Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
A layer deeper than before
18 May 2003
Most people dont seem to understand the plot of this film, and I

am not here to spoil it.

Suffice to say that you should listen carefully to the architect, and

see what Neo can do, both in and out of the Matrix.

Then, the truth will be clear, and you will be ready for the next level.

However, it does not matter whether you understand it or not,

because either way the Matrix will still be what it is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
8/10
good character, bad sf
26 August 2002
If you want a funny movie with interesting characters, and great acting, see this.

If you want a good science fiction flick, which tries even a little to make sense and be plausible, forget about it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
surprisingly good
17 July 2002
How often have you witnessed a thriller in which a civilian who is

exposed to a murder is reduced to near-catatonia and shock?

In The Bourne Identity this happens. People react the way you

might expect them to in real life. This film is plotted in a very

truthful manner - the story is spare and believable.

Also, this film is surprisingly well-directed. That's not a shot at

Liman; it's just that it's rare that you see a summer action flick

where the director avoids going too far. The car chase in Bourne

Identity is great, but not overblown. The set-piece in the embassy

also makes sense, and is a lot of fun too watch.

There's a pure visceral pleasure to seeing this amnesiac

character perform great feats as pure reflex. He's running on

instinct for 95% of the arc; then he recovers his humanity in a

beautiful flash-back.

I didn't expect to really like this film; but it's very good - fun, smart,

with good acting, and a kick-ass job by Damon. See it on a large

screen.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Interesting idea; excellent movie
7 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed Minority Report, found it to be excellent, even great, though not a movie like Bladerunner or the Matrix, which changed your view of what could be done or shown in a movie, or which presented a truly unique view of what the world could become.

However, it seems like the movie is getting some knocks for elements which are strengths rather than weaknesses. For example, the product placements are ironic - they help paint a negative view of the world, where there is zero privacy; your identity is instantly established and used to sell you pants. The scene in The Gap did not make me want to buy Gap products; rather it showed the Gap in Hell... the personalized ads weren't even helpful - people were simply offered what they had already bought.

Spoilers follow:

The plot was simple, to induce John (Tom Cruise's character) to commit murder by presenting him with his son's killer. There is no Minority Report on this; John *will* kill this man. However, what precogs can't deal with is the case in which the murderer is presented with the facts before committing the crime. John holds the gun up, knowing he is to kill this man, but also knowing he still has a choice. John's choice is the center of the movie - it proves that people can alter the future by knowing the future. This is in fact precisely what the Precrime police are doing - creating alternate futures by stopping murders. So if the police can do it, why can't the potential perpetrators do it, if fronted beforehand?

John proves it is possible to choose, even without a Minority Report.

Clumsy plot points included the Justice Dept jerky-guy figuring out where John was by seeing the random name of this random dude on John's home-made computer equipment, right in the nick of time to continue the chase. That was really stupid and unnecessary. Also, as has been mentioned, using John's eyes to gain access to headquarters - of course his ID would have been revoked after he became a fugitive; I thought John was going to use his old eyes to create a distraction, so he could sneak in.

The greatest character in the film is the mother of the precog project, a geneticist who has created a world evolved beyond anything going on outside of her walls. Tom Cruise's acting was good in this, but a little too neat for me. If he's a drug addict, it would be nice to see some evidence of that at work - his drug use seemed too contained in his home life, and didn't do any recognizable damage; we don't even get to seem him collapse in a stupor... I would have played the whole viewing-of-the-holograms much darker, maybe complete with him collapsing in his own puke. Also, some tears would be good, or rage, or despair. He just seemed sorta sad, which damaged the payoff in the scene showing John's Choice. However, having made that complaint, they must have done something right, because the main thing which stayed with me after the film was the feeling of loss for the missing child - it didn't help to see the wife pregnant or to see the trio hanging out (by the way, when they read, don't they already know the endings? ... no who-done-its for them)... I missed the kid at the end. So any film that is capable of making you feel that deep a sense of loss for a character never viewed in the present must be doing something right.

Finally, what was up with the nurse and the old lady copping feels off of John? Was that some comment from Spielberg on Cruise's popularity?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
truly terrible
7 July 2002
I was really amazed at how badly this sucked. It was 3/4 an attempt at a Mel Brooks-style parody of the original, and 1/4 an earnest sequel; it was impossible to take the result seriously within its own parameters because you were constantly hearing Sonnenberg screaming at you through the shots "this is a stupid ridiculous piece of nothing which I'm just doing for the dough."

You would think that an actor like Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't put up with it; he shoulda just walked off the set. Will Smith apparently thought that his banter would save the film, but he was wrong.

The worst kind of sequel: a massive repeat of the original, only much much dumber, without even a decent recreation of the original tone or sense of reality. Successful sequels heighten or deepen the themes of the original - give us Men in Black mythology; give us a new conflict, perhaps a mole within the agency; give us a trip to another planet; give us a more fully developed alien character, instead of aliens-as-one-liners. Edit out the schtick which doesn't serve the plot and isn't funny and which just takes you out of the movie and reminds you that the director thinks it's all just a stupid joke.

There was not a single decent moment in the whole stupid thing.

This terrible terrible movie isn't even worth the time it took to tell you how stupid it was - but there's an obligation to try to get you the viewing public to save your precious few dollars... you'd get more enjoyment out of burning your money then spending 88 minutes watching this.

They should have named this Men in Bleccch
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unbreakable (2000)
8/10
The Seventh Sense
25 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS are contained in the following:



The script was much weaker than the directing .

The story fell apart in many places - and the payoff just didn't matter, and the heavyhandedness of the exposition added to the feeling that the payoff wasn't worth it; what mattered was seeing the superhero come to terms with his gifts.

The main issue is that the superhero's most valuable superpower isn't his being unbreakable, it's his own Extra Sense: he sees guilty people. This huge additional power actually ruins the entire premise of the film - which is that the evil genius is selecting for his opposite by creating situations where an unbreakable human emerges. Nothing in the selection process would also select for someone with the superhero's additional ability.

For me, this really destroys the film... which is a shame, since the second power is unnecessary for the story. Why does this comic book character also need an extra sense? Why not just have him be unbreakable, like many super-strong super heros? (the Hulk, the Thing... etc)

But having said that, it was fun to watch... my favorite scenes were the funny ones, which in all cases involved the kid... best line: "I'll only shoot him once."

But too bad. Night had a pretty good second idea - he just is still so fixated on his previous themes, that he couldn't let them go, and just let this movie do what *this* movie needed to do.

Finally, did everyone notice the number of "repeat" scenes and themes from the Sixth Sense - which get done differently here? This really is a riff on the previous film. You have the kitchen scene with the kid - you go from the terrible fear of the Sixth Sense, to the wonder and elation of Unbreakable. You have the disaffected wife dynamic - in the Sixth Sense there was no way back, here the relationship is unbreakable. You have the sad man finding his true purpose, through the child. You have the scenes in the basement, where a lot of the homework is done in that discovery. You have a flashback to a different child, who was very fragile, which started the whole ball rolling.

Don't get me wrong - it was fun too watch. But too bad

the plot of Unbreakable was so porous.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great acting; Unwise plot changes...
25 December 1999
Well, a decision has been made in transferring the book to the screen which I think diminishes the interest of the main character, the talented Mr. Ripley.

In the book, Tom Ripley is a sociopath who murders to achieve a certain class-status. The genius of the book is that he succeeds completely in assuming the identity of a wealthy spoiled playboy, by scrupulous observation - the book thus says something about the surface-consciousness of the rich; that you just have to look right, act right, and have the cash, and you belong.

(Some Movie Plot Points follow - so only read on if you don't care about knowing what happens:)

Minghella, the director and screen-adapter, decides to take what was a subtle homosexual subtext and make it completely overt. To me, this makes Ripley's actions much more obvious, and on some level pitiful - here he murders because of lost love as much as he murders out of envy or out of some psychotic desire to actually *become* someone else... but murder due to unrequited love is something we've all seen before.

While the changes in plot points make Ripley more sympathetic, they also make it easier to predict subsequent events, much to the detriment of the film. It would have been considerably more interesting sailing this ship without having a clear character map to guide us.

One last thing about the homosexual angle - it's inclusion muddies the waters in another way... it takes two to tango, and what isn't clear is how far Dickie goes in returning Ripley's affection. If Dickie wasn't interested at all, why tolerate Ripley's fairly honest passes? If Dickie was interested, why treat Ripley the way he does?

The direction and acting are very strong (though there were a few camera angles which screamed `I've Seen Hitchcock and Really Liked Him.') Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance as the clear-eyed best friend was great. Damon plays this sociopath as a naive child looking for love and acceptance - there's this amazingly well-acted and creepy scene where Ripley does an imitation of Dickie's father, for Dickie - quite a display of acting chops by Damon, who also does a dead-on conversation of Dickie and his girlfriend talking to each other, playing both roles. Paltrow gives a fine performance, as does Jude Law.

All-in-all, a very enjoyable film. I just think Mr. Minghella needs to learn that sometimes it's better *not* to provide all the answers.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Movie of 1999
21 December 1999
I've been thinking about the best-of-1999 list, and now the Oscars, and I have to say that I just can't avoid the conclusion that the best film of 1999 was

South Park.

It's every bit as original and surreal as Being John Malkovich, while managing to do what it wants to more successfully. It is simply a brilliant parody of the classical musical, with examples of songs ranging from the typical Disney animated spectacle to musicals such as Oklahoma.

It also precedes Malkovich in its self-inversion - the response to the movie-within-a-movie documents the filmmaker's prediction of the public response to South Park. Of course, it was simply perfect that the MPAA gave the film an NC17 rating (later changed to an R). What more could Trey Parker, the director, have asked for?

I loved the Matrix, but while that film was the most visually exciting of the year, its plot borrowed from about ten different science fiction authors - it's a very good movie, but perhaps not the most original.

Run Lola Run deserves a mention, but is smaller in its program.

American Beauty has been done; The Insider is well made, but not great; Three KIngs is original and interesting and well-made... okay, it should be in the top five. Haven't seen Toy Story 2 yet, or the Ripley film...

Anyway, back to South Park... The Bitch song, and video, deserves to go down in history as one of the best movie musical songs ever.

And Skeet Ullrich's picture above Satan's bed by itself deserves an Oscar for best Production Design.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
the emperor has no clothes....
3 September 1999
Found the movie to be a total failure - really one of the worst movies I've ever seen, for the following reasons:

1. Basic acting and mechanical problems - the writing was laughably bad, and the actors were directed to be wooden - they took five beats between every line, and were almost devoid of emotion (you have to assume, given Kubrick's habit of doing a hundred takes, that he *chose* these wooden performances as being what he wanted... Tom Cruise has too large a body of work to assume that what is on the screen is representative of what he would normally do).

As to the writing: there was this motif of answering almost every question with a repeat of the question, after a few beats, until finally this friend of mine was able to say this sentence after a line by Cruise to Kidman: "If she answers by repeating his entire question in the form of a declarative sentence one more time, I'll kill myself..." whereupon that is exactly what happened. in another scene, Cruise walks into a room, featuring an obvious shot of a small Christmas tree. I say aloud "nice tree"... after which Cruise's character says "nice tree...".... I mean, farcically bad, like how many times did Cruise's character show his wallet ID card and say "I'm a doctor" to how many people?

2. Structural problems so, the basic conceit is that the wife's dreams are dead-on realistic, while the husband's reality is dream-like... wonderful. But by the time you clue in to this, you just don't care, since nothing that actually happens makes any sense. So, of course, you can say it's *supposed* to not make sense, since it's "ream-lie", but that doesn't really help, since it is, actually, reality. why would the people at the orgy care so much if someone crashes their party? they're all in masks! who the hell would know who was there? why would the costume-store owner go from wanting to kill his daughter for being a slut, to offering her to Cruise's character? why would anything that happened, happen? why would Kidman's character report those dreams to Cruise, in such a brutal, nasty, straightforward way - and then why would she cry after Cruise's character told her what happened, since nothing actually happened? He wasn't unfaithful with any of these prostitutes or other women he met.

3. the music - unbelievably annoying

4. the scene around the pool table - neither character knew what they were saying, or why they were saying it - nothing that happened made any sense, on any layer that the movie was trying to work on.

5. the mask on the bed - I *wish* there was some hiding of emotion, or layer of deceit, but both of these people told each other everything, to the detriment of their relationship. If anything, the lesson is say less. I have to go now. I'm a doctor. Here, let me show you this card to prove it.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
10/10
What is The Matrix?
4 April 1999
What is The Matrix?

You cannot be told - The Matrix is something you have to experience for yourself.

What is reality? Is it something you can Taste? Feel? Smell? What if these senses can be manipulated, and it can be proven that those things you experience as real are simply constructs - computer programs which stimulate you just as you would be stimulated by the actual. What then?

The time then comes to have a different measuring stick for reality. If you can be manipulated to believe something is true which is not true, what other defense is there but to exercise free will - to be able to bend what happens and how things work to your view of how things should be.

In order to do that, you must understand how things work. And you must believe in who you are.

These are just some of the themes of this film - an important science fiction movie masquerading as a John Woo, Hong Kong action-adventure film, plugged into a video game. What may be lost the first time you see this is how The Matrix makes fun of these genres - the main character, a computer hacker named Neo, goes through the classic kung fu movie arc - from student, to teacher to master, but then he transcends the game entirely, by finally holding off his foe with one hand, as he goes to the next level of the game. This subversive humor plays throughout the movie, as it sneaks up on you with Big Questions, which resonate more and more in these days of moral relativity... for example, currently in the Real World ethnic Albanians are fleeing Kosovo. Why? The U.S. says they're fleeing Serbian ethnic cleansing. The Serbs say they're fleeing NATO bombing. Who's right? Ask the people fleeing!

In order to be able to find the answers, you have to know the right questions, and The System which is running when those questions are being asked.

And that system is The Matrix.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Exotica (1994)
10/10
A fractured movie about a fractured life
21 December 1998
Perhaps Atom Egoyan's most successful film. Egoyan's technique is to fracture a story like a jigsaw puzzle, giving the viewer bits and pieces which only all connect in the final scene. That ripping apart of reality is especially appropriate here, since the movie is about people putting their lives together after terrible trauma. It's also about the danger in leaping to conclusions - the viewer is often tempted to make a judgement about what he or she sees, and that judgement is often both wrong and unfair. If this all sounds like homework, be assured that the movie is also a lot of fun: it's sexy and interesting and inspired.
38 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed