The Reaping

This is a mediocre film from a mediocre director but at least the filmis not too boring. (This is the reason why I'm not giving only onestar)

As the film is mediocre I will not waste time in criticizing it. Butwhat is really disgusting is the level of ignorance and lack of care ofthe team or whoever that was in charge of the movie script.

Concepcion weather is not tropical, our policemen don't look like theone that appears in the film, the type of native people is not at allsimilar to the ones shown in the film, we have some mapuche and othertype on indigenous but not Africans. Maybe Concepcion and my countryare not fully developed yet, but Concepcion is by far more developedand has considerably less poverty that as was shown in the film, isreally disrespectful to show something too different from realityspecially when it can damage the real appearance of a country and acity. It is a shame.

I was not that impressed. I don't know why I had high hopes for thismovie, I guess that I thought it had a chance of being one of the raredecent scary movies, one like Seven, or the Ring. Or maybe I thought itwouldn't really be a scary movie and it would be a dark suspense filmsimilar to Constantine. But it was neither. It had many stereotypicalscary movie aspects, and a plot that had potential, but wasn'tdeveloped into a very new and creative way.

But on the positive side of things, you pay to watch Hilary Swankprance around for an hour and a half. Maybe there's better, but she'sfine with me. And like all other scary movies, if you're not scaredduring the scary parts then you're laughing through them. This is whyscary movies are a win-win situation.

P.S. Hilary is not a skank. She's actually very good. I just put thatin the headline to provoke you to read this comment. Did it work?

I am so sorry that I saw this movie, what a waste of time. I saw thismovie the night after I saw Grindhouse and could not believe whatsnoozer this was. Hillary Swank must have been desperate for money, orthe Oscar curse is now sinking in for her. The story, in case you don'tknow is about a former missionary turned professor that tries to provereligious miracles to be no more than hoax.

I kept waiting for this movie to kick off with something interesting.The beginning got my attention but the rest of the movie was just TOOBORING. I could see the twist at the end coming a mile away and was sohappy when the credits came up. The characters were non dimenional, thespecial effects were okay, but in the end, it just felt like a filmabout cults. Nothing new. Please wait to rent this if you really wantto see it. You'll be upset you wasted your money.

Total Wreck!

Well Hilary Swank is among those immensely talented Oscar winningactresses who disappears after while because they don't get Good roles.Well its obvious in the Hollywood too Good Looks and Charisma do mattera lot.

Speaking of "The Reaping"… it's a TOTALLY HORRID film.

I bet NO ONE will enjoy this film.

The story is bad. Not horrifying. Boring and un-indulging.

All in all HILARY SWANK a very wrong selection of movie……..

Anyways your Freedom Writers was GOOD!!! So THUMBS up for that And wellTHUMBS down for The Reaing!

A well deserved 1/10

It took me a while to realize that there was no horse in the leadingrole. For a while there I thought it might be a Disney animal movie.But I took a closer look and realized it's just Hillary Swank. Hertrademark Arctic-glacier teeth could have easily been used to fight theforces of evil in the movie.

TR is a typical religious horror, with the usual clichés - but funclichés, yet it isn't entirely unoriginal. Bible-based horror filmsshould never be examined too closely because of the obvious illogic andnonsense that come with the territory. I watch them more-or-less as ifI were a believer, and then things make sense. (So in this case itreally is a double suspension of disbelief.) The story itself doesn'thave any gaping illogicalities.

The dialogue and acting are above par for this kind of movie, theLousiana scenery is very nice, and there are several interesting twistsat the end. (The one involving Morrissey being the bad guy was,however, quite obvious from the moment he appears.) The last twistopens the door wide for a sequel. However, it's unlikely it will everbe made: it seems that people didn't like this film much; I've no ideawhy. Give 'em garbage and they'll praise it, give 'em somethingrespectable and they'll vomit all over it. Go figure…

This was a major disappointment for this movie goer. The film qualitywas horrid, the editing was choppy, the dissolves didn'texactly…dissolve, and the acting left a LOT to be desired. Sorry, butthese performances were pretty standard cardboard cut outs. Thecharacters received no development, and what development they didreceived seemed out of place and awkward.

The story was compelling, until you get to the ending, which prettymuch killed the movie, for me. It was contrived tripe, and I felt I'dbeen robbed of my time and the cost of tickets.

Face it, there are much better things you can do with your life thanlet some movie beat you over the head with the Bible for a whole movie,only to burn said Bible at the end. This was garbage. Sorry Swank, butyou need a new agent.

It rates a 4.4/10 from…

the Fiend :.

While I had no real expectations going into this movie, I have to admitit lost me pretty early on. The early scenes of her debunking a miraclein some Central American country were a mish mash of jarring jump cutsand badly lit shots that. With an opening like that you have to wonderhow they're going to handle scenes of supposedly real tension later inthe movie.

Despite misgivings I stayed watching because there were some genuinelyinteresting ideas. Unfortunately none of them ever eventuate toanything as the movie lurches from one jump cut dream sequence toanother.

The movie, which opens with the devil's symbol burning itself across aseries of photographs, then becomes annoyingly coy about thesupernatural element. Can it be explained away by modern science? Arethe dream sequences real or is poor Hilary becoming unhinged?

The cast are never given much to work with and even the lead charactersremain two dimensional at best. The movie meanders on, and in aworkmanlike way starts hitting the points of satanic conspiracy (A goldstar to anyone who guesses what happens to the black guy) beforebumbling to a special effects heavy, but plot light, denouement thatseems like it's glommed from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This is followed by a last minute twist so risible you wonder why theyeven bothered.

Here's a big hint guys, jump cuts, rapid editing and light saturatedscreen effects DO NOT disguise what is essentially a very dull movie.Avoid like the 10 plagues of Egypt.

I'm really going to try to put in my 10 lines on this film. I went tothe sneak preview with a colleague tonight. The best thing I can say isthat it made for a lively "after conversation" on Religion, that andthe whole free part. I sat riveted for the first 20 minuets or so,really wondering where this was going, then some of the effects, bothsound and visual, got the hair up on my neck. this pace continues for awhile, building you up to a possible great ending, than suddenly withspectacular explosions… it was over and everyone in the room groanedas a collective herd of bovines' looking for the next meal. I won't goas far as terrible but bad CGI was noticeable everywhere and it faroutweighed the good effects in the movie. What they waiting on torelease this film is beyond me… It was strange to see the talentedAnnaSophia Robb l
ooking younger in this film than in "Bridge toTerabithia". Why does she not get better billing in this film? I'm sureshe will be grateful down the road that she wasn't headlining this one.as a final note on the CGi effects… The locusts really stunk! Not afilm to be proud of… If you value your money and or your time, go seesomething else!

THE REAPING (2007) * Hilary Swank, David Morrissey, Idris Elba, AnnaSophia Robb, Stephen Rea, William Ragsdale. Woefully pedestrian occultthriller that touchstones on "THE OMEN", "THE EXORCIST", "THE WICKERMAN", and "ROSEMARY'S BABY" in this hodgepodge horrorfest about aformer Christian missionary (Swank) who lost her faith and is now aprofessional religious phenom debunker who has her hands full in asmall town named Haven (!) that is going through the 10 biblicalplagues with a spooky young girl (Robb). Despite an intriguing premiseand decent visual effects the outcome is a rather laborious process(yes we get all 10 plagues!) and a lame 'twist' ending that only offersanother horrendous plague-to-be: a sequel! (Dir: Stephen Hopkins)

This film is about the ten biblical plagues arriving in a town. To stopthis plague, a little girl must be killed.

The visual effects are not very dramatic. They are cheap scares likemaggots, flies and blood; but they do shock. AnnaSophia Robb's role isprobably the easiest film role one can get, all she has to do is to runaround or stand still. Sometimes the plot is hard to follow, which isaggravated by the conversations being hard to discern. The ending iscomplicated to understand, and I had to read up the film plot tounderstanding what it signified. This film is not as bad as the ratingsuggests though. If the complex plot is a little more well told, thiswould have been a great thriller.

read comments (0)

TMNT

I'll admit I was partially dragged to go see this movie. I remember theoriginal movies being pretty cool because they were NOT CGI and werereal people in turtle costumes which I found awesome. But this… I wasactually expecting it to be a little bit better. The idea for the storywas awesome but how they put it on screen was absolutely terrible.

The plot basically consists of Leo and Raph getting in a fight,capturing 12 monsters, making a big deal about catching the 13thmonster and then solving the conflict of trying to catch the 13thmonster with 1 minute scene. So much build up for so muchdisappointment.

Worst of all, I think that CGI totally ruined teenage mutant ninjaturtles.

I can't believe this movie has a 7.3.

I knew that a movie starring Sarah Michelle Gellar would automaticallybe bad.

Lets face it, what was I expecting when I went to see this movie. Myexpectations were low, very low. But my nephew wanted me to bring him,so I brought him. To me, as always, the most important thing about amovie is the storyline, and this movie, the storyline sucked.

The storyline in this movie was sloppy and not exciting at all. If theywere going to do a remake, why not make a better storyline. Sure, thismovie was for kids. But the storyline was too complex for kids and toostupid for adult.

Changes to the cartoon wasn't good. I grew up watching the Saturdaymorning cartoons and infinite reruns of it. And watched the 2 liveaction movies. April O'Neil, instead of a reporter, is now a artifactfinder… And Casey Jones just wasn't as cool.

The graphics were not impressive, nothing blew me away. I don't knowwhat they were doing. It wasn't 100% cgi, you can tell that somescenes, they clearly cut back and used claymation. If they did that tomake it look real, they failed badly.

So why did I give this movie a 5? cause my 6 year old nephew enjoyedthe film cause of all the bashing. Even though he is too young toremember the names of the ninja turtles. All and all, this is for thekids.

Twenty years ago, I mail-ordered a Dungeons and Dragons manual, and itcame with a small booklet that announced something about "Teenagemutant ninja turtles". I am sure that if I had held on to that blackand white pamphlet, it would be worth some money Today. I was 16 yearsold at the time, and I remember thinking to myself how dumb the conceptwas. As an adult, I witnessed the first "TMNT" movie, and felt that Ihad lost brain cells while being subjected to such an insulting wasteof money that this film was. Here we are in the year of 2007, and thepublic is yet again subjected to a movie that embodies all that isgarbage. All of the "Dude!" language will make your children dumber.The large amount of money that was spent making this spectacle of trashcould have fed a hungry nation.

What the hell is a matter with you all? A 7.2? This movie was aterrible piece of crap. I admire the fact that Hollywood wanted tobring back the turtles, but they should have waited for a much betterscript than the piece of s**t that they got. The movie's storyline wasjust tedious and repetitive (turtles have to stop monsters frombringing about the end of the world) which made the film seem like athree-part Saturday morning cartoon brought to the big screen. Themovie lacked humor as well which is what makes the turtles fun to watchand makes them lovable. The only good thing about this film was how theCGI was able to bring more exciting fight scenes and action to thefilm, but it was something again that the movie could have had more of.I was extremely disappointed with this film and I hope to God that theydo not do another film like this again. If you want to watch a goodTeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie than watch the first two films.

TMNT, the fourth theatrically released feature film with the TeenageMutant Ninja Turtles (now given a fairly low denominator for a title),is a shallow nostalgia trip that does get the job done, of entertainingthe fans to an extent. But for fans, as well as probably most otherfilmmakers going into this not very aware of the Ninja Turtles, thereare also gaping holes and much more emphasis on high-wire, high-octanePG action than on the goofy thrills and one-liners of the original twomovies. The filmmaker, Kevin Monroe, is far more interested in gettingthe turtles into perilous, stupendously inane action scenes involvingmetal alien robots and monsters conjured by some "myth" from CentralAmerica than keeping the original characters from the TV series, comicbooks and movies in an enjoyable enough click. In full disclosure,maybe part of it is just fickleness of the childhood fan-boy in me, whogrew up in a frame of mind of tongue-in-cheek but a very precise was ofdoing this, that felt a little at befuddlement over what Monroe hasdone here. And it's not even that it ever goes too bad for comfort ortoo much in a mire of self-indulgence. But even the nostalgic-side tome can't shake off that this is Ninja Turtles cranked up on Red Bulland digging into sci-fi conventions via near video-game stylistics inCGI.

Here the basic story isn't really worth expounding on because, frankly,it's not worth the effort to try and figure it all out, which maybe isa minus and a plus. We get a 3000 year old myth story, in narrationreminiscent of that in 300, and how there was an all powerful beingthat could destroy the world. Present day, the Ninja Turtles are splitup in their own directions (Leo training down south, Raphael avigilante in armor, Donatello a computer technician and Michelangelo aparty clown), and the spirits of old come back via some businessmanhell bent on capturing monsters for world destruction. I won't revealmuch more except as a sort of joke spoiler: it leads up to a climaxsort of a reminder of that in Howard the Duck, only less zany. There'splenty of drama to replace the usual gaps filled in, and lessened here,from Donatello and Michelangelo, with a thickening of the originaldrama in the first film between Leonardo and Raphael- leader versusrebel, in a showdown not quite seen this dark andtrying-to-be-wrenching since Revenge of the Sith (however with far lessvisual panache). The sardonic humor of Raphael is replaced with acharacter arc, sort of, and this lack is also one some of thecheesiest, no pun intended, pleasures like their pizza obsessions.

It would be one thing if these little quibbles with the movie were onlythat, but Monroe also decides to overload on how the CGI makes thingsseem both unreal and abstracted to some bizarre level. The turtlesthemselves don't look too bad, and even detailed, but the othercharacters are poorly formed and made to look made in cheap folds anddelirious proportions. This helps for some of the aliens, and at thesame time it also never feels as complete as it should. Throw in lotsof of-the-moment contemporary rock songs, high voltage drama withconvoluted sci-fi strands of ninjas (the ol' foot soldiers are back,inexplicably enough without Shredder) against robots that plot mutiny,and turtle aggression and un-rest beneath a master Splinter who is moreone-dimensional than ever before, albeit voiced by the great Mako.There's a lot that ends up being as if made for the "masses",mass-marketed to both the older crowd interested in a reunion tour, anda new crowd meant to take this all in as not being complete malarkey.It's too weird to be thrown into the disposable lot of recent CGImovies, and it's also too out of whack to be anything of a reallyspectacular show. That being said, if you're already a big Turtles fan,go see it, at least once.

I was pumped to see the new 'TMNT' movie. I was not expecting much,granted, I can still watch the old Ninja Turtles movies and enjoy them.This new one is just junk, if those were not the Ninja Turtles, andthey were just some new random group of br
others this movie would havebeen a box office flop. The beginning was good, took me a while to getpast the different voices, and the fact that splinter lookedridiculous. After that, it just kept getting progressively worse, the"monsters" all looked the same, the foot clan was stupid, and had nopoint to be there except to lead in the sequel tease at the end. Thisreally is Hollywood storytelling at its worst. For the old schoolTurtle fans, there's a lot more to hate. First they make Casey go from"Wayne Gretzky on steroids" to Zach Braff, scrawny, dark hair, carriesa bat, total deadbeat. April is no longer a reporter, shes an antiquecollector, yea. Michaelangelo looks like he just came from THPS 3 withhis dumb skateboard scene. Some of the jokes were funny, none of theadult innuendos from its predecessor, "Are you Claustrophobic? No I'venever even looked at another guy before" Its just mostly lame slapstickjokes, even a failed "your mom" joke in there, yikes. The footclan isnot a gang anymore, but a bunch of 1337 AZN kids that run 100 MPH.Nothing really going for it, no "good" fighting. Nothing seeminglyepic. Nothing dramatic besides the stupid argument between Leo andRalph, which ends in a brawl, and a tranquilizer dart in one of theirarms. One of the real kickers for me is the lack of depth. SPOILERWARNING! They shove Leo in one of those cages like the guy thats beenalive for 3000 wouldn't check to make sure his plans are going right,especially when his homies obviously want to live forever, and hedoesn't. Just a convenient plot element thrown in there. Plus theturtles get into shape pretty quick and they didn't have to do amontage to fight the huge rock guys. Overall just a huge letdown forold turtle fans. and I don't see much to be happy about for thenewcomers either.

I was ecstatic whereupon hearing that my childhood cartoon show, wouldreturn to the big screen. A direct sequel to the live-action movies,TMNT contains all of the action that any and every fan of our Turtleheroes would have expected. But within that action, our heroes' joy andwit at pummeling the Foot have been replaced with a gloomy cloud. TheTurtles are now adrift. Two of them, particularly, physically attackeach other, ending possibly a long-standing feud amongst the fans whowould win between them. We can accept that New York can be a dark citywhere the Turtles call home, but our heroes in a half-shell now have toovercome a melodramatic darkness within themselves that dominates mostof this movie.

It begins like Lord of the Rings, where we don't begin with Turtles orFrodo, let alone Bilbo, but in another age prior. In Central America,an emperor mistakenly curses himself, petrifies his generals andreleases a dozen monsters plus one. We skip to the present day, stillin Central America, where April O' Neil, our former reporter nowfollowing in her father's footsteps selling antiques, is seeking outLeonardo to bring him home. "Your brothers miss you."

The problem within TMNT isn't too much about the story itself, thoughwe must admit it is flat. It is the fact that you have a story takingplace years later, thus leaving it open on both ends. Why did April goto selling antiques when she has experience in television andinvestigation? Why did Splinter think sending Leonardo to fight crimein Latin America would make him a better leader? How did Raphael comeup with the Night Watcher persona? How did Karai reorganize and come tolead the Foot? Did writer/director Kevin Munroe intend to sucker usinto a prequel and a sequel (Karai's sly quip towards the end of thefilm opens the possibility), with one movie? Finally we have thecharacters themselves, and this is where I sincerely thank Munroe. Whenlast we saw of Raph in film, he was bonding with a boy named Yoshi,whose name most of us, youth at that time, would associate with adinosaur that a certain plumber rode bare-back on. That image had to beshattered, and replaced, with a return of Raphael's edge, due toLeonardo's 'mission,' with an outfit that would receive Master Chief'sthumbs-up. Casey Jones also follows more his movie persona than thecartoon's. He always had that whiny attitude, whether it be fightingwith April or his claustrophobia. Munroe, I believe, did a good jobkeeping that character in line, having him whine and complain aboutsettling down. The character no one gets right, and this movie is noexception, is Splinter. The CGI re-imagination is hilariously bad onthe eyes and I will not make comment on the voice-over for respect. Onemore unusual thing of note: lines from the older Turtle movies wererecycled into the CGI update.

But I recommend this movie out of sheer love to all of the fans, likemyself, who have watched our heroes in a half-shell while growing up.Like Transformers, our shows and games will be re-imagined andre-adapted for the large screen to cash in on our memories. But if theyhire the right people, and respect our time devoted to a franchise,movies such as TMNT and Transformers will be made by fans, and for thefans. For that, Hollywood will always have me as a happy customer.

I didn't know this was CGI. Mako, despite actually being of Orientaldescent sounded like someone doing a REALLY BAD Oriental accentimpression.

The back story on this is a bit pants. 3000 yrs ago some bad army tookover the world, someone became immortal. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

As for the Turtles characters themselves. I don't remember Micheangelobeing so stupid, or Raphael being so angry and aggressive. HisNighwatcher alter ego seemed a bit pointless.

I did like the fact that the foot clan were in the film and there werea few continuity references to Shredder (and even a little picture ofhim at the start of the film).

The monsters in their "Armour" looked like something out of Warhammer3000.

I did enjoy seeing April but Sarah Michelle Geller wasn't the rightvoice for her (why couldn't they have hired the original cartoon voiceof April?). Patrick Stewart made an excellent villain voice too, theonly thing that bugged me was his character's face was Mr Incrediblefrom The Incredibles.

Was Casey (April's boyfriend?), Casey Jones from the cartoon? If sothey totally got his mask and face wrong.

The whole "capturing 13 monsters and putting them in cases" seemed abit too much like the plot from the original Blade movie.

April was never the martial artist, I guess because Buffy the VampireSlayer was playing her voice she insisted the character could defendherself. The whole point of April was she kept getting into troublelike a Doctor Who assistant so the Turtles could save her from whatever danger she had gotten into.

The film does look very pretty, the character renderings are on thewhole pretty good (Splinter doesn't quite look old enough, sorry) andthe Turtles are OK. This probably cost a lot to make and took a lot ofpeople a lot of time. But it just isn't good enough, live action willalways beat CGI.

Where this film suffers is not having a very well known main villain,like Shredder or Krang.

The "Spiderman" homage where Leo chases Raph is pretty cool, and it wasalso nice to see Turtle versus Turtle in a 1 on one fight. The wholeargument between Raph & Leo is very Star Wars (think Luke Versus Vaderin Return Of the Jedi). Raph has almost become the thing he hates themost, it's all very "Dark Side of The Force" stuff.

If you look hard, all sorts of other films are referenced in this. FromSoylent Green (transporting things in garbage trucks), to The Punisher,Daredevil, Blade, Dark Man and even Highlander and Kill Bill (April'syellow outfit, almost identical to The Bride's.

The Stone baddies at the end were a bit too much like Gargoyles orTransformers. All in all, it's a decent enough movie but could havebeen much better. The ending is a bit too much like so
mething out ofGhostbusters I did enjoy this.

The Turtles will always be cool. Oh, and Winter's death scene - Shadesof Lawnmower Man.

Like I said in the title nothing will beat the original, the originalis what really made Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles a big hit. Now I knowthat they are just trying to bring back a lot of the 80's and Early90's stuff but with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles it doesn't quite fit.First I hated that it was CGI, i wish they would of at least put alittle effort into making it a live action movie. Second the violencewasn't as great as the originals, the violence was more on a cartoonlevel and that is low. Thirs the humor was a good, as in the originalsMikey would make fun of anything and would say anything and you wouldlaugh but in this one he wasn't that funny. But Anyway the movie wasactually pretty good, like the story line it was good. It should to methat family is the best thing that anyone has in their life and itshouldn't be broken. There's a sacred bond between brothers that peopledon't really know and that bond can't easily be broken.

Comparing to the Turtles movies, this has MUCH less comedy (80% of thecomedy in this movie is in the first 10 minutes of the movie, and thereare no laugh out loud moments) The action scenes are MUCH lessinteresting (and there are less of them) The story itself is boring,after watching the first two minutes I thought to myself "Oh no, notanother one of those stories". There's also a lot of missinginformation (like why is April O'Neil not working at the news studioany more?)

The movie was exactly how I expected it to be. After seeing a fewepisodes of the "new" series I knew what to expect

read comments (0)

Tropa de Elite

Elite Squad is a punch in the stomach, it is semi-fiction but also 100%pure reality, the best portrait of Rio de Janeiro violence and drugproblems from an unexpected perspective. Be sure, this is not thesweetened view of criminality seen in "Carandiru", Elite Squad is thenew "Cidade de Deus", enjoy it's raw reality…Cheers ! And from Wiki:Tropa de Elite (English working title, Elite Squad) is a Brazilian filmreleased on August 24, 2007. The movie is a semi-fictional account ofthe BOPE, or Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais (English,Special Police Operations Battalion) of the Rio De Janeiro MilitaryPolice. It is the second feature film and first fiction film ofdirector José Padilha, who had previously directed Bus 174. The scriptwas written by Academy Award-nominated screenwriter Bráulio Mantovani,based on the book A Elite da Tropa by sociologist Luiz Eduardo Soaresand two former BOPE captains, André Batista e Rodrigo Pimentel.

Simply Amazing! Elite Troop puts the characters in their right placesas villains and good guys and shows how tiny is the line between them.It shows corrupt police but also the police who really cares aboutdefeating the traffic and protecting people.

It shows all the hypocrisy of the high and medium class people whofeeds the traffic by acquiring, dealing and consuming drugs and latergoing on streets to protest against violence. They are shown as victimsof their own way of life. It says your son, your friend, someone closeto you, whether in Brazil, Colombia or US, might also be guilty for theviolence if they support the traffic by acquiring illegal drugs.

If the critics to society isn't what your looking for, then simply knowthis is quite an excellent action movie as long. Scenes are so real youwill feel inside them.

By far the best movie of 2007, either Brazilian or American.

In my opinion (and i think that is the opinion of the 90% of Brazilianpeople that watched this film) this is the best Brazilian film that isaw. City of God, Carandiru, was both great films, but Tropa de Elite(Elite Squad) was an Excellent film, to be exactly i watched it seventimes. The film was sold before it goes to the cinema and two monthsbefore the official release, almost everybody had already watched themovie, but the film was so good that everybody went to the cinema tosee it again… The film shows the real life of a policeman in Rio deJaneiro. And the hard Training of the Elite Squad to fight the trafficand the crime when the normal police can't do it.

This is a spectacular movie — it approaches the violence problem inRio de Janeiro under the perspective of authorities/police forces.

An unaccounted number of mid/high-class individuals (includingteenagers and students) are the largest consumers of drugs and toxicsubstances in Rio de Janeiro — which makes them co-responsible to thechaos and disorder currently in place under Brazilian society(specially in Rio).

It is time to face the problem — increase the resources provided tospecial police forces; promote cultural programs to demonstrateproblems with toxic abuses — maybe discuss a possible legalization ofsubstances that would cause minor impact (see Netherlands experience).

The Elite Squad Movie (also known as "Tropa de Elite" in Brazil) is amust see movie. I guess that, that movie was launched as a documentaryin the USA, but it is an ordinary movie in Brazil. At present it didnot appear yet at the movie theaters here (base Oct.03.2007). Theillegal copies (DVDs) are spreading all over Brazil, taken from theoriginals that are in exhibition in the States. The movie isexceptional, outstanding, showing with crude reality how we face thebad guys in Brazil. Do not miss it anyway.The main role, CapitãoNascimento, character played by the excellent actor Wagner Moura showshow the good guys have to face the huge red tape process to manage eventhe simplest things in Brazil. By the way, Wagner Moura played a verygood role at Paraiso Tropical, a TV novella that was exhibited recentlyin Brazil.

Reality… The real life in Rio De Janeiro. .no masks, no adornments,simply real life! It does not have heroes, only surviving of an urbanwar. Perhaps this film changes its form to attend American policefilms! In this film, with opened end, an idea of daily of the "Favelas"of Rio De Janeiro and of many the others in Brazil can also be had!"Elit Squad" is a fantastic police movie that attended, and it is not asuper production, but the movie arrests the attention of the start tothe end!

The "BOPE" is the elite squadron of cop from Rio De Janeiro, isequivalent the American Swat, the policemen of the Bope receives asmall wage, but not is corrupt as the remain of polices of Rio DeJaneiro. They have pride of its uniform, independent of the needy wagewho receive. Are motivated policemen who use a "remedy" the height ofthe criminals of the River. The dealers of drugs in the River aresupported by the local middle class… that is. they are they who go upthe "mount" and they buy drugs there, to consume in its parties!impressive! terrifying! Real! emotive! Don't miss it !! (sorry myEnglish!)

This movie show us the real war that is occurring in Rio de Janeiro.Unfortunately a war that kills a lot of innocent people that have nochoice to avoid the battlefield. Together the war we can see anotherBrazilian illness that is corroding our society - the corruption of thepoliticians, the police forces and the magistrates. But it's good thatthings like that make public to sensitize our society to do somethingto change this situation. This isn't the country that we will leave toour children. I think that we really need a police like BOPE concerningthe training, the approaching, the discipline and the integrity, but Idon't agree with the torture and the execution in cold blood. "EliteSquad" surprise me about the narrative of the history, easy to followby start to the end. And the cast is excellent. In my opinion is thebest Brazilian movie of all time.

Do you want to know the truth, the whole true and nothing but the true?So, try to view the Brazilian real version of this excellent movie. Ilive in Sáo Paulo, our slums are more easy to control than in Rio, buta reality persists not only here and in Rio as in most of the countrieswhere drugs are assuming, more and more, a leading part in crimes,police corruption, deaths and so. Medium and high classes are reallyguilty for all this process, they buy and use the drugs, and that isthe most important message this wonderful picture show us. Even innorth-American movies we can observe the rich parties where cocaine andother drugs are naturally accepted by everyone. The movie is very good,Wagner Moura, Capitao Nascimento, can be ranked as a great actor andall the extras made their parties so real that we have the impressionthat the events are really taking action at that moment.

Strong movie about corruption, loyalty and dedication. Easy to love orto dislike the film. It doesn't have the same narrative of "Cidade DeDeus", but it is extraordinary. The movie tells the raw reality of thecity of Rio De Janeiro and the form that the State allowed a parallelgovernment's installation in the slums. The most beautiful city of theworld lives together the largest contrast of the earth, wealth andpoverty side by side. The fight to maintain a subtle balance in thedaily of the people, that some times support other times rejects theform of performance of the police in agreement with your personalinterests.

A movie that really shows Brazilian police service, starting with theirinhuman training, making their soldiers become cynical, corrupted anddestructive, and going forward w
ith their way to fight crime withviolent methods and lack of respect for the human beings, for theythere are no innocents, even if the prove they have no guilt. And alsoa big punch on drug users, when it shows how the money that they spendon drugs provides financing for drug dealers to generate all kinds ofcrime and terror on Brazilian large cities. Even with its raw way toshow the Brazilian degeneration in both sides of law, when policeofficers are as dangerous as the real criminals, it's still an amazingexperience in the theaters.

read comments (0)

The Nanny Diaries

It's portraiture of a hostile and dysfunctional Upper East Side/rulingclass culture was both finger lickin' delicious, and cathartic, livingas we do in this moment where bogus institutions still manage tomaintain an air of plastic dignity.

Despite an apparent inability of popular drama critics, including RogerEbert, to grasp the artistry in this work, I'm convinced this moviewill come to be widely regarded as a classic of some sort.

Beyond the movie's much needed searing indictment of an emotionally andpsychologically bankrupt Fortune 500 community, I also appreciate themovie's ultimate empathy for the people lost in it.

A great work of art, I wonder what David Mamet and other greatplaywrights think of it.

I quite like the "conclusion" of Annie's field study which is somethinglike: "by observing the field, you actually change the field". This islike Quantum Mechanics' Uncertainty Principle which is the principle"preventing" measurements from being infinitely precise. So, the"Uncertainty Principle" seems to be right not just at the microscopiclevel but also for the macroscopic.

I've enjoyed watching this movie. The audience would love Annie and besympathetic with her and care about her during the 1.5+ hours. Themontage seems to be in a "rush" mode to prevent the movie from beingtoo long. But I feel that it can be slightly longer. If the film makerswere a bit more confident, the end effects might be considerablybetter. Things might be clearer and we could have some great moments tochew on.

Scarlett Johansson is great as "Annie". I'm a bit surprised by LauraLinney's Mrs. X which is much more a major role in this movie than Ihad expected. She stole the scenes when she was there.

I've never known the difference between the Upper East Side and UpperWest Side of Manhattan. After watching this movie, it makes me curiousto find out.

I really enjoyed this film, it was entertaining and different fromother films of this past year. I haven't read the book and don't planto, but this movie had a good story that was interesting. I do realizethat a lot of people get mad when a movie doesn't follow the bookperfectly (ahem, Harry Potter series) but it never really bothers me,the movie just has to be entertaining. Scarlett Johanasson was just toocute as the nanny and she was hilarious at times. I have never reallyunderstood the big hype about Scarlett since she isn't the typicalHollywood chick, but after seeing this and Lost in Translation, I cansee why many people like her so much. I'll definitely have to check outmore of her movies soon. Laura Linney was also great in her role as the"evil" mother who doesn't pay enough attention to her kid and treatsthe nanny like crap. The scenes with Scarlett and the young boy wereabsolutely adorable and cute, they had really good chemistry. PaulGiamatti really irritated me but hey that's what his character wassupposed to do! In a way this movie reminds me of The Devil WearsPrada, since it has the storyline of an evil boss and a nice girl thatreally doesn't know what she got herself into. Overall, this is a funmovie that everyone should check out, I recommend it completely!

This movie was a boring waste of time. Annie the nanny walks aroundwith her mouth open most of the time. Annie has a blank look on herface most of the time also. The book was much better. I would notrecommend this movie to anyone. I had really looked forward to therelease of this movie only to be very disappointed when it finally wasreleased. I guess you could say that I am not really a fan of Scarlett,as I have never seen her "act", as she always has a blank stare in hereyes and a monotone voice. I had hoped she would do a better job inthis movie, but I was sadly disappointed. Do not waste your money onthis film, it you must see it, wait, as it will be on satellite beforeyou know it.

Unlike that movie trailer, Nanny Diaries is a powerful and emotionalfamily drama that captures intense interpersonal relational scenes thatby the end of the movie envelopes that audience in a deep and richmovie experience. Strangely, this movie will not win any major awards,Scarlett Johansson even though she performed superbly, it is likely thefantastic script allowed the entire movie to become one of the bestall-around, general public movie is years. The beginning of this movieis innovative and the allusions to Mary Poppins (1964) by the use of anumbrella and music only serves to suggest how great this movie reallyis. In some ways, this movie is a Mary Poppins movie for grown ups inits telling and in its contemporary subject matter. Paul Giamatti is tobe commended for taking on a not so personable character and riddinghimself of any character stereotypes demonstrating the qualities of agood actor. Personally, this is one of the best movies of the yearbecause it handles the subject matter of class differences,mother-daughter relationships, family relationships, the upper-class,the lower-class, the economic-power struggle, the husband-wifeconflicts authentically. Using the premise of a narrative-voice overwith an anthropological perspective as its grounding like much MargaretMead, Scarlett Johannson gets the opportunity to star in this wonderfuldrama exposing the underbelly of both the humorous and the hurtful sideof living in America today. The story is steeped with feeling,disturbing insights, but by the end of the movie a well worthwhilemindblowing message that goes right to the heart of love and compassionas well as an ending that doesn't pander to the usual American sweetending but real ending earned through trial and error and workingthrough the reality of difficult jobs, employment conflict. Great job!

The cinematography is competent, even pretty, and one of the actors,Stephen O'Reilly, has triumphed over the abysmal script andclunk-ridden direction to actually be an endearing screen presence.It's quite an achievement. I have rarely seen a film which has goteverything so wrong. The film begins as though it is a 'fun'anthroplogical study of the customs of the extremely rich. Thissequence is heavily laboured and expensively produced. Then we'resupposed to believe that our heroine Annie, at her first ever jobinterview, is so shocked by the question of who she is, that she has anexistential crisis. As a result of a chance meeting with a charmlesspre-school brat, and his egocentric, anorectic mom, she decides tobecome a nanny for one of the vilest couples in Manhattan, who treather like dirt. Although she is under no particular pressure to staywith these morally handicapped tyrants, she does, because of the brat.Nothing and no-one is convincing or funny, except for Mr O'Reilly, whohas genuine charm. And I'm not a relative, just a punter, happy for amoment of truth in a vortex of misguided Hollywood madness.

Let me just say this to start off…I thought this movie would behorrible, but a friend talked me into going. I loved this movie and I'mglad that I went to see it.

The Nanny Diaries is about a fresh-out-of-highschool student namedAnnie who goal in life is to be successful for herself and her motherJudy. After blowing an interview for a high-corp business, Annie findsherself being offered the role of a nanny for Mrs. X (played by LauraLinney). Deciding to give it a try, Annie soon babysits for Grayer whoturns out to be a brat, but soon she finds that she cares for him anddecides to keep with the job for his sake. I'm not going to give awaythe rest of the movie, but this movie definitely has heart to it. Ieven had a tearful moment towards the end…This movie is, in myopinion, a must see.

Be the Judge for yourself!

Come on folks. This movie is great. Better than I expected. No, Ididn't r
ead the book. All the comments regarding the changes from bookto screen. Of course. A book can't be filmed as written. A book is abook, a movie is a movie…two different mediums. Like the great PEYTONPLACE. Both the book and movie were tops, but they were different asthey should be. NANNY is well cast, especially the always outstandingLaura Linney. She could read the phone book and be wonderful. Everyoneshined in this movie, even the little kid. So nice to see acomedy/drama that seems real. So refreshing not to see people blown up,buildings exploding, foul language and no nudity. How refreshing forthis day and age. For that reason alone I recommend this charming film.See it and enjoy. I certainly did.

This is about an anthropology graduate becoming a nanny for a rich butdysfunctional family.

Laura Linney's acting is excellent as a controlling person, actingdistantly and never cares for anyone. The way Mr X's face doesn't showat all in the first few scenes is a great way to show that he is anabsent father. The marital problems are portrayed touchingly, and itcould very well provoke some emotions or even tears. However, I thinkScarlett Johansson is miscast as a nanny. She is not convincing as ananny at all. The constant anthropological metaphors get annoying. It'snot a very good film, but it provides adequate family entertainment.

I usually love Scarlet J. and I liked the book. so I came in with kindahigh expectations and was a little board and some how Scarlet wasn't asgood as I thought she should have been.

Other wise a good story for making a movie out of it. a good actressthat was still nice to look at even if you didn't quite believe hercharacter and some good performances out of the other actors.

Maybe if I hadn't had such high expectations I might have liked it alittle more. go and see the film on DVD, or better yet go rent anotherfilm, and unless you have worse choices watch this film. Which is as ashame because it really could have been a solid good film. I am notcertain what caused the film to not work. Directors fault?

read comments (0)

The Lookout

Screenwriter Scott Frank's directorial debut is a taut, well writtenthriller hampered by a questionable resolution. Tonally, it reminded meof James Foley's far superior "At Close Range", another tale of aninnocent groomed for crime. The charismatic Gary Spago (Mathew Goode)hatches a plot to steal from the bank where Chris Pratt (JosephGordon-Levitt) works as a cleaner/night watchman. Pratt, who suffersmemory loss as a result of a car accident in which he killed twofriends, is convinced to be Spago's "look out" for the inevitablerobbery. To soften the youngster, Spago provides him with love interestLuvlee (Isla Fisher), a dim-witted girl whose character is inexplicablyabandoned by Frank just prior to the third act. Jeff Daniels, playing ablind "gimp" (his words, not mine) adds much flavor to the drama asChris Pratt's middle-aged roomie. Until the ironic conclusion that apesScorsese's "Taxi Driver", "The Look Out" is an entertaining,atmospheric crime drama. A special kudo must go to Greg Dunham whoplays the creepy, dangerous Bone with rock solid conviction.

Screenwriter Scott Frank's well-made and smartly written firstdirectorial effort The Lookout is intriguing and much fun to watchdespite a weak payoff. Frank has a record of accomplishment as ascreenwriter with credits that include The Interpreter, MinorityReport, Out of Sight, and Get Shorty. Working for himself this timehe's been able to attempt something a little different, exploringcharacter and situation in original ways. As Chris Pratt, abrain-damaged young man from a wealthy background leading a downscalelife, Joseph Gordon-Levitt again shows a knack for picking unusual leadroles and performing well in them (compare Manic, Mysterious Skin, andBrick). Frank in his turn reveals an ability, hitherto unknown to us,to make a film of his own that's rich and strange out of some prettyfamiliar materials — twenty-something small town losers, a botchedheist with double-crosses. Jeff Daniels — who in maturity has become asuperb character actor — leads a good supporting cast asGordon-Levitt's shrewd and high-functioning blind roommate, Lew.

Frank is adept at the way he ever-so-slowly injects mayhem into acarefully established world of relative drabness. Gordon-Levitt keepsChris Pratt real and unconventional — never just a sad case. He'sre-learning how to grasp simple sequences (get up, shower with soap,eat breakfast, go to work), keeping endless little notes just toremember things, but he has spirit and youth and looks and stillcarries traces of his princely status in school and his patricianfamily origins. He keeps locking the keys in his car but has no troublerecalling his glorious past as a golden boy and high school hockeystar. He has a gimpy walk and can't find a can opener in the kitchen,but he has the spunk to want to find himself a girlfriend and he'sseeking to better himself. In a remedial program to retrain his memory,he also works at night as janitor in a small rural bank, but he ispushing successfully to become a teller there. The dynamic betweenChris and Lew plays tricks with our stereotypes of handicap. They havecomplimentary weaknesses and strengths. They may both be looking forlove, but more than that they're hoping to accomplish something. Chrishas to come to terms not with his handicap, which he seeks totranscend, but with the trauma and guilt of the horrible car accidenthe caused. Lew wants to start a restaurant with Chris as a partner.Still, there's desperation in both of them. Lew doesn't seem capable ofa love life and if Chris leaves him his existence will be lonely. Chriswants his old life back but knows he'll never have it.

A wild car enters this game when an edgy high school classmate namedGary Spargo (Matthew Goode, very effective here) meets Chris in a bar.Gary chats up a girl with the line, "I thought I was good-looking"(emphasis on "I") and Chris writes it down but when he tries it later,it falls flat because he gets the intonation wrong: "I thought I wasgood-looking" (emphasis on "good-looking"). "Yeah, maybe you were," thegirl says. End of Seduction 101.

But Gary fixes Chris up with an ex-pole dancer with the stage name ofLuvlee Lemons (Isla Fisher). The meeting in the bar wasn't by chance.Chris's job cleaning the little bank every night is the primarylinchpin of the plot: this is why Gary and his little gang lure himinto their fold with Luvlee as bait.

The influential Quentin Tarantino notoriously plays wild and free withchronology in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, and attacks a devolvingrobbery scene crab-wise — without even filming the robbery — inReservoir Dogs. In contrast Frank's crime caper follows astraightforward chronology but approaches its climax from a peculiarviewpoint — not of the ring leader but a bit player, Chris, who'sseduced and then coerced into being the robbers' lookout because of hisaccess to the bank.

The plot's secondary linchpin is a motto Gary persuades Chris to copyinto his little notebook: "Whoever has the money has the power." WhenChris decides to adopt this as his personal mantra things turn around:it's the revolt of the underdog. Eventually The Lookout morphs into astory of robbery and betrayal; but like Fabián Bielinsky's terrificcharacter study-cum-crime story The Aura, a lot of Frank's film isdevoted to deepening its portraits of individuals, apart from anyconsideration of crime or action. Toward the end Frank skips a step ortwo and resolves the mess a little too neatly and quickly. But thatdoesn't detract from the particularity and wit of what's come before.Scott Frank is a new director to watch.

Acclaimed screenwriter Scott Frank (Out of Sight, Get Shorty, MinorityReport) makes a promising debut with his first feature, The Lookout.Frank originally wrote the script several years ago with no intent todirect, yet the project fell apart time and time again, even under aproved director like David Fincher. Frank then took his last rewrite ofthe script, and with his knowledge of film-making from his experienceson other writing gigs, he set out to create The Lookout in anindependent fashion.

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Chris Pratt, a former high school athletewho recklessly killed two of his friends and injured his girlfriend inan easily avoidable car accident. He suffered a massive head injury(no, this is not anything like Memento), creating a condition in whicheveryday activities like opening cans and taking showers are astruggle. Chris meets Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode), a former schoolmatewho manipulates Chris into being the crucial element of a bank heist atthe same bank Chris works for as a janitor.

Levitt, who recently stunned us with his work in Mysterious Skin andBrick, is subtle and extremely convincing while playing a very complex,difficult character, and Jeff Daniels steals the majority of his scenesas Chris's blind roommate, creating great comic relief. Besides forIsla Fisher as an underdeveloped character named Luvlee Lemons, thecast is great all around, showing that a film doesn't need easilyrecognizable stars to succeed.

While containing a heist, the film is certainly not a quick-pacedaction movie, even though it may have been marketed as one. The firstand second acts are mainly devices for developing character, and thesecond act does drag a bit leading up to the explosive, suspensefulthird act. The Lookout has just the right length, precise and beautifuldigital cinematography that looks amazingly like film, and aminimalist, straightforward, yet somewhat underwhelming structure basedon memorable characters, rather than action.

2007 is shaping to be an incredible good year for movies, and this filmin particular has two sensational performances: Jeff Daniel's andJoseph Gordon Lewitt in the main role. The film
recalls the complexityof "Memento" without the ordeal that it was to follow that movie's plotat first. "The Lookout" moves quite well, introducing us to a man whosuffers from mental complications after a terrible accident. His lifeis as normal as can be, but that doesn't keep it from being emotionallydistressing to him.

Eventually, this young man is befriended by shady characters who wantto manipulate and use his disability to rob a bank. In the middle ofthis plot storyline, he discovers there are elements in his life thathe must rediscover in order to restore some balance to his life. ScottFrank who wrote and directed this gem, sprinkles a few colorful linesand characters who are anything but standard.

The plot eventually has our hero face more demons than he might beready to deal with, and the question is whether the end is exactly whathe needs or wants. Lewitt does a marvelous job showing us how difficultit is to live without full use of your memory abilities, and how theworld approaches people who have those problems. In the end, they mightnot be very different from most of us.

After his performance Brick(2005), and in this movie, he is pretty muchproved to be a great actor, he is getting up there with Sean Penn,Johnny Depp, and Leonardo DiCaprio. He stars as Chris Pratt, a youngman who had it all, friends, a beautiful girlfriend, and was apromising Hockey player. But after a night of a tragic event, sadly itwas all taken away. Four years later, he suffers from brain damage, hewas to write down almost everything he does, Chris struggles to getthrough each day at a time, his blind friend and roommate Lewis(JeffDaniels) seems to be his fun part of his days. Chris also works nightat a bank, in which he is the janitor. He is soon befriended byLuvee(Isle Fisher) and Gary(Matthew Goode from Chasing Liberty, andMatch Point). But what soon starts out as a friendship, soon becomes amoment of confusion, when Gary pulls him on a heist, at the bank heworks at. But what direction will Chris go in? This was great movie. Itwas well directed by Scott Frank, and well acted by Jseph GordonLevvitt, Isle Fisher, and Matthew Goode.

Well this isn't a Fantastic film BUT it sure is a GOOD one. Its aboutan hour and a Half Long. That isn't Long is it? It isn't Boring either.It's a decent story told in the well Action movie manner. You know likethat GUY movies…

Joseph Gordon-Lewitt looks a lot like Heath Ledger. Well that is what Ithink. And He is also a VERY GOOD young ACTOR.. Another thing I think.He does his role very well.

I hope he gets Stronger roles. And UMMM!!!!

There isn't much to say. You will enjoy the movie! 7.5/10

Go Rent the DVD!

when this movie went out in theaters and i saw the commercials, therewere so many guns, it looked like an action crime drama with a goodplot and a good twist, i expected it to be epic, but it turned out tobe just a crime drama with a good plot and no twist, they really made abig marketing error with the DVD cover because on the back, some criticsais it has a twist you never see coming, so when i saw this with myfriend for the first time, we expected to be amazed and shocked, butdon't make the same mistake i did, there is no twist, the very littleaction there was was good, the ending was good, the way the phrasesfrom the beginning and middle make the good ending, like, start fromthe end and go to the beginning, and whoever has the money has thepower, but its not the movie i expected, this movie is good but it hasmany many flaws, the script was a bit sloppy because i wasn't reallysure what the effects of his condition were because in some parts heremembers people and somethings, but then it sais he has memory loss,so i don't know what he has, at first i thought it was the thing thatdrew barrymore had in 50 first dates, but i'm still not sure, but thegood performances and strong parts of the script made up for its flaws,so i recommend this to you but don't expect the movie you saw in thetrailer

The Lookout was screened unannounced for a group of students at UCSanta Barbara (where Scott Frank went to school) on 12/1/06, the firsttime it has been shown as a finished film. I think the reviewer whocalled the film predictable must have been watching another film (orit's been re-edited since he's seen it). The story was interesting andthe acting was fantastic. Jeff Daniels was wonderful but JosephGordon-Levitt … WOW! Isla Fisher and Mathew Goode were great too. Butwhen I realized that this was Scott Frank's first directing gig was Iblown away! The tension in the final third was authentic. This "little"film should win some big awards.

I am shocked at the rave reviews this movie received from people Irespect very much. I went in with fairly high expectations and was justbored to death. I found all of the characters unconvincing, thoughDaniels to a lesser extent.

If the director's goal was to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt's characterexpressionless, he succeeded. Somehow, I don't think that was his goal.His character, Chris Pratt, communicated little inner conflict, guilt,remorse, anger.

Frankly, I think this movie was just a case of bad directing or worsecasting — Pratt was a drone, Gary, the uber-evil bankrobber, was rote,predictable and unconvincing, even Pratt's parents were virtuallyblank.

For me, no one in this movie effectively communicated the emotions onewould think they should be feeling from scene to scene.

The script was fairly solid and as I watched the film I kept tellingmyself who could have bailed out this poor directorial performance.

I thought of the following …

DiCaprio as Chris Pratt (of course, they probably could not afford him)Liam Neasom in a cameo as Pratt's father Michael Imperiale (Sopranos)as Gary.

The list of better choices goes on and on …

The film made me care little about Pratt, it did nothing to suggest areal connection was made between Pratt and his bank-robber girlfriend(hence, no conflict), there were no breakout scenes of discovery whenthe protagonist finds what people are up to …

It plain sucked.

I would like to argue the merits of the film in a professional sense… but, for me, this was a B-rate film. It is perhaps the only filmI've seen in years that made me wonder what the b-roll looked likebecause — to use a word from the film — there was no "sequencing," nological connect-the-dots a=b, which makes c, which causes d, andexplains e…

the acting is good enough only to carry short sections of the movie.the script is great, and as you watch and wait for the movie to end,you can see how good it could have been. props to Matthew Goode, bestperformance in this movie. Isla Fisher was good also, not a touch ofStage 5 Clinger to her.

the entire first half could have been sharpened up and seven or eightminutes shorter. what really takes the wind out of it and detracts fromthe film overall, is a scene that properly demonstrates the desperationand frustration of Gordon-Levitt's character. the scene where he can'topen the can just doesn't do it. no yin up front, no payoff later. theback half of the flick is like a never-ending game of Tetris stuck atlevel one: you know where everything goes, you just have to wait forthe pieces to drop.

Bone was lame. why did Daniels' blind character squint in the morninglight? the shootout at the bank looked like it was shot on HDV orsomething. wtf happened to Luvlee? she just blows town? and i can'tbelieve Carla Gugino doesn't reappear; what a waste of talent, and assto boot. thank god she's on Entourage. and the look into camera at theend, with that god-awful VO? i cringed. i'd rather watch re-runs of 3rdRock from the Sun.

Minority Report, Malice, Heaven's Prisoners, Out of Sight… allawesome
scripts that were stylistically and technically well-executedto deliver maximum emotional punch. well, maybe not Heaven's prisoners.but anyway, the difference to me is clearly the direction. sorry to sayit, being a Gaucho 'n all.

read comments (0)

The Jane Austen Book Club

In the words of author Karen Joy Fowler, "Jocelyn turned out to likefiddling about with the original story no better than Prudie did. Thegreat thing about books was the solidity of the written word." (In thenovel, Prudie met Jocelyn - not Bernadette - at a disappointingscreening of a film version of "Mansfield Park.")

I am with Jocelyn in this. I don't like the "fiddling about" RobinSwicord did with Karen Joy Fowler's marvelous novel.

Fowler includes questions for discussion at the end of the novel. Thecharacters in the "book club" cleverly pose these. Jocelyn asks, "Doyou ever like movies based on books?"

My answer is "Yes. I have seen some (for example: Merchant IvoryProductions - "A Room With a View" was spot on - and many BBCadaptations) that seem faithful to the original novels but when itcomes to Hollywood productions, I have invariably been disappointed."

"The Jane Austen Book Club" is no exception. What a hugedisappointment. This was one of my favorite laugh aloud books. Gonefrom the movie entirely was Karen Joy Fowler's clever witty writing -reminiscent of Jane Austen herself. Gone too, were the charactersketches and backgrounds supplied by Fowler in the context of theAusten novels "the club" read each month- the very heart of the novel!

By the time Robin Swicord finished with the screenplay there waslittle, if any, of Fowler's voice left in the story and none of herhumor and wit remained.

Most troublesome: what could Swicord have been thinking with that wholePrudie and Trey business? Statutory rape charges? I certainly hope themovie Trey was 18 years old. That entire idea of an affair betweenPrudie and Trey is not in Fowler's book. Yes, Trey flirts provocativelywith Prudie. Yes, Prudie observes Trey with Sallie Wong in the libraryand is turned on by the "PDA." But the idea of a teacher going to ahotel for sex with a student - that did not come from the mind or thepen of Fowler!

Am I the only one bothered by this? What if it had been the other wayaround? The teacher had been a male and the student a female? WouldHollywood have made that movie? (In 1962 and 1997, "Lolita" based onthe novel by Nabokov. Does that count?) Would Swicord have written sucha screenplay?

During the Brigadoon rehearsal there is a flirtation between Prudie andTrey, which was perverted by Swicord in something entirely differentand disturbing. In the novel, this is a very funny voyeuristic scene.I'll relate it for the benefit of those moviegoers who have not readthe book and have been cheated of Fowler's humor.

Prudie says she is not wearing her contacts. Trey points out that sheis.

"'And a good thing. PD of A to starboard.'

"Prudie turned around. There, right there, in the wings, with the stageempty but a fair number of kids still scattered about the auditorium,Mr. Chou, the music teacher (unmarried) slipped his hands over Ms. Fry(married)'s breasts, squeezed them as if he were testing cantaloupes.And clearly not for the first time; those hands knew those breasts.What was it about this school!"

Unfortunately, all of this dwelling on Swicord's screenplayrelationship between the older Prudie and the younger Trey eclipses thelegitimate relationship of the older Jocelyn and the younger Grigg,which builds as teasingly and satisfyingly as an Austen romance inFowler's novel. Fowler's target audience is middle-aged Austen readingwomen and this relationship, between Jocelyn and Grigg, makes us smile.

Others have commented that the movie characters are unbelievable,shallowly draw, impossibly attractive… These are Swicord'scharacters, not Fowler's. The backgrounds provided by Fowler give thecharacters greater depth and the reader greater understanding of theirbehavior. Fowler's characters behave and look more real. Prudie is"sharp featured" and Bernadette, in her 70s, is described as "rotund"and "letting herself go."

Do yourself a favor. Skip the movie and read the book. If you mustwatch the movie, do so just to see Maria Bello act. She is delightfulas Jocelyn. The ensemble cast pulls together and there are other fineperformances as well.

It really isn't the singularly ultra-feminine orientation thatalienates me from this 2007 hodgepodge tribute to the power of JaneAusten's prose as much as the cursory, heavy-handed way thatdirector/screenwriter Robin Swicord has approached her adaptation ofKaren Joy Fowler's 2004 novel. Austen's enduring popularity hasinspired several recently filmed productions of her early 19th centuryworks, and Fowler cleverly interweaves the author's six novels byincorporating her pertinent themes into a contemporary story ofmanners. Unfortunately, with a running time of 105 minutes, Swicordbarely has time to tap into the themes of each novel as Fowler could,and the result feels rushed and misshapen by the machinations of themodern-day stories toward a too-perfect resolution. Despite thepresence of a sterling ensemble of proved actors, there's justsomething ultimately patronizing to viewers of either gender when afilmmaker needs to wrap up the numerous loose threads of the omnibusplot into a neatly tied bow at the end.

The multi-decked story is a pure Harlequin romance fantasy bringingtogether a group of five women and one man into a monthly book club in,of all places, Sacramento (though it was filmed in LA). The den motheris Bernadette, a fiftyish, six-times-married free spirit who decides tostart the book club to cheer up longtime friend Sylvia, facing thebreakup of her twenty-plus year marriage, and new acquaintance Prudie,a young high school French teacher with an insensitive husband. Joiningthe clutch is Bernadette and Sylvia's good friend Jocelyn, a dogbreeder who has already given up on having possible long-termrelationships (just like Austen's "Emma"); Sylvia's daredevil lesbiandaughter Allegra, who treats love and sports in the same risk-takingmanner; and Grigg, a software whiz and science-fiction geek who hasnever read Austen before. Their lives outside the club intertwine, inparticular, Jocelyn's repeated attempts to match the now-separatedSylvia with Grigg. I imagine familiarity with Austen's novels would behelpful since many of the literary references occur in rapid-firesuccession, but it isn't mandatory since Swicord primarily focuses onthe characters' predicaments in a more predictable soap opera fashion.

A strong cast helps, but more often, their portrayals feel like chesspieces in a timer-dictated game. Channeling a lot of FrancesMcDormand's innate pragmatism, the ever-dependable Maria Bello ("AHistory of Violence", "World Trade Center") is sharp as always asJocelyn. Kathy Baker is earthy goodness as Bernadette, though hercharacter feels more like a plot device to allow the others a soundingboard. More familiar for her TV work, Amy Brenneman gets to experiencethe most drastic transformation as Sylvia, moving stepwise fromdispensable wife to emancipated woman, while Maggie Grace brings therequisite looseness to daughter Allegra. With her severe haircut,repressed wardrobe, and pretentious manner, Emily Blunt ("The DevilWears Prada", "Dan in Real Life") continues to sharpen her versatilityas the insecure Prudie. As put-upon Grigg, Hugh Dancy ("Evening") doeswhat he can with a relatively thankless part. Smaller parts are playedby Jimmy Smits as Sylvia's male-menopausal husband, and surroundingPrudie, Kevin Zegers ("Transamerica") as her hormonally chargedstudent, Marc Blucas as her lunk-headed husband, and Lynn Redgrave asher pothead hippie mother.

There are quite a few extras on the 2008 DVD with the obligatorycommentary track probably the most informative feature withlight-hearted remarks provided by Swi
cord, editor Maryann Brandon,co-producer Julie Lynn, and actors Dancy, Grace and Blucas. Fourfeaturettes are provided - a standard eighteen-minute behind-the-scenessegment with the cast and crew interviewed in brief snippets; a22-minute overview of Austen's life as narrated by her devotees; atwelve-minute short - interesting but somewhat contrived - on howSwicord adapted each of the principal characters in Fowler's book to aliterary counterpart in an Austen novel; and a throwaway segment fromthe premiere in LA (it had a short theatrical run before going tovideo). There are also seven deleted scenes, including the last onewhere they tried repeatedly to have a ridgeback dog sniff at Dancy'scrotch. Austen devotees may enjoy the constant references to her works,but I wonder if they will appreciate the conventional storyline uponwhich they precariously hang.

One of the male characters in this movie thinks an Austen is a car,quite remarkable really as Austins (deeply mediocre cars once made inEngland) have not been sold in the US for thirty years. NeverthelessJane Austen, who published her last book about 180 years ago, is stillread even in California.

The Jane Austen Book Club comes about through the efforts ofmuch-married Bernadette (Kathy Baker) to console her kennel-owningfriend Jocelyn (Maria Bello) who has lost a favorite dog. Other membersare Sylvia (Amy Brenneman), whose lawyer husband (Jimmy Smits) has goneoff with a co-worker, her lesbian daughter Allegra, teacher Prudie(Emily Blunt) who is neglected by her husband and fancies one of herstudents Trey (Kevin Zegers), and one male, Grigg (Hugh Dancy with agood American accent), a successful businessman and science fiction fanwho Jocelyn is trying to get interested in Sylvia but who actuallyfancies control freak Jocelyn herself.

The group plow through all six Austen novels, which come to be seen bythem as lessons in manners. In one surreal scene Prudie is about tocross a road to join her possible teenage paramour who is waitingoutside a motel for her. The traffic light, instead of "Walk" reads"What would Jane do". Naturally "Don't Walk" follows.

With eight or nine main characters, including Sylvia's aging hippiemother and nightmare house guest (Lynn Redgrave), it is a tight fit in105 minutes to get all their stories in, but in adapting Karen Fowler'sbook first time director Robin Swicord covers the ground quiteefficiently. The film is not so much about the novels as about thegroup of friends; after all we know what happens to the Austenheroines, but the fates of the club members is up in the air.

Channel 4 in Scotland did something similar in their 2002-03 series"The Book Group" (with a lonely American in Glasgow starting thegroup), but this film does not match the hilarity of that series. It ispleasant to watch and you don't need to know much about the novels tounderstand what's happening, but it's a bit of a snooze, and I'm afraidI don't buy Jane Austen as a marriage counsellor. After all, she nevergot to the altar herself. As for Jimmy Smits becoming a latter dayAusten fan – I can't suspend my disbelief that far.

I had read the book last year, and didn't care for it very much. Butit's always exciting and interesting to me to see how a book isportrayed on the silver screen. Perhaps I had low expectations goinginto this one, but I thought the movie was good, and much better thanthe book.

For those of you who have read the book, the movie and book are similarin terms of broad brush strokes, but that's about it. Much of thesub-plots and stories are completely different from the book.

I think the movie works better primarily because the characters aremuch more likable, and because the many upsetting stories in the book(particularly Grigg's adventure with his Dad) are omitted. I alsothought the romance between Grigg and Jocelyn in the movie wasespecially sweet, and very "Emma-esque."

If you didn't like the book, I'd say still give the movie a chance. Idid, and I'm very happy I saw it!

Things happen and the characters have issues. One of them suggests thatthey read Jane Austen's 6 major books and meet monthly to discuss them.Each person would have responsibility for a different book, and eachperson would be responsible for the location of the meeting.

I am not necessarily a Jane Austen fan, and I have not read any of herbooks. In fact, I don't know how many books she wrote, maybe it wasonly 6. However I did recently see the excellent 'Becoming Jane' withAnne Hathaway as Jane Austen, so I feel like a know a bit about her.

While the characters in the movie are discussing Austen, they alsobehave as characters in Jane Austen's books might. There is a nicesingle lady (Maria Bello) who raises dogs, and who tries to fix upothers, but doesn't allow herself to get close to others. She seemslike an Emma type.

Of the 6 who meet to discuss Austen, one is a young man invited on awhim, who looks like a mistake, but actually turns out very well.

All in all an entertaining movie.

Well, it's official: it's a chick flick, by all means. You can tell byjust the premise: a group of woman (and one man), gather to read all ofthe Jane Austen books and learn about life and love at the same time.But this one is thoroughly enjoyable, a delight to watch. While itwon't rank in the films of the century or anything, it will pleasewoman for years to come. -SPOILERS START HERE- It features an ensemblecast, which I always enjoy. I like how all the characters come togetherand meld to make the story. Each are having their own problems: one oftheir husband's have left, one is a lesbian, and one is slowly fallingfor her student. The only man in their little club was invited by oneof the woman concerned for the one whose husband left her and hoping toset them up together ends up falling for the woman that invited him.The student also makes advances towards her teacher, which shereluctantly gives into but then feels horrible about it. (She ismarried).

The whole movie is filled with tender scenes, such as the one where oneof them is telling her girlfriend about something that happened a longtime ago with a mentally handicapped boy that she will always feelguilty about, or the one when a woman and her ex-husband must cometogether again because their daughter is hurt, or when the teacher andher student arrange a meeting and she is looking at him across thestreet and can only think of her husband.

This chick flick is not just for chicks, although it will be theprimary audience, and it turns some hard issues into tender, enjoyablestories of love.

There've been plenty of recent movies based on Jane Austen's novels andeven her life story, but "The Jane Austen Book Club" might be the firstmovie to consider the phenomenon that Austen has become nearly 200years after her death. It follows several middle-class Californians who(like this film's intended audience) love Austen's writing and insightinto human relationships.

After Sylvia's (Amy Brenneman) marriage falls apart, her friends starta book club to distract her. Prudie (Emily Blunt), a neurotic youngFrench teacher, also has marital problems–she thinks her husband isnot sensitive enough. Grigg (Hugh Dancy), the only male in the club,joined in order to get to know Jocelyn (Maria Bello) better, but that'snot an easy task. The youngest and oldest club members–impetuouslesbian Allegra (Maggie Grace) and warmhearted den mother Bernadette(Kathy Baker)–are there mostly to support the other characters.

The ensemble cast is a bit of a mixed bag. I felt like I knew Jocelynand Sylvia more from what the other characters said about them thanfrom Bello's and Brenneman's performances. Dancy is charmingly geekybut has trouble disguising his B
ritish accent. Blunt, however, does agood American accent and isn't afraid to show Prudie's needy andunlikable side.

Familiarity with Austen's six novels may not be an absolute necessityto enjoy this film, but it probably helps. For instance, Allegra'sstory is OK on its own but becomes more fun if you realize that sheparallels the character of Marianne from "Sense and Sensibility." Myfavorite scenes involve all six club members ostensibly discussingAusten's books but really using them as code to talk about their ownrelationships. It reminds us of how relevant Austen's work still is.

Still, "The Jane Austen Book Club" often feels more like a competentbut not ground-breaking TV series than a feature film. The episodicstructure (each section of the film is devoted to a different Austennovel) and relatively large cast of characters seem to belong totelevision, and since the movie juggles so many story lines it can'tdevelop them deeply. Also slightly disappointing is that the moviedoesn't capture the wit and humor of Austen's novels nor make any newclaims about love and relationships in the 21st century. It's smarterthan the average chick flick, but not destined to become a classic.

I sat down on a late, dark Saturday night to watch this with mydaughter, fully expecting to enjoy it as she had already told me sheliked it. We don't share a common like of all movies, but we do when itcomes to romantic type films.

I did like the film in general, but felt it could have been better. Thegrouping of people was not the best and I didn't care for thenot-so-subtle male bashing. Not all men fall into the knuckle-draggingcretin category; including yours truly. A great many masculine men canand do enjoy not only films such as this, but actually read a lot ofbooks as well, and not comic books either. Having said that …

One of the things that rankled me was in pretending to set the film inSacramento when it clearly wasn't. There are a lot of great - and onecould even say unique - settings in Sacramento and those possibilitieswere completely ignored in favor of the more generic, and tiresome,Southern California locations. Better still would have been filming inthe fall and winter in Sacramento when it more resembles the climate inJane Austen's England. That would have been wonderful. You know, that'sone great advantage of the old Hollywood sound stages, they created farmore poetic scenes where the settings and weather at least seemedcongruent with the stories they were telling… wonderful fantasy lostfor the sake of a buck I guess.

The film also left me wondering how they managed to collect some coolerdays for the filming, or did they just swath the actors/actresses inmany layers of clothing regardless of the weather… probably thelatter. I mention this item as I have heard a LOT of women - and not afew men - raving about the sweater worn by the Jocelyn character, MariaBello, through much of the film. It looks so inviting, so comforting,that a lot of people would buy it were the source known. Funny howHollywood, who like to try and squeeze the life out of action figuremarketing, completely misses about 90% of the other possibilities.

The rest of the film did hit a few other unsettling notes, such as theemotional infidelity of Emily Blunt's character; an affair made doublyworse by who it involves her with. That just left a bad taste in mymouth. I may have also been somewhat prejudiced by her as the choicefor this character. I would much rather have seen an actual Americanyoung woman in the part. Although she is a superb actress, I justdidn't buy her in this part of the reactionary hippie-love-child.However, giving her full credit where due, I have to say herchanging-clothes-in-the-street scene was terrific.

The above aside, it was an enjoyable movie for the most part. I likedmost of the characters, a few too like people I've known. A couple ofcharacters just irritated, like the Blunt and Maggie Grace character.It left me feeling that I'd rather see both these actresses in betterroles. To my disappointment, the Hugh Dancy character, Grigg, got on mynerves. Is it even possible for what is supposed to be anabove-average-intelligence, educated guy to be so clueless? Well, Iknow in real life it is but do I want to watch that on the screen? Iguess the answer this time was "no". The whole excuse his stupiditybecause he's male thing is very over done.

Overall, I liked it more than not. So, ladies, by all means, see thiswith the men in your life, but don't be surprised if they're notthrilled with it.

Had not seen any publicity for this film so had no idea what to expectbut what a breath of fresh air this film is. An amazing ensemble cast.Really hits the right balance in all ways.

It could have been a soppy Chick flick but turned out to be anintelligent and thoughtful piece of writing which the actors carriedoff brilliantly. Can't wait for another one by this collaboration ofproducers and director. Bravo.

This does not fit into any one genre I don't think. That is one of thethings I enjoyed about this movie. It wasn't romance, comedy or dramabut had all of those elements.

"The Jane Austen book club" is one of those non-pretentious movies witha strange power to make one regain one's spirits, when you feeldepressed or low-spirited. I was very curious about the movie, I'm fondof Jane Austen' novels, and always appreciated their extraordinarymodernity. However, it is not necessary to have read them to appreciatethe film, which has the merit to stimulate their reading, just becauseit makes clear how Jane Austen is still today able to offer asituation, a character, or simple a mood we can identify with. It isnot a chick-flick, not at all, in the same way as Jane Austen's novelswere and are not aimed at a female-public. The complexity of love issomething involving both men and women, maybe men being less able toaccept it, but also recognizing it. In this coral movie, the differentstories, displayed with delicacy and tenderness, just prove thiscomplexity: love is not only a matter of passion or chemistry, love isnot a mystery, real love is passion and reason, giving and taking,allowing and demanding, second chances are possible but often painful,being the elaboration of inner conflicts. Good acting is delivered bythe whole cast, and together with a general pleasant and humorousatmosphere, helps to convey a positive spirit of optimism.

read comments (0)

The Hunting Party

This movie is a hard one to classify as it blends comedy and dramarather well along with being a war-thriller of sorts. In the vein ofTHE MATADOR (2005), this movie stars out with a rather eccentric man,played by Richard Gere, in addition to having a rather good backgroundlead up to his rather strange behavior. The comedy and drama play outin fascinating peaks and valleys, though it fails to be as consistenttowards the end as THE MATADOR. The teamwork between Richard Gere andhis co-star Terrence Howard (who at times reminds one of Cuba GoodingJr.) is fun and smooth. Eventually these two men have been together aretorn apart (a period in the movie that is well done) and thrown backtogether again. Unfortunately, the United Nations official in the moviebecomes a bit too stereotypically odd that throws the audience out fromthe experience of the movie. The scenes leading to the end aren't asnicely tight and twisting as THE MATADOR, but do make for a nice tie into the title of the movie. If the movie had been as fun and cynical asthe written narrative words displayed during the beginning of the endcredits, the movie would have had a quaint charm that could have madeit a great movie. Richard demonstrates a nice range of emotions andbehavior and is some ways the depth of emotional power in this movieexceeds that of THE MATADOR which is unfortunate as the entire contextin which the emotion is played out isn't as appealing as THE MATADOR asa movie. Overall this is a good movie, with an elevated use ofcomedy-drama that continues to raise the bar for future movies. Sevenout of Ten Stars.

This is a very crowded Fall movie season and, unfortunately, a lot ofgood films will be looked over. I'm afraid The Hunting Party is one ofthem. However, that does not mean you have to miss out and I imploreyou to search for this gem. The Hunting Party is a unique movie and Iguarantee you won't see anything else like this for a while. It's acomedy/action/drama about three journalists trying to track down a warcriminal in Bosnia. I won't say any more about the plot as it is muchmore satisfying to see how everything plays out on screen rather thanme spoiling details. Richard Gere, Terrence Howard and Jesse Eisenbergall give convincing performances in the lead roles. The script is sharpand has a lot to say about how the US handles their attempts to captureterrorists. The direction by Richard Shepherd is stylish but it nevertakes over the film with obnoxious trickery. This isn't quite a greatmovie, some of it does seem implausible and and a fair bit of the humorisn't as funny as the movie thinks it is. But with that said, it stillis an engrossing and smart film worth searching for.

'Matador' director Richard Shephard gives Richard Gere one of his moreappealing (and surprisingly well-fitting) roles as the reckless, bravewar journalist Simon. He and Terrence Howard's photographer Duck were afabulous combat news team till Simon had a meltdown on the air and wasexiled to obscure freelancing while Terrence was kicked upstairs toworking with the network's chief anchorman in New York. A reunion tocover the fifth anniversary of Bosnian peace causes the two to reunite,joined by a network VP's eager young Harvard son (Jesse Eisenberg, of'The Squid and the Whale') on a wild hunt for "the Fox"—a Bosnian warcriminal responsible for the rape and slaughter of thousands ofMoslems; supposedly there's a $5 million reward for his capture. Simonis broke, but says he just wants an interview. As soon as they getwithin miles of what may be the Fox's lair they're assumed by everybodyto be CIA assassins. Mayhem—and a happy resolution—follow. Gere catchesjust the right wild ironic tone throughout and his cohorts are fine.More successful and more satisfying than the currently overpraised, andpolitically null 'Eastern Promises.' But who'd want to see this? It'smostly just factually true, and the treatment is a little too cynicalfor its political punch to follow through. Adapted from a Scott K.Anderson 'Esquire' magazine article of several years ago, the movierelates to 'Three Kings' and 'Salvador.'

Another well made historic fiction (like Charlie Wilson's War) whichagain points a finger at the U.S. for not acting as role models thoughthey claim to be. The Hunting party doest not cover all aspects of thecomplex and brutal Bosnian war of the 90s. It is obvious that suchmovies cant possibly cover all aspects of a war, it has to pick andchoose a perspective it thinks will make a good and informative movie,and which people would want to spend money on.

This movie is unique in that it gives us something from a journalist'sperspective…very ambitious journalists actually! The acting isconsistent and solid throughout, and the movie is shot beautifully.There are some smart and funny lines along the way which makes themovie entertaining.

Another good flick that respects history while never failing to provideentertainment along the way! People who liked Charlie Wilson's willenjoy this one:)

Richard Shepard enjoys the genre mash-up. He tried so less successfullywith his previous Matador but here combines a few different hot topicelements along with calibrated dosages of comedy, drama, and action toa far more entertaining and involving effect. While the dumbed-downscript may belie some vibrantly realistic cinematography, Shepardmanages to walk that elusive line in Hollywood which straddles easilyswallowed entertainment and gripping docu-drama with a level of finessethat should appease both hardened film-goers and more casualmovie-goers.

Sure, the third act kills some of the engaging momentum started fromframe one with some over-enunciated dramatic plot-arcs veering thefilm's tone into a depth it cannot really muster, but The Hunting Partyholds enough conceptual promise from the get go to ensure a worthwhileonce over viewing.

I had to finish this movie to find out if these guys find "The Fox".Because I never was able to figure out where fact ended and creativitybegan I feel I still don't know. So much for this being based on a truestory because even if most of it is it seems fictional plain andsimple. So based on believability this movie just does not work.

This leaves us with still what ends up being an entertaining ride.Richard Gere works as an eccentric reporter because he seems naturallyeccentric, not particularly likable, but strangely charismatic perhapsbased on looks and swagger? Terrence Howard works as the more pragmaticstraight "buddy" who is level headed yet is missing the danger andadventure he once had due to working with Gere's character. The oddduck of an additional "kid" tagging along with them must surely be oneof the true parts of the story as it seems out of place and just seemswrong. This threesome is going to find one of the world's most wantedwar crime criminals even though Yugoslavian authorities as well as theCIA can not. This fact is explained repeatedly these organizations donot want to find these criminals, but only to provide "lip-service"because the public wants to feel their governments are fighting forjustice when they have no intention of actually doing so. Thankgoodness it's an entertaining story because I just can not believe iton any reasonable level the way it's presented.

Bottom line: Throw out the need to believe that anything regardingthese reporters actions are true as acted out, then you will, verylikely, find this to have plenty to redeem itself in entertainmentvalue.

I just saw this movie yesterday and I must say I was surprised. To meit seemed it was kind of a parody movie, which makes fun from theinternational so-called security community of most powerful countriesin the world, who actually role the dice in probably almost
every warconflict since WWII. They are the true masters of puppets, not thedictators and generals and crazy doctors and wanted war criminals. Theyare usually just their tool and like in numerous times, when they arenot needed anymore, they are removed one way or the other.

As for the reality of the Yugoslav Civil war, this movie it is kind ofone sided, playing only on the side of Muslims and their sad tale. Butthe problem here is, that each and every side involved had a sad taleto tell. Yes it is true that in Bosnia some of the most terrible eventshappened in the war and yes, Srebrenica was a war crime by all laws andconventions. But the Dutch U.N. so-called peace keepers did actuallydrink rakija when the Muslims were slaughtered. And that only shows howpeace keeping these peace keepers really are - actually they are kindof not. IF they all really wanted to catch these war criminals from anykind of war, they would get them in few days. But they do not want tocatch them - and that is the catch. Each and one of them will maybeserve their sinister purposes someday in the future.

And the movie also did show that war is hell and in hell, everything isvery simple. You either kill or get killed. And there are also no rulesin wars. Even with U.N. peace keepers around, to enforce theinternational laws and conventions, written and designed to preventssuch war crimes happening.

As for the movie - I really enjoyed it, since I am from formerYugoslavia and I am familiar with the language and it was very nice towatch Richard Gere say a few sentances in serbo-croat language. I likedthe humor in the movie and all the scenes which happened in a war tornBosnia, which really show the chaotic situation that is still there.Richard Gere again proved that his can easily play almost any rolegiven to him, and he has my respect for taking such a controversialrole in such a controversial movie, which is most definitely was not orshall be a hit in America.

The Hunting Party is not a bad film and it entertained me…but I thinkit's a completely average film and with some important fails.First ofall,I have to mention the weakest point from this film.I felt thatdirector and screenwriter Richard Shepard did not know what focus hehad to take for this movie.For some moments,the film is a politicmystery;for other moments,it's an adventure film and for othermoments,it's a comedy.It does not bother me when a movie mix genres butThe Hunting Party does not engage with any of them,so it falls short ineveryone,not to mention that the three genres do not flow too well.Ialso think this movie needed some more enthusiasm.Still,this movie isgood.Richard Gere and the great Terrence Howard bring good performancesand,in spite of all the complaints,I have to admit this movieentertained me.The Hunting Party is a good film but I found itcompletely average.I think I can recommend it with the warning that thefilm is nothing special.

Rating:6.5

There are few films which narrate a bitter truth in an agreeable way.This is a fantastic combination of a fiction and a real story. The filmis bit different from a typical war-type, as it covers only theaftermaths of war/genocide in Bosnia. The story of the threejournalists who try to search for a fugitive "the fox", who is a herofor Serbs but a war criminal for the international community.

It excellently sends out the message why there is a failure in knockingdown the terrorism in the world. Karadzic and General Mladic are thoseexamples subjected in the film.

The film is also made well technically. The plot is sound and the maincharacters are matured. In short, I rate the film 8/10.

This story mainly focuses on the back and forth between Terence Howardand Richad Gere and gives a glimpse into trying to report the chaos ofthat terrible war. As for the acting performances Richard Gere isengaging and gets to take the audience from intense/intensive toamusing. Terrence Howard, as Duck, makes his character the slickest manto get behind the lens, probably even too slick. It finally seems hewas putting on a show instead of showing a character. Overall thismovie feels like an attempted caper in one of the most serious ofcircumstances. Probably, the most intriguing parts of this film arecontained in the voice-over montage in the start as well as in thesurprising ending, leaving a lot of filler in the middle.

read comments (0)

The Hills Have Eyes II

For those horror fans, if you thought this movie is bad, then you arenot a really horror fan. The visuals effects of the film are great andi thought the acting was good, but not better than the remake. The newmutants are creepier than the remake and stronger. Chameleon was prettycool. I hope they do the third part, but Wes Craven was saying that ifthe sequel does good in the box office they may do the 3rd part, butsince it didn't do that well, they may not do the 3rd part of the thefilm. The only thing that i don't like is the rape scene. They need todeleted that part out because too nasty. If they cut this part, itmight make more money than the remake and the sequel.

I only rented this movie (I dare not waste my money to see this moviein theaters) to view how the Army was portrayed in the film. The actingwas very cheap. I can understand why. The story hardly warrants anyfunding. How did this movie get produced anyway? Oh yeah, Wes Craven.If you have ANY military background and call yourself patriot to theUSA, then don't bother considering this movie to take up even tenminutes of your time. Really, pondering what goes on in dog's brainwarrants a higher priority than considering to watch this movie. Theonly thing that this screenwriter KNOWS about the Army is that theychanged to the new ACU digital uniforms. But, by all means if you enjoyraunchy and grotesque birth and rape scenes and you hate the Army, thenby all means, waste your time and watch this movie, you probably havenothing better to do anyway. Well, maybe Paris is writing a book on herjail "experience", that might gobble up your precious time more so thanthis movie.

This movie delivered in every aspect that it promised from thepreviews. Excellent horror movie. This movie definitely keeps theviewer on the edge of his seat from beginning to end. There are no slowpoints, and the constant action is accented by well written conflictbetween all the main characters. Conflict is the essence of drama, and"Hills Have Eyes 2" delivers high-tension throughout.

Excellent gore effects. This movie takes us back to the genre films ofthe late 1970s and early 1980s, except now the special effects are farmore superb. The flesh wounds are painfully realistic. Every retard isdisgustingly detailed and eerily deformed. The effects were effective,realistic, and disturbing. Whether you are looking at the weird,misplaced eye-ball of a mutant, or the blood squirting from a severedlimb, it all looked disgustingly real.

The lead actress, Jessica Stroup, was excellent as PFC Amber Johnson.Her performance was so vulnerable, you couldn't help but fall in lovewith her. And yet, she was so strong, you are rooting for her as shekicks mutant butt! Definitely MY KIND OF WOMAN! I am looking forward toseeing Jessica in more films, hopefully of the brutal horror variety.She was stunning, hot, and a lot of fun to watch.

I already own the first "Hills Have Eyes" remake. I liked that one alot, too. And when this one comes out on DVD, I will definitely add itto my collection. I loved the concept of these soldiers wanderingthrough the desert and going toe-to-toe with the cannibals. That issuch an awesome idea for a movie, and they definitely did it right.Totally entertaining, disturbing, riveting, and fun.

For a horror movie, I give this one a 10. If you like horror and youare a genuine fan of the genre, then you will love this movie. But ifyou are not truly a fan of horror movies, then you are not going toenjoy it. You will only be disturbed and grossed out. That is whatthese movies do best! Great movie, great story, great gross out scenes,great entertainment.

Even though it was critically slammed, I enjoyed The Hills Have Eyesremake. I thought Aja added some style, and for the most part, I caredabout the characters and hoped the family would survive to the end.

All the elements that made the first Hills remake successful aremissing here. First off, I'm sorry Mr. Craven, but your script heresucks. You did not give us any sympathetic characters, unless we'resupposed to like the anti-war soldier who calls the president a "liar".Everyone else is a generic throwaway horror character. Next, there's noreal plot at all: Soldiers go into the mountains/caves and are pickedoff one-by-one. It seems like you stole a lot from the far superiorflick, The Descent, but this movie turned out like it's lesser cousin,The Cave. Where The Descent seemed fresh and scary, THHE pt 2 seemslike it's just going through the motions.

The gore is rather minimal here. None of the splatter was unique tothis film. It's all stuff we've seen before. The rape scene just seemedexploitative to me. The mutants were dull and not scary . And the movieas a whole was very predictable. If you've ever seen a horror film, youcan probably tell who's going to make it to the end of this movie afterthe first 10 minutes.

If this would have been straight-to-video, I don't think I would havebeen as disappointed. But I expect more from feature films.

Never trust the critics…They give bad reviews to everything exceptperfection! Let's talk about the movie, its certainly very averagecompared to the awesome first one, but I tought that it was prettygood! It's definitely not the kind of movie that you should go see withhigh expectations, I had average expectations and it turned out prettygood! There's a lot of action and gore (although less than in the firstone) and it never really gets boring. The make up FX are as good as theones in the first one and there's also some nice gore (bullet wounds,severed arm, eye gouging, guts and you name it!). Fans of T&A will bedisappointed, but if that's what you like, go watch a porn movie, notan horror movie! Its pretty predictable like most horror movies thesedays and it has the typical jump scares, but for a new horror movie itspretty good! Plus, the main female character is hot and the cast did apretty good job too! I was hoping for Aja to direct this sequel, butfinally it still turned out good! I recommend it mostly to fan of thefirst and to people who liked movies like The Descent! Oh by the way,there's a thing that I didn't really like and it's the fact that itends like each single horror movies these days… If you know what Imean! I'm getting tired of these endings… They are useless really…

The Hills Have Eyes II is a good sequel in my opinion, but could havedefinitely been better. The remake made in 2006 is definitely superior,but this is still a good movie and entertains. However, I've seen waybetter sequels. The movie is set sometime following the events of theremake and involves a group of National Trainee Guards on a trainingmission who are sent to investigate. However, trouble breaks loose whenthey begin being killed off by a new group of mutants and findthemselves on a search and rescue for one of their own.

Starting with the positives, the movie has a nice cast and some goodacting accompanied. Jessica Stroup, Daniella Alonso and MichaelMcMillian are great in the movie and outshine the others. The othercast members do well, well apart from Eric Edelstein who gives a weak,annoying performance. The movie also has a surprisingly alright plot.It gets better when Missy (Alonso) is kidnapped by one of the mutantsand they are forced to go and rescue their own…that's when thingsbegin picking up more and thats when the soldiers realize it's time tokick some mutant ass. The movie also has some good action sequences andis quite brutal here and there, but this is where I move onto the fewnegatives I have with the movie.

The movie does not have the same feel as the remake and in fact, itfeels very different and you can tell that if you've seen the remake.It just doesn't feel as gritty or scarier than the remake. This movieis not scary in an
y way in my opinion, but it does have it's momentshere and there. I think they should have made a better attempt atmaking it feel like the remake because this one doesn't have the feelto that movie and it feels less tense.

This brings me onto my other point - the characters. The characters inthis are from the army, so you can't expect tons of likable characters.A few characters in this can be annoying and a bit too "hard-ass" fortheir own good, and therefore as a viewer I can't feel sorry for themlike the family in the remake. In fact, you feel the opposite and can'twait for certain characters to get killed off - whereas in the remakeyou feel for the characters. I also feel that the mutants could havehad a bit more screen time in this movie, and a bit more development.They are nowhere near as developed in this movie as they are in theremake. But without comparing it too much to the remake, this is a goodmovie in my opinion and I'm glad it didn't turn out terrible in myopinion. Sure, it's less scarier and a bit stupid here and there…butit's entertaining. The movie has a good cast, great acting, brutalityand some good action scenes. They could have made it more suspensefuland tense, but they did a good enough job. If you love the remake,there's a chance you'll hate this. But if you take it for aentertaining action/horror sequel…then you may just enjoy it. Worth arental at least, it's a good movie!

7/10

I wasn't at all impressed by the first film 'The Hills Have Eyes(2006)', despite that fact I decided to watch 'Hills 2' out ofcuriosity, to see if it was at all possible to make a bad franchiseeven worse. It took less than 20minutes for that query to be answered.The American army should have sued the filmmakers for their portrayalof the national guard, specifically one scene within those first 20minswhere the sergeant answers a radio by saying "Hello?", as if he was insome kind of 80s slasher film or maybe he'd just never used awalkie-talkie before? Then he asks one of the rookie squad member"what's the range on this thing". If that wasn't bad enough his squadis made up of idiots, who at any sign of danger take their helmets offand aim their weapons at each other; if the mutants hadn't killed them,they would have surely killed each other. This is unbelievably badscript writing and it shocks me that no one realised this in the scriptwriting stage, especially when a script usually goes through severalrewrites before a final one is drafted, even then rewrites can takeplace during filming, yet no one thought to mention that it wasunrealistic and laughable.

This film has a terrible script, cast and director; it came out lessthan a year after the first film, which all adds up to mean one thing,they rushed this film to piggyback on the minor success of the firstfilm. In other words this film was made as cheaply and as quickly aspossible so that the producers could make themselves a few extrapennies.

So basically there are some army guys that are sent back to sector 16to give some guys this stuff that they never actually get to give thembecause the guys there were already dead because the mutant hillbillieshad already killed them and now they are after the army guys and girlsbecause they need to make babies and the story and the acting and thedeaths and everything about this entire movie was absolutely AMAZING.

Uh, no. God this movie was awful.

I considered the first Hills Have Eyes remake passable. Mildlyentertaining with an enjoyable cast (I have a thing for the Aussieschick from Lost) I will admit that it kept me entertained for theduration. Now this..

Like other reviews I had read, I found myself looking at the time on myDVD player far more than once. I kept asking myself, with such a simplestory (if it even passed as one), how could this movie POSSIBLY go onany longer. Well, it did, it was about an hour longer. The acting wasgod awful, with the amazing big-man-with-a-lisp character topping my"all time favorite character that should not be your favoritecharacter" list. The action was laughable, with no where near as muchof a creepy aura surrounding the killings. It all just seemed like avery very bad attempt from Hollywood at making a buck. The only thingthat I found A BIT interesting was the end, which left room for yetanother sequel, and possibly one that could be an interesting socialcommentary if it is done correctly (which I doubt it will be) If youneed an hour and a half to kill, are highly inebriated, and are just init for a good laugh, this could be worth watching. Otherwise, I sayavoid. Go watch a decent movie that came out recently such as Zodiac orThe Number 23. If you need a slasher-esquire movie, go see Behind theMask. But please, I beg you, do not waste money on this piece of trashfilm.

Overall: 2/10

this has to be the most disturbing movie i have ever seen and i wouldnever let any of my friends from seeing this unless they need somethingto make them puke all over. please save your time and don't watch thisunless you think PEOPLE getting SLAUGHTERED and cut up is cool, if youdo you need to go get some help soon. go talk to someone for some helpi was just disgusted at this movie DO NOT WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!! I WAS ONTHE VERGE OF PUKING. THERE ARE A MILLION OTHER MOVIES THAT ARE BETTERAND MORE WORTH YOUR TIME. Go watch some of the American pie movies orsomething. I hope that these directors will get a life and make a goodmovie before trying to make people sick.

A follow-up to the highly successful remake of Wes Craven's originalmovie, written by Wes Craven and his son and directed by an acclaimeddirector of music videos and commercials. Doesn't exactly sound like arecipe for success. Unsurprisingly, it isn't and yet I still REALLYenjoyed this movie.

Following on from the events of the first film but set two years later,we are now watching a bunch of soldiers exploring the dangerous desertarea. There was a monitoring station being set up but when that wentsilent the decision was made to send in some troops, investigate theproblem and fix what can be fixed. Unbeknownst to them, numerous savagemutants are still at large in the area and this time they're findingwomen to breed with as well as killing any innocent people who strayinto the area.

Working pretty well within the generally accepted rules for sequels(not as good, higher bodycount, more gore), this movie adds absolutelynothing of value to the impressive remake that came before it nor tothe genre overall. But despite it's many flaws (the disposable cast whoI won't even name, the lacklustre script, the lack of any depth, etc,etc) it remains a very, very fun horror outing and a very entertainingmovie on the most basic of levels. Yes, it's a bodycount flick but it'sone with inventiveness, decent production values and the balls to showsome genuine nastiness in a way that almost matches the first film attimes.

Director Martin Weisz may never make a masterpiece and may fail toimpress many other people with this effort but, for me anyway, he'sprovided a perfectly acceptable, if somewhat dumb, sequel to a remakethat set a very high standard in the first place.

See this if you like: The Hills Have Eyes, Wrong Turn, Wrong Turn 2:Dead End.

read comments (0)

The Brave One

I didn't want to see this film as the reviews in the UK were so poor.However I arrived too late for Michael Clayton and bought tickets withreservations. I'm glad it worked out that way as I saw two greatperformances from Foster and Howard. Those expecting a Death Wishremake might be disappointed. I was more reminded of Ghost, and thatwas the only bad aspect. As an exciting drama with plenty of jump inyour seat moments, the film succeeds. Aside from the politics (and I'mon Jodie's liberal side against the vigilantes any day) it's disturbingyet also funny. I took the "dog back" line as Arnie type humour, in thesame vein as the other quotes listed. So if you want a good film, don'tbe put off by the reviews. Jodie's as watchable as ever.

Brave One to me is basically a woman's version of Taxi Driver withelements of a revenge movie thrown in. In fact their are manysimilarities between the two movies, besides the fact that Jodi Fosteris in both movies. Both films deal with many of the same issues offear, violence, life in the big city, and vigilantism. Jodi's characterBane and Robert Deniro's Character Travis Bickel, even dress similar.There is one scene that takes place in a store that seems like it'sripped off directly from Taxi Driver, that being said, that doesn'tmake this a bad movie because all artists steal. Where Brave One getsinteresting is in the way it deals with gender. The role of Bane inmost movies would be typically male. Bane is the strong one in herrelationship, seemingly kind of scared of commitment, whereas herboyfriend appears to be kind of needy and emotional. The movie alsodeals with how violence is just beneath the surface of every humanbeing, and the fuzzy line between good and evil. There is also afeminist subtext to the movie, because all of them men seem to bebasically violent, perverts and all the women seem to be victims. Iprobably would have given this movie and 8 if it didn't have thatunbelievable Hollywood screen test ending.

Jodi Foster was born to play this role. What Hollywood actress couldplay an atypical woman better than Jodi Foster, who always seemed kindof manly. In fact I had an easier time believing that she would killsomebody, than believing her love scene in the movie with a man, butthat's just me. Jodi does an excellent job as does Tererence Howard Irecommend every body see this movie, it'll have you thinking long afteryou've digested your popcorn.

After reading all the great reviews I was very disappointed in thisfilm. I was expecting so much more. The film needed more characterdevelopment in my opinion. I found that I could not feel much forFoster's character. This is not saying she's not a good actress, I justdidn't like the script. Contrary to what most of you have said I didnot find her character believable. For instance, she follows a man shedoesn't even know down some dark side street to buy an illegal handgunafter she had just been brutally beaten! And that is just one of manythings that I found totally far-fetched. I did however like TerranceHoward's character which I found to be a little more believable.

I say wait for DVD on this one!

It's been said a dozen times already, but The Brave One is basicallyDeath Wish all over again with just hint of Taxi Driver. It is alsoincredibly boring with lifeless characters and some horribly misjudgedmoments.

Erica Bane (Jodie Foster) is a radio host who is mugged in Central Park(in a totally unshocking scene). Her boyfriend is killed and she isbadly beaten. The police don't care about her case and she figures thatthe only way to feel safe on the streets again is to buy a gun, just incase.

What a happy coincidence then that Erica meets plenty of baddies afterpurchasing her new weapon. It gives her the opportunity to have somefun killing people and gives the movie and excuse to exist. It mighthave been involving had I not felt so utterly detached from thecharacter.

Neil Jordan does something wrong, I'm not sure what it is, but he seemsto keep us at a distance from Erica Bane from the very beginning. Shejust doesn't seem like a real, believable person and his handling ofher important, emotional scenes come across as flat and cursory. Italso doesn't help that the plot is most convoluted and contrivednonense with far, far too many coincidences. How dumb do they think weare, exactly?

It also disturbingly portrays most ethnic minorities as being a threat.If the baddies aren't black or Latino then they are sleazy middle-agedmen. Either way, they are male and you be ashamed to be one since JodieFoster, in her producer capacity, seems to think that we are allpotential rapists. Why she felt like she needed to make this statementI don't know. And besides, why should a woman have to go through suchan ordeal before she realises that she can be tough? Why can't she justbe tough in the first place? I think that Jodie Foster, blinded by herfeminist arrogance, forgot to consider that THIS might be interpretedas sexist.

The main reason for The Brave One (terrible title) failing is that NeilJordan never gets a single camera angle right. At no point in the filmdo we really feel like we're in Erica's man-hating shoes. Hisphotography and color-schemes are bland and muted instead of beingnaturalised and realistic, which would have been much more involving.

And NYC has been seriously cleaned up since the mid-90s, the film evenmakes a point of mentioning this. So why then go on to show that it isstill crawling with vermin? Is it or isn't it 'The Safest Big City inthe World'? I don't think that there is any logic to this at all.

Basically, it's a TV movie masquerading as a film that belongs on thebig screen. If you find TV movies boring then, chances are, you'll findthis unbearable.

How to say, the story approach could have been well developed. Insteadof that we get plunged in a flat scenario, more than agreed, andcompletely unrealistic within sight of the succession of the events.Add to that a vague quite heavy "humour" in some scenes, result: anawful piece of garbage. Unfortunately the film of Neil Jordan, does notinnovate on a topic many time approached. It is simple and I believeeven simplistic. This is worst film of the career of Jodie Foster. Afilm the vehicules some sick ideas, this apology for an expeditiousjustice, summary executions under pretext which the end justifies themeans, remains intolerable.

the film is good, the story is standard/okay but Jodie foster'sperformance is INCREDIBLE!!! you can really feel the anger, pain,sorough and the fear Erica Bain has (Jodie F. character). The speechshe has on her radio show, how fear never touch her is so well acted,it's like she is not acting at all!!! She is so natural, confident andhow she expresses her emotions is absolutely Oscar winning material.Terrence Howard gave also a professional and good performance, Fosterand Howard suit as a great team, they really connect!! and you can seethe similarities between them and I never expected the end, how Jodiefoster "transforms" to this animal with rage, anger and this wantingfor revenge, and the moral to the film is extremely well put. The musicis very good and well suited for the film mix with violence and a lovescene. There is a lot of violence in the film, what I usually wouldthink is a bit extreme, but this is motivated violence that makes abetter film. Fosters line: I am not a face/body I am just a voice iswell said about her character and suits to Erica Bain. you can reallysee how she becomes someone else a stranger that she can't control thestranger will now always be there, there is now no going back! And theend is so great how the dog runs after her, and really ends the filmwell. I will be very surprised if Jodie Foster dose not get at least anomina
tion for an Oscar! Jodie Foster's performance slaughters everyother performances this year it's really no point of having any otheractress in a leading role nominations, AND THE Oscar GOES 110% TO JODIEFOSTER FOR THE BRAVE ONE 2008!!

Despite what I expect many critics are writing, this has little to dowith being a blond, blue (steely!)-eyed, female version of "Death Wish"or "Dirty Harry." (Supposedly the Executive Producer credit for JodieFoster was more than ordinarily earned by her insistence andparticipation in a major rewrite of the script that lifted it out ofthe aforementioned category.) It examines a psyche battered even morethan the physical body, battered almost, maybe completely, todestruction. The nearly indescribable trauma of unreasoning violenceand loss costs a woman not just the life of her fiancé and nearly herown but the disintegration of her core of being. So complete is it thatit seems the only alternative to paralyzing fear and isolation is tobuild a foundation of vengeance and preemption of evil. (One wondersthese days not so much if this is how vigilantes are birthed from realor perceived injustice as if this total extinction of personality byinconceivable loss is the way in which terrorists are made.) TerrenceHoward and Jodie Foster give underplayed performances that exude powerand emotional resonance. Even the small role of Naveen Andrews from"Lost" hits just the right note to help establish the significance ofthe fiancé that the Foster character has no opportunity to mourn. MarySteenburgen is as good as usual. (Don't know if this qualifies as a"spoiler," but if you don't want to chance it, skip the rest of thisparagraph.) Many may quibble with the ending, and, possibly, rightlyso, but one has to take into account that the police detective, at thatpoint, has not just seen the results of a horrible crime but hasviscerally experienced it.

I am not that knowledgeable but the camera work might be in line forawards. This is unobtrusively but emphatically telling a storycinematically. I didn't get the name of the cinematographer and don'tknow if most of the excellence came from him/her or from director NeilJordan, but it deserves recognition.

The series of Charles Bronson prequels to this tale, mercifully, cannotcontinue, for Mr. Bronson has expired and taken his unidimensionalarchitect/vigilante character with him to the grave.

THE BRAVE ONE is the genuine article. If one seeks a Bronsonesquevigilante in drag, and a bunch of right-wing blarney, one will bedisappointed with this film. It's deep. It's nuanced. It displays, insomewhat grotesque detail, the distance between our idealized Americanself- image, and our reality, the idealistic pretensions of our legalsystem, and the real world of people trying to survive.

Erica Bain is not the vengeful, angry, self-assured creature of theDEATH WISH series. She's a fragile, sensitive, kindly human being ofartistic temperament. Somebody you'd invite in your home at firstsight. Jodie Foster plays the role exquisitely, and the work of hermakeup artist to create her look, is a thing to behold. Erica Bain is atrue antihero. She regrets what she does, yet cannot seem to stopherself. She practically begs to be locked up to be relieved of hercompulsion. And who, exactly, is The Brave One? Wait, dear readers,until the end of the film, then draw your conclusions accordingly!

I went into this movie, with some hopes of it being "just good". I cameout, totally surprised, and entirely satisfied with saying that it wasa great movie. Jodie takes over the screen like she damn near hasalmost always done. She just keeps on proving what an absolutelyadmirable actress she is, and is improving each time she gets in frontof the camera. I have always loved her acting. The first movie shecaught me in big time, was 'Stealing Home' with Mark Harmon. Shedemands the screen, just like the character she portrays, demands therespect of the people that hurt her. I have not seen a lead female rolelately that has caught my attention as much as this movie has. Thismovie really has a way of putting you, the viewer, into her shoes, andletting her feel the emotions of hers, as she tries to unravel the ballof emotions that are just lumped up inside her. I think you canunderstand her situation. That is how gripping this story is. I don'tlike to play the spoiler, and I will not. My advice to you is to gowatch this movie, with a totally opened mind, expecting really nothing,but just Jodie Foster, and you will be impressed. This movie has agreat cast, a great script, and nice, decent set. Great acting allaround, with little quips of humor thrown in to keep you moving throughall the drama, and emotions. You will love the one in the liquor storebetween the two detectives. Quick funny line. Great film, give it atry, and watch it!!

I'm just responding to the previous review. Since when is a film abouta female vigilante bog "standard?" In the last twenty years, I can namemaybe two - and I'm not digging through all that substandard,titillating 80s "chick with a gun" garbage. I'm talking about a realfilm, destined for the cinemas, that deals with real issues and has afemale lead? "Thelma and Louise" - and it's not really a vigilante film- and maybe "Kill Bill," which is a revenge film not a vigilante film,either. That's it, folks.

"The Brave One" is a fantastic film that blurs the line between goodand evil. It's superbly acted by Jodie Foster, a real rarity inHollywood as she's never sold herself out as the male lead's"sweetheart," and marvelously directed by Neil Jordan; a man who courtscontroversy. This film challenges a lot of stereotypes, and presentsyou with a lot of questions.

I would certainly add it to my Top 10 list for 2007. (So far, it joins"300," "Zodiac," "The Lookout," "Rescue Dawn," and "Sunshine."

read comments (0)

The Bourne Ultimatum

Would you loose any fun from this movie, if instead of watching"fights" in this movie a narrator said: "There is a fight; Bourne wins,but does not kill" ? Or in another case he would say "Bourne runs onroofs and jumps from one roof onto another" or "All cars bump eachother, Bourne's car looses its trunk"? Almost nothing. Another optionis to close eyes and listen, then fights are good and chases are OK.Only one chase was interesting to watch, when Bourne rides bike. If youtry to understand why the evil CIA officer order killing after killing,only one reason could be seen: to show how very-very bad the guy andCIA is after everyone. It does not matter that these killings sendwarnings - or maybe it makes the movie "more intriguing": how suchstupid person could make so good career? He can't even explain purposeof his baby-project without cheap newspaper cliché. Matt Damon is good,and I like Julia Stiles with him: I use to have feeling in the previousmovies that had something in the past. So it is not zero, it is 3.

Visually incoherent storytelling of the basest sort. Stuck with anaction movie script that looks like it was put together in shop class,Paul Greengrass is then hampered by the dullest possible supportingcast and a mandate to pander. The result is like an 80s Bruce Willismovie, only blurry and less amusing.

All three of these Bourne movies fail on just about every level. Theaction scenes, while for the most part live-action, are trendilyovercut and blown out. They end up containing all the visual appeal ofweak pc graphics. At least briefly there was a human interest story;now, Damon's the terminator, there's no love, and there's not enoughaction to make it anything but a bore. The crude device of the turncoatspook boss, and the crutch of the hit man's existential quest: theseare as old as spy movies, old and, yes, moldy. This plot is no moreextensive than the introductory chapter of a first person shooter game.Less so, in fact. I know more about Raccoon City than I know about thisless realized world.

Once again, the occasionally excellent Matt Damon is given nothing todo but run up and down stairs, point a gun, and not smile. It's toobad, and indicative of what else is wrong with most of this type ofmovie: there's nobody to care about. I liked Franka Potente, but thatwas for her own virtues, not because of any value these movies soughtout in her. And they killed her at the top of the second act. So withULTIMATUM we yet again enter Bourne's world on the run, are given aminimum of information related to the story and no personal informationwhatsoever, except what's rehashed from the previous films. There is nonew information in this one except the empty scene with Albert Finneyat the end, a scene that lacks every sort of power anyway. What awaste; what an unsurprising letdown.

Greengrass may be possessed of more film-making knowledge than anybodyright now; his work on "Bloody Sunday" and "United 93" stands assuperior by any measure. And he does something here that showsremarkable savvy: after each frantically edited fight scene, he pausesthe action as a cue for the target audience to applaud. This isgeneralship and not to be taken lightly. To achieve a sense ofclaustrophobia he also limits himself to about four shots through thewhole thing: over the shoulder close-up on one eye is his favorite.Technically, except for an annoying reliance on a shaky hand-heldcamera, he is very good. His handicaps here, especially thesoon-to-be-dated visuals and the witless screenplay, relegate BOURNE toone-summer obscurity. Nobody will remember this moment. Probably thismovie will make lots of money from people who like the way video gameslook, and allow Greengrass and Damon to make more personal filmsunhampered. That would be the only possible positive result of "BourneUltimatum."

The movie starts out on a semi-promising note, but quickly goesdownhill. Acting was sub-standard and static, the fight choreography,while impressive, was impossible to enjoy because of the spastic camerawork. (More on that later…) and the plot was more full of holes thanthe average James Bond flick. I found the movie to be one of thelargest disappointments to ever cross my eyes since Star Wars Episode1.

Now, the camera work. It would seem that the production crew spend somuch money paying for flights and accommodations in cool locations thatthey didn't have enough money left over to rent tripods for thecameras. Long-zoom shots taken from the shoulder, and what can best bedescribed as an epileptic fit during the action scenes did nothing forthe movie, except make it so I didn't want to eat any more popcorn forfear of spewing it out onto the floor.

The story line was so poorly constructed that I was nearly out of mymind with boredom. Because of the horrible acting, I had no connectionwith the characters on screen, so even when I was supposed to begripping my seat in anticipation, I was yawning, and trying to stayawake.

Waiting to see this movie on network TV is your best bet at enjoyingit. At least then you have the chance to be entertained by thecommercials.

the movie WOULD have been a 9 out of 10, like the 2 earlier titles fromthis series.

i am not sure if they ran over budget and hired a 12 year old "in heat"or if they got a teenager with a jiggle cam.

robert ludlum should raise the cameraman's salary?? did he pay themwith a burger and fries? was this guy a real professional camera man?

the story, characters, action scenes (what you could see of themwithout all the constant wiggling of the camera and darkness) wereotherwise well done.

did some amateur "auteur" think using a hand-held camera and constantlymoving it, even on stills and close ups of characters in non actionsettings has something to do with movie making.

the camera technique used on this film was really hot stuff in the mid70's for low budget porno movies when the first hand held cameras cameout and it was exciting and new to see a scene shot differently, atleast in the 70's it was realized that wiggling a camera constantlydetracted from a movie, not enhanced it.

also the lighting, small tip for the movie staff, when the sun goesdown you need to remember that one single candle is not enough lightfor a modern movie. once again, spend a few dollars on a technologycalled a light bulb, they were invented about a 130 years ago but iguess your staff might not have heard of the technology yet. also workswell in dark rooms.

once again, 9 out of 10 for the first two movies from this series, thisonly gets a 5 due to the terrible film and lighting work.

Either there was a constant stream of earthquakes during the shootingof the film, or the cameraman was an epileptic (or 90 yrs old).

Just horrible.

Snapshots and flickering light - no story, no connection. Like a badbad, and I mean, BAD undergrad experimental video for a class.

It was probably shot with a camera phone, too.

The last Bond film was a PG rated action movie too, but what a world ofdifference! You don't need a trembling camera to convey you the dramaof a chase, or the tension of a killing. It takes good acting and goodscreenplay, which this Bourne film was totally without.

Utterly disappointing…

You may remember that in Supremacy, they used "shaky cam" in the fightscenes. Well, in Ultimatum, they take it to the next level.

The entire movie is in shaky cam. They zoom in on a piece of paper thatoffers some clue as to what's happening; but you won't be able to readit because the camera shakes so much.

I hear that the action scenes were really cool, and the movie has oneof the best car chases ever. I wouldn't know. The actions scenes werejust a series of nausea-
inducing blurs. I had to look away to keep fromgetting sick. It was as if the camera man was filming the scene in themiddle of a full blown grand-mal seizure while holding the camera atthe end of one of those flexible tent poles used for dome tents.

Compound that with a propensity for rapid zoom cuts. That is, thecamera zooms in quickly and a millisecond later, the film cuts to anentirely different shot…all while shaking.

Maybe the film could be watched on a small television or on a large onebut from really far away. But not in the theater. Not without someDramamine.

I think it might have had good acting — it sounded good. Also, thestory seemed to be cool. But nothing makes up for the crappy photowork. I'm giving it a 4 instead of a 1 because I really like thecharacter and story. And I love Albert Finney.

I recommend they use this film in film school as an example of what notto do.

Although I thought the screen play was excellent I felt the videographyand music score was absolutely atrocious. From the opening scene I feltI was watching a home video taken by someone with hyperactivitysyndrome. The camera was NEVER still and that was in the scenes wherepeople were just talking to each other. Once the action started it wasimpossible to comfortably watch. It gave me a feeling of vertigo. Thecar car chase I can only compare very unfavorably to classics like the"French Connection" and "Bullitt". The score was so loud it was painfulrather than suspense building. Not to be totally negative, thefictional or not high tech CIA tools were fascinating.

I am joining another reviewer here and will only see a Paul Greengrassfilm on a small screen. I previously complained about the shaky cam inmy review of Bourne Supremacy, but could not condemn the film sinceeverything else was done very well. This time, the shaky cam is nowdoing more to inject tense feelings into what could be a thin story. Isat in the fourth row, and had to frequently look away or down to keepmy stomach from fluttering. I eventually had to walk out to relieve thenausea, only returning later by sitting in the very back of thetheatre. Greengrass said he wanted to make essentially a smart popcornfilm, and he has. He may even have come up with some clever enoughscenes to dare and shoot them on a tripod once in a while. I'm afraidwhat he is really doing is ratcheting up his camera-work (that lookslike it was done by a 5 year-old), thinking that it is necessary tooutdo the previous film.

There is a great deal of evidence why; much time is taken to merely goover old material covered in the first two movies, the new CIA bad guysare like the old CIA bad guys, and NSA surveillance scenes are a dime adozen nowadays. So it is only Bourne and his lightning fast actionscenes that make this film worthwhile. I was thoroughly enjoying theintelligence they put into the set pieces, extending their potentialand increasing the adrenaline. Also winning honors is the under-ratedJoan Allen. Her intensity energises the screen, and provides a voicefor the audience - rooting for her to save Jason and other colleaguesfrom elimination.

Greengrass delivers on the popcorn part for sure, but gets an 'F' forover-using an over-rated camera technique. Instead of giving this filma thumbs down, however, I am recommending that you watch it only on asmaller screen.

I liked "The Bourne Identity", but I found the plot of "The BourneUltimatum" incredibly boring (a simple idea, drawn out too far). To befair, I never saw the 2nd film in this series, but it seems to not bean issue as the relevant plot developments are mentioned like 3 or 4times in this film (ad nauseam). I didn't really care about thecharacters.

The negative complaints about this film are dominated by complaintsabout the shaky camera work during some action sequences. Though itmakes it harder to understand exactly what's happening, I accepted it.But now that I look back, I think that the camera was shaken just tomake the scene feel more exciting than it actually was. I suspect thatthe people who think that these action sequences are good are those whoeither a) like overstimulation (e.g., loud music at clubs) or possiblyb) really like the realistic feel that they add. The realism is, Iguess, a selling point of the Bourne films.

Here's what I liked about this film: The first full-scale actionsequence was cool and novel. I really thought the film was going totake off at that point.

The second major sequence had its moments, but I wound up fantasizingabout how it could be better.

There were very tiny, clever things that Bourne did which I thoughtwere cool.

Toward the end of this film I thought about leaving. As the best partswere over, I wish I had.

From the first few minutes of this film and until the sorry end onethought dominated every other. A question, 'why can't the camera stopshaking?' How much coffee did the camera operator have? Did he haveParkinson's? Was there and earthquake? Why, after having paid goodmoney to see a movie, am I compelled to close my eyes to relieve mynausea? This film was very deliberately made to look like it was shotby a hyper-active twelve year-old with a brand new camcorder and afascination with zooming. Regrettably its becoming a fad in moviestoday. I'm not against a hand held camera, its just another color onthe cinematographers palette. But a one color painting? I'm not againstintentional camera shaking. It has been used to great effect in StarTrek, for example, to simulate a hit from the Klingons. With BourneUltimatum, whatever chase or shooting or car crash on the screen was indirect proportion to the spinning and jerking and zooming of thecamera. More action = more blurry shakes.

BU was like one of those irritating shows that has music in every scenefrom start to finish. Why is that done? To create a sense of dramawhere the visuals and acting have failed to do so.

Apparently Paul Greengrass was insecure about his ability as a directorand resorted to this cheap gimmick in order to give the movie a kind offirst person reality feel. It was either insecurity or pretentiousnessthat would explain his ignorance or contempt for all of the conventionsand innovations of movie making, like steadicam. Sitting in the theaterI found myself thinking, not about the movie but about the director,'what is he trying to do?, why doesn't he respect his audience?' Fromthe back rows of the stadium seating I looked down at the couple ofhundred other people there. They had paid to be there like me and Icould see them all, transfixed, looking at the screen above them when Ihad an uncomfortable thought about what suckers we all are.

OK apart from the tremor-cam I give this movie five stars as part threeof a trilogy. If you liked Bourne 1 & 2 then you might like this one.Its like eating yesterdays leftover pizza. Its the same thing but notfresh and its cold. There is no "warmth" to this movie. No romance andnot a single likable person and not a single smile until the very end.As a stand alone movie it falls completely flat. We don't find outanything about what Bourne thinks or feels until fully three fourthsinto the film. All we know is that Matt Damon is having some badflashbacks and he is going to find out why and beat the crap out ofanyone that gets in his way.

Also, before the movie starts we are told to turn off our cell phones,evidently so we can devote the next two hours to watching people talkon their cell phones. Yes,in this flick, there is a lot of cell phonesand LED screens and the video game feel is unmistakable. My advice,stay home and play a video game or read a comic, but if you must seethis movie, take some Dramamine before.

read comments (0)