Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Terminal (2004)
9/10
Spielberg's Best Film in Years
6 October 2005
All of the ingredients in this one (Spielberg, Hanks, Zeta-Jones and a strong supporting cast) are a recipe for success. And the film delivers. Though many people feel that Spielberg and Hanks' heyday have been over for years, this film proves that they have still got it. I think the most impressive thing about it is that you lose sight of the fact that Hanks (cast totally against type as an Eastern European would-be immigrant) is playing the main character. He does such a good job of immersing himself into Viktor Navorsky that the actor is incidental to the character. Major props to Hanks for the performance, with a near-perfect accent and mannerism. This film is like a real good book, you think you can put it down but you just can't. And you will not be disappointed.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather this is not
29 July 2004
OK, there has been a lot said about this one. Either people seem to love it or they hate it. Let me just say this: this is a good film, nothing more nothing less. Is it too long? Yes. I read somewhere that Leone was going to release it in two 3-hour blocks, maybe it would have been better that way, as two movies. The problem with this film is that you NOTICE that it is long. In the Godfather films, the three-plus hours seem to fly by because it constantly keeps your interest. That isn't the case here, I watched the whole thing in one sitting the first time I saw it and I could never do it again. It isn't that the acting is bad (it's quite good), it's just that the story isn't anywhere near as interesting or gripping. It might have been better off as a miniseries or something just because it is not easy to sit through the whole thing without getting bored. 6 stars out of 10.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frantic (1988)
10/10
Quiet, but intense and quite excellent
2 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The title does not 100 percent reflect the atmosphere of the film. Yes, as Ford's character rummages through a strange city looking for his kidnapped wife he does become "frantic", it is in a very quiet fashion. No screaming or fits of hysterics, but you can sense it in Ford's acting. Speaking of acting, this film is almost all Ford and Emmanuelle Seigner, very few of the supporting characters make much of a mark here. For me, the most intriguing part is the almost total lack of chemistry between those two characters. Though they are in most of the second half of the film together, neither one cares a rip about the other's wish (him=to get his wife back, her=to get her money). But if you think about it, how much would a young, drug-pushing European girl and a middle-aged, successful American doctor have in common anyway? Theirs is an inspired pairing, and a very good movie is the result. Watch this one.
61 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Routine, but actually quite good
26 April 2004
We've seen the script a hundred times if we've seen it once; happily married cop assigned to stand guard over a beautiful woman, cop falls in love with woman, etc. The difference with this one is that it actually works, even though you know how the story is going to go. Berenger is solid in the lead and Bracco fantastic as the fiery wife, while Rogers is sultry in a very classy way as the other woman. Andreas Katsulas is menacing and scary as Venza, which was perfect for this part. The classical music scores add a perfect touch, and the ending is actually quite thrilling. Something about this one just clicks, making it one of the better films of the genre. 7.5 out of 10.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good song, beautiful scenery, poor film
3 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I am not really sure if this one had much potential or not, but I AM sure that this good of a cast could have been put to better use. The storyline is not believable, the performances are not that great (except for the slimy Woods), and the whole arrangement just does not work. Another thing (possible spoiler), what does ANYONE see in the woman? She is not worth any of the trouble she causes! It isn't possible to have any sympathy whatsoever for any of the characters, and what you have as a result is a bogged-down, mess of a picture. Watch this only if you are interested in Caribbean and South American scenery. That is all that makes this one watchable. Not one of the better film efforts of the 1980s.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
More like a documentary.
21 February 2004
This is more of a documentary then it is anything else, there is no new information, no new character development, no change to the story. This is strictly a documentary using big-name actors, as it includes some of the finest and most-recognized actors in American cinema history. As for the story, if you are interested in the Watergate story, or are a historian, this is for you. If not, then you probably will not enjoy it very much because it is not tremendously entertaining, just educational.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mexican (2001)
Difficult to follow
15 January 2003
This is one of those films that, while enjoyable enough, you walk away from knowing that it should have been better. Fantastic cast (Pitt, Roberts, Gandolfini, Hackman, Balaban, Simmons), yet there is no character development outside of Gandolfini's character, and as a result, the scenes he is not in are flat. Also, the actors are not particularly believable in their roles (Gandolfini, need I say more?). But the most problematic thing about the film is that it goes back and forth with no cohesion at times, leaving the viewer wondering what the heck is going on. Eventually, it just leaves the realm of sensibility and becomes silly, mindless drivel and you are just waiting for it to end. You would expect more than mindless drivel from this good a cast.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Speed (1994)
Dennis Hopper steals the show
15 January 2003
Excellent concept here, virtually the entire film takes place at top speed, and afterwards you get the feeling you have been on the chase for 2 hours also. Reeves and Bullock are fine, but the sinister performance from Hopper is by far the most memorable. This was during the time he was filming those acid-trip NIKE commercials, and his character here fits that bill. He manages to shine despite being in relatively few of the scenes. Maybe it was those commercials or other films he made, but he was entirely believable and perfect in the part. It had excitement, had a solid plot, but most of all, had Dennis Hopper at his sinister best.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino (1995)
Alright, not great
12 January 2003
As a longtime Vegas resident I couldn't get maximum enjoyment out of this film because it was so over-the-top. No problem with any of the actors, Pesci, Stone, and DeNiro were solid as they always are, but Scorcese over-dramatizes things here. It's what I was afraid would happen. I agree with all previous comments that 45 minutes to an hour could have been left on the cutting room floor, occassionally it felt like I was watching the same scene two or three different times. Not one of the better organized crime flicks that I have seen. Six stars out of ten, based solely on the acting.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deserving of all the kudos
11 January 2003
Really a terrific film..difficult to make a courtroom comedy without it seeming too over-the-top but this one manages it. Great performances from Pesci, Tomei (well-deserving Oscar winner), Fred Gwynne (in his last film), and a downright hilarious, side-splitting cameo by Austin Pendleton. His courtroom sequence, which follows another great scene, is one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in a film. Recommend this one.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sad indeed
5 April 2002
Can't say much about this one except for the fact that it was every bit as idiotic and inane as everyone says. What on earth was Raquel Welch thinking appearing in this turkey? Rather pathetic all-around, and just plain sad to see her in this. Should have been left on the cutting room floor.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night Rhythms (1992)
8/10
Actually not bad at all
5 April 2002
Unlike 99 percent of the "after-dark" films out there, this one actually has a plot and is actually watchable without the steamy sex scenes, which are also very good. The acting is decent, the cast is not bad (David Carradine), and the girls attractive. Pleasantly surprised.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Enemy (2001)
8/10
Good cast, too short.
9 March 2001
The cast is excellent, the acting good, the plot interesting, the evolvement full of suspense...but it is hard to cram all those elements into a film that is barely 80 minutes long. If more time was taken to develop the plot and subplots, it would have a much better effect. Another 30 minutes of substance would have made this a very good film rather then just a good one.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed