Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Magnificent Ambersons (2002 TV Movie)
How To Ruin A Great Film
20 January 2002
The director of this rubbish completely missed every single moment of drama in the magnificent Welles screenplay. It doesn't help that they cast a young man who has absolutely no acting talent to play George. This role is central to the drama of the whole piece.

The casting agent who found Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, a high-school drop-out in Cork, Ireland, said "Jonathan Rees-Myers(sic), from County Cork apparently, who looks like a young Tom Cruise. Comes into the casting session with alarming certainty. Obviously gifted." Just because you look like Tom Cruise doesn't mean you can act. This kid nearly breaks his face mugging for the camera. I don't know why the other truly gifted actors in the sames scenes (James Cromwell and the wonderful Canadian Bruce Greenwood who did such a terrific job in Thirteen Days) didn't throw things at him!

Between the director's ponderously slow pace and Rhys-Meyers' putrid performance, this movie is an excrutiating experience.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fine performances...
28 May 2001
The film is worth seeing for Kevin Spacey's and Helen Hunt's performances. The story is compelling and nicely structured. I enjoyed the way it began at the end, flipped to the beginning and then slowly worked its way to the middle from both ends. However, the ending is a complete let down and isn't worthy of the preceding story.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Watch the National Geographic special on K2 instead
28 May 2001
Warning: Spoilers
***MINOR SPOILERS***

Terrible film. I had a feeling I was in for a hack film at the opening shots of Monument Valley. An eagle flies through the landscape. In the close up, it is clear it is a computer mock-up of an eagle. It is so poorly done, it looks like Mothra attacking Godzilla.

The plot is pedestrian and predictable. The 'cliffhanger' action sequences are so incredibly contrived they evoke laughter instead of chills. Teenagers will no doubt enjoy it but it is third rate tripe not worthy of the acting talents of Scott Glenn.

Robin Tunney as the sister stranded on the mountain is embarrassingly amateurish. The only strong actor in the film is the Izabella Scorupco in the role of the French-Canadian climber.

Did the screenwriters even reread what they had written? The lost climbers have 22 hours to live. It will take the rescuers 27 hours to find them. They need the crusty veteran (they should have called him Quint) to help them climb quickly as he knows the mountain. So they get within 3 or 4 hours of the lost climbers and they stop and pitch tents and have a nap. Come on!

I stopped the DVD when Chris O'Donnell is saying "Welcome back" to his sister. They didn't even mention the fact that four people died to save her stupid butt. Five if you count her Dad at the beginning.

I can't believe people spend millions of dollars on such amateurish pap.

If you have rented the DVD already, your money isn't wasted. Watch the National Geographic special on K2 that is in the Special Features section. It is the only thing worth watching.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mummy (1932)
8/10
Karloff at his finest
2 October 1999
I am glad the recent remake of The Mummy has aroused interest in the original - much the same way the remake of The Haunting has renewed interest in the brilliant original.

Comparing the two films is futile since they are really apples and oranges - the remake is an action/adventure film of the Raider's variety with the original being an effectively atmospheric example of German Expressionistic filmmaking.

If I was to find a similarity between the 1999 and the 1932 versions it would be in the powerful performances by the actors in the role of The Mummy - Karloff and Vosloo. Karloff is absolutely brilliant in The Mummy. Watch the way he moves! His performance intensity shines through all the makeup as it did in Frankenstein.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Tripe!
1 July 1999
This is an awful film. I don't know what is worse, the acting, the exploitation or the script. The ending is a total red herring. The film is rife with references to the Simpson trial and steeped in the world of LA sleeze. Typical LA navel gazing at its worst, this film is horribly misogynistic including the 'hit' rap lyrics of the defendant. I don't get the title at all. Unless the film-makers had never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the film Shadow of a Doubt, of which I have no doubt!
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Brilliant Filmmaking
12 June 1999
I must say that when Saving Private Ryan came to the cinemas, I wasn't compelled to go see it. I usually avoid films that have hoards of lemmings camping out to see it (read SW Episode One). Pvt. Ryan had been on the video shelves for a few weeks before I picked it up. I wasn't really looking forward to YAAWF (Yet Another American War Film).

This film is absolutely brilliant filmmaking. If Speilberg had not made ET and Indiana Jones, he would not have had the creative control to make a masterpiece like this. He reminds me of Hitchcock at the height of his powers in the late 50's early 60's.

This film is riveting from beginning to end. Every scene, every shot, every sound has meaning and is seamlessly integrated with the overall artistic vision of the film. I have a degree in Film Criticism and have seen a lot of film. You quickly become jaded by formula after formula.

Speilberg has created a fresh approach to what could be considered a tired genre. The hand-held, chaotic filming of the Omaha Beach landing along with the sizzling soundscape make this sequence one of the best in cinema history. The point, however, is not to bombard the viewer with gory war scenes for shock purposes. It is a setup for the rest of the film. You are never at ease at any time for the rest of the movie. They payoff for this setup is the sequence towards the end of the film in the battle to hold the bridge.

One beautifully crafted sequence (of many) is setup in the opening sequence crossfade from the old man's blue eyes to Tom Hank's shaking hand at the Omaha landing. That crossfade is a film convention that Speilberg subverts for dramatic effect. When you see the final crossfade from Pvt. Ryan's face to the old man's face (beautifully done) it comes full circle. This subversion of a typical film convention is what makes Tom Hank's final scene so incredibly moving. You'll know what I mean when you've seen it.

Speilberg has gone beyond technical mastery of film, he has become a consumate artist, using his film making skills with intelligence, sensitivity and confidence.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed