in the parking lot would indicate a crowd that lived perfectly fine without Wal-Mart before they were around and can get by just fine without having to shop (or work) there at this time. What I mean to say is, these aren't the people that need to see this movie. Heck, I didn't even need to see this movie - four of my friends have worked for Wal-Mart at various times in the past and they had some stories that, frankly, I didn't really believe until the were corroborated almost identically in this film.
Wal-Mart has the resources to fix all their problems right now, they just aren't doing it. Until they do, people will keep making movies, complaining, fighting, and shopping somewhere else.
Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain... Begins to Die (2004)
Serious Or Joke? Can't Really Tell...
I think a little more effort could have gone into this. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the topics and people covered in this movie will be at a loss as to how this can seriously be presented as fact. This movie probably did more to turn voters away from Bush than Farenheit 9/11. Perhaps it was meant to be a big joke - a mockery and a caricature of Michael Moore's brash style and sometimes unbelievable claims? I was hoping for good counterpoint - and of course movies like these and F 9/11 are always going to have that certain "spin" - but this "documentary" contains bold but false statements about subjects they probably shouldn't have mentioned if they wanted to sound credible. John O'Neill was actually brought in as a character witness to show how bad John Kerry is, which is like asking Saddam Hussein if he likes George Bush. If you choose to watch this film, please first go to your favorite sources and find "correct" facts on Joseph Wilson and the whole yellow cake thing, the "felon" voter fiasco in Florida in the 2000 election, and the whole true story behind John O'Neill - I would hate for anyone to walk away from this movie thinking they had been told hard facts. Regardless of your party affiliation or who you support, the learned viewer will find this movie irresponsible.
La pianiste (2001)
Excellent
The "bad" reviews of this movie here at imdb have compelled me to write this:
This movie is excellent and worth watching. It is challenging, disturbing, and so full of newness it is overwhelming. Once you realize it is one giant metaphor for control, seduction, and pain, it becomes a little easier to understand. It is not a movie for the impatient, and the common John Woo fan should pass. Be advised it does NOT follow the tired old Hollywood plots and movie conventions. Also the fact it is not rated should give you some more clues as to some of the content... If you have seen this movie, I am willing to bet it was not in a theater (in America).
The matter-of-fact filming is not quite as severe as it was in the director's other masterpiece, "Code Inconnu", but it is present here. Long scenes with few cuts and little camera action lends the movie a feeling of reality, and we feel like a fly on the wall, as it were. The events in the movie are enough to keep us interested.
If you watch it and then decide you don't like it, there is always, "Dude Where's My Car".
Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (1988)
Monkey Wrench
This comment contains spoilers.
I really like foreign films. For a long while in my movie watching career, I thought just the "good ones" made it over to the U.S. Cinema Paradiso has thrown a monkey wrench into my theory.
This is a terrible movie with bizarre events that make no sense, even in an artsy way. Part of it might be my hatred for "the life of" movies, where some terrible child actor plays the first 1/3, another actor plays the adult, and another actor plays the "old man" at the end. As a side note, I have an extreme hatred for the "old man makeup" trick (Like in "A Beautiful Mind"), which is ALWAYS distracting - much more distracting than the changing actors trick. Part of it might be the fact there are too many moviehouse scenes. Part of it was the bizarre contrived sentimentality the filmakers tried to force into the movie with the old projectionist character, especially towards the end.
I really wanted to be pretentious and like yet another foreign film, but I couldn't even pretend on this one. There was one very very cool scene that was so out of place, it felt like I was watching a different movie (the scene with the mirror and the projector).
Oddly enough, about a week after seeing this one, I saw a similar film that was far superior to this one: "La Lengua de las Mariposas". Search for it on IMDB.com, watch it, and compare. The acting done by the child is the best I have ever seen, especially at the end. It has the unforced dynamic the filmakers in "Cinema Paradiso" were trying for. "Cinema Paradiso" has taught me one important thing: bad movies don't just come from Hollywood.
Le battement d'ailes du papillon (2000)
Best ending ever, ever, ever...
To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!
I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
Probably the most perfect movie ever made
As a fan of viewing movies "fresh", that is, with no idea of what happens in the movie, it is my belief that this review contains spoilers.
Every aspect of this movie reaches a level of perfection unmatched by any other film. There is no excess footage and no scenes that need to be taken out (like the "robot factory" scene in Star Wars Episode II). Even the casual movie-goer will notice the attention to detail, especially in the use of the colors green, red, and blue that visually gives the movie more of a feeling that it is a work of art rather than just another movie. The cinematography is so fantastic that some of the camera shots almost overshadow and distract from what is being filmed. As I have often seen, the literal translation of the title is not used. The box says 'Amelie', the subtitle says 'Amelie from Monmartre', and the actual translation is 'The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain'. Yes, this movie is a love story, and no, it is not normal. It is about a strange girl who loves helping others, but has trouble helping herself and how she is instantly drawn to a strange boy who works at a carnival and a porn shop and goes around Paris collecting torn up photographs. Everything about this movie seems familiar, but it isn't - everything is new and fresh. It is rare that I like a "popular" movie, so take it from me, this movie really is really good.
Magnolia (1999)
The acting alone makes this movie worth watching
I enjoy watching movies without knowing what is going to happen beforehand, so it is my belief that this comment contains spoilers.
Take a group of brilliant actors and say 'GO' must have been what happened here. John C. Riley is one of the most underused actors around (yes, he is underused - bit parts are not good enough for him), and it is great to see him in a film where he is let loose by the director. His role as the do-good cop is great, whose constant need to help people makes it no wonder he went for the coke-head with lots of personal problems. To me, this movie needed a little more resolution in some of the subplots, but I suppose with a run time of 2 hours and 59 minutes, they figured they were done. When I watched this movie for the first time, I never noticed the time, and was expecting at least another 30 minutes. People often ask me, "What is this movie about?", people often ask me, people afraid of a 3 hour movie. Despite the accusations of lesser educated individuals that this is a boring move with no plot, this is in no way a film like that, and if they cared to pay attention for a little longer and with a little more brain power than is required by the average John Woo joint, they would see a film that easily would end up somewhere in their 'top 5 all time favorite'. The movie can be summed up easily, and this is what I tell the aforementioned sheep when arguing about this movie - 'Everything can be suddenly affected by amazing events, and we are naive and persistent in that we still try to plan our lives'. This movie is about life, death, love, hate, deceit, crime, greed, and guilt, and how they all intertwine in everybody's life all the time wether they want it to or not. As for the plot, there is quite clearly one main plot - Earl Partridge is dying, and wants to see his son again, who he has not seen in many years since cheating on his wife and then walking out. The son, Frank T. J. Mackey, does not really want to see him, and we see by what he does for a living that this character is greatly affected by his fathers' earlier actions. There are several subplots stemming from the life of Earl Partridge (except the cop) - we see the life of a game show host who works for Earl's television station - we see the life of one of the game show's contestants, a brilliant child with an overbearing father - we see the life of Donnie Smith, who was a winning child contestant on the same show 30 years ago - we see the life of Earl's May-December wife - and we see the life of Officer Kurring, who exists to bring hope and help to each character he sees. As for the event many claim is a movie cop-out to bring the characters together, ask yourself - did the characters even needed to be brought together? And weren't they all in the process of being brought together anyway despite the event? If you follow - the mother was already on her way to see the daughter, the cop was already turning around to confront Donnie Smith, the kid was already freaked out by what happened on the game show, and the Frank was already with his father. The event is just something that happens, something no one can predict and no one can imagine. Is it any stranger that anything that has happened in real life?
Agnes Browne (1999)
Flashes of brilliance, ruined.
As a fan of watching movies without knowing anything about what is going to happen, it is my belief this comment contains spoilers.
I have never seen a movie quite like this one. Some of the scenes and situations were brilliantly crafted, and others were complete junk. The end result are brilliant scenes speckled with garbage, and the garbage scenes are very, very confused and confusing. I will explain in my plot summary that follows. All the plot summaries I had read about this movie say something completely different (read the one on imdb.com) than what I feel this movie is actually about.
This movie is the story of Agnes Browne, and her budding friendship with a neighboring woman, Marion. I suppose they knew each other before Agnes' husband's death (movie starts with the funeral), but apparently they didn't become best friends until after the funeral. Unbeknownst to Agnes, but knownst to us, her friend has cancer.
Here follows several touching scenes, brilliantly crafted, with perfect dialogue, etc...:
Agnes runs into Marion's husband, who sort of tells Agnes what is going on. Agnes tells him it's not the end of the world, and he replies, "It is for me".
Later, Marion says her one wish is to learn to drive a car, and they both are sitting in a car waiting for the instructor. He comes around to the driver's window and gesticulates in what could either be interpereted as an obscene gesture or sign language for Marion to roll the window down. The women assume the former is the case, Agnes says he wants a "w**k", and they laugh. He then asks Marion to turn the "knob", and they again laugh. The guess his name is "Dick" and are dissapointed to find out his name is Tom. They fall into absolute hysterics when he announces his full name, "Tom O'Toole".
At the beginning, Agnes has no money because she hadn't yet started getting her husband's death benefits. She is forced to borrow from a loan shark briefly. Soon after she gets her retroactive death benefits, and there is a bizarre scene where she pays him back in a lump sum and they are both ungrateful to each other. At this point, I felt it was very clear Agnes had a good amount of money, as she even bragged a little about it. Further proof of this occurs when we see Agnes and Marion go out bar hopping. Then suddenly, the next day, she cries when her 7 kids complain and she is upset she doesn't have the money to feed them all. Then, in stark contrast again, Agnes and Marion take a day off from their fruit and flower stands and go to the coast, they go shopping for expensive clothes for Agnes' daughter, they take expensive driving lessons... not exactly money problems here. All of these scenes do exist however to show us the bond of friendship that is building between these two women and again we see specs of brilliance. I thought the money problems were long since over. When one of Agnes' kids borrows 6 pounds from the earlier loan shark, the money problems mysteriously reappear when payment time comes. 6 pounds! Agnes tries to scrape up the 10 pounds owed (interest) and seemingly can't come up with that, despite the money being offered to her by a Frenchman named Pierre who is in love with her, and despite her doing several things, including selling her wedding ring! She bravely tells Pierre she refuses to be reliant on a man. Then she gets money out of nowhere from her late husband's work union, and also Tom Jones bizarrely helps save the day (making her reliant on Tom Jones, who I believe is a man).
I really like Anjelica Huston. But in this movie, you really notice her terrible attempt at an Irish accent, which faded in and out, was never really right, and was extremely distracting. Her acting at points was also very bad, as in the funeral scene at the beginning where she realizes she is at the wrong grave. There were many points where it seemed as though she was concentrating too hard on just trying to get the accent right. In other scenes she had a look on her face that seemed she was just pleased she got the accent right for a change. She produced this movie, and should have known better than to put herself in it. She should have known it needed a severe re-write before production. It makes me think she doesn't quite have the minerals to do this many jobs on one production.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Brilliant? No. Sadly "Hollywood".
This comment contains spoilers in that it directs you join me in seeing through the thin veil of Hollywood, and directs you inward to know what you really need and want instead of just explosions and effects...
Seriously, this could have been one of the best movies ever made. That's right, I'm saying it is not. Even the casual movie fan (movie fan, not one of the mindless herd) has to admit that he/she can sense the fear in the producer's hearts behind every scene in this movie. They took a great risk in making an expensive trilogy like this, and they did not want to get the short end of the stick. The result is a compromise; a combination of good effects and good acting counterpointed with unnecessary cheeze-ball action and, well, bad acting. The result is a bizarre movie with brilliant scenes followed by terrible scenes.
Everyone knows the plot summary, so I will skip it.
Every cool scene of dialogue, every touching moment between old friends, and every time we felt the pull of evil, we were quickly (before any of the sheep dozed off), bombarded with a scene of the gang struggling along on their trek fighting creatures and getting blown up.
Apparently, according to my friends, I was the only person who noticed the tragedy in the cave troll. After slowly being disappointed for several hours, I was quite pleased to see the action take an interesting turn like this. When the cave troll was led into the room, and had a collar on with a "leash" (a chain). Right away I assumed he was a trained beast, made ferocious by being beaten and tortured over time by his master, much like some people do with pit bull dogs, etc... When the troll was fatally shot through the mouth by the arrow, he had on his face a moment of unexpected (for me) realization of the wrongness of his actions. Perhaps this was brought on by his own severe pain and sense that his life would be over in a few moments. When I was ridiculed for this by my friends, I said perhaps I was just trying to read something interesting into this unnecessary action.
Elijah Wood. I had trouble at first putting a description to his particular form of bad acting. I came up with the phrase, "blank acting", because he always has that one blank look on his face. You know the one, and the example that comes to mind is the look on his face in the scene where the ring "accidentally falls through the air and lands directly over his finger". A friend of mine found a review that had a better description than mine: "What he does is not acting, it is face-making, and anyone can do it".
Is this a good movie? As much as "Gladiator" was a good movie, so is this one. I know the mass herd of movie go-ers return over and over again to see John Woo (and Ridley Scott) and whoever else who claim to have a "new" movie where they just blow stuff up in the same old predictable way, and the people that made this movie know it too. In order to preserve their bank accounts, they put the explosions in for the sheep to wow over. My plea for the future is this: If you are going to take a risk, take it and don't compromise. Make a great film. Don't let Hollywood or anyone shape all of your craft into one boring blob. If you can't do that, then you are not a real movie maker.
Boogie Nights (1997)
Brilliant acting, almost the best movie ever.
I watched this movie not knowing a single thing about it, and that's the way I like to see movies. I feel this comment contains spoilers.
A.K.A., "How an Idiot Becomes Dirk Diggler". If you have no interest in a movie about porn, this movie deserves to be seen anyway merely on the basis of the acting. Like in "Magnolia", P.T. Anderson gathered some great actors and said 'GO' (pretty much the same actors, too).
We follow the life of Eddie Adams as he is discovered by a porn director, through his porn career, and through the aftermath as things careen out of control. Also like 'Magnolia', this movie has several subplots with some of the other porn stars, but even the subplots pretty much stay focused on Eddie/Dirk. I was real dissappointed to see yet another "how drugs can make things bad" theme show up in yet another movie, but at least some of the drug material is shown at a fresh angle. I was really happy when the drug part turned into just another part of the movie instead of the main focus.
The "drug" lifestyle contains inherent drama, and it is almost cheating for a writer to fall back on this tired old theme just to create drama where he doesn't feel like thinking it up on his own. (See "Requiem for a Dream", the best and hopefully the last "how drugs can make things bad" movie).
I was quite pleased to see real porn stars in the movie, and I'm not sure why (Nina Hartley, Veronica Hart, there were probably more). The 'giveaway' at the end leads you to think about the entire movie, and how this guy's entire life was merely because of one "special" thing. The fact that he does not realize his one special thing is very stupid is what makes him so tragic.
Sling Blade (1996)
Awesome, brilliant movie.
As a fan of watching movies without knowing what is going to happen at all, I believe this review contains spoilers. There are references to the end of the movie.
AFTER watching this movie, the final events seemed obvious and somewhat inevitable. WHILE watching this movie, the understated quality of the entire film leads you away from sensing this inevitability. Like many movies I enjoy, this also has deliberate pacing, which only adds to the understated quality. Many filmmakers feel the need to rig up a bunch of explosions right after a scene of mostly dialogue, and that is because mostly idiots go to the movies and the filmmakers cater to them to keep their bums in the seats. If you have never seen this movie, please watch it and do American society a favor, because after watching this movie you will learn to loathe John-Woo-drivel-action-movies, and maybe if enough people STOP giving money in exchange for "junk" they would quit shoveling it at us. If they don't stop, I will ask them to stop, and then I will eat biscuits.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Great Movie, one of the best ever.
I am still upset this movie was spoiled for me by an idiot. After you see the movie, you will know exactly what I am referring to, and you will understand my anger. There is so much to be said about this movie, there is not room here. The dialogue is perfect, the 'out of order' arrangement of the scenes keeps you interested and wondering, and most of the casting is unbelieveable. John Travolta steals the show, and is the most surprising and wonderful thing to come out of this movie. Bruce Willis overacts a bit (quite a bit actually), and Uma Thuman doesn't act enough, and to me seems like she is just struggling to remember and recite the lines. In fact, I haven't seen any movies she has been good in, except for "The Golden Bowl" where she was unexpectedly good. Other than the performances by Bruce and Uma, this movie is one of the best ever!
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)
Great movie, though not original
This is a wonderful movie, and very much a product of the '90s. There are those who say there are no new ideas, and this movie also proves that. Many movie makers admit to "borrowing" from other films. Please compare this movie to "The Last Picture Show", and you will see many of the same ideas and even the same scenes (main character tries to leave town at one point in his pickup truck, but can't, and turns around). The similar situations - main character is having an affair with a married older woman, is stuck in a small town, has a retarded brother/friend... Still a great movie, and has enough new ideas to make it fresh. Perhaps someone will steal from this movie one day...