Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Simply put...the greatest war film of all time.
17 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The heading "greatest (blank) ever" is thrown around a lot, almost jokingly at times. But this is, in my opinion, genuinely the perfect war film. Because it came out in the same year as Saving Private Ryan, Malick's masterpiece took a back seat to a grittier, more realistic war film. But what we as viewers got in 1998 were two movies that showed different aspects of war. Saving Private Ryan is hailed because the film-making was so involving and intense that it makes the viewer feel like they are actually in war. On the other hand, The Thin Red Line, from one of the finest director/screenwriters in the world, Terrence Malick, does not dilute the effect of the violence of war, but it also shows how psychological war can be. Often, we have seen movies like Apocalypse Now, where the mental damage of war drives a man to insanity, but that is not what Malick wanted to show. The Thin Red Line is just as realistic as Saving Private Ryan, but the emotional spike is far more powerful. Part of that comes from Malick's trademark transcendentalist film-making, showing the sweeping landscapes and the beauty of nature, while at the same time emphasizing the environmental injury brought about by the interaction between men and nature. Part of the emotional draw comes from the characters, and there are many. Sean Penn and Nick Nolte are phenomenal as they always have been, but it is the supporting cast that brings the reality of this film to light. Dash Mihok comes off as a surprise, as does Jim Caviezel, in one of his earlier roles. But there is also the Malick "silent character," here personified by a pale and small Adrien Brody. Other actors of note that only made this film more incredible include Elias Koteas, Ben Chaplin, John Savage, John Cusack, and Miranda Otto. But one of the keys to the success of this movie is the powerful, ominous score by my personal favorite, Hans Zimmer. The scene in which the army storms the Japanese camp is chilling, both with what is shown on screen and how Zimmer's music hauntingly beautiful. All of the elements of fantastic film-making are present, yet that does not answer fully the question of why this movie alone stands above all the other war films in history. What does Terrence Malick do that makes The Thin Red Line so effective? When you watch war movies, there is seldom a personal feel them. Hundreds of soldiers race into battle, and many of them die. The Thin Red Line has these cliché scenes, but there is another echelon of consciousness. Malick uses voice over narratives not to explain what is happening, but to explain what exists in the mind and not on the battlefield. War is not merely fought with arms, but with minds and hearts. At one moment, an American is killing Japanese soldiers and ridiculing their dead; yet soon, he shakes so hard that he cannot contain his own fear. This is kind of war that has never really existed before in film. For a plot as simple as taking one hill on a Pacific Island in World War II, The Thin Red Line supplements with substantial philosophy and psychology, showing the humanity as well as the darkness of war. In essence, The Thin Red Line is the most complete war movie ever made. If it had come out a year before Saving Private Ryan, perhaps we would consider it first when we think of revolutionary films. It is a complicate tale, one that is anti-war while still recognizing the courage and glory of it. You would be hard pressed to argue that it can be labeled as simply as pro or anti-war. But that is how Malick tells his stories. The moral ambiguity of humanity set against the backdrop of the natural world is his method. I have never seen another movie as significant and brilliant as The Thin Red Line. It is easy to compare it with movies like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan, but Malick's film is on an entirely different level.

In this war, there is a thin red line between sanity and madness.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The New World (2005)
10/10
Poignant and transcendental
22 January 2006
First, let me applaud this film. I have been waiting for Terrence Malick's fourth film ever since I saw The Thin Red Line. Arguably, Malick is one of the most adept and deliberate filmmakers right now. The New World is nearly flawless, and the beauty of Malick's direction adds to the argument that film can still be considered aesthetic. Much has been lost in the last 30 years, but Terrence Malick sticks to what he knows. What some people may complain about this movie are the long silences, the action-less movement, and the poetic voice over. This is what Malick does. He is a modern transcendentalist. What he does with film is comparable to what Emerson did in writing. The color is naturalistic, and the sounds are earthly. It helps that Malick uses natural light for his shots, giving the scenery more life and texture. As for the substance of the film, what isn't pantomimed in subtle gestures and movements is brought to life with flowing poetic voice over. This goes all the way back to Badlands for Malick. But here, we get varying minds contributing. There are some moments in this film when the viewer has to understand the characters by their facial expressions instead of their words. I think that will be hard for a lot of people who are expecting a more vocative and kinetic film. As for the acting, I was very impressed with all involved, particularly Q'Orianka Kilcher. This young woman played the part of innocence beautifully. I also have to give some credit to Colin Farrell, considering I never expect much out of him. Unlike some of his other movies, he was not in it to steal the spotlight. Everyone played their parts without any excessive over-acting. This movie is a historical drama, but I feel like the history aspect is merely a backdrop for the Terrence Malick play. In his production, the flowing waters and the forest canopy are the actors, and the gentle reflections of troubled minds are the words. Truly, this is an incredible film. I have waited a long time for Terrence Malick to wow me again, and he has done exactly that. If you want a movie that tears at your heart strings, then go see something recycled like Brokeback Mountain. If you want a transcendental experience, one that challenges you to go deeper than the surface of the film, then The New World is waiting.
343 out of 534 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hulk (2003)
8/10
Green, mean, and different...Cool!
20 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! LOOK AWAY IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED, BUT KEEP READING IF YOU DON'T (OR HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT)!

The Hulk turned out to be a curiosity more than anything for me. Sure, I love action movies like I love ice cream. It's just my genre of choice. But before actually seeing The Hulk, I had some serious doubts. Part of that skepticism arose when I saw the first previews, revealing the hero as a bastardization of the comic character. The CGI was what worried me the most, considering my favorite action movies tend to tone down on such fake effects. The only incentive which really drew me to this movie (honest to God) was Connelly. If that was all I was looking for, I was in trouble.

Luckily, now that I have seen the movie, I can easily say that all of my fears and doubts were squashed just like that crazy mutant poodle. Getting over early that this movie was showcasing nothing but a CG Hulk, I soon became fascinated with the story. It didn't bother me that they focused on actually developing his person before having him go berserk and smash the place to bits. (Gee...it makes you think, doesn't it?) The creative direction, Elfman's innovative score, and the enigmatic plot only added to the flavor of this menacing blockbuster.

Ang Lee is an incredible director, and his talent shows through here beautifully. He uses a device which made me love the movie even more than I would have. Using a lot of split screens, he turned the live action movie into a living comic book. The action, however brutal, was calmer than, say, Daredevil or Blade II. There was also a serious tone which I credit to Ang Lee, making the story more mysterious and dramatic. It may be had to feel any empathy toward a green giant who tosses tanks like shot-put, but I feel for the man. (I really do.)

Eric Bana, Jennifer (The Most Beautiful Woman on the Planet) Connelly, and Sam Elliot star as the main characters, giving each their own outstanding performances. Elliot surprised me the most, being both rational and irrational at the same time (weird, huh?). Unfortunately, I am not a big Nick Nolte fan, so his dimension was lacking a bit. But Bana really did a fantastic job as Bruce Banner, better than I had thought. As for Jennifer...enough said. (DYNAMITE!)

I love this recent boom of comic book movies. My Marvel Comic dreams have finally come to light with X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, the works. Counting out Blade II, this is the best of all of the recent Marvel movies. The reason, I feel, is that The Hulk is not so quick to be an action movie. It is a story which must be developed before it can be exploited. Much like Spider-Man, you get the background of the hero in extreme detail. Yet this film weaves the entire tale of his becoming throughout the film, ultimately revealing his dreams and nightmares when the time is right.

Overall, this is a fantastic movie which impressed me greatly. I would have given it more credit, if it had not gone the way it had at the end. (Sorry, I just didn't get the Absorbing Man ending) Aside from that, Ang Lee has created another work of art. While with Crouching Tiger, it was the complacency and art of war. Here...it's the all out fury.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Sequel is far more than the original
15 May 2003
We see a lot of sequels now. Some are horrible. Others outshine their predecessors. And now we have a sequel to the beloved Matrix, four-years in the making. And like Star Wars Episode 5 or Blade II, this sequel blows the original apart. Why? The visuals are more stunning, but that is hardly the important factor. The story here, although simple, is twice that of the original. The first Matrix was beautifully crafted to shock and surprise the audience with this image of fabricated reality. There is no way the sequel will copy that same format, considering that we already know what we are supposed to know about the system and the prophecy of the one. But The Matrix was not original in its most basic story. It follows in the same tradidition as the original Star Wars trilogy: a man who is ignorant of the world around him steps into his role as the savior of mankind. The Matrix is like that. However, Reloaded provides us with only remnants of that first storyline. Now it is a discovery of the "why" question rather than the "how". There is a dumbfounding twist at the end (which I will not reveal here. See the movie!) which adds an entirely new dimension to the story. There are also some strong Classical themes here regarding leadership, themes which are brought up with the same questions of choice in Vergil's Aeneid. Reloaded may initially seem like nothing more than an action movie with some philosophy as a bonus. But to those who listen carefully and comprehend what it is they are saying, Reloaded is an incredible experience. Though of course you may have to see it twice to fully grasp what the Wachowski's are trying to accomplish. But, why wouldn't you see it twice? It is just that awesome.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Simply One Of The Finest Films Ever Made
19 January 2003
It is easy to dismiss this film as just another gangster movie. in a way, it is. The plot seems basic enough. However, this is Sam Mendes. This is not a movie

where the plot is as significant as the message or the presentation.

No other gangster movie in history, not even The Untouchables, is as

cinematicly perfect as Road To Perdition. Sam Mendes is one of the finest

directors in the game, and he has only made two feature films. His direction is smooth, giving the effect of curiosity or fear. It is impossible to deny that the technical work is above average.

As for the message, this is a movie with quite a few underlying themes. There is the blatant father-son relationship theme, which can be traced back through

great literature to the Greek epic Odyssey. Here, it is more potent than in any other gangster movie, save The Godfather. Even the title hints to the theme hints to the theme of a destructive life leading toward a tragic downfall. Sure, that means this will be a dark movie. But the film manages to affect the audience in a dramatic way while also giving them the eye candy and some comedy. In my

opinion, that makes this the one fully loaded picture of the year.

Of course, a movie this good will inevitably be overlooked by the Academy, like it was by the Globes. Fickle critics have forgotten movies that aren't still right in front of their faces. Regardless of its lost chances, I will not stop expressing how much I believe that this is the one film of the year. this is the Best Picture. I haven't even mentioned how great Tom Hanks is in this role change. Its about

time he took on a darker role. He, along with a stellar supporting cast, makes this movie work. Hands down, this is the number one movie of the year.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the most inspirational films of all time.
31 August 2002
Modern film-making has become an art which is far different than it was thirty or more years ago. This film alone provides us with the most smooth camera movements, most effective angles, and best acting since A Beautiful Mind. Kudos for this true piece of art go to director Sam Mendes, cinematographer Conrad L. Hall, and leading man Tom Hanks. First, Mendes' follow up to his debut American Beauty has out-done himself. Though the basic plot of this film is inferior to that of Beauty, the symbolism and overall production are one step ahead. He manages to paint truly incredible pictures of hate, regret, betrayal, love, and salvation, and much of that is through his creative direction. Part of his success on this film must go to his favorite director of photography, Conrad Hall. Hall, who also worked on Beauty, again uses the slow moving camera movements while showing minimal amounts of violence. His photography is probably the most incredible part of this movie. But, we cannot praise the movie itself without giving an ovation to veteran Tom Hanks. This is his best role ever. I admire how well he came to fit the role of a darker character than he has ever been. But it is done with such careful consideration of his evil that it comes off as a walking paradox. Truly, Tom Hanks deserves multitudes of praise for his work here. Along with Paul Newman and Jude Law, Hanks leads a very effective and talented cast. It is almost incomprehensible how powerful this film is. It doesn't even have to win any awards because we already know it is a spectacle for the ages. This film will live on for years to come as one of the best.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Contact (1997)
8/10
Not so much a sci-fi flick as a spiritual journey.
31 August 2002
This film is a borderline excellent movie. However, it has some simple plot elements which seem to be prevalent in most other movies of this sort. Then again, it has a few messages to which we as both rational thinkers and movie-goers should pay attention. The first is that of the existence of God. The movie shows how a traumatic experience could so well cause someone to lose faith in a higher being. Yet even if we don't believe in God, there are hints that He is trying to speak to us. This movie shows that very well. The other is that of science versus religion. We see both extremes in this movie, but we also see the logical middle-man. Matthew McConaughey's character makes a statement that both science and religion are aspiring to the same goal, which is the search for truth. Of course this movie cannot change the beliefs of either extreme, but it is something to think about. God and science can coexist. Palmer Joss is the proof in this case. Overall, this film has the conflict which will cause people to either love it or hate it. It is not meant to be a triller. It is supposed to be spiritual, like an M. Night Shyamalan film. Whether we choose to acknowledge that or not, that is our own choice to make.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A witty, fast-paced, Coen-perfect comedy.
31 August 2002
I love the Coen brothers' films. All of them have a higher level of comedic film-making which is unsurpassed by any other director/screenwriter today. The Hudsucker Proxy is the pinnacle of their comedy achievements. It presents us with a exaggerated view of the 1950's business world and media. With the fast talking characters by John Mahoney and Jennifer Jason Leigh, we cannot help but laugh out loud at how stereotypical they seem to be. Let us also admire Tim Robbins, in probably his best performance to date, as the idealistic (and dimwitted) mail room boy who becomes the unlikely president of the company on his first day. And of course, who can forget the brilliant villainy brought to the screen by our favorite Paul Newman. With beautiful set direction, out of this world designs (like Robbins' fresh idea, you know, for kids), this film deserves more praise than it has been given. If you are just getting into the Coen brothers' collection, this is easily one of the top three which is a must see (the other two being Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou?). Let's also note that J.K. Simmons' portrayal of J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man (2001) was clearly inspired by John Mahoney portrayal of the editor in chief in this movie (Sam Raimi, who directed Spider-Man, co-wrote this film with the Coens).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Tim Burton at his finest.
4 August 2002
It is easily debatable to determine which of Burton's films reigns as his best. The only other movie which comes close to this caliber of filmmaking it the dark comedy Edward Scissorhands. But Batman Returns is the best movie I have ever seen which utilizes a dark comic atmosphere as the backdrop for a superhero setting. Where it exceeds the greatness of the original Batman is clearly the art direction. The winter season adds to the looming darkness of this film, which is simply fantastic. It also employs four of the perfect actors to carry out these twisted characters. Danny DeVito shines as the vile Penguin, and Chris Walken is beautiful as the manipulative business man. Of course, no one can undermine the fact that Michael Keaton was the best Batman ever, especially in this work. There are also so many perfect shots in this movie, on behalf of our fine director. The most memorable, in my mind, is when the Penguin emerges from the water before his death, the blood dripping from his face. It is just a clear and shocking shot. Along with the most impressive Danny Elfman score ever, this is the perfect Tim Burton feature ever. No matter how many times I watch it, I am in awe of this brutally honest and dark film. God bless Tim Burton!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Directed Movie Ever Made.
8 May 2001
There are very few movies which excel in every category of good filmmaking. Schindler's List is on the top of almost every category in my mind. But what stands out the most is the direction. Schindler's List has to be hands down the best directed film I have ever seen. Saving Private Ryan is the only movie which truly comes close. Spielberg is perhaps the greatest director we have ever seen in the film industry. This movie is perfect. I give it more acclaim than any other film made within the last twenty-five years.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed