Reviews

This film is terrible. The acting was excellent for the most part, but that is the only good thing about it.

The film is supposed to be an expose of racism amidst normal people and does so by throwing scene after scene of these supposed "normal" people being racist. That is not showing racism in normal people it is showing racist people.

I am stunned by the number of people who have given this film such a high rating; I can only presume that they are doing so out of fear of appearing racist for saying it is rubbish.

I think if you want to see an excellent film about racism and dealing with it you should see American History X (though that film also contains the odd bit of contrived dialogue it is still a fantastic film).

This is definitely one for the trash.

This film was terrible. While this film contains a million awful things, two especially annoyed me:

When the archaeologists are first shown the time travel equipment one of the scientists explains that it opens a wormhole. One of the archaeologists says "But wormholes are one of the most volatile things in the universe!" - Hello! How the hell does he even know that such a thing exists?! What is wrong with this screenwriter?!

And secondly, probably the most offensive thing for me: the archaeologists arrive in France in the 1350's, speaking modern English, and not only are the French people speaking modern French, they understand modern English. This is not like someone from Shakespeare's time understanding modern English, 14th century French and modern french barely resemble each other.

To make matters worse (concerning point two above), at one point the French Lady Claire is talking to the Scottish archaeologist who says "are you seeing anyone at the moment" and she says confusedly, "Of course - I am seeing you!" - the Scott says "We are speaking the same language but we don't understand each other". I feel sick even remembering this most contrived, awkward, and badly written scene.

You must give this film a miss. It really is terrible.

Watching this film brought to mind two other films with a connection to Malkovich: Dangerous Liaisons, and Cruel Intentions. I thought Malkovich over-acted and was utterly unconvincing in Dangerous Liaisons. His female counterpart in Cruel Intentions was the same. Ripley's Game has Malkovich playing a similar style of role and, yet again, he fails to come through. He does not give the feeling of evil, or even wickedness - he gives the feeling of nonchalance; a feeling which does not match up with the character as you can see from his surroundings and interaction with people in the film.

The entire lifestyle of Malkovich was affected and the script writing added some very uncomfortable moments as scenes appeared which were very obviously included simply to try to enhance the evil characteristics of Malkovich. An especially striking example of this is when Malkovich has just set fire (with absolutely no emotion or energy) to some dead bodies in a car boot; as he walks away he makes a mobile-telephone call to his florist to order flowers for his wife's recital. It was utterly ridiculous and extremely transparent. A note the scriptwriter: if the audience can see what you are trying to do, you have failed to do it.

Ripley has somehow become straight - I am not sure what that is about - perhaps he was never gay in the first place and just had a childhood crush on the character played by Jude Law in the first film? He is now married to a woman who might as well have not been in the film - though I guess the writer added her so she could perpetrate the crime of writing the pathetic scene described above! The wife seems entirely insouciant when Malkovich tells her that his old friend wants him to kill two mafia heads in Berlin.

If you liked The Talented Mr. Ripley, do NOT see this film - it really is awful. I found myself cringing frequently through it.

I am surprised at how many people have given 'The Fluffer' a poor rating. I found the film to be very entertaining. The acting was excellent, the writing was excellent, and the sexual tension is incredibly well portrayed. I would say it is not as good as My Own Private Idaho, but it was certainly up there with it in quality.

The main character, Sean McGinnis (played by Michael Cunio) was very believable and I would like to see him in more films. The porn star was played very well by Scott Gurney who has since gone on to become the host of a reality TV program (what a shame).

This is a definite surprise film – I expected b-grade and definitely got a-grade.

See it; you will not regret it.

This film stars Björk (as Selma) who proves to us that she is as good an actress as she is a singer. She plays a poor immigrant who is trying to save money to pay for her son's eye operation. Things get worse as she loses her own vision totally and falls victim to a cruel gambler.

Lars von Trier directs this graunchy film in the typical camera-swinging style of dogme films. Most of the filming is done in very cool tones which takes a little getting used to, but it does an excellent job of creating an enormous contrast between real life and Selma's day-dream world of song and dance.

Catherine Deneuve is convincing in her portrayal of Selma's best friend. She gives this film a real touch of class (as usual).

This film will take you on an emotional roller-coaster ride - be warned!