The Tuxedo

If you watch this movie expecting another Rumble in the Bronx, Mr NiceGuy,or Super Cop, you will be disappointed. If you expect a Bond-like movie,youwill be disappointed too. And if you expect brilliant dialogue and indepthconversations, sorry to say, you will be disheartened. But if you wantsomegood, family fun, with scenes that will enthrall the whole family, themoviedelievers. The Tuxedo, film starring the ever-so entertaining Jackie Chanand beautiful, seductive Jennifer Love Hewitt, is a bit of Rush Hourintermingled with Bondesque technology plus some of Jackie’s "good’ ole"martial arts action. When I watched this movie, I found the beginning tobeconfusing because I didn’t realize the point of the movie until the moviegot going, which took some time. Kids will enjoy the juvenille humor bits,while adults will yawn and smirk at times. I must say, most of the"humor,"is target at children and not adults. Oncec I learned that the movie wasabout water, I have to say, I thought that this would be a pointlessmovie,which of course it was. But don’t let this get to you, because I wasthorougly entertained throughout the whole thing. Well, lets get to thegood part…..When Love Hewitt first appears on the scene, she is a bit annoying andtoofake sounding as she rambles off her "watered-down" facts. But I guessher role is the be the sexy sidekick of Jackie who can kick some arse, andact womanly at the same time. Adult men will definitely find her presenceinthe movie enjoyable, especially when the two are undercover at parties.Since I’m partial to JLH, a devoted fan I am, I basically watched thismoviefor her. If you are too, the movie will be well worth the $6 dollarsspent.

I won’t divulge too much about the movie, but I’ll say that there aremany humorous and action-packed scenes that involve the tuxedo, which issome government project designed for Jackie’s boss, who is a secret agent.There was something confusing about the movie that I did’t get. Near theend, Love takes the tuxedo from Jackie and acts as though he stole it. Shelater does something unusual with the tuxedo, and that whole premise oftaking it from Jackie was distorted. Maybe you can figure it out when youwatch it. There are a few sweet moments in the movie as well, especiallywhen Love reveals a side of her that many seemingly arrogrant people havewithin. As a fan of hers, I know that its a part of herself, so I foundthatwarming. Well, any of you that go watch the movie, dont expect too much,andjust relax and laugh when you feel like it. With a name like the Tuxedo,youknow it cant be high-class 6 out of 10

Realy one of his best movies ,it is like every movie that he delivers withAction, Funny Type movies but this time whith Dreamwoke prodaction and agood director the movie is realy good and specialy for Jackie Chan Fansthey will Love it !!! don’t miss this one ,,

Okay - if you are familiar with Jackie Chan’s Hollywood work at all,you’llhave a pretty good idea what to expect here. Cheesy effects, hokey jokes,and high action are the Chan trademarks and they’re all present andaccounted for in this film.

I would say that if you’re looking for a good popcorn film, or just somemindless entertainment to amuse yourself — this is the show to see. Fundate film, and a great film for the teen set.

If you’re looking for intrigue, thrills, whodunit or edge of your seatnailbiting - this ain’t it. It’s pure light fun that doesn’t even botherwith a plausible plot.

If you’re looking for something like Rumble in the Bronx (Chan’s best inmyeyes - though I’m no expert) - this ain’t it either.

However - it is a fun way to spend a day - and it’s worthy of a rainyafternoon, especially in the midst of the dry season we seem to be havingat the movies lately.

I give the flick a 6/10 for its sheer will to entertain us. It’s notoriginal, but it is fun. Besides - a shot of Hewitt’s cleavage shouldthrill the teen set immensely.

Sadly, this isn’t Jackie Chan’s best nor even good movie. The pacing andplot seems to fall apart about a fourth of the way into the movie becomingdumb and dumber. What audiences expect from Jackie Chan doesn’t get fullplay here and the best part of the movie is Chan’s famous closing credits.Hewitt gets some great lines and acting parts and saves the movie frombecoming a complete waste. The movie had potential, the number of funnylines are numerous, and the effort laudable, but unfortunately, neitherHewitt nor Chan can save this movie. More of Devlin’s presence, thesuperspy, would have been helpful in a movie such as this but Chan had tosuffer having to somehow carry the whole load of the irony in this movie,better shared with another actor.

it is hard to describe this film without giving away story elements, buttobe safe,the story is about a technological type of tuxedo, which gives manyskillsto whowears it, selecting via a digital watch.

The plot is silly, the story is stupid, yet it will entertain any viewer.Afilm not to betaken seriously, there are enough gags and funny moments to make thisfilmworth viewing;

definitely a rental movie.

7/10

Well, I went into the theaters with the excitement, because there was anewJackie Chan movie. I left the theater somewhat puzzled, because I didn’tseea Jackie Chan movie.

This is not a Jackie Chan movie in the traditional sense. Jackie Chanmoviesare the great ones such as Police Story, First Strike, The Drunken Masterseries and Rumble In The Bronx. The Tuxedo is an American ‘action’ comedythat just so happens to have Chan in it.

All the stunts were done with wires, and it is very apparent. There ismaybe5-10 minutes of fighting and even then stupid American directing ruinsthem.Too much editing and cutting, and the camera is too close, so much of thefighting is lost.

JLH did not belong in the movie; she just doesn’t fit IN the movie. It wasan extremely odd match up. Although she provides the movie’s eye candy, Iwould rather have the good fights and stunts that the typical Jackie Chanmovies are known for.

The story is somewhat weak, there was aweak buildup of what was supposed to be a real evil villain.

I left the theater disappointed because I saw a really bad action movie.Maybe Jackie will go make some Chinese movies again so there can beanothergood Jackie Chan movie. Not this poor substitute.

I can’t stress this fact enough; this is not a Jackie Chan movie. This isanAmerican ‘Action’ Comedy, which happens to star Jackie Chan. Littlefighting, no true stunts, lots of wirework, and a poor story. I recommendjust renting some of his better movies instead.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I didn’t mind the silly plot. JackieChan is a natural for physical comedy, I think. His timing is alwaysperfectand he was fun to watch. But Jennifer Love Hewitt is the reason, I think,that this movie is only fair. She just sleep-walks through the movie.It’sone thing to play a woman trying to be emotionless and another toactuallyBE emotionless. There is no chemistry whatsoever between her and anyotheractor in the movie, much less between her and Chan. I’d like to see asequel, without Hewitt.

This is not really a great Jackie Chan flick. Not the same high impactstunts we are used too . We also didn’t get to see his funny side asmuch.He does however have a pretty good James Brown scene.Although Jennifer Love Hewitt is incedibly gourgeous, she can’t fight herway out of a paper bag. She looked totally out of place and slowed JackieChan down.

Wait for the DVD !

Jackie Chan has reached a new low. I didn’t thought he could do worse thanRush Hour 2, but he sure proved me wrong. This film is amongst the mostlousy I have seen in my entire life!!.

It’s even worse than his old american attempts (The Prospector and BattleCreek Brawl)… Hell it’s even
worse than some of Jet li stupid americanmovies. I simply don’t understand how he could ever do this film.

I’m a big fan, and have seen all his Hong Kong movies (loved them all),butsince he hit America it has just been one crappy film after another. Hehaven’t made a good film since Accidental Spy - Now I’m just lookingforwardto the next chinese production; The Medallion.

Avoid this movie, and most likely the next 1000 american Jackie Chanfilms

PS. Sammo come back and save this guy (I just hope Gordon Chan cananyway)

and regret doing so. Thank God it was only a dollar to rent. The only goodscenes were the outtakes. The whole movie seemed unrehearsed andamatuerish.This was a bad Chan movie. I suppose he’s allowed one bad movie perlifetime. Don’t do it again, Jackie!

read comments (0)

The Milagro Beanfield War

Spoilers??

First 20 minutes or so may turn away some. So don’t judge the movie on thefirst 20 minutes. It does get better.

I did think some of the white’s took some of the power away from the Milagropeople. The white characters really served little purpose. This isprobably the only movie of Christopher Walken’s that you can’t tell if he’sa jacka** or not. First he shoots at the lead character and then someonetells him to uncuff him. Being true to Walken’s nature you’d think he’d besmiling right up to the point where he kills the guy. But he doesn’t andfollows orders.. Not to mention it’s got a rather conflicting ending. I really don’t knowwhat the directors intention is. Either the old man’s going to take ashortcut to the party or the angel’s taking him to heaven. You try tofigure it out.

6/10

Quality: 7/10Entertainment: 4/10Replayable: 4/10

It seems unlikely that anyone could do a better job turning this book intoamovie. There is just too much content in the book and too little time inthemovie, too much story in the book and too little depth in the movie, etc.This movie is probably as good as it gets, but it damns the book with itsmediocrity.

When I first read about this film I thought I would enjoy, It lookedoffbeatand has an excellent cast. I was wrong, what I got was a boring,pointlessmess of a movie. I think the problem was actually Redford’s directing,everything seemed so boring and out of place. The only unique thingaboutthis film was the casting, not to say that most of the actors werentmiscast, because they were but Redford put unknown actors in the lead,and"name" actors in smaller supporting roles, I thought that was aninterestingtouch. Overall a very lame movie. *1/2 out of *****.

This started off so well, with some absolutely beautiful New Mexicoscenery, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, they were dashed the rest ofthe way as director Robert Redford had to shout his Left Wing politicsloud and clear in our face.

So what we wind up with is a low-down, dishonest greedy Right Wing bigbusinessman running the poor little guys out of town and only thosegood-guy liberal activist minorities saving the day. We even get a doseof Christian bigotry here where those poor picked-on-pagan gods are runout by Christians! Well, you just know what side is going to win: yes,those wonderful left wingers, adored by the film industry.

This VHS went into a garbage can where it belonged. Adios!!

This fantasy story has some of the best cinematography ever seen. Redford,always a perfectionist, went over budget on this film and it was a big flop.However, it is still an enjoyable moving and the cinematography isbreathtaking. The story of a little community in New Mexico being bulliedover by a big businessman looking for profit in the southwestern desert.These natives stand up for themselves through the help of a small timefarmer who ignores the water laws and irrigates his beanfield. The film islifted with the performances of the two old men who have very uniquepersonalities. Also, you will never fall so much in love with a pig, withthe exception of Babe. The Milagro Beanfield War is a very entertaining andenjoyable film.

I have been reading IMDb reviews for several months, but this is thefirst time I have felt a need to add one of my own. This is mostly aresponse to the detractors of this film. Since Milagro is one of myfavourite movies I have ever seen, I was amazed at the vitriol itinspired in some people. At first it made me angry — but then, it justmade me sad to know that so many people are so ignorant of real life,and of the magical realities that exist in this mundane world. Thisfilm is probably the most real film about the most real people I haveever seen. Fat, rich, and greedy white men do indeed oppress goodpeople of colour and limited means all over the world all the time, andI suspect that the critic's vitriol had its base in the fact that thismovie so effectively portrays this oppression. To anyone who wants aninspiring, witty, funny, and heartfelt story about the 'little man' whosuccessfully stands up to the Machine, this movie is a must see.

There is a soundtrack for the movie, I own it and it's great. It's notas good as the movie and includes a few that are just the backgroundstuff but there is some excellent music. keep searching, I bought minea while ago (mid 80's?).

The movie is one of my favorites and I'd recommend it to anyone. It'salso a great movie to watch with a chic. They like the romantic aspectsand the drama while the guys like the comedy and the 'chase'. It's abit like British comedy in that there are a lot of subtle jokes but itis thoroughly entertaining for men as well as women.

I need one more line of text so here it is . . . one more line of text.

A small town of mostly Mexican residents is about to be ruined by aland developer who has visions of hotels, motels, condos, and skilodges dancing in his head. The few hundred men and women in Milagroare divided about what to do. Some see construction jobs bringing inmoney and excitement. Others feel that "our town is a family." Thedeveloper and his team of henchmen are all in this together, but theconflict between the townspeople grows until an accidental shootingtakes place. The main mean guy, Christopher Walken, hunts down theaccidental shootist, Chick Vennera, but the victim of the shootingrecovers and refuses to press charges. Richard Bradford is the head ofthe development company and gives up his attempt to buy the land,raging against his advisers. This summary makes it sound like someangry docu-drama, but it's a surprisingly gentle and whimsical movie.

This is a kind of tricky area to deal with in any kind of fiction. Thetendency is to make the villagers and the interlopers generic. How manytimes have we seen these romanticized peasants? They always go abouttheir business in a languid informal manner. They sing a lot. They eatwith gusto. They don't mind a drink now and then. They have a greatsense of humor and a mystical feeling for the land. Often there's ahighly respected, or at any rate easily tolerated, dotty ancient man orwoman.

And how often have we seen the equivalent of these land developers?They dress in suits and ties. They're full of guile. They press the lawto its limits and maybe a little beyond. They have no particularfeelings for each other. Their only interest is pelf.

The director, Robert Redford, doesn't entirely avoid these clichés, buthe keep them about as toned down as this kind of story permits. Some ofthe actors aren't that convincing, but Christopher Walken certainly is.Every performance he gives seems like a polished gem. The film hasvirtues beyond the plot and the other usual elements. The photographycaptures a magnificent landscape. Not staggeringly majestic — not theGrand Canyon — not that raw — but a silent and self-satisfied oceanof pinyon and juniper clotted rolling hills. You can almost smell thePinesol.

Alas, though, the tony resort development is a canard. That's not theproblem facing these small-town good guys. It's the people who aregoing to live in those condos and ski on those slopes that present theproblem and the problem extends far beyond the town limits of Milagroor even San Juan County. And it's not a pleasant problem to contemplatebecause it involves us.

The people who will live in those condos must live somewhere, and someday they will have to live here, and, as the local editor, John Heard,points out, they'll demand clean water and restaurants. Taxes willskyrocket and urban sprawl will sprawl.

In 1950, the population of the earth was roughly 2 billion. It's now 6billion and by 2050 will have doubled.

Robert Bradford and the Ladd Devine Develo
pment company may give up indisgust but can anyone doubt that there will be another such entityoffering greater bribes ten years from now? Or that eventually one oranother such entity will get what it wants? Or that such entities areonly the thin end of the wedge of a change process whose proportionsare monumental?

The good folks of Milagro are going to lose their village, just likeeverybody else. But how can we argue against population growth? Youmight as well argue against motherhood and apple pie.

The tiny New Mexico town of Milagro is about to be taken over bydevelopers. However farmer Joe Mondragon (Chick Vennera) builds abeanfield using their water. This sparks off a war that threatens toget more and dangerous between the developers and townspeople.

This came (and went) very quickly in 1988. The only reason it was madeat all was because director Robert Redford's previous film ("OrdinaryPeople") had been a big hit and won multiple Oscars. The title aloneprobably turned away most moviegoers. That's too bad because this is asweet, lyrical movie. It somehow manages to draw the viewer into thissmall town and the inhabitants and make you care and side with them. Ithelps that there is some simply gorgeous cinematography and it has anOscar-winning score that perfectly matches the films mood and tone.Also there is a huge cast of American and Latino actors–all of themare just great! The beautiful Sonia Braga is on hand and takes a minorrole and really brings it to life. Also there's a simply wonderfulscene where John Heard tells off evil Christopher Walken (Walken'salways dazed expression perfectly fits this scene). A one of a kindbeautiful film.

The films R rating is unnecessary. There's no nudity, sex and minorbloodless violence. There's a little swearing but it's casual and doneso quickly you're not even aware of it. It deserves a PG-13. Worthcatching but not for everybody.

I have seen many of the actors & actresses that are in this movie in otherfilms. This movie brings out the BEST in all of them. Blades & Sterns wereexcellent. This is one movie were Melinie Griffins doesn’t come off as asex pot. It gave such a nice warm feeling to be part of this small town.The back ground music was light but added a lot. I own this movie and watchit often. Thanks

read comments (0)

The Miracle Worker

"The miracle worker" (1962) directed by Arthur Penn as movie aboutemotions in closed circuit, it's not out of interest concerningteaching without specific subject nor hope for changing capability andattention or even some curiosity for learning a little more, withoutphysical capacity or means for surviving alone. But it turns up andallegedly the impossibility for switching slowly the concerned youngwoman it opens quite enough her mind for another world, less dark andbetter introspected by a daily activity with the fraternity of anotherwoman, whose taught was finally useful for this past community inAlabama on nineteenth Century. And bringing her pupil out of herirrationality now with a sunny side of life. Even in desperateconditions for these pioneers times, described by these melodramaticmoments very well dominated in acting like that, by the willingnessfrom the direction then made by Arthur Penn…still alive.

Well, a society that put a negative value in such a victory issimultaneous against sickness by wrong motivation and which allowedcruelty as tool for surviving as a thing without possible immediateexplanation or resolution, worsen the situation and the condition.Degenerated by its lack of providence from weakness of institutions,leading with such a kind of concealed events inside the communities,where only a donor and rich man is capable of more sensibleness for hisown case of a descendant, which means that something was changing withthis case in Alabama in nineteenth Century. Like a thesis aboutmalformation and devilish treatment by a slowly education out of theofficial norms, preventing by its unusual incidence a new commitmentwith the human condition. At the time of the inequality of genres andthe fight of women for another understanding of the problem ofdarkness, in the taught and teaching at home mixing domestic affairswith public general interest for life, namely in apprenticing with newstandards.

The woman teacher with her special round and dark glasses, shows us byher stimulus and such pioneering energy on the environment, by a selfcomprehension of the timing for taught the mute with blindness. Whichmeans also else the importance of their common struggle in opening alink between her and the girl, either because she is also partly toosensible to light and by this explains what was her own differencebefore being learned herself like both since hers own born. There issome affectation in the performing now, but nonetheless it is astanding of the mood then seeing it at double distance of such anexperiment. The patience of the character performed by Ann Bancroftmeant indeed, before the refusal of her very strange pupil, with almostan infinite anger against any help, to her problem of blindness andenlarged autism, like if it was a kind of lack of coordination first.Because this little human being is without aim for some light in herown spirit, it was also appalling for the viewers as framework of theimpossibility to learn in the boundary of entertainment.

One of the precious few true absolutes in all of cinematic history.

This motion picture tells impeccably one of the most compelling andyes, miraculous of true stories. You may call it melodramatic, and,indeed, it does go over the top at times–however–the story itself isgenuinely among the most dramatic, unbelievably powerful, emotionallycaptivating, and intensely inspiring stories ever told; and if everthere was an early life that was melodramatic, then it was Helen's, andso, it works. There are movies a-plenty that mercilessly tug at yourheartstrings, just for the sake of doing so, with no substance to theircontent involved, just empty emotionality. But The Miracle Worker is,by far, a different ball of wax.

Anne Bancroft gives a galvanizing performance as Helen Keller'sno-holds-barred teacher, met with the task of breaking down the wallsin Helen's world of sightless silence. Miss Annie Sullivan, atough-as-nails, yet warm-hearted young woman who, herself, was trappedby dark, and dreadful memories from her bleak childhood, filled withgrief, loss, abandonment, and illness which left her own sight veryweak. Miss Sullivan is no quitter, and she is determined to get throughto the spoiled, pitied, and extremely unruly, Helen. She sees hope inher pupil because of the guile, and stubborn, fighting spirit Helenrelentlessly shows is alive and well inside her. Miss Sullivan'sgreatest challenge overall is Helen's parents, who are well-to-do,distinguished, well-meaning people living in 1880's Alabama, who arequite convinced there is naught to do with their daughter but to spoil,coddle, and pity her, and quite adamant about "protecting" her from theworld outside.

Patty Duke delivers the performance of her career! She had played Helenfor quite some time on stage; beforehand studying about herextensively, and it certainly showed. I only wish that when the timecame at last that she was offered the opportunity to play AnnieSullivan, she had been given a director, and cast, equal to the caliberof this masterpiece.

The final scene has stayed with me since I saw it for the first time asa child, leaving a lasting imprint on my entire psyche~ That's the onlyway I can describe how immeasurably powerful it truly is. The lifechanging breakthrough is magnificent to watch. It's just something youcan never quite shake loose. I think because it's a page in a life thatactually happened, just about how we see it here. Helen Keller,herself, wrote of that day in her autobiography, describing thatelectrifying awakening as the most important moment of her life.

If you're young, even very young, see this motion picture. If you're abit older, and you've seen it, ohh.. about 50 times or so, as I have,see it again. It never, ever, becomes old.

An unarguably miraculous story.

I’ll admit that the first part of the movie was good, but it wasn’t blowingme away or anything. The second half of the film, however, was much muchbetter, and that is due to the fact that most of the screen time is filledwith Bancroft and Duke. Their chemistry was great, and the scenes that theywere in exclusively were great. Their performances alone are more thanenough reason to watch this film. It is very touching as well, and its hardnot to get at least teary eyed. The scenes when Bancroft tried to teachDuke how to eat properly, and then the scene when she tries to get close toDuke again, are great scenes. There are more, but those two are excellent. They deserved their Oscars, and its a shame not more people have seen thismovie. 8 out of 10.

The true story of Anne Sullivan (Oscar-winner Anne Bancroft) and her workwith the young Helen Keller (Oscar-winner Patty Duke in a truly unbelievableperformance). Keller’s parents (Inga Swenson and Victor Jory) have reachedtheir wits’ end with their daughter as she is becoming violent due to herinability to communicate with them because of the fact that she is blind,mute and deaf. It appears that an institution is the last resort, but beforethat happens they enlist the help of an employee from the Perkins Institute(a place that deals with communication disorders). Bancroft’s ability to bepatient and impatient leads to her finally being able to get into Duke’sworld of darkness and silence. A stunning experience that benefits fromOscar-nominated direction from Arthur Penn and the out-of-this-worldperformances from the film’s two leads. Not perfect, but still a very goodproduction that is cinematically important. 4.5 out of 5stars.

This story of how a determined teacher (Anne Bancroft) helps a severelyhandicapped girl from Alabama (Patty Duke) to realise her potential isthe best possible result of difficult material. It's difficult materialthat would constitute impossible material for many of today'smainstream audiences, but is somewhat of a classic, because it was madein an era when daring cinema often meant rewarding
cinema.

The news that Helen Keller cannot speak, see or even hear doesn't soundlike accessible film material. In a melodramatic opening that nowresembles a horror climax, her mother Katie reacts with a rasp ofscream horror that predates Mia Farrow in "Rosemary's Baby."

Looking at her baby daughter, she realises that there is something verywrong with her. The sound is cranked up and the b/w cinematography isstark enough to suggest we are watching a horror film, but by the endwe realise that the mother's emotional pain was suggested at the rightmoment.

The story flashes forward seven years. Helen's parents, although nother older brother, are now used to the idea that their daughter is avegetable. Helen cannot communicate but behaves with the hyperactivezeal of a normal child – she restlessly moves from pillar to post,swinging her arms around violently, breaking plates, and although shecannot speak, makes sporadic groaning noises.

The first scene showing this is like a devastating blow to the gut –disturbing even by today's standards, but the rhythm settles. None ofHelen's family blows a gasket and the suggestion that they should puther in an asylum is not a milked one.

Some critics have suggested that Helen's inability to communicate,especially in conflict (inadvertently) with an older generation isindicative of Hollywood Cinema in the 60s. Arthur Penn, who later madethe violently stylised "Bonnie and Clyde" tackles these themes with abold audacity that is understated in comparison to that film. There'slittle in the way of compassion or pity for Helen (maybe too little)because the focus is on finding that elusive connection.

Annie Sullivan is the catalyst for this, a teacher that refuses to giveup on her pupil. Having endured 8 operations to correct her owneyesight and suffering from hallucinatory flashbacks of her troubledchildhood, she understands the value of fighting to survive.

Annie is a symbol for the wised up older generation attempting toeducate the stubborn younger generation. Her clashes with Helen areviolent one's – whatever senses Helen has, she applies themaggressively to ward of the stranger.

With a series of long takes, their riveting physical battles are stagedlike playground tussles. Annie chases Helen around the kitchen,protecting herself from the swinging arms and trying hard to tameHelen's animal instincts. The second step is to teach Helen thealphabet on her fingers and hope she registers the letters in her mindso she can speak the words.

This is a film displaying the full circle of hope and hard workovercoming impossible obstacles. It's gentle but not sentimental andconsidering both when it was made and its symbolic themes, is not anangry or disturbing film.

Composed with repetitive long takes, tight compositions and with sternb/w photography, it's all effectively moody but at the same time warm,thanks to the performances. Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke give theimpression of knowing their characters very well and both deservedlywalked away with Oscars.

It is difficult to comprehend that Bancroft is the same actress thatplayed the philandering Mrs Robinson, since her more difficult, andvery different role playing an earnest teacher is so effective. Herchemistry with Duke, a nervous tick device with hidden promise, iselectrifying – and no surprise given that they played the same roles onstage.

8/10. Riveting, sensitive, authentic and without forced emotion, thiswould be impossible material to do justice to today. Also watchTruffaut's "The Wild Child," which tackles similar themes.

As the mother of a child that attended Perkins School for the Blind inBoston (where Annie Sullivan got her education), I think this moviecaptures the essence of a deaf-blind child. Patty Duke and LaurenBecall were phenomenal. The more recent Walt Disney movie really mademe question the believability of the story. It was indeed the WDversion of a wonderful story. A deaf-blind child would not come downthe stairs in a white pinafore. Well, she might appear in it but itwouldn't stay clean for long. The anger of the child and thefrustration of her teacher were very apparent. The talent, and tenacitythese teachers bring to this profession are truly remarkable. Itcertainly isn't for the faint hearted and Anne certainly showed theKellers what she was made of. She opened Helen Keller to the world.There are fabulous galleries of photos of Helen Keller at Perkins. Ofcourse, one of the cottages there is named Keller-Sullivan.

The story of Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller is a true story everyonewill remember. Helen Keller(Patty Duke) was born blind and deaf due toacute congestion of the brain, lived a life of total darkness,frustration, and unhappiness. The Kellers thought it was hopeless tosee Helen suffer like that. In comes Ms. Annie Sullivan(Anne Bancroft),who has been through the same thing and knows how to adapt to beingblind. She wears these smoke colored glasses, and she is highly skilledin sign-language. The years of being with Ms. Sullivan are rough, Helenthrows, smashes, things, even beat up Annie. However, Ms. Sullivan wasdetermined to make her know her world. It was the outdoors scene whereHelen says her first word after all those years of being "dumb":"Water" in baby words. Annie was amazed, she gets her family to seethat she learning how to know and say things in sign-language. That issteel-willed determination from a woman of a handicap. Strong,heart-gripping, and awesome, this movie's a real gem!

5 stars!

I choose this one as one of the top five films I've ever seen. PattyDuke, who was then about 12 I think, turned in an utterly brilliantperformance playing against the seasoned Anne Bancroft. The "fight"sequence in the dining room, near the end of the film, took about fiveminutes…and was shot in one single take.

I still own and watch the video. Everyone else in the film was totallyup to snuff, too, especially Anne Bancroft. What a pair!

What is even more astounding is that this film was shot in black andwhite, pretty much the last year of black and white films except for afew shot years since which were set up to capture the film noirfeeling. Yet when you watch the film, it's as if it were shot incolour.

This movie is something that will touch you. A true life biographyabout a woman who basically worked a "miracle" with a girl who wasblind and deaf–Helen Keller. The acting by all characters is rivetingand first rate. A shame it wasn't named best picture but the actingawards to Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke make up for it. If you want toknow about what decency and the human spirit is about, go toblockbuster, go to the library, go anywhere that has it and watch it.May inspire you to learn the deaf hand symbols for the alphabet.

Make sure you get the 1962 version and not any others! Not to say theothers aren't good, but this is the best one.

William Gibson's THE MIRACLE WORKER was originally a television play,then a Broadway play, and in its best incarnation, a b/w film releasedby United Artists in 1962. Duke and Bancroft won Oscars for theirportrayals of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan, and director Arthur Pennand writer Gibson were nominated. Despite its being over-the-top attimes, this is a galvanizing film and story, and this version would behard to equal in terms of power and intensity, much of which derivesfrom the performances. Some of the actors are from the Broadwayproduction which was also directed by Penn. Though Victor Jory and IngaSwenson as Helen's parents give performances more suited to the stage,they are powerful performers, and they are ultimately memorable. AndDuke and Bancroft certainly deserved their awards. Though overused,Laurence Rosenthal's score is very effective, and th
e credit for thehandsome b/w photography goes to Ernest(aka Ernesto)Caparros. Penn'sdirection manages to avoid the feeling of staginess, and this film is,along with Becket(64), Driving Miss Daisy(89) and The Homecoming(73),one of the best transfers from stage to screen. The film should havebeen nominated for best picture. Both The Music Man and Mutiny on theBounty, big budget films produced by major studios, were nominated forbest picture of 1962 without receiving any nominations for writing,acting, or directing. Surprisingly, The Miracle Worker did not make theAFI's list of 100 greatest American films.

read comments (0)

The Hills Have Eyes II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7/10

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

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

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

Uh, no. God this movie was awful.

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

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

Overall: 2/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)

Suspect Zero

So, how to describe a movie such as this ?

I guess the only other movie I can compare it to would be "Hearts InAtlantis", since both movies are roughly about the same thing: thegovernment using psychics for "remote viewing" purposes and one of thepeople they’re using gets away.

The twist with "Suspect Zero", though, is that THIS remote viewer turnsinto a vigilante and goes hunting down serial killers. I had tosympathize with the guy in a lot of ways, because his gift was tearinghim up inside and he just wanted it all to go away.

I’ll definitely be adding this movie to my DVD collection.

I have not seen Ben Kingsley in a bad movie and this certainly is notthe first one. As usual he enhances every character he plays. I thoughtthe movie had all the makings of a great thriller - suspense, twist,good acting, uncertainty,bit of romance,and scare factor. It is anunusual serial killer movie with a very unusual serial killer withunusual serial killer victims. It is not predictable and if it were abook you would not be able to put it down. In fact if you were watchingit on D.V.D. you would wait for the end to go for a bathroom break. Iloved it, what more can I say. As far as the other actors -the F.B.I.agent and his ex girlfriend, he’s o.k. she’s average. Ben Kingsleyheads the cast everybody else comes second - literally.

When I first saw the trailer for Suspect Zero I thought, "That lookslike it could be awesome." Well, it’s definitely entertaining, butunfortunately it doesn’t exactly evoke my awe. What’s disappointing isthat there’s a lot of potential here that is just never fulfilled. Themovie kept me interested and intrigued, but I kept waiting for theknockout punch that sadly never came.

It’s hard to talk about the movie without giving *something* away, butI promise to give away even less than the trailer does. What you needto know is that Aaron "Butt Chin" Eckhart is relocated (thanks to alittle vigilante police work) to New Mexico and put on the case of asuspected serial killer. His ex-girlfriend, Carrie-Anne Moss, is sentto help him with the investigation. Ben Kingsley is a weird,bald-headed dude who is able to use "remote viewing" to find serialkillers. For those of you in Palm Beach, that means he has psychicpowers and can visualize killings and where they take place. He thentransfers his mental images to paper. The problem is that he can’t turnoff his psychic powers, and it’s starting to eat away at him. I thinkwe’ve all been there.

What’s Kingsley up to? We find out part of that answer very early, butthere’s something else going on that we’re not sure about. Kingsley hasa theory regarding "Suspect Zero." It’s his belief that there has to bea serial killer out there who might not ever be caught because heleaves no pattern, no clues. For some reason, Eckhart acts like this istantamount to cloning Jesus. He seems to think it is just absolutelyimpossible. Come on, is it really that hard to fathom? There are plentyof unsolved murders. Could some of them possibly be unsolved becausethey’re committed by serial killers who leave no clues or pattern?That’s not really that radical of a theory, is it? Eckhart acts likeit’s more likely that Corey Feldman will have a big screen hit again.

So the story convinces us to wonder whether or not there is a SuspectZero. Could it be Kingsley? Or will his remote viewing lead them toSuspect Zero? And just how many movie critics will use bad puns like,"Suspect zero? More like Suspect ZERO STARS"?

Beware; this is the type of movie that requires your full attention. Ifyou start to let your mind wander and think about how funny my reviewsare and how you feel the need to send me money for all my hard work,then you’re likely to get lost in the story. If you’re just looking forsome mindless entertainment, then it’s best that you not lay your moneydown for this one.

As far as the acting goes, well, it’s adequate. Carrie-Anne Moss reallyisn’t given much to do here except cash an easy paycheck. Herrelationship with Eckhart isn’t fleshed out enough for us to care oneway or another. And while I might not be rushing to the video store tostart renting Aaron Eckhart movies, he does a pretty good job. BenKingsley is the strongest performer; he does a great job of convincingthe viewer that he’s at his wit’s end.

You’re also likely to be disappointed if you’re expecting a non-stopthrill ride. Like I said, it’s a solid thriller, but the movie’s paceis pretty deliberate. For some of you that will equate to "slow." Theatmosphere is dark, and a huge feeling of tension and unease fills theair. Trust me, you’re not gonna find yourself smiling or whistling muchat the proceedings. But the climax is probably the biggestdisappointment.

To its credit, it doesn’t resort to a litany of obvious red herrings,but I was really hoping for a powerful twist or revelation. Somethingunexpected as in The Usual Suspects. Or give me something reallyshocking like Seven. Throw me for a loop and make me go, "Ohhhhhhhhhh!"Didn’t happen.

What did happen is I was given enough thrills and guesswork to keep myinterest for 100 minutes. Personally, I think the movie should’vefocused more on Suspect Zero. Instead, we’re pretty much given adefinition and then the focus switches to the remote viewing. I muchprefer it when you’ve got a serial killer matching wits with thosechasing him.

Being good is fine and dandy I suppose, but man, it was so close tobeing *really* good. It just didn’t have that "specialty pitch."

THE GIST:

If you’re in the mood for a thriller, then Suspect Zero will keep yourinterest just as long as you realize this isn’t gonna turn the thrillergenre upside down. If you’re on the fence with this one, then catch amatinée or just wait until it’s at a second-run theater. Keep in mind:the shorter your attention span, the less likely you are to enjoy it.

Suspect Zero, is the story of a man who was trained by the governmentto track down serial killers using remote viewing. A sort of spiritual,mental, art form, where one uses their mind to find someone based onwhat they have recorded on that person in all of their senses. BenKingsley, plays such a remote viewer in this suspense, mysterythriller.

O’Ryan was top secret, the project was called Icarus. This is all real,true stuff. Ed Games a real life remote viewer was the technicalconsultant on this film. Immediately… interest is peaked.

Remote viewing has always been an interesting subject to me, especiallysince I use it nearly every day. I on the other hand, always found thegift to be rather obscure, on the fringe of the social strata, trulyout there. I mean, I would think of someone I loved, my girlfriend,perhaps, and know exactly where they were, what she was doing, what wasgoing on around her - I would call her up and be right, every time. Itgot to the point, I knew when she left concerts, etc… I thought itwas amazing, and yet at the same time, I thought it was normal that Icould tune into her, because well, we had a deep connection.

It wasn’t for years that I actually connected what I was doing, withwhat is formally known as "remote viewing", my friends and I simplythought it was a unique gift, but not anything tangible.

So, going into this movie, my curiosity again, was peaked.

I do like the actors involved, and though some may be upset at theseeming correlation between this gift and mental illness, I am bipolar,and think it’s very possible that with the mental illness in my ownlife, I have also been attuned to other things through my ownuniqueness. So, I was not offended, I find certain truth to that. Whatsome people prove with science, others prove with faith, likewise, whatsome call mental illness, others call a gift. Sometimes a reality ismulti-faceted I suppose.

Suspect Zero starts out strong, the plot weaves
nicely, never givingaway too much or too little, there’s cohesion. The directing does feela little like a SE7EN, or something I’ve seen before… but I can letthat go for now.

The manner in which O Ryan uses the sound tape with the wordassociation, and drawing, is very interesting too, he is keeping thechannel open, and letting whatever comes out, on whichever level itcomes out on intellectually, and capturing it with the writing tool, Ifound that very interesting, and I’m sure that was part of Ed Game’steachings, as that’s how I do a lot of my writing, and viewing, and Inever consulted anyone about it, except maybe my best friends.

One thing, Carrie Anne-Moss was sadly very annoying in this film andsadly so stereotyped by The Matrix I could imagine how impossible itmust be to stay in character after that, maybe if she did movies thatweren’t dark, something to contrast the movies she is stereotyped byshe could break the mold, kind of like Bruce Willis did by going fromDie Hard to 5th Element to The Whole 9 and 10 Yards.

Personally, if I were going to attempt a remote viewing session, Iwould use meditation, breath, not static on a tape recorder, that seemskind of weird.. but I guess use whatever works for you, and this typeof remote viewing is also highly concentrated, and long duration, whilemine were relatively short, used just to see where a loved one was,when I missed them… so ya kinda different.

When O’Ryan talks about remote viewing, "when you get it right, you getit all" referring to all your senses get input from the experience -that’s actually not the difficult part, the difficult part issustaining the experience.

I know what it’s like to "plug-in" to people I love, but I’ve nevertried it in this capacity - it sounds truly frightening. At first Ithought it took love even for the connection to be made, but now that Ithink about it, it takes will, not love, and so perhaps these types ofviewing are possible, with the sustainability if one really trained theskill.

One would think that if O’Ryan had been tracking this guy for so longhe would have killed him long ago, why wait for Mac to finish it? Whyis Mac even involved in O’Ryan’s plans? Killing is no stranger toO’Ryan.. so why?

The movie does seem to start on strong footing, but as the storyunwinds, it seems to unravel, and start to fray, until it is just amess. Overall I would say it was a intriguing premise, decently acted,and directed, but too short at a running time of 94 minutes.

There are a few scares, chemistry, and directing that works reallywell, if only the film were a little longer.

An interesting premise, as we see O’Ryan overwrought with what he hasseen in his viewing sessions, but I wish they had spent a little moretime showing how he was effected by his viewings throughout the courseof the film, so the general audience could empathize with him better.

Overall I give it a 6.5.

This film is frighteningly captivating. Amazing performances by theentire cast, but Ben Kingsley in particular. His characterization ispure brilliance. The plot is incredibly suspenseful–one is never sureuntil the end of the film what is going to happen next. And even theend leaves the door ajar is a wonderful (and creepy!) way. Thesoundtrack weaves perfectly in and out of the dialog to spectaculareffect. The film drew me in so emotionally that I left feeling as if Ihad personally witnessed the events of the film rather than simply seenthem portrayed by actors and filmmakers on the screen. I highlyrecommend seeing this film, but take a friend or loved one with whomyou can rant after leaving the theater.

When I found out who "helped" with the consultation for the subject ofremote viewing, I then realized what had happened to the movie.

It was great how remote viewing seemed validated, but then again remoteviewing took on the ominous aspects of mind control which is not remoteviewing. The projects involving mind control and remote viewing are twodifferent projects which I would love to explain to Major Ed Damespersonally. The profiling of remote viewers was interesting. They werepeople who suffered migraine headaches and were borderline psychotic.Definitely not appreciated Ed and far from true.

I have been in both projects by the way…mind control and remoteviewing so I know what I am talking about. My husband loved the movie.

I’m maybe 30 minutes into this movie right now and it is awful. I wishI could turn it off but I have to finish every movie I watch. Ignorewhat the other user said. The plot is clichéd, dialogue awful, actingonly so so if that. Its a shame to see kingsley who is a great actor inthis movie alongside the others. Even with the greatest actors in theworld this movie could not survive. I can’t believe NM a state which igrew up in would put up money for this. If you haven’t seen Silence ofthe Lambs yet watch that. It definitely borrows from a lot of films.Please don’t waste your time and money on this movie it’s definitely acavalcade.

The film is based upon the idea that the FBI's long discredited 'remoteviewing' experiments of the 1970s and 1980s were actually successfuland drove some of its participating agents insane. One of them,Benjamin O'Ryan (Ben Kingsley) is now, himself a serial killer, albeita serial killer of serial killers, whom he tracks down by connecting tothe images of their crimes in his head, acting as the CharlesBronsonian Avenging Angel (see Death Wish and its sequels) of the film.The film is about his attempts to recruit and groom a replacement namedThomas Mackelway (Aaron Eckhart), from the FBI, as he tracks down aserial killer he terms Suspect Zero, because he has figured out the wayto avoid detection is to, unlike most serial killers, constantly changehis modus operandi. The first half of the film, where Mackelway isinvestigating O'Ryan's crimes, is outstanding, with very believableportraits of the two men- far more so than, say, in a film like Heat.O'Ryan taunts Mackelway by fax, to the point where he turns to….anex-lover, conveniently reassigned by the FBI, from Dallas, to assistMackelway in his new digs in the Albuquerque, New Mexico office…. Thisfilm is about on par with the flawed but daring Shadow Of The Vampire,but Merhige needs to take on more realistic and adult projects, to flexhis directorial chops, lest (especially with his initialized 'first'name) he merely ends up the B film version of M. Night Shyamalan. Thatdirector's bad enough, do we really need a shadow of him?

SUSPECT ZERO (2004) ** Ben Kingsley, Aaron Eckhart, Carrie-Anne Moss,Harry J. Lennix, Kevin Chamberlin, Chloe Russell, Nicole DeHuff,William Mapother. (Dir: E. Elias Merhige)

‘Se7en’ – ‘Silence of the Lambs’ = ‘Zero’

Trying to make a serial killer film, a sub genre that appears to haveovertaken the unstoppable killing machine teen slasher (think Jason orFreddy) that took horror films to another level, must be likeattempting to build a snowman in July: not much fun and pointless sinceit’s damn near impossible to perfect an impossibility.

Take the case of this unique perspective to a 15 minutes-of-fame andticking category : a serial killer killing serial killers! OK now tryto convince me for nearly two hours of my time why I should care? Wellit was a good idea.

Anyway the premise of the latest style over substance take on it ishaving a disgraced FBI profiler named Mackelway (Eckhart) beingreassigned to the desert of New Mexico when he finds the dullness onlyadding to his current state of blinding migraines (he chomps on aspirinlike Chiclets) until a ghastly murder is found at the border –literally – with some follow up faxes sent directly to him. It seems aformer specialty agent, O’Ryan (Sir Ben acting up a storm), who wasassigned to a shadowy sect project entitled Icarus (read: getting tooclose to the sun; burning &
#150; foreshadowing of things to come) wherehighly intelligent applicants were able to ’see’ the minds of serialkillers at work and transcribing their thoughts into para psychologicalscribblings in charcoal pencil that would lead them to their quarry.Apparently it has affected O’Ryan to the point of obsession and causinghim to act as a rogue executioner of the filth he was assigned tolocate. What happens next is a series of murders of murderers that leada grisly wake to some serious soul searching for one Agent Mackelway.To complicate matters his former partner – and ex-lover – Agent Kulok(Moss) has been called in to help him and his new prickly bossCharelton (Lennix also late of the ‘Matrix’ flicks) crack the case wideopen.

I admit it seems a tad outrageous that someone could psychicallyforecast an upcoming crime however it is set in fiction and there was acool ‘X-Files’ episode ‘Unruhe’ that had a similar story but itinvolved Polaroids instead of sketchings. Regardless you have to givethe creative team an A for effort yet the screenplay by Zak Penn andBilly Ray is a Luke-warm reheating of ‘Se7en’ with Kingsley as anersatz John Doe serving up justice with a nasty slicing off of thevictims’ eyelids to show what he sees they see and the ‘Silence of theLambs’ backbiting of its federal peacekeepers at odds with what theycannot.

Eckhart seems wasted of his talent in a somewhat muted turn – he shouldbe more tortured if that is what his character is implied to be andMoss is undeniably sleepwalking her way through the film no thanks tobad lighting making one of the screen’s most lovely women lookdownright homely. Kingsley has proven to be a very versatile actornotably ditching his Gandhi peace for sinister doings in ‘Sexy Beast’ afew years ago and here he makes the most of his deeply troubled psychicwarrior with a few moments of glass sharp scares.

Director Merhige a relative newcomer employs the usual shaky camerawork with some interesting visual courtesy of his ace cinematographerMichael Chapman with its desaturated colors and vibrantly dark momentsthat underlie the terror at hand. Too bad it couldn’t shed it in a moreintriguing light.

A strong director performance, a good plot, with a brilliant premise.fair performance from the lead actors. Ben Kingsley is as expected ofhim. Eckhart was a little over the top, but working his way steadilytowards a career top. We will always be unfair to Anne Moss till sheeither gets another one or we forget about "Matrix". Photography wasgood, with some new upside and over angle shots, editing supported thestory and the style, but some times too much of the same shot.

A very good thriller overall.

P.s. to the director, you can’t have 50 graves all freshly closed atthe same time!

A. Zayed

read comments (0)

Suna no onna

(part of 30 essays I am writing on the "30 greatest movies". They arewritten in no particular order) For a "30 Best" Films list, this is abit of an unusual choice, but I would have it no other way. Long afterseeing this, the lonely shots of sand, water and wind remain in mymemory. This is a haunting film that refuses to be forgotten.

The film grabs us in as soon as it begins. An entomologist (that’s bugcollector to you) is wandering some lonely sand dunes near the ocean.Already anyone who has appreciated films like "2001" and the TerrenceMalick films for their stunning visual beauty will already beinterested in this film. Hiroshi Segawa’s cinematography beautifullycaptures the dunes in somewhat fuzzy black and white photography. Am Iranting? Maybe. This film probably deserves a bit of a rant.

That night he is offered a place to stay by some local villagers, whohave him stay with a somewhat strange woman…I’d rather not tell youmore of the plot, and encourage you to avoid reading a synopsis of it.Because this is a movie, something happens that is not great news toout entomologist. Its more fun if you let the events play out in frontof you however, so I’ll leave it there.

…which also means I’ll have to keep this review more or less prettyshort. One of the most haunting images in this film involves theentomologist in ragged clothing, stumbling away in the desert, notquite sure where he’s going or if he wants to get there.

Behind the camera, the entomologist is played by Eiji Okada (Hiroshima,Mon Amour), and the title role is filled by the wonderful KyôkoKishida. The film was directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara, who, in a rareand great Oscar surprise, was nominated for Best Director.

I hope this film isn’t too hard to find for you. However long thesearch, its worth seeing.

An amateur entomologist scouring remote dunes is press-ganged byvillagers desperate to keep the sand from subsuming their homes. He isplaced in a pit with a widow who he is to help bail out sand.

There are some clear moments of eroticism between the pair reminiscentof the sensuality present in a contemporary film, 'Onibaba', by KanetoShindo. However I think this part of the film is overemphasised byreviewers/marketers. It's clearly very secondary.

The storyline is a little troubling for me, I was not sure whetherTeshigahara was trying to film an escape thriller in the mould ofPapillon or an allegory about the human condition after Kafka (perhapsthe film is deliberately made at two levels?). Regardless of this whattruly marks 'Woman In The Dunes' out as a classic is its decadent andnihilistic camera-work, shooting the film full of breathtakingausterity. The montage at the beginning where the camera jumps out froma single grain of sand to an entire dune system is one of the best I'veseen from cinema history. The pictures of sand flowing are trulygobsmacking. In its virtuosity the camera-work reminded me of an earlypiece of experimental cinema, H2O (1929 – Ralph Steiner). It may beworth pointing out that DVD releases of this film have widely varyingimage quality and it is worth seeking out the R0 Asmik disc (though Iknow little about the quality of the R2 MoC version).

Eiji Okada as the teacher/entomologist Niki Jumpei paints a portrait ofa self-immolating man. Along with a devastating lack of spiritualitythat leaves him entirely unable to cope with his predicament –mirroring perhaps the position of the secular consumer in modernsociety – we see a man without connections who nobody searches for,who's perverse ambition it seems is to appear as a footnote in anobscure entomology textbook. We see that he is totally unable toconnect to the woman he is imprisoned with (played by Kyôko Kishida).Indeed he is happy when she has to be taken from the pit for medicalattention because it leaves him alone to get on with what he wants todo uninterrupted. His growing monomania with the geology of the pit isin marked contrast to her pathetic need for his companionship. There ismuch in this depiction that would alarm the feminist film historian. Ifound it hard to explain the role of his wife/widow(?) who appeared inflashbacks/visions at junctures in the movie, she seems not to be partof Jumpei's motivation to escape. Her memory appears to be more of atrinket than something alive. An important part of this movie is thesoundtrack by Tôru Takemitsu, whose nihilism I find entrancing. Almostas good as Takemitsu's soundtrack to Shinoda's 'Ansatsu', another greatJapanese movie from 1964.

This film is a portrait of modern human egocentricity that staggerswith its depth of despair, the only film I can truly compare it too inthis respect is Bergman's 'The Silence', though 'Woman In The Dunes' iseven more palpable. I wouldn't recommend viewings of this to thesuicidal. The point where Jumpei escapes from the pit a second time,and then returns of his own accord for me was deeply traumatic. Theduality of the movie switches from allegorical to philosophical at thispoint, which can be a bit confusing. It is a terrifying thing to giveup on life, to become institutionalized so to speak, possibly we allmight recognize this in ourselves. For me this film filled me with alingering horror of immense proportions, you have been warned!

I had always been curious about this film and how Teshigahara managed towrangle an Best Director Oscar nomination among the likes of William Wyler,John Schlesinger and David Lean. Then as now, you can always count on theAcademy’s Directors Branch to throw an annual monkey wrench into the serene,meatheaded commercialism of the rest of the nominees.

"WITD" may be thought of as an incredible "Twilight Zone" episode. Thesimplicity with which the scientist has been captured is quite stunning, yethis ultimate acceptance — even embrace — of his predicament comes as nosurprise: he wanted a simpler life, away from the demands of the"certificates" he groans about as the film commences, and he gets it! "Becareful what you wish for…"

Actually, I half expected the scientist to discover that he’d been trappedin a glass, corked jar not unlike the insects he has captured himself; it’sone of the film’s marvelous metaphors for the meaningless/fulness of humanexistence, for and against the nature that prevails over us all. And it’syet another reason to lament the persistent commercial dreck Hollywoodreleases with such distressing regularity. (Seen "Payback" yet? No thanks!)But then as now, it’s the commercial dreck that prevails: Teshigahara, asdid the three directors previously mentioned, lost the Oscar to Robert Wisefor (yeesh!) "The Sound of Music." The vast multitude of film viewers maynever, ever see this film and yet insist that they "truly love movies." Ifyou see this film and truly enjoy it, you’ll understand just how wrong themultitude is…

This film is a masterpiece. It deals with the most profound feeling ofmankind: freedom. It is not the common spoken freedom, but the interiorone.How can a man surpass such a misery of being kidnapped, thrown into a pitwith a strange and forced to work without rest with no expectation to bereleased? The unredeemable destiny. First the desperation, then malcontentacceptance, and finally the triumph of knowledge. The jail thoughphysicallypresent, is gone. Useless to hold him anymore, he will not go. He has thekey to free all of his capturers, water! They need him now more than he hasneeded them before, and also there is his son and his belovedwoman.All other problems are diminished and he is free to choose accordingly hisconscience, that is the uttermost freedom anyone can have.

The sand keeps raining in… but how much time does our herohave?

A Brilliant film…

A claustrophobic’s nightmare…

The
poor bug collector… He picked the wrong day to go hunting only to endup the hunted. The director like some cruel child torturing a helplessinsect tosses us into the sand pit and forces us to experience the sensorydeprivation of the protagonist.

This simple film becomes a complex study of human nature.This is a great analysis of the power of psychological terror. The breakingdown of the human will and self imposed morality brought about by our fightagainst our evolutionary roots. The sand slowly, methodically and endlesslystrips and beats away our hero’s layers of humanity and reveals the animalunder the clothing of civilized man.

One of top 20 favorite films of all time. Don’t miss this!

A 10 and a 0 poke*

*see my other reviews for a definition

This is an excellent movie. If you haven’t read a plot summary, don’t.Itis impossible to summarize without including some kind of spoiler. Withtheexception of a scene involving quicksand, no one ever seems to be inmortaldanger in this film, but I found parts of it as viscerally scary as TheBlair Witch Project. The mood of the film stuck with me long after, muchasI experienced after watching The Godfather. If I gave out stars, thiswouldget all of them. This is an excellent movie.

I saw this movie nearly 20 years ago and I haven’t forgotten it since.Whole images have stayed with me…the man trying to escape by running upthe walls of sand only to have the walls come tumbling down (with him init). Or the scenes of the two of them bathing the sand off ofthemselves.And the final lovely scene of the man who is accidentally given thechoiceto leave…and what his decision is. It’s one of those completelyunexpected experiences that you don’t forget because it seems so simple.Try and see it in a movie theater like I did because you will get atremendous effect. The stunning black and white photography captures thesand dunes in an eerie way. This is a very hard movie to describe. Yes,ithas a philosophical "bent" but you can enjoy it as a different kind ofadventure or a character study. Either way, I’m glad so many others haveseen it and feel the same way about it.

1964, Japan.Sand and love. Sand and drama. Sand and horror.I saw this movie recently and I won’t forget some scenes in really longtime. It’s just haunting, and has changed my perception about desert andsand…and on top of it you add some erotic scenes that are pure perfectionwithout showing too much nude skin, so at the end you get a very provocativemovie.The director is a real artist in creating an atmosphere that’s just perfectfor the story he tells. Rarely I have seen a better manipulation of light,sound and filming techniques.Many times before I have wondered what a director has in mind when creates amovie so powerful like this one, is he really conscientious about all thefinal effect on the viewer, or is he expecting everybody to have his ownopinion about it? In this case I think the director left too little to yourown imagination, but that’s not too bad, as the movie DOES manage totransmit, what I think it was, the original message of the director (I’lllet you watch the movie, and figure out for yourself thatmessage..).

I gave the movie 8/10 , just because sometimes the sound was not thatgreat, and some scenes had some technical faults(like too dark, or thecontrast on the film of bit off).Anyhow, I strongly recommend this movie to any serious lover of art films,and to anyone who wants to rediscover maybe, some feelings no so wellexpressed in today’s cinema.

Director: Teshigahara Hiroshi Duration: 123 minutes

I was first exposed to the literary works of Abe Kobo back in 2002 whenI picked up and read a tattered copy of his novel _Woman of the Dunes_.I enjoyed the novel, but at the time my brain was so pickled in theworks of Murakami Haruki and Yoshimoto Banana that I did fullyappreciate Abe’s words. During the spring semester of 2003 I took aclass called Visual Culture in Modern Japan and _Woman of the Dunes_was the final novel that we read. After discussing the book, ourteacher had us watch the film adaptation of Abe’s novel, and by seeingwhat the character Junpei experiences, I was able to sympathize withhim greater than I had when I read the novel.

In order to escape his mundane life in Tokyo, the salary-man NikiJunpei travels to a small seaside village to collect insects. Engrossedin his hobby Niki accidentally misses the last bus. In order to aidtheir visitor, the villagers suggest that Niki stay the night in one oftheir homes. Liking the idea of staying in a local’s home and tastingthe local cuisine, Junpei readily agrees to the proposal. Junpei istaken to house situated in a sandpit and there he meets a woman whodutifully prepares him dinner. Her home lacks not only electricity andwater, but it is also quite ramshackle as well. The woman informsJunpei that the sand causes the wood to rot because of its moisture.Junpei scoffs at the woman, stating that sand is dry not moist. ToJunpei’s befuddlement, the woman goes outside to shovel sand which isthen taken away by the villagers. After asking her how often sheperforms this work, she informs him that she does it every night.

When Junpei awakens in the morning, he is startled to see theslumbering naked figure of the woman nearby. The woman is completelynaked with only some cloth covering her face. Sand clings to the restof her body. Not wanting to wake her, Junpei tries to leave quietly,but the rope ladder is gone. He is stuck there with the woman insidethat sandy hole.

_Woman of the Dunes_ is a fascinating film and is considered to beTeshigahara Hiroshi’s finest work. One can feel Junpei’s desperationwhen he struggles to find a way to escape the sandpit’s crumblingsides. Also, _Woman of the Dunes_ is a good example of a film that canbe very erotic without showing naughty bits. There are a couple ofscenes within the film that are quite stirring. One depicting Junpeiwashing sand from the woman’s back and another in which the womanbathes Junpei.

The duration of the of the film on the American cut DVD is 123 minutes,but the Japanese DVD runs for 147 minutes.

"Woman in the Dunes" proved to be a strongly allegorical, strangelyengrossing film.

Based on a novel by Kobo Abé called "Woman in the Dunes" (also thetitle of the picture), it is a long, leaden, grueling account of thearguing and quarreling and lovemaking of a man and a woman trapped in ashack at the bottom af a sand pit amid some remote and desolate dunes.Despite its drabness and some tedium, it grips and agitates the mind.

It begins with the man, an entomologist collecting beetles on thedunes, being directed to the shack by anonymous people from whom he hassought shelter for the night. They lower him into the sand pit with acrude block-and-fall, and there he finds the shabby woman who willinglyprovides him with bed and board.

But when he is ready to leave the next morning, he finds he cannot getout without having a rope lowered to him by the people above. And theyare either absent or are scornful and unwilling to help.

Then the woman tells him that they are eternally caught — or, at least,must remain there at the will of the people above, who send them waterand food. She explains, too, that she is resigned to existence underthese circumstances. "Last year," she says, "a storm swallowed up myhusband and child."

Further, she shows him the necessity of working hard every day toshovel out the sand that has fallen into the shack during the night.

Of course, the man is indignant. He rages and refuses to help. Butslowly he makes his adjustment to this frustrating fate. As the pictureprogresses, he, too, becomes used to the pit, and at the end he doesnot want to leave it when he has a chance.

This is the barest outline of the plot of this more than two-hour film,which is crow
ded with harsh and subtle details of the personalrelations of the two. But it is in the projection of these details,which have strong emotional and psychological significances, that thedirector, Hiroshi Teshigahara, has packed a bewitching poetry andpower.

In describing, for instance, the manner in which the man becomesseduced by the physical presence of the woman, he works such subtlepictorial change that the bare body of the drab widow has a warm andattractive glow; and the physical act is suggested with such closeupsof faces and limbs that a strong emanation of passion surges from thescreen.

He also draws from his performers, Eiji Okada as the man (he played thelover in "Hiroshima, Mon Amour") and Kyoko Kishida as the woman, somesharp and devastating glints of anger sadness, compassion, gratefulnessand despair. In a starkly atmospheric setting and with an eerie musicalscore, this drama develops an engulfing sense of spiritualdiscouragement and decay.

Obviously, it is intended to symbolize the absorption of man and thealienation of his spirit by all the demands and oppressions of hisenvironment. The soul of the individual is clearly challenged in thisexistentialist realm, and it is reduced to resignation and surrender.Not a happy but a hypnotic film.

"Woman in the Dunes" took the Special Jury Prize at the Cannes festivalat the time of its release.

read comments (0)

Stalker

This film did not entertain me. A friend recommended it, saying it wassimilar to Eraserhead, but by the time it ended I found myself completelyunfulfilled. Granted, it was well shot, but good direction alone isn’tenough to save a movie. I found the constant philosophizing pretentious.Thecharacters were unlikable. The dialogue was too heavy-handed and completelyunrealistic (maybe this aspect was lost in the translation, but I doubtit).There were no special effects. I appreciate lyrical films, but after twohours of watching these guys wander around a wasteland, I was sick ofhearing every detail of the movie being questioned and I wanted some kindofpayoff, anything, which never happened. Lyrical films like Picnic atHangingRock or La Dolce Vita managed to entertain, and left me questioningexistence and ordinary life; The Stalker lacked any kind of subtletywhatsoever and left me questioning why I wasted 160 minutes of mylife.

Possibly worse than Erasehead. Unrelenting soul-sucking black and whitedepression, surrounded by a non-existant plot and random 15 minutelecturesfull of dire Russian ‘life is suffering’ philosophy.

Disjointed camera work and strange pointless use of zooms, unusual cameraangles and cryptic symolbism will make this a hit with the artsy crowd.Mostly it just stinks. Its every depressed teenagers high school art filmproject gone horribly wrong.

If your thinking of watching this, just get a big rock and hit yourself inthe face with it for about 2 hours. The experience will be similar, butless painful.

Well, the story of a "Zone" that makes your deepest, most unconscious wishescome true is one that holds magical possibilities, but you won’t find mostof them here. Someone else has already called this film tedious andpretentious, and I agree. Actually, not to call "Stalker" pretentious wouldalmost be an insult to Tarkovsky himself! (He even brought up the subject ofwhy music touches our souls at one point). And not to call it tedious wouldbe the same as kidding yourself; the film is downright unbearable at times,and probably always deliberately so. Moments of beauty and revelation doexist (like the realization of the true nature of "The Room"), but they arefew and far between. Mostly the film will try your patience by having itsthree characters accomplish in more than two hours what they could’veaccomplished in less than 40 minutes. The ending is mega-disappointing. (**1/2)

…or "Tarkovsky at his worst, again". It’s a shame that two ofthe bestscience fiction novels of all times have been wrecked by the sameindividual. First in "Solaris" and then in "Stalker". What is an excitingstory of love, optimism and dark humour, becomes a grim reflex ofTarkovsky’s USSR. The caracter "Red", an incredible character, impossibletobring down under any circunstances, becames an almost invisible characterinTarkovsky’s "Stalker". In the book, everything happens to Red, from beingarrested to be cheated by his wife, form his daughter turning to an alientohis father ressurection as some kind of zombie. To everything he respondswith faith and joy of living. I recommend the book to everybody (having ornot seen the film) and I hope someone will film it someday and make abetterjob. Worst is impossible.

"Stalker" is quite possibly the most slow-paced science-fiction movie evermade. While the excellent novel by the great Soviet SciFi authors, thebrothers Arkadi and Arkadi Strugatski, was a robust and irreverent adventurestory, Tarkovski’s version gets stuck in the typically ponderous territoryTarkovski seems happiest to inhabit. Instead of a relativelystraightforward, intelligent scifi story, Tarkovski delivers endlessdiscussions on theology, science and art from the three main character –often while they lie down in puddles of mud.

As much as mainstream critics love Tarkovski, I have to admit that this timehe went in a different direction from what I would have preferred. Maybe I’mjust an ignorant barbarian, but people lying down in puddles whiling abouttheir misery is no replacement for an actual plot.

I enjoyed Solaris so i figured I'd also pick up stalker. Just got therecent US re-lease with US subtitles. The movie isn't all bad…it'svery visually impressive and Part I of the movie is great. You'reattention is grabbed early on and for the first hour or so you'reslowly getting more and more information on what's going on and it getsmore and more interesting. It's even a little bit creepy. The moviereally works on your imagination because of how they present the zone.

But then part II comes. Extremely long, Way too much dialog, and no payoff. There is no reason it should have been a movie. It really shouldhave remained a book with pictures. There was so much dialog and at theend this hyped up zone and room give us no interesting pay off.Visually interesting yes but there are 20 minute sections where thecamera doesn't move and we just get very long slow dialog. Some of it ifound interesting but the rest was rather dull.

The creepy "what in the hell is going on here" atmosphere that wasbuilt up in part I crashes quickly in part II and I'd have to say themovie flat lines at the end. It's even a stretch to call this movie asci-fi. The most interesting super natural thing that happens issomeone moving a glass nearly 2 and a half hours into the film.

Actually, I’ve never watched this film. I’ve noticed it several timeson TV but every time I decided not to watch it. Do you want to knowwhy? Just because I have read an original book of Strugatski (hope I amright ) brothers! I am a fan of these authors and the book (RoadsidePicnic) is one of my favorites. The film just cannot be compared withthe book. The book is much more interesting, provides more details,much closer to the real life, and still contains all the strong ideas.The only thing, which is absent in the book - visual effects. Ofcourse, sometimes in the future I will watch it and I will really likeit - I know that for sure. But in any case it is a pity for me that thebook was filmed in such a manner - that is why I vote for 7. P.S. StillI hope sometimes someone will do another film based on Roadside Picnic.

In a strange way I'm glad I watched this movie. I agree with otherpostings that this film is beautifully staged. The scenery, and inparticular the transitions between the various environments, isstriking. However, this is very much a non-plot driven movie, relyingmore on character soliloquy and the genesis of deep introspectivethoughts on man's relation to nature and himself (though in a much moreabstract way). I would liken this movie to the second half of Logan'srun and 2001: a space odyssey. We all need a place to meditate, get intouch with ourselves, and leave behind the rusty gears of ourmind/society. In the USSR, a place like this is guarded with barb wireand guns.

You know, I love art-house movies - Jodorowsky, Anger, Bertolucci,Wenders, Warhol, it's all good. But there's a line which mustn't becrossed. That's the line between justified and unjustified pretension.In other words, when does your film become arty without beingentertaining? Well, for me, Stalker crosses that line.

OK, the good points. It's wonderfully shot. The contrasting colour andB&W works well at differentiating between the industrial landscape ofthe city and lush green growth of the zone. Some of the images herewould work better hung in a gallery So what's my problem? It's slow.OK, let me rephrase that - it's so slow I think I could see my hairgrowing faster than the film was moving. Compared to this, Paris, Texaswas a mile-a-minute riot.

I mean, what can you say when one plot element means it takes about 1
5minutes just to cross a field? It would be something if the film wasactually going somewhere, but the film just ends sort ofinconsequentially. No re-balancing of equilibrium - they just go fromnothing to nothing.

So call me a mainstream sellout if you want, but I like plot, I likecolourful dialogue, I like characterisation, all to a moderate extent.Oh sure, you can analyse this film all you want, but you know, you cananalyse Warhol's Empire to death too; nothing changes the fact thatit's just the Empire State Building doing nothing for 5 hours.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but this is exactly the kind of "art"movie that Monty Python was always so good at ridiculing.

After Tarkovsky's amazing adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's 'Solaris'("Solyaris" 1972), you look forward to this version of the greatRussian SF writers Arkadi and Boris Strugatsy's 'Roadside Picnic.'(They even wrote the script!) You already know that he tells a storyvery slo–oo–oo–wly, with lots of philosophical speculation andbeautiful photography, so you don't expect this to zip along.

Then after having to sit through it, you think 'Oh no, it's goingnowhere!" Why? Because… The story is about a 'stalker' who leads awriter and a scientist to an 'Alien Zone' (created by aliens in theBlack Forest) where they know they will find that 'wishes come true.'On and on they go into the maze, with puzzlement, discussions andphysical problems approaching The Room of the Zone.

Finally, after what seems like hours, as they are about to enter TheRoom, and considering the possibility of what they might find there,they refuse to go in, and decide to go back. The end. Maybe they don''twant their wishes to come true! Apparently this is an allegory aboutbirth or about birth trauma. But it's an un-understandable ending.

If you were reading it as a book, at this point you would take the bookand throw it against the wall. But since you're watching this on videoor DVD, you want a gun to shoot the TV, and you wonder where is ElvisPresley when you need him?

read comments (0)

Signs

"The Sixth Sense" was great (I literally did not see that endingcoming); "Unbreakable" was passable (I didn't predict the ending thattime either); "Signs" was dragging at best. It might have been slightlybetter without all the religious stuff. And anyway, if the aliens areallergic to water, how were they able to enter our atmosphere? And ifthey can travel through space, why can't they open a simple door? Asfor Mel Gibson, I heard that "The Passion of the Christ" was basicallyan anti-Semitic screed, so that weakens Gibson's appearance in anymovie. And no doubt Joaquin Phoenix is a lot prouder of "Walk the Line"than of this. Just why M. Night Shyamalan - who plays a larger rolehere than he usually does in his movies - had to do this, I'll neverunderstand. "Scary Movie 3" may have been ridiculous, but at least theyspoofed this movie.

Signs is one of the most touching, thought-provoking films I have seenin years. It is Mel Gibson's best movie since Lethal Weapon, and anamazing piece of art by M. Night Shyamalan. What Shyamalan does withhis films is so much more intelligent and awe-inspiring than thedreadfully meaningless films we see today, that filmmakers like StevenSpielberg and Robert Zemeckis should be embarrassed to say they work inthe same business as him.

To call Signs a thriller is wrong. Watch it with your kids, your entirefamily. It is on of those movies where you don't just watch it, youexperience it. And after it is finished, you will want to see it again.Signs is about a former pastor who now lives on his farm with hischildren and brother, whom is helping him out after a family tragedy.One morning, they wake up to find an enormous crop circle in their cornfield. Once these begin popping up across the globe, strange thingsbegin happening. Signs is the story of one family who face their fears,their past, and the terrifying present as the world is being invaded Noyou might have read that thinking "Oh boy another alien flick". This isNOT an alien flick. I wont even say if aliens appear in themovie–because it doesn't matter. What this film plays on is notspecial effects, loud explosions or extreme-action sequences; it issomething entirely different. Quiet. Never has there been a film wheresilence is more scary. M. Night Shyamalan is one masterful director. Hecan get an audience to cry so brilliantly–I have never seen so manypeople cry in one theater Please, do yourself a favor, and see thismovie. Its got one of the greatest endings of any movie I've seen, andas one last tip–don't think about all the technical stuff when itsover Just enjoy it You will be glad you did

Easily the most terrifying moment in cinematic history - the children'svideo cam birthday party scene …. really makes "The Excorcist" looklike Barney !

There is a creepy feeling from the very beginning of this movie - andone you really cant help being drawn into …its funny ….when youfeel you are not in control of what YOU are watching …then you know….you are at the hands of a movie suspense MASTER !

Apparently they (the screen writers!) got this idea from a reportedevent in Brazil in 1996 - Use Wikipedia to find the story - its moreinteresting than the usual UFO nonsense …

Amazing movie though … and great website too! Laurence Webcraft

Sure, its new, its different, its ‘fresh’, etc.

But it suffers badly from lack of pace. I’m sure it depends on the typeof audience you are. I come home from a long day at work busting mybrains/guts out - I want to be quite simply entertained.

Yes, if you watch a lot of movies (most people on IMDb) then the waythis movie is presented will impress you because it is different.

For me, if a movies goes down a different route - it had better be good- otherwise the next button I press is *off*

Incidentally, I think there might be a slight bias in some of thecomments which rate this one of the best movies (think deep guys andgirls - think!)

I believe this to be M. Night Shyamalan’s best work to date. The scriptwas very well written and acted out by the cast. There was excellentinteraction between all members of the cast, and no scene appearedstilted or contrived. I was intrigued by the cameo role in the movie byMr. Shyamalan himself; the fact that he didn’t portray a "good ol’ boy"in the rural town lent to the air of suspicion surrounding hischaracter. The range of emotions that Mel and his "family" displayedwere executed believably, and was the main (although far from ONLY)ingredient to the overall excellence of the movie.

The script was so well written, the acting by the cast so believable,and the cinematography so precisely executed, that I felt I wasliterally transported in time and space to the farm, sensing deepwithin myself, scene by scene, the entire range of emotions that thefamily went through. Rod Serling and Alfred Hitchcock were excellentmystery writers, but this work by M. Night Shyamalan surpasses themall. Thank you, Mr. Shyamalan, for an excellent, believable story!

SIGNS was one of the best movies I've seen so far, or probably it isthe best. I have an interest in learning about alien civilization, isthere life on other planets, etc. This movie was interesting as itshowed us what is probably the views of M. Night Shyamalan on thissubject.

I thought it was odd how those aliens were injured by the touch ofwater when actually our oxygen contains a small percentage of water.Maybe they should have said they get injured by a large percentage ofwater but no one knew that and no one really cares about that.

I love how Morgan could hear the aliens on a walkie-talkie and everyonewent on top of the vehicle to listen. It really frightened me and Inever want to hear that sound again or I will grow insane.

When every channel on the television showed the same news report onUFOs and everyone hiding really made me think about the end of theworld, also, it reminded me of Hurricane Katrina when I had to stayaway from the window because a whole group of people were breaking in astore across the street of my home and looting.

The scene where they showed a "recording" of children screaming becausethere was an alien outside hiding from the bushes at someone's birthdayparty really freaked me out.

I think this movie was a great film and I'm almost too scared to watchit again. But it was a very great film and I recommend it if you havean interest in viewing horror films.

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS

Signs (2002): This movie is about the Hess family. This family hadrecently lost someone very valuable due to a traffic accident a fewyears back. The children's' mother. The father however is alive andwell and with the help of his brother Merrill Hess, the family is doingwell for themselves. One morning however that all changed. On aseemingly normal morning, Graham was woken up by his daughter Bo'sscreaming. He went to investigate with his brother Merrill. What theyfound would change their lives forever. With the incident all over thenews and more of these incidents occurring around the world, it looksas though there is something strange happening.

Signs is my favorite movie of 2002. Everything it has to offer is oftop quality. The acting in this movie is fantastic, the suspense isjust brilliant, and the effects for the alien are great. Mr. Shyamalanhas created himself a masterpiece. I have never witnessed a movie withsuspense so effective! It keeps you guessing until the end and it keepsyou on the edge of your seat. This is how a sci-fi thriller should bemade. Mr. Shyamalan really knew what he was doing when he made thismovie. It is the work of a genius. There is no other way to put it. Itis sheer brilliance.

the verdict: A brilliant example of how a thriller s
hould be made.

10/10

and everything to do with belief and fear.

M. Night Shyamalan is a genius. He can write, direct and guide a filmbetter than anyone living or dead. While Steven Spielberg is his equalas director, he cannot write as well.

This film is so perfect, so finely-tuned, crafted and sewn together, itwill accompany you around for days to come.

It doesn’t matter the theme is "aliens invading Earth," as that hasnothing to do with the film. It could have been "KKK burning a blackfamily’s home" or "Nazis killing Jews." This film, in its entirety, isabout the experience of being human. That it’s juxtaposed againstaliens just makes it more interesting. Two disparate species who wantthe same thing: to survive.

What makes this film so important is the dialogue. The script is tight,each weft and warp - each thread - pulled tightly into the weave of thewhole. Each word is polished and trenchant. There is not a singlewasted or unnecessary sentence. Even the unexpected humor belongedright *there*. For that, Shamalayan deserved recognition. I have noidea why "Signs" wasn’t nominated for any of the Oscars. Three of thefive nominated films bored me silly, while "Signs" kept me riveted inmy seat. If that’s not the mark of a great film, then I don’tunderstand the medium.

Brilliant director, brilliant screenplay and film and brilliant cast.Mel Gibson has had a 50/50 success rate with his roles, but this one ofa man struggling with the destruction of his faith, is on the uptickside of his performances.

Joaquin Phoenix is riveting, absolutely riveting, as a lost manclinging to the broken shards of a past neither brilliant nor terrible,but somewhere in a destructive in-between.

The children are eerily un-childlike, yet as vulnerable and tender asonly children can be. How Shyamalan wrung such performances out of RoryCulkin and Abigail Breslin, I’ve no idea, but I was mesmerized.

I hope the members of AMPAS wake up and realize what a treasure we havein M. Night Shyamalan. I don’t want to see - 30 years hence - a"lifetime achievement award" for a man overlooked during hisdistinguished career.

Last comment: Shyalmalan’s performance as Ray Reddy was superb. He wasimportant, yet unobtrusive, in the life of the script. That all actorscan be so powerful and yet restrained. I saw the Reddy character as thetrue alien of the film… of this Earth and yet condemned to hell forhis actions.

Yes, there are scientific inconsistencies with this cleverly paced,highly entertaining movie. However, the majority of criticisms arebased on things WE know; not on things that the aliens may (or may not)know. Maybe the aliens can't stand something chemical in TREATED water.Did anyone consider the fact that fluoride may be the deadly component?Perhaps they've never even SEEN a wooden door before, let alone housingsuch as ours; and tend not to break doors down because they don't knowwhat lies beyond them. And we have no idea what they may actually wanthuman bodies for …so what if humans are made out of water, perhapsthey extract enzymes or something.

Taking these things into consideration, it's a bit easier to suspendone's disbelief. Plus, I'm an atheist and even I didn't mind thespiritual tie-in to the movie's plot line. After all, spirituality issupposed to have meaning to those who believe it, and this movie merelyaffirms such.

I found the movie to be alternately frightening and humorous; open yourmind and you will too!

First of all,it's a movie,don't question it. Second of all,I'll providea number of reasonable explanations for the issues that you peoplefound in a good movie.***SPOILERS FOLLOW!*** 1.The alien stuck behindthe pantry didn't have anything on him,and he was probably trying notto bleed to death from having a finger cut off!2.They might harvestbeings made mostly of water and (listen here for a minute,are youpaying attention?Good!)THEY COULD FILTER OUT THE FREAKIN WATER!THATLOGICAL ENOUGH FOR YOU?! And they probably chose humans,because wewouldn't expect them to kill us!Case 1.Hiroshima. Case 2.The LARiots.Do you get it now?And for all of you who are saying that thealiens were obviously men in costumes…HOW LONG DID THAT TAKEYOU,EINSTEIN?TOOK THE REST OF THE AUDIENCE ABOUT 5 SECONDS TO FIGURE ITOUT,YA IDIOT!!So please sit back,relax,eat some popcorn,and watch aquality movie that goes unappreciated by some people.

read comments (0)

Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi

I watched this movie at the recommendation of a trusted friend, but Iam afraid I have to confess that this is one of the worst films I haveyet come across. The animation technique is technically well executed,but the plot got spirited away in the process. At every instant new,completely unmotivated themes come up — certainly "imaginative", butnot "creative", as another friend put it very succinctly. The beginningis intriguing and raises high expectations, but I cannot help but thinkthat the writer and director increasingly lost any sense of what thefilm should be about. Throughout most the second half, so-called evil’stink spirits’ run around vomiting non-stop (mildly amusing to watch),and towards the very end the film deteriorates into a sentimental,unoriginal story of true love and a misunderstood, wrongly resentedwitch. Oh my god, what a complete waste of time.

Call me old-fashioned but little things like plot and structure still meansomething to me when I’m watching a movie. Perhaps these minor littledetails simply got lost in the translation (perhaps they were spiritedaway… yuk, yuk, yuk). If so then I commend-albeit with heaps ofskepticism- everyone who praised this movie for their cultural aptitude.Ifnot, then shame on you for promoting this hapless drivel. Yes, theanimation was breath-taking, but am I the only one who didn’t want toshootcute little Chihiro (and everything else) after the first five minutes?Comeon people! Who’s with me? Am I the only one who wondered why Haku, theboy/dragon-dog/river/whatever, was almost killed by that flock of, whatlooked like, rabid confetti? And what was up with the bath tickets? Andthegiant monster baby? Should I have gotten high before seeing this movie?Idon’t know, something tells me that it would have made the experienceworse.Lilo and Stitch all the way baby!!!!!!!

* YES, IT DOES CONTAIN A FEW SPOILERS

Spirited Away is a story about Chihiro, a smart young girl who - thanks toher parents stupidity - end up getting lost in a sacred forbidden citywhere spirits come to bath and relax. But you already knew that beforereading.

I can tell you up front that the story is pretty much a copycat version ofAlice in Wonderland, only with a much darker plot. For example, in thepreview you don’t get to see Chhiro’s parents mutating into pigs aftereating the forbidden food there. Nor is the fact mentioned that the guywhoturns into a dragon does so because he sold his life to witchcraft. Or iseven mentioned that part of the scary old women’s pets is threedecapitatedheads rolling and jumping around. So think twice, about it if you want tobring kids to this movie ( then again Disney probably cut all that out, oradlibed it differently to change the story). My little cousin, from what Ihear ran out of the theatre scared as hell… but then went back in lateronbecause he was curious to see how it would end.

So how about good points?. Well, I can tell you that the animation issuperb. I mean really good. It’s a mileu - where you get to wonder in aweofthe scenery , rather than concentrate on the story. The music is also verywell orchestrated, giving a great overall feel to the movie.

Now the bad points. The plot stinks. I mean it, there are literally somanyholes and details that if you’re not paying attention to the whole thing,you’ll get confused very soon. The question, as to whether or not Chirhioisable save her parents is pretty obvious and as to why you would care isanother question that never gets answered. Overall, after seeing the movieyou’ll feel it’s pretty pointless. Oh yes, and they also dubbed it -another bad thing. I can tell by watching the preview that the dialoguehaschanged. I watched the chinese version - and there is a difference. So ,should things not make sense , just blame the translators.

So what’s my judgement? YES - go and see it. The movie, I think is worthseeing at least once, especially on the big screen, and no moreafterwards.

This is a good film. I wouldn’t say brilliant, as I don’t think it is.Firstly, the character of Chihiro is a total pain up the ass. Kinda likeDaveigh Chase’s voice. But I think Miyazaki did do a pretty cool job. Eachanime picture is drawn fantastically, and the movie is very interesting. Ienjoyed it and so did each one of my friends. No movie, (with theexceptionof `The Sixth Sense’ and `What a Girl Wants’) has ever done that before.This movie was able to keep a 15 year old boy entertained, a 17 year oldboyentertained, two 17 year old girls, a thirteen year old movie fanatic andabratty 14 year old entertained. (Sorry to all those people I may haveoffended by saying that.) So I think that anybody can go in to see thisfilm, and come out satisfied. 8/10

IT is so sad to see animated films that are just a waste of time. Mightas well waste time watching new and dumpy cartoons on television. Thedirector has gone crazy with this one, creating odd looking hags,vomiting freaks and a dumb protagonist. There was no point to themagical elements or even imagination that might have been in this moviebecause it was bloated with eccentricity.

I wonder why, though, because his other film, Princess Mononoke is awonderful film with a good theme, meaning and character development. Itseems that if you want to see animated films, you should just skip overSpiritied Away and try the Triplets of Belleville - that is truly afine film.

This movie did not impress me at all. Unlike the other movies by thiscompany, this one by far had to be the worst they ever made. I thoughtit to be very weird, and pointless. The characters were very weird,like for example, the parents turning into pigs. Like what is up withthat? There is NO reason for them to turn into pigs, and they just do,out of nowhere.

Hated the animation, worst of them all. Nasicaa is definitely betterthan this piece of crap. I know that many people will disagree with meon this, since it is a very popular movie and everyone likes it, but Iam going to stick with my opinion on this one. I believe it to have nostory and it's just about a random, weird 2 year old running aroundmeeting the weirdest and most retarded people, no not people THINGS Ihave ever seen in my life. Like what is up with that old women. She'sHUGE, and she has to be weirdest person a anime company has ever made,and she is the weirdest animated person ever. Also what is with thatPrince guy? Talk about a transvestite! I seriously thought it was agirl when I first watched this, but I stopped 3 quarters of the waythrough because I couldn't take it anymore! It just bugged me and mademe think that the company is crap because of that one movie. Like whatkind of sick twisted mind can someone have to make these kind ofpeople? Another weird person was the tall man that helps the littlegirl get a job. Now what the heck is that? Is that even human? No it'snot because NOTHING is human in that world, not even the girl becauseshe is definitely weird.

1/10. Should get lower. I would give it a negative 100. Worst movie Ihave ever seen in my life, even worse than the village.

This film is what happens when you get a bunch of creepy Japaneseanimatorswith too much time on their hands. This film is utterly pointless. Agirlwanders around a compound full of ghosts looking for her parents avoidingalot of gruemsome muck. The main charachter has no character. She goesfrom one weird place to another hardly commenting or expressing anything,outside of the stereotypical eye thing japanamation likes to do. It’s fullof monsters and ghosts doing vague and unusual things trying to be scary.I’m not for being spoon fed meaning in nice bite sized packages but thismakes "Brazil" seem focused and straightforward. The film, like many ofthecharachters, just wanders and lingers around like an alztimer’s patienttrying to find his way out of a run down funhouse. Visually it ispleasing,but so
is my blender. If you want to see a bunch of well illustratedweirdstuff with no point whatsoever then this is the film foryou.

The Japanese version was EXCELLENT. However, the English dubbed versionof this film is beyond disappointing. It’s disgusting. Haku sounds like asnob and Chihiro sounds like an annoying brat throughout the whole movie(even at the end when she’s supposed to have GROWN UP!) They made aterrible choice when selecting the voice over cast (ESPECIALLY FOR CHIHIRO) I must applaud Kamaji’s voice over, who did a very nice job along withYababa/Zeniba. The french dub for Chihiro was WONDERFUL, once again, theEnglish one was HORRIBLE! Save yourself and stick to the subbed this onetime (unless you know French;-D).

No just no. Thats gonna be my main statement, the movie is toridiculous to respect and along side that it barely makes sense. Thiswhole ordeal just shouldn't exist. Its to crazy and makes me wannashoot babies. I can't even name everything, god the Noface characterkilled me. The town and everything that went on in it was way to muchI'm sorry. Just didn't make sense whatso ever. People think its goodbecause they feel there has to be some sort of reason behind a speedtrip this crazy. They feel that it has an intelligent aspect becausethey feel everything represents something or depicts something. Itdoesn't, I'm gonna tell you that right now, nothing in this movie makessense, the title, the characters, the plot, the settings, nothing. If Ifilled a tub with acid and cut my self in several places the things iwould see would very closely resemble this movie. Jimi Hendrix could'vewritten this movie and it wouldve been better just cause the musicwould rock. People that are uninformed feel that authors and directorsmake everything represent something, everything. This is not the case,now I'm not trying to offend the director but I'm sure he just wantedto make a movie that seemed like a spectacular dream that the viewerwas having. And he did a good job, but i bet if i went and asked himwhat things represent he'd be like "well you see the noface characterrepresented a creature that eats everything". Thats exactly what it is,nothing more or less. See the reason its #48 on crack list 2076 isbecause its just like every other Japanese movie and crazy but thisones animations and art were just so brilliant. Thats it and since itson it people think its an amazing movie.

OK no one believes me, heres what ill do, ill get some acid and speed,get incredibly high and film a movie. It will be exactly the sameexcept it won't be animated. Now you see this is why the Japanesepeople are unique is because they do not need to get high in crystalmeth to precipitate these insane ideas. The movie lacks subtlty, reasonand plot, end of story.

This movie had some redeeming qualities, but I basically didn’t likeit. I’m not very familiar with anime, so maybe that’s part of theproblem. The animation seems to be choppy, unlike Pixar movies wherethe characters move in a smooth manner. Some of the scenery waswonderful, but the choppiness of the characters took away from thebeauty of the scenery for me. Also, the fantasy part of the story wasjust plain weird for me. I understand the "Alice in Wonderland"reference, but in that story, we still have animals and people as thestrange characters. In "Spirited Away," there are strange charactersthat don’t seem to make sense, for example, the witch’s baby. How doesshe have a baby and why is he "huge?" Other parts of the movie didn’tmake sense. Why does the father suddenly drive his car very fast up thehill just before stopping in front of the stone statue? Why is thefantasy world suddenly surrounded by water? It’s a little too strangefor me.

read comments (0)

Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoilers herein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: ** out of *****

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

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

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

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

read comments (0)