Reviews

Made as a sort of political commentary for free trade agreements - NAFTA (North American Free Trade) - that was a mistake, someone got really sidetracked! This is a movie very worth seeing, and a story that is screeching for a gesture of humanity. It stands on its own without any need for appeal to populist causes.

This a story and wants to be a film, a dramatized documentary about sordid evil human exploitation. What has been happening in Juarez, Mexico for the past decade may have been helped by some political and commercial developments, but the origin and the result is pure deathly evil.

Pay attention. The first nearly 50% of 200 votes about this film on IMDb were "1". Eh ... one? Think here for a moment . . . the story was and continues to be viciously true, the depiction is very accurate. Over 4000 (!) women in this US/Mexican border town have gone missing, and over 400 have been found dead !! In just a few years.

This has been going on for a decade and has been repeatedly reported throughout the world's press. Dedicated reporters and honest police in this town have been killed in numbers scraping to reveal the truth, and still the vacuum of female death continues.

For credibility, Antonio Banderas and Jennifer Lopez have had so so ratings, but have had hits as well as misses, but have not been known to be lacking in integrity. Greg Nava, writer and director has had some strong directing with some powerful histories (6+ ratings most of the time.) Martin Sheen, rarely misses. So, should the first 40% of the votes really be "1" ?? Were all these cinema professionals so off base, or is an internet group subverting the IMDb voting system en mass?? Well, this is the question that probably is begging the integrity of not just this film, but even the IMDb. Guys we need an investigation here. Please check folks, this leads to the very heart of what 10,000's and perhaps 100,000's of IMDb fans trust in. (And in the case of this film, 100's are dying for.) For the film, Jennifer is pretty good, and Antonio has a few but not so many good lines. Nothing is spectacular, but the story and the cinematography is on. The script and direction could have been much better.

Objectively and even from an informed perspective - I've seen 100's of films each year for nearly 50 years,worked in the industry, and have called about 80% of the winners for the top 5 or six film awards ceremonies (by award criteria/bias) for the past 15 years with better than 85% accuracy - this movie is not a popularly rated film so far, per 388 "objective" persons surveyed viewers. But take a look and tell whether the package rates a 4.8 ! I don't believe that this film rates a "10" any more than it rates a "1" or a "4.8". So based on that ludicrousy, I vote "10" until the investigation resolves the nearly 20% of early volume of "1" votes.

It is important that honest and committed film viewers and consciences, vote to give this movie, issue, and the IMDb a dignified rating so that the curious uninformed will be properly attracted to an awareness of this better than average film, that portrays this horrific reality.

If you get conned into watching past the trite, Angelina Joli homemaker beginning . . . and if you can somehow accept the James Bond weapons jive . . . you'll see a pretty fair chase scene.

Then you can get ready to be mind-numbed by endless moronic shooting. I stopped counting after 90,000 rounds or so.

If you haven't shut off or walked out yet, then get ready to puke - at the worst humor you can buy from two actors who earned $30 million for this crud.

Basement performances for Pitt and Jolie. How many couples actually can make a descent film together? Perhaps the bigger the stars, the bigger the flop.

Earthy cast of characters plays a simple story very well. Exceptional character development. Writer-director Craig Brewer wrings star performances out of his team of actors.

This very contemporary Afro-American striving musician story goes much deeper, and it is as gritty as it is funny. The story dwells along the thin edge of Memphis street culture, and you feel the edge - like a shard of glass - and just how fragile and jagged it is.

The characters "will" the plot along, from moment to moment, from scene to scene. Every moment is fresh.

Craig Brewer and most of this cast are artists to watch. Remarkable performances and film gems like this are career foundations.

I'm not a sports fan - but I love sports flics! So, why ... what is a great sports flic ... this one. And the storytelling style, is very fine.

If you are looking for a reliably fantastic 2 hours of entertainment, "Greatest Game" qualifies mightily. Here is a movie that moves. Bill Paxton has gone to the same Director school as Ron Howard - a.k.a. Richie Cunningham, "Happy Days". That is not bad. Look at the immense body of fine work that Ron did after moving behind the camera.

Bill like Ron was a great actor, but will be a superstar director if "Greatest Game Ever" is the indication of things to follow.

Wonderful cinematography - fantastic direction - fine acting, especially by Elias Koteas, Shia LeBeouf, Marnie McPhail, Josh Flitter, Stephen Marcus, Justin Ashforth.

This is a must see film not just as "feel-good", nor "sports film", this is very good cinema.

30 minutes into this film I found myself thinking that I'll have a really exciting review to pass onto friends. "The new Star Wars has the best effects yet!" And that is where the excitement ended.

More than 1.5 hours later after many in the audience had left the theater early - a new low for Lucas films - I joined the audience in stumbling towards the exits with numb back and legs, wondering how this movie could "only be", two hours and ten minutes long!

Without a doubt the film series that gave birth to so many aspects of present day special effects technology had to top everything that came in the wake of its 3-decade legacy, just to make the grade. And this movie does break new ground in spacial effects realism. In a good cinema the opening scenes will have some viewers grappling with aerial-spacial phobias.

That said, Lucas must have invested in 'name' actors to sell the film, because the talent of some of the best and brightest names in the industry never makes it to the screen. There is precious little dialogue, and all of it is delivered with less emotion than a weather forecast. Some of the more intimate and human interactive scenes are shot in profile or behind the speakers. So after lousy script and pitiful acting, anything the high-paid talent might add to the scene with facial expressions, was left on the cutting room floor.

And where is the humor that characterized the earlier Star Wars flics? There is not a witty line, not even a humorous corny line, nor comedy scene in the film.

What's left? Action, effects, and plot line? Yeah. The audience is whalloped with wave after wave of action scenes, all shot in dreary lighting to make sure that no one forgets that this is the serious Star Wars flic. Most of these scenes could have been edited for impact.

OVERALL EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE: special effects = 9, good action sequences = 8, plot = 6, visually confusing, excessively loud action sequences = -5, excessive number of loud action action sequences = -5, intelligence-insulting dialogue = -3, lack of acting = -4 TOTAL = 6

Not an ordinary story; big marks for originality. Performances were even and mostly exceptional. Of course Pacino wins the well-earned Oscar, but O'Donnell and Gabrielle Anwar are superb.

The whole Slade family cast is as good as could be conceived - Whitford and Eginton especially. Likewise the Baird gang: Rebhorn, Seymour Hoffman, and even Conroy.

Memorable scenes include the Ferrari test-drive, the Thanks Giving family event, the final gun scene, and the disciplinary committee hearing. But the film history die was struck hard, with the tango scene. Pacino and Anwar play their roles to the full, a confident blind aficionado dance lead and a young, stunningly beautiful but humble, sophisticated "amateur" follow.

Thomas Newman graces the film with an original music score worthy of his reputation par excellance. He should have received much more recognition for this and many other works; maybe someday the "Academy" or the "Globes" will pull out the stops and grant a deep bow.

In situ film - "chamber" theater.

Small but brilliant cast. Great synergy! The story is simple, intricate and mysterious, and is carried away by the fine screen direction and atmosphere.

So there is wisdom in prodigy, comfort and confidence in dedicated parenting. But when these social conditions all collide in a compact, eloquent, and poetic movie - hmmm, out comes something like this!

A totally relaxing and uplifting cinema experience. You don't have to do any mental work to take in the miasma and the charm of this movie. The story and the portrayal make the whole thing timeless and enchanting.

It is really difficult to tell who is the genius of this project - Rush or Hicks.

While there have been many movies of this type, real story of a disabled but uniquely gifted artist, this one sets the standard. The story behind the movie is that it took Hicks and then Rush about a decade to develop and finance the whole project.

The research that was invested in that decade of preparation paid off in a priceless work of art. Well recognized by professional critics and audiences worldwide, this film opened the Kimono for Australian film to be recognized as serious international composition.

Careers were deservedly made for Rush and Hicks as well.

What a mess! A few supporting cast members put in decent bit performances. Other than that, just about everything else stinks: this is Depp's worst performance, and David Koepp's low water benchmark.

It is painful to find something good to say about this bumbling, boring tale. Maybe we could say that the cinematography is good - and at least the "look" of the film is constant, appealing and consistent with the story the film was trying to tell. That's not saying that "continuity" is on, it certainly isn't.

The movie is like a bad soup. One that was made by passersby who dropped in miscellaneous ingredients of any kind (car parts, dryer lint, unwashed turnips) and quantity. If you can stay awake long enough while watching this loser flick, you find out that most of the stuff they drop in should have been deposited in the garbage pail beside the stove. Then when you taste the soup it tastes like nothing.

Boring and bad. A good candidate for film school study, but it would have to be a major assignment.

Fantastic, involving, moving story that threads historical credibility with life.

Drama, comedy, historical dramatization . . . large family tragedy, separation, and major medical trauma . . . life comes alive in this spectacular effort.

The story, screen writing, direction, and acting are magnificent. No doubt the crew could not help but be infatuated with the magic of this endeavor.

At first glance the sentiment of the film might seem too light for what it ultimately accomplishes. Younger viewers can learn several generations of history. Older ones can savor something that is so vibrant, so true, that it is rare.

Magnificent! The audience should bow to the players. This really is a precious movie.

This movie is James Ivory's best, and one of Anthony Hopkins' and Emma Thompson's better films.

Did you ever care to know what British upper class life was like in past centuries for both nobility and gentry (their servants?) This show humanizes life for them all, revealing their common foibles and their collective challenges.

One would think that Hopkins would be the quintessential casting choice for a high quality 19th or 20th century British butler. He admits that it is a role that he had to study since he has never had a butler, or known one. Well, he did a superb job.

Emma Thompson performs spectacularly as romantic interest and head housekeeper. Believability is her byline.

Altogether a well-rounded cast, and an excellent production that captivates, entertains and entrances. You'd almost want to trade lives with most any of the characters, for better or worse.

Is this a story that inspires, captivates and entrances? That's what it's creators think it is. And far too many gullible viewers think that this is art.

But what is great about it? A little bit of swashbuckling action to begin with, and nothing new. Then the whole pursuit, cove, cave thing. Not only was the storyline descending into the abyss but so was the film. Really, what was all that cave foolishness worth? Not my time.

With the talent and the budget sunk into this project, 3/4 of the directors alive today with a good writer in tow could have made this into a movie!

After the first 25 minutes of "Killing Bill" and all his associates, what changes? An hour later it's still more of the same.

What rates this as a good film: plot? character development? action (tired)? originality (remember the Japanese Godzilla movies of the 50's and 60's - this is an update using people and Kung Fu)?

No. Nothing makes this a film of any substance, originality, or merit.

Unless you are on the right (for this drivel) drug or have narrowed your psyche to generate massive amounts of euphoric endorphins from well-choreographed but relentless mind-numbing sequences of meaningless violence . . . pass.

I couldn't wait to see how badly "Kill Bill 2" would bomb!

Wood Allen meets Monty Python, but the clash think that they are submitting a Ghestalt entry for the Nobel prize. Pretentious!

I have read plenty, and despite several viewings of the film, nothing has made the theme of this "art" obvious. What are these kids doing? And they actually got paid to mentally masturbate for an edited 113 minutes. Other than some ethereal sensation that left too many reviewers mesmerized long enough to stumble back to their keyboards and write an effusive but consensually hazy ("it must be good because it seems like art!") review, what else happened here?

If you want to see all that film could be, but won't become, here's your ticket. If you want to learn something and really be entertained - not confused - there is a lot to choose from on the shelf.

But # 18 of all time . . . ? According to the IMDB critic/reader database at the time of this writing, 18 was the number.

This is a great film with excellent acting, casting, direction, and script. But the greatest of great films might have to go beyond just those parameters.

Does the charade of Keyser Soze warrant categorization as one of the 20 best films of all time? Probably most of the artists involved would disagree. This is a solid, solid piece of work; fantastic conceptualization and accurate execution.

Few people can spend time with this movie and not be entertained. But to really be moved, wowed, and to have an major perceptual transition will take a nobler script.

This is an excellent movie, but somehow overrated. Probably we should ask why?

Persons without a sense a humor need not apply. Persons in need of a sense of humor please form a line over here.

The classic Rock 'n Roll parody, is so humane and germane that it is absolutely timeless. Who cares what these people are talking about - the subject changes constantly - if you've got a pulse you have to at least giggle. Folks with a full sized sense of humor had better not eat a full meal before imbibing in the 'Tap.

Rob Reiner and Co. with the genius applied to this project could have done a similar parody on just about any occupation and generated epic results

It's all really good, so have a good time.

Telling a great story means telling it vividly but without excess. In a film this means the development of characters appropriate to importance, including the important details and not omitting the important details. It means vibrant energy, without distraction caused by egotistical digression of writer, director or actor.

Goodfellas doesn't tell a story of epic merit, but it does tell a damned good story - and it tells it so appropriately well, that the audience is absorbed into a world that is surreal but engrossing and credible.

This film is a classic because it is doesn't fail any of the rules of fine movie construction - it exceeds them all. The viewer is carried, even swept away with the poignant but tranquil first-person narration (similar to "The Drug Store Cowboy") in the sea of action, great moments, and big characters.

Certainly this is a a must-see for serious film lovers.

Ya gotta laugh! Intelligent comedy just doesn't get any better.

No flies here. Really, really funny! (A study in personalities, and personal development.)

Patricia Clarkson has a great way of playing her age - unabashed, elegant, and in this film eloquent. Peter Dinklage is one of the quietest, sympathetic characters to grace the screen since Chaplin. He pulls no punches when asked why he moved to Newfoundland, NJ: "I wanted to live near Joe (Bobby Cannavale)."

Actually, there are no unsympathetic characters in this film. Remarkably, they are all real. All three-dimensional.

Bobby Cannavale is priceless, as the newly knighted prince of the Jersey boondocks. A Mahattanite who adopts everyone and everything he meets. As Olivia says, "he does enjoy life!" How about, "This is Joe Oramas reporting live, from inside Gorgeous Frank's hot dog emporium . . . whoa we're train chasin' baby!" Stuff like this wasn't done since the Blues Brothers - but this is fresh baby.

Even: "I don't like that guy man" - "Who?" - "Olivia's ex . . a tight white guy man." "It's a librarian fantasy now . . . glasses off, hair down, books flying . . . " Damn, this is funny.

There's a lot of courage in this film. The bar scene is a sleight bit more than brilliant. Very few times in film has the normalcy of lucid drunkeness been depicted so perfectly.

Great - very great.

Again. Does she ever fail? If you are reading this 'girl', please keep your humility - therein lies your brilliance and genuine qualities.

How can you build a movie around one actor? You have to get the perfect actor-actress and then find the right script.

This isn't a great movie. No. But watch the girl. Melanie is no youngster, but her spirit is too young, too brilliant to hide!

You can't avoid watching her. She is compelling. Few players can match her on any level. Thespian espectacular!

So, enjoy performance, even though a lot of the other film elements don't rise to excellence. Melanie is superb, and is she ever bad? It takes a very special quality of commitment to excel and elate when the material around you is only mediocre.

It's always nice to see a unique story. The aren't many negative reviews of this flick, and they certainly aren't deserved. While the story explores a real part of present day life - internet bride hunting - it manages to bring humanity and subtle but solid humor to the story.

The film neither justifies or explains the social phenomenon, and it doesn't have to. It does portray very realistically the lives of the characters caught in their circumstances. The acting, cinematography and direction are all great. The writing is great: a simple story (with a few fun twists) mated to complex character development. This movie is very entertaining. Certainly the producers, director and writer are all worth watching for.

That Diane Lane received an Oscar Nomination for this film means that the Academy is still not all out at the ranch. She has always been a superb actress, and persistence and quality eventually catch the attention of even those who live lives so dissimilar to the theme.

There really were no weak links in this film. It is not an epic, a polemic, nor a ground breaker. It just does what so many films about "infidelity" tried to to do, really well.

No flaws. No glorification. No ideology.

Great raw cinema about how great 'normal' life can be, and how much angst can be wrought by crossing the rational and emotional barriers of balance.

Few movies are as vibrant and alive as this one. If you can't follow it then get off the phone!

What else do you need: sardonic humor, a simple plot, good character development from a montage of intense characters played by great actors (even, J Lo is cast right . . . you'll see.) All the players really reach to meet their roles.

No review of this movie has to be too long. The show is captivating, magically humorous in it's life, and always surprising.

Been to the desert lately? You probably won't have as much fun.

Don't expect "Lawrence of Arabia," that's been done already.

How many times has the American Thanksgiving dinner been done? You'd think that it would be pretty hard to do it again, to make it interesting, or to make it very good.

Peter Hedges scores with writing and direction credits. Hard to believe, but Pieces is as good as his previous coup, Gilbert Grape.

Hedges handles some pretty heavy themes - family social and generation stress, disease, multi-culturalism, and strained attempts at reconciliation - with hilarity and grace. This is a very funny film.

The considerable cast plays some very diverse characters and it is great. Very even casting and acting, right across the board. Katie Holmes proves that she has made the transition to adult actress, a professional with facility and staying power.

Probably done for a reasonable enough budget, but this film has the look and soul of a big, well-crafted European production.

The script is just filled with nodules of truth wrapped up in old world philosophy, that play out before the viewer's eye. This is a long film so make sure that you have the time and mental alertness to make the journey - but for the patient, the investment is worth it.

The cast is filled with capable players: the leads are exceptional latin character actors, they are surrounded by the others which are more often than not caricatures who actually focus the reality of the story around the serious players.

The cinematography is magnificent.

Excellent representation of a true story about a family in distress, driven by the members' needs to claw to their own separate peaces.

Casting is excellent. Geoffrey Rush continues to top his remarkable career peformances. His work here is completely engrosing. Watching him in this film completely voids your mind and leaves you with nothing but a brilliant piece of performance art. No distractions.

The rest of the cast are great too. Judy Davis is as credible as Rush, her character's personality comes right off the screen. The various age groups of child actors playing the brood of 5 kids are well cast, masterfully directed, and totally comfortable in their roles. Direction is remarkable throughout. One minor confusion is caused by the sons who excepting Tony, are by times confusing to identify. This is perhaps testimony to the fine casting effort for family resemblance, but it helps the viewer to follow the story if you get the names down when they are youngest, and can place them each time they age. This is critical because one of the driving forces to this story are the collective relationships between father and each particular son.

This movie is better than you could ever expect. While already world-accomplished, Aussie film is now consistently proving that it is amongst the best of the best - in the world.