text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: "This is almost too beautiful." And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does. | 1pos
|
THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.<br /><br />Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.<br /><br />I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.<br /><br />The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.<br /><br />With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.<br /><br />So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008. | 1pos
|
From the filmmakers who brought us The March of the Penguins, I guess that came with plenty of expectations for The Fox and the Child. From the harsh winters of the South Pole to the lush wilderness in France, the narrative now becomes part documentary and part fairy tale, which tells of the friendship between the two titular characters, Renard the fox and its friendship with the child who christened it, played by Bertille Noel-Beuneau.<br /><br />The story's frankly quite simple, and at times this movie would have looked like the many Japanese movies which children-miscellaneous animals striking a friendship after the development of trust, and how they go about hanging around each other, dealing with respective adversaries and the likes. Here, the child meets the elegant fox near her home up in the mountains, which provide for plenty of beautiful picture-postcard perfect shots that a cinematographer will have to go into overdrive to capture.<br /><br />But while we indulge in wistful scenery, the characters don't get to establish that level of trust from the onset, and we have to wait a few seasons to past, and 45 minutes into the film, before they find a leveler in food. The child persistently attempts at striking a bond with the objective of taming the creature for her own amusement, but the fox, well, as other notions of course. While I thought the narrative was pretty weak, unlike March of the Penguins which has that human narrative interpretation of what's happening on screen, what excelled here were the documentary elements of the movie, tracing the life and times of the fox as both a predator, and a prey.<br /><br />Between the two, more tension and drama was given to the latter, especially when dealing with traditional foes like wolves, and granted, those sequences were fairly intense especially when the child got embroiled in it. Otherwise, it was plain sailing and quite a bore as the two of them go about their playing with each other, in shots that you know have undergone some movie magic editing. There were surprisingly dark moments in the movie that weren't really quite suitable for children, as those in the same hall attested to it by bawling their eyes out suddenly, so parents, you might want to take note and not let your toddler disturb the rest of the movie goers.<br /><br />As a film, I would've preferred this to be a complete documentary ala The March of the Penguins, but I guess the way it was resented, probably had the objective of warning us not to meddle with nature, and that some things are just not meant to be, and should stay as such. Decent movie that leaned on the strength of the chemistry between Bertille Noel- Bruneau, and the multiple foxes that played Renard. | 1pos
|
Maybe I'm biased to foxes, fox stories and all but I thought this was wonderfully done.<br /><br />I really enjoyed that it was shown when Lily wasn't comfortable, such as the fire and the room (trying not to spoil too much here). I think that's important for kids to see and try to understand.<br /><br />After reading a few others comments I'm a bit confused, one says that at the end -spoiler- the mother and her son appear, as she's been the one telling her son about her story. The movie I saw did NOT have the mother or son at the end, merely a painting of a girl with a fox. Can someone enlighten me on that? Anyway I really enjoyed this movie, although some scenes can be a bit slow which might be difficult for high energy kids to sit through. Still worth it if they can sit still. | 1pos
|
Watching "The Fox and the Child" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.<br /><br />The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.<br /><br />I laughed. I wept. I learned.<br /><br />This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.<br /><br />Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art. | 1pos
|
A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.<br /><br />Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.<br /><br />But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing. | 1pos
|
I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.<br /><br />Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.<br /><br />Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating. | 1pos
|
This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children. | 1pos
|
There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.<br /><br />I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.<br /><br />Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.<br /><br />The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.<br /><br />The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.<br /><br />But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10 <br /><br />P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will. | 1pos
|
I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen | 1pos
|
A lot of the problem many people have with this movie is that they seem to think that the story should have been more entertaining (ignoring it is based on a true story) or ranting against a film that glorifies Che (which it really doesn't). This film is very close to Jon Anderson's definitive bio on Che and gets the story right. Soderburgh does an excellent job of setting the mood for the unraveling debacle that was Che's Bolivian adventure. You really get the impression of the total timidity and bewilderment of the Bolvian peasant to Che's revolutionary ideas or of the difficulties that his men faced with hunger and the terrain. Sorry to bore the attention challenged movie fan out there but that was how it happened. So don't go into this movie expecting a Rambo shoot em up, its a true story! | 1pos
|
Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?<br /><br />James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward usually everlasting love or material wealth as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.<br /><br />Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.<br /><br />High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).<br /><br />But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.<br /><br />There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.<br /><br />With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.<br /><br />But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can. | 1pos
|
Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.<br /><br />If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.<br /><br />The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.<br /><br />During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.<br /><br />This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.<br /><br />It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one. | 1pos
|
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.<br /><br />As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.<br /><br />Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10 | 1pos
|
Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Chestruggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himselfsuch a struggle is best told exactly as thata struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.<br /><br />While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one manif anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who arguably- conducted the whole thing.<br /><br />Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed backthere's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.<br /><br />Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenesthe drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.<br /><br />With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net) | 1pos
|
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.<br /><br />The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.<br /><br />But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1pos
|
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.<br /><br />If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.<br /><br />Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.<br /><br />The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.<br /><br />Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.<br /><br />But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy
!" | 1pos
|
I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.<br /><br />Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.<br /><br />Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.<br /><br />The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.<br /><br />If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel. | 1pos
|
Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.<br /><br />This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.<br /><br />The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.<br /><br />In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking. | 1pos
|
It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks "Che: Parts 1 & 2". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto "Che" Guevara's revolutionary life. "Che: Part 1" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. "Che: Part 2" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see "Che" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of "Che" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly "too much talk and not enough action" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing "Che: Parts 1 &2". *** Average | 1pos
|
I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.<br /><br />But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it. | 1pos
|
From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2. | 1pos
|
The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.<br /><br />Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.<br /><br />The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded. | 1pos
|
Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.<br /><br />As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.<br /><br />I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling. | 1pos
|
Possibly the most brilliant thing about Che: Part Two, as we begin to integrate it with Part One in our minds, is that there is no clarification of why Che chose to confidentially abscond from Cuba after the revolution, no allusion to his experience in the Congo, no clarification of why he chose Bolivia as his subsequent setting for a coup d'etat, no allusion to the political decisions he made as a young man motorcycling across South America, which Walter Salles has given prominent familiarity. Extraordinary focus is given to Che meeting the volunteers who accompany his guerrilla factions. Yet hardly any endeavor is made to single them out as individuals, to establish involved relationships. He is reasonably unreasonable. Che drives an unbreakable doctrine to leave no wounded man behind. But there is no feeling that he is deeply directly concerned with his men. It is the concept.<br /><br />In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.<br /><br />In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.<br /><br />Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means. | 1pos
|
I'm going to review the 2 films as a whole because I feel that is how it should be considered, and watched. When I talk about 'the film' I am talking about parts 1 & 2 together when watched one after the other, as they should be.<br /><br />Thank you Jon Anderson, Steven Soderbergh & Benicio Del Toro.<br /><br />This film is a refreshing, bold, gritty and true film. And, it hearkens a new style of film making. No Faux drama. No Swelling sound track. Not Faux Documentary style. Just clean shots and an attempt to stick to the facts. I have been reading Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and recently finished Fidel's Auto biography, and this had helped my ability to soak this film in properly. But I have to say that it is Jon Anderson's exhaustive, penultimate and wonderful biography that has given this film the proper historical back bone. Anderson was consultant on this film (or these 2 films). What makes this film a true thing is that it is clean. No swelling music or slow-motion photography to heighten drama, and even more importantly; no fake documentary shaky camera. Just square shots and straight forward shooting style. The type of camera used makes you feel right there in the jungle. Benicio Del Toro should be given full honors for this, I never doubted him as Che throughout the film... not once. He did a wonderful job and I will respect him for ever for this. Some people complain that the film only deals with 2 slices of his life and not the whole. But I think this is one of the true beautiful aspects of this film: it doesn't try to be everything. It doesn't try to 'tell the story'. A person's life is too multifaceted to try and tell in 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 hours. This is one of the subtle beauties of this film, it resists that temptation, and stays focused on the intent of letting us GET A FEEL FOR CHE, HIS DEVELOPING MILITARISTIC MIND AND THE FORCES AROUND HIM. It focuses on 3 slices of time: The Battle to over throw Batista, Che's U.N. speech and the Gorilla preparations in Bolivia. "Motorcycle Diaries" already told his young man side, and I applaud S. Soderbergh for focusing on other aspects instead. I keep referring to Jon Anderson's book and the film stays true. The only weak link for me are the casting (not the performance) of Matt Damon. In a film so loaded with true to life performances, an American, (Matt Damon) playing a Bolivian is a clunky stretch - he does well, but after so much care in the casting, this was an over-site. Small and completely forgiven. The reality that the rest of the casting gives you, and most notably Benicio Del Toro's amazing job, put's this film at the top of my list.<br /><br />The fact that this film went almost straight to video say's something about how the cold war ethics that would never allow the 'revolutionized Cuba' to become what it might have, are still at work keeping it's story quiet. If not out of clandestine muffling, then out of the effects of properly done propaganda that has prejudiced this topic.<br /><br />This is a must see film, and Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" is a must read if you want to start to get a grasp of the early effects on the global mind set regarding the expansion of international / political financial chess moves of the 40's, 50's & 60's that placed unfair pressure on our South American neighbors, and the effects it fostered. | 1pos
|
The year is 1964. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, having been a Cuban citizen for the last five years,disappears from the face of the Earth,leaving a glum Fidel Castro to announce that he is probably dead,when in truth, he has left Cuba to move to Bolivia to live an assumed identity. Whilst living in La Paz,Guevara undertakes an idea to overthrow the corrupt,bourgeois government there. Once again,Steven Soderberg takes up where 'Che:Part One' leaves off (only better this time). The pacing is more on target,the job of acting is ever so fine (including a turn by a sickly looking Benecio Del Toro,as Che Guevara). Suffice it to say,it's probably best if you see both films,to get the true story of Guevara & what kind of a man he was (I had the rare open window of opportunity to see both films at one screening----talk about a long haul!). As with 'Che-Part 1:The Argentine',this film has no MPAA rating, but contains enough salty language & violence to easily snag it an 'R'. | 1pos
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty. | 1pos
|
I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!! | 1pos
|
This is something new.<br /><br />There's a coup d'etat and a couple of irish documentary filmmakers are right inside of it.<br /><br />A democratically elected president who uses his power to bring literacy to his people and encourages them to read the constitution is being slandered by the private media openly as dictator, mentally unstable, new hitler, etc. without repercussion from the governments side (like, say, silencing them via bullets and other traditional dictatorial methods). Oh, and they still claim that they are being suppressed, of course.<br /><br />See how the media gloats about their own role in the coup d'etat on TV after they toppled the government with the help of rouge generals (how much more stupid can you get?? ).<br /><br />And see how the people of Venezuela march to the palace, holding the constitution in their hands, and reinstall their elected government.<br /><br />This sounds like a Hollywood fairytale, but it happened for real, against the explicit wishes of the USA. The documentary is a historical masterpiece, shot from the center of the action, acute and totally embarrassing for the prime supporters of the coup: The good, democratic, freedom loving, benevolent USA (who still channel large amounts of money to Chavez' political opponents).<br /><br />Also highly entertaining and exciting. 10 points. | 1pos
|
I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I collect Horror films from all over and I have seen the good and the very bad - Zombie Bloodbath is a low budget video. Sure, the acting is bad, the storyline is basically a mix of all zombie movies thrown together and the quality is low in some spots. The thing you seem to be missing is that it's still entertaining and really very fun. The effects range from, like someone on here has said, pasty-faced zombies that look like KISS rejects to really good ones with some amazing latex work. But the reason you buy a movie with a title like this is for the gore and this film is amazing in that area. The effects are very good for such a small film. Someone called it a Party movie and it is. 100% fun party movie. I have heard from various websites that this is actually a "rough cut" of the film that got general release but the actual "director's cut" is coming on DVD and it is very nice quality. I will buy it and judge for myself.<br /><br />Story is basically a Nuclear power plant goes bad and makes zombies. The gov't closes it down, hides the story and sanctions houses to be built over it. Some of the plant is still underground and these undead come up and attack the area. A few actors do a great job, there's some pretty straight social commentary that is insightful and true, good music, great lighting, some effective suspense and tons of blood and sick gore. One guy gets attacked and ripped from the lower area all the way up, if you know what I mean. Then his guts are shoved out of his mouth. Another is torn in half like in Day Of The Dead and they did a great job of that effect. There are a million gore gags and it's almost ALL action. I say stop being a prude, enjoy life and get more movies like Zombie Bloodbath and Meat market. Two great undead epics.<br /><br />OK - UPDATE!!! I just got the DVD set and here is what I thought:<br /><br />MUCH better picture quality and for once I was able to see the actual DIRECTOR'S CUT of the film and it is a much better movie. I liked it before, but now I can see what Todd Sheets was actually trying to do with this one. And the commentary helps too, hearing Sheets talk about the film in detail, He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to all people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't this much fun!<br /><br />PS - I heard they are now remaking this on a big budget??? | 1pos
|
This in my opinion is one of the best action movies of the 1970s. It not only features a great cast but is also loaded with wild shootouts and explosions that are still impressive today. The story is about a Vietnam vet (Kris Kristofferson) being recruited by his brother (Jan-Michael Vincent) to help clean up the criminal element in a small town and what happens when Kris starts taking advantage of his position and becomes as bad as the criminals he was hired to get rid of. It's great seeing Kris play against type. Bernadette Peeters and Victoria Principal both offer great support as the respective ladies of the two male stars. Jan-Michael shows real movie star persona in this film. I don't think Vigilante Force is on video but it occasionally shows up on TV. It's a great flick for guys who like movies. | 1pos
|
This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a little
off balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet
| 1pos
|
Anarchy and lawlessness reign supreme in the podunk hick hamlet of Elk Hills. The town elders deputize tough, cagey Vietnam veteran Aaron (a wonderfully robust and engaging performance by Kris Kristofferson) and several of his fellow vet buddies to clean up the place. The plan goes sour when Aaron and his cruel cronies decide to take over Elk Hills after they get rid of all the bad elements. It's up to Aaron's decent do-gooder brother Ben (amiably played by Jan-Michael Vincent) to put a stop to him before things get too out of hand. Writer/director George ("Miami Blues," "Gross Pointe Blank") Armitage whips up a delightfully amoral, cynical and wickedly subversive redneck drive-in exploitation contemporary Western winner: he expertly creates a gritty, no-nonsense tone, keeps the pace brisk and unflagging throughout, and stages the plentiful action scenes with considerable muscular aplomb (the rousing explosive climax is especially strong and stirring). The first-rate cast of familiar B-feature faces constitutes as a major asset: Victoria Principal as Ben's sweet hottie girlfriend Linda, the fabulous Bernadette Peters as flaky saloon singer Little Dee, Brad Dexter as the feckless mayor, David Doyle as a slimy bank president, Andrew Stevens as an affable gas station attendant, John Carpenter movie regular Charles Cyphers as one of the 'Nam vets, Anthony Carbone as a smarmy casino manager, John Steadman as a folksy old diner owner, Paul Gleason as a mean strong-arm shakedown bully, and Dick Miller as a talentless piano player. Moral: Don't hire other people to do your dirty work. William Cronjager's slick cinematography, Gerald Fried's lively, harmonic hillbilly bluegrass score, and the abundant raw violence further add to the overall trashy fun of this unjustly neglected little doozy. | 1pos
|
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.<br /><br />The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.<br /><br />The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.<br /><br />I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.<br /><br />Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent. | 1pos
|
I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.<br /><br />I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...<br /><br />I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.) | 1pos
|
***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike). | 1pos
|
This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful. | 1pos
|
What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed! | 1pos
|
But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy! <br /><br />Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours. <br /><br />Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started. <br /><br />Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.<br /><br />I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget. | 1pos
|
I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.<br /><br />Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.<br /><br />This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.<br /><br />My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.<br /><br />But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing. | 1pos
|
This film was excellent - the emotional power of Tom Hulce and Ray Liotta's performances brought tears to my eyes and joy to my heart - this film shows us that there is still hope in the world. If this film had come out at the end of 1988, instead of Rain Man, Hulce would certainly have been at least nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Definitely a must-see! | 1pos
|
If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it. <br /><br />It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.<br /><br />However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.<br /><br />"Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."<br /><br />Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see. | 1pos
|
Words are seriously not enough convey the emotional power of this film; it's one of the most wrenching you'll ever see, yet the ending is one of the most loving, tender, and emotionally fulfilling you could hope for. Every actor in every role is terrific, especially a wise and understated Jamie Lee Curtis, a tightly wound and anguished Ray Liotta, and a heart-stopping turn from Tom Hulce that should have had him up for every award in the book. (He's the #1 pick for 1988's Best Actor in Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars.") The last half hour borders on melodrama, but the film earns every one of its tears--and unless you're made of stone, there will be plenty of them. | 1pos
|
Dominick (Nicky) Luciano wears a 'Hulk' T-shirt and trudges off everyday to perform his duties as a garbage man. He uses his physical power in picking up other's trash and hauling it to the town dump. He reads comic-book hero stories and loves wrestlers and wrestling, Going to WrestleMania with his twin brother Eugene on their birthday is a yearly tradition. He talks kindly with the many people he comes in contact with during his day. He reads comic books, which he finds in the trash, with a young boy who he often passes by while on the garbage route. Unfortunately, Dominick has a diminished ability to use his mind. He has a disability.<br /><br />Dominick's disability came as a result of an injury to the head in which he suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI). This injury left him slower, though it did not change his core characteristic as a strong individual who helps to protect others. Dominick is actually more able to live independently than he may seem at the beginning of the film. He lives with Eugene who is studying to become a doctor. Dominick provides the main source of income, while Eugene is off studying. Eugene must face the fact that he is to continue his education in a different city, and that he must move away from Dominick. Eugene also develops a romance which begins to separate him from his twin brother.<br /><br />The film deals specifically with domestic abuse and how this can impact individuals, families, and then society as a whole. The strain that escalates between Eugene and Dominick as Eugene realizes that he must eventually leave Nicky, exploded on their birthday night. Eugene yells at Dominick and throws him against the wall. In this moment, Eugene must confront his own fears of being like his abusive father, the father which Dominick protected him against while he himself became the victim of the abuse. This event cemented the love between the two brothers, who from then on became the best of friends. Though they needed each other, they also both needed independence and the ability to grow and develop relationship with others. The fact that they must part ways became a very real emotional strain. However, by the end of the film, Dominick is able to say good bye to his brother and wish him luck. Eugene is able to leave his brother with the confidence that he has started to make a social network of people who care about him and will help him with his independence.<br /><br />When Dominick witnesses the abuse of his friend he is forced to come face to face with the cause of his own trauma. In this state of extreme stress, Dominick almost completely shuts down. He then runs after the ambulance to the hospital to see what happened to his friend. After learning that the boy has died, he is confronted by the abusive father who, fearing his testimonial, tells him he didn't see nothing, doesn't know anything, and not to say anything, and that if he does he will kill him. Now that his own life has been threatened, he goes and find the hand gun that Larry used to kill the rats. He goes to the wake of the deceased boy and at gunpoint, kidnaps the baby of the grieving family. He runs away from the scene and hides in a building. When the police surround him, Eugene goes in the building to talk to his brother. Eugene then reveals the cause of Dominick's disability and they bring the baby back. The abusive father then wields a gun of his own threatening to kill Dominick, but Eugene stops him and Dominick tells the crowd that he saw the father throw his son down the stairs.<br /><br />Through the climactic ending, the issue of dysfunctional behavior comes into view. Though Dominick's instinct to save the baby can be understood, we also see how damaging this response is. Dominick put the baby's life and his own life in grave danger. The larger societal consequences of these events is not directly implicated, but rather shown through the films ending. Despite the more optimistic ending portrayal, another sequence of events might just have likely occurred, in which Dominick is charged with kidnapping and possession of a firearm. It is somewhat difficult to believe that this went completely unaccounted. Furthermore, even if Dominick is not charged, there may still be a stigma against him within the community, not that there wasn't one before these events. Instead, the film shows that we must be able to recognize problematic behavior and act to curb it.<br /><br />Dominick and Eugene was released in 1988, the same year as another film, Rainman, which won 5 Academy Awards. While Rainman was an achievement and helped increase the visibility with person with disabilities, it could be argued that Dominick and Eugene holds more valuable lessons for society. Whereas, Rainman demonstrated that mainstream American society might be able to learn from and care for a 'savant', if the 'savant' is the inheritor of a large estate. Dominick and Eugene show that a person with a disability might be able to care for and help save members of American society. The message of an independent person with disabilities may have been too strong for 1988. Hopefully someday society will see the strengths of individuals with disabilities, not as a threat, but as imperative for the strength of society. | 1pos
|
This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.<br /><br />In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to. | 1pos
|
I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!! | 1pos
|
TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.<br /><br />This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!<br /><br />===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen! | 1pos
|
One of my favorite movies I saw at preview in Seattle. Tom Hulce was amazing, with out words could convey his feelings/thoughts. I actually sent Mike Ferrell some donation money to help the film get distributed. It is good. System says I need more lines but do not want to give away plot stuff. I was in the audience in Seattle with Hulce and director , a writer I think and Mike Ferrell. They talked for about an hour afterwords. Not really a dry eye in the house. Why Hollywood continues to be stupid I do not know. ( actually I do know , it is our fault, look what we watch)Well you get what you pay for guys. Get this and see it with someone special. It is a gem. | 1pos
|
The emotional powers and characters of Dominick and Eugene are the things that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. This is one of the most emotional, sensitive, and heart-felt movies that I have ever seen! Roy Liotta, Tom Hulce, and supporting actress Jamie Lee Curtis, deliver Oscar Winning caliber performances! There are not enough words to express how great this movie is. Sure, people who are not into sentimental movies may not care as much as the rest of us about Dominick and Eugene, but for the rest of us, this movie goes right to the heart and sole of compassion and humanity. You will never forget this film, EVER!<br /><br />*****SPOILERS BELOW*****<br /><br />The simple yet eloquent story is masterfully told. Eugene is a med-school intern who faces long hours and a demanding work load at the hospital. His fraternal twin brother Dominick (born 12 minutes earlier) is a little slow and awkward because of brain damage due to a victim of abuse by their father. (A heartbreaking moment when this is found out in the film that will leave you in tears!) Eugene (a.k.a "Geno") faces a painful dilemma. He must decide whether to finish medical school, which would mean accepting his residency in another city and leave Dominick (a.k.a "Nicky") behind, or forfeit the rest of his education to take care of him. Nicky helps pay his brother's med-school tuition by working as a trash collector.<br /><br />The questions of ethics, morals, and responsibilities are masterfully blended in this landmark movie. Just when Gino thinks Nicky might be making progress toward independence, Dominick turns around and winds up doing things like helping out a drug dealer, or tying to use a faulty cord that he finds at the dump on an electrical appliance.<br /><br />Larry, is "The Character" and Nicky's partner on his garbage route who fills gullible Dominick's head with all kinds of stories like Geno and Jennifer (his girlfriend, whom he is tutoring in Clinical Pharmacology) going to Atlantic City and gambling away all their money. But deep down, you can see that Larry cares for him. On their rounds, Nicky also befriends a little boy, whom we find out has also been beaten by his father. An end result is also tragic and the pain that you see on Nicky's face when it happens, speaks volumes.<br /><br />The sensitivity that the two brothers share for each other can not be overstated enough. All Nicky wants to do is be loved and look for acceptance in anyway he can. (i.e he goes to church, loves Hulk Hogan) Geno loves Nicky more than anything in the world. But can his brother become independent enough so that Geno can pursue his dream of becoming a doctor? A brilliant film that should have gotten tons more recognition than it deserved, but unfortunately came out around the same time as Rain Man, which dealt with a similar issue. However, I like Dominick and Eugene better because it has a far stronger emotional component. Be forewarned that this movie is aimed right at the tear-ducts, so have Kleenex handy! What a film!!!! | 1pos
|
Ray Liotta and Tom Hulce shine in this sterling example of brotherly love and commitment. Hulce plays Dominick, (Nicky) a mildly mentally handicapped young man who is putting his 12 minutes younger, twin brother, Liotta, who plays Eugene, through medical school. It is set in Baltimore and deals with the issues of sibling rivalry, the unbreakable bond of twins, child abuse and good always winning out over evil. It is captivating, and filled with laughter and tears. If you have not yet seen this film, please rent it, I promise, you'll be amazed at how such a wonderful film could go un-noticed. | 1pos
|
I just purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the movie. | 1pos
|
I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.<br /><br />the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.<br /><br />but again, that's the point ;)<br /><br />If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.<br /><br />It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying. | 1pos
|
Dumland focuses on the lives of one (American?) family... The father; a violent and obscene person who loves to fart and use profanity and who has no redeeming qualities. The mother; who appears to be a paranoid psychotic, never really says much. The son; an obscure annoying repetitive little fellow. The animation is simple and crude, but does suite the stories and the characters. The episodes were originally only available from the davidlynch.com website, but have now been released on DVD. There are 8 episodes on the DVD and a brief synopsis follows:<br /><br />1- The Neighbor: We meet the next door neighbor, and find out three things about him... he has a really nice shed, he only has one arm and he likes to do naughty things with ducks.<br /><br />2- The Treadmill: We find out that the wife has an affinity for exercise, but the husband doesn't really think it's a good idea. In the end, the exercise treadmill is victorious.<br /><br />3- The Doctor: The father has an unfortunate accident with an exposed live wire... the doctor's examination is quite thorough (if not unconventional) but the diagnosis is "you are perfectly normal" (but we knew that).<br /><br />4- A Friend Visits: After an altercation with the new clothes hoist, a friend comes to visit (Believe it or not, he has one! but after we meet him we can understand why), no surprises when he tells us what his hobbies are.<br /><br />5- Get The Stick: We meet another neighbor, he has a stick stuck in his mouth (although we never find out how it got there). Unfortunately, removing the stick from his neighbor's mouth ends up being harder (and more violent) than expected... but he is victorious in the end... Jesus some people can be ungrateful!!!<br /><br />6- My Teeth Are Bleeding: This was my favorite episode... and was also the most mind- numbingly repetitive and annoying (hmm, what does that say about me??). Not sure why the son's teeth started bleeding, but believe me when I say it was minimal to the plot of the story. Which is an oxymoron, as the story had no plot. But did have a funny ending (involving a fly)!!<br /><br />7- Uncle Bob: After meeting Uncle Bob, and Uncle bob's wife, we get a distinct feeling that the Dumbland gene-pool is very shallow. Uncle Bob is a sickly fellow (I shan't elaborate, lest I spoil it for you). Uncle Bob's wife definitely wears the pants in his family... and the father definitely ends up on the wrong side of her ample fist (and spends the rest of their visit cowering in a tree in the back yard).<br /><br />8- Ants: After the home gets infiltrated with ants, and a misbegotten attempt to bug-spray them goes awry... he ends up spraying himself in the face with the bug-spray and starts hallucinating. The ants put on a fabulous song and dance show... he goes berserk trying to kill them, winds up in a full body plaster... and lets just say, the ants get their vengeance in the end.<br /><br />As bad as these stories are, there is something that kept compelling me to watch them. They do give another insight into the mind of one of my favorite directors. David Lynch. Maybe they were an outlet for him, to get rid of some of his violent thoughts?? I did actually laugh out loud at many points within the episodes. Many aspects are absurdly funny!! | 1pos
|
This is a short, crudely animated series by David Lynch (as it says in the beginning), and it follows the misadventures of a backwoods, overall-wearing large man, with a wife who has a stress disorder and an annoying son. Both of those elements are harped upon repeatedly in the short episodes, and there's no real plot to be seen. It's easier if you think of this as an exceptionally odd, slightly macabre Looney Tunes- with far more gore, profanity, bloody violence, and occasional moments of hilarity.<br /><br />I bought the DVD along with Eraserhead, having previously seen Eraserhead. Don't look to this series if you want an artistic masterpiece- this is anything but. In fact, it seems to almost be a statement against such things, as its rough style spits in the face of any sort of animation convention you may see. As Lynch says, "If this is funny, it is only funny because we see the absurdity of it all." | 1pos
|
I consider myself a great admirer of David Lynch's works, for he provides the viewers with absolutely unique motion pictures with typical "Lynch-elements." Having seen most of his works, I naively thought I could predict Lynch's next step. I was dead wrong. Dumbland is something I could have never imagined under the name of David Lynch. Still, after my recovery from the first shock, I started to contemplate about this extremely primitive main character, and I drew the conclusion that all the absurdities, cruelty, brutality and disgust presented here are mirroring bits from reality, being emphasized by distorting it. There are things in our lives we hardly ever emphasize, for they are either disgusting or horrible, however, they are surrounding us, so I take the courage to say, Dumbland focuses on these bits and pieces. This is not a movie to enjoy, though you'll sometimes laugh out of a strange, perverted sense of humor, this is an animated reflection of all things we rather reject to observe, with its simplicity, morbidity and absurdity. Take it as it is, you don't have to like it. It just exists. And finally, if you're attentive enough, you'll find elements typical to Lynch as well. I recommend it for tolerant people!!! | 1pos
|
I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.<br /><br />the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.<br /><br />but again, that's the point ;)<br /><br />If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.<br /><br />It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying. | 1pos
|
Since September of last year, I have been borrowing four to six films each week from the Harold Washington Library, which boasts an impressive DVD collection. (The HWL truly is a circulating library: three-quarters of its films are out at any given time!) Recently, I was thrilled to find The Short Films of David Lynch. Yesterday, knowing little about the animated series, I picked up Dumbland. I'm here to report that, for David Lynch fans, watching the eight episodes is half an hour well-spent.<br /><br />The most remarkable feature of these brief pieces are their soundtracks. Each episode has its own rhythm. Respiratory and digestive systems provide percussion. Outrageous voices accent pauses' ends. Physical violence supplies the beats. Chirping birds and buzzing sockets brush along the edges. Many other elements fill out the orchestra. The pacing of the crude animation often keeps in sync with the sound, but the soundtrack itself struck me as Lynch's primary interest in creating and disseminating this work. In a way, these eight shorts are unique Lynchian rhythms.<br /><br />That said, the situations are odd, ugly, profound, dumb and funny as hell. And there's enough space within them to reflect on how absurd we humans can be. I can't say that I'll watch the collection again, but for anyone who revelled in the movements that is the suite Inland Empire, Dumbland is worth half an hour of your time. | 1pos
|
It is said that David Lynch's films and shorts won't appeal to everyone. Neither will Dumbland, maybe more than ever. I have a feeling that Dumbland, as people come across it, will be a true mark of 'I get it' or 'what the hell'. It's not surrealism exactly, but absurd to the point of no return. It's also very, very, very stupid. But in this stupidity can be a sort of ironic intelligence to it, that the maker knows so well how childish and repugnant this is, and this self-consciousness is a plus, not a detraction. <br /><br />It's just a bunch of crudely drawn shorts- the kind that might not even make it on Hertzfeldt and Judge's Animation show (which, I might add, Lynch here has a lot in common with both directors in their work- centered on a lummox with an IQ of 20 who has a constantly quivering-with-fear wife, and a child who looks like a cross between the gingerbread man and/or an alien. The episodes include little situations like a faulty treadmill, a salesman who can recite the Gettysburg address, watching over a sick brother in law, ant hallucinations, and just wallowing on the couch with noise all around. All the while, Lynch is still experimenting, as he was constantly for better or worse during the period of five years he made on and off Inland Empire.<br /><br />For one thing, he's going back to the roots of his very first short, Six Figures Getting Sick Six Times, in the usage of repetition as a means to an end. This sometimes works excruciatingly well, and sometimes not. Sometimes, like with the episode with the sitting around the house doing nothing as teeth are bleeding and a fly buzzes around, the absurdism sort of waxes and wanes without much of a good effect. And even an episode like with the guy's friend coming over is funny more-so for the Beavis & Butt-head comparison (both laugh like idiots, and are equally engrossed by killing things like fish and sheep). What ends up working is how Lynch shows up front delirious abstractions, in the crudest ways imaginable, and excessive violence. <br /><br />In what comes closest to surrealism in "ants", the guy mistakenly sprays bug-spray (just called "Kill", one of Lynch's very cheap but fun pokes at societal conventions) on himself, and envisions ants in a musical chorus line, solos included. And one of the most harrowingly funny things I've ever seen from the filmmaker is "get the stick", where we just see the guy, cheered on by his son, getting a stick lodged in his mouth. Soon the neck breaks, eyes pop out, and once said stick is removed he doesn't watch out for traffic waddling like a manhole cover. Other moments pop up like this in unexpected crevices, and it's drawn as if on cheap paper with an impetus to shock with foul-mouthed language (mostly from the man, as well as from the 'grandmother', who in one of Lynch's voices for the characters is the deepest of all), and a shaky quality that's reminiscent of the cream of the crop from (early) Hertzfeldt.<br /><br />All the same I'm still not sure if Dumbland is something I would put into someone's hands if they haven't seen much of Lynch yet let alone anything by him. There are some little points on society made via complete exaggerations that may or may not be in Lynch's mind closer than we usually think to those in real life. However in general there's not a whole lot that should be read into it, which is why I'd say more than half who see it will hate it with a passion. Those who dig the bottom-less pits of animated comedy, be prepared have a blast. | 1pos
|
Dumbland is not for all. In fact Dumbland maybe in for nobody except Lynch and that's what make it funny and a collective cartoon. Violent? Yes. Profanity? Yes. Absurd? Yes. A piece of garbage? Never. Dumbland is a wonderful picture of some Americans that don't have brains and hit wife and kids for fun. From México I can say I love it! My favorite episodes are: 1- My teeths are bleeding, all the noise around and violence make me wanna scream and put me behind my bed. 2- Get the stick! Yeah baby get it and learn a lesson: some people never be thankful for your actions. 3- Ants. The more Lynch episode of all, music, surrealism and a very sweet revenge... | 1pos
|
This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.<br /><br />Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland. | 1pos
|
I went to this movie expecting an artsy scary film. What I got was scare after scare. It's a horror film at it's core. It's not dull like other horror films where a haunted house just has ghosts and gore. This film doesn't even show you the majority of the deaths it shows the fear of the characters. I think one of the best things about the concept where it's not just the house thats haunted its whoever goes into the house. They become haunted no matter where they are. Office buildings, police stations, hotel rooms... etc. After reading some of the external reviews I am really surprised that critics didn't like this film. I am going to see it again this week and am excited about it.<br /><br />I gave this film 10 stars because it did what a horror film should. It scared the s**t out of me. | 1pos
|
Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to "see how deep the rabbit hole goes".<br /><br />Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.<br /><br />The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.<br /><br />Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning "rules" for the "monster". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.<br /><br />However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of "main characters" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.<br /><br />Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.<br /><br />I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a "here's what really happened" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.<br /><br />Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions. | 1pos
|
"The Grudge" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room. | 1pos
|
This is what I wrote to some friends earlier:<br /><br />HOLY CRAP, The Grudge is, honest to God, one of the scariest films I've ever seen! I am either getting very soft in my old age, or Sam Raimi and Ghost Pictures did a KICK A** job! (Can't wait for Boogeyman!)<br /><br />I was very scared sitting in the dark theater and wished I had someone, anyone, sitting next to me (except the protagonist in Grudge. I saw the movie by myself.) I swear, there were many many jump scenes that were NOT expected! I felt foolish but my nerves did not care! I was on edge the entire movie, from the opening credits, and the music was fantastically scary. I keep thinking of that sound, though, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!<br /><br />I actually gasped aloud a few times, and cried, "oh" at one scene!! Oh, yeah, I even half-covered my eyes a few times! Word to the wise, though: I thought some of the scenes were a little psychotic. My DH hated Event Horizon and thought whoever wrote it was sick and psycho, but I don't remember the movie so can't compare.<br /><br />I can't say I "enjoyed" this movie b/c I was terrified, but it was very very good and scary. The ending scene, too...whoa! For being a 32-year-old-mommy, I think I may have nightmares from this movie, especially because of that sound. Please get out of my head ;)<br /><br />In summary, this is not a slasher flick like I grew up with (Jason, Freddy). This is a most-of-the-time spooky movie. Perfect for Halloween.<br /><br />Two great trailers for this movie were Boogeyman and The Ring 2!! | 1pos
|
Massive multiple chills down the spine! I'm surprised there's people who didn't like it! I saw it at 10 o'clock in the morning and still got scared stiff! And I've seen hundreds of thrillers/horror movies! For crying out loud,I'm 22!!! I mean, OK, voice acting, not particularly good, probably even b-movie-ish. But the genuine look of terror, the sound effects, the flow! From the very start, hitting you again and again with relentless, unforgiving, terrorising scenes! So many clichés yet none fails to surprise/scare! You know it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, BOO! and you still jump off the chair. Grab a pillow and a blanket, call your closest friend over and do not watch it at night! Hats off to the Japanese! | 1pos
|
so, being a fairly deep fan of horror movies, it's been a while since i've seen one that really made me jump (or fidget nervously.)<br /><br />definitely going to get this on DVD when it comes out... a hell of a lot better than the ring. the thing that i don't get is that so many people that we talkd with after the movie thought that it was horrible, well, if that's what you think, then so be it... i know what i liked and it takes a fair amount to get me to actually feel scared, so i have to say that this one is worth watching.<br /><br />now, you might be disappointed in the story if you need everything in a neat and tidy line, because the plot goes back an forth a little bit to help build the story (i think that if it was shown in chronological order, it would have ruined the whole thing.)<br /><br />i'm actually glad that this movie had very little bloody messes in it... maybe the rest of you studio writers and whathaveyous will realize that you don't have to splash the red stuff all over the set to make people afraid. | 1pos
|
This was great. When I saw the Japanese version first, it was probably the scariest movie I had ever seen. It was not blood and guts, it was eerie, atmospheric and terrifying. When the mother ghost lent over the bed in the Japanese version, I nearly had a heart attack... I was concerned that the American version would be watered down, and that Buffy would take away from the dark creepy nuances of the original version. I needn't have been concerned. The makers of this movie wisely kept the same Japanese people who were involved with the original movie on hand, and gave the direction of the movie to the same man. They also set it in Japan in the same location, in the same house. In fact, the Japanese director took pains to remake the same movie as it was in the original, the only difference was the casting of American actors. That actually turned into a benefit as it added the element of "Strangers in a Strange Land" to the overall horror. Not only were they being haunted by an absolutely terrifying and relentless ghost, but they were also stuck in a completely foreign land, having difficulty integrating into society. It just added to the overall anxiety built into the movie and I thought it was an excellent touch.<br /><br />Buffy actually does a very good job. She looks vulnerable and is able to convey her fear well. There are none of the smart aleck remarks that are so common to American horror movies, or one liners that detract from the overall darkness and horror of the characters' situation. In fact, it was easily as good as The Ring which I also thoroughly enjoyed. I hope the future of American horror follows more closely the Japanese New Wave of horror started with the incredible success of Ringu. We are finally getting movies that actually can be categorized as "Horror"!! 8/10 | 1pos
|
I'm not sure I understand where all these enthusiastically anti-grudge people are talking about here, perhaps it's just that some people like to rant about things.<br /><br />The movie was certainly imperfect (uneven acting, some may have had difficulties with the time-changes, actors all too willing to go places I'd really rather not go, etc.) but IMHO there were some things that more than made up for the imperfections.<br /><br />First and foremost, I LOVED the 'breaking of the rules' bit. NORMALLY when you leave the haunted house the baddies leave you alone, giving you time to regroup, get friends, and find the token mysterious paranormal type. NORMALLY (semi-spoiler alert) when you're hiding under the covers they can only get you through that little opening you peek through. NORMALLY at the end the ghosts somehow have become less creepy because you've found out they're just misunderstood, or they've been freed, or whatever.<br /><br />Secondly, the production was exceptional. While the movie was hardly special-effects-laden the supernatural bits while brief were extremely well done.<br /><br />Probably not the best sort of movie for those who think Freddy and Jason are the ultimate sort of horror (nothing against 'em, they've got their place), but great for those who've begun to take the conventions for granted and who don't have trouble with the time distortions. | 1pos
|
I saw "The Grudge" yesterday, and wow... I was really scared, a good thing. I love horror-movies, and I really liked this one. There were so many 'surprise'-scenes (what's the English word?) that made you jump in your seat. Though, too much screaming from the audience made it difficult not to laugh. I think the most scary scene was... on the bus, when the face flashes by on the window, or when Yoko's walking without her chin. The make-up is also VERY good. Sometimes you could really see it was there, but it was still adding a freaky look to the scene. The boy was very good indeed, so cute without make-up and so terribly scary with it on. The next time I hear a cracking noise I will probably feel pretty scared... | 1pos
|
As I've noticed with a lot of IMDb comments, certain reviewers seem to demand that every film they see have smugly intelligent plots that wallow in there own cleverness. I am not one of those people. If I watch an action film, I want to see explosions, gunfire and heroics. If I watch a comedy, I want to have tears of laughter in my eyes. You get the idea. Therefore watching a horror film, I primarily want to be scared. The Grudge is a very scary film, in both it's well executed 'jump' scenes, and it's creepy imagery. I've been a horror film fan for many years, and I'm talking about the masters such as Dario Argento, rather than directors of some of the treadmill teen horror flicks that are churned out these days. If you want to be scared, watch this film. Way scarier than the original Japanese 'Ring' (which I also think is a great film). | 1pos
|
I wanted to see Sarah Buffy on the big screen, so I first bought tickets and then checked the reviews at IMDb. I worried about seeing a bad movie. Well, I had fun watching the movie. Some parts, which obviously were meant to be scary, were actually quite humoristic, almost as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.<br /><br />I don't consider this a bad movie. It's not a great movie either. Just a rather well made horror movie. It does not rely heavily on special effects, but on camera angles, acting, music. In my opinion, the acting was OK. Sarah did a very good job, quite convincing. The other actors were definitely not bad either, I liked Yoko.<br /><br />The sets are nice (and I don't care that the sets are the exact same ones that were used in the Japanese original).<br /><br />The scary moments were often predictable. But not always. I have seen quite some horror, and did not expect to be scared now, but it happened at least twice. Nice.<br /><br />The movie had some nice scenes that were almost original, like the trails of rubbish, the simple special effects for he ghosts, the eyes of the boy, the cat that made eery noises, the gurgling of the dead boy and his mother.<br /><br />Don't go if you want to see Sarah in another Buffy episode, because it is very different from her Buffy work, much more serious. Don't go if you only want to see movies that gather Oscar nominations. It's a good horror movie, enough suspense. I gave it a 7. | 1pos
|
Omigosh, this is seriously the scariest movie i have ever, ever seen. To say that i love horror movies would be an understatement, and i have seen heaps (considering the limited availability in New Zealand, that's quite a lot), but never before have i had to sleep with the light on...until i saw The Grudge.<br /><br />Some may say that it is a rip off of The Ring (both based on Japanese horror movies), both similar (yet different) story lines, but the Grudge holds its own as a terrifying movie - seeing at at the cinema, i even screamed at a certain point in the movie.<br /><br />The acting is great, particularly from the supporting characters - KaDee Strickland is fantastic and steals the show, she is such an enthusiastic person. Jason Behr is a real hottie, and William Mapother looks like he is having fun. However, while i am normally a fan of Clea DuVall's, she doesn't really seem into this movie. Of the supporting characters, hers probably got the most depth and back story, but she doesn't seem like she is all there. As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, well, she stays about the same through all her films and roles doesn't she? The ghosts were genuinely scary, the music and sound effects were chilling (particularly the noise being made when KaDee Strickland's character answered the phone in her apartment), the ending was cool too.<br /><br />Super highly recommended. 9/10 | 1pos
|
Haven't seen any of the Japanese Grudge-films, but I really enjoy this one. I rarely get SCARED when watching films. I can jump, if the effect and sound is startling enough, but getting scared from a movie is a rare thing for me. But I did get scared from Grudge. Maybe because I didn't expect anything at all when I watched it. I didn't expect getting scared. I didn't know anything about it either. That was probably a good thing.<br /><br />This is a film that you, apparently, either love or hate. Most people seem to compare it to the Japanese Grudge-films, but even though I haven't seen them, I believe it isn't right to compare any film, actually. This film stands on it its own.<br /><br />The story is weak, most people say. I don't agree. The story is minimalistic, and done so on purpose. The story-telling techniques used - the broken time frame for instance - is perfectly done. The director knows exactly what he's doing, and I believe he got his vision through as he wanted it.<br /><br />I gave this film 8 of 10. It is a film you will enjoy watching, or hate. It's as simple as that. | 1pos
|
Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.<br /><br />It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars! | 1pos
|
I was so excited to see this film because I had always heard it was very scary.<br /><br />What's interesting about it is that it is a Japanese film they decided to bring to America, but they actually filmed it IN japan with the original crew! I think this made the film... more Japanese (which is probably why it managed to be fairly successful unlike most Japan-to-America horror movie flops) but it also made it a bit inaccessible to American audiences. The difference in what scares the Japanese culture and what scares the American culture felt present throughout the film. This worked well in moments when they meant to capture the nervous fear of the main character: a frightened fish in a big, busy, unfamiliar, Tokyo pond.<br /><br />The storyline was quite confusing as well. In typical Japanese fashion it is extremely complicated and confusing. The beginning of the movie is actually the middle of the story and from there we move constantly forwards and backwards until, at the end of the film, we see the ending and beginning of the whole story. This constant flipping through time was very much confusing for me. Also, I didn't think some things were explained so well and I had to ask my friend to explain them to me (she had already seen it, as well as the sequel which apparently reveals more of the story).<br /><br />Overall, there IS plenty for American audiences to love, tons of freaky imagery and macabre details which a healthy splash of jump scenes. | 1pos
|
I have lately got into the habit of purchasing any interesting DVD that the Criterion company releases. I figure that even if I dislike the movie, Criterion usually supplies enough extra material to compensate for any shortcomings in the actual film. I read up on them, and I buy the ones which are the most interesting to me.<br /><br />Le Million is my latest purchase, and I must say that I was not disappointed in the film. It is cheery, funny, and romantic. Everything about it is quite excellent. The songs are wonderful. If I understood French, I would probably hum them and sing them all day long. The acting is very good for this kind of movie. American musicals of the classic Hollywood era relied more on song and dance than the actual characters and story, but in Le Million, the characters are rather well developed and the story, while not being anything extremely impressive, is not at all lacking. I loved the developments of the relationships, especially the relationship between the once best friends Michel and Prosper. The romantic moments are also very well developed. The direction is nearly perfect, with several very memorable moments. Probably the single most perfect scene of the film occurs right after the lead couple has an argument. They hide on the stage of an opera performance, and the opera singers sing lines which the couple, Michel and Beatrice, interpret to their own situation. This is definitely one of the high points in cinema history. The scene managed to make me laugh, to win me over with a very sweet romance, and make me smirk at just how clever the director was. I give this film a 9/10.<br /><br />P.S. - Some information for anyone who has the same faith in Criterion that I do and is planning to buy it. Amongst the Criterion discs I now own, Le Million contains the fewest features. All it has is a photo gallery (not all that useful; one might flip through it once) and a rare television interview with Rene Clair, the director. This piece is of some interest. He was one of the many directors who had started out in silent film, and when talkies were first appearing, he said that they represented the death of film. I think most film-savvy people understand what these directors meant when they said that, but it is interesting to hear him explain it. Also, if you have read the description of this movie on Amazon.com, please note that they were wrong in one important respect: not every line in the film is sung. In fact, it contains no more songs than a regular musical. It is actually a lot more like a Chaplin or Buster Keaton or Marx Brothers film. My criticisms of the disc are not that important. Heck, Criterion has the right to smack me around for making those complaints. The fact is, their people probably spent hundreds of hours fixing up a film which only 20 (now 21!) people have voted for on imdb, and only about a hundred people, if that, will ever see the film. Heck, if you look at the Criterion web site, Le Million is nowhere to be found. I have no clue why not. It's something they should really be proud of (of course, their web site is surprisingly horrible). They did a fine job on this film. Bravo! They deserve all the money I can stand to give them! | 1pos
|
This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!<br /><br />The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.<br /><br />The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.<br /><br />It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!<br /><br />René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.<br /><br />The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
In Le Million, Rene Clair, one of the cinema's great directors and great pioneers, created a gem of light comedy which for all its lightness is a groundbreaking and technically brilliant film which clearly influenced subsequent film-makers such as the Marx Brothers, Lubitsch, and Mamoulian. The plot, a witty story of a poor artist who wins a huge lottery jackpot but has to search frantically all over town for the missing ticket, is basically just a device to support a series of wonderfully witty comic scenes enacted in a dream world of the director's imagination.<br /><br />One of the most impressive things about this film is that, though it is set in the middle of Paris and includes nothing actually impossible, it achieves a sustained and involving fairy-tale/fantasy atmosphere, in which it seems quite natural that people sing as much as they talk, or that a tussle over a stolen jacket should take on the form of a football game. Another memorable element is that Le Million includes what may be the funniest opera ever put on film (O that blonde-braided soprano! "I laugh, ha! ha!") Also a delight is the casting: Clair has assembled a group of amazing, sharply different character actors, each of them illustrating with deadly satiric accuracy a bourgeois French "type," so that the film seems like a set of Daumier prints come to life.<br /><br />The hilarity takes a little while to get rolling, and I found the characters not as emotionally engaging as they can be even in a light comedy (as they are, for instance, in many Lubitsch films.) For these reasons I refrained from giving it the highest rating. But these minor cavils shouldn't distract from an enthusiastic recommendation.<br /><br />Should you see it? By all means. Highly recommended whether you want a classic and influential work of cinema or just a fun comedy. | 1pos
|
Rene Clair's groundbreaking musical. If you want to see where songs first drove a story this is the place. This is the story of a starving young artist who finds he's won the lottery just as his creditors come calling. Unfortunately his ticket is in his coat, which is in his girlfriends apartment and has been given to an on the run convict who then... oh but that would be telling.<br /><br />This is a light and frothy story where much of the dialog is sung (most people think this didn't happen until Oklahoma or Andrew Lloyd Webber). Its the sort of movie that they don't make any more, and rarely did when they did. Its sound a film from the early days that plays like a movie from five or six years later. Clair moves his camera around in ways that not even Busby Berkeley was doing (though to be honest comparing the two film makers is unfair since Berkeley was doing essentially stage bound dance numbers and Clair was moving the camera through "the real world"). Its an amazing little movie. and its a charming movie that will just make you smile. Its just a fluffy piece of enjoyment.<br /><br />I'm sorry I can't say more. Its just a nice little movie and thats really all you need to know. | 1pos
|
Made in 1931, this foreign film should be seen and enjoyed more often.<br /><br />We open on a quiet little French village, scanning the roofs of the sleeping citizens. Then we hear something that sounds like a party. Upon investigating the uproar, two neighboring men are told the story of two men, supposedly friends, who picked two numbers for the lottery.<br /><br />Our star of the picture has his number and his friend his. When he asks his friend, would he share half of the dough, should his ticket be the winning number, his friend promptly says no. In fact, H.E. double hockey sticks no! is the way he acts about it.<br /><br />So when our man discovers he has the winning ticket and that it has been lost, through no fault of his own, he is frantic. Everyone is out for themselves, looking for this ticket, in something like a precursor to "The Great Race." Even though this is all a flashback, I was in knots the whole time and got so upset over every little thing in this all-for-me show-me-the-money cash-in-the-bank film. Watch Le Million today! | 1pos
|
This is so exciting! After I saw "La Roue" this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect. | 1pos
|
If one would see a René Clair film with the kind of distracted semi-attention which is the rule in TV watching - one might be better off doing something different.<br /><br />Watching "Le Million" with all attention focused upon what takes place before eyes and ears will reveal a wealth of delightful details which keep this musical comedy going from the beginning to the end with its explosion of joy.<br /><br />In the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende a journalist once wrote: "In my younger days I saw a film which made me feel like dancing all the way home from the cinema. This film is on TV tonight - see it!" | 1pos
|
Had this movie been made just a few years later, I would have knocked down the score a point or two because the sound quality was rather poor. At times, the movie appeared to be a silent film during the in-between-scenes (normal ambient sounds are missing). But, given it was 1931 and a French movie, this is quite forgivable. Especially since this also occurs in later French films--by which time the sound difficulties should have been worked out completely (such as in L'Atalante from 1934).<br /><br />Okay, apart from some minor sound problems, this is a cute little film about a missing winning lottery ticket and a long list of people trying to get it. And, during the search there are lots of jaunty little songs that you can't help but like. A nice charming film all-in-all. | 1pos
|
A wonderful early musical film from Rene Clair, as fun and witty as his silent "The Italian Straw Hat". Using sound in a expressive way and not just for dialogue and effects, Clair influenced early musicals in America (the opera scene from A Night at the Opera is strongly influenced by Le Million, for example). Should (but won't) be seen by all cinephiles, and the DVD from Criterion is exactly as good as you'd expect. There's not a ton of extras, but most DVD extras I've seen are useless fluff, and the Clair interview on disc is one I hadn't ever seen. Get it while it's still around. | 1pos
|
To be fair, I expected car chases in this film. There was only really one, but apart from that, 'Freeway' was a great movie which I am glad to own on DVD. The only really big names in the cast are HOMICIDE's Richard Belzer as the radio psychiatrist and B-Movie villain par-excellance Billy Drago as the Revelation-quoting Freeway Killer. But the rest of the cast generally give good performances. I especially liked how Darlanne Fluegel gave her character, Sunny, a bit of guts. She could have been a helpless victim character but she is fully rounded as she seeks out Drago with the help of bounty hunter James Russo.<br /><br />Russo, I'm afraid, comes across as rather wooden, but then again, the character he plays, Frank, isn't very well fleshed out save for a back story Sunny is given by his former commanding officer. The tone of menace is kept up superbly throughout the film and the atmosphere of the lonely LA freeway at night with the killer prowling its' length in his sinister grey sedan is an excellent way of building tension, and the music used to underscore the film is suitably composed. I don't know why there are some people who hate this movie so. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. But I absolutely enjoyed 'Freeway' and I can strongly recommend it. | 1pos
|
I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.<br /><br />In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning. | 1pos
|
I didn't expect Val Kilmer to make a convincing John Holmes, but I found myself forgetting that it wasn't the porn legend himself. In fact, the entire cast turned in amazing performances in this vastly under-rated movie.<br /><br />As some have mentioned earlier, seek out the two-disc set and watch the "Wadd" documentary first; it will give you a lot of background on the story which will be helpful in appreciating the movie. <br /><br />Some people seem unhappy about the LAPD crime scene video being included on the DVD. There are a number of reasons that it might have been included, one of which is that John Holmes' trial for the murders was the first ever in the United States where such footage was used by the prosecution. If you don't want to see it, it's easy to avoid; it's clearly identified as "LAPD Crime Scene Footage" on the menu! | 1pos
|
John Holmes is so famous, he's infamous (as the Three Amigos would say). This is a Rashomon-like story about the events surrounding the Wonderland Murders of the early 1980's, in Los Angeles. The story is pieced together from the retelling of a few of the participants. There is story from the friend's perspective, namely David Lind (played by Dylan McDermott). He is a participant in the robbery assault at Eddie Nash's place (Eddie Nash is a infamous drug dealer - and is the suppose to be the same character Alfred Molina played in Boogie Nights) and is heavily into the drug scene. There is John Holmes' perspective (played by Val Kilmer), which makes him out to be a pawn stuck between two kings (with a severe case of cocaine cravings). There is also the patchwork recollections of John's wife (Sharon - played by Lisa Kudrow) and his girlfriend (Dawn - played by Kate Bosworth) that fill in the spaces between the two stories. It is basically the same time frame that we are looking at, just each character's version. The only thing that is missing is the perspective from the dead people. <br /><br />Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights portrays John Holmes as a slightly heroic character, with a tragic yet comedic karma. He is a caricature of a real person. He was more of less, a mixed up kid that got what he got through his "large" endowment. Director James Cox turns the comedy off and makes this episode in John's life into a nightmare for all of us watching. The details of the real life murders make this movie even more eerie.<br /><br />Val Kilmer took what he learned of Jim Morrison, from the Doors, enhanced the performance for the Salton Sea, and then further enhanced that to bring us the deterioration of John Holmes through cocaine. All of the actors pull off very realistic looking portrayal's of cocaine junkies. Josh Lucas' performance stands out as one of the best in the movie. He plays Ron Launius (I think this character is suppose to be the same as the Thomas Jane character from Boogie Nights). Ron was the leader of the gang, loved having John Holmes around as a novelty and had a cocaine craving like sharks enjoy blood. The cocaine use seems so realistic as to make one think. Did they really use Splenda ?? <br /><br />Where Boogie Nights has a bubblegum pop feel to it (lots of color and 70's nostalgia), Wonderland is dark. The action is fast and furious, with a lot of jumps. It is twitchy and grainy. There is no comedy, just a never ending pace, as if the director is trying to put us into the nervous, fast paced, edgy cocaine high to make us feel what the characters are feeling. This is a graphic movie. It has one of the most intensely violent scenes I have ever seen in a movie. It actually shows the murders themselves (through the eyes of John Holmes at first and then from a third person perspective). It is so graphic, it looks like police evidence of a crime. I had to pause after this scene and remind myself this was just a movie. This movie is definitely not recommended for everyone. I recommend it as a good alternative to Boogie Nights, for those interested in the other sides of John Holmes.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab | 1pos
|
I've read many negative reviews of this movie and finally got a chance to see it on DVD. To be honest I really don't know what the problem with it is.<br /><br />It's a decent murder mystery thriller, shown from various points of view, from an eccentric cast of often drugged out potential killers/suspects, including the late porn king, John Holmes. Please read the plot synopsis for the exact details of the movie's plot - I wish to contribute more to a review than a synopsis.<br /><br />Many reviewers went so far to give this movie their lowest rating due to violence but I really don't see it. MANY modern movies were worse - Saving Private Ryan was ultimately more violent than this movie, which often relies on implied blood stains than actual brutal slayings (the murders depicted in this film were done with lead pipes, afterall).<br /><br />I was enthralled with both halves of the movie - the first showing John Holmes as a hopeless cash hungry drug addict, and the second half showing his side as a minor conspirator in a senseless bloodbath. The movie has excellent acting, even though Dylan McDemorant looks more than a bit out of place in his biker-esque personia and goatee'ed bad boy personality.<br /><br />The soundtrack was also awesome - a fantastic mix of 70's B-side rock and obscure pop, spread out over a couple of hours in all the right places ala Boogie Nights. | 1pos
|
One of the most disturbing and tragic periods in American history began. The members of the Summer of Love culture, at the end of the seventies and onset of the 80's, were eventually tool old for love beads and all night parties and evolved back into mainstream life, whatever that meant. For those who could not out grow their youthful and sometimes irrational exuberance, their's was the culture of Wonderland. A love for drugs and a sense of entitlement coupled with a distaste for authority, values and "the establishment" is the world that the film captures. <br /><br />The sixties were a time of revolution and violent change that tore the American "house" apart. Once the battles were over, we all had to deal with the aftermath of the carnage. The characters in the Wonderland house are icons of the misfits of the Seventies; part biker, part hippie, part crook, all outcast. No ideology to express, just a sense of dissatisfaction with everything and allegiance to nothing. Ron, Billy and David fancy themselves as some sort of Robin Hoods with dope. They talk of love and behave violently; they take from the rich and sell to the misbegotten; they steal from everyone.<br /><br />Holmes and company are the end result of a strange collision of anti-matter like sex, and drugs and rock & roll, when the lab technicians get bored and move on. <br /><br />The film is skillfully directed and paced and captures the frenetic world of the drug fiends in their element. The fact that Holmes is a porn star is almost irrelevant. That story was told in "Boogie Nights". This is a story of a transitional and forgettable era. | 1pos
|
Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.<br /><br />Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.<br /><br />What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean. | 1pos
|
May 2004, Wonderland is fairly new in the UK. Brilliant film of a brutal true story. If you know LA from the early 80's, you will appreciate how well it is captured. The use of the elements which make up its gritty cinematic style is original, amplifying the experience and bringing the viewer very close to actually being there. The use of a disjointed 'Pulp Fiction' style time line allows exploration of the uncertainty concerning what really happened, while the direction and performances of the cast command attention, especially Val Kilmer as John Holmes; an Oscar for sure if I were handing them out. | 1pos
|
What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things and about a porn actor she fits in perfectly. | 1pos
|
Some films manage to survive almost on originality alone - "Wonderland" is certainly one of those films. The script manages to throw everything into a near-fever pitch, but without making it incoherent. The speed of this thriller is not to chosen to cover up a weak script, but rather to accurately reflect the drug-addled reality.<br /><br />As director, James Cox as a very peculiar way of working his actors. Most of the characters are perpetually on edge, and often because they're rather quite ugly personalities. Val Kilmer has described John Holmes to be a hustler, able to manipulate and control. No offense to Kilmer, but his version of Holmes seems only able to control the drastically weak-minded. Nonetheless, it's a stunning performance. Comparing this to Kilmer's more 'Hollywood' roles like in "The Saint" it seems to prove he is far more at home in gritty indie flicks.<br /><br />The actors are the main force holding all together. There are various little performances that stand out - especially the women. Carrie Fisher, Kate Bosworth, and Lisa Kudrow all have limited screen time next to their male counterparts, but they are all fantastic. Aside from Kilmer, Ted Levine and Dylan McDermott give a weird, stunning energy to their roles.<br /><br />I originally put off watching "Wonderland" because I assumed it was a film about a porn actor, in the strictest sense. Yes, the story revolves around John Holmes, but it has literally nothing to do with his professional career. Basically, this film is a murder mystery, and as such - it's excellent.<br /><br />RATING: 7.5 out of 10 | 1pos
|
Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing. | 1pos
|
The true story of a bunch of junkies robbing a not so honest businessman of drugs, jewelry, guns, and money. Some would say this is the tragic tale of America in the excessive eighties where the high of the peace and free love sixties had crashed into drugs and AIDS. Honestly, this is just regular people with no aim in life who sit around getting high and decide to rob a ruthless man. What is the second part of their master plan? Once they have his stuff...they'll sit around and get high again. Great plan. Even if you don't know the story, there is no suspense in this movie and no surprises. The fact that Cox tries to make some kind of folk heroes out of these characters, with party scenes and a montage of their loot, is weak and insulting. The story was better off with a more straight forward approach. As it is, this is just a sad story of small time drug dealers getting killed by big time drug dealers. The bigger story, in more ways than one, is John Holmes. He is the center of this story anyway. This movie should have been all about him, his life. He was the one in wonderland, with the wonders about to fade away.<br /><br />P.S. Although it isn't official, Boogie Nights is a better version of Holmes life. It isn't entirely factual, but it's far more enjoyable. | 1pos
|
This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.<br /><br />The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes. <br /><br />The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization. <br /><br />The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to "get lost". <br /><br />Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it. | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits