Comments written by registered user
kickstand

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 5: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

49 comments in total

I caught this film on the Independent Film Channel, having no idea what it was. My reaction to this movie progressed as follows: mild boredom, strong boredom, some interest when they get to Loch Ness, confusion, (looked up film on IMDb), some amusement, then finally disappointment.

The first 20 minutes of the film are dull as dishwater and don't work either as documentary or docu-parody. Endless footage of Herzog's party and the filmmaker wandering around aimlessly. Once the joke really starts to kick in (basically when we get on the water) there are some mildly amusing moments. But the cast is rather wooden throughout, and the joke is ultimately spread too thin. Herzog is simultaneously not famous enough to really hold my interest or for me to get all the in-jokes (which are over-explained anyhow), yet too famous to "become" the role (would a real producer second-guess this formidable film legend?) A nice try but ultimately it's not really funny.

Best hacker movie? Well, it doesn't really seem like a hacker movie to me, more like a high-tech caper movie, the kind which has been done better (more recently in Mission Impossible or even the Ocean's Eleven remake).

The film centers around the search for a high-tech MacGuffin, and takes its time with the setup. In fact, the whole first half of this film is slow going, and has a whole lot of plot holes for a film that relies so heavily on plot. (a scientist invented something that "any government in the world would kill for" and guess where he keeps it!?!?!?)

However, the film is redeemed by a riveting 2nd half, and performances by a near-legendary acting ensemble, all of whom have done their best work elsewhere, but are still fun to watch. Somehow this is a film that seems better in one's memory after you've seen it, rather than in the actual watching.

P.S. It does seem to me that the climactic "sneak" was pretty much stolen by Mission Impossible, and I have to say, M.I. does it better.

The subject at hand -- the reception of black immigrants by small-town America -- is an important subject indeed. The filmmaker does a pretty good job of getting different perspectives on the situation without demonizing either side. He seems to have been present at all the major events of the situation and got some extremely good footage, especially quotes from former Lewiston mayors Jenkins and Tara. (by the way, he should have fact-checked spelling of 'Kaileigh Tara')

There's a serious problem, however, in the editing room. The editor imposes what might be called a "bad MTV" style on the film. He has a habit of interrupting sentences, cutting people off, and jumping back-and-forth between people on opposing sides of the issue in a confusing, irritating manner that does not shed any light on anything. One example of many: Maine Governor talks about his upbringing, and a white supremacist talks about, um, something. Back and forth about 4 or 5 times between them in short bites. I found it hard to concentrate and understand what they were saying.

Another bad habit is showing apparent stock footage of OTHER white supremacist rallies without attribution. He definitely makes it seem that several violent demonstrations might have taken place in Lewiston; they did not. He also cuts back-and-forth between the two rallies (one for peace and one for hate) in such a way that it is not entirely clear to the viewer which one is onscreen at a given moment.

Finally, I suggest that the filmmaker gives disproportionate screen time to the white supremacist and outsider David Stearns. While at the time his presence might have seemed provocative, I expect that over time he will have largely become a forgotten footnote in Lewiston history.

"Something" has "gotta" be one of the most over-rated films of the year. The story is trite and predictable, the characters are unsympathetic wealthy people with wealthy people's problems. Many critics have claimed this film is elevated by its stars, but I don't buy it. Neither Nicholson nor Keaton is acting in any sense other than playing themselves. They obviously had a good time on the set, and several scenes do sparkle with the humor and freshness of friends having a good time. But it's like watching a party at someone else's house. I wasn't engaged in a believable story, and I wasn't having a good time.

What does the daughter -- or the mother -- see in Nicholson's lecherous character? What does Nicholson's character -- or Reeves' character -- see in Keaton's flighty la-de-da "Annie Hall" reprisal? I couldn't tell.

I'm no mountain climber ... but I have seen a few mountain-climbing movies! This film has the stunning feel of authenticity about it. There's no dumb grafted-on plot a la "vertical limit", just a true-to-life tale of endurance and survival. Several scenes gave me the jaw-dropping reaction of "how the heck did they do that??" This film is the best outdoors/adventure film I've seen since David Breashears' 1998 IMAX production "Everest."

It occurs to me that the theme of this movie is life ... the exhilaration of life (mountaineering "makes you feel more alive," says one of the climbers) and the preciousness of survival. In that, the movie is a perfect antidote to another film I saw recently, "City of God." In that, young lives are snuffed out again and again for no good reason. In "Touching the Void" we understand how important it is to just keep going, no matter how difficult the obstacles, no matter how bad the pain.

I'm no mountain climber ... but I have seen a few mountain-climbing movies! This film has the stunning feel of authenticity about it. There's no dumb grafted-on plot a la "vertical limit", just a true-to-life tale of endurance and survival. Several scenes gave me the jaw-dropping reaction of "how the heck did they do that??" This film is the best outdoors/adventure film I've seen since David Breashears' 1998 IMAX production "Everest". [this review needs to be ten lines long for no apparent reason, so I have to add some filler at the end of the review, sorry about that. I don't think this requirement is realistic or fair, but here I have to do it]

Unlike some highly praised non-English language films I can think of, (um, like FAST RUNNER), City of God features dynamic cinematography, brilliant editing, and just-plain-cool film techniques. The first five minutes are among the best cinema I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). It's a masterpiece, a movie with no digital effects but nonetheless on a par with LORD OF THE RINGS for its depiction of a world utterly alien to me. And it's based, apparently, on a true story.

But it's a tough ride, and definitely not for those who don't like violent movies. A good test: if you appreciate Peckinpah, Tarantino, and Scorsese, this is probably up your alley. Beware, though, this film has something more horrible than any of those directors: graphic scenes of children killing other children.

Yes, I will concede that this movie features me of the best acting ever put on film. And Eastwood is a highly competent director. But allow me to point out the negatives ...

The plotline hangs on a highly improbable coincidence. Not only improbable, but not particularly convoluted or twisted -- or one that the audience has any clues to be able to figure out. I realized soon enough that what is "obviously true" wouldn't be true here -- that wouldn't be much of a movie. But the actual plot solution is not nearly as complicated as one might imagine, or hope. Sorry, I don't want to get too specific, so as not to spoil it for anyone.

Secondly, Eastwood is a competent director, but not particularly interesting, really. A few of his tendencies are starting to become cliches for him -- the overhead helicopter shots, the camera panning to the sky when we see the dead girl, the way he hits us over the head with flashbacks (just in case we are too stupid to remember them) -- I feel like I saw it all in A PERFECT WORLD, which is, for my money, a better film.

I'm sure that this read better as a nove with BIG FISH is that film fantasy sequences have been now, so much better. After LORD OF THE RINGS, it's hard to impress with fantasy sequences. So they fell kind of flat, rather than wondrous, or whatever they were supposed to be. I think it would have worked better if the father's stories were less fantastic, more realistic.

However, the ending really did work for me. Not to spoil it, but the scenes of the people from the father's life coming together and telling THEIR stories of HIM ... now that was heart-rending.

However, I have to ask (rhetorically, of course). Ewan McGregor after 30, 40 years grows older to look like Albert Finney. Danny Devito (etc) after 30, 40 years grows older to look like ... Danny Devito with grey hair??

I've read so many good reviews of this film, and I agree that it is great to see a thoughtful and interesting film about human relationships. There are so many admirable qualities of LOST IN TRANSLATION that I hate to pick at it. But still ... somebody has to. ;-)

The characters are very priveledged, and their problems seem to trivial to me. Murray's character has a family and a film career (or at least he had one), and is making $2 million for a week's work. Boo hoo. And Johansson's character has a Yale degree and is tagging along on her husband's business trip, and he has no time for her because he's working. Because his client paid for him to go to Japan and work. How boring to stay in Japan for a week with no commitments and (apparently) plenty of money. Boo hoo.

Ultimately, I think this would be a much better film if Coppola were a few decades older and actually had something to say about marriage and relationships.

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]