Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
| I just wanted to add that after seeing the trailer for Nicholas Nickleby I'm pretty excited about seeing the film. Doesn't seem like there has been tons of buzz but it does seem to be getting at least decent critical notice. |
I've watched it twice now, and am surely falling in love with the movie. 
Yeah, that trailer really sold me. I was wondering why a stuffy, dry period piece was getting some critical discussion. Then I saw a trailer for a fun, funny, interesting film that looked to be quite upbeat, or at least up tempo. Just waiting on the arthouse to do their job now. 
½
- Dialogue-heavy and derivative, but fun in a cheesy B-movie sorta way. Treach plays a young hitman who falls for his latest target. Hardly an original idea, but delivers cable flick fun in small doses. - Delightful comedy/musical/murder mystery, laden with the finest French actresses of the past 40 years. If you can get past the mild weirdness of watching subtitles songs (it's easy) and you don't mind your cinematic confectionry a little on the sweet side, there's a lot of fun to be had with this one. And dear sweet lord is Emmanuelle Beart the peak of all things drop-dead gorgeous. - Sort of a dark flip-side of Leave it to Beaver and a pretty damn compelling dramatic tale in its own right. Todd Haynes recreates the 1950's down to the most minute detail, and offers up dual tales of 'societal taboos', resulting in a side of the Golden Era generally unseen before. The movie looks as if it were a particularly brave and insightful drama produced in 1953, and I mean that as a high compliment. Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid deliver fantastic performances, if you need a little more prodding. - Having no experience with the stage show, I cannot comment on comparisons. As a movie, it's a dizzyingly cool time. Zellweger and Zeta give stunningly swingin' performances, John Reilly gets to warble a melancholy ditty, and try not to smile when Gere gets into the act. First-timer Rob Marshall brings a palpable 'Broadway' feel to the film, and I think it's one of the best musicals I've ever seen.
- Minor gripe: it ambles a bit too long. Everything else is pure entertainment. DiCaprio is great, Hanks impresses in a suprisingly 'supporting' role, John Williams' old-style jazzy score is a delight, the script is breezy and witty, the cat-and-mouse aspect (though not as fast-paced as the ads suggest) is deft and expert, and it's just a real treat to see Spielberg work on such a small canvas for a change. Also noteworthy for A) some of the coolest opening credits EVER, and B) Hanks' delivery of the world's best knock-knock joke. - Well-conceived and impressive to look at, this WWII code-breaker drama suffers from a stalled engine...more than once. Dougray Scott and Kate Winslet keep things relatively interesting, but the flick's a bit too dry for my tastes. - Solid surprise here. An ex-con arrives at a halfway house after 12 years in prison, and unwisely strikes up a romance with a local hooker. Extremely strong acting and an effective use of the Digital Video approach combine to keep the flick more than compelling.], Peter Jackson's latest installment in the tale of Frodo Baggins. Well, sort of: Mr. Frodo's story is put on the backburner while Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) takes center stage, getting into a conflict: should he take his rightful place as an heir to the throne, or keep his current role as a brooding ranger with an eternal two-day beard? You won't find out until the third installment, but in the meantime you can act like me and marvel at Jackson's direction, the cinematography, costumes and set design, all of which--like they were in Fellowship--are perfect. The actors all do well with their parts, but I never felt for them like I did in the first; the only character I really had any emotion towards was Gollum, brought to you courtesy of some brilliant CGI and actor Andy Serkis--I'm not sure whether or not that's a good thing. While I didn't mind the numerous changes from the book (since it retains the feel of Tolkein's writing), the constant back-and-forth intercutting between various plotlines hit a sour note with me, because major setpieces--like the battle at Helm's Deep, for instance--lose any momentum they initially gain because they're interrupted by another character's story. No matter though: Towers is a fantastic piece of work overall, with some pretty damn amazing set pieces, and I'm sure the movie will grow on me in subsequent viewings.] is an enjoyable throwback to the Giant-[Insert Bug/Insect Here] B-movies of the 1950's, and nothing more. The characters are transparent, the plot can be summed up with a few words, the script is not familiar with the concept of logic, the special effects are iffy at times...but it's not a big deal--the movie exists to provide an entertaining 100 minutes (which could have easily been trimmed by another 10 or so), and it does so with an obvious affinity for what made movies like Tarantula and Them! so much fun. And hey, what other film offers both Doug E. Doug and Scarlett Johansson in the same package? ], then the answer is an enthusiastic "Hell F***ing YES!" Though the plot of the movie is more or less a standard revenge story, director Martin Scorsese (thankfully) decided to focus more on the atmosphere and deadly nature of the Five Points, a hellish mix of dingy streets, corruption, random violence, broken lives and horrific living conditions, a place where nearly the entire film is set in, and a marvel of production design. While Leonardo DiCaprio does fine with his part, he...oh hell, everyone is overshadowed by Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. A towering figure with matted hair, a thick mustache and one hell of an odd NY accent, Day-Lewis just simply OWNS this film, and walks off with any scene he's in; in typical Scorsese fashion, no character is cut in a black-and-white manner, and Bill grows from a "bad guy" into a poignant and multifaceted person who is simply standing up for his beliefs, and who is slowly coming to the realization that his way of life is becoming extinct. ] was a nice, quiet surprise, a layered look at the lives of three sisters, all of whom have problems (as is the standard in these types of films). The film benefits from an excellent cast, ranging from Emily Mortimer's self-loathing neurotic to Catherine Keener's bitter housewife, and there are a number of sublime moments. And Jake Gylenhall adds another notch to his increasing roster of small, important supporting parts. The movie won't change your outlook on life, but it'd be a shame if more people didn't get a chance to watch it.] is your run-of-the-mill soap opera-cum-screwed young lovers story populated by faceless young actors, along with the token black friend. The movie is uninspired, and you can tell exactly what'll happen just by reading the back of the video cover. However, Moore is pretty good in the role of the wallflower who has a Terrible Secret, and to be honest, I was slightly moved by the outcome of her character; Peter Coyote also has a nice, understated performance as Moore's father. The film just screams blandness, but see it for Moore's performance; I'm looking forward to her next film.] is a head-spinning work of originality and creativity, filled with several moments of sheer genius and a trio (or is that quartet?) of brilliant performances from Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep and especially Chris Cooper. But there are problems: first off, the film just doesn't flow as easily as Malkovich, the previous collaboration between Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman; in BJM, I was eagerly waiting for each scene--in Adaptation, I often sat there waiting for movie to actually do something. And although I can understand why the final third of the movie is here--because it included everything Kaufman didn't originally want--it's handled in such a jarring and poor manner that it simply qualifies as bad filmmaking. If it was supposed to be a parody of standard Hollywood movie formulas, it didn't work. However, Adaptation is definitely worth a look, and I'm looking forward to exploring the more hidden aspects of it on DVD.]: how the hell did this piss-poor excuse for filmmaking require the work of FIVE writers? This was running through my head the entire time I watched the film...well, that and why this had to be one of James Coburn's final movies. Awful on damn near every level, and further proof that Jerry Maguire was simply a fluke for Cuba Gooding, Jr.] is odd piece of work, a comedy that mixes stalking, house arrest, 80's music and homosexual handicapped midgets. But that's the problem with the film: the film is nothing more than the standard "I was framed, but nobody will believe me, so now I must find the criminal before time runs out" thriller, and all the quirkiness and indie cred (rocker Liz Phair in a co-starring role, retro soundtrack) it has can't disguise this fact. In the lead part, Robin Tunney is excellent (it probably doesn't help that she's one of my favorite actresses working today), and there is a wonderfully dark twist at the end, but Cherish turns out to be a frustrating, but watchable first-time effort from director Finn Taylor.] is basically a longer version of the HBO show G-String Divas, and has the same premise: in between the copious amount of female flesh are interview segments with the dancers. While I admire Morley's decision to focus more on the dancers' words and not their bodies, the movie overall is strictly amateur night: the editing is piss-poor, jumping around randomly and creating a huge mess, the interview segments often reveal very little that wasn't already known about the life of a stripper, and the subjects themselves are pretty bland people (though the film does score points for realism, since the interviewees are rather ordinary-looking people). Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of strip clubs, but after the final, very depressing moments of Stripped, I learned almost nothing new or even facisnating from this documentary. However, I think I can safely say this is the only film in history to feature a parallel between Star Wars and breast implants. ]. OK, let's be honest here: there is nothing in this film that is even remotely original; Marshall wears his influences on his sleeve heavily--they include Predator, Night of the Living Dead, Straw Dogs, The Evil Dead and especially Aliens (which is even quoted here--"Short, controlled bursts!" ). However, the movie is a blast to sit through: the Scottish cast handle themselves nicely, the gore is plentiful and appropriately disgusting (wanna see a man literally holding his guts in?), and the final 20 minutes are extremely tense and nerve-wracking. But the influence mishmash and hyperactive editing during some dialogue scenes make it not as good as it could have been.] is a wonderfully lighthearted effort from Spielberg, fun and flashy and here to provide entertainment, as well as provide a look at a person who, for all intents and purposes, should be in the history books. Leonardo DiCaprio slips into his role of a charming impostor with ease, while Tom Hanks matches him as the anal-retentive FBI agent (not too sure about his Boston accent, though) who simply refuses to give up. Is the movie too long? Yeah: like he did with AI and Minority Report, Spielberg just doesn't know when to say the final word, and this in effect makes the film's pace (and emotional payoff) suffer. But unlike the above mentioned movies, Catch doesn't drag as badly; it's a breezy piece of work, easy on the eyes and the ears (loved John Williams' jazzy score), and doesn't make a misguided attempt to deliver a Big Message--something which Spielberg has been doing far too often recently. A fantastic piece of work, and this is coming from someone who thinks that everything Senor Spielbergo has done since Schindler's List--with the minor exception of the first 90 minutes of Minority Report--was basically a waste of time, effort and money. Plus it contains the greatest knock-knock joke. EVER.
¾½¼
½
