The Royal Tenenbaums

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS / (2001) **1/2 (out of four)

It’s easy to enjoy a movie when we love all the actors involved, and "TheRoyal Tenenbaums" places charismatic, top-notch performers in even thesmallest of roles. Perhaps this explains the film’s overwhelming positiveconsensus-it’s not so much of a good movie as it is a well-cast movie.

In a role he was born to play, a very funny Gene Hackman stars as RoyalTenenbaum. He’s the aging separated husband of Etheline (an eccentricallyelegant Anjelica Huston) and the father of three previously successfulchildren (Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, and Gwyneth Paltrow).

Unfortunately, the kid’s have lived dysfunctional lives since their parentsseparated 22 years ago. Now, Royal understands his mistake and wants hisfamily back. But Etheline, currently in a relationship with her businessmanager (Danny Glover), wants no part of her ex-love. Royal concocts anexcuse: he’s dying and seeks redemption.

Like all Anderson’s films, this is a vivid character study. It includes someharshly funny, but also touches the grim realities of life. The story, byAnderson and Owen Wilson (who also acts in the film), gives the Tenenbaumsplenty of dimension and heart. But there are so many characters to keeptrack of here, we are pulled in far too many directions.

Few of these characters have much to do on screen. Gwyneth Paltrow, OwenWilson, Billy Murray, Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, Seymour Cassel, and BenStiller all fight for our attention, while the relationship between Ethelineand Royal takes center stage. We care about the later characters, so muchthat the others feel like intrusive. They certainly contribute to the uniquestyle of the movie. But they quickly outstay their welcome, eventuallybecoming an intrusion.

Speaking of relationships, "The Royal Tenenbaums" complicates itself withfar too many. The various connections don’t become overwhelming becauseAnderson knows who is who and who is with who and why, and he keeps thedialogue very casual. The film never loses it’s sense of humor. Thus, asconfusing as it is, "The Royal Tenenbaums" is always an easy movie to watch.

Some of these relationships have great truth, but they are mixed within thejumble. Anderson tackles way too much material in a single film…and histalents with style and characters cancel each other out. We’re left with amovie that juggles so many characters and so many emotions, that we don’tknow what to think.

"The Royal Tenenbaums" is the third feature film by Wes Anderson, following"Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." I haven’t liked any of his movies, but Iadmire his inspiration and acknowledge his talents. He’s a fine filmmakerwith refreshing style and a passionate vision, yet his work has yet to makea connection. I eagerly await the moment he learns to blend good filmmakingwith good storytelling.

This film should be hailed as one of the top-ten best ever. Its greatestassets rest in the untold and unexplained bits of the film and thetongue-in-cheek stabs at all of the characters, people (with the exceptionof Pagoda, The Butler) who have been taking themselves way too seriouslyforway too long and their discomfort around their father, a man who nevertookanyone seriously in his life, least of all himself.

The subtle character development IS the story. Unlike most films, wherethecharacters are boring and easily explained within two minutes, this filmrelies on the observer’s knowledge of human nature, their empathy, andmostof all, their willingness to explore a story that doesn’t rely on a big,flashing red arrow pointing out each significant detail.

I loved it!

Obviously, weird/dysfunctional/neurotic families always make forinteresting movies, but "The Royal Tenenbaums" may have brought thegenre to its zenith. Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum, the estrangedpatriarch. Mother Etheline (Anjelica Huston) continued raising sonsChas (Ben Stiller) and Richie (Luke Wilson) and daughter Margot(Gwyneth Paltrow) on her own. Now, Chas has two sons, whom he israising to be as neurotic as he is, Margot has hooked up with thepompous Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray), and Richie is a tennis playerwho deliberately lost a game (I got the feeling that he was obsessedwith his sister). Meanwhile, Etheline has hooked up with the culturedHenry Sherman (Danny Glover). And there’s something up with friend EliCash (Owen Wilson).

In the midst of this all, Royal finds a way to get the whole familyback together: by telling everyone that he has an illness. Getting backtogether, the entire family is forced to reevaluate their relationshipswith each other and how they’ve been living and…look, I can’t dojustice to the movie by trying to describe it. It’s a masterpiece. Youhave to see it.

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (2001) ***1/2 Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, GwynethPaltrow, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, Danny Glover,Seymour Cassel, Kumar Pallana , Grant Rosenmeyer, Jonah Meyerson, StephenLea Sheppard, Alec Baldwin (narrator). (Dir: Wes Anderson)

Gifted filmmaker Wes Anderson re-teams with his childhood buddy Owen Wilsonin telling the tale of a dysfunctional family of genius prodigies going toseed with odd ball affection.

The Royal Tenenbaums (a play on words in the literal and metaphoricalreadings) consist of paterfamilias Royal (the wonderful Hackman, one of myall-time favorite actors who can never do wrong), a wily horrible fatherfinancier who is down on his luck and decides to re-enter the lives of hisestranged progeny: Chas (Stiller), a financial genius who has suffered therecent death of his beloved wife and is now over-protectively obsessed withhis children Ari and Uzi (Rosenmeyer and Meyerson respectively); Margot(Paltrow), the adopted daughter who became a child playwright and now in aloveless marriage to behavioral psychiatrist Raleigh St. Clair (Murray) whois trying to make a breakthrough with the problematic Dudley Heinsbergen(Sheppard); and Richie (Luke Wilson), the international tennis star who hassuffered a nervous breakdown and quasi-incestuous desire for Margot.

Royal’s half-baked deceit is faking the idea of having stomach cancer withonly weeks to live and infiltrate his ex (Huston) Etheline’s good gracesbut finds his work cut out for him when the children (except Richie) don’tseem effected by his condition and the would-be suitor of Ehteline, HenrySherman (Glover), her accountant. The ensemble of truly gifted actors is a wonder to behold and Anderson andWilson’s unique blend of absurdity and J.D. Salinger angst and anomie (theTenenbaums are clearly a secondary cousin of his Glass family in literature)are funny and sad at the same time. Clearly Royal wants to make amends buthis tactless ways are what makes him a display of how some people should notbe parents. His outspokenness is only outweighed by his failures to connectwith anyone including his kids and the manner he goes about them only putshis shortcomings in a garish light. Royal tries to even connect with hisgrandchildren in a montage of hilarity in thumbing their noses at authority. Hackman’s nasty little chuckles of rue are full-fledged underscored ironyand his boisterous manners a breath of fresh air. He’s a riotundone. The ‘kids’ however have their own issues : despair, feeling alone anddirectionless, loveless, desire and finally an innate pain that eachrecognizes but can’t contain a balm to tend to their self-inflected wounds. Stiller’s bottled-up ire has often been in many of his past performancesand only makes his Chas the one Tenenbaum who needs a hug; Paltrow’s Margotis a self-pitying mope who wants love but can’t figure out with who andWilson’s Richie is an old soul coming home to rest with no where else to go. Clearly all three representing generations past and present in the awkwardstages of peaking at an early age and dwindling in the wind as the futuredoesn’t look so bright.
Owen Wilson’s Eli Cash, the Tenenbaum’s childhood buddy from across thestreet, is a hack Western novelist who too wants to be one of them sodesperately he mails his press clippings to Etheline when he’s not sleepingwith Margot. Anderson, who is on a roll from his debut with "Bottle Rocket" to one of myfaves "Rushmore" , has a way of making unlikable characters likable andtheir environs unique (New York has never felt so literal as it does here ina John Irving/Cheever kind of way) as well as a flair for costumes andproduction design. Even the jocular avuncular Baldwin narrating each‘chapter’ headings beguiles the viewer. One of the year’s best and funniestfilms.

Anyone who thinks this movie is boring or unfunny is…well, there aresome anyway, they’re a "tard." This is the best movie in the world. Ithas to be at least in the top ten best since the new millennium. When Iworked at a movie theatre at the time, almost everyone walked awaydisappointed. This is the type of movie that gets better with moreviewings. This film gives off so many different emotions:Life,Art,Love,Death, and the the feeling that any family can overcometheir differences. Nothing in this movie seems unnatural and thecharacters seem so close to home. Since I’m not a writer,filling up aminimum of ten lines seems like a chore. I never liked Gwyneth Paltrowuntil this film. Even the movie poster is great. There are so manymemorable lines in this movie "You sonof abitch," says the Indian manin pink, as he stabs Gene Hackman.

This is a pretty interesting story about one man's love for his family,and trying to spend as much time with them as possible, even the onethat hates him, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it again. Basicallythe meaning of the title being Royal is obviously the father andhusband of the wealthy like family, Royal Tenenbaum (Golden Globewinning Gene Hackman). Anjelica Huston plays his wife, EthelineTenenbaum, Gwyneth Paltrow as daughter Margot Tenenbaum, Luke Wilson asson Richie Tenenbaum and Ben Stiller as his brother Chas Tenenbaum, heis the one who hates his Dad. Basically Royal finds out he has onlythree or four months to live, so he wants to spend that time with hisfamily. By the way, in the end Chas does like his father, he evenaccompanies him in the ambulance at the end. Also starring Owen Wilsonas Eli Cash, Danny Glover as Henry Sherman, Bill Murray as Raleigh St.Clair and narrated by Alec Baldwin. It was nominated the Oscar for BestWriting, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it wasnominated the BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay. Gwyneth Paltrow wasnumber 89, and Gene Hackman number 42 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars,and he was number 31 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

When I first watched The Royal Tenenbaums I was with my dad and hedoesn't really like movies like this, the kind that move quite slowlyand not a whole lot happens but it's about a pretty neat group ofpeople (I guess typical of whats that guys name?'s movies). So my dadand I are sitting on the couch watching Gwyneth Paltrow look miserableand smoke cigarettes and Ben Stiller be a funny dad and that guy fromSeinfeld be another great character (and a dad, although notnecessarily great), and I guess we both got bored so we turned it off.I didn't watch it again for a long time and never really thought that Iwas missing out on anything having never seen The Royal Tenenbaums infull.

But then one day I rented it with a friend with equal "strange-movie"appreciation, and watched it the whole way through. I even laughedaloud at bits and pieces. The best part of the movie, the same as allthe other movies by this guy, is how awesome the characters are: if Icould remember more about them I would describe this in a little bitmore detail. But it was a really great movie and now whenever peopletalk about how much a certain situation is like that one in The RoyalTenenbaums, I can join the conversation because I've seen the entiremovie, start to finish.

Written with love and respect by Megan, for piapet.

If you have any sense of humour then you will be at a loss as to what issupposed to be funny about this film.I would vote this film as one of the worst film of this and the lastcentury.Perhaps it is the fact that I am English and the humour totally missed me,although I doubtit is this, as I usually love American humour. The plotwasridiculously stupid, the acting was held back by a ludicrousscript.All in all, avoid this film unless you want to waste the precious minutesgiven to you, until your demise.

Wes Anderson’s third film The Royal Tenenbaums is the best film from himI’ve seen (though I haven’t seen Bottle Rocket, it’s an improvement overRushmore for me). He and his co-writer/actor Owen Wilson have created afictional group of characters that are and aren’t like people you wouldusually know, in other words, it’s realistic with both comedy andtragedy.

Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum dead-pan as a sneaky, mostly low-downnasty yet also with a bit on conscience side he decides after not seeing hisfamily for a number of years to come back to them with a scheme of havingstomach cancer. His family includes his not exactly ex-wife (AngelicaHouston) who is considering marrying her accountant (Danny Glover), his twosons played by Ben Stiller with accurate bitterness and the other played byLuke Wilson with accurate sorrow and inner-pain, and also his adopteddaughter played by Gwyneth Paltrow who is secretly the apple of Wilson’seye. Other stars include Owen Wilson as a western writer who is into a lotof drugs and Bill Murray as Paltrow’s empty husband.

All of these characters come together (more or less) to create an engagingand really amusing dramedy, full of (possibly too full of) creative ideasfor each character, in particular for Royal which gives Hackman a chance togive one of his best recent performances. This added with some interestingcinematography and writing (sometimes it’s like watching a book on tape)plus the best soundtrack of the year make this a good watch any time. Soundtrack by the way includes The Ramones, The Clash, Paul Simon, TheRolling Stones, Elliot Smith and a cover of the Beatles. A-

I must have seen 25 films in the theater in 2001 and this movie was by farthe worst.

My understanding from the trailer was that it would be a dark comedy. Itwas indeed dark, but it was utterly lacking in comedy. I didn’t laugh onetime, and almost never smiled (and I am generally easy to get a lough outof). I almost enjoyed "Manos, The Hands of Fate" more than thismovie!

I think this quote from a "positive" review almost says itall..

"A mellifluous, labyrinthine thing, indescribably delicious and ambitiouslyliterate."– Walter Chaw, FILM FREAK CENTRAL

"melliflous" means smooth flowing… "Labyrinthine" means maze-like. So wehave that is a "a smooth flowing maze". What I then get from that quote(after translating it back from "intelligencia speak" is that the movie islong, confusing, more or less pointless, and keeps moving along so youdon’thave time to realize how lost and pointless it is until it is all over.

"ambitiously literate." When I hear about a BOOK that is considered"ambitiously literate" I know I don’t want to read it because it willdoubtlessly be "incredibly dull". The last thing I want from a movie issomething as dull as the dullest of books.

"thing" This clinches the issue for me. What you are seeing on the moviescreen when you watch this film is not in fact a movie. It is somethingelse. As far as I can tell it is a book… I will get back to this in aminute…

When I actually sit down to analyze the movie there are a few primaryproblems with it that jump out at me…

Every single character in the mov
ie is a sterotype (All sterotypes rarelyworks unless the movie is a pure comedy). Every single character iscompletely dysfunctional both in their personal relationships and withinthemselves (When EVERYONE is dysfunctional to this degree no matter whathappens the whole movie is usually a downer). Their is almost no characterdevelopment of any character but Royal himself (this is probably because ofthe sheer number of secondart characters in the movie). The lack ofcharacter development is clearly meant to be covered by the fact thateveryone is a stereotype. Clearly the writers felt they didn’t have to domuch more than introduce them to you for you to understand them since theyare all sterotypical. Unfortunately understanding the characters is notthesame as BONDING with the characters. The lack of a bond with any of thecharacters for the first 90% of the movie (you don’t even get close toRoyaluntil nearly the end) means that all the character interactions that takeplace are disconnected from the viewer. Basically the you (as the viewer)end up a disinterested 3rd party watching a bunch of complete losers youdon’t care about try to resolve a bunch of problems that you don’t give adamn about.

By the end of the movie you are supposed to have a connection with Royalandactually be interested in what he does. You are supposed to be rooting forhim to get his life, and hopefully his families straightened out.Unfortunately you know he is an ass and after seeing everything he hasdone,while you have a connection with him, it is a connection of either loathingor pity, or both, depending on your nature. No matter how you slice it youend up feeling very negative emotions and no minor laughs can completelycorrect the problem….Back to the book thing. The movie is presented as a book. In myopinionthat is what it should be, a book, and not a movie. With a book thatactually explored the inner thoughts and emotions of the characters youwould have time to develop the connection needed to empathize with thecharacters and thus be entertained by what happens to them rather thanbored.

The final nail in the coffin is that the humor is just not that funny.Thisis actually mostly a matter of timing. Lots of the best humor is in theintro. Then the rest of it is squeezed into or between scenes that areverynegative. It just doesn’t flow right in my opinion. Also some of thehumoris to quick, some is to subtle, and some is too long. All of it could havebeen tweaked for greater effect I think. At least part of those issues areprobably due to having the writer in the cast and on the set every singleday. Most directors will tell you that most writers just shouldn’t be onthe same set with their work during filming because they don’t havesufficient objectivity to not interfere when something that they thoughtwasgreat on paper ends up sucking on film and is changed.

Anyway, if you want to see it then by all means do so. However when youcome back here give a review based on how you felt as you left the theater(bored in my case), and not just one that makes you part of the crowd.

read comments (0)

The Unsaid

This is not a film with an amazing script, nor has it special effects thatwill blow you away. Still, there is something about it that makes itdistinguish itself from others.

The plot is quite standard for this kind of psychological thriller, but ithas its moments, and you can expect some surprises. But it is the solidacting combined with great illumination- and sound techniques that reallymakes this film worthwhile. Andy Garcia truly shows that he is a greatactor, and the supporting actors seem more than believable to me.

All these factors combined results in a solid movie which I highly recommendto anyone.

Reasonable psychologic thriller where a trouble-minded young man tries toprove to his personal social assistant that he is mentally able to returntosocial life. In this way, he finds a famous doctor (Garcia) who loses hisown son and is trying to start over again. The premise is not original andthe director fails to estabilish a tense pulse over the narrative that goeson with few gritting moments. Garcia is correct as usual and Kartheiser isoutstanding in the role of Tommy.I give this a 06 (six).

The Unsaid is slow and predictable, barely even qualifying as afunctionalthriller as it seems more interested in piquing the interest of boredhousewives who think they’re experts on psychology because they watchOprahand Dr Phil on a daily basis. I wouldn’t question this movie’searnestness,but good intentions are no substitute for a smart script, something thismovie is sorely lacking. Early scenes with therapists not wanting to lettheir patient out on his 18th birthday seem strange since there’s noindication that the kid has been anything other than a model resident oftheyouth home. But the audience knows there’s something wrong with the kidorthere wouldn’t be a movie, would there? Rather than take the audiencefor aride the movie here has to constantly catch up to the viewer, a backwardsway of making a thriller, unless you don’t actually want to generate anysuspense. An early scene where Thomas the patient flips out violentlyafterbeing touched by an extremely hot, sexually agressive young woman givesawaythe fact that Thomas was sexually molested as a child, although like abadpoker player who shows his cards but figures nobody was really payingattention anyway the filmmakers seem to think the audience will reactwithsomething other than complete indifference or a loud duh when theyfinallypull the molestation card out about forty minutes later. Maybe if yourbrother made movie this you could act surprised out of politeness, but ifyou’re not a relative what’s the point. Acting is variable: Andy Garciabrings sincerity and dramatic weight to his portrayal, navigating thehokeycutaways to his suicide son during sessions with the current patient.TerriPolo, who I have to admit to liking pretty much just in one movie, Quick,isfine here through she seems to be channelling Laurie Linney. VincentKartheiser who was so damned annoying on the last two seasons of Angelisn’tmuch more impressive here. I’m at the point where I hope I’ll never seethis guy again. And then there’s the daughter played by LindaCardellini.She seems to have some of the worst man-instincts that a girl couldpossiblyhave, moving on from a bullying neanderthal with all the charm of arapiston his night off and on to deeply disturbed Thomas who has alreadymurderedone one of her friends. This girl needs help.

I can’t imagine why anyone would want to sit through this movie, but ifyou’re a fan of Lifetime Movies, in-your-face earnestness and movieswherethe upper middle class hero finds love and redemption, then, hey, maybethisis the movie for you. Just don’t expect any nicities likesuspense.

When I picked up this movie on the rental rack and read the first lineon the back of the box, it read "In the tradition of PRIMAL FEAR…" Iimmediately put back all the other movies that I was even consideringrenting, and I rented "The Unsaid." PRIMAL FEAR is my FAVORITE movie,so I had high hopes for ‘Unsaid.’ -mistake. It probably wasn’t 45 minsinto the movie that I figured out the "big twist." There were just toomany clues, which of course I won’t say. In one of the other postings,someone said that, generally, American audiences have a tougher timeaccepting the twist than Europenas do. Well, being an American, I’lltake that as a compliment. I’m not saying that this movie is a completewaste of time, but this film doesn’t come anywhere NEAR the intensityof PRIMAL FEAR. Then again, not many do.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***It is a great film about what can happen when a father looses a son by asuicide and the feeling of guilt appear when he’s the only one who knowsallthe truth.I liked it a lot, I liked all the characters and specially Andy Garcia’scharacter.I’ve discussed this picture with a lot of people and there are two pointsofview about why the boy commited suicide. In my opinion, he had a bigdepression, he was forced to go to the psychiatrist who happened to be hisfather’s friend, he abused him and he wasn’t able to talk about it withhisfather even though it seemed that he was a good father and was open toheareverything his son wanted to sayThe boy felt too bad and desperate that he prefer to die than tospeak…On the other hand, there’s people who told me that they think the boy wasdepressed and forced to go with his father’s friend and when he startedabusing him, he started to feel dirty but at the same time he liked it, sohe got confussed by the feeling of being gay, that he commited suicide.Thisis not my point of view, but many people got it that way…

This is a brilliant film, and the actors are great. A "wonderful" story,that makes one think about life and its meaning… I am truly touched bythis film. This film is not like any others, so if you haven’t yet seenit,then run along down to Blockbuster!!!!

Andy Garcia is always good as an personal character.Which he proves in this movie.It’s a shame that the story is being clumbsy told, the movie has a badflow,well not that bad but still enough to notice.It’s good that mr. Garcia is such a good actor so he can lift thismovie.

Everyone else in the movie play their part very well, but the maincharacter"Tommy" is a little to "green" on the big screen, it shows, butalltogheterhe does a good job.

The "plot" and the final ending or whatever you want to call it is badaccording to me, but others disagree, I guess I have a strange taste inendings.. hehe.

But the movie is still very see worthy, and I recommend this movie, it’snota oscar winning movie, but still.

" I just don’t understand what the director wants to tell us. The scripthasan awful lot of gaps and is not very convincing. For example, why wouldthisphysical disturbed patient try to mess up with his doctor and hisdaughterwhile he can get out of the institution in two weeks? It just don’t makesense and it’s all to obvious. The film is also a bit slow and misses thetension of an exciting thriller. Good old Andy is ok though."

This film is brilliant, i loved it,everyone should see it, I only boughtitbecause vincent kartheiser was in it. Im so glad i bought it,definatelyonenot to be missed.A brilliant performance from Vincent Kartheiser (AngelAKAconnor)who plays the misguided child, Tommy.Also Andy Garcia (oceanseleven)and Linda Cardellini (scooby doo).

There are many kinds of thriller/drama movies.

Some have the ability to confuse and bore you to death during most of thetime, with just some good twist in the end, which "should" compensate forthe "lentish", sacrificing hour before that. And many overrated movieshavethat formula, which only works because you become so numb as you watch it,that you feel very surprised by the final outcome of the plot, a
nd thenbelieve that it was such a terrific film.

Others are the exact opposite, meaning that they have a great startingpoint, but the story gets duller and duller until the final result becomesvery predictable. And so many other variations of this genre mayarise.

With `The Unsaid’, however, you can expect to be tied to your seat thewholetime as the plot develops. It has a dramatic starting point, a powerfulandconstant *thrilling* middle section and well, I won’t refer the endingbecause, believe it, if you start watching this flick, you won’t go awayuntil you see the whole thing. It’s that good!But that’s me, I personally like movies that grab your attention from thestart and make you not even take bathroom breaks or answer to yourcell-phone calls. What about you?

The acting by Andy Garcia was brilliant; he really got inside hischaracter.Only with a role like this could he show his true dramatic acting skills,and was followed very well by the rest of the cast. The directing was ok,and had some notorious influence on our understanding and dramatic effectofthe scenes. It was done the way it’s supposed to, clean and sober, even inaction sequences. I won’t refer to the story or the subjects it’s about,since none of that is necessary here. This is a review, not a `plotoutline’.

The bottom line is this: it’s a definitely worth watching film! And ifyou’re not entertained during and pleased after it, well. admit it: Youwatched some movie other than `The Unsaid’.

read comments (0)

To End All Wars

That was the main problem with this movie, the ‘messages’ are deliveredwithall the subtlety of a spade in the face. Over and over again.

I found it hard not to cringe as these examinations of human nature wereforced repeatedly down my throat, and in case you miss them the softspeaking Scots guy drills home the points in his narration.

If you want a film about character, ethics, morals and the corruption thatwar wreaks upon humans then watch Apocalypse Now! This film devalues themessages it tries to get across (although they may be occasionally valid)bysimply trying too hard. Like a Disney film, but less subtle… like thelastfew minutes of an episode of the He-Man cartoons.

The direction is capable and the acting is competent… although it washardnot to laugh at Kiefer as it always is when he isn’t Jack Bauer. RobertCarlyle was good but extremely orange.

The only thing missing from this film was a big group hug, a song anddancenumber or a cameo from God. That would have really wrapped it up nicely.

Silly would be the best way to describe this. There is a point where oneofthe camp inmates states that the shirts that the officers wear is all thatseperates them from the anarchy out there with the rest of theprisoners….there was no raw emotion, no anarchy, rather there was an abundance ofcivilised respectful behaviour throughout. Even the Japanese butchering ofprisoners was couched in honour and tradition… everyone worked jollyhardto build the railroad that a lovely shiny puffer train was going to use…to invade India.

The one guy that gets beaten so badly that he is crippled ends up gettingalovely home made wheelchair… and the Japanese carry on feeding this manwho is incapable of working???

Blah de blah… Good actors- silly script-equals a badfilm.

I have seen the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai and in my opinionthe movie looked like a joke. The huts were well made, the soldierswere remarkably healthy, the Japanese overseeing the camp looked likeyour next door neighbor who practices democracy. The movie isremarkably similar to Hogan’s Heroes.

The reality of POW’s, prisoners, people in poverty is really unusuallybrutal and oppressed. This movie has a remarkably realism to the sametune of The Pianist. Under that conditions you have very little to saybut to comply and adapt for your own survival.

This is not a movie who likes action, this is a movie for people wholike realism, up to a level of course as the people who died there weremore likely to be Malays, and other locals. The death rate for thesepeople were close to 50% while only about one in six of captured POWssurvived through this ordeal.

What is interesting is that the Japanese were less cruel to the POWsthan the Germans were to the Jewish. Once the job was finished, as yousee in the movie of the Pianist, and you were no longer needed, theyshoot you dead. I think the Germans wiped out the forgiving CatholicPolish people by at least 90% of the population that way. So theconcept of forgiving and love thy neighbor policy doesn’t work wellwith the German Gestapo.

Now let’s look it from another angle, if you bother to check a bit ofwar history and I am no expert on that either, you will find that afterthe Japanese took over the South East Asian regions, they found theyhave a too many POWs on their hands. So they decided the best way tohandle that would (as well as the locals) was to build a railroad tofurther expand their empire. Now if the Germans were at it, they mighthave probably gassed them or shoot them to death.

Now let’s look at the Scottish POW, Earnest Gordon when he mentions toforgive and love the enemy. Yes, the formula works very well since ifthe POWs serve their emperor by following emperor’s instructions, itwas compatible to the Bushido system. So the Japanese were forgiving ifyou do exactly what they tell you to. And once the job was finished,they didn’t get rid of you either and they show gratefulness byreturning the books they had confiscated earlier because the POWsworked so well to the Emperor’s cause. Now if we go back to the Nazissystem such a Christian formula would not work. So the compatibilityand survivability is not guaranteed by the Nazi system. It looks morelike it depends on the whims of heil Hitler.

So while the movie has remarkable realism, it is told through the eyesof a person who has some Christianity and apparently the Christianitysystem were compatible with the Bushido system and the Japanese weresomehow grateful for the job well done. In the Nazi system as told bythe Pianist, the only way you can survive is not Christianity, it is byhiding and avoiding and sometimes you might be lucky enough for someNazis who have some touches of human quality to help someone else, ofcourse luck has a great deal to it. So the name of the game is whatsystem works depends on how the conqueror treats you. If he loves youif you are willing to sacrifice, then fine. If he does not and likes tothrow you away like a toilet paper, the best solution is to escape andhopefully avoid capture, or to kill him before he kills you - take overthe camp.

So the lesson to all of this is you treat your enemies depending on howhe will treat you based on your own actions. If he’s just as forgiving,we can forgive him. If he is unforgiving and a blood sucking vampire,then it is best to escape from the camp and kill the them before hegets a chance to kill you. Since once you are no use to them, you getshot, just like James Bond 007 enemies. They shoot you if they seethere is no benefit for them.

As you can see an unforgiving conqueror doth not maketh a lastingempire since the best option for those under such oppression would beto escape or kill the conqueror. So in case you are a conqueror,Christianity rules worked. However, if the conqueror uses Bushido orChrisitanity, or Nazi, then it is your ballgame to decide whichstrategies is best for you to adopt.

Great film for people who like the realism. However, the philosophy wassomewhat pro-Christian. There are much more depths that needs analyzinghere as I express in this movie review.

Mother Nature says it best: Adapt or Die.

This movie is the first I’ve seen that really shows the atrocitiescommitted by the Japanese toward POW’s in WWII. Although "The Bridge onthe River Kwai" was a great movie, it was fiction and showed Britishofficers collaborating with the Japanese, which would have neverhappened. I have read that many of the survivors of the Thai Burmarailroad were sent to Saigon, where they were packed in "Hellships’ fortransfer to Japan. Many were killed when the ships were sunk byAmerican submarines, as the Japanese failed to properly ID their shipscontaining POW’s. Could you imagine surviving all that abuse and deathon the railway to be sunk by your own Allies?

The material with which Cunningham et al were working with in this filmwas tremendous; unfortunately, their handling of it was not. Part"Bridge on the River Kwai," part, "The Great Escape," part "The Passionof the Christ" (heavily sanitized), the film probably suffered fromtrying to live up to the mastery of its predecessors.

To begin with some positives, though: the photography is very good.Although some of the shots do a poor job of creating a sense of visualrhythm, each frame can stand alone as a still photograph. The shots arenicely balanced, and the lighting is rarely amiss. The acting alsoleaves little to be desired. This is one area in which Cunninghamsucceeding as a director: he really did a nice job of fostering anactor-friendly atmosphere and brought out the best in the respectiveplayers.

However, as successful as Cunningham was in directing the shooting andacting, he was equally unsuccessful with the rest of the film-makingprocess. To begin with, there is a comic litany of unlikely objectsmagically appearing in this remote Japanese prison ca
mp. From a set ofbagpipes, to a collection of clean dress uniforms, to a violin, to awheelchair that would have made FDR envious, some of the decisions thatwere apparently made to enhance the dramatic effects of certain scenesstretched the imagination more than a little bit. It was alsoremarkable how well-shaven the POW’s remained during theirtwo-and-a-half year imprisonment.

But those are relatively minor issues, I suppose. More damning is thegeneral lack of perspective that the film provides, both narrativelyand spatially. For example, there is no feeling as to how long themarch from the battlefield to the camp was, although I assume that itwas supposed to be a long, arduous ordeal. Cunningham’s issuesproviding narrative perspective were perhaps the most important flaw inthe film. As a viewer, I was never able to grasp the difficulties thatthese men had in this camp. While the narrator (I believe the presenceof the narrator to have been a mistake to begin with for thisparticular film) kept making references to the precariousness of theirhold on life and sanity, the film never visually or narrativelyreinforced the grinding-down provided by the everyday reality of thecamp. There are a handful of exceptional instances of oppression shown,but nothing that leaves you feeling the physical and mental exhaustionthe prisoners faced every day. Instead, you see a lot of scenes of theprisoners as they perform Shakespeare, or discuss philosophy. On anintellectual, rational level, it is apparent how important theseactivities could have been to the prisoners, but this importance isnever captured aesthetically.

There is also precious little character development. Firstly, too manycharacters are important for all of them to be sufficiently developedin a feature-length film. There are too many stories to tell, withoutenough time to tell them all. The characters ultimately remainrelatively static, in spite of the wonderful potential supplied by theplot to turn any one of these men into a compelling portrait. This lackof character development also saps the strength of many of thephilosophical/religious overtones. Because it is difficult to connectto many of the characters, their sacrifices and transgressions meanmuch less than they should.

Finally, as I hinted at before, the presence of the narrator eventuallyundermined any subtlety that the film may have had. While is someplaces the narrator’s comments merely cheapened the "showing" (asopposed to "telling") of important thematic elements in the film, inmany places the narrator’s comments completely replaced any attempt to"show" the reality on which he was commenting upon, including hiscomments on the hardships of the imprisonment.

While I have heard/read many people who have responded very emotionallyto this film (in a positive way), I have a hard time understandingtheir sentiment. The film simply relies too heavily on abstractionrather than visual/narrative demonstration of the reality it is tryingto depict to inspire any strong emotions in me. While the plot andcharacters contain a true treasure trove of potential, I feel like mostof the potential was wasted on this particular film-making team.

The film is well shot and well acted. But it does go a bit over the topand takes forever to reach its inspiring/wimpish —check one—conclusion. It’s "Bridge On The River Kwai" for people who are tired ofwatching that old standard on the late show for the seventh time butstill need a new fix of brutal Japanese and starving Brits who, despiteall else, have kept their stiff upper lip. Not to trivialize thehorrors that occurred, this film still looms larger than life. And theheavenly choral music in the background during the interminabledenouement is, well, a bit much. Nor does it explain how destitute,starving, mistreated POW’s in the middle of the Thai jungle manage tokeep their wrist watches and pipes (both the smoking and musicalvarieties), smoke cigarettes and be cleanshaven every day (except forthe one guy with his neatly trimmed regimental moustache.) Having saidall that, you can be quite certain it never will turn up as anin-flight movie on Japan Airlines.

I am always wary of war films that say they are based on a true story.But this film is obviously very close to the facts because of the wayin which it does away with the superficial and goes for the "guts’ ofliving out of forgiveness above the typical revenge and hate films. Thedirty, stinking and constant cruel circumstances of these Allied POW’smake you wonder how the heck they could do it. War is not fun and beingin a Japanese prison in a sweaty jungle with extreme inhuman treatmentmust be no fun at all. I was glad to see the script of each characterwas real not just some grunt from a super-human killing machine whokisses all his enemies goodbye. Kiefer Sutherland was the Americantrying to make the best of a very bad situation but faced with theresponses of indifference and hate that all war victims seem toexperience. The strong performance by Robert Carlyle as Campbell shouldhave had the Scots applauding and won a number of Film Awards. HoweverCiarån McMenamin as Ernest Gordon strengthen the film with his honestnarration leading to the last part of the film where the truth of warand the suffering involved is squarely faced. This is a haunting andtruthful film with great scenes but please be warned those who haveexperienced war and its cruelty you will be crying at the end. I giveit 7

Keifer’s work

Before… To End All Wars After…

24 isn’t that bad either; OK, it’s the best show on TV since MASH,simply incredible.

Personally I see a lot of moral fiber displayed by the characters inthe show 24, which is *the* theme of to End All Wars. The differencebeing that the movie explicitly points to the source of that moralfortitude (Christ), while the show leaves the ultimate source of Jack’smotivation relatively ambiguous, leaving me wondering… Family?Nation? Personally defined morality? Keeps us viewers guessing, Iguess.

"Bridge Over the River Kwai" meets "Stalag 17" meets "Dead PoetsSociety". Gripping performance worthy of the heroism of the real-lifeexperience. Challenging on many levels. Like the best of dramas itposes more questions than answers. Probes the human condition on themost basic levels from "Why are we here?" to "What is justice?". Notfor every audience. I would caution viewers from exposing the film toyounger audiences because of the graphic depiction of the cruelty ofthe Bushido captors. Nonetheless, as the viewers come of age, it is animportant historical lesson that answers many questions as to the whysand wherefores that precipitated the Second World War.

. . . comes a ray of light.

More an event than a motion picture, "To End All Wars" touches the mind aswell as the heart. Powerful performances and a timeless message of hope inan age of suffering. You’ve never seen a war movie like thisbefore.

read comments (0)

The One

A very very bad movie, to start with.

Did you know jet Li would have been acting in Crouching Tiger HiddenDragon if he hadn't accept his role in this movie.

The movie is basically flawed technically, most importantly logically.You will be saying like; "how stupid was that, honey" and laughing. Youwill be thinking about the stupidity of the just-gone-by scene and youwill miss the next 2 scenes. The story hangs with a weak pathetic plot.Even a kid will find it stupid, enough.

The action sequence are not that impressive.. its the usual , usual.there is no action sequence that will make you suddenly jerk from yoursofa ,saying "wow".

Altogether a waste of time.

It’s a matrix rip off with an interacial twist. It’s like a horrormovie. You’ll barf at the interacial love and couple. You’ll love theaction. Say no to interacial! IT’S back to the drawing board for theCPF Board on the proposed private pension plans after the fundmanagement industry made known that a voluntary pension scheme with noupfront fees on investment sales was unworkable.

The board said that it will "re-examine the original proposed frameworkand further study other pension funds to determine if more appropriatemodels would better serve the majority of CPF members’ needs".

It added: "Of note is industry’s concern that a critical mass ofparticipation to achieve lower costs is integral to the success of anyinvestment framework. These and other concerns highlighted from thefeedback will have to be addressed if the long term goal of enhancedreturns to members’ fund is to be achieved."

I don't know but this movie just kicks butt and I ain't going to lieabout it.

Jet Li is one of my favorite actors and this is one of his best actionmovies.

I saw this at the movies, I saw the ad for this and thought it wasgoing to be a good movie and it was just as good as they said it was.

You seen some of the most creative fight scenes ever in an actionmovie.

The story is very creative with a lot of twist and turns that willshock and thrill you.

THE ONE is just one of the most invent movies ever made and I was gladI saw this one at the movies.

The action and thrills in THE ONE are good enough to watch this awesomeflick of a movie.

The movies has some jokes that will make you laugh so hard also.

Jet Li has a good cast that star with him in this movie.

Overall I enjoy THE ONE at the movies and I enjoy the DVD which if youdon't own you need to own THE ONE.

THE ONE is a must own for any action movie fan.

I give THE ONE a ten out of ten.

THE ONE KICKS BUTT!!!

This movie is so dumb. You can tell that everything they do in it is fake.Don’t see it ever. It is not worth 1 penny. The story line is really badandyou cant understand half of what they are doing. I give it a 1/10. VeryBadmovie!

Jet Li has to fight himself (Holy Van Damme!) in this wire-fu quickieabout alternate universes and people jumping around in them. There isof course a good Li and a bad Li, and I will admit the good Li wasn’thalf-bad. His English was much better than I expected, based on seeinghim in several previous flicks, and he actually acted a bit. The bad Liwas a joke. The bad character consisted of a perpetual scowl and littleelse. Supporting players Delroy Lindo and Jason Statham asquasi-timecops can do nothing to save this flimsy martial arts vehicle.It isn’t as bad as TIMECOP 2 with the once-promising Jason Scott Lee,but then, what is? And I guess this flick hasn’t hurt Li’s career any.So what the hell. Li made himself a few bucks and looks prettypirouetting his way through an army of bad guys. The film keeps moving,I’ll give it that.

The One has a plot that has a good amount of loopholes, badly crafted scenesand an ending which had me shaking my head for about 15 minutes afterwards. It did have a lot of action though, with Jet Li doing his best in martialarts terms, and for fans of him or the genre it might be worth more than aglance. However, if you can’t really stand to see such talent- Li, DelroyLindo, Jason Statham, and director James (Final Destination) Wong- go towaste, this isn’t your movie. C+

THE ONE may have a bit of a dumb plot,and some ok acting, but the graphicsare very impressive just to look at,and the martial arts incredible too.With the slow motion-fast motion tricks that the matrix used,this moviedelivers something good to look at, as does the martial arts. AlthoughJackie Chan may be a better and a little more fun to watch, Jet Li is alsoquite good at martial arts as one might think. Overall, rent this movie,it’s worth the money and it’ll keep you at least entertained in the two waysI mentioned above.

this was really good a guy i know said why do you like this and notcrouching tiger it`s the same style of fighting running through mid airandall that malarky.well the reason i like this and the reason i HATE crouching tiger is - theone is far far superior to that movie a lot of people will disagree butwell what can i do about that it`s the way i feel.this film will be in my dvd collection but tiger will not EVER!!!!!!.

i watched crouching tiger for about 30 odd minutes and that was all icouldtake even the lovely Zhang ZIYI could not save this movie (tiger) any wayenough of that muck on with the comment`s on this movie.

if you like action movies then this will be right up your street :). oneofthe best action movie`s i`ve seen in age`s a lot of far fetched stuntscene`s but that is what made this movie enjoyable a fantasy action filmbetter than most of the muck that hollywood can throw ourway.

a couple of humourous part`s in it as well i will not give away too muchbutone funny part was were Li was in a body bag listening to these to goon`stalking s*** and what happen`s after he`s had enough of i:).rating for this movie 8/10.

not going to have a big review of this movie because there`s no need to ifyou like action film`s then go watch this you should like it .

The One of the thousands of bad movies out there. This movie was justuttercrap in my opinion. Gosh darnit! I liked Romeo Must Die, I really did, butthis movie was a real let down. And I didn’t like the reptetitive-ness. Itgot extremely boring.

The universe we know is only one of many parallel universes thatcontain an infinite number of possibilities for each person. Theseuniverses are policed to prevent people slipping between them and theirnumber one target is an ex-agent, Gabriel Yulaw, who was once forced tokill a version of himself and grew stronger as a result. With thisknowledge he sets out to kill all of his versions until only he is left– agents Roedecker and Funsch try to stop him. With only one version ofhimself left, Gabriel goes after Gabe Law, a police officer who is alsogrowing in power but cannot understand the significance of the fightthat is coming to him.

I like a bit of martial arts and it is only a bit of a shame thatHollywood is so rarely the best place to get it – even liftingdirecting and performing talent from the far east, the American filmsseem to too-often miss the mark. So it was with this film in that it isfun but not great, exciting but not spectacular, enjoyable butinstantly forgettable. The plot is a bit of a twist on ideas we’ve seenbefore and it is, as you’d expect, full of holes of the plot-variety(as opposed to those of the black or worm variety). Close considerationof the story will just fill you with confusion and the very same issuesthat prevent them just killing Gabriel during the film are justforgotten about by the end! However if you sit and fume over this thenyou are missing the point – this film is about the action rather thanthe plot. As such it does OK – it is fun and has a few big fights evenif i
t doesn’t compare to Li’s better films (not by a long way). The useof CGI is a little annoying but is not too bad, some of the fights arespoilt by the effects simply because it takes away from the ability ofthose involved. Li only really gets to shine in the fight with himself– which is better than it sounds!

In such an action film the cast have little to do but are actually OKhere. Li is good at the action but only average at everything else –his acting is weak and he isn’t able to do multiple characters, eg weknow the bad version because he just sneers all the time! Lindo teamsup again with him and adds a bit of class to the film but it is Stathamwho is better value and has a good screen presence even if he really isjust a one-trick pony thus far. Outside of these the support is run ofthe mill – the film could have showcased Li as an actor but it doesn’t– this is not about performances, it is about action and, accordingly,the performances aren’t very good.

Overall this is a good Saturday night film to have on if you arelooking to veg (as I was). The plot is full of holes and theperformances are weak but that is not the point of the film. The actionis good enough to pass even if it doesn’t stand up to the best of Li’swork. Martial arts fans will be p*ssed off at the use of CGI and thefact that yet another American film fails to use Li well but mostviewers will just enjoy it for what it is – a silly action movie thatis fun to watch but will be forgotten before you have even returned itto the rental store.

read comments (0)

The Man Who Wasn’t There

Being a big fan of Billy Bob Thornton and having really enjoyed `OBrother,Where Art Thou?’ (The last movie by the Coen brothers) I was expecting alot of this movie. It started very slow but I expected it to eventuallypick up. After almost 2 hours the credits began to roll and I foundmyselfsitting in the Theatre thinking that I have just wasted 2 hours of mytime.There was a lot of great potential but the only thing the writers seemedtoaccomplish was missing any and every opportunity to make the film at leastsemi enjoyable. This movie makes my top ten of the worst movies I haveeverseen. Save yourself 2 hours and skip this one.

I was sucked in by the reviews, and even the scores from this database.I’msorry, but the Cohen’s deal didn’t work this time. The movie certainlyhadthe fresh plot line and offbeat nature that is classic Cohen, but as muchasI tried to hang in there, it just never came to the point where I wentwow,like I eventually did on Lebowski, and especially for ‘O Brother’, not tomention Fargo. Not this time. This one simply misses.

Being a unique plotline, and offbeat is really intriguing when it works,butthis one simply didn’t.My recommendation: rent "o brother" again…

I’ve seen the film in a sneak preview, I don’t like Coen Brothers moviesvery much but when you’re sitting in the middle of the row you don’t wanttostumble over all the people’s feet, so you stay.I thought, okay "O Brother …" was sort of okay, let’ssee.I almost fell asleep because it was so boring …Nothing happens in it, there’s always this one little piece of scoreplaying( Carter Burwell, brilliant as ever ) and my ears were almost talked offwith nonsense, imho at least.

Thornton is the lynchpin in this old school noir flick by the Coens.Unfortunately, Thornton is a drab, laconic, and deadpan lynchpin stuck in aplodding story of murder, adultery, and other intrigues which is less thanprovocative, engaging, compelling or even interesting. On the upside, theflick is a good shoot, well crafted, well acted, etc. On the downside, we’regiven 90 minutes of boredom and no one to really care about….no hero, novillain, no action or shred or wisp or fragment of titillation…nada,zero, zip. Worth a look for but best saved for broadcast.

I couldn’t keep my eyes awake through this movie. It’s mostly slow movingand boring with some interesting parts put in, such as when Ed Crane murdershis wife’s boss and his wife gets blamed for it. The main concept of thestory line is pretty interesting, I’ll admit, but the presentation of thestory just didn’t do it for me. Furthermore, most of the film seems to be a simple dedication to older,better films, like Citizen Kane and Exotica. In fact, ‘birdy’ just seems tobe taken directly from Sarah Polley’s roles in both Exotica and The SweetHereafter; the main character escaping harsh reality through her music andother actions, and the accident. This may have been on done purposely, butafter watching so many great movies and then seeing them done over in thismovie is just clichéd to me.

The Man Who Wasn’t There

Film noirs have been done excellently over the past years, but not many areas great as they could be. That’s why, after seeing commercials and readingreviews for `The Man Who Wasn’t There,’ I expected a lot from the film.Unfortunately, it was very disappointing.

Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is second-hand at a barbershop in 1949. He`doesn’t talk much,’ he says `I just cut the hair.’ Well, that’s true. EdCrane barely talks at all. The only thing we hear from him throughout thefilm is his strangely soft and unmoving voice-over narrative recalling theaccounts of the past few weeks of his quiet life.

The story begins when Crane suspects that his wife (Academy Award WinnerFrances McDormand) is having an affair with the rich manager of a clothingstore, named Big Dave (James Gandolfini). After Crane hears about a drycleaning scam from a customer, he blackmails Big Dave for ten thousanddollars to invest in the dry cleaning business. Unfortunately, Big Dave soonfinds out who the blackmailer is, and in a moment of self-defense, Cranekills Big Dave.Now, Crane’s wife has been convicted of murder, and everything in his lifegoes downhill from there on…

`The Man Who Wasn’t There’ starts off very good. The beginning credits weremore than reminiscent of the Humphrey Bogart era, and so was the calmvoice-over by Thornton. I was instantly engaged in the story of this manliving in a small town in California, and how his life could possibly getany worse. Well, after about an hour, the film had barely moved along atall. The pacing for this movie is very slow, and there are many films thatcould – and should – have been cut not only due to time, but because theypaid nothing to the film’s progress or character development in anyway.

Billy Bob Thornton is very good as Ed Crane, and uses the same quiettechnique as he did with the character in `Sling Blade.’ The movie is worthseeing just for his convincing performance.

Frances McDormand is quite believable as his wife; the kind of small-townwife you always hear about. Bingo on Tuesday, alcohol throughout the week;she seems very depressed, and that is probably why she begins to have anaffair with Big Dave.

James Gandolfini would not be my first choice for the character of BigDave, but he pulled it off quite nicely. The obese man proves he has moreacting talent than just playing Tony Soprano (John Goodman would have made anice choice for Big Dave, only because he is almost always in the CoenBrothers’ films and it seems like they wrote the part for him. I’m surprisedthey didn’t get him for the part – maybe they tried and herefused?).

Tony Shaloub (`Men In Black’) plays the most enjoyable role of a big-townlawyer sent in to defend McDormand’s character. He is wacky, enjoyable, andhis crazy antics make the film. His are the only scenes I really laughed at.It seemed the most like a `Fargo Moment.’

The Coen Brothers, creators of `Fargo’ and the disappointing `O Brother,Where Art Thou,’ wrote and directed this film (well, Joel directed, Ethanproduced, they both wrote the script…).

I was in the minority about `O Brother, Where Art Thou.’ I thought the filmwas boring, slow-paced and weird (what was the ending all about?). `Fargo’was excellent, mainly because it was demented humor and a great script, withsome great actors. This film, however, seems to be boasting `original’ allover. It seems the brothers are trying to stuff their recent films with oddbits and pieces to make them original. Well, I didn’t find itoriginal.

In the end, `The Man Who Wasn’t There’ is not a winner. It could have been,but after an hour the film seems to slow down to a miserably slow pace,without any good surprises (like no one saw the end coming?). How this gotso much attention from the critics is beyond me, because it just seems likeone of those `Look at me! I’m original!’ films. That’s two disappointingCoen Brothers films in a row. For me, at least.

2.5/5 stars – turn the movie off once you get an hour – 1.5 hours intoit…

John Ulmer

I’ve been a huge Coen Bros. fan since I saw Barton Fink on BBC2 - youknow, back when BBC2 showed decent movies. Almost a decade has passedand I have done my damnedest to watch every single one of their films.I adored some of them so much that I watched them dozens of times over.Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Blood Simple, Miller’s Crossing - these filmswere absolutely perfect, certainly the work of genius. Sadly, thisparticular film was a real ordeal.

The Film That Wasn’t There - sorry, did I get the title right? - struckme as a turgid, meandering, soullessly flat and contrived work. It feltlike somebody was playing a cruel joke on me. The film seemed to dragon interminably, and my interest in the characters waned to noth
ingwithin about 30 minutes. Billy Bob Thornton’s narration, conveyed in adreadful Monsieur Waldemar-style death-croak, really started to grate,and I started to think: this is really, really ball-achingly awful.

Several people I know have watched this film and loved it. They calledit beautiful and funny. I didn’t think that it was either of thesethings. If you take a bad film, with an unprepossessing script, aflimsy and derivative plot, and as boring and weightless a centralcharacter as you can imagine and top it off with a horribledeath-rattle voice-over, shooting in in black and white to make it looklike a classic is like putting icing on a Brian Bosworth movie. I feltextremely cynical after the film; yes, people smoking cigarettes inblack and white looks lovely, but we’ve seen Schindler’s List already.

As I said, some people loved this film. People whose judgment I trust,even. It’s one of those movies you have to see for yourself - you mightthink it’s the best film for ages. Or you might, like me, want to takeyour ex-rental copy back to Blockbusters and try to get your £2.95back.

Are the Coens the new fashion? (Do we believe the Emperor is wearingclothes even if we don’t see them?)

Without exception (and I have seen "Blood Simple," "Fargo","HudsuckerProxy," "O Brother Where Art Thou?," "Miller’s Crossing" and tried 3 timesto sit through "The Big Lebowski")I have been left cold by each story,telling myself (except for Hudsucker,which just stank, plain and simple)thatthey were evolving. I thought "Fargo" was funny in places (thought Margiewas divine)but it went on too long. I tried "Miller’s Crossing" because Ilike Gabriel Byrne and Mellissa Gay Harden. There were redeeming moments,but not many.

Then too, I’m not particularly amused by seeing the same supportingcharacters over and over again. In fact, I find it distracting. Thesefamiliar faces never become lost in the character. It’s simply Jon Polito,for example, playing another fat sleaze. I have tried to see a pattern intheir films. I tried to find extenuating circumstances for the lack ofentertainment value in a series of films which have obviously been painfullyconstructed. Problem is, all you see is how painstaking it is.

I don’t want to see the zipper in the back of the monster’s suit. I want tobe entertained. In a literate fashion, if possible, which this one stroveto be, but not necessarily. I like silly stuff well enough -Loved, forexample, "Beautician and the Beast," the new "Mummy" and its sequel. Eventhe Di Caprio "Man in the Iron Mask." I loved Billy Bob or Bille Ray orwhoever he is, in "Primary Colors." He had a character there and hedeveloped it. In this one, I KNOW he’s the man of the title, but who gave ad—? Sure, he disappeared. Sure, he was supposed to. I GET it, but youknow what? I think he was bored.

I know I was.

I think somebody decided the Coens were cool, or hip, or chic, and word ofmouth has solemnly carried them along.

The popcorn was great - just the right amount of butter - but the movie wasreally boring.

Have you seen "The Others?" Incredible! Classy AND entertaining.

In my mind, the Coen brothers have made one excellent movie: Barton Fink.

Fargo: I still don’t understand what the fuss was all about, I didn’tthinkit was very funny. Blood Simple was a half successful thriller. The BigLebowski had its moments, but it wasn’t a good movie. Then we come to O’Brother, which doesn’t interest me at all and this movie. It was awful.Thestory was just lame, with some really weird subplots (like the UFO). BillyBob Thornton however, did an excellent job and James Gandolfini was goodasalways. It also looked great, in black and white. Tony Shalhoub had somefunny moments, too. The big problem here is the story, which basicallydoesn’t exist.The night before I went to see this movie, I saw Apocalypse Now Redux. Icould certainly tell the difference!

If you like noir movies you MIGHT like this one. Otherwise, I wouldstay away. I’m pretty sure 90% of the people who like this movie areCoen fans who would like anything that they do, no matter howunwatchable, and defend them to the death.

There are a couple of positives. Tony Shalhoub is always good, nomatter what. Scarlett Johansson is good but it was distracting for mehow much she looks like Laura Prepon in this movie. Oh, and the firstcouple of minutes were alright. Beyond that, sheer boredom.

The Coens are just too hit or miss. Big Lebowski - my favorite movieRaising Arizona - also good Fargo/Oh Brother - barely watchable,incredibly overrated Man Who../Ladykillers/Hudsucker - soul-numbinglydull

If you like Man Who Wasn’t There, good for you. But I just can’trecommend this movie to anyone. According to the current IMDb ratingI’m way off here, but I still think it’s a movie only a select fewpeople can enjoy.

read comments (0)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Wizard Gandalf retrieves an evil ring from Bilbo Baggins he finds it’s truenature and must destroy. Frodo, a hobbit with a pure enough heart to resistthe ring, is selected to make the journey to destroy thering.

The story here is very heavy and a good job has been made of trimming downthe story to make it accessible to those not familiar with the story. Thecharacters are quite well developed - the beauty of the film is that itknows it will be a trilogy of films so it doesn’t have to rush pastcharacterisation where other films would need to get down to action quicklyto ensure that it can get a sequel greenlighted.

The visuals are fantastic, the special effects are brilliant and are mixedwell with New Zealand’s natural scenery to great effect, there’s no doubtingthat Jackson can cope with such a grand canvas to work on. The actionscenes are also very well handled and the monster special effects are mostlygood (only occasionally it is obvious that some are computergenerated).

The main problem with the film is that it isn’t a lot of fun. I know itwants to be serious but it also needs to be fun for the audience to watch,three hours is a long time to sit listening to lots of talk about familytrees and ancient quests etc. I didn’t want comedy but it all took itselftoo seriously to be totally enjoyable. Another problem with it is that thepacing is all off - the film has a set pattern that goes all the waythrough, first a talky scene with slow camera movements, then the musicchanges, the camera starts zooming around and we enter an action scene, thenback to a talky scene, then an action/chase scene and so on. It all gets abit tiresome with it’s continual cut between action/talking/action/talkingwith a relentless monotony. There’s nothing wrong with the content but itall gets a bit tiresome after a while.

The cast are roundly great - almost totally well cast with the exception ofHugo Weaving who looks, sounds and acts just like his character in theMatrix - it makes it too distracting. Wood as Frodo is a little too seriousat times, gazing off into the distance and delivering straight dialogue. Bean and Mortensen are both great, Bean especially with his flawed characterstruggling against the ring. The best character in the film is the ring! The film suffers from not having a bad guy to focus on (Christopher Lee isbuilt up but he isn’t the main source of evil). Giving the ring itself theability to tempt and manipulate and speak, this makes it the main evilcharacter and makes the quest even more tense.

Overall it’s a big grown up blockbuster with amazing effects but it isn’tvery much fun to watch (not just laughs but basic enjoyment). A good filmbut far from perfect - 4 out of 5.

Most overrated series in Hollywood’s history.

Has the biggest media marketed phony fan base, an movie has everwitnessed. Just goes to show how forming your own opinion is now a lostart. Now its what the media tells you that is "good". I just wish moviepatrons would stop being sheep.

I find it hilarious how few people actually read this book before themovie came out. Then INSTANTLY overnight…everyone was an immediatefan, like they dusted off their old copies of this trilogy andrejoiced. Funny how Tolkien sold more copies of that book AFTER themovie was made. So exactly where did all these "fans" come from.Proving my point on mass marketing.

i hate it i hate it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is amindlessly boring, childish piece of crap, a three hour film aboutWALKING. the hobbits are so annoying i wanted to execute each one ofthem personally. i spat on the person who made me watch this andhaven't seen them since. if i do I will take them to Mount Boredoom andtoss THEM into the flames.

three hours of my life down the pan so those ugly little gits cansquirm about in Hollywood mud? un-pucking-believable. i don't blamePeter J, hes agreat director who's obviously found his money spinner -fair play, but unless you are either a kid or someone who loves thiskind of twee nonsense, stay well clear. For fantasy at its best, RobertE Howard (Conan the Barbarian) is the true master.

the lord of the rings trilogy is so long and so boring that if anyonewatches them all in row they have no lives. the story is about a midgetwho acquires this stupid ring with dumb powers. he can't fight to savehis life and is protected by three random weirdos who all look likebums. the fight sequences were half decent but they still were not asgood as i would have hoped for. a lot people like these pieces of crapmovies and live there lives by them, well guess what losers you are nota hobbit so go out and get a real job and stop living with your mother.As for the awards that they won its a bunch of crap that makes me madbecause other good movies deserved the awards but instead slack jawedidiots chose these for awards. good job dummies you deserve a pat onthe back.

I haven't seen the movie when it was shown first, but I have readraving commentaries of the film critics. Having seen it, I couldn'tbelieve my eyes. Were the critics struck by collective blindness? Wasthis movie sponsored by Bush administration? It is a story about MEN(who else?) of various races fighting against the "axis of evil". Theorcs are obviously Native Americans. The unreliable Boromir isobviously a Slav. When the most feminine race, the elves, are in doubtabout anything, they "need to ask their father". Cate Blanchett (thefemale elf) "survives the test", but only because the test is in herhead. If the point is that the females are equally prone to be temptedby power, the point is well taken, but somewhat ambiguously made.Generalized violence dominates all. What is this all about??? I do notdare to consult my Tolkien in case it really is an eulogy of maleviolence.

Follow in "The Lord of the Rings" creator's (J.R.R. Tolkien's)footsteps. Project a malevolent universe. Invent a world and animate itwith creatures in conflict. Make the conflict a battle between good andevil, but don't identify clearly the moral value or purpose of eitherside. In fact, remove morality's essence altogether by eliminating thepower of choice for your characters. Emphasize the corruptibility ofmen. Glamorize the supernatural. Dwell interminably on the preparationsfor and the wreaking of violence and destruction, on the fragility ofhope and happiness. Name the scene of action: Middle-earth. Sound likean environment you'd care to envision? Would you "live" there? If so,fate alone will decide its survival and your own. You can visit thispredetermined "paradise" by watching/enduring/suffering Peter Jackson'selaborately filmed adaptation of Tolkien's epic trilogy, which beginswith "The Fellowship of the Ring."

I hold it is true that what is not worth contemplating in life is notworth contemplating in art. For its dismaying lack of meaningful moraldefinition, its pervasive pictorial ugliness, the quantity of itsscenes of mind-numbing graphic violence, and its minimizing of thevalue of happiness, "The Lord of the Rings" films—including thisone—ought to be shunned and damned.

And this movie is as good an explanation as any. It goes on, and on,and on.

It's basically a 1-hour drama, that's been stretched into 3 by thesimple expedient of drawing-out every detail. Unfortunately, most ofthem seem to exceed my attention-span, and I find myself constantlywilling the thing to move on when instead it lingers, and lingers. On aface, on an expression, on a parting, on a re-union; every take isd-i-s-t-e-n-d-e-d as if in some kind of slow-motion celebration.Speeches are endless, verbose and largely uninformative. Revellationsthat could be made in a single line pour out as thickly and asgradually as cold molasses. This is exact
ly how I found Mr T's book.

The bottom line of any story is this: do we begin to care about thecharacters? Well, I certainly don't. I couldn't care a toss. They couldall get swallowed-up by the evil-one with good luck and begone. And whoneeds to care about a wizard that is apparently immortal, but yet can'tspot a double-cross from his own boss. Crikey; even I could see thatone coming; it was Christopher Lee, for heaven's sake.

There is no arguing with the splendid camera-work and lighting.Likewise the special-effects and CGI are surely beyond criticism. Realand imaginary landscapes blend in a seamless testament to back-roomcreativity. The idea of a tiny all-powerful trinket is also veryintriguing. But the endless meetings, the endless goodbyes, the endlessbattles, the endless monologues, the implausible mood-swings, themaudlin sentimentality, the shocked, staring, angry, knowing,expressions that linger, linger on, gobbling-up the celluloid and theprecious moments of my life, and the sheer tight-arsed-ness of a moviethat takes itself more seriously than its viewers, ultimately breaks myheart and has me reaching for the coffee pot.

Clearly, I am not a Tolkien fan. But I shouldn't have to be in order toenjoy this movie. Neither am I a fan of Alistair Maclean, but I stillenjoyed 'Where Eagles Dare' & 'The Guns Of Navarone'.

There have been no less than 2 sequels, which I understand to beequally pompous and boring. Lord bless the name of Tolkien. I willnever live long enough to see them.

This is the first part of the famous trilogy based on the well-lovedbooks by writer J.R.R. Tolkien. Long ago in Middle-Earth an evil lordSauron in the land of Mordor forged a ring of evil powers in the firesof Mount Doom. Years later Bilbo Baggins (Sir Ian Holm) of The Shirefinds this ring and leaves it to Frodo (Elijah Wood). Accompied by afellowship of friends/heroes he must return this ring to Mount Doom todestroy it. This fellowship includes Sam (The Goonie's Sean Astin),Pippin (introduction by Billy Boyd), Merry (introduction by DominicMonaghan, now known in TV's Lost), Gandalf the Grey wizard (Oscar andBAFTA nominated Sir Ian McKellen), Aragorn/Strider (Viggo Mortensen),Boromir (Sean Bean) and Legolas (introduction by Orlando Bloom).Meanwhile, betraying White wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) in Isengardhas an army hideous of Orcs and Urukhai to find the ring, along withthe terrifying Nazgûl (Ring-wraiths). Also starring Liv Tyler as Arwen,Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, The Matrix's Hugo Weaving as Elrond andAndy Serkis as Gollum/Sméagol. BAFTA winning, and Oscar and GoldenGlobe nominated director Peter Jackson has created an excellent startto the trilogy filled with marvellous landscapes and great action. Itwon the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, BestMakeup and Best Music for Howard Shore, and it was nominated for BestArt Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, BestSound, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Producedor Published, Best Song for Enya's fantastic "May It Be" (alsonominated the Golden Globe) and Best Picture, and it won the BAFTAs forthe Audience Award, Best Special Visual Effects, Best Make Up/Hair, theDavid Lean Award for Direction and Best Film, and it was nominated forthe Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music, the BAFTA Children's Awardfor Best Feature Film, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, BestEditing, Best Production Design, Best Adapted Screenplay and BestSound, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture -Drama and Best Original Score. Christopher Lee was number 31 on The 100Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 13, and Sir Ian McKellen number 4on The 50 Greatest British Actors, and McKellen was number 5 onBritain's Finest Actors, the film was number 16 on The Ultimate Film,and as part of the trilogy, all three films were number 11 on The 100Greatest Family Films. Outstanding!

The preamble of "The Lord Of the Rings" thankfully isn’t so pedanticthat we are forced to wade through every cranny of J.R.R. Tolkien’sfanciful-but-incredibly-detailed set-up for the story, but neither isit anything more than just a jumble of scenes (an expansive butdarkly-lit battle, close-ups of faces, wind blowing the hair ofwarriors), and once the actual plot got underway I had hope that thisfractured fairy tale-style was just an aberration. The first hour isactually rather leisurely, with an introduction to the Hobbit villagethat is sweet if a little slow (and hampered by show-off fireworkseffects). But once the first journey is undertaken by the Fellowship,frenetic action scenes, too many battles, and countless close-ups ofTHE RING in someone’s palm take over. The direction is deadening,relying far too heavily on special effects and sound effects to juicethe narrative. The acting is good except from the women (Cate Blanchettand Liv Tyler are poorly-used) and we get elaborate glimpses of magicalworlds without ever gaining a sense of their histories. Blanchett rulesthe Forest of Women, and indeed it is eye-popping, but the scene is abummer, only included so Blanchett could help forecast Elijah Wood’sfuture (scenes from the next installment!). The movie is not a cheat:it packs in a lot of astounding action, but that’s all it is, actionfor it’s own sake. The art directors go for overkill in dazzling thisthing up, but lovers of intriguing and substantial content will feelundernourished. The film gives you your money’s worth, sure, but onlyin style. **1/2 from ****

Very good fantasy movie that is so good,it is definitely as of now(Dec.2001) the greatest MAGIC AND DRAGONS fantasy movie all time,beatingoutLEGEND and WILLOW easily.I would also say that as of now,this movie is alsothe SECOND greatest CGI movie ever made right after EPISODE I:THE PHANTOMMENACE.Not because the CGI effects in THE PHANTOM MENACE was better,it isbecause AS A WHOLE overall,THE PHANTOM MENACE was still a better movie.Andwe all know that compared to the greatest films of all time,THE PHANTOMMENACE would not be found anywhere at the TOP 20. when I say this dearreader,I mean to say that as great a FANTASY MAGIC/DRAGON/CGI movie LORD OFTHE RINGS is,it still is a long way from being even at the top 50 of thealltime greatest movies.Why?The characters were dull!I did not care for thecharacters at all!Even the greatest character in the movie which happens tobe the good old wizard hardly got a whimper out of me when he fell into adeep crevice inside the dwarf’s mountain!I did not buy it because a fewminutes before he was already defeated by the evil wizard(nicely played byCHRISTOPHER LEE) and got out of it unscratched.The second time around,histragedy looked silly and something he might get out of again.Nothingcompared to the chills I got when OBI-WAN was struck down by DARTH VADER inSTAR WARS for example(a true big leagues movie).And also,the movie does notknow whether to be cartoonish or hardcore(much like the mistake of RETURNOFTHE JEDI).The battle scenes were incredible but then it has those sillySaturday morning cartoon scenes like when there was those scenes at theElves territory as the good characters were forming the brotherhood of thering.Those scenes were so amateurish in script and too dragged out aswell.This movie was really helped by the improvements of CGI technology andalso by the realistic,little compromise battle/combatsequences.Probably,thenext installent will be even better.I hope so at least in the area ofcharacterisation.Still this is one great fantasy movie that must not bemissed by any fan of the genre.The CGI displayed here really excites mebecause I am sure it can only get better and better for the movieindustry…….

read comments (0)

The Glass House

The Glass House is a very good film that has a good cast which includesLeelee Sobieski, Diane Lane, Stellan Skarsgård, Bruce Dern, KathyBaker, Trevor Morgan, Chris Noth, Michael O’Keefe, Vyto Ruginis, GavinO’Connor, Carly Pope, China Shavers, Agnes Bruckner, Michael Paul Chan,Rachel Wilson, Rutanya Alda, Erick Avari, Mia Barrentine, JohnBillingsley, and Rita Wilson! The acting by all of these actors is verygood. Sobieski, Lane, Skarsgård and Dern are really excellent in thisfilm. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really goodand some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The musicis good by Christopher Young. The film is quite interesting and themovie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good andthrilling film. If you like s Leelee Sobieski, Diane Lane, StellanSkarsgård, Bruce Dern, Kathy Baker, Trevor Morgan, Chris Noth, MichaelO’Keefe, Rita Wilson, the rest of the cast in the film, Thrillers,Horror, Action, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommendyou to see this film today!

Are you tired of the already-clichéd genre of teen `horror-thriller’ movies?Then skip The Glass House, yet another entry into this overgrowing yetpopular series of movies that appeal to few, as the average critic’s ratingcan show.

Leelee Sobieski is Ruby Baker, a rebellious 16-year-old. Her brother Rhett(Trevor Morgan) is a typical 11-year-old who loves video games. One day,however, their parents die in a car accident and they are sent to live withfamily friends, Terry and Erin Glass (Stellan Skarsgård and Diane Lane).They have a huge Beverly Hills house made out of-you guessed it-glass.However, Ruby and Rhett’s parents left over $4 million in inheritance, andcould the Glasses be after that money, or is it Ruby’s overacting teenageimagination? You get three guesses and the first two don’tcount.

One or two tense scenes and good acting by one person does not a good moviemake. The predictability of it all is just stunning, and, in case youcouldn’t tell some things, director Daniel Sackheim (TV’s Kingpin) decidedto show every single detail so we could understand what was happening. It’sto my understanding that most movies are supposed to have a little air ofmystery, a little cliffhanger, something to keep you guessing, to keep youenthralled. No such luck here, since everything here was so thuddingobvious, it wasn’t any fun to watch.

One of the only good parts of an otherwise degrading film was Skarsgård. Heis a powerful leading man (incidentally, his performance in The Glass Houseis similar to his performance in the subpar, 1997 Norwegian Insomnia), andit showed here, except he wasn’t the lead. One of those supposedup-and-coming stars that fade out after their one `hit’ when they’re praisedfor their acting when actually they overact is Sobieski. She seemed excitedto play a lead, and tried hard, but it just didn’t work. Lane has almost noscreen time, making her subplot about being addicted to insulinworthless.

There were one or two tense scenes, but unsuspenseful scenes of mediocritysurrounded them. I think that since all of it was so predictable, thatreally killed the suspense. If you want to see a worse teen horror-thriller,see Swimfan. But if you want a mediocre one, then see The GlassHouse.

My rating: 5/10

Rated PG-13 for sinister thematic elements, violence, drug content andlanguage.

Spoilers herein.

There aren’t many movies that try to work with architecture, so we need tocelebrate them when they do.

Some have been hugely successful, like the second Harry Potter, and somelargely incompetent like `Life as a House.’ A few rather effective for whatthey are: `Camelot’ and `Thirteen Ghosts’ for instance.All are based onprinciples developed by Welles and Tarkovsky.

What we have here is pretty competent so far as the use of the house, bothas a metaphor and a device. It works well to add texture to the photography(with the water) and framing. All else (story, acting, editing) is tooordinary to spend time with.

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

Search Help

tips

Ending Your Listing Early

Sometimes something goes wrong and you can’t complete your listing asplanned. If needed, you can choose to end your listing before thescheduled date. If there are bids on your item, you can cancel them.Reasons for ending listings early include:

Note: Your account will still be charged listing fees (such as theInsertion Fee) if you end your listing early. Consider revising yourlisting first if there are aspects of it you want to change or improve.

* The item is no longer available for sale.

* There was an error in the starting price or reserve amount.

* There was an error in the listing.

* The item was lost or broken.

Timing Matters When there are 12 hours or fewer remaining and the itemhas a winning bid, including a reserve met bid, sellers may not makeany changes to the listing, including:

* ending the item early. Sellers may cancel bids, but not end the itemunless the item is being sold to the high bidder

* adding to or changing the item description

* converting the item to pure-approved bidder

Canceling bids or making changes to a listing with b

Once you figure out the twist (I give you twenty minutes!) thecharacters, the developments, the walk-ons, the music all refuse tostray from the path you anticipate. It robotically advances to the samelazy conclusion you're already seen in hundreds of equally junkythrillers, fearful of going anywhere fresh.

This doesn't have an ounce of life, originality, wit… etc. It couldhave been released with the title "Thriller Movie # 326-R" and theresult would have been the same. Movies are more than actors showing upand hitting their lighting cues, and the camera being in focus.

It might be appropriate for easily-frightened youngsters who have neverseen these exhausted thriller moments before; …who have never seendumb screenwriters make dumb characters do dumb things just to keep thetension going. Could anyone possibly love this movie? It's so tepid anduninspired that you can't even hate it. It's just junk. Is it possibleto depise a Twinkie?

Can you imagine the effort expended getting this made that might havebeen spent sleeping? It boggles the mind.

It’s Friday night and your looking for a great movie to rent. DO NOTchoosethis one. PHEW!

1. Predictable2. Rehashed plot3. Insulting to the intellect.

For those of you interested in a summary of the movie - please readsomeoneelse’s comments - I cannot bear to live through the agony of actuallyDESCRIBING this film.

Even though I couldn’t stand this movie, I was still tempted to hear thedirector’s commentary (DVD) just so I could see if he used the phrase: "Wewanted to make the house its own character." AAARRGH!

1/4 of a Pahbie point (out of 5)

" The Glass House " is a decent thriller ruined by extremely sloppy shootingabout half way through when the little brother, who had obviously beenworked past the legal child labor law limit and been sent home for thenight, mysteriously disappeared from the car his sister was driving andthen miraculously re-appeared in the next scene back at the house like he’dnever left. This could easily have been shot around without insulting theintelligence of viewers who were paying attention. For this reason alone, Igive this film a 1 out of 10.

Suspense is what drives a good movie. "The Glass House" is a veryintriguing and suspenseful movie. I don't why the critics put down onit. I thought it's very entertaining. I don't know about the script,but the plot is very good. Being orphaned is a painful process to gothrough. An accident is an acc
ident right? For some people it's hard toaccept, for Ruby(Leelee Sobieski) and Rhett(Trevor Morgan) theirparents death was NO accident! It was total sabotage. The Bakersiblings suspect their guardians The Glasses(Stellan Skarsgard andDiane Lane) of their murder. The Bakers live in their house, but theliving conditions makes the slums look like a better place to live.Ruby has no privacy, when she changes clothes, she knows it's not herbrother watching. When they found out that The Glasses are after themoney, it's up to themselves to stop these greedy guardians. This movieis kinda of like most other movies I've seen, somehow, the sex appeal,and the mind-games are always there to make it look good. Fine movie,fine cast, I probably ambush the The Glass House in a gauntlet and madesure the kids are safe. Better yet, sell everything the Glasses own!Rating 3 out of 5 stars.

The seemingly-good-people-turn-out-to-be-something-else plot has beenused so many times that another one hardly registers. Don't get mewrong. "The Glass House" isn't a bad movie by any stretch, but the plotseems pretty routine. Still, the movie itself manages to be prettyintense, building things up in such a way that usually only wouldhappen in an Ira Levin novel. As it is, you just may never trust anyoneagain after watching this movie.

So, all in all, it's an OK movie. But I do usually expect just a littlebit better from Leelee Sobieski, Diane Lane, Stellan Skarsgard andBruce Dern.

So should people in glass houses throw stones?

I was really looking forward to this movie but I got a big let down. Theplot was SO predictable and the writing was awful. Throughout the wholemovie you’re wondering why Ruby doesn’t go tell the police what’s goingon.You also wonder how anyone can be oblivious to what’s going on. overallthis movie was not worth seeing.

read comments (0)

The Caveman’s Valentine

Samuel L. Jackson is a very good actor, and everybody knows that. Hisperformance here is remarkable and he really makes character strong. Thestory is interesting, but not brilliant or really original. Anyway, "TheCaveman’s Valentine" pleases and is recommended.

my rate 7/10

Fairly good yarn with Samuel L. playing a different role from his usualhard-ass bad boy. He suffers from some kind of psychosis which keeps himfrom doing concerts even though he is a fine musician, but his problemsdonot stop him from figuring out whom is the criminal and whom thescapegoatin an elaborate murder case.

The Caveman’s Valentine was really a disappointing film.Sure Sam Jacksonputon a great performance and Terence Blanchard’s score was great especiallythe theme but other than that this one is a stinker.During the whole filmIthought that Colm Feore looked just like Liam Neesan but withouthair.Sometimes you just don’t know what is happening in the film and Ididn’t care for that mixed sex scene either.I really can’t say any moreexcept only see this if you are a hardcore fan of Samuel L. Jackson!

"The Caveman’s Valentine" is a fascinating, uncondescending explorationof schizophrenia AND a workable mystery with a surprise at the end.Before viewing it, I expected more of the latter, but the movie keepsits ingredients on a uniquely suspenseful balance. Samuel Jackson isimpressive, both for accepting such an "unglamorous" role and for theway he actually pulls it off. Movies that have something different toshow you are so rare these days that when you get the chance to watchone, you shouldn’t miss it. (***)

I had to wait for the video on this one because it did not play in anylocaltheaters. However, I would have paid a theater price to see it. SamuelJackson does an outstanding job playing Romulus, the mentally ill homelessman. The story is not the most original but plays well in this setting.Not one I am going to watch again and again, but not a waste of 2 hourseither.

The crime story aspect of the story is just filler. The movie is abrilliantexploration of a psychotic’s delusional world. It was often difficult formeto realize which was "real" and which was part of Romulus’ fantasy life.Aunjanue Ellis as Sam Jackson’s daughter is very strong. A lot of theimagery, particularly of Romulus’ moth-seraphs, is very beautiful. Greatjob, director Kasi Lemmons. I look forward to her nextfilm!

Samuel L. Jackson is usually a dependable actor, and he doesn'tdisappoint in the mind-bending "Caveman's Valentine". Playing homelessRomulus Ledbetter taking it upon himself to find a murderer in New YorkCity, he really draws you in. We don't often see such intenseportrayals of decaying psyches, and I don't think that anyone exceptJackson could do it like this.

All in all, this may not be the ultimate masterpiece, but it is a moviethat I recommend. You may not be able to trust your own judgment afterwatching this. Also starring Colm Feore and Anthony Michael Hall (yep,the Brat Packer).

Weird. The three valentine-titled flicks in my vocabulary are allthrillers of some sort. There's this one plus "Valentine" and "MyBloody Valentine" (those last two are slasher movies).

While "The Caveman's Valentine" of 2001 is not necessarily the mostessential film Samuel L. Jackson has ever been part of (this titleobviously goes to "Pulp Fiction"), it is arguably the film that showshis great talent like no other. Kasi Lemmons' obscure 2001 mysterythriller allows Jackson to prove his talent to play an eccentriccharacter more than any other film I've seen him in. Jackson playsRomulus Ledbetter, a mentally disturbed former piano virtuoso, whoseparanoid schizophrenia has driven him away from his wife and daughter,into homelessness. The wild-looking Ledbetter, who sports longdreadlocks and a full beard and lives in a cave in New York's InwoodPark, is commonly referred to as 'The Caveman'. When a the Cavemanfinds the frozen corpse of a young man in a tree near his cave, he isdedicated to solving the case. Ledbetter is convinced that DavidLeppenraup (Colm Feore), a famous gay photographer of macabre pictures,has something to to with the murder of the young man. No one, ofcourse, is willing to believe Ledbetter, who is also convinced that anevil entity called Stuyvesant is controlling the world with the help ofrays… I do not want to give too much away, but I can assure that "TheCaveman's Valentine" is a more than recommendable film with greatperformances that no lover of mystery should miss. Samuel L. Jackson isfantastic as the Caveman, and I could not imagine any other actor tofit the role as greatly as Jackson does. Colm Feore, also a very goodactor, fits greatly in the role of the sinister Leppenraup. Thesupporting performance are entirely very good too. The film is veryimaginatively shot, suspenseful, and often has a very eerie atmosphere.Especially Ledbetters visions are nightmarish and impressive. All said,"The Caveman's Valentine" is a very original mystery with anexceptional lead that comes with high recommendations from me!

I saw this movie at Sundance and was completely blown away. Sam Jacksongives the performance of his career. Kasi Lemmons’ directing is beyondfabulous. Quite simply, this is one of the best films I have ever seen.Withso many goofy movies about mental illness, finally here’s a film thatreallyunderstands its subject.

I’m a huge Samuel L Jackson fan but my high hopes for this film fell waybelow expectation. I thought I was just too aware of his presence butactually he’s miscast. He delivers his lines with no fluctuation of toneandjust simply isn’t convincing. His braids look incredibly fake and ahomelessman would never be able to afford extensions.

The plot goes from what could be a character study of a Julliard-trainedhomeless paranoid schizophrenic to an unbelievable murder mystery. Hisobsession with a murder is one thing but he becomes a new detective hero,Homeless Man, P.I. The fantasy/hallucinations work well enough (thoughthey’re like an African-American version of Madonna’s "Express Yourself"video), but it’s the reality scenes that don’t. Samuel’s lovescene/subplotwith Ann Magnuson isn’t believable, doesn’t progress the plot and could betotally eliminated. And how was he able to afford to go all the way out tothe countryside to see her as many times as he did?

High production values can’t save this film from being silly and it couldhave been much more. I loved "Eve’s Bayou" and expected more from thedirector. Maybe next time. The homeless detective contrivance was hard toswallow. Suspension of disbelief is necessary to keep fromlaughing.

read comments (0)

The Cat’s Meow

The problem with movie retellings of scandals is that they never setout to be great films in their own right. They toe the line of "knownfact" and unleash their creativity only on sets, clothes etc. This isnot a great film, because all it wants to do is bring the rumor to agreater audience; with a script that connects every dot for the dumbestmember of the audience. But the dots are absolutely facile. This wouldhave been better if it imposed a fresh new narrative (however unlikely)on the facts, instead of painfully constructing each element of themelodrama. The junky movie Agatha about Agatha Christies shortdisappearance in the 30s has more fun spinning it’s unlikely theory.This seems to be emulating Death on the Nile, which is aiming prettylow.

Cat’s Meow gets completely lost in the dubious endeavor of supplyingindexical visuals that match the ones you already have in your head forthis story and milieu. Characters just go through their paces over andover until something happens. whooopee… This diagrammatic plot wasmore interesting as a rumor passed on in a sentence than how it’s been(barely) fleshed out here.

I’m sure Hearst was ethically depraved but I don’t operate under thenaive belief that ethically depraved people are necessarily bumbling,hapless, doddering, cartoonish oafs. Herman Munster anyone? That’s justa cheap shot for moralists and the unversed modern viewers watching.This movie doesn’t trust it’s audience. It’s as far from art as one canget.

While I’ve found Kirsten Dunst mediocre in everything she’s done, shefinally convincingly portrays an adult here. Eddie Izzard is simplyannoying as Charlie Chaplin, and his soul-deadening brown contacts wereapparently borrowed from Madonna after Evita.

Was no other song released in the 20’s other than the Charleston? Andcould any hack make a movie about Hearst without ripping off a fewvisuals from Citizen Kane?

This played for something like three performances in London a couple ofyears ago and is now on DVD at ‘remainder’ prices both of which suggestwhite elephant which was the spirit in which I paid the modest freightand viewed it. What it is, in fact, is more of an off-white elephantwith period, settings, etc, captured reasonably well and a hybrid ofacting styles tending to clash more than they blend, the whole melangein aid of an unsolved crime dating back 80 years in which only anysurviving relatives of the principals and the odd film buff and/orscholar could work up much of a sweat about. The facts are that in 1924William Randolph Hearst hosted a cruise on his yacht on which gathered,in addition to Hearst himself and his mistress Marion Davies, CharlesChaplin, Elinor Glyn and William Ince, a well-known figure in the filmcircles of the time and who was to prove the victim of a bullet. Hearsthad long been suspected of the homicide his motive being his obsessivejealousy in connection with the much younger Davies, fuelled by rumoursthat she and Chaplin were cuckolding Hearst. At this remove who caresbut it does make for an entertaining story and Bogdanovich knows whichend of the camera to point at the actors but that’s about it. In theirown ways most of the principals act well enough but, as noted earlier,they act IN their own individual ways rather than as an ensemble. Worthwatching. Once.

`Rosebud’ is a puzzle worth exploring in one of the world’s great films,`Citizen Kane.’ The murder in `The Cat’s Meow’ is much less a mystery, andthe William Randolph Hearst played by Edward Hermann is dull and lumberingby contrast with Welles’ commanding magnate, Charles Foster Kane. `TheCat’s Meow’ is like a bunch of flappers trying to amuse themselvesintellectually on a desert island with no hope of escape. It’s uncreativeand hopeless.

History has it that in the 1920’s someone died aboard Hearst’s `Oneida’; ofthe many versions, this film depicts "the whisper heard most often,’ a taleof murder not quite so foul as foolish.

A Hearst–Marion Davies– Charlie Chaplin triangle is an intriguingpossibility, but in the arthritic hands of Peter Bogdanovich, it seems morea Victorian stage cliché than a real-life romantic tumble. People skulkaround the boat as if they were looking for a decent script, not to be foundhere.

Kenneth Anger’s `Hollywood Babylon’ treated this scandal far more boldly butof course could not replicate the dark beauty of cinematographer BrunoDelbonnel. Just as the boat interior gives the requisite twist and turns fora mystery, the camera effortlessly tracks forward and back as if dancingwith the actors. It is surprisingly lithe, yet the metaphorical `Charleston’awkwardly danced by the rioters is ironically cumbersome.

Photography doesn’t alone a movie make. This ship sank, cat andall.

This movie isn’t a bad one. But the movie has too long "intro". It goesunder the category Drama/Thriller, and this wasn’t a thriller. After themain part of the movie, it’s suddenly stops. Kirsten Dunst is a good actor,but maybe she was a little bit too young for this movie. It’s looks like afather and daughter relationship but it’s a "man loving woman"relationship.Well, this movie got a 6 because it’s so long time ago the movie belongs.The record-year is 2001, but the play-year is 1912 if I’m remember itright.They doing it good.

Spoilers herein.

I am amazed at films like this. You know them: say, the story about ateenager learning that life is not about superficialities but the filmrelies on the most stereotypical and superficial conventions to tell itsstory. You wonder: is the form so much of a formula that no seniorparticipant see what they are doing?

Now along comes aging groupie Bogdonovich, who purports to know the innerworkings of Hitchcock and Wellesian rebellion because he spent time withthem. He thinks he knows Hollywood because he’s made pictures (one of whichseemed novel). He thinks he understands infatuation with perky pixiesbecause he is has that addiction himself. He thinks he has the dramatic`eye.’

And so we are delivered with this oafish project. Every scene, everyelement, even every set dressing is presented in a deliberate, plodding,obvious, explicit manner. It starts with the pseudonoir narrative and isnailed home with a very long fade from coffin to similarly sized and coloredyacht. Wink wink; nudge nudge. Every development is contrived and bluntlystaged. No educated eye is used. The lessons of Wells and Hitchcock areignored despite the ample opportunities afforded by the boat. That promptssome viewers to think this was deliberately `old school.’ Look again folks:he uses the same angle and lighting playbook as everyone, rejecting anythingthat might be honest, fresh or clever.

I must admit that there are some competent shots which pass the motion fromone player to another. But since Altman, that’s part of the standardvocabulary. I also admit that Dunst has some charm here. But the partrevolves around the assumption of a charm of a different sort. What’sassumed is some cuteness, with superficial caprice but deliberationunderneath. What Dunst gives us is opportunistic caprice all the way down. Agood director would have rejected this or repaired it because the wholedrama revolves around this disconnect.

Every other player tromps through with relatively high professionalism. Butthe director seems to have had no high level view of the orchestrated wholeand instead collaborated independently and differently with each player.That sort of worked with `Picture Show’ where the whole point is daft kidsplaying roles that bump up against each other. Doesn’t work here.No.

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

I finally rented this film from the Library. I had the feeling this filmwas more of a documentary and it was too long. It would have been better iftold in chronological order. Peter Bogdaonvich does his own thing with themystery involved
with murder of Thomas Ince back in November 1924. ThomasInce was a literary writer and became involved with Wm Randolph Hearst, andall those famous people involved on Hearst’s beautiful yacht. The murderwas never solved but covered up by Hearst and his newspaper. LouellaParsons worked on the Hearst syndicated column. Edward Hermann does a greatjob as Hearst! I’ll give the film 6/10

We waited and waited for something to happen in this film. Finally fastforwarding to the end brought some relief. The first 90% of the film is likea big costume party. While the period clothes and settings depicted theRoaring Twenties beautifully, and the acting was fine, there was far toomuch chit chat. The film could have been done in less than 30 minutes but tostretch it out so long was painful.

If you are into fine sets and costumes, or a fan of Joanna Lumley, or want atrip back to the Charleston era, then see this film. Otherwise, pass itup.

Peter Bogdanovich’s film has only just limped into UK release three yearsafter it was made, and it is easy to see why. While some of the actorsmanage to give some life to their portrayals and give some life to theperiod (1920s), most of this tale stays dead in the water.

Worst performance I have seen for a long time on the screen - Eddie Izzardas Charlie Chaplin. Please. Black hair, a bad haircut and brown contactsdo not a complex comedy genius make. An awful, inept, poor performance froman excellent comedian who has grown into a deeply disappointingactor.

Kirsten Dunst is a looks-perfect but too young Marion Davies, who has noneof the personality the real Miss Davies projected in her films such as ShowPeople. Cary Elwes is ok as Thomas Ince but that’s about it, you can’timagine him being one of the driving forces of 1910s cinema. EdwardHerrmann I thought was good as Hearst until about the last third of the filmwhere he went too over-the-top. But you do get some sense of the jealousyand hunger for power which drove the newspaper magnate, even of his love forMarion (a love which incidentally lasted for many decades).

Joanna Lumley is an interesting Elinor Glyn - the woman who coined thephrase ‘It Girl’. Elinor Glyn died eight years before William RandolphHearst and yet she narrates this story and talks about what happened ‘afterthe old man’s death’. These things may not matter to the main story butthey are irritating.

And was Louella Parsons really such a silly nitwit in her younger daysbefore settling into her key role in the Hearst newspaper empire? JenniferTilly would make you think so, and quickly outstays herwelcome.

The story itself is that old chestnut story about what caused the death ofThomas Ince in 1924 while on a trip for his birthday on Hearst’s yacht. Accompanied by his girlfriend, Margeret Livingston (played well by ClaudiaHarrison), and some irritating squealing women, he is hoping to strike abusiness deal with Hearst. But things don’t quite go toplan.

‘The Cat’s Meow’ is a turkey, only worth a mention for the good for itscostumes and music (by far the highlight is Al Jolson’s version of ‘Avalon’as the opening credits roll). Otherwise, avoid.

A speculative rewrite of an obscure historical incident played out likea jazz-age Hollywood remake of Gosford Park, The Cat’s Meow takes placeduring a trip on the private yacht of media tycoon William RandolphHearst (Edward Herrmann) when a murdered guest turns up amid theCharlestons, hair oil, cocktails and gay banter.

It’s all a bit lightweight given that it’s meant to herald directorPeter Bogdanovich’s return to form but Kirsten Dunst, Joanne Lumley andJennifer Tilly breathe some much-needed life into it while Eddie Izzardgets quietly on with a likable impersonation of Charlie Chaplin.

Ultimately as frothy and light as the cocktails they’re necking, thisis a seriously wasted opportunity for what could have been a slice ofHollywood Gothic.

I’ll admit that the only reason I watched this film was because I’m anEddie Izzard fan. I should have liked this movie more. I’ve always beenfascinated by early Hollywood stories. Unfortunately, this film doesn’tget off the ground. It seems to be adrift at sea. Too bad no one whowas actually there is still alive. I’d love to hear what they have tosay about the way people are portrayed. Was Hearst that pathetic? WasMarion Davies really talented after all? Did Louella Parsons reallyblackmail her way into a lifetime contract? As I said at the beginning,I only watched this movie to see Eddie’s performance as CharlieChaplin. It was a so-so performance. Izzard’s Chaplin wasn’t smarmyenough. I heard him professing love but I didn’t believe it.

read comments (0)

The Animal

**

Starring: Rob Schneider and Colleen Haskell.

A nerdy man finds himself being picked on by numerous people. Hell, even anold lady picks on him. After a car crash, a doctor gives him various organsof different animals. He inherits the traits of the animals. He then findshimself having troublesome times and heroic times with his "sixthsense".

This movie could have been great. It screws itself over by having some niceprepared jokes, then completing them terribly.

I can’t recommend it.

Who is "Townie" or "Nazo"? If you look at many of Rob Schneider and AdamSandler’s movies their character names are usually Townie or Nazo. I wasjust wondering if someone could give me some insight. Thanks

Plenty of crude humor and more or less lucky gags, this film isprimarily bad due to the fact that we’ve seen it all before. The crudehumor, the half-cooked plot, the somewhat geeky and loser-like maincharacter. Normally, we see this in Adam Sandler’s movies, but,probably due to them often working together, Rob Schneider is nowtrying to copy the formula of his movies, and the result is about asbad as most of Sandler’s films. Schneider has no real charisma, and wehardly care about him, but he does have a little(and I *do* mean alittle) comedic talent, and a few of the gags and jokes do work; justtoo few. The plot is lame and far-fetched, and I’m almost certain it’snot very original(though I haven’t seen any other movies with the sameplot, admittedly). The pace is decent enough, but considering that it’snot even an hour and a half long, it couldn’t be that slow anyway. Theacting is not particularly good, and the characters are allstereotypes. What makes this movie possible to sit through and, gosh,almost enjoyable enough to justify sitting through the 84-85 minutes ofit, are John C. McGinley and Colleen Haskell. McGinley is just so damnentertaining, and after watching Scrubs for a while, and enjoying hisperformance on that show, it’s nice to see him in a role that is, well,exactly the same, I guess. He can almost always make a so-so movieenjoyable for me. As for Haskell(who apparently got a part in thisprimarily because she was in Survivor, if I understand correctly),she’s just so damn cute that it’s hard not to be attracted to her. Shelights up every frame that she’s in. McGinley also makes each secondhe’s on-screen more enjoyable, unfortunately, he has far too littlescreen-time. What more is there to say; the humor consists of eithercrude jokes, gags or slapstick. Nothing truly memorable about thisfilm, but decent if you’ve got nothing better to do and you’re a fan ofone or more of the actors involved. I recommend this to fans of AdamSandler-type films, and not really anyone else. It’s decent at best.5/10

SPOILERS

There seems to be an ongoing criticism of Hollywood that if a filmstars Rob Schneider, it automatically should be spat at and condemnedas useless. With dodgy films like "The Hot Chick" (2002), Schneider isalways insulted and faced with claims that he’s only famous for beingAdam Sandler’s friend. With "The Animal" however, he proves that he’snot quite that awful and can provide one or two funny laughs.

Marvin Mange (Schneider) is a useless cop. After an accident however,Mange finds himself rebuilt using animal parts and finding it difficultto control his wild part.

"The Animal" is not a superb film. It’s a weak, dumb, pointless film,BUT it has the redeeming feature in that it’s got some funny moments.

Schneider, as the human animal hybrid is great in his daft, uselessrole. In effect, his character in this film is simply Duece Bigalo(1999) except with animal powers. Basically, Schneider is your typicalcomedian who thinks he can be a decent actor but ultimately isirrelevant. He’s best as that cameo Mexican role in all Adam Sandlerfilms (a cameo copied by Sandler himself in this film) and it’s in thatrole which he should really stick.

So, for all it’s dumb, insulting moments, like all of Schneider’sfilms, "The Animal" satisfy’s one key criteria, basically it makes uslaugh.

At times there are jokes which make us fall on the floor in hysterics,but truthfully they are fair too inconsistent.

To summarise, "The Animal" is VERY dumb. It’s stupid, and there aredefinitely better ways to spend your time (if you MUST see a Schneiderfilm, your better off with "Deuce Bigalow" from 1999), but for all thecriticism there are still some great jokes to see. "The Animal" issimilar to that Budweiser advert with the guy, his girlfriend and herbig tshirt. Basically there are so many flaws with the film, but at thesame time as hating it, you find yourself wanting to like it andlaughing at dumb moments. Like all of Schneider’s work, it’s a guiltypleasure.

This film is crap!

Rob Schneider becomes an animal though I forget why. All I recallwas how much is sucked. I saw the trailer for The Animal and itshowed 2 real funny scenes, so I though I’d catch the film -BIGMISTAKE!

The 2 jokes from the trailer were ruined in the film because eachscene had an extra 30 seconds of crap added between the jokebuild up and the punchline which made it unfunny, which is a prettydifficult thing to do!

Colleen Haskell from some US reality tv show appears as RobSchneider’s love interest, but there is one problem -she has noeyes! Every scene she is in she smiles sweetly but her eyes areinvisible, like the jokes.

Rob Schneider is funny for people who think unfunny people arefunny (ie stupid people).

Dude! I just remembered the PLOT! It is about how Rob wants tobe a policeman or something and he can’t because he is toostupid. I still can’t remember why he becomes an ‘Animal’ though.He was probably bitten on the ass by a monkey or something.

Anyway, the towns folk (including Adam Sandler) start runningaround some woodland to find a bear or something (I haven’t theslightest idea what happens between Rob wanting to become acop and the towns folk hunting for a bear, or why they are huntingfor a bear, but anyways) and them some various crap happenswhich I don’t remember, but I’m sure it is pretty forgettable.

Basically this film has 1 funny scene (about a guy who puts his carkeys up his butt -WAIT, that isn’t funny anymore, it’s just stupid!),and the rest is kitty litter.

Avoid this film at all costs!

Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian andhisantics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy….man’slife is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him.Unfortunately, he takes on each animal’s characteristics. Former SurvivorColleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn’t have open sores on herlegs, and a little makeup on her face!D

I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However,this dud seemed to last forever. It’s one of those flicks which enjoys thesad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren’tjust low-brow or f**t jokes, they’re crude, lewd, and many acts cross theboundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Manyscenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating…too bad…itmight have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.)I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time…and I’m amovie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in,the movie felt like it should be winding down…and boy were we ready for itto. The ending is quaint but doesn’t salvage the rest of thisquagmire/tourist trap of a rental.1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie…would have been sickened to payhard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)

NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a huma
n thelibido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, themain character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer’syard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around withbestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.

We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The maincharacter doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also notfunny. It becomes a cliche.

Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean thathe’s not a bad actor, but with rotten material it’s difficult to comment onquality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romanticleads (does one count the number of animals that the main character hasinterest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing,as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum,detached from all the other actors in the movie.

See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitivematerial.

This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks!There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through thewhole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going toend.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneideracting like an animal isn’t something I would pay to see. It looked funny,but the bottom line: DON’T WASTE YOU’RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUSAND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie.In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid,all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would rememberthat movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but thisisnothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)

I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, MarvinMange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physicalcomedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you’d belaughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volumeturned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was adisaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider’shilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."

The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop whogets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a madscientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as aresult starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a"supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrunhorses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people’s cows andtrying to seduce their goats, but surely that’s a small price to pay? Itjust didn’t do anything for me.

The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all ofHollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange’s commander onthe police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same ashis doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I wasanxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell’s first "serious" acting job (cananything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fameas a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knewfrom that: she’s cute as a button. What she doesn’t prove here is that shehas any discernible talent as an actress. And what’s with Ed Asner as PoliceChief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He’s the size of some of thecows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through.I’m surprised he made it through the filming. There’s a brief cameo at theend by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer ofthis.)

Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the policecar, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - theorangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles -2/10.

read comments (0)