The Rundown

Do you smeeeeeelll what the Rock is cooking? Well The Rock has beencookingup a whole load of goodies ever since his less then stellar debut on theWWFcircuit. Not only has his popularity in the wrestling ring improvedgreatlyfrom the days of `Rocky Sucks!’ but he has been able to do what fewfellowwrestlers can: Break away with a successful acting career. After alargelyhyped appearance in The Mummy Returns, Dwayne `The Rock’ Johnson starredinthe Mummy spin-off film, The Scorpion King, which was able to gross $84million in the summer of 2002 and have him labeled as the next actionstar.Universal Pictures, seeing the great investing potential of this formerwrestling icon, quickly signed him up with his next project teaming TheRockup with Seann William Scott, who has already had success this year withAmerican Wedding. Dwayne Johnson has been able to work well in the actionarea but can he bring comedy into the mix? The studio definitely hopes soafter investing $75 million in The Rundown (aka `Helldorado’ aka `Welcometothe Jungle’) and releasing it in a time period that is not known to havetoomany top earners.

The story centers on a hit-man who’s out for one last job but this smallassignment is more then he bargained for. Beck, an efficient man forhire,is not the normal kind of person in his line of profession. He givespeopleoptions, he would prefer cooking to fighting, and hates to use guns.After abrawl in a bar one night, Beck decides he wants out but his boss isn’tgoingto let him off so easy. He sends him out on one more job: Travel to theAmazon, picking up his no-good son, and bring him back to the house. Ifhecompletes the job, he gets out of the hit-man profession and can open hisown restaurant, the one thing he seems most passionate about. Beckbelievesthis will just be another typical job but things change quickly. Not onlydoes he have to deal with horny monkeys and quarrelsome natives, Beckknockshorns with Hatcher, the ruthless tyrant of Helldorado. Both men are afterthe same thing and both will do anything to get him but the question liesonwho wants him more? The story for The Rundown is, quite surprisingly,fabulous. This is quite possibly one of the most original action/comedyfilms of the year with a wonderful blend of well choreographed fightscenes,hilarious comedy, and a balanced story to back it all up.

Though the cast is small, most members perform beyond expectations whileothers achieve the normal acting level. Dwayne `The Rock’ JohnsonflattensStalone, Willis, and even Schwarzenegger becoming the next culturalactionstar. Every fight sequence is packed wall to wall with high testosteroneaction and The Rock proving he can kick some serious ass in a grandstyle.And who knew he could be so funny? Well, a good amount of people who sawhimperform on Saturday Night Live last year, but outside of that group, notmany. For those not lucky enough to catch that one of the few truly funnySNL episodes in recent years (And, yes, the show has been pretty bad foracouple of years now), he proves all the skeptics wrong in this film.SeannWilliam Scott, who performed earlier this year in Bulletproof Monk andAmerican Wedding (the latter being the much bigger success), sure proveshehas the comedic idiot act down pat though not as hilarious as he was inthelast American Pie film. Perhaps it was the absence of using the F-bomb somany times but maybe it was the fact that the movie-going public isn’tuseto seeing him as the idiotic yet nice guy in comedies. ChristopherWalken,as usual, never fails to amaze us. Once again he is able to mix comedyanddrama well together without balancing one or the other. There wereseveraljokes made by the talented actor that took awhile to get the point of butwhen the punch-line came, the jokes really paid off. And Rosario Dawson,anot too well known performer, was moderate at best but the main problemwasthat, as semi-important as her character was, wasn’t featured as much assheshould have been. There weren’t too many that showed off her actingchops,which is quite a shame since there could have been plenty of potentialhadthey allowed her to showcase her talent.

Overall, The Rundown smashes, blasts, and bombards the movie theater witheverything its got and, quite surprisingly, the audience is left wantingmore, which, for once, isn’t a bad thing. Dwayne `The Rock’ Johnsonproveshe can live up to all the hype declaring him as this generation’s actionstar and shows off some true acting chops that few from his former lineofwork can do. As good as the film was, it wasn’t quite as funny as othercomedies like American Wedding were. The problem lied in the fact thatTheRundown took awhile to really get going by setting up a decent back storyand stuff like that, which can be good on its own but when you’re dealingwith a buddy comedy such as this, it can come off as being a bit of adisappointment. The time length of the feature seemed a little too shortbutthis is quite a minor squabble compared to all the praise one can sayaboutthis film. The Rundown is another valiant effort from The Rock andUniversalPictures that proves action flicks can be funny, intense and dramatic allinthe same feature without outbalancing itself.

My Rating: **** out of 5 (Grade: B+)

For the past while, there has been a malaise in the action genre, not justwith American-made ones, but with foreign action movies as well. Thismalaise can also be felt in this movie. It’s not The Rock’s fault - he showsa willing-and-able attitude, and he has a charisma that puts a little lifein his scenes. It’s just that the rest of the movie has little to offer toboth him and the audience. The action scenes are poorly filmed - sometimesthey are too dark and shot too closely, like the opening club scene or thecave sequence. Most often than not the action is photographed to be tooblurry for the eye to focus and be able to appreciate. Come to think of it,there isn’t that much action in the movie anyway. That fact may have beenmade up for by the rest of the movie, but isn’t. The story is a bore, whereeven the Amazon location can’t disguise we’ve more or less seen it allbefore. We don’t even have an interesting villain - Walken’s screen time isbarely more than an extended cameo, and he looks and acts very tiredwhenever he appears. Come to think of it, maybe the title is supposed to bereferring to him.

This movie sucks! None of the things its real! Come on, get a geographybook!!! Eldorado is a city that was left behind in the INCAS time!! Themonkeys aren’t from Brazil, they are from Africa! The mines, well, thatis true that we have this kind of problem, but we are working it out.Anyways, just go to any site that have any thing about Brazil, lookup… get some geography and history classes, before doing such astupid movie! Get real!! Anyway, the actors aren’t that bad, is justthat the script is totally irrational. I think it is better to notwrite then doing stupidity like this, its a waste of time! Please,check it out in some GOOD sites about Brazil, we aren’t just nakedwomens, football and carnival!!! WE HAVE HISTORY JUST LIKE ANY OTHERCOUNTRY!!!

R.J. Stewart, you stole two hours of my life, and I’ll never getthem back. I also blame Christopher Walken, for involving himself in aventure as bad as ‘The Rundown’. Dignity, Walken, dignity… thatmonologueabout the tooth fairy? For goodness’ sake.

This movie has now entered the hallowed halls of my Top Five All-TimeWorstMovie Experiences. It rubs elbows with such stellar productions as: ThePallbearer with David Schwimmer and Gwyneth Paltrow; Vampire in Brooklynwith Eddie Murphy; The Postman with Kevin Costner; and Beverly HillsNinjawith Chris Farley. It has gently nudged Medicine Man starring SeanConneryfrom these prestigious ranks. Congratulations, Mr. The Rock — you suckwiththe best.

R. J. Stewart (whose resume I will include below), blatantly, blatantlystole from other Hollywood films to cobble together his shoddy script.Romancing the Stone. Indiana Jones. Apocalypse Now (they actually madeCh
ristopher Walken use the phrase "Heart of Darkness" in a speech to the"backwards natives"). Not to mention The Three Amigos (Walken as ElGuapo).And I guess you could make an argument for a certain link betweenAmericanPie II — with its humping dogs and Seann William Scott — and thehumpingmonkeys and Seann William Scott in The Rundown.

Save your optic nerve the pain of having to transmit this trash to yourbrain. Do not let my sacrifice be in vain.

I would like to say that who ever the director was they should quit thefilmmaking business. Bad lighting and bad camera angles.

the music score didn’t seem to fit the movie either. the actors lookedstupid saying their bad lines as well.

two words WALK AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was expecting to really like this movie. It was advertised as the "2ndcoming of Arnold Schw.." It got 3 1/2 stars from Ebert. How wrong theywere….!!! This movie was a sub-B poor imitation of Romancing the Stone. The guy who played Stifler in American Pie was really miscast. I wantedThe Rock to kill him almost immediately to put us all out of our misery. The Rock was good enough as a kind of Kung Fu character, but, to compare himto Arnie or Stallone in their heyday is ludicrous. The action never quitesucked you in nor did the sophomoric comedy. If 5th grade comedy is whatyour want, look toward Disney who does it much better. The special effectswere right out of the 50’s; did you see how they tossed around the big GOLDthing like it was cardboard? I love Chris Walken and was looking forwardto seeing a great Walken riff in this movie. It never really happened; hejust phoned it in.

First when The Rock is entering the disco and says hello to ArnoldSchwarezenegger (or however its spelled!) I was all excited and like WAUW,Arnold, this movie just gotta be cool, BUT:IT WASN’T COOL, you always knew what was gonna happen next, and the onlything in this movie I had not seen before was the big fall, which wasboringanyway…If you like Indiana Jones at some bizarre level or just loves to wasteyourmoney go watch this one.This movie should have been made for TV only.But again, maybe I just have a bad taste for movies!

The is a completely mindless action film, the plot is ridiculous andthe dialogue is bad. There is nothing here that you haven't alreadyseen somewhere else done better.

The characters are all action clichés but at least the leads are playedwell.

Johnson is likable as the hero although the over-used pose of the herowho doesn't like guns (Indiana Jones anyone!) grates on the nerves veryquickly as he keeps throwing weapons away instead of using them.

Scott is good as a comedy side-kick although you will recognise hischaracter from every other film he's been in, not much range in hisacting so far.

Walken is wasted in his role, his only chance to act is near the endand he hams it up in a cringe-worthy exit sequence.

Unfortunately, for an action film, the action sequences are awful. Theyaren't even slightly believable.

There is a spectacular jungle fight where, to facilitate the hero notusing guns, everyone puts aside their weapons and fights usinggymnastics in ways that don't make sense and are reminiscent ofwrestling matches at their most fake.

The end battle is the worst in the film with bullets flying and the badguys somehow missing everything and Johnson literally tearing downbuildings and flying when he jumps on a few occasions.

If you want action watch one of the Bourne films don't waste your timeon this.

The movie started well but that all ended with the nightclubscene.

The Rock continues to show he is quite a good actor despite being awrestler.

Sean William Scott continues with the usual character, for the most partit’s no longer funny. An example being the bird noises, he did exactly thesame thing in "Evolution", it wasn’t too funny then and it’s even less funnysecond time around.

Walken is usually always reliable but the script does him no favours, cringeas he acts the tough guy through telling a story of the toothfairy.

it’s as entertaining as wrestling!

Good trailer, bad movie. I thought this might be a fun diversion, butinstead, it was painful boredom.

If The Rock wants to be an action star, he needs to take find a betterdirector than Peter Berg. The biggest problem with this movie’snumerous action sequences is that you can’t see them. Lots of tightclose-ups and bone-crunching sounds, but I never really got the sensethat The Rock could really beat up half of these people. Where are themoves? Seann William Scott is normally a funny guy. Here, thescreenwriter(s) didn’t figure out what to do with him, so he alternatesin motives and personality on a regular basis. Christopher Walken has afew bits of humour, but it only makes you wonder if the paycheck wasreally worth his precious time for this one.

The best thing about this entire movie is the cameo in the first scene.It just makes you wish that the particular guest had stayed around andThe Rock had left.

read comments (0)

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 Thief of Bagdad

I really wanted to like this movie; I really did. I figured that sinceI have always loved "The Wizard of Oz," "Forbidden Planet," and "Samsonand Delilah," that "Thief" would appeal to me. After all, I figured, itwould combine the best of the art direction and fantasy of "Wizard"with the otherworldliness of "Planet," along with the lush Hollywoodexoticism of "Samson and Delilah." Unfortunately, this was not thecase. I am sorry to say that all of those previously mentioned moviesare much better than "Thief of Bagdad."

For starters, I was particularly disappointed in the story- it seemedto jump all over the place, and there was a lack of any reallyconvincing character arcs for the leads. Sabu, who is adorable andenergetic as always, made for an appealing hero, but we didn’t reallysee enough of him- instead, we saw more of the insipid romantic leads,John Justin and June Duprez, who are only stunning in their absoluteinability to emote. Conrad Veidt made a good villain, but I wanted toknow a little more about why he was doing what he was doing. Granted,in "The Wizard of Oz," the Wicked Witch of the West is not given adetailed backstory, but Dorothy’s house landed on top of her sister,which is a very good reason for the Witch to be after Dorothy! Unlikethe Wicked Witch, I did not ever feel that Conrad Veidt’s character wasever a real threat or menace. Perhaps it is because in "Thief" thecharacters are given precious little personality and motivation; also,there seems to be little continuity in the colorful incidents thatoccur. For example, one moment Abu, Sabu’s character, has smashed themagical all-seeing eye- the next moment he is being bowed to by a bunchof elderly sultans in white. Huh? Did I miss something? Now, Iunderstand that this is supposed to be a fairy tale, but even infantasy worlds, things are supposed to make sense within the context ofthat world. Again, "The Wizard of Oz" is a good example of an earlyfantasy movie with excellent continuity and world-building.

The movie, on the whole, was very pretty to look at, and the sets,crowd scenes and matte paintings were spectacular. However, I must saythat I found the color scheme of the film to be very irritating-everything seemed to be in shades of pastels, mostly pale pink and babyblue, as if it were one of those old "My Little Pony" commercials. Iunderstand this is a matter of personal taste, since in movies I tendto prefer vivid colors. However, whenever I read the "Arabian Nights,"I always pictured a very rich color palette, with scarlets, blues,golds, and desert browns. Maybe it’s just me, but a pastel palettedoesn’t seem to go with the very nature of the stories "Thief" isclaiming to represent.

In any case, I am glad that I have finally seen "Thief of Bagdad," butI would not see it again. Perhaps it’s something that I needed to seewhen I was little to make any impression on me. All in all, Ipersonally found it to be too mannered, precious and dull tosufficiently convey the earthiness, vigor and gusto of the original"Arabian Nights."

Movie based on some of the stories from "1001 Nights". A ruler namedAhmed (John Justin) is overthrown by the evil Jaffar (Conrad Veidt).Jaffar wants to wed a beautiful princess (June Duprez) but Ahmed alsoloves her. And then there’s the annoying Abu (Sabu) running around…

OK–this LOOKS great. The sets are beautiful, the costumes too, theTechnicolor is breathtaking and the special effects are actually prettygood. But that’s about it for compliments.

The opening is a flashback which is VERY confusing and is really notneeded. It starts the movie off badly. There’s a LOUD score which isvery obtrusive (I had to keep turning down the sound) and some reallyout of nowhere songs. The acting sucks–Justin and Duprez are woodenand have NO chemistry; Sabu is annoying–Veidt is OK. Also Rex Ingramhas his moments. The plot is lousy–it wanders all over the place andhas some terrible dialogue. I was basically bored. Kids will probablylove this but it IS a bit violent at times.

I give it a 10 for production values alone–but a 1 in every otherdepartment.

Prince Ahmad may well be the Prince of Bagdad but he will not risehigher due to the power of the evil wizard Jaffar (not to mention thefact that Ahmad is a dull man who cannot even spell his kingdom). So itis not long before Jaffar has betrayed him and cast into a dungeonwhere he is fortunate to meet young Abu – the bestest thief in all ofBaghdad. They escape the dungeon together and, in attempting to restoreAhmad to power, undertake a series of great adventures.

From the very start of the film you can tell this was once a bigTechnicolor adventure that must have been one of the big "event" filmsof 1940; and bearing this in mind it is interesting to see how ourcurrent blockbusters will appear in 60 years because Thief certainlyhas not stood the test of time well. The basic story is good of courseand it makes for an enjoyable yarn but the problem is not here – it isin the delivery of this story. The strongest part of the delivery isthe art direction which, as I said, is colourful and imaginativethroughout. However this is not enough to carry it the film when somuch of the film is so flat by comparison. The effects are part ofthis; I can cope with outdated effects but what is more difficult arevery poor effects – and shoddy superimposed jobs and things clearly onstrings fall into that category. Here we have such problems and,although imaginative, I must admit that I thought they could have donebetter in 1940.

The cast can do very little to help the situation as most are OK atbest. Veidt dominates the film because he is lively and enjoyable. Sabuis fun but he can’t really act and seems to think that widening hiseyes will cover things – it doesn’t. Of course compared to Justin, Sabuis Brando because Justin is about as bland a matinée star as you canget. He has little character and is nothing but a chest, a chin and asmile – a bit of a problem when you are the star of a film andcertainly a problem here. Ingram is quite good as is Selten but mainlythe cast are quite stiff (although not quite wooden) and more couldhave been made of them.

Overall this is a bright and colourful film and I can understand why itwon over audiences at the time and why it will still appeal to kids orthose looking for some old fashioned entertainment. But, although thestory and art direction is good, the cast are quite stiff, the effectsvery, very dates and the sense of wonder has somehow faded with them(as opposed to the impact of King Kong, for example, that is stillgreat despite the effects being from a similar period). Worth seeingbut you need to get your mind in the period.

The acting is terribly hammy, the sets are drenched with artifice (yetare still incredibly well designed) and the plot is predictable. Butthat’s the kind of film The Thief Of Baghdad is. It’s a larger thanlife fantasy adventure constructed by some very capable filmmakers.Fans of Michael Powell’s work will certainly see his signature here interms of the shot designs and uses of colour. The special effectsphotography is quite brilliant for it’s time and the film is loadedwith these visual tricks. The most exciting parts of the film are thethief’s adventures without the presence of the lead character KingAhmad. His encounter with a genie, fight with a giant spider and travelby magic carpet serve as the more memorable moments that will likelyappeal much more to younger audiences (and this viewer) than the mainplot line involving Ahmad and his love for a princess. This film hasmade it onto a lot of top 100 lists and I was a little bit disappointedby what I saw. It’s magical and well done, but likely serves more as anostalgia piece for a lot of viewers than a work of excellence.

The
film scores a few points in the cheese department. When Ahmad goesblind (not a spoiler, he’s blind to begin with) he screams "My eyes!I’m BLIND!!!!" In a manner that’s so over the top it parallels theperformance of the lead in the last movie I watched: Maniac (1934, seereviews). The absurdity reaches a high point when the thief battles agiant spider while hanging over a pit of giant octopi (which is prettycool). Ahmad couldn’t sword fight his way out of a wet paper bag, yethe manages to defeat numerous guards. Lastly the "Arabs" in this filmare so blatantly British that it’s almost funny. It’s indicative of theartificial nature of the picture. Nonetheless, this film is a funfantasy adventure however when it comes to that genre, I’d much ratherspend my time with a film like The Never Ending Story or Labyrinth.

Thief of Bagdad is one of those classic films in which I was "bored outof my ass" while watching it. The acting and directing is atrocious. Ifelt like I was watching a grade-school level stage performance. Icould not even concentrate on the plot of the film. The actorsliterally yell their lines out in order to get their message across.C'mon, people don't act like this in real life. So why do directorsinsist on this type of performance? The special effects, which wereprobably revolutionary at the time, look silly today. The color is donewell, though, especially for it's time. But overall, an hour and fortyminutes of torture.

The visuals on this movie are just gorgeous and so are the specialeffects,with well-earned Academy Awards to show for it, but the script is at bestaverage, the romantic leads give new meaning to the term, "lightweight"andmost of the performances are lifeless. Sabu is okay in the title role andConrad Veidt is wonderfully chewing the scenery, but Rex Ingram steals themovie as far as acting goes. Park your brain on neutral, ignore the"plot"and just enjoy the beautiful sets, visuals and effects. Worth your time.

Am now the proud possessor of a DVD Thief of Bagdad version which hasbeen digitally transferred. What a pleasure it is to watch, in spite ofthe fact that I have seen it easily 20 times, on the first occasion 68years ago. Despite the color film being in its infancy and specialeffects rather crude in comparison to that of today, the effects ofboth are remarkably and convincingly well done. The clarity and colorof this version have only enhanced the value of this singular film thatdates from the Golden Age of Filmdom.

Conrad Veidt — that incomparable film villain, Princess (June Duprez)more beautiful here, I am convinced, than Elizabeth Taylor ever was;genie Rex Ingram and of course the little "Thief" Sabu, only a shorttime before tending the elephants of the Sultan of Mysore, along withthe rest of the cast, do a splendid job. Miklos Rozsa's musical scorehas to be one of the best in the annals of filmdom. I believe he won anAcademy Award for it. All this and much more contribute to the ultimatein fantasy/escape cinema — and who doesn't need escape these days, anitem all too rare in contemporary films.

Including interviews, outtakes, and eclipsed scenes plus a wartime Britpropaganda film, undertaken and completed with Korda's crew due thedelay in completing "Thief" because of wartime problems, make thisCriterion Collection version a steal at about 40 dinars — I mean 40dollars. Could it conceivably be any better? The answer is Yes, itcould — on a full size screen in a darkened movie theater. Sadly, Imust concede, something I am not going to hold my breath waiting for.

It seems that all the fantasy elements 1001 Nights (Arabian Nights)have been incorporated into this film - flying carpet, genie in bottle,magic, etc. In fact, the scenes are so full of life (particularly themarketplace ones), and exotic and fantastic, that one wishes he were init instead of just watching on a screen. The special effects wereespecially good for the period - and this without the benefit of thecomputers and high-tech gadgets used in today's action movies. Thecolour was just so -well, colourful - but you must remember that thesetting is supposed to be in the Middle East, where bright and vividshades of clothing and scenery are the norm.

Of course there are the downsides. I found the songs rather boring andnot contributing much to the story. The dialogue is at times stiltedand flowery especially when Ahmad declares his love for the princess;that he would wait for her till the end of time, etc. Like he wasreciting lines from some Arabic tips-to-dating guidebook or something.The genie's laugh seems to be rather artificial, reminiscent of thecanned laughter of modern TV sitcoms albeit done by only 1 individualand much louder.

Understandably by today's politically correct standards, The Thief ofBaghdad could be also accused of stereotyping or even racism. Like maleslaves are depicted as black, Arab merchants as fat and pompous, andthe evil magician Jaffar as a dark menacing thick-browed character(seems to me that the name Jaffar is a popular one for wickedMiddle-Eastern characters - read, Walt Disney's Aladdin - which fromwhat I've read from other comments and on the message board, borrowsheavily from this movie)

Magical effects, colour and cinematography help create fantasy and yet,it is the the human element which makes it more special and important.The scenes with Abu especially, with his clever ways and no-nonsenseapproach to life, make for the best viewing particularly when he helpsthe dreamy-eyed Ahmad in his quest to win the princess's heart. As forthe message that the film wants to send, it is the standard one of thefight between the good and evil, and how good always wins in the end.The amazing thing is that although the Abu is a thief, one can't helpbut cheer and encourage him when he escapes from sticky situations.This fact reflects the human element of psychology that usually makesthe audience side with the main character and supports him even what heis doing is inherently wrong (read - Robin Hood robbing the rich tohelp the poor). It is needless to say that in The Thief of Bagdad, thegood eventually overcomes bad , which does not always happen in reallife. Though it can be rated as an escapist film fit only for viewingon a rainy weekend afternoon by today's computer-orientated moviegoers,yet it combines the elements of romance, adventure and action to makeit one of the best fantasy films ever produced in the last century.

This film is THE masterpiece of its type, never even remotely equaledby any other Arabian Nights film. But all of this has been said beforeby IMDb commentators, movie-goers and critics. I would just like tostate that, to these ears, Miklos Rozsa's score is arguably the mostbeautiful and all-encompassing one ever written for any film. Some ofhis later ones may have been more "progressive", but for sheermelodiousness, lushly colorful orchestration and larger-than-lifemusical drama, not even John Williams or Erich Wolfgang Korngold haveproduced its equal. Most of even the greatest film scores have one ortwo special melodies or musical effects, and the rest, when heardindependent of the film, is pretty much musical filler. But Rozsa'severy track seems to be a highlight; to prove this, simply listen tothe reconstruction of the score recorded on LP about a quarter-centuryback. Indeed, I could well imagine some relatively conservative (ie.tonal) composer taking the dozen or more wonderful Rozsa musicalmoments in this score and working them into a truly beautiful, ifold-fashioned, opera! I mean, the Love Theme alone would sell it to anyromanticist out there. Anyhow, this has been my single favorite filmscore (out of at least twenty thousand I estimate having heard) since Ifirst saw the movie in the late 1940s and I thought it a good idea tohave at least one commentary which concentrates solel
y upon the musicheard in this grand film.

In all fairness, this movie has basically very little to do with the1924 version of the movie with same name, starring Douglas Fairbanks inthe main lead, despite the fact that this movie is listed everywhere asan official remake of this movie. Both movies are good and entertainingin their own unique ways. There always had been many differentinterpretations of the story over the years.

It's an early movie in color and like most early color movies itfeatures lots of extremely bright colors, as if they were trying toshow off. This means that the boats, costumes and sets are all in verybright colors, or at least in colors that in no way would be usedtoday. Yes, it's quite fake looking all at times but I always like thisfake and bright look of these early color movies. It definitely has acertain charm over it.

With its 6 different directors, production must have been a mess butluckily none of this can be seen back in the movie. Not the leastdirectors were at one time involved with this movie; Michael Powell,Alexander Korda, Zoltan Korda, all did some great and well known moviesin their careers. In the movie can't really been seen back in its styleor storytelling that so many different directors were at one pointinvolved with this movie. The movie feels mostly consistent, which isof course a great but also amazing thing.

The movie has a great story and is told pleasantly with a good fastpace, which helps to make the movie really entertaining to watch,despite the fact that there isn't really an awful lot of action oranything else like that occurring in the movie. It's above all thingsan adventurous movie with lots of traveling and exotic locations. Toobad that the movie sort of sleeps in in its second halve and the movielooses its focus on the main character, in favor of other characters.

The lead actors of the movie are mostly going over-the-top with theirperformances, which can be expected from young, inexperienced, handsomelooking actors. Luckily the supporting cast is way better, with thealways fantastic Conrad Veidt as the villainous Jaffar.

The musical score from Miklós Rózsa is also a classic and is also oneof the things that gives the movie its pace, adventurous feeling andcolor.

An all in all colorful adventurous movie!

8/10

read comments (0)

The Wrestler

I am afraid but I have to dissent from the popular opinion and disagreewith awards givers and most of the people so fervently complementingthis film for veracity, poignancy, greatness of directorial and actingsuccess. I strongly disagree with all these opinions.

The film is predictable, boring and suffers from bad taste. Thesituation of aged 'broken down piece of meat' wrestler is not typical,nor believable, neither interesting. It is a story of poorly lived life(not developed by the scenario) of contemporary gladiator. His life isparalleled with the life of a 'virtuous' stripper, who he intends forhis sweat-heart. Do you know why most sympathetic characters in thissort of films (and there many of those) are always a drunkard, aprostitute, a drug addict? Do you know people like this? I do not! Sowhere is the truth, the poignancy, do you wish to be like them, do youwish your children to be like them? Is this an example of who you donot to be?

The plot is also attempt to compare the wrestler's wounds with thepassions of Christ. OK, if that was an intent then why it was notdeveloped at all; just a statement or allusion to the fact does notmake it meaningful - the situation is very contrived and unreal. Moreprecisely, the film is about Mr. Rourke's passions as he correctlystated in a TV interview.

I do feel sorry for the great human material named Mickey Rourke, whowas endowed by nature with great body, face, good deal of talent andwho squandered it all, wasted in the orgy of drugs, violence andself-indulgence. I do hope that he will be able to remake and reinventhimself - but this is no reason, at least for me, to take part in hiscontinuous Sado-Mazochism, evident in "The Wrestler".

This movie is completely disgusting and horrible. Mickey Rourke is aterrible actor and should not ever be in another film. His acting asthe wrestler is just stupid. The character is stupid. He does a reallybad job at playing him. He's such a loser, he should not act. He can'tact at all. This film is so overwrought and so pretentious I can't evenbelieve it was made. There is not one redeemable quality about thismovie. Not one. There is so much gratuitous sex that it was basicallyjust like watching a porno. Also, wrestling is fake but this filmportrays it as if its an even more hardcore sport than football. Thecharacters cut themselves open and basically mutilate themselves onstage in front of a cheering audience. The violence in this made mevomit. There's a scene where the wrestler chops his hand off. Then inthe next scene it's back on. Hmmm. Bad film-making, or maybe it's doneto convey a message of some sort, which is pretentious. The movie endswith the wrestler dying and dropping dead in the ring from an explodedheart. Lets hope he stays dead.

I can only say that i watched this film with great anticipation as thescore on this website had reflected a film of majestic proportions. HOWWRONG WAS I !!!!!! Mr Rouke's face now has the ability to mask anyemotion better than any botox bimbo, which allows him to carry out eachscene just the same as the last (must be a dream for the editors forcontinuity). The script ,or lack of one, was incredible. I wonder ifthe meeting went like this.

Idea for film hmmmmmmm I know has anyone watched The Boxer well if weget a washed up actor and follow him around with a camcorder with arough draft of what we want and make sure he is not recognisable to thegeneral public then we don't really need a script so we save moneythere because lets face it we will have to spend a fortune on pluggingthis turkey and make people believe that it is a major comeback for ourailing star. Don't forget its wrestling so lets add a titty bar and abird who guys will remember for being yummy when she was about 20 andget her to strip because lets face it a younger model will cost usmore.

I don't know if it is me being British or just with me not followingthe acting oops sorry wrestling scene but in my opinion this movie isyet another waste of cellulose which has been turned into a blockbusternot because of acting talent or story (lets all face it if you want aheart-wrenching sports story film just watch The Boxer) but becausepeople went to see it just to look at how disfigured Mr Rouke's face isnow due to the plastic surgery from hell.

I have just finished watching the film. It doesn't even worth seeingthe end of it. There are lots of details that should be taken care of.

First of all, the dialogs are pretty lame. Except for several quotes,there were almost no quality speech in the movie. If you are getting adrama movie, it has to have much more than this one.

secondly, the movie was so boring for a non-wrestler fun. If you havebeen protecting your eyes from seeing such violence, you better notwatch film. It is disgusting to see that wrestler bleeding all over and"nailing themselves".

And do they really had to include so much striptease scenes? It hasirrelevant to see boobs throughout the wrestling movie. Only 1 minuteof it could be enough for everyone to understand that she is working asa stripper.

The only part that I liked is his dilemma of choosing his rest of life,whether he will choose to continue wrestling or retire. That brings twopoints. OK let's not be so cruel and give another point for the greatboobs and private dancing of Marisa Tomei!!!

Overrated. Terribly, terribly, overrated.

***Spoiler*** Randy was an overall a boring and emotionless character.Sure, he cried during that one scene, but that was way too little tomake me feel for him. Feeling sympathetic for Randy is like tryingseeing Seth Rogen play something other than a slimy, disgustingpothead; it's just not going to happen. The only good actor/actress inthe whole movie was the daughter, and she was only in it for like 10minutes. Oh, and the stripper was pretty hot.

When all is said and done, don't waste your time with this movie.

Very disappointing.

I had already seen other movies by Arenofsky and really hated them.Everything is carefully constructed, but in a bad way: it is donebecause the audience is always thought to be stupid – it's a case ofexcessive belief in post-modernity – his movies are completelyideological and he leaves no space for thinking. This one was noexception. In every take he's preaching. It is gratuitous andirrelevant at the same time. Decorative while pretending to bemeaningful. It gives an epic dimension to kitsch…therefore celebratingAmerica at its worst.

Rourke gets out of the grave to play himself, which must be a feat Iguess. And to tell the truth it's a better swan song than Sin city.Marisa Tomei shows her assets. There's not much acting involved…I'd sayit's rather a case of editing building up the acting. I bet there'a ahuge marketing budget behind this building it all up.

However Arenofsky is no Tarantino; no money will turn this into a goodmovie. Tarantino really enjoys popular culture… there's real pleasureand spontaneity behind his movies, and they actually are more complexthan any of Arenofsky's.

Thank god I'm forgetting is as I write !

The guy is very talented. Pi & Requiem for a Dream were brilliant butmade no money. The Fountain was solid but overly ambitious and lacked aHollywood storyline thus lost about $25 million. The Wrestler is Darrenpaying back his Hollywood machers. Yes, it is well acted but the storyof an aging burnout who can't let go of his past glory is the oldeststory in the book. I found the depth lacking and overall it justplodded along until the ultimately cliché ending. Just follow thenumbers people - cost only $7 million and will probably gross about $20- $30 million. This is Darren trying to remain viable in Hollywood andlittle else.

>

 

This is a meandering film that doesn't know what it is. For oneinstance it's very much like a documentary with the dizzy camera movingwith each footstep, causing a viewer to be sea-sick. Certain sidecharacters are documentary-like; as in, they aren't interesting, likepeople in movies, and seem somewhat realistic, i.e. mundane: thisincludes his boss, his opponents, his manager, and a little kid hebefriends. But then there's his daughter, whose subplot providesmelodrama the likes of a bad soap or, let's just say, a normal datemovie. And his "girlfriend" stripper, who provides the film with aformulaic love story, seems out of place, and their relationship neverseems right. This movie should have been more like the original"Rocky", and kept a fictional yet interesting feel throughout, withcolorful characters we can be a part of, instead of walking the fenceof realty show/fictional film. And the director should have kept thecamera from moving so much. He had two shots: a far away shot where thecamera isn't moving that seems like a security camera footage; and theneverything else is shaky-cam: to the max. This film is overrated, bigtime. And the bar scene where the Wrestler and his stripper gal sing"Round in Round" is truly horrific.

 

---

 

This movie really winds me up. I have never seen a movie thatdisappointed me more than this one. I'll explain why.

First of all, there is absolutely NO story. It's just a collection ofboring and uninteresting events. Man has job. Man loses job because ofhis health. Man in love with woman. Man tries to band with child. Mangoes to work again. That's it. I've actually seen it twice because Iwanted to know if I was missing anything, but I still can't get thepoint of it.

Mickey Rourke plays a good role but he isen't great. To be honest Ithink he doesen't deserve a BAFTA, it's character is way to flat forthat. And the same count's for the lovely Marisa Tomei.

Very, very disappointing.

 

---

 

I don't get why people are raving about The Wrestler. It is boring.There have been so many other films about aging boxers/sports peopleetc, that are better, deeper and wiser. OK - not so many aboutwrestling, but the film is not really about wrestling anyway. It isabout a man who is ultimately very damaged and who does wrestling inorder to live out his self loathing and self mutilation problem. Rourkeplays himself! I can't see an acting stretch here and the actinganyway, is limited. I don't get the stripper either - Marisa Tomei hasbeen nominated for an Oscar for this performance - why!!! She couldhave done it asleep. It was so contrived; yes, we've seen that roledone a thousand times before. The problem with The Wrestler is that thecharacters are two dimensional. There is no depth or understanding orstory as to why they are the way they are. The gory bloody parts aregross and are merely a means to engage the viewer in a very boringscript. Of course, 'The Ram' who Rourke plays, is a very self obsessed,selfish, damaged, lonely man who even after trying to build hisrelationship with his daughter; has to fail because he is a born LOSER.Some people are LOSERS - so I could not find compassion for him as thedirector and script and the acting does not allow the audience to enterthe characters fully. Couldn't wait until the end and REALLY hopeRourke does not get the Oscar for this - he does not deserve it - maybehe should get an award for not truly ending up a loser?

 

---

 

read comments (0)

Tsotsi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheila

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The New Guy

THE NEW GUY (2002) * DJ Qualls, Eliza Dushku, Zooey Deschanel, EddieGriffin, Jerod Mixon, Parry Shen, Lyle Lovett, Illeana Douglas, (Cameos:Gene Simmons, Tommy Lee, Kool Mo Dee, Henry Rollins, Vanilla Ice) Retreadof `Revenge of the Nerds’ with none of its geeky charm this time focusing onpencil neck Qualls (the only likable thing about this laugh-free ‘comedy’)who creates a new identity after a humiliating stint at his high schoolthanks to cool lessons from prisoner Griffin to win over a sexy cheerleader(hottie Dushku) and the usual gross out hi-jinks ensuing. The only inspiredthing about this mess is the casting of crooner Lovett as Qualls’doppleganger dad (!) (Dir: Ed Decter)

You know you’re in movie hell when not only is the feature desperatelyunfunny but it is also reprehensible to the senses. The New Guy is ascreechy new comedy that features DJ Qualls as a geek outcast that tries tomake a name for himself at school. His one goal in life is to get expelled,and after that his ambition is a little hazy. He does make attempts to get adate with a cheerleader by offering money to have some dinner with him.Already, not only is the movie crudely unfunny but the hero is a creep.

The movie flashes to bits of Eddie Griffin as a prison inmate, and he scaresthe guards and just about everyone else by making stunted whiplash noisesthat are pitched from the soundtrack and provided by sound editors. Get it?Everyone around him is whipped because He’s the man! When Qualls findshimself in prison, Griffin takes him from under his wing and shows him theropes, and there is a gag where Qualls is literally climbing the ropes andGriffin lights it up with a match. This isn’t dope comedy, this is comedy ondope.

For the life of me, it is near impossible to make coherent sense of The NewGuy in the way it cuts back between Qualls’ high school experiences andprison. It’s not clear whether they are flashbacks or if he was literallyincarcerated after every misdemeanor he commits at school. Qualls, in one ofhis hijinks, videotapes the school principal on the toilet, while heexperiences diarrhea and feeds the video onto all the school monitors whileclassmates laugh and sneer. Next shot, we find Qualls in prison with noexplanation. The incompetence of this movie has it constantly cutting back and forth withno resolution to logic of what took place in the scene before. There are badmoments and then worse moments, like when the school librarian breaks thecharacter’s penis. See, he had a stiff… oh, forget it. Besides a fairlyamusing parody of Braveheart and a couple of nice scenes with the appealingEliza Dushku (who is just absolutely beautiful!). Tortured beyond belief,one wants to assault the movie screen in revenge. Lucky for you readers, youcan choose from much better movies out there at the Cineplex to go see nowinstead of this one as long as you don’t get locked out of "Spider-Man" orthe new "Star Wars."

"The New Guy" gets off to a very slow start, abusing us with crass humorincluding a teacher getting videotaped as he relieves himself in thebathroom and the main character (literally) getting his penis broken.Yeah,I know. Don’t ask. The cameos are very amusing, including one by GeneSimmonds as a Reverend preaching abstitence. This is an obvious insidejoke, being that Simmonds banged about 5,000 chicks back in his hayday.There are other hilarious cameos, including one at the end that will haveyou on the floor. Eddie Griffin is delightfully amusing as Luther and saysone of the funniest lines: "Prison is a lot like high school: the sex youwant, you don’t get and the sex you get…you don’t want." Unfortunately,the fine actress Illeana Douglas is wasted in a thankless role.

When the film surpasses the 30-minute mark, it becomes harmless and mildlyentertaining. The soundtrack is one of the best soundtracks I’ve heard inawhile, including the great "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins, which somemay remember from "Risky Business" in the Tom Cruise-Rebecca DeMornay lovescene. The minute that song played, I felt like I just received anadrenaline shot, especially after the film’s lame first act. Thecharactersare all cardboard cut-outs and utterly cliched–with the exception ofQualls’s geeky friends, who DON’T belong to the Chess Club and DON’T weargoofy clothing. The minute you see the beautiful head cheerleader, ElizaDushku, going out with the dumb, obnoxious jock–you know exactly howthat’sgonna turn out. But the film’s message is pure. It’s a message that hasbeen expressed in several teen movies, but in "The New Guy" it actuallyplayed off well. That message is not to snub anyone because they may notbeas popular as you and may be much different from you. I couldn’t help butsympathize with Qualls’s character, because I was the underdog in highschool. I was a "blip on the radar screen" as the movie’s character says.And watching him gain popularity, though via stupid reasons, raised myspirits. And I also found it touching when the jocks were picking on themidget and Qualls made them apologize to him. And the last thing thatmakesthis movie somewhat of a guilty pleasure is the many beautiful chicks.I’vesaid before that Eliza Dushku is one of the most beautiful actresses inHollywood, and I stand by my word. In one scene, she marches out thedressing room of a clothing store in all sorts of bikinis and low-cutdresses, modeling them for Qualls. Though I know that would never happen,it’s a great fantasy and I get to see Eliza half-naked! So I ain’tcomplaining. Plus, there’s a lot of gratuitous shots of scantily cladcheerleaders and that chick who plays the town slut is a major babe!

Don’t expect any surprises (minus the cameos). The movie is totallypredictable, but it’s harmless fluff (after the first 30 minutes) thatain’tas torcherous as your average teen flick. It’s a shame that DJ Qualls wentfrom playing the hilarious Kyle on "Road Trip" to the moderately funnyDizzyin this movie, but hopefully his next movie will offer a much better role.One major flaw in this movie is it’s set in Texas (and probably shotsomewhere in California that looks kinda like Texas) and other than LyleLovett and Illeana Douglas, nobody has a Texas accent!

My score: 5 (out of 10)

I had heard a lot of good things about this movie, so I picked up the DVDthe other day. I could only watch about 30 minutes of this movie. Ididn’tfind the humour in it at all, and it was very boring. Scenes like themaincharacter videotaping the principal on the "throne", & the schoolsecretarygrabbing onto the lead character’s erection are just some of the "humour"that’s thrown at you within the first 30 minutes. The humour utilized inmovies nowadays seems to be very "toilet based". It was funny at first insome movies, but now it seems that most of the comedies that have come outlately have all been the same, and that is moronic & crude. What are thebig executives in Hollywood thinking? It seems like they are grasping atstraws to find something funny. I guess the only thing that matters isthatTHEY find movies like "The New Guy" funny. The only good thing about thismovie was Eddie Griffin, but even his usually funny humour was lowered topredictable dribble. I usually like teen comedies, but this one is themostunimpressionable mess that I have seen in a long time!

The best part of this movie is the hottttt Eliza Dushku.The other actors are fair,but hottie Eliza puts the fire into any movie sheis in.The bikini scene alone is worth the rental fee.Eliza Dushku is the hottest actress to never take her clothes off onfilm,although what man wouldn’t want to see this hottie in all her majesticglory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dizzy Harrison(DJ Qualls) is an unpopular, high school geek going through ahellish senior year.

In an attempt to mak
e a new identity for himself, Dizzy gets himselfexpelled from his high school, and learns the techniques of being cool froma prison inmate(Eddie Griffin)

Dizzy enrolls in a new high school under the alias Gil Harris, he makes newfriends and he soon gains respect from the jocks and geeks alike.

Dizzy then gets noticed by the head cheerleader Danielle(Eliza Dushku) andhelps the school football team gain self-respect to win games.

But things turn bad when Danielle’s angry boyfriend begins investigatinginto Gill/Dizzy’s past to uncover any dirt on him.

Also in the cast is Zooey Deschanel, Lyle Lovett, Horatio Sanz and IlleanaDouglas.

The Script by David Kendall was rather lousy and Ed Decter Directing is rockbottom.

There are cameo’s from Jerry and Charlie O’Connel, Henry Rollins, Tony Hawk,Kool Moe Dee, Jermaine Dupri and Tommy Lee.

Then we get some really over the top cameo’s with Vanilla Ice, Gene Simmonsand David Hasselhoff.

Despite funny performances from DJ Qualls, Eddie Griffin and Eliza DushkuThe New Guy Falls flat.

Most of the jokes are rather lousy, but it does manage to pull out a funnyscene or two.

But most jokes really just fall flat.

The only scene really worth watching is when Eliza Dushku is changing frombikini to bikini or something really tight.

Eliza Dushku is very sexy, but she can’t even save the movie though she doescome close with the scene in the bikini’s.

The New Guy reminds me of a lousy version of Can’t Buy Me Love with PatrickDempsey.

The jokes are few and far between

I give The New Guy 3/10

In order to be popular, a geek gets lessons in cool from EddieGriffin.

Lame and Lamerer.DJ Qualls is a real wiener, and you want this guy to gethis butt kicked.And whats up with Lyle Lovett.

Rating:*1/2 (out of five)

New Guy, The (2002) DJ Qualls, Eliza Dushku, Eddie Griffin, Zooey Deschanel,Jerod Mixon, Parry Shen, Lyle Lovett, Sunny Mabrey, Horatio Sanz, IlleanaDouglas, D: Ed Decter. Not another tried formula: Teen Qualls was a skinnyzero before he spent a year in prison, now he’s an aggressive stud at adifferent high school and becomes part of the `cool’ kids. Will theydiscover his true identity? This one aims for the bonfire where it presentsitself with uncreative writing and an overshare of extremely unfunny penisjokes. Who makes these uninspiring repeats? Running Time: 89 minutes andrated PG-13 for vulgarity, sexual content, and some language. * ½

WEll, I give this movie a 5 out of ten for the film itself, I thought itwasfunny,and just plain fun.the other 5 is because Eliza is in it! therefore it gets a 10 forme!

Eliza makes this film worth seeing!…..(referencing the :bikini:scene)

OK it's pretty obvious that this film is awful. In fact I only watchedit because I mistook it for The New Guy 2003 The first real mistake ofthe film is the casting (I won't comment on Eddie Griffin, his name isenough of a trademark for bad films) -the so-called 'New Guy', DJQuills, is a pretty bad choice under so many aspects. First of all, heis far too old for the part -which is pretty common, but what makes itmuch worse here is that this guy already looks ten years older than heactually is. Then, I have to say that even if I don't usually pay toomuch attention to this, here the lack of a decent script and anythinganyway funny forced me to dwell on the protagonist's ugliness. This guyis far too abominably looking for any part!! How could he ever bebelievable in the role of the charming new guy?! The script doesn'thelp him either. The situations are recycled from whatever z-seriesAmerican comedy, with easy jokes (people recorded while at the toilet)and tired stereotypes (cheerleaders, the jerk boyfriend, everyone inthe high school behaving as a lobotomised mass). And where on earthcould it be funny to see a super-skinny guy dressed as a general on afootball pitch, throwing pseudo-quotes around?? More than that: do wereally believe that that's going to make him popular in a high school??The only actually funny parts were when the protagonist was beingbeaten up. They were trite and predictable, but at least that annoyingskinny guy got what he deserved for a while. I have to admit: I didn'tmanage to watch through the whole film, so I might have missed someeven more awful parts. Sorry about that. But I tried to watch a fewscenes here and there, to see where it was heading (Nowhere).

read comments (0)

The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter

In short, Neverending story II was a travesty compared to the original. itdoesn’t have the same magic as the first, instead it has a cheap Hollywoodsmell…and bad acting to boot. the creatures are all poorly designed(except the returning ones from the original). i found myself thinkingabout other stuff while watching the movie because the whole plot wastotally inconsequential. i can imagine how wolfgang petersen (the directorof the first) must’ve felt after this was released. of course he didn’tdirect this one. if he did, i’m sure it would’ve been much better. i gaveup about 3/4 of the way through when i realized i better things to do withmy day. bare in mind though that i absolutely loved the original. it isdefinitely one of the top five fantasy films. go see it…but not thisone.

I started watching this one, not expecting much to being with, given a totalorverhaul of the cast (except for the bookstore owner) and an opportunity tocash in on the brilliance of the first one.

There didn’t seem to be any reason to make a sequel. It was more like, whatwould happen if we could rewrite the first story? In the Never Ending StoryII, Bastian plays a kid in need of a lot of confidence and some affectionfrom his dad. But so did Bastian in the first one, who, by the end of thefilm, learned to build up said confidence and all of that. In other words,Bastian #1 learned all the lessons that the adventure of the first film wasmeant to teach him (and Atreyu as well, being his counterpart). But then, inthe second part, you would never know that any of the character buildingexisted, as they had written Bastian #2 as an inconfident kid who has to gothrough the adventures once again to learn all of those lessons…again.What was the point?

And, unlike the other great qualities of the first, namely special effects,which made the first one really terrific (and really terrific for anyfantasy film), the sequel has special effects comparable to a Dinsey musicalout of the 1960s. In addition to all of that, the acting was prettypathetic.

I just didn’t see any necessity to the Never Ending Story sequels other thana profit motive. But audiences who really enjoyed everything the first onehad to offer, were likely not to enjoy the sequels because they lacked somuch of that richness the first one had.

After the first one i had high expectations for this sequel, but it becameatrue disappointment !I almost couldn´t believe what i was seeing. I kept remembering thesituations in the book and hoping that when the movie got to that partthings would be better. Instead itonly got worst, because this movie kept destroying every good idea of theoriginal story.Never a brilliant book was so ripped apart !!

The soundtrack is the best thing in this movie. It is REALLY good, withsomebeautiful moments.It´s sad to see a such a good musical score wasted in a movie like this.This music should have been part of theoriginal Neverending Story, not on this disgrace of a sequel.

This movie has a very good atmosphere, very close to the first one, but wecan thank the soundtrack for it.

The production design is also very good too, but we getthefeeling that the designers weren´t allowed to dream much, because in thismovie there aren´t as many imaginative locations as in the originalmovie.The world of FANTASIA doesn´t look magnificent and vast anymore. It justlooks ok.

And that is one of the worst things about it, because thesecondpart of the novel is the one which has the most fantastic locations of thebook. Wonders could have been done with it, that would easily surpasseveryscene in NEVERENDING STORY I.Why was it kept so simple ?!!

I bet, because in some Hollywood executives head, as usual, Fantasy isjustfor children and children are too stupid to care about changes inbooks.

If there is a diference between the original NEVERENDING STORY, and thissequel , is that we clearly see that the first one was made as achildren’smovie but for adults to enjoy, specially the adults who readfantasy.The original achieved the impossible, delivering a movie thatdidn´t treat adults nor children as idiots.

Something that doesn´t happens with NEVERENDING STORY II, which is clearlyintended to be a kids movie, something between Disney meetsNeverending.

Every line of dialogue seems to be written to be " Way COOL ! " and funandnot to serve the original story.

And the new cast has a big trouble. The new BASTIAN, isgood, and it could have been in the original movie, but the new ATREIÙ, issimply unbelievable AWFUL !Who did ever choose this kid to play Atreiù ?!! WHY ?!!He´s too city american to play a character like that !

This kid seems to think he´s in America all the time, not in a fantasyworld! He acts more as if he were in Brooklyn than in Fantasia.

This must have been one of the worst castings in recent moviehistory.This kid simply isn´t convincing at all. Sometimes we can almost feel thathe´s going to ask for a Hamburger !I wouldn´t be surprised to see a McDonalds somewhere in a landscape inthismovie !

Even the creatures don´t look half as real as they used to.

And that bird ! WHAT IS THAT ?!!! ROCKBITTER with a son ?!!! Where didthatcome from ?!This movie would be the worst adaptation of a book ever, but unfortunatelywehave NEVERENDING STORY III for that.And i thought things couldn´t get worst.

But if we forget about the book for a moment, is this movie any good?That´s what´s upsetting about it.In fact it isn´t bad at all. If we forget this is NEVERENDING STORY, thisisan above average Hollywood fantasy production. Better than many things outthere .It has atmosphere, better story than the usual for an americanfantasy movie, an excellent soundtrack and it´s entertaining towatch.So i can´t totally hate it as a fantasy movie.

As NEVERENDING STORY, it´s very bad, and a total waste of an amazingstory.

SO, everybody,if you have to see this, READ THE BOOK first, because you´llnever forget it. It´s that good ! And you will appreciate better what wasNOTdone with this movie.

But in the end ,there are worst things you could watch, so it isn´t thatbad.NEVERENDING STORY II, is just a good fantasy film which could have been afantasy masterpiece, but missed the oportunity in an unforgivingway.Anyway, it´s not bad.

Number III. Now, that´s REAL BAD !

OK-There are so many things about this film that bug me, I don’t even knowwhere to start. So here is my list of questions about this horrible excusefor entertainment:1. Why is Bastien’s dad like, 10 years younger than he was in the 1stmovie?2.Why is the Childlike Empress still called that? Why doesn’t she use hernew name?3.I thought the Empress told Bastien he could have as many wishes as hewanted in the first movie. Why doesn’t he do this?4.Why does Atreyu now look like a real Native American and not a pastyBritish kid?5.What is Bastien’s mom’s name anyway?6.Why did they even think about making this movie?7.Why did they cast Jonathan Brandis?8.Why’d they make ANOTHER sequel?9.What happened to the magic of the first movie?10.Why are Atreyu and Bastien so touchy in this movie? They get all uptight about the dumbest stuff.Yeah, to make it simple, this movie blows.

‘The Neverending Story 2′ is the sequel to the first film. It wasweaker than the original with an even slower plot, and this sequel didnot really add anything new. Again, there are the strange characters,including a giant flying dog which transports the young hero around.Again, the film is pretty low-budget in terms of production, and it isvery slow in places. Overall, it is a weaker film that the original. Idid not enjoy it nearly as much, but I do not remember too much aboutit as I saw it when I was much younger. I do know that adults would b
ebored of this. It is a children’s film, and if you did not like thefirst one, then do not even bother with this one.

Painfully bad second helping of the rancid fantasy that is 'TheNeverending Story', this one has Jonathan Brandis taking over fromBarrett Oliver as the young kid who enters the horrendous panto land ofFantasia through a magical story book. Absolutely NOTHING works in thisappalling misfire – the costumes, animatronic characters, productiondesign, even the character names are abysmal; movies like this aresupposed to be enchanting and magical, but nobody here has the faintestclue how to accomplish that, so the movie becomes a rotten stew ofsecond hand fantasy and puerile moralising. The script is insincere,sugary and false, the pace is sluggish, the visual effects incompetent,the sets cheesy, the puppets poorly designed, and the whole thing justcollapses under the weight of its own banality. The only bearableelements are the scenes set in the real world, and bits of RobertFolk's score.

I saw this movie at a theatre in London, and it is my least favoritememoryof that trip. The first movie was incredible - the book absolutelyamazing.I had high hopes - and it ruined them all. Read the book. See TheNeverEnding Story. Forget this movie exists.

Yep, sadly, since the original was one of the best movies ever made. Iguess, I could repeat the critics that other users had, but I won’t…sinceall of them are correct (the bad one, offcourse:)

If I wasn’t a movie critic, i would leave the cinema, right after i sawthefirst 15 minutes of the movie. I’ve hoped for the best, when story movedtoFantasia, but NO, the story gets even dumber. Princess Xayide…What thehell is that? A Disney movie? I better not mention the plastic operationsthat Bastians father had after the first part?

Is there anything good in this movie, beside pathetic acting? Well, if Itryhard, i could mention a joke or two (Bastian :"Give me five!", Atreyu:"Fiveof what?), that brought a little smile on my mouth; what eventually helpedthe movie for not receiving awful 1 of 10 rating. O.K. And there’s againmusic from "the genius" Giorgo Moroder; sadly not even half as good as inthe part one.

2 out of 10 (with a ticket to the 10 worst sequels evermade)

Honestly, I was looking forward to watching this film. What a load ofgarbage it turned out to be… so disappointing! I am a Netflix member,& have been taking advantage of it mainly for the sake of watchingnostalgic movies from my childhood. Upon watching the original TheNeverending Story, I was delighted & so pleased with how entertainingit is, even for a twenty-one year old such as myself. Well, I hadenjoyed the sequel as a youngster, so I figured it would be the samecase. Too bad it wasn't… at all. Oh, no.

I don't even know where to start, so, here's a list of why youshouldn't waste your time watching this film:

• The acting, or lack thereof, is absolutely laughable. Not just withthe case of one actor, either; it was everybody. Atreyu, Bastian, Mr.Bux, Xayide, Childlike Empress, even that obnoxious Nimbly. Yikes.

• The monsters are entirely unoriginal… The Dark Crystal, anyone?

• Weak, undeveloped plot & concepts. The emptiness? Give me a break.Memory balls? Who has that few memories? I was so unconvinced.

• The dialogue was also poor… I was bored out of my mind by anyexchange between the characters.

• Additionally, that Rockbiter baby is so annoying. I regret notfast-forwarding through that sequence.

I felt that this movie could have been somewhat exceptional, but itjust stopped short with everything. If the people who made this filmhad just worked harder at making it close to the superior quality ofthe preceding film, then it could have been worthwhile. Alas…

Awful, Awful, Awful…

This movie should not have been made. When I rented this movie a few yearsago I thought: "Wow, a sequel to the first movie! Cool!" It was not cool.The story sucked and the actors to. Why didn’t they keep the original cast?And the music! In the first movie it’s a wonderful soundtrack but in thisit’s like they had a Yamaha synth and just banged at it…

When I saw it the first time I was only 8 years so I gave it a secondchancelast week. It was even worse this time! No I noticed the so called"effects"they had in the movie. The worst things I have ever seen. Why?

Don’t see this movie. See the first one, but skip the rest!

read comments (0)

The Missing

I had high hopes for this film based primarily on my admiration of RonHoward’s prior body of work, but my hopes were dashed by a lousy script,marginal acting, and generally a story that didn’t really go anywhere. Thetale was so trite that it didn’t really warrant being turned into a film.Man leaves family to live with Indians. Man returns to see abandoneddaughter twenty years later. Man not at all repentent. Daughter not at allforgiving. Grand-daughter gets kidnapped by Indians. Army can’t help intimeto save child. Non-forgiving mother accepts help of non-repentent fathertotrack grand-daughter’s captors in hopes of reclaiming grand-daughterbeforeshe is sold into servitude in Mexico. The storyline goes flat from thatpoint on. The tracking of the captors is standard fare. And the dialogbetween the father/daughter is supposed to be reflective and supposedlyhealing during the tracking, but it comes across as neither. It’s flat.WhyTommy Lee Jones is considered an A-list actor is beyond me. Here was hischance to truly convey some emotion on the screen in a subtle yet powerfulmanner, but he failed miserably. Put him back in his element: surroundedbyspecial effects that distract from his lack of acting ability. CateBlanchett’s performance was "okay" but it was like a joke without apunchline: it was hanging out there waiting for the dialog and the otherlead actor (Jones) to make it meaningful. On the whole, don’t botherseeingthis film. I hope Ron Howard rebounds and returns to making memorablefilmsworth my $8 plus popcorn and soda.

Kind of a western version of GI Jane. People inevitably compare thisgarbage to The Searchers but that isn’t fair. The Searchers is probably thebest western of all time. This movie is at the other end of the spectrum. I could list all the accoutrements of revisionist history in this flick butI won’t bother. Suffice to say the tough female hero of this turkey is moreof a man than any man is. And believe me, that gets old after a shortwhile. Yes, she’s chopping wood. Doctoring the poor who can’t pay. Isbi-lingual. And if that wasn’t enough, she’s gods gift to heterosexual men. A true role model for feminist, (of any era.)

Even if like Tommy Lee Jones, don’t bother with this piece oftrite.

Ron Howard fulfills a dream to make a western but doesn’t seem to beable to make up his mind if this was a western, a thriller or a familyyarn. I was very disappointed with this film because I had heard it wasworth five stars out of five, but after watching it, I gave it six outof ten !!

It’s lovely to watch, great scenery, Cate Blanchett is superb and TommyLee Jones is great as her father, but to begin with, the daughter theyare searching for is a little toe rag and I was thinking that it wouldbe better for everyone concerned if she stayed away. She evoked nosympathy in me whatever, however the other little girl was cocky andshone above some of the adult parts. I loved her without the actressbecoming precocious.

You get to see far too much of the villain’s in this piece for the filmto work as a thriller. There is no suspense. What begins as horriblycruel and disturbing becomes ‘oh not again’ when they reappear tenminutes later in another scene.

This is obviously not the genre (Thrillers) for Ron Howard and betterhe stay with what he’s worked on before, "Beautiful Mind", "Cocoon" etcand leave supernatural alone. The script is so-so and the music isbeautiful but it doens’t rate very highly with me, sadly.

James Horner, I have only one thing to say to you…stop cannibalizingscores from your other films because you’re too lazy to compose anentirely new soundtrack! You did it in Mask of Zorro, stealing wholeparts of the Willow soundtrack. Now, in The Missing, you put in largeparts of The mask of Zorro, which was stolen from Willow in the firstplace! How many times are you going to retread the same old pipe music?Do you think that people are too stupid to notice?! That aside, thismovie didn’t quite gel for me. It wanted to be too many things, andwasn’t enough of any of them. To start with, I saw very little emotionbetween Cate Blanchett’s healer ‘Maggie’, and her restless andfrivolous daughter Evan Racher Wood ‘Lily’. More, Cate didn’t seem asunsettled by her father’s (Tommy Lee Jones) reappearance as she shouldhave been, considering the fact that he’d run out on her and her mothermany years ago. But then, everything in the film has a rather gray,listless cast to it. It’s pretty scenery, but that’s about it. I didn’tsympathize much with Lily when she was taken by the renegade Apaches tobe sold down in Mexico, because I sincerely didn’t like her. And twiceduring the film, she could’ve gotten away. Once, she could have left byherself. But instead, she unties the crazed mother with the dead child,then gives the woman a gun! The woman promptly shoots herself, and Lilyis recaptured. I was gritting my teeth by then. And then, when theApache comes to rescue his daughter-in-law and Lily, she screamsbecause she sees the cross he’s carrying, that her mother had given tohim so that she’d know he was trustworthy! He promptly gets killed bythe kidnappers, and Lily and the Apache girl are recaptured. I wantedto shoot the girl myself by then. She was so annoying and stupid thatthe whole rescue party didn’t seem worthwhile. There are a lot ofgruesome scenes that seem to have been thrown in just to convince youthat this is a ’serious’ and ‘gritty’ film. They’re mostly gratuitousand just take up too much time that could be spent forwarding the plot.And the Brujo, or witch, isn’t terribly frightening-Howard seemed tothink that horribly scarring and pitting his face would make up for thefact that his personality just doesn’t seem twisted or frighteningenough. All of the characters seem half asleep, running on empty. Andone thing I found really disturbing was how much weight Cate Blanchetthas lost. She looked like an animated stick figure in her clothes, withher cheekbones jutting out under her skin. Maybe the Brujo put a curseon her like the one in Thinner?

The Missing features two major stars in the US film industry, CateBlanchett and Tommy Lee Jones. Jones plays a partially deranged, loneApache American Indian who returns to his own history by meeting upwith his daughter (who he presumably abandoned after ‘killing hiswife’) Mrs. Blanchett as usual performs to her utmost; a fanaticalChristian who is completely against the ‘Injun’ ways, and the underusedMr. Jones is a tired grumbling fellow who resents revealing his lovefor his family. There is a series of trying confrontations betweenJones and his daughter, Blanchett – but the movie only begins here.

Without revealing too much detail, I want to discuss the sort oframifications the film has, and the sort of interesting take on life inthe west, post Civil War. There is a sort of good-Indian, bad-Indianroles, which play out in a pretty stereotypical way. The bad-Indiansare the perpetrators behind a sex-slavery ring (the historical basismust be questioned, especially since this film goes beyond a classic"B" or "Spaghetti" western in the sense that realism is the goal, andsemi-historical fictionalization) In any case, the film mixes oddvoodoo behaviors of the evil Apaches with the good counter-eviltechniques of Jones, who, albeit being an evident ’sinner’ stillretains some qualities to be admired.

The director has produced a mixed feeling – as an audience, we mighthate the Apaches, for even Jones leaves much to be desired as a human.We are awed by their mystical properties, their chanting, magical dust,and amazing healing ability. There is little ‘human’ about the Apaches,as far the way the director has portrayed them. This is a seriousdistraction from the film which makes us purposely resent a group ofpeople we need not, and must not.

The films essential and predicable blood, gore, and portrayal of miseryare nevertheless evocative, along with the Hollyw
ood ending.

"Do you want to risk both of your kids’ lives to save just one ofthem?" RATING : 4/10

It could have been so good. Tommy Lee Jones and whatserface in amiddlebrow production, but somehow the only feeling I am left with ispain.

The pain of sitting through such prolonged meanderings. OK, to be fair,I watched it on TV, and there were quite a few adverts, which neverhelps, but when a character shot themselves to end the agony, I couldreally relate to that decision.

If they cut about 45 minutes from this film, apart from giving me timeto make a sandwich, it could really have improved the pace. The reasonI am a bit miffed about this indigestible offering is that I satthrough it into the small hours, with fairly unconvincing backgroundcharacterisation - which is OK if the action and plot developments keepup, but they just didn't.

I fought sleep for this schtinker, and I only wish I had lost.

When I first read the box I thought wow a new kind of Western..sadlythat was not the case..the description was misleading..viewers can andwill draw the wrong conclusion..every time..two people at the countersaid the same thing when I returned the movie "this movie was a hugelet down" what I would like to know is where is the alleged shapeshifter?..it never happens!what you see instead is a butt ugly Indianwho relies on ancient Indian voodoo to victimize his enemies…the onlygood thing about this movie is Tommy Leee Jones! I do NOT recommendthis movie unless you are a Tommy Lee fan..In my opinion thedescription ruined the movie..had it been more honest my expectationswould not have been soo high..a true let down!

Director Ron Howard strikes gold again with an intense western dramabased on a novel by Thomas Eidson. The screenplay is the work of KenKaufman and New Mexico provides some very awesome scenery. The story isset in the 1880’s when after a long disappearance a father(Tommy LeeJones)finds the family he left behind. His daughter(Cate Blanchett)isnot so pleased with her father’s return and intends to allow him tostay long enough to receive some medical attention and then move on.When one of her two daughters is kidnapped for Mexican slave/sex trade,she agrees to accept her father and his Native American ways to findthe girl. The father and daughter team proves to be a force to bereckoned with. A dramatic heartfelt finale complete with sadness andthe reinforcement of independence leaves you throughly entertained.Also in the cast are: Evan Rachel Wood, Jenna Boyd, Steve Reevis, JayTavare, Sergio Calder and a cameo role for Val Kilmer.

I like Cate Blanchett and Tommy Lee Jones, but this movie was tooboringly predictable for me. I have to admit that the fact that theback of the DVD referred to the brujo as a "shapeshifter" is what keptme watching. I kept thinking, "So…when’s he gonna shift shapes?" OK,so that’s what they called them back then. Still, if the brujo hadactually done some shape shifting, it would have been a little moreexciting. It was just another western…howbeit, with a more uniquestoryline…but it was too predictable and the characters were notdeveloped enough for me to sympathize with any of them. I’ve seen muchbetter from Ron Howard.

This movie is so far from being any kind of classic, it’s not even funny.Which kills me, because I love Cate Blanchett, I love THE SEARCHERS (whichremotely, very remotely inspired it) and I loved the trailer, whichsuggested a kind of Horror-Thriller-Western hybrid that might have worked,had it been done right.

The blame goes to Ron Howard, who has got to be a candidate for theshallowest directing this side of Don Taylor. Now, Howard knows whatsubstance is supposed to look and sound like, he just doesn’t know whatsubstance is. This is not just a problem with THE MISSING, it’s a problemwith every picture Howard ever made. But THE MISSING, not having a verystrong script to begin with, stumbles and collapses under Howard’s emptyheavy-handedness.

THE MISSING also suffers from that worst of current Hollywood maladies,EXTREME AND UNNECESSARY LENGTH! At 90 minutes, it might have been a niftylittle thriller. At 136 minutes, it wallows and succumbs by trying tobecome "an important motion picture".

Here’s a suggestion, when they make the DVD, offer the public two versionsof the picture accessible through seamless branching: the theatricalversionas directed by Mr. Howard, plus the version that would have been directedbythe guy who made the trailer. Now there’s somebody who knows what he’sdoing.

read comments (0)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most overrated series in Hollywood’s history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

The Island

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

Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good:

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

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

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

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

The action. Of course.

The bad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)