Reviews

In contrast to Driven, The Fast and the Furious actually hit the mark it was aiming for. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it actually surpassed my expectations. I'm not going to go overboard here and suggest that it is a masterpiece of cinema. However, it is certainly a cut above the average Hollywood movie. Firstly, its theme is one of inherent interest. There is something really quite engaging about the life of a street racer: modifying a run-of-the-mill Japanese compact car into a 500bhp vehicle that can do a quarter-mile in 10 seconds and gathering in the middle of the night with 100 like-minded racers to wager thousands of dollars on quarter-mile drag races.

The film had great energy and was just angry enough to give it attitude, but not too angry as to be obnoxious. The race and chase sequences were excellent; full of high speed action and cool camera angles. Unfortunately, there were a couple of crashes that people walked away from which, in real life, would have seriously injured those involved. But apart from the odd departure from real-life, the driving seemed actually pretty accurate.

The story and characters were also better than I expected. There were some tough choices for the hero, Brian (played by the blue-eyed Paul Walker), and you actually felt like you got to know the main players a bit. Vin Diesel, who plays opposite Walker as the charismatic, if harsh, street racing legend Dominic, has an on-screen presence similar to Ving Rhames. In fact, it is Diesel who forms the backbone of the film, both within the context of the story and with his performance.

In addition to the great races and chases, there are some nice scenes

involving interaction of the characters. In particular, a moment towards the end, when Brian reveals his true identity to Dominic, generates a great deal of tension.

As with many films of this nature, it would be easy to pick it apart.

Dissecting the inconsistencies in the story and illogical decisions of the characters would, however, just be a futile engagement. This film is more about the experience than the meaning... more about the journey than the destination.

This film is almost too good for words. Whilst watching it I was mesmerized by the kung-fu scenes, the dazzling swordplay, and the incredible scenery. It was as if the storyline and characters took a back seat to the immediacy of visual stimuli.

About 30 minutes after I left the cinema I began to realize that the best things about the film were the very things I hadn't noticed as I was watching it. The story is strong and combines so wonderfully with the incredible character development that I feel I HAVE to see it again to learn more about the characters, because I know there are things that I missed the first time around. Oh yeah, I suppose it will also be nice to see the action sequences again, which, by the way were the best in any movie of this type I have ever seen.

So there you have it. It is a film that features some the best kung-fu scenes of all time. But the kung-fu scenes are not the best thing about the film.

One more thing. I know that there are people in the USA that will refuse to see this film because of the subtitles - one guy walked out after about 90 seconds of the showing I went to. All I can say is that they are missing out on one of the best movies of all time... just because they are lazy. It's "Life is Beautiful" all over again.

Why is this film not given more recognition? It was one of those films that I had always heard about but had never seen. Well, I saw it the other day and I am shocked that I wasn't forced to watch this years ago. It is an amazing film. I have a hard time coming up with something that was wrong with it. The highlights, of course, were the performances of Caine and Connery. Nearly every user comment for this film has said how good their chemistry was, well I read all these comments before seeing the film and was still blown away by how good the chemistry was. Connery in particular was a surprise to me, even though Caine probably gave the better performance of the two.

As a Brit living in the US, it is hard to get Americans to really understand subtle aspects of British life (the optimism, the humour, the strength of character)... so I now have three movies that I tell people to watch in order to get a better idea of what it means to be British: The Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, and The Man Who Would Be King.

Similar to Titanic, as a historical dramatization, The Patriot was good (although, I've heard, not necessarily accurate). I've always said Titanic would be a GREAT movie if all the scenes involving Jack and Rose were removed and they just told the story of the ship and its passengers and crew. I feel the same way about The Patriot. I loved the scenes that told the story of the war. The battle scenes with the long rows of troops facing each other and the ambush scenes in cotton fields were great. However, I found the personal life of Ben Martin only marginally interesting and I thought that the film's revenge theme was quite a turn-off.

The Patriot also had something deeper that I didn't like. Although Ben Martin's nemesis, Tavington, was a very strong screen presence, he was the epitome of the movie-bad-guy stereotype and a perfect example of this movie's attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The average American's patriotism is unfortunately filled with ethnocentric arrogance rather than respectful pride and I'm afraid that this movie was aimed to appeal to that arrogance. It's uncomfortable for me to think that many people may have left the movie theater feeling like, "America rocks! The American way is, not only the best way, but also the only way!"

The film did try to subtly leave some signs that maybe America doesn't learn from its mistakes very well, but I think that they were too subtle for some people. Overall, I felt that there were too many honorable Americans, too many dastardly Brits, and too much Stars'n'Stripes waiving for this movie to be taken seriously.

When I first heard about Gladiator I immediately thought of Spartacus. Would it be a remake? Would it be anything like it? It might be interesting to compare the two for a moment.

On the surface there are many similarities between Gladiator and Spartacus: a slave-gladiator hero, an eccentric but likeable gladiator owner, Senator Gracchus scheming for power, a power-hungry sexually-muddled villain, and a female lead with mixed allegiance. I think Russell Crowe gives us a better hero than Kirk Douglas (forgive me Mum), and also gives a better performance; in fact, Russell Crowe might be the best actor of his generation and is magnificent in this film. Oliver Reed's Proximo cannot match up to Peter Ustinov's masterful portrayal of Batiatus. Derek Jacobi is strong as Gracchus and compares well to Charles Laughton. As a villain, Joaquin Phoenix is certainly no match for Laurence Olivier. And in outwardly dissimilar roles, Connie Nielsen is actually a better female lead than was Jean Simmons (I should be shot for saying that).

Both movies have strong battle scenes, but Gladiator has more of them (presumably to please today's average movie-goer) which means that screen-time for political wheeling and dealing is sacrificed - the affairs of the Senate were some of my favourite moments in Spartacus. However, the numerous Coliseum battle scenes in Gladiator gave Russell Crowe more opportunity to build as a hero - and were some of the best scenes in the movie.

The victory won in Spartacus is a personal one. Whereas in Gladiator Maximus' victory is for the people of Rome. And that is where the two films become very different. The theme of Gladiator is that Rome was inherently good and that the corruption of the Senate and the tyranny of the Emperor were the evil forces - once you defeat the tyranny and corruption, Rome becomes great once more. The theme of Spartacus is that Rome was inherently bad and regardless of who was in power, slaves would always be slaves and had to fight for their personal freedom and for justice.

Overall, I liked Gladiator very much. I'm not sure it is as good as Spartacus - only time will tell us that - but I think I liked it as much as Spartacus.

This is a great movie. Many of the comments that people have submitted reflect my opinion too. Alec Guinness is amazing. Jack Hawkins is as strong as ever. William Holden is as good as he needs to be. People have commented that Holden's character is what stops this film from being as good as it could be. I'll argue that Commander Shears is necessary to help draw attention to the attitudes of Colonel Nicholson and Major Warden... he has to be there to provide an alternative to the single mindedness of the "Gallant Brits." Sure, Holden probably didn't deserve top billing, but it probably helped to sell the film at the time and, in any case, Guinness won the Oscar he deserved so who cares about billing.

I don't pretend to know a great deal about film making, but I think I can safely say that The Bridge on the River Kwai deserved all the Academy Awards it received.

I'll say one more thing about this film. As a British Citizen living in the US, watching The Bridge on the River Kwai made me proud to be a Brit. Whether you think that Nicholson's actions were gallant or foolish doesn't really matter. The fact is, he won his arena of the war... he defeated his immediate enemy. Throughout history (especially military history), it is the kind of discipline shown by Nicholson - and his officers and troops - that has made Britain great. The sun may be setting on Britain as a world power... but at least we have movies like this to cling on to!

It is funnier, but no way as good as the original. I laughed a lot at this one but it is a bad film. It is a series of Mike Myers skits held together with not much of a plot. "So what" you say. Well, what made the original so good was that it was funny at the same time as making fun of James Bond movies by use of clever little moments in the plot. This one is not clever and the sophisticated humour of the original is sacrificed for obvious, often gross, adolescent humour. Don't get me wrong, I haven't laughed so much for a long time. But I left the theatre with a bad feeling. Oh, and Fat Bastard is a terrible addition to the group. Whereas Random Task was a great spoof of Bond movies, Fat Bastard is completely out of left field. The music was great, Austin himself was great, some of the jokes were classic, but the film was poor.

I loved this movie. It is one of the best comedies ever. With classic scenes and hair-raising stunts, it is one of my favourite films.

Best movie of the best series of movies ever. I challenge anyone to find a better villain in any movie than Darth Vader in this movie. And it was the birth of Boba Fett. Classic scenes between Han and Leia. And C3PO comes out from R2D2's shadow. Best movie ever... I think.

A great comedy that had me in stitches from the start. Cary Grant is so suave and yet so bungling at the same time, and Hepburn is innocently mischievous all the way through. Great movie... one of the classics.