Reviews

I'm typically not a big fan of Wolfgang Petersen's films, but I like Das Boot a lot. Very harrowing, tough, uncompromising war film, not Hollywood-like at all. It doesn't feel like there's any guarantee that anyone will survive. I don't think the film would work at all remade as a slick CGI-fest, like Petersen makes these days. Despite the near four hour length of the director's cut, the film never drags, and sets up a relentless pace and a very uncomfortable, queasy feeling right from the start. I thought the camerawork by frequent Paul Verhoeven DP Jost Vacano was good, as were all of the performances, and the score by Klaus Doldinger. I don't think it's possible to make naval war look less fun than Das Boot does.

I was really surprised at how much I ended up liking this movie, I watched it recently, and my mindset going into it was was "well, it'll be well-photographed and have the usual interesting Kubrick thematics, but it'll probably feel kinda long, and you probably won't have a big urge to rewatch it anytime soon, sort of like Eyes Wide Shut". Thankfully, I was wrong, I wouldn't call the 18th century costume drama my favorite type of film, but I found this one to be very absorbing. Even though it's a bit over three hours long, it never feels "slow" or "boring", there's a lot that goes on in it. Like all Kubrick films, there's a lot of different layers to it, and you probably have to watch it more than once to get everything out of it. The famous duel scene toward the end of the film is one of the best I've ever seen, right up there with the climax of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (even though they couldn't be much more different). The more ominous "duel version" of the film's main theme that starts before the actual duel and goes on for what feels like about 20 minutes (I didn't time it) works almost like the audio equivalent of Chinese water torture and helps to bring the tension to a nearly unbearable level. A great film, worth the investment of three hours.

For me, Paul Verhoeven is a somewhat hit-and-miss director, he can make a good film when not saddled with a hack writer like Joe Eszterhas, but I would have to put this film into the "miss" category. While not an all-out debacle like Showgirls, he's done better work. The transformation scenes are pretty cool, I think this may be one of those movies that has one or two really cool scenes that you wish belonged to a better movie. The concept of the movie is a somewhat interesting one, but the script is too full of holes for it to work. The science fiction aspect of the movie is pretty flimsy, and it has none of the element of satire that made Robocop and Starship Troopers work. It degenerates into a bad slasher movie/Alien clone in the second half. I never knew cutting-edge researchers could be such idiots! "He's our good friend! He certainly wouldn't take advantage of his invisibility to conduct a phantom reign of invisible terror! Not remotely possible!" I don't see why Ed Neumeier couldn't have been brought in for the script, I was really hoping for a "ED-209 moment" (a scene where a new weapon/piece of technology malfunctions and kills someone gruesomely) in this movie, but was disappointed. Jerry Goldsmith's score is rather forgettable, he's another person involved with the film who's done much better work. Better luck next time Paul.

I went into this film with somewhat low expectations, but hey, it's John Woo, I would probably go to a sequal to a movie based on a Saturday Night Live sketch if he was the director. It was kind of what I was afraid a neutered PG-13 John Woo movie would be like. Face/Off gave me hope that a good compromise could be reached between mainstream Hollywood action filmmaking, and John Woo's peculiar brand of "heroic bloodshed" cinema. You can occasionally see a little bit of the John Woo we know and love trying to get out, but mainly this is a showcase for Tom Cruise's ego. You get the feeling that the producers were keeping Woo on a short leash. There were sequences in the movie where I thought to myself "I know this is supposed to be an exciting sequence, but I'm just not excited". Good actors like Anthony Hopkins and Ving Rhames are given fairly useless roles where they have nothing to do. Robert Townes' cheesy script makes me think Chinatown being good was due more to Roman Polanski than him. A far cry from Woo's classic HK films like A Better Tomorrow I&II, The Killer, A Bullet in the Head, and Hard-Boiled.

This film was certainly a breath of fresh air after so much recent miserable horror fare. It really has more in common with Roman Polanski's films such as Frantic, Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown or The Fearless Vampire Killers than with "religious" horror films such as End of Days or Stigmata, it also has more of a tongue-in-cheek tone. The film has the feeling of a good film noir or Hitchcockian thriller that just happens to have a book to summon the devil as it's mcguffin. Good performances all around, particularly from Johnny Depp and Frank Langella, excellent photography by the great Darius Khondji, and a good musical score by Wojciech Kilar. As much as I liked it, I'm not surprised it took a beating from most critics and wasn't a runaway hit, it will probably appeal much more to those familiar with the names Dario Argento, Lucio Fulci, Mario Bava (and Roman Polanski, of course).

I don't really understand why so many Argento fans dislike this film, I think it's one of his best works. It's not always easy to watch, it has some very nasty violence, even for an Argento film, I wouldn't recommend the film to sensitive persons; but it's not for exploitational purposes. Argento does a good job of juggling real-life horrors with a dreamy, hallucinatory atmosphere, and pulls off some typically Argento-esque setpieces, such as the one in which a bullet is followed through a woman's mouth with the aid of CGI. The great Ennio Morricone delivers possibly his best score for a horror film, the haunting main theme with his trademark wordless female vocals stayed with me long after the film was over. Frequent Fellini cameraman Giuseppe Rotunno does an excellent job on the film too.

The Stendhal Syndrome isn't for everyone, but it's worth a viewing for fans of European horror and psychological thrillers in general.

I could go on about how amazing and groundbreaking this film is, but you've probably already heard it before. That having been said, it is an amazing film. It has some of the best animation I've ever seen, it has a very realistic look and feel, while having a distinctly animated style, if that makes any sense. Despite being almost 12 years old, it still looks very fresh. The film has some very impressive action setpieces, like the opening battle between biker gangs, famous among anime fans. Anyone who's a fan of 80's style "body-horror" films is sure to like this one.

One thing the film is notable for is direction by the creator of the comic that it's based on (Katsuhiro Otomo), which is pretty rare. Sure, it's not uncommon for a comic's creator to be involved with the film version, like co-writing the script or producing, but for the original creator to have this level of control over the film version is unusual. Just imagine if Frank Miller wrote and directed a Sin City film. The only other example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Hayao Miyazaki's film of his manga Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind.

On top of all that is the excellent musical score composed by Shoji Yamashiro and performed by the group Genioh Yamashirogumi. The score ranges from both dynamic pieces for the action scenes to very spooky, otherworldly music. Vocals (including Buddhist chanting), instruments, and synthesized sounds are combined perfectly. Unfortunately, this is the only film project Genioh Yamashirogumi has done.

If you can, watch the subtitled version of the film (of course, that's true for most non-English films, but particularly advisable for this one). The Japanese voice actors do a much more professional, less "cartoony" job than the American actors. You also have to take into consideration that the actors' performances were recorded before the animation was produced, to better match up the voices to the characters' lip and facial movements. Needless to say, this effect is ruined by the English dubbing. Not only that, I really prefer the translation of the subtitles to Carl Macek's "adapted" script. After having seen the subtitled version, I find the dubbed version painful to watch.

For all the fancy visuals, the plot isn't bad either, despite suffering a little from being condensed from a fairly lengthy manga series. I've seen few other films to present a near-apocalyptic world so compellingly (George Romero's Dawn of the Dead comes to mind). It also has a healthy dose of satire mixed in, which is appreciated. The scene with the council meeting around a circular table evokes the War Room in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Many other reviews have made comparisons between Akira and 2001: A Space Odyssey, with it's mystical ambiguous ending.

It may not be the "ne plus ultra" of anime that some people have described it as, but I would still say it's indispensable for anyone interested in science fiction or animation.

This film is a prime example of the "Giallo" films made in Italy in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (and the 90s, to some extent). Director Dario Argento creates a suspense film worthy of Mario Bava or Alfred Hitchcock, taking cues from Bava's Blood and Black Lace (aka Six Women for the Murderer) and Hitchcock's Psycho. Argento's films always have a great visual style, and this one is no exception. Despite having no supernatural elements like Argento's next film Suspiria, the film has a very eerie atmosphere, and there are some geniunely frightening scenes and interestingly staged murders. The identity of the murderer also came as a suprise too. The film also has a bit of an off-kilter sense of black humor, which is always enjoyable.

The way to be a good director is to surround yourself with talented people, which Argento certainly did on this film. Fellini's writing partner Bernardo Zapponi co-wrote the script with Argento, Luigi Kuvelier was the cinematographer, Franco Fraticelli, the editor of most of Argento's films, was the editor. The "art-rock" group Goblin, which was "discovered" by Argento, turns in a great score for their first film project. Their score is quite a contrast to the atmospheric Ennio Morricone scores for Argento's first three giallos, but it works well.

If possible, only watch the letterboxed, uncut version of the film.

Of course, this isn't a Coen brothers film, but it does have a strong connection to their films with Ethan Coen contributing to the script (but not producing) and with the Coen's storyboard artist J. Todd Anderson directing and also co-writing. As to be expected, it's not as good as a full Coen brothers effort, but worth a look for anyone who is a fan of the Coens (as I am).

That said, it's not a great movie. It does have a pretty funny central concept, but to me, it never seemed to completely get off the ground. J. Todd Anderson directs the film in a similar style to Joel Coen, but he isn't near as good as writing funny dialog. There is some stuff here that people with a weird sense of humor (like me) will appreciate, but mostly the film is meandering and pointless.

Definately not on the same level as the Coen brothers' classics, but worth seeing for anyone who likes the Coens, or weird comedies in general.

Like all anthology films, some of the segments are better than others, but there are enough good ones to make this film worthwhile for animation fans.

The framing sequence which opens and closes the film is nicely animated, certainly one of the most original ways I've seen for a film to present it's title. The great Katsuhiro Otomo (Akira) contributed to this sequence, you can really see his touch. Two of the segments, "Starlight Angel" and "Deprive" are pretty typical sci-fi action anime, albeit nicely animated. A lot of anime fans complain about the "Cloud" segment, I find it kind of interesting, like a piece of animated art. My favorite segment in the film is probably a tie between "A Tale of Two Robots, Chapter 3: Foreign Invasion", which made me think a little of Wild Wild West (a lot better, of course), and "Nitemare".

I think having all but two of the film's 8 segments (I'm counting the opening and closing as one segment) dialog-free was an interesting choice, it allows the viewer to concentrate on the images, and precludes needless exposition. I really liked Aeon Flux a lot better before it became a regular series and added dialog. Of course, it also makes an English-dubbed version of the film more tolerable.

Some of the music for this film is by the great composer Joe Hisashi, the regular composer for both Hayao Miyazaki and Takeshi Kitano. I think the opening and closing themes are by Hisashi, as well as the music for the "Presence" segment.

This is one of the first anime films I saw when I knew or cared it was anime, I think it's a really good introduction to the genre. Also a worthwhile film for anyone interested in animation in general.

This is one of those movies that anyone who likes movies owes it to themself to watch (even if they hate cartoons). It's been awhile since I've had near this much fun watching a movie, it has a real James Bond/Diabolik/Indiana Jones/Jackie Chan kind of thing going on. Of course, this is a film by Hayao Miyazaki, who couldn't make a bad film if he tried. The animation may seem a little "old" to those spoiled by slick 90's animation, but I think this is a really well-animated film, it has a sense of realism and live-action while at the same time doing some things that would be impossible (or unbelievably dangerous) to do in a live-action film. The music is good too, despite not being done by Joe Hisashi.

The film does expect you to be somewhat familiar with the characters going into it, which some might complain about, but you have to remember that this is part of a fairly long-running series. I did see another, more recently made, film in the Lupin III series before seeing Castle of Cagliostro, so I did have some idea of the characters. I think a good sequal shouldn't waste time re-introducing characters we already know.

This is a terrific film, one I would love to see a good DVD of. I really hope the attention given to Miyazaki's film Princess Mononoke causes people to check out some of his earlier work, like this film.

I rented this film because I'm a fan of HP Lovecraft's writing, and two of the directors have done things I liked (I enjoy several of the films either produced or directed by Brian Yuzna, I loved Shusuke Kaneko's 1995 Gamera film, I've yet to see anything by Christophe Gans), I found it to be rather disappointing. Despite some interesting special effects (by Tom Savini and Screaming Mad George, among others), I had a hard time maintaining interest. The second and third segments of the film are nothing like the Lovecraft stories they're supposed to be based on (Gans' segment isn't based on a particular story, but the Cthulu cycle as a whole). The final segment of the film, directed by Brian Yuzna, is probably the best. The framing segments with Jeffrey Combs as Lovecraft were kind of amusing, but overall, I'd only recommend this film to hardcore fans of Yuzna, Gans, or Kaneko.

It's too bad the studio thought it necessary to add mediocre songs (I dislike the American rule that all animated films must be musicals) and an annoying voice-over to a mute character, this is really one of the most visually interesting American animated films I've seen. As others have pointed out, the look of the film owes a debt to MC Escher. The film often has a more abstract than realistic look, which I find interesting. In places, it makes me think a little of French animation I've seen.

I found the Jonathan Winters voice-over for the thief to be rather annoying and distracting, as the thief was intended to be a silent Wile E. Coyote-type character, and I think he would've been funnier if he had remained silent. The songs are pretty forgettable too. If you can get past this studio tampering, you'll find a very interesting and unusual animated film. The film is also noteworthy for being a widescreen cartoon, which you don't see made very often these days. Of course, this means a good deal of the picture is lost on video. I know there's probably not the biggest demand for it, but I'd be interested in a DVD release of this film so it could be seen as it was intended.

Simply brilliant. The funniest and best tv show of any kind that has ever been or ever will be. I've been watching the show since the Christmas special in 1989, and have since watched every episode several times. The Japanese "Mr. Sparkle" commercial in the episode "In Marge We Trust" is a riot.

I've read that this film was originally conceived as a live-action feature, but was changed to animation after the Osaka earthquake of 1994. Whether this was a change for the better is debatable, but I think making it an animation was an interesting decision. Some might see it as a gimmick. The psychological thriller isn't a genre one normally associates with animation, even those familiar with Japanese animation, but I think it works well here.

The film is a rather interesting combination of a Brian DePalma or Dario Argento-style thriller (this film makes me think a lof of DePalma's Body Double and Argento's Terror at the Opera) set in the context of Japanese pop culture with its anime, "pink" videos, and Idol singers (In the English dub I watched, I did get a little tired of hearing the characters say "pop idol" all the time, it sounded like they were saying "Popeye").

The animation and artwork certainly aren't bad, definitely a step up from most stuff you see on tv, but for a film made in the post-Akira, post-Ghost in the Shell era (and with Akira's writer/director/character designer Katsuhiro Otomo on board as a special supervisior,as trumpeted loudly on the video box), it's a bit uneven. If it weren't for a WWW page being an important plot element, and the references to 90's films such as Silence of the Lambs and Basic Instinct (and tv series such as Zyuranger, best known in the US in it's butchered form known as Mighy Morphin Power Rangers), this film could pass for being made in the mid to late 80s. Interesting how Akira, made almost ten years before this film, has better animation quality (and has yet to be surpassed, in my opinion).

Director Satoshi Kon (who also assisted with the character designs) manages to inject a fair amount of style into the film. The murder setpieces are very well staged, almost as good as in a Dario Argento film. In the second half of the film, it enters the realm of the surreal, and we're led to wonder what's real and what's not, reflecting the confusion of the lead character. Without giving too much away, the ending is open to interpretation too.

If you want to see some more Japanese thrillers with similar themes (in live-action, though), two films I recommend are Sogo Ishii's Angel Dust (lead actress Kaho Minami received special thanks in the credits of Perfect Blue) and Toshiharu Ikeda's Evil Dead Trap.

I can't think of many 90's films that will be remembered as classics of the horror genre, this film is an exception.

When you think of Mexican horror, you no doubt think of the El Santo Vs. the Aztec Mummy type films made in the 60s, don't get me wrong, I like them too. In interviews, director Guillermo Del Toro has said that his influences come more from American and British horror (such as the classic Universal and Hammer horror films) than from Mexico's horror tradition. Still, the film does have a distinctly Mexican sensibility, especially with it's abundance of Catholic imagery.

First time director Del Toro, cinematographer Guillermo Navarro (who would go on to do great work for Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, among oth ers), and production designer Tolita Figuero create a very unique, interesting look for the film.

All of the actors are great, especially veteran Argentinian actor Federico Luppi, who plays the main character Jesus Gris, and Luis Bunuel's favorite Mexican actor Claudio Brook, who plays Dieter De La Guardia. What really makes the film for me is it's quirky sense of humor and odd characterizations, I found scenes toward the middle of the film to be hilarious. The effective, subtle, score by Javier Alvarez also adds to the mood of the film.

The film also manages to be a very different kind of vampire story than usual, It makes me think a little bit of the "Wurdulak" segment of the great Mario Bava's film Black Sabbath. Vampire films of late have become very tiresome, it's nice to see someone take a different approach.

I think Guillermo Del Toro is a talent to watch for.

Of course, comparison between this film and the superior (my opinion) Antz is inevitable, but I think other than the fact that they're computer animated and have to do with ants, they have very little in common. They're completely different stories, if Antz is Metropolis, this film is The Seven Samurai (or The Magnificent Seven if you prefer). Not to say this film is a Seven Samurai remake, other than the concept of a besiged village hiring warriors, it really doesn't have anything in common with Kurosawa's film.

I really did like the fact that Antz was PG, and had an "edge" to it, I'm really glad that people are starting to see that animation need not be just for kids, in Europe and Japan, this is not a new idea. A Bug's Life is much more of a kid's film by comparison, but that didn't keep me from liking it. I do have some complaints though, I didn't find Flik (voiced by Dave Foley) to be a very strong lead character, I thought Woody Allen's Z was a much better lead. Another thing I didn't like was the character designs, much too "cute". Why are the ants blue? I have never seen a blue ant, or a four-legged one (actually, these are more two-armed, two-legged). The world of Antz had a real sense of danger to it, that I think was only hinted at in this film.

Technically, the film is flawless, I think the quality of the animation is one area where Antz and this film may tie. The animation in this film is very good, some of the characters almost look more like very smooth claymation than CGI. I think computer animation really does it's job when you don't think about it coming from a computer, and I had moments of that feeling watching this film. As to be expected from a digital-to-digital transfer, the DVD looks beautiful. The two sets of "outtakes" during the end credits are pretty clever, if you watch the film for the first time on DVD, watch the movie before you watch they outtakes, they're funnier that way. The short "Geri's Game" that precedes the film is a real gem, too (I enjoyed Geri's cameo appearance in Toy Story II).

This film is definately worth seeing if you're a fan of computer animation, but don't expect Antz, I really wish the two films had been released further apart. Also, if you like insect movies, also check out the French documentary Microcosmos.

I think this film really stands out from your usual nature documentary. Some people complain about the lack of narration, but I really like that the film is (mostly) unnarrated. I like that we're just presented with the images, to me, an explanation of what's going on would take away from the awe I had watching this film. The cinematography is nothing short of amazing, I wonder what kind of lenses they used. The insects in the film almost look like aliens or monsters at this level of magnification, far from the cute characters in Disney/Pixar's A Bug's Life. Some of the scenes in this film are no doubt going to be burned into my mind, like the oddly beautiful snail lovemaking scene and the Godzilla-like peasant attack on an anthill.

If you liked this film, there's another French nature documentary worth checking out, Luc Besson's aquatic documentary Atlantis, with music by Eric Serra (as always) and no narration. Unfortunately, this film is rather rare in the US, and I've yet to find a copy, but I'm looking.

I'm a little tempted to call Shinya Tsukamoto the Robert Rodriguez of Japan, with his "do it yourself" philosophy of filmmaking and abilty to work on a low budget, but his sensibilty is really much closer to David Cronenberg or David Lynch (I know, I'm far from the first person to make this comparison).

Considering what Tsukamoto must have had to work with, this is an amazing film. Tsukamoto wrings maximum effect out of his gritty black and white photography and dime-store special effects. This is one of the most hyperkinetic films I've ever seen, the spots where it lets up are few and far between. It's only about an hour long, but it sure packs a lot into that hour.

The film really creates the feeling of a hyperviolent Japanese comic book gone berzerk, some bizarre things happen in this film, like the scene where the salaryman's penis turns into a drill, that never fails to get mentioned when this film gets written about. This film is a must-see for aficianadoes of stop-motion animation, it goes almost non-stop throughout this film, like writhing metal spaghetti. It also has a lot of that effect where actors are the subject being animated, like in Mike Jittlov's film The Wizard of Speed and Time.

I think this film is really a must see for anyone interested in "cult" or "underground" film. Also worth seeing (but not as good) are Tsukamoto's next couple of films Hiruko The Goblin, and Tetsuo II: Body Hammer. Tsukamoto may have surpassed this film with his masterpiece Tokyo Fist though. Also worth checking out are the short films A Phantom of Regular Size, which Tetsuo is based on (I've yet to find a copy of this film), and The Adventure of Denchu Kozo, which displays a more playful, funny side of Tsukamoto.

Similar to Alien: Resurrection, I think this film is a case of a mundane script being saved by a director with a great visual sense. That director is Mexico's Guillermo Del Toro, writer/director of the very impressive 1992 debut film Cronos. Del Toro's influences come more from the British Hammer horror films and European horror directors such as Dario Argento more than from Mexican horror films, such as those starring El Santo. I've read that Del Toro is slated to direct a film adaptation of Katsuhiro Otomo's manga Domu: A Child's Dream, I'm very interested to see how that turns out.

Anyone who saw Cronos will recognize a lot of Del Toro's style, and his apparent fascination with insects; but I think a lot of what made Cronos work so well is missing here: it's quirky sense of humor. Aside from a few interesting ideas, very good creature designs from master special effects artist Rob Bottin (who's previously worked with Joe Dante, John Carpenter, and Paul Verhoeven, among others), and some good cinematography, this is your basic Alien rip-off, saved from mediocrity by some very good visuals. Most of the cast is pretty good, although I think I would've cast someone other than Mira Sorvino. I enjoyed seeing Giancarlo Gianinni in the film.

An interesting side note, Robert Rodriguez (another member of the new-wave of Mexican filmmakers, Mexican-American actually) served as one of the second unit directors, under the name J.J. Authors.

1997 was a really good year if you wanted to see sci-fi movies by non-American directors (the directors of this film and The Fifth Element are French, the director of Starship Troopers is Dutch (but lives in the US), the director of Mimic is Mexican). It's interesting to see the sensibility brought to the films by these directors. I think it's really interesting to see the style of Jean Pierre Jeunet, director (with Marc Caro) of Delicatessen and City of Lost Children, both visual wonders and among the best films of the 90s (up against some stiff competition); applied to an Alien film. I think it's interesting how all the Alien films have different directors, and the series is kind of like that game children play where one writes the beginning of a story, and another writes the next part, and so on. Of course, a lot of series fans don't like this, and were upset by the unfairly maligned Alien 3 after the slam-bang actioner Aliens.

In a lesser director's hands, Alien: Resurrection would probably be the worst of the Alien films to date. The rather hackneyed script by Joss Whedon doesn't help anything. What saves the film is the remarkable visual style of Jean Pierre-Jeunet, along with the photography of Darius Khondji, one of the best cinematographers working today. Some of the action scenes are good too, like the long underwater sequence (I think underwater scenes are a Jeunet and Caro trademark). John Frizell's score is serviceable, but far from the eerie Jerry Goldsmith score for the original film by Ridley Scott. I would've liked it if Angelo Badalamenti had been retained from City of Lost Children.

I think the film has a very French, avant-garde style to it, much like HR Giger's designs (Giger is Swiss, I know); and has has a similar Gothic feeling to David Fincher's Alien 3. The script and some of the performances (like those of Dan Hedaya and Brad Dourif [not that I don't like them]) lend the film a slight tone of camp, which feels a little incongrous with Jeunet's direction. Sigourney Weaver is good as usual, and I enjoyed seeing Dominique Pinion, from Delicatessen and City of Lost Children (his line "who were you expecting, Santa Claus?" is from City, although it was Miette who said it, not him); I probably would've cast someone other than Winona Ryder in the role of Call, though. Even though this is the first Alien film with a European director, the series has had a European connection from the first film, with Giger's designs, and much of the first half of the film being inspired by Mario Bava's Planet of the Vampires. I think if Dario Argento directed an Alien film (that would go against the pattern of the Alien films being helmed by fairly new directors), it might be a little like this one.

Another complaint I have is that the screenwriter doesn't really explore the possibilities of the technology that must have developed during the 200 years between Alien 3 and this film. I know it makes for an interesting horror film concept, but why did they have to kidnap people in hypersleep to infect with the aliens? You'd think they'd be able to clone humans by then or do something else.

I think Jeunet was a really interesting choice of director for this film. I nominate the Wachowski brothers to direct Alien 5 (with Bill Pope as DP, of course). This film certainly isn't as good as Ridley Scott's classic Alien, but still a worthwhile entry into the series.

I have a hard time expressing in words how much I love this film. The genre of the film is kind of hard to pin town, it's part comedy, part surrealist film, part love story, and part horror story; it's a really unique film that succeeds on all those levels. Dominique Pinion gives a great performance, to me, he looks kind of like a cross between Robin Williams and Klaus Kinski. Watch for an appearance by Jess Franco's favorite actor Howard Vernon as the "frog man". I really like the sequence toward the beginning with several people in the apartment doing different things simultaneously, and all the things they're doing climax at the same time, it kind of reminds me of the sequence in The Fifth Element with the jet preparing to take off. Who else but Jeunet and Caro could get away with making attempted (but constantly thwarted) suicide a running gag?

The cinematography by Darius Khondji is some of the best I've ever seen, the film has a beautiful sepia-toned look to it. Khondji would go on to do great work on David Fincher's Se7en, City of Lost Children and Alien Resurrection (both also from the Jeunet and Caro team, with Jeunet as the sole director on the latter), and other films. One of the great films of the 90s, I can't reccomend it highly enough.

This isn't the best film of Luc Besson, but if you watch it in the right frame of mind, it's not as bad as everyone says, and certainly worth a viewing. Try not to think of it so much as a Joan of Arc film, but as kind of The Fifth Element or La Femme Nikita with a medieval setting (I know that sounds strange, but it's the best analogy I can think of). By watching Luc Besson's previous films, I can see why he would be interested in Joan of Arc's story. I'm surprised (and to an extent, glad) that the people in charge let Besson make this film, I would've though they would want a "safer" director.

Some parts of the film are downright cheesy, like Joan's visions and the use of modern slang, but if you decide not to take it too seriously, you'll enjoy it a lot more. A lot of the battle scenes have very over-the-top cartoonish quality, almost like something you'd expect from Sam Raimi or someone like that that, and I enjoyed that. I was a bit worried when I first heard Milla Jovovich was playing the main role, but she does a better job with it than I expected. John Malkovich struck me as a rather odd choice for the Dauphin of France, who I believe was supposed to be in his 20s. Watch for Tcheky Karyo from Besson's previous La Femme Nikita in a small role.

This film is flawed to be sure, but if you watch it in the right frame of mind, it's a piece of good, cheesy entertainment. Not as good as Luc Besson's classics of the past, but it will still be of interest to anyone interested his films. I'll probably get the DVD when it's released.

One thing I've learned is that video games rarely, if ever, make good movies. This one is no exception. There's a reason for this, what it takes to make a good video game and what it takes to make a good film are entirely different things.

Despite the presence of some actors I like (Tcheky Karyo [La Femme Nikita], Jurgen Pronchow [Das Boot], David Warner [Time Bandits, Hugh Quarshie [The Church]), good cinematography by Luc Besson's regular DP Thierry Arbogast, and the fact that Saffron Burrows wasn't hard to look at; I had a hard time maintaining interest. I'm not a big stickler for scientific accuracy in sci-fi movies, but this one has so many screw-ups that it's just insulting to the audience. SOUND DOES NOT TRAVEL THROUGH A VACUUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe this film was intended as a spoof, but I kind of doubt it. I think just had a lazy screenwriter. One thing this film is noteworthy for is a pre-Matrix use of that effect where the camera revolves around something frozen in mid-air that you see in commercials all the time now, which I guess is cool, but in no way saves the film. Do yourself a big favor, and stick to the games.

I guess I'm required by international law to immediately state how let down I was by this film, and to some large extent, I was, but there were things about it I liked. I think a problem with this film is that it had some great individual parts, but they never came together as a whole. I also got the feeling the film was just focused-grouped and test-marketed to death, in a vain attempt to be all things to all people. In the back of my mind, I could never shake the thought that the main purpose of this film was to sell toys. I would enjoy the Star Wars films a lot more if it wasn't so big of a franchise. I found Luc Besson's film The Fifth Element to be a more satisfying and honest sci-fi adventure, and I like the fact that it will most likely be sequal-less. I also liked the fact that it took itself much less seriously, and didn't have the weight of an entire franchise on it's shoulders, which I think was a major problem with The Phantom Menace.

I think a big problem was the casting. I didn't like the performance from the kid who played Anakin (let me state that I do feel a little uncomfortable criticizing child actors, even when a lot of them just aren't very good, which is understandable. It seems like good child actors are often non-American). Natalie Portman, best known from Luc Besson's film Leon, gives a passable performance, given what little she had to work with. Liam Nesson had a "what am I doing here?" look throughout the film. I never really bought Ewan MacGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi.

On the other hand, a lot the visuals are pretty stunning, like the "New York City planet" Corsucant, and the light saber duel at the end was pretty cool; but overall, I got the feeling I was basically watching the original Star Wars re-tooled and test-marketed for late-90s consumption, and a lot of the things I liked about Star Wars were missing.