Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Cutting Room (2006)
10/10
Excellent Blend of Funny and Scary
9 July 2006
I saw a screening of this film at the Italian Institute last month. Cutting Room is one of those movies you're not completely sure what it is at first, but once you're in it's a great ride. The colors, lighting and style emphasize the nicely weaved blend of quirkiness and spookiness. The larger than life characters are well performed by a strong cast who walk that fine line of being believably funny without becoming over-the-top. The sound and score also lends itself to the humor and pacing, keeping you off-guard and then surprising you when you least expect it. In a market filled gratuitous gore flicks and bland comedies that seem to repeat themselves year after year (and even recycle the same cast over and over), Cutting Room is a breath of fresh air, combining strong production value with fun characters and an intriguing story.

Definitely worth checking out.
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fun But Predictable.
8 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I think this movie is the victim of many very clever movies before it. It's difficult to mislead an audience and have a surprise ending that actually surprises any more. Unlike many recent great 'surprise ending' movies, like Usual Suspects, Sixth Sense, Memento and Seven, I was always one step ahead of guessing what was going to happen next in Lucky Number Slevin. Had Slevin come out before any of those others I mentioned it might be in the same category. Unfortunately it is not.

The style of Slevin is very nice and there are some great clever moments. I found myself entertained by it. But I felt myself entertained in the same way as watching a movie I've seen several times already, detecting early on the clues that would eventually reveal the big secret at the end. And the reveals were slow enough that even if you're not looking for them you can see them coming.

Because of this it feels more like a rental than a gotta-go-out-and-see-it one. Probably explains why it didn't do so hot at the box office.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Producers (2005)
3/10
The Movie of the Musical of the Movie
8 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This pretty much felt like what it was: a movie based on a successful stage musical based on a successful movie. Not a whole lot original here. I can understand why it was made into a stage musical, as such an adaptation brings another dimension, but making it back into a movie again? The magician did one trick too many and blew the secret.

Its not a terrible film. Were it to stand alone it might have actually been OK. But to compare it to the original exposes all the brilliant subtleties are completely lost due to insider jokes and general staleness. The (new) film seemed often to be laughing at itself, rather than making something genuinely funny and allowing you to laugh at it. Nathan Lane did a fine job as Max Bialystock, and was probably the shining part of the film. Matthew Broderick, who I usually like, seemed to be desperately trying to imitate Gene Wilder, an impossible task, rather than making the character his own. Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman played their characters so broad I found myself amused more at the idea of what they were doing than what they were actually doing.

I'd say my biggest complaint of the film though, apart from its general pointlessness, was the fact that the pinnacle moment in the film, when Springtime For Hitler is finally revealed on stage to a stunned audience, it actually seems less over-the-top than most of the stuff that happens before and after it. In the original when that moment is revealed, we are grounded enough in reality and falling off our chair laughing at the absurdity-- because we actually buy it. In general The (new) Producers feels like one of those Saturday Night Live skits (and not a very good one) that goes on way too long.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crash (I) (2004)
8/10
Good Movie, Even if Sensationalized
7 July 2006
Crash, baring in mind it is not at all real, is an excellent film. If people want to find truth in it though, this is not the place. It is no more nor less a representation of reality than JFK or other conspiratorial types of films. Crash makes it seem as if Los Angeles is about ready to erupt into mass hysteria with racial battle-lines being drawn as people arm themselves. This is not the case-- at least not in the affluent areas or even middle-class areas. In the areas of Los Angeles stricken by poverty this might be more prevalent, although its a statistical fact that most violence in those areas are people inflicting harm on others of the same race.

Having said that, lets address Crash as a pure piece of fiction. It is very well crafted, with excellent characters and great performances. Like an episodic, I found myself wanting to know what happened to a particular character next, while at the same time being sucked into the next character and story line just as quickly. Excellent film-making.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Holy Cow!
6 July 2006
This is one of those films where the plot doesn't matter at all. The action is so amazing and the stunts so unique that I was riveted the whole time. The Thai version of martial arts introduced in this film were not like anything I have seen before. I hope that Tony Jaa becomes as mainstream as Jet Li or Jackie Chan, because I could watch that stuff all day. There were no special effects, no wires or camera tricks-- all of the action is authentic. I even wondered sometimes if the poor extras were actually getting their heads stomped in. It is filled with one crazy scene after another, and the action almost never stops.

If you're at all into martial arts movies, this one is an absolute MUST SEE.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Truth or Fiction? Does it Matter?
6 July 2006
This film was neither as good as the hype nor as bad as the backlash. It was what it was-- another Hollywood film blown out of proportion with an all star cast, good production value (except some of the shots seemed a bit underexposed at times) excellent soundtrack... and blasé unoriginal narrative. For someone like me the believability is not crucial because I find it no more or less believable than the stuff they try to teach us in Sunday school, although from a purist point of view I can understand why someone might be strongly opposed to it. What the detractors should realize is that their fire-branded criticism contributes to the hype as much as any advertising paid for by the studio. For that reason it became a must-see movie. And apart from the hype there's no big rush to go and see it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed