Change Your Image
elorasabine
Reviews
Deeply (2000)
Slow-paced, Old-fashioned Movie, Not a Must-See
One thing I really liked about this film was the old-fashioned story-telling feel it had. So many movies now-a-days are all about fast-paced roller coaster rides full of explosions and digital effects. This movie was the opposite of that.
This movie did not change my life. It wasn't a must-rent. Although I appreciated the non-Hollywoodness of this, the story and characters were not nearly as in-depth and thoughtful as they could have been. The kind of film that relies on story and character instead of bang and zoom demands a level of depth and insight that was not fully realized here.
This is all beside the point, but Kirsten Dunst's accent was terrible, and I laughed out loud when she smoked a pipe because it was obvious she had no idea how to even hold it properly.
Wicked (1998)
Predictable Plot, Undeveloped Characters
Predictable plot here. My husband & I guessed the ending half-way through the film.
There were many "huh?!" moments. For instance: When the heck did Lawson fall in love with the Julia Stiles character? I must have blinked and missed the entire development of that.
The characters competed with the plot for the "boring and predictable" prize. Julia Stiles did a pretty good job with the empty material she was given, but the other actors were not able to do much with their lame roles.
And the incest stuff . . . yuck!
The case to this DVD had some "If you enjoy this movie, you might want to check out" suggestions: The Babysitter, The Crush, etc.; ie, better-developed versions of this type of film. This movie had potential to be a crazy-girl-wreaks-havoc tour de force for Julia Stiles, as the other films were for Alicia Silverstone. It would have been really fun to see Julia Stiles chew the scenery and go on some major rampages.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
This Movie Was Not For Me
Say there is a painting in a gallery that is worth $1,000,000. Art critics, my friends, other people go on and on about how great this painting is. I am excited to go to the gallery and see it. I go, look at the painting, and am shocked that I don't see the triumph that others talk about. I see a grotesque thing. Are the people who think the painting is great wrong? Definitely not. Am I wrong for being in the minority of dissenters who wouldn't hang this painting in my house even if it was free? No.
I believe movies are both art and craft. All art has a different influence on and meaning for each individual who views it.
In short, I severely disliked Moulin Rouge. I will never view it again.
Am I uneducated, mislead, stupid, etc.? No, and neither are those many of you who loved this movie.
Do I need to consult source material (Orpheus or other literature recommended in previous reviews) and "educate" my ignorant self? No. Will consulting other material make me miraculously love this film? No. I don't think one needs to have studied "The Odyssey" to enjoy "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?".
I was on a date in an art museum once and my date hated a painting that was by my favorite artist (not Toulouse-Latrec :-)). I asked my date, was there at least something about the painting, anything at all, he liked? He came up with the brilliant answer: "Pretty colors."
On a similar note, there were two things I liked about this film. (1) The "Roxanne" number. I will never think of the song in the same way again. (2) Ewan McGregor. I've liked him in everything he has been in. He did a valiant job in this role.
Se7en (1995)
Flawed
I thought this was a decent movie. I did not think it was the great movie that many who left comments rave about. Here is why:
(some spoilers, nothing big/about the end:)
Why were city detectives handling this very serious case by themselves? Where was the FBI? Where were the psychologists and the profilers? At least, why weren't these detectives trained in how to deal with this killer on a psychological level and what kind of man they were looking for -- ie, what he would look like, the kind of place he would live, etc.? BASIC profiling skills.
Killers often return to the crime scene after the killing. The detectives could have caught this killer early in the film. But I guess there wouldn't have been much of a movie if they were educated enough to know what they were doing . . .
Read a few books on serial killers and you will know more than these two detectives did.
Serial killers are methodical and patient, as the Morgan Freeman character states. Therefore, it does not make sense that this killer who started this killing a YEAR before the detectives knew what he was up to would skip "wrath" entirely. Victim number #6 (I won't mention because I don't want to spoil it) did nothing wrong. The killer goes on in the back-of-the-car scene that his victims weren't innocent --- blah blah blah -- but what about #6!! #6 was innocent.
What did Morgan Freeman learn from all his reading and study at the library? It did not help him at all with catching this guy or stopping his killing.
When Brad Pitt saw that the killer had taken a picture of him (Brad Pitt), why didn't he worry that the guy might be interested in him or his life?
Morgan Freeman found the killer through that list of the people who checked out relevant library books. Why couldn't the killer have sat in the library and read the books? What if the killer BOUGHT the books at a store? He was independently wealthy, why did he need to check books out for two weeks when he could own them permanently? Bought them with some of that stash of cash he had under his bed. No records left behind. No trail. He went through the trouble to cut off his fingertips, but didn't go to a bookstore?
The biggest disappointment for me was waiting through the whole film to see the detectives do something wise or brilliant or meaningful or assertive to get this case solved and have the killer fall right into their laps. The killer was dynamic. The detectives were limp noodles.