Lathe_of_Heaven Reviews

Knight Moves (1992)

Yeah, I guess it was okay...

[4/10 · 21 April 2007]

I suppose I agree with 'Bob the Moo' on this one; fairly entertaining, definitely WOULDN'T have chosen Lambert as a world renowned chess genius, Diane Lane does the best acting, etc. (I know 'etc.' doesn't REALLY work here, but... : ) Anyway, main complaints are the script and direction. VERY good idea and I wouldn't have minded Lambert so much if the bloody direction had been better. I mean, even WITH the so-so script a GOOD director (emphasis on the word 'Good'...) can make anything work, tighten up the story, camouflage the weak points of the script or actors, etc. (THIS time 'etc.' works : )

Could have been a REALLY great, very much like as one misguided poster here states, Hitchcockian film. I WILL say though that the opening scene was done very beautifully; the B&W photography, staging, and mood are excellent. It just would have been nice if the REST of the film had followed suit.

But, don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of other FAR, FAR worse films out there...

________________L@the

A Simple Plan (1998)

Wow, do I EVER agree with 'Grovecamper'! Come ON Raimi!

[3/10 · 17 April 2007]

Sigh... Well, plain and simple I FULLY agree with the reviewer and poster listed in my 'Summary'... Although I wouldn't be as rough on the visuals and camera-work; I mean that was just about ALL this film had going for it.

Okay, here is my primary complaint: Now, with this kind of VERY simple story and few characters, the, uh... CHARACTERS are rather important to carry the story, make you care, etc., right? So, when the characters start acting in TOTALLY unbelievable and contrary ways, spouting COMPLETELY plastic and unrealistic dialog, have absolutely no realistic interactions what so ever..., well..., what the HELL is left either to care about or enjoy? One example, and I won't give away any 'Spoilers', I'll 'speak' in generalities, is where up front the wife immediately reacts that keeping the money is 'NOT LEGAL', 'WRONG', 'STEALING'..., right? Okay, so her character is established right away as kind of stuffy, self-righteous maybe, okay? Now, without giving away exactly WHAT happened, but let's just say it was REALLY bad. Now like all of, what, a DAY later her husband tells her that he did this REALLY, REALLY bad thing. Her reaction: without blinking she calmly says 'Well, I guess you felt that you had to do that' Uh..., can you say, 'COMPLETELY BLOODY INCONSISTENT!!!!!???' GEEZ...!

I admit that going into this film I had VERY high expectations because it was directed by Sam Raimi; but I will tell you that this was some of the WORSE dialog and direction of the CHARACTERS that I have seen from a competent director. The OVERALL direction and look of the film was okay; but the direction of the CHARACTERS sucked BIG HAIRY UWE BALLS!!! Sorry... It wasn't the ACTING that was bad; all the actors are great actors. But it was WHAT they were given to say and HOW they were told to say it.

I mean, just the other day I watched 'A LITTLE TRIP TO HEAVEN' which I thought TOTALLY sucked; mainly because of the lame dialog, pacing, etc. But after seeing THIS film, although the actual acting was better, at least in 'ALTTH' the characters were somewhat believable and consistent if not very appealing...

HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE...

________L@the

Children of Men (2006)

Not really my preference, but honestly VERY GOOD!!!

[7/10 · 11 April 2007]

I do not usually like this kind of 'Science Fiction'; I MUCH prefer the more 'entertaining' and stylized visions of the future that are not so DAMN gritty and realistic (such as 'Dune' and 'Bladerunner' for example ~or even Star Trek and B-5 to be honest~) BUT, and it'a a BIG ONE like Mariah Carrey's (YUM! : ) I do absolutely HAVE to admit that this film is not only made extremely well, but I feel it does indeed accomplish EXACTLY what the director wants it to do: To give us a VERY realistic and believable warning as to what COULD very well happen in the near future based upon a number of his political observations.

That is why although I personally would not CHOOSE this kind of film for my usual type of preferred Science Fiction, I MUST admit that I was powerfully moved many times during the film. And I LOVED the soundtrack; can you friggin BELIEVE that they played 'IN THE COURT OF THE CRIMSON KING' by King Crimson!!!?? DAMN!!! ANYONE that does that earns MY respect, I'll tell you : ) Seriously though, EXTREMELY well made film *** IF *** you like and appreciate your Science Fiction to be VERY realistic and cautionary. MANY, MANY people here criticize the film simply because it's just not their 'cup of tea', so to speak. And, it is not normally mine either; but that certainly does NOT mean that it is in ANY way a bad film...

___________________L@the

A Little Trip to Heaven (2005)

SIGH..., When the HELL will I learn to read MORE of the posts first...???!!

[2/10 · 7 April 2007]

Okay, first off, it wasn't an absolutely horrible film. The soundtrack was kinda neat although very oddly placed along side the story. I FULLY agree with many of the other posters here (which I SHOULD have bloody well taken MORE time to read first!!!!!) when they say that the visuals and the VAGUE fundamental mood of the film is good. But, it is SO dang BLAH...

They simply could have done WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more with it. The way the dialog was written and staged (directed) left a HELL of a lot to be desired. Needless to say Forest Whitaker's accent was ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY, and COMPLETELY annoying and unnecessary. I mean, did ANYONE ELSE bloody well sound like that???!! What the HELL was the point??? GEEZ...

If the director had just done EVERYTHING the same EXCEPT added some really good, stylistic, Lynchian Surreal touches... Bloody SOMETHING!!!! Then maybe I could have at least lived with it...

VERY, VERY disappointing...

Brick (2005)

Wow...

[10/10 · 30 March 2007]

Gee, this is my 2nd '10' in a row ('300' was the other...TOTALLY different film : ) Anyway, first and foremost, not everyone is gonna like this film. Not because there is anything off-putting specifically, but as others have said here the dialog is HIGHLY stylized and you are either REALLY gonna get into it or you're gonna think it's stupid. No in between I don't think...

Secondly (a VERY close 2nd too) is that this director is DEFINITELY someone to watch. STRONGEST POINT hands down was the direction, plain and simple. If you watch the film and understand the entire story, you will realize very clearly that the story itself is VERY simple really, and could have come across REALLY horribly if not done well or stylishly or intelligently, etc. This director took what he had to work with, which was NOT much, and wove a beautifully done tale while eliciting excellent performances by all concerned. Now, do take note that this is a VERY low-key and subtle film; the director obviously is a fan of David Lynch, but WAAAAAAAAY muted down. You can tell though, by some of the pauses and the stationary visual shots that add a LOT of mood to the film.

It's funny, at the end I was thinking, 'Why the hell is this rated 'R'...???' And for the life of me I cannot see why; there is no profanity, no nudity, no sexuality, and what violence there is is not extreme in any way... THESE DAYS, do you know how rare it is to see that in youthful themed Mystery / Thriller AND how hard (at least to most movie creators, obviously) it is to make a 'good' film without all that stuff!!??? And yet, you have a taut, suspenseful, HIGHLY intriguing film.

So, if you are easily bored by the absence of high powered action, or today's typical 'SAW' or 'HOSTEL' type fare, then you probably will not like it. But, if you at all like a well written and extremely well directed film with a nice touch of classic Film Noir movies (BTW, all of the girls in this film are HIGHLY manipulative and Femme Fatal-ish like you find often in Noir) and if you can appreciate the subtle style and dialog, you will definitely like it! ________________________L@th3

300 (2006)

Uh..., this is SUPPOSED to be a Comic Book Like Fantasy...

[10/10 · 29 March 2007]

The summary comment is for the fellow who complained that the battle scenes were not realistic...

Uh..., so like, go watch 'SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES' then, okay...

GEEZ, REAL bright one there...

Anyway, sorry about that. So, I'm gonna sound like all these studio 'PLANTS' who rave and rave about films in their posts, but I'm not : ) All I can say is simply... WOW!!! I believe this is the VERY first time I've ever given a movie a '10'. The film was visually stunning; I liked the way that it added in just the right touch of mysticism and supernatural elements to give it a nice Mythical flavor which made it REALLY great and satisfying for us imaginative people out here who would NOT really be all that interested in a STRAIGHT War film with standard, 'realistic' battles. VERY, VERY nice!!! I have honestly NEVER seen a film quite like this one (maybe I just don't get out much, I don't know...) But, I'm telling you, it was something to behold...

And, as a side point, I REALLY appreciated the restraint in the gore; not so much that you didn't see a LOT of people shredded or impaled, you most certainly do. But, I really admired the way that even though this was necessary because it IS a film about a VERY hairy battle, STILL, the 'gore' was very 'clean' really. When people were beheaded it was very 'clean' is the only word I can think of. And the 'blood' flying all around during the battle was kind of 'standardized'. The film makers didn't go out of their way to show explicit, extremely realistic gore, innards, etc. They just showed kind of a homogenized, generic brown-like spray when people got sliced and diced. Sort of like how Spielberg did it in 'WAR OF THE WORLDS', where people kind of got shredded by those rays, but it didn't really look nasty...

Not to make TOO big of a deal of it, but NOT being a true fan of gore, per se, I REALLY appreciated the fact that the creators and director did NOT go out of their way to make it as nasty and realistic as possible. They kept the emphasis on the story, the characters, and the battle itself, rather than super accentuating the gore which in my opinion would have SERIOUSLY detracted from the primary strength and power of the film...

Dead Silence (2007)

Sigh...I am SO dang tired of these 'PLANTS' posting these rave reviews... ("Oh, go see it right now! " "Superb!" and other BS...)

[5/10 · 29 March 2007]

Okay, I'm gonna be REAL generous and give this a 5.

Here's the deal... YES, I friggin' LOVE films about dolls, mannequins, dummies (you know which kind I mean : ) etc., etc., Even the ULTRA-CHEEEEEEEZY ones like 'PUPPETMASTER', and yes 'CHILD'S PLAY' (the first 2 only) and great ones like 'PIN' & 'MAGIC', and the obscure ones like the Swedish film 'THE DOLL' and the quasi-CHEEEEZY Asian film 'Marrionner'or however it's spelled, and so on. So, I was really, REALLY looking forward to this film! AND knowing that it was from the creators of'SAW' except it THANKFULLY is not about people being tortured, its about DOLLS!!!

Well, to give them credit ALL the friggin' elements were there; the neat back story, the dolls, some good and I mean GOOD scares! And there was a pretty neat twist at the end. But, ultimately the story was kinda superficial, the effects with the dolls eyes was VERY, VERY repetitive, they didn't really flesh out the story very much, the characters were sort of paper thin, and the ending although beautifully done (kind of reminds me of the GIALLO film 'THE BLOODSTAINED SHADOW' in the sharp way they go back over the clues and give the overall PUNCH to the ending. BUT, and it's a BIG ONE too, like Mariah Carrey's (WOW!) They didn't explain at all exactly WHY it turned out that way at the end or WHO this person (not to give it away) behind the twist part truly was and how they fit in...

I just got a strong impression that they had a GREAT idea and they had a bunch of great ingredients, but they just did NOT take the time to put them together properly so that the story and the characters would play out to full effect.

So, because of the unnecessary WASTE of these great elements, I give it a 5. And I feel that I am being VERY generous...

The Return (2005)

An OKAY film that could have been much, MUCH , MUCH better...

[3/10 · 20 March 2007]

Yes, this film has a good premise; yes it does have good elements that COULD have been used to MUCH greater effect. You've got desolate, semi-creepy farmhouses and locations... Good! You've got a carnival scene at the beginning and carnival scenes CAN be really great and creepy. This one was fairly wasted.

And like another poster here said, that emotionless, BLANK stare of SMG got really old after a while. I don't know, it's like there are many really good 'moments' in the film, but it's like the director HONESTLY did not really know what to do with them.

Don't get me wrong, I like 'slow paced' films if they are done well; that part of it was fine. But, the 'interaction' between the characters was completely plastic, cardboard, and without any truly emotive value at all. I mean the scenes between her and her Dad were useless; and I personally found the scenes between her and the main guy almost painful... TRULY...

I would REALLY, REALLY liked to have seen more DONE with the film, that's all. SOME truly gifted directors can take a story or film like this an go REAL slow and drag it out, but they have the skill to give it tension, or mood, or uneasiness... bloody Something!!! But, I'm afraid that this guy although doing a barely competent job (and I'm being REALLY generous) just simply could have done a LOT more with both the actors, the premise, and the nice story elements that he was given.

________________________L@the

Spirit Trap (2005)

Well...

[4/10 · 11 March 2007]

Usually I agree with Claudio's taste (one reason why I even watched this film) but this time in my lowly opinion I think he was just a BIT too generous : ) Great idea; caught me right away when I was researching this film to see if I was gonna rent it. I love Horror stories with some kind of 'mechanism' (like the similar clocklike thing in 'THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL') But, sadly, although briefly referred to several times throughout the film, this really didn't play much of a part in the ongoing 'plot' to use the term loosely. I don't know... Bottom line: Excellent idea but rather poor execution. Billie was absolutely gorgeous though; I kind wish SHE was the one to lose a few of her clothes instead of the typical skankie one..., but alas..., no go..

I would say that the director and the script is where the real flaws were; the visuals could easily have been done to FAR better effect and in a MUCH more stylized way. And they coulda built the story FAR better too. It was SORT of slightly reminiscent of 'SKELETON KEY' which also could have EASILY gotten screwed up a million different ways; but in THAT film the atmosphere and moody touches were right on the money. Here, it's kinda like they threw the script and story in a blender and we saw pretty much what came out.

So, no, with as many other films there are to see, unless like me, you feel that Billie is SO damn gorgeous that you don't mind just sitting there and looking at her the whole time, I'd really recommend you find another film that would be MUCH more entertaining and MUCH better executed...

___________________L@the

Headspace (2005)

If ONL:Y I had read MORE of the comments about this film FIRST...

[2/10 · 6 March 2007]

Where do I start...??? Very simply: Decent concept that could have been very intriguing EXCELLENT beginning to set the pace of the film I really like chess, so I thought that would be a neat added element to the film... GEEEEEEEEZ...

TOTALLY disintegrates into an EXTREMELY poorly written, directed, and acted film. PERIOD.

Very sad too; I REALLY, REALLY wish I had read more of the comments and especially the message board MUCH more carefully. Usually I do, but I musta REALLY screwed up on this one : ) I can excuse a film completely for being aimless and even pointless, ***IF*** it at least has style, mood, and is done with SOME bloody competence. It is SO dang funny how some of these film makers snag a bunch of these 'B' actors whom we'd immediately recognize and then they have a combined screen time of about 8 minutes. When will I learn... I felt sorry for Sean Young; she had all of, what..., 3 minutes. Sad...

Anyway, by the end, if you have ANY vestige of intelligence left (which is bloody unlikely) this is one of those cases where you will TRULY be sitting there stunned wondering what the HELL you just did with the last 90 minutes or so...

I'm serious here. Believe me on this one...

I'm not normally hateful or unforgiving when it comes to film and Especially the 'Horror' genre, honestly. But this one fails on almost EVERY level.

The Guardian (I) (2006)

Ehhhhhh...

[5/10 · 27 February 2007]

Okay, I'm REALLY being generous giving it a '5'... The reason being is that I just sat through about 3/4 of it and finally gave up and turned it off. I guess that shows how totally enthralled I was with the story : ) Granted, I'm not much a straight 'Adventure' guy, but I DO VERY MUCH enjoy films like 'AN OFFICER AND A GENTELMAN', 'A SOLDIER'S STORY', ETC.

Don't get me wrong, it is NOT a terrible film by any means, but C'MON!!!!!! Could the script and direction have been ANY more bland, banal, semi-clichéd and for the most part, uninspiring. Well, not COMPLETELY... I guess there WERE some moments in it that were very moving, but based mainly on the rather surprisingly good job that Ashton did (I'm NOT really a fan of his, but I do think that he actually was ACTING pretty decently here compared to his earlier stuff) I didn't buy Costner's role AT ALL, not for a moment; he came across easily as the WEAKEST military type instructor in ANY related type film in existence. I think that maybe that is what hurt this film the most.

YES, the rescue scenes were okay, but to me anyway everything just came across as very mainstream, overused formula with almost no new angles or at least inspiring writing and direction. Maybe if someone like Ridley Scott was directing or someone of his caliber perhaps (take 'G.I. Jane' for example... Now THAT kicked some serious @ss!!!)

I mean, COME ON...!!! Okay, the guys are treading water in the pool; the guys are swimming underwater pushing bricks across the bottom of the pool. The guys are (sort of) doing push-ups... Whoa, I'm getting pretty worked up here... *snore...

I don't know, but it all came off as rather tepid to me; I appreciate the nice angle honoring the Coast Guard which is of course greatly deserved. But the film REALLY could have been LIGHT YEARS better. Some STYLE, some INSPIRATION in either script or direction...

SOMETHING...!!!

A Sound of Thunder (2005)

We are sooooooooo darn spoiled....!!!

[7/10 · 16 September 2005]

Okay, as you can see in my primary summary, I think that we are all so mindlessly SPOILED by the expectation that EVERY film (ESPECIALLY a Science Fiction movie) absolutely HAS to knock us off our feet or we think it sucks! Right? C'mon now, be honest.

I'll prove it: Take the Pilot Movie to "Night Gallery" (1969) Television, right? VERY little in the way of special effects, right? But, it's a great little film! Granted it is much better quality, still, than "A Sound of Thunder", but my point is, see how spoiled we are due to the 'standard' that we set for ourselves? Now, if say, 'ASoT' had been shown on television not that terribly long ago with ONLY those expectations of tele special effects, wouldn't we just have sat back and enjoyed it and thought it was a pretty darn good film? (Let me tell you, I STARTED to watch the VERY fancy and expensive television production of 'Merlin' which they probably spent about the same amount of money on back then that they did on 'ASoT', and let me tell you, the WRITING and ACTING was SOOOOOOO abysmal, although I like the source story and even some of the actors, I just COULDN'T stomach it!!! And most people thought that was a wonderful show! This film blows that out of the water!!!) Another thing, YES comparing the brilliant and wonderful short story by the EXTREMELY talented Mr. Bradbury with this film shoots it way down; that's completely understandable. To me, it's just like David Lynch's film "Dune"; sure, compared to the rarefied brilliance of the book(s) it's gonna suck. But the key is: VIEWED SEPARATELY as a STAND ALONE story, they're not that bad, really.

I just NOW got back from seeing it; and yes, after reading all these VERY predictable 'reviews' I was steeled and determined NOT to expect ANYTHING... And I mean ANYTHING! So I sat there and kept expecting it to start to COMPLETELY suck, and it never really did. Now, keep in mind I absolutely LOATHE Peter Hyams direction!!!! As soon as I found out that this beloved short story was directed by him, I was totally depressed for days!!! : ) I HATE his absolute love and fascination with 'Hey, lets put the people in a completely DARK PLACE ("Relics", etc.) and 'Hey, lets do LOTS of fast editing and flashes of light!!!' wow... HATE IT!!! But, still the story, acting and basic suspense level and such, considering that they had to alter the story line RADICALLY, I think it could have been done a LOT worse.

Take a moment and think now of ALL the FRIGGIN' films that just INSULT the absolute daylights out of us!!! NOW THAT is what I am tired of! POOR writing, POOR acting, just plain insulting the audience. But, I honestly did NOT get that impression at all from this film. Sure, I still didn't care too much for the LONG sequences while they were traveling at night and in the 'subway' and such. Personally, without giving too much away, I would like to have seen the story element included that was in the book as to what they saw immediately when they came back where everything had been COMPLETELY changed, say perhaps after that last 'WAVE' took effect, and THEN have them work within THAT completely changed history toward the END of the film to try to fix everything.

*************** MINOR SPOILERS ************************ I do think that it was VERY clever to come up with the changes coming in 'WAVES'; I was wondering how they were gonna do the short story in full running time format according to the original story. Smart way to do it and not NEARLY as insulting and eye-rolling as the mind numbingly stupid pseudo-techno-sh*t that Rick Berman tries to get us poor Star Trek fans to swallow in his more recent 'efforts'. And, I thought that taking the story along the lines of the actual evolutionary lines being changed was clever; again, I would have rather seen them work in, perhaps in that last 'WAVE' where there was the totalitarian regime in power and where that fringe political leader actually did get elected, and THEN have them try to sneak around and try to fix stuff.

******************** END OF MINOR SPOILERS ********************* Anyway, I think that Hollywood has (like bloody Everything ELSE in this 'culture' spoiled us to where we can't just simply enjoy a neat little story without saying, 'This is TOTAL crap!!!' I feel very strongly about this, especially concerning this particular film; I mean, if the acting or writing or even the direction (overtly)had TRULY been lousy, then I'd be the first one to say, 'Hey, you're all right, it SUX!!!' but I quite honestly do not think that was the case.

The Illustrated Man (1969)

Suspenseful, Gripping Science Fiction - Not for the Faint of Heart...

[9/10 · 13 June 2004]

It's interesting seeing the other comments on this movie; this is probably one of those films that polarizes people (Uh, I don't mean it makes them magnetic or anything, just people either really like it or really don't...) (cough) Anyway, as I was saying, the people who seem to like nice, tidy, non obscure, little 'Star Wars' like films, will not like this one much. And, quite fairly, it is honestly a matter of taste (bad : ) Just Kidding. No, this film is very dark, and heavy; and as one other reviewer quite accurately states, Rod Steiger's character is not very pleasant at all. But, that does fit the theme and mood of the movie. Remember, this is one of Ray Bradbury's darker, serious, less pretty books. Hey, the dude can be one of the most beautiful, allegorical, poetic writers on the planet; and he can write things that literally make your heart yearn for wind swept Autumn days with boys chasing each other through piles of golden leaves. Wow, that wasn't too bad : ) Anyway, you get the picture; this is NOT one of those.

The little stories within the main story are chilling, serious, and have heavy elements of bad futures and horror. So, if you like your Science Fiction light, forget this. If you like it where it leaves you kind of like Harlan Ellison's stories do, then you'll love it.

It just depends on how much of a wussy you are : ) No, just kidding;I like the sweet, fun stuff too.

23 Paces to Baker Street (1956)

Excellent Mystery!!!

[8/10 · 13 June 2004]

I have watched this particular movie several times; of course, I most likely do that with a lot of movies that are my favorites : )

The basic story is of a somewhat embittered, well-to-do man who had lost his sight fairly recently becoming reinvigorated about life again when he thinks that he overhears parts of a discussion in a bar that may suggest that there is a murder being planned. The acting, writing and direction are superb! As the plot begins to unravel, you are truly pulled along more and more into the story; it is VERY entertaining, especially for those who like good mysteries a la Sherlock Holmes.

If I may throw in a bit of a sort-of non sequitur here, (at least as far as any huge similarities in the two movies,) but, it's interesting, at least to me, to note the similarity of character between Van Johnson's blind detective here, and Karl malden's character in Dario Argento's "Cat O' Nine Tails" where he also plays a blind 'detective'. Just a thought, nothing serious, (however, that is also a very good mystery, just a little heavier content due to being more recent and from Argento, of course : )

That's about it; have fun watching it.... You will : )