Reviews

Resident IMDB film aesthete "tedg" has kindly provided for us once again the only review here worth reading (it's somewhere in the middle of the some 60 or so reviews written so far, and worth a look).

I wanted to note the trouble over the "muddled" dialogue (Nolte talks under his breath most of the film). A stylistic move -- keeps you on your toes, and the nuggets you do grab are all the more pleasing (I caught about 90% of what was said). You just have to pay attention, and it's worth it. The dialogue is a lot of fun.

Great movie. The craft at its best.

The Ring is interesting to watch and a visual work of art -- yes -- but it's also a terrible film and not scary or moving at all (for those of us, at least, that require more content the Blair Witch level of juvenile scares).

Usually when a film is loaded with plot holes it isn't because the filmmakers are smarter than us and we're somehow missing something, it's because the filmmakers are missing something themselves -- such as any real concept of what the hell they are trying to say or communicate to the audience. Lots of scary-looking images not a scary movie makes. Definitely a let down for pretentious film poseurs everywhere.

In the little documentary on the DVD, De Palma mentions he had Stamos' character fall through glass in the beginning to signify the dream state -- and the imagery of "falling" (often a metaphor in all of our dreams) along with additional imagery of falling water. However, the scene where Stamos' character falls through glass happens before the dream has even begun!

The above might illustrate where this movie goes wrong, if it goes wrong at all. The focus certainly isn't the plot (as there are some holes) or the dialogue (nothing inventive or new) or even the characters. The focus is style. It kept me intrigued most of the way through, but the movie looses it somewhat toward the end. I think a lot of people felt that.

The dream is simply ill-conceived. The little subtleties to signify it is a dream seem tacked on. I noticed a few of them but they certainly aren't enough to suggest it is a dream. And it's really not a "dream" as the filmmakers say, it is more of an alternate timeline. The filmmakers were too lazy to really create the tapestry of a dream -- with subtlety and imagery that meant something and actually pertained to the characters and story. That would have taken a bit more skill and dedication.

I thought Stamos' acting was serviceable. I don't see anything to nit pick about. What IS "good acting"? This girl has barely acted and considering the varying dimensions she had to play here, I think she did a good job.

Anyway, it's a decent film. The filmmakers' suggest it's worth watching a second time. Only for film afficionados, because you won't get any entertainment out of it unless you enjoy seeing Stamos undress again.

I watched this for the first time in widescreen. I found Alec Guinness distracting, as he is obviously not an Arab; and there is nary a word of Arabic spoken in the entire film beyond names and places. Omar Sharif may remind of you Wes Bently who starred in a similar epic, "The Four Feathers".

The film is more art than entertainment. It is long and a bit languid at times, but the photography is like nothing seen since, the score is beautiful (though a bit intrusive at times, as was the style for the era), the production is flawless (observe the city of Akahba).

The unpretentious, direct, sweeping story characterized the film for me.

How people can complain and criticize Woody Allen after the anthology of wonderful films he has given us in his career is beyond me. "Hollywood Ending" is a hilarious, well-crafted satire on Hollywood and Allen himself. Full of metaphor and double-entendre in the classic Allen tradition, with a great script and inspired story. There is more going on here than meets the eye!

People complain about Allen as an actor. I think he's more amusing and genuine than just about anyone out there. It's a formula that works and I wouldn't mind thirty more films just like this one. It's sure beats most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days.

People also complain Allen over-accentuates his blindness in the film, and he does. But it's just slapstick! Lighten up and enjoy it. The scene where he has to meet Treat Williams and can't find his way to the couch had me laughing out loud!

Woody Allen is the greatest American social commentator since Samuel Clemens. Give credit where credit is due!

I can't believe some of the nonsense I've read here. People are complaining that Redford looked too old in the flashback scenes -- for one, I thought he looked believable. Secondly, Hollywood hasn't cloned Redford in a vat yet so we'll just have to live with scenes like this. So get over it. Others complain that the movie is somehow BORING, which blows my mind, considering it's non-stop, fast paced action and dialogue. If you're attention span is too short for this movie I'm sure you'll enjoy crap like "XXX". Others complain about messy plot logic (how did a CIA operative get into a Chinese prison? Huuu duhh, I dunno! It's a popcorn flick you morons! It's not a 900 page novel or a documentary). The plot takes a few leaps here and there, but a Snake Eyes or Face/Off this film is not. I read complaints about the 'arty', flashy 'MTV' style editing and filming techniques -- I actually thought the movie was filmed and edited superbly and the contemporary, TV-commercial style actually complemented the film. It's crisp, tight, taut and entertaining. You get the feeling this is a high-quality production, whereas with something like "Mission Impossible 2" the same type of style is implemented but it comes off feeling cheap. Not here, not with this movie. As with Enemy of the State, it works. I have a feeling some of the people that thought it was boring simply couldn't follow what was going on. The plot does make sense if you have the attention span to keep up.

Yes, we know Hollywood produces trash, but do we need an entire movie to shove the point down our throats in such a crude, one-joke, albeit trashy manner? The dialogue is tired and self-conscious, the plot exhausting, boring and the characters unlikable and annoying. People that want to think they are original and independent latch onto to this stuff, but it's really just satire-for-the-sake-of-satire utter crap. There are other films with a similar theme -- off the top of my head, Woody Allen's "Celebrity" is light years ahead of this.

This tour de force lays out in meticulous detail factual evidence proving a conspiracy behind the assassination -- It proves how Oswald could NOT have been the lone gunman, how Oswald could NOT have killed Kennedy, how dozens upon dozens of credible witnesses saw and heard numerous things pointing to others being involved, how sloppy the investigation was on all governmental levels, how the Warren Commission altered evidence, how evidence was destroyed, how a cover story had been prepared before the fact, how the Zapruder film proves Kennedy was killed by someone on the grassy knoll or in that vicinity, etc. If you want to find out who is either 1) a sympathizer for our lying government or 2) a complete moron, simply ask them about the JFK assassination and whether they think there is a conspiracy, and when they fail to respond in the affirmative, you'll have your answer on what kind of person you are dealing with. Sometimes no amount of factual evidence can open a closed, ignorant, fearful mind.

A shallow story about three morons that end up in a threesome. Pretentious, empty characters with nothing terribly interesting or genuine to say. Kathleen Robertson needs to get over herself, as she seems far too aware of her 'cuteness' in this movie. I found her revolting. The thing that's hard to believe is that people are actually entertained by this crap.

I think even despite its marginally honest portrayal of teen angst the movie lacks a point and a punch. It meanders and wallows without much of a plot. The film desperately needed to laugh at itself for it to be even a passable viewing experience. It's overrated! Maybe there is just a lack of this sort of cynical filmmaking that something like this seems revolutionary. Of course, cynicism alone makes a good film not. You see, I think the story should have BEGAN when Birch's character got on the bus . . . at the end of the film.

Great filming in Ecuador!!! Solid directing, solid acting by David Morse and Caruso, tight action scenes -- but Meg Ryan is a joke (or is she? I'd hate to think her performance is indicative as to how a typical American woman would react in this situtation -- the treatment her husband recieves from her at the end is the most gut-wrenching part of the movie!). I don't really think of this as a role or a character -- it's simply Meg Ryan, with the fickle pouting you'd expect from her. The latinos in the film are made to look like a bunch of uneducated savages -- but let's not forget who kidnapped who here and who pays up in the end. Ryan, Pamela Reed's character and even Morse (at times) come off as whiny, pathetic Americans. Except that we're supposed to sympathize with THEM. I think that's the film's biggest mistake.

STYLE, SUBSTANCE AND CLASS! Spy Game will blow right over the heads of most audiences and it obviously has. It's an underrated, taut masterpiece that gets everthing right -- the writing, directing, editing, acting is all Oscar caliber. Not to mention it's one hell of an ambitious production. Spy Game is what happens when professionals in the business come together to make an intelligent, masterfully crafted thinking man's actioner that as a viewer you can have complete confidence in while viewing -- that's a rare thing these days in Hollywood. It's a rare gem that reminded me of Clear and Present Danger. Let's hope we see a lot more of this, and a lot LESS of X-Men, Mission Impossible, Rush Hour, Pearl Harbor, Lord of the Rings and other utter boring trash passed off as action fare.

This film, like its direction, is pretty simple and straightforward but fails to follow through on the material it presents. For one thing, the victim woman character is nothing more than a cardboard cut-out and has hardly any dialogue -- while I think she comes across fairly realistically, no effort is made by the director to see things from her point of view, so we really don't gain much of an attachment to her besides basic pity for her situation. There's a few laughs and 'Ooooo's at the audacity of the characters, but not much more. The filming also seems bad, like it was shot with video or something. The sound is sometimes poor. There's nothing high-concept here and that it received such great reviews and accolades is beyond me. It feels like 'half' a movie, as if only about half of what should be there is present on film.

-- CRTF

"Spy Game" deserves more credit and attention, but it likely will not receive it because smart, sweeping thrillers like this usually go right over the heads of the American public. It's taut, beautifully crafted, produced, edited and acted. This is a classic spy thriller and it makes "Behind Enemy Lines" look even more white-trashy and pretentious than it already is. It's my Best Film of the Year. Everything Tony Scott touches is GOLD. This is the CRAFT of filmmaking at its best.

Ocean's 11 is a superbly crafted comedic tour-de-force made to deliver a little thing called 'entertainment', and it delivers, big time. This is, in my opinion, the most entertaining and enjoyable film of the year. Unfortunately, there are people out there that find ways to nit pick about a film that couldn't have been made any better. Judge it for what it is! This film WORKS. What it does it does well. It's fun, the characters (except for Julia Roberts, of course) are fun, the plot is fun, the action is tight and brisk. This is a QUALITY production.

This film is a masterpeice! I have seen it twice and I still can't get enough of it. Everything that seems wrong with it is really so right. The score is fantastic. Jack Nicholson is mind-blowingly good in this role. The film is meandering, pointless at times, directionless, but somehow everything makes sense and forms into a cinematic display of subtlety and beauty. The scenery is spectacular. I cannot say enough for this film!

Those that have given this film high marks have already said what needs to be said. They appreciate everything this film represents. It is one of the best action films of the 1990s -- it's right up there with "Terminator 2", "True Lies" and "The Fugitive". Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don't appreciate the quality of a film like this -- these are the same people that love junk like M:I-2 and Con Air, but have never heard of "Clear and Present Danger".

Like "Star Wars" or "E.T.", this film is sweeping in its epic scale. Every scene is pure gold. The special effects were the best of their time and REMAIN the BEST. This film is a life-altering experience, and I pity the poor saps that fail to appreciate it.