The Story of Us

This film is supposedly about the inner workings of a couple and theirmarriage, following them on a fifteen year journey as an "us." All I cansay is that if that was what marriage was really like, weddings would beoutlawed. Neither of the major characters (Bruce Willis and MichellePfeiffer) are redeeming in any way. They are both stubborn, shallow andcompletely self-centered, except when it comes to their children which, Isuspect, is supposed to make us see their true caring personas that areotherwise non-existent. The movie was disjointed, all the flash backs werepoorly done and made it seem more like a series of vignettes, wherein thesame actors played multiple parts, than one flowing story. And it can bestbe summed up by a man, speaking to his wife, who was walking behind me as Ileft the theater, "What a piece of #$@%."

This movie is a s***, because it is just for americans! It isn’t a goodfilmfor brazilians or italians.The story is so stupid, look: a man and a woman part and they hide it fromthe sons, that start thinking that there’s something strange, and there’salove end, how cute!

This was quite a surprise for me, because movies about marriages andcouplesare almost very much alike. "The Story of Us", however, is very charmingandit also has Michelle Pfeiffer in the leading role. She is one of the bestactresses in America and turns every performance into something reallyspecial. Bruce Willis was also a surprise, his performance is very down toearth, very realistic. The ending is absolutely unforgetable. Amust-see!

Oh my god ! I will never understand why Bruce Willis agreed to play inthismovie; it’s the worst of it’s kind. Both me and my girlfriend we’rewatchingthe time during the entire movie, wondering when it would finally end.It’sboring, dull and hard to sit out.

Scan the other user comments. when the women write in positively and themen are at best confused by the film…what do you have? CHICK FLICK.Thisis a chick flick with weak story line (okay acting, however). Hey guys,doesBruce Willis seem all that irresponsible in the movie? I think not. DoMP’sfeelings fly all over for 2 hours? Yep. The puzzle is the flashbacks seemreveal a pretty decent guy. Hence my confusion. I’d like to see a show ofhands among the men. Ever known ANY woman that took consistent notice ofthewindshield washer fluid levels in a car? How about inconsistent? Ever atall? I thought not. Case rested. (PS for a couple of writers they seem tohave a pretty high disposable income. Anyone smell Hollywoodhere?

A rare misfire for film director Rob Reiner, this film has very little inthe way of story, emotional push & pull and interesting subject matter. Advertised as a "comedy", and even verified as such by the director, thisfilm does not have one semi amusing part in it. The problem is that thereare scenes which are meant to be humorous, not in the laugh out loud way,but in the way that little things can make serious situations amusing, butthey do not work. This film is about as exciting as watching paint dry-nothing happens, there are no compromises and no one really discoversanything they didn’t already know. In one scene Paul Reiser as Willis’agent states that people who have very little leisure time don’t want toread about a persons life that they didn’t know, and wasn’t famous- it seemspointless. In a few words- we don’t want to watch it either! The filmmakersshould have thought about this, because that’s what this film is- pointless. There is some good acting, and it may be true about there being 6 people inthe bed - but do we really want to know about it over 90 minutes. A totalwaste of time, and an incredibly disappointing effort.

I like this one because it made me laugh and it had some good acting mainlyby Willis and Pheiffer and some good laughs by Rita Wilson and Paul Reiseryou shouldn’t miss this movie mainly because it is a good depiction of a offand on good marriage.

"The Story of Us" is a very real and down to earth movie. Many couples,whether in a relationship or marriage, will be able to identify with thefilm. It was powerfully acted by both leading roles.

The story consists of a lot of flashbacks throughout the couple’s entirerelationship together. There are many good memories recalled. The childrenthink they have a perfect family life, until they start discovering thethings their parents do seem fake and put on. The Willis character thendecides that the two of them must confront the children about theirseparation.

So, overall it was a very well done show, and this is why I love to go tothe movies. —————–8/10

"The Story of Us" depicts a marriage at the brink of divorce…and it doesit very well. This movie works best if you’ve been through such asituationyourself, but also works on an emotional enough level to make anyonecontemplating divorce cause to stop and think.

Bruce Willis sheds his action role suit and effortlessly slips into Ben, aman who after 15 years of marriage, has to adjust to the fact that itsover.He does a wonderful job, and clearly some of the emotions regarding hissplit with Demi show through.

Michelle Pfeiffer does her usual great job as Katie. She too does anoutstanding job of portraying a woman dealing with her impending divorce.You lose yourself in her portrayal….with the most shining moment comingduring a rambling speech at the end of the movie.

Rob Reiner and Rita Wilson lead the supporting cast as Ben & Katiesfriends….She’s a bit brusk and obnoxious, and he seems a bit overlypassive and distant when dealing with Bruce’s character..but overall theydont detract too much from the movie. Paul Reiser puts in a completelyforgettable role as Ben’s agent, who’s primary goal seems to be to debatewhether or not cybersex is cheating.

"Story of Us" is a painful, accurate look into divorce. I recommend thismovie highly. Take your wife to see it, take your girlfriend to see it.Ifyoure in this situation yourself, you owe it to yourself to see it….itmight provide you with "jumper cables" (Gotta see the movie to getthat)

3 out of 4

I wanted to like this movie and was disappointed that it didn’t quite comeup to my expectations. Bruce Willis was the most sincere, believablecharacter. He really has quite a broad capability as an actor. I am sorrythis movie didn’t come up to his potential. He represented a man trying tomake the most of family life. Today too many of us get lost in the detailsof day to day life and forget to appreciate each other. Michele Pfieffer’scharacter was a bitter woman dominated by her role as a mom, which she takesvery seriously to the expense of her marriage.

This is not a comedy, though there were a few brief funny moments. With goodacting from the two leads, Bruce and Michele put in the most notableperformances. The writing for the "friends" could have been far moresympathetic and true to life.

The flashbacks bring some depth and tenderness to the fabric of their lives.

This movie had potential and with some better writing could have been morepowerful. In spite of shortcomings, it was thought provoking, and left mewith a reminder… treasure the ones you are with and work at it… 7 out of10.

read comments (0)

The Straight Story

I can’t believe there are people raving about this film. I found it to beabsolutely pointless and boring. An old man drives a tractor to anotherstate to visit his brother… This is movie material? Why are they tryingtomake sense out of the actions of a real life brainless old mid-westerner?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - there’s nothing in this movie. Nounderlying message.. It is what it is. An old guy drives his tractor toanother state to visit his brother. Total garbage. Don’t buy into the"people don’t like it because it’s not speed 3" trash - it’s just NOT agoodmovie.

I’ve seen so many critics praise this movie and was thus encouraged to rentit. It took a record ten seconds to completely loose me.

On the plus side, Farnsworth has a great onscreen presence and I wassurprised that this is his only starring role to date. And there is also nodoubt that this is the most bizzare plotline of any movie I’ve seen so farthis summer.

On the minus side, there is nothing worse than a boring movie (so this isthe first movie to really screw up my rating system for bad movies, where Iask myself wether the movie is as bad as "Theodore Rex"). This is less of aboring movie as an endurance test on film. Then again, the hysterical womanwho runs over the deer was pretty cool. If you are going to submit yourselfto this, just know that you can fall asleep during whole passages of themovie and not miss a thing.

I have seen many reviews for this movie, touting it as a great movie. Ihave my reservations. It appeals to a very limited audience to beginwith. The movie is about an old timer from Iowa, Alvin Straight, whowants to visit his ailing brother in Wisconsin, so he decides to drivethe 300 miles in a lawnmower. The apparent greatness of the movie is inthe courage it takes an old man to actually undertake something likethis, and the people he meets on the way and what he adds to theirlife. The unapparent foolishness (which most people seem to ignore) isthat it takes him six weeks to make the journey! Alvin cant drive, andhe doesn't like travelling by bus, so he would rather spend six weekson a lawnmower at considerable risk to himself, rather than make a daylong journey by bus! He also seems to forget the fact that his brotherwhom he so urgently wants to see to resolve some old dispute could verywell die in those six weeks, rendering his 'courage' useless. A lot ofpeople are touched by the conversations he has on the way with people,giving them parable like insights into life - so where was his wisdomwhen he needed to get himself on a bus and visit his brother - wasn'tthat more sensible courage? The movie is excruciatingly slow at times,and besides the fact that Alvin's story is not really worth telling, itcould very well be told equally well with a lot of editing. I would notrecommend this movie to most people - unless they're suffering fromdeep loneliness, psychological problems, unresolved issues, etc likethe characters themselves.

The premise is a good one: 73 year old man sets out by lawnmower tovisit his sick brother. The acting and characters are generally goodand even charming. There are some really excellent scenes, especiallyin the first part of the movie before he sets out. But it’s just notenough.

The plot is terrible. There is not one even partially negativecharacter or morally ambiguous episode in the whole movie. It’s justtoo many good guys, too many old man’s words of wisdom, too muchserendipity, and too many old fashioned family values. A pregnant womanis convinced to go back to her family, because there is strength inunity (illustrated by bundle of sticks). Lawnmowers break down, butgood people are everywhere and are glad to help Alvin get back on hisfeet. A husband and wife love each other, brothers have disagreementsbut in the end realize what matters most is family, and God sometimeshelps us through hard times. A loving mother’s children are taken awayby the cruel Government, but they remain in her heart; some old menhave unhappy memories of World War II, but they share them and feelbetter; and at the end of the day we learn to bear these burdens andenjoy the good things in life in spite of them.

All this is beautifully portrayed and convincingly acted, but there areno surprises anywhere. This movie has nothing new to say. But thenmaybe that doesn’t matter.

"The Straight Story" is based on Alvin Straight who, at the age of 73 and inill-health, made the 265-mile trip from Laurens, Iowa to Mt. Zion, Wisc. ona John Deere riding mower, albiet with the need for repairs along the way.It took him 5 weeks to make the first 200 miles! Along the way heencountered some interesting people that produced some heartwarming dialog.The meeting of the two brothers after 10 years’ of not speaking is a finefinale. Farnsworth as Straight does such a remarkable job that he really"becomes" Straight.

But, how do you place a film like this among other films based on "a realstory?" Films that come to mind are "Nixon", "Longitude", "Music of theHeart", "Apollo 13", "Man on the Moon", just to name a few. To me, all ofthese films are wonderful, and also are much more significant, arebetter-filmed, and are overall more enjoyable to watch.

Currently "Straight Story" is rated #78 on the IMdb all-time list, ahead ofsuch favorites as "The Graduate(67)", "October Sky(99)", "Forrest Gump(94)",Dead Man Walking(95), "Back to the Future(85)", "Bonny and Clyde(67)", and"E.T.(82)", to name a few. I don’t believe it belongs there.

I rate "The Straight Story" as a very high 7, or a low 8, on a 1 to 10scale. It is a good film, but has been over-hyped to a considerableextent.

Picaresque, to put it mildly, this quiet David Lynch-directed characterstudy tells its slight story mainly in images, with loads of beautifulbut eventually monotonous vistas of the Midwest. It’s a thoughtfulmeditation on what really matters in life, the unbreakable bonds offamily, the small kindnesses that can change lives, etc. But Lynch,being Lynch, can’t resist emphasizing the baroque aspects of thecharacters, and I smell a misanthrope with a condescending streak.Everybody’s just a little too fat, a little too slow, a little toodefined by their physical beings or minor tics. Farnsworth, as thequietly stubborn guy-on-a-tractor, is incapable of an undignified linereading or a false gesture. And there are some affecting episodesthroughout; loved the utterly normal couple who put Straight up whilehis tractor gets fixed, and the priest who offers him meat andpotatoes. Those finding profundity in this tiny, tiny tale, though,probably are looking to pronouncements like, "your brother’s yourbrother, no matter what," or, "the worst thing about growing old isremembering your youth." These aren’t earth-shaking ideas. And whileit’s a leisurely, un-pushy movie, all I see ultimately is a resoluteold coot on a John Deere.

This is one of those over-rated films that has you scratching your

head with regard to the accolades heaped on it. I guess if you go

to Hollywood movies, it may seem like a nice respite to see

Mid-America on the big screen. However, if you’re a film buff, you’ll

find the story thin and the acting weak. The opening scene is very strong & interesting. Sissy Spacek is

the only thing that redeems this film, however Lynch ditches her

character once the central character undertakes his journey

(another short coming of the film). As the main character

undertakes his journey we see numerous shots of amber waves

of grain while Badalameti’s score is playing (yawn). All the

characters we meet along the way are over-acted, particularly the

smarmy
couple he stays with. Harry Dean Stanton does a rather

poor job as the brother & the dialogue between the 2 is completely

phoney.

It is beyond me why this movie has been rated as of now (June 11, 2001)#100of the 250 best movies of all time. When I saw the trailer for this movie,Ithought to myself, "That looks like a great movie, I have to see it when itcomes out." I never made it to the theater to see it, and boy am I gladthatI didn’t. When I got around to renting it, I watched this whole moviewaiting for some to happen. Not once did anything inspirational orupliftinghappen, let alone anything to help move the dragging storyline along. Themusical score is just horrible. Well it’s not bad at first, but that’s allthat you hear throughout the whole movie. Sissy Spacek did a horrible jobwith the speech impediment that her character had. Richard Farnsworth did agood job acting, but he didn’t have much to work with. There isn’t anyoneelse worth mentioning about acting, they were all very mediocre andamateur.I gave this movie a try, I really did, but it didn’t live up to the hype.Ifyou’re still interested in seeing the movie, I suggest you watch thetrailer, it shows all the best parts of the movie anyway. I give it a 1,yesa 1, out of 10.

IMHO Too much cliché !This movie could be stopped after 20 min (just after the deer scene). Thephotography is basic. The characters are propotypics and the dialogs looklike a sermon.Why the heck did Lynch showed us the exactly the same sunset 4 times?In other hand, the actors are really good but it’s not enough to save thismovie.

Growing up and currently living in Laurens, Iowa (the home of AlvinStraight) where it all began, and where a large portion of the moviewas filmed, we rolled out the red carpet for the film crew and everyonethey brought into our small town of 1,500. Though small, we are notliving in the past as this movie highly portrays the "folks" ofLaurens. If you think that we all were in the same mindset and livingquarters of Alvin and his family, think again. The Straight house,better known as the stray cat house is by far the worst looking housein the town, in fact, if it wasn’t for this movie, it would have beentorn down just as any dilapidated house in Laurens is. We have severallarge manufacturing businesses in our town that do nation wide andinternational wide business. As for dogs running across main street,you won’t find any as portrayed in the opening shot of the movie. Wedon’t drive old beaters for car, yes, we too in small town Laurens ownCadillacs, SUVs, and other nice vehicles just as the rest of the world.We do have running water, cable TV, and the internet. We do not dressin overalls, wear straw hats, and chew on pieces of straw as was alsoseen in the movie. For treating the film crew as good as we did, I feelthat they did not do us any favors in return, in fact, the portrayal ofour town was very misleading and erroneous. Not to mention they werevery adamant in keeping the stereotype of rural Iowa alive. It was agood hearted story, but keep in mind it wasn’t done just forgood-hearted-ness, a buck was to be made. And if a buck was to be made,it isn’t hard for them to stretch the truth to make things more"interesting".

read comments (0)

The World Is Not Enough

Bond films must meet a certain criteria. Call it the "Brocolli" effectif you want. They must have the Bond elements 1. The glib, witty, cool,collected Bond character 2. Stunning scenery 3. Various venues andexotic locations most people rarely see, notably the Mediteranean,other seas, deserts, outer space, mountains, the romance countries(Italy, Portugal, Greece, et al), underwater scenes, sky scenes, andjungles. 4. Adventure and non stop action. 5. Beautiful women. 6. Theusual British characters such as M, Q, and Moneypenny. 7. The colorfulsupporting cast such as the Russian spy leader. 8. A bad guy who evenkills his own bad guys 9. An over the top plot such as worlddomination.

This film tries to cover all this, and of course the beautiful womenare here, but the rest is rather bland in comparison to other Bondmovies. On it's own merits, there isn't much to like. It prides itselfmore on intrigue and double cross, and killing as many dark hairedwomen as it can, which will endear it to the vast neo Nazi viewers ofthe American public. They will automatically cheer it on no matterwhat. But it offers nothing else. It isn't interesting. It has a plot,characters, and scenes you will forget the moment you leave thetheatre. It doesn't approach the "Brocolli" criteria. It is more like"Old lettuce".

… okay, so that only includes three other films, but The WorldIs NotEnough does have some sense of consolidation about it.

I WANTED to hate this film, truly I did. The overblown Brosnan era, allmoney-spinning set-piece explosions and dumbed-down formula is not for me.The "best Bond since Connery" is regurgitated by any critic going, yet allIsee is a bland, shallow characterisation that trades in his "licence tokill" for indiscriminately machine-gunning his enemies.

Yet whereas the two previous entries in the canon, Goldeneye particularly,treated their audience with no respect whatsoever, TWINE at least tries toshade in some detail around the formula.

Watching the film makes you wonder what really goes in on Bond’s head. Forthe millionth time he has a high-speed ski chase, yet this is no stunt manthen close-up of Roger Moore in front of a filmed backdrop situation.Okay,well, it IS, but effects have improved so that it is almost believablethatBrosnan is leaping all over the place and stopping four very nice flyingbobsleighs. Does he think of his parents, killed in the novels during anavalanche? And what of his late wife from On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?(The film which gave us "The World Is Not Enough" as Bond’s family motto).Does Bond remember her when she is mentioned in this film, or think of herwhen he sees Blofield-lookalike Renard?

But that was then, and this is very much the now, with a 007 that leapsontothe Millennium Dome with possibly the best title sequence in memory. Aherdof Rorsharch ink blot tests fill the screen to a so-so song by Garbage,though sadly there is very little psychology in the film, amateur orotherwise. This pans out into a film that loses its musterever-so-slightly,but still packs enough involvement to keep the viewer interested.

Robbie Coltrane returns with the worst "Scotsman-doing-a-foreign-accent"since Connery had the lead role. Denise Richards appears as thenot-very-good-entredre-and-frankly-quite-ludicrously-named "ChristmasJones", who, with her generous figure, cupid’s bow lips and pixie nose maynot be the most sophisticated Bond girl (or anything approaching a nuclearphysicist) but is probably the sexiest. John Cleese makes a cringinglyunfunny cameo as Q’s successor, and in all honesty, never mind tradition,wouldn’t the 007 films be better without these perfunctory andwearily-predictable "Q gadget" scenes? They no longer even serve a plotspecification, as many of Bond’s gadgets aren’t explained in this section,and are brought into play (including a crass watch that is more BatmanthanBond) without explanation or signposting. As a mark of respect to DesmondLlewellyn (who sadly died Dec 19th, 1999) I feel the "Q" element shouldendhere.

But again I must insist this film is slightly better than Dalton’sbelow-par"Licence to Kill" and easily eclipses Brosnan’s earlier efforts. Okay, I’mnot too keen on the lacklustre disco soundtrack that passes as incidental,Iwould’ve liked to have seen more of David Calder, and maybe we could havedone without Renard’s silly pun about "nuclear family", but in criticisingthis film I am clutching at straws. What really holds it together isRobertCarlyle, an exceptional actor who breaks the previously-established "rule"that a good actor (Christophers Lee and Walken, along with Jonathan Pryce)doesn’t necessarily make a good Bond villain. Okay, maybe he should havehadmore screen time, and maybe he should have been tougher (for someone thathas no feelings, he sure says "ow" a lot when clobbered by Bond). ButCarlyle’s real strength is in upping the ante. In film, as with hisbrilliant turn as Trainspotting’s "Begbie", or even television, taking thelead as "Hamish McBeth" or playing opposite Coltrane in "Cracker", hisintensity is infectious, causing all around him to try that much harder.Anoutstanding actor with tremendous presence, particularly considering hisheight, I would stake Carlyle as the single greatest actor of the 90s andwould argue that it is his presence alone that causes this movie to worksowell.

This higher level of acting even rubs off on the normally flat Brosnan,whogives his best performance by far with a genuinely nasty edge underneath.He’s still to get the danger of Connery, be as funny as Moore, or achievethe depth of Dalton, but for once we get the impression of a real person,rather than someone going through the motions. Nice to see Bond doing alittle detective work again, too, rather than the glorified action manhe’sbeen of late. Credit goes to Judi Dench, who, as an M in the field (not asridiculous as it sounds), does sterling work and plays off well againsttheafore-mentioned Carlyle. Hard to believe that in television land she’s alight sitcom actress.

But what really sets this film out from the rest of 90s Bonds is itsstory,which, while hardly intellectually taxing, at least gives us enough twistsand turns in the plot to ensure that concentration is required at alltimes.

I would rate this as amongst the ten best Bond films, though in truth itstill doesn’t come close to Connery’s legacy or what Dalton COULD haveachieved given the right backing. Bond Will Return, and these noisy,flashy,007-by-numbers movies are raking it in by the bucketload. And that’s allthat really matters… isn’t it?

As soon as James Bond puts up his hand and tells the Swiss banker that "AllI want is a name" in response to who killed another "00" agent, you knowthis is going to be a "dangerous" Bond movie. Roger Moore was his mostdangerous in "For Your Eyes Only" and it helped that movie become the bestof the Moore Bonds. The best Bonds always combine danger, action, and offthe cuff humor. "The World Is Not Enough" delivers in each of these areas.Michael Apted’s direction is tight, balanced, and really well paced. Theaction sequences do not dominate the picture, but when they’re on, theyreally deliver! David Arnold’s music score echoes the golden days of JohnBarry, and Pierce Brosnan delivers his best Bond yet! Sophie Marceaureallyshines as Electra King. Her performance is mature and alluring. DeniseRichards as a nuclear scientist. . .OK, it’s a Bond movie, not a David Leanfilm. Actually I think people have been a little hard on her performance.She’s not on screen enough to make that much of an impression one way oranother. If you’re a Bond fan, you’ve been waiting for this one. Youknow,once in awhile, they DO make ‘em like they used to!

I just spent £20 buying t
his movie on BLU RAY.

Like seriously. I love action films, I love good twists. I love epicmovies. But I hate The World if Not Enough.

Brosnan just could not act all too well at all. The action scenes wereboring and literally TOOO over the top, even for a James Bond film. Thestory really didn't go anywhere, nor did it interest me from the start!I feel bad for Denise, her role in this pathetic movie really dampeneda promising looking career. Her acting wasn't exactly AMAZING, but ittopped Brosnan's hands down.

What really got me was the fact that Brosnan's stunt double probablyhad more time on screen than he did! I know a lot of the scenes weredangerous and etc, but he could have grown some balls and done one ortwo scenes himself (like Daniel Craig).

God, I've said more than enough. I don't recommend this film to anyone,at ALL! If you want a good action packed movie with suspense and goodacting try Casino Royale.

At this point, it seems James Bond became repetitive, relentless,outdated, and unnecessary. Perhaps this was part of the death of theCold War, and the ad museum generic action thrillers abundant in thelate 1990's. This time, James Bond discovers a nuclear plot amidst thekidnapping of a wealthy energy heiress, Elektra (Sophie Marceau). Herkidnapper is a standard ruthless bad guy, Renard (Robert Carlyle).Along the way, Bond has to deal with another vicious fem fa-tale,Christmas Jones (Denise Richards). There were a few things I likedabout this Bond. The most interesting one was Bond's dilemma ofrescuing M (Judi Dench) from the bad guys. The stunts are always good.The women are sexy. I also liked how Elektra was not predictable.However, the stunts and women usually serve as icing on the cake asopposed to the cake itself. That part belongs to the story. While thewomen are sexy, they are not interesting. This is also the problem withBond's enemy. Writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade wanted to make himmore evil as someone who cannot feel pain because of a bullet lodged inhis brain. What is lacking, though, is motivation. In any case, at thispoint I started playing "Taps" for James Bond. Unfortunately, it wouldhave to get a lot worse before it was resurrected.

007 has taken a plunge for the worst. Not only is robery carlyleembarassingas the villain, judi dench is once again playing M as somebody who doesn’tlike violence and is irritatingly frightened to let Bond do his job.Although Bond is not always believable, Denise Richards is ridiculouslyunplausable. As the film goes on, each time bond escapes from certaindeathi found myself either laughing with embarassment or just wishing it wasover. Bond 19 left me in dismay, must do better.

This Bond film was not just the third of Pierce Brosnan's films, butalso the Bond film made with Millennium based things in it, e.g. TheMillennium Dome, the main girl being named Christmas Jones (DeniseRichards) and mention of The Millennium Bug. Anyway, a kidnapper ofwealthy daughter of Sir Robert King, Electra (Braveheart's SophieMarceau) plans to do something to do with her oil pipeline, or is itmore than that? Renard (The Full Monty's Robert Carlyle) meanwhile istrying to steal some sort of plutonium device to create a nuclear bomb,and the bad news is that Electra may be involved. Also starring RobbieColtrane as Valentin Zukovsky, Dame Judi Dench as M, Maria GraziaCucinotta as the Cigar Girl, Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny, MichaelKitchen as Bill Tanner, Colin Salmon as Charles Robinson, Goldie asBull, and the last appearance of Desmond Llewelyn as Q before he quit,and not long before his tragic car crash, John Cleese is hisreplacement, first called R. James Bond was number 3 on 100 Years, 100Heroes & Villains, he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols,and he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Dame JudiDench was number 1 on The 50 Greatest British Actresses, she was number1 on Britain's Finest Actresses, and she was number 8 on The World'sGreatest Actor, John Cleese was number 14 on The 50 Greatest BritishActors, and the film was number 17 on James Bond's Greatest Hits forGarbage's title song. Very good!

The plot’s forgettable, the acting (except for Brosnan) pretty bad and thedialogue is laughable (favorite line: "I don’t know what a madman wants todo with a gallon (or something) of plutonium, but it doesn’t sound good!). Still, I was never bored! These Bond films are escapism–pure and simple. This one offers nothing new, but Brosnan is very comfortable in the role ofBond (still, he’s no Sean Connery!) and things move at a fast pace. I’vealready forgotten the plot (not that the plots of Bond movies arememorable!) but this is a movie to just sit back for two hours, turn offyour brain and enjoy a big amount of action and explosions, and whatever. Perfect holiday movie after a long day shopping.

Its obvious that Michael Apted is not an action director because the setpieces are poorly edited and filmed.The presentation is pretty poorthroughout.There is no logic to the plot and the villain’s motives areunclear.Pierce brosnan is palpably too old to play Bond.This movie shouldbegrateful to DAD which appeard in 2002 and became the worst Bond movieever.

This is a really lousy Bond. Is it because the daughter Broccoli is theproducer? It was far inferior to the previous one in the sequenceGoldeneye the last one produced by her father. The story is full offlaws apparently written by someone who knows nothing about the world.A good example is the casino scene where is it? Azerbajin? Lots ofwealthy token blacks there. Elektra saves a church and becomes aheroine in a Moslem country? The action scenes look so fake and theprops so bad…after the pipe line blows up Christmas and Bond arecrawling around the crater filled with a couple trees that wereobviously cut down cleanly with a saw. Heavy water is dangerous but notplutonium?? The whole story was so inaccurate and stupid it hardlydeserves analysis. I finally started to fast forward it. God awful. Ifthe daughter is responsible I hope she improves. I have my doubts basedon this piece of garbage. Wikipedia says this movie cost 135 million.Where did the money go? Certainly not the writers or prop makers. Whydidn't they hire someone who knew something about geography or scienceto advise the writer?

read comments (0)

Three Kings

Certainly not a boring movie, and the movie is to be praised for dealingwith issues not usually found in war movies, and examining the Gulf Warclosely.

I did have some problems, though. While the acting was good, I just didn’tfeel anything for the characters, except mild annoyance. I liked that thecharacters weren’t totally likable, but I just didn’t feel anything strongabout them, except for that mild annoyance.

The cinematography is annoying as well. I don’t know what they call thattechnique that makes everything look pale (seen in many music videos), butit doesn’t work on the big screen. It’s distracting, especially when themovie suddenly changes to a more conventional cinematography.

And though I liked that the movie examined the war closely, it came at thecost of characters and several situation that seemed to SCREAM "Message!" or"History lesson here!"

Certainly entertaining enough as a rental or on TV/cable, certainly. But oneof the best of the year? No way!

A movie that only shows American ignorance, full of stupid unrealisticsituations. Although I do like George Cloney, but I guess he had a misshit here (kind of like ocean’s twelve!).The movie Stereotypes Arab’s,and showing American soldiers as if they are more caring about Iraqi’sthan Iraqi’s themselves. And we all know how true that is….not. Whencompared with the reality of what’s going on in Iraq right now, youjust laugh at it. Not that its funny, as its tragically ironic. Veryfew redeeming points in some of the conversations between Iraqicivilians and the American soldiers. However, not enough to pull themovie out of the hole it should be buried in.

According to this movie, here’s what I learned: 1) The U.S. is inherentlyevil and Saddam Hussein and his raping, pillaging, and torturing Iraqisoldiers are just misunderstood; 2) It’s all about the oil, and has nothingto do with the fact that Saddam wanted Kuwait; 3) American soldiers arecowardly back-shooters who shoots unarmed people because they wanna get apicture to show the folks back home; 4) American soldiers will throw awaytheir career and life at the drop of a hat if it means they can make a feweasy bucks; 5) No one despises America more than Hollywood.

‘Nuff said.

I like most movies that I see but this was one of the worst movies that Ihave ever seen. I had a chance to preview the movie at the college downhere and my only advice is DON’T waste your money on this film. I likeMarkWahlberg as an actor and in this movie his acting was about as good as hewas in the movie "The Big Hit." As for the rest of the actors, well, tryagain.The movies plot was kind of shaky and the accents the the "iraqi’s" had wasvery hard to understand. The movie lags a lot in most parts and at pointsmake no to little sense at all. Overall. I would give it 1 1/2 stars and Igive it that much for the story about the freedom of the refugees.

This was a good enough movie until the awful ending. Writer/director Russellwants to give us a movie about the Gulf War from the perspective of theIraqis. True to many beliefs of the Hollywood elite, Russell doesn’t thinkwe should be there, and believes Americans are actually the problem, not theanswer, to the troubles of the Middle East. Okay, I can dig it. I’m alwaysup for a "This is how they see it" movies. But then after making us try tosymphatize with the Iraqi civilians caught in the middle and even giving hisIraqi soldiers (one of which is about to torture and poor oil down MarkWahlber’s throat) a nice little 5 minutes speech about the evils of theAmerican campaign, Russell blows it all by giving us a standard clicheending that Hollywood is so good at. Nice enough premise, funky execution,but fails when it tries to be "meaningful." I have to admit, seeing SpikeJonze run around playing a crazy redneck was hilarious.

I cannot believe this film attempts to pass for a comedy. Since when is itfunny to see a woman get her brains blown out while her young daughterwatches and her husband (hog-tied) witnesses the murder? Have we become sodesentized that killing can be funny and chemical agents just tickle us todeath? Or, when a cow is blown up for pleasure do we giggle with mirth withno respect for our fellow creatures, since they didn’t shoot first? (Andprobably should.)This was no comedy; it was a horror story and I walked out on this piece ofshrapnel.

If you like gratuitous violence (heads flying, blood spurting); thinkArabsare either cute or violent; think Americans are always stronger, cleverer,and braver than Arabs; and appreciate unbelievable sentimental tripe, thenThree Kings is for you. The movie is a throwback to the 1940s or earlierwhen Hollywood routinely portrayed people from other cultures inpatronizingways. Plus, the movie is really ugly–the lighting is flat and the imageryis more colorless than necessary. All the characters are cartoonish–thefearless leader, the hick with a heart of gold, and so on. If you used towatch the TV show Combat, you’ll like Three Kings. Otherwise, avoid it.

Full bosh, cheap political pamphlet about dullness of the Iraq army,Saddam,and demonstration "heroism" of the American army in so-called "war forrepeatability in region". Full disappointment in actor’s capacitiesClooneyand his companions.Awful!!!

In their primary pursuit of Saddam's gold bunker, Clooney and his 3stooges enter an Iraqi Shiite town boldly pointing their guns in thefaces of its inhabitants… Now I don't mean to be disrespectful, or toundermine the might & bravery of the reserve American soldier, but itwould've been much more convincing if those 4 soldiers were high thatmorning.

my Iraqi friends who fled Baghdad recently tell me that American troopswouldn't dare break into a suspect's home unless they were in a pack of100 GI's armed to the teeth…

So unless that scene was intended to be part of the comedy, I say giveus a fudging break!

The rest of the movie doesn't go far from that impressive action scene.

By the way… Just for the record, another hilarious aspect of thismovie: It's how it portrayed Iraqi soldiers as mushy pussies who arewaiting to get bitch-slapped! When the truth is, any average Iraqisoldier would beat the living crap out of any average American soldierany given day, unless of course the American hero is hiding inside ametal castle! Or you think those American soldiers falling everyday inIraq are victims of sunstrokes?!

Oh, and another scene I just remembered: When they find the gold, theyjust pick it up and leave while the guarding Iraqi soldiers remainwatching TV and listening to western music?!!! Now putting asidepolitics, nationalism, gallantry and all that macho-stuff, if Ipersonally had that much gold in my possession, I would annihilateAmerica itself to keep that fortune for myself, out of pure humangreed! Not just stand there helplessly as I watch 4 homo clowns takingit all away!

Yet about the over-dramatic mistreatment of the Shiites fabricatedhere, this sad excuse of a movie was an early attempt to indirectlybrainwash the American public when it comes to picturing Saddam & hisregime as ruthless killers who deserve to be invaded!

While now it turns out that a whole year of biased trials + endlesspiles of false documents and testimonies are not enough to convict theman of war crimes against his people!

Three Kings (criticizes) American hypocrisy alright, but in the mostcondescending way imaginable! Kinda like saying: "we as Americans areyour gods, but sometimes we mock you, and that makes us bad gods"!!!

In a nutshell: This film can be considered spoilers-free by dogs, blindcats and the below-average American Joe! If you're none of the above,don't waste a minute on it.

This movie was horrible! Saving Private Ryan and Three Stooges simplydon’tmix. This movie includes drastic shifts in mood, violence that is notcalled for, and blatant brutality that totally removes the viewer from thestory line.

Example: An Iraqi guy has a US army guy tied down in a dark basement of abunker and is torturing him with electricity and pouring motor oil downhisthroat, then the Iraqi asks "How would you like it if your daughter wastaken like my son was." Then it changes to a shot of his daughter in acribas a huge explosion hits the nursery, blowing her to bits. This istotallyunexpected and shatters the whole dank dungeon feel that they had going.Not to mention being really gruesome.

Don’t even get me started on the whole bullet through the organ scene withthe "bacteria filled bile filling the hole". How necessary wasthat?!

Bottom line…too much brutality that took away from the overall feel ofthemovie. Take it out (or just place it more appropriately) and you haveyourself an excellent war flick.

read comments (0)

Three to Tango

When I heard about this film(some three years ago, I think) Iimmediately shunned the very thought of sparing it as much as a glance,due to my strong dislike of Matthew Perry. Then the TV channels startedsending it. Over. And over. And over. And today, after who knows howmany times I’ve skipped it(which I thank myself for, even more so now),I decided to give it a shot… you know why? I found out Neve Campbellwas in it. Of course, that’s not the only reason… Campbell’s hot, anda good actress, but she’s not good enough to outweigh Perry’saggravatingly stupid presence. No, what really did it was that I foundout that John C. McGinley had a role in it. Believe me, as long as he’sin it, I’ll watch almost anything. I discovered and immediately lovedMcGinley when I saw an episode of the series "Scrubs", and saw, nay,experienced his character of Dr. Perry Cox dish out one hell of averbal punishment. I’m not exaggerating, I’d watch "Scrubs" if it wasjust half a minute of McGinley giving one of his speeches directly atthe camera, once a week. I love his character. Since I know he oftenplays that same type of character(The Animal, On Deadly Ground and TheRock), I hoped that he would have a big role in this, and that he’dmake the movie tolerable. Unfortunately, it was not to be. His entirescreen-time amounts to about five minutes in total, and the film iseven more horrible that I could have imagined. The plot is one of themost ridiculous and unoriginal that I’ve ever heard. The pacing is sobad that it seems like the director expects the audience throughanything. The acting is not worth mentioning. The characters are allclichés and stereotypes… especially the characters that were supposedto be homosexuals. Believe me, I try to be tolerable. My personalphilosophy of, well, anything at all, pretty much, is as follows: aslong as it doesn’t hurt anyone, I’m fine with it. Homosexuality, metrosexuality, sports… anything. As long as no one is hurt, neitherphysically nor psychologically. I try to tolerate and respect any andall movies out there… but I can’t bring myself to respect this putridpiece of trash. I know the majority of people are(at least, so it wouldappear, from all the ‘entertainment’ based on this assumption) ignorantwhen it comes to homosexuality… but this is too much. This is toofar. Every single human being is supposed to have that oneimpulse-controlling part of the brain, the one that keeps you fromjumping on every woman that walks by you, and so on… but apparentlythe director and everyone else who really had anything to say on theproduction on this… ‘film’ didn’t have that. Just when you think ithas reached the bottom, it goes lower. Why must Hollywood portrayhomosexuals as constantly horny, will-take-what-they-can-get types? Arewe supposed to think they are some kind of animal? A genetic mutation?Why? Just because they aren’t interested in women on a sexual level? Ithink if I ever had one wish granted, it would be to have a… shall wesay ‘talk’ with the director of this putrid piece of cinema. Tell himexactly how ignorant he is… if possible, keep him from spewing ofmore movies like this. It’s people like him and the director of otherhorrible propaganda-like movies like Saving Silverman, which displayedatrocious amounts of misogynistic tendencies in its tone that are thedownfall of morality… not violence in popular media. I don’trecommend this movie to anyone… stay away… far away. You mightcatch ’stupid’ from watching it. I know my head feels lighter… about20-30 IQ points. 1/10

Tricked myself into watching another romantic comedy."Three to Tango"is about Chandler not getting it on with the girl who keeps not dyingin "Scream" and its crappy sequels.The thing is,everybody thinks he'sgay but in fact(wait for it),he's not.It's just a funnymisunderstanding.To every die-hard fan of "Friends",slashers and cuteboys,this is the point where you're supposed to laugh.In the end,turnsout the guy isn't gay(people who like this movie probably can'tremember a plot for more than 90 minutes,so this is some niceadapting),so everybody is all mad,especially his non-girlfriend,becausehe saw her naked and that's obviously not good for arelationship.Should I even bother to describe the ending?I could makethe comparison with a horrible car accident, but at least those areentertaining. This is more like seeing someone die of natural causes.

I rented this movie because I love Matthew Perry. But even he couldn’t savethis. The script was bad; all the jokes fell completely flat, there was nocharacter development at all ,and there wasn’t really anyexplanation for why Neve Campbell liked either one of the guys since theynever really talked and when they did it was about meaninglessthings.

What can I say other than this movie offers further and undeniable proofthat they really ought to put a warning on movies indicating that there isaFriends cast member in the film. It’s not necessarily that they ruin thefilms they’re in, but that they have a knack for choosing terrible scripts.I cannot even begin to understand why Neve Campbell, an actress whom I hadpreviously had a great deal of respect and admiration for, selected such agodawfully written movie to even be in, let alone star in. The jokes werenot even funny, the references to homosexuals were absurd and disgustinglyover-emphasized stereotypes. No, no, I take that back. They weren’t evenfamiliar enough references to be called stereotypes. I’d never even heardofgay people displaying the behavior this film attempted to pass off astypical, and even more sickening, as funny. If I were gay I wouldn’t botherbeing offended. The premise of the film was so rediculous and utterlyidiotic that it wasn’t even funny in the respect of how bad it was. I’m onewho tends to find humor in movies which display absurdity. But this filmwent so over the top that not even the most morbid individual could find itremotely humorus.

Three to Tango was a huge waste of talent. Dylan McDermott, Matthew Perryand Neve Campbell should have reconsidered their decision to act in thismovie when they read the script. Someone I watched it with said "It wasn’thalf bad, but it was the most predictable movie ever!" This movie hadhappyending written all over it. It was a waste of time. If you want to see themovie just watch the trailer. It will sum it all up and you won’t waste 90minutes of your life.

I thought this was one of the funniest romantic comedies i have seen inquite a while. Matthew Perry was hilarious as the supposedly gay minder ofhis prospective bosses mistress. As situation comedies go this is anabsolute gem, and there is one ‘date’ scene early on the film which had mein stitches. Of course the film is predictable, but it’s a fun ride gettingto the films inevitable conclusion. The film reminded me of "In & Out" in afew scenes, not surprising seeming they deal with a very similar subjectmatter for a large part of each film. This was one of those sweet romanticcomedies that seem to only ever come around once in a long while. Wellworth watching.

… yet I don’t mean that in the way it opens with a 40’s-style jazz number.I mean it in the way that the "jokes" are about 50 years old. Basically,Three To Tango’s about four people: Matthew Perry, star of the world’s mostoverrated sitcom, Oliver Platt as his gay friend, Dylan McDermott as thenasty boss and Neve Campbell who I definitely would. I say four as, contraryto the billboards and name of the film; it really is a fourhandedproduction, McDermott actually getting more screentime than the supposed"third", Platt.

What happens is that through a series of "hilarious" misunderstandings,everyone thinks Matthew’s (called "Oscar" in the film, though he’s unlikelyto see one) gay. And they also think Oliver’s straight. So when Ne
ve "she’sgot a no-nudity clause in her contract so why do they keep on giving ushope?" Campbell moves in with him, she talks about girlie things and whathave you, they start to fall in love, all the predictableseen-it-millions-of-times-before that you would expect. We’re supposed tolike her character even though she’s knocking off a businessman behind hiswife’s back, but even so she’s okay.

For a Hollywood film, it’s alright. Of course, this is still the sort offilm universe where when people hear - shock!, horror! - the word "gay" theybump into walls, drop heavy weights, faint and electrocute themselves inbaths, but it’s fairly sensitive as far as the studio market goes. Thisstereotyping also ropes in a black sportsman who - quick, phone anambulance, my sides are splitting!! - is well endowed. Seriously. Loads ofjokes, which don’t really get much more sophisticated than "he’s got a bigdick" abound. With, as before, "hilarious" consequences.

To be honest, it ain’t that bad, and Matthew Perry is quite amusing attimes. The others, though, are the self-consciously "humorous" types thatmake you want to punch them, Oliver Platt is being particularlyunlaughworthy. Neve escapes by the fact that her character is the straightman, as it were, and for the fact that, no-nudity or not, she does give us aglimpse of her cleavage in every single scene she appearsin.

Not really a great, but then its not supposed to be I guess. Just a cheap tomake picture with TV actors that has an unusual twist done in a usual way.Though it’s target audience seems to be a small ratio of the public: a gayaudience would find the demeaning gay clichés offensive, a straight "date"audience might still, in these supposedly enlightened times, beuncomfortable seeing it. Still, grab some popcorn, see some lightweight,meaningless drivel with two-dimensional characters for 90 minutes, switchyour brain off, then forget all about it for the rest of your life. It’sthat simple. 4/10.

Okay, of course Three to Tango isn’t a masterpeice but it is definitely hardto dislike! Three to Tango is a movie that could of been lots better, but itdefinitely doesn’t fail the way it is. Neve Campbell was amazing, and OliverPlatt was a great supporting actor. And, suprisingly, the usually annoyingMatthew Perry was immensley likeable in his role.

I recommend you see Three to Tango if you just like lots of brainlessfun!

Rating: 8

**Possible Spoilers** Director Damon Santostefano delivers a mildlyamusing, but predictable one-joke comedy with `Three To Tango,’ starringNeve Campbell, Matthew Perry and Dylan McDermott. Struggling architectsOscar Novak (Perry) and Peter Steinberg (Oliver Platt) have a shot at aninety million dollar renovation job, a project to be funded by tycoonbusinessman Charles Newman (McDermott). Circumstances lead Newman tobelieve that Oscar in gay, which makes him the perfect choice for anotherjob Newman has in mind. He has a mistress, Amy (Campbell), a free-spiritedartist, and the jealous Newman needs someone to keep an eye on her duringthe opening of an exhibition of her work, since he will be unable to attend. Oscar is reluctant at first (and he doesn’t have any idea that Newmanthinks he’s gay), but it may help them land the renovation job, so heagrees. He has no way of foreseeing, of course, that he will end up fallingin love with Amy. And, complicating matters even more, for Oscar, is thefact that Amy has been told that he is gay. How to resolve it all? Oscarneeds the job, but he wants to be with the woman he loves; and meanwhile,everybody thinks he’s gay. All of which wears thin, and fairly rapidly. The screenplay is neitherclever nor imaginative, and Santostefano has done even less with thematerial at hand, resorting to slapstick for the laughs (and there are afew). Perry brings an engaging presence to the screen, and he does know howto play comedy; his timing is good, and the best scenes in the movie are theones he shares with Platt. Campbell, on the other hand, leaves something tobe desired with her Amy; managing little more than the occasional theatricalsmile (squint and show some teeth), she comes across as shallow andpretentious. Amy (as she plays her) simply doesn’t warrant the conflictcalled for by the story. And Dylan McDermott is too good an actor for thisone-note role he’s been handed here, though he does well enough with whathe’s been given. The most notable performance is courtesy of Platt, whosecharacter, in fact, is gay, but thought by everyone to be straight; and heplays it for all it’s worth. The supporting cast includes Cylk Cozart (Kevin), John C. McGinley(Strauss), Bob Balaban (Decker) and Deborah Rush (Lenore). There’s someirony and humor in the premise of `Three To Tango,’ especially the twistwherein Oscar eventually has to `come out’ as straight, but the finishedproduct is somewhat flat and unsatisfying. The sight gags are good for afew laughs, but, unfortunately, there’s just not a whole lot more to it. I rate this one 5/10.

This really is a good comedy folks, OK Perry’ s The Whole Nine Yards andFools Rush in are better this one could have been of the same level. Theonly reason it is not, is because some scenes are much too exaggerated andgoofy. I do not like that. But besides that this film delivers a lot of goodlaughs and also enough romance, without being too cheesy. Believe it or notthis picture shows how real love is intended to be.

As always I must say something about the actors of this movie, for I likeboth Perry and Campbell very much and I regret that though they make goodmovies they just don’t get a box – office hit. I really resent that, forlosers like Mission to Mars, Scary Movie, Charlies Angels or Little Nickymake good bucks while this one is much better. OK Angels might be fun forthe chicks, action and images but hey this one is fun too. But hey effects,half nude - women and action are more appealing these days than loveablecharacters, a decent story, good laughs and an emotion ortwo.

7 out of 10

read comments (0)

Titus

I love movies. I still like James Bond and the like…but goodcharacter development, an engaging story, good acting andunderstandable dialog to me make a good flick. I hated this moviebecause I couldn’t understand it. I even turned on the Englishsubtitles and still couldn’t understand it. Why do people thinkspeaking Shakespearian English in this day and age is a good idea? Itmight have been eloquent and eminently understandable hundreds of yearsago but the words are archaic and the grammar is not what anybody usestoday except for a handful of English majors and some who thinkplaywriting reached its apex with "the bard". The actors were good, thecostumes outstanding, the cinematography was stunning and the sets werebeautiful. Too bad it wasn’t in English. I wasted twenty bucks on this.I’d give it a zero if I could because I’m so disappointed in thelanguage they used. Bah

The sets in this movie gives a real feel of a wrecked and corrupted empireon the brink of it’s own destruction, it’s great monuments and honourablepeople all but a shell of there former selves. With sterling performancesfrom Anthony Hopkins, Colm Feore, and Laura Fraser. Though this film doessays about Elizabethan literature than Roman history, it still a firstrateproduction

10/10

I will admit that I’d never heard of Shakespeare’s play "TitusAndronicus" until the movie "Titus" came out - it was one of ol’ Bill’slesser known works. This may be one of the harder Shakespeare plays tounderstand, but it basically has Emperor Titus (Anthony Hopkins)returning from battle only to find doom back home. The opening scene ofthe boy playing with things was a little confusing itself (I’m assumingthat the original play didn’t feature that). A particularly interestingthing was that the movie got released in Portland around the same timethat "Gladiator" came out, so there were two Rome-related flicks intheaters. Fairly interesting.

This has to be one of the worst movies ever. I have never before seenso much money spent and so much talent wasted on a film which was souninteresting, difficult to follow, and absent a reason to make theeffort to follow it. Listening to the director’s commentary only madeit worse, hearing how the director essentially had a "vision" which wasabsurd and plowed headlong into subjecting viewers to it when at leastsomewhere along the way someone HAD to have told her to pause and takestock of what she was doing…. and, yet, in listening to hercommentary it is apparent she believed she had done something great.

There is a reason I had never heard of this film until I saw it sixyears after its release — it stunk.

I must confess. I could only watch about 1/3 of it before I just skipped tothe end. The whole modern age Shakespearian thing just didn’t work at all,as it did in Knight’s tale. If I had been watching it in the theater, Iprobably would have walked out. So the ridiculous mix of the ages plus justgetting board, I skipped to the end figuring I’d see the main people getwhacked, which was about the only worthwhile part as I cared for no one inthe whole story. I have no idea how closely this movie matched the actualplay in terms of the storyline, I hope it didn’t because this thing was justfilled with stupidity. Stupid decisions on Titus’s part that make youwonder, how could he have prevailed on the battlefield for so long given thestupidity of his actions afterwards. A ridiculous emperor, The lame psychobrothers, the list goes on… About the only thing worth while was the dialogwhich was probably transcribed word for word from the Shakespearian playanyway. I’m surprised this thing got a 7+ vote on IMDB. I like art filmsevery now and then, but this film was not art (or at least good art) IMO. Anthony Hopkins did a good job, but his character was so lame that it didn’tmatter how good he did. For me 3 out of 10, so well below average forme…

What a strange confection this movie turned out to be.

Usually I'm eager applaud all attempts to bring Shakespeare, plus hisdialogue, into the modern age, but then usually his plays were good!Titus Andronicus has always been a mess, the language andcharacterisations poor by the Bard's standards. It's a nasty, bleak,affair, devoid of nuance or humanity. So it's a mystery as to why itwas filmed at all.

What makes this film yet more bizarre is the frankly stark andpretentious historical motifs. Far from suggesting the timelessness ofrevenge stories and human frailties, the muddling of eras, the setdesign and costume jumps from Ancient Rome to Mussolini, aredistracting and little else, though in fairness does help paper overthe cracks provided by the source material. To read other IMDbreviewers, it does however appear to impress those with a mind willingto enjoy such artifice. It's cool only should you choose it to be.

True the cast do get their teeth into in the film, most admirablyavoiding embarrassment, save for Jessica Lange, who is helplesslymiscast. She's more pantomime villain than Queen of the Goths. I had torestrain myself from cautioning her, "He's behind you!".

Tony Hopkins is of course the star, and scenes wain without him, eventhough, he fails to save Titus from the falling into the annals ofturkeydom. The only worth, the only reason to give two and half hoursof your life to this film, is the climatic dinner scene. It isunmissable, the manic and enormous Hopkins unleashed, in fact fastforward to that scene, you'll miss nothing important from the story.

If this is to be the definitive modern version of Titus Andronicus,it's true, the play was always as awful as everybody said it was.

I cannot believe that anyone voted a "7" for this movie. It clearly isamong the worst movies ever. How could anyone put a beautiful casttogether, so badly misdirect them, take ancient Rome as a pretense totrick viewers into watching this hodge-podge, then put motorcycles,1930's autos, and 20th century war-making equipment, into the mix? Yes,I "get" it - the reference to Hitler. That is no excuse for making afarce of serious material. It is an insult to history, to the actors,and, ultimately, to the viewer.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from this trash. If only I could havegiven this a -0- instead of a one — now THAT would have been animprovement.

I have always been a fan of Jessica Lange and Anthony Hopkins but afterseeing this revolting bit of egocentric trash, I wonder if they are brokeordesperate. It has long been assumed that Plan 9 From Outer Space is theworst movie ever made, but I would have to argue that point after seeingTitus. At least Plan 9 didn’t take itself seriously and profess to be"art". Never have I seen Jessica Lange overact so badly. Defines theword"ham". If you need to kill time, watch paint dry or grass grow but don’tput yourself through this overblown debacle.

The movie looks as if they took every set ever made, threw them into acuisinart, and randomly threw splotches on the screen. It’s all staticthatgets in the way of the story. Forget historically accurate, this movieisn’t even vaguely internally consistent.

Julie Taymor worked very hard to bring one of Shakespeare’s mostproblematic "problem plays" to the big screen, and you’ll work nearlyas hard trying to follow what on earth is going on, in thisphantasmagoric feast of the senseless.

Anthony Hopkins is a general named Titus Andronicus who bewilderinglyallows a very unstable and spiteful rival of his named Saturninus to bemade emperor. Saturninus says thanks first by taking Titus’salready-betrothed daughter as his wife, then spurning her for a captivebarbarian queen named Tamora who Titus made his enemy by killing herson. Now empress, she
plots her revenge with the help of her tworemaining sons and her adulterous lover.

When William Shakespeare wrote "Titus Andronicus," he set it in aspecific place and time, ancient Rome. Taymor’s adaptation skittersfrom ancient to modern and back again, sometimes combining diverseelements in single settings. Senators wear togas with ties. Thesoldiers dress like Romans, only with triangular codpieces and colorfulmud-paint splashed about their faces. The punkboy princelings pranceabout shirtless in vinyl pants.

Stylization isn’t a crime. Some of it in "Titus" is very arresting andthoughtful. The real mix-up comes with the bent of the story. Is it atragedy? On paper it is, but there are some wacky moments, too, enoughthat critics like Roger Ebert praise it as a clever send up. Take thescene when a father bids his armless daughter pick up his severed handwith her mouth. Are we supposed to be moved by the sad pathos of this,or chuckling at its goofy panache? I don’t know. I don’t think Taymordoes, either.

Shakespeare is primarily at fault for the storyline, an obvious attemptto furnish the audiences of his day with the blood and nastiness theydesired. But he was young and needed the work. Taymor is the realproblem. She can’t seem to trim a line in this overlong adaptation, andallows every scene to be weighted with excess portent. She’s verystrong on visuals, but there are times when her focus should be morestraightforward. Instead you get a wash of odd Felliniesque nonsense.

Hopkins has good scenes, but excess moments, too. A scene at the end isplayed by him as an obvious homage to his earlier "Silence Of TheLambs," and Taymor should have hosed him down instead of abetting hisgrandstanding. Titus is a sloppily written character, but Hopkins’sunsteadiness in playing him only worsens matters.

Jessica Lange is great as Queen Tamora, very sexy and teeth-gnashinglyevil in a way that serves the story more than herself. Harry J. Lennixdoes justice to the best role in the play, the nihilistic Moor Aaron,who mourns the idea that, sometime in his misspent life, he may havedone a good deed. The rest of the cast is decidedly minor.

"Titus" is like an acid trip. There are good acid trips and bad acidtrips, and sometimes one can turn into the other. Very few of them goon for three hours, though. So caveat viewer, as the Romans might say.Let the viewer beware.

read comments (0)

Trick

Yes it may be full of eye candy (jeez… and HOW!!!), but TRICK is notexactly a film that you should take seriously. After all it does filteraround the life of a Musicals writer.

Don’t get me wrong here, it is a gorgeous script… a little ‘bouncy’though, but a good script nevertheless. I loved the awkwardness of theinitial meeting between Gabriel and Mark. The tension was so thick I wasunder the covers screaming with laughter (I watched it in bed ;))

I personally cannot stand Tori Spelling, and think she should have been putdown years ago, but alas… I have to bite my tongue here and say…*sigh*… she does deliver a very good performance. Who could ever forgetthe annoying little third wheel waiting for her resume’ to print off. Alittle dense… but funny to watch all the same.

I think this is a good movie to watch with ’someone’ *wink* that you like…because this is most certainly one of those ‘awww… sweet… how romantic!’plots that would probably end with the video playing through to the bitterend of the tape… and probably straight through to the static aswell!

It’s a soppy laugh type movie… nothing more… nothing less. I’m glad Idownloaded it though.

PS: and that eye candy… OMG! *swoon*

7 flaps out of 10

Tori Spelling as Katherine is captivating in her supporting role inthis terrific Gay romantic comedy. I have always loved her since herbreakout role as Donna in the hit TV series Beverly Hills 90210.

To me her relationship as the close female friend to Gabriel (ChristianCampbell) has more development and drama in it than the Gay romancebetween Gabriel and Mark (John Paul Pitoc). The late night café sceneis both dramatic, comic, and touching… every character is memorablein that scene (Where are those cheese-fries!!) This was such a greatcast… everybody from Steve Hays as Perry, Brad Beyer as the sexstarved straight room-mate, and the unforgettable Clinton Leupp as MissCoco Peru dishing her dirt to Gabriel trapped at the urinal in the Gaynightclub.

That unforgettable piano music when Gabriel and Mark kiss and the sheersatisfying ending …. This is one of my favorite movies… Enter You!!

I had made a list of "gay" films I had wanted to see, and this was onthe list. I saw this airing on Logo yesterday, so I watched it. For agay themed movie, it was pretty good. Normally, if a movie has gaycharacters in it, it's a depressing story all about how they have AIDS,and how they deal with it, things like that. But this was a gay moviethat was actually fun to watch. I was a little worried about it being acomedy, because they might stereotype the characters, but the onlycharacter in this movie that was a queen was Perry, but some gays areactually like that, so I guess I shouldn't complain. I'm not a huge fanof Tori Spelling, but she was tolerable in the movie. I thought it wassweet when she finally came to terms with the fact that she was alesbian. But the one thing I didn't like was that I had a hard timegetting into the characters because honestly, they weren't that deep. Imean c'mon. Timid music writer meets hot guy, and they fall in love?Not very easy to feel for them. Another thing was that it seemed likethey kept avoiding a kiss. I mean, they tried to kiss what, like 3times in the movie and they kept getting interrupted? I know this moviewas made in 1999, before people were so accepting like they are now,but c'mon. But at least they kissed at the end. I would recommend thisfilm for a rent if you feel like watching something uplifting. Butunless you are making a detailed collection of gay films, then Iwouldn't recommend buying this one. Overall, it's a fun film, but fallsshort. 7/10.

This movie is fascinating because it is so awful. I didn’t believe orcareabout one single character. It was torture to sit through and I love ahappy ending, but in this case, I was just happy it was ending. There wasnever a moment when it approached anything having to do with real life orreal people. I am so sorry I saw this movie.

people who dislike this movie often make comments about it’s simplicityanddreamlike plot, but that’s exactly what sets this movie apart from mostromantic comedies. this movie is a non-animated fairy tale for everyoneandthat explains it’s cult status between homosexuals ANDheterosexuals.

the heart of the movie is bigger than any movie you have seen. afterwatching this film you will smile. guaranteed.

This is the coolest ‘Love At First Sight’ gay movie with a plot outthere in the world. This movie is the best.

Christian Campbell and JP Pitoc did a excellent, excellent job in thismovie. The portrayal of the cute nerdy guy that doesn’t work out (much)meeting the sexy hot go-go boy was superb. Tori Spelling did a good jobtoo with the singing and dancing to Christian’s character pianoplaying. The funniest part of the movie was the roommate Rich, playedby Brad Beyer. He was the roommate from HELL. This movie was filledwith some common things that normally happens when a guy tries to pickup another guy from a club or bar and these guys portrayed it well. Iloved the cameo of Joey Dedio (Captain Planet) in this movie also.

All-in-all the movie gets TWO thumbs up from me.

Just plain awful. Saw it at a recent gay festival and, sure, it’s anaudience crowd pleaser, but most gay audiences are like lemmings when itcomes to this kind of film. Cardboard cutouts for characters, stereotypes,jokes that have been made a hundred times before, and (surprise, surprise)adrag queen thrown in for good measure. I mean, what’s a gay flick withoutadrag queen clouding up the area. Critics (most of whom have their headsshoved up their asses when it comes to this kind of thing- hence the goodreviews Billy’s Hollywood Screen Kiss and Kiss Me Guido got) say this is abreakthrough gay film, in that it doesn’t rely on issues. Well, that’sjustfine, except it relies on good old fashioned stereotypes.

I watched this film and didn’t see one real person. We have the musicaltheatre writer, the go go boy, the queened out to the hilt cabaret singerwho sounds less butch than wayland flowers, the fag hag secretly in lovewith her gay best friend and let’s not forget that drag queen, who makesoneof the most forced, inexplicable appearances in a film I have ever seen.(Plus, I have never seen a drag queen who does Anne Meara before, but Icangive his performance no other explanation.)Where are the real people?

Story wise, we are supposed to buy that these two guys who are looking foraplace to have sex are going to fall in love with each other in one nightwhen in real life, they wouldn’t have a thing in common. Pitoc plays thegogo boy as a tweaked out numbskull and Campbell is so full of nervous ticsthat you would abandon him after 15 minutes, no matter how cute he is. Andafter repeated shots of Pitoc looking bored and annoyed with the wholemess(just like some of the audience) he then turns around and tells us hethought this evening was supposed to be something more than casual sex????There’s no character development, no progression. We’re meant to takeenormous leaps of faith because the filmmaker tells us to, without givingusone reason why we should care about these people or want to spend timewiththem.

It’s a real shame that the wool has once again been pulled over critic’seyes. This kind of film would never fly if it were a straight love story.Why should gay audiences be willing to settle for such poorquality?

This has got to be one of the best movies about gay men I have seen in along time.All the actors did very good jobs,especially Tori Spelling as theaspiring actress.Her role was A+.The guys were just as good as the coupletrying to find a place to have a one night stand.Most gay-themed movies justtalk about AIDS and other diseases.This movie was just about people tryingto find a
place to spend the night.I was so amazed just how much this filmpleased me.I recommend this movie to anyone(gay or straight) who enjoyswonderfully talented actors and a terrifically told independentfeature.

this movie is so refreshing and reviving. there are people out there whoarelike that. i have been brooding over my loneliness because i am still inthecloset. but this movie has inspired me to just hold on and wait till Godhasgiven me an answer by giving me someone whom i can spend my time with. ireally like christian’s acting here. it’s as if i have known him for a verylong time. and i think that my personalities are just like gabriel’salthough i don’t quite like music and fashion. in terms of look, of coursegabriel’s dimples can make you weak in the knees, i am not as good lookingas him but hey that’s not the point. after seeing this movie, i know who iam and not to regret what i am. so in conclusion, i really like to see thesequel of the movie. if not, i’ll just not be convinced. i feel thatalthough both gabe and mark have come to a happy ending, the story’s stillhanging. thx.

This is a good one. Oh yes. Parts of it reminded me of the movie "AfterHours" where the characters endure a night in New York City where everythingthat can go wrong, does.The plot has been discussed to death here, no real reason for me to rehashit again. Great performances all around, Tori Spelling plays theself-obsessed actress friend and if you have spent much time at all around atheatre crowd, you have seen her "type" again and again. Christian Campbell(Brother of actress Neve Campbell, by the way) plays his part well asGabriel, a writer of musicals trying to make it on Broadway. He hooks upwith Mark, played by John Paul Pitoc who has a resemblance, in my eyes, to a"La Bamba" era Lou Diamond Phillips. Steve Hayes is amazingly funny as theolder friend Perry. It was sweet to see his romantic scene. Seems like youreally dont see that age or physical type played romantically in any movies,gay or straight. Miss Coco Peru, the drag queen in the bathroom wasfantastic, if she looks familiar, you have seen her before in "To WongFoo…"All in all, a short and sweet romantic comedy. Very highlyrecommended.

read comments (0)

The Omega Code

Hey! Everyone that is insulting this movie is just too funny! Yourmessagesare so entertaining I always read them and get a good laugh out of them.Youguys are just HURTING your self with all the insults! You guys crack meup!Casper Van Dien (Starship Troopers) brings the film together, his actingisstunningly good! Michael York is of course good too! This film starts ofslow, but pick’s up and is terrific! I loved it! Hey! What anybody says itwon’t change my view on this film! Fun, entertaining, terrific, andThrilling. Wanna exciting movie with no sex, or language for the family?Youjust came to the right page, buy through Amazon!

Once you wade past all the people who have nothing better to do than bashthis film because it is a Christian film, you will find that this is a veryaccurate fictional account of how the last days could be. It plays like alive-action Frank Peretti novel (I can’t wait for his books to get adaptedto the screen). The acting is very good, especially Casper Van Dien whoplays his role very well, with good performances also by Michael York andMichael Ironside. The film is accurately based on the accounts foretold inthe Book of Revelation, with very few minor errors that I noticed. Thespecial effects were surprisingly good, as I was expecting a low-budgetfilm, but it surprised me with how realistic it actually was. Highlyrecommended.

The Omega Code may not be the best movie that ever was, but it had a greatmessage and had amazing effects for a $7.2 million dollar budget. I lovedthe way Gillen Lane sank to his knees and repented towards the end of thefilm. Michael York was eerily believable as the villian. I recommendit.

It was a first all right. I had been talked into seeing this movie by afriend. Thirty minutes into it, we walked out of the theater, went to theticket counter, and demanded our money back. I had never found a movie soutterly inane, badly-scripted and acted, and hokey. In fact, we werejokingthat the "secret" ending of the Omega Code itself was "Surprise, we rippedyou off!"

I cannot for the life of me understand how people found this movie at allworth seeing. I’ve read the glowing comments, and have wondered if theywere watching the same movie I was. I mean… the whole thing was a joke,plain and simple. Even the code translation itself was rather contrivedandsilly.

In short, it was a first. It was the first movie I had ever walked outof.

Seriously…this movie was not as bad as I first thought. My expectationswere so low that I came out actually having positive comments. I amnormallynot a fan of TBN but they have actually managed to create the bestChristianfilm to date with a budget of only 7 million. It’s nominally Biblicallyaccurate, yet doesn’t try to visualize things that are just impossible.(Unlike other Christian end-time movies that shall remainnameless)

The acting and other type things were more than bearable for me, actuallyeclipsing certain other movies I’ve seen recently.

Take it at face value, and it’s an enjoyable action-drama, but on it’sdeeper level can be used as a great conversation starter.

In this movie, Michael York plays a guy who finds codes in the

Bible that, following their instructions, enable him to become

the much-prophesied Anti-Christ. Why would he want to be the

Anti-Christ? Because he read about all the power and fame he

would have, of course, and also because he seems to be possessed

by Satan. (Apparently, he neglected to read the REST of

Revelation, where the Anti-Christ is defeated and Jesus wins.

You’d think this would make him NOT want to be the fulfillment

of prophecy.)Anyway, Casper Van Dien, acting so poorly and obnoxiously that I

was hoping HE would be the devil figure, is the guy who for

vague reasons has to stop the aforementioned Anti-Christ.The purpose of this film seems to be to encourage Fundamentalist

Christians to be even MORE paranoid about the "last days," which

we are certainly living in. The Anti-Christ is shown to be a

regular, successful world leader who slowly gains domination,

the implication that we should watch very carefully any such

people in real life.The thing is, we all know how it’s going to end. There’s GOING

to be an Anti-Christ, and he’s GOING to gain much power, and

he’s GOING to be defeated. It’s all prophesied; it’s gonna

happen. What good does it do to be all paranoid about WHO that

person is? Don’t follow people who are evil, and you’ll besafe.This film looks, feels and sounds like a made-for-TV movie,

especially in the lame dialogue department. Bad stuff,

This movie sucked. There’s no better way to put. The whole thing is just apropaganda tactic to get people to go to church. If you were going to dothat, you could that least come up with a better script. A main characterwho complains and acts smug most of the time, a bad guy who seems like youcould send your six-year-old to defeat, world leaders who seem to be aboutas smart as fungus, and two of god’s representatives who bug you so much youwant to go to the dark side. BAD, BAD, BAD!

How bad did it suck? It was all I could do to keep myself from ripping outmy eyeballs and throwing them at my TV/VCR.This pathetically directed, miserably acted, and horribly written piece oftripe was actually recommended to me by a stranger at a video store as a"terrific action flick". I’ll get even if it takes forever.

I never have gone so far out of my way to warn people of a particularmovie.I actually registered with IMDb just so I could caution folks againstseeing this amazingly bad film. The only slightly redeeming quality ofTheOmega Code is its premise as advertised, but that too is ruined tenminutesinto the picture by outrageously horrible acting, cheesy music, "what wereyou thinking?" directing, and unexciting and uninspiring cinematography,notto mention a story that is about as dry and shallow as a puddle in DeathValley. I am not a Christian, but if I were, I still would hope to havethegood judgement to recognize this movie as what it is, something that isnottruly worthy of our time. Then again, if you want to observe filmmakingatits worst, go rent the Omega Code. It at least will make you laugh abit.

I’m ashamed that some people might think this is a Christian movie. I saw itjust because a friend lend me the video and urged me to watch it. Its notthat bad - the camera work and sound was not too badly done. What I do haveagainst this movie is that it is an exploitation of the Christian faith forcapital gains. Very little biblical fact went into the movie and I guess itcould have just as well have been another ‘7th Seal’ or ‘End of Days’.

read comments (0)

The Minus Man

This movie is flat out boring. It starts out slow, and it ends like itstarts.

Usually we are faced with a serial killer at the end of his run. FBI,police are hot on his tail while he is cunningly escaping. In The MinusMan none of that is happening.

This is a film that shows the life of a serial killer before he getstoo sloppy to get caught.

I don’t really think Owen Wilson is the best of actors but I amsurprised he actually chose this role. Don’t waste your time with thisfilm. Even the ending lets you down.

The story was a good one, but was presented in a very weak & shallowway.

No suspense, thrills or even open ended questions. Waste of time.

Owen played the part well, but his character was set up poorly, nohistory - even later in the film.

Even the supporting actors were not set up or built up properly - Nohistory (very little) and no future to foresee.

Janeane Garofalo was the only one that impressed me with her characterand acting.

Dwight Yoakam acted well, but again his character had no depth.

I believe this movie should have used the same kind of style as used in"Se7en" and "Butterfly Effect" or even "Silence of the Lambs".

The movie has a nice look. The summery clearnessof both the outdoor and indoor scenes adds a nicetouch of realism. And for all its flaws, it is better than many of the more media-hyped movies that came out in 1999. It’s far more interesting and enjoyable than The Sixth Sense, for example.

There is an amateurish quality about it that prettymuch sinks it, though. The plot is full of holes, the acting, with rare exceptions, is Film 101 stuff.

Beauty may be in the "eye of the beholder", but I fail to see anyreason why this film would evoke anything but an enormous YAWN! I haveno built in dislike for small budget, "artsy" films, but this bit ofself-absorbed, pretentious fluff redefines the word BORING!

Thirty minutes into the film, I pressed the eject button and began tolook for something more vital and exciting to watch, such as reruns of"The Partridge Family". C’mon…Owen Wilson as a serial killer; whatwas I thinking (or more to the point, what were the Director andProducer thinking!)? Portrayals of "stoic" serial killers are nothingnew, but this depiction (or Wilson’s "acting") is tepid, bland,drowsy…fill in the adjective…anything related to completely stiffand disinterested.

Of course, there is this to be said, if you enjoy the "you are there"sense that home video imparts, you’ll surely enjoy the washed outcolors and clumsy framing by the cinematographer. This film is a"loser" in every sense of the word. As for the slight criticalrecognition that the film received, all I can say is "I’ll have some ofwhat you’ve been smoking"! What a stinker…

First of all, I’m a film student, which ruins one’s ability to sit andwatchwithout becoming hyper-critical, and seeing every little glitch or mistake.So, let me apologize in advance!

In reading user’s comments, I’m wondering if we are talking about the samefilm. The film I saw lacked craft and skill in the creation, and theaudience that I viewed it with, laughed when it wasn’t supposed to befunny.It was so poorly acted, that it was hard to tell what was comical, and whatwas mystery. A couple of people got up and left the film, and I saw lots ofpeople shaking their heads.

First of all, the acting was completely unbelievable, especially from themain actor. I sat through the entire movie thinking "who cares?" I realizethat the main character was supposed to be "dull and unexciting," however,Idon’t feel there was ever any payoff of any kind. Even when he was supposedto be exciting and peak in energy, it was dull and boring. When the plotwassupposed to become "edgy," I was so un-interested, I couldn’t have caredless what he did next.

From a technical standpoint, the lighting was completely dull and flat, andthe camera work, though sufficient, was also boring. The entire FX soundtrack, and some dialogue was out of sync with the picture.

The storyline seemed like it could have worked as a murder-mysterythriller,but because of such poor execution, it turned out to be one of the worstmovies I’ve seen in a while.

Minus man stands as a deeply cynical and cold movie. It is shot smartly,butis not pleasant to watch. Contrary to the trailer, there was little to talkabout after the film. No mystery, no magic; just another stylish, cold andlong strip of celluliod that takes money from you wallet, and hours offyourlife. At least American Psycho was funny and pointed, go see that instead.Or go see Clay Pigeons.

Some movies lack in some areas but make up for it in others.

Minus Man had: a fantastic trailer, good actors, and a good premise for amovie (I mean, how can serial killers not be interesting?)

Minus Man lacked: an interesting story, basic story points (like say, aclimax), a flowing chain of events with a goal, or even an ounce of anythingworthy to show (how can serial killers not be interesting? - watch this andfind out).

If you think the film will be as clever as that trailer, which was rathercreepy (kudos to the ad agency who designed it), you will be sadly mistaken.The movie was so NOT interesting, I had considered flipping the stop buttonon the old dvd player at least 3 or 4 times but didn’t just in case theending made up for the poor bulk. I was robbed of my $2.99 rental fee. Igave it a 2 because I can’t see me ever wanting to watch any part of itagain. It would have gotten a 1 if not for the fair acting and good trailer.I can only recommend this movie to those who have cut me off on the beltway– this one’s for you.

Well, minus two hours from my life later, this movie wholly disappoints.Imust say, the exquisite trailer for this movie was very entertaining, butthe movie left me feeling empty. If this was the intention, they did agreat job.

I kept myself entertained with studying the characters. Owen Wilson wasgreat; not overly creepy as Vann, but he ads just the right amount at theright time. Janeane Garofalo was nice to see in a non-sarcastic role.Sheplayed it well..the girl who lives in a small town and finally has theopportunity to meet a new man. Her anxiety was a lot of fun. The marriedcouple that Vann lives with is completely unconvincing. Their individualperformances were good, but they seemed a little too distant to be anestranged couple (see the movie, you’ll understand). Dwight Yoakam wassurprisingly good. Sheryl Crow should stick to pouting in hervideos.

Other than Mrs. Durwin’s comment about the separate entrance to Vann’sroom,I have to say, the only thing I really was left wondering about with thismovie is whether or not the book would be better.

…is the tag line for the movie. The conversation my friend and I wentsomething like this:"So, whose bright idea was it to see that turkey?" "I know, I blew it. Roger Ebert liked it.""Well, he can just pay me my two hours and $8 bucks back.""Sorry. It was really boring."

Quirky characters do not make a good movie. Skip this and go see "The SixthSense" a second time.

the tagline for this movie was so incredibly accurate…you will be talkingabout this movie. you and your companions will be talking about what in theworld the point of this movie was. it was so boring and it had no point. it went nowhere and it was a waste of my $9.00. however, owen wilson wasgreat, along with the other actors, and for once janeane was not her usualsarcastic self, which was nice. go see american beautyinstead.

read comments (0)

The Hurricane

I got bored at school, and decided to watch this movie. I was surprised. Ithought it was going to another one of those weird dramas that just don’t doit for me. This movie had depth. I really enjoyed watching it. I foundmyself getting involved in the story, wanting Hurricane to just bust out andwin it all. I hope Denzel sticks to movies like this. *** out of****

This movie is one of my all time favourites. Denzel Washington should havewon his academy award for this movie. I think he even hinted that in hisaward acceptance speech the following year, when he said something like hethought he had done better work.

The other actor who is brilliant is Rod Steiger as Judge Sarokin. I lovedhis voice inflexions and the way he used to nod and write down pointsduringthe appeal. And then in his summing up, when it seems to be going badly,andthen he says "Nevertheless" ….

Absolutely superb.

VICELLOUS REON SHANNON became one of my fav actors after seing him in thegreatest drama-series ever called "DANGEROUS MINDS" (based on the movie) heplayed CORNELIUS and he was amazing at it.He shows in this movie that he still knows how to act (he later got a rolein the tv-show 24 as the president’s son) and he does it darn well if u askme.

Denzel is also great (as usual) in the movie, sometimes when your watchingthe movie again you feel that the court-room scenes are a little stretchedout, but the first time u see it it’s great and exciting.

Not as good as "REMEMBER THE TITANS" but pretty close and it is much betterthan "MALCOLM X".

9/10 stars

However it’s very hard to compare two completely different people, youcould say that, by playing the role of Malcolm X in the movie with thesame title, Denzel Washington already knew what it was to make a biopicabout a great black man.

"The Hurricane" tells the story of Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter, a boxerwho was falsely accused and imprisoned for a triple murder he hadnothing to do with. Many people demonstrated to get him free and heonce wrote a book about all that happened to him, but it never helpedhim to get free. Years of imprisonment have left him disillusioned andbitter, but than a young Afro-American boy, who also had a difficultyouth, and his Canadian mentors start reading the book and soon getconvinced about Carter’s innocence. They will do everything to get himfree, but they will soon find out that the racist and hatingestablishment isn’t all too happy with their efforts to liberate him…

Normally I’m not a huge fan of "true stories", because they are broughtin such a way that it is no longer convincing. Well, I can’t say thatabout this movie. The people who created this movie kept it all veryrealistic and believable. I might even call it touching. What surprisedme even more about this movie was that it never showed much boxingscenes. It’s about a boxer and yet most of the scenes are in the jail.Only a few boxing scenes are shown, but still this movie was full of’action’.

I admit that I never expected it, but I enjoyed this movie more than Icould ever imagine. Especially Denzel Washington’s performance isexcellent. The other actors did a good job as well, but he was justoutstanding. I give this movie an 8.5/10. This is definitely a mustsee.

as a 15 year old growing up around boxing i really liked this movie itreally court my attention! and i thin we should have more movies likethis in the world! this would have to be the best movie i have seen sofar! it is very hard to explain how much this movie court my eyes! ihave been watching it at school and with in the first 5 minutes so muchhappened and i just still cant believe how much racism was accruing inthe move by the set and and just it does reflect on the world a lot!and how it was and how it still in in palaces but how it has changed aswell! thank you to the directors! i think yous did a great job! as isaid before there should be more movies lie this out in the world! theycan have so much affect on peoples lives as of mine! thank you onceagain for reading my comment! yours sincerely Matthew Farrugia

It was a true story. The boxing champion Rubin carter (his nickname iscalled Hurricane) was judged guilty of killing mistakenly. He stayed inthe prison for more than 30 years. After long-time effort, he was setfree in the end.

I wonder how many people can endure such suffering. Of cause life isnot all smooth particularly in the present crazy world. So how you dowith misery is the key. Now a good example appeared. The performance ofDenzel Washington is very contagious. I was totally indulged in themovie. It was wonderful experience for me. According to my experience,Denzel is the idealest actor for the role. His unique character andserious style made the role unforgettable. He should have won the Oscaraward (best actor) for it or he did not have to wait for another twoyears (best actor for Training day).

I think that the movie was underrated. As comparison, The shawshankredemption is overrated though it is a good film indeed. In my eyes, THis more encouraging than TSR. It will bring you more courage.

The most uplifting movie I ever watched. 9/10

In this drama masterpiece we see the greatest actor of all time(in myopinion)at his dramatical best which he would of no doubt won an Oscarif the facts which were misrepresented by the producers,directors andthe people working behind the scenes of the film were corrected(whichwas of no fault of Washington)in this film where we also observe thegradual yet monumental emergence of the young African-American actorVicellous Reon Shannon’s debut the relationship between these two ismemorable and carries the film exceptionally well through the 2 hour 25minute runtime certainly without the help of fellow cast members who’sacting in general was mediocre despite having a significant part toplay in Shannon’s relationship with Washington.The film is about aAfrican-American middleweight champion boxer Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carterwho is wrongly convicted of murder of two white men and spends nearly20 years in jail(I know it sounds like a typical storyline where theblack guy gets discriminated upon by the racist police of 30s Americabut don’t judge the film until you’ve watched it)Carter has 2 appealsrejected then turns his attention and concentration on writing anautobiography which like his appeals came across adversity yet hisautobiography where in it he proclaims his innocence and explains whyhe is innocent. The book is picked by Lesra Martin a young aspirationalAfrican-American male student who with some of his fellow whiteCanadian friends fights Carter’s case for freedom and visits himregularly in jail where some exceptional emotional acting fromWashington takes place.When Martin sends his outstanding collegeresults accompanied with a beautiful emotional letter and moment is oneof the pinnacles of the film,(Perfect piece of filming by Jewison).Eventually Washington is freed after the substantial legal flaws in thecase which is mentioned in his autobiography are unearthed andpresented to a modern day judge and jury. The film is my favourite andWashington after watching this film and his other masterpieces becamemy favourite actor (a excellent role model for African-Americans)and ifthe misrepresented facts in the film were corrected hands-downWashington would of one won his first Best Actor Oscar at the timeeventually winning the accolade with his more publicised masterpiece’Training Day’ in 2001 (although he should of won at least two moreOscars for ‘Mo’ Better Blues’ and ‘Malcolm X’… well he is black) Thefilm is highly recommended.

First off all id like to say this movie was absolutely brilliant.Butmaybe its not all true.But then again what biography is?First off allRubin was not the innocent little soul as he was portrayed to be in hisearlier life.His First conviction was
when he was 14,he stole a whitemans watch and stabbed him in the procedure.He was sentenced tojamesbourg detention school until he be 21.But Carter escaped when hewas 19.He then enlisted in the army to avoid the authorities and wentstraight into a paratrooper wing.The army is where Carter first boxedknocking out the army heavyweight boxing champ.He was later dischargedfor bad conduct.On his return to Patterson he was arrested and madeserve 3 years in Trenton state he owed the law.When he was released hevowed never to be sent back to prison again.Carters boxing career beganhe sent some of the most feared boxers crashing to the canvas.Rubincould knock a man out with a single punch or a flurry of punches,thatshow he earned the name ‘Hurricane’.He got his shot at the world titlewhich he lost to Joey Giardello on on a unamines decision.The fight{which i have seen} should have gone to Hurricane.Then came themurders.You have 2 criminals Bello and Bradly changing statements fromtime to time,and the same for Patty Valentine who changed her statementtwice,no proper evidence just a racially charged atmosphere,WilliamMarins,the only survivor of the shootings couldn’t identify Carter andArtis as the gun men,no murder weapons,the list goes on.In 1985 at his3rd trial Rubin was released from prison but not cleared of hisconvictions.But the judge saw the truth behind Carters case,which wasbuilt on lies.All and all The Hurricane was a falsely convicted devilwho spent 22 years behind bars for murders he didn’t commit.At leastthats the story of the Hurricane!I strongly recommend reading The 16thround by Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter and Hurricane by James S Hirsh so youto can see the truth behind this awful injustice.

I don’t agree with The Hurricane as a load of B.S.

It’s all about universal suffering, and in the human condition how onecan feel imprisoned by their circumstances. True, I haven’t spent yearsin a jail cell, but have been persecuted for my belief system before.To the extent that everyday a supposedly "peaceful" environment for mewas I thought a potential disaster. So what is that?.

He makes the best of his circumstances by educating himself about howthey jailed him, has a breakdown in isolation, etc… What’s so falseabout that?.

Maybe The Hurricane represents the best case scenario for survival inthe Penal system, and getting the most out of it. Granted, it is a darkmovie but than how could it not be?. Maybe there is even total securityin the darkness for the man, too. He gets regular meals, he can liftweights, people have a lot in common with him who’s to dis it.

Also, who knows if Denzel wasn’t the best choice. It seems that way tome.

from Me

An amazing drama filled with hope, rejection, and, ultimately, triumph.Denzel outperforms himself throughout the movie, and the supportingactors and actresses shine as well. Dan Hedaya’s character is trulyconvincing. No other actor could have satisfied the part as he did.Even "marginal" roles were cast well. Lesra’s parents, for example, didan excellent job with the small parts that they had. Being based on atrue story adds a whole new dimension to the film. As the storyprogresses, viewers can not help but attach themselves to Rubin’s caseand pull for a victory in the courts. Every action from beginning toend leaves you anticipating the next scene. Definitely worth the 2 hour20 minute sitting!

read comments (0)