The Ref

This film almost worked for me, no doubt because there is a great deal oftalent who worked on the movie. But there was one HUGE flaw that seriouslyruined this film. Who was I supposed to like in this film? The thief? Hisstupid partner? The bickering couple? Their annoying son? Quite simply,no one in this movie was likable, and so I didn’t much care what happened toany of them. And as a result, despite the funny moments and decent pacethat kept things moving along smoothly, I just didn’t care about what I wasseeing…and movie flaws just don’t get much bigger thanthat.

This movie tried to be a showcase and to take advantage of Denis Learys’brilliant comedy routine. This was a great idea, and it turned out to bepretty good. But the story that went with it was trite at best. The storyhad been done before and done better. It was also inconsistent, and none ofthe characters had any depth. Again what made this movie watchable wasDenis Leary simply being Denis Leary

I LOVE Kevin Spacey. His acting is remarkable in Glengarry Glen Ross,American Beauty, on theatre, etc. I also love Denis Leary with hissmartass biting humor. I saw this film for them and it was ratherdisappointing, to say the least.

The script is sickeningly pointless…..I know its a comedy butcouldn’t it have made a little sense? What stupid couple could argue somuch to drive an armed man crazy? The scenes with the burglarsympathizing with the son made me laugh more than anything else becauseit was so phony and stupid. I just couldn’t buy the whole tough imageLeary was trying to sell and at the same time believe a family wouldlet go and help a man who had just kept them hostage while the policewere right in front of them. And the fights between Judy and Spaceywere WAY overacted and unrealistic…..and I hate that stupid whinykid…..anyway…that’s my opinion.

Ted Demme’s film ‘Hostile Hostages’ has an awfully clunky title, butalso overtones of a number of other films, most obviously ‘AmericanBeauty’. Kevin Spacey’s burnt out, disillusioned middle aged man isalmost a dead ringer for his character in that later film, and thehints of unhappiness beneath a superficially serene suburbia is anotherpoint in common. While the way in which a family crisis forces decadesof unspoken feelings out into the open resembles Mike Leigh’s ‘Secretsand Lies’. But there’s also a sense in which ‘Hostile Hostages’ is muchless ambitious than either of those movies, for it’s a straightforwardcomedy in which a gunman takes this unfortunate family hostage; theundercurrents are exploited for laughs, but not seriously explored.Laughs there are for real, however, with some great one-liners, thoughsome of the humour is as clunky as the title (and made worse by a diresoundtrack that signposts the biggest jokes with funny noises). Andultimately, the psychology of the characters doesn’t really makessense; while Dennis Leary as the gunman is just too cuddly. Still, itshould make you smile, provided you don’t expect anything deeper thansitcom.

The Ref tells the story of a burglar who takes a married couple hostagein their own house on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, he picked the wrongcouple. They are constantly bickering back and forth, and he can't getthem to shut up. Everything is blown to smithereens when theirdelinquent son and the rest of the family arrives home for a largedysfunctional dinner. Eventually, the burglar ends up having to be areferee for the family. This movie isn't side splitting hilarious, butit has its moments.

After hearing so many great things about this movie, about howhilarious it was, I decided to see it. I couldn't understand what allthe fuss was about. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie. Itcertainly has funny moments. I chuckled a few times, and I think I letout a big laugh once. Unfortunately, this movie was described asnon-stop hilarity, which is a grossly incorrect statement, because thismovie is a comedy/drama, and the dramatic scenes really slow this moviedown. The dialogue is pretty good though. At least the movie isn'tsappy.

The acting is pretty good. Dennis Leary is funny as usual (in thescenes where he was supposed to be funny anyway), and Kevin Spacey isalways good in the roles he plays.

Overall, this is an okay little movie, but it doesn't deserve the hypeit gets.

THE PLOT: A burglar (Leary) takes a bickering couple hostage and soonlearns to regret it especially when the rest of the family comes overfor a Christmas celebration and he is thrust into the middle of alltheir squabbling.

THE POSITIVE: The film starts off with a real bang as it takes a lot ofsatirical pot shots at marriage counseling, people who dress up likeSanta, family party's, suburbia, bickering couples, and of course theholiday season itself. Baranski is top rate as the sarcastic Mother andit is unfortunate she wasn't given more screen time. Even her kids arefunny. Johns is also excellent as Spacey's mother. She takes command ofher scenes even when star Leary can't. For her age she looks fantasticand it is nice to see an older actress playing a character that isn'tjust used as a throwaway device for senile jokes and aging.

THE NEGATIVE: Star Leary just can't seem to act. He shot to fame withhis dark and edgy stand up routines, but here falls into a characterthat is much too watered down and benign. This was supposed to be hisvehicle, but in the end it seems like his character wasn't evennecessary. Baranski's character is far more funny and memorable eventhough she has much less screen time. Spacey and Davis just don't clickas a couple. They share no chemistry and their bickering seems strainedand contrived. The film also falls too far away from its originalpremise. Having a two-bit crook dealing with a bickering couple atfirst seems like a funny concept, but then the film starts to delvemuch too deeply into their personal problems until it becomes like afamily drama that isn't at all amusing or entertaining.

THE LOWDOWN: The film has a few funny bits, but not enough to sustainit the whole way. Leary is very weak in the lead and this thingcompletely loses steam by the end.

THE RATING: 5 out of 10.

"The Ref" is without a doubt a very funny and very entertaining film. Thisis exactly my kind of humour: people being mean to each other. But whatmakes this a comedy better than many comedies is the great acting: JudyDavis, Denis Leary and Kevin Spacey in particular. However, they should’vehave left out some totally un-necessary scenes with a Santa Clause who isgetting drunk. It wasn’t very funny when we –as viewers — are onlyinterested in what happens with the family who is takenhostage.

Over all though: Great entertainment!

Without a doubt, the funniest Christmas time movie ever made. Kevin Spacey &Denis Leary are terrific together. Teamed with a drunken Santa Claus, overzealous Mother-in-law and over-all dysfunctional family, Leary & Spaceyshine.

I specially liked the acting of Dennis Leary and KevinSpacey.They were quick and bright and they must have had a lot of fun on theset.Best line in the movie by Kevin Spacey: "Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me,but the corpse still has the floor". GREAT!!!!!

This movie is very heart warming. It has a wonderful script, terrificactors(especially Denis Leary - you just have to love the guy for being sosuperb), and a great director who delivers excellence. Watch this movie,you’re gonna love it !!

read comments (0)

The Santa Clause

Some comedians get worse with age and popularity. I think that theybegin to think they can do anything and it will be immediately acceptedby everyone. WRONG!

Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy and now I add to the list Tim Allen. Thismovie is so bad that I felt pain forcing myself to sit through it. Iwanted to see Dolf Longrin show up and fire blazing hot lead ateveryone who had a speaking line in the movie - Judge freakin’Rheinhold?!? How’d he get kidnapped into doing this mistake? Peterfreakin’ Boyle?? Does he have the same agent as Rheinhold?!? -10/+10

I don’t care anymore - the scale of 1 to 10 no longer exists - as oftoday, the scale is from -10 to +10:

-10 = burn the master,

0 = tolerable if you’re bored to tears,

+10 = see this or else you’re an alien!

-Zafoid

PS: Paige Tamada, who played "Judy the Elf," was so adorable in thesmall part she got I kept hoping she would show up throughout the wholemovie. When she first showed up my heart immediately went out to herand I was suddenly immersed in this movie. Then unfortunately the moviekept going and the pain returned.

-Big Z

The Santa Clause films are a great and wonderful series of films thatare excellent to watch around the holidays! The Santa Clause stars TimAllen, Wendy Crewson, Judge Reinhold, Eric Lloyd, Peter Boyle, andDavid Krumholtz. Tim Allen is excellent in this film. He’s hilariousand a very realistic character. Peter Boyle is good in this film in abrief role. Crewson and Reinhold are good in this film together. Thecomedy scenes are very funny and the Santa Clause special effects arevery good. The music is good as well. Really every thing is fine inthis film! If you are looking for a great Christmas film and if youlike the cast mentioned above that I strongly recommend The SantaClause!

The Santa Clause is a hilarious holiday movie and one of my favorites ingeneral. Tim Allen gives a great performance as a guy who works for a toycompany and becomes Santa Claus. The movie has a very original story andclever writing. Do not miss this film. Thumbs way up on thisone.

[CONTAINS SPOILERS]

Meet Scott Calvin! A working man who’s got a son,Charlie,and an ex-wife Laura, who, in my opinion, is a real pain in the ass.

Laura is now married to Neal, a soft-spoken psychiatrist. Charlie is

going to stay at Scott’s house for Christmas eve. The eveningstartswith Scott burning the turkey, so they go to Denny’s for dinner.

That night, Santa arrived and landed on the roof. Scottwentout to see what the thuds on the roof were, he startled Santa,whichcaused him to slip and fall off the roof. Scott finds a card thatsaysfor him to put on Santa’s suit and the reindeer would know whattodo. He saw the sleigh and eight reindeer on the roof. Up there, they meet Comet, the reindeer head of theteam.Now why this is, I do not know. Comet was supposed to be behindDonnerand Blitzen. So when did the switch happen? Anyway, Scott andCharlietake off in the sleigh and Scott is talked into delivering thetoysinto people’s houses. He has run-ins with dogs, alarms, and agiantkiyak. After the deliveries, they fly to the North Pole where

Scott is greeted by the head elf Bernard, who shows Scott thatoncehe had put on the suit and entered the sleigh, he fell subject totheSanta Clause, so he would now fully accept the duties and

responsibilities of Santa Claus. Scott also meets female elf, Judy,whogives him a pair of red pajamas with the initials SC onthem. Christmas morning, Scott awakens in his own bed andstillremembers the previous night. So does Charlie. But Laura and Nealdon’tbelieve them. Scott thinks if he just forgets the trip to the NorthPole,he can get on with his life. But he awakens one morning with abeardand a big belly. He continues to grow fatter and his hair turnsgray.By the time Christmas is finally around again, Scott has grownwhitehair and white beard. And because Neal and Laura think Scottisjust doing all this to make Charlie like him, they take awayhisvisitation rights, but Scott still goes over to see Charlie andtakeshim to the North Pole with him. So now the cops are after him andtheyarrest Scott (Santa Claus) when he was dropping off gifts attheMiller’s house. At the North Pole, they deploy E.L.F.S, a teamofelves with jet packs. They cut Santa out of his jail cellwithsome tinsel (don’t try this at home!) So before Santa must continue with his rounds, hetakesCharlie for a "quick ride". Also, Laura and Neal realize SantaClausis not that bad of a guy. They stopped believing in him whentheydidn’t get gifts they wanted as children. Laura wanted a MysteryDategame and Neal wanted a weenie whistle. Scott gave them those gifts.

So now all was okay again.

Tim Allen was good in this movie. We all know him assmartallec Tim Taylor from "Home Improvment". Disney also did aChristmasmovie with Jonathan Taylor Thomas which was very bad. But thismoviewith Tim Allen was good. I recommend it!! Perfect for Christma

I saw this film last Christmas and thought it was great. When a man namedScott Calvin accidentaly kills Santa Clause he’s expected to be the newone.His son Charlie goes blabbing to the whole town that his dad is SantaClause. So since Scott is expected to be the new Santa Clause he starts toget bigger. And the employees start to get concerned about Scott gettingbigger and starting to look like The Pillsbury Dough Boy. So in the middleor end the police go on a stakeout to look For Scott.

No, it ain’t perfect; sure, it’s sappy and simplistic; special effects aredreadful; and Judge Reinhold is, well, cardboard like usual. But it’s asweet, cheery, Christmasey kind of show. I’ll let my kids watch this one,but never the Jim Carrey / Ron Howard ego-trip Grinch garbage.

The Santa ClausE

Some Spoilers

Comedian Tim Allen rose out of TV land and the comedy circuit when hestarred in "The Santa ClausE" in 1994. If I recall, it did fairly well atthe box office, and carved a new name for Tim Allen as a film star.

Allen plays Scott Calvin, a busy father to Charlie, who has been havingdoubts as to the existence of a certain Mr. Claus, recently. On ChristmasEve, Charlie spends the night over at Dad’s house, and during the night,they have an unexpected visitor: Santa Claus. But after an unbelieving Scottscares Santa up on the roof, causing him to fall and die (or evaporate). So,Scott tries on Santa’s suit for no apparent reason, and he and his son arewhisked away to The North Pole, which consists of…well…a little polesticking out of the ground with a built in security feature. After a littleelf activates the pole, Charlie and Scott are sucked underground into SantaClaus’ work shop, where they meet Italian Head Elf Bernard, as well ascheery, 800-year-old children called elves. Bernard explains to Scott thatby putting on the suit, he has accepted the role of Santa Claus, and will beSanta Claus until he is "Unable to do so, either by accident or design."

So, that is what starts this cheery holiday fable. We see Scott coming tofacts that he is Santa, including a beard sprouting out of his face everytime he shaves, and a big, fat beer gut that comes out of nowhere. Not onlythat, but pretty soon ex-wife Wendy Crewson is beginning to become a littleworried with Scott’s far-from-normal appearances, so she and new-beau JudgeReinhold try to keep Charlie away from his father…even if it means filingfor, ‘No-visitation-rights," as Crewson says.

The film is a nice family treat. It is not what I would call a ChristmasClassic, but it is one that I usually see every year just because I own it.Tim Allen’s performance itself is worth seeing the film for. It is one ofhis best, other than the "Toy Story" films. Perhaps the fact that he hasn’treally been in many other fil
ms is why I say it is one of his bestperformances. Anyway, he does good. There is one particular moment that isvery reminiscent of Allen’s humor. Scott is at a meeting with boss PeterBoyle, and new toy designs are flying by. One includes "Turbo Tank Santa,"which shows a picture of Santa sitting in an army tank. Scott - because heis now Santa - is outraged, and goes on about how it is just wrong to showSanta in a tank. He then imitates a woman, and says, "Well, Timmy, I hopeyou’ve been good this year, because Santa just took out the Ferguson’shouse! INCOMING!" I love that part. It is, perhaps, the finest moment of thefilm…

All in all, `The Santa ClausE’ is not one of the smartest of hippest filmsI’ve seen before, but it’s pretty funny. A sweet holiday-themed film thatthe entire family can enjoy. It’s very easy to watch.

3/5 stars –

John Ulmer

I saw this film last night in the beginning an adman named Scott Calvin ismaking an announcement to people at his toy company. Then he heads on overto his house because his son Charlie is spending Christmas Eve with him.Well Scott burns the turkey so he and Charlie go to Denny’s for dinner.After they get home Scott reads Charlie a book and Charlie goes to bed hehears a noise and wakes up Scott. On the roof Scott knocks Santa Clause offthe roof by accident. So Charlie gets on the roof and takes Scott for a rideon the Sleigh and Scott winds up the one delivering all the toys to thechildren on Christmas Eve. When they get home Charlie is all excited forthat he had fun at the North Pole and delivering all the toys with Scott.And Charlie goes blabbing to everybody that his dad is Santa Clause. Onemorning to his surprise Scott wakes up with a beard and puts on a littleweight. He starts to look like the pillsbury dough boy. In the end Scottrealizes he actually is Santa Clause.

Tim Allen stars as…Santa Clause himself!He starts shaving..but long white beard won’t stop! He starts going up inweight…well, he goes in puberty getting Santa Clause!

The thing is; Allen plays a dad who’s divorced and has his son on visit onChristmas Eve, when the night has come they suddenly hear someone on theroof. Allen scares the santa and he trips and falls, on his visit card itstands that if something happens to santa, take his clothes and take thesledd, and ride out in the night as santa, so does Allen a bit confused.Together with his son he delivers presents as santa and soon they gohome..no, not to their house, but to santa’s home..the North Pole. And soonhe is…Santa Clause!STARS: *** 3/5

This is a fun and energetic Christmas movie. It has managed to pull offthe seemingly and previously impossible task, combining moderntechnology and Christmas. In past movies, any efforts to alter thetraditional spin of Christmas, elves, reindeer, stockings, chimneys,and the Christmas list… This movie includes broken homes, disobedientchildren (who still get what they want for Christmas), and hi-techdevices that Santa compliments his usual "magic" with to accomplish thetask of delivering toys to much of the world in one night. Earth’srotation and the effects of 24 time zones really wouldn’t help all thatmuch. This is worth watching, just be sure to have several grains ofsalt handy and you’d better be prepared to suspend your usual tastesfor quality and surrender to Disney’s simple minded, basal, Christmasfluff.

read comments (0)

Threesome

Okay, I rented this movie ‘cos I love Josh Charles and onthat level I wasn’t disappointed because he was awesome.I loved him in this movie, and, honestly, his acting waswonderful. But, and not to sound like a *total* obsessive,ifit’s a movie where the main character is gay, shouldn’twesee him kiss oh I don’t know…another BOY? And not onlydo we not get to see any boy smoochies, he actuallymakes out with a girl twice? And that’s after he’s realizedthat he’s gay, so he’s not just confused or in denial oranything. I just felt that it was kinda obvious that theguywho wrote the film was uncomfortable with showing twomen kissing, so why did he bother making the lead- andnot just the lead, but the *narrator*- gay? It just feltveryphony to me.

Okay, I saw this movie a second time last night and I must say it really hassomething about it. I love how natural it treats the topic of sexuality. Itdoesn’t make a big deal out of it whether somebody prefers men or women andit’s much about the feelings people have. The actors portray theircharacters very real and they are all very likeable. Stephen Baldwin isvery funny in this one, I had to laugh so much about him!! Josh Charlesplays his character very sensitive and very believable.

The end was a little sad but realistic. It would have been quite difficultto put a happier ending to this, however, I’m the happy end kind of personso it would have been nice but again, the ending is not unhappy, just alittle sad.Give Threesome a try, I don’t think any open-minded person would bedisappointed.

This film is a mess. There is no other way to put.

How sympathetic I found the idea of a film discussing the confusion ofsexual identity, the frustration of falling in love with a dear friend andthe debating on friendship versus falling in love, there is very littlesympathetic about this movie.

I had hoped for a funny delighted adventure in the lives of these collegestudents. And it starts off well but turn into a mess since it does not wantto show us the characters as intelligent people with a friendship andunderstanding on a deeper level than sex. It simply does not answer thequestions, it want to ask. It doesn’t even try!

And for the actors: Stephen Baldwin, who tends to star in "kinky" movies,has a really bad hair cut. Despise that, this might be his finest work. It’snot good, but…. ya know what I’m saying. Lara Flynn Boyle gives us theusual "I can be Marilyn" looks and seems to overkill her character becauseher acting is sort of over the top. Josh Charles is great as ever. Why don’twe see him some more. He is indeed talented and great, a versatileactor.

This movie is - well, a mess. You might like it though. I think I doesnot.

3/10

When Alex (a female) is accidently assigned a room with two guys (one gay,one straight) all hell breaks loose when the messed-up menage-a-trois startfalling for the other two roommates.

Unfortuantely, although the movie has it’s moments, it isn’t particularlyinteresting. Sure, Alex (Lara Flyn Boyle)’s library-table antics and thefake sex in the back of the car are funny, but that’s not enough to hold anentire movie.

The only interesting character is Stuart, played enthusiastically by StephenBaldwin. Sorry, but this movie won’t ever be one of my favorites!3/10

I found the situations so highly unlikely. I also found that what wassupposed to pass for senstitivity on the part of these three characterswasoften not senstivity at all; it was cruelty. It left a bad taste in mymouth.

I found myself in front of the T.V. in my girlfriend’s brothers’room.On a Swedish cable-channel called ZTV it was this film, Threesome. Itwasn’t anything else on so we started watching. Pretty soon you got toknowthat you knew the persons who played the main-characters called Eddy, Alexand Stuart. Eddy I recognized from Dead Poet’s Society. Alex was played byLara Flynn Boyle (Wayne’s World, Twin Peaks, Happiness) and she over didinthis film so much. I didn’t even like her character in Happiness. But thiswas even worse. And then there was Stuart played by Stephen Baldwin whohasn’t got much but B-Movies like Half Baked and Bio-Dome on hisconscious,with the exception of The Usual Suspects.Anyways, they play three friends who live together. And a lot ofproblemscome with that. I don’t really know if Threesome is suppose to be acomedy.It was the first impression, even though I didn’t laugh more than a coupleof times. They try to mix it with dramatic and somewhat controversialissuessuch as bisexuality and sexual threesome. A lot of the film wasn’t morethana stupid excuse to show this threesome.It’s a typical, early-/mid 90’s film if you look at the colors and theclothes they wear and the music. The theme of the film isn’t that unusual.Threesome is about "finding out who you are" and all that. And finding outwho your friends are, and what they are. They’ve spiced it up a littlewithEddy’s voice-over. A classic way of making it all a bit more sentimental.But it has all been done before, and those guys or girls have done itbetter. This time a threesome supposed to be the special thing about thisfilm. And I guess they were trying to make the scene beautiful. But itfailed.Later on the director made Dick with Kirsten Dunst.

I savor entertainment that explores relationships realistically, Idelight in work that succeeds in portraying a group of friends whoreally look like they care for one another, I even feast onfeatherlight relationship comedies (if they appear sincere andheartfelt, which doesn't occur that often). What I don't indulge in arepointless, pretentious pieces of 'art', that consist of a contrivedscript and an excruciatingly bad acting ensemble.

Unfortunately, the latter is what best summarizes this drivel involvingone-dimensional cardboard characters twaddling about nothing at all. Inmany ways a relationship between three people is endlessly moreinteresting than the classic pair. Unfortunately for myself and allother viewers victim of witnessing this movie, the writer leaves allthe intriguing and intelligent parts out and what we are left with is apretty formulaic comedy about people who want what they can't have.Been there, seen that…utterly boring.

I'd skip this one if I were you.

I will admit threesome is not half as sleezy as the title implies. It wasobviously written with a level of maturity and explores themes quitefamiliar to many kids and it does it in a surprisingly mature way. Thatsaid, I did not become involved in this at all. To me, the movie just neverpicked up steam and although it was far from bad watching this was a bit ofan impersonal movie experience, it didn’t bore me, as much as leave me witha feeling of detachment. As welldone as the movie was, the characters didn’treach out from the screen and leave me with a feeling of involvment in thestoryline.

I think the rating here(5.9) is pretty much on the money. I have nothingreally bad to say about it except for the fact that it didn’t get meinvolved in the storyline all that much. On the plus side, the movie wassurprisingly mature in alot of places. On the minus side, I just wasn’t allthat interested in the characters. This is one of those movies that I canappreciate while not truely liking very much.

Okay, I got into this movie expecting a hot, sexual adventure - I got it,but the sex seemed a little tacked on, especially the titular Threesome.Instead, I found a movie on its way to deep, introspective surmisings on thenature of human relationships. It never really clicked for me, but it wasan interesting film.

Okay, the movie is not a 10! if grading was solely based on the technicalaspects of the movie. Judging by those standards, the movie would be a 7or8. I am very partial to this movie, however because it made me deal withmyo
wn homosexuality, then largely under wraps, in a positiveway.

Very smart cast and dialogue, it is good entertainment and an even bettereducational tool for those trying to find their way.

read comments (0)

Trois couleurs: Rouge

Red was the most interesting of the Colors trilogy. Whereas I had problemswith Blue and White, Red is engaging and doesn’t come across as contrived asthe other two. It doesn’t need great music or stunning portrayals of colorto support it, although both are present. The plot and sub-plot fit togetherbeautifully. The conclusion is quite fascinating, especially for those whohave seen the entire trilogy.

Not as in awe of the direction as others, I again commend the choice ofactors. Irene Jacob possesses a very natural grace. She portrays hercharacter extremely well. Directed to speak in an almost breathless tone,she doesn’t miss a beat.

Only one question, although I realize that Geneva is very French: why wasRed filmed there and not, for instance, in Lyon? The choice of locales stillbaffles me since I truly believe the trilogy would have been much moreinteresting had it been filmed entirely in France. Makes sense, doesn’t it,since it is all a depiction of the French flag’s meaning?

The third installment of Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Blue, White & Red"trilogy, "Red" (1994), tells a most intriguing story indeed. In it, wemeet Valentine Dussaut, a beautiful fashion model living in Geneva whomeets a reclusive, retired judge after accidentally injuring his dogwith her car. Despite her initial repulsion (the judge is a high-techPeeping Tom of sorts, fond of listening in on his neighbors' phoneconversations), the two become close friends (the color red on theFrench flag is symbolic of "fraternity"), and their relationship, andwhat they each get out of it, is at the heart of the picture.Meticulously acted by the two leads, Irene Jacob and Jean-LouisTrintignant, and featuring remarkable direction and photography (digthose stunning, soaring crane shots between apartments!), "Red" holdsthe viewer fascinated throughout. The film sports the most blatant useof any of the trilogy's titular color schemes, and is completelyunpredictable from start to finish. Especially interesting is how thejudge's early life parallels exactly that of Valentine's neighbor,Auguste; how their three lives seem to interweave unbeknownst to any ofthem, like something out of a "Lost" episode. Trintignant's judgecharacter is reminiscent of Juliette Binoche's character in "Blue"; twopeople who have tried to divorce themselves from life after some cruelsetbacks and find that life still has a fascination for them. "Red"also ties itself to the rest of the trilogy in the person of thatlittle old lady by the recycling bin, who strangely appears in allthree films, and, most notably, in those stunning, final five minutes.Without giving anything away, let me just say that "Red"'s finale willhave fans of the previous two films broadly grinning from ear to ear.The finale shows that the three films really do comprise a trilogy thatshould be seen in the proper order, that of the French flag's colors:blue, white and finally red.

The story in this third and final film in the color trilogy by Kieslowskireminded me of a french version of "Grand Canyon". A lot of "What if’s" inthe story. If a character had done one simple little thing maybe theirliveswould be different. Irene Jacob is radiant in a simple way if I candescribeit that way. You can understand why her character would find the retiredjudge interesting. Also, the hunched over little old lady trying to throwaway a bottle shows up again! And the characters from the previous twomovies are connected to this story and we see them at the end.

Basically a big disappointment, following the far better Blue and White.This film story wastes the talents of Irene Jacob and Jean-LouisTrintignant. No — they don’t perform poorly, but they really aren’t askedto do much of interest (Jacob was far more impressive in her little walk-onappearance as a student auditioning for Bulle Ogier in Rivette’s "Gang ofFour"). There is WAY too much plot — and the whole thing seems manipulativeand contrived (especially the ending). Any incipient "atmosphere" is soondragged down by the over-busy plot.

In the third and final film of his celebrated TROIS COULEURS trilogy,Krzysztof Kieslowski demonstrates how all persons, whether they know it ornot, are connected by a principle of universal ‘fraternité.’ Just as THEDOUBLE LIFE OF VÉRONIQUE (1991) had dealt with the parallel lives of twoidentical women on either side of the Iron Curtain, RED deals with theparallel lives of an old man and a young man. An elderly retired judge,Joseph Kern (Jean-Louis Trintignant), spends his days spying andeavesdropping on his neighbors with an arsenal of surveillance equipment.His malaise and dissatisfaction with life is the result of a dividedspiritthat is, either in whole or in part, restored by his Platonic relationshipwith a young French fashion model, Valentine (Irène Jacob). The film’sgeneral themes seem somewhat analogous to those in Bernardo Bertolucci andAlberto Moravia’s THE CONFORMIST (1970), which also starred Trintignant,andused chronological dislocations of life experience to mirror theprotagonist’s dislocation of identity, offering them as pieces in thepsychological puzzle of how a man comes to be what he is.

Kern’s inability to reconcile with his past and get on with his presentlifemay be a metaphor for the inability of Europe as a whole to deal with itshistory since World War II and confront its current situation. Similarly,his need for distractions and deliberate sublimation of personal guilt anddisappointment in an obsessive voyeuristic interest with the lives ofthosearound him may also be a reflection of how modern communicationstechnologyhas altered human behavior and ways in which people perceive themselvesandthe world around him. Historically, it may express Wim Wenders’ view that`the Americans have colonized our subconscious’ as well as the broaderphenomena of an effective colonization of people’s lives by those ofpeoplewhom they have never met through the omnipresence and pervasiveness ofmassmedia. And so, Marshall McLuhan’s ‘global village’ has resulted in aconcomitant alienation of the individual from his fellows and of theindividual from his sense of sovereign identity.

The catalyst in Kern’s life is, of course, Valentine. Like Goethe’sFaust,Kern ultimately abandons the pursuit of forbidden knowledge for theredeeming love of a woman. Her name, Valentine, connotes love and humancompanionship and, throughout the course of the film, that is what sheoffers him. Indeed, her life is perhaps even more of a mystery thanKern’s,perhaps because she is still young and has not acquired enough of apersonalhistory yet. Valentine’s problem is that she does not have an autonomousidentity of her own. As a fashion and advertising model, she is requiredtoproject to others an image of their own narcissism.

Valentine’s growing self-awareness is measured in the images sheconstantlysees of herself like the fashion-layout photographs and the billboard.However, these are not ‘true images’ of herself in the sense that theyhavebeen determined by the will of others. Her increased fascination with herown face as reflected in car windows signalizes an internal change. Andinthe end, the artfully constructed mirror image of herself in the billboard– an encounter with her conscious self and her double — becomestransformed into an actual image of herself as she really is in areal-lifesituation by the final shot of the film. She has evolved from her formerpassive status as an opaque photographic object to a new serene kind ofsubjectivity and solipsism.

This is all well and fine but Kieslowski’s film is not entirelyconvincing.Indeed, RED and the whole TROIS COULEURS trilogy qualifies as one of themost blindly overrated film experiments to come out of Europe in recentmemory (but then again, look at the ecstatic reception some
of thosemediocre-to-gawdawful Dogme 95 films are getting these days). HisFelliniesque emphasis on man’s spiritual life is intriguing but theoverreliance on ‘fate’ or ‘chance’ as the determining factor in thecharacters’ lives - as the mysterious force that ultimately bringseveryonetogether — seems vague and facile. Consequently, the narrative oftenfeelscontrived and opportunistic - it just doesn’t sit right and you get theimpression that Kieslowski is cheating with the story, that he is gropingfor some kind of fuzzy-headed New Age revelation that he hasn’t properlyearned. It’s a seductive con at first but the dialogue, particularlyTrintignant’s, is full of quasi-cryptic, pseudo-profound banalities (e.g.,`Perhaps you were the woman I never met.’) that come across as merelypompous and half-heartedly nondescript attempts at gnomic wisdom. AndwhileKieslowski is no doubt a master visual stylist, I am rather suspicious ofhis rather monotonous and all-too-obvious use of filtered light to createanatmosphere of supposed inner awareness and expectancy. His images aren’treally any more interesting or meaningful than the fashion layouts andchewing gum advertisements he seems to be obliquely criticizing. AsPaulineKael once asked, `do symbols plus pretty pictures equal art?’

This third piece of the trilogy is also beautiful!Better than the first, a bit less than the second. I especially like thesettings, the details, the acting and the magnificent use of colours inthispiece of work. If you look at the use of colours and the settings/decors,this is the best of the trilogy.So: a great French piece of art.

A young French model knocks over a runaway dog and starts a series ofintriguing encounters with a strange ex-judge who is the dogs’ rightfulowner.

Krzysztof Kieslowski’s "three colour" series comes to an end with this piecethat is perhaps the best of the three - maybe because it has a script thathas something to do and something say right until the end. Not that a greatdeal happens in a hurry. Sometimes cinematography takes over, as it oftendoes, and coincidence is used (again!) as the central plank of themovie.

The director is master of timing and angles. That is his big secret, henever stays on anything a beat too long and his angles, whileunconventional, give a feeling of reality. He gives us strange breaks suchas watching workmen struggling with an awning or a sunset over a valley.

However there is excess: The telephone line montage at the start is a bittoo clever-clever given that we all know that a telephones are justconnecting pieces of electronics. We don’t need to be told. Indeed you couldread that this piece of gadgetry allows people to distance themselves fromone another without breaking the chain completely. Here people live"telephone lives" and only by tapping in you get the truth.

The judge and the young model need a dog to communicate and without givingtoo much of the plot away, it becomes their telephone line to one another.Their excuse to interact. Quite how feasible the story is I don’t know giventhat telephone tapping is not my strong point, but I presume it is at leastpossible to listen in on the neighbours conversations. Not that it reallymatters.

A very good and careful film, but not quite a classic because it doesn’t setits sights much above conveying emotion. In reality young models don’t careless about their own parents no matter elderly people that they barely know- but let us just let that pass for a moment. Let us pretend we live in abetter world of care-and-share and that people really have time to hearabout our inner thoughts and feelings.

Red is an odd little movie, one that is difficult to describe or categorize.Superficially, it’s the story of Valentine, a fashion model living inGeneva. Driving one day she hits a dog whom she returns to it’s owner, aretired judge, after having it repaired by the vet. Expressing disinterestin the animal, he gives it to her. Shortly thereafter, the dog runs away andreturns to the judge with Valentine in pursuit. A second time at his house,she begins to learn his secrets, and slowly enters his life. Of course,there’s more to Red than this simple story. Red is a modern morality playabout relationships, communication, regrets…a whole gamut. As I said it’svery hard to explain but very easy to recommend. Rent it if you get achance.

Following up "Blue" and White", "Red" is the most complete andsatisfying entry in Kryzysztof Kieslowski’s Colors Trilogy, improvingupon the weaknesses of the other two.

The story involves an odd friendship that develops between a youngfashion model and a reclusive retired judge when she accidentally hitshis dog with her car. The essential theme of the film(as in the otherColors)is the mysteries and subtle complications involved in humanrelationships, and in the ways that we are all interconnected with oneanother. Kieslowski ties this up at the climax, with a move that linkstogether all his films.

The film’s color scheme, and the strong visuals help support themeditative story. "Red" is the last, and the best.

"Three Colours: Red" is an absolute masterpiece because have all to beconsidered like that. Have a good story, good actors, …, and overall,have a genius behind the camera. Kieslowski gives a real class ofcinema in this film, with incredible camera movements, an editing thatobligates the viewer to an intellectual work, an amazing staging,marvelous depth work,… . I wouldn't really know to say if "ThreeColours: Red" is best than the others. What I know to say is thatKieslowski's Trilogy of Colours is one of the best ever, with threemasterpieces, something that no one trilogy ever in history of cinemacan say in my opinion, !!!Three Masterpieces!!!. To ending, recommendeveryone to see these films, because is not waste the time, and toappreciate the work of this polish genius. Also thanks France forinspire this trilogy. VIVE LA France

read comments (0)

Trapped in Paradise

I saw the beginning of this movie in Consumer Foundation class, where theteacher showed us some tragic sad type movie every other day. On the lastday, she said she had a suprise for us. She said that we were going towatcha movie that had nothing but laughs in it. I was excited, I love comedies.At first it seemed very promising. I read the opening credits in my mindwith joy. One of my favorite actors, Nic Cage had the leadrole.Then, my favorite comedian, Dana Carvey’s name appeared. Jon Lovitz, whoisfunny at times, also had a leading role. The first scene was watchable,withNic Cage. Then the movie went completly down hill. I kept waiting andwaiting for it to end, finally I jut decided to doze off. When I woke upatthe end of class, I asked a friend if I missed anything good. "Nope", hesaid, "My favorite parts were when the teacher fast forwarded through thepartsthat were not as important as the rest so we could see it all." I did notknow whether to believe him or not. I guess I was still in denial thatbothNic Cage and Dana Carvey could accept roles in a movie that bad. A coupledays later the movie appeared on Comedy Central. I decided to watch what Imissed. My friend was right, it is one of the worst movies I have everseen.I have lost plenty of respect for my teacher’s tastes, too. My overallrating 1/2 star out of 4.

This must have been around sixth grade, and we wanted to see Dumb andDumberfor my friend Dan’s birthday one fine December. It wasn’t released, so wewound up in the theater for this movie. For junior high kids, it was evenclear to us that this movie was a sad state of affairs. As rock and rollNicholas Cage has been, as hilarious as Dana Carvey is (why the hell didthey cancel the Dana Carvey Show?) and as sly as John Lovitz is, theirtalents were sorely wasted. If you want an experience that could becomparedto watching this movie, I have a suggestion: Hang your tongue out of yourmouth, and allow it to dry. That feeling of having a piece of tonguejerkyhanging out of your mouth will leave you feeling like you’ve beenabandoned.Not abandoned by your saliva gland, but you’ve hung your reliable oldtongueout to dry. Just like you can hang your brain out to dry by watching thismovie. I do have a fond memory of Trapped in Paradise - a darn goodpopcornand runt fight with my friends in the theater. As you tire of a patheticattempt at a heart warming christmas story of bad guys gone good, you canhurl candies you snuck into the movie at your friends. Of course, barringarerelease by the morons that thought this movie was a good idea, you willjust have to have a candy fight in your living room. Or not even rent themovie in the first place. I reccomend the latter.

I’m sure "Trapped In Paradise" was MEANT to be a full fledged comedy,and WANTED to have a heart-warming message to it… perhaps even HOPEDit would capture the holiday spirit-seeking audiences that paid hardmoney to see this. But, I’m afraid it failed on all three counts. Notthat Nicolas Cage, Jon Lovitz and Dana Carvey aren’t ordinarily funny,by all means, no. They are wonderful in their own rights.

It’s just that THIS storyline, script and direction lost its punch veryearly in the film, and the three main characters simply could not saveit. Yes, I laughed out loud several times, and liked the madcapinteraction between Cage, Lovitz and Carvey. But I think I could havewritten a BETTER ending, one befitting that of "The Blues Brothers", orsomething like it. Perhaps the next time these three guys get togetherin a comedy, they’ll find a better writer and director. Otherwise, theywill remain "trapped" in (fill in the blank).

This movie isn’t a total waste of time. The overall idea is appealing andactually quite well executed, but in the specifics it becomes almostunbearable unimaginative. Nicolas Cage and Jon Lovitz do their characterswell, even if very predictably, but they do them as if they weren’t evenfilming the scenes together. There is no rapport whatsoever, and the poorselection of shots just makes it worse. The characterization of Paradise,the police, and just about everyone else suffers the same fate. Dana Carveysinglehandedly saves several scenes, yet he spends most of the movie doingan annoying and completely useless imitation of Mickey Rourke playing thetown idiot. With the exception of a few of the minor players (particularlyFlorence Stanley as Ma Firpo), one has to wonder if anybody in this movie,from director to cast to crew, was actually making any significant effortorjust trying to get something into the theaters in time forChristmas.

NOT! All these so called critics who are just your classical low-selfesteemnerds from high school who watch way too many movies and take life waytooseriously are just WRONG. This movie is great, I went to college in asmalltown and I know most people out there don’t think places like "paradise"still exist, but they do. Movies about Christmas should be somewhat"cheesy"thats what Christmas is all about. Its the one time of the year whengrownpeople remember what it was like to be a kid.

This movie had nothing much to offer.It was not done with high ambition.Itwas content to be a standard Hollywood Christmas movie.It had a few funnysituations and had a nice Christmas message but still,it came off as blandeggnog overall lacking in cinematography,screenplay,directing andscript.Only for big fans of the lead actors and Christmasmovies…….

Recently released convicts Jon Lovitz and Dana Carvey talk their brother(Nicolas Cage) into robbing a small bank in a small community that haslotsof money. A film that starts out funny and then turns sappy as thebrothersjust cannot seem to get out of town due to a Christmas snow storm. Thefilmtries to persuade its audience to feel a certain way and gets away fromtelling the story. All in all just a watchable movie. 2.5 out of5.

This movie is easily among the ten worst I have ever seen. It hasabsolutely no redeeming qualities. It's so bad it's past good and backto bad again, only worse. There is no way I can possibly convey inwords just how bad this movie is.

Oh, and I can't even begin to imagine what (if anything) goes on in theminds of people who claim to enjoy this movie. It's certainly possiblethat their brains were completely atrophied in the 111 minutes of theirlives they spent in front of this complete waste of celluloid. Such isthe potential danger of watching this movie in a state even resemblingsobriety (or consciousness for that matter).

This movie is worse than all the worst moments of all the worstChristmas movies strung together. In the name of all that is holy,please do not watch this movie. I've done all I can. If you stillinsist in watching this steaming pile of, um, really foul stuff, maygod have mercy on your soul.

This movie is fantastic!!!!! Having three of my favorite actors in onegreatcomedy that is directed by George Gallo [who also had writing credits inBADBOYS, which is another fantastic movie}. I've seen this movie many timesonComedy Central and once on video. In my opinion it is the best movie of1994[and BAD BOYS is the best movie of 1995]. It’ll make you feel like you’reinmovie paradise!!!!!!!

Al though this movie isn't at the bottom of my list, this is among theworse commercial movies I have seen. I do not understand why Nick Cagetook on this movie. There are only two things that rise slightly abovecategory, but these are not enough to change my vote: Dana Carvey andhis slick and funny pickpocketing and Florence Stanley is funny — Iliked her a lot. She and Dana raise the movie to 1.5, which is stillshort of 2.

The acting sucks and the writing sucks. And the plot sucks big time.The movie is roughly a modern version of slap stick. Classical slapstick is probably better. The f
inale was worse than the movie itself.Essentially, the finale was predictable.

read comments (0)

Trzy kolory: Bialy

The triumph of this film is that it DARES you to find fault with a plotthat makes a Swiss cheese resemble a block of granite. Take theprotagonist, Karol Karol, this is a wimp who makes Mr Bean look as hardas Clint Eastwood yet a gangster hires him on the spot as a bodyguard?This is the same guy who smuggled himself into Poland concealed in asuitcase that was clearly exempt from airport security as we know it. Aguy who hasn't got change of a match one day yet the following dayturns up at a bureau de change with a sackful of zlotys to be convertedto dollars; who is then able to buy a piece of land from a peasant andsell it back to his gangster boss for a handsome profit. The gangster'sfirst instinct is just to kill Karol but changes his mind when Karolmentions a will leaving all his property to the Church. What happenedto our old friend coercion? Surely all the gangster had to do was'torture' Karol into making a new will on the spot which he, thegangster, would witness.

So much for the flaws. The fact is we keep watching, admiring and evenLoving this superb film - though the Polish Tourist Board may takeexception to the picture Kieslowski paints of his native country; onelooks in vain for a touch of green, a glimpse of sun, a blue sky, a'touristy' view that would 'sell' the country. The three principles areuniformly excellent and the support is first-rate. Much has been andwill continue to be made of symbolism, etc but that to one side this issimply a great movie.

The middle film of Polish-French film director Krzysztof Kieslowski'sThree Colors (Trois Couleurs) trilogy of Blue, White, and Red is a veryblack comedy, and generally considered the weakest of the three films.This is true, although, given the high quality of the tercet, White(Blanc) is still an excellent film, and compared with the mind-numbingcomedies that Hollywood regularly cranks out, it is exceptional. And,at a mere hour and a half, this 1994 film never drags on too long.However, one of the major misconceptions about the film and its hero,Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski)- literally Charley Charley, is thathe is a Chaplinesque figure. I believe that the many critics who usethis term intend it as a high compliment, as they reference thegreatest of the silent era screen stars, Charlie Chaplin, and hischaracter of The Tramp. But, in doing so, they show how little theyunderstand of the character and its portrayer.

There is a range of emotion that The Tramp shows in both the shortsubjects and feature films he appears in that none of the actors whoseperformances have subsequently been compared with his have displayed.There have never been moments the equal of the roll dance in The GoldRush, nor the ending of City Lights, where the blind girl realizes herseemingly rich benefactor is The Tramp, nor the scenes of modernity runamok in Modern Times, nor the dance with the globe in The GreatDictator. This is not to demean any of the later performances, forsome, such as Giulieta Masina's role as Gelsomina in Federico Fellini'sLa Strada, or that of Zamachowski in White are excellent, but nonerally come close to that Chaplinesque mix of lightheartedness and darkpathos. Karol, as example, is a far more dismal and dark character thanany played by Chaplin. Right from the start there is something 'off'about him. In Hollywood a character like his might end up a serialkiller or child molester.

That all said, White is a delightful if flawed comedy, and had it beena Hollywood film it would probably rank much higher in critical opinionworldwide. It's merely because American minds have been so cauterizedby bad art that a film like this has to be judged against its superiorEuropean counterparts, and its own siblings in the Three Colorstrilogy, rather than the minor leagues that American cinema represents.Were it judged against the standard fart comedy mindset, or that of thetired 'romantic comedy' formulae, it would be seen in a far greaterlight. Regardless, it is well worth seeing, and a good way to spend anevening. When was the last romantic comedy from America that such aclaim could be made for?

A Pole living in Paris has problems with his hairdresser wife, becomesa bum, but chances on a way to stage a comeback - and get his own backon his neurotic wife!

While I have plenty of time for Krzysztof Kieslowski’s work I find thema mixed bag. I started by believing that this was going to a farce, butsomehow the movie seems to fight the only thing it is suited to being.No approach to any movie is "wrong", but this seems a movie at war withitself.

Small points seem laboured over, extended (Kubrick like) and others arepainted with a thick brush. Don’t let the drab Polish scenery fool you-we are heading towards an Alice in Wonderland finale!

The truth is that the script isn’t very good and no director can riseabove a mediocre script. One scene reminds me of the Rockford Fileswhere villains bang on the door in the middle of the night and JimRockford opens the door to a gun in his face. Here we have a guy who isa bum one minute and a sharp businessman the next! The same guy thatwas bamboozled as to how to get home without money! Maybe it is thehair-gel that has raised his IQ!

People don’t travel in suitcases to get from France to Poland becausetheir passport is stolen. You would contact the Polish embassy! Or whatabout hitchhiking and sneaking across the border? Or borrowing moneyfrom people back home and getting a ticket back? And when you finallyget out if it - wouldn’t you, like, be a bit stiff or find the lightmade you blink a little?

The one thing I have learnt is that I don’t like too much nonsense inserious films. This film lives on its acting and its sense of intrigue.However it is actually poorly written (everything that happens couldmake sense with a bit more care and explanation) and ends with a sceneI don’t really understand at all. And I don’t tell me you do - becausewhere is the information to understand it fully? How can you understanda court case/legal process (and I have to presume that there even wasone!) without seeing it?

The first viewing of this film prompted me to reflect on a question: whatmakes irony so compelling? While it lacks the brooding and shatteringmoodysubstance of Blue, White is rich with irony, employing it in the mostsubtleand delicate ways to achieve a magnificently dry humor and brilliantcontradiction. Again, Kieslowski has made a sensuous and complex filmreplete with symbolic imagery and multiple shades of meaning. Also again,he has demonstrated his genius in the art of conclusion; the ending ofthisfilm is surpassed in brilliance and emotional power only by that of itssubsequent partner in the Three Colors trilogy, Red.

White has been described as the most accessible film of the Trois Couleurstrilogy to Americans. I believe just the opposite. Blue chronicles a youngwoman’s return to normalcy after devastating personal loss. Red illustrateshow strange life’s journey can be, and how weird some of its lessons. Youdon’t have to be European to understand their themes. White is different.It’s a tale of revenge by a wronged husband against his ex-wife, which initself is understandable by Americans. But the manner in which White’sprotagonist throws all his life’s work away for an act of revenge is, tothis American, impenetrable. Do you have to be French or Polish tounderstand the couple’s logic and motives? Maybe, I sure didn’t.Nonetheless, I enjoyed White, but found it the weakest of the trio. See themall and judge for yourself.

For me, this is the best of the trilogy!Why? This movie has everything the other two pieces also have, but itprovides some extras: absolutely great acting and the use of a bit ofhumor.The story is the most beautiful of the trilogy, better than Bleu andRouge.

One of the best pictures I’ve seen!

This is the odde
st of anything I've seen by Kieslowski.

First of all, the use of color in it doesn't work as well as the otherfilms in the trilogy, Bleu and Rouge. Perhaps because white is so hardto use to saturate the screen (after all, unlike using a blue or redfilter, white balancing is typical color variation…), perhaps becausewhen used to such a large degree it looks too much like somebody doingan impression of heaven or a flashback, white isn't allowed as muchcontrol over the film. However, the few times it is used definesmoments in the main character's life when he reaches a transcendentallevel of happiness, and so its use is effective. There are, of course,exceptions to the rule… getting beaten up in a pile of snow canhardly be transcendental or happy.

Also, this is the most comedic of anything I've seen by Kieslowski. Itloses a lot of the depression and introspection and instead reveals acharacter who knows himself and what he wants to do quite well. It'salso comedic dramatically in that it's a real rag-to-riches story, aman going from two francs to owner of a huge corporation just on witand the ability to make the right friends. It almost seems ill-placedin Kieslowski's oeuvre.

Still, it's very fun to watch and honestly makes one question acharacter's motivations. As a character study it has the most interest,as a plot-device it turns out to be kind of weird.

–PolarisDiB

"Trois couleurs: Blanc" is definitely the funniest movie of KrzysztofKieslowski's "Three Colours"-trilogy. Its style is very similar to thetwo others, but its tone is much lighter. Julie Delpy does an amazingacting job, although I have some problems with her character. She hassuch an important part in this movie, she is the drive for all of KarolKarol's actions, that I just felt she had too less screen time.Dominique's character stays too vague for me. Zbigniew Zamachowski'sKarol Karol however gets fleshed out very well. We understand hisuntiring longing for activities. In a way, he tries to regain hismanhood after the humiliation he experienced on court. However, while Iwas watching, I didn't like the way he brought Dominique back into hislife with his feigned death. It just felt wrong, although, afterwards Iknew it was in her interest too, because she was loving him. But maybeshe just isn't able to live with someone who has the physical defectKarol Karol has.

I heard about these films, and the result of this first instalment ofthe trilogy from director Krzysztof Kieslowski about the contemporaryFrench society was brilliant, which explains the three colours, of theFrench flag. Basically Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski) is a Plishhairdresser working in France, with a beautiful wife, Dominique (JulieDelpy) whom he obsessively loves, but is in the process of divorcingfor his inability to consummate the marriage. Karol loses all hisearthly possessions, and is literally driven out of France by hisDominique. The rest of the film sees Karol fighting to get his wifeback and his helplessness. Also starring Janusz Gajos as Mikolaj, JerzyStuhr as Jurek and a cameo by Juliette Binoche returning (very quickly)as Julie Vignon. I found the most memorable moments were Karol fittinginto a large suitcase to get to France, and the great music by ZbigniewPreisner. The use of the colour white in most settings is not asobvious as blue and red. Along with the first and third films, allthree were number 77 on The 100 Greatest Films. Very good!

My Rating: *** out of ****.

White is the second film in Krzysztof’s Kieslowski’s Color Trilogy(The firstis Blue; The third is Red). I have seen Blue and White, hopefully going torent Red soon. Blue was a brilliant masterpiece about dealing with a loss ina woman’s life. Unfortunately, White cannot be called Blue’s equal. It lacksthe punch of Blue and there are several possible reasons why.

First off, White has a much lighter tone than Blue. Blue had a somber moodto it, White has nothing of the sort. I guess you could call White the moreenjoyable film but I did not find it anywhere near as absorbing as Blue.

Another flaw is the characters just aren’t as interesting as Julie was fromBlue. Maybe Kieslowski just has a way with Women that they command myattention better than the leading man does. In fact, I actually wanted thewoman in the story to become the main character.

I am probably being too negative on the film, let me state that I thinkWhite is a good film. It’s entertaining and will hold your attentionthrough. It is also a very well-acted film.

The acting is definitely solid. His character may not be as interesting asJulie in Blue, but Zbigniew Zamachowski is quite good here. He’s able tomake his character likable and gets us on his side.

As good as Zamachowski is, it is Delpy who is the standout. Her performanceis highly effective for having limited screentime. It makes me wonder thatWhite would probably be better with her as the main character.

Like Blue, White has some breathtaking cinematography. The snowscapes inPoland are absolutely magnificent looking. The score is very impressive andsupports the visuals well.

Overall, White is a well-made film that is definitely worth watching. Theproblem is that after Blue I was expecting a masterpiece. It is my problem.I do recommend White and acknowledge that it is a good film.

read comments (0)

The Neverending Story III

{ I've tried to keep possible spoilers minimal. }

I just saw The NeverEnding Story III for the first time. As a kid, Iloved the book and the first movie. This one wasn't great and wasmissing some of the magic, but was definitely still worth watching.

I really enjoyed watching Bastian and his new step-sister Nicole'srelationship develop. That element of the story was acted outbrilliantly. There was resentment, attraction, interest, and finallytrust and friendship. I actually came to IMDb today because I wasparticularly impressed with actor Melody Kay's (Nicole) performance andwanted to see what other films she's been in (very few, unfortunately.)

The Earth-aware dialog on Fantasia doesn't make much sense. But if youlook at this movie on it's own, and don't assume any prior knowledge ofthe book or previous movies, issues like this go away. The generationthis movie was made for had plenty of viewers that theseinconsistencies with the prior story wouldn't bother.

I loved the contemporary pop/rock music! It is entirely reasonable thatthe hero and his step-sister, at about 13 years old, would beinterested in popular music! It also helps recreate, in 2007, the auraof 1994… The soundtrack was great, with a feeling in-between the 80ssound and the 90s sound.

A couple of misconceptions:

1. (That there is a significant break from the prior movie becauseBastian's Mom is alive and present again, and Bastian's Dad hasdisappeared.) — Actually, the Mom in the movie is not Bastian's Mom,it is his step-sister Nicole's Mom. The Dad really is Bastian's Dad.There is a point in the story when an interaction between the kids andparents seems to contradict their (clearly established) blood ties, butthat interaction has a different purpose altogether.

2. (That the karate in the movie is ordinary.) — Actually, it ismagically enhanced.

The NeverEnding Story III is not brilliant, but it is definitelyenjoyable. ***– 3/5

Before I commence, let me say how good a film The Neverending Story is. Itis definitely worth watching. This film, however, is not. Personally, I’mtaking it as an insult to the original that it was even made. This is thesecond time that a cheap, utterly perplexing imitation has been made.Anyonewho has seen the original and enjoyed it is well advised to steer clear ofthis film. Familiar characters are reduced to empty roles and the plotseemsso eerily familiar.One final note: The Nothing, interesting new concept. The Emptiness, Ican’tbelieve they tried to pull that one off. The Nastiness, stop, please. (Andas to a rating, forget it.)

I happened to be flipping through stations last night and I came acrossthelast hour or so of this "movie". All I have to say is:Thank god I didn’t watch the whole thing!! I would be afraid that I wouldhave to gouge out my eyeballs. No, seriously this movie is terrible. Theacting, the script, just everything was terrible! Well, Jack Black was alittle bit funny. I don’t need to compare this to the first two movies toknow that this one stunk! I gave it 2/10 only because I felt like beinggenerous.

Yeah, this movie never needed to be made. Every time I watched it I wouldpray for the Nasties to just beat Bastion and his friends up and be donewith it. Yes, I said *watched* it. As in multiple times. The only reason Isaw it in the first place is because Ryan Bollman (who plays Dog) is inthis, and I think he’s great in it. Actually, Jack Black and the rest oftheNasties aren’t too bad. If you just watch their parts and fast forwardthrough all of Bastion and Nicole’s little dramas, the movie becomeswatchable. Sort of. So there’s my advice. If you really feel the need tofind out what happens to Bastion when he goes on to a cheesy B-moviecareer,fast forward through most of it and stop whenever the Nasties are around.Ifonly just to hear Dog yell "Let’s get NASTY!!"

I like the first one & the 2nd one.They can be one of my fav movies :-).Igave it 5/10 because Jason James Richter was in this movie and he’s acapable actor. The reality’s it’s not a good movie. The movie seems weird &Creepy & the magic disappeared. It lacks a lot of works.Just some badstudents did stupid things to kill Jason.I don’t like these guys very much.They are so stupid.By the way, may be filmaker made this for $. It’s not abad movie,but if i’m peter,i’d not like to make this one. If people like tosee some Magical movies,you’d better see Neverending story ,II ,Bogus &Home alone.If people don’t like this movie, please skipit.

The puppet characters all talked like they were retarded. The lines werecorny and not funny AT ALL. I’m a fan of Tony Robinson, but how could hesink soooo low as to be in such an awful movie?

I’ve actually seen worse, but this movie is still high on my really badmovie list.

You cannot judge a movie from the 80's & 90's and compare the specialeffects to today that is unfair. The Never Ending Story trilogy is andalways will be fantastic… I wish they would make more of them.. Mychildren enjoy them and their friends enjoy them and if you look at theage of my children and compare it to when I started watching them weare the same age. An adult might not enjoy it but the never endingstory is a movie for children and for adults that are still children atheart. I would without hesitation recommend this movie to all myfriends and family who are looking to watch a movie that isentertaining and those who enjoy fantasy movies would definitely enjoythese three movies. My only hope is that the writers of these storieswould come up with another sequel with todays technology it would be abest seller in every country around the globe.

I still think the first Neverending Story is the best of the series. Ididn't so much like the second one as it was super cheese. This one isstill super cheese but I enjoyed this movie. This version is so 90's.The music is so Dance Mix Tape style. And I loved Jack Black as thebully. This movie is not as well done with the fantasia characters butI really liked the story line with Bastion's little sister. And thenice family moral at the end of the film. This movie is not as cool asthe first one but maybe because I'm a kid of the 90's I liked thisversion because I can remember growing up in the 90's. Hopefully theywill not make anymore versions of the Neverending Story unless they doa really good job. Falcor was so cheese in number three that I can'tbare to see anymore movies made of this series unless they do anamazing job on a fourth one. I am so cringing the new Lost Boys Tribemovie as it will be nowhere as good as the 80's original.

Believe it or not, being such a HUGE fan of "The Never Ending Story" saga, Ididn’t happen to see this movie till about 2 years ago. Even though thisstory has absolute NOTHING to do with the series, all I can say is Iactually didn’t mind it. I for some odd reason found it quite entertainingand was impressed. I do seperate this movie from the series in general (orelse I might begin to hate it), it most likely does better on its own. Theoriginal series was actually very serious and alot more dark, especially thefirst film. I saw "The Neverending Story 3" however, as some sort of "comicrelief" to the series. I do enjoy how it was a little more down to earth andhad alot more humour in it. Even though the original actors are long gone,the actors in this movie do portray these "new" characters quite well andare believable. If one wants to enjoy this movie make sure you totallyseperate it from the original series and DO NOT compare all that much. Iwill never like this movie as much as the original, I still will watch itfor a gag every now and then but it just won’t hold the same place in myheart as the origin
als. If you are HUGE into fantasy and have seen the othermovies, give this one a try, ’tis actually not all that bad. Trust me, Ihave seen worse.

In my opinion it's the best of the NES films. Because there are so manynew characters like Nicole and the Nasties. And I think all people inthe film are all feelings. As I watched the movie first, tears stand inmy eyes, because junior ask of his mother. It was so cute. And whenSebastian and Nicole became friends i was so lucky. =)AS I saw theNasties first I feel so angry. In my opinion the movie isn't bad. It'sgood! Very, very good. And I want to say: you must watch it! =) Alittle bit of love, friendship, fear, happiness and you have theperfect movie like never ending story III. I only knew two people, whodidn't like it. But I knew hundred more, who like it. Everyone, whodidn't know it must watch it! please and than you can say, if you likeor not. Okay? watch it please!

read comments (0)

The Chase

The way I see it, Adam Rifkin was able to write a very interestingscript for some kind of action comedy and media satire, but, when itcame to it, wasn't able to direct it properly. (Be aware that 1994 wasthe year of 'Nature Born Killers' as well as 'Pulp Fiction'… - Andmoney, I suppose, was not the problem.) Charlie Sheen, both executiveproducer and main actor, must either not have understood the script atall, or been having way too much faith in Mr. Rifkin's directingskills. Interesting script gone wrong. Crap, with a few car chase /crash scenes that are well done and IMHO entertaining but can notreally make up for it, and nor can Henry Rollins or anything/anybodyelse. Don't waste your time.

I’d just like to say that "The Chase" is one of the best movies evermade. I watched it for the 2nd time tonight and it ruled even more thanit did first time around.

I could watch that movie one thousand times and it would still rock.Charlie Sheen kicked ass (as usual), and Cary Elwes made an appearance.CARY ELWES! One of the funniest guys on planet earth! Henry Rollinsalso had me rolling in the aisles (if my hallway can translate as anaisle). The soundtrack rocks. seriously, I threw my headphones on inanticipation of this movie. It’s not Mozart but it lets you know it’sthere. Okay I’ll take my hand off my dick for a few seconds, but let itbe known that this movie is a classic to anyone with a brain.

This movie is even more insulting than heavy doses of prime-time realitytelevision. It was painful.

A bad movie that knows it’s a bad movie is at least acknowledging it’sstinkyness and for that you have to give most stinkers a little respectbutthis movie made absolutely no attempt to admit to itself just howunbelievably bad it was. You’d have to see it to know.

Its only value to society is that it can be used to gauge just howterribleother movies are, as in: "Boy that movie was horrible. Not nearly as badasThe Chase, but still awful."

I am a rather large movie buff. I have seen many. many movies. I'mobsessed with them, and my favorite movie is The Chase. Now the chaseisn't really that amazing of a movie, it doesn't really excel in fieldsof plot and character development. But there is something about it thatmakes me and my friends, and many others go back and watch it a secondor a third time.

I love this movie and I encourage all movie-goers to go and rent thismovie.

NOTE: I have come to the understanding this movie is very hard to find,and that not many or no versions came out on DVD. It is played on TNTor TBS though.

The only saving grace about this "average" movie is the 90 minute chase.The plot-line is stupid, the acting is un-inspired, casting? (roker HenryRollins as a cop?, huh?). But.. who cares, this is called "beyond reality."The best parts are the humor (falling cadavors and inane reporters). Otherthan that, by all means skip it. What I cannot figure out though is why"The French Connection" and "Bullit" always get the hype for a car chase,yet this one gets no recognition. Guess the chase (even a 90 minute one)has to be in a good movie too.

Why is Hollywood still turning out these films? Absolutely nothing new inthis noisy kaleidoscope of speeding cars, exploding trucks and choppers,andswearing policemen. The gags would have proven funny 30 years ago, but areold hat today. I did like the frozen cadaver sequence, however. The endingof this picture was pat and predictable; good entertainment for pre-teensorthe partially brain dead.

Even if this movie was meant to mock or parody the whole chase-film genre,it’s still a bad movie, with only minorly amusing scenes and characters.The characters Flea and Anthony Kiedis from The Red Hot Chili Peppers werefunny in their stupidity and I’ll enjoy them in any movie (especially Fleain "the Big Lebowski".) Some things like the cadavers on the highway andthe idiotic step-father were also amusing, but can’t make up for everythingelse which is so cheesy it exceeds the point of good cheesiness.

Forgetable movie with forgetable characters. This film is done on alow budget, and it shows. A few bright spots in the film, where theviewerwill laugh. The story is predictable and the conclusion is no surprise.Good second feature to rent when every one is drunk after having a fewbeerswhile watching the first feature.

Awful acting, abysmal script - one of the worst comedies in a long time. Itwould pass as pretty innocuous if it weren’t for the "comedy with cadavers"sequence. Truly offensive. Other than that, 99% of the gags misfire andyou are left wondering why you bothered!

I’m really surprised at how highly rated this movie is. It was prettygod-awful - poorly written, far-fetched, and stupid. Yeah, I got thepointabout how the rich control the media, about how rich kids want for the"realworld", etc, but none of those themes had any depth. What the movie wasreally about was sexual tension between two classically good-lookingpeople,explosions, and people who are ungrateful for what they have. A goodmoviefor a 12 or 13-year old boy but otherwise, leave it alone.

read comments (0)

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

Basically a road movie. The gay, transsexual, and other gender-benderthemesare rather disturbing, particularly when the child is involved. You dohaveto hand it to the costume designers. As for the actors, the only one I wasfamiliar with was Terence Stamp. I suppose it was a very good performance,out of his (or anyone’s) normal range. The movie as a whole was shallow,just a vehicle for the clever, bitchy banter. All in all, I don’ recommendthis one.

This film tries hard but fails. Perhaps to non-Australian audiences it mayhave appeal as a travelogue, but to the native it is merelytedious.

Anyone who lives here knows Broken Hill is a rough, tough isolated miningtown. If a couple of citified fruits turn up in drag, well it’s all sopredictable. Where have I come across that well-worn theme before? Oh yes– Town Mouse and Country Mouse. Spare us.

I kept hoping it would improve but after the Broken Hill scene I could seewhere this was heading and so turned off the TV and went tobed.

To me, this is just an OK film. Even after buying it on DVD, I can't bebothered to watch it twice. No disrespect to the leading actors, whoall did a good job, but it just isn't very deep, moving, involving orcomplex.

Surely the only way this film is above average is as a nice feel-goodfilm for people attracted or entertained by the lifestyles at its core.Come on, we all know a feel-good film when we see it.. I can't see anyother reason anyone should give this anything more than 5 or 6 out of10. The plot and character development are easily outdone by good TV.For me, some of the film is patronising: the aborigines getting intothe show smacks of right-on political correctness. I can't help butwonder would that happen in real life? This reminds me of when they hadan old black guy dancing in a Rick Astley video, to "show" thatalthough Rick as a thin ginger white boy from Lancashire, working forStock Aitken and Waterman, he was in fact a real Soul singer, asdemonstrated by the way this black waiter got into the music. We've allseen this device used in lots of places (including politician's ads).

There are 2 other cult films like this I've bought that have alsofallen far short of their reputation: Easy Rider (dreadful rubbish),and Withnail and I (this last one is just about worth watching twice)

I like Terence Stamp the best, a very dry performance - and the mostconvincing. Once again: not a dreadful film, but not a classic by anystretch of the imagination

I saw this in the cinema during its initial release and can only ask "hasthe world gone mad?" The seemingly overwhelming positive response is mindboggling for this poorly written, embarrasingly predictable claptrap.

Stephan Elliot is no genius film maker as evidenced by the consistentbombshe has produced since (check out ‘Welcome to Woop Woop’, ‘Eye of theBeholder’)

I can only assume making a film dealing with the gay/transexual culturehaspeople assuming that to dislike the film is an offense to this sector ofthepopulace. Aren’t we smarter than that? What about an interesting scriptandgood performances? Ok so the 3 leads do alright considering what they haveto work with, but this film includes the worst performance by a childactorI have ever seen, not helped by appalling dialogue and a really lameresolution that you can see a mile off.

This is a disappointing film and one that doesn’t deserve the overblownreputation it has garnered.

This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies thatstrive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it’s materialisn’t strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.

The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outbackfrom Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - withhomophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.

The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce’scontinual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feelforced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn’t laughat their own gags.

Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasinglyincongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desertbackgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidenceand just being yourself, it all seems very insecure withitself.

There have been many movies about drag queens, but "The Adventures ofPriscilla, Queen of the Desert" was probably the jolliest. TerenceStamp, Hugo Weaving and Guy Pearce play three drag queens who travelacross Australia in a bus on their way to a convention. They have manyfun encounters on the way.

I guess that the movie’s point was that as long as gay men aretogether, and as long as people tolerate them, then everyone isperpetually happy. Some people say that "To Wong Foo, Thanks forEverything, Julie Newmar" was a rehash of this movie; maybe so, but Iliked "To Wong Foo…" better. Still, this one was pretty good itself.

Imagine that: the tough guy from various ’60s movies, Agent Smith from"The Matrix" and Leonard from "Memento" as drag queens…

This movie is horrible. The plot is senseless and is not in any wayfunny. There is not any hidden humor and the characters are empty andshallow. This movie drags on way too long and never comes to any realpoint. The characters subject themselves to all the torture they receiveand there is no sympathy for any of them. This movie is a waste of time andmoney and should be seen only by people who love looking at men in womensclothing. This is with-out-a-doubt one of the worst movies I have everseen.

This movie was horrible with no plot or moral. There is no basicstoryline and it is a poor attempt at humor. The actors are weak and thereis no support for their roles. This movie is boring and in no way fun. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. It isabsolutely horrible. The only question left in your mind is who was worsein this film, Terence Stamp or Guy Pearce. You make the call.

Spoilers herein.

Prissy, Prison, Pristine. That’s what we have here.

I like the approach these filmmakers took. The story is plain stupid. Nomatter. The characters are the thinnest of stereotypes: the flaming gay, theembarrassed bi, the genetically-determined transsexual, the exhibitionistasian, the miraculously likeable mother-earthy bisexual woman (who alsoprovides shelter in the wilderness) and the true-hearted oaf who is sexuallyinnocent and honestly discovers the heart(s) under the glitter. Stereotypes– no matter. The production values are unimpressive; the acting appropratesthe actual manner of drag cabaret, which is to say that it is not acting atall, but prancing.

No matter, because just as with the characters, the superficial appearanceis just a nervous mannerism, done without thought, and the real value iselsewhere. What the real matter of this project is to build a few strongimages that stick. And surprisingly a few have from Priscilla, and that saysquite a bit for this viewer who seriously watches ten movies aweek.

It is all built around that image of a drag queen on top of a bus blastingthrough in the desert wild with dozens of yards of fabric billowing as atrain behind and decibels of song leading. It is a matter of filling space:the kite, the unexpected performances, the appropriation of aborigonals (orperhaps the other way), but most of all, the shots of this performer on thebus. It is shown twice and I have not doubt that it was both the originalidea and the pitch to sponsors.

Another shot, the three from behind in leggy outfit climbing the hill oftheir destination. It works, It sticks.

You must decide whether sitting through this is w
orth collecting those threeimages. (It was for me.) For all the rest of the `I’m outrageously gay, andisn’t it fun’ prancing, go watch `Hedwig’ instead.

I had been told that this movie was very funny and that I should surelyview it. I was skeptical, but put it on my CD player anyway. What a lotof noise and silliness! So much might be done with the subjectmatter–drag queens, homosexuals, transvestites trying to make theirway in the world–but this film settles for a superficial view of how aminority group and society at large relate to each other. At this pointI cannot tell one actor from another, but I thought the depiction ofthe character who is married and has a child was best. Although thetrio ran into some bad situations with local people at times, on thewhole they got off better than would probably have been the case ifthey had toured the American west a hundred years ago–or even today.On the other hand Oscar Wilde toured that region with a lily in hishand!

read comments (0)

Surviving the Game

Gruesome and brutal. Action saga of a homeless man(Ice-T) being tricked byagroup of Seattle businessmen into being a human target in their game ofsurviving the wilderness. Clever finale. Cast includes:Rutger Hauer,CharlesDutton, Gary Busey, F. Murray Abraham and John C. McGinley.

Here is yet another rip-off of the classic short story, "The MostDangerousGame". However, if you don’t mind seeing this story again, you’ll findthistake on it well photographed, fast-paced, and with some decent actionscenes. As a bonus, you get a great B movie cast making fools out ofthemselves.

Among those many, uncountable kill-or-be-killed, humanpreyaction flicks, "Surviving the Game" must be the best ofitskind, contemporary-wise. Ice-T stars in this frantic man-hunting chase movie, completely hiding away his rapper/gangsta image in the process! The "Godfather of gangstarap"plays Mason, a Seattle bum on the end of his rope who isgivenan offer he couldn’t refuse from a wealthy hunter namedBurns(Rutger Hauer, in full sleazebag mode): work for his unit of

poachers working in the Pacific Northwest. Mason agrees,

and he is given a warm welcome by the hunter group, or soitseems! The very next day, Mason is horrified to learn thatheis the man who is "it" on a very deadly game of tag! ButMasonperseveres, picking out everyone of the hunters in clever

fashions! Now who is the hunter and the hunted?

Ice-T struts some interesting acting, this time not beingthe smooth operator like he usually portrayed in the films

prior to "Surviving the Game," like "New Jack City" and

"Trespass." Rutger Hauer, Charles S. Dutton, Gary Busey, and

John C. McGuinley are in top form as the relentless hunters.The only flaws this movie has are the flat script-writing,

which seems pretty much amateurish to me, and also theactingof William McNamara and the ususally good F. Murray Abraham

are hammy and annoying. Both actors had shrill, woman-like

voices in the flick! But other than that, "Surviving theGame"is a well-made action flick, bar none!

This is a very well written and exciting movie. It’s fast paced and veryclever. If you like a good action flick, you won’t be disappointed. A poorperformance by Ice-T, but Gary Busey is at his best. The only thing Idon’tlike about this movie is the cinematography. The film is lit like aTV-movie, and that I don’t like. Highly recommended.

Yes folks, It’s another "The Most Dangerous Game" update, for about the 50thversion. But, this counterpart is much more different from the others; it’sgot style!! Ice-T plays a Seattle bum named Mason who gets an interestingoffer by a couple of slick hunters, led by Rutger Hauer and theever-dependable Gary Busey. Soon enough, Mason finds himself as the hunterrather than vice versa, while the other hunters are closing in on our hero."Surviving the Game" is a great action flick. Sure, the dialogue ishorrendous, but that is made up by the great action. The actors do reallywell, too, especially by Ice-T and John McGinley, who’s playing this game ofTag with a vengeance.

This movie was horrible. I swear they didn’t even write a scriptthey just kinda winged it through out the whole movie.Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watchit*They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been longgone.The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track himwith out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 AssaultSHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eightshells?? It would take 1000’s of shells to cut down a tree that size.)Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. Andtheyeven saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn’t see a scope onthat thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that wasretarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where hestuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn’t blow up andkill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel.

Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself huntedbywealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.MurrayAbraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to bemuch harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow pacedactioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totallybotching them.

Mason (Ice T) is a man who once had a great job, family and friends butlostall of them to tragedy. All of his chances for a better life went Southandhe’s thinking about going West (dying, committing suicide). Yet,Opportunityknocks on his in the form of a man named Burns (Rutger Hauer), who leads agroup of wealthy but bored hunters (actually these men are retired CIAagents) and offers him a job to join their hunting expedition in a remotepart of the Northwest. Little does Mason know of the gruesome, sadisticsurprise that lies in store: he’s their game! However, little do they knowthat just because a man who down on his luck doesn’t mean he couldn’toutwitand turn the tables on them. A great all-star cast including Charles S.Dutton and veteran actors like Gary Busey and F. Murray Abraham. A greatretelling of a famous classic.

This movie could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Notthat I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you’d thinkthat even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question whya group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a huntingguide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his partas if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he’s neverseen before.

And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?

I’m assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell’s short story "TheMost Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie,cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended upbeing 43 minutes long.

It’s possible that this movie suffers by comparison to "Hard Target,"which was undoubtedly better, thanks mostly to John Woo’s direction andthe stylish villainy of Lance Hendriksen and Arnold Vosloo. But"Surviving the Game" is out-and-out garbage. The premise was alreadystale, the writing is god-awful, and the characters aren’t even on thelevel of a comic book. The depiction of homeless life in a big city is,at best, charmingly inaccurate. The climactic showdown is one of themost mind-numbingly stupid scenes I’ve ever encountered (and I’ve seeneverything that Edward D. Wood Jr and Steven Seagal have done).

The only possible reason to see this is to watch a good cast waste itstime. Ice-T, taken out of his usual big-pimping-gangster routine, issurprisingly good; he’s believable in the action scenes (although Ican’t figure out how a malnourished homeless man could have so muchenergy), and he creates a good deal of sympathy too. Unfortunately, thescreenplay gives him the lion’s share of clunky dialogue. Inparticular, his conversation in the cave with John McGinley is sopoorly-written that no actor could possibly survive it. Hey, wouldn’tthat make a nifty DVD extra, to have, say, Ralph Fiennes, Samuel L.Jackson, Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, and Denzel Washington each givetheir reading of Ice-T’s monologue about how his family died in thefire?

Rutger Hauer is entertaining and intelligent as always, and CharlesDutton is his usual rock-solid self. They really do come off as acouple of guys who have known each other for a long time, and thenumerous unexplained inside jokes between them are a nice touch. Butboth actors have been mu
ch more impressive in better movies than this.

F. Murray Abraham is horribly miscast, and his character is a mess ofcontradictions. Abraham has been magnificent before (see "Amadeus" and"Mighty Aphrodite"). But here, he’s saddled with the burden of playingthe dumbest character in the movie, and, much like James Woods, Abrahamis incapable of playing stupid. You can sense Abraham’s discomfort withthe character throughout, especially in his scenes with WilliamMcNamara, who plays his son and seems equally confused about what he’sdoing here.

John C. McGinley, who foundered for years in crap like this, "On DeadlyGround," and "Highlander II," gives yet another signature performancethat’s way too good for a movie of this caliber. Fortunately, hefinally found a role on "Scrubs" that’s worthy of his best efforts.Hopefully his days of playing minor bad guys in lame action movies areover once and for all.

Which brings us to the only real reason to see this movie, the greatGary Busey. Busey by this point had made a second career playingover-the-top villains (see "Lethal Weapon" through "Under Siege"). Herehe outdoes himself. As he was probably the highest-paid actor appearingin this movie, he doesn’t last very long. But he makes an impressionthat overshadows everything else. His long monologue (about the dog hehad when he was a kid) is up there with any weirdo soliloquy thatChristopher Walken’s done in the last ten years, and he chews on itlike he’s enjoying every bite (no pun intended). Shortly after that, hehas a well-choreographed fight with Ice-T. But again, could amalnourished homeless guy really hold his own against a CIA-trainedtotal psycho who’s much bigger than he is? Well, whatever. Bravo, Mr.Busey, I tip my hat to you.

In short, you can stop watching it after Busey gets his. Aside fromwatching some good actors struggle through a lousy script, there’snothing more to see here, folks, keep moving.

read comments (0)