The Royal Tenenbaums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I loved it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written with love and respect by Megan, for piapet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The Omega Man

Spoilers This movie is like an ugly prom date, a very unpleasentexperience! They would say, but the movie has great personality, a sellingpoint for its missgivings. I like the sic fi concepts, but this film is forthe hippie times. The 60’s type cult zombi people, and how Heston dies,with the children around is too much. It seems movie from this time areaalways needed children, and negative ending where the hero dies. The partthat gets me most, at least when the hero dies it should be a shock, like inTo Live and Die in LA. Drop this one like a bad date.3/10

I just read the book and this was very disappointing. I would neverhave chosen Heston (right-winged b******) he's way too old, the youngerguy would have done a better job. And other things annoyed, me such askilling the zombie/vampire/hippie with guns, it states clearly in thebook, 'a bullet couldn't hurt it, the system could in fact containalmost an indefinite amount of bullets'. so they clearly missed thewhole paragraph. Also the problems he is faced with about the garlic,mirrors, Cortman (his friend who became a Vampire and every night stoodoutside his house shouting his name), the problems he has with soundproofing the house, the temptation of the Vampire women, the drinkingproblem, finding out how the Vampires survive without his blood forthree years, how the crosses only work on Christian vampires and notMuslim LOL. There is so much more i can comment about, in fact i couldcopy the whole book out for you and you will only find one similarity'last man on earth'.

I recommend reading the book. The character Robert Neville is veryinteresting you get to know him so well, and he is very amusing attimes and others you just want to punch his teeth out. Its the bestbook i have read in a long time—————–}'I AM LEGEND' RICHARDMATHESON

"The Omega Man" is really a bad movie. I saw it when it originally came outand I don’t think I’ve ever really liked it. Done on a low budget, it hasthe feel of a made-for-TV movie, with direction that seems phoned in and ascript that should have been thrown out! Charlton Heston pretty much justplays…well…Charlton Heston, only he’s often not very good at it. Thismust have only been an easy pay check for him. The one redeeming factorabout this movie is the Ron Grainer score. It at least has energy,everything else seems tired and cliched. The movie tries to present anightmare world where only a handful of "normal" human beings battlescarred, photophobic and insane survivors of a biochemical world war. Butlooking back at it over thirty years later the only thing that’s frighteningabout it is the vision it gives of having to spend the rest of your lifelistening to 8-track tapes and jive-talking angry black people call youhonkey! At least Heston gets to mercifully die at theend.

Charlton Heston is one of the last people left on earth, which is ahorrible enough thought in itself. The rest of the population is deador has turned into zombies wearing monk’s robes and controlled byAnthony Zerbe. Heston holds up in his apartment, drinks scotch, andtakes pot shots at the zombies from the window at night. Lucky forHeston he has access to all those guns thanks to the NRA. Being allalone he goes a little funny in the head, as you would expect. But hemeets another human, a woman and things are looking up.

Previously made with Vincent Price as The Last Man on Earth. The moviewould have been better with another lead. Heston is really a woodenactor. The premise is provocative but the movie isn’t very good.

I read the novel ("I am legend") by Richard Matheson many years ago whichisgripping from the beginning to the end. In fact, it’s one of my favoritescience fiction / horror novels.I knew that "The Omega Man" is based on it but when I watched it for thefirst time, I was so much disappointed as the basic plotline (very basic)and a few names is all the movie has in common with the book.

In the book, the mutants are vampires (result of ongoing biologiacalwarfare), Robert Neville is a civialian and no military scientist whodiscovers by coincidence that he is immune due to an infection hadinflictedduring his army service, his archfiend isn’t Matthias, the head of afreakygroup of mutants, but his neighbor and friend Ben Cortman… and in theend, when the vampires are extinguished and a new society emerges whichisn’t immune but controls the virus, Neville comes to the point that he isobsolete and a threat to the new society due to his difference.Another movie version is "The last man on Earth", an Italian-Americanco-production starring Vincent Price which keeps a bit more to the novelbutsuffers from an incredibly poor budget.I strongly recommend reading the novel!!!

THE OMEGA MAN is one of the worst pictures I have ever seen. It is a failedattempt to recreate the same flavor as PLANET OF THE APES. Unfortunately,the filmmaker makes no attempts at making the story engaging, realistic, orwatchable. In fact, the picture emanates B-grade black explotation. Not tomention the actors are forced to say some of the most horrid lines in theface of modern cinema.

Chucky Heston, however, is at his best. He shoots guns and talks down toevery other character in the movie. His words and expression are priceless;his monologues even better.

As a result, I recommend THE OMEGA MAN. I guarantee you will laugh andenjoy every moment of it. I also guarantee you’ll say those magical words,"I LOVE THE NRA!"

It is hard to discuss the merits of "The Omega Man," the 1971filmization of Richard Matheson's source novel "I Am Legend" (1954),without comparing them to the original 1964 version, "The Last Man onEarth." Though that earlier film is usually belittled in comparison tothe latter version starring Charlton Heston, to my surprise, I find itpreferable. For one thing, the original movie, although it changes themain character's name, adheres more closely to Matheson's book, tellingthe story of Earth's last man standing (Vincent Price) after abiological plague has transformed everyone else into vampiric zombies.The latter film substitutes a clan of albino mutants–led by one of myfavorite character actors, Anthony Zerbe–that is out to destroy Chuckand all remnants of mechanized civilization; call them pasty-faceduber-Luddites. Personally, I find bloodsucking, lurching zombies a LOTscarier than murderous albinos! "The Omega Man," to its credit, doesfeature some good action sequences and amusing one-liners from Heston,particularly before he finds some actual people to talk to. On thedownside, it also features a score that I think is absolutely dreadful.Funkified and inappropriate, it almost succeeds in making the film seemlike some kind of cheesy blaxploitation effort. What makes this all themore dismaying is that the film's composer, Ron Grainer, was previouslyresponsible for one of TV's all-time great themes, for "The Prisoner."It's not often that the background music in a film has bothered me asmuch. All in all, while "The Omega Man" is an entertaining time passer,it can't compare to the sometimes-surreal freakiness of the Priceversion, or the concise scientific rationalism of Matheson's novel.There is not a single scene in the '71 film, for example, that is halfas creepy as the one in which Vincent's dead wife, Virge, comes back tothe house. Gives me the chills just thinking about it…

It’s amazing how a person’s memory of a film can be severely jarred bywatching it again 20 years later. Growing up in the late 60’s and early70’s, I used to watch this film every year when it re-ran on TV. I loveditthen and lamented for years the fact that it was no longer shown. As manyknow, this changed last year and n
ow I see it showing up in the guideeveryfew months on AMC(!) It still had the elements I found so unsettling as ateen but it was so dated in almost every respect that I ended up laughingatit more than anything else. Which begs the question, how do you know amovieis, if not a classic, at least worth preserving and keeping "in touchwith"over the years? My own feeling on this is simple- a truly good movie, aclassic, may have elements that "date" it, but that never interferes withyour enjoyment of it. An example of an 80’s flick I can see over and overagain and still enjoy is "The Four Seasons" with Alan Alda. Another 80’sfilm that does not hold up nearly as well is "The Big Chill."

If there was ever a film that needs to be updated, this is it. Instead ofretreading old TV shows, Hollywood should give this one a big-budget onceover. This could be such a solid vehicle for Bruce Willis, Kurt Russell orArnie. It’s got a can’t-miss premise that could be used for some trulygreataction scenes.

I think this was in production at one time with Arnold in the lead, but itwas scrapped. Probably because it was too good of an idea and would besomething people would definitely want to see. I guess somebody decided tomake "Wild Wild West" or "My Favorite Martian" instead.

For years this has been the "modern" version of "The Last Man On Earth."Butalmost thirty years later, it’s time for another go-around. Let’s hopesomebody in Hollywood uses their brain and rescues this fromturn-around.

While I do like this film as a "bad" movie. It’s a shame such a greatnovel(I am Legend, by Richard Matheson) had to be sacraficed in the process.Theonly aspects of the novel left in this film is Robert Nevele’s name andthecity it takes place in.

Usually Heston is a good actor, or at least compentent. But in thisfractrured flick, his acting is on par with William Shatner…HAMMY!

Seems Nevele has a real problem driving, throughout this film, everytimehe’s in a car he crashes it. My Pal Ryan noted, "Well seems like hedoesn’tget where he’s going until he crashes…" Good call Ryan.

Another scene Heston’s shooting some "zombies" that are using a catapult,wenoticed he was really proficent at shooting up the catapult. But later inthe film the leader of the "zombies" tells him that in that attack he hadkilled 3 of them. Must have been splinters from the woodencatapult….

While watching we are told it has been about 2 and half years since theplague…but in one scene Heston is cooking hot dogs…even freezing hotdogs, meat doen’t last more than about a year even frozen, so where did heget the meat?

Heston seems to be in really good shape for an almost middle aged guy, hesays in one scene that he had done a 3min50sec mile. Wow, he broke thelandspeed record!! But, as my pal Ryan pointed out, if he’s going THAT fast,whyis he only mildly jogging in the scene?

Heston seems to have some very mixed up priorities…ok he wants to killoffthe "zombies", ok, and they only come out at night. Why does he hunt themduring the day when every night they hang out in front of his housecallinghis charater’s name..as we noted..why doesn’t he shoot them down then? Canhe only shoot at inanimate objects at night?

Ok, we belive Heston when he tells us that he injected himself with the"vaccine" to make himself immune to the plague. But in every injectionscenein this film the fluid squirts into the air from the point of injection.While I profess not to be a medical expert, every injection I have everhadgoes into the body and not into the air.

Please don’t let these comments prevent you from watching a great "B"film.The age(Early 70’s) of the film only enhances it’s fun! Defiantely worth arental!

read comments (0)

The Namesake

I expected a great deal from The Namesake. Although I hadn't read thebook (liberating as I went without preconceptions), I'd seen thetrailers, read several positive reviews and really liked MonsoonWedding.

Nair did a pretty good job of giving us the background information thatwas necessary to understanding the characters' motivations andbehaviors. On the other hand, there were things that she kept secretuntil too late — particularly the exchange on the jetty between Ashokeand the 4 year old Gogol or what it meant to "come out of Gogol'sovercoat" — that were clearly relevant to the characters' expectationsand maturation. The information came too late for me and, as aconsequence, Gogal especially lacked the resonance that was necessaryto make him credible. Also, Nair's reminders of that past throughoutthe movie (like Ashoke's flashback in the railway station) were prettyheavy-handed. I didn't need to be reminded repeatedly of the exchangeon the train or the wreck and the scene where Ashoke tells Gogol thatit is not the wreck he thinks of when he looks at Gogol, but, instead,of every wonderful day since was sufficient to make the point.

Tabu was really excellent as the very young newlywed stranger in astrange land and her maturation and ultimate acceptance of her Americanhome was credible and interesting. The multi-ethnic neighborhood partyat the end and Ashima's comments about her feelings about her two homesrevealed a character who evolved over the course of the movie.

Ashoke was not as successful. He was consistently a bit dour, but, Iguess, that was comprehensible given his background and his near deathexperience on the train as a young man. He managed to convey to us thelove he felt for both his wife and his family.

It was the younger characters that were badly developed or downrightmistreated. Khan as Gogol was never really believable as anything otherthan a rebellious teenager whose dad died young. I don't know if thiswas a function of his acting skills or a failure on the director'spart. His ping-ponging from ostensibly hip young architect into ashaven-headed, robed mourner performing the religious funeral ritualsand his shock when, Moushumi, his sophisticated and admittedly (andobviously) promiscuous wife says she's keeping her maiden name didn'twork for me. He had no insight into his reasons for marrying Moushumi(which appeared to have a strong hormonal component) and, consequently,for her dissatisfaction with their marriage and his expectations.

The movie's treatment of both of Gogol's serious love interests was theworst, especially in the case of his American girlfriend. When she isabout to meet his parents for the first time, he gives her a long listof things not to do in his parents' presence and she ignores them all.This was not consistent with her character as developed up to thatpoint in the movie.

Despite all that I've said, I'm glad I went to the movie and rated itrelatively well.

Can't say I'm a huge fan of this genre of movie, I find them all toooften pretentious and clichéd but I enjoyed the first half of TheNamesake, that is until Gogol showed up. Basically I found the pacingof the two halves of the film totally out of whack, first half wasgently building the story, the second half seemed like they wanted toget everything in before running out of movie. The other problem withthe second half of the movie was the acting, I thought Ashoke andAshima were beautifully acted but sadly the younger characters Gogoland Moshoumi were very poorly acted. I find this an ongoing problemwith the North American Indian themed films, unfortunately the actorsjust aren't good enough, Lisa Ray in Bollywood Hollywood and QuarterLife Crisis, Kal Penn and Zuleikha Robinson here. Its a shame becausewith a few changes this really would've been a great movie.

I watched this in anticipation of something great. I'm Indian and hopedthat this was something I could relate to. This movie simply left methinking, "what was the point of all that?". I don't understand whodecides that movies like this and Monsoon Wedding are good. The man atblockbuster said this is the best Indian movie out there. I wonderwhere he rents his Indian movies from.

The plot of this movie built up on the awkwardness of a SOUTHern Indianfamily (I'm not from there and immediately noticed a huge difference intradition). I couldn't help, but laugh at the situations the husbandand wife got into. Possibly the only good thing about this movie wasthe revelation of how arranged marriages work afterwords ("who say youcan wash my cloth!" {newly wed} to "I never have courage to ask you,but why you marry me?" {after 18 years}).

The movie skipped around a lot with absolutely no transition of timewhen various things occurred. Everything that happened in the moviedidn't show any distinct significance to the actual plot (ie. whenGogol goes on a jog) and the entire family showed a kind of tension I'mnot familiar with.

The whole idea behind the movie was of narrow-mindedness, idealism andintegration into society. Every character (aside from Tabu's) wanted toassimilate into society and would do whatever it took to get there.Every character displayed resentment towards their respectivesituations and none of them really added to the story.

Kal Penn could not take on the role of a dramatic character. When hefound out that the girl he married was having an affair, his reactionwas hardly believable. The fact that he found the book at the end,supposedly his anagnorisis, just showed that he found meaning to hisname. The entire family still lived in awkward tension and there was noresolution to anything.

I'm not even sure if this review made sense. The entire movie wasconfusion and melodrama. Of course, it revealed the idea of the new ageversus the old age (parents conserved, children rebellious {when KalPenn smokes weed and then goes to see his possible future wife "Idetest American television"}). However, this movie did justice tonothing and served as a pompous idea for Americans trying to understandthe 'Indian way' (quite like Maxine).

This movie did no justice to our culture. It had no fluidity and wasjust a nag to sit through. The ending didn't conclude anything. Thismovie was garbage.

What a wonderful story and journey of marvelous characters which thebrilliant Mira Nair has given an audience in THE NAMESAKE. A beautifulfilm from frame to frame and a simply tremendous cast of actors whichenhanced the journey each takes to find their past, and in the end, tolearn more about their future. Cinematography is rich and breathtaking.

As "Gogol", Kal Penn, is terrific in his part, and watching him attemptto make a life for himself, and rectify both what he wants for his ownlife in America, along with pleasing his parents, is a journey that hasboth humor and sorrow from beginning to end. THE NAMESAKE is rich instory, character development and direction and the locations of NewYork in contrast to the haunting beauty of India make the film a joy towatch.

You don't even feel the length of the film as you just don't want thecharacters to leave, and the last scene is one to remember. I can onlyhope that perhaps we will see the continuation of "Gogol" in anotherfilm from Mira Nair.

I can ignore the wrong diversion Mira Nair took with the 'Vanity Fair',I loved her work before that, and I love her work in 'The Namesake'. Atrue, heartfelt story! I haven't read the original story by JhumpaLahiri, but the movie adaptation is surely a well-crafted one.

I am happy the immigrant clichés are avoided, which many IndianAmerican movie tend to exploit. However, I feel few things show Indiain a bad light, which I dislike! About the stella
r cast: Being veryfamiliar with Bengalis and their culture, I could see Irfan Khan trulytalked, walked, smoked, looked JUST like a Bengali and nothing butBengali. Tabu, although a great actress (read my review of anotherIrfan & Tabu starrer, 'Maqbool' made by Vishaal Bharadwaj), didn'tquite feel Bangali, however, carried the role of Ashima Ganguli withutter command of histrionics. But the real surprise of the movie is KalPenn. He is truly awesome. He transforms from a careless youth to aresponsible son and a man, with conviction! Rest of the star cast wereso so, and didn't matter much either.

Technicalities of the movie is just average, it has a very documentaryfeel to it. And camera work or music doesn't really add a whole lot tothe entire experience.

However, it's the master storytelling abilities of Mira Nair, thatshows - she handles the subtleties of immigrant family, generation andcultural gaps of Indian parents and American kids beautifully. The endresult is a true heartfelt story. Nothing really dramatic happens inthe movie, however it is to be seen to be 'felt'!

Somewhere on the Net, I read the characters of Tabu and Kal Penn wereinitially being offered to Bollywood actors Rani Mukerjee and AbhishekBachchan - what a blunder that would have been! Neither of them notnecessarily are bad actors, however a movie like this is experiencedbest without the touch of Bollywood glamor.

i thought the entire movie was very loosely made… there are too manyjumps in it… no attempt was made to make one understand how theevents unfold.. all the different stories ranging from 'gogol'sovercoat' to the demise of his loved ones is left hanging in the air..character development is extremely poor.. also one fails to understandwhy some of the characters in the movie were ever introduced in thefirst place..

the first half contains far too less duologue's between the Bengalicouple.. esp after the boldness shown by the female initially… it waslike two dummies hanging around one another..

the movie did well in giving an idea of how lives for immigrants canget and how ones search for their true identity could turn life'stables that were once perceived as immovable…but at the end of it,falls way short of a complete movie… and remains a bits & piecesmovie..!

Films with universal themes run great risks. Mostly this risk entailsdescending into that pit known as cliché. Many films have done it andfallen victim, but THE NAMESAKE uses its universal theme to greatadvantage, never disguising what it is and how important it can be.

The theme is family and how vital they are to our core existence. Theyshape every part of us, from childhood on, for better or worse. Theycreate a sense of belonging, even when we're apart, even when separatedby oceans. They give us our early identity, and even our names.

Most of us don't think about how tough it is to name a human being andhow we lug that title around with us for the rest of our lives. But inThe Namesake, director Mira Nair ( of MONSOON WEDDING fame) gives usGogol Ganguli, a name of substance and importance, but not necessarilyimportant to its owner.

The Namesake is a tri-generational story of a Bangladeshi family. Thefilm starts with the beautiful Indian singing of Ashima (Tabu). Herinitial goal in life is to become a great artist/singer. But familyconcerns override her plans as she returns home to find a marriagearrangement being put forth for her. Her parents introduce her to herfuture husband, Ashoke (Irfan Khan), an architect who's been studyingand living in America. The marriage takes place and Ashima accompaniesher new husband to New York ("Half a world away"). She immediatelybegins missing her family but her forlorn attitude is whisked aside asAshoke teaches her the ways of the City. She becomes pregnant with herfirst child, Gogol. The naming is tricky because normally it is done byan elder from within the family (all of whom are still in India). SoAshoke names him after one of his favorite authors (Nicholas "Gogol", afamous Russian writer). Gogol bares the name with disdain, never fullyrealizing its importance (one of Nicholas Gogol's books actually savedGogol's father's life after a fatal train accident in India many yearsbefore). Gogol eventually changes his name to Nick, thus ending hisfamily's tradition of keeping an appropriate Indian name.

It is this Americanization that is most troubling throughout the film.It invades the very fabric of what Gogol's family represents. Althoughnot entirely without merit (America does give him a good education anda nice job), the culture of his parents seems stilted and uncool. AsGogol (and eventually his sister) grow into adulthood, they search forlove in America, and find it via Americans. This is also another blowto Ashima and Ashoke (Gogol's mother and father). Americans live in thefast lane and often have to choose between one spouse's family over theother. This comes into sharp contrast as Gogol begins dating abeautiful blonde American named Maxine (Jacinda Barrett, POSEIDON).Maxine's pull is strong and forces Gogol to drift farther away from hisroots. His parents call and call but never hear back. It takes adevastating family event to get Gogol back on track and it is this thatgives the film its emotional heft. Tear-jerking and non-forced, thisevent was played perfectly and surprised everyone in the audience (allthe movie patrons gasped around me when it occurred, a true tribute tothis film's masterful weaving of the family theme).

The movie's arc is also well done. It ends just as it begins, with thefocus on understanding family and what it means to move on when thetime comes, but to never forget where you've come from.

When I saw that this movie was playing near me, I had to see it-havingrecently seen Water and being a fan of Mira Nair, I had to see it. Thismovie was wonderful!! The acting, the story the cinematography all makethis one of the best movies I have seen. I did not know what to expect,when I see a film based on a book, I usually try to read the book firstto see how well the story is translated to film. Well, having seen thefilm, reading the book will only bring back wonderful memories. As afan of Bollywood movies, many of the cast members looked very familiar,as did some of the American cast (after checking out the cast list andtheir filmography, now I realize why). Mira Nair manages to getwonderfully subtle performances from her cast, many who have workedwith her before. I surely hope that this movie is put forth for thisyears Oscar nominations as was Water. This is a must see for anyone whowants a wonderful evening of entertainment and insight into families ofall types.

To be honest, I had some time to kill, wanted to see a movie, and I'dseen both action flicks that weekend and nothing else looked even closeto being good. I've worked with Indians over the years and didn't havea clue as to their culture so thought this film might provide someinsight. From what I've read here on IMDb, I did get a glimpse or twoand got a decent story and some entertainment in the process. Plus,someof the Indian chicks were hot. I had no idea. Namesake does provide ajourney, but it was slow in several places (you know, the check yourwatch test). I really enjoyed the footage of the Taj Mahal and thedirector and cameraman deserve kudos for such nice work. I'll probablybuy the DVD just to get the wonderful honeymoon suite dance scene andmusic.

I just finished watching The namesake. The movie starts with an eventwhich will be the key to the message. Yes, this is a movie with amessage. And although this is already a big plus in my book, it's alsodelivered with a mastery which a lot of "would be directors" shouldlearn from. I didn't know Mira Nair until now. A few months ago, Istar
ted watching A Monsoon Wedding, but my girlfriend of the time,being Chinese, just couldn't handle it (go figure!) Anyway, I am nowreally intending to get back to that movie and even explore all of MiraNair's movies. The story is about a couple of immigrants from Indiacoming to live in Boston, and their experience with life there, faraway from their culture, but more importantly, the reason for theirfirst child's namesake. I will not divulge here so many details asothers have already done… sometimes sadly enough in too great detailsfor my taste. What I want you to know is that this movie will highlightsome of the real important things in life, and help raise yourawareness of how much we take them for granted. There are so manybeautiful, both fun and sad, moments in this movie that I didn't seethe time fly. And then some great views of life in India, the richcultural background, so full of colors, of ceremonies and rituals, thatmakes you want to travel there to see it first hand (yes, yes… I nowknow where will be my next big trip) Please do yourself a favor, rentand watch this definite masterpiece.

read comments (0)

The Brave One

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

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

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

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

I say wait for DVD on this one!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

Smart People

The funny thing is, this movie ended up like my dinner that I ate justbefore I saw it. I had been looking forward to eating at this place forquite some time. And tonight I finally did. And when I was finished, Ithought to myself, "Not bad, but not as good as I was hoping it wouldbe." That's the exact same reaction I had to Smart People. I had beenlooking forward to seeing it since I watched the preview a couplemonths ago. But after it was over, I felt a bit disappointed. Notenough to give it a failing grade, but close. The story was reallynothing special. In fact, I would even call it unoriginal. We have thesomewhat depressed, unlikeable main character, who is surrounded byother somewhat depressed, unlikeable characters (with the exception ofthe adopted brother). And then we get to delve into their lives for awhile, watch them interact with each other, and come out on the otherside kind of liking them, and seeing a ray of hope in their future. Itreally is a standard, garden variety independent movie storyline. Theproblem here, is after a while, I felt like I was watching the samescene over and over. There was no real advancement until the very end.And when we finally came to a part of the story that really seemedinteresting, and worth some more examination, all we got were somequick shots and stills during the credits. So, like I said, not bad,but could, and should have been better. The acting is good, so thathelped a bit. But all in all, somewhat disappointing.

We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife andI have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently,we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie anytime at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. Thepoint of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or thenational critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. Theonly difference is that they get to write about the movie and areforced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore,it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours ofenjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read thecritics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like thesame things as us. Well enough about that.

Wow! What a cast. Ellen Page is simply wonderful and is surely headedfor superstardom in this very down down movie about a group of peoplewho are just not happy and can't seem to find their way. A few greatlaughs and moments in an otherwise dreary movie.

The cast is simply fantastic from Ellen to Sarah Jessica Parker toQuaid to the very underrated but great actor Thomas Haden Church.

Page just blows us away and she is not yet 20! We believe this moviewas made even before her academy award nomination for Juno.

A must see for those who love the movies.

We give it a 10 based specifically on the acting, not the movie!

This film seemed to hit all the right marks for an emotionalindependent script but the director didn't deliver the goods. Theredidn't seem to be any honest real emotion from any one actor to anothereven though there was plenty of grist for them to grab onto.

Quaid wore a belly prosthetic to give him some paunch but what wasgoing on with his face? He didn't look at all like the guy I saw inVantage Point two weeks ago. I know he wasn't supposed to and if thisfilm had a bigger budget I would assume he had his nose and cheeksthickened for the part as well but there's no way this movie couldafford to do that to him every day on location and especially sinceevery other actor looked like they weren't wearing any makeup at all.

This film seemed like a rehearsal for the real thing. Maybe they didn'tdo any rehearsals, maybe they didn't like each other. Ellen Page isalright but its like she's on the edge of a diving board waiting tojump in but the moment never comes. Its like the producers and directorsaid if we make it look like a crowd pleasing independent movie then itwill be. Well, they didn't. And it wasn't.

Stay away from this one. If you saw the trailer you saw everything youneeded to see.

Greetings again from the darkness. Billed as "From the Producer ofSideways", the similarities end there. The filmmakers should be suedfor slander by just mentioning the far superior "Sideways" in the samebreath. Brief overview … too boring, too few laughs, vile characters,slow story and nothing of interest or insight. Oh, and by the way,self-absorption is not underrated.

The only reasons I don't rate this even lower is because Thomas HadenChurch and Ellen Page at least put out some effort despite the lack ofcreativity written into their roles. Sarah Jessica Parker does dialdown her usual annoyance factor, but her character displays suchstupidity and lack of judgment in chasing the slovenly professor thatit just becomes unbearable.

As for Dennis Quaid in the lead role, he is just totally miscast. Thefake pot belly, inconsistent limp and absurd hair and beard just playright into the one-trick pony that is his stereotypical widowerprofessor.

In the end, if any of us want to be totally miserable around a family,it might as well be our own.

I found this movie to be significantly interesting, because it dealtwith an abnormal American family. This movie did justice to the conceptof family by adding a few laughs here and there and even memorablelines that still give me chuckles. The chemistry between Vanessa(elllen page) and chuck (thomas Haden church) provided seamlessfoundation that did not make this movie lag. However, I am stillquestioning on Sara Jessica parker, who I thought provided for theawkwardness of the movie. Parker and Quad had an oddball chemistry thatmade several scenes actually boring and dragging. Though I never reallysensed a connection between the movie and its title Smart People, Istill think it is worth the watch. With witty banter and smart remarks,this movie would sure not disappoint, especially the Juno fans.

I found this movie to be significantly interesting, because it dealtwith an abnormal American family. This movie did justice to the conceptof family by adding a few laughs here and there and even memorablelines that still give me chuckles. The chemistry between Vanessa(elllen page) and chuck (thomas Haden church) provided seamlessfoundation that did not make this movie lag. However, I am stillquestioning on Sara Jessica parker, who I thought provided for theawkwardness of the movie. Parker and Quad had an oddball chemistry thatmade several scenes actually boring and dragging. Though I never reallysensed a connection between the movie and its title Smart People, Istill think it is worth the watch. With witty banter and smart remarks,this movie would sure not disappoint, especially the Juno fans.

Telling the tale of a widowed professor and his genius daughter whomust face the pains and pleasures of new people and experiences intheir lives, we're given 'Smart People': A touching film that,unfortunately, lacks the brilliance that the main characters possess.

With four of the top actors of Hollywood heading up the cast of thisfilm, it couldn't have been a total failure. Mix in a likable dramedytale and it makes for a good film. However, with a lack of originalityand risk-taking comes a lack of greatness. And that's where it failed.

Broken down technically, the film is top-notch. . . the writing,acting, and direction are all well done. And it's to be expected.However, as a whole, I'm left asking, "So what?" Not saying that thestory is unimportant, but in the grand scheme, "So what?" Conflict islacking, peaks and falls are missing, and the drive for a finishcould've done with another push to get us through.

We needed more but didn't get it.
<
br>Still worthy of a watch: 7/10.

Cranky family learns to love and have a good time. Dennis Quaid is asuper intelligent but miserable professor with a son who doesn't carefor him, a daughter-Ellen Page playing a Juno variation- who is equallysmart and miserable as her dad, an adopted brother, Thomas Haden Churchwho is a loafer, and a doctor he's trying to woo, Sarah Jessica Parker.Give it points for allowing everyone to turn in really goodperformances, but take some away because the film feels so constructedas to be completely unreal. Say what you will about Ellen Page in Junospouting charming remarks, here she does the same thing and it comesoff forced. Its an independent film trying to be quirky and you canfeel it. If it wasn't for the name stars this film would not havegotten any sort of notice. (And yes I who don't particularly likeJessica Parker and Haden Church really do like them in this film.).Unremarkableness aside, its still worth a look on cable.

I expected Smart People to be funny in that subtle witty type of way.Hugely disappointed in this movie. I kept waiting for something tohappen and nothing ever did. It was like a dinner party that goes tolong with people running out of things to say. In one painful part tosit through Sarah Jessica Parker who plays a doctor is tending toDennis Quaid when his overachiever daughter played by Ellen Page comesin.

What was supposed to be biting humor between the daughter and doctorwas dull. Nothing witty about the exchange. At that point i would havegladly welcomed raunchy fart humor to break up the boredom of it all.This movie never gets to where it was going in anyway. I watched itfrom start to finish I don't know. Lost part of my life I'll never getback. Sarah Jessica Parker should only appear in Sex and the City orSquare Pegs.

There's a different between being intelligence and being smart. Becausethe people who are being smart doesn't mean they have to beintelligence. On the other hand, people who have intellectual doesn'tmean they are going to be smart. And by that, I think Smart People issuch a wrong title for this movie. Because characters in this filmoften showed what they are good of, regardless of right or wrong, andthinking that they are superior to anybody they knew. And because ofthat, they became pretty unlikable. In fact, if they have somethinglike a contest to submit your own title for this film, Obnoxious Peopleis much more appropriate one.

Lawrence Wetherhold is miserable and a misanthrope: he's a widower, apompous professor at Carnegie Mellow, an indifferent father to acollege student and a high-school senior, and the reluctant brother ofa ne'er-do-well who's come to town. A seizure and a fall send Lawrenceto the emergency room where the physician, a former student of his,ends up going on a date with him. His daughter, Vanessa, lonely andfriendless, whose been bonding with his brother, tries to sabotage dadand the doctor's relationship, but Lawrence is good at that withouthelp. Is there any way these smart people can get a life? Can happinessbe pursued beneath layers of irony? (Thanks, IMDb. It's seem I'm moreand more lazy to make my own synopsis haha+)

Even though the film packed with witty and funny dialogs, but thefundamental is just simply wrong. I wouldn't say they completelyabandoned moral or anything. But I think they're looking from a wrongperspective. Smart People should have been interesting if one can seefrom an ordinary people's point of view, to look inside what's a dealwith an intellectual one. But it didn't, because all we saw is socalled "smart" people struggling and whining in their already blessedlife. In fact, I think nothing in this film is ever going help audienceto love protagonists. Even though we knew that he (and she) is going tolearn some valuable lesson in the end, but in my humble opinion, he(and she) just doesn't deserves it.

So that's come to the problem, because the character that Dennis Quaidand Ellen Page played are such an obnoxious characters. And yet itworsens by the fact that they're the key role in this film. For thiskind of film, Dennis Quaid's character is supposed to be a lovableasshole (like he did in Great Balls of Fire!). But the more I saw it, Iwas kind of doubt about "loveable". Because the way he treated peoplearound him is just not very nice. And there's not enough time for anaudience to appreciate his redemption moments. For Ellen, I can see alot of Juno kind of vibe in this film (it's like she's still fascinatedby playing Juno MacGuff). But one think that sorely missed in Jono-likepersona, is likeness. Because all I got it from her performance is onlysmart mouth brat that will urge you to strangle her with your barehands.

With a little surprised in supporting roles, Sarah Jessica Parker isthe best thing in this film. Her sympathy performance adds a littleheart in this lifeless dramady. Her best scene occurred when she'shaving a second doubt in her relationship with Dennis Quiad'scharacter. Also, Thomas Haden Church might not do something significantin this film, but he's just damn fun to watch. It reminds me one of hisbest performance in Alexander Payne's Sideway Smart People may attractssome people who are fond of Woody Allen-like sharp as razor lines. Butunlike his films, there's a little heart that poured into this one. Itreminds me one of last year frustrating experience that I have in NoahBaumbach's Margot at the Wedding. And just like that film, Smart Peopleis an intelligent film, but it's also dry piece of cinema that willdefinitely leave a bad taste after you've watched it.

read comments (0)

Shadowboxer

I do not usually like tales of hit men trying to redeem themselves, butI must say that this one actually stuck with me. It really had a lot ofheart. Great performances from Cuba Gooding Jr. and Stephen Doriff.Doriff portrays an extremely menacing villain. I really liked VanessaFerlito. I had actually seen her in Season 3 of 24. It is good to seeher pop up in a feature. Lee Daniels takes what could be a prettyformulaic genre film and mixes it with a bit of art-house funk. Nicesoundtrack and great supporting performances from Monique, JosephGordon Levitt and the always entertaining Macy Gray make this a mustsee. Last but not least, Helen Mirren turns in another greatperformance. She and Cuba have great chemistry in this unconventionalromance. I saw this film at a screening in New York a couple of nightsago and the audience was hyped up. If you like a good thriller, checkthis one out.

Shadowboxer is a triumph of good acting for every single actor in themovie. Cuba Gooding is understated, authentic, and very believable inthis role, as is Helen Mirren. Haven't seen a really good hit-man moviesince the Professional and/or Ghost Dog. While movie is brutal attimes, it is completely in character at all times, and contrary to whatI have seen in some ratings, as finely orchestrated and chronologicallycoherent as any movie I have seen for years. I give this movie myhighest award - Absolutely Passed the Butt Test - Meaning that I didnot fell my butt during the movie, at all, and was completely absorbedduring the entire movie. In addition, background music is superb.Looking forward to seeing Cuba Gooding in more movies like this (or forthat matter, any other movies), and just looking forward to seeingHelen Mirren in any future movie. For an elder person, she is Fox. Igive this movie a 10 +++++++

An anomalous thriller digging deep inside the underworld of mob andtrying to undercover the world of trained assassins; however those arethe only positive notes because the acting is not so special and thestory never really convincing (in some parts too unlikely). Thedirector would like it to resemble one of Quentin Tarantino's moviesbut in some respects it only gets to seem a bad parody of Mr and MrsSmith, but without its good acting. Anyway, along with obvious moments,the viewer can find in this flick dozes of humor and melancholy. Allthings considered the film is decent but not special at all. Passablebut could have been better.

I worked on this movie as security and had no idea what to expect. Thismovie was outstanding! I loved that Mikey was a man of few words andwas just about the business of his business. I loved the story line andthe characters were wonderful and believable.

When Rose said to Mikey "this child is a gift from God you'll see". Ikept waiting to see how her comment tied in until the end when onceagain Mikey is on the floor waiting to die and once again someone saveshis life…and who is it but his kid!

I also thought at the end when Mikey was explaining how to be carefuland they might meet those kind of guys again his son said'we'll killem". Mikey in a very subtle way smiled like" I really don't want him tofeel like that but that's my boy!!!

The hits were brutal but not over the top! The cinematography wassuperb and I live here in Philadelphia and I just thought Mr. Danielsdid a great job.

Even the music was perfect. I love movies that the more you watch themore you see.

I wonder if those who have reacted negatively to this film were put offby the strange sexual pairings: the villain with a Latino bar girl, thepretty boy doctor with a fat Black nurse, and Helen Mirren as Rose withher step son and younger lover Cuba Gooding Jr. The obvious chemistrybetween Mirren and Gooding made that relationship seem very real. I hadmore difficulty with the pretty boy doctor and almost obese nurse, butknow from experience that one's object of sexual attraction can seemstrange to others.

That Rose engineered her lover's final shocking act for her isindicated in a very subtle way, as she gets him to promise to do whatthe child's mother requests.

This movie is definitely not for the faint of heart. It contains agreat deal of graphic violence and sex. However, the scenes are shotwonderfully. The film contains strong performances from Helen Mirrenand Gordon Levitt Hewitt. Cuba Gooding Jr. turns in a solid performanceas a hit-man. It takes a great director to pull off what could be acreepy relationship between a mother and son an turn it into a tenderlove story. The films somber overtone does not slow the action down inhe slightest. I saw this film at a screening recently, and I was on theedge of my seat. Plus, for all you Macy Gray fans, it is always good tosee her on screen as she adds a bit of levity to this dramatic tale. Itis always great to see African Americans portraying rich charactersinstead of the carbon copy stereotypes we always see thrown up onscreen. It is also nice to see a "non-standard" love story. Lee Danielsis off to a great start.

I am the old fashioned type that prefers a movie to have a plot, andperhaps some point to it. This one sadly lacks both, and substitutesattempts at 'shocking' images. These have all been seen before so itfails on that score too. Nothing hangs together or makes any real senseand it just seems to be an excuse to put a random collection of actorstogether and have most of them shot dead like a collection of spritesin some console shoot-em-up. Even Helen Mirren can't rescue this dog.The director seems to be of the school that thinks 'cool' is the use ofoiled naked bodies and the random dispensing of instant death from handguns. It isn't cool; it's pathetic. Quite why we are meant to think the'villain' is any worse than our 'hero' is beyond me, when clearly our'hero' has offed a lot more people in his busy life of crime; the endis a cop-out, naturally, and frankly I'd rather have seen the whole lotof them wiped out.

I, too, was taken in by thinking Cuba Gooding and Helen Mirren mightmake a good movie together. Wish I had seen the IMDb review FIRST! Thisfilm was rotten from start to finish. The only thing I can think it wastrying to show is that sons often carry on the sins of their fathers.

Cuba's father killed his mother. Helen's character kills his fatherbefore he kills Cuba. Cuba becomes a merciless assassin. SupposedlyHelen develops a conscious about killing a woman with a baby. Helen hascancer, so Cuba goes along with it.

This film tried to cross so many 'over the top' lines that it isexactly as one viewer said…a mix of pornography and a BAD b movie.

I will not even dignify the trash with comments, only I advise everyoneto skip this one and not waste the time or any money on even rentingthis piece of trash.

This is the type of film that could hook kids into pornography andviolence. Mixing the two together it even makes it seem as it issomehow 'cool' to be a killer and makes you 'sexy' to your spouse (orin some cases step-son…yuck). It would seem to encourage domesticviolence or even murder, given the 'right' money or circumstances.

Literally this movie has someone die from immoral sex. That's as muchof a spoiler as I'll give.

It's not worth commenting. I only wish to save someone else the pain ofwatching it and wish I hadn't just kept hitting fast forward, but thestop button.

Some things you should just count as a waste of money and not wasteyour brain.

first of all this movie was a crappy mess maybe that is not the word Iam looking for it just tries to shock but the comments on this movieare ridiculous because it is a wannabe gangster or whatever it istrying to be it is not put together well
at all I mean Cuba gooding hewas good in the 90's but now he just does not know what he is doing andstephen dorf who cares about him man he is shitty it is just ridiculousI mean you could watch el topo and that movie is hell of a lot betterthan this and more shocking too. Lee Daniels does not know what he isdoing and anybody could make a better film using lesser actors. Theactors in this movie should have known that this movie was a bunch oftrash and they did it because of the paychecks but thats actors puttingthemselves in awful movies only if the money is good.

I found the movie a bit unnerving but was totally captured by thequality of the acting and the cinematography. I've seen almost all CubaGooding Jr has done and in spite of his Academy Award, I feel this isabsolutely his best acting. It is easy to be way over the top inemotions but to do them in such a restrained way yet convey what he isexperiencing is very difficult. BTW I teach acting! I was particularlyimpressed that the director had such a specific feel he wanted toachieve and stuck with it in order to bring out the characters with alltheir goodness and vileness. Movies with this type storyline areusually repugnant to the average viewer but try to get passed that toexperience a really great film work. But then again, so much of theIndependent arena is good……

read comments (0)

Seed of Chucky

Seed of Chucky (2004) I have to say that i was really looking forwardto this movie as i loved the original "Childs play" and "Bride ofChucky" was great fun too, i was hoping for more of the same.

But this garbage is the WORST of the lot, even worse than the lame"Childs play 3".

Chucky and Tiffanys kid is for some reason in England acting as acircus freak but he discovers that there is a movie being filmed inHollywood based on Chucky and the childs play movies….. when he see’sthe "made in japan" print on chuckys arm he realises Chucky’s his dadand sets off to USA to be re-untied with his Doll parents.

Anyway when he finally arrives he notices they are not alive, but readsthe words off the amulet to bring chuck and tiff back to life!!

From there they go on a killing spree and there aim is for Tiffany totake over the body of Jennifer Tilly who is actually playing herself inthe movie and for Chucky to take over the body of her personalChuffeur.

The Glen/Glenda doll is horrible and he/she don’t know whether it’smale or female, it’s also got a stupid English accent…… oh and thisfilm also has Redman and Hannah Spearitt from the "S-Club 7" pop band!!they "try" to act but both are awful and highly boring.

The movie just didn’t work for me and i was so disappointed, especiallyas "Bride of Chucky" was gory and so much fun to watch!! Also since"Bride of Chucky" it looks as if Jennifer Tilly has smoked a hell of alot of cigarettes and visited McDonalds many times too!!!

I give this instantly forgettable movie 3/10, and i think thats beingabit generous to be honest.

The son (voice of Billy Boyd) of Chucky (voice of Brad Dourif) andTiffany (voice of Jennifer Tilly) is (somehow) playing a dummy inEngland. He’s miserable, is an orphan and wants to know who his parentsare. He sees Chuck and Tiffany on TV, realizes they’re his parents andruns to America to be with them. There he revives their evil spiritsand the three decide to become a real family…and go after the actressJennifer Tilly and others to take over their bodies and become humanagain….

Sounds good but this fails on almost every level. It isn’t evenremotely scary (even the gore was dull) or very funny. Director andwriter Don Mancini wrote all the other "Child’s Play" movies–his last("Bride of Chucky") was GREAT but he drops the ball on this one. It’salso his directorial debut–it shows. The guy seems unsure of how tostage even the most simple scenes. The plot has its moments, but itmeanders all over the place…halfway through I was totally lost! Andsomething is seriously wrong when you have John Waters do a cameo andeven HE isn’t funny! I was bored most of the time and there are atleast FOUR climaxes—all bad.

There are a FEW saving graces. The special effects that have the dollsmoving and talking are incredible; Billy Boyd is actually hilariouswith just his voice; Tilly (wisely) doesn’t take her role tooseriously; Dourif is great (as always) playing Chucky; there are a fewvery funny in jokes for horror film fans and Steve Lawton is really hotin his small role. Also the film is refreshingly pro-gay.

But that’s not enough to recommend it. It fails as a horror film and acomedy. I give it a 4.

Contains Spoilers So here’s my synopsis, I liked Bride of Chucky asmuch as the original, a little more than part 2, and MUCH more thanpart 3. I really think that the move toward comedy and slightly awayfrom horror, as well as our increasing familiarity with Chucky himself,has allowed the movies, and Chucky, to look back at themselves from adifferent level which, as we all know by now, is a great perspectivefrom which to have some great one-liners and horror movie homages. Theappearance of various horror movie souvenirs like Jason’s and MichaelMeyers’ masks and the Texas chainsaw as well as the re-creation ofpinhead from Bride of Chucky are some examples. This is what Seed ofChucky sets out to outdo, not add to the already elaborate nature ofthe murders committed by the monster doll that we all nonetheless love.

Seed of Chucky starts off with an odd scene. I guess I should havecaught on to what was really going on in this scene, since it openswith the fruit of Chucky’s loins being given as a gift to a child inthe UK, the little girl’s father casually eating a plate of raw steakas he looks disgustedly at the hideous little doll that arrived in themail with no return address. I’ve lived in England, and to the best ofmy knowledge, I don’t remember uncooked red meat being a great middaysnack. On the other hand, I don’t remember the gutterpunks travelingoverseas to collect new dolls for their ventriloquist acts either.

While their offspring has been given as a gift to a young British girl,Chucky and Tiff (who is sporting a brand new, totally unburned body)are starring in Child’s Play 5, in this case, I believe, called ChuckyGoes Psycho, one of countless classic horror film references pepperedthroughout the movie. My favorite was the scene where Chucky hacksthrough the door with a hatchet, then just as he’s about to explainexactly where Johnny is, he blanks and says, ‘I can’t think of a thingto say!’ Goofy on the one hand, but on the other hand, as in thepinhead scene in Bride of Chucky, I thought it was clever that they setup this reference to a classic horror film and then didn’t even need togo through with it. They know their audience knows what’s going on, andI like that.

In another, more extensive reference, the movie takes place during themaking of the new Child’s Play movie, just like Wes Craven did in hisNew Nightmare. Jennifer Tilly plays herself, but Brad Dourif does notbecause, of course, Chucky was real all along, right? He’s justhibernating while they have him hooked up to wires so they can make himact in their movie. Jennifer Tilly pokes fun at her craft and herself,complaining extensively in one scene that she never gets any goodroles, that she’s just as good an actress, if not better, than JuliaRoberts, and that she deserves more than anyone else the role of theVirgin Mary in the upcoming Bible epic directed by, of course, rapperRedman.

I have not had the nerve to put myself through How High, despite it’shaving been filmed at UCLA, my own backward, but I was hugely impressedwith Redman’s performance in this movie. He will never be able toportray a director preparing to shoot a Biblical epic, much less reallydirect one, but that’s not the point of this movie. This entiresequence is poking fun at the fakeness of Hollywood, and it cracks meup. Besides, given the cavernous nature of Jennifer Tilly’s mansion,she hardly seems to be doing too badly. Martha Stewart would be proudof her home, if not her choice of company.

And speaking of cracking me up, here’s something interesting. Just whenyou thought horror movies couldn’t be unpredictable, especially inhigh-numbered sequels, Chucky has a cross-dressing, kung-fu fighting,Japanese-speaking British son with razor sharp teeth. Okay, the teethwere predictable, but a British kung-fu master who speaks Japanese?Where did THAT come from??

The movie walks a tenuous line between an asexual nature forGlen/Glenda and outright homosexuality. The cross-dressing scene leanstoward the latter, especially because not for a second from beginningto end does Glen/Glenda look or sound female. Those idiots in WhiteChicks looked more female than this kid. I’m assuming the choice ofname is another film reference, this time to Ed Wood’s 1953 film Glenor Glenda, otherwise it would seem to have been more prudent to selecta name that could have been either sex, like Chris or Sam or Alex orBill. Wait, scratch that last one.

There is a scene where Jennifer Tilly sneaks onto the horror set to geta candy bar that she hid in Chucky’s clothes, in another of the sceneswhere she pokes fun at herself (in one later scene, Tiff is draggingthe unconscious Tilly and comments, ‘My Go
d she’s fat…’), and she comesacross the head of one of the prop men, picking it up and kissing itbefore realizing that it’s real. This is the only scene in the moviethat I wasn’t too impressed with. I guess I’ve just lost my taste forbeheading scenes in the movies. But as Day After Tomorrow shows thatit’s okay to destroy big cities in the movies again, I guess it’s okayto behead people, too. Still, however, a fun movie, but one most likelyto be enjoyed by horror fans and, especially, Chucky fans.

Note: Watch the movie and you’ll get an idea of where the alternatetitle Bride of Chucky 2 comes from…

Seed of Chucky (2004) Jennifer Tilly (voice), Brad Dourif (voice only),Redman, Billy Boyd (voice only), Hannah Spearritt, John Waters, D: DonMancini. As the "ingenious" title suggests, killer doll Chucky andbride Tiffany have had an offspring, who finds himself an orphan, thenbrings Mom and Dad back to life in Hollywood on the set of their ownmovie. Tilly plays a bimbo caricature of herself, who’s victimized bythe dolls, and king-of-camp Waters appears for a short time as a sleazypaparazzi. Some viewers may take their cue to the exit after theopening with a tasteless computer-animated reproduction sequence; thisoverly gory, hopefully last installment goes more for self-parody andcamp, though fails to inject any of the clever dark energy that workedin Bride in Chucky. Quite a chore to slog through. 87 min., rated R. *

Embarrassing, unfunny, and completely unnecessary horror/parody takesplace during the making of the latest Chucky movie where serial killerdolls Tiffany and Chucky are resurrected by their androgynous andpacifistic son. Oh yeah, the star of the film is Jennifer Tilly whojust happens to be Tiffany's favorite actress. Bloody and gruesomeviolence are accompanied by an endless barrage of in-jokes which fallflat on their face. The Child's Play franchise has hit rock bottom asthe sole purpose of this film just seems to be allowing actress Tillyto poke fun at herself as she constantly complains about the strugglesof her career, but it doesn't even entertain in that respect. A wasteof time and money. *½

Seed of Chucky starts in England where a guy named Psychs (Keith-LeeCastle) is using a living talking doll in his ventriloquist act, hefound this doll in a cemetery in America & it's alive. The doll wonderswhere he came from & who it's parents are & when he sees an on setreport from the new Hollywood horror film based on the Chucky & Tiffanykiller doll urban legend he is convinced they are his parents so heescapes Psychs & mails himself over there. Once there he finds hisparents Chucky (Brad Dourif) & Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) although theyare just animatronic puppets for the film, using the magic amulet hemanages to bring them back to life & they waste no time in searchingout new bodies & trying to continue the family line…

This Romanian American co-production was written & directed by DonMancini who wrote the previous four Child's Play films & makes hisdirectorial debut here with Seed of Chucky. The original Child's Play(1988) was a tight slasher film that went for scares as were the nexttwo installments Child's Play 2 (1990) & Child's Play 3 (1991) thencame Bride of Chucky (1998) where director Ronny Yu reinvented theseries & turned it into a black comedy while still retaining someover-the-top gore set-pieces after which we ended up with this Seed ofChucky which goes for out & out bad taste comedy & is a long way fromthe original. Seed of Chucky is such an outrageous film it's hard tobelieve, from Tiffany trying to artificially inseminate someone with aturkey baster to Chucky masturbating to their child having an identitycrisis to Tiffany phoning a quit helpline to try & give up heraddiction to killing this one feels like a sit com with Chucky &Tiffany as the main character's as opposed to a straight horror flick,on the one hand this approach is different & provides some fun I wouldhave preferred a bit more horror. Having just watched it I'm not quitesure what to make of it, Seed of Chucky is just so far removed fromChucky simply killing people & coming out with a one liner I'mwondering if it's gone too far towards the comedy side of things & hasabandoned it's roots.

Director Mancini does alright, there are countless film references &homages here for you to spot from the obvious like Edward D. Wood Jr.'sGlen or Glenda & The Shining (1980) as Chucky puts his face through alarge hole in a wooden door he has just made with an axe to the moreobscure. Setting the film around the making of an actual Child's Playfilm in Hollywood is as self referential as it gets I suppose. There'ssome good gore here, someone has their throat slashed, someone hastheir face burned off with acid, someone is decapitated, someone isgutted & someone is burned to death. The special effects are prettygood although the opening CGI sequence of the sperm fertilising the egglooks terrible.

With a modest budget of about $12,000,000 Seed of Chucky isn't anythingspecial to look at, it's well made but it isn't scary & comes acrossmore like an outrageous black comedy. It was shot largely in Romania.The acting is OK but the human cast are bit players & it's the puppetfamily who take center stage.

Seed of Chucky mixes bad taste comedy & over-the-top gore so it'sdefinitely an acquired taste, I liked it for what it was but couldn'thelp feel a bit of disappointment at where the series has gone.

Just because a movie is targeted at kids, involves cheap sex jokes,reaches for the lowest in gore and revels in dumbness doesn't mean itsstupid. Because kids, no matter how hard they fight it, aren't stupid.

No foolin', I watched this in concert with " Généalogies d'un crime,"about as highbrow as you can get and the films are remarkably similar.So remarkably, I suppose that some kids will read this comment andavoid the thing.

Look at the folded construction.

The Chucky franchise is its own genre of sorts and we go in expectingto see a movie about a movie. That's the nature of sequels, but this isnumber 5 and the notion is made explicit.

So we start with the making of the Chucky movie, with the dolls asanimated puppets. Jennifer Tilly is the voice of one of the puppets andalso a character in this film within the film.

The "child" of the two dolls (from the previous movie?) sees them onTeeVee and does a layered identity voyage in the fashion of "NurseBetty" to join them. Once there, the dolls 'come alive" and the twomovies and "real life" overlap and merge.

Its the oldest trick in narrative, originally designed to fold theaudience into what they see so that the horror will be closer. But hereit is all done as a joke, which effectively adds another layer.

Will the jokes be enough to make it worth viewing for you? I doubt it,even though there are many good ones in the manner of "South Park."John Waters is a photographer that shoots the sexy folds and gets it.Photographer = filmmaker in these folded things, explicitly so in"Pecker."

The kid evokes Ed Wood (here played by a David Bowie-like voice and aTim Burton face), who made horror movies that were similar constructedand now viewed for laughs. Tilly mentions "Bound" in the same way, thepattern for "Matrix" which mines much the same territory.

Produced by the same company that did "Eternal Sunshine of the SpotlessMind."

Ted's Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Seed of Chucky (2004)

Rogue / Focus – Theatre – D: Don Mancini – 3 / 4

Well here we have Chucky’s fifth time around. After a really cool ti
tlesequence with killer music by the great Pino Donaggio we are introducedto the Chucky’s Seed, Shitface. It seems that Chucky and Tiffany’schild has been a sideshow ventriloquist attraction since he was a weeaction figure. Prone to be a bit of a pacifist and a pants wetterShitface (or as he will later be called Glen / Glenda), he just wantsto find his family. He glimpses a hint of his origins and breaks outand heads for Hollywood where an adaptation based on the exploits onthe mythological killer toys. When his parents are revived and thefamily united the real fun begins. Jennifer Tilly stars as a parody ofherself who is trying to break out and do something big, whatever ittakes. When Tiff and the Chuck set their sights on Jennifer and rapperRedman as their next incarnations will they risk their poor fragilelittle confused boy / girl. This is a bloody funny film. Chucky,Tiffany and Glen are hilarious together and the puppets look the bestthey have ever been. Surprisingly the film has some pretty good gore init (including a hilarious turn by John Waters). The music is awesomeand almost is too good for a flick like this. Brad Dourif, Tilly andBilly Boyd are excellent as the family of maniacs and you’ve got torespect an actor who is willing to make a parody of themselves likeJennifer Tilly does. The script was hilarious (I’ll never look at anissue of Fangoria the same way again, ‘God Bless the little people).Don Mancini takes over the directing this time around and does a verygood job in his debut. If you are a fan of Chucky than you’ll love hisseed. If you aren’t, you may still get a kick out of it.

OK, OK, I LOVE Jennifer Tilly. She made a big difference in the seriesas of "Bride of Chucky" and she charges the newest Chucky. Othertidbits: "Glen or Glenda"? and John Waters as a tabloid-style reporter?All plusses to me.

Maybe I don’t have any taste, but Jennifer and all her "self-critical"comments are my idea of a fun evening. As usual, Chucky and companyslice and dice more than a Veg-a-matic. As for plot and story - heck,the whole series has but one plot but the last two episodes have beenvery tongue-in-cheek. By now, Chucky has more stitches than a Hollywoodstar! (Aside: Is Brad Dourif channeling Gilbert Gottfried?) Jenniferasks, "how low can an Oscar nominee go?" Well, Ms. Tilly, I don’t care:I’ll always see your films.

Man, I really wanted to enjoy this movie. Honestly I’ve never been adie-hard Chucky fan, but I was a huge fan of Ronnie Yu’s Bride ofChucky. It had some good moments of dark humor, enough gore, and enoughstupid moments to keep one entertained. It seems that since that movie,the Chucky series is aiming more towards the dark comedy side ofthings, much like such films as Re-Animator or Return of the LivingDead.

Bride of Chucky had the formula down right, and Seed of Chucky totallyloses it. The movie goes for cheap gags, and just really doesn’t tryhard at all to be funny or scary. There’s very few moments in the moviethat will make anyone laugh, or even cringe as something happens.There’s only one really good kill in this movie, and the rest of itjust seems to be filler. This one is on an obvious shoe-string budget,and I’m surprised that they even made the film with such a joke of ascript.

I guess it turns out that Chucky’s kid that was born in the end ofBride of Chucky, is some circus freak with a London accent. He’s adoll, finds out his parents are part of a new movie ( Based on thechucky " Urban " myths ) resurrects his parents, Chucky and Tiffany.The dolls come back to life with the amulet Chucky needed in the Brideflick to get his body back…

The kid is freakin’ retarded, and has no part in this movie. Alsoeverything has been cheapened quite a bit. The voodoo resurrectionseems easier than ever, and apparently by using a turkey baster toimpregnate a woman, voodoo magically occurs and makes the pregnancyspeed up. There’s many other things like this in the film that’ll makeyou scratch your head. I’m all for being far-fetched, just so long asyou put a little detail into your idea and maybe explain instead ofsaying " Oh my, it’s voodoo, things happen faster. " Also most of thedeaths appear to be extremely convenient, taking a lot of fun out ofthe movie. I’m always in the mood for a stylish death, but these onesare just lame. We do get a very interesting first kill from Chucky andTiffany that I enjoyed, however the rest are garbage. When Glen/Glendakills the photographer, it’s a total joke, as are most of the kills…The thing is, I don’t think anyone is laughing.

It’s just an awful mess of a film, I really don’t want to go into anyfurther detail. Tilly was enjoyable, but not nearly as much as she wasin Bride of Chucky. She pokes good fun at herself and her career, andshe’s admirable as she’s obviously doing this because she enjoys thework. It’s too bad she’s wasted on this terrible script.

I can deal with cheese, so long as it’s fresh and entertaining… Thismovie just stunk, I recommend waiting for a rental.

2 out of 5 corpses

read comments (0)

Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love

Kama Sutra is a good opportunity gone to waste. First of all, it mustbe quite hard to find a Indian actress for this role. Reason being is,at the time, there were hardly any Indian girls willing to performsexual acts. Maybe in porn movies, but you need a professional actor aswell. The two actresses who star in the movies were not that greatTheir acting skills weren't very impressive. Indira Varma was a littlesexy in a few scenes, the other actress wasn't. The movie is titlesKama Sutra, you expect to see some different unusual positions. But No,forget positions, there's hardly any sex in it. A Daft storyline, whichis apparently true with bad performances. Some of the actors cant speakEnglish properly, with bad accent.

I’d give it a 4 because the girl, Maya, is pretty and the film shows alot of her, but otherwise the story is not very engaging. Briefly, Mayahas a fling with the Rajah on his wedding night, but doesn’t reallylike him that much. For his part, he’s mainly in love with himself.When word gets out what she’s done, she has to leave the palace andends up in a school for courtesans where they teach the girls the KamaSutra. Later she falls in love with a sculptor, a friend of the Rajah,with difficult consequences for their relationship with the Rajah. Youcan predict the rest.

What’s good about this film? It appears to have been filmed in NorthernIndia, somewhere in Rajasthan, I imagine. Occasionally exteriors arefilmed near old ruins, so if you haven’t visited India, the film givesa good idea of what the countryside around Delhi looks like. Also, theproduction put good efforts into costume (although Maya and Kumaroccasionally dispense with costume altogether), makeup, andcinematography. There is music, but it’s listenable, exotic but quiteunlike the ultra high pitched screeching you hear in Bollywood flicks.So from an artistic perspective, it’s fine.

Where is it a loser? I was utterly unable to develop any sympathy forany of the characters. Female viewers may be interested in the sight ofmostly nude male characters with good muscle tone, hair in long greasyperms, and big hook noses, but the guys didn’t do anything for me. Maleviewers may like what they see of Maya, but both she and the film aretoo dull to sustain much interest. The best thing I can say about theactors is that they take their parts seriously, and speak plain,relatively unaccented accents. They may not be especially interestingas Indians or as people, but they avoid being caricatures.

True, this movie does not match Mira Nair's earlier movies such asMississippi Masala and Salaam Bombay! It is also true that much of themovie's pace is sodden and the plot is fairly predictable. And yes,unfortunate feminist tendencies creep in from time to time. But thepresence alone of the incomparable Indira Varma is worth the price ofadmission—or the price of renting the DVD.

What makes this movie valuable is its sumptuousness, as many criticsnoted when it premiered. The sexuality is intense; the locations innorthern India are stunning; the costumes are well wrought and themusic is convincing. Westerners are used in some ways to seeing moviesabout India, especially India of the British Raj. But this movie is setin the 16th century, well before Western influences had set in. Butwhat makes the movie so fascinating is the "Westernized" vision thatemanates from the four lead actors, all of whom were either born in orgrew up in England. Indira Varma was born, I think, in Kent; RamonTikaram, whose voice is as resonant as any movie actor's heard in thelast thirty years, grew up in Germany and later moved with his familyto England. Naveen Andrews was born in London, as was Sarita Choudury.These four actors share nearly all the movie's focus, and they arethoroughly westernized. They, and directoress Nair, all got away withfilming this movie under the noses of the Indian authorities. As aresult, there is a delightful seditious quality to the work. But themost delightful of all is the aforementioned Indira Varma, whosestunning beauty and sexual intensity almost leap off the screen. Attimes she is playful, at others deeply distressed, at other times sheseeks vengeance. Repeatedly she embraces her destiny with what seems tobe her entire being: rarely has an actress in recent films been able soto concentrate on and immerse herself in the dangers, the hope, theexpectations, and the benevolence that surround her. What a woman! Andwhat an artist. Like all great artists, she transcends the limits ofculture, critical distinctions, and artificial categorization.

To be honest, only the thought that it would have quite a bit of sex,and the leading actor in it was what made me want to see it, that'sall. You'd probably expect the film to be about various positionsduring sex, but the title actually means "lessons of love", and there'snothing various about that. The story, as far as I understood, is setin the 16th Century of India, where Prince Raj Singh (Lost's NaveenAndrews) is bored, and to entertain himself wants a lot of womenaction, if you know what I mean. During this, there is betrayal, secretlove, jealousy, and all the complications you can think of inrelationships. And yes, a few sex scenes along the way. Also starringSarita Choudhury as Tara, Ramon Tikaram as Jai Kumar, Rekha as RasaDevi, Indira Varma as Maya, Pearl Padamsee as Maham Anga and ArundhatiRao as Annabi. As I said, just the sex and the leading actor were theonly things that interested me. Okay!

Spoilers herein.

One of the several foibles of the United States is that we have noindigenous sexual exotica. All sexual archetypes are inherited from predecessor cultures(excepting in the competing synthetic African-American cultures), which is one reason — Ibelieve — that US popular culture is so widely consumed internationally. Werepackage.

Not so with India, which has had time to develop its own subculture of sex,one that though small is part of every Hindu’s makeup — one in fact that probablyplays more of a role in Muslim/Hindu clashes than any theology.

Although this is cheesy movie, it is a little interesting to note itspopularity in the US. Sex isn’t the same everywhere you go. But exotica seems tobe.

Ted’s Evaluation — 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with thispart of your life.

MISSISSIPPI MASALA introduced me to both Mira Nair and (not just me,but the larger world, to) Sarita Choudhury, and I thought it awonderful film, and Choudhury both very talented and remarkablybeautiful. Thus, when hearing (first via NPR interviews) that Nair wastackling a drama that involved the KAMA SUTRA and had signed Choudhuryup for the project, I couldn’t imagine what could be bad about it.

Sadly, I found out. First, to have Choudhury in your cast and to make arather less attractive woman the focus of a sensual and sexuallyexplicit photoplay seems self-defeating, particularly when she’s also,to judge from this performance, not much of an actor. Then to make thesexual scenes so devoid of chemistry or even much prurient interest, inpart through the utter oiliness, both literally and figuratively, ofthe characters (I hadn’t seen this much unction among screen loverssince the similarly unappealing scenes in the loose, awful Asimovadaptation NIGHTFALL) is to give the audience very little reason tocontinue being so…this would’ve been only the fourth film I’d everwalked out on, had my companions not wanted to stick it through to thevery end. (NIGHTFALL had been one of the other three, though it was mycompanion, driven to the edge of physical illness by the film, whom Iacquiesced to then, without much regret.) Reasonably well-shot, but amajor disappointment in every other way.

I believe that I would like to place a moment of blame on this film.Due to the title alone, I was nervous about viewing it with the windowsopen. Prior t
o my viewing, I was unaware that it was directed by fameddirector Mira Nair, and was fully prepared to draw my blinds as Iembarked on this film adventure. The title was Kama Sutra: A Tale ofLove, what was I to assume. After watching nearly two hours of thisfilm, I was disappointed. I was upset with not only the lack ofcommitment to the characters, the tired storyline, and theanti-climactic ending, but also due to the lack of sexualitysurrounding this film. "Kama Sutra" headlines this feature, but alas,it is not the central focus, and this is where I believe Nair failed usand my moment of blame was born. I would like to make it clear that Idid not desire a film of pornography, I knew that this was a"mainstream" film, but I did want something deeper and centered aroundthe art of "Kama Sutra" instead of just another cliché story of rivalgirlfriends. I realize that I am generalizing the overall theme of thisfilm, but at the core of this movie it was not about the art of sex,but instead the decay of man.

I did not like this film. I understood this film to be considered anadult fairy tale, but alas, I never saw the elements of a fairy tale inthis story. Written in part by Nair, I saw this film as her opportunityto demonstrate the power of a woman's sexuality over even the strongestof men. In a very small part she succeeded, but her attempt to buildthis opportunity failed with her characters. When you make a filmcentered on love, or the passion of its act, you must hire actors thatwill give the audience that sensation. The audience must feel thesweat, the energy, the excitement of what is happening on screen or itwill fall swiftly into just another Skin-a-Max midnight movie. Sadly,Nair could not accomplish this. When her characters, whether it wasMaya, Tara, Raj, or even Jai, were "forced" into the "Kama Sutra" partof the film, it felt scripted and staged. There was no instant passionbetween these characters, which destroyed, utterly ripped from itsroots, any attempt that Nair had to create the theme of sexualindependence. Without the fire behind her actor's eyes, the rest of thefilm fell to the wayside as just your "average" film.

Nair had another opportunity to capture back her audience with thisfilm, but she never took it. Nair could have pulled a Gandhi-esquiremoment for us by countering the horrible acting with beautiful imagesof India. Nair could have coupled the beauty of "Kama Sutra" with thebeauty of the land, thus creating at least one moment of visualeye-candy for the viewers, but again, she did no such thing. The fewmoment of fresh scenery that we had seemed like it came from NationalGeographic stock footage. I realize that she was actually in India, butwhat concerned me was that I didn't feel like I was in India.Throughout the film I realized that I was sitting on my couch watchingbad acting with recycled images of India. I was nowhere close to beingswept away by a lavish love story. Wait. This wasn't an original lavishlove story. This was nothing more than the cliché story of two friendswhom find themselves fighting over the same man with a foreign twist.Perhaps I needed more influx into India's culture or even moreback-story on our smaller characters, but nothing took my breath away.The character's lack of passion cheated me, and now Nair's choice ofscenery felt just as plastic.

Finally, I would like to say that (without giving anything away); theending was rather lackluster. Void of emotion to our characters andobvious cliché India images only strengthened the forgettable ending.Again, the title of this film was Kama Sutra, which invokes images oflust and passion, sadly the ending evoked nothing of the sort. Therewasn't a care in the world for our characters, so why should we feelimpassioned about them in the final climactic moments? I didn't. As Iwatched this film I felt as if I was on a Disney ride through India.The tracks were in place so my cart couldn't go off the forsaken path,while the robotic characters did what they were supposed to do withoutany surprises or excitement. The only character (and I hate to go backon this rant again, but it is the central reason this film fell hard)worth enjoying was that of Naveen Andrews, but I think it is because ofhis Lost connection. By the time the ending finally happened, I wassculpting my own story in rock and hoping that Hollywood would produceit.

Overall, this film did have potential, but by giving it a name likeKama Sutra it over promised and ultimately did not deliver. Again, Iwould like to make it clear that I was not hoping for a heavily sexualfilm, but it needed to be a stronger point in the story than just a"quick-cut" or a side quest. Kama Sutra failed because of itscharacters and their obvious lack of devotion to the story. There wereno surprises, there was no excitement, and there was no romance, justcliché plot points that you can see in any film across the fine Earth.Could Nair been more adventurous? This reviewer thinks so. She couldhave taken us off the beaten path, deeper within the darkness, butinstead she glossed over the truth giving us a Kama Sutra that was morepastel than passionate.

Grade: ** out of *****

I used my February Blockbuster "free rental" on this "Kama Sutra" filmbecause I had heard it was "beautifully filmed" and a good story. Now Iwonder which version of a "KS" movie I had read about. This one is about twogirls who are friends as children, the one of priviledge always "handingdown" things to the other. When she is to be wed to the young man who willbecome king, and she queen, her friend on a whim seduces her groom beforethe end of the wedding party. It is her way to have "somethingfirst".

Of course this causes friction between the two friends, the cheater getsrun out of town, she learns "Kama Sutra" , the language of love, andeventually returns. In some ways it reminded me of "Dangerous Beauty", wherethe beautiful woman became a courtesan and the one who loved her couldn’thave her. It is nicely filmed, but in many ways it is a forgetable film.Character development was minimal, and I couldn’t generate much sympathy foreither woman. Maybe it would help to be Indian. A rating of "5" is aboutright, out of 10.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***I asked an Indian classmate of mine if she liked Kama Sutra, because shewasdiscussing Indian movies. She said she and her family don’t even consideritan Indian movie and rolled her eyes. I had to see the movie for myself,andfind myself agreeing with her. Princess Tara was a little shafted. She’smore beautiful, just shut in more. She’s practically raped by her husbandand left to simmer in depression to the point of suicide. Maya is ugly,butgood in bed….meaning more complacent. Of course, like Dangerous Beauty,she’s talked into becoming a whore for the king. I’m a fan of Sarita’ssinceMississippi Masala, but this was not a good character. I see her beingmuchstronger than she was depicted. This character was too weak for her. Sheplayed it beautifully, but i expect more out of her as an actress.Instead,Tara catered to her husband’s lustful whims. Maya stimulated no empathyfromme. I felt bad for Tara, but you never saw her. Maya was a nuisance and Ididn’t identify with her plight. She reveled in the fact that she couldtakeher friend’s husband from ehr until she found someone of her own. Taraneverreally did anything mean to her. She gave her hand me downs,whoop-de-doo….let’s take her husband from her for it in revenge. Thatwasa stupid plot point. The king was absurd. His entire experience in thefilmwas doing drugs and bonking Maya or dreaming of bonking Maya while doingdrugs. He seemed like pimp from the 70’s to me. I know he was supposed tobea jerk, but he was annoying as well. The artist was to mysterious, butconsidering the acting, maybe being quiet was helpful. I didn’t mind
himtoomuch. He was kinda sucked into Maya’s game unwittingly and paid the pricefor it. Not too bad, but it had some flaws. Never again do I wanna see awoman’s pubic hair in a movie. That was just waaaaay unneccessary! I knowit’s Kama Sutra, but I didn’t get the sense of love that the book reallytries to push through. It was people have sex without loving one anotheroras a sacrifice. I guess that’s a form of love, but Maya could always haveleft with the artist. I think she got what she deserved in theend.

I rented this movie to see Naveen Andrews, a very talented actor, andarguably the most beautiful man in existence, in a movie about Indiansexuality and spirituality. First dissapointment–he plays the a******andall the sex scenes (all two boring sex scenes) go to some Indian versionofFabio. And Sadrita Choudhury, who is also a wonderful actress (IrecommendMissisipi Masala) , and a gorgeous woman, also plays support to a terribleactress. (I thought it was interesting that the actors featured looked alotmore Western than the supporting actors.) The whole movie is a pointlessmess, I wouldn’t mind if a thin plot was thrown together to hold up thesexual content, but there is hardly any sexual content in the damn movie,except that you get to see the main character’s breasts every ten minutes.The film certainly has nothing to do with the Kama Sutra, except that aconcubine instructor occasionaly mumbles vague rhetoric about how to keepaman satisfied. Totally unstimulating on all levels.

read comments (0)

Jungle Fever

Ok, any true fan of Spike Lee *or* Sam Jackson would know Sam was inLee’s"School Daze", which came several years before Jungle Fever.

Now that we’ve cleared that up….

GREAT movie. A little hard to take at times, and I’m also a littleconfusedabout the subplots. But well worth watching again andagain.

Jungle Fever is a film about interacial dating, black romance, fathers&sonsand many other deep issues. The film hit home for me because as a black manwho has dated so many white girls. It opened my eyes to a lot of things. Irealized that love sees no color and iif you love someone color doesn’tmatter. Samuel L.Jackson desevered a Oscar Nod for his role as Gator thecrack head. Spike delivers once again.

The movie Jungle fever is pretty good, however I dont think its a goodmirror on todays sociaty or even the 90’s.

I DONT like the term "interracial dating" or talk about diffrent races.Allthat talk belongs back in the days of slavery. A person is of the raceHUMANno matter what his colour is! Because of USA’s awfull history, theBlack/white issues have always been strong and complex. But its 2004! Thatpeople are still talking about races is sad. There is only one race,HUMAN.

There is A LOT of man and womans who have diffrent colour who are togetherand they have never felt even 1% of the problems that are shown in themoviejungle fever.

I think some people are MAKING it a big issue. For gods sake we are allthesame!

I believe that Danny Aiello had a brief part in this film. He played ina scene where the father of the main supporting actress, was outragedat the fact that his daughter was in love with a black man. She endedup leaving the house in tears from an emotional and explosivefather-daughter conflict.

Danny was also featured, but in a major role, in another one of Spike’sfilms, "Do the right thing." I can see why Spike picked Danny as he isa very talented actor.

This film was another piece of excellent work by Spike Lee.

I just recently rented JUNGLE FEVER out of curiosity because I’ve seenalmost all of Spike’s films except this one. I have to say that I wasextremely impressed at how real this movie is.If another director was to tackle this premise they would probably sticktothe central relationship and little else. Yet Spike elaborates on manyotherrelationships outside the central one, including family, friends, andcommunity. There are so many complex plot levels at play that will keepyouwatching like it’s a soap opera. A soap opera that is a heart-bruisingurbandrama. Sometimes Spike lets his political & social agendas get the best ofhim, but here he keeps them restrained. This way you get a better look atboth sides of the coin and the result is reality at its best(and sometimesworst!). Wesley Snipes and Annabella Sciora give great performances as thedoomed lovers. But the most credit I think is due to Samuel L. Jackson &Halle Berry for turning in shocking performances as two crack-addicts.Ultimately the film ends on an idealized note that might not be true tolife, yet is still satisfying. The film is only for open-minded viewersyetsome of you narrow-minded folk are well represented in the film.Basically,for those of you who enjoy dark, reality dramas: you won’t want to missit.And if you enjoy it, I also recommend HE GOT GAME & SUMMER OF SAM aswell.

I was tired of Samuel L. Jackson, I mean he´s in almost all the newHollywood action/war films.But I was really impressed by his acting in thisfilm.Even if the direction by Lee and the music by Stevie Wonder is great Ithink I like it mostly because of the acting.Stars like:

Wesley Snipes,Samuel L. Jackson,John Turturro, Ossie Davis,Ruby Dee andevenAnthony Quinn in a small role.4/5

A movie highly praised by critics when it was launched in 1991, I think that"Jungle Fever" is a correct movie that alternates qualities andfaults.

As far as the assets are concerned well you can quote two main qualities.From one hand, the directing which is of a perfect quality and it seems thatSpike Lee has a preference for travelings because it is this device that heuses the most to shoot his movie. On another hand, a dazzling performancefrom all the actors with a special mention to John Turturro and AnthonyQuinn, even if both have only minor roles.

But there are also faults in Lee’s opus and it resides in the script. Atfirst sight, we deal with a trite love affair between a man (Wesley Snipes)and his secretary (Annabella Sciorra) (how many times have we seen thissituation in movies?). But there’s a little detail that makes all thedifference: the secretary is white and the man is black. Due to a differentcolor of skin, a lot of people around them view this love in an unfavorablelight. By writing such a story, Spike Lee obviously wanted to broach anddenounce racism, a topic that has often been at the core of his movies, as"Do the right thing" (1989) testifies. With "Jungle Fever", we can say thathe reached his goal but he even went over the top. Indeed, the topic ofracism is present in too many sequences and it gives an impression ofoverloading. Due to this, it is hard for Spike Lee to sustain theinterest.

Moreover, Lee’s intention wasn’t only to denounce racism, but alsoprejudice, drug, intolerance. But these 2 last things haven’t really got acommon point with the plot. As a consequence, the movie includes a quiteimportant number of useless digressions.

In the long run, "Jungle Fever" is a very talkative and demonstrative movieand in which a lot of characters are stereotyped. Nevertheless, it remains abrave movie from a brave director.

I have always been a fan of Spike Lee ever I seen his best film to date, DoThe Right Thing. So I had to see this the main reason being was to seeSamuel L Jackson’s performance as the crackhead Gator. By far this is thebest thing about the film. Although the film features a great cast of Lee’sregulars and a realistic storyline, Jackson’s performance is exceptional.This is the film that started his career so if you are a Sam Jackson fan andyou haven’t seen it you are missing his best performance since Pulp Fiction.Even though the film is a little too long watch it because it is a greatfilm about race toned down with some comedic moments. Watch out for HalleBerry’s debut playing the drug addict Vivian.

I am a big Spike Lee fan and I like almost all the movies that he does. Idon’t care for what people have to say about him being a racist orwhatever,because those things don’tmatter to me. I wish people would get past thatstuff and when they watch his movies just take them for what they areinstead of bringing what his outside feelings are into his films becausehedoes make some really great movies. I love Jungle Fever and it is one ofmyfavorites next to School Days, and Bamboozled. I think this movie reallyspeaks to the way people feel on this subject. It makes you aware thatwether you condone it or not that there is a lot more to this subject thanjust being a Black/White issue. I think that the Ossie Davis’s speech atthedinner table was excellent and was what really made me want to keep comingback to this movie and watch it again and again. I also, think that scenewhere all the women were togther in Snipes wifes house talking about whatthey think of interracial dating was a powerful scene because it gavelightall sides and hit almost every view.

The only troubling thing about this movie to me was how Snipes characterwasso willing to jepoardize his family for some white woman and go throughallof what he went trough knowing that it could never be anything more thanwhat it was because he made it clear when she told the cops that he washerboyfriend that he never wanted that to get out. And maybe it’s because Iamnot a man where I can’t see how someone i
n their right mind would gothroughall of that for some curiosity. However, but in being a woman I can’tunderstand why she took him back so easily after he had gotten all of thatout of his system. I mean he threw away their family for an affair and shetakes him back because he says he is done with it. I would have made thatman suffer.

also like the whole story of Gator and the family as well. I thought thatthis made a great contrast to the interracial thing by addressing muchbigger problems that are also going on in the world. The part when thefather shoots Gator rang a lot like what had happened between Marvin Gayeand his father with his whole drug problem. The ending of this movie wentgreat with the normal Spike Lee end by giving us all a wake up call andtelling us that these things must stop. I know that some people areconfusedas to what he was trying to say and that was simply that we need to helpgetrid of this drug problem. That is also, what he was trying to tell hisdaughter when we were first introduced to Halle Berry’s character is thatweneed to end this and it starts with our youth and educating them. I thinkthis movie is great and gives great insight to how and why people feel theway they do about interracial dating. Plus, it also gives you insight toothers views and why they also feel the way they do. Spike makes no oneopinion better than the other in this movie you have to decide foryourselfand that is why I like Spike. He gives you all sides and lets you takeyourown stance! Go see this movie!

Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across asessentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there wasnochemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there’s plenty oftalent in this movie, it’s mostly wasted because the parts are reduced tolittle more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racismfor the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it aroundlike a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it throughmostof the film but I couldn’t quite finish it, and that, for me, rarelyhappens.

read comments (0)

Monster’s Ball

It’s one of those movies that you watch, desperately hoping it will getbetter, but it never does. If it had not have cost me so much inadmission,I would have walked out. Personally when I watch a movie, I want to escapereality and be entertained. This movie doesn’t even do a good job ofportraying reality. I should have gone by my usual criteria for pickingmovies (if the critics love it, I know I’ll hate it and vice versa). Whatexactly was the point of making this movie? Halle Berry won best actress?Why? Billy Bob was just plain boring. I rate this movie as a .5 out of10

Contains SpoilersIf it wins an award it is usually a boring social message movie that hassome artistic flavor to it. E T, Raiders, and other true classics willalways be beaten out by Philidaphia, Ghandi, etc. Well, this film is anoneout of ten. Halle Barry wins an award! Maybe it should have been an adultmovie award for her performance. I mean this film was like those clips yousee from the Pay TV commercials for their pornos. Billy Bob has progressedin his film career from making one weird film to another, and I think hehastopped it. If he can make a weirder film than this watch out. Oliver Stonewould have to write and direct it. What bothers me, this film is supposedtobe anti Racist. Being of Polish background, if they ever need a jerkcharacter, someone stupid, or a disfunctional family (like in this one)theyuse a lot of Slavic last names. They just add a Ski to it, and it willwinan award. What if they made characters like this for other groups, blacks,jews, gays etc would it be socially correct? It seems Poles, Italians andCatholics get it all the time, and they have to show Crucifixs in thehousesin these movies often. Pole’s have some bad sterotypes, but this moviehits way beyond that. By the way how many Slavs live in the South? Thepart that gets me is there is no social message; for the lead character isajerk whose stupid son who just did not get in the truck and leave killshimself. It seems every time Billy Bobs character finds himself in a bind,he becomes a hypocrite and hurts someone. He hates his son so he driveshisson to suicide; doesn’t need his dad’s anymore and sends him off to a veryawful care home. Hates his job so he quits its, instead of trying toreformit. All of a sudden he is lonely, he does a 180 loves black people andgetslaid. It reminds me of many people in life who do one thing and change tooanother when it is convenient for them. There is no real spiritualconversion of the person here. I guess it was maybe to shock us or send asocial message, where I find neither. No shock with this film, I havebeenso bloated with messages of violence and sex on film. The sex scenes wherethere only to create a rating, and an excuse for making a borderline adultfilm. All they needed was that NWO music from Wrestling during thecountless sex scenes, and bad lines like I change attitudes lets have sex.Or hey baby its getting bigger, don’t stop etc. This film lacks anydirection, depth or entertainment value. I’d rather watch Stallone inCobraat least it’s entertaining, and makes more sense than this one. Maybe theycall this art, I gave it a one. I would respect it better if at least theymade this a sex film than hiding it behind a social message. At leastPorky’s did not do that. 1/10

No plot! Boring! Only reason it has high reviews is because Halle Berrygets naked. This is the only bright spot of the movie. DO NOT go seethisin the movie theaters. I can’t believe this got such a goodrating.

Rare! I’ve never seen anything worse than this movie. It’s totally useless and the ending is even worse than the rest. The plot is wrong.I must say that the director wanted to say something from it, but hemiserably failed. The oscar to the actress? Why did she take it?

A very hard, and great made film. A film that makes youwonder.A lot better then films like Dead Man Walking.The film has drama, love and death, and no violens, witch israre!

This drivel is only slightly better than "Pulp Fiction," which actuallyrated a -10. It was popular only because Hally Berry, PopHottie of theMoment, got naked with Billy Bob Thornton, Other Hottie of the Moment. Theother cast members could have been played by muppets to the sameeffect.

The plot is trivial and predictable, the acting awful, the cinamatographybarely acceptable.

Wish this kind of dreck wouldn’t see the light of day, and if neither Berryor Thornton were in it, it wouldn’t.

under the recommendation of just about every single critic, i rented thismovie. and just like every single real human being i spoke to about thismovie, i hated it! i was bored to tears, and i couldn’t wait for it toend.

part of the problem that i now have with this movie rests in the fact thati’m not the only person who has felt this way about it; that the storymovesslowly, and that the characters are uninteresting. so given all of that, icannot for the life of me understand why it made so many "best of theyear"lists and came so highly recommended.honestly, if no one else in the world agrees with the reviews, then itleadsme believe that someone has given the critics an incentive to trumpet thishorrible movie to the general public.

I just finished watching this movie for the first time. Both Halle Berryand Billy Bob Thorton were excellent in this film. While the first half ofthe movie was just average, the second half really took off. Watchcarefully and you will see the dichotomy between Billy’s life and Halle’slife. On a different note, some of the sex scenes between Billy and Halleare like a mini-porno. You see Halle like you have never seen her before. It makes her scene in Swordfish look like Disneyland. 8.5Stars.

What the hell was this? You’re bored for like a good hour and then Thortonand Berry are having sex for what seems like FOREVER! My bf and I fastforwarded it and it was still taking long. Why the hell did she connect withthis character? I gues it’s, "I’m not naked enough in my movies. I’ll do asoftcore porn". Is there a dearth of good stories out there? Ok this is thestory: Leticia Musgrove is a struggling single mother cuz Puffy’s in jail(how true to life) and he’s on death row. Thorton is his executioner orofficer who walks him to it and he ends up banging Puffy’s wife in the end.Throw in Heath Ledger boinking a local prostitute and that’s your film.Apparently, there’s a story in there somewhere about the two charactershaving a connection despite the racial climate of their environment. I guessI missed it from all the sex being had that I had to fast forward through.The first black woman to win an Oscar gets it for playing a proto-typicalrole of Black women in cinema since the beginning of film. ThanksHalle…yea you opened doors all right. More like opened…anyway. I’m upsetthat a black woman gets an Oscar for doing a grotesque and gratuitous sexscene. Highly unappreciated there council. I just didn’t get this film. Ihaven’t met one person who could tell me what it was about aside from themajor point of fascination for most people. The movie was boring as itchronicled their story and I wanted the fat kid to sit on them till theysuffocated. There was no development of character, no explanations, justseediness. Maybe that was the point, but as a director, your point needs tocome across to your audience. This movie failed to do that. In this day andage, you can’t have a movie with a bunch of sex in it and claim it as artbecause you filmed scenery along with naked bodies and have classier music.To the mass populace, you got a high class porn. Just like romance novelsare girl porn, this is soft-core porn. It’s diluted, but it’s still there.I’ll give it the cinematography. The camera was smooth and the pictureclear. Still doesn’t save this monster at his ball.

Th
ere is no gratuitous sex in this film. On the contrary, every sceneillustrates to a thoughtful, mature audience, the true psychic state ofthe characters better than a thousand words; whether a barren,meaningless existence, or the mutual gift redemption possible onlythrough the out of body experience of sexual bliss.

There is no false note to be found here. The actors seem quite involvedwith the story and at pains to be understood. This makes for aninvolved audience who must leave affected. Halle Berry is a revelationand the journey to acceptance on her face at the end of the film iswordlessly eloquent; probably the clincher for many who voted her bestactress.

Joe Boyle is convincing as a racist in a wheelchair with a tube ofoxygen in his nose, a man who has successfully infected his son, playedby Billy Bob, with the lifelong sickness of racism. Trying to breakthis chain of hatred and self ruin is Billy Bob’s son, Heath Ledger.The act of violence which frees him slowly transforms his father anddooms his grandfather to the reward of a lifetime of hatred.

read comments (0)