Eleven samurai are sent to avenge the murder of their lord and guard the future of their small clan who was murdered by the arrogant and cowardly brother of the Shogun, in this little-known, superbly-directed and acted 1960's Samurai classic. The film features several intriguing plot-twists as well as provide authentic glimpses into both the Samurai ethos and, interestingly, its interplay with hostile political forces which two decades later (following the story's own periodization) would spell the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate and the beginning of the Meiji Restoration (as seen, namely, through one antifeudal and inventively modern character who joins the protagonists in their quest).
Reviews
13 Reviews
Urchin
(2007)
Strokes of genius
30 June 2007
The mainstream movie critics are, in my opinion, well off the mark. This is a brilliant theater of the absurd and it involves brilliant performances by Larry Swansen as the Old Man (the melodic tone of his voice is quite something) and Rick Poli as Goliath (with the lyricism of a highly limited vocabulary), as well as the unassuming Sebastian Montoya as The Kid. The other actors are great, too. They are aided, in no small part, by a thoughtful and poetic screenplay.
Some of the effects, as well, are well-thought out despite the clandestine appearance and feel of the movie, one which initially resembled the type I usually find too sophomoric and tiresome here, somehow, works so well.
As an aside, the whole illegal subway filming, that struck me an hyperbole and initially turned me off of the film (I viewed it as a gimmick); so, if you are like myself in that regard, just ignore that aspect (it plays no role in the movie itself, that I could see, a least).
Highly recommended without reservations as an original, and often, outright masterful.
Some of the effects, as well, are well-thought out despite the clandestine appearance and feel of the movie, one which initially resembled the type I usually find too sophomoric and tiresome here, somehow, works so well.
As an aside, the whole illegal subway filming, that struck me an hyperbole and initially turned me off of the film (I viewed it as a gimmick); so, if you are like myself in that regard, just ignore that aspect (it plays no role in the movie itself, that I could see, a least).
Highly recommended without reservations as an original, and often, outright masterful.
Spirited Away
(2001)
This Masterpiece is the Best Animated Film I have Ever Seen.
10 March 2003
So many poignant and articulated thoughts have already been expended at length by prior imdb reviewers, so I'll be brief so as to avoid repetition. This movie is simply the best animated movie I have ever seen, in every respect, most of all for its animation. And that says a lot as I am very fond of animated films.
Sure, it does not have a contextually elaborate and wholly consistent storyline - this legend ain't an elaborate legendarium. But what it lacks in its eight-million-gods-hotel [which is quite a neat mythological concept, incidentally] storyline's consistency it more than makes up for in the amazing characters (some gross, many cute, many strange and grotesque, many beautiful) -abound- , the breathtaking secenry & details of surrounding &objects, a convincing and moving voices (get the original voices+subtitle version at all costs), and subtle and/or less subtle (but thoroughlly endearing) symbolism.
This is a MUST OWN on DvD. This movie is a monumental cinematic feat; it is genious, it is brilliant; it is dazzling, it is fantastic; is masterfull; it is virtually faultless; it is gueranteed to have great replayability potential, ages 8-to-108 will find it very worthwhile [which is an added significant quality]; it is an incredible masterpiece. It is the best I have seen of its kind.
10/10
Sure, it does not have a contextually elaborate and wholly consistent storyline - this legend ain't an elaborate legendarium. But what it lacks in its eight-million-gods-hotel [which is quite a neat mythological concept, incidentally] storyline's consistency it more than makes up for in the amazing characters (some gross, many cute, many strange and grotesque, many beautiful) -abound- , the breathtaking secenry & details of surrounding &objects, a convincing and moving voices (get the original voices+subtitle version at all costs), and subtle and/or less subtle (but thoroughlly endearing) symbolism.
This is a MUST OWN on DvD. This movie is a monumental cinematic feat; it is genious, it is brilliant; it is dazzling, it is fantastic; is masterfull; it is virtually faultless; it is gueranteed to have great replayability potential, ages 8-to-108 will find it very worthwhile [which is an added significant quality]; it is an incredible masterpiece. It is the best I have seen of its kind.
10/10
Solaris
(2002)
Mere and/or Sheer Excellence.
29 January 2003
It has been years since I read Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, many years. I have always though considred him to be (ever since I have acquiered a cursory glance into 20th Science Fiction) to be an absolutely seminal author. Coincidentally, fairly recently I reread Star Diaries (four months ago) which confirmed this sentiment in my mind. But when I sat to Watch Solaris (2002) I could not recall much more than the basic premise. Which was not so much a bad thing.
Having said that about the novel, it is also appropriate to mention in this respect that it has been nearly as long since I have seen the movie Solaris (1972). I do not recall much of Andrei Tarkovsky's film, except that it was really good, I would not doubt that it warrants the title of masterpiece as many IMDB reviewers seem to suggest, and in fact I must see that and soon. But I digress, this is about Steven Soderbergh seemingly-already under-rated film. But just to reiterate, I went to see Solaris (2002) with an impression-ed mind, while at-the-same-time, not having clear comparisons (aside from recalling that the novel and the movie which followed it were very good).
So what about Steven Soderbergh's Solaris? It is good, very good. Near-masterpiece I dare say (though not outright). I was highly moved by it for its many qualities - some of these qualities doubtful would exist had Soderbergh's compromised with the film vis-à-vis popular culture need for fast-impacting (& fast-forgotten) action-ism. To his credit Soderbergh chose to treat Solaris with the respect it deserved.
George Clooney plays an excellent, and in spite the whatever-female demographic-inspired bare bottom at several scenes, delivers a solid and moving performance. Likewise Natascha McElhone. The rest of the cast does not fair to badly either.
The cinematography is exquisite. Colourful, atmospheric, etheric, sharp, obscured all follow a well-crafted cinematic flow. The sight of Solaris (the planetary entity) is truly awe-inspiring. The music is another important quality which makes this an excellent film and helps in blending the audio and visual in audio-visual as virtually all good (not to mention great) movies do.
As for the story, this is Stanislaw Lem and enough said about that. But as for the screenplay and dialogue, it seems to be quite decent, though unfortunately I could not compare these to neither the novel nor Fridrikh Gorenshtein's adaptation of which. All considered, I was ultimately satisfied with these.
The only shortcoming that, in my view, cause the film to fall short in being a masterpiece outright is some redundancy in scenes. I cannot really name any specific ones, but it was almost as-if there were some disjointedness in terms of the otherwise excellent flowing-ness of the movie - especially in some of the scenes involving Kelvin's recollection. This is strange as the movie is really brief. Perhaps more than mere redundancy, what I am thinking is an over-emphasis on Chris and his adversity, his memories of his former life with Rheya get ample screening time, while her(s) own struggle with who-what she is, recieves some attention, but not nearly as much. It was almost as if the movie was afraid of leaving the realm of being 'human' (or beyond-human, a-human, etc.) for too long, and attempted to avoid excessively 'frightening' the viewer with the uncertainties, contradictions and paradoxes that characterizes so much of Lem's work, whose aim is the-beyond, of mixing tragedy and humor, pathos and absurdity, the silly and the profound . For many people these sorts of contemplations are far more terrifying than crazy, slimy-looking and outright rude and impolite (not to mention eeevil) aliens. So I could see why this may have been a consideration. Then again, it might not have been. I am walking on a thin rope here in this respect until I reread the book/watch the 1972 adaptation (which I will, this movie has motivated me to do so, which is also to its credit), but I'll, nonetheless, stick to these somewhat intuitive tendencies. But I digress yet again.
I also cannot but notice, in this extension, that the Soviet cast lists Khari prior to Kris Kelvin, while the reverse is true here. Not necessarily a drawback, but somewhat peculiar. It does leave me even more motivated to watch the 1972 version and read the novel.
Notwithstanding these actual drawbacks, peculiarities and/or potential drawbacks, this movie should be seen as a success. As an achievement to be proud of. For the thoughtful science fiction -reader- it delivers not only entertainment, but also quality art.
=====Summary:===== I enjoyed watching Solaris (2002), it has replayability value; it is thoughtful and it is moving. It might have had a chance to become a great and even epochal film, but falling short of that, there is very little (or anything) in Solaris that would equate as 'boredom'. Solaris strengths more than make up for whatever shortcomings and lifts it far-above the ordinary sci-fi movie. I highly recommend it without any hesitations or misgivings. It is a worthwhile, able, and all-in-all quite an excellent film. Could have been a masterpiece, but the result, (whether mere or sheer) excellence, should satisfy most science fiction fans who are tired of the plotless fight-evil-aliens routine. Those, then, who desire something which possesses some of the depths, the sophistication which seminal works such as Lem's grant us - these sort of movie-watchers will not regret spending their time and money on this excellent film.
8.5-to-9.0 / 10.00
Having said that about the novel, it is also appropriate to mention in this respect that it has been nearly as long since I have seen the movie Solaris (1972). I do not recall much of Andrei Tarkovsky's film, except that it was really good, I would not doubt that it warrants the title of masterpiece as many IMDB reviewers seem to suggest, and in fact I must see that and soon. But I digress, this is about Steven Soderbergh seemingly-already under-rated film. But just to reiterate, I went to see Solaris (2002) with an impression-ed mind, while at-the-same-time, not having clear comparisons (aside from recalling that the novel and the movie which followed it were very good).
So what about Steven Soderbergh's Solaris? It is good, very good. Near-masterpiece I dare say (though not outright). I was highly moved by it for its many qualities - some of these qualities doubtful would exist had Soderbergh's compromised with the film vis-à-vis popular culture need for fast-impacting (& fast-forgotten) action-ism. To his credit Soderbergh chose to treat Solaris with the respect it deserved.
George Clooney plays an excellent, and in spite the whatever-female demographic-inspired bare bottom at several scenes, delivers a solid and moving performance. Likewise Natascha McElhone. The rest of the cast does not fair to badly either.
The cinematography is exquisite. Colourful, atmospheric, etheric, sharp, obscured all follow a well-crafted cinematic flow. The sight of Solaris (the planetary entity) is truly awe-inspiring. The music is another important quality which makes this an excellent film and helps in blending the audio and visual in audio-visual as virtually all good (not to mention great) movies do.
As for the story, this is Stanislaw Lem and enough said about that. But as for the screenplay and dialogue, it seems to be quite decent, though unfortunately I could not compare these to neither the novel nor Fridrikh Gorenshtein's adaptation of which. All considered, I was ultimately satisfied with these.
The only shortcoming that, in my view, cause the film to fall short in being a masterpiece outright is some redundancy in scenes. I cannot really name any specific ones, but it was almost as-if there were some disjointedness in terms of the otherwise excellent flowing-ness of the movie - especially in some of the scenes involving Kelvin's recollection. This is strange as the movie is really brief. Perhaps more than mere redundancy, what I am thinking is an over-emphasis on Chris and his adversity, his memories of his former life with Rheya get ample screening time, while her(s) own struggle with who-what she is, recieves some attention, but not nearly as much. It was almost as if the movie was afraid of leaving the realm of being 'human' (or beyond-human, a-human, etc.) for too long, and attempted to avoid excessively 'frightening' the viewer with the uncertainties, contradictions and paradoxes that characterizes so much of Lem's work, whose aim is the-beyond, of mixing tragedy and humor, pathos and absurdity, the silly and the profound . For many people these sorts of contemplations are far more terrifying than crazy, slimy-looking and outright rude and impolite (not to mention eeevil) aliens. So I could see why this may have been a consideration. Then again, it might not have been. I am walking on a thin rope here in this respect until I reread the book/watch the 1972 adaptation (which I will, this movie has motivated me to do so, which is also to its credit), but I'll, nonetheless, stick to these somewhat intuitive tendencies. But I digress yet again.
I also cannot but notice, in this extension, that the Soviet cast lists Khari prior to Kris Kelvin, while the reverse is true here. Not necessarily a drawback, but somewhat peculiar. It does leave me even more motivated to watch the 1972 version and read the novel.
Notwithstanding these actual drawbacks, peculiarities and/or potential drawbacks, this movie should be seen as a success. As an achievement to be proud of. For the thoughtful science fiction -reader- it delivers not only entertainment, but also quality art.
=====Summary:===== I enjoyed watching Solaris (2002), it has replayability value; it is thoughtful and it is moving. It might have had a chance to become a great and even epochal film, but falling short of that, there is very little (or anything) in Solaris that would equate as 'boredom'. Solaris strengths more than make up for whatever shortcomings and lifts it far-above the ordinary sci-fi movie. I highly recommend it without any hesitations or misgivings. It is a worthwhile, able, and all-in-all quite an excellent film. Could have been a masterpiece, but the result, (whether mere or sheer) excellence, should satisfy most science fiction fans who are tired of the plotless fight-evil-aliens routine. Those, then, who desire something which possesses some of the depths, the sophistication which seminal works such as Lem's grant us - these sort of movie-watchers will not regret spending their time and money on this excellent film.
8.5-to-9.0 / 10.00
The City of Lost Children
(1995)
An Absolutely Brilliant Masterpiece : An Imaginative Cinematic Feat.
19 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Wonderfully acted, masterfully photographed, with a moving and absorbing score, and an over-the-top choreography and cinematography make this film stand out as a splendid and unique gem. A masterpiece.
Combining fairy-tale fantasy, Brazil-esque sci fi, and some of the most tactful, tasteful, and powerful use of CGI I have seen in quite some time. This movie is able to maintain a sometimes-convoluted but by no means disjointed story about dreams and nightmares, friendship and hatred, empathy and apathy, generousity and greed, and the uneasy struggle between these often-fused forces.
Some of the techniques used in this film were so breathtaking they made me gasp out loud. It even resulted in me violating one of my most sacred taboos of first-viewing of a movie: rewinding several scenes and re-watching these on the spot.
This movie was so masterfully photographed, it left me speechless. Atmospherically absorbing, it effectively uses colour, light, shadows, as well as an excelent execution of various lense techniques one seldom sees in this somewhat 'lazy' day-and-age of computerized grandness. The chorographical, cinematographic, and architectural manner in which charachters and the surroundings were displayed (in particular the aqua-gothic harbor town and the island lab) were so rich, so full of depth, colour, and dimension (with an emphasis on height, skewed proportionality and centeredness). For these qualities alone this movie shines.
But there are many more positive qualities. The acting was absolutely superb; convincing, involving, and moving. From the first child to the last adult actor, there is not a single performance that is lacking and virtually all the performances are quite excellent, even brilliant.
At no point does the dramatic momentum seem to slow down throughout. Love and kinship must battle the hatered, greed, indifference and terror that confronts them through various unexpected fantasy-laden, black-and-gray comedic, horrific, and dramatic overtures. The satirical and tragico-comical flavoures keep this surrealist odyssey always-interesting, always-engaging. Danger, albeit at times ill-defined (which is not necessarily a bad thing), lurks continuously and a suspenseful tension keeps one on their toes. One gets the sense as if anything can happen at any given time.
The music is an inexorable component of the movie. It does not disappoints and it compliments perfectly the film's momentum. Likewise the special effects come across being as humble as they are fantastic. The atmospheric flow of skewed proportion, near-caricature-like surroundings and characters resonates fits perfectly with these and resonates with the depth. Eluding the senses, augmenting the mind, and stirring the emotions. Excuse the bombast.
All these virtues combined make up a movie that entrenches itself deeply in one's mind. An utterly strange and highly moving journey, whose impact is anything but short-lived.
********Spoilers:********
Three particular scenes which made me break the aforementioned taboo were:
1. Juan & Little-Brother are hiding in the closet. Little-Brother evokes pain from Bald-Fat Cyclopes, what is he chewing on ? (!)
2. The exponential causal repercussions following the shedding of a single tear-drop, putting into a halt an entire town .
3. The interposition of age in the final climactic dream scene.
*******Spoilers End:*******
=====Summary:======> I highly recommend this extraordinary and brilliant surrealist fantasy tale as an all-out masterpiece with much, much replayability value. Anyone who still possesses any links with their childhood, who can, for a few hours at least forgo the cynicism of modern popular culture (or else, this, like anything else, would simply equate as cliché) is sure to find this film worthwhile. I would even go so far as to say that one should not rent it first to give it a glance, no! Buy it, own it today (though as always, look for the subtitled version over the dubbed one) ! Yes, it is that good.
10/10
Combining fairy-tale fantasy, Brazil-esque sci fi, and some of the most tactful, tasteful, and powerful use of CGI I have seen in quite some time. This movie is able to maintain a sometimes-convoluted but by no means disjointed story about dreams and nightmares, friendship and hatred, empathy and apathy, generousity and greed, and the uneasy struggle between these often-fused forces.
Some of the techniques used in this film were so breathtaking they made me gasp out loud. It even resulted in me violating one of my most sacred taboos of first-viewing of a movie: rewinding several scenes and re-watching these on the spot.
This movie was so masterfully photographed, it left me speechless. Atmospherically absorbing, it effectively uses colour, light, shadows, as well as an excelent execution of various lense techniques one seldom sees in this somewhat 'lazy' day-and-age of computerized grandness. The chorographical, cinematographic, and architectural manner in which charachters and the surroundings were displayed (in particular the aqua-gothic harbor town and the island lab) were so rich, so full of depth, colour, and dimension (with an emphasis on height, skewed proportionality and centeredness). For these qualities alone this movie shines.
But there are many more positive qualities. The acting was absolutely superb; convincing, involving, and moving. From the first child to the last adult actor, there is not a single performance that is lacking and virtually all the performances are quite excellent, even brilliant.
At no point does the dramatic momentum seem to slow down throughout. Love and kinship must battle the hatered, greed, indifference and terror that confronts them through various unexpected fantasy-laden, black-and-gray comedic, horrific, and dramatic overtures. The satirical and tragico-comical flavoures keep this surrealist odyssey always-interesting, always-engaging. Danger, albeit at times ill-defined (which is not necessarily a bad thing), lurks continuously and a suspenseful tension keeps one on their toes. One gets the sense as if anything can happen at any given time.
The music is an inexorable component of the movie. It does not disappoints and it compliments perfectly the film's momentum. Likewise the special effects come across being as humble as they are fantastic. The atmospheric flow of skewed proportion, near-caricature-like surroundings and characters resonates fits perfectly with these and resonates with the depth. Eluding the senses, augmenting the mind, and stirring the emotions. Excuse the bombast.
All these virtues combined make up a movie that entrenches itself deeply in one's mind. An utterly strange and highly moving journey, whose impact is anything but short-lived.
********Spoilers:********
Three particular scenes which made me break the aforementioned taboo were:
1. Juan & Little-Brother are hiding in the closet. Little-Brother evokes pain from Bald-Fat Cyclopes, what is he chewing on ? (!)
2. The exponential causal repercussions following the shedding of a single tear-drop, putting into a halt an entire town .
3. The interposition of age in the final climactic dream scene.
*******Spoilers End:*******
=====Summary:======> I highly recommend this extraordinary and brilliant surrealist fantasy tale as an all-out masterpiece with much, much replayability value. Anyone who still possesses any links with their childhood, who can, for a few hours at least forgo the cynicism of modern popular culture (or else, this, like anything else, would simply equate as cliché) is sure to find this film worthwhile. I would even go so far as to say that one should not rent it first to give it a glance, no! Buy it, own it today (though as always, look for the subtitled version over the dubbed one) ! Yes, it is that good.
10/10
Barbershop
(2002)
Lovely, Lively Comedy.
25 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those somewhat rare feel-good comedies that actually makes me feel good. A good balance between drama, slapstick, and humorous dialogue; decent acting; a general sense of humility and a positive message make this comedy shine.
******Spoilers Therein*******
By knowing its limitations this movie is able to surpass these (as contradictory as it may sound). This movie has 'soul', it has heart. It is in-your-face but it is also timid.
The characters are stereotypes but the script is clever and goes to some lengths to avoid them being turned into cliches and excesses.
This due to some impressive performances from the cast. The characters may be stereotypical, but they are also performed believably enough that one could easy empathize, sympathize, and laugh at their antics.
The editing remains balanced. Some of the techniques employed that were good worked because they were subtle and not overzealous. For example, when one of the ATM thieves opens his grandma's garage, there is a hallelujah sound+light effect for a perfectly brief' second - that and other similar tricks work well.
The ATM theft subplot provides mainly slapstick comic relief and for the most part it is quite funny. Inside the barbershop we get the more sophisticated humor.
A clever dialogue not only delivers healthy doses of hilarity and satire, and it also succeeds in establishing good drama and suspense. It also tactfully establishes the positive message and theme which dominates the movie. "Your father may have died poor, but he was a rich, he invested in people", says the old barber to Ice. What a great message for today's dog-eat-dog world in general, and inter-relations within the urban African-American microcosm in particular.
======= Summary : ====== By staying focused and by staying true to what it aims on achieving this film succeeds in actually breaking those boundaries. With decent acting, interesting & interactive characters, tactful editing, and a good balance of humor, drama and satire, this comedy succeeds not only in entertaining, but being nearly (or rarely even outright) profound.
The message also remains to a large measure an honest one. The rules of the game dictate is that to arrive at material success (the Loan Shark) means moral failure. While opting against such a degree of success (Ice's dad) to instead share the burden (thus, also joys) of others in one's community, this is a moral strength.
This movie delivers this message with elegance and tact. And a healthy mixture of wit & slapstick, drama & satire. Some good laughs and humility.
9/10
******Spoilers Therein*******
By knowing its limitations this movie is able to surpass these (as contradictory as it may sound). This movie has 'soul', it has heart. It is in-your-face but it is also timid.
The characters are stereotypes but the script is clever and goes to some lengths to avoid them being turned into cliches and excesses.
This due to some impressive performances from the cast. The characters may be stereotypical, but they are also performed believably enough that one could easy empathize, sympathize, and laugh at their antics.
The editing remains balanced. Some of the techniques employed that were good worked because they were subtle and not overzealous. For example, when one of the ATM thieves opens his grandma's garage, there is a hallelujah sound+light effect for a perfectly brief' second - that and other similar tricks work well.
The ATM theft subplot provides mainly slapstick comic relief and for the most part it is quite funny. Inside the barbershop we get the more sophisticated humor.
A clever dialogue not only delivers healthy doses of hilarity and satire, and it also succeeds in establishing good drama and suspense. It also tactfully establishes the positive message and theme which dominates the movie. "Your father may have died poor, but he was a rich, he invested in people", says the old barber to Ice. What a great message for today's dog-eat-dog world in general, and inter-relations within the urban African-American microcosm in particular.
======= Summary : ====== By staying focused and by staying true to what it aims on achieving this film succeeds in actually breaking those boundaries. With decent acting, interesting & interactive characters, tactful editing, and a good balance of humor, drama and satire, this comedy succeeds not only in entertaining, but being nearly (or rarely even outright) profound.
The message also remains to a large measure an honest one. The rules of the game dictate is that to arrive at material success (the Loan Shark) means moral failure. While opting against such a degree of success (Ice's dad) to instead share the burden (thus, also joys) of others in one's community, this is a moral strength.
This movie delivers this message with elegance and tact. And a healthy mixture of wit & slapstick, drama & satire. Some good laughs and humility.
9/10
Secretary
(2002)
Acting Sometime Shines, but a Near-Dismal Failure Nonetheless.
22 December 2002
The acting in this movie was sometimes outstanding and mostly above average. But even with such an abundance of talent it was not possible to undo the multitude of redundant and repitive scenes/moments and implausiblities in the story line.
*****Some Spoilres Therein*****
I found nothing particularly profound about the story itself. And while it is presented in a seemingly self-empowering sort of way, it's clear that
this isn't a very libertaing premise to start with. That is, the man=boss dominates the women=secretary. He may have been dominated by that other blonde women (whom we hear very little about, she said something around at the end but it merely confused & irritated me because I had no idea what it meant).
Ironically, in one scene, some of the women -also- discuss 'sexual harrassment'. This instantly brought to my mind how implausible this relationship was in the sue-a-lot sort of mentality that exists today in the United States. This made it difficult to buy into the plot.
Additionally, the implication that this 'secretary-ing' , as I shall call it henceforth, was carried out on an even remotely regular basis is pretty absurd and laughable. Now, I realize that the lit sign that said 'secretary wanted' was perhaps satirical in nature or something to that effect, heh. Obviously I didn't get it though. So this man hires submissive secretaries for sado-encounters, until he finds the right one. Uh huhm. Surreal? Hardly. En-raging? Possibly.
As for sexuality, there was nothing particularly shocking (nor offensive) on that front that I found. Same goes for the self-mutilation apsect. True, I was moved at times, but I was also bored at others. It was almost as-if the movie tried too hard to come accross as controversial.
The most important shortcoming though has to do with the endless repetitions. Various symbolic interludes often connected scenes or stages in the film, but these tended to be too homgeneous and too transparently 'symbolic', thus, ultimately becoming hollow (if but for the mere fact that they were repeated so frequently). Grrr.
The last minutes of the film (the: we're together now and I finally feel beautiful bit) I found to be the worse. It just didn't sit right with me. The secrecy-excitement phase of that relationship is over, they're starting a new, reborn, further explore their deviousnessness (heh) within the context of true intimacy. Argh, not that I have anything against happyness (I'm for it!), but it seemed too prefect and quite a bit artificial. Likely though I was already growing tired with too many tediums.
The only thing this movie has going for it is the acting. It is often really good on that front. I have not seem to recall seeing Maggie Gyllenhaal before, I was was very impressed with her acting ability. Simply fantastic, and considering the limitations, monumental even (even she can only do so much, heh). James Spader was also good mostly, not as good, but still good. The rest of the actors did not fair too badly either. Solid at times, less so at others.
=========> To sum up: =========> Initially engaging, this movie quickly becomes highly tedius and filled with somewhat predictable redundance. Bound to the ethos of the controversial, this movie fails to send us any remotely profound message. The boss dominates the secretary and then marries her, and all is well, everybody is happy, et cetera. Add many red pens in between, a pair of bruised bottoms, a sign that says 'scertary for hire' that lights up, swimming (or should I say/sing swinging) by the pool, in very liberal doses. And end with a little too-late climax that was unsinpiring.
And while I still do not recommend this movie due to the sheer amounts of fluff and even pretenciousness, still, if one day you can't find anything worthwhile to rent and you just happen to see this on the shelf, I would say give it a shot for the terriffic acting displayed at times, especially by Maggie Gyllenhaal (!). I am looking forward to seeing her act on some good movies. I am still humbled by her skills. This movie would have been a dismal, dismal failure had it not been for her.
3/10
*****Some Spoilres Therein*****
I found nothing particularly profound about the story itself. And while it is presented in a seemingly self-empowering sort of way, it's clear that
this isn't a very libertaing premise to start with. That is, the man=boss dominates the women=secretary. He may have been dominated by that other blonde women (whom we hear very little about, she said something around at the end but it merely confused & irritated me because I had no idea what it meant).
Ironically, in one scene, some of the women -also- discuss 'sexual harrassment'. This instantly brought to my mind how implausible this relationship was in the sue-a-lot sort of mentality that exists today in the United States. This made it difficult to buy into the plot.
Additionally, the implication that this 'secretary-ing' , as I shall call it henceforth, was carried out on an even remotely regular basis is pretty absurd and laughable. Now, I realize that the lit sign that said 'secretary wanted' was perhaps satirical in nature or something to that effect, heh. Obviously I didn't get it though. So this man hires submissive secretaries for sado-encounters, until he finds the right one. Uh huhm. Surreal? Hardly. En-raging? Possibly.
As for sexuality, there was nothing particularly shocking (nor offensive) on that front that I found. Same goes for the self-mutilation apsect. True, I was moved at times, but I was also bored at others. It was almost as-if the movie tried too hard to come accross as controversial.
The most important shortcoming though has to do with the endless repetitions. Various symbolic interludes often connected scenes or stages in the film, but these tended to be too homgeneous and too transparently 'symbolic', thus, ultimately becoming hollow (if but for the mere fact that they were repeated so frequently). Grrr.
The last minutes of the film (the: we're together now and I finally feel beautiful bit) I found to be the worse. It just didn't sit right with me. The secrecy-excitement phase of that relationship is over, they're starting a new, reborn, further explore their deviousnessness (heh) within the context of true intimacy. Argh, not that I have anything against happyness (I'm for it!), but it seemed too prefect and quite a bit artificial. Likely though I was already growing tired with too many tediums.
The only thing this movie has going for it is the acting. It is often really good on that front. I have not seem to recall seeing Maggie Gyllenhaal before, I was was very impressed with her acting ability. Simply fantastic, and considering the limitations, monumental even (even she can only do so much, heh). James Spader was also good mostly, not as good, but still good. The rest of the actors did not fair too badly either. Solid at times, less so at others.
=========> To sum up: =========> Initially engaging, this movie quickly becomes highly tedius and filled with somewhat predictable redundance. Bound to the ethos of the controversial, this movie fails to send us any remotely profound message. The boss dominates the secretary and then marries her, and all is well, everybody is happy, et cetera. Add many red pens in between, a pair of bruised bottoms, a sign that says 'scertary for hire' that lights up, swimming (or should I say/sing swinging) by the pool, in very liberal doses. And end with a little too-late climax that was unsinpiring.
And while I still do not recommend this movie due to the sheer amounts of fluff and even pretenciousness, still, if one day you can't find anything worthwhile to rent and you just happen to see this on the shelf, I would say give it a shot for the terriffic acting displayed at times, especially by Maggie Gyllenhaal (!). I am looking forward to seeing her act on some good movies. I am still humbled by her skills. This movie would have been a dismal, dismal failure had it not been for her.
3/10
Seminal Film, but Does Not Surpass FoTR : Fans of the Legendarium should expect A Few Dissapointments
18 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
There is no doubt TTT is a seminal film, but few fans of the legendarium will appreciate this sequell to the extent that they did FoTR. I'll provide a brief pro vs. con, beginning with con. I am a fan of the LoTR books and the entire legendarium, so this review certainly is not intended for all (especially those who did not read RotK), and I strongly discourage anyone who have yet to see TTT to read it as well.
***** Heavy Spoilers Therein *****
=======> Cons : =======> - The Elves fighting in Helmes Deep - WHY? I admit I did not expect this. Interposing individual charcters in respect to actions/passages is fine, but a whole peoples? This simply wasn't necessary. The Huorns, which the Ents shepard were not involved, but the Elves. That didn't sit well with me because it dosen't conform to the behaviour of armies amongst the Elves. No Elves army in the entire LoTR book engage in enemies outside their borders. Where are the northern Dunedin, the remnants of Arnor, Aragorn folks who join (albeit after the battle of Helms Deep) with Elrond's sons. I sincerly hope that we will see them in RotK, but I mention them because I initially thought that the unexpected (& from my standpoint unwarrented) Elves army was them.
=======> Pros : =======> + Gandalf fight/falling scene with the Balrog, his meeting with Aragorn, Gimly & Lagolas, and the Battle of Helms Deep (albeit a bit too cartoonish at times) are spectacular scenes. On the merits of these epic scenes alone, this movie could be considered very worthwhile. Quite a few other really good scenes as well that truly shine.
+ Many passages/attributes from the book were retained (thankfully!). While often interposed in various ways, for a Tolkien fan this is what original Shakespere passages evoke in a shaksperean scholar. It is precious to me.
+ Technical cinematographic qualities of this movie are, once again virtually beyond reproach. The Golum character was sufficient, I thought, I didn't find it as lacking as some other critics here have in it being too trasperently computer-animated-y. Formal beauty of the topography of Middle Earth and of artificial constrcuts is once again absolutely breathtaking. This movie also becomes worthwhile to pay to see at the ciename (not to mention buying/renting the DvD) on these merits alone.
+ Extended version may still make more sense out of the theatrical release. Definitely something to look forward to. Hopefully there is more than half an hour that had been cut-out. Now that everything is said and done, the more stuff that has in fact been cut-out the happier I will be.
===========> Conclusions: ===========> As detailed and undoutedly tedious my 'cons' list has been (especially vis.a.vis the pros), this is still an amazing movie qualifying as a near-masterpiece. I highly doubt I will see a movie I like as much until RotK. The same impetus exists in terms of my love for this movie and my reservations, and this has to do with my affinity to Talkien's LoTR & the rest of his body of work - the most impressive work of fiction (& I'm including scriptures/mythologies in this) ever created. From that standpoint a comparison with the monumental movie, FoTR - who I found revised the book in an acceptable, sensible, & far less significant (not to mention pivotal even) manner - is unavoidable.
Don't get me wrong though, this isn't close to being as bad as Attack of the Clowns/Phantom Menace is when compared to The Empire Strikes Back, let say, but I suspect fans of Tolkien will be slightly (or depending on how pragmatic they are in this sense, more so) dissapointed with the sheer extent of the revisionism vis.a.vis FoTR.
Nonetheless this is clearly a Must-See several-times-over kind of film. Easily earning 9 out of 10 and even higher, but not the 10++ /10 FoTR earned in my view.
The best movie this year, most likely yes. Best movie in decades (as was the case with FoTR, I thought), from how it struck me, unfortunately it did not reach such a high level, not to mention surpassing FoTR. In short, not a cinematic feat as FoTR was, but we can hope that RotK will be! Even surpassing both FoTR & TTT!
To sum up, notwithstanding all these long-whinded qualifications, drawbacks and criticisms (and note that this is merely a seen-it-once from midnight-to-3am impression), I still highly, highly recommended to pay to see this at the cinema. It is, ultimately, very worthwhile. I may not go see it four times as I did FoTR, but I will pay to see it in the theatre again.
***** Heavy Spoilers Therein *****
=======> Cons : =======> - The Elves fighting in Helmes Deep - WHY? I admit I did not expect this. Interposing individual charcters in respect to actions/passages is fine, but a whole peoples? This simply wasn't necessary. The Huorns, which the Ents shepard were not involved, but the Elves. That didn't sit well with me because it dosen't conform to the behaviour of armies amongst the Elves. No Elves army in the entire LoTR book engage in enemies outside their borders. Where are the northern Dunedin, the remnants of Arnor, Aragorn folks who join (albeit after the battle of Helms Deep) with Elrond's sons. I sincerly hope that we will see them in RotK, but I mention them because I initially thought that the unexpected (& from my standpoint unwarrented) Elves army was them.
- Edoras/Meduseld(sp.) looked like a fort. It should have been castle-ed. It should have been larger, not Minas Tirith grandness but some grandness nonetheless. The gate certainly should have been bigger. Likewise at the battle of Helms Deep the scales were again significantly shrunk, 300 vs. 10,000, where in fact it was 1000+ .
- The Music was not as monumental as FoTR. It was good but not great, certainly not as epic as in FoTR. A completely different ethos here in that respect, and that's too bad.
- Faramir Kidnapps Frodo to Osgiliath. I'm fine with Farmair fighting at Osgliliath before he returns to Minas Tirith to tell his father/Gandalf that he encountered Forodo. But for Faramir to fall for the ring to that extent is really a bastardization of his character in the book all under the guise of making us understand that the ring is evil. We get it! Galadriel said her "I will diminish and remain Galadriel" speech; Gandalf had his "don't tempt me, Fordo" one; Aragorn had his "I would have walked with you to the very fires of Mordor" one. Faramir should be similarly redeemed. That is, the speech/state whereby he lusts for the ring is the 'exception' to his personality (unlike Boromir's), he dosen't need to physically kidnap Frodo and -then- have an epipheny. A subtle difference I'm sure not too many people would even notice. Oh well. Onwards.
- Gimly is comic relief in the book to an extent but I think this was a bit overdone here. Nonetheless sometimes this worked really well, not always though.
- Lagolas has this weird panic attack during the Battle of Helms Deep. Very out-of-character from the book. Very out-of-charachter for FoTR the movie, in fact.
- Eomer and Gimly's antagonism-to-friendship relationship was'nt developed. Perhaps the extended version will. Hopefully.
- Theoden is too young-looking. I fon't mind that overdramatic bit of exorcism Gandalf pulls on Saruman to remove him from controlling Theoden's mind (even though that didn't happen in the book). Theoden should have gotten younger-looking after that ordeal, but he should have had white hair and beard & quite a bit older.
- Gandalf should have been doing more talking/ be less uninvolved. Enough Forodo already, give us some more Gandalf! And maybe some more Saruman as well.
- M&P interaction with Treebeard + other Ents could have been handled better. And there should have been more Ent-types (especially spruce-like). The Ents seemed a tad homogenious in their basic architecture. I didn't mind that a dam replaced the channeling of the river Isen's current, but perhaps we could have seen there was a dam ten seconds before we see it being torn down. And the Ent that supposebly burns, should have perhaps burned. Some tragedy especially authentic to the book is good. Did we really need a deus ex machina to rescue him? But maybe I'm off on this one, because it was pretty cool, almost cartoonish.
- Where is Eowyn's malaise. This is pretty pivotal stuff here. She should have been a conflicted, suffering, in-love, heroic, and an in-depth complex character. Only some of these traits from the book were integrated in her character.
- Gandalf final battle with the Balrog should have had more lighnings involved! I hope the extended version will offer more of that. As the book described, it should have been as if there was a storm up there. But a truly an excelent scene(s) here, so this battle will also be a plus.
- Maybe it was the cinema's low framerate, but some battle scenes seemed a bit too jumbled and didn't translate well on-screen. Mybe these will look better on the higher fps DvD.
- Some of the scene(s) between Arwen and Aragorn were really good, but some were just plain redundent. A movie of this scope, of this kind, cannot afford any redundance whatsoever though!
- Elrond is ready to run away!? Elrond objects to Arwen & Aragorn's union, that's fine I can swallow that change easily. But him ready to sail away and have the Valar protect him far in the West seems awfully wimpy. Elrond has not been one of the foremost leaders of all that is good and wise and true in Middle Earth for a thousand years to simply run-away. Sauron, the last 'large-scale' supernatural evil of the angelic order is largely the reason Elrond remained in Middle Earth for that long. Very out of charachter. What was albeit inadvertant nonetheless translated into a somewhat profound lack of bravery. In the book, Elrond will not leave until all his said and done, and he will send his sons to battle Sauron as well.
=======> Pros : =======> + Gandalf fight/falling scene with the Balrog, his meeting with Aragorn, Gimly & Lagolas, and the Battle of Helms Deep (albeit a bit too cartoonish at times) are spectacular scenes. On the merits of these epic scenes alone, this movie could be considered very worthwhile. Quite a few other really good scenes as well that truly shine.
+ Many passages/attributes from the book were retained (thankfully!). While often interposed in various ways, for a Tolkien fan this is what original Shakespere passages evoke in a shaksperean scholar. It is precious to me.
+ Technical cinematographic qualities of this movie are, once again virtually beyond reproach. The Golum character was sufficient, I thought, I didn't find it as lacking as some other critics here have in it being too trasperently computer-animated-y. Formal beauty of the topography of Middle Earth and of artificial constrcuts is once again absolutely breathtaking. This movie also becomes worthwhile to pay to see at the ciename (not to mention buying/renting the DvD) on these merits alone.
+ Extended version may still make more sense out of the theatrical release. Definitely something to look forward to. Hopefully there is more than half an hour that had been cut-out. Now that everything is said and done, the more stuff that has in fact been cut-out the happier I will be.
===========> Conclusions: ===========> As detailed and undoutedly tedious my 'cons' list has been (especially vis.a.vis the pros), this is still an amazing movie qualifying as a near-masterpiece. I highly doubt I will see a movie I like as much until RotK. The same impetus exists in terms of my love for this movie and my reservations, and this has to do with my affinity to Talkien's LoTR & the rest of his body of work - the most impressive work of fiction (& I'm including scriptures/mythologies in this) ever created. From that standpoint a comparison with the monumental movie, FoTR - who I found revised the book in an acceptable, sensible, & far less significant (not to mention pivotal even) manner - is unavoidable.
Don't get me wrong though, this isn't close to being as bad as Attack of the Clowns/Phantom Menace is when compared to The Empire Strikes Back, let say, but I suspect fans of Tolkien will be slightly (or depending on how pragmatic they are in this sense, more so) dissapointed with the sheer extent of the revisionism vis.a.vis FoTR.
Nonetheless this is clearly a Must-See several-times-over kind of film. Easily earning 9 out of 10 and even higher, but not the 10++ /10 FoTR earned in my view.
The best movie this year, most likely yes. Best movie in decades (as was the case with FoTR, I thought), from how it struck me, unfortunately it did not reach such a high level, not to mention surpassing FoTR. In short, not a cinematic feat as FoTR was, but we can hope that RotK will be! Even surpassing both FoTR & TTT!
To sum up, notwithstanding all these long-whinded qualifications, drawbacks and criticisms (and note that this is merely a seen-it-once from midnight-to-3am impression), I still highly, highly recommended to pay to see this at the cinema. It is, ultimately, very worthwhile. I may not go see it four times as I did FoTR, but I will pay to see it in the theatre again.
Analyze That
(2002)
Silly, Cute, Fun (-you-..., -YOU- ).
3 December 2002
I found this sequel to be as good if not better than the original (here's one thing it might have with the godfather series, aside from 'stealing' one of the scores for 10 seconds, teehee). It seemed as if the satirical elements in the film were handled more poignantly but at the same time, more light-heartedly than 'Analyze This'. The clashes of cultures, of personalities, inter-mob conflict & the FBI (FBI Agent's best line: "Just call the FBI's limousine service at 1-800-F**-Off", teeheehee) all work themselves-in pretty well here, the scenes are quite balanced with few excesses (i.e. overdoing some jokes to death). Some jokes/exploits are repeated a bunch of times, but they tend to be employed tactfully (i.e. I didn't feel embarrassed for the actors) and humorously (i.e. I laughed, I giggled). I confess I thought that this movie was not going to end up being up to par. I am pleased to be proven incorrect on that front. A good comedy and perhaps the best mob comedy (clearly one of the best).
In closing, amusing and well-worth the time if one is seeking some good laughs. Of course, that depends one one's sense of humor (people do die violently in this comedy) : but I suspect that most people going to see this one would already know more-or-less what to expect, and in this sense, I think they will be pleasantly surprised. I was.
7.5/10
In closing, amusing and well-worth the time if one is seeking some good laughs. Of course, that depends one one's sense of humor (people do die violently in this comedy) : but I suspect that most people going to see this one would already know more-or-less what to expect, and in this sense, I think they will be pleasantly surprised. I was.
7.5/10
I'm Gonna Git You Sucka
(1988)
Doesn't Work.
24 November 2002
I loved the In-Living Colour skits so I was confident this movie would deliver comparable hilarities. Sadly, it did not. The comedy/plot/acting seems forced & superimposed and indecisive as to what sort of a movie this is. Ultimately, it comes down to whether it was funny, everything else aside. Unfortunately, there is not much that I found funny (Black Knight was more amusing than this movie, I'm seriouse - actually Black Knight's rating on imdb is excessively low, I think, but I digress). At any event, quite a dissapointment. The basic blaxpolitation premise and theme would have had great potential here, but something went wrong, very wrong.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
We Were Liars.
23 November 2002
An unfathomably bad movie. Endless successions of comic book realism (Mel needs no cover, now bow before him), cliches, distortions of the truth and historical revisionism (lies), poor or otherwise absent acting, and a shameful dose of American triumphalism. That's right! Not even a hint of apologism in the invasion of Vietnam. Not to mention to expected incompetence of 4000 well-trained NVAs in their own territory vs. the 395 ra-ra-ra U.S. soldiers. History re-written and the quality of each armed forces authentic qualities go down the drain with Gibsonite technolywood propaganda which appears to have come out straight out of the mouth of the U.S. Department of Defence 30 years ago (that's right, 30 years ago). The proaganda; the disjointedness of the story; the Mel Gibson overacting & his new identity as more-patriotic-than-GWB (and he's Australian, is he not); the dialogue lines -- 'Glad to die for my country' , I almost threw up. Glad to be involved & to die for in a meaningless war that would kill 2 million Vietnamese - but wait, Vietnamese lives are worth 1/1000000000 of an American one so it's okay. Anyway they shouldn't have been committing terrorist acts on U.S. soil and trying to invade... Just wait Holywood will rewrite the Indochina conflict in this manner in 10 years. Such a surprise though, that the Vietnameese, led by THEIR George Washington, Ho Chi Minh, were not prepared to be ruled by French colonialism, why would they want to live under an American one, they were fighting for their independence.
Alas for the three-sentence history lesson, those who like this movie, those who made this movie, clearly do not have the slightest care about history, just triumphalism and money. The glroious 395 Americans virtually annhilate the 4000 NVAs in cqc, again, was unfathomably painful to watch as it was reminiscent of so many, so - so many similar Holywood Vietnam propaganda movie - there are no shortage of these. The true gems: Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Hamburger Hill, etc., tend to be less submissive to the Holywood revisionisms. This movie is as far from these as Never Ending Story III is from Fellowship of the Ring. Pitiful, truly pitiful, and quite shameful too.
Alas for the three-sentence history lesson, those who like this movie, those who made this movie, clearly do not have the slightest care about history, just triumphalism and money. The glroious 395 Americans virtually annhilate the 4000 NVAs in cqc, again, was unfathomably painful to watch as it was reminiscent of so many, so - so many similar Holywood Vietnam propaganda movie - there are no shortage of these. The true gems: Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Hamburger Hill, etc., tend to be less submissive to the Holywood revisionisms. This movie is as far from these as Never Ending Story III is from Fellowship of the Ring. Pitiful, truly pitiful, and quite shameful too.
Green Dragon
(2001)
Red-White-and-Blue Dragon.
23 November 2002
The sanctification of U.S. soldiers in this movie goes far beyond oversentimantalism, to the realm of fantasy and even absurdity. I was really sickened by this movie and did not finish watching in spite of the fact that at times the acting was quite good, excelent even, especially from the children, Forest, and some of the adult Vietnamese cast.
But the manner in which this movie attempts to hammer-down U.S. apologism for the war is so blatant, so unrealistic, and in this sense insidious.
Sure the films attempts to have us empathize with Vietnamese (for a change), that's very rare for U.S. Vietnam war films, infitesimally so. But, of course, these are the pro-U.S. Vietnamese, so the unspeakably gentle Americans can be presented in an entirely positive way. Their only shortcoming is that they were not able to win. But the millions of Vietnamese who died for their National Liberation (as I said in another review, Ho Chi Minh was their George Washington -- out of 40 million Vietnamese very few chose not to fight for the -only-, yes only, National Liberation movement which fought against both the French & the U.S. all the same).
Of course, this movie would like us to forget these realities at all costs because it has a hidden agenda. One would never know about these dynamics from the movie. The gross and unrealistic santification also extends to a South Vietnamese General, for example. And that was it for me. I couldn't go on with it. I got the point: the U.S. and the tiny so-called "South Vietnamese" forces were good, the NVA and the rest of Vietnam bad. Now let's paint some cute pictures. Revolting and condescending. This movie is for Americans only, but not all Americans (see I don't have such a low perception of the American population, not all of them would so thoughtlessly buy into this sel-findulgent tripe). If you're an American whose education consists strictly on spoon-fed government propaganda and Holywood as a scholarly authority, you will like this movie, go for it I guess. But any other American with a dose of citical thought would feel the same way I do, I'm sure.
In closing, this movie is intended for (though not recommended to anyone) the not-too-bright oversentimental without-a-dose of a history-lesson or critical thought Americans.
It is to be AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS, however, by anyone who is:
An American with half-a-brain.
Anyone else from Earth, and especially from Vietnam.
------------ Post Script: ------------
Funny, they mention the genocidal regime known as Khmer Rouse (sp.) in Cambodia, but it is said in passing so as to juxtapose it to the evil Vietnamese. Except it was the Vietnamese Communist forces who in 1979 invaded Cambodia and physically ousted the Khmer Rouse from power, ending the latter's genocide of 4 million Cambodians. So, for those of you who thought this movie was good, realistic, and without hidden patriotic agendas, I hope the Irony is not lost on you. But I fear it will.
1/10
But the manner in which this movie attempts to hammer-down U.S. apologism for the war is so blatant, so unrealistic, and in this sense insidious.
Sure the films attempts to have us empathize with Vietnamese (for a change), that's very rare for U.S. Vietnam war films, infitesimally so. But, of course, these are the pro-U.S. Vietnamese, so the unspeakably gentle Americans can be presented in an entirely positive way. Their only shortcoming is that they were not able to win. But the millions of Vietnamese who died for their National Liberation (as I said in another review, Ho Chi Minh was their George Washington -- out of 40 million Vietnamese very few chose not to fight for the -only-, yes only, National Liberation movement which fought against both the French & the U.S. all the same).
Of course, this movie would like us to forget these realities at all costs because it has a hidden agenda. One would never know about these dynamics from the movie. The gross and unrealistic santification also extends to a South Vietnamese General, for example. And that was it for me. I couldn't go on with it. I got the point: the U.S. and the tiny so-called "South Vietnamese" forces were good, the NVA and the rest of Vietnam bad. Now let's paint some cute pictures. Revolting and condescending. This movie is for Americans only, but not all Americans (see I don't have such a low perception of the American population, not all of them would so thoughtlessly buy into this sel-findulgent tripe). If you're an American whose education consists strictly on spoon-fed government propaganda and Holywood as a scholarly authority, you will like this movie, go for it I guess. But any other American with a dose of citical thought would feel the same way I do, I'm sure.
In closing, this movie is intended for (though not recommended to anyone) the not-too-bright oversentimental without-a-dose of a history-lesson or critical thought Americans.
It is to be AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS, however, by anyone who is:
An American with half-a-brain.
Anyone else from Earth, and especially from Vietnam.
------------ Post Script: ------------
Funny, they mention the genocidal regime known as Khmer Rouse (sp.) in Cambodia, but it is said in passing so as to juxtapose it to the evil Vietnamese. Except it was the Vietnamese Communist forces who in 1979 invaded Cambodia and physically ousted the Khmer Rouse from power, ending the latter's genocide of 4 million Cambodians. So, for those of you who thought this movie was good, realistic, and without hidden patriotic agendas, I hope the Irony is not lost on you. But I fear it will.
1/10
The Beheaded 1000
(1991)
An unfathomable tragico-comical odyssey of beheadingness
7 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
*****WARNING: The Following may contain minor SPOILERS*****
This movie not only has abundent decapitations, it also has plenty other limbs & organs (including sexual) which gets chopped off. This movie is certainly not for the faint of heart. I found it quite funny, but perhaps not so much for the intended comedic aspects as much as the odditty of some lines (a product no doubt of the language barrier or/and subtitles). I would only recommend this movie to fans of HK horror-comedies. As mentioned, this is a very violent film, already five minutes into the movie we get several graphic beheadings. There are also ghosts & people who possess magic. One gets to see a cleric grow to the size of a giant & hunt ghosts, a laser shooting skull statue, ghosts that shoot laser as well as very powerful proto-grenades. Unfathomable is a word I would use to describe some of the chain of events, dialogue lines, as well as choreographic, cinematographic, & editing choices.
My rating, though, is a qualified one since I am not a huge fan of HK films (though I'm also Not not-a-fan) & my expereince with these, as well as my cultural & linguistical affinities, is highly limited.
I give this movie a 1.5 out five. It gets one point for the (my own) hilarity factor, and it gets ahalf-a-point for those times in the movie where the formal beauty of the sets shines (but note that this is accompanied with some preplexingly poor choices, especially the bluntly superimposed laser-eque speciall effects).
Regards,
Eyal.
This movie not only has abundent decapitations, it also has plenty other limbs & organs (including sexual) which gets chopped off. This movie is certainly not for the faint of heart. I found it quite funny, but perhaps not so much for the intended comedic aspects as much as the odditty of some lines (a product no doubt of the language barrier or/and subtitles). I would only recommend this movie to fans of HK horror-comedies. As mentioned, this is a very violent film, already five minutes into the movie we get several graphic beheadings. There are also ghosts & people who possess magic. One gets to see a cleric grow to the size of a giant & hunt ghosts, a laser shooting skull statue, ghosts that shoot laser as well as very powerful proto-grenades. Unfathomable is a word I would use to describe some of the chain of events, dialogue lines, as well as choreographic, cinematographic, & editing choices.
My rating, though, is a qualified one since I am not a huge fan of HK films (though I'm also Not not-a-fan) & my expereince with these, as well as my cultural & linguistical affinities, is highly limited.
I give this movie a 1.5 out five. It gets one point for the (my own) hilarity factor, and it gets ahalf-a-point for those times in the movie where the formal beauty of the sets shines (but note that this is accompanied with some preplexingly poor choices, especially the bluntly superimposed laser-eque speciall effects).
Regards,
Eyal.
Tell Your Friends