Reviews

Who are these wounded angels you see walking around modern cities? What makes them at turn so repellent and so attractive at once? Basically thats what the film is a psychological study of what the author thinks is at the core of these women. Then he tries to weave a murder mystery around his obvious obsession. Unleashing every wet dream cliché he obviously harbored towards them along the way. Turn the poor confused lesbian back straight with your throbbing male presence. Check. Psychologically examine the poor subject and discover her past littered with rape and mistreatment. Check. Then weave into the tale the obscenities of a patriarchal family and their crimes against Jews and women. With the righteous male lead uncovering it all! Seen it all a million times in various forms. The film is fairly well made but it's all been done a million times in various ways. And as the title says it all at the end of the day it all boils down to a European's wet dream. We deserve better don't we? New truths, new tales, new adventures rather than the same recycled head based observations from 60 years ago?

And as for 'these' women walking around the city? Maybe they like ink and metal and no the lesbians among them probably wouldn't touch your member if it was made of gold and crowned in diamonds. Maybe thats the point of what many of 'these' women do, to tweak the fragile male ego. Looking at this film it needs more than a tweak.

Like an alcoholic must hit rock bottom usually to kick the habit. To escape your ego perhaps you have to see it at its most absurd? This film takes you on an exploration of the emptiness of the ego. Richard's art is in the space he allows all these seemingly disparate ideas to inhabit. A lessor director would have played favorites and mocked certain ideas. Not Richard all the views in the film inhabit their space in the film. Attacking ideas by grasping onto the opposite idea is a trap of the mind, a trick that allows the ego to regain control over you, and it is one thing that Richard never indulges in.

It is conflicting ideas that divide us in camps that cause conflict. Showing these divisions at their most absurd cannot help but demand the viewer ask themselves what is the unifying force?

A lot of people find the film pretentious and yes a lot of the ideas in the film are pretentious and overwrought but that doesn't make the film these things.

A lot of people get hung up in the ideas in the film. But they're clearly and literally all cartoons.

The film lays down the hammer on itself late in the game, telling the viewer to just snap out of it, wake up and embrace life. The whole thing, put the divisions aside and suck on the marrow of life.

This is quite a revelatory twist and the deft way the film hides its intentions until late in the game is quite delicious.

Lovely film.

The first time I saw this movie I was just happy to see this graphic novel brought to life. I enjoyed the whole film because of this. I got a lot of pleasure out of all the little details in the film. There was a lot of criticism of the film right from the start and as a fan boy I was insulted by this.

However after seeing the film a number of times I am forced to agree with the criticism. The film as it stands now is a giant mess. The pacing is all wrong. The kind of drawn out exposition that can work in a graphic novel just doesn't work here despite the actors best efforts. The story is confusing to people who aren't familiar with the graphic novel.

The story is disjointed. It ranges from completely manic to gratingly slow. Some of the key points in the film are exposed in a few frames while unimportant scenes of padding drag out forever.

Alan Moore, the writer of the graphic novel, didn't give his approval to the adaptation because he said it was impossible to adapt. He had tried for years to do it adequately. To me that was Alan's silent seal of approval for the Director to hack and slash the original story to make it work for the screen. Yes you would have endured the wrath of fan boys but the film could have been something special. Instead the director and screen writer decided to double down on a failed concept: forcing the graphic novel even more directly straight onto film. Alan Moore told you this was impossible Zack perhaps next time you will listen to advice?

The failure of the overall film shows that Alan Moore was right. Many of the effects/action sequences are quite a bit of fun. Many of the intellectual points and ideas in the film are compelling individually.

However taken as a whole the thing fails miserably.

Its really a shame because the concepts in this film are incredibly relevant to today's world. The idea of unlimited resources and how today's greedy society is probably striving to wipe out the concept. That is interesting. Many of the fight sequences are downright cool and convey the brutality of violence really well.

The idea of Atomic power being personified in superhero form is pretty awesome.

However as soon as you encounter a scene that works. Along comes a scene that falls flat, feels forced, or is unnecessary to ruin the party. This ultimately makes the film more taxing than enjoyable to watch.

Bummer.

Pretentious, melodramatic, boring, tedious. I could go on and on and on about this film. Its one of those movies with a 'hook' aka the love interest is a plastic 'real doll'. So pretentious vapid types immediately will try to convince you its a profound and interesting film because of this 'hook'. Beware 'hook' movies, often they're only known for the 'hook' because thats all there is.

The film is so languid. It often fixates on the face of the protagonist declaring to you: this is important look at this character. Its very insistent in its empty self importance. Demanding you accept the profoundness it deems is there. This is a film that will make you feel angry at the direction, like its personally insulting you. That doesn't happen often.

No real emotions come out of seeing Lars other than many cringe worthy moments. Also the emotions of the supporting cast feel artificial and over the top in response to Lars.

I enjoy unusual artsy films but this is just numbing in every respect. Probably one of the worst 10 movies I've ever seen. Yet look at the reviews? How are some of these reviews possible?

I'm not a major Trekkie but I do appreciate most of the movies and do understand why it is such a beloved series. Its loved for subtlety, for intelligence, for the humanity and heroism of the characters, and lastly for the love of fantastical places and events.

In this film humanity is replaced with hammy mockery. Intelligence is replaced with 'splosions. Subtley is replaced with grossness and violence just for the sake of it. There's sexism, stupidity, crassness, all things I don't associate with Star Trek.

Sure there was humor in the Star Trek universe, even innuendo. But it was presented in a normal human way not in a crass or ugly way.

Putting the Star Trek history aside and just viewing this film alone. I will say that I wasn't impressed with the plot. An entire planet blown up and it had less emotional impact than I feel when squashing a cockroach.

The red matter thing was stupid as well as the time traveling thing. As others have said why use time travel for vengeance when you could just warn everyone before it happened. I think a giant advanced ship from the future would convince them you're legit. This is basic stuff here. You feel like the plot was placed there under duress to try and appease the fans of the series. Like they really didn't want to be bothered but begrudgingly threw a scientific crumb to those with a brain.

Sure enough whenever the plot drags at all some 'splosions or CGI is injected into the film. Don't worry Bubba thinking ain't a part of the Star Trek universe no more!

As a science fiction film without a history I would say this is above average. I'd rate it a 5. Its got great effects, the acting is hammy and without real humanity or believability. Its a bit like a big fun house. Lots of surface thrills but little true impact and when its over becomes very forgettable.

As a nod to Star Trek fans I rate this film a 1 however. Its a real travesty to see something they love sacrificed on the Hollywood altar. They've had Star Trek stolen from them and given to the crowd that loved Dieharder.

This film parodies Star Trek itself and tears it down at the same time. Now the Star Trek fans who didn't like Star Wars understand how the die hards felt about Episode I. Its not a good feeling all the way around.

Whereas the Thing revealed its nebulus plot and got out of the way to allow the film to terrify the viewer. Prince of Darkness seems to be hampered by an overly elaborate plot that never gets out of the way and doesn't allow for too many scares. The plot tries to offer a scientific explanation for the religious cosmology we all grew up with. Satan is pure evil and is stored in a vat! Jesus was an ET who gave the Church diff-eq equations to use to defeat Satan in the future. This sounds wild and it is, but it requires close attention as some of these huge plot points are spoken in one sentence. It plays like Italian horror in that terrible things happen with little explanation and the viewer is sometimes left scratching his head.

You have to give the film credit though for attempting to give the viewer a sophisticated and cerebral plot. Its obviously a film Carpenter was enamored with intellectually.

On the other hand the scares never really heat up to the boiling point. Towards the end there are some quality scares. However like some Carpenter films the camp is thick. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but those expecting another 'Thing' terrorfest will be disappointed.

Like all Carpenter films this film is shot beautifully and when the film warms up in the second half it really sucks you in. I found myself stopping at several points in the film and saying to myself 'wow this is a beautifully shot film'.

If I had to classify this film I would say its a geeks horror film. Lots of interesting intellectual things in the plot to ponder, some scares, and a beautifully shot film.

Wont appeal to everyone but certainly isn't a run of the mill film, and it deserves credit for that.

The film gets praise for at least having a social consciousness and deftly weaving that into an emotional, funny, human film. Not many actors could have pulled this off but Clint has no problem carrying the film.

The Kowalski character is a little bit of a cartoon amalgamation of every negative grumpy old bitter white man stereotype. Its hard to believe if he was really that bitter and racist that he wouldn't be anywhere but oiling his rifle behind the locked door of his bedroom in the dark. But the fact that Clint is the force behind this character makes you really not care about this, its Clint freaking Eastwood everyone loves him. So the audience immediately identifies with the snarly, racist character. Perhaps more than they should.

The acting of the Hmong actors is passable, the female lead acts quite well. The male lead's (over)acting will have you wincing at several points in the film. Though its not enough to spoil the movie in any appreachable way.

Its hard to fault the plot it feels authentic, the dialouge is human, and the scenes have an air of reality.

The only thing that bugs me about the film is the 'movie of the week' casualness way that the gang members are defined. The movie's explanation is that they don't feel they fit in with society, are scared of white society, so they become these violent gang members. That maybe true for a certain % of gang members but its certainly not the case for many of them. This explanation seems like its out of the 1950's.

The truth is many of these kids grow up in poverty, violence, abuse. Many of them are emotionally disturbed, reenacting the violence and abuse perpetrated on them as children, many of them are mentally ill living in a waking nightmare. Acting like a wounded animal refusing to show their shattered psyche's covering it with a tough guy exterior. Note that this is not an excuse for violence. However if you want to try and fix the problems you have to understand the root that grows violence. Its not mild social anxiety as Clint Eastwood asserts in this film.

The story in the black and white world Eastwood has created isn't without merit but its severely lacking and in this lack glosses over poverty, abuse, and broken lives.

As entertainment the film is top notch, and maybe its message will reach some kids. I certainly hope so, but its a bit of a joke to view this film as an accurate sociological study of poverty and violence. I hate to say it but its a typical out of touch white guy view of gangs and poverty. Well by God if you just get a job all your problems will go away. It reaches the depth of movie of the week in this area. In missing the mark on this issue so widely the film does lose some of its authenticity. However its difficult to outright condemn the film as it has good intentions and delivers an entertaining experience.

Ledger is irresistibly interesting in his portrayal of the Joker despite the somewhat hackneyed plot, and his performance saves the film from disaster. Without his performance I would have walked out as the rest of the film was trite, melodramatic, garbage.

Christian Bale gives wood a bad name as he soullessly meanders through the role. The guttural growling he performs as Batman may make sense to the plot but its almost unbearable to listen to .

The previous film with Bale a beaten down outcast and a man struggling for an identity was infinitely more interesting from an acting perspective than this film. Bale feels trapped in the role in this film going through the motions and he seems bored and unchallenged almost not knowing what to do with it. The plot also doesn't have the structure of the previous film. There was a appreciable beginning, middle, and end of the previous film that let things percolate, the action build, the plot be exposed.

This film is too evenly paced and like an unstructured watercolor the plot runs together and gets lost somewhere along the line.(or maybe I just lost interest) I remember seeing a scene with the Joker in a nurses costume, and while the character was interesting not knowing or caring at that point why the Joker was blowing the place up.

The Two-Face character was fairly weak, the emotions in the wronged Harvey Dent seemed forced and the plot explanation of his 'do-gooder' gone wrong personality seemed ham-fisted.

Maggie Gyllenhaal was not a particularly interesting character and there were no fireworks between her and either Bale or Eckhart. Michael Caine almost seemed to be biting his lips to spit out the lines in the film. He seems to be almost embarrassed to be in the film.

Acting wise the highlights are Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and of course Heath Ledger who you never doubt 100% inhabit their parts and actually add something positive to the film.

Unfortunately they are fighting an uneven script, a hackneyed story, and bad acting from Bale and others the whole way.

The result is an uneven, and eventually uninteresting film that relies on constant action and superficial delights to offset the uneven acting and flat out bad plot. Certainly inferior to its predecessor and without Ledger would have been an outright disaster.

I feel a bit alone on this analysis and I am surprised as anyone about this as I was expecting greatness when I went into the theater. But thats the way the cookie crumbles.

I don't see what others see about this film in these reviews in that they see a film almost in praise of suicide. Or seeking to explain the leads suicide and why it is logical.

I think that is furthest from this films meaning. Yes it does detail the pathology of suicide. The pride, the self-loathing, the jealously of other people.

But it does so in a way that makes this pathology seem absurd. I mean here is this guy about to commit suicide and he is more with it and probably talented than everyone he is around. These people have just found a small niche to hide out in and survive and take small pleasures from life.

These people are providing the blueprint for how the lead should proceed, but he is just too prideful and self-abusive to see this. That is the gift of this film, in showing how absurd the suicide of the lead is it breaks the pathology of depression and suicide.

Really astounding film. Film brought to its highest essence.

Sometimes you want a deep film, sometimes you want escapism and a few shocks and thrills. Ghosts of Mars fits the bill perfectly. It is a very easy film to get into. The tension is palpable as along with the characters you see things rapidly going downhill on this mars colony but don't know exactly why, what is doing this. This leaves ones imagination to fill in the blanks, all you know is that crazyness is everywhere. The sense of dread and tension in the film is palpable as you feel the Ghosts of Mars closing in on the heroes. The film moves along at a good pace and when things finally reach their boiling point the movie delivers the goods in an all out action tour de force.

And to boot the ending delivers an interesting twist.

Who could ask more from a sci-fi film? Interesting premise, tense fast-paced story, great action.

Some sci-fi films try for hyperealism, some suck you into their world and then have some fun with a wink and a nod. This is that film, and frankly thats the only reason I can see that some people don't like it.

The question the director tries to answer is who are these industrialists and what shapes them. That is the riddle Paul Thomas Anderson tries to solve.

The beginning scene sets the tone, DDL gouging out rock silently in a shallow mine. You get a good sense of the mans determination, and you feel the earthiness of the film.

Thats how the film continues, slowly revealing bits of story that reveal more of Plainviews character.

Evil comes in drips and for Plainview sometimes it floods into his life.

The story is part allegory but can be taken at face value.

The Plainview character shouting out 'i've abandoned my boy' having dual meaning, he put his son in a home, but also it means he has abandoned that innocent, young, and decent part of himself that must have once existed.

Then there's the obvious allegory, the black oil smeared over Plainviews face in a MacBeth style scene. The allegory of darkness consuming the character very obvious.

Then of course there's the other key point of allegory in the film. The interaction between the evangelicals and the oil men. Obviously this is meant to mirror todays political climate. With the Bushites and neo-cons paying homage to the evangelicals to get their votes. This is a running theme throughout the film and the contempt that Plainview has for the evangelicals absolutely drips from the screen.

I wonder if real life evangelicals have a clue how Karl Rove and the neo-con machine laugh at them behind their back.

The movie becomes bleaker and bleaker, and it does start to get depressing. Paul Thomas Anderson has a bit of a clown in him and the ending is classic PTA. It becomes a theater of the absurd as the evangelical preacher comes crawling back to Plainview to beg for money after 'sinning' and blowing his money on the collapsing stock market.

Only to be killed with a bowling pin after being told his milkshake has been drunk by Plainview.

The milkshake analogy is both hilarious and disturbing in its societal implications.

The last scene providing a needed catharsis and some mirth that makes you walk out of the theater with a little levity.

The film overall reminds me somewhat of earlier Lynch work. Sometimes the film can feel a bit stiff like some of Lynchs early work, and the allegory can be a little too intellectual and not organic enough.

Though the film is undeniably intriguing and excellent. This film feels like an important step in PTA's career, a maturation of his style. And a very good piece of cinema in its own right. This is not a film that leaves you after seeing it. It percolates through your system, and like all good films integrates into your being.

All good TV shows share this feeling. Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and Twin Peaks. An otherworldly sense of place. I've heard someone say about vacations before 'When you go on vacation you fill up jars that you can open later in your regular life when times get tough'.

I think this is a good description of Twin Peaks, the show and characters really stick with you. Despite some of the intense content in the show its a place that really sticks with you. When you stop and think about the show its something you feel connected to it almost like you were personally a part of it.

I give the show a 9 and not a 10 for a few reasons. First the revealing of the killer was way too soon. This was forced upon Lynch by the TV execs and you can feel it. The show is meandering along and bam suddenly everything is revealed. It felt out of sync and rushed.

That ties in with the other mistake. If Lynch had laid the groundwork of the town for an episode or so and developed some of the sidestories first and made the Laura Palmer murder a large part of it instead of the main focus. There wouldn't have been such a huge letdown when the killer was revealed. You can literally feel the breath go out of the show after the killer was revealed.

Which is a shame because at the time things are very interesting. The black lodge is waiting to be developed. There's all kinds of intrigue and side stories going on. However a large body of the audience had decided the show was only about the death of Laura Palmer and left the show after it was revealed.

So the show only lasted a while after the reveal.

The show is vintage Lynch, it mixes his hidden wisdom and explanations of the spiritual world with pure Americana. Some of it is very intense and shocking still. This fact makes many Twin Peak devotees turning on the feature film 'Fire Walk with Me' strange. It seems like many people watching Twin Peaks only did so for the sedate and kitschy scenes. With no interest in the deeper, darker, meanings and actions revolving around the main story.

Oh well cant please everyone all the time.

This film is so overrated it bugs me badly. I simply do not get how this can be considered a good film. I will detail the problems with this film.

1. Jack Nicholson is totally and utterly unbelievable as the 'hard' mobster. He carries no weight with him, his presence commands no respect. He appears as he is a decadent and overblown 60 year old in a sweater. Yes he does some horrid things to make you go 'oooh he's nasty'. But it all feels hollow, and manipulative. He never brings any menace to the screen at all.

2. I love Leonardo DiCaprio, but Leonardo as a mobster. Come on. Not believable. He also horribly overacts the scenes where Nicholsons character is sniffing around him to find him out if hes a rat or not. In fact he overacts through the whole thing. Was endearing when he was a kid, but now its OTT.

3. Characterization is sorely lacking. Marky Marks character is terribly 1 dimensional and all he ever does is attack everyone in front of him and scream 4 letter words. Sheens character seems promising but is another empty shell who is never explored. The only full and believable character in the film is Matt Damons character. Everyone else seems like a cardboard cutout. Baldwins character seems like a guy out of a bill brasky skit.

Bad script, mixed acting, totally unimmersive and unbelievable from start to finish. With no real redeeming observations or commentary on all the violence and destruction we're seeing.

Crummy movie and the most overrated movie I've ever seen. Unbelievable I feel like i'm in some Citizen Kane reality where you can throw a bunch of big names in a movie directed by a big name and people will pretend garbage is actually a good movie.

I think the main theme of the film is romanticism. Its certainly an American trait, nostalgia. Nostalgia distilled down is romanticism. Romanticism is fantasy, illusion.

The Sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones goes on and on about the old days, and about how great things were. Like evil is some modern invention, one that he is scared of and doesn't want to understand. He is always one step behind the murderer in the film. And when he's closest to the murderer. When he finds out he's too late, he isn't upset, he is relieved. This tells us a lot about the character.

The father of the Sheriff offers the best advice to the Sheriff and exposes his truth. The Sheriff not wanting to accept reality is vanity. The Sheriff is exposed as a weak and almost childlike character that refuses to grow up and accept reality. How can you fight crime if you refuse to accept and understand evil? Its a poignant analysis of aging, and how romanticism and nostalgia can stop your development as a person.

The other main part of the story is about easy money, and greed. The Moss character is a welder who is thrilled with the prospect of 'easy money' despite the incredible risk he puts his family in. In fact the hit-man tells his wife of this at the time of her death. And as blunt as it is its true.

The killer in the film is more like a force of nature than a real hit-man. He is like the dark side of people they refuse to acknowledge. Most of the characters in the film have set out their own course of destruction. They just don't have the capacity to understand the forces they have set against themselves.

Overall very good film, escapes all the clichés of modern Hollywood. This film is reminiscent of 1970's style cinema. Gritty dark stories, with a solid framework of allegory, and an exposure of all sides of the human condition. Hopefully this is the Coens leading the charge to a return to true, free, Cinema.

Who better to lead than the Coens? Great stuff, this is a film I wont soon forget.

Planet Terror couldn't decide if it wanted to be a farce or play it straight. The acting was uneven and too often removed you from the story. Nod to Josh Brolin for giving a 'straight' performance in difficult circumstances.

Rodriguez should have watched Return of the Living Dead for the appropriate way to do a zombie spoof that still pulls you into the show.

I always felt removed from Planet Terror. Wasn't an out and out farce, but felt enough of a farce to take you out of the story. The whole thing didn't work for me.

There were some moments of fun and this part of the film was the strongest of the two, though thats not saying much. 5/10.

Death Proof seemed more promising. The cinematography and setting are what you expect from Tarantino. So sit back and wait for the story to reveal itself. Then wait, and wait and wait. Really Tarantino makes several mistakes with this film. If you're going to make a grind-house movie, make a grind-house movie. Don't try to make some kind of Lynchian comment on the cosmic differences between the female and male. Don't take these huge archetypes and try to construct a grind-house movie from that.

The car chase scenes didn't live up to the hype. The ending was funny, but overall the film didn't deliver.

2/10

The film is beautifully filmed. Its a homage to classic American film, it has a strange sense of time and place like it could almost be the 1950's. The sounds that accompany the film add to that classic feel of the movie, its always there adding atmosphere to the film like movies used to do.

The film deals with many things though its main themes are class, hate, and violence.

Class and power are brought up. The wealthy in the film seem to wield power casually over those they view as not of their caste. The lawyer omitted evidence that would have resulted in a dismissal just because he 'knew' this rough white guy had to have done the crime. The way he gets favors from his wealthy pals its obvious that if he defending someone of his caste he would have presented the evidence.

In fact the ease with which someones life is ruined and the world doesn't even pay it an ounce of attention, this is one of the most terrifying things in the film. The film really shows the impact of power unlike any film i've seen.

How does someone hate? To many people its some vague notion. To others its a sin. The 'christian' judge in the film represents this viewpoint, chastising a man who has been abused and hounded by a psychopath because he is 'displaying' negative emotions. While he himself has probably never experienced any major wrong inflicted on him by another, he has never had to resist hate.

De Niros character never tried to resist it, he dove straight into it. 14 years in prison breeding and brewing hatred. Thats the films point, this guy is no saint and we have no doubt about that. But the viewer struggles with his feelings because he knows Noltes character was wrong, and we see how 14 years of prison has twisted De Niro and we hear about what happened to him there. One is forced to think, if someone set me up and got me put in prison would I hate to the point that De Niro would?

The flip side of this course is how easy Noltes character loses it when faced with a similar situation to the abuse De Niro experienced in prison. How easily he breaks rules, how he seems ready to do anything to get rid of this character. Isn't this also hate?

This culminates with the final scene, Noltes character bellowing like a wounded animal lifts a giant rock over his head ready to crush De Niros skull. We are used to the hero coming to his senses and renouncing violence. Not Nolte, he follows through smashing the rock down where De Niros head should have been.

This is a powerful statement and the finale.

The film pulls back the pretense most of us have about ourselves, how we are more like those 'on the other side of the tracks' than we can imagine. It just maybe that they have had to deal with these issues of hate, class, and violence and we have not.

A great film that allows you to relax into it, its both ugly and beautiful at the same time. Truly a masterpiece, my highest recommendation.