Reviews

This is a powerful movie, but in an unconventional way. The movie has a very quiet sense of power to it, which is unexpected and beautiful. The movie moves at a very slow pace. It crawls along over 141 minutes. I defiantly yawned a few times in this one. But the journey really is worth it. While you're in the theater you wish that they would have edited more, but after it's over you agree that it all had to be there to create the feeling of the film. Although the pace is slow, it's perfectly spaced moving steadily forward.

Koreeda is a fabulous director. He practices a lot of restraint, letting the kids tell the story, not the words or the camera. He takes his time unfolding his movie, making sure each small detail has been dealt with. The gradually pace in which the movie becomes tragic is something most directors wouldn't dare do. Seeing every day in the life of four children as their lives slowly fall apart is daring, it's much easier to just jump down the road a little and cover it with some dialogue. Koreeda never takes the easier road, it's incredible.

I think that some of the most difficult movie making involves children. When you put children in the leading roles of films you run a huge risk. It's not just the risk of finding a good child actor which is incredibly hard to find, but it's equally as difficult to write for children. Screenwriters have a hard time saying things the way children would. Nobody Knows succeeds all around. The acting here is so good that it has one numerous awards, including the coveted Cannes Best Actor awards to its young star. But the great acting doesn't end here. Each of the four children is equally capable actors, which actually says more about the director than the actors. This thoroughly impressed me. This is a rare case where you see life strictly though the eyes of children successfully.

First, I have to say that I was a huge Ring 1 fan. I was overly excited about the 2nd movie. All three Ring movies were a hit in their native Asian country. Therefore, I was hoping that each were possibly as good as #1. Plus, the creator of The Ring was going to direct #2, this also made me hope that it might be another great sequel. As you can imagine, I was horribly disappointed. Ring 2 is looks more like a movie making fun of all the stupid things about Ring 1.

The main problem is that the movie isn't really about anything. In Ring 1 things were discovered, although many things remained ambiguous. The idea of having no idea what this creepy girl could do, or why she was doing it is what made one so great. Here, the people got smarter and now know exactly what she wants. Also, the main plot of one is completely abandoned. The whole "die after a week" thing is scrapped in favor of a stupid "water control" thing. Then there's the angry deer and the digital photos stuff…not creepy. Plus, not even one "she's coming out of the TV" shot. Just think if when they made the Indiana Jones sequels, the decided to not use anything that made the first one a hit. That's what this is…a disastrous disappointment.

Melinda and Melinda looked liked the most promising Woody Allen film in a few years. It may be the best film he's made in the past three or four years, but compared to his 70's and 80's movies; this one is bland and boring. I do give Allen some credit for trying here. The idea is interesting. I really hope that in years to come Allen will again get his gift back.

Allen tries to really glimpse into human emotion and reality with an attempted view of the same story in two ways, one side comedy, and the other tragedy. It sounds very interesting, and in the first half hour you really get the feeling that the film will take off and go somewhere. Unfortunately, both sides are unsatisfying. The comedy side, although it does have a few good moment, is not funny and the tragedy side…well…not tragic. For being known as a creator of fantastic screen personalities, no one shines in this movie. The only one who makes a mark at all is Will Farrell, but only because plays the part of the neurotic annoying personality that Allen himself used to play. If this was the extent of it, I may have given the movie a B or B-, but, without spoiling anything, I have to tell you that the ending is horrible and frustrating. Unless you're a huge Allen fan, avoid this one.

Most impressive are the action sequences, using the original idea of using pin-ball type sequences as a way of transportation. The movie is visually stunning, there's never a dull visual moment. My personal favorite is the dominoes sequence. That alone would make it worth a rental. Unfortunately, the visuals alone don't make up for an empty and boring story. The story is as hollow and mechanical as the characters. It really is too bad that most of these cartoon screenplay writers get away with being uninspired, obvious, and unfunny. Movies like this have the potential to appeal to adults as much as kids. This one does not. A wittier, funnier script might have made the difference. Normally I'm not a huge Robin Williams fan, but he saved this movie from being as bad as last years "Shark Tale".

The best thing about Bright Young Things is the brilliant and fun atmosphere that's created. Writer/ Director Stephen Fry has established himself as a brilliant talent. His camera work and acting direction sets a perfect stage to seeing London in the 30's.

The movie is adapted from the novel "Viles Bodies" that tells the story of a writer who reports the celebrity gossip to the local newspaper. The movie is filled with sex, scandal, and celebrity. The film brings London to life and makes you wish you were a part of this elite circle even from the opening credits. Unlike many movies, this movie's flaws will start you in the face while you watch them. The story doesn't fit together perfectly, which is usually the case when adapting classic literature. But in the end, I'm not sure you'll mind it. It's too gitty to focus on things like that.

The film has two unforgettable attributes which I won't go into depth about or spoil. Just look for Stockard Channing.

Just like television these days, gay-themed movies are becoming a more popular genre. There aren't very many gay-themed movies that are actually realistic with a decent script and acting. Too many screen writers fall into writing stereotypical characters with story lines that revolve around AIDS or clubbing. Finally, Hollywood is making some good movies that are actually enjoyable. Touch of Pink is about a gay Canadian living in London with his boyfriend. He's not only gay, but his family is devout to his Indian culture. His family has no idea about him being gay until his mom comes to visit him, hoping to find a spouse for him.

The movie is fun and often comical. Kyle MacLachlan plays the main characters imaginary friend. MacLachlan does a great job, and the character's writing is witty and fun, but the character gets more annoying as the movie goes on. The movie tries to recreate a modern-day Cary Grant movie, but only makes it half way. In the end, the movie is fun and enjoyable, and doesn't fall into all the pitfalls of making gay-themed movies.

This movie is merely a sex fantasy hatched in James Tomback's twisted mind, played out on screen by some good-looking actors. Tomback clearly doesn't have a handle on the subject of sex, and makes this one a mess. It's confusing and about as unsensual as it gets.

Many critics have been able to look past this painfully bad screenplay and see a great performance by Neve Cambell. I didn't even see that. It's true that she is a decent actress that handle's herself well on screen, but a good performance and a good screenplay go hand in hand. The movie might have accomplished just as much by using cardboard cut-outs, it certainly would have been cheaper. I'm not saying that the actors are that bad, it's the script that is horribly, creating some of the most uninteresting characters you find in art cinema.

I would recommend you avoid this movie. Paper-doll characters and an overly pretentious script make it a waste of time.

If you ask too many questions about this movie, you'll just start to hate it more. More or less this is a thriller that's thrilling in theory, but tries to be a psychological thriller and fails. You just can't ask questions, just go with it. For those of you who just can't see though the major holes in the story will not enjoy this movie, but leave frustrated.

The film does have some things that make it worth watching if you're in the right mood. The film is mesmerizing. In fact, it's so mesmerizing that I didn't actually start to think about the film's major problems until long after I left the theater. This is partly due to the interesting subject matter, but even more so due to the great filming style. Also, for the most part, the movie is well acted. Adrien Brody is decent, but overacts too much. Keira Knightly, who is said to be a huge talent ready to burst, also does a decent job although I don't see the huge talent. The best acting is with the supporting characters, like Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Generally, the movie seems to try and please everyone. It has elements of thriller, sci-fi, romance, drama, murder mystery, and even fantasy. It's too bad that it never settles into anything, and the romance is extremely unnecessary and awkward. Within all these genres, the huge problem lies in the time-travel. I won't spoil anything, but it's not at all thought through. In conclusion, this may be a fun ride that's might be worth it if you're in the right mood. Just don't expect to be psychologically challenged.

If it's possible for a movie to be intriguing and tedious at the same time, Inside Deep Throat has mastered the art of it. Having a famous porn film that cost $25,000 to make and went on to make over $600 million as your subject could make any movie intriguing. But the intrigue wears off about a half hour into the movie. It's clear that the film-maker knew he had a good idea for a documentary but as time went on, he found that there was not nearly enough interesting material to last over 45 minutes. It would have been just the perfect amount of time to fill an hour of E True Hollywood Story, but the NC-17 rating would make that hard.

The best thing about the movie is the vivid creation of the sexual revolution that spun through the US during the time of the film's original release. The life of the main character was also interesting. But these two things don't drive the movie. The rest of the movie may be fascinating, but the story telling is not fascinating. The script is scattered and choppy. The interviews are hardly believable also. Who actually believes that a bunch of porn movie makers who made a porn with such a stupid subject matter actually did it to try and change how Americans thought about sex? They were making a porn! They wanted money, among other things. Nobody sat down and thought about changing America with Deep Throat.

In the end, the movie is something you won't forget, but even a few hours after seeing it I can't remember why I found it interesting anyway.

Although this is a good movie, I was disappointed. It's no surprise that it won the Best Foreign Film award at the 2005 Academy Award. This is what Oscar lovers call "Oscar Bait". This is the type of movie Academy voters go for.

This is the true story of Ramon Sampedro who fights with the Spanish legal system to allow him to end his life after becoming a paraplegic. It sounds strangely familiar. Last years Foreign Film winner was Barbarian Invasions dealt with the same type of issue, as did Million Dollar Baby, which one best picture this year. When you think back to the people and films that win Academy Awards, it's usually those that die or have dying people in them. My point is, The Sea Inside is "Oscar Bait", which doesn't make it a great film necessarily. It will probably make you cry, but it's designed only to do so.

Javier Bardem does a decent job as Ramon, but the film lacks in the development of Ramon's relationships, which should be what the film excels in. Ramon has two conflicting relationships with two very different women, but neither relationship makes the movie worth it. The surface seems attractive, but nothing is ever explored fully, which is disappointing.

Although I'd recommend this movie, it disappoints me because of what the movie could have been. You want it to move you, push your intellect, and break your heart. It may do all three of these thing, but only half way, leaving you wish they had just gone the distance.

I often disagree with the academy award nominations. It's usually too political to nominate the best movies and performances of the year. Born Into Brothels is an exception, it was nominated and won! The only mistake was not nominating it for best picture.

Brothels is the story of a woman, Zana Briski, who traveled to Calcutta to photograph the brothels. She fell in love with the children and began teaching them photography. The movie is seen through their eyes.

The result is extraordinary in so many ways. Calcutta's red light district is interesting in and of itself. The setting is the first extraordinary feature. The filming makes you feel like you are there. Director Ross Kauffman captures the feeling of being trapped in dark allies with a dark future. Without a director commentary running though the film, you're able to see it all by the way it's been directed. The dark past and future of these families is presented in a beautiful and horrific way.

Secondly, the children are lovable. The story focuses on 8 or 9 children of prostitutes. Each one is unique. Some are incredibly funny, others serious, some are troubled, and at least one has an undeniable talent for photography. You'll leave the theater feeling like you know them.

This is documentary film at its best. It transports us to another country and makes us love the troubled children. What was troubling to me was having to leave the theater never to see these troubled children again. Putting aside the incredible movie-making abilities of these creators, Zana Briski is a true hero.

Constantine's visuals are absolutely incredible. They're even better than what you would expect for a high-action Keanu movie. Although I don't rate this movie very high, its visuals are worth the price of a movie ticket, and for sure a rental.

Keanu has picked another acting challenge. A boring, soft-spoken, super-hero type that wears sunglasses…oh wait, that's all he does well. But it's true; he's earned his place in the action movie hall of fame. This time he's born with the ability to recognize demons and angels that walk the earth in human skin. After having attempted suicide in his youth, he is trying to change his fate of being doomed to hell by confronting demons and saving souls. Even the premise it interesting which is why the comic book was such a success. But the movie is fairly lenient in adapting its source material. Not only do they not make this classic character a blond or British, but the character is barely human. The humanity is what makes him interesting in the first place. Keanu gives a supernatural approach (surprise, surprise), which ruins the entire theme.

Tilda Swinton makes her appearance as the Angel Gabriel; raising the level of talent significantly. She steals every scene she's in. Djimon Houston does a great job too, as could be expected.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the movie may have had more success if it was made into a series of movies. The reason I say this is because there is so much to contemplate in this movie. The minute you grasp one concept, another one comes your way. They pack too much into a two hour movie. Too much information just ends up in mush. When you're dealing with the end of the world, I guess two hours just isn't enough.

Even an incredibly likable Will Smith can't save this romantic comedy that has too much sappy romance and not enough comedy.

In Hitch, Will Smith has taken a break from his high-action movies to give a romantic comedy his talent. He plays a Manhattan date doctor who helps men with their romantic issues, but the real test comes when he also becomes interested in a newspaper reporter that is unaware of his line of work. Although the premise sounds original, when the movie gets moving it seems that we've heard it all before.

It's also important that the romantic comedy has comedy. Without it a movie becomes a drama that's extremely cheesy, this is what Hitch is essentially. Comedy will break up the cheesiness and make the movie endearing. It also helps the audience see though the implausibility. I mean, at least add a funny best friend or something.

Lastly, it should be a rule that romantic comedies should only be allowed to be less than 1 and a half hours. This movie pushes two hours. That's way too long, even for a good romantic comedy.

This is the story of Danny Balint, a man who transformed himself from a religious Jewish student to one of the leaders of the Neo-Fascist political movement. It's a powerful true story of a man who was a member of the KKK, but eventually was exposed as Jewish in The New York Times. It was a critical success and won the grand-jury prize at Sundance. That alone might tell you if you'll like this movie or not.

The movie is successful in one area, it's disturbing. It's not afraid of taking chances with its disturbing character profile. It takes risks, and never gives any thought to weather or not the audience may enjoy it. It just tells it like it is.

But it's this exact feature that is the movie's downfall as well. Telling the movie how it is doesn't always interest the audience. The movie doesn't dwell nearly enough time developing this intriguing personality, although Ryan Gosling does his best to create a unique past without it being included in the script. As an audience member I was left empty without being able to see an explanation for this man's contradictory behavior, leaving me to wonder why the movie has a need to be seen. To some this movie may be a refreshing change from the way these type of movie's are made, but to most, this movie will end in frustration.

This is a movie that you should not miss. This is the type of movie that has the potential to change the world. I know that may sound cliché and cheesy, but it's the truth. The movie comes from Senegal and deals with the still common practice of female circumcision.

This masterpiece has been created by Ousmane Sembene, the 81-year old father of African cinema. Besides having such a powerful a surprisingly applicable theme, it is artfully filmed. The fact that it is created by someone who has lived in Africa making movies his entire life is reason enough to see this movie. Although there are many films are about Africa, there are very few that capture Africa as it really is. Sembene is a master of it.

Then there's the colorful story. It's hard to believe that this type of lifestyle is still very common in parts of Africa. The urgency of this message will captivate you. It may make you appreciate living in a country like the US, that seems to have come so far when it comes to woman's rights, but even more than that, it will hopefully create a common tie across the board knowing that every human desires and deserves their right to life. The humanity of this film is painfully clear. There's no avoiding a change of heart and mind. All this said, Senegal has some difficultly finding actors that can handle the depth of this subject. But don't let that take anything away from your experience. It's possible the most empowering movie I've this this year or any.