Reviews

If one is going to make a movie with some hidden layer that contains the "real" movie, they ought to actually make the outward layer watchable. This started off well, slowly getting more and more interesting, then veered off into the weird and absurd.

A similar film is Mulholland Drive. However that film was better both before and after it "got weird". It was certainly more of a puzzle and less of a cop out. The acting was more interesting. And yet, even that film wasn't too great.

I don't know what the writer is attempting here, perhaps some sort of lolita-esque analogy about art. Whatever it is, it doesn't work. Instead we are left with a mediocre character study that turns into a mediocre thriller with a terrible, worthless ending.

Still, it's not complete garbage. I believe traditional wisdom states that any film that generates so much conversation can't be too bad.

This is one of those rare films that affected my mental state at the time. I paused it to run a few errands, and while out on the town I had this strong feeling that I was going to be caught soon and the gig would be up. That's a rare accomplishment for a film, to affect me in such a way. This of itself was an endearing effect of the film for me.

However, I also enjoyed it on an intellectual level. It seemed right on target about something I've noticed in society. Not addiction - although its portrayal of addiction was certainly spot on - but rather, the way that society enables, perhaps even encourages, us to continue our addictive behaviors. The bank higher-ups seeming overjoyed at the notion of taking more money from people; the vegas and atlantic city branches competing for someone's business; the bookie who lets money override his feelings of guilt; the friends who see his problem but aren't forceful in solving it.

Aside from the social statement, I also liked the way that addictions ran into each other in some sort of harmonious way. Mahowny's addiction to gambling somehow enabled and fed upon other people's addiction to money.

Perhaps the production value is a bit low, and perhaps the plot itself seems to be embellished a bit from what reality might contain, yet the overall ideas of what happened, how it happened, and so forth certainly resonate with me.

Having now seen the full trilogy along with The Animatrix, I feel that it is safe to say that the body of work is quite an achievement. While I did prefer the original, I don't think that it is necessarily due to the quality of the film as much as the fact that it was my first venture into the world of the Matrix. I feel quite strongly that the original film has been grossly overrated despite being a good movie. It was just as porous in its logic, and certainly the corniest of the trilogy.

The last film is perhaps the coldest of the three, and yet the most intellectually interesting. The first barely contained much originality of philosophy. With each film, however, the trilogy veered off further and further into surreal philosophy. Still, although the most interesting, it's that coldness and detachment that made me like this film the least.

I am sure this, like Lord of the Rings, will go down in history and become a beloved trilogy. To me, however, it is the achievement of the films moreso than the films themselves that impress. Unlike the original three star wars, I do not hold a special place in my heart for these films. Instead I look back upon them as a piece of film history.

The one piece I will remember is The Animatrix. Now THAT was a great work.

This movie is not gutter trash, but close enough. Tons of ridiculous plot elements. Some of the stunts were totally ridiculous. There were moments that were so bad they were comical. Notice how the stars don't get wet for the first 30 seconds of major torrential downpours. Notice how fake many of the jumping / throwing / falling scenes look. All so bad they were good.

The one major positive that comes from this movie is learning that Jennifer Garner has a terrific screen presence. Too bad it was wasted on such a silly, boring movie (with occasional moments of fun).

Farrell finally delivers on his chosen one status. Albeit in a ridiculous character in a ridiculous movie.

If you enjoy laughing AT movies, this is a good choice. If you are looking for something as entertaining-without-being-stupid as x-men or spiderman, look elsewhere.

What more is there to say? The jokes were generally not funny, the action was with little exception quite unimpressive... this was simply not a good movie. Normally this does not matter much, because the stunts and fight sequences are exhilerating. This is not the case here. The fight scenes were for the most part unimpressive. Maybe it was the fact that they were too fast or too unbelievable. I don't know. Whatever the case, the movie was not up to Jackie standards.

The first half hour or so of the Pianist really struggles. It shows the same coming threat that we have seen in other movies, yet does not do as good of a job of making them as horrific or tragic. Polanski tries his best, and certainly there are scenes that one would think would horrify. Yet knowing what would happen later, and having seen films such as Schindler's List, the early parts of the Pianist just don't have the same emotional impact that they might have in years past.

However, once the film becomes more about the individual struggles of the Protagonist, it starts to take off and captivate the audience. I particularly enjoyed the way Polanski let us feel what Brody's character was feeling rather than have him overact in reaction to pleasant and unpleasant surprises. This allows the audience to draw their own conclusions without trying to make them think they have even a remote clue what it would have actually felt like.

The sets in this film are really outstanding. They bring to mind some great sets like those of Saving Private Ryan, The Third Man, and Ran. It really felt like war came to a beautiful city and destroyed it. I never felt like I was watching special effects or set engineering. This for me was the best part of the film.

Second best would have to be the actual music. While it does not approach the level of Amadeus in terms of integrating music with the plot and glorifying great music, doing so would not have felt right in this film. The music also felt more personal and prodigal.

This film is a masterpiece. Which is not to say it is without flaws, but rather that the movie overwhelms you with so many good things that you are able to overlook the minor plot points.

I agree that a couple points don't make sense in the film, but who cares. I saw it again tonight and was totally swept away again. This film is impressive in its blending of action, film noir, true science fiction, and suspense. And yet it is still full of whimsy, satire, and comedy.

I enjoyed the way the film meandered from genre to genre - early on concentrating on science fiction, then blending into action, which blended into suspense, all the while mixed with a touch of film noir. You get a lot of movie for your money here.

Perhaps the thing I most cherish, though, is the style of this film. The great visuals are a big part, but there's also a very strong layer of grit and perversity here. I don't think I've seen a big-budget film in a long time with so much concentration on the artistic details without sacrificing the rest of the film.

Truly the best film of 2002 that I've seen.

Miyazaki films are always a treat to watch. I was hoping this film would surpass Princess Mononoke in quality, and it both does and doesn't. In terms of the life and joy breathed into the film, it is certainly Miyazaki's crowning achievement. But in terms of character complexity, deeper meaning, and richness of plot, it is not at the same level.

However, make no mistake, this is an excellent alternative to most family films. Anyone able to appreciate imaginative artwork, memories of childhood wonder, and curiosity will enjoy this film. Examining it with a cold, logical eye we might suggest that it seems like nothing more than a miyazaki sketchbook of characters. But the life that each character is imbued with would overpower this opinion once the heart is let in. What is great about miyazaki's children's movies is that none of the characters are really evil; just perhaps crabby or different.

Watching the film, we really feel as though the main character is swept away into adventure and wonder. As the audience we are able to stop and think, "what's she doing that for? what the heck is going on here?" but the character does not have such luxury. Tossed into a world of weird but charming creatures, she nonetheless has a very serious set of obstacles to overcome.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of the film is the way characters never turn out to be exactly what we expect, and how they are molded over the course of the film into characters we are fond of. And then there's the little bits of what I can only term throw-away joy.

However, those looking for even, structured stories should probably take a look at less child-like films. There are times when the movie just sort of veers off randomly in another direction, sometimes seeming to even conflict with itself. This is not uncommon to children's fiction, and certainly almost a mainstay of japanese animation. Still, people looking for well-crafted stories will find some parts a little disappointing.

For this reason I would rate this just below Princess Mononoke. Perhaps PM was a little too ambitious, a little too conventional, but it did succeed in telling a very complex, intricate story. This film seems a little more messy and convoluted. Which could be seen as a good thing to some.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring was a decent action movie that was formed from much richer, more rewarding material. Having seen it twice now and re-read the books, I am extremely surprised that so many alleged Tolkien fans find this to be a worthy interpretation.

I'm generally not one to compare a book to a movie in order to judge the movie, but in this case it cannot be helped. There were so many things that were changed for no apparent reason which severely detracted from the quality of the movie and dumbed it down to some common denominator that is beneath the quality of the material.

As an example, the hobbit characters in the movie were incredibly weak, both of mind and of definition. What was the reason for making Pippin and Merry into the class clowns of The Shire? Would it not have made more sense to just leave them as friends who wanted to go along with Frodo? Why were the characters never defined in the movie? Why were plot points intentionally changed to make the hobbits look stupid? In the novel they each had a very rich definition. In the movie Sam is really the only hobbit character who has any sort of personality.

Furthermore, the movie made them into bumbling buffoons most of the time. It reminded me a lot of why I didn't like the Anakin character in Star Wars Episode I. What's even more insulting is that they were not this stupid in the novel.

If that lone were the only complaint that could be lodged, it probably would have gotten a more favorable review from me. But what about all the other little things changed to make the story fit into conventions? Basically all of the characters except Gandalf and Aragorn were one-dimensional sitcom characters. I was half expecting to see gimli and boromi pop up in a bad episode of Full House after the movie. In the novel they were far more articulate, intelligent, level-headed, and realistic. Each of the fellowship members seemed worthy of being on the journey, unlike in the movie where we feel as though they were sent to Rivendell because their own people thought they were too ignorant and stupid to stay.

There are many other examples: the obligatory last second jump onto the departing boat; the wildly exaggerated fight between aragorn and the nazgul; the lucky catch of the ring in the inn; all changed from the source material, all significantly cheaper and less intelligent. What it boiled down to for me was a very weak story. A lot of plot, but little substance. As far as I am concerned, the movie was as stiff and untrue to the story as a bullet-pointed summary of the plot would have been. Any time the movie departed from the novel, it was either to conserve time (an admirable goal at least) or to dumb the story down and make it more hollywood movie-ish.

All that being said, I did appreciate the production value, although some of the computer-generated special effects were very poorly done. The set designs were very good, a treat to watch. The music was on the whole very good. The acting almost elevated the material, but in the end it was not possible. Although I feel it was an untrue adaptation to concentrate mostly on action, the action scenes were done well enough.

Worth seeing, but hardly a great translation; certainly not among the best movies I've seen.