Reviews

44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
All about choosing one belief in ambiguous situations
6 November 2023
The theme seems to be how we should deal with ambiguity in life situations. I usually dislike ambiguous endings but here I accept it because that was the point several situations of the entire movie.

I don't think I any of the following is a spoiler. Was the death murder or suicide? Which spouse was really unfair to the other? Was the husband suffering from depression or not (psychiatrist said no)? Did the physical evidence favor one side or the other? Was the father's conversation with son in the car just about a dog or more? Was the wife lying about a lot of things or not? Based on the given evidence, all of these questions could be answered either way. The movie suggest that in these cases, when forced to choose, just take the one you personally prefer to be true.

The acting is fabulous and the pet dog was an especially nice touch. The movie is also about scenes from a marriage. The psychological aspects in this marriage with child are well-explored in flashbacks and testimony. The discussions touch on the many types of emotions and could reflect on anyone's marriage.

As an aside, jumping off a attic window would be an unlikely way to commit suicide, and usually a suicide note is left behind. But murder seemed unlikely too. So I made up my own third scenario, that he accidentally fell while trying to do some house renovation.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oppenheimer (I) (2023)
4/10
Disappointing telling of the most important event in history
28 July 2023
Like some of the director's other films, but this was a directorial and editing disaster. I saw the 70mm IMAX version, but the IMAX big-screen features were not used well in this film. It wasn't necessary to see it on a big screen. You would think the bomb scene would make use of the screen, but it was a dud.

The film uses extensive flash-forwards and flashbacks, as well as black-and-white and color sequences. Both techniques were unnecessary and confusing, but that seems to be the current fad.

The first hour and a half of the film is mostly about politics and investigators, which is not my interest in this story. I wanted to know about how the bomb was built. That part of the story takes up about an hour, and it was made as dull as possible. Then we are left with more investigations of people in small rooms for half an hour at the end.

The script was mediocre, leaving not much for the actors to do. Some gratuitous sex was thrown in, for no reason that I could discern. The opening apple story likely never happened in real life. It's ridiculous to think so. Over 20 people at Los Alamos gave their lives in the process of making the bomb, and they aren't mentioned at all. Some died from radiation poisoning. Einstein's letter to FDR, which started it all, is not mentioned at all.

The movie spends way too much time on the boring Strauss character. I guess it was because of who played him. The movie is just a hodgepodge of scenes jumping from times and places, slapped together without much thought to a story arc. It should have been a great thriller.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Winds (2022– )
6/10
Great setting and great casting but has kitchen sink plot.
14 July 2023
I liked it it for the setting and the casting. I was big Longmire fan and this approaches it a little. I am glad that they are making a S2. That being said I though the plot for S1 was way over-complicated and implausible in several spots. Just cut out some plot contrivances (Mormon family, used car guy, for example) out and add some deeper dialogues and it would have been better. S1E6 finale was too darkly lit and was the worst for unnecessary contrivances and twists. Because of that, I'm still not sure who got away with what. Don't want to spoil. Carry on with S2 but I hope you don't make another kitchen sink plot..
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2017)
7/10
Unpredictable characters made this a fun watching experience
2 June 2023
For me, this was a surprisingly entertaining police procedural. Enjoy each scene on its own though. How the characters act with each other is far from routine and is the best part of the show. Here you can forget trying to solve the mysterious murders and disappearances. The two or three detectives on the case are competent and motivated but are so distracted with their own issues they can't make headway. Two of them hate each other from the start. The eventually even say to each other how "useless" they are in solving the case. It all takes place in a small town in far northern Norway in a gorgeous artic setting. People there are used to the ice and cold and wilderness. In fact two scenes have people naked outdoors. There's a Christian cult, and a gang of drug smugglers, fires, machine guns, outdoor scenes, and decades of secrets revealed there. Eventually the cases are pretty much solved.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ascent (1977)
8/10
The noble and the dark side of humanity in 1942 and like 2022-23
20 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe in 2021 you could have that the war story in this movie is archaic or out of date but in 2022-2023 it is as poignant as possible. As if being infected by the vampiric disease of the Nazis, the Russians are attempting a genocide of the Ukrainian people. Thousands of innocent people are being forced under the threat of death to choose sides. Will we ever learn?

The movie itself is mostly shot against the bright white background of snow in contrast to the darkness of the events it portrays in WW2. It was obviously a tremendous effort to make this movie under harsh outdoor conditions. It is well acted and well shot though It may dwell a little too long on some scenes. It is grim but realistic and true. The best scenes include, the first and second gunfights, the dragging through the snow and bushes, the interrogations, and the ascent. It poses several sticky ethical questions to the viewer.

Mild Spoilers:

Was it right for Sotnikov to continue on this mission being with coughing sickness? Was it right for the two partizans to blame the old man for not fighting the Nazis? Should Rybak have left Sotnikov to die in the snow in order to get his group desperately needed food? Did the pair take the best course of action in the attic? Was the so called "Judas betrayal" at the end a real betrayal and morally wrong?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battle Royale (2000)
3/10
Just a murderous video game -overrated as a movie
30 March 2022
The premise doesn't make sense and the characters don't act with any consistency or with any naturalness or any common sense. It has received lots of praise and even Director Tarantino thought it was great. I guess it started the "battle for survival" genre of movies so it deserves some points for boldness. The excessive violence doesn't feel very horrifying since none of the characters seem like real people, just mannequins. The plot is full of holes and contrivances. The dialogue is silly. Maybe a kid's video game was the progenitor for this movie. Its not a real movie; just a violent video game for people who don't want to make the effort to press any buttons.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Gets better each time i watch it
28 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this at least 5 times and each time I find something new and makes the film better and better. Eventually I traveled to the Prescott Arizona area and hiked out to the memorial placed precisely where those heroes died. It was quite a moving experience. If you are ever in that area it is definitely worth the effort.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memoria (I) (2021)
7/10
Movie explained: memories, dreams, telepathy
25 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
It's a fine and daring movie to make but the makers could have given the viewer a little more help. Tilda gave a great performance. I'm pretty sure we are witnessing Jessica's dreams and her memories in the first half of the film rather than real time events. Since they are not in chronological order so it can be confusing to the viewer. Also, unbeknownest to her, I believe Jessica has telepathic power for receiving other peoples transmissions. She is receiving signals from another person, who she later will meet in the last third of the film, who is transmitting some of his memory and ideas to her and causing her to imagine scenes and a person that is not real. Some of this is cleared up in the last third with that surprise finish.

The older Hernan is a powerful outer space alien in the form of an older male human. He placed on earth and was born and raised on earth. He has special powers to remember all events of his life, to pick up past experiences of strangers from material objects, he also can "die" for awhile and regain life as he does in the film. When in close contact with Jessica she receives his alien memories very vividly.

The young Hernan was the older Hernan contacting her in a dream to help her reach him. The older Hernan memories are the source of the boom sounds she has been hearing. They were caused by Hernan's spaceship leaving earth and leaving him behind. Jessica's sister has died. Jessica signed the death certificate and other papers. We see Juan and her and the child leaving the home in the rain without the sister. The dinner scene is an event that occurred before the dentist Andres died and before the sister got very sick. But present day day Jessica is seated at the table in her dream so she is confused.

Maybe the point of the film is to speculate that some of our own memories may be distorted and that we each may be receiving ideas from a supernatural source without being aware.
86 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Chestnut Man (2021– )
6/10
Decent serial killer mystery with unlikeable characters acting stupid
3 October 2021
Might be worth a watch for seeing some of Denmark in the winter and the chestnut ceremonies. Solving the mystery is kind of fun here. On teh other hand, hardly any character in this crime show is likeable except the children. Both lead detectives are cold, unsociable fools who put themselves stupidly into danger. The child characters act more sensibly. People get severely beat up on the head but have no trouble getting up later feeling fine with no marks.
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Dusty, talky, drab with 15 mins of interesting conversation
12 June 2021
Watch our lead actor drive his Jeep around a hilly, dusty construction site and sometimes stop to talk to a person. Listen to the grind of the engine and to an occasional whiny dog. The conversation with the last person who also tells a joke makes the film barely worth watching. No character study, plot with an aborted ending that was supposed be artsy, no scenery, no special effects.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New World (2013)
5/10
High production value but flawed storyline
29 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Worth watching, but the story hinges on our hero's identity only being known by 2-3 policeman. In fact we discover that his personnel file are in the police database for anybody to find now or in the future. Also wouldn't his pregnant wife know? Also how come a policeman with a gun is not able to stop a guy with a knife? Also I never got the feeling that our hero and his boss were close friends, a key point for this film. Also it is never shown how or why our hero escaped the planned assault by the new CEO at the end. Otherwise good movie.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
insightful masterpiece
12 April 2021
Human strengths and weaknesses in our relationships with companions and family expressed so well.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signal (2016)
6/10
Mostly rude characters yelling at each other
13 February 2021
The reviewers giving 9/10 ratings to this are suspicious to me. This police procedural has many plot holes and loose ends and implausible events. Mostly has rude characters yelling at each other and hitting each other and going into hysterics over small things. The character Cha is pretty but has zero personality. Might as well be a mannequin. No one seems to ever search for the body of the girl kidnapped in ep1 .
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Line of Duty (2012–2021)
7/10
Very well crafted but disheartening
5 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Watched s1 and s2 . It is disheartening to see even the three main "heroes" be so unhappy , flawed people , two-faced, and eager to nab dedicated officers even for minor infractions. Several other officers are shown to be cold, uncharitable, and darn right cruel. No one is ever happy in this show. After a while I just couldn't care about any of them. But S2 was very well done and bolstered by a great a performance by the Denton character. The plots are complex and meticulous. Hard to find plot holes or loose ends that you can find in most police dramas. Only potential issue, not really a spoiler, in S2 was that it seemed that a tracking device was shown being wiped clean turned later to have key residue. I don't think there was enough evidence to convict.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beau Travail (1999)
7/10
Fallen angel movie explanation
17 November 2020
My theory is that the Legionnaires are angels. Galoup is the Enforcer angel and Sentain is the Loving angel and they represent the conflicting aspects of God. Commander Bruno represents God. Galoup is God's disciplinarian who leads the angels in highly orchestrated physical rituals and ceremonies and tasks in worship of God. Galoup comes to believe that Sentain is a threat to God since Sentain seems too well liked by the other angels and seems to love his brothers too much. In punishing Sentain Galoup overreacts, commits a serious sin, and God must throw him from heaven. In the final scene, Galoup, all alone, shows how chaotic and wild his physical movements are now that he is separated from the will of God. In traditional religious myth, fallen angels consort with women as did Galoup.

IMO The Billy Budd storyline theory doesn't fit the movie as well..
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Hilarious farce, excellent movie
21 September 2013
You can get plot summaries from other reviews. The movie was made during the "mod" era of fashion and when fear of nuclear bombs was very high. IMHO The idea of the film is that humankind is trying too hard to progress and we going too fast for our own good. We are still too primitive and error-prone to handle big advances in technology like nuclear power. This idea of pushing too hard is reflected in the extreme costumes of the cast. The idea of human primitiveness is reflected in the near nakedness of the highly trained air force pilots and the poor shepherd family in the hut. IMHO, some reviewers harp on a supposed gay theme that is not really there. The young men in the movie lust after Candice Bergen. There are several scenes of heterosexual sex in the movie and none otherwise. The word "f*gg*t" is used once when a pilot mistakes a conversation. The military men's costumes are an extreme and hilarious version of mod fashion during that period.

Those that have heard her before can tell that Candice Bergen character's voice is definitely Bergen's in some scenes but in others it may have been dubbed. In any case she is 21 and gorgeous in this film.

For me anyway, this was a comedy of human errors, of miscommunication, and of mistaken identities that was very well done. Well worth a watch.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Quite unpleasant and unclear (spoilers galore)
5 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I don't see what the fans like about this. There is little redeeming value here. No characters are at all admirable or likable. Even the hero blond Oskar is a wimp training to be a delinquent. I wanted everybody in the film to disappear and leave us that beautiful winter scenery uncontaminated with human decrepitude of the movie. I shudder to think what the author and the fans of this movie think of humanity. Are all the people you know cruel or crude to you? Are you all persecuted or perverted? Apparently you are happy Ellie survives solely because she saves a blond boy even though she's a blood thirsty serial killer who should be exterminated immediately. How long before she decapitates Oscar? Is that low a relationship what you all expect in your own life or what?

The movie had many loose ends: How could Oskar be attracted to this creature only because it talks softly and solves Rubik Cube? With the near daily rate of killings Ellie needs in order to survive for 200 years how can anyone not know about her? Why make her a boy and not make it crystal clear to the audience? How can Hakkan be such a bungler on his killings? Carrying acid to burn your face to hide your identity seems a bit extreme and idiotic. Why is Oscar allowed to continue school as if nothing happened without any changes after bashing a boy's ear severely? Why would cats attack a vampire instead of just keeping away? Why not make it more clear why Oskars father friend can interrupt Dad-Son day so easily (its alcoholism when you investigate it) ? What is that precious egg supposed to be? Why does Ellie say "feel what it is like to be me" and nothing is shown in the film? Hardly any police in this movie of many gruesome murders? Why do some common people seem to know so much about vampires that they burn yet the hospital doctors seem clueless about it? Why is not Oskar gasping for air when he comes up from under water? Are we suppose to think the ending scene of Oscar carrying his new "girlfiriend" creature around in a box as heartwarming?

Put the book and the movie in the sun and and let it flame out like a vampire and the same goes for its US remake.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale (2006)
4/10
Bloated brainless "Cellphone Royale"
19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I guess I'm in the minority. This seemed just another brainless, explosion-riddled, quick cut, cartoonish, plot-holed action picture featuring cellphones. It couldn't go 5 minutes without a cellphone scene. Good thing they has coverage and no dropped calls! The plot and character actions are senseless. No Q, no new gadgets. People survive massive explosions, car crashes, heart attacks, automatic weapon fire, long falls with only a few scratches. The Bond actor was good but not at all true to the Bond debonair image. The torture scene was both repulsive and silly.

Funniest thing was that during the picture I kept grabbing my cellphone by instinct. Then I noticed my cellphone gone when I started leaving the theater. I finally found it under a seat with a message saying "u got robbed"! 4/10
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intermezzo (1939)
8/10
More on why this is a great movie
13 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1) Any scene with a close-up of Ingrid Bergman's face is absolute gold. It is uncanny. She puts every movie actress in the last 20 years to shame.

2) The acting of both the leads is superb. Don't underestimate the fine line that Holgar must maintain. He must always appear rational, thoughtful, educated, responsible, earnest but at the same time in passionate love. His delicate acting lifts this above a melodrama. It would be easy for him to act impetuous or lustful or simply trying to fill a void. But that is not the case here. His love always appears genuine. The film becomes a real examination into what love is.

Some favorite scenes:Anna playing the piano as if she is about to climax! Anna wearing a dress with a large H on it while looking out the window at Holgar. Holgar slipping into a darker and darker shadow towards the end. Ice in the river breaking up as Spring approaches. Holgar telling his wife firmly twice "I need to talk to you." The daughter listening on the radio to her estranged father playing Intermezzo. Worst scene: easily the accident.

One last favorite scene: At the end, the wife on the staircase looking at her estranged husband for a moment and saying "....". See the movie.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I read the novel-some explanation for the mysteries
5 March 2006
It is a great movie, but there are many mysteries to the actions of the central character. I liked the movie so much that I just had to try to solve them. So I read the novel. The movie was based on Nakazato Kaizan's most important work, a voluminous novel of 28 known "books" and 5.6 million characters. It was serialized in Japan's newspapers for over 30 years starting in 1913, but was never completed. I was able to read the only English translation of the book called: "Nakazato (Kaizan). Daibosatsu Tôge, Great Bodhisattwa Pass, Translated by C.S. Bavier. Tôkyô, Shunjû Sha, 1929." It is a difficult book to find. I found a copy at a university with restricted access to this material. The translation fully covers the first three books and provides summaries of the other books. I hope that someday some expert completes the full translation of the work. It would be well worth it. Fortunately the movie is based on only the translated books. Reading was a bit of a challenge because the author skips from scene to scene abruptly. Then new facts about earlier episodes are suddenly presented later in the text. So I never felt confident of what was going on until reading the entire text. Ryunsoke is the central character but there are many other characters in the book not in the movie.

*****************************Spoilers for now on******************* I wanted to answer the following questions: What was the major idea behind the book and movie? Did the author intend to present Ryunsoke as a hero, villain, an evil sociopath, a fallen angel, or what? Was the movie faithful to the book? Why does Ryunsoke kill the old man at the pass? Does he ever fight Hyoma, the brother of Bunojo, the man he killed in a duel? Does he ever fight Shimada, the great swordsman? Was he trying to avoid them? What was his relationship with Hama, his "wife"? What happens to him at the end? 1. What is the idea of the movie and the novel? Did the book author Nakazato intend to present Ryunsoke as a hero, villain, an evil sociopath, a fallen angel, or what? Here are some key excerpts from the preface to the English edition by the author (October 1929) who wrote: "Toge, or pass, therefore stands to mean "turning point". …it serves as a symbol of this novel." "The times employed are the middle of the last century when Japan was undergoing rather rapid change from Old to New.." "The most conspicuous figure of the story Ryunsoke Tsukue, a born swordsman, devilish in nature, and yet is in full possession of man's weaknesses, is not necessarily the hero…" "The phenomena of man's world seen through the characters above, are all due to the accumulated demerit since the beginning of this world; good is not always evil; evil not necessarily evil. The novel pictures the progress of man, with his manifold sins, to the unique salvation of Buddha through Bodhisattva." Kaizsan Nakazato October 1929 In other words, the books and the movie are about a coming change in Japanese society and it is mainly seen through the change in the main character. Ryunsoke is a man born and bred in the Samurai tradition. His values and mores are taken from that culture. This culture values self-pride, defending one's honor, showing no fear, great skill in swordsmanship, and is prone violence. Ryunsoke follows this code fanatically. He has never been taught any other way of life thus his early actions in the book and movie appear proper to him. He sincerely tries to act according to what he was taught but his actions cause him bad karma (misfortune) and he can't understand why. In an earlier post I tries to counter the idea that he was an evil psychopath by saying he was a Destroyer Angel. After reading the novel, I feel that neither of these ideas was correct.

2. Early in the movie, why did Ryunsoke kill the old man at the pass? There is very little reason for this given in the movie, thus it makes Ryunsoke seem like psychopath right from the start. The real reason for this heinous act is hinted at late in the novel when a character mentions the occurrence of many "skill-testing" murders in that region. Skill-testing was frequently practiced at this time. "During the Edo period, many corrupt samurai exploited their high social rank to engage in "tsuji-giri", which involved roaming around town late at night and randomly testing their swords and techniques on innocent people. Tsuji-giri became so widespread at one time that the Shogunate addressed it in a group of civil laws collectively known as "Hyakkajou"." (outside source). Ryunsoke was very likely following the shocking sword "skill-testing" practice prevalent in certain areas of Japan at that time. In the movie, the old man prays to Buddha for an early death. I have not found this mentioned in the book. It one of the few times that the movie disagrees with the book. Unfortunately this little nuance in the movie caused me and others to misinterpret the scene. Unless the viewer is knowledgeable about the unusual history of "tsuji-giri" , it is plausible to interpret the murder as the work of either a psychopath, a destroyer Angel, or an angel of death. In fact, it was simply Ryunsoke doing what many other samurai were doing. It was clearly morally wrong by most standards, but it was accepted behavior by many samurai at the time.

Hope this helps. I will try to answer the other questions later in another post. It may be a few weeks. I also posted a version this in the discussion board for this movie if anybody want to respond.

Tais0's user comment ("extraordinary swordsman" in the title) was very good. His idea that a theme in the movie is that the tradition of "living by sword" leads to doom and self-destruction is right on.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining;surprisingly good
14 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I've tried not to make give any real key spoilers but there are some mild spoilers. "Captivating" tale of two men on a long, difficult, quest into hot Western desert to find out if "their" wife and children are still alive. Each is "married" to the same woman and neither appreciates the other's company. They each desperately want to track down the brutal Apache band that captured their family by questioning persons they meet. Along the the way they encounter a not-so-crazy trader who knows much more than he lets on, Mexican bandits who wheel and deal, soldiers playing a high risk game with the Apache, a cholera epidemic, and the pair of husbands are nearly killed several times. Nearly every one they talk to lies to them ,pretends to be something that they are not, or says one thing and does another. Warfield, who has become cynical in his years of gunfighting, brilliantly sees through the motives of people and often finds sly ways to turn the tables on them. His partner starts out being a peace loving gentleman gradually becomes more and more blood-thirsty as every episode shakes his faith in mankind. Some noteworthy quotes are "Noble says as Noble does" said by the trader. "Don't talk to me, I'm busy killin' people" said by the Doctor who is helplessly fighting the the cholera epidemic by burning down half the town. The first-rate cinematography of the desert and the high shots of towns and Indian-soldier battle scenes make for great viewing. The eventually reach the Apache camp (or should it be the Churacawa?, ha ha) where another clever fight ensues. Ironically, when they get back home, a brief remark about a dress ignites the final surprise twist to end the movie. I give it 7 Apache pelts out of a possible ten pelts.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What its really about:Is life a game like poker? (spoilers)
23 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Do our lives follow the principles of gaming like poker? All the reviewers of the movie or the book that I have found so far have missed the key theme of the "The Music of Chance". Yet there are many clues indicating that the book author, Paul Auster, wanted to show how mathematics, game theory, is part of our life events. Numbers such as the wall of 10,000 stones (referring to the Wailing Wall) , bankrolls, prime numbers, costs, and number of supplies are purposely mentioned in the film. The character names, Stone and Flower, could well be a reference to the diamonds suit and the clover-shaped club suit of playing cards. The lead character is named Nash(e), the same as the real life mathematician famous for game theory work. His life was portrayed in " A Beautiful Mind". He was famous for the "Nash Bargaining Solution" for coalitional or cooperative game strategy where 2 or more people can only get the most out of a game by cooperation and trust. The manner in which Nash and Pozzi cooperate and the way Stone and Flower cooperate in the game is a key element of the movie. You don't have to know game theory to enjoy the movie, but its does help to be familiar with a few gaming and poker concepts.

In poker, good outcomes occur when you risk the least to gain the most and when you have the better hand. The characters in this movie are repeatedly dealt "hands" with which they must decide whether to bet or pass. Their choices determine their fate. Their life decisions and their consequences create the game of life which yields a a certain harmony and continuity like music. Try to notice each time in the movie that a character had two choices. How much did they risk to gain what? To get you started, early in the movie Nash could have played it safe and drove directly to his sister but he made a choice to pick up Pozzi and later he took a chance to cooperate with Pozzi in the poker game. Both he and Pozzi start out similarly with low bankrolls. Nash is running out of money, lost his wife, his job, and his father. it would be hard for him to lose much. On the other hand, Flower and Stone have a huge bankroll. Long ago they took a low risk chance to win a lot in a lottery and won. Pozzi had a choice of staying or leaving after the poker game. He also had a choice of staying or leaving the wall when it is nearly finished. In each case, he make a choice to risk a lot, and he loses. A very brief unlikely event, involving the passing of a pickup truck at the wrong time, causes him to suffer a "bad beat". Meanwhile Flower and Stone live in a castle-like house the Kings. They have diorama, city of the world , placed on a table like cards in a poker game. It depicts people in various active situations. One unlucky one has slipped on a banana peel, others are in prison, and one is facing a firing squad. Risking the most to get the least is a strategy for tragedy. Near the end of the movie Nash senses that he is losing his life and risks a lot in a plan to try to save it. Based on my own experience, It's unlikely that Flower and Stone could have beaten Pozzi at poker after a few lessons and after getting beat so easily. There sudden change in luck against Pozzi in their own house made it seem like a form of cheating called collusion , a "cooperative" way to play poker.

I give this movie 8/10 for excellent acting and writing. I also posted these comments on the movie's discussion board at this site for any responses. I am a mathematician and poker player. I have not read the book. I hope these comments increase your enjoyment of the movie.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ordet (1955)
The work of a madman?
21 September 2004
Although I am a film lover, I only saw Ordet for the first time the other day on US cable TV. I had already seen Dryer's masterpieces, Vampyr and Passion of Joan. The latter puts the Gibson's Passion of Christ to shame. The comment by Alice Liddel says most of what I wanted to say about Ordet with eloquence. Ordet is the epitome of "uncinematic" cinema. Even as I watched it I felt I was watching the work of a madman. Indeed the director has been rumored to have spent time in therapy and to base the character of John on a real life patient. No one would or could make a film like this today. One can feel the excessive attention to lighting, framing, actor movements, and pacing that suggests unusual obsession. At the same time these elements provide an undercurrent of tension that builds and builds. In Ordet, one senses what is coming at the end but can you really believe it will happen? That is the crux. You definitely will not be prepared for the way it is done. People have dealt with their Christian upbringing by going to secular humanism, or by going towards fundamentalism or anywhere in between the extremes. When life test us to the max, which one is right? In Ordet, John, the madman, says the answer is the "Word" and only the little girl in Ordet knows the word and it is faith.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hoosiers (1986)
The real story and the movie
8 April 2004
I rate it 7 basketballs out of ten. See this movie's discussion board to reply my comments.

The movie is loosely based on the 1954 season of the tiny town of the Milan Indians in Indiana. I dug up some facts about this team. It was coached by Marvin Wood and his coaching was met with great controversy in the town as in the movie. The movie plays with the actual events to increase drama but the real story seems just as sensational. It is called the greatest story in Indiana sports history. The team beat NBA great Oscar Roberston's high school team in the semifinals. Coach Wood actually did measure the height of the basketball goal in the fieldhouse to keep the team from being intimidated. Towards the end of the real final game, the Milan team was exhausted. To help out, Milan's best shooter, Bobby Plump, held the ball for an excruciating 4 minutes, an eternity in basketball, before taking a final shot. He then missed the shot! In the final seconds the Indians were able to get the ball back from Muncie and Plump hit the last second winning shot. Where the movie strayed is that the real `Hickory' team had a roster of 12 players, and the real coach was in his second year of coaching the team and was long-time married. I dunno if there was a real life alcoholic character like Shooter. Coach Wood died of cancer Oct. 13, 1999 at the age of 71. At the funeral the 1954 basketball team members who attended all wore carnations, dyed in the school's yellow-gold team color. Wood had often said, "God was coaching that team, not me."
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gibson's bloody mess
31 March 2004
Whatever was good about this film was erased by the indelible and repulsive image of the bloody, fully lacerated body of Jesus. There is no more than a square inch or two of his entire body that is not mutilated during the course of this film. The fact the this sadistic film could get a R-rating, instead of NC-17, when overt sexuality in movies is often suppressed, says something disturbing about our culture. There is really no big mystery to understanding this film. This film is simply a continuation of Mel Gibson's history of violent films starting with Mad Max and more recently with Braveheart. Apparently those past films can longer satisfy his blood lust and required him now to extend to new extremes of brutality and depravity. The story of Jesus was a way for him to gain audience acceptance. From interviews it is not surprising to find that Gibson's own hand drives the first nails in to Jesus. I come from a strong Roman Catholic background with plenty of school study of the final days of Jesus Christ. Gibson's version of the story is accurate enough. For some unknown reason Gibson left out two Stations of the Cross, the meeting of women and the burial. Because of recent publicity, I watched carefully for signs of anti-Semitism until I realized soon enough that no group in this film escapes blame. The Roman soldiers are sadistic brutes, Pilate is a failed administrator, the high priests are connivers, the crowd is happy for a torture show, Jesus's own disciples deny him, and all others are weak and helpless. Even the children and babies are often depicted as Satan's demons. The film's message is anti-human. Clearly Gibson is psychologically disturbed. In his defense I will note that among the eternal beating scenes Gibson does insert brief moments of Jesus's teachings of love. The film also ends on a higher note, the resurrection, where we are relieved to briefly see a restored Jesus again without blood. Thank God for that anyway. Even then, He still has holes in his hands. Why do those remain when all other punctures are gone? My gut feeling about Christianity after seeing this film was quite negative. I would worry about anyone whose faith is renewed by the film. What kind of spirituality is based on a story of sado-masochistic ritual? Finally, the story is supposed to be about someone sacrificing himself for the sins of humanity. Instead the film has a `suicide by cop' feel to it. For a much better treatment of Christian fervor in the face of abuse see the great classic The Passion of Joan Arc (1928). To this day this silent film is brilliant and passionate without graphic brutality. It contains perhaps the single greatest acting performance in film history. Other good films on Jesus last days include Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964), Last Temptation of Christ (1988), and church produced movies such as the Mormon's Lamb of God. My rating for this film is 1 scourging of out 10.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed