The Sandlot

"The Sandlot" may just look like it’s about baseball, but moreover,it’s about friendship, with some nostalgia thrown in. Set in 1962,Scotty Smalls moves into a new neighborhood. Uncertain of the area atfirst, he becomes friends with some boys in a baseball field known asthe Sandlot. Over the summer, they try to get girls, battle a rivalteam, and do a few things that they shouldn’t have. All the while, theyhave to remember about a dog known as "The Beast".

As someone who has never been interested in sports, I seeminglywouldn’t take any stock in this movie. But I did. I admit that KarenAllen, as Scotty’s mom, and Denis Leary, as her boyfriend, are the onlycast members whom I recognize, but it’s a really interesting movie.

This film proved to be one of the few kid-based stories which I still watch today. Films about growing up always make me misty, simply because of the moments of innocence which most seek to display. One of the funniest moments in film history is the guys using chew for the first time, then proceeding to through up on themselves and everyone else. Sure, it was a bit crass, but that’s what happens when one tries chew for the first time. I especially loved the attitudes of the players, all defining themselves in some shape or fashion, modeling themselves after the common baseball player. Great fun, and the cameo performance with James Earl Jones was awesome.

This is your only spoiler warning…

This movie is all about the hyperbole of youth. What year it is doesn’tmatter, like Stand By Me it involves pre-Vietnam America. What is thesignificance of that? The notion of "innocent times?"

Nonetheless, it’s the exaggeration of the childhood memories that makes thismovie funny. It’s nothing new or clever, but it is effective when doneright. In this case we have the dog, the imagined history of Mertle’sjunkyard, the vomit, the 4th of July baseball game, and the concluding chaseall have those elements.

I won’t delve into the acting since it’s typical early-90s child acting. This isn’t MTV-style, it’s Nickelodeon. There are worse "family" films thanthis, most are more involved with sports–whereas here baseball is just aframe–but this is useful for kids in the meantime. These sorts of kidsmovies are similar to action movies, just adjusting the bar for the nextfilm. Consider why no one watches ‘Free Willy’ anymore, the baton has beenpassed.

Final Analysis = = Midrange Material

A group of boys experience a lifetime of lessons in one averageAmerican summer. In The Sandlot, Scotty Smalls (Tom Guiry) makesfriends with the neighborhood boys and they embark on juvenileadventures of camping out overnight in their clubhouse sharing s’moresand urban legends. The youths enjoy the thrill of the amusement parkand the bittersweet effects of chewing tobacco. The nine strappingyoung men take a right of passage when they face the over exaggeratedmyth of a mammoth dog dubbed ‘the Beast’ to retrieve a baseball signedby Babe Ruth.

I interpret the intent of this film to promote Americanism. In 1993,patriotism was rampant. We loved our country and this film gives us amultitude of images to tug at our red white and blue heartstrings. Theonly thing more American than baseball in The Sandlot is the variousethnic groups represented by this politically correct version of TheLittle Rascals. Although their skin colors run the range of hues, theyall live the same American life in their Converse sneakers and crewcuts. In the aftermath of our invasion of the smaller, weaker nation ofKuwait, these boys’ foreign and domestic relations help us redeem oursouls and reclaim our image of a kinder, gentler nation.

We see subtle use of commercial icons representing middle class life inthe 1960s. On the counter of Scott’s mother’s (Karen Allen) dreamkitchen, we see the Pillsbury Doughboy cookie jar and Post Sugar Crispcereal. A perfect metaphor for the sweet, sweet life the Americanfamily experienced post World War II and powerful propaganda torecreate it Post Gulf War. Picnics and celebrations boast our Americanpride with fireworks and red white and blue decorations hung from everyavailable limb, front porch awning and lamppost. We witness the youngboys conquer their fear of being devoured by the massive dog Herculesto retrieve the ball signed by Babe Ruth. Is this Director David Evans’way of suggesting that Americanism, represented here by the ball signedby the Great Bambino is worth the risk of life and limb?

The first time I saw this, I really got caught up in the story andcharacters. I was laughing and cheering all the way up until a scenenear the end, at which point, I wanted to scream at the screen. Ireally hate it when a director expects the audience to swallowsomething so blatantly inaccurate, just because they’re riding a niceand warm emotional wave. I’m talking about the James Earl Jonescharacter, and his story (and photo) of playing in the majors with BabeRuth. Unless he had been an Hispanic player originally from a LatinAmerican country (and even that would have been a big if), it wouldhave been IMPOSSIBLE!! The fact that just one prior review evenmentioned this shows just how easily manipulated the typical movie goeris.

Of all the sports movies I’ve seen (well, at least the kid oriented ones),this one is the tops. Why make the comparison to The Wonder Years? Well,think about it. This one features a kid reliving important moments in hisyoung life. It’s about growing up, facing fears, and, of course,fantasizing about the pool life guard (heheh). This is one of thoseclassics that never gets old. A definite 10.

I remember a while back when I was a kid and this movie came out and I haveto say I would watch it once a week and I loved it. A couple weeks ago, Isaw it on t.v. and thought it was incredibly boring. Parts were cute, likewhen the dorky kid pretended to drown so he could kiss the girl, but otherthan that I was disappointed. I guess some movies are just for kids.

Rating when I was 5- 10/10Rating now- 2/10

I always catch this movie whenever it’s on network television. So, it’sa kid’s movie? So what? Now that I’m an adult and outgrown kid’s movies,this one is still fun to watch.

It’s about a geeky kid named Steve who moves into a new neighborhood. Heeventually joins the local sandlot baseball team of neighborhood kids, andthey become the best friends he’s ever had. This movie also teaches a goodlesson in friendship, too.

The best parts were then they played against the bullies in baseballuniforms, the amusement park scene, and when they retreive the ball that washit over the fence and into the hands of the feared dog known as ‘TheBeast’. And the scene where the kids were all being chased by the dog was areal scene stealer!

I’ll admit it is a guilty pleasure movie for me, but it’s still a goodmovie anyway. It’s fun for people of all ages! Whether you’re 7 or 77!

this movie was very sweet but also very funny for kids and adults of allages, if u dont love this movie like i did and still do, u have some majorproblems, it was so great, and had everything i want in a movie in it,comedy, everything so i hope everyone that hasnt seen this and that isreading this gos and sees it

This movie is very well thought - out.

I have no favorite parts of the movie… the whole movie is great!

If you haven’t seen this movie, you’re missin’ out.

The second you see this movie, you will automatically want to add it to yourcollection!

read comments (0)

The Remains of the Day

This is Merchant Ivory’s best film.

Tony Hopkins and Emma Thompson are superb.

This period drama is set in the mid to late 1930’s before the outbreakof the Second World War.

Tony Hopkins plays Mr. Stevens, a butler in the household where a hugeconference on the state of Europe and effects a war could have on itand the rest of the world takes place.

The cast including James Fox, Hugh Grant, Christopher Reeve and MichaelLonsdale give performances that stand out in this thought provokingfilm.

Fascinating. Just what goes on and interesting characters. No realsurprisesthough. Has some moral dilemmas that are very interesting. Following ordersis the central theme. Everyone pretty much stays in character. All thecharacter details seem carefully woven together.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie–I thought I would be boredbut since it had both Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson in it, Idecided to watch it anyway. Their acting was superb–I felt AnthonyHopkins should have won the Oscar for best actor in thismovie–especially in the scene where his father has a heart attack inthe middle of a very important dinner with very important guests andAnthony Hopkins has to continue with his duties as head butler. Hemanages to control his emotions but his eyes tells it all–how deeplyhurt he is. No overacting here. In another scene where Emma Thompsontells him that she is leaving to get married–I have never seen suchgreat acting in my life! I could almost feel his pain–losing the onlywoman he has ever loved. While his decision to let her go is certainlyfoolish, one can only watch in wonder how flawlessly Anthony Hopkinsacted out this scene and it is repeated much later when he goes tovisit Emma Thompson at the conclusion of the film.

Great movie, great acting all the way. I could scarcely believe thatthe script was written by a Japanese–he really showed what that"British stiff upper lip" is all about…

The Remains of the Day has profound meaning that may not easilydiscerned at first. The inability to express ones feelings, is itbetter to be more objective or subjective as a person, finding meaningin your work, the wisdom and indiscretion of youth, the inability tocommunicate, the relationship between father and son related to therelationship between employer and employee and a lost love. The listgoes on. The Butler (Anthony Hopkins is truly a tragic figure whobecause of pride and upbringing cannot get himself to express his truefeelings toward Miss Clinton(Emma Thompson).

What maybe even more tragic he cannot tell his own father as his fatheris dying that he loves him. Hopkins inability to express his love forthe people in his life haunts him until the bitter end. It leaves himtrapped wanting to be free like the pigeon who flew into the wrong roomat the end of the movie and was let go. Watch the movie again.

‘Remains of the Day’ exhibits all the hallmarks of the Merchant/Ivorytrade-craft. Beautiful photography, a beautiful musical score, fineediting, excellent dialog, natural character development and exquisitesettings. And last but not least a marvelous cast of actors at the toptheir collective form. Anthony Hopkins has done nothing better. Hisrestrained portrait of the Butler, Stevens, is one of the finestattempts at the portrayal of true servitude, without suffering, that Ihave ever seen. I say, without suffering, because I don’t think Stevenssuffers. I think he is very aware of what others experience, as far asclose emotional attachments and self-expression, but does notparticularly covet those things. He is something we don’t understandanymore, someone who lives to serve, in the best sense of the word. Ialso do not think Stevens is a naive person; though perhaps shelteredby the circumstances of his career, he fully knows HOW to find outwhat’s going on the outside world, if he wanted to.

Emma Thompson’s housekeeper, Miss Kenton, is from that outside worldand attempts to broaden Mr Stevens’ horizons by forcing him to facewhat she thinks are his own self-imposed limitations. She is right, orcourse, in that Stevens does indeed impose limitations on himself, butshe also has a hidden agenda. She is in love with him. Perhaps he lovesher but that is something he has sacrificed, willingly, to perform hisjob to the best of his abilities. We might not understand this attitudenow but those were different times when the feudal spirit was stillflickering in its last days of existence in England. All gone now.

I found ‘Remains of the Day’ to be a fascinating glimpse into the dayto day activities in a great house run along the lines of ancienttraditions, and it is also an attempt to portray our struggle withourselves and our consciences; cowardice resulting from fear, breakingthe bounds of tradition, love vs. duty and honor and all that self-helpsort of thing.

The only truly false and ridiculous note in the film is when LordDarlington asks his butler to explain the facts of life to Darlington’sGod-son, Hugh Grant, a young man in his twenties. This was totallyabsurd and I doubt if the most empty-headed, negligent peer ever knownto man, whoever he might have been, would have given the facts of lifea second thought. Most schoolboys learned about sex at a very early agewithin the English public school system and by other more sophisticatedmeans at their disposal. I suggest reading books by Evelyn Waugh andGraham Greene for the real skinny on that topic.

I also found Congressman Lewis (Christopher Reeve) to be a highlyfictional creation. America did not give a damn about World War 2 untilwell into the fighting action, and France and most of the Continent hadfallen to Hitler’s army, only then did F.D.R. come to the aid ofEngland. In the mid 1930s when this film takes place, America was notconcerned with German aggression. In fact our Ambassador to the courtof St James, Joseph Kennedy Sr, was an admirer of Hitler, resulting inF.D.R. calling him back to Washington and giving him other work to do.He was an embarrassment but still America did not act in the interestsof England to cut Germany off at the pass BEFORE a war was started.Reeves’ speech, therefore, at the great dinner is completely bogus andthe creation of a modern author looking back and using his creativeimagination to put forth an anti-aristocracy diatribe out of the mouthof Congressman Lewis.

The other historical figure shown in this film is Sir Oswald Mosley,though under the name of "Sir Geoffrey" something or other. He isportrayed as a grim-lipped monster, quite unlike the true personalityof Mosley, the founder of the British Union of Fascists, aka BlackShirts. Mosley had a large following among average British citizens ofthe day and it wasn’t until the press and the communists put him intheir sights that he was arrested and imprisoned for the balance of thewar. Prior to the formation of the B.U.F. Mosley was widely consideredone of the most brilliant politicians in Parliament and was oftenconsidered as a possible Prime Minister. This aspect of the truth wasentirely ignored in the portrayal of "Sir Geoffrey" who was simplyshown as a nasty little vegetarian bully spouting Hitlarian epithets,something Oswald Mosley never did. This isn’t to defend Mosley or hisB.U.F but simply to highlight the interpretation of history that hasbeen put into the script.

So why do I like this film? I’m not sure. I love the house and itsfurnishings and the activities of the below-stairs staff. The chemistrybetween Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins is fascinating.

In the end I enjoy it is a glorified house-tour wrapped up in awell-written dialogue. I don’t see this film as being particularlytragic, or about thwarted love, on the part of Stevens anyway. As MissKenton comments upon getting hold of a book Stevens is reading in hisroom…"It’s just a sentimental old love story." That would describethis film from Miss Kenton’s point of view, but not from
Stevens’ Ithink. He would have viewed this film as a tale of all the underminingpolitical forces that brought about the downfall of an ancient andnoble tradition in England, and he would not have liked it at all. Amelancholy and often touching film which is beautiful to watch, andlittle more.

I give this film a 6 out of 10.

I have seen this film many times and every time the subtleness of thecharacters comes to mind. Is it a story about missed opportunities?Decisions one would like to undo? About love and duty? About the secondworld war and its aftermath? The acting is absolute superb, and it isThompson and Hopkins at their best. The "bookscene" is unforgettable,and assumes growing importance when seeing this film more often.

SPOILER The only drawback may be that America was, historically seen,not much interested in the second world war, which is contrary to theAmerican character in the film, who seems to be very much involved inEuropean politics at that time.

But apart from that one can only applaud the producer, director, scripteditor and actors of making such a beautiful product.

Reading through the comments on this movie I find the people who didn'tlike it, found it to be "terribly slow, no romance, unbearably stuffy,no one could possibly be so blindly loyal, etc." The entire premise ofthe story, the basis for the story, is exactly what they do not like.This is quite sad. Anyone who enjoys history can follow the meetingsthat go on at the house. Anyone can understand the butler's feelingsthat he is below these talks and not informed well enough to passjudgment on his peers, nor why he would NEVER pass judgment on themeven if he were in fact informed enough. That he can not warm to thecare of another is also understandable when you see the totalcommitment he has to his position. There is, in fact, a very tenderlove story here. You have to look for it. I found movie totallybeautiful and superbly portrayed. It is too bad there aren't any beingmade today to match it.

The british class system is very unique, the distinction between master andservant existed very long in Great Britian, maybe even longer than in everyother country in the world. Oddly enough few films have taken a closer lookat that special environment. This insightful film did it and that withinsight and great success.

The movie starts in the 1950’s. Darlington Hall had been sold to a richAmerican politician (Christopher Reeve), the old Lord has died without anheir. Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), the butler stays still in contact with aformer housekeeper Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson), for she might return to runthe house. In flashbacks their story is told.

In the 30’s Lord Darlington (James Fox) is a fierce supporter of Hitler,believing that the Nazis will rebuilt Germany and make it a proud nationonce again. To find supporters for his cause he invites several diplomatsfrom different nations. This shows that the there were great sympathies forthe Nazis all over the world (something those countries like to ignore orforget). In these turbulent days, Stevens serves his master without everdoubting him. Even when he finally is alarmed (Lord Darlington insists ondismissing two maids because they are Jews), he does what he was told. Loveblossoms between him and Miss Kenton, though he cannot admit it. He’sextraordinary stiff and suppresses his feelings, unable to show any form ofemotion. She desperately tries to get an emotional response from him,fighting with him, shouting at him over some nonsense. But she cannot reachhim emotionally. Finally she agrees to marry a man she doesn’t love to forceStevens to finally admit his feelings for her. But he doesn’t and shemarries and leaves Darlington Hall.

This is one of my personal favourite Merchant-Ivory production, beautifullycrafted, this story of unfulfilled love is deeply touching. It’s aboutinability to find happiness and the choices we make and the result thatremain of these choices. It’s about trust and loyalty without ever trying tothink for yourself. Stevens realizes to late, that his master has done wrongand in the end he’s embarrassed and ashamed that he didn’t have the strengthto think for himself.

After their first pairing together in `Howards End’ Emma Thompson andAnthony Hopkins once again are on screen. They are brilliant, never strikinga wrong note, absolutely perfect. Together they create more chemistry andsexual tension (yes, they do) than some couples in Hollywoodmovies.

They are supported by a terrific cast, the wonderful James Fox, ChristopherReeve, Lena Headey, Ben Chaplin and (in a pre-romantic comedy part) HughGrant.

This is one of my all time favourite films and I’ll never tire ofwatching it. You are drawn into the film and actually feel like you areseeing this world of appeasement and stately homes through eachindividual actor’s eyes. You can see the passion in the butler’s eyes,never-mind how much he tries to hide it. You sense the housekeepersdespair at ever reaching the butler through his ‘unseeing’? eyes. Eachtime I watch it I feel a new intensity and the film proffers many morequestions. The acting? Ludicrously excellent all round, with Hopkinsand Thompson digging gold. Making you believe that they really don’tknow what awaits the world around the corner.

I had seen this movie before, but it was on television (one of the "ondemand free movies" we get with our cable company)and I remembered thatI liked it, so I watched again. I was almost immediately drawn in tothis fascinating story, engrossed in the intricacies of the plot. Thisreminded me of Gosford Park, in that there is a lot of food for thoughthere. Emma Thompson is excellent, as is Anthony Hopkins. What fineperformances from both of them! I had forgotten that Hugh Grant was inthis. His performance was also well done, and understated. ChristopherReeve also had what amounted to a cameo; this movie was made a coupleof years before his accident. It’s hard to describe the plot, as thereis so much going on. Hopkins plays a butler; his goal is to be thefinest butler he can be, and one of the best qualities a butler canhave is loyalty. Yet, he slowly (very very slowly) realizes thatperhaps loyalty, when displaced, is not actually a virtue. Thompsonplays the young housekeeper who is very good at what she does, yet sheis (by the character’s own admission) a coward. The main storylineconcerns the butler’s unrequited love for the housekeeper, and it isheartbreaking! This is not a film that everyone will enjoy, but thesubtleties made it one that I’ll most definitely watch again. I highlyrecommend it, with the caveat that if you’d rather watch an actionpicture, this won’t be for you.

read comments (0)

This Boy’s Life

Frankly, I almost turned this off several times. First, at the thirtyminute mark, then at an hour. While I’m glad I "stuck it out," I still haveproblems with the performance of Ellen Barkin. I do not understand hercharacter - the motivations. Sure, there is an obvious act of survival, butbeyond that, the character is flat. The acting of the other leads, and theset design, are first rate. DiCaprio is excellent.

Being that this is based on fact, I wonder which characters actuallyexisted? Being that Arthur is somewhat of a prominent influence onToby/Jack - I’d love to know if he is a real person, and what happened tohim.

You might like this. Some people do like that sort of acting where theonly motions are visible, violent dissolution. Its a commitment to astyle of acting that is more part of the demonstration of life thanlife itself. It pretends to be real but cannot. It overflows withdemonstrations of emotion that suck emotion from us.

deNiro growls. DiCaprio (at the end) grins. Our tragic gears haveturned. It all works the way it is supposed to.

One wonders why these films are made. Is it really worth our time andmoney to convince ourselves that actors can convey that they can act?Do we really get some value or insight or even entertainment in a storysuch as this?

Ted's Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do withthis part of your life.

Even then Di Caprio showed that he could hold a film, although it’s not on apar with ‘Basketball Diaries’ or ‘Gilbert Grape’. It’s actually one of DeNiro’s better performances in the 90s. He doesn’t play him as an outrightmonster. He’s a man suffering from inadequacy, fear, lack of education; whoperhaps is striving but struggling to discipline as a father.

A good film to catch on t.v on a Sunday night. And ultimately a reminderthat Di Caprio used to be an actor of fine promise. Whether he can everrecapture that, we await to see. The next Scorsese gangster film shouldreveal all in the next 12 months.

Concrete, Washington is the setting for this adaptation of TobiasWoolf’s memoir, ‘This Boy’s Life’; and Robert de Niro is the step-dadfrom hell, a man incapable of standing any competition in any aspect oflife. But it’s a fairly standard coming-of-age drama, with a vaguelynostalgic air, heavy on the period details. De Niro’s character shouldbe either frightening or funny, but in the end comes across as merelypathetic: the eventual realisation of this by the other charactersprovides the pivot to the story but unfortunately we, the audience,realise this much sooner than they do. Perhaps the problem is that, 45years ago, behaviour such as his was normal, so today we struggle torelate to it as people would then: we can’t understand why the more"heroic" characters tolerate it. But another part of the problem isthat the memoir format hampers the story from living in the here andnow: we know the author (played here by Leonardo Di Caprio) survived,and became a famous writer to boot, so it’s hard to impart a sense oflife or death urgency to what we see; the happy ending after thehardship is booked in advance. Finally, the story’s eventual resolutionseems semi-random: this may have been how it happened, but when the boywins a school scholarship there’s been little before to indicate thatthis might happen. The result is a dull tale, which is a shame: with alittle more immediacy, and a little less comfortable framing, thestruggle between de Niro and di Caprio could have been great.

Wow, This Boy's Life… who feels dumber, raise your hands. Its okaythose that didn't, motor skills will return momentarily. This boy'sLife is just a testament to that old rule that no matter what big starsyou get to play your characters they can't improve the story. Surepeople do get a bit of a rise out of Robert De Niro and his new foundaccent. The movie is close to worth it with De Niro and his weddingnight with the main characters mother. Dwight (De Niro) who up untilthis point played a meek individual suddenly explodes into a rage overwhat positions are allowed in his bedroom. That is just about all youcan take from this movie; that and the phrase "Goddamn Hotshot", whichis Dwight's favorite expression to describe the main character Tobias"Jack" Wolff. You may be saying to yourself "I didn't know that Jack isa nickname for Tobias. Well my simple minded people it isn't. For Godknows why Mr. Wolff decided that Tobias was too different a name andchose to change it. That's okay I guess because he is a good kid. OhI'm sorry that's just his mother's opinion. In reality "Jack" is a kidrotten to the core. Misdeeds and vandalism, smoking and drinking arehis favorite pastimes. "jack" could very well go down as one of themost hated characters in the history of film, right next to Kahn fromStar Trek and Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.Come on that lazy piece of dirt lays in bed for 20 years after he getscanned at the chocolate factory and all of a sudden he's up dancingwhen Charlie brings home the Golden Ticket? I don't buy it. No betteris "Jack"'s mother. What kind of women notices the abuse of her childand does nothing. "I don't want to be a referee" is what she wouldrepeat. But if you ask me you just don't want to be a mom. Parenthoodhas two basic principles: Teach your kids right from wrong (which youreally blew, badly) and keep them from harm. That's it the rest of itfalls into one of these categories. You don't need to be an official,Ma, but you do need to be a guardian, a teacher and a mother. Overall,This Boy's Life was not the worst movie I have ever seen (cough Kazaam)but it is very close. I probably won't recommend it because I alreadyhave an easier substitute. For half the rental price I will smear poopon your eyes which should effectively simulate the experience. This isKevin Mitchell saying "It Stinks".

I recently saw this with my parents just a few months ago onTNT. And it turned out to be a very good film. The stars were perfect. And Ishould recommend this film to ANYBODY who loves Leonardo DiCaprio. But theone I like best in the film is Robert De Niro’s Performance.

An emotional family epic, This Boy’s Life will take you for a ride. Once youget involved in the childhood of author Tobias Wolff (DiCaprio), you want toknow what happens to him. At times bitter-sweet, mostly harrowing, yetalways compelling - This Boy’s Life is well-played by all concerned,especially its odd-couple protagonists, DiCaprio and DeNiro, and the womanbetween them, Ellen Barkin. Movies like this, which can feel like choosingto go through a traumatic event, are usually marketed as stories of survivaland hope (The Pianist is a good example). Even though we know the centralcharacter eventually finds some success in life (Wolff is a famous authortoday, and wrote the novel about his childhood that is the source for thismovie), i think you marvel at how the hell he came about doing it. Like ThePianist, the question and interest of the movie is: HOW exactly did hesurvive, and did he escape from the monster DeNiro plays in this movie aspart of his survival?

Robert De Niro is doing something as an actor which he really hasn’tapproached before. He is a complete git in Raging Bull but in This BoysLife he is just a tormenting Bully know it all. Like a villain in apantomime if you like. I didn’t really like Dicaprio’s performance as itseemed a bit put on in parts and cringe worthy, but they are a lot of sceneswhere he shines but he was young and it was his first serious film I believeso you can’t judge him for that. He’s a lot better than Hayley Joel at thatage so that’s ok. But the story of this young boy was riveting as you seehis ups and downs more downs. It could done
with being a bit longer aswell. But I did think Dicaprio was convincing as the young abused teenagerliving in hell under an abusing step father and I am sure plenty of women,men, boys and girls can relate to the trauma that happens here, I myselfcannot as I have been very lucky to have a loving and understanding fatherbut it takes a film like this to remind that it does happen to real peopleand sometimes there is nothing you can do about it. De Niro comes acrossmore annoying than hating. Like I said his character is like a pantomimevillain and you are just waiting for him to fall. Ellen Barkin throws in agood performance. But I also find this movie entertaining which I am surethe director didn’t mean to happen because in each scene of the film thereis something going on whether it be Tobias trying to get into a boys school,Dwight Bullying whoever he can, Arthur trying to sweet talk Tobias intotheir friendship, there are so many characters which you find real andentertaining. I could think of better films that bring up the issue ofbullying and abuse but this still holds a punch right the end and for onceit has a nice ending to a promising story. Funny to think that film isbased on real people because I have seen a picture of Tobias Wolf a lotolder now of course but I would have loved to have seen a picture of Dwightif there ever was one and any information telling a bit more about him,probably not though.

Compelling and well-acted film (based on the best-selling memoirs ofliterature professor Tobias Wolf) that tells the tragic true story of areckless and emotionally distant young man (played by a surprisinglywith-it Leonard DiCaprio) who’s constantly shuttled from one home toanother due to his flighty and irresponsible mother’s (played by EllenBurstyn) unstable relationship’s with men. This of course ultimatelyleads her to marry her second husband Dwight…the step-father fromhell! A cruel, callous, jealous, childish, cranky and worst of allphysically abusive man Dwight (played by a seriously wicked RobertDeniro) makes it his business to keep DiCaprio’s and Burstyn’scharacter’s lives hell-on-earth as they are both made into virtualslaves to his every sadistic whim! A tight, realistic script and veryemotionally raw performances from all three leads do an absolutelysuperb job here of showing the immense toll that abuse (both of thephysical and emotional sorts) can take on a person over a period oftime, and in particular for DiCaprio himself I’d say that this isprobably his best and not to mention one of his very few watchable andbelievable performances to date. (****1/2 out of *****)

An excellent film about the frustrations of growing up, made worse by adestructive step father who is in all honesty a right bastard!! and onewho enjoys one to many cans of the strong stuff, De Niro is excellentin this movie, but the real star of this movie is decaprio who shinesthrough out, I've never been a fan of his work but the guy has earnedmy respect and he is truly a fantastic gifted actor and should of wonan Oscar for his role in this movie i am not one to give away the fullstory when it comes to reviewing films as so many other reviewers doSHAME ON YOU GUYS!!! all i am going to say is if u have not seen thisfilm then buy it now!! and if u have seen it and don't own it again buyit as it's a fantastic story of both courage and the will to survive…

read comments (0)

Trois couleurs: Bleu

Okay, this movie is undoubtably one of the top technical films I’ve seen.Its use of solid colors and those corresponding shades on everything(especially the use of blue and green) was a good job on that aspect. Mygripe comes with the story. Maybe this old Hollywood brain of mine stillcan’t comprehend French cinema, but this movie seemed a tad predictable. Myother gripe is that I couldn’t connect with the Binoche character. Sheseemed unfeeling to everything (which is fine if she chooses to live herlife like that) and it was hard to see her destroyed over killing innocentmice but not over her child. Then, I was wondering if I was going to see the"tangled web of lies and passion" the stupid back of the video box promise.I got this half-baked idea that didn’t pan out anywhere that I could haveinferred from the first 5 minutes of the film. Maybe a re-watch is in orderfor this "just okay" film.

There are some references to an English audio stream; it is similar toan explanatory type narrative over the french audio. There is noEnglish dubbing. If you're like me, and like to immerse yourself into amovie and find that having to read subtitles seriously diminishes thatexperience, you might want to avoid this series of films. It also tendsto be an 'artsy' film; much is left unsaid, and you have to derive alot of meaning from the backgrounds in the films. I don't like moviesthat I have to watch several times just to understand 'everything thedirector is trying to say'; if a director isn't able to clearly conveywhat he/she wants us to feel, maybe they're in the wrong business.Being vague in a mystery can be a plus; but in a drama it just makesthe plot murky and confusing.

Before I get into my (very brief) comment, I do regard Troi Couleurs:Rouge as one of the best, if not the best film I have ever seen. But Ifound Bleu flat, and worse, intensely boring. It is, to me, ameandering, pointless exercise in the meaning of fidelity / freedom.Characters behave quirkily without any seeming motivation, and arriveand leave seemingly at random never to be seen again just so that wecan have another incidence of infidelity dumped into the picture. Thereis just too little backstory to make you care about Binoche'scharacter, and too little plot to propel you into the film. I guesswhat I'm trying to say is that while "idea based" films can beenthralling, they can only be enthralling when there is a plot whichsuccessfully carries the idea (which is exactly what makes Rouge amasterpiece). Here, there's no plot, just the - pretty primitive -idea, which is exactly why I think Bleu is not a masterpiece.

Yes indeed, ‘Blue’ is a wonderful movie, containing some of the bestfilm-making of the last decades or so. Binoche’s role is as perfect aspossible. Lighting is splendid, even though the use of filters is quiteobvious. But that music! The score is an integral part of the story, orbetter, the essence of this film, and it is, in one word, horrible. I’mvery sorry. This is very bad music. Like Mozart, as one reviewerthought? No way, Mozart is always light, and when he isn’t, like in therequiem, he is profound. The score is neither. It’s pretty personal, Iknow. But imagine what an Alban Berg-like score would bring to thismovie. Or any twentieth-century informed music for that matter. Here weare stuck with music as boring as a Gorecki-symphony, endearing for aminute or two, but containing absolutely nothing.

Despite its elegance, beauty, and the talent of its star, JulietteBinoche,"Blue" disappointed me. It never gained any forward momentum that I coulddiscern. Scene after (slow) scene went by without either telling me muchmore about Binoche’s character or making me care very much about her. Shewas simply a repressed sad woman. Maybe it’s me but I cannot recommendthismovie; 5 of 10, and that only because of Binoche’s performance.

This is my interpretation of the meaning of the colors in the movie Blue:The Blue stands for liberty (Julie-Trying to forget what the color bluemeans to her/forget her past) The red symbolizes the moments of humanconnection that Julie begins to experience. The green appears in times ofvulnerability. This movie is of eastern european origin, therefore is notdriven by the plot, but rather the character and the phsycological state ofJulie. The colors portray Julie’s internal emotions expressed in anexternal way. The pool symbolizes a place in her head where she goes to tryand forget/wash away the memory of the past, but as time goes on the greenbecomes introduced into it, showing her mental state as one of changing andbecoming more willing to accept human contact again. Spoiler: In the endshe has sex, up against a fish tank, symbolizing her willingness to fullyleave the water and come to grips with her life.

In light of the many glowing reports on this film, it takes a littlecourageto admit that beyond a few impressive story telling techniques and somememorable uses of color, Blue was altogether unremarkable. After theinginuity, one’s audience still must invest in the story, or at least inhowone is telling it. I have nothing to gain by criticizing those whoappreciate the technical and artistic nuances of this film, but Blue wasproduced for a select sub-culture. To the lay-film-lover, it was foreignontwo fronts. 4/10

I literally just finished watching this film. Throughout it, I was tryingto gain meaning from the images I was seeing. But, I’m coming to therealization that this film was pointless. What was it trying to say? Ithas no plot, which can be great, but if a film is not telling a story, thanit has to be showing something deeper. BLUE has incredible scenes of humanemotion, but also has scenes that are utterly pointless. The film was nevergoing toward something.

It was beautifully filmed and wonderfully acted, but those virtues don’tmake up for the above problems. I was watching it, knowing I was supposedto like it. As an intelligent filmgoer I read the rave reviews from bothcritics and movie buffs, but I just didn’t get the point of itall.

The film is perplexing to me because I don’t understand why people love itso much.

*Email me at chaddoli@sbcglobal.net if you’d like to argue with me aboutit.

(Spoilers) Juliette Binoche stars as Julie Vignon, a woman in serious needof grief counseling, in Blue, the first of Krzysztof Kieslowski’s colorstrilogy. The entire time I watched this, the thought kept rolling throughmy head: "This woman needs to see someone". But that notwithstanding, Bluetook me in early and then lost me toward the end. The movie plays a seriesof events in the life of a woman who wants to completely start over afterlosing her husband and daughter. Several oddballs come and go into herlife, all the while kept at a cold distance by Binoche’s Julie. In thebeginning, I felt sympathy for Julie (who wouldn’t?), but as the film woreon, the lead character’s distant emotions began to wear me down, and I lostinterest. The little surprises we learn toward the end didn’t do too muchfor me, as Julie seems no better or worse than she did in the beginning. I’ll mark this "overrated".

This film is long and drawn out and is quite challenging to watch.

It’s not that it is bad–it isn’t–but it is all about the liberation of awoman grieving, and so, as a viewer, you are invited (no, dragged) into the grieving process whether you want to or not. If you are already feeling blue about something, don’t watch this film; although it is supposed to be an anti-tragedy, it will still depress you anyway.7/10

read comments (0)

The Pelican Brief

The plot was way too stupid-Evil rich guy wanting to get even richer bydestroying the environment while blowing up everybody who accuses him andthus proving the "Pelican Brief"? Stupid. I was turned off by the gruesomeslayings…The eerie "pop" of a silenced pistol followed by lots ofsplattered blood or killer car bombs that make you jump out ofyoursocks…Not my idea of entertainment. Unless you’re an on-the-edgeand/or sadistic maniac, skip this one.

The Pelican Brief is about a USA Presidential scandal, but it hasnothing like the gripping pace of other Oval Office flicks. Mostly itconcerns lawyers who can't fight and don't use guns, which is OK as faras realism is concerned, but doesn't exactly make for a bang-zip-bamaction flick.

The badguys don't seem to be able to decide whether they are followingthe goodguys or trying to kill them. The worst aspect of the film ishow the badguys consistently fail to do this.

However, to be fair, the film held my interest and had a fewinteresting ideas. The acting was good and the setting was very REAL. Imean, to make up for the fact that there weren't any stuntman flyingaround on wires, there was a sense that yes, a scandal might actuallyplay out this way in real life. Except that the goodguys would die onDay One.

Who should see this film:

– action / thriller buffs, but only on a rainy day when you've nothingbetter to do

– law school students, but see "The Paper Chase" first

I'll give The Pelican Brief a so-so 6 out of 10.

The Pelican Brief was well acted, contained great scenes of suspenseduringthe action scenes, but lacked a plausible conspiracy scenario. Certainelements, such as the car bombing scenes, were very predictable. Whenthemovie was first released, certain character interactions wereoveremphasizedduring the promotions of the film. Current viewers will not be distractedby such tactics.

In the first 220 years of the USA, not a single Supreme Court Justice wasever assassinated. In the first ten minutes of this movie, TWO Supreme CourtJustices get whacked. Whatever happened to bribery? Of course, Julia Robertsis some kind of mongoloid Law student, and her term paper regarding someenvironmental risk to a property happens to be what this major corporationis concerned about. The MEGALO Corporation will lose billions unless theSupreme Court rules in their favor. Julia Roberts’ term paper may expose thesecret that MEGALO is so concerned about. Everyone knows that the MASS MEDIAand THE PUBLIC read student term papers voraciously, and rather than ignoreMs. Roberts’ term paper (which nobody but her teacher read); MEGALO decidesthey must kill Julia Roberts and her teacher and anyone else who has readthe Term Paper. The rest of the movie is about Julia Roberts havingNEAR-DEATH experiences as people try to shoot her or blow up her carwhenever she visits her local Dunkin Donuts or otherwise tries to lead anormal life. Denzel Washington reads her Term Paper and decides that he mustalso protect Julia Roberts from death (instead of writing a story about it,since he is a newspaper reporter). Eventually, the world reads JuliaRoberts’ Term Paper, and she gets an A+. THIS MOVIE IS THE WORST. THEDUMBEST PLOT ON EARTH, PLUS JULIA ROBERTS’ BIG TOOTHY GRIN.

Up and down thriller that runs way too long in the end to be completelysuccessful. "The Pelican Brief" is overall an above average film though aslaw student Julia Roberts uncovers the truth about the assassinations of twoSupreme Court Justices. Soon her professor/lover Sam Shepard is killed in acar bomb explosion and Roberts is fearful for her life. She confides inWashington Herald reporter Denzel Washington and immediately they both starta long race to elude those behind the conspiracy. "The Pelican Brief" hassome good ideas and director Alan J. Pakula executes most pretty well.However, the movie drags throughout and has a pacing that is way tooimperfect. In the end, the production tried to stay way too close to thenovel. Washington and Roberts together is worth the time, but really theydeserved better than this. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

OK, this movie is not great, it’s just OK. The castis great, and the director is good. I know for a factthat if this movie did not have these big actors init, it would not have gotten more than a 5. It doesntreally have many thrills, and it’s not very original.If you like the actors in this movie, give it a try.**1/2 out of *****

The resumes of the talent (Julia, Denzel, Sam Shepard, Alan Pakula, JohnGrisham) in this project portended a great movie. The result of theircollaboration, however, just wasn’t satisfying in the way they likelyintended. Since I haven’t read the John Grisham novel on which this filmwasbased, I can’t say whether bastardized source material was the cause ofthefilm’s malaise. I can say however, that there are much more satisfyinglegal/conspiracy thrillers out there such as The Firm (which,incidentally,was also based on a Grisham novel). 6/10.

Gray Grantham was specifically identified as a ‘rich, white American’ inGrisham’s book. Denzel was fantabulous in the movie, of course, but itwould be better to have cast a white guy as the reporter.

Julia Roberts was fine, but she could have added more depth into Darby. Ithink she focused too much on the ‘run for your life’ part, and not enoughon the ‘law student.’ No nitpicking otherwise. =)

This was a very plausible idea of corruption, manipulation, and politics toa cynic like me. There were, however, many coincidences, plot holes, andjust plain stupid moves made by the characters. Not enough to really ruinthe movie, but enough to make me say,"Nobody would do that!" or "Whydidn’t…" etc. Typical movie nonsense. I haven’t read Grisham’s novel, butI hope he "detailed" it more smartly than this. The foundation of the storyis enough to overcome this, but it could have been great. There is noprofane language and the visual violence is quite minimal. In my book it’sasolid B grade.

This was a very plausible idea of corruption, manipulation, and politics toa cynic like me. There were, however, many coincidences, plot holes, andjust plain stupid moves made by the characters. Not enough to really ruinthe movie, but enough to make me say,"Nobody would do that!" or "Whydidn’t…" etc. Typical movie nonsense. I haven’t read Grisham’s novel, butI hope he "detailed" it more smartly than this. The foundation of the storyis enough to overcome this, but it could have been great. There is noprofane language and the visual violence is quite minimal. In my book it’sasolid B grade.

read comments (0)

The Man Without a Face

Like The Last Unicorn, The Man Without a Face is an example of that rarebeast, the movie that is better than the book. As with The Last Unicorn,much of this is due to the need to pare the material down to bareessentials.

Gibson’s best move — and for this I will draw fire — was to maintain amentor/student relationship between Chuck and McLeod, rather than towanderinto the Nabokov-joins-NAMBLA turf the book broods upon. McLeod is a muchmore sympathetic character when there is no spectre of him taking sexualadvantage of his protege.

I have just finished watching this film, and I must say that I have neverwitnessed any other performance that moved me as this one has. It was notonly well written, but the characters were amazingly displayed. I mustapplaud Mel Gibson, for I feel that this is one of hisbest.

The man without a face was yet another one of Mel Gibsons best movies.Atfirst Mel Gibson was a miserable cruel man until Chuck, a young boy thatlived nearby befriended him. Chuck originally just wanted some help on afewLatin words, but in the end he got a whole lot more. Gibson yet again cameout with another excellent movie.

Mel is back and better than ever in "The Man Without A Face." This is Mel’sfinest film to date. Not only was it touching and heartwarming but itshowcased one of the best actor turned directors in MelGibson.

If I had to choose the most touching film I’ve seen this would be in my topfive; however, it is my choice for the number 1 film of1993.

Gibson certainly knew what he was doing as performed along side a newcomernamed Nick Stahl. I can’t tell people enough positive things about thisnewcomer who possesses rare natural talent.

Gibson played his character Justin McCleod the way actors should portray thecharacters…….with heart. I can’t think of a film that showed the worldthe reality behind people in Justin’s situation. Gibson crafted the storyvery carefully and it shows.

Mel Gibson is an actor with heart and has brought it to big screen asMcCleod. I would venture to guess that this role is not that far off thanhis real-life role as husband and father.

When I saw this film, I didn’t have to do much but sit back, eat popcorn anddrink my soft drink. I knew it was going to be a moving, touching andheartfelt film.

However, it turned out to be much more. I was pleasantly surprised howGibson crafted this film into a work of art by using his knowledge ofworking in front of the camera.

I knew by the end of this film everyone involved with this awesome film fromthe talented director/actor to the up and coming star along with the viewingaudience had fun making and watching "The Man Without AFace."

I recommend this film to anyone and everyone young and old who lovesmovies.

This is one of those films where you exactly know what will happen and youknow it from the beginning to the end. But it’s also one of these whichstill touches you. It works in the way ‘Digging to China’worked.

I always thought Gibson is a great actor and he proves it here again. And healso proves for the first time that he’s a great director. I also liked NickStahl’s performance. He’s another one of these great young actors which noone recognizes because he’s young.

A wonderful film, predictable, but nice.

8/10 \ 3/4 \ 2 (1+ - 6-)

I found this movie to have substance. If the book had a different message,who cares. Probably both are good. The character of the kid kind ofconnected with me. I don’t have a lot of respect of authority with how mylife has gone. One of my English teacher’s (not that anyone of you wouldknow from Will. C Wood High School) Mr. Gary Kimsey, got me to open up anddidn’t judge me on the way that I thought. He judged me on the content ofmy character. We had great discussions, and I was "a good student." I am atroubled child even though I am now 18 and have graduated from Will. C. WoodHigh School. This teacher helped me understand what I was feeling. I willremember him for the rest of my life. I am sure the character Nick Stahlportrayed if he really existed would remember that teacher for the rest ofhis life. The movie was done so well. My situation was no where near astragic as in the movie. The only tragic part is that he is not my teacheranymore. This movie really hit home for me. But, unlike Chuck Norstadt, Iwant to become an actor and it doesn’t seem as if anybody really believes Ican pull off becoming a movie actor. But he did. Maybe I want to become anactor so I can be whoever I want to be, and not who someone wants me to be. But, that’s the major reason. Not the money. Another reason is I want tobe the next Val Kilmer, or Al Pacino. This movie deserves a 9 or 10.

For me, maybe because it hits home. I don’t know if my teacher realizes howmuch of an impact he had on me. But, I’ll let him know next year when Ivisit him, and jam it into his head. Don’t let anybody tell you, you arenot a good teacher. You’re different, and that is what makes you so specialto everyone.

When I voted for this movie I was surprised by the ratings because I reallyliked this movie. Okay, so it’s not as huge as Braveheart (which Mel Gibsonalso directed), but it’s a beautiful story with some funny moments in ittoo. I’m beginning to like Mel Gibson’s directing more and more.

The movie reminded me of the sort of "training" in a lot of martial artsmovies.(hard work and discipline, but from a nice guy who becomes the pupilsbest friend)

My rate:8

I don’t really have much to say about the movie.I’ve read the book acoupleof months ago.Later I saw the movie just forfun.And there was a lot of differences between the movie and thebook.

So what?

The movie was still great.Why does a movie based on a book have to beidenticwith the book?Can’t you use the book just as inspiration?

Why do people hate the movie just because it wasn’t identic with thebook?I know that you still think it’s a great movie.

In 1980,a movie"The Shining" made succes although it was completelydifferent from Stephen Kings book.People loved it anyway.So think about it.

Some differences doesn’t have to make it a bad movie.

My rating of the movie: 10

What a wonderful movie! It is a social statement and an individualinspiration.

It comments on the consequences of the degraded family structure and, atthesame time, the over meddlesome community standards. It examines theimportance of individual integrity, industry, self-examination and, at thesame time, the consequences of human failing and self-indulgence. Itdecries judging people and circumstances based on their surfaceappearances.

If you are looking for a film which exalts the individual and the powerfuleffect we can have on others, this is a must see movie.

This is well made flick set in the late 1960’s with a gorgeous Mainesetting. I loved the story of teacher Justin McLeod and his pupil ChuckNorstadt. I also loved the look of the film and even the look of JustinMcLeod’s beach front house.

People who accuse this film of having a political agenda are utterly fullofit. The only people upset at the movie altering the book it was based onare of the chicken hawk set. It’s a sensitive, funny, poignant, wellacted,well written, well directed film. The film’s beautiful ending withMcLeod’swave goodbye to Norstadt I found particularly moving. This is amainstreamadaptation of a less than mainstream book. Sometimes when books made intomovies are altered it’s a travesty, this is one of those rare cases whereit’s a triumph.

Mel Gibson is a great actor and a great director. Any intelligentfilmgoershould only be interested in a filmmaker’s art not his supposed politics.Too true, baby blue.

&nbs
p;

read comments (0)

The Joy Luck Club

I think this movie is for girls. It was so melodramatic that it reminded meof my girlfriend and how she would get work up over nothing. Definitely achick-flick. Writing is very cheesy. Directing is horribly confusing. Acting is somewhat bad. Don’t learn about Asian-Americans in this movie; aterrible hyperbole. Very offensive to Asian males as they are made theenemies and the Asian females all marry white guys. A travesty for theAsian Male.

Boy, I really hate this movie. The acting was melodramatic all the time.Thedialogue is way overwritten. And everything in the film seemed to want tomystify what it means to be an Chinese American woman. Eventually, all thecharacters are just blurry. Firstly, I come from a Chinese American familyand have plenty of friends who do as well. I suppose this movie tries tosaywhat most Chinese American families can’t, but in the end, its just ashallow tear jerker that has no qualms about reality. The one saving graceis the Rosalind Chao character who was balanced and interesting. All theother ones were whinny and overplayed. Executive producer Oliver Stoneisn’tknown for his subtlety, is he?

… not bad, but the novel hit the spot more accurately. Here, scenes arefaithfully reproduced exactly as they appear in print, and some (mostlyfeaturing Waverley but also the Lena/Harold crumbling marriage with theirnotes for expenses). The best are the ones which try to be more filmic -using rain, colour (the ones in China are excellent) etc. One puzzlingomission from the novel is the death of the small child Bing, swept out tosea as this has a major effect on his sister and is a strong chapter in thenovel. Good though this film is, I feel it comes across as too sentimentalto be really effective.

I just finished the book for my cultural anthropology class. The bookis wonderful. It is truly amazing to see how the culture of the Chinesewomen fit so well into the pages of my anthropology book and viceversa. It is fair to say that culture is learned, shared, and worked ondown thru the ages. The culture of the Chinese woman is a work of art.They learn so many things from their mothers and grandmothers, etc.that it is somewhat impossible for the daughters in this story to looseall of their heritage. With what each of their mothers went thru, theyhave such a rich heritage to pass on to their children. The men in thisbook play a very important part also, they are like the sidelines ofthe story. In China, the father is important, but not as regarded asthe mother. Women in China, even though they are sometimes seen as thelowest have a great influence on their husbands and their children.

I haven't seen Wayne Wang's other work, but I was not impressed by thisparticular movie. I absolutely loved the novel. I was amazed at howmuch Wang was willing to depart from the novel, whether for brevity orplot. In the first scene, when they are playing mah jong, June sayssomething like "no speaking Chinese, thats not fair!" In the novel allthe daughters speak Chinese. I'm not one to quibble about book-filminconsistencies but in a movie so concerned with identity andrelationships across generations and cultures, this makes no sense tome. And the score was an easy-listening abortion. I'd just like to seetheir reasons behind some of the decisions they made in adapting thismovie. I finished the book attached to all the main characters, whilethe only character in the movie that I found compelling in theslightest was Lindo Jong.

Bring a lot of Kleenex. This movie transcends the trivialization ofAmerican movies. Because the characters portray Chinese and Chinese Americanfamilies, culture clash and rebellion are inevitable situations. Resolutionof the conflict of each character, though limited by time constraints, issatisfying taking that into consideration. Everything is in it: Identity,mother/daughter dynamics, humor, reflection and the pressures we each faceabout who we are and what we want to be, divorce, reconciliation and movingforward. A beautiful, beautiful movie.

Please read the others’ comments for their important and valued opinions.This movie showed me how lucky I have been during my lifetime when comparedwith the lives of these women. I’ve watched this movie three times alreadyand love to watch it with others who have never seen it before. Get theKleenex ready because you’ll need an entire box. A splendid portrayal ofasian culture and of its recent past.

I can’t add much more to what others have already said… except this:readthe book, too. The movie does an excellent job telling the stories of thewomen. And if you crave more, the book will give it to you.

Beautiful tellings, both!!!

Certainly what my husband would call a "chick flick" but beautiful nonetheless. The stories that each woman has to tell are so incrediblyinterestingand believable. Grab a box of tissues, put the kids to bed, grab a cup oftea, sit back and enjoy. It’s the best film I’ve seen about relationshipsinsome time. It has all the makings of a classic.

I am "no film reviewer" but this really is a powerful movie of immigrantswho face adverse trails and tribulations! Gripping, Entertaining! Bringyourtissue you will need it!If you are looking for a moving movie tonight, then bring the girls andguysto see this tear jerker. No Oscars? What a mistake! How can that possiblybe? This gets two thumbs up in anyone’s review.

read comments (0)

The Age of Innocence

Before watching this movie I already had a double feeling about it:Should I watch it because it is from the hand of Martin Scorsese orshould I leave it behind because it is a costume drama (a genre that Ireally don’t like). I took the first option and watched it.

Even though this is a costume drama, this isn’t the typical sugar sweetstuff that I’ve already seen too many times before, although it reallylooked that way at first. Only when you can stay with it long enough,you’ll see that it actually criticizes the restrictive high society oflate-19th century New York, that its sugar coating hides a lot ofbitterness and sadness.

Perhaps it is because I’m not really interested in this time period,perhaps it is because when I think of drama, I rather like to readbooks or see movies about ordinary people who have to work hard to makesomething of their lives. I don’t know, but this wasn’t really my kindof movie. I admit that it is well-crafted and that the acting is reallyvery convincing, but it just isn’t my cup of tea. I give it a 6/10. Iguess this movie will be loved more by the older female audience thanby the younger males like me.

This is Scorcese anxious to prove he can do more than make movies aboutsub-humans like de Niro and Pesci competing to see who can say thef-word the most times in between killing and maiming other animals likethemselves and on that level it more or less succeeds. Somewhere alongthe way he's clearly seen a Max Ophuls movie so we get lots of shotswith the camera circling the action and making elegant swoops and fluidmovements. Not bad as far as it goes, too bad Ophuls did it first.Joanne Woodward's voice-over narration hits the right note for EdithWharton which is not always replicated by the actors. There'sabsolutely no chemistry between the two leads, Daniel Day-Lewis andMichelles Pfeiffer though Pfeiffer scores as someone who might easilycaptivate a man even as uptight as Day-Lewis. There are lots ofstunning visuals all out of the right bottle and the pace is more orless right but ultimately it's shadow at the expense of substance.

Thrillers and Mafia Movies is what you do best.

Although this one is also about New York, this is not Scorsesesterritory,not at all!If this movie would have been done by someone else it would be a greatstory, butScorsese definitely has done better movies than this one.As an admirer of his work, i was hoping to see at least something like"Gangs of NewYork". (… knowing that even GONY is not flawless)I admit that this is a very entertain-me-point-of-view but this flick isreally not worththe time watching.

sorry marty

I am shocked to see so many good reviews on a movie so generic, soboring, so uninteresting. This movie doesn’t feature great drama, greatacting, or great character depth. Everyone here is just so princy withall their fluffy costumes and such. The plot is quite simple, DanielDay Lewis can’t be with the adulterous slut)Michelle Phfeffer or however youspell her name) because he is engaged with Winona Ryder. You would thinkthis outline would cause people heartbreak, people to fight, people torun away in tears or something emotionally involving. No, no , no, justfancy costumes, gallerias, and everyone just acting proper and not lettingtheir real desires and emotions come through. The ending is horrible, Imean really. I thought the performances were quite good, if only they didsomething worth caring about. I will never watch this overrated pictureagain. Watch The Basketball Diaries, The Crucible, or even

Bram Stoker’s Dracula if you want to watch a drama with emotional depth werethings actually happen. 4/10.

I am sad to say that this movie, while beautifully filmed, has littleof the interest of Edith Wharton's novel. Why is this? First, becausewe can't get into the soul of Newland Archer, as Wharton does, tounderstand his secret cravings and fears. While Mr. Lewis triesadmirably, this movie is just not a vehicle for the expression of mens'inner visions, as Wharton provides with her written words. (See herRalph Marvel character in "Custom of the Country" for inner visions.)

The second reason is that the persona of Ellen Olenska is not developedin a way that makes her compellingly attractive. To me, Madam Olenskaof the novel is a dark enigma, at the same time impetuous and patient,plain and yet beautiful, fair, honest, compassionate, compromised andyet virtuous, strong willed and yet vulnerable, possessing her ownstyle, self-effacing, but not ashamed. She is a person who seeks tosatisfy her own desires but is also willing to sacrifice all for thoseshe loves. Newland Archer becomes hooked on her integrity. The Ellen ofthe movie doesn't portray the powerful, exotic, alluring presence ofWharton's Ellen.

I agree with those who take exception to the screenplay, and think itcould have been better adapted to the screen venue, more orientedtoward character expression.

I wonder about the casting decisions to embody Ellen with Ms.Pheiffer's light hair and complexion, and wide features, and to portrayMay with Ms. Ryder's dark hair and smaller person, reversing theirpersonal qualities from the novel. While a delight for the eyes, thisfilm misses the essence of the tale.

Very disappointing film depicting upper class society in 1875 New York.

The performances are incredibly bad. Michelle Pfeiffer is woefullymiscast as the Princess Olenska. Princess? She sounds like she comesfrom a Brooklyn tenement. She is churlish at best and reminds me ofMarilyn Monroe in "Some Like it Hot."

Equally bad is Winona Ryder in her supporting Oscar nominatedperformance. She pretends to be as naive as Melanie Hamilton in "GoneWith the Wind," when in reality she wasn't.

Daniel Day Lewis rises above the mess and gives a fairly decentperformance as the lawyer who falls for the cousin of the woman he isengaged to. British actress Miriam Margolyes is appealing as the strokestricken grandmother to May.(Ryder)

The film discusses the disdain for divorce among the upper crust. Inreality, these people are nothing more than a bunch of snobs who attendoperas and haven't exactly done a hard day's work.

Lewis and Pfeiffer puff away on cigarettes. 1875 N.Y., smoking amongwomen? If a woman smoked then, it was done very privately.

The first part of the film is utterly boring. The second part isslightly better as the affair can't come to a head.

The film really goes down when a period of 25-30 years is glossed overquickly to get the desired effect. The problem is that we get no desirefrom watching this.

In essence, the film is a royal stinker.

As I viewed this film, I couldn’t help remembering the exciting BBCproductions presented by PBS - Masterpiece Theatre in the 80’s withsimilar themes, i.e. Brideshead Revisited. I realize that most modernviewers may not have seen them (they are rarely re-run on TV althoughthey may be available for rental,etc.) I didn’t find Mr.Scorsese’s filmtoo interesting or exciting overall when compared to those productions.The portrayal of the main characters was not compelling enough. Theacting was adequate but restrained and monotonous. There were too manydead and dull moments in the film. I liked the music which was good andnot placed so as to interfere with he dialog as in so many modernfilms. I couldn’t figure out what the narration added to this work. Attimes, it seemed distracting and out of place. This work can beenjoyable but it’s not a cinema masterpiece.

Hotter than "9-In-A Half Weeks" or even LAST TANGO IN PARIS. A modernmasterpiece. One of the sexiest movies I have ever seen!!!

We deeply disliked this film in spite of a valiant effort by DanielDay-Lewis. This is a
lmost as bad as the Merchant-Ivory adaptation of "TheBostonians" (yawn!). Why on earth Scorsese thought it was a good idea tocast a brunette in the blonde’s role and vice versa is beyond ourcomprehension, and if he was going to do that couldn’t he have found ANYONEbesides Winona Ryder to cast as May? Frankly, we’d much rather watch"Casino" on an endless loop for a year than sit through this again:"Casino" may just repeat "Goodfellas" but at least it doesn’t make youcringe every five minutes.

The most peculiar thing about this film is that it is directed by MartinScorsese who is way out of his element here in this period piece costumedrama starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Winona Ryder.Scorsese’s direction is excellent as always but the film as a whole palesincomparison to such Scorsese masterpieces as say, "Goodfellas." JoanneWoodward is also on hand providing the narration and she does a good jobbutthe overall performances and storyline of the film could’ve used a bit ofwork as it is overlong and several leading players are quitemiscast.

read comments (0)

Surf Ninjas

It’s a tough decision, but I think that this is the greatest movie ever,barely edging out Wayne’s World and They Call Me Bruce. I dont know whypeople think this movie is bad. It great! I laugh like all the way throughit, Rob Schneider is great and is obviously the greatest actor of alltime!

This movie was so terrible that I could only see it as a child. Now I seeitand can’t believe how horrible it is. I feel bad for Leslie Nielsonbecausehe appeared in this movie. Major fake and really bad acting I also feelbadfor Rob.

I don’t know, I’ve always had a soft spot for cheesy movies. And boy, isthis movie cheesy. But sometimes, they’re just what I need. If you likestaying up late to check out the movies on TNT, TBS, or the Sci-Fichannel,you’ll probably enjoy this.

This movie has everything anyone could ever want. Surfing, Ninjas,Leslie Nielsen the cyborg dictator, Rob Schneider the lovable idiot andTone Loc’s first fantastic appearance as an officer of the law (hissecond and most notable role was of course as Emilio in Ace Ventura:Pet Detective). The fact that the plot revolves around a magical SegaGamegear is probably one of the most insanely brilliant creativedecisions ever made. The fat guy repeatedly falling down the stairs isby far the funniest scene in the history of film. I’d like to thankwhoever created Surf Ninjas for bringing joy into the lives of so manyand I know its only a matter of time before I see the sequel or remakein a theater near me.

OK so Surf Nijas is by far my absolute favorite movie. It is full ofwitty jokes and Kung Fu action. I love the dancing and the music videoat the end. I have so many favorite parts, I can’t even explain themall. I show this movie to everyone I know, while quoting each line.Take my advice and watch this movie. You will not regret it. ErnieReyes Sr. did an amazing job of choreographing the ninja action. ErnieReyes Jr. plays an amazing warrior prince/ surfer. Rob Schneider addshumor to the movie by playing the "commoner" kept around like a youngboy would have a "monkey or a snake". Colonel Chi, the evil half man/half machine dictator of Patu San, is played by Leslie Neilsen. Onceagain, see the movie, you will love it.

Two California teenagers learn that they are actually heirs to akingdom in some far away Asian country island however in order to claimtheir rightful place, they must battle an evil dictator and save theiradopted dad in the process. Surf Ninjas is of course as bad as youwould expect. I mean we are talking about a movie that is supposed tofeature ninjitsu masters on surf-boards who ride to the rescue. Whatmakes this movie so dire is its complete lack of freshness or ambition.This is an obscure, low grade 3 Ninjas rip off that lacks even theremote distinguished thread. As far as these things go, we look at thehumor which is inoffensive but unfunny. Acting that isn't awful butuninspired and action sequences watered down for kids. I'm guessingkids into martial arts may like this but given the fact that most kidswould rather watch Bruce Lee movies or even 3 Ninjas, Surf Ninjas isonly for the kid who will sit through anything. Of course adults forcedto watch, may spend the running time wishing they never had kids.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)

OK, so "Surf Ninjas" is one of those movies that they crank out everyonce in a while about cool kids clobbering dumb adults. If this one wasmeant to be completely silly, then they succeeded in every respect, soit's funny if we accept it as such. I will say that it's weird to seeLeslie Nielsen as a maniacal tyrant, but even he does some neat stuff.As for the surfing factor, who doesn't love to see some of that onscreen (even if, like me, you've never surfed in your life)? There's noshortage of straight-forward entertainment here.

So, it's truly the sort of movie that you watch for pureself-indulgence. Don't approach as you would a Fellini or Kubrickmovie.

As my summary says it, this is pretty much the worst movie I have everseen. Yes, I know it's a kids-flick, but that doesn't change anything.What's the worst, I can't believe Leslie Nielsen took part in this.What was he thinking? The whole story is just ridiculous, the 'jokes'incredibly bad, not to mention the acting. You could pretty much seethe background actors didn't really know what was going on, it was amess. If you want to watch a trash-movie, this is a must-see, causeyou'll laugh all the time. But if you don't want to watch this as atrash-movie,this flick is a complete waste of time, electricity andyour mind. Don't watch this.

This was a great movie, it was really funny and the acting was well done.Now that I’m older I can see why some people would dis this movie. But Ireally enjoyed it as a kid and that (kid) is the main audience. Not to betaken to seriously.

I loved this movie as a kid. My sister and I must have watched it atleast twenty or thirty times. And, yes, we laughed every damn time.This is why my review and my opinion are absolutely useless. I rememberlines like," I swallow the key every Tuesday," and just crack up. SurfNinjas is a great movie for kids and simple minds, so for a simple mindlike my own, this was and is perfect. I can’t form an objective opinionabout this because my mind is tainted by all of the joy it brought overa decade ago.

Watch this movie without expecting anything but comedy. It provides it,usually intentionally and some times not. There’s a reason no one gotnominated for an Oscar from this movie. This seems to be the beginningof the Rob Schneider films of suckitude, but hey, like I said, Ienjoyed this one. If you can’t laugh at least a couple of times whilewatching this film, you have to have a serious problem with your humorreceptors.

Yes, this is a 10/10 because you can’t measure a child’s happiness inhow good the movie actually is.

read comments (0)

Shadowlands

Although I don’t know much about C.S. Lewis’ life, I’m almost sure there isexcess of sentimentalism in every scene. Anthony Hopkins’ acting is, asusual, top notch. Additionally, Attenborough’s direction is superb andthesetwo alone guarantee a very good film. It’s far better than the averagetear-jerker, but it always remains one. My personal criterion for this kindof movies is how many times I will laugh. Shadowlands did great, I don’tremember laughing at all except the last scene where the two guyscry.

I watched this movie on video.My problem is that I know too much about C S Lewis. Otherwise I might havebeen suckered into thinking it a good movie. There was some good acting,andsome beautiful scenery, but after that? It was so loosely based on C SLewisand Joy Gresham (Davidman) that it was laughable. Two sons became one, 7years was merged into two, the "boy" never grew up, Hopkins and "whats-hername" were too good looking, characters and locations wereinvented,ignoredor removed, C S Lewis’ character was barely recognizable, etc, etc. Icommented several times during watching it, "I don’t believe this!" Also:"That’s Hollywood for you!" The truth was evidently hardly to beconsidered.I know I am going against common opinion, but I think the writers couldhavedone a much better job on the script. I have heard that the 1985 versionismuch better.

This is a delicate, gentle love story, slightly roughened by the femalelead’s tendency to behave harshly at times when there seems little reasonfor her to do so. It evolves nicely, along familiar lines made fresh by theimplied suggestion that the intellectual Lewis was forced to reconsider hiseasy philosophical endorsement of pain as a tool used by a loving God tosculpt a better humanity. He has to do this because, after building a lifethat has no pain, he is forced to face it once again.

He falls in love with a woman who, they later learn, has cancer. Prettyfamiliar stuff, eh? Well, in my case, too familiar. I had to stop watchingwhen there were only 20 minutes left in the movie, because she wasundergoing treatment for her disease and, at one point, her situation andLewis’s management of it became unsettlingly familiar. My dad died undercircumstances the movie began to resemble, and it was just too much towatch. Accordingly, I don’t know how it ends. Up until I had to turn itoff, though, it was a fine, quiet, touching story.

I guess this is an odd review, but maybe the fact that the movie was toofamiliar in its treatment of a poignant topic is something someone mightfind value in knowing. I doubt very many people could have seen it the sameway, so here’s my note recording that it happened.

Please, don’t anybody tell me how it ends. I do know. I was there once,already.

Wonderfully acted and directed. The protrayals of C.S. Lewis and (a veryfew) of the Inklings are marvelous and touching. J.R.R. Tolkein, aprominentmember of the Inklings and one of Lewis’ good friends, was missing,however,and I found this puzzling.

There also was some plot development that was missing. C.S. Lewis was oneofthe foremost Christian apologists of the twentieth century, and it was hisvery Christianity that influenced his decision to marry Joy Gresham, andallowed him to grow to love her. Yet this very major aspect of his lifewasn’t touched upon at all. It was his Christianity that allowed him toloveand to grieve, and to chronicle that love and grief in "Surprised by Joy"and "A Grief Observed." In addition, the initial reasons for which Lewismarried Joy were not well defined for a modern audience.

His relationship with his wife deeply affected the rest of his life andwritings - but this was hardly mentioned. In fact, emphasis on hiswritingswas limited in the main to the Narnia series. Perhaps this was the onlypartof Lewis’ life that strongly affected Douglas Gresham, but this series ofbooks was only a minor part of his life and legacy. (And what a life andlegacy, if Narnia is only a minor part!)

Although the movie is emotionally affecting, I find some serious flaws inthe story-line. These limitations don’t prevent me from enjoying andre-viewing it, however! It is a marvelous movie - just needs a little more"stuff."

DrWindyRN

After being very impressed with Remains Of The Day I was more than keento watch this, after hearing a lot of good things about it. After agood start I lost interest about forty five minutes in and uponreflection, felt that the film needed a little bit more characterdevelopment before plunging into the start of a relationship betweenwriter CS Lewis and a married American woman. I don’t know why thisdidn’t grab me because it started well and had a good feel about it,but I think that for me there was too big a leap taken between acursory relationship to one of great love. I couldn’t get into thefeelings being presented on screen in the end.

"Shadowlands" had already been effectively done once before as a BritishTV-movie with Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom. It’s poignance lay in it’sability to movingly tell the story of C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham *without*tampering with the facts. And in particular, the importance ofChristianity in the lives of both Lewis and Joy was not watered down oneiota. When Lewis goes through his crisis after her death, we hearquotations from his moving "A Grief Observed" that helped him regain focuson his faith, and the film ended with a powerful image of Lewis planning totell his stepson Douglas about the meaning of faith.

Alas, this important element is completely missing from this ultimatelypointless theatrical version of the story. To be sure there are fineperformances by Hopkins and Winger, but in addition to the altered factualdetails (unlike the original telefilm, Joy’s elder son David Gresham iszapped from existence this time out), this movie in typical arrogantHollywood style decides to remove the importance of Christianity from boththe lives of C.S. Lewis and Joy. The end result is something that isblatantly dishonest in the worst form, and one can only note that if Lewisand Joy were practitioners of any faith other than traditional orthodoxChristianity, we would no doubt have not seen Hollywood (which will alwayshave nothing but contempt for those of traditional faith) try to downplaythis into meaninglessness.

Leave it to Hollywood to find a way of turning a story about the 20thcentury’s greatest apologist for traditional Christianity into what isultimately another of their typical backhanded anti-Christianswipes.

This movie was a wonderful experience for me since both Debra Winger andAnthony Hopkins are one of my favorite actresses and actors, respectively.And although they do not feature so prominently in the movie, the Narniabooks were one of my favorite book series.

The movie featured beautiful cinematography and character development.

*major spoilers ahead*

It also had some very memorable scenes (for me). I cannot forget thatsceneat the beginning in the University tavern where he was having a drink withhis conventional and slightly tiresome colleagues and the "It’s magic"comment, the scene where Joy and Jack find the "place in the picture", andthe heartbreaking (but cathartic) "It’s all part of the bargain" at theend…Very memorable.

Acclaimed Christian writer C.S. Lewis is the focus of Sir RichardAttenborough's gentle but moving film about the realisation anddiscovery of love.

Anthony Hopkins (an actor who has movie-goers waiting with baitedbreath for his next performance) plays the aging lecturer andphilosopher who meets an American divorcée whom he takes under hiswing. It is only when faced with the possibility of losing her that herealises how much he cares for her.

Attenborough' film is v
ery English as it tells this romantic and tragiclove story with sensitivity and a delightful sense of humour. Hopkin'sis in fine form again as he plays a role similar to the one in"Howard's End", and Debra Winger is very competent as honest Americanfan Joy Grisham (she's been better though).

"Shadowlands" is also bound to make a big impression at the AcademyAwards, due to its fine production values (especially cinematography),sturdy direction and strong cast. Perhaps a little too subtle andgentile to have an enormous emotional impact, but many will still findthis fairy tale love story very moving.

Sunday, February 13, 1994 - Village Rivoli Cinema

A very solid biopic about writer C.S. Lewis and his relationship with aspunky American.

This is one of two great performances Anthony Hopkins gave in 1993, theother being "The Remains of the Day." Debra Winger had a bit of acareer comeback playing said spunky American, and received an AcademyAward nomination for Best Actress for this role. Does Winger have aclause in her contract that says whenever she plays a character whodies slowly of cancer she MUST be nominated for an Oscar?

Richard Attenborough directed this in a very British way, so it's a bittoo slow and tasteful. But it's well written and acted and shouldsatisfy those who are drawn to movies with a literary bent.

Grade: B+

Shadowlands

DIRECTION 48%Sweet and natural looking period drama.

ACTING 86%You can’t go wrong with Hopkins and the other supports don’t distract fromthis man.

EDITING/SPECIAL EFFECTS 15%Not needed here that much.

PLOT 87%A true story about C. S. Lewis.

STRONG WORDS AND VIOLENCE ETC N/A.

MUSIC 92%Classical variations to bring the BIG church traditional music to life andglorious wonder.

SOUND 10%Natural sounds for natural people.

HOOKABILITY 79%Love the music, love the start!

LASTABILITY 85%If you don’t already know the story you will want to see theend.

OVERALL 82%Good adaptation of a true story, not disappointing but could have beenbetter if more of his personal christian experiences were related to theviewer.

read comments (0)