The Santa Clause 2

Possibly the worst first 30 minutes to any movie that I watched all thewaythru. It was long, boring, and not the least funny. Finally the movietookoff and the last hour or so was very good, just a tad below the first one.Good santa vs. bad santa was funny, good reindeer chase scene. Mrs.clause,very hot.

The first Santa Clause was a decent holiday movie. The second is just overkill with a story that does not even try to be different. Tim Allen isgoodand goofy at the same time but this movie really did not have beenmade.

They is really no reason for it.

The Santa Clause 2 is lacking in a very key area that the first moviehad by the bushel - whimsy. The first Santa Clause was a deliciousholiday treat that has become a holiday tradition in my home. We hadvery big hopes for the sequel, considering they were handed greatmaterial for the follow-up - finding a Mrs. Claus for Santa. Andtruthfully, the best parts of this movie are the parts that take placewith Scott in the "real world" trying to find a wife. Yes, it'spredictable that Scott will hook up with his son's "bah, humbug"principal, but the journey is a lot of fun. Between the hilarious baddate with Molly Shannon's Christmas-lovin' character and thedelightfully whimsical scene where Scott magically transforms theboring teacher's Christmas party into a trip into everyone's innerchild, the holiday magic is there.

Unfortunately, there was the ugly other side to this movie - the scenestaking place back at the North Pole, where Santa's look-alike toyreplacement is wreaking havoc. Totally devoid of the whimsy that theother half of this movie achieves, the North Pole scenes drag thismovie down to mediocre. Let me count the ways the filmmakers wentwrong… Bernard is a totally different head elf from the first movie,and far less appealing. His character is more paranoid and spastic,which was absolutely the wrong way to go. Curtis the elf is obnoxious.I don't know who this kid is, but I hate him in every movie he's in.You simply do NOT give the "token fat kid" a major role in a featurefilm. It doesn't work, and neither does this kid as Curtis. (It is aREALLY, REALLY bad sign that Bernard is not slated to be in the thirdinstallment of Santa Clause - the Escape Clause. Instead, Curtis isevidently going to return as the new head elf. GAG. That bit of castingand plot line has "oh, no" written all over it.) They also changed thereindeer in the second movie. Instead of the intelligent, unspeakingcreatures that worked so well in several scenes in the first movie,they have been reduced to a fart joke. And now they can speak, thoughit's in a silly, cartoonish voice. Don't even get me started on "Chet"the redneck mentally-disturbed reindeer. What a nightmare.

So if you want whimsy and feelings of holiday delight, watch the firstmovie. Make that one your tradition. Santa Clause 2: The Mrs. Clause isa woeful sequel that you won't need to see more than once. Which isgood, because you won't WANT to see it more than once.

Saw this movie today with my wife. If you are reading this review, thenyouprobably know the plot.

If you saw Santa Clause (1) and liked it, then you should enjoy this movietoo. Most of the same actors in the first movie are in thisone.

This sequel returns Tim Allen and crew from the original movie as Santamustfind a wife before Xmas or he looses his job… An ok sequel that is abittoo busy with a toy imposter santa running the North Pole as a prison campwhile Santa himself is off looking for a wife. Fluffy stuff that ismoderately entertaining, but pretty silly. GRADE: C

First of all, let me say that I really enjoyed watching `The SantaClause’.I found the storyline to be original and entertaining for both childrenandadults. The humor was clean for the children yet sophisticated enough tokeep adults entertained. When the DVD came out I purchased it immediatelyso the kids (and I) could enjoy it over and over. I was eagerlyanticipating the sequel `The Santa Clause 2′ when I saw the theatricaltrailer at the movie theater. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointedwhenwe finally went to see it. It was ok as a kid’s movie but it lacked a lotin the original storyline department. The story and the humor was dumbedway down to pander to kids and left very little for adults to enjoy. Iespecially did not care for the fact that they found it necessary in thesequel to have the reindeer talk like Scooby Doo. I’m not saying it’s abadmovie, I’m just saying that if you’re an adult and expecting anything likethe original, you will be disappointed.

It’s amazing to find a film that works so well on one level and so poorly onanother. The plotline with Santa dating is charming, funny, heartwarming, and worthevery minute of your time. Sure, it’s a bit predictable, but the chemistrybetween the two is almost timeless.And then there’s the other plotline. Without giving away any spoilers, theevents at the North Pole are bizarre and twisted. There are no characters you can orwant to identify with. And if you examine it from a kid’s perspective, there are afew events that might cause them a nightmare or two.Finally there are the animatronic reindeer. They’re just creepy andoccasionally gross. Yes, kids in my theater got a good laugh at that "one scene" whichwas given away in the trailers. But reindeer who talk like Gizmo from"Gremlins" and who are stupid, unclean, and ugly are not cute or funny; they’re gross. It’s a fine line and unfortunately, this movie crosses to the wrongside.There’s an easy solution: wait for the home video and FF over the badplotline while stopping to enjoy the good one. You’ll be rewarded with a pleasant viewing

experience.

I give this film mixed reviews because it got side-tracked from thepremiseof the film. If they had stuck to the 2 main issues of Santa finding awifeand dealing with his son being in trouble at school, the film would havebeen GREAT. Unfortunately they wasted a lot of time on an evil toy santawhich detracted from the film. The good parts were good enough I may buythe video when it comes out and just fast forward through the evil santasections. I loved the first one but will have to rate this one only 6 outof10.

It seems that this movie didn’t have the same feel the original captured.The time between the release of the sequel maybe the biggest factor. Themovie really reminded me of the original christmas episode of futurama.Theyleft out some very important things the original had. The whole jamesbondish thing with upgrades to the sleigh and suit was a very originalideathat was left out of this movie and kind of left me disappointed. I alsomayhave been angered by the appearance of Spencer Breslin to me he seems tobethe most annoying kid actor of this time. The original movie was releasedin1994 eight years is a little long for a sequel. Many of the youngerviewersor people that haven’t seen the original will appreciate what this moviehasbut personally it lacks the imagination of the first. I give it a 2 outof 5stars.

Well, it’s not quite as good ass the first movie, in my opinion. Mainlybecause I found the talking reindeer to be a little too cutesy and theydidn’t look as realistic as in the first movie. And Bernard the Arch Elfwasn’t as entertainng as in the first movie. But this movie does haveseveral things going for it. For one, all of the main actors who were in thefirst movie have returned for this one. And the relationship between Scottand the principal is very cute to watch. The new elf Curtis is entertaining,and so is Charlie’s little half sister. And the meeting of legendary figureswas an intersting idea, although I think the Easter Bunny could have lookeda little more realistic, or at least a little less ridiculous
.

read comments (0)

The Relic

If you like cinema, then I recommend you not to watch this film. Why?Well, just because cinema is something that was created,fundamentally, for entertainment.Let’s take a look at the film: A story yet used in manyoccasions, a screenplay so predictable that you can leavethe theater one hour before the movie ends and you won’tmiss anything special, things like Dr. Green’s computer,that can indentify the percentage of the species presentin a sample by analyzing the DNA, and even the name andsurname if the species is Homo Sapiens… Perhaps if thisfilm was created 40 years ago I would have given a not sonegative commentary, but the fact is that the film was madein 1997….! Even if you’re just looking for visual FX,you’ll have to wait until the end of the film to see somescenes, and the FX are nothing to write home about.If you avoid watching this film, you’ll miss nothingand save some money.

I could have gotten more enjoyment from my $5 if I had just lit them on firewith a Zippo. The premise of mixing DNA and combining traits like that isinsulting, as is the whole story. Save your money and beat yourself with abrick if you feel the need for mindless suffering. Second worst movie of1997.

All I have to say is that this movie is practically a scenario where tons ofpeople meet senseless violence and death against a creature who loves to riptheir heads off. Throw that in with poor acting, terrible editing and alousy monster with poor FX and you’ve got something to laugh at. See it ifyou’re bored on a Saturday night.

The plot doesn’t hold together, the monster isn’t scary, the dialogue makesno sense. I saw this in a theater and was not scared. Putrid!

I rented this video expecting nothing more than simple entertainment, amonster movie that would be fun on a Saturday night. Boy, did I make amistake. This is a dreadful mess. There is little or no suspensedeveloped,the creature is unbelievable, and the last quarter of the film is soridiculous that it should be silly but is just tedious. This is one of theworst movies I have seen recently.

I thought that scary movies were supposed to be scary. This movie might aswell have the actors stepping physically out of the movie and dumpingbucketfuls of blood on you. For the gore-buff, this movie is perfect. But Ithought real horror movies held your interest within the plot as well as theF-X. This movie is nothing but gore and it didn’t hold my interest long.Probably the worst movie ever made.

When it’s done well, escapist cinema is more than worth its viewers’ time.But when it’s done poorly…

You get something that resembles this godawful mess.

Where to begin? There are SO many flaws here:

-Imagine a thrill-less version of "Alien" set in a really big museum thathas all of ONE exit through which escape is possible; there’s youruninspired plot.

-It couldn’t have hurt this film’s budget TOO much if they had purchasedsome LIGHTS so that you could see what’s going on. Whether or not you wouldwant to see what’s going on is another issue entirely.

-The ridiculous amounts of gore become nearly comical by the end of thisbloody mess.

-Monolithic plot holes and flaws in character logic. A significant portionof the plot concerns an attempted escape through a sewer. Right-O. THATmakes sense.

-The explanation provided for the origin of the "monster" here makes themutant cockroaches from the equally-insipid "Mimic" seem perfectlyplausible.

Rating: 2 out of 10. It’s unbelievably terrible, but it IS better than somefilms, like "Urban Legend" or "Batman and Robin." Films like this don’t evenhave to be GREAT, but they shouldn’t be insulting, as is "The Relic".

This movie is bad. Really bad. It’s like Die Hard in a museum, without anyof the fun you get in either Die Hard or a museum. Actually, sarcasm aside,there are some pretty awesome scenes in the movie, mostly as a result of theterrible acting. Carefully watch for the melodramatic scream after themangled swat-team visit: it’s worth a rewind. Throw in a scully wanna-be, asuperstitious ethno-cop, a hilarious riot where museum patrons go out oftheir way to run thru windows, a slimy sycophant, egregious overuse of theword `thalamus’, a monster evolved specifically to decapitate people and theclockwork decapitation of most of the people mentioned above, and there youhave it. Its bad, but you just might like it. Relic, I crown the king ofthe B movies. Long may you decapitate in peace.

Forget about this awful abortion of a movie. It bears almost noresemblancewhatsoever to the wonderfully frightening novel it was allegedly madefrom.The original story has been completely gutted, and the acting is terriblebysome people from whom we’d expect much better.

Ridiculous sci-fi horror tale about a monster running wild in a Chicagomuseum. Terrific special effects and well-rounded performances fromMillerand Sizemore elevate this to a highly entertaining popcorn film. Gory,fast-paced, and perversely funny at times, this is mainstream fare at it’sbest.

read comments (0)

The Santa Clause

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

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

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

-10 = burn the master,

0 = tolerable if you’re bored to tears,

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

-Zafoid

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

-Big Z

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

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

[CONTAINS SPOILERS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now all was okay again.

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

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

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

The Santa ClausE

Some Spoilers

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

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

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

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

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

3/5 stars –

John Ulmer

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The Ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE RATING: 5 out of 10.

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

Over all though: Great entertainment!

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The Sandlot

"The Sandlot" may just look like it’s about baseball, but moreover,it’s about friendship, with some nostalgia thrown in. Set in 1962,Scotty Smalls moves into a new neighborhood. Uncertain of the area atfirst, he becomes friends with some boys in a baseball field known asthe Sandlot. Over the summer, they try to get girls, battle a rivalteam, and do a few things that they shouldn’t have. All the while, theyhave to remember about a dog known as "The Beast".

As someone who has never been interested in sports, I seeminglywouldn’t take any stock in this movie. But I did. I admit that KarenAllen, as Scotty’s mom, and Denis Leary, as her boyfriend, are the onlycast members whom I recognize, but it’s a really interesting movie.

This film proved to be one of the few kid-based stories which I still watch today. Films about growing up always make me misty, simply because of the moments of innocence which most seek to display. One of the funniest moments in film history is the guys using chew for the first time, then proceeding to through up on themselves and everyone else. Sure, it was a bit crass, but that’s what happens when one tries chew for the first time. I especially loved the attitudes of the players, all defining themselves in some shape or fashion, modeling themselves after the common baseball player. Great fun, and the cameo performance with James Earl Jones was awesome.

This is your only spoiler warning…

This movie is all about the hyperbole of youth. What year it is doesn’tmatter, like Stand By Me it involves pre-Vietnam America. What is thesignificance of that? The notion of "innocent times?"

Nonetheless, it’s the exaggeration of the childhood memories that makes thismovie funny. It’s nothing new or clever, but it is effective when doneright. In this case we have the dog, the imagined history of Mertle’sjunkyard, the vomit, the 4th of July baseball game, and the concluding chaseall have those elements.

I won’t delve into the acting since it’s typical early-90s child acting. This isn’t MTV-style, it’s Nickelodeon. There are worse "family" films thanthis, most are more involved with sports–whereas here baseball is just aframe–but this is useful for kids in the meantime. These sorts of kidsmovies are similar to action movies, just adjusting the bar for the nextfilm. Consider why no one watches ‘Free Willy’ anymore, the baton has beenpassed.

Final Analysis = = Midrange Material

A group of boys experience a lifetime of lessons in one averageAmerican summer. In The Sandlot, Scotty Smalls (Tom Guiry) makesfriends with the neighborhood boys and they embark on juvenileadventures of camping out overnight in their clubhouse sharing s’moresand urban legends. The youths enjoy the thrill of the amusement parkand the bittersweet effects of chewing tobacco. The nine strappingyoung men take a right of passage when they face the over exaggeratedmyth of a mammoth dog dubbed ‘the Beast’ to retrieve a baseball signedby Babe Ruth.

I interpret the intent of this film to promote Americanism. In 1993,patriotism was rampant. We loved our country and this film gives us amultitude of images to tug at our red white and blue heartstrings. Theonly thing more American than baseball in The Sandlot is the variousethnic groups represented by this politically correct version of TheLittle Rascals. Although their skin colors run the range of hues, theyall live the same American life in their Converse sneakers and crewcuts. In the aftermath of our invasion of the smaller, weaker nation ofKuwait, these boys’ foreign and domestic relations help us redeem oursouls and reclaim our image of a kinder, gentler nation.

We see subtle use of commercial icons representing middle class life inthe 1960s. On the counter of Scott’s mother’s (Karen Allen) dreamkitchen, we see the Pillsbury Doughboy cookie jar and Post Sugar Crispcereal. A perfect metaphor for the sweet, sweet life the Americanfamily experienced post World War II and powerful propaganda torecreate it Post Gulf War. Picnics and celebrations boast our Americanpride with fireworks and red white and blue decorations hung from everyavailable limb, front porch awning and lamppost. We witness the youngboys conquer their fear of being devoured by the massive dog Herculesto retrieve the ball signed by Babe Ruth. Is this Director David Evans’way of suggesting that Americanism, represented here by the ball signedby the Great Bambino is worth the risk of life and limb?

The first time I saw this, I really got caught up in the story andcharacters. I was laughing and cheering all the way up until a scenenear the end, at which point, I wanted to scream at the screen. Ireally hate it when a director expects the audience to swallowsomething so blatantly inaccurate, just because they’re riding a niceand warm emotional wave. I’m talking about the James Earl Jonescharacter, and his story (and photo) of playing in the majors with BabeRuth. Unless he had been an Hispanic player originally from a LatinAmerican country (and even that would have been a big if), it wouldhave been IMPOSSIBLE!! The fact that just one prior review evenmentioned this shows just how easily manipulated the typical movie goeris.

Of all the sports movies I’ve seen (well, at least the kid oriented ones),this one is the tops. Why make the comparison to The Wonder Years? Well,think about it. This one features a kid reliving important moments in hisyoung life. It’s about growing up, facing fears, and, of course,fantasizing about the pool life guard (heheh). This is one of thoseclassics that never gets old. A definite 10.

I remember a while back when I was a kid and this movie came out and I haveto say I would watch it once a week and I loved it. A couple weeks ago, Isaw it on t.v. and thought it was incredibly boring. Parts were cute, likewhen the dorky kid pretended to drown so he could kiss the girl, but otherthan that I was disappointed. I guess some movies are just for kids.

Rating when I was 5- 10/10Rating now- 2/10

I always catch this movie whenever it’s on network television. So, it’sa kid’s movie? So what? Now that I’m an adult and outgrown kid’s movies,this one is still fun to watch.

It’s about a geeky kid named Steve who moves into a new neighborhood. Heeventually joins the local sandlot baseball team of neighborhood kids, andthey become the best friends he’s ever had. This movie also teaches a goodlesson in friendship, too.

The best parts were then they played against the bullies in baseballuniforms, the amusement park scene, and when they retreive the ball that washit over the fence and into the hands of the feared dog known as ‘TheBeast’. And the scene where the kids were all being chased by the dog was areal scene stealer!

I’ll admit it is a guilty pleasure movie for me, but it’s still a goodmovie anyway. It’s fun for people of all ages! Whether you’re 7 or 77!

this movie was very sweet but also very funny for kids and adults of allages, if u dont love this movie like i did and still do, u have some majorproblems, it was so great, and had everything i want in a movie in it,comedy, everything so i hope everyone that hasnt seen this and that isreading this gos and sees it

This movie is very well thought - out.

I have no favorite parts of the movie… the whole movie is great!

If you haven’t seen this movie, you’re missin’ out.

The second you see this movie, you will automatically want to add it to yourcollection!

read comments (0)

The Sand Pebbles

It would be 10 if it weren't such a huge movie to digest..

All 3 hours of Sand Pebbles was featured on the History Channel. It wasquite an important, if more somber movie than Flower Drum Song aboutAsians and Americans. It was directed by Robert Wise who also did themore popular West Side Story and the Sound of Music. Filmed in HongKong and Taiwan, it was set on the gunboat San Pablo which protectedAmerican interests in China while forces gathered to expel the westernpowers which dominated China. As the film alternates betweendowntrodden Chinese heathen savages and racist American jerks, I wasoften split between cheering and booing both the Chinese and theAmerican sailors.

The film came out in 1966 as the Americans were ramping up involvementin Vietnam. The current mess in Iraq and Afghanistan came to mind whenAmerican sailors marching back through the city are turned back byNationalist troops, and were pelted with garbage tossed by angry mobs.As with movies about General Custer and Blackhawk Down, there is alimit to what a few serviceman can do when you are surrounded by lotsof people who want to hurt you.

The troubled hero Jake Holman is played by Steve ("Lightning") McQueen.It seems for this guy that no good deed goes unpunished. He finds theNavy ship is actually run by Chinese coolies who do the dirty work forpeanuts, but insists on working on the engines himself. When Holmantries to fix a broken part, the Chinese engineer is crushed in thegiant piston. Po-Han played by a young Mako is trained as areplacement. Holman sticks up for Po-Han against a bully, and sets himup to win in a prize fight against his tormentor. Frenchy uses themoney to pay for the freedom of a Chinese hooker (Why does every movieabout westerners in Asia revolve around the oldest profession??) Shewas played by Thailand-born Eursian Emmanelle Arsan who was infamousfor her novel about exploring her sexuality in France. Jame Hong, whoseems to be cast in every American movie with a Chinese part, is thepimp who loses his bet. But Frenchy dies of cold in bed with her andher former associates find and kill her. Po-Han gets kidnapped andtortured by a communist mob, and begs McQueen to shoot him, which hedoes.

More Americans get shot as the gunboat boarding party wipes out ablockade of junks manned by the very boys educated at the missionaryschool. When they arrive to rescue the missionary, he decides to stickby the Chinese who then shoot him anyway. The skipper and McQueen getshot holding off the bad guys "I was home. What happened? What the hellhappened? " The remaining sailors and Candace Bergen slip away, and welast see the boat steam away to freedom. Of course after that, Chinadescends into a living hell, embraces communism, and by the 21stcentury becomes lead-contaminated toymaker to the world infamous forThomasTank engine recalls and killer tires.

(this review to be printed in Asianweek.com 2/2008)

This film is one of the first movies that I saw from before I was bornthat really had an effect on me, back in the 80s when I saw it on VHS.Returning to it now I see that it wasn't just my youthful innocencethat made this seem like a great movie — it really is a powerful pieceof cinema, full of complex characters, intense drama and thrillingsuspense.

Maybe it's just a coincidence because one of the other films I rememberseeing at a young age was "Cool Hand Luke" but this movie does remindme of that classic, especially the masculine camaraderie in the lockerroom and the whole sequence with betting (in "Luke" on the egg-eatingcontest and in "Pebbles" on the boxing match). Not saying it's a badthing, just taking note of maybe a style of the times. These are bothfilms that James Dean could have appeared in if he had lived — theytap into the same rebel without a cause vibe that became so much morepervasive after his death. McQueen is fantastic though, just as good asDean would have been. There's a quality of hesitation, fear of gettingtoo close to others or revealing too much about himself, in hisperformance that I find very effective.

The story does get a little bit predictable (who out there didn'talready know the missionaries would refuse to leave China?) but it's avery effective drama. The most intense part of the movie for me is thecharacter of Po-Han, played by Mako. His friendship with Holman (SteveMcQueen) and his tragic death are really effective, a way of showing ushow Holman opens up his soul to others only to have it crushed andthrown back at him by the forces of nature.

I think this is very much an "anti-establishment" film but it sends itsmessages in relatively subtle ways, not through speeches or dialog butjust through the relationships between the characters. First of allthere's a cumulative effect to watching the absolutely pig-headed waythat some of the sailors (particularly the ones played by two of myfavorite character actors, Simon Oakland and Joe Turkel) treat theChinese. In the early parts of the film Holman uses racist slang andgoes to "that place they like to go" with the rest of them, and henever gives a speech to tell us that his attitude has changed but wecan see it in the way he treats Maily (Emmanuel Arsan) and Frenchy(Richard Attenborough). To see that more we could contrast Holman'sfriendship with Po-Han with his antagonistic relationship with CaptainCollins (Richard Crena). At the beginning of the film Collins says thatHolman has good marks on his service record — in everything butleadership. He forces Holman to train Po-Han because he does not wanthis sailors to do manual labor; he wants the Chinese to do it all.Everything about Collins is status quo, don't rock the boat. Crenna'sperformance is magnificent, particularly after the diplomatic/militarysituation deteriorates and the pressure mounts. Starting with Po-Han'sdeath, Collins reveals a self-destructive inability to take thenecessary course of action coupled with an unreasonable pride thattakes precedence over every sane and decent impulse and leads him intoa battle that he did not need to fight. In every case, from Po-Han tothe rescue of the missionaries, it's finally up to Holman to take realaction. To me that says something about the message of the movie –Collins is more concerned with "honor" and "duty" than with reallyhelping the Chinese people. The things that the missionaries say aboutthe imperialists ring true to how we've seen him act in the film. He'snot an absolute pig like Simon Oakland's character, but maybe he's evenmore dangerous.

I'd like to point out before I run out of space the extreme technicalquality of this film. Wise was always a good director with goodmaterial and this was his last really great film IMHO. PhotographerMacDonald also did some of his best work here — this film just criesout to be seen in 70mm. I love how he photographed Crenna against thatstark red white and blue background when he gives his big speech. AndJerry Goldsmith's music is really some of his best here as well,enabling the film to shift from its more romantic and sentimentalepisodes to the sweeping action with ease.

I'd also like to praise the acting in general. I'd love to see CandiceBergen in more roles like this. A lot of times the romantic aspects ofa film come off as fluff but she really held up her side of the film;you can really believe that she's an essentially good person thoughperhaps a bit sheltered or naive, that she thinks she knows how to helpthe Chinese people but unlike her mentor she doesn't judge others. Alsothe film is full of top character actors, like Oakland and Turkel plusalso James Hong as an underworld type, Attenborough's tragic sailor inlove, Mako's self-conscious and intelligent Po-Han, Charles Robinson'senthusiastic young ensign. Every performer was perfectly cast and alongwith Wise they created memorable characters both big and small.
r>I'm so glad I watched it again; it's an emotional film that earns theemotions it asks us to feel and pays off on them with a heartfelt butsubtle message of pacifism, of human decency and love winning overignorance and pride. I wouldn't hesitate to say it's a great film.

Very good war drama film that had great production and was Steve McQeen’sbest movie and performance as he displays his great acting skills.This filmcould have been a masterpiece if it had better editing.There were scenesthat was dragged too long for it’s own good.The movie was long enoughalready and did not need to be compounded by useless stand around and donothing shots for endless seconds.Those needed to be snipped.Get your remotefast forward button ready for those scenes.Also,it would have been nice ifthey had a better actress than boring Candice Bergen.Still,the spectacularacting performances,cinematography,action and story make this film a truewinner for fans of war dramas and big fans of the leadactors……

We know so little about this awakening giant China, that even this movie ofthe 60’s with its echoes of our national tragedy Vietnam, sets you tothinking. As the war lords were being slowly unified, and Chaing kai Chekwas doing his nationalistic thing, the American imperialists were beginningto back off. In the person of the very patriotic, if rigid captain, ourcountry’s policies can be seen. As he talks about ’shedding our blood’ asthe last outpost of America in the peaceful Chinese scene, it gives us arather strange feeling. How few of us have ever had to represent ourcountry with the flag in a land that was hellbent to destroy what werepresented, forget about personal integrity or differences with thosepolicies. Those sailors, cannon fodder all, were committed to providingsafety for the AMericans caught in the middle of many civil Chinese wars,whether they liked it or not. Good points were made to the missionary:"Youhave the luxury to complain about US policies and our military stance, whenyour physical safety is assured by our very presence…the presence youdeplore." Quite true…..the same thought that occurred as I ate off ourantique Hippie plates at the commune, when all of us were from middle-classhomes (just like Thoreau) to which we could return at a moment’snotice.

Steve McQueen does the best job of his career as a lower-class Navyciviliandrop-out who has spent his best years tending his first love, an engine.The way he addresses that huge behemoth in the bowels of the gun boat makesus understand the love between man and machines. Watching Candace Bergendoher vigin teacher thing after watching her all these years on TV as thesmart caustic feminist gives you quite a contrast and shows the spread shewas able to make in her acting. Richard Crenna is outstanding as theupright captain, who does indeed die for his men…ready to go down withhisship. I felt incredible empathy for the professional military man becauseofhim. And he even leads his men in a boarding party…that in 1926…what asurprise!!!!

This is the last line of the movie, and presumably it is Holman (SteveMcQueen) still trying to create the impression the crew is with him, butmovies being movies no doubt there is more to it.

Well, a revolution happened but also I was thinking before he spoke thosewords that he became the metaphorical captain of the boat.

In the ’00s the line might be considered a realisation that the USAunderestimated China.

Or maybe that is a conclusion I’ve come to only after hearing one of theAnglo-centric audio documentaries on the DVD about filming in Taiwan."Chinese Punch and Judy" indeed. It’s opera, and it’s been around since fourto five centuries before Punch and Judy. And still going strong, unlikePunch and Judy (sorry Punch).

The blurb on the back cover of the DVD makes a good observation:"a sailor who has given up trying to make peace with anything - includinghimself".

To Robert J Maxwell: who saw the film a dozen times and still doesn’t getit:

1. Holman’s attitude of equality (not to be confused with paternalism)threatens the cosy little arrangement the crew has with the coolies doingall their work for them.

2. Holman has no allegiances, from the beginning. He lets Americans andChinese alike determine their own destiny. His only allegiance in the endis to - well, that would be telling. I’m sure Candice Bergen providesenough of a reason to a ‘Navy lifer’.

Long movie - can be watched over two nights.

The general lives of sailors, values in the Navy, and the way thatships operate are all explored well in this film. The sets arerealistic and detailed, both on shore and in the ship, and in additionto a number of skillfully edited sequences, there is a significantamount to like on the visual side of things. However, despite the goodinsights that it gives, the politics of the time are ill explained, andsome different events are not well explained either. The story is alsorather minimal, with two dull romance subplots taking up a substantialamount of the plot. I did not find enough fresh material for the filmto grip me for the whole of the epic three-hour length, and towards theend the directing becomes somewhat messy. This is not a bad filmthough. It is well made for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and JerryGoldsmith composes a great score too. However, to say the least, I findits Academy Award nomination for Best Picture surprising.

A sumptuous involving story that oozes class from every department, ifonly I could see the full 195 minute cut I'm sure I would make it a10/10 film, as it is I go for a deffo 9.5/10 .

Steve McQueen puts in a wonderful performance as Jake Holman, acharacter that demands much depth and versatility and McQueen deliversin spades. Directed with careful but very prominent hands from RobertWise the film is paced perfect as we need to understand the charactersinvolved and the perilous political upheaval taking place in China1926. The story unfolds and leads us to a final hour that is a rivetingwatch as much as it is a historical reminder of upheaval and warthroughout history. As a human story this film ticks all the boxes forme, and when it's laid out with a wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score it'sa winner that deserves a far higher rating here on this site .

9.5/10

A spacious, sweeping, grand tale that captures a sense of history andplace.This gripping drama about gunboat diplomacy in early 20th century Chinashows off Steve McQueen’s often underrated acting skills to great effect,and manages to achieve the level of tragedy. The excellent actionsequencesnever detract from the human drama. The characters are well-drawn andsympathetically portrayed. Benefits greatly from being seen in letterboxformat (thank you, American Movie Classics channel). Caveat: two scenes inparticular are disturbingly gruesome (the bearing repair, and the murder).

I happened to stumble across this gem of a movie on AMC recently, and theyshowed it complete without adverts - surely a first for AmericanTV!!

I was totally unaware of the film, even though it garnered a number ofOscarnominations. Steve Mc Queen & David Attenborough are superb, with greatsupport from Candice Bergen & a neurotic Richard Crenna. Thejuxtapositionof personal turmoils alongside the upheaval in China at the time (the1920’s) makes for fascinating viewing. Unsentimental and unexpected,thoughthe ending is inevitable.

Go see!

McQueen is marvelous as the isolated and cynical loner who runs the engineson a U.S. gunboat in turbulent 1920’s China. He was never better, and hisrelations to a Chinese assistant and young missionary greatly effect andopen up his character, as does that with his friend (played by RichardAttenboough) and his Chinese wife). Ironically, he remains isolated and anoutcast with the
crew. Richard Crenna was fabulous as tortured the ships’captain (he got an Academy Award nomination), and the scenery and epic scopeof this movie make it a standout.It was released at the height of the Vietnam war and anti-war activism - andshould be looked upon in that light too with hidden meanings and ironies.Was it "too long" as some said? Not for me. A fabulous film.

read comments (0)

The Red Shoes

I suspect MOST people who like this movie so much do so because theyare fans of ballet. Those who are not fans are simply much less likelyto watch it. I DON’T care for ballet, so I felt a little odd watchingit. I know the movie has a fabulous reputation and there was a lot ofgood in it, but I used the DVD remote to speed through the long balletscenes! I know, that makes me a Neanderthal, BUT considering MOSTpeople probably feel about the same way about ballet, this review isintended for those people–not the die-hard fans! Okay–half the movieor so is ballet, so automatically it CAN’T be a great movie to some.But, what did I like? Well, the cinematography was gorgeous for 1948and the acting was generally first-rate. But, the ending of the moviewas a letdown because it seemed a bit silly and overwrought. Plus, Iwas REALLY hoping someone would punch that really pompous producer(Boris Lermontov) in the nose instead–now THAT would have been a greatending! So, in conclusion, if you LOVE ballet, this movie will make yougo nuts because it is so wonderful. But, if you don’t, you’ll probablyfind yourself wondering WHY you decided to watch the movie in the firstplace!

If anything epitomises the self-praising luvvies of the Britishfilm/stage industries, then this is it. It is loved by the critics as amasterpiece of direction and performance. They slap each other on theback, and totally ignore some really bad howlers (called "boners" inthe USA).

For a start, how many pronunciations are there of "Lermontov?" Icounted three. We have a old friend of Boris Lermontov calling him notBorya but Boris, and he stresses the first syllable. Some Russian ishe! If these actors, were struggling with their Russian they need onlyhave asked the Moscow-born Leonide Massine. This is just plain sloppy.Instead of being slapped on the back, these so-called actors shouldhave been punched on the nose!

In fact, Leonide Massine turns out the only decent acting performance.He is superb throughout.

As to Moira Shearer. The Scottish ballerina is a superb dancer but apoor actress. She is supposed to be in emotional turmoil over whetherto choose love or career. Instead, she might just as well be choosingwhether to have porridge or rice crispies for breakfast.

And all the marvellous trick photography of the dance sequences istotally undone by a glaring blunder like high fidelity reception of theBBC Third Programme in Monaco.

If the British luvvies spent as much time perfecting their work as theydo telling each other how marvellous they are, they might avoid ruiningpromising films like this.

Film based around the classic Hans Christian Anderson tale of the ‘RedShoes’, starring Moira Shearer. I’d wanted to see this for quite a whileand even though it didn’t quite live up to my expectations, I couldn’tfaultany of the amazing ballet sequences, which make it easy to see why thisfilmhas become such a classic. A good turn too by Shearer, who shows realemotion as the girl torn between her love of the ballet and her love fortheyoung composer (Marius Goring)

Han Christian Andersen's tale The Red Shoes, first published in 1845has inspired 2 movies (including this one), a Broadway play, an album,an episode of The Twilight Zone and an attraction at a Dutch amusementpark just to name a few. About a girl that receives a pair of red shoesthat makes her want to dance, but the shoes never want to stop, even atthe demise of the wearer. What Pressburger / Powell have done with thestory is made the world that all little girls want to grow up in. Allof the dancers are straight and date the ballerinas, the primaballerina dances in fantastic locations like Monte Carlo, London andParis. Is this what the life of ballet was like in Europe in the lateforties? Probably not, but certainly the image that they wanted out totheir audience both in 1948 and 2007. It is interesting that thefantasy survived the past sixty years and is present today (see 2000'sCenter Stage). I think All that Jazz (1979) is a more accurate pictureof what it is like to be a professional dancer. If you enjoy ballet,you will find this a beautiful movie (If you cannot get your boyfriendoff the couch to torment him at the ballet, than rent this as a goodsubstitute. No tux but it will be excruciating for non-dance fans).

There are lots of great things about this movie: the passion of all thecharacters (though there’s not much real sexual passion), the colour, themusic and, of course, the dancing. The script could have been tighter(couldn’t there have been some other way of getting Anton to work forLermontov without all that exposition?); Vicky’s transformation fromchirpyEnglish rose to suicidal maniac doesn’t ring true, even after we see herasthe ballet dancer who just can’t stop dancing in the Red Shoes ballet;andare we to believe that Lermontov is in love with Vicky or just obsessedwithher as a dancer? (he comes across as too camp to create any sexualtensionbetween the characters). Also when Anton Walbrook announces that "theperformance will not go on (SPOILER ALERT! because Vicky’s carked it), helooks and sounds exactly like Hitler: the hair, the moustache, theshriekingvoice — was that intentional? I mean, the guy who plays Walbrook wasAustrian and the movie was made in England just after the war — were thefilm-makers labouring the point about Lermontov’s fanaticism?

This is one of my favorite films because it takes the story of HansChristen Anderson's Red Shoes and uses it as a backdrop for a touringballet company.

Boris, the heartless head of a profitable touring ballet company loseshis prima ballerina Irina to…gasp…marriage. Everyone is happy forIrina except Boris who you figure out quickly, worked Irina day andnight because he loved dance and had little tolerance for anythingelse.

He finds his next prima, a dancer named Victoria to whom he stages HansChristian Andersen's The Red Shoes for. Not only that, he finds hisnext Maestro at the same time, Jullian, who adapts the music for theballet. Julian and Victoria fall in love, Boris NEVER has time foranything but his ballet and dance and wants everyone around him and inhis ballet company to be the same so this new development upsets himgreatly. And here is where art starts to imitate life.

I've seen this movie only a few times in my life and every time I seeit, I just love it..and those red shoes. I too am bias, I've alwaysloved dancing but I am a compulsive. The Red Shoes would be me, I'ddance and dance and dance…and let the shoes just take over to theinevitable end.

A wonderful motion picture that stands up to the test of time.

This was my first film by the Archers. I saw it two summers ago. I wasmoderately impressed, mostly by the centerpiece, the titular ballet, butfelt that it lacked something, too. I was hoping that it would connect moreon a second viewing, as at least one other Archers film did, BlackNarcissus. Unfortunately, I liked it even less. Let me establish this rightaway: that centerpiece is one of the best pieces of cinema ever created.Buteach of the hours on either side of that is nothing special at best,something awful at worst. The direction is once in a while good, a coupleoftimes great, but the script is generic and emotionless. The actors aregenerally dull. I disliked both Marius Goring and Anton Walbrook the firsttime around (both of whom I liked in other Archers films). I still didn’tlike Goring, but I absolutely hated Walbrook the second time. He seems tobechanneling Hitler through most of the film, or maybe Werner Klemperer(especially when he makes that announcement at the end of the film). Partofit is certainly his character. Pressburger just doesn’t give him anyhumanity whatsoever, and I just can’t sympathize with him. I rememberlikingMoira Shearer a lot the first time around, but I found her acting prettybadthis time. I guess
I was just fooled because she is so beautiful. Thathappens sometimes, of course. Can’t criticize her dancing, though. She doesa lot of mugging with those big, beautiful, deeply blue eyes, but not muchacting. The only actor whom I still like is Léonide Massine, who playsGrischa, the lead male dancer. The script holds 90% of the film’s problems.The characters are very poorly developed, for the most part. Walbrook’swould be good if he weren’t such an execrable one. The plot is made up ofcliches, and the parts that are not seem rather forced to me. Yet I can’tdislike the film. Powell and Pressburger are just too clever with theirdirection. I think, for instance, how romantic that scene in the buggywouldbe if it were to be found in A Matter of Life and Death, my favorite filmfrom the pair. And the centerpiece! Again, I can’t stress how much I loveit. It brought me to tears. Of course, so did the rest of the film, butthose were tears of boredom. I’ll just proclaim that it is, if not thegreatest sequence in cinema, the greatest sequence in cinema to be found ina mediocre film. 7/10.

…that now some of their works ,although far from being disappointing,suffer by comparison.Frankly,I do not think that "the red shoes" is on apar with "a matter of life and death" ("stairway to heaven") "the thief ofBagdad " "black narcissus" or the breathtaking "peeping tom" (sansPressburger by the way) to name but four.It is a very long work andsometimes it’s boring.There’s the ballet which is the piece de resistance ofthe work and is still impressive today:it rivals the best of the Americanmusicals.But what remains ,except for two or three scenes (including thefinal one) is never that much exciting.

Coming from average authors ,it would be enthusing.But coming from Powell/Pressburger ,we expect more,which is certainly unfair.Watch it anyway:its incredible filmed ballet is worth the price ofadmission.

I've been dreading a viewing of this, despite assurances that therewasn't too much dancing (there is!). Despite assurances that a viewerdoesn't have to like dancing to like the movie. (You do (I do) & Ididn't) Despite a review stating that the first 90 minutes were perfect(Am I watching the same movie everyone else is?). Despite assurancesthat this was an extraordinary movie and I would love it… I didn't. Ireally found this movie to be an unremarkable, overinflated beast.

Despite a review that assured me this is the best Powell & Pressburgermovie, all I saw was the standard harangue about Thee-uh-tuh peoplewith all the clichés the footlights can brighten; a Svengali, atalented kid who just needs a chance to prove it. This is a boatload ofclichés without the nuance I've come to expect from Powell &Pressburger. This is a movie with one measly idea, and it takes bothtoo long to get to it, and too long to finish up.

I was watching the clock for the entire first hour. I never found thismovie the slightest bit engaging, because it repudiates everything thatfilm does well. It's like taking the worst part of Oklahoma (the dreamballet) and making it three hours long. It reminded me of the quote"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture," it may alsobe like reducing film to the conceits of the stage. Abstract ballet isstill vital and compelling. Narrative ballet is about as relevant andheavy-handed as silent film, even when done by P&P, even with filmtricks. Perhaps if I was an exceedingly girly thirteen year old… Theonly pleasure I got out of this was when I began fast-forwarding overgratuitous ballet performances and melodrama in the final hour.

Any crappy movie can make you conclude, "Gee, that was pretty." It's arare movie that makes you think. (about anything!) Powell/Pressburgerfilms usually do. But this was exactly the movie I expected anddreaded. I know I'm in the minority but I found this movie frickingawful.

The creepy effeminate bug-eyed dancer went on to be the creepy childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

When a world famous ballet company under the direction of the greatLermontov employs a young hopeful dancer the hope is to turn her into one ofthe world’s greatest. When a young composer (Craster) is also employed itsparks conflict within the creative trio. Craster and Victoria fall in loveto the detriment of their careers as Lermontov begins to realise he is notonly losing Victoria but also losing the chance for her to ever danceCraster’s `The Red Shoes’ ballet again.

With time this film appears to have become more famous and have a betterreputation. This seems to be mainly because of praise and commendationsfrom modern directors like Scorsese and Spielberg who cite it as areference. But to ignore that fact that the film is worthy of praise evenwithout such famous referees to fight it’s corner. The reason that it isworth seeing is simply the richness of the production. While much Britishcinema in 1948 was black and white this film not only used full colour butis a rich vibrant colour which is combined which a lavish production andwonderful imagery.

The ballet scene itself is worth watching it for and is a perfect example ofwhat I’m talking about. By taking it beyond the stage and into the minds ofthe dancers it adds layers of beauty where before we would have only had theaudience in the background. However I don’t hold the same opinion as manywho feel it is one of the greatest films ever made – it isn’t, although Ican understand how it would make such an impression in a black & white world– even now it is visually impressive.

The weakness for me is the actual story. I know that it is loosely based onthe real life unresolved relationship between Diaghilev and his protégéNijinksy but the telling here lacks the wonder and power of the production. Instead much of it is a more mundane love-triangle melodrama that oftenfails to involve. It is still gripping at times and the climax is worthybut it still can’t compare to the overall production that is to thedetriment of the film.

The characters aren’t as full as they needed to be and they don’t involve aswell as they should have as a result. Walbrook is good as the driven balletmaster and adds passion as well as restraint to his performance. Goring isa little less complex and plays it a little plainer for much of the film asa result. Shearer is wonderful when she has to dance but as an actress shedoesn’t always convince. However for all my reservations they all do prettywell for the climax that could have been ridiculously overwrought but isgood enough.

Overall this is a wondrous film despite the slightly weak melodramatictelling of the central plot. However the colour and richness of the filmmore than make up for these problems.

read comments (0)

The Salton Sea

1st watched 10/2/2002 - 5 out of 10(Dir- D.J. Caruso):Schizophrenic movie about, I believe, a schzophrenic man. This movie withVal Kilmer, had two sides to it literally. One story is about adrug-crazedman who went off the edge after his wife’s murder and makes a livingrattingagainst other drug dealers. The other story is about a man who goes tomajor lengths to find his wife’s murderer(even disguising himself as adrug-crazed man). The problem is that we believe the 1st story more thanthe 2nd, and Kilmer does a better job displaying the 1st character, yetwe’re supposed to believe the 2nd character. It’s almost like thefilmmaker’s decided half-way thru that Kilmer’s character had to bedisplayed as the `good’ guy and they turned the movie around to go thatroute. I didn’t buy it and I wished they would have decided on one or theother instead of putting the viewers in such a quandary. The style of themovie and the performances were good, but the story left much to bedesired.Too bad, considering this was one of the best performances and roles forKilmer.

It’s surprising that Val Kilmer’s ego isn’t very low. He starred in thesmall release The Salton Sea, which, with its controversial topics and all,would not get much audience attendance. So for Castle Rock to get somemoney, they would go to desperate measures by plastering Kilmer’s name allover everything. Yet there’s no mention of him at all, which must be hurtingto Kilmer. The studio would rather release a movie starless that go withKilmer’s name.

In possibly one of the worst beginnings in film history, we see lots of drugusers doing drugs. And instantly director D.J. Caruso wants us to think,`Wow, this is powerful. People do bad things.’ It’s basically anything but.It’s only hard to watch. While he considers it to be enlightening, Iconsider it to be idiotic. Then people buy drugs. Then we find outtwo-thirds of the way through that the story has a purpose, and that Kilmerwas undercover with the FBI to investigate drugs, while he was going on aMemento-ish crusade to avenge his wife’s murder.

While movies about drugs are alright, this one is so gritty, has so manyunscrupulous characters that it’s impossible to find one redeeming qualityabout it. It even says that vengeance and drugs are good if it gets you towhere you want to go. And to make matters worse, it’s shot in such a darktone it’s impossible to see anything that’s happening with the throwawaycast, which includes Luiz Guzman, Doug Hutchison, Anthony LaPaglia, PeterSarasgaard, and R. Lee Ermey. Only Vincent D’Onofrio stands out as actuallydoing something memorable as `Pooh-Bear’, the drug dealer without anose.

As I said before, the first part of The Salton Sea is an atrocity. There’snothing coherent going on, and it’s totally worthless. As it moves ontowards an actual plot, it gets more involving, now that Caruso realizesthat he brought the point across that drugs are bad, and goes into a storythat’s partially interesting. The character of Pooh-Bear is quite different.For example, his idea of fun is tying pigeons to an RC car and simulatingthe Kennedy assassination. You don’t get that every day. And you don’talways get good drug movies every day. And this is not a good drugmovie.

My rating: 5/10

Rated R for strong violence, drug use, language and somesexuality.

I found "Salton Sea" to be much more affecting on second viewing. Kilmer’scharacter’s motivations are much more obvious, and all the set-ups anddouble-crosses fall into place. I really cared about "Danny", and wanted himto succeed. Despite the repellent nature of the settings and the characters,a compelling and human story emerges.

A note for all the Vincent D’onofrio freaks out there (I am one): this is amust-see performance. Quirky does not begin to describe hischaracterization, but there is no denying that the man owns every scene heappears in. For my money, he is the most compulsively watchable actorworking in films/TV today, and severely under-rated. See "Salton Sea" forVincent, if nothing else.

Recently I watched DVDs of 2 of the latest films in the Kilmer canon-his portrayal of a man on a mission in The Salton Sea & his portrayalof porno king Johnny 'Wadd' Holmes in Wonderland. Both films attempt tobe modern noir films, & in both films Kilmer plays a character that has2 sides to his persona. In The Salton Sea he portrays a dual characterDanny Parker/Tom Van Allen. The former is a crystal meth dealer & thelatter a jazzman. The film is a stylistic masterpiece that is every bitthe equal of the far more lauded Memento- a similar story about atroubled man searching for himself & the truth to his wife's death.Kilmer sinks into the role of Tom, as an avenging husband whose wifewas brutally killed by 2 gunmen near the Salton Sea. Tom decides tobecome Danny, & work with 2 crooked undercover cops (Doug Hutchison andAnthony LaPaglia) to expose the drug cartel he believes is responsiblefor his wife. Along the way he encounters 1 of the great modern onscreen personifications of evil- a drug dealer named Pooh-Bear (VincentD'Onofrio) who wears a fake nosepiece because his real nose was burntoff by cocaine use. Along with Daniel Day Lewis's Bill the Butcher inGangs Of New York, Pooh-Bear is one of those cartoony villains thatnevertheless seems to be just real enough to lift the whole of thestory beyond standard noir. The real forces Tom contends against in thefilm are almost surreal as the cinematography & Danny's hallucinations.Pooh-Bear's idea of fun is eating brains, staging the JFK assassinationwith pigeons and a mini-car set, & threatening Danny.

Director D.J. Caruso and screenwriter Tony Gayton do a fine job ofcreating a world that Kilmer's dual personae feel right at home with.He seems to die several times, only to wake up back in his hell. Thefilm is shot surreally, with low angles, frames just off-center, &flashbacks & dreams that happen in odd places- even in the barrel of apistol. But what lifts this film to true greatness, like Memento, isKilmer's performance. His blend of fear, weariness & bravado echoesback to his work in The Doors, yet surpasses it because this characteris his total creation, not a recitation of a real figure.

"The Salton Sea" is a confused genrehybrid schizophrenic dark comedy/dramawhich attempts to tell a compelling tale of a man (Kilmer) who lost hisidentity through cataclysmic personal crisis and sunk in a morass of drugculture crank freaks morphing into a narc snitch and an underground deepcover IA mole so deep his only identity is himself which he’s lost but ittrying to regain through revenge. Is that clear?? If not, you’ll get someidea of how muddled this story is. Nonetheless, the film manages somemoodiness and is busy enough that people into "pulp fiction" stylisticsmight want to give this a try. (C)

THE SALTON SEA (2002) ***1/2 Val Kilmer, Vincent D’Onofrio, Deborah KaraUnger, Anthony LaPaglia, Doug Hutchison, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Goldberg, Luis Guzman, Chandra West , B. D. Wong, Glen Plummer, Danny Trejo, R. LeeErmey, Shirley Knight. Pulpy neo-noir with a blazingly implosive turn byKilmer as a mourning widower/trumpet player cum narcotics informer who findshimself in a nightmarish underworld of crystal methamphetamine junkies anddealers all the while trying to resolve his self-destructive instincts inredeeming the violent death of his wife (West in flashbacks). Kilmerdelivers the goods as a smoldering open wound and D’Onofrio gives amemorable turn as the villainous homicidal dealer Pooh-Bear replete withartificial nose and a hillbilly accent (!) Style over substance gets aneven keel here thanks to the gloomy color drenched production design by TomSouthwell and glaring glints of light by director of photography Amir Mokri. Screenwriter Tony Gayton’s story has elements of `Memento’ by coin
cidencedespite coming within a year of each other making the film’s freshness feelexpired by sell date yet offers some genuine moments of uncertainty in hisanti-hero’s quest for existence in a dangerous world. (Dir: DJCaruso)

The Salton Sea is one of those films that creates its own reality andactually manages to sustain it until the very end. Besides Val Kilmer - infine form, tattooed and tormented - there’s a stand-out performance byVincent D’Onofrio as the tweaked-into-another-timezone Pooh-Bear. Amust-seefor these two performances alone. (And I have to say that any film whichhas Kilmer in nearly every scene is ok with me from the get-go. This isthebest film and the best character he’s done since his career-defining roleofDoc Holliday in Tombstone. If you love Kilmer, I guarantee you willappreciate this movie.)

A strong sense of originality and ambitiousness permeates through firsttime Director D.J. Caruso’s ‘The Salton Sea’. Val Kilmer stars as a widowerwho seeks a violent retribution for his wife’s brutal murder. Concocting anelaborate scheme to infiltrate the criminal underworld, he abrogates hisprevious identity in order to adhere to this mischievous plan.

Caruso fills his frames wisely and has some truly unique shots withinthe film, yet while viewing the film I couldn’t help but think back to anearlier film that was familiar to this area. The ‘style over substance’issue is one I frequent quite often within my opinionated pieces. The HughesBrothers’ ‘From Hell’ is a vivid example of how style takes precedence oversubstance. Just as the former film lacked an embedded quality ofstorytelling, so does ‘The Salton Sea’; yet to a lesser extent. D.J. Carusohas an innate talent for photographing even the most mundane sets with aprofound sense of elegance, and he brought a weak script by Tony Gayton to amediocre level. Gayton who seems top have struck a deal with Castle RockProductions (the film’s company) as he penned both ‘Murder by Numbers’ and‘The Salton Sea’ needs to infuse his future themes with some sense ofpurpose. While the script for ‘Sea’ is more enlightening than his first effort,Gayton owes a debt of gratitude to Caruso who showcases his portfolio oftalent within one film. The main problem with the film is not so much its’content, but rather its’ storytelling. The pacing of the film leaves a lotto be desired and those who give the film a chance will enjoy it, yet itseems to drag itself at times incorporating useless subplots for sheer mockvalue. A solid case in point is the R. Lee Ermey scene in which he makes acameo as a distressed father (Blink and you will miss it), furthermore do wetruly need an explanation on narcotics? While the opening sequence was somewhat comedic, I questioned Caruso’smotivation in showing us the underground world of narcotics. The film opensup with an elegant trumpet filled voice over as Kilmer’s character DannyParker retells his story in Memento-like fashion. Taking a page from theChristopher Nolan School of cinema, the film unravels through subtleflashback sequences that immerse the viewer in some stunning cinematography,but weak on plot. In addition, Kilmer is simply not believable as a middle aged widowerwho somehow seems to befriend a group of ‘tweakers’ (Severe drug users) andeasily becomes just one of the guys. His miscast begins our problems as theviewer is treated to a barrage of flaws all against the backdrop of atalented Director’s first effort with a weak concept. The healthyinoculation of stylish comedic sequences and unexpected humor lend the filman original taste that is a sign of potential within the young filmmaker.

In terms of character development, this trait is a needed improvementfor future films. We are treated to larger than life, muffled, twodimensional characters that cease to elicit our attention. An unrecognizableVincent D’Onofrio plays Pooh Bear, a nose-less villain whose ruthless waysand demeanor intimidate Parker’s scheme while he attempts at eluding twodetectives (Anthony LaPaglia & Doug Hutchison) on the case.

As aforementioned, the film is a classy flick about retribution. Is ita truly great film? No. But what it does exude is that the Director has aknack for the medium and saved a sour film from going awry. One last note,before heading into the theatre, study the poster and attempt to make thecorrelation between the poster and the film. It is pervasive, butinteresting. Here is a clue, study the film’s final moments.

Giancarlo’s Rating: **

SALTON SEA proves again that Val Kilmer is a actor and not what he hasbeen seen as the last couple of years, a star. Ever since the release ofthe dreadful BATMAN FOREVER, Kilmer was a major spotlight, he was the majorobject of desire from most women and a box office draw.Then after such pretty bad movies (ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU and RED PLANET)Kilmer was fading out of the limelight. With SALTON SEA, Kilmer proves tothe viewer that this was the same man who we enjoyed as Doc Holiday inTOMBSTONE, Jim Morrison in THE DOORS, and Chris Knight in REALGENIUS. SALTON SEA has Kilmer as Danny Parker, a most of the time drugged outloser living in the drug culture on Los Angeles. He hangs out with Kujo(Adam Goldberg) and his reliable friend Jimmy the Fin (Peter Sarsgaard). Danny is pushed around by two narcotics officers, Morgan (Doug Hutchison)and Garcetti (Anthony La Paglia), and has his life in danger with thegrotesque Pooh Bear (Vincent D’ Onofrio) who wears a plastic nose afterlosing his nose from doing too much "smack." Danny sees a way of redpemtionwith his female neighbor Colette (Deborah Unger) who is abused by herboyfriend Quincey (Luis Guzman). Danny also has a plan that deals with aherion buyer named Bubba (B.D. Wong) that revolves around the death ofDanny’s wife who was killed at the Salton Sea about a hundred miles east ofLos Angeles. SALTON SEA is more of a character study than a actual plot. The filmis a study of Danny, the decisions he makes in life to which is the rightpath to take which would either help or save his life. It’s also a darklyhumorous look into the life of those who do herion and those who sell it. The images of Pooh Bear are pretty haunting that the next time you hear"Pooh" you will be thinking about the nose-less smack dealer before youthink about the cute cuddly Disney character. But like I said, it’s the acting is what makes this movie strong, andit’s among the best acting that I have seen all year. This is Kilmer’s bestrole that I have seen since HEAT (although he didn’t do much in that film). But Kilmer is just as enjoyable in this as he was Doc in TOMBSTONE. VincentD’ Onofrio seems to have a fun time playing the Pooh Bear who has viciousways of punishing those who steal money from him that include a badger. While the rest of the cast, including Doug Hutchison and Peter Sarsgarrd aredeliver good performances. The other element that helps SALTON SEA stand out is the directingstyle of D.J. Caruso. It’s the most darkest and visually creative filmabout drugs that I have seen since TRAINSPOTTING. Some of the visuals fromthis film stand out, with the beginning of Kilmer sitting in a room on fireplaying the trumpet, to the lay out staged of the renactment of the KennedyAssassnation using pigeons as the Kennedy’s and governor ofTexas. This isn’t a film that will be enjoyed in most cities (note that I amwriting this from L.A. when I live in Phoenix, it’s only showing in L.A.right now). But it’s a movie that will entertain you and hopefully give youa second thought before you see that drug addict sitting in the corner ofthe coffee shop. A thought on how do you think that person got in thatshape in the first place. And that is a rare element coming from a majorHollywood studio. Great show! ***** (out of five)

The Salton Sea is a darkly funny drug/revenge tale that’s as wonderful asitis original. I really enjoyed the hell out of this fil
m. This isn’tMemento, but in a way it is similar. Instead of having a film that dealswith memory loss, this film deals with overcoming drugs, and trying tofinda killer. What’s odd is how funny the film is. Don’t get me wrong,you’llbe shocked, you’ll be moved, but you’re also going to laugh your butt off.Val Kilmer is GREAT!

read comments (0)

The Recruit

If you take off the beginning and the last five minutes or so o the film, and you actually have a pretty decent movie on your hands. First of all, I won’t ruin it for anyone, but the beginning is just too quick and unrealistic. One second Colin Farrell is a genius/jock/bartender and the next he is training to be in the CIA. It was like some weird slight of hand trick. And the ending! Just walk out for the past five minutes, for Al Pacino just absolutely provides some of the crummiest and most clichéd dialogue I have seen in a long time. So show up late and arrive early, because the middle sequences are just absolutely brilliant. Sometimes funny, and often times cool, just stay for the beefy and tasteful middle section of the film.

The beginning, the training scenes, acting, and suspense where great.ColinFarrell, can act with Al Pacino; there is a chemistry. I hope they domorefilms together. This film has many twists and turns, but one too many.Theending is a joke, I figured it out, and said you got to be kidding. Farfetched. Still, a good film in spite of the weak ending. The BourneIdentity is better. Hey how can I get a job with the CIA? I give this a7/10.

THE RECRUIT (2003) ** Colin Farrell, Al Pacino, Bridget Moynahan, GabrielMacht. Listless action thriller with towheaded computer whiz Farrell astheeponymous CIA enlistee who finds himself embroiled in a complicated worldofmind games and manipulation courtesy of his suspicious recruiter (Pacino)while falling for his sexy fellow recruit Moynahan. Boring in itsexecutionwith little to offer to a hit-and-miss genre with Farrell in themore-or-less father issue role Tom Cruise would be pitched for. (Dir:RogerDonaldson)

In "The Recruit," Al Pacino plays a variation of the character he played inDonnie Brasco, only this time Johnny Depp is replaced by Colin Farrell andthere are computers. This is not a bad thing in itself - Pacino turns in asuperb performance and Farrell smolders intensely as humanly possiblewithout actually igniting. Thanks to this, the film is very entertainingfor the first two-thirds; it’s the jaw-droppingly convoluted last act thatruins it all and leaves us less than satisfied. Something cool DOES happentoward the end, involving a bluff (all I can say), and that worked at least.

It’s a wonder USA still is a super power, if CIA was behaving like it alwaysis in the movies. "The Recruit" is another field agent training film withanother field agent trainer, which here is Al Pacino. Is he that out ofmoney that he has to appear in this? It’s much worse than"Insomnia".

The plot here is not to be believed, to express it in a moderate gentle way.If everything is so secret, why do the characters communicate in mobilephones? Why don’t they check out for microphones in the cars while dealingwith classified information? The "unpredictable" end is not unpredictable atall. You’re are rather aware of who the bad guy is.

Keep away from this film. It’s a recommendation.

This movie throws every plot twist your way and keeps you guessing at everyturn. It eventually becomes a typical nothing-is-as-it-appears and you can’ttrust anyone type movie, but I liked it. Al Pacino gives a terrific,over-the-top performance in the lead, and Collin Ferrel and Bridget Moynahangive solid supporting roles. I liked it a lot.

*** out of ****

This likeable thriller offers some good dialogue opportunities for Pacino’sspy specialist, but also makes you restless with it’s drab, romantic momentsfeaturing runty bad boy, Colin Farrell, whose leading lady makes him looklike the passive player in their relationship. It’s a cat and mousethriller, and Pacino always makes for a good fat cat, and, now that I thinkabout it, Farrell is a pretty good choice for a mouse.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A MealInstead*Avoid At All Costs

Al Pacino and Colin Farrell headbill this utterly forgettable pot boilingthriller,a mildly intriguing premise completely overwhelmed by aslumberous,unintelligible plot that never seems to develop any pace andnever seems to actually go anywhere.It’s fairly well acted though,withPacino delivering his standard forceful prescence and Farrell convincingenough as the central protagonist.It also contains some engaging dialogueand things do heat up toward the end,with Pacino really coming alive in theclosing scene,but ultimately it’s too little,too late.It’s from the directorof the admittently excellent Thirteen Days,Roger Donaldson,here proving notas adept handling a thriller as he was a drama.He does make it workthough,but only just and certainly not as well as it could havedone.***

The best thing I can say about this dud is that Al Pacino doesn’t yelltoomuch in it. Preposterous from the first scene, with unbelievablecharacters,ham-fisted dialogue, and wooden performances all around. Director RogerDonaldson has some some OK work in the past (Smash Palace, No Way Out, 13Days), but this here is a clunker of near biblical proportions, andshouldonly be viewed on the slowest of possible evenings, assuming you’vealreadyseen everything there is to see, and have already seen even the bad onestwice. I give a generous 2, only for it’s production values. Skipit.

This is by no means Al Pacino’s best movie or even Colin Farrel’s but it isa good film that has you thinking all the way through and although theending is predictable it dos not spoil the film.Farrel is fast becoming a big hit in Hollywood is quite rightly so and asfar as i’m concerned he actually outshines the best actor alive at themoment , Mr Pacino.A good movie.8 out of 10.

read comments (0)

The Saint

There are only two films that have become so unbearable I could not bear towatch them any longer all the way through. "Prizzi’s Honor" was one. This isthe other. I read the novelization of this work first (collecting moviebooks is a hobby of mine). I loved it. It was great. So what happens when Iwatch the real thing? Everything I loved about the novel is left onsomeone’s cutting board. The picture doesn’t seem to be so much created asthrown together like a tossed salad of nonsense with one scene suddenlyhappening right after another. It looks more like a film school student’sfirst production as opposed to an actual, honest-to-God movie. I have betterways of wasting my time.

The Saint stars Val Kilmer. You would be forgiven for forgetting this fact,however, as Kilmer spends most of the movie going crazy in the costumedepartment, thus rendering him unrecognisable for the majority of the film.The plot follows the story of a young boy in a boarding home that grows upto become the enigmatic ’saint’, who is the title character of this film.The Saint then goes on to become a spy and thief, and one that bows to thehighest bidder. The film really gets going when The Saint gets hired for ajob, one that will put him up to the $50 million mark (his goal forretirement). This job requires him to steal the formula for cold fusion froma young lady…but after he falls in love with her, will he be able to doit?

As mentioned earlier, Val Kilmer takes the title role. Val Kilmer proved hisacting ability with his complete embodiment of Jim Morrison in The Doors.This movie doesn’t require any acting ability of that calibre, but it stillallows Val to show his ability. At several points in the movie, he isrequired to pretend to be a different character, and that requires him toput on a different accent. This requires talent, not everyone can do that.I’m not saying that Kilmer deserves an Oscar, but he has an obvious talentfor acting. Also featuring in this cast is Elizabeth Shue, a lady whom moviefans might remember from the latter two parts of the Back to the Futuretrilogy. She doesn’t really impress in this movie; she does her job, but herrole doesn’t really leave an opening for to impress with. Aside from thesetwo, the cast of The Saint is more or less totally made up of lesser-knownactors.

For a film like this, you would expect basic popcorn entertainment, andthat’s how it should have been. Although the movie never really requires youto flex your brain muscles, it does have a rather complicated plot. I haveno problem with complicated plots, but they are out of place in a movie ofthis ilk. It should be fun, and therefore complex plots have no place. Themovie also doesn’t have much of a sense of humour about itself, and it isdirected almost humourlessly. This comes off rather badly as a lot of ValKilmer’s characters are people that you could laugh at, and the movie shouldhave capitalised on this fact more, as it would have made it a moreenjoyable ride. The movie does feature some exciting sequences, in fact itnever really gets boring; but had it have been better directed, and had ValKilmer’s character have been capitalised on more, it could have become theentertaining blockbuster that it obviously wants to be.

Although the movie is somewhat fun to watch, it could have been a lotbetter. It’s joylessly directed and despite the talent of it’s lead, itnever really impresses. It’s a shame as this could have been a hit, but dueto it’s flaws; I’m afraid that it gets an overall thumbsdown.

I can’t believe there are so many comments praising this film! What wereyouwatching?

I don’t really care that it’s nothing like the series, although I’m oldenough to remember it well (but why bother calling it "The Saint" atall?).I do care that it’s one of the most sloppily written, acted and directedfilms ever made. Phillip Noyce’s real interests lie in serious films like"Rabbit-Proof Fence" and I’m sure he knocked this one out in his sleep forthe money.

Val Kilmer delivers the same narcissistic, hollow performance he alwaysdoes- but this time he gets to do it in lots of different disguises. The scenewhere he acts as some kind of poetry-spouting bohemian (think of BarryGibbwith a French(?) accent) in order to seduce "scientist" Elisabeth Shueis -and I really, really mean this - the most embarrassingly awful 10 minutesIhave seen in any film, ever.

Life really is too short to waste 2 hours of it watching thisfilm.

i just watched this movie again for the first time in five years.fortunately, i was in a mood to revisit it. i remember from watching itthe first time a vague annoyance with elisabeth shue’s character, herrelationship with with simon and a kind of letdown by the ultimateresult of things. watching it again, i couldn’t believe just howlaughable the love affair was. actually it was kind of beyondlaughable. as a human being, i found it outright offensive thatelisabeth shue actually fell for simon’s ridiculous sleazy lines. thegirl makes a ridiculous scientist. her scientific speeches about coldfusion are like a little girl’s. even denise richards was moreconvincing as a famed science phd. the movie should have been made withless of an aim toward val kilmer’s vanity. less scenes of him talkingto himself would have been really really nice, especially since he’smuch duller than shue and the Russian mafia.

anyway, there were good things. i love seeing movies in Russia for somereason. nice change of scenery. also, nobody hates chase sequences.hearing some mid/late nineties music by underworld is always a plus.

the flick needed less romance and more chases. well, maybe more romanceif it was the good kind of convincing romance and not the blatantdrivel sent to us.

5/10

My dad recently gave me this movie because he said he and my step momdidn't really enjoy it, but I might get a kick out of it. I usuallylike the spy type of movies, they're interesting to watch and areusually exciting. But I actually really didn't enjoy this movie, itwasn't just the story, because over all it didn't seem like a bad idea.I think it was the cast, Val has a pretty crappy Russian accent, yougotta admit.

But this movie is about a guy named Simon named after the saint ofmagic, he becomes a spy of some sort and is spying on the RussianMafia. He ends up getting deeper and deeper when he steals a girl'splans about how she could save the world of pollution that the Mafiaalso wishes to get their hands on. He ends up of course falling for thegirl and she goes on the adventure with him.

Over all, I'd say this wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't my cup oftea, but I couldn't see why someone else might enjoy it. I think it'ssomething you have to judge for yourself. So, either you can take myadvice or just try it out, I guess we owe it to Val… somewhat.

4/10

So, what we have here to be loved ?

_(Elisabeth Shue) gets ready to make love with (Val Kilmer).

_(Elisabeth Shue) gives (Val Kilmer) a big kiss near the end.

_A line by (Elisabeth Shue) says "The difficult childhood makesinteresting adults".

_The great theme music by (Edwin Astley) with great arrangement by(Graeme Revell).

_The direction of the last minute of the movie.

And I hated what exactly ? It's simple : EVERYTHING ELSE !

P.S : if you have anything but the Bond formula (and looks better inanyway) then do it; Just a telegram to Hollywood producers.

'The Saint' came out a year before the 'Avengers' movie, and likewisealso proved a critical and commercial disaster. Of the two movies, Iprefer 'The Avengers' because, whether you like it or not, it at leastresembles the television series on which it is based. 'The Saint' triesto be 'Mission: Impossible' meets 'Goldeneye', and fails
dismally. Assoon as Kilmer's casting was announced, I knew it was doomed. SimonTemplar should never be played by an American. Kilmer was fine as'Batman', but all wrong for 'The Saint'. I wasn't convinced by theromance with the Elisabeth Shue character. Templar's disguises are sopatently unconvincing you wonder why no-one sees through them. JonathanHensleigh's script is mediocre compared to the John Kruse T.V. episodes'The Fiction Makers' and 'The Death Game'. It didn't help that theoriginal ending was deleted, and a lame new one substituted. Best thingabout the movie was Orbital's pulse-pounding arrangement of EdwinAstley's theme.

Val Kilmer is simply not the Saint and never will be. My advice to any movieproducers out there is to start again with an English actor and just forgetthe Kilmer film was ever made. The beginning episodes of this film, givingthe Saint a past and a reason for being, were ridiculous, overlong andunnecessary. The Saint doesn’t need a reason to exist other than the fact heenjoys the mayhem he brings into the lives of criminals. Also ridiculous wasmaking Templar a master of disguise. The whole point about the Saint wasthat everybody knew who he was, letting him attract business, women, thrillsand lots of money. If the Saint was such a master of disguise, how the hellwould anyone be able to find him, let alone get him into so much trouble?Sorry, Paramount, nil points, start again!

What a waste.

Val Kilmer on snooze control, a bunch of really bad accents.

Elisabeth Shue in an unpromising follow-up to her acclaimed performancein Mike Figgis’ "Leaving Las Vegas."

A bunch of really tired and boring clichés borrowed from a millionother sources, awful direction, weak scriptwriting; one predictableturn after another with some truly mediocre content.

Overall, just plain mediocre and that’s all I can think of to describeit. Another pointless and unnecessary TV-show-adaptation - let me ask,how many of these do we really NEED: or even WANT?

Certainly not any more like this.

2/5

I can’t stand Val Kilmer’s voice in this movie; it’s so stupid and I laughatevery scene in this stupid movie. I can’t believe he cut himself in theheadwhich doesn’t make no sense what-so-ever. The bad guys are boring too. Whycan’t they be enemies like "Dr. Evil" and "Mini Me"? But no, they areboring. The same with the good guys. Every body’s role suck in this movie.There wasn’t no great acting at all. I’ve seen much better acting inGodzilla. Don’t bother watching this one, It’s bad.

No Stars

read comments (0)