Reviews

The idea of a story set in an alternate universe where the CSA won the Civil War is very interesting to me. But this film takes the approach of a second-rate BBC-Ken Burns-knockoff TV special. As a result, I felt like I was watching a TV show rather than a movie. This movie is Tivo-worthy, but it's not that great as a stand-alone film. Still, it's more interesting and risk-taking than your average Hollywood or art-house film.

I was bored by the conceit of a PBS-type special, but the ideas behind the film were quite interesting. The commercials for various products are first-rate satire...although, sadly, they are probably too close to reality to count as satire. The film is good information for most Americans, people who never stopped to consider just whose aunt was Aunt Jemima, or whose uncle was Uncle Ben.

A cardinal sin of reviewing movies is to review a movie you wished you saw rather than the one you actually saw. Still, I would have preferred to see a movie focused on a single character or group of characters living in the CSA. This film is a little too didactic for me to enjoy. I'd say: definitely catch it on cable. If you see it in the theater, you are paying for the concept rather than the actual entertainment value.

IMHO many of the best movies about social problems only have to ask good questions, rather than preach solutions to the audience. Do the Right Thing and Traffic are two examples of this phenomenon, and Bowling for Columbine is certainly in this category. Moore asks all the right questions about America's culture of violence - not just gun violence - and comes away as confused as we are about the possible solutions. I'm glad he didn't just point the finger at gun ownership, movies, religion, or any one thing as the bogeyman which brings us such horror.

The only problem I had with the film was Moore's treatment of Charlton Heston, who (as we know now) suffers from Alzheimer's Disease. It was painfully obvious from Moore's interview that Chuck ain't as sharp as he once was, and he made an unfortunate slip of the lip that might lead the audience to think he's a racist. I don't know the guy, but I do know he marched on Washington with MLK Jr., back when being down was not cool at all. So IMHO he's earned the benefit of a doubt on that particular issue.

Overall, a great, great movie that everyone should see. There is some graphic violence of people actually getting shot, so those with weak stomachs may wish to skip it.

Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success.

I am completely at a loss to understand how so many of the reviews here are positive about this abortion of a movie. Since I retain hope for the future of humanity, I choose to believe that WB is forging posts for this board, because this movie is ATROCIOUS. It is an unforgivably horrible movie save for the gratuitous sex and nudity, which I actually enjoyed. I mean, come on, "see it twice or three times, even"? Who's posting here, David Manning?

In short, Halle Berry gives us exactly two reasons to see this movie. Two soft, supple, nearly perfect reasons. If you're into breasts, your expenditure for Swordfish tickets will be somewhat justified. Otherwise, the only thing you will be after seeing this film is ninety minutes closer to death.

Leone is usually stellar, but this movie is a misfire. Perhaps its slow pace played better 30 years ago, but several moments in this movie are soooo sloooow that I couldn't stand it. Every scene, every close-up is an opportunity for the actors to ham it up and further slow down the film. Unlike most who view this film, I found the acting to be rather ordinary for the most part. Bronson was nothing special here; I can only surmise that people's preconceptions of Fonda led them to believe that he did a great acting job here. (Just because he was the heavy.) Most of the characters did not appear to be more than standard cut-outs, or an opportunity for big-name stars to wear Western duds.

Given the near-unanimity of opinion on this board, perhaps I need to see this again, but I doubt it. "Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo" is a far superior movie to this; see that one instead. Eli Wallach added some real _life_ to that picture, life that is sorely missing here.

How on Earth could any right-thinking person think that 'Gladiator' is superior to 'Crouching Tiger'? This film is far, far superior to either 'Gladiator' or 'Traffic'. An excellent movie - the only problem I had was understanding some of the tricks in the film, which I took to be staples from other martial-arts films. (ie the ability to make an enemy 'freeze' in battle)

Very good movie, possibly the best I've seen this year.

The first 3/4 of the movie are first rate; the ending was a little too obvious. They sort of hit the audience over the head a few times where subtlety would have served them better.

Tom Hanks is incredible in this. Zemeckis is good, but he has to watch himself; sometimes he gets a little too cute, like he did in the running scenes in Forrest Gump.

This is a great movie. It is absolutely hilarious, and it easily represents R. Townshend's best work. In fact, it's far, far better than anything else he's ever done, which is remarkable considering the film's tiny budget.

The humor is biting and relevant. The movie is highly recommended.

I can't understand for the life of me why he was so harsh on this picture. This is easily one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. It kicks the crap out of Titanic, by a long shot. Basically, take an event film like Titanic, but add real actors and a better plot...

I totally fail to understand how someone could fault this film for bad graphics while praising Titanic. Certain scenes from that movie look so bad as to be laughable. (I'm thinking of long external shots of the boat at night...)

Russell Crowe kicks ass in this role. He's every bit as good here as he was in "The Insider."

The only thing I can say about this film is that after you see it, you will be three and a half hours closer to death. ...although it might behoove you to sneak out of "Pokemon" long enough to see Tom Cruise talking about genitalia.

It's interesting to see that Jim Carrey has returned to doing impressions. This film seems more like a big impression rather than an interpretation of the life and times of Kaufman. No particular insight is brought to the fore, and various parts of the movie - the recreations of various episodes of "Taxi" or "Late Night", to name two - just seem awkward. The Kaufman episode of "Biography" is far, far better and more insightful.

PS I had no idea how bad an actor David Letterman is. Here, he shows an inability to play himself.

This is a very good if flawed movie. It's more about capturing the ambience and feeling of a specific set of people during a specific time in a specific location. I've heard mixed or negative reviews of the acting in the film, but two performances stand out: Adrien Brody kicks ass as a neighborhood kid turned punk/hustler/musician, and Mira Sorvino is AWESOME as a neglected, faithful, "traditional" wife who is married to an abject loser (Leguiziamo). This movie has one of the most potent sex scenes (NOT the orgy!) that I have seen; it ranks with the 5-second orgasm from "Fast Times"... it makes its message perfectly.

Just godawful. Not enough nudity to be enjoyed as an exploitation flick, not enough camp to be enjoyed as a comedy, and not nearly enough plot to be taken seriously.

You could learn more about women by renting "Basic Instinct" or "Showgirls".