Change Your Image
Giac
Reviews
Levity (2003)
This is how people really are...
This was simply a very good movie. It was moving, emotive, and most important to me, *real.* I usually don't like "artsy" movies with their "special" characters, so much deeper than the rest of us, punctuated by some truly bizarre behaviour. This movie was not like that. Jordan is no hero. He's not smarter than the rest of us, nor is he "deeper." He is just an ordinary person who has made a horrible mistake and has become obsessed with finding forgiveness for his mistake. And there is no Hollywood ending here. He is not granted this forgiveness at the end. (That part was so real.) What he does find is an acceptance. "Yes, we want you to live and can accept that, but, no, don't ever try to see us again."
This is what I enjoyed about the movie, that most of the characters could engage me so much, and yet be totally believable in their reactions. (The one exception was the Kirsten Dunst character. I've known people like this and believe me, they don't turn around as easily as she did.) A much better reaction (and humourous too) was the way the neighbourhood kids solved their money problem in the end - so different from what Morgan Freeman/minister had done, and so real for these character types.
Which brings me to one final thing: the Morgan Freeman character. Call me old-fashioned but I love it when the author throws in enough foreshadowing to make a "surprise" at the end believable. Freeman's character (even his voice) gives you enough clues throughout, that this guy is no minister.
Anyway, you'll enjoy the movie if you're not into the "rock 'em, sock 'em" Hollywood action style, or not into interpreting overly bizarre behaviour as "art." This movie falls somewhere in between these 2 extremes and is "just right."
- Jack
Wo hu cang long (2000)
Certain to appeal to the elitists
The movie did have gorgeous scenery. That is all I liked about it. But the movie is sure to appeal to the elitists among us, who are more refined and cultured than the common herd. They will like the fact that the characters have unrealistic, but nobler and "finer" motivations than the rest of us. Most of us would not spend a lifetime apart from someone who loves us, simply because they were once betrothed to a friend who died, but that's because we're crass and human, not god-like as 2 of the main characters were. (Li does admit in the end that he wasted his life - my favourite scene in the movie.)
Most of us would not go around attacking everything around us simply because we want to be free, but Jen exists on a higher plane than us mere mortals. Taking this a little further, Lien likes Jen instantly, even though the girl is constantly attacking her, has stolen a very valuable sword, is associated with a mortal enemy, and constantly puts down the man she loves. Once again, most of us would probably dislike her, but we don't operate in the clouds like Lien.
The fight scenes are utterly ridiculous and probably admired because they come from the east. If a Hollywood movie had people running up walls, etc., I have little doubt that it would be roundly panned. Personally, I found them really boring, like watching 2 perfectly matched buzz-saws.
All in all, as far as the overall movie was concerned, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching the cinematic version of Dungeons and Dragons. But that's probably because I'm a mundane human with no aesthetic sensibilities.
- Jack
Gladiator (2000)
Gladiator - simply a terrible movie (SPOILERS)
I must admit that I'm very surprised at how highly everyone seems to regard the movie "Gladiator." What I don't understand is why. Personally, I think it's a terrible movie. I won't even bother detailing its numerous historical inaccuracies. To do so would require a book. For those of you more historically inclined, suffice it to say that the movie combines elements from the reins of Julius Caesar, Caligula, and Commodus. Indeed, the Emperor actually portrayed in this movie is more like Caligula than anyone else. Some of you may consider this to be a minor point but we are talking about a span of 200 years. If this were equated to modern times, you would get a scene where Abraham Lincoln takes Air Force one and flies back to Washington. 200 years is 200 years. But, as I promised, I won't get stuck on the historical inaccuracies.
What makes this a terrible movie to me is the stupid plot. In the beginning of the movie, Commodus has no problem riding into the camp of a powerful general. Seeing as powerful generals often seized power in ancient Rome, this would seem to be an exceedingly stupid thing to do. Next he kills his father, Marcus Aurelius. No one seems to care or suspect. I guess they were more stupid in those days. Next, Maximus refuses to shake his hand, signalling no support for the new Emperor. Of course, because everyone in those days must have been stupid, Maximus does not feel his life is in danger and takes no immediate steps to protect himself. If you believe that people from the past were dumber than what they are now, you can accept these glaring mistakes but I can assure you that people back then were not this stupid.
Now Maximus is seized from his tent to be executed. Where is his army? Here is the general who was adulated by his army but, suddenly, his army is nowhere to be found. Next, Maximus overcomes not one but 2 armed executioners. Of course, they had no idea that they had to be careful with the condemned man because they were more stupid in those days.
Next comes the confusing part. Maximus has been wounded in Germany. Somehow, he makes it all the way to Spain in a couple of days. (It must've been a couple of days because he's still bleeding!) The only explanation I can offer for his having made it so fast from Germany to Spain on horse is that his horse must've been a Porsche. (He was in Germany after all.) Then, somehow, we find him in Africa. I won't even ask how he got there.
Things get even better from here on in. First of all, the gladiator fights are so vicious and brutal that if this had been true historically, Rome would have run out of gladiators very quickly. Of course, our hero Maximus is in reality Superman, who somehow made his way to ancient Rome before coming to metropolis. It's not enough for Hollywood that Maximus never loses. Not only does he never lose, but he can defeat upwards to 10 men at a time as long as they are obliging enough to approach him one at a time. Maximus can also wrestle off Tigers. Like I said,- Superman.
Then things get really ridiculous. The Emperor, who previously ordered Maximus' execution, suddenly decides that Maximus is too popular to kill now. He had no problems trying to execute him amidst his own army where Maximus was tremendously popular, but now he fears the mob of Rome. We keep hearing how the real power lies with the mob so I guess it's understandable that the Emperor fears those bakers, millers, and stonemasons more than Maximus' army. Alas, the poor Emperor Commodus. The most powerful man in the world simply is unable to kill this invincible gladiator Maximus. Like I said, Superman.
Finally, the Emperor decides to take things into his own hands. He will kill Maximus himself in a gladiator fight. Never mind that Maximus can take on 10 professional gladiators at a time. The Emperor will take him on. Of course, he gives him a little stab wound to even things up. I like equating things to modern times. So, the president of the United States, unable to rid himself of a dangerous adversary who has somehow become heavyweight champion of the world, decides to challenge the champion in a boxing ring after having administered a drug. This is what this movie would be proposing if it were set in modern times.
As I said, I cannot understand why people think this is a great movie. If you believe people were more stupid in the past, then maybe you can accept the pap that this movie is offering as a plot. I personally thought the plot was written for children. And even though I haven't dealt with the historical inaccuracies, believe me when I say they are constant throughout the movie and they are also ludicrous. However, many a movie has managed to achieve excellence, despite historical inaccuracies. Gladiator is not one of them.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Pretty good "hard" sci-fi (spoilers)
I liked the movie because of its interesting premise: that we come from an ancient Martian race (they seeded Earth with human DNA after a Martian apocalypse).
The movie is NOT a 2001 clone. Those who maintain this did not understand 2001. In 2001, mankind is not "started" by aliens but "guided". At very best, his evolution is "speeded up". In Mission to Mars, we come directly from the Martians, but are not guided or directed in our subsequent evolution in any way.
Most of the "hard" science in the movie is good. I did wonder about what would really happen if you removed your helmet in space. I also wondered if a falling object would indeed burn up in the mostly carbon dioxide Martian atmosphere.
Most of the imagery in the movie is wonderful (if your a sci-fi buff like I am) and the plot is much more interesting than most of what passes as sci-fi in films today.
All in all, I thought the movie was "pretty good".
The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
This is not a Matrix clone
I do not agree with the people here who are claiming that this film is a Matrix clone. The 2 movies are only superficially linked. Yes they both deal with virtual reality and simulated universes, but they are otherwise very different.
As some have already stated, Matrix has glossier special effects. So what? Thirteenth Floor has a much better (and more plausible) plot. As a long-time science fiction lover, I believe that TF is great science fiction with a plot that holds together, once the original "suspension of disbelief" has occurred. Matrix, on the other hand, requires you to "suspend disbelief" all through the movie! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Matrix, but it simply wasn't on the level of TF. (For example, I had a hard time not outright laughing at the preposterousness of using live bodies as batteries. The life support system for these bodies would use more energy than the energy gleaned from the bodies themselves. I do suspect that this is a detail that only a long time science fiction lover would care about.)
I suspect that those who preferred Matrix might also be those who would claim that Phantom Menace is great science fiction which it is not. Phantom Menace is great fun and a treat for the eyes, but serious science fiction, it is not.
I would recommend that people see both movies. However, if you're mainly looking for glitzy effects and are "bored" by serious plots with little action, then you might choose to skip TF. On the other hand, if you are an experienced science fiction aficionado, I strongly suggest that you see TF.