Change Your Image
M0E-M0E
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
De Heineken ontvoering (2011)
Long, but well-acted, fast-paced, and terrific ending
This is really a tale of two movies: the first half and the second half. The first half focuses on character development instead of the finer details of the negotiation and any dealings with the Heineken family. A better mixture would've really improved the film. However, the second half of the film is just wonderful! Rutger Hauer is featured much more prominently and absolutely dominates every seen he's in. His performance was powerful! The second half (basically everything after the release of Heineken) is fast-paced, well-written, and superbly acted. It's also clever and fascinating. So if you can get through the first hour or so of the film, you'll love the eventual payoff. Overall a great film with good acting and story-telling throughout. Only one little gripe: the film never says what happened to Frans!
Elvis (2022)
Good film but Hanks (shockingly) sinks it!
Taking on an Elvis biopic is a huge task and one that is going to bring close scrutiny. Baz Luhrmann, overall, does a solid if unspectacular job with "Elvis." As an avid Elvis fan, I only had a few gripes: Tom Hanks looks and sounds NOTHING like Tom Parker. His "accent" is so annoying and so unlike the real Parker that is instantly irritating and becomes distracting. The makeup on Hanks is atrocious, as well. Hanks is such an unbelievable and annoying character that it really hurts the final product. I love Hanks but this is his worst performance in a long, long time. A few other minor gripes: "Elvis" fails to age much as he looks almost exactly the same in the 1970s as he did in the early 1950s. The makeup crew was bad bad bad on this film. The other minor gripe: playing stupid rap music over various parts of the film, including Eminem during credits, was cliche, unnecessary, and just odd.
Now with all of that out of the way, here's the GOOD stuff: Austin Butler turns in a fine performance in a nearly-impossible role. He REALLY shines, especially as a younger Elvis. He nails scene after scene and does an admirable job. He will be a star. Secondly, I love how Baz explores the relationship between Elvis and his parents. That was a great angle to take. The script also steers clear of the predictable and boring love interests that bring down most biopics. Kudos to Luhrmann for avoiding pointless love stories. I also enjoyed seeing the balance of both R&B and Gospel that Elvis took and essentially turned into Rock and Roll. It would've been great for Baz to touch more on Elvis singing gospel - particularly Crying in the Chapel - but he understandably couldn't get to everything.
In the end, I wish I could give this film more than 6 stars but the Tom Hanks hack job on this film *shockingly* undermines what could and should have been an 8-10 star piece of cinematic excellence.
25th Hour (2002)
Edward Norton's worst film is a waste of time
BLECH! The script is absolute trash. The plot is virtually non-existent. The acting feels like all of the characters are in a fog. This is a movie about nothing and it's a giant waste of time. The fact that noted shock-jock Spike Lee has to put a purposeless rant that borders on racist, anti-Semitic, and of course blasphemously anti-Christian is the nadir of the whole film. What exactly is Spike trying to say here? What's his point? Or is it just an unlikeable character blathering on like a madman? Edward Norton's character, and frankly all of the characters (Hoffman, Dawson, Pepper) are so utterly void of charm or any redeeming qualities that even huge fans of theirs like me find them impossible to care about, let alone root for.
The only thing positive that I have to say about this film is that I appreciate Spike Lee filming so soon in NYC post-9/11. He *does* seem to accurately capture the feeling of uneasiness and wariness in the city due to the terrorist attacks. Spike does a great job of capturing that very specific moment in time and moment in NYC. Then again, you can get an almost identical feeling from watching the wonderful Mike Binder film "Reign Over Me" that also captures that moment in time.
Primal Fear (1996)
Powerful acting by amazing cast makes this a 10-star film
First off, whenever you line up a cast of Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Frances McDormand, John Mahoney, Steven Bauer, Maura Tierney, Terry O'Quinn, and of course Edward Norton, you've already set yourself up for success. That said, this movie expertly uses each of those actors. This is the rare film where every...single...part was *perfectly* cast. Frankly, it was perfectly acted, too. This role was seemingly made for Richard Gere and he does not disappoint. His tour-de-force performance might be the best of his career. Laura Linney has the backbone and bravado to stand toe-to-toe with Gere while also showing a vulnerable side that deeply resonates. Finally, there's the feature film debut of Edward Norton. While he was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, he should've won it hands down. With the possible exception of American History X, this is Norton's best work. All of the acting in this film is utterly convincing and almost frightening. The story is solid, though a bit convoluted at times, but the twists and turns make up for any gaps. The chemistry between all of the actors, including (perhaps especially) between Gere and Norton is unmatched by any other film in recent memory. And of course the ending is famous and absolutely fantastic. If you want to see some of the greatest performances of the past 30 years, look no further than Primal Fear.
Down in the Valley (2005)
Interesting idea is wasted by stupid script and off-putting acting
YUCK! This film has that Baz Luhrmann "Romeo + Juliet" style of mixing genres. It's a fascinating idea to combine a Western with modern times (and in a major city, no less). But the script is just awful and Edward Norton's character and acting are just too off-putting and cringe-inducing to make this thing go. It's almost watchable until it fully unravels in the last 20-30 minutes. Then it becomes trite and predictable. Awful film is one of the worst in Edward Norton's illustrious career.
The Illusionist (2006)
Great acting, wonderful period piece, but an ending that ruins it
With a cast this talented - Norton, Giamatti, Biel, Sewell - and the brilliance of the set-production and costumes, you'd think that even a decent script would launch this into 8-10 star territory. Instead, the ending is so abysmal that every other good element in the film simply goes to waste. What a shame.
The Painted Veil (2006)
Absolutely stunning, powerful film filmed with incredible acting
I'm a HUGE fan of Edward Norton and this is unquestionably one of his finest films. The story is deeply moving, the cinematography is just beautiful, and the acting is exquisite! Edward Norton is at perhaps his finest playing a deceptively low-key role that ends up creating so much depth of character that by the end of the film it's almost a gut-shot to realize just how far his character has come. Naomi Watts is just as good and provides a complex character that elicits all kinds of genuine emotions from the viewer: she's flighty and flakey at times, she's sincere and somber, she's flawed and horrible yet has redeeming qualities that make her impossible not to root for. Add in the most delicately balanced screenplay and easily the most visually stunning cinematography of the past 20 years, and you've got the recipe for a 10-star film.
Kidnapped for Christ (2014)
Lazy journalism lacks any credibility whatsoever
It's easy to see what likely happened: a well-meaning college student (Kate Logan) wanted to make a documentary. So she focused on a Christian school that interested her and began filming. During her filming, she became emotionally attached to many of the students who were not all that much younger or all that much different than she was. While becoming friends with a handful of these students, she listened to their stories and felt sorry for them. She went so far as helping to liberate one student by being a courier. That's all fine and perfectly understandable, maybe even admirable to some degree. But it's not an honest documentary told from an impartial perspective. Instead, this is a blatantly biased film that makes huge assumptions to come to conclusions sans any actual actual evidence to support those conclusions. In short, this film is a *not* a documentary but a one-sided op-ed from an emotionally-involved college student who completely lacks credibility.
Presenting this as a documentary is intellectually dishonest and will only appeal to viewers who are as gullible as director Kate Logan herself was. That might sound harsh but look at the facts (which is what documentaries are supposed to do). Numerous school officials admitted - on camera! - that previous abuses had taken place. Nobody tried to hide that. But what current abuse, exactly, was still taking place? As someone who has worked in childcare (including working at boarding schools) for going on 2 decades now, I saw absolutely ZERO evidence of child abuse at Escuela Caribe based on Logan's filming. Hearsay regarding the "QR" is not actual evidence of abuse. Heavily monitoring and even editing letters being sent by the students is not evidence of abuse. In fact, that's pretty standard procedure in childcare. Furthermore, nearly every form of punishment that was filmed is pretty common and most of it actually seemed quite mild compared to many children's homes in the US. Staring at walls isn't abuse. Having to refold clothes that don't pass inspection isn't abuse. Requiring permission to do every last little thing isn't abuse. Going on long hikes isn't abuse so long as adequate water, food, and rest are available. Even the "swats" aren't considered abuse if done properly. As recently as the year 2000, many Texas public middle schools allowed administrators to swat misbehaving children so long as parents signed a waiver. If public schools are allowed to do this in the 21st Century, is it really abusive?
But that's just it: director Kate Logan doesn't know what she doesn't know. She doesn't know what is standard protocol or what is commonplace in children's homes and boarding schools. She doesn't know that "behavior modification" is a term that is widely used and WIDELY ACCEPTED in childcare not just in the United State but worldwide. Why didn't she reach out to other children's homes to see how they operate? Why didn't she speak to public school officials to see what is accepted punishment there? She also doesn't know if what David and Tai and other students were saying was actually true! And she doesn't know ANY of these things because she refuses to investigate or research anything that isn't right in front of her. She just blindly took the claims of students without interviewing David's parents or Tai's parents. Presenting only one view makes for absolutely atrocious journalism and destroys any credibility her documentary might have had.
In the end, I don't think Kate Logan is a bad person at all. I get where she's coming from. I just think she was in way over her head and ended up making a documentary that should've earned her maybe a "C" in a college film class but should've never gone any further than that.