Reviews

As a dedicated Kurt Vonnegut fan, and a skeptic to how well his books might transfer to the screen, I felt it was as good as it could have been.

Bruce Willis, a fan of I'm not, gave one of his best performances. Of course the acting was unnatural, the story was unnatural--a stylized, surrealist freakout, as the book was. Though I think it would have been better served set in the 70's, when the book was written, the actors did a good job with a very challanging script. My only dissappointment was that the ending wasn't incoherent ENOUGH. Anyone who has trouble understanding it should read (or reread) the book, or perhaps just expand their conciousness past linear thinking.

Very brisk action. Was great on the big screen, without bothersome things like complicated sub-plots to weigh it down. Cool line-up of actors, and stunning car chase footage, especially through the streets of Paris. Enjoyed the usually not-addressed-enough factor of cops coming into the scene (most action movies have the players fire machine guns in public, with no police ever coming into the fray). Terrible work in of the film's title, though--better to have it not explained it than explained it twice, first as a cheesy introduction to the credits, and then as a point of a hackneyed, wooden conversation in the middle of the film. Since I detest the man as a person, I'll blame it on David Mamet. : P

A great children's classic, made in the days when it was okay to frighten the kids a little (not through violence, but through psychedelic disorientation and uncertainty). The Oompa Loompas scared me when I was four years old, and they have the same effect on me even now. Something especially about their blank, unenthusiastic faces as they plod through their moral finger-wagging ditties. Was Willy Wonka guilty of rampant exploitation and labor abuses? The Oompa Loompas were always WORKING, and clearly none too pleased about it.

This hokey movie left me groaning after just about any exchange of dialogue or plot complication. Patricia Arquette, though pleasing to look at, gives a below par performance from her usual mediocrity. My friends and I have coined the phrase "Beyond Rangoon" to mean anything really bad. A lowpoint for Boorman.

Yes, I really enjoyed the effects and the concepts. However, I expected it to be a little smarter--the haut couture styles got a little hokey (imagine Morpheus going virtual shopping for his virtual suits) and the peppering of the fortune cookie mysticism got annoying. And let's face it folks, action movie or not, a film with a lot of stiff acting from some of the main characters does not make a great film.

Quote that sums it up: Keanu's "Whoa!"--duuuude!

What a boring movie. I am all for psychological suspense, but this really strained my ability to buy into it. Unfortunately, an actor whose performances I usually enjoy, Tommy Lee Jones, was totally limp as the villain. The defining moment for the film for me was when TLJ is on the phone, jumping up and down on the bed. It's as if the director said "OK, this character is crazy, so show it......uh, bounce on the bed." A lot of wasted talent.

Leonard Matlin refers to this film as uneven, as he is looking at it only as a broad comedy. More than about hockey, I feel this film addresses the economic changeover from company towns and the old ideas of worker loyalty being rewarded, to cold cost-cutting and downsizing, and how it effects everyone's everyday life. As fitting today as it was over 20 years ago.