The Squid and the Whale

Thank you Noah Baumbach for bringing this jewel of a film to anaudience such as myself who has undergone the pain of divorce in my ownfamily as a child,along with such a talented cast,to make THE SQUID ANDTHE WHALE a warm and wonderful journey to cherish and remember.

The sharp and witty dialog, the brilliance of Jeff Daniels acting,combined with the talents of Laura Linney, topped off with Owen Klineand Jesse Eisenberg, make THE SQUID AND THE WHALE a real joy to watchand contemplate what new swear word might come out of "pickle’s mouth"now. Real honesty shown during the film in the portrayal of young menexperiencing their own pain, along with the humor thrown in withmasturbation, brought the young brothers to life on the screen.

I look forward to seeing THE SQUID AND THE WHALE being honored atGolden Globe and Oscar time. Congrats, Noah Baumbach, for makingdivorce and the separation of our parents a less painful one inretrospect through your film.

After seeing ”The Squid and the Whale” I walked out of the theaterwith that filled up sort of feeling.The film along with the four maincharacters seep inside your gut for hours after.Jeff Daniels characteris not likable and he plays him so well…I actually hard people in thetheater yelling at him…Laura Linny is perfect as the sweet, passivewife/mother who simply loves her children and needs more from herrelationship than Daniel’s character can ever give.Their divorce isinevitable and totally justified.

Walt and Henry..their sons, portray with perfection the aching anddevastation a divorce can bring upon children. Their conflicts withparental unity and sexual awakening are presented with candor and rawtruth. I loved it! Unfortunately the true to life content of this filmwill make those who like to stay in a world of denial quiteuncomfortable.This film should be a must for every parent involved in adivorce.The lessons that can be learned are crucial to proper parentingand sensitivity during a time of total upheaval in a young child’slife.

Every aspect of this movie was right on the mark and if you truly wantto see just some of the after effects of divorce ….buy your ticket asoon as possible and enjoy the realistic ride.

It seems as if this movie was hacked to pieces with editing.If theproducers of this movie ever read this, please release the stuff on thecutting room floor or locked in a closet somewhere. The kid drinks abeer and…the condom falls off and…we are left hanging.What was thatpicture he was utilizing? You want to push the boundaries then don’tretreat. Actually,this movie is a treat from the every day Disney @#$%that we are subjected to but some how it was sanitized by BIG BROTHERand I am fed up with it. Well acted,this is a good movie and some whatshocking.Under reviewed probably because of its content.It is a goodmovie but I absolutely believe that half of it is unreleased.Extreemlydisappointed with the lack of extras.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. On a scale of 1-10 I give ita 1. There is no redeeming moments of this movie. It tries to recreatea real life story but it doesn’t. The characters are flat and not evenlikable. My only advice in DON’T GO see it. What a waste of a Mondaynight. I could have been doing my laundry. It doesn’t have a goodending. It just ends.It must said, however, that many will find theending of The Squid and the Whale frustrating, as if Baumbach hadsimply stopped writing and tacked on only the most perfunctory ofresolutions. An argument can be made that there’s no tidy way to wrapup a story like this - families and their problems don’t just end,after all - but given the care with which he treated the rest of hismaterial, the way in which he ties everything off seems a bitarbitrary.

I saw "The Squid and the Whale" at Sundance last week, and I am proudto be the first to post a review here, and I want to tell you howamazing it is. This film is truly a masterpiece of sorts, and I can’ttell you too much more because I’m not going to post a spoiler.

Jeff Daniels is amazing in this, and so is Laura Linney. The actorsthat play the children are amazing but in my opinion Daniels stole theshow.

I am so happy to have gotten a chance to see this but it is going toriddle me with agony everyday until I can see it once again (intheaters…hopefully soon!!!) and then it will riddle me again until Ican pick up the DVD.

I don’t really want to talk about the content of the film too much,because I don’t want to spoil it for anybody, but I do have to say thatbetween his work in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" and this, I amexcited to say that I have a new director who’s work I will always be afan of and who’s career I will always fallow. This is the most promiseout of a newer director in a long time. I love(d) it!

Baumbach also did a great job separating himself from (what I’m surewill become common place) comparisons to Wes Anderson (simply becauseof their work together and their, sometimes common, styles of writingcomedic dialogue). He has created an original voice for himself and Ican’t wait to see what he does next.

I was lucky to see this film at the Savannah Film Festival and haven’tmet anyone disappointed with it. To call this film a comedy, in thisday, would be to infer that it has silly characters and cheap gags, yetmakes you laugh. To call it a Wes Anderson piece would be infer thatthe humor would be subtle, yet makes you laugh. This film is differentdoes not come off as silly or dry, the characters are fairly dramatic,and when they clash the movie is at its funniest. Superb acting andwriting make for a hilarious movie that doesn’t make you feel dumberbecause you watched it nor dumb because you didn’t get. And it holdstrue without copping out to cliché movie patterns.

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE Written and Directed by Noam Baumbach

So rarely does a film say so much, so genuinely through simple,naturalistic dialogue about it’s characters, their plights, theirstory. And so rarely is it told so beautifully, so painfully and sohonestly without being manipulative or obvious. "The Squid and theWhale" is that unique exception, that kind of film that you walk awayfrom feeling lucky, fortunate for having seen it. This is a film aboutrelationships, ranging from the influences our most intimaterelationships have on us to the lengths we will go to to maintain theserelationships and the difficulties experienced when trying to establishnew ones with ourselves.

The setting for this exploration is the newly broken home of theBerkman family in 1980’s Brooklyn. We know from the moment we see theBerkman’s as they play a doubles tennis game with passive-aggressiveunrest that they’re all playing a losing game. Bernard and Joan Berkman(played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) had been together for nearlyfifteen years and had two children during the course of their marriage,Frank and Walt, both in different stages of adolescence. As theirrelationship is at the point of its dissolution, the focus is placed onthe children’s struggle to contextualize and understand their new jointcustody lives. Bernard and Joan are left to discover a more significantrelationship with themselves, a concept that had long since disappearedwhen their marital problems began to monopolize their attentions.

As Bernard Berkman, Jeff Daniels is superbly understated. As aonce-acclaimed author whose successful past work has stumped him fromproducing anything new or of worth, Bernard is entirely baffled as towhy he has found himself excommunicated from his home and living in abeat up house on the other side of the park. Daniels carries himselfwith pride and pompousness and never allows any hint of remorse orreevaluation to show in his eyes. The rousing performance is both braveand fresh; I felt as if I had seen a whole new dynamic to Daniels’abilities. Bernard’s arrogance becom
es all the more sad andcontemptible when his eldest son, Frank is seen emulating his father’sideals on topics as diverse as literature and women. Like his father,Frank only appreciates high art, carelessly dismissing anything thathis father does not deem worthy despite having no formal knowledge ofthe art he praises. His opinions become hollow regurgitations thatserve only to give himself the appearance of being more cultured thanhe truly is. He knows very much about very little. And like his father,he believes himself to be far more important than he truly is, causinghim to view his relationships with women to be interchangeabledepending on what opportunity presents itself and to see a woman’spurpose to be solely for serving his own needs.

Frank’s relationship with his mother, Joan is almost entirely severedafter the separation. The blame needs to be placed somewhere and as itwas Mom’s decision, this seems to be the best place to put it. Besides,what could possibly make her think she would know what’s better fortheir family than Bernard would? Joan’s presence is sparse and selfish,leaving Linney’s talents underused. Baumbach, pulling double duty asscreenwriter, practically writes her character out of the story. Hercareer as an author is emerging and her sexuality and self-discoveryburgeoning. Her character is more relevant as absent, leaving the mento fend for themselves for some much deserved me-time.

This absence has the most impact on youngest son, Walt, who is justentering his teens. With Frank constantly feeding his father’s ego,Walt is almost useless to Bernard, leaving him to his own devices. Withlittle supervision or guidance, Walt feels his way through mostsituations, often making decisions that alienate him from society,making him reclusive and withdrawn while all the while naivelyparticipating in increasingly more destructive behaviour. It is tooeasy to dismiss Walt as lost cause in response to his behaviour as heis the only character who does not fear the future though he does notnecessarily understand all of it.

Baumbach’s quiet masterpiece is the filet of the broken family genre.By demonstrating the effects of parents struggling to remain involvedand not forgotten as well as reasonably putting themselves before theirchildren, Baumbach shows how the Berkman’s selfishness leads directlyto the children’s scrambling to regain their balance. That theirselfishness is both warranted and understandable is what leads "TheSquid and the Whale" to be the most levelheaded and pertinent filmdealing with divorce I’ve ever seen.

"People can be very stupid," declares literature professor and novelistBernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels) about his divorce. Squid and the Whaleis a successful look at the modern warfare of love and disappointmentin the context of both academic parents and the children who must livethrough it all. Quirky, eccentric, and sharp is Wes Anderson protégéNoah Baumbach, who finds even the smartest parents deficient in theskills to bring children into adulthood.

No one lives in the Berkman household without experiencing the joy ofhaving 2 writers as parents and the sorrow of those 2 parentssplitting. Each boy reacts differently, the younger spreading hismasturbated liquid on the walls, the older imitating dad by puttingdown his girlfriend, "You have too many freckles." Even mom (LauraLinney) is in on the retributions as she takes up with a cloudy-headedtennis coach (William Baldwin) and publishes articles and a novel tothe chagrin of the academically sliding Bernard.

The film’s strength is its knowingness about the effects of divorce;its weakness is a reluctance to use ironic subtlety as Anderson does inthe bookend to this film, The Royal Tenenbaums, a quirkier treatment ofam artier family. Young Walt’s (Jesse Eisenburg) fudging a performanceat a school function by singing Pink Floyd’s "Hey You" as his owncomposition is symptomatic of the disconnection plaguing the Berkmans.Frank, the youngest Berkman, at one point declares to his mother thatshe’s ugly. Because she is played by the lovely Laura Linney, it’sclear Frank has a great deal of maturing to do.

Margaret Atwood caught the vicious effects pf modern divorce: "Adivorce is like an amputation; you survive, but there s less of you."Everyone in the Berkman family is diminished by divorce.

Almost dragged to this film, expecting a tortuous "Royal Tannenbaum"ordeal, I made sure to bring my Indiglo watch. At first I squirmed, butwas pleasantly surprised by the crisp dialog, fast pace, and theexcellent acting. Actually the story wasn’t particularly interesting,but I was really entertained by the director’s style. I was aghast howwell Eisenberg acted. He seemed more like Kevin Kline than his own sonin the movie. The Museum of Natural History had always been a kind of"centering-transitional object" for me. That’s one reason "Catcher inthe Rye" affected me so strongly. Hey everybody, isn’t this really theHolden Caufield story? ‘

I thought that would get your attention. I watched The Squid and TheWhale last night Very dense! Good stuff there. I hope you recognize mytone because I am being pseudo-intellectual like the father in themovie; that’s a literary technique I just used on you. You wouldn’tknow, you probably don’t even have your master’s degree. So somequestions for myself. Listen, you might learn something.

How did the movie make me feel? The divorce was mostly my wife’s fault.I did everything I could to save it. Oh yeah, ex, if you are readingthis, remember Friday is my night.

Did you ever go after younger chicks after your divorce as Bernard doesin this film? Short answer….yes. It’s time to go listen to RadioheadCreep.

What about the youngest little boy in the movie? blank, blank,blankety-blank of an actor!

What degree do you have? (cough) (cough) Bachelors (cough)

So what’s the greatest thing you ever created? Did you know that Ioriginally composed the song Radiohead Creep? I mean I could of if Ihad wanted to.

So what are you going to do about the movie? Go read some FranzKafka…I mean Noah Baumbach.

(This post is not meant for the sarcasm challenged but then you guysprobably don’t read as much as I do).

read comments (0)

The World’s Fastest Indian

I was deeply disappointed with this film. Anthony Hopkins never seemedto me to be anyone other than A Hopkins with a very dodgy accent andthe other characters seemed totally predictable(and pointless). Also,why the peeing on the lemon tree other than a hook for the end of thefilm? Extremely contrived. A selection of characters dragged in for noreason..literally dragged,in the case of the transvestite.An olderwomen apparently finding him irresistible and with woeful lines tomouth, in fact the whole script was cringe-worthy.There was never anydoubt that good old Burt was going to have his attempt atBonneville..the scenes at the salt flats being the only interestingthing about the film. I went to this film with high hopes…..whichwere well and truly dashed.

Don't believe the hype . This movie is boring . In between the sceneswhere nothing happens even less transpires . He wakes up . He makes apiston . He urinates on a lemon tree . I'm sorry but I just don't seewhat everyone loves about this flick .

And then there's the transvestite . Talk about a red herring . She / Hebelongs in the Deleted scenes / Special Features part of the DVD . Idid not understand what this person did for the film .

And finally , and I mean FINALLY he gets to drive fast . What ananticlimax .

People , go rent another film . This one will not interest you in theleast .

I wanted so much to like this movie, but it just got to be too much tobear. "Crazy but Sweet" Burt gets on your nerves after the first 10minutes and it becomes a challenge to grit it through the hackneyedsituations and corny dialogue.

The gratuitous menagerie of "California Flakes" that Burt encounters onhis trip to the USA is also way over the top.

The only reason this movie got any stars at all was that the motorcyclescenes are above average, though the manipulation of the film speed ispretty irritating.

Sorry, but this turns out to be a big yawn.

In my opinion, the generous viewers who gave this film top marksbelieve that engine works on bathos. No: engines work on highlyexplosive fuel mixture and expertise, none of it visible here. Munro isdescribed as a god old-timer with a bee in his bonnet and someback-in-the-woods good sens. Why do scriptwriters believe that thepublic is a technical moron in this technical world? Why is it allright to show the highly technical way Audrey Hepburn learns to breakan egg in "Sabrina" (1954), and unacceptable to explain a minimum ofhow to lower a center of gravity, and what's a fuel blend (evenSchwarzenegger shows how to blend explosives in The 6th Day)? Viewersare indeed supposed to have a heart, but they are not necessarilybrain-dead. This film is only a rehash of The Triumphant Underdog,midway between "It's a Wonderful World" and "Pretty Lady". We don'tneed a Kiwi filmmaker to make our heart throb: we've already gotHollywood for that.

I was really wanted to see this movie since I've been a motorcycleenthusiast since I was 8. The trailer made it look exciting andinspiring. What a letdown. Boring, slow, and way too long (2 hours).I'm not sure how much of the story was real, but the befriending of thetransvestite seemed way over the top and tacked on. And aside fromHopkins, the acting was horrible…almost too painful to watch attimes. I don't know whether to blame the supporting cast or thescreenplay, but it was BAD (it's funny how you don't really notice goodacting…only bad acting).

The scenes at Bonneville at the end of the movie are the only redeemingfactor in this movie, but not worth sitting through the first hour anda half.

I'm somewhat of a car/motorcycle nut and was really looking forward toseeing this movie about an amazing man and his amazing motorcycle. Iwanted less personal relationship and character development and moredetails about the man and his dream. This is a chick flick with lots ofwarm fuzzy feelings. It is not a racing film. Anthony Hopkins did notplay the sort of person that I imagined on a racing motorcycle. Myvision is an energetic wiry motorcycle nut, not a slow couch potato.

Was this man really such a womanizer? That single fact dominated themovie. I will be investigating the history to confirm or deny thisfact.

Of course the highlights were the actual racing scenes. It sure took along time to get there!

The World’s Fastest Indian started out slow. I didn’t feel it reallygot interesting until he actually to the racing area. A number ofquestions rose up. One of my key ones was "Why is everybody being sonice to him?" As much as I hate to say it, people arn’t that nice. InAmerica, people don’t go to that much trouble for someone else. I didnot like very much of the acting, and I thought the plot moved slowly.Very slowly. Much of it was not important at all and very boring. Nowfor the good stuff. I loved the racing scene. My heart was pounding ashe started going faster and faster. Even though I knew he was going tomake it I still wondered how he could possibly do it. I liked theacting of the racer, playing such a dedicated man. That was probably myfavorite part. I also liked the part where he’s being sold the flowerand she steals his $10. All in all, it an amazing story, but needs somework.

The movie The World's Fastest Indian screened in Invercargill's cinemaslast year. Now this DVD movie is now on sale.

As a profoundly deaf person, I really expected to have one, but to mydisappointment, this does not have subtitles so I decided not topurchase.

Did the makers of this DVD movie have ignored the needs of thousands ofhearing-impaired and deaf people in New Zealand? Is the next major NZmovie going to be subtitled?

I am very much appreciate if someone has the right answer.

Regards Andrew

I think I failed some kind of IQ test because I got the idea thatAnthony Hopkins was playing a native American Indian (or 1/2 blood) bythe title. Also I thought the land speed record that was set might havebeen the actual world's record, not the small motorcycle record. Eitherwould have made the film more interesting.

Also I thought the story would involve more racing. And there might besome real adversity. Instead we are subjected to struggles such as "Hiscrate got damaged in shipping. Is the bike OK???", and "Will they lethim in through customs??", and "Is he going to be allowed to registerlate for the competition??" Oh my god, the suspense is killing me. Not.

Anthony Hopkins can make anything interesting, and yes, it's a truestory of perseverance that is worth of respect. But compellingstruggles usually involve people, not engineering tasks or travellogistics.

Anyway, I thought it was adequate, and give it a 6 out of 10, but I wasdisappointed and thought it might be more like October Sky, which is areally amazing story about a boy who wants to be a rocket scientist,which you should definitely see. Or Rudy, which I enjoyed even thoughI'm not a football person.

Who should see this film:

– Arty types, I can't stop you anyway. The film is more a charactersketch than a plot-driven movie so you'll probably eat it up.

– Racing fans

– Action-movie lovers, skip it, the amount of action is minimal

Can't think of anyone else. I'll give The World's Fastest Indian a 6out of 10.

"The World's Fastest Indian" tells a great true story, Burt Munro'sepic journey from small-town old kook to record-beating hero. It's justa pity that, unlike its hero, who displays grit, imagination, andoriginality, this film rides a long highway of often cringe-inducingclichés. Right from the word go, we have such standard feel-good movietouches as t
he adorable little boy who assists, the nasty neighbors whoharass, the wise old Indian man who gives Burt a good-luck charm,chirping American gals cheering him on, and, worst of all, the cute andfriendly transvestite who aids our hero. On cue, Burt develops a heartcondition for pathos. On cue, Burt drives on the wrong side of the roadfor big laughs. He even sets fire to his lawn just to prove what agrand old eccentric guy he is.

Scene after scene in Roger Donaldson's script presents a stockcharacter type, an anachronism, a self-contorting attempt to please theaudience, or Anthony Hopkins drawling on with some tinned old codgerrumination or dirty talk. Hopkins' accent wanders all the way fromWales to Wellington and over to Long John Silver, even as he gives thepart his best and carries the film along on his back. It's a pity thefilm progresses so unimaginitively, because Donaldson is a goodimage-maker and the climactic scenes are extremely well-done. It's acrowd-pleaser, but it pleases the crowd with a bunch of tricks they'veseen too many times before. This racer stalls at the starting line.Send it to the junk yard.

read comments (0)

Tsotsi

Disney’s first art-house movie with a plot not altogether differentfrom Dumbo or Bambi, though not nearly as moving. Kind of a SouthAfrican version of Three Men and a Baby — only not nearly as moving.

Have the standards for film-making dropped so far that everyone feelscompelled to hand out awards to this cinematically, dramatically, andpolitically safe, sentimental piece of drool, whose message finally is:why can’t we all–including our mommies and daddies–get along? Yes,Tsotsi has it all: poverty, neglected babies, sick mommies, abuseddogs, mean daddies, gangstas with hearts o’ gold, and a familiar circleof young male buddies: one is jolly and fat, one is thin and studious,one is a bully, and one is the lead who..well, you know. If you like astory line as thin as vanilla ice, and easier to forget, this is themovie for you. Throw in a danceable joggable sound track, perfect foryour ipod, and you have a ticket to feeling like the worldly sensitivecompassionate person you must be: after all, who else would fork outthe ticket price and time to see a movie like Tsotsi? Surely the nextbest thing to being a social activist is going to a movie that givesyou some social-activist-light feelings, making you feel a little sadfor all the poor little people of the world — and then taking thesesad feelings out afterward to a great little ethnic restaurant, whereyou can talk about the experience!

The only reason to see Tsotsi (unless you like made-for-TV type storylines) is to catch a glimpse of the horrific poverty and shamefulconditions in which the film crew blithely shot this movie. One canhardly imagine the stories the people in the shanties and cementculverts might tell, had they the money and power and access that theprivileged Afrikaners had who made this empty statement. No wonder itonly took this director six weeks to shoot the film: the shamefulconditions he was exploiting must have given him and his crew a mightyincentive to hurry up and get out of there.

Props to Presley Chweneyagae, who played Tstotsi, for his good acting,though not good enough to transcend this film’s cement shoes.

For a three-hanky weepie, though lacking the pseudo-political bang foryour buck, rent the original Old Yeller. Or if you’re looking for awhite man’s racial weepy, rent To Kill a Mockingbird.

The obvious comparison for this film is City of God and unfortunately,Tsotsi falls short of it in pretty much every respect. The first shotof the main character, Tsotsi, is almost comic, such is the contrastbetween the sinister lighting, music and atmosphere and the face of theprotagonist himself, which looks quite frankly soft. A tougher, meanerlooking actor should surely have been cast for such a role; or PresleyChweneyagae, who did put in a good performance, could at least beensomehow made to look a little more convincing for the part.

The violence contained within the film, while moderate, is at timesvery fake looking and certainly not shocking as it is in City of God.This is actually a reflection of Tsotsi compared to City of God innearly every way; it is just so much more two dimensional as a film. Itseems quite amateur when juxtaposed with City of God.

As a film in its own right however, it does have its merits. While it’sdifficult to become attached to any of the characters; they arerelatively convincing. The plot is certainly passable and thesoundtrack isn’t at all bad, though at times not entirely appropriate.

Overall, this film does do something new with its depiction of aJo’burg slum; it’s nearly touching in places and quite entertainingthroughout. Just don’t be taken in by the hype and expect too much.It’s just averagely good. If you want to be blown away, go and watchCity of God.

I have to agree with noel-47. Tsotsi is a good movie. Is it a greatmovie, and worth best picture? no. The main goal of a movie is tohopefully transport us into another world, and at the sme time be ableto attach ourselves to the actors on screen. While Tsotsi has somemoments, while the final 5-10 minutes are somewhat touching, we reallydon’t care that much for Tsotsi. This is far from a "gangster" movie,and it is completely different then City of God. City of god is anepic; its perfect on every scale from Cinematography, Musical Score,Acting, screenplay, the list goes on.

Tsotsi generally felt like an African after school special, with a fewwild momoments. I certainly did enjoy watching Tsotsi, although franklyI would never watch it again or really even recommend it over manyother fine films. In conclusion, I’d give Tsotsi a 6/10 simply becausethe movie did have certain moments, certain elements where put togethergood, but sadly 50% of the movie did fail and did not make us 1. Havemany feelings for Tsotsi 2. Make us feel like where actually apart ofTsotsi’s world.

When I heard that the Academy Award went to Tsotsi I was prettysurprised even if I did not know much about the movie but I must say mybeing surprised has just been justified.Tsotsi has not a fresh originalplot that leads you to think,question and try to find answers.Tsotsi isa small gang leader in the township outside Johannesburg. He is a cold,brutal guy who doesn't refrain from resorting to violence in anysituation even when he is conflict with his friends in the gang.One dayfar from his poor shack he finds himself in a rich region of the cityhe sees that an African rich woman gets out of her car to ring the bellon the gate, so her husband can let her in. Tsotsi shoots her andsteals her car. Some time passes before he realizes the baby of thewoman is in the car. He doesn't leave the baby there he just takes itthen the baby is his.With the baby with him he just stops beingwicked.He tries to feed the baby,take good care of him.In these momentsthe director brings us to his childhood a few times.We realize he isthe kid of a dysfunctional family headed by a violent father.Well it'sjust like that actually.It is sort of a cliché even if it's not acomplete one.The only thing we can see about hope and optimism in themovie: One day Tsotsi meets a tatterdemalion crippled beggar and askshim why he does bother on living while he is living like a dog and hejust answers: I like to feel the sun on the street.I am not saying it'sa bad movie.It may look great for drama lovers but we should just askwhether it's really good enough to deserve an Academy Award?We shouldjust question whether the Golden Globe went to the right movie whilethe Academy Award may have gone to the wrong movie?

There are so many noble movies that are given way too much credit. It'sthe king's new clothes again and again.

I was repeatedly disappointed when there appeared to be the beginningof a really great plot development, only to see it go nowhere. 3-4opportunities lost. What if he left the baby on the woman's doorstep,spent days watching her care for it, then somehow worked himself intoher life? Now she loves the baby, and he tells her it has to go back tohis real mom. Far more interesting, as would many other directions.

One and only one powerful moment: the ants crawling on the baby. Imagesof the neglected infant were the most compelling.

Africa seems to send cinematographers swooning and the scenery as in ,for instance, ‘The Constant Gardener’ dwarfs the narrative. ‘Tsotsi’shows more resistance, but not quite enough.

The scene where Tsotsi squats against the sky with baby in the carrierbag to listen to the gospel choir, kitted out in uniforms that wouldn’tshame a Billy Graham rally, strains credulity,(check the bag motto-’Expect More’ - dumbed down, or what?) like the impossible saintlinessof Miriam in her acceptance of the child. There are times when Soweto’spicturesque appearance, teeming with life and colourful people seemalmost to outweigh its inconveniences such as giant ants and outbreaksof violence, not to mention police-raids. I enjoyed the film but
wouldhave liked a little more realism and fewer chocolate box compositions -the childish profiles in the empty concrete drainage pipes, forinstance.

Sheila

Tsotsi looks wonderful, and sounds wonderful, but falls short ofgreatness as a consequence of several flaws. First we have the factthat the title character gives the weakest performance. His actingisn't terrible (and the rest of the cast are very good), but consistsof nothing more than looking tough, and then looking troubled. Second,we have a plot that is frankly idiotic. The one thing that any youngman in the township can do, regardless of status or wealth, is makebabies. Thus, the motivation of Tsotsi is entirely unbelievable. Third,the story is juvenile and simplistic in the extreme, designed tosatisfy a standard white liberal art-house palate (hence its Oscarsuccess). Comparisons with the brilliant 'City of God' are, quitefrankly, ludicrous.

However, regardless of the above problems, Tsotsi is a good film, andwell worth watching. It had the potential to be a South African'Brighton Rock', if only the producers had been willing to take a moregrown-up approach to the material. Here's hoping that next time thedirector can free himself from third rate scripts, and make themasterpiece that his talent shows he is clearly capable of.

I rented Tsotsi without realizing how very violent parts of the moviewere. There were many sections of Tsotsi which were very violentagainst the human characters. But the most upsetting to me was thegraphic display of violence against the dog. With the foreshadowingthat occurred, it was not necessary to show it in such a prolongedfashion. Portraying more of it off-screen would have worked just aswell to get the point across. After the incident with the dog, feelingnauseous, I almost turned the video off and returned it to the videostore without viewing the rest. It spoiled the movie for me. I thinkbecause of this extremely violent episode in particular the movieshould have received an NC-17 rating, or at least some sort of warningshould have been included.

I saw this film recently on DVD. It was a let down. Though shot nicely- especially the way sky looks amber in most of the shots is amazing.But as a story it relies on too many clichés. A bad guy finding a childand getting an angel within evoked is something I have seen before inHindi films like Nanha Farishta.

More so it's not done-done idea that became a problem for me it wasfurther typical clichés - like the nice woman from the neighborhood,the bad guy killing his own evil friend.

The only scene or sequence I found amazing was the one with the beggar- where Tsotsi follows him and then confronts him.

It may become a sacrilege to criticise the film now that it has won atOscar Awards, but for me it was a let down.

Very Miramax-ish film from South Africa. It won the Best ForeignLanguage Film at the Oscars this year. A petty criminal known as Tsotsi(slang for "thug") shoots a woman in order to steal her car, notknowing that her baby is in the back seat. He can't bring himself toabandon the child, and takes it along with him. Will Tsotsi findredemption through love for the kid? Well, duh. But it ain't quite thatschmaltzy. Tsotsi's character is well defined, and the story doesn'tmake him pure allegory or anything like that. The acting is quite good,and the film-making, especially the cinematography, is often very good.Unfortunately, I didn't find the film particularly memorable. It'sworth seeing, I think.

read comments (0)

The Perfect Man

I went to the sneak preview (in Holland) in a sold out cinema. Everyonewas excited, until the moment Hillary Duff entered the big screen. Theexcitement maked place for a united "SHIT" by the audience and somepeople started throwing popcorn at the screen. I never experienced itin cinema, but after 100 minutes I understand why some people left thecinema so early.

The movie is about a mother who can’t find the right man, and that’swhy her doughter (Hillary Duff) starts faking a lover for her mommy.She is sending flowers, letters and photo’s to make her mom happy…and the problems start to grow as she covers lies with more lies. Theresult is a very dull movie with hundreds of cliché’s and even morestupid jokes. I don’t recommend this movie to anyone.

i like her so much i only give the numbers 8,9,10 lower is not possibleshe is the on the world to me Hilary duff she can also sing very good

their is one thing it’s strange that her sister Halie duff don’t getany roll of part in that some kind of movies for example Material Girlsshe only get’s the roll so high because her sister has take part of it.i only have seen this movie not all the other movies y have seen all1999 to 2005 the best i like is the coming movie cheaper by the dozen 2i also really think that she must get eh higher roll on that movie sheonly got number 5 but that’s because she played the movie before incheaper by the dozen 1 15 years old that’s to young to get such eh highroll of part in that movie and also the family the mother and fathergo’s add front that’s for sure

see ya where ever that will be

This movie was the funniest movie i have seen all year. So i was forcedinto going to see it because Batman was sold out. I went with me friendand we aren’t Hilary duffs "biggest fans" so it was fun to laugh at allthe stupid parts. The plot, first of all, is weaker than an old 90’smovie called Meet the Deetles. I mean seriously, what’s the point? Itwas so unrealistic that I couldn’t stand it. And it seems like nomatter what movie you see with Hilary Duff, she has to be the goodlittle girl who everyone can relate to and she makes out with some boyshe hardly knows. Every movie I have seen with Hilary duff in it waseither rated PG or G, when they should be rated PG-13. I mean, throughthe whole movie it seemed like she was wearing a "Thank You" shirt.Thank you? For what?

Yes, I am a Hilary Duff Fan! Yes, I’m an 18 year old male, and yes, Idid enjoy this movie. This film is very well acted and all the actorshave great chemistry together. The story is well paced and, I think,believable. Heather Locklear seems to be getting more beautiful as theyears go by, she has great screen presence and the scenes she shareswith Hilary are excellent. ALso for all you pessimistic people outthere this movie is not centered around Hilary’s character Holly. SHeis actually more or less in a large supporting role to Heather’scharacter. So I recommend this movie to anyone who is a Hilary Duff fanor anyone who is looking for a movie with a positive message(You don’tneed anyone but your family.)

One of the greater movies in a long time. This movie was no Life isBeautiful or Finding Neverland but one of the better "chick flicks" tocome around. I have not been a Hilary Duff fan either and she brought asurprising performance. Her powerful performance and hilarious anticswill make you a fan.

And like any other chick flick this one has not just one but threelovable guys. Lenny the loser boyfriend that just wont give up was afunny and over the top version of that Styx loving guy that wont takeno for an answer. The part of Uncle Ben was a witty and suave characterthat touched all women. His brilliant advice and small little surprisemake him Jean’s perfect match. As for the love interest of Holly, Adamwas perfectly casted. The newcomer Ben Feldman melted hearts and soulsand made millions of teenage girls fall in love with him just by hissmile alone. As for Holly’s good friend, and fellow trouble maker, Amywho reminded us all of why we loved people from New York.

Plus with extra like Caroline Raye and Carson for Queer Eye for TheStraight Guy who couldn’t love this movie. A perfect mix of funny andsweet, one where even a tougher girl like myself almost cried on fewdifferent occasions. You will laugh, cry, smile, and love. This moviewould make a great date movie but also amazing to go with the girls.The not so predictable mother-daughter love fest will all butdisappoint you. A great movie for all women and girls alike.

The Perfect Man was absolutely fantastic! I an a fan of Hilary since isaw her in Lizzie McGuire. She did her role of Holly Hamiltonbrilliantly as well as Heather Locklear who did fantastic. Thesupporting cast were great too. i think people who did not like thiseither hate Hilary duff or thinks that this movie was not the worth.But, to me, that money i spend with my cousins was worth it. The moviereally showed a mother-daughter bond. The director did a good jobchoosing Hilary as the lead cast as she had good attitude and well, sheand Heather Locklear (with Aria Wallace) looked perfect together. ChrisNoth and Vanessa Lengies were great too. Overall, this movie is a greatshow!

As Hilary Duff comes back from being a beautiful Cinderella princess in"A Cinderella Story" Holly Hamilton is a big hit!! As Holly tries tohelp her mother Jean Hamilton(Heather Locklear) find the perfect manHolly goes through an adventure of finding lots of man for her motherto meet and finally find one out of nowhere!!:D. As for me, I am a hugefan of Hilary Ann Duff I’ll say that this must be a very huge successfor her. 2 platinum albums and another coming out on August 16,2005"Most Wanted". What more can this Teen Drama Queen as for? These arehuge success for this "normal" queen who’s soon to be 18(an adult) onSeptember 28 she is one of Hollywoods biggest and most well knowncelerity of the 21st century. Also the feuds between Hil and LindsayLohan and Hil and Avril Lavigne, Hil has tried to keep her cool and tryto be sweet about it but she has had enough so in her song "Haters" inher album "Hilary Duff" Hilary strikes back to haters with a piece ofher mind to tell them the things that has been bothering her and tellher haters exactly what she thinks about them. I am very anxious tolisten to her new album "Most Wanted" I bet that would be a very bigsuccess just like her other albums. Most of you know Hilary Duff asLizzie McGuire and her sweet ways but Hilary Duff is a bit like Lizzieanymore. Sure Hilary has a very kind heart but in the name of hatersthere is not anything like nice. But not striking back with swearwords. Just telling haters what you think of them is already goodenough but getting into fights and arguments are no solutions. Be likeHilary and you can probably be a kind hearted girl and everyone willlove you!! Congragulations Hilary on such a big success and you life offame!!!!

Jean (Heather Locklear) moves every time she fails to find the perfectman, so her daughter Holly (Hilary Duff) is helping her finding thatman by imagining one (modeled after conversations with restaurant ownerBen; Chris Noth) and make them look real by letters, email andtelephone calls. Holly keeps her friend Adam at a safe distance. Hollylater even rejects Adam, as she is accustomed to move on and can nothave too close friends. By now you can probably guess the ending.

The basic story is not that interesting, but some elements are. Theycopy the use of emails from Closer for example, with persons taking onfalse identities it creates the better moments in the movie, as Jeanreveals her deepest thoughts via email to Holly as imagined perfectman. Later that is used in a reversed manner by Jean. We have othersmall writing tricks: A teacher-student debate, New York Timescrosswords,
a spelling bee all commenting the story. A blog of Holly isused to frame the story.

As the screenplay and direction hardly give the actors anypossibilities to shine, it is clear that Hilary Duff immediately failsin the few scenes requiring real acting. Another problem this movie hasthat the intended funny characters Lenny who dates Jean and Lance asrestaurant-assistant are not funny at all. The average sitcom about asingle family (Grace under fire, e.g.) is more interesting and funny;the whole theme of the movie is so worn out by now. The direction feelsvery lazy, making this movie not perfect at all.

the mom is nothing but a selfish slut. Any ways that is what I thoughtof Heather Locklear's character, Jean. Jean has 2 daughters, but hermain concern is when will she hook up with her next man. And every timeshe breaks up she runs away, forcing her daughters to keep moving,always changing schools. The younger daughter complains she never getsto compete in spelling bee's because they move every couple of months.It is just plain selfishness on Jean's part.

Hillary Duff, plays Holly, which is the same character she alwaysplays. She has the perfect make-up, dresses very well, looks like shehas a $500 hair cut, yet is supposed to be relatively poor. Yet, inthis film they don't consider the money issue since they have Jean moveher family to a large apartment in NYC and they live on a baker'ssalary. Rent on an apartment like that would easily be several thousanda month, and I doubt Jean's beginner baker salary brings home any wherenear $6000 a month.

In NYC Holly teams up with her friend to introduce the perfect man toher mom. She doesn't want her mom to hook up with the loser at thebakery. She uses her friend's rich uncle as the model to base thecharacter on. Of course, this gets her in trouble when she sends anactually picture of Ben to her mom and they almost meet in hisrestaurant. Along the way she realizes Ben would be perfect for her momand tries to set them up. Of course, her mom is busy suggesting asingle parent get together at the local PTA meeting. I'm sorry, but tome, that was so slutty.

FINAL VERDICT: This was no teen film to me. It was more like what notto be when you grow up, which is a desperate, selfish, slutty singlemom.

THE PERFECT MAN was really boring, uninteresting, unrealistic and had astoryline and characters that were two-dimensional. Also, the dialoguewas extremely cheesy and the storyline had quite a few holes whichspoiled the movie. Actually as a matter of fact, this movie was verysoapy which was also another spoiler. Any film that's soapy containingactress Hilary Duff, is a real pain in the ass (no offense Hilary Duff,but those soapy films you're in are real shockers). I am not going totell you the storyline because I kept tuning out because it was sounlikeable. If you were wondering why I even watched this movie, it'sbecause I was at a party and my friends rented some pretty good films,but don't ask why one of my friends rented this one.

However, the two reasons why I'm saving this film from zero stars isbecause it did have some good jokes. But some does not mean a lot,that's for sure.

Overall, save your money and don't watch this.

read comments (0)

The Long Weekend

I didn't expect anything much from this movie but the trailer lookpretty good and I love this kind of genre of movie, all that leads meto watch it. And despite I do get some laugh I did quite enjoy it asmuch as I could.

Brief: Ed the lonely man was dump a year earlier and never was able toget over it; and now his boss gives him an ultimatum - if he could notcome up with brilliant ad campaign his ass is history. He was given thetime of two day to do so unfortunately his brother have other agendafor him this weekend, to get Ed to finally get laid and move on.

Okay, I didn't find the film to be terrible or anything but I wish theyshould have polish the script a little more and add something new tothe movie of this type. The story is same old as one would have known.The good thing about the movie is real life footages, which help themovie in great way with originality and humor.

The casting of the movie seem to be the best part of the movie withBrendan Fehr as little loser kind of brother and Chris Klein as awomanizer elder brother, both of them give a fairly good acting but itseem Chris might have gone over board with his enthusiasm. And thewomen in the movie aren't that bad looking.

Advise: If you do not like toilet humor, I wouldn't advise you to seeit. And if you do, you probably know that these movies mostly involvesex and nothing else, therefore I will not talk about how were thedirecting, lighting, and cinematography etc. Just tried to relax andenjoy the movie lightly.

Reason To Watch: Series of Real Life Footage, Brendan Make PrettyConvincing Loser.

Reason Not To: Not As Funny As It Suppose To Be, The Story Ain't ThatGood.

Recommendation: Yes, But Only Worth Enough For If It On Cable Itself.

Rating: 5.5/10 (Grade: D+).

Rate Y/N After Read.

I saw this at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival. Idon’t know how they let this sneak into the festival but it somehow gotaccepted and was one of the weekend late night screenings. I normallywould have passed on a film like this but it was a late night showingand I like going to the late night screenings so what the heck. Barelyhad the opening credits ended and people were already walking out onit. I thought, wow, if people think this is so distasteful that theyare were walking out already I need to see this through. This wasactually a nice relief from a lot of the heavy and somber art films Ihad been seeing. This is a movie not a film. It’s tasteless, crass,sophomoric and relies on bathroom humor and sex jokes. And it’s prettyfunny too. This is so intentionally over the top that it’s quite fun.Cooper and Ed are both funny and charming. The characters they meetthroughout the film, people who are on screen for just a minute or so,are more interesting and have more character development than manycharacters in sophisticated serious movies. I definitely wouldn’trecommend this to just anyone but I wouldn’t mind seeing it again. I’dgive this a 7.0 out of a possible 10.

having nothing to do on a Friday night and all of a sudden rememberedof the thought of mine to watch long weekend as it looked funny(thecover at the video store). the plot was fine and the flow was natural.from the beginning it looked like a new line story for the funny hometapes. bet the producer went thru all the funny and nasty videos theycould find. at last a sexy comedy NOT from high school. the actors wasfine and Cobie Smulders was great on her little part.

now the bad parts of the story, they didn't really show coops earlylife nor his career in that one year, and funny how much he got fromthe modeling to afford stuffs he use and spend. well thats not themajor thing about a comedy and over all it was great. i wonder why itis still below 5?

This movie should be judged for what it is and not what it isn’t. Thismovie is just for fun nothing more. A little slow in the beginning butvery funny once it gets up to speed. I’m not a big fan of crude movieslike the American Pie series but this one I liked. That Chris Klein ismy new best buddy. He is one naturally funny guy. I’ll be on thelookout for any more work of his. I thought the photography was great.The acting was good. Directing was good. I don’t have a clue what thebudget was for this movie but from what I can see it was well financed.The uncensored "funniest video" clips are well placed throughout andare really funny even though I’ve seen most of them before. Grab abuddy and go see it!

It's a typical teenage sex comedy film, except in one detail: it mixesto the plot, since the beginning until the end, some weird (sometimesextreme bizarre!) short videotape films (kind of "candid-camera")showing, mainly, animals doing the most absurd and odd things relatedto sex (animal sex)! This movie turns extremely bizarre and uniquebecause of that… Who had such idea?! That's completely crazy!

Apart of that unusual "detail", it's just a "normal" teenage sex comedythat begins to be very funny, hilarious at parts, but which doesn't endso good… The ending could have been clearly better, because the lastten minutes have almost no fun and don't bring anything new to thisgenre. It's just a too predictable and conventional ending.

So, the "innovation" of this movie was actuality the odd "detail" ofthe short "candid-camera" films mixed in the plot!

Let me just make clear from the start why this movie gets 3/10 starsfrom me. 1 out of 10 stars would be a movie by people without anyknowledge of making movies at all and/or with inhuman content. 2/10stars is a movie that was made professionally but without anything goodor interesting about it. So, technically "The Long Weekend" should bein that category, but let's say Chris Klein's acceptable performancesaved it from that rating.

Klein is just about bearable, which can't be said about the rest ofthis movie. Here's a short guide for aspiring makers of comedies: Tits,fart jokes, sperm or anything vulgar does not automatically equalfunny. In fact, most of the time it's the opposite. The makers of "TheLong Weekend" don't seem to understand that. They explore every dickjoke no matter how predictable and disgusting it is. Actually, that'sthe best way to describe this movie: predictable, disgusting and let'sadd incredibly boring to that list of adjectives. The only thingremotely original about this piece of crap are the many blooper videosthat are cut in from time to time. No, that's not enough to justify themaking of this disaster. Not even close. Consider yourself degeneratedif you think this movie is funny!

The main characters are somewhat likable and it's mostly so non-PC,that I'd love it, if I'd love this movie more. But it just never reallyis good. Gross & crass? Yes that it is, but then again, if that's allyou're looking for, I'm sure you're better off watching Jackass orsomething similar like that. Hell even a few inserted videos can befound on the internet (you know where, the usual sources for videos,you'll find them or maybe you've even found/seen them before)!

So of course there's not much of a story here and it's mostly notfunny, but a few moments are funny. And that few moments are good. Ashame then, that there couldn't be more of them …

The Long Weekend does itself no favours by blatantly ripping off theworst bits of the American Pie franchise and infusing it with some ofthe most nauseating and unfunny scenes filmed for this genre.

Gross-out sex comedies have been on the rise since the success ofAmerican Pie and its spawns like Not Another Teen Movie, Eurotrip andVan Wilder have thrived at the box office while being panned by many inthe process. Although distasteful for m
any, these movies have alwaysfound advocates in younger viewers with many of its plots set inschools. Following the recent straight-to-video release of American PiePresents Band Camp, audiences are now subjected to The Long Weekend, acrass sex romp through a city involving 2 brothers and the women theyencounter.

In a story as old as time, the uptight and sexually repressed brother,Ed (Roswell’s Brendan Fehr) is urged by his playboy brother, Cooper(American Pie alum, Chris Klein) to embark on a weekend of debauchery.Ed, a reserved and artistic advertising wunderkind, has hit rockbottom. His ideas hit a creative slump when he finds out that hisphilandering ex-girlfriend is now married to his former best friend cumroommate. Threatened with the thought of losing his job, he has aweekend to create a new advertising concept for his firm’s biggestclient, an insurance company that’s on the verge of seeking another adagency’s service. Unfortunately, this weekend coincides with hisbirthday and his dolt-of-a-brother has something up his sleeves.

As the 8th most recognisable Western face in Japan due to a successfuladvertising campaign for the country’s leading sake (a Japanesealcoholic beverage made from fermented rice) manufacturer, Cooper’s thequintessential Lothario actor who beds the most promiscuous andattractive women that he’s able to get his hands on. With the best ofintentions, he’s determined to get the reluctant Ed back into thedating scene as he drags him to different locales where desperatesingle women gather. With each scenario turning into 1 awkwardsituation after another, a resolute Ed is finally unwavering in hispursuit to have sex by the time his weekend ends.

The formulaic plot involving a tense and asexual character thatsuddenly becomes dogged in his pursuit of sex while facing obstaclesthat humiliate, maim and ultimately fortifies him is utilised till theend. A lack of originality is just one of the many reasons this filmfalters as there’s none of the comic unpredictability we’ve come toexpect from recent sex comedies such as The 40 year old Virgin. Thefilm’s gross-out factor hits pretty high up on the charts when we startto see bodily fluids being digested, faecal matter and scenes thatborder on bestiality. These scenes seemed to have been tacked on forthe sole purpose of keeping viewers remotely interested in thelacklustre script and cringeworthy dialogue.

long weekend 2While it aspires to be a low-budget version of theWedding Crashers or Swingers (both outrageously funny and highlyrecommended Vince Vaughn vehicles), it fails to engage viewers due toits unlovable and pathetic characters that have the misfortune of beingbadly played as well. Fehr seems grossly miscast as Ed as he comes offas a potential sociopath more than a sympathetic and lovelorn chump.Klein’s Cooper is the less likable ‘Stifler’, being more obnoxious andignorant to those around him even when he expiates his shortcomings inthe end. As a film that appeals to a younger and less discerningaudience through its gross humour, its story is unevenly set insituations familiar to adults and those accustomed to the workplace,decreasing its appeal.

The only fresh aspect of this film that made it bearable was its uniqueuse of genuine home videos that feature folks getting hurt while inembarrassing situations and animals oblivious to the camera. Thesevideos were used to accentuate a character’s emotional state. Probablyguilty Schadenfreude at its worst but it lent a distinct style to thefilm that managed to become part of the climax. No surprise then that 1of the production companies involved in The Long Weekend is Vin Di BonaProductions, the company behind America’s Funniest Home Videos.

Even a cameo by Lost’s Evangeline Lilly was absolutely wasted as a deadbody at a supermodel’s funeral. Copious amounts of female nudity,distasteful visuals of animal parts and scatological humour are heapedin its short runtime of 85 minutes, a favour to the audience that thefilm’s producers didn’t count on. With inflated ticket prices thesedays, this trite and foul effort is a waste of money and time even whenit eventually becomes available for rental.

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

This movie was very funny, went to see it with a gang of friends and itmade us all laugh. Its the film to go to if you just want to beentertained. Its a lot like other gross-out films like American Pie,Meet the parents etc…but with a twist and it takes gross-out one stepfurther. The guys I was with picked this out but I have to say thegirls did just as much laughing as they did. Chris Klein did an awesomejob as Cooper - we were all a little surprised that he was so good. TheEd character was also cute he basically plays the typical Jason Biggscharacter but was very sweet. Would recommend to anyone who just wantsto go and have a laugh.

While the main drawing card of this movie seems to be the assortment ofraunchy sex gags and I’ll admit they do make you laugh (I actuallylaughed so hard at one point I spit out a mouth full of pop). But whatreally helps this movie is the likability and earnestness of the twoguys. You can’t help but sympathize with Ed and everyone’s has a friendwho is something like the Cooper character.

The plot mainly deals with Cooper and Ed’s "quest" for sex over onelong weekend. That is all it is, and all it was ever billed to be. Andit goes over great. I admit, I was not too excited about it at firstbut now I am glad I saw it. If you don’t like raunchy stories whoflaunt sex jokes shamelessly, and if you didn’t like Porky’s or FastTimes at Ridgemont High, or American Pie don’t go see it. Otherwise, gosee it and laugh your *ss off.

Any guy will appreciate The Long Weekend full tilt, and girls willrealize just what hoops guys jump through in order to get theirattention, let alone in their pants.

What added to The Long Weekend is that I liked both the characters. Ididn’t know Chris Klein could act until I saw this film, this is thefirst time he’s stepped out of his usual character and I have to say hesteals the show. I was glad that they didn’t make them the stereotypeone nice one sleazy Ed ain’t perfect and Cooper isn’t all bad. Thebrothers have some genuine moments on the screen which adds to the filmas a whole.

Dude, go see this if you want to laugh…I saw this in Europe when isit coming out in the States?!!

read comments (0)

The Legend of Zorro

First of all, I was with friends who for some reason wanted to watchthis movie, so I agreed. As for the first, I thought it was a littleboring, and while this one is a little more entertaining, it is alsomuch cheasier. The action completely makes fun of its self and thereare many things in the movie that only children would think is funny.All in all, I did good to sit through this movie. The acting was OK,and the dialogue was tolerable at most. Antonio is really showing hisage in this movie, but as for catherine, she is more beautiful thanever. If you have to see it, I would suggest waiting for a videorelease, so it will be cheaper. 3/10

Not enough swash Buckle. This turned Zoro into Zero. Antonio Banderashas a gift, for this type of role. To bad they didn’t let him use it.It would have been a better movie.

Catherine Zeta-Jones isn’t in movies because she can act. She isgorgeous and one hot babe. But that’s about it. I’m suppose to believeshe is capable of beating the snot out of 2-4 men,again…….P-l-e-a-s-e.

This is a classic, be careful what you ask for. Want to be Zoro?…….don’t get married…….nag, nag, nag. I’m surprised she didn’t havehim take out the garbage on the way to fight the bad guys.

Where did they get this plot? There was no Confederate Army in 1850.Henry repeating rifle wasn’t patented until 1860. Making nitro out ofsoap?…….. P-l-e-a-s-e.

To you Zoro fans……..don’t waste your time. This isn’t a Zoro movie.This would be a good movie to rent, to keep the kiddies occupied on arainy day. Don’t waste your money on it. Only reason I gave it anystars, at all, was because I felt sorry for Banderas.

I saw the first, i don’t remember the first. I’ve seen the second, i’veloved the second. It is hilarious, the use of Zorro’s child is amazingwith some brilliant one liners. Rufus Sewell is brilliantly evil, as ishis henchman, Antonio Banderas is a little Pogo but executes is rolewith brilliance and the sexiness you expect, Catherine Zeta Jones evenmanages to convey emotion. For unexpected humour look to the horse whogets some of the best moments of the film. Blatantly you can guess whatis going to happen, but it doesn’t make it any less funnier when ithappens. I went expecting a swash buckling bore, i then nearly fell outof my seat laughing several times, and the audience i was withspontaneously broke out clapping their appreciation several times. Itis a fantastic film. Just don’t expect it to be serious!

The first Zorro I would give 10 out of 10 this 5 out of 10. Its an okayfilm but not great and nothing like the first mores the pity.

It seems to be aimed at children rather than an adult audience so thekids will love it the rest of us will bare it just.

Too much comedy not enough plot the best part is when we have fightscenes. One can’t help but think of the first film and this is not evenclose to it.

It could have been better written and cut down a little.

Still Ms C.Z.Jones is always worth looking at.

This will be the last Zorro with those two or it had better be a farbetter storyline or it could end both their careers.

This movie - as opposed to others, including the Mask of Zorro movie -is pathetic. The action is repetitive and lacks bite. Mostdisturbingly, though, the faces of the actors now almost seem frozen.Maybe you noticed that the facial expressions of the actors hardly everchange.

Banderas manages to mostly smirk wryly. Zeta Jones has no impact on thetotal feel of the movie at all; what makes her acting contributionstand out is that she has her eyes open all the way. The bad guy Armandwalks around with two facial expressions: one being an ever- smirkingface and widely open eyes - with sometimes the other angle of the mouthdropping too, making it a ’scared’ look.

This movie should have been called "Everyone is Wearing A Mask".

I won’t go into plot details & such — just to say that the Zorro’s 10year old son is an embarrassment to all child actors. This is the bestthey can find?!?

You’ll enjoy this movie if you like 1980s Spielberg action flicks –think Indy Jones mixed with Hook and a dash of Spaghetti Westernsthrown in.

Although it is PG — there is some serious violence that I found a bitmuch for a "family" flick.

Overall the screening audience seemed to enjoy it, while only mysection laughed at most of the jokes.

I have always enjoyed Antonio Banderas films, and my only criticism ofhim was that he sometimes attempts too much humor when the movie callsfor more drama. He was excellent in "Women on the Verge of a NervousBreakdown," and stupendous as Pancho Villa, his best performance, Ibelieve. He was too cute alongside Anthony Hopkins, and the lattercarried that movie. This time, however, Banderas appears to be weary.He sleepwalks through the movie. His attempts to muster humor arehollow, and all in all, his performance is lackluster; and in spite ofall the banal sword fights, the movie itself is just as shallow. Otheractors contribute to this effect. Catherine Zeta Jones character, forexample, seemed to come straight out of a wax museum, and the "loveablekid" gyrates inanely between extremes of clever genius and gapingstupidity. I found myself pulling for the school master. The two badguys are even worse. Granted, it is a kids’ movie, but at least give usa few reasons to hate them. Like Catherine Zeta Jones’ character, the"heavies" belong in a shooting gallery, two dimensional targets withpainted expressions that spin around all day long when people hit them(which is often). I vote for Zorro’s horse as the film’s best actor,and the secondary and tertiary actors and actresses consistentlyout-shined the stars. No wonder Pedro Armendaris seemed to deliver hislines fast, exit stage anywhere, and get the hell out of there. AntonioBanderas, meet Ichabod Crane.

This movie was a joke… but it wasn’t funny. The bad acting wasn’teven what made it horrible, it was the complete lack of respect to thefirst and previous zorro flicks. The story is more a focus on familyproblems then the character of zorro. There are so many ridiculousthings that happen in the plot its better that I don’t get into them.Let me just say, little did we all know but Zorro in fact wins thecivil war. There are Pinkertons, wow its just bad I’m not sure whatelse to say. I would write more, but I am honestly getting a head achethinking about it. Getting out of this movie, I felt so physically illthat I had to go home and watch a couple good movies to cleanse myself.Trust me, its as bad as I am making it out to be. Please don’t see it.Pretty Please.

I went into this film not expecting to enjoy is as much as the firstone, but for it to be somewhere in the same ballpark. I was wrong aboutone of those assumptions, the ballpark. This film had horrible writing,bellow average fight scenes, and was just too long. While the first onehad a good plot and allowed the audience to feel for the characters(particularly Hopkins’), this one has a TERRIBLE plot and there is noconnection between the audience and the characters. The worst part ofthe film however is the running time. The movie just feels like itwon’t end. I guess the people making this film that since it istechnically part of the same genre as Batman Begins that they couldmake this movie over two hours since it worked for Batman. Thedifference however is that while Batman needed it’s running to time toadvance its story (as well as the fact that it was a great film and itreally didn’t matter how long it went) this one did not. Overall, thismovie is something that should be avoided.

I do not recommend "The Legend of Zorro" because it has a boring,tedious, and mediocre script, which undermines the actors. As we allknow, Zorro is an heroic figure who fight
s for justice and againsttyranny in California’s beginning days. In this movie, Zorro spendsquite a bit of time drunk because of a quarrel with his wife. You mightask yourself why a heroic figure like Zorro would waste so much time ina family-type movie being drunk, and that was our question. By the timeZorro cleaned up his act and dried up, we lost interest and did notcare about the outcome of the preposterous plot that was way over thetop for that era. Save your money and time.

read comments (0)

The Jacket

Well if like me your a fan of the wonderful butterfly effect you aregoing to like this also. In some ways its better as the direction isvery good,

but in others butterfly effect takes the gong. If you read the forumson here about this film you could spend months trying to decide exactlywhat happened at the end but i will leave that up to you to decide.

Me well i still don’t quite know but what i do know is its probably oneof the best films i have seen so far this year. !!!

Although if you want to be entertained and not have to spend the 1st 30mins of a film wondering what the hell is happening then skip it LOL

I was fortunate to watch this excellent flick at its last showing whereI enjoyed in my opinion an interpretation of those who are good in lifeare rewarded in miraculous ways, some may call or refer to heaven. Whatgoes around comes around and no matter how difficult it may be nowtheirs always a better tomorrow in this life or the next. Adrian Brody(the Pianist) is spectacular and truly believable in his searchthorough his mind for answers. Kierra Knightly (Pirate of theCaribbean) which I was lucky to meet plays the American stereotypedivinely as an angel in his dreams of a better future for those hecould help. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone without anyhesitation.

This was the "Surprise Film" at the Jameson International Film Festival- shown on February 20th. Only the second showing in the world, afterSundance - so we were told. John Maybury himself was there and held aquick Q&A session after wards.

Having never heard of the film before I was quite worried at the start.I thought it was a war film - I know there are many fantastic ones butin general I’m not a fan. I really enjoyed this film. It was a bit "outthere" but that’s my kind of film. It was a good casting, even ifMaybury didn’t want either originally. Don’t think I could’ve takenMark Wahlberg as seriously in the role of Starks.

I enjoyed it. I’d recommend it. "One to watch" so to speak.

i remember way back when i saw a commercial for it while going to seeanother movie, and i thought, wow thats going to be an awesome movie,and since that date (about early December) i have been waiting to seethe movie, and i just got back from the movies tonight, and i have tosay, i was NOT disappointed. Some people might not have done that inany circumstances thats true — but that doesn’t mean there aren’tpeople who would put others before themselves, and people who thinkthat may be selfish themselves, which is why i was shocked to see thatmany people found the comment on the movie information page useful. Itis a great thrilling movie, which takes you from reality to fantasythrough ones mind creating a turning tale of one man trying to save hislife, and help others with their own.

Ladies and gentleman I’d like to announce The Jacket the movie whichripped-off the most number of films single handedly. So far the moviesit was "influenced" by goes something like this:

Jacob’s Ladder - obviously.. 12 Monkeys and the final nail in thecoffin…La Jetee.

Most of all La Jetee. This movie so shamelessly rips-off La Jetee it iscriminal. The only originality is probably The Jacket being shot incolour.

Watch The Jacket to learn how you can make a movie by patching up storyparts from other BETTER movies. But do not discuss about it. Thereisn’t a DEEPER meaning or a RIDDLE or a PHILOSOPHICAL question in thismovie because it is hollow as a Thanksgiving turkey.

Watch La Jetee and you’ll understand what I mean.

The Jacket focuses more on a man’s internalizations over what’shappened to him and his journey to figure out exactly what that is,rather than a huge metastatement about the Gulf War as some peoplethink it is. Jack Starks was sent home from the war because of a shotto the head, but that really ends up being just a tiny piece of theplot. What people really need to focus on is his trying to unravel whathappens afterwards and the incredible things he discovers throughradical — and possibly unethical — treatments. Adrien Brody carriesthis movie by himself, since Kiera Knightley is solely picking up apaycheck for wearing lots of kohl eyeliner and sitting aroundopen-mouthed. Nice work if you can get it. What makes this filmdifferent from most psychological dramas is the fact that the person inthe midst of the problem, in this case Jack, readily accepts what’sunraveling around him, rather than fight it and spew out long, angstymonologues about the world and his place in it. A very different (andmislabeled) drama, but a good one if you don’t mind a little thinkingwhile you watch.

I’m no film critic but this is a good film. This isn’t a film aboutwar, hospitals, restaurants or any other surface themes per se. Itsabout making changes in our lives. The ending rather reminded me ofBrazil.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. I would give this at least an8. I had no problems following the ‘time’ events. And its obvious bythe ending that the letter to Gina worked and she did something abouther situation.

This is a thinking persons movie and not meant for a cheap distractionthat so many movies fall under.

And in the end it is said ‘how much time do we have?’ Well……….howmuch time do YOU have?

Anyways……….that’s all folks.

Okay what was the thing with the guy who supposedly shot the deputy? Atthe end they showed him with a green string around his finger, and theyshowed mckenzie watching jack go into the hospital, and mckenzie wastwirling a green string also. Not to be rude, but all of you putting somuch time and effort into coming up with theories on this movie shouldseriously go read a book. the performances were good, but the directorand writer were garbage. The premise was interesting, but even if thedirector was attempting to portray some bizaar redemption story, or aneven more bizaar Christ allegory, the whole thing didn't work. Itdidn't make much sense and it never flowed together into anythingcoherent. Plus the time travel was dealt with very poorly. Anyways, ifanyone can answer my earlier question id appreciate it.

The style of the telling is all in this very off beat thriller(drama?). The story of a mentally unclear asylum patient who begins totime trip when locked in a morgue drawer is, to say the least,fractured. The telling of the tale is as broken as our hero’s memoryand its there that the film finds its strength and creepiness. Thedisjointed nature of the telling keeps us off balance, and if itdoesn’t drive you running to the exits, will keep you feeling veryuneasy afterward. The films flaw is that once you get to the end andare able to restructure the plot into a linear telling the film doesn’tseem so special. As with most films told out of order The Jacketdoesn’t work when put straight. If you can accept the film on its termsits quite good but if you are looking for anything remotely normal stayaway.

Another style-over-substance movie.

Set in the future a gulf-war veteran (Brody) investigates what happenedto him in a mental hospital.

Yet another confusing movie that will probably make sense on the DVDwhen viewed in the correct order of scenes. This picture cuts back andforth between 2007 and the early ’90s. The problem with the movie isthat we don’t care about Brody’s character enough to follow the plot.That scene involving Brody being placed in a horizontal cabinet wasterrifying. There’s a good cast but this movie is too similar in styleto the superior Machinist.

The Jacket is average fare.

read comments (0)

The Ice Harvest

In ‘The Ice Harvest’ John Cusack plays Charlie Arglist, a crookedlawyer in Wichita, KS. Charlie has just stolen $2 million from hisboss, Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid), and now he and his partner (BillyBob Thornton) aspire to get out of Wichita. But can they?

This movie was very disappointing considering the talent involved. Itis being billed as being better than ‘Bad Santa’, it is not. The jokesare few and far between, Oliver Platt is the funniest in the movie andhe spends most of his time passed out. This is as if someone tried (Iemphasize tried) to make a Coen Brother’s movie about Wichita (like’Fargo’) and failed miserably.

To its credit, the depictions of Wichita are very accurate. I shouldknow, It is my hometown. However, this would have been better if therewas more Oliver Platt.

In the vein of the Coen brothers’ "Fargo" and "Blood Simple," in whichdeath and dying are all part of the fun, comes this newest release,"Ice Harvest," starring John Cusack ("High Fidelity") and Billy BobThornton ("Bad Santa") as a pair of inept but sincere crooks who pulloff a Christmas Eve heist of $2 million in Wichita Falls, Kansas.

Directed by Harold Ramis, who has helmed such comedy classics as"Caddyshack," "National Lampoon’s Vacation," "Groundhog Day" and"Analyze This," this dark-humored noir picture is smart, entertainingand holds up well, despite the blood-splatter and whiplash-inducingplot twists. It’s part "A Simple Plan," part "Quick Change" part"Prizzi’s Honor," but it stands up as a decent motion picture on itsown.

Cusack is Charlie Arglist, a weak-kneed mob mouthpiece serving bloated,violent Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid), a mid-level boss who runs thesmall Midwestern town. Charlie is no one important in and of himself,but his connections gain him grudging respect from town sycophantslikes cops, strippers, bartenders and others who want to impress hissuperiors.

Going nowhere and getting there fast, he, along with strip club ownerVic McLaughlin (Thornton), concoct an idea to steal $2 million fromGuerrard the day before Christmas - which also happens to produce oneof the worst freezing rainstorms in recent history. While Vic - asleazy guy you wouldn’t trust with 50 cents, let also a couple ofmillion - takes the cash for "safekeeping," Charlie has to just play itcool until 5 a.m. Christmas morning. At that time, the two plan tosplit the Sunflower State and head for warmer climes.

Individually, neither man could perform such a brazen act as stealingthis much mob money; Charlie doesn’t have the guts, Vic doesn’t havethe brains. Together, though, they make a pretty decent combination.

As one would expect, however, things do not go as planned, and soon thewhole scheme begins to unravel. It’s at this point the bodies startpiling up; but exactly who dies and what order, I will not reveal.Suffice it to say, though, it’s not who we expect.

In addition, despite their best attempts at covering the crime, itseems just about everyone in town is in on it, a little matter whichcauses even more havoc and stress between the two thieves; as does thearrival of hit-man Roy Gelles (Mike Star, the hulking actor who played"Gas Man" in "Dumb & Dumber").

Cusack is appropriately cowering in his role of theindecisive,beaten-down lawyer with little to lose for the robbery, andnot much else to gain in life. His low-key approach is perfectlycontrasted to the bombastic violence and cockiness of Thornton, who hasnot been this maliciously delicious since "Bad Santa." Adding decentsupport is anger-plagued barkeep, Sidney (Ned Bellamy, "Con-Air," "EdWood") and Oliver Platt, as Charilie’s best friend, Peter Van Heuten(Oliver Pratt, "Kinsey"). In fact, Pratt’s work as a perpetual drunk isthe best thing about this film. It’s a classic inebriate and one whichmay (and I emphasize "may" here) just be enough to earn him aSupporting Actor nomination. It’s one of the best drunk impressionssince Lee Marvin in "Cat Ballou." Also along for a good-looking ride isCharlie’s love interest, Renata (Connie Neilson, "The Great Raid"),another integral part of the ever-twisting story.

While Ramis’ direction is fairly taut, the writing styles of RichardRusso and Robert Benton (the latter won an Academy Award as BestDirector in 1979 for "Kramer vs. Kramer") shine as the dialogue iscrackling good. Also singled out for kudos is the cinematographer, AlarKivilo ("Hart’s War," "A Simple Plan"), who uses the bleak, dreary,frozen Kansas landscape like a main character.

Like "Three Days of the Condor," you will trust no one in this film;and like "Hamlet," a great deal of the cast dies, but, overall, withsmart puns to soften the death blows, "Ice Harvest" may be just thedark, depressing gift you’re looking for this Christmas.

Great Movie.

It exposes a part of the underworld in a realistic non-glamorous venue.This view is seamlessly juxtaposed to an equally abhorrent upper middleclass that reaps the benefits of immoral acts but denies its’connection.

This dark comedy reveals our own hypocrisy and should have usquestioning the luxuries of life that we are steeped in and theconsequences to a society that promotes immorality.

More then this, I see a man’s "Thelma and Louise". The archetypal femmefatals are extraordinary. Our heroes narrowly escape a life theybargained for with women who have no virtue and have honed theirsexual, emotional and intellectual blackmail skills to mastery.

A wonderfully weaved cautionary tell for every man.

John Cusack is one of my favorite actors. Since he broke out with "TheSure Thing" 20 years as a teenager he, along with the likes of SeanPenn and Nick Cage, has been a consistent voice of our generation andour angst and uncertainty. Harold Ramis has been one of the bestcommercial directors in the business. "Groundhog Day" and "AnalyzeThis!" were both laugh riots. The combination would seem to make "IceHarvest" one of the better films of the holiday season. But, it justdoes not work. The film bears too much resemblance to many CoenBrothers films, most notably "Blood Simple." While everyone inHollywood has been influenced by others including the Coens, there aresome things which are forgivable but some things are not. From start tofinish, this film really did not offer anything original. It was toofunny to be suspenseful and too dark to be a comedy. Oliver Platt isgreat in a supporting role, and the acting is good but it can’t escapeits limitations. I suppose the main saving grace is that there is no’wood chipper’ sequence!

The Ice Harvest received an incognito release, and that’s fitting -because this is a very incognito film. The last time someone put acrime comedy on ice, the resulting film was Fargo; but don’t beexpecting anything even close to the quality of the Coen Brothers’ filmhere. The film reunites Pushing Tin stars John Cussack and Billy BobThornton for a tale of stealing money at Christmas time. As a crimecaper, The Ice Harvest doesn’t work too well; and as a comedy, it’seven worse. The first hour doesn’t feature a single laugh, and althoughit picks up for the final third, there is never enough to allow thefilm to fully redeem itself. The plot is largely character based, andit follows gutless Charlie Arglist and his plot with the brainless VicCavanaugh to rip off $2 million from the boss of Kansas City. They’vegot twelve hours to get it all sorted and skip town, but in the coldicy atmosphere of Christmas; skipping town might not be too easy, aseveryone from a dim-witted policeman to Charlie’s drunkard friend seemto have an interest in what’s going down.

I like John Cussack a lot, and
that was my main reason for seeing thisfilm. His persona fits his character in this movie, but I’ve seen muchbetter from him. Billy Bob Thornton isn’t given much to do, but again;he fits the role given to him. Oliver Platt, an actor whom you’llrecognise from the film ‘Three to Tango’, if you’ve seen it, stands outin his over the top role as Charlie’s drunken friend. Randy Quaid makesa splash towards the end, and the cast is topped off by the beautifulConnie Nielsen. The film is written and directed by Harold Ramis, whosefilm credits include Groundhog Day and Analyse This, and this film ispretty much what you’d expect from someone with those credits in termsof quality. The script is very uneven, and it’s hard to care aboutanything that goes on in the first hour. The characters become moreprominent in the final third, but by then it’s too late and it feelslike an afterthought. The comedy is supposedly black, but I’d say it’smore nonexistent and Harold Ramis would be better off sticking to theover the top comedy that we’re used to seeing from him.

Too bad boys, not even a good try. Whatever you were thinking when youstarted this mess, you wound up with just another wannabe noir. Andlooks like you aren’t pulling the wool over most of us here. We allseem to feel the same. The, well, I started to say plot, but there isnone, but whatever else you want to call it just keeps on goingnowhere. You feel sorry for all concerned, that in the middle of thisthey must have known what a dog they had on their hands and startedmailing in their emotions. The femme fatale stuff was especiallyembarrassing. And I once thought the Cohen Brothers were that. But it’sstuff like this that makes them look like wizards.

Not a frame I want to see again, and I sat through the whole thing.

Shameful.

I read the summaries of the professional (big paper and source) reviewson www.movies.com, which were generally positive. I love the director(Harold Ramis) and cast (John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Oliver Platt,Randy Quaid, et al.) and the premise (stealing from the mob).

Sitting through this movie, I kept wondering when it was going to startgetting good. But, it never really got off the ground, and I was sorelydisappointed. My vote of 4 is generous, only because the plot wassomewhat interesting. But the performances were all lackadaisical atbest; phoned in at worst. Why did they even bother to make it?

Of all the professional reviews, I read the local paper’s review whichran the day after I saw the movie, and his assessment was the same asmine. C. A "gentleman’s C." There are far better things to do with 90minutes. Two words describe this movie: Highly forgettable. Perhaps itwas fitting that I saw this on Turkey Day.

This dopey caper comedy has little to offer, but at least you can getit out of the way and still have plenty of the afternoon left. JohnCusack is a lawyer for some Kansas gangsters and he has a scheme forstealing a couple of million bucks from his employers. He describes hismisdeed as "skimming," though from the look of things it would take hisboss at least five years to accumulate that much cash from his Wichitastrip clubs, never mind have that much left over for Cusack to "skim."Whatever, a series of dumb missteps by Cusack and his crime partner,Billy Bob Thornton, keep them on the edge of capture by the mob. Youwon’t care. This is not worth even the 88 minutes it lasts. Who ispicking scripts for Cusack?

"Wickedly funny thriller," one critic said. I don’t know what he (andall the critics who recommended this movie, i.e., every review I saw)were smoking, but The ICE HARVEST is the worst movie I’ve seen thisyear, and I want my money back. I’m not kidding. Please request theproducers to send my husband and me a check for $15, plus interest. The"story" was stupid, "pointless," to borrow one blogger’s word, and theacting non-existent. Most scenes being in the dark, I couldn’t see mucheither, or hear much, for that matter, the actors mumbling half thetime (more and more the case in today’s movies). From the reviews ordescriptions, I thought "HARVEST" would compare to A SIMPLE PLAN orJACKIE BROWNE. It’s laughable even to mention it in same sentence withthose two excellent suspenseful, tension-filled conflict-over-moneymovies. Sadly, critics and movie-makers continue to collude in rippingoff the movie-going public with many more awful (than entertaining)movies each year. I wonder how they can look themselves in the mirror.Among the few worthy, good story, holding a viewer’s interest this yearare RAY, LADIES IN LAVENDER, and Cinderella MAN (and I don’t likeboxing). I’ve always loved movies and try to find the good in them, butthere’s not much out there anymore. Either Hollywood doesn’t care aslong as it makes enough money to survive, or fewer talented people arebeing born.

This wrongly advertised film satisfied me on all levels. The buddyhumor, the black comedy, the noir, the violence… and John Cusack. Ifyou are going to this movie under the influence of trailers bewarned… not only is it not going to be the movie you think you aregoing to see but only parts of the trailer show up in the film (which ialways think is a good thing). Like The Weather Man the studio’sobviously don’t think audiences can watch complexly emotional films, sothey end up advertising it as a Bad Santa. I enjoy moments when i trulyhave no idea what is going to be said or happen next and The IceHarvest did this for 90 minutes.

read comments (0)

The Island

I managed to see this tonight at a sneak preview. I had seen a traileror two for it, and figured it would be a decent popcorn movie. Afterall, the cast looked wonderful, so it couldn’t be bad, right?

Wow.

Completely NOT what I was expecting. I’m not sure what I was expecting,but it wasn’t… that. Which made it all that much better.

The movie has a decent plot, not too complicated, but thought provokingenough that it gives you something to think about afterwards. Sure,it’s not that original, but now-a-days, what is? And it never stops. Wewere there for 2 hours, but it felt like 3. But not in an "OMG, is thisever going to end" way, but in a "OMG, they managed to pack so much inthere" way. The movie never stops, and by the time you’re out of there,it really does feel a lot longer than it was. But I would have happilyseen more.

They do a good job with the ending though. It was a little clichéd, butnot surprisingly so. I wish they had followed up with the impact afterthe climax… but that could be a movie into itself.

All in all, if you’re looking for a good summer blockbuster, this isdefinitely one of them. It’s not quite as good as Batman Begins, butthen again, I’m not sure anything this summer will be. However, thisdefinitely makes a case for second place.

THE ISLAND Dreamworks/Warner Bros. 2005 Color 127 minutesAction-Thriller Scarlett Johansen, Ewan Mcgregor, Steve Buschemi, SeanBean and Dijimon Honsou star. Directed by Michael Bay Rated PG-13 forlanguage, violence and sexuality. I just returned from a screening ofthe summers best film. Hopefully not hiring your expectations to much.I hope to expose the film a bit so that it can find more of anaudience. I’m not sure there’s much anticipation for it. Even thoughthere should be. Flowing with creativity, intelligence, wondrous actionsequences and a truly ground breaking storyline. Sexy Ewan Mcgregor andstunner Scarlett Johansen star as Lincoln and Jordan two supposedpeople living in a fake utopia. Genrated by a company they discovertheir clones and the purpose of their existence after winning thesupposedly random lottery to go to the last remaining paradise theIsland. But they soon discover there is no island and the reason forliving is because they’re being sponsored by rich people so that aftertheir body parts have outlived their usefulness they can replace themwith theirs. Slightly disturbing I know. They soon end up on the runand thats when the Michael Bay kicks in. With one exciting action setpiece after another. Filling the film witch subtle and seeminglyrealistic special effects the film keeps you grounded in emotion andhanging on to the edge of your seat. Besides the films undeniablecontents it sports memorable performances from its cast, Michael Baysbest direction, a spectacular score and colorful cinematographic. Thisis the bets film I’ve seen all summer and possibly the year. I don’twant to hype this film up for anyone but it’s what I feel. I’m sureothers will not agree but no one will walk out feeling dissatisfied.Cause it’s a rare feat to balance intelligence with action and thisfilm succeeds. So please give this film the business it deserves andcheck it out. A

I really enjoyed this movie. I saw it in a sold-out theater full ofmovie goers and heard all positive remarks from everyone afterward.People applauded at the end and there were plenty of gasps, laughs, andjust all around positive reactions throughout the movie. I think theaudience reaction during and after a movie speaks volumes. It alsoreceived equal enthusiasm from both the men and women in the audience.I thought the story was very interesting and I liked that it focused somuch on the feelings of the characters. But it also was a great actionmovie with amazing special effects, suspense, humor, a little bit ofromance, bad guys and good guys, and yet still a general theme thatgives us all something to think about. (The issue of cloning). Ienjoyed all of the acting by a very diverse cast. Ewan McGregor shinesonce again, this time doubly so in his dual roles as a clone and hisoriginal. I felt this movie got you involved with the main characterson a personal level and keeps you pulling for them all the way. One ortwo of the action scenes may be a bit incredible, but I think that ifyou go in to a movie like this wanting strictly reality, you’re missingthe point of just sitting back and losing yourself in a bit ofemotional fun for a while. I give it my highest rating for a fun movie!

Michael Bay took action films to the next level in his 1996 spectacle,’The Rock’. Flashforward to 2005’s ‘The Island’ and Bay has once againfound the balance between rock hard eye-candy and engaging story thatmakes his films perfect summer popcorn fare. Unlike ‘Pearl Harbor’, afilm that should have seen Bay only tackling 2nd unit directing duties(i.e. action scenes), ‘The Island’ plays to all of the director’sdistinctive visual talents, while never allowing him to stray outsidehis narrative boundaries. Can Michael Bay do intense/suspenseful? Yes!Can he dig into the guts of his characters and find the subtleties andquirks that make for memorable cinema? Absolutely not! But, that’s notwhy moviegoers buy tickets to a Bay flick. Hands down, no one inHollywood can best Michael Bay’s drop-jaw action extravaganza. As longas he’s blowing things up, he’s unstoppable. What makes ‘The Island’ soenjoyable is that amidst the amazing action sequences is an originalstory with compelling characters. The only thing that prevents me fromrating ‘The Island’ as Excellent, is the same ho-hum ending thatplagues all of Bay’s movies. But then, if we waited for movies withgreat endings, Hollywood would go bankrupt. ‘The Island’ is acrowd-pleaser for most of the family, minus the little ones. Somescenes are too intense for youngsters and parents should do theirchildren a favor and go see the flick before they expose anyone under15 to its dark themes and brutal moments. In closing, ‘The Island’works hard for your cinema dollars and hits its mark dead-on. Enjoy!

I saw the sneak preview of The Island in San Francisco earlier tonight,and let me say what a ride it was. I normally do not like Michael Bayfilms, The Rock is an exception, so going into the movie I was notexpecting much. But The Island simply blew me away from its intensechase scenes to its unexpected comedic moments. I will go through thegood and the bad of the movie.

The good:

Brilliant film-making. I did not think I would be saying this about aBay movie but I really liked his style in this movie and not only withthe action scenes.

Compelling plot. I liked the story even though it takes a lot fromLogan’s Run and other movies about the future or cloning. I believe itdid well to take elements from other movies and bring them intosomething new.

Music. The score by Steve Jablonsky was fantastic, need I say more?

Likable actors. Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson were good but notgreat in The Island but what they did have going for them was that theywere very dynamic when on the screen together.

The action. Of course.

The bad:

Not very thought provoking. I believe that The Island could have had alittle less action and a little more thinking and questioning a laBlade Runner. As it was it stuck mostly to its action roots instead ofexploring a little deeper.

Enough running already! For the first hour or so, it seems that all theprotagonists do is run. It starts to get a bit tedious but not so muchthat it ruins the picture.

Product placement. Puma, MSN, Apple, Xbox, Aquafina, Cadillac, Nokia,and many more, there was enough product placement to fill a house. Iguess they had to fund the movie somehow.

Conclusion: All in all, Ifound The Island to be a very entertainingmovie, well worth my money.It overcomes its few shortcomings nicely andbecomes what a summer blockbuster should be, great fun.

I saw this movie
with a few other buddies, and I’d have to say..it’sone of the best i’ve seen all year. It contains action packed, and willmake you think…what comes next? It’s pretty much your suspense/actionmovie, which is one of a kind. It’s, in a way, like Logan’s Run..butit’s modern day, and has a different plot line. Scarlett Johansson wasbeautiful in this movie, as she is in real life..and Ewan McGregor isan amazing actor in this movie. I think this movie is a one of a kind.It has a great starting story, and you’d never guess what will happenas you go along. I came into the theater with doubts of the movie, leftwith tons of great comments about the movie. In my opinion, It’s worthyour money.

No serious spoilers here, but I do talk about the "flow" of the movie,which could be a spoiler if you have no idea what this movie is about.

We went to the "sneak preview" of The Island this evening. It startedout as a very technically well put together version of "Logan’s Run"(sorry; I haven’t seen "Clonus" which is what some people say bears thestrongest resemblance). It then evolved/devolved into aSchwarznegger-style blow up everything in the way/take no prisonersaction flick (with a very passing resemblance to Blade Runner), andwound up a James Bond - "How do we stop the madman ?" — movie.(Indeed, Sean Bean, the man who runs the evil company at the core ofThe Island is also the bad guy from Goldeneye.) In many ways, its amovie that couldn’t make up its mind what it wanted to be, and went ona bit too long.

All of this would have been fine, if parts 2 and 3 were vaguelybelievable. Incredibly, Arnold’s movies are a good deal MORE believablethan this, and that’s saying something. After a while, you just start"suspending your disbelief", but you have to go SO far, that it’s hardto take it at all seriously. And, I’m not talking about the SciFiconcepts here, which are okay. I’m talking about the action scenes,which take on a comic-book unbelievability that’s closer to a cartoon.

The special effects are fun to watch, and the loud soundtrack workswell in a movie theater. There’s a lot of closeups when people arefighting. Sometimes its hard to tell just what is going on; othertimes, they capture someone getting hit with a wrench, etc., so wellthat you wince.

Oh, yes, the actors — McGregor is fine, but nothing special, Johanssonis positively wooden, Buscemi is good as always, and finally, there’she treat of trying to remember who Ethan Phillips is. (a hint — heplayed an alien on a very well known TV franchise). The script is allover the place, but there are some clever lines.

Sadly, The Island kept declining in stars as it went on — probably 3stars for the "setup" of the community in which McGregor lives, but itthen rapidly fell, probably to 2 stars by the time your throughwondering if it could have possibly happened like this.

This movie was awesome - no doubt helped a little by my lowexpectations. I’m no Michael Bay fan, finding his works usually toocheesy and way over the top in false sentimentality. But this filmworks on all levels. The performances are great, it has great dialogue,very talented cast plus the usual Michael Bay action and driving scoreand special effects. This movie had me on the edge of my seat justsalivating at what I might see next. It starts slow, but stillinteresting and gripping, the middle segment is action packed and theend is well played out. There was just a little bit of having tosuspend disbelief (but hell its futuristic sci/fi and cloning what doyou expect). I’m no Ewan McGregor fan really either, or anyone in thecast really except for Steve Buscemi whose part is relatively small.But all of the cast were superb. Scarlett was amazing - better than inLost in Translation even. Yes it had elements of the Matrix, but notripping it off in any way. I’m rambling, but suffice it to say, itsreally really good.

I am a big fan of all Michael Bay’s movies, especially Bad Boys I & II,The Rock, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor… His action is always amazingand stunting. I wish to say the same about Micheal Bay’s latest actionflick, The Island, but it was more of a disappointment.

The action was as usual brilliantly coordinated, especially the fastcar chase and the crashes. Even though it lasted for only 15 minutes,it is totally worth the $10. Apart from that, the movie was moving at aslow, very slow pace. Especially the first 30 minutes to the movie,some of the scenes should have been deleted.

Thank God there is Steve Buscemi who brings comic relief to the movie.Every phrase that comes out from his mouth is utterly funny!

Since this is a futuristic Sci-Fi movies, I was expecting to see somecool high tech gadgets here but all I see is heavily advertisedpromotion from Microsoft such as NBC, XBox, MSN search… What was themessage that Michael Bay or the producer trying to portrait to theaudiences? Microsoft owns the future? Aren’t there already own most ofeverything in our present time?

Lastly, I can’t help but notice the style of the movie resembles a verysimilar genre to another poorly orchestrated Scifi movie - Paycheck.

If you like Paycheck which was done in such sloppy manner, you probablywould like The Island.

I was really pumped about the movie once I saw the previews andcouldn’t wait for it to come out. Me and some friends went to see thesneak peak tonight on July 9th. It was AMAZING - I knew it would begood but i didn’t know it would be THAT good. The ending was a littlecheesy, just the whole scene with everyone walking and looking aroundin the desert (it was in the previews!). It is a very very originalplot, and there’s a lot more to it than just the basic plot that theytell you in the previews. It is a super-duper action packed movie,including a highway scene that made the matrix’s highway scene looklike child’s play. I can’t wait to see it again - I gotta wait ’tillthe 22nd! The theater was packed where we went, and we had to sit inthe second to front row. You could tell everyone loved it, and when wecame out of the theater we felt like we could run for miles justbecause of the energy we had. I started my fingernail biting habitagain, after I had been so good for many months. There are some thingsthat are implausible (like surviving falling down on the giant "R"after the helicopter crashed into it - ALSO in the previews!).

YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE! THIS IS THE MOST ACTION-PACKED, FUNNEST,MOST THRILLING MOVIE YOU WILL SEE ALL SUMMER!

read comments (0)

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I have watched this movie several times. And i truly can't get enough.Garth Jennings must make a sequel at all costs. then make another andso on, until the book is completed. I created an account solely becauseof how strongly i feel about this. This has potential to be the bestsci-fi movie i've ever seen. And the fact that it's a comedy doesn'tchange this fact. Speaking of which, it is also hysterical. Mos Def ishysterical and Sam Rockwell is as genius as always. The whole cast worktogether so perfectly that it would be a shame not to see them again.The Jim Henson puppets were a wonderful idea, truly bringing to lifethe various characters of the film. I can't stress how important it isto follow this project through to it's end. The mood of the film ispoignant and subtle giving people that rare feeling that makes themwatch it over and over.

my only complaints: the second head could have been done better. Nogregarious show tunes next time please.

This could all be remedied in the sequel, the restaurant at the end ofthe universe. It's meant to be, Garth, don't give up so easily.

ps. HotBlack: Jack Black. think about it.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY (2005) *1/2 Martin Freeman, MosDef, Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel, John Malkovich, Warwick Davis, BillNighy (voices of : Alan Rickman, Helen Mirren; Narration: Stephen Fry)Big-screen adaptation of Douglas Adams’ cult-classic sci-fi primerabout survival and the cosmic life aftermath of Earth’s destruction isa colossal bore for those who are not initiated in the lore of theauthor’s literary world of the imaginary with Freeman as anti-heroArthur Dent and Def as his alien best bud who saves his life for agalactic tour of what may be with comic episodes that are franklyleaden and without humor. I have no desire to neither read any of thebooks nor follow thru on any possible sequel. I get it but I don’t getit. A real snore. Sorry folks but ‘cult’ may be best left as is. (Dir:Garth Jennings)

I wish there was a 0 or negative rating. This is the only movie inrecent memory that I actually walked out of the theater. Not only that,but I took it one step further and asked to see the theater manager anddemanded my money back (which he did)! I refused for 1 cent of my hardearned money to go to the people who made this piece of garbage. I findit hard to understand how any Christian could sit through this.

I knew nothing of the books or series before seeing this. I also newlittle of the reviews before seeing this - much to my regret. I thoughtit was just going to be a satirical sci-fi, with a harmless PG ratingat that. Boy was I wrong. I'm usually pretty informed on a movie'scontents before seeing it, but this was a very spur-of-the-momentimpulse. What a mistake - needless to say, I have never made THATmistake again!

Early on, the narrator makes several references to the main characterbeing an "ape-descendant." Shortly afterwards, the main character isshown at a costume party and meets his love interest, who is dressed upas Darwin. It's very evident that Darwinism and evolution are beingpresented which is not uncommon and not real "shock" material. I couldoverlook that.

However, I was APPALLED when the narrator begins explaining to theviewer WHAT "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is. To paraphrase:It's a 'hugely popular book'. More popular than the three best sellingbooks ever: 1) "Where God Went Wrong," 2) "Some More of God's GreatestMistakes" and 3) "Who is this God Person Anyway?" That did it for me. Iwas appalled and shocked by the BLATANT blasphemy. I think I expected alot of tongue-in-cheek, sci-fi silliness but certainly nothing likethis. There is also a direct mocking of salvation in the scene where hesays "wipe us clean with your white handkerchief" or something likethat.

Here are some direct quotes from IMDb:

Humma Kavula, Congregation: (singing) "Oh mighty Arkleseizure, thougazed from high above. And sneezed from out thy nostrils, a gift ofbounteous love. The universe around us emerged from thy nose. Now weawait with eager expectation, thy handkerchief, to bring us back tothee." (End singing)… "Let us pray. Oh mighty one, we raise our nosesto you blocked and unblown, send the handkerchief O blessed one that wemay be wiped clean."… "Atchoo!"… "Bless you."

That's about all I can tell you (because I walked out and didn't seethe rest). I just felt I needed to warn other Christians what to expectso you don't get caught off guard like I was.

The adventures of Englishman Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), his friendFord Prefect (Mos Def), the president of the universe Zaphod Beeblebox(Sam Rockwell) and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel). Oh yes and the manicdepressive robot Marvin (Warwick Davis).

The book by Douglas Adams was impossible to do in a 2 hour movie–butthat didn't stop Hollywood! There was already a BBC miniseries back inthe late 1970s-early 1980s which was great (except for the sub parspecial effects). This was done on a huge budget with impressiveeffects and a script that was (more or less) faithful to the book. Themovie moves like lightning (like the book) only stopping to give alittle plot explanation here and there. It should work–but it reallydoesn't.

For one thing they made changes from the book–It throws in an almostembarrassing love connection between Trillian and Dent (it wasn't inthe book). Beeblebrox had two heads in the book–here has one head ontop of the other! It looks stupid and doesn't work. Prefect was whitein the book–he's black here. I'm not racist but why???? There was noreason for that alteration. I know that change really annoyed fans ofthe book. Also the Vogons look pretty silly. And the ending of the bookwas changed–and badly. There was a clumsy set-up for the sequel at theend (which will never happen).

The cast is actually good. Freeman and Deschanel play it straight-facedand Mos Def is pretty good if all wrong for the role. Rochwell is WAYover the top as Beeblebrox. At first I was just stunned (hispersonality comes out at you full force) and annoyed–but then Irealized there was no other way the character could have been played.Davis is a scream as Marvin who is perfectly realized in this movie.

So–all in all–this is probably the best version Hollywood will everdo with the book. It came out and almost immediately bombed. Fans wereoutraged at the two big changes and non-fans couldn't make heads ortails out of it. So I can see why it bombed but it's not that bad. Igive it a 7. There's a nice little tribute at the very end to DouglasAdams (author of the book).

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is an adaptation of DouglasAdams' radio series and book of the same name. Notably there was also atelevision version of the radio series and book released in 1981 by theBBC. Not surprisingly, the special effects here are more developed thanthose in the BBC version and look great. This film also features anexcellent score, with songs like "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish"and "Journey of a Sorcerer", the latter of which was also in the BBCversion.

The casting of this film is appropriate, although not on par with thecasting of the BBC version. Martin Freeman bumbles around well asArthur Dent. Mos Def makes a fine Ford Perfect and Zooey Deschanel waswell-cast as Trillian. Alan Rickman was a perfect choice to voiceMarvin since he can always effectively express disappointment andunimpressed sarcasm. Sam Rockwell captures the arrogance of ZaphodBeeblebrox well and I was impressed by Bill Nighy's performance asSlartibartfast. John Malkovich has a good turn Humma Kavula, acharacter not in the original story. The portrayal of the Vogons inthis film was highly amusing, even if
their role was exaggerated fromthe original story. Lastly, Stephen Fry was an apt choice as thenarrator for this film.

The script is a reasonable adaptation of the radio series and book, butis also the most disappointing aspect of this production. The originalwork of Douglas Adams was altered here to make the plot more cohesiveand develop a romance story. The original plot was loose and prone tohumorous digressions, but I found that style more effective than thestyle here. A number of notable jokes from the original work areomitted and a lot of the jokes from the original were disappointinglydiluted. This film also added a number of scenes not from the originalthat were amusing, but not as much as amusing as what was left out. Idid enjoy the references in this film to the BBC version, whichincluded a role for Simon Jones and a cameo for the Marvin from thatversion. Those that enjoy Adams' original work will find the BBCversion, which to me isn't diminished by its older special effects,indispensable and likely better than this version. None the less, adiluted "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" still makes for an amusingfilm.

As an OBSESSED Douglas Adams fan (and a 4-year CTYer) i was a littleworried when i first learned about the movie - what if they butcheredit like so many other books-turned-movies? But after seeing it, i willbow to the wonder that is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy! A realtribute to my god and personal savior, Douglas Adams. Contains all hishumor and more, and loses nothing (nothing serious, anyway), in thetransition from page to screen. Granted, Zaphod’s head was a littleweird (it was Definitely described as being on his shoulder in thebook), but still, his two heads WERE there. The adding of scenes notcontained in the book makes sense, since they A) were in the humor andstyle of Adams; B) made up for the fact that at least 40%-50% of thebook is commentary and narration and therefore not easy to translate toscreen (and likely boring if it is ALL made narration in the movie),and C) DOUGLAS ADAMS WROTE THE SCREENPLAY! Therefore, i really canfault nothing that’s in the movie. Just remember to bring your towelwhen you see it.

-Z3Ncat

I was afraid this film wouldn’t live up to its legacy. But it certainlydid–perhaps that is why I rated it a 9 rather than 8. Even more, itwas family friendly and non-stop fun–that earns a higher rating aswell.

Mos Def was perfect as Ford. A great blend of confidence and humor. Ithink Zooey Deschanel was a great choice for Trillian (I loved her inElf, too!).

The Guide itself was depicted creatively. There were no boringscientific lectures, but the probability drive was explained well.

I repeat for emphasis, this movie was FUN!

This is a pretty random film based on a popular TV series. TheHitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a book that Stephen Fry explainsabout quite a lot, but why don't any of the characters actually use it?Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent is just an ordinary human living on theplanet Earth, when he is suddenly taken away in a space ship minutesbefore the Earth explodes. He is sticking with his new companions toeither find the reason the planet was destroyed, and who by, and seethe construction of the replacement planet (Earth 2). Also starringBill Bailey as the voice of The Whale, Richard Griffiths as the voiceof Jeltz, a stupid looking John Malkovich as Humma Kavula, Bill Nighyas Slartibartfast helping to build the new Earth, Dame Helen Mirren asthe voice of Deep Thought, Trainspotting's Kelly Macdonald as Reporter,The League of Gentlemen's Steve Pemberton as Mr. Prosser/AdditionalVogon Voices, The League of Gentlemen's Mark Gatiss as Additional VogonVoices, and Warwick Davis as Marvin, with Alan Rickman voicing him.Some good people in it, but I think it is only worth seeing once in awhile. Worth watching!

So the average IMDb'er thinks this is a mediocre to bad movie, eh? Ohdearie me. I can just about see them before my mental eye: how they'rereading the five-volume trilogy when they're sixteen, listening to theBBC radio series on audiotape when they're seventeen and watching theBBC TV series when they're thirty-seven (when they've finally managedto get it on eBay) in their fuggy little bedrooms on a hot summer day,while some Southron poolcleaning jock is savagely shagging the girls oftheir dreams, girlfriends and wives behind their backs. My life story,incidentally, but I digress. And then someone goes and makes a movieabout THEIR private sacred cult underground classic, and it's withproper special effects and now and not some cheap off-coloured BritishTV production in the 1970ies which they can pass off as intellectualunderground cult classic. Actually, just talking about it makes me wantto rate this blasphemy on celluloid MINUS Forty-TWO — geddit?! Buthold your horses, this is not a bad movie at all. I though it wasfunny, well made and reasonably close to the book. It then suddenlyturns bad at exactly 1h30m when Arthur declares his undying love toTrillian which she gooey-eyedly accepts (pretty unlikely even at fullimprobability drive considering that she's lovely and he looks likeMichael Moore's grandma), then there is a nasty sound created byDouglas Adams rotating at high speed in his grave, and luckily themovie then ends abruptly only five minutes later. Five bad minutes outof a 95-minute movie, that's an 8 rating in my book. But I've made it anine to priss off the fanboys.

Hitchhikers guide galaxy is probably by far the best point of view onlife there is. And the movie pretty wicked as well. The Special Effectsin this movie are absolutely top notch. the whale an pot plant bit wasabsolute genius (poor whale, he only wanted the ground to friends withhim). And of course lets not forget our favourite manically depressedrobot (hated by the super happy computer). And i so need to try of ofthose drinks (I’m pretty sure iv had some liquorice vodka thats donethe same thing). But all this said it is a truly wicked andphilosophically correct movie and all should see it. Its packed witheverything u could ever want to see… including 4 uses of ur household towel.

read comments (0)