I saw this film at the New Orleans premiere and found it to be an interesting spectacle that I largely enjoyed watching. I'm writing to let the public know that the numbers look strange at this point (September 17, 2006). Why? Nearly 20% of the votes have been in the 1-3 range (which would rate this film to be in the ranks of the worst low budget films ever made). One voter has commented that he did not see the film, but hates Sean Penn's politics so he won't see it and will give the film a 1 just to spite Penn. At the same time, nearly half of the votes give the film a perfect 10. I don't think that the polarized ratings to date reflect careful attempts to rate the film. Perhaps that's often the case with IMDb. I suggest taking them with a grain of salt for the time being and deciding for yourself if you are interested in the film.
Reviews
9 Reviews
All the King's Men
(2006)
Decide for yourself (I question the sincerity of IMDb votes to date)
17 September 2006
Samsara
(2001)
Misrepresents a Buddhist Myth
7 August 2003
This was an interesting film, but viewers should know that it does not represent the traditional tale(s) of the relationship between Buddha and his wife, Yasodhara. According to the oldest (?) lineage of Buddhism (Theravada), Yasodhara knew about the predictions about Buddha's spiritual destiny; discussed his leaving with him; and offered her blessing to him when he left.
Other traditions offer versions claim a variety of things, including (a) that he was not married at all; (b) that he was married and stayed with his wife.
The spiel at the end by Tashi's wife did not reflect any of these myths. It seems to be based on a possibly agenda-ed misreading of the tradition and will be seen by many Buddhists as informationally problematic in that it misrepresents the story of the Buddha.
Other traditions offer versions claim a variety of things, including (a) that he was not married at all; (b) that he was married and stayed with his wife.
The spiel at the end by Tashi's wife did not reflect any of these myths. It seems to be based on a possibly agenda-ed misreading of the tradition and will be seen by many Buddhists as informationally problematic in that it misrepresents the story of the Buddha.
Russian Ark
(2002)
Painfully Superficial Plotlessness
19 May 2003
For me, plot and character depth/development are very important
factors in a film. This film lacks these elements completely.
I also value the ability of a film to convey and provoke reflection on
aspects of the human condition. This film does not deliver very
much on this front either.
When I left the film, I said to a fellow attendee: "That was not a
film, it was a museum." But it was worse than a museum in that
we are forced to look through the eyes of a meandering dolt, rather
than attending to details that we ourselves are interested in and
skipping the ones that bore us. It was an experiment where the
film maker asked, "can we?" rather than "should we?" Lots of
pretty costumes, but no depth. All Schein and no Sein.
My advice: if your values are aligned with mine, skip this movie
and see something with a plot. Or if you want a dose of history,
visit a museum or historical site in person. But skip the film.
factors in a film. This film lacks these elements completely.
I also value the ability of a film to convey and provoke reflection on
aspects of the human condition. This film does not deliver very
much on this front either.
When I left the film, I said to a fellow attendee: "That was not a
film, it was a museum." But it was worse than a museum in that
we are forced to look through the eyes of a meandering dolt, rather
than attending to details that we ourselves are interested in and
skipping the ones that bore us. It was an experiment where the
film maker asked, "can we?" rather than "should we?" Lots of
pretty costumes, but no depth. All Schein and no Sein.
My advice: if your values are aligned with mine, skip this movie
and see something with a plot. Or if you want a dose of history,
visit a museum or historical site in person. But skip the film.
Queen of the Damned
(2002)
Disappointing B-Movie
18 February 2002
I thought this might be alright as it's a kind of sequel to "Interview with a Vampire". However, Queen of the Damned has no depth.
The acting is largely mediocre. The plot is thin (though some of the effects were good). I definitely would not recommend it to anyone looking for an even remotely highbrow film. Perhaps if you liked The Mummy Returns, you would enjoy this film... 5/10 stars.
The acting is largely mediocre. The plot is thin (though some of the effects were good). I definitely would not recommend it to anyone looking for an even remotely highbrow film. Perhaps if you liked The Mummy Returns, you would enjoy this film... 5/10 stars.
Spy Game
(2001)
"Good Little Spy Film"
22 November 2001
At the end of this film the woman sitting behind me said "Good
little spy film" in a tone of voice that would be appropriate for
encouraging a pet after it had done a trick. I agreed.
This film worked pretty well on the whole, though much of it is told
through flashbacks, so some may find the temporal discontinuities tiresome. However, the flashback vehicle seems
fitting since it's about a witty CIA operative's (Robert Redford) last
day on a job of 30 years, and most of the flashbacks are integral to
understanding what's happening in the film -- not to mention
serving character development. Some great soundtrack work, and
some wonderful cinematography in places.
I didn't find it quite as emotionally engrossing as I had hoped. I
liked the "real time" intensity of Training Day better. But I enjoyed
Spy Game. I give it 3 out of 4 stars.
little spy film" in a tone of voice that would be appropriate for
encouraging a pet after it had done a trick. I agreed.
This film worked pretty well on the whole, though much of it is told
through flashbacks, so some may find the temporal discontinuities tiresome. However, the flashback vehicle seems
fitting since it's about a witty CIA operative's (Robert Redford) last
day on a job of 30 years, and most of the flashbacks are integral to
understanding what's happening in the film -- not to mention
serving character development. Some great soundtrack work, and
some wonderful cinematography in places.
I didn't find it quite as emotionally engrossing as I had hoped. I
liked the "real time" intensity of Training Day better. But I enjoyed
Spy Game. I give it 3 out of 4 stars.
The Mummy Returns
(2001)
Not Indiana Jones.
8 May 2001
This review is a warning to potential movie goers. Watch Indiana
Jones (again) if that's what you're hoping for. This is no substitute.
"The Mummy Returns" has lots of props and effects and action, but
no depth, pacing, or inspirational force.
"The Mummy Returns" is so blatantly manipulative that it fails to
manipulate in a way that you can really appreciate. It is
cookie-cutter to the max with no transitional spaces between
moods. In fact it moves so quickly that it fails to establish any sort
of mood except a caricature of chaotic bewilderment. There's no
character development, so the characters remain largely one
dimensional. There's no depth to the story or the acting. It breaks
all "show don't tell" rules by exposing the background through
thickly applied 'convenient dialogue' between characters, who 'just
happen' to explain complex elements of the historical background.
There's enough action and rough plot material for three films, but
cramming it all into one just makes for a cartoonish spasm of a
movie.
Oh, and with $100,000,000 to spend, you'd think they'd at least get
someone with a mastery of English to read the script; characters
kept using "magi" (which is the plural of "magus") as a singular
noun when they'd certainly have known better.
Yes, the CGI is good in places, but it would be nice to use it in
service of a story instead of in place of a story. The Phantom
Menace had similar failings.
Jones (again) if that's what you're hoping for. This is no substitute.
"The Mummy Returns" has lots of props and effects and action, but
no depth, pacing, or inspirational force.
"The Mummy Returns" is so blatantly manipulative that it fails to
manipulate in a way that you can really appreciate. It is
cookie-cutter to the max with no transitional spaces between
moods. In fact it moves so quickly that it fails to establish any sort
of mood except a caricature of chaotic bewilderment. There's no
character development, so the characters remain largely one
dimensional. There's no depth to the story or the acting. It breaks
all "show don't tell" rules by exposing the background through
thickly applied 'convenient dialogue' between characters, who 'just
happen' to explain complex elements of the historical background.
There's enough action and rough plot material for three films, but
cramming it all into one just makes for a cartoonish spasm of a
movie.
Oh, and with $100,000,000 to spend, you'd think they'd at least get
someone with a mastery of English to read the script; characters
kept using "magi" (which is the plural of "magus") as a singular
noun when they'd certainly have known better.
Yes, the CGI is good in places, but it would be nice to use it in
service of a story instead of in place of a story. The Phantom
Menace had similar failings.
Cast Away
(2000)
Psychologically Fascinating
23 January 2001
This film delves into the psychological transformations of a modern American man forced into cave man island solitude for 4 years. The portrayal of his coping mechanisms and the development of eccentricities is quite evocative and understandable. [Don't we all act a little odd at times when we are alone?] His re-emergence , the trailer gives that away] is realistically portrayed in a way that invites reflection rather than complacency. I liked the ending. 9/10.
Kiss the Sky
(1998)
"Let us build a tower with its top reaching heaven."
17 June 2000
This film is a somewhat contrived but not uninteresting portrayal of the midlife crisis/adventure of two middle-aged men who are living the American dream and yet are feeling spiritually deadened and untrue to themselves. Longing for the freedom of their youth, they find a way to visit the Philippines, where temptations of opium and sex are found. They wrestle with their predicament, try to create heaven on earth for themselves, but they stumble on their inner conflicts.
The core of the film concerns issues around the human condition, bio-sexual determinism, and the quest for happiness. A Buddhist monk enters the scene and presents his take on things. The film is not comforting and romantic but sobering and 'existential'. If you wrestle with the viability of existential idealism or the demands and disillusionments of a spiritual path, this film may be of particular interest.
The acting and production are so-so (B-movie), but the existentiality and themes made it worthwhile for me. 7/10
The core of the film concerns issues around the human condition, bio-sexual determinism, and the quest for happiness. A Buddhist monk enters the scene and presents his take on things. The film is not comforting and romantic but sobering and 'existential'. If you wrestle with the viability of existential idealism or the demands and disillusionments of a spiritual path, this film may be of particular interest.
The acting and production are so-so (B-movie), but the existentiality and themes made it worthwhile for me. 7/10
Pretty, but lacking in human depth
14 November 1999
This film had lots of pretty shots and an interesting subject matter, but somehow -- in the 2.5 hrs of screentime available to the script writers -- they managed to fail to develop any of the characters so that they were of any great interest. I felt pretty detached from the characters, for the most part. The dialog was largely uninspiring. The characters never really show you what they are made of. Even Jean d'Arc's character seemed painfully one-dimensional. Since we all know how the story ends, you would think that there would be some attempt to put some juiciness in the middle, but this just wasn't there. The way they resort to brief flashbacks to fill in some of the most interesting parts of the story is disappointing. This film was impressive in some ways, but it could have been so much better! A partial, but not total disappointment.
Tell Your Friends