Change Your Image
ChelseaGirl98
Reviews
My Sister's Keeper (2009)
Very different from the novel, but good in its own right
Just caught this on TV. Sara is truly one of the most unlikeable characters I have come across in a film. Her love for her daughter and her fierce determination to keep her alive simply cannot excuse her actions. I was firmly on Anna's side the whole way through.
I haven't read the novel but I know that the ending of the book is completely different from that of the film; I don't know why the filmmakers would make the choice to alter it so substantially. While I am a purist and dislike it when movies based on books are changed that much, I have to admit liked the film's ending better.
It was a bit maudlin in a few spots, but overall I liked the film and the complex issues it brought up. The performances were solid too.
Alphaville: Une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (1965)
Disappointing
I was very disappointed by this one. The concept was interesting, but if you really look beyond the surface, as Gertrude Stein once said: There is no "there" there. This film seems as though it has ideas to impart, but it doesn't really. Just because the story is about a Big Brother-type society doesn't mean it has ideas; there has to be something more, such as what led to this society in the first place? And the female lead (whose name I can't remember, probably because she was so insipid) wasn't even remotely believable. You can't have a character who undergoes a major transformation without making the viewer understand how this happened.(And her transformation didn't make her any less boring.) Truffaut didn't succeed on this level. The movie is a bunch of events that fail to make a meaningful statement. Just watch "1984" and you'll see what a movie with this type of plot can really accomplish.
Vivre sa vie: Film en douze tableaux (1962)
Tedious
I don't know why people go crazy for French films, but for some reason, they think a film is good just because it's French. If an American made this film, I doubt it would have been received in the same way. Like many of Godard's movies, this one was tiresome. I didn't care about the character and her story was uninteresting. The film was emotionless. How can anyone care about the character when this is the case?
Stringing a bunch of scenes together doesn't make a movie. Yet that's just what Godard did here. I believe a movie should have a point; few do, and this one certainly doesn't. I really don't get the ravings about this film, but I do have a bias against films that feature uninteresting losers.
À Meia Noite Levarei Sua Alma (1964)
So bad it's good!
This could truly be one of the worst films I've ever seen, but it's so bad it's fun to watch. It's a bit like a car wreck...horrifying but you can't turn away. I was compelled to keep watching it just to see how much worse it could get.
The plot isn't bad, but the acting is over the top and the special effects are hilariously bad. But if you like campy films, this one's for you.
I also confess to having difficulty watching a film about someone who is such a bully, because if this guy tried to touch me I'd kick his ass, even if I had to bash his head in with a baseball bat. Everyone in the film was such a spineless wimp it was sickening. It would have been so easy for them to kill him together because there is strength in numbers, but the townspeople were apparently too stupid to realize this.
In any case, if you want some mindless fun, check it out.
Girls Town (1996)
Who would want to hang out with these girls?
I liked this movie's realism; it was shot in documentary style so it seemed almost as if the dialog were being improvised. The acting was excellent too. However, several of the characters were not very likable, which is a major problem in a film. Oddly, while the dialog was very real, many of the situations were not. Lily Taylor's character is foul-mouthed and obnoxious, and dresses like a boy even though she is past her teens. It is inconceivable that anyone would want to sleep with her, yet she seems to have no trouble finding sex partners. Emma is nasty to her boyfriend, who tries to be decent to her, and he's cute too. What on earth would he see in her? It sure can't be her looks. It simply doesn't add up.
The Hitcher (1986)
Hated it
The less said about this film, the better, but I will say this: Halsey's character is such a spineless wimp most of the time that I didn't even feel sorry for him. He blew his chance to shoot Ryder, knowing what would happen to the poor female character (what's her name again? who cares...) who gets pulled apart. I realize I am in the minority here, as most people love this film. But that says a lot about the human condition, doesn't it? Why do people enjoy watching gore, violence and overall disgusting stuff on screen? Spare me the psychobabble BS (the hitcher is just another side of us, etc.)...really, it's so tedious. This film is a piece of trash. If you want a truly great horror film, rent Rosemary's Baby. Or a superb Spanish film called The Devil's Backbone. They put films like this one to shame.
The 100 Scariest Movie Moments (2004)
Funny, not scary
"The 100 Scariest Movie Moments" is not very scary. The vast majority of the clips are simply incredibly disgusting and bloody. Disembowelment, eyeball piercing, etc...this is not "scary" in the true sense of the word. The film really should have been titled, "The 100 Most Revolting Movie Moments." The filmmaker simply does not know what horror really is. There is way too much slasher stuff and not enough psychological terror. I was happy to see a few of my favorites on the list, including Rosemary's Baby and a wonderful Spanish film called The Devil's Backbone. I wish there had been more films like that instead of the stupid Friday-the-13th-type movies.
The people who provided the commentary were, in some cases, perfectly logical--horror-film actors and directors, for instance--but others were ridiculous. The Coors (or whatever brand it was) beer twin bimbos? Huh?? All in all, a waste of my viewing time.
Everything Is Illuminated (2005)
Good film, but not as powerful as the novel
I probably would have enjoyed this movie more if I hadn't read the novel first. The novel alternates between the present-day story of Jonathan, an American seeking the woman who saved his grandfather's life, and the history of his grandfather's town, Trachimbrod. The historical part is somewhat surreal, with a lyrical tone that would have been very difficult to translate to the screen. There are also chapters that are "written" by Jonathan's translator, in the form of letters that he sent to Jonathan after he went back to the States. I understand why these parts were not used, but basically two-thirds of the book was cut out. It's mostly the present-day story, with a few very short flashback scenes. I was very aware, while I was watching the film, of what was lost in the novel-to-film translation.
But judging the movie on its own and trying not to compare it to the novel, I have to say it is well done. The acting is wonderful, the script was very good and the ending is powerful, although perhaps it could be confusing to people who haven't read the book, where more was explained. The director did an excellent job of keeping the comic aspects of the story while still retaining the sad parts, and they didn't seem to conflict at all.
A few minor things in the film were very unrealistic, like when they run out of gas about a hundred miles from nowhere, yet miraculously the grandfather manages to get a container of gasoline. Perhaps this was done on purpose (I don't remember if this was in the novel)...anyway, it's not a big deal in the general scheme of things. I'd recommend the film, but do read the novel too!
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
Like watching paint dry
God, what a boring movie...I like Jim Jarmusch's work--while his films don't always succeed, at least he's original. But this movie was just so pointless. Very few of the conversations were even mildly entertaining. I was looking at my watch waiting for something to happen. If you're going to stick people on the screen and just have them talk, then the dialogue better be interesting. But that wasn't the case here. Perhaps that was because the actors improvised all their dialogue -- I don't know how much was scripted and how much was improvised. But if it was scripted, the script sucked.
The pairings of the various actors/actresses were interesting, and I did like the scene with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan, but it still wasn't enough to make the film worth seeing.
The Loss of Sexual Innocence (1998)
So bad it hurts
This film was so painful to watch that I turned it off about halfway through. It was excruciatingly bad. The lack of dialog was annoying, the same piano sonata playing constantly in the background was even more annoying, and the "story" was practically nonexistent. It was trying very hard to be arty, but it was just laughable instead. Nothing in the film was connected. What on earth did the story of the twins have to do with Nic's story? What did that ridiculous Adam-and-Eve sequence have to do with anything? The answer is nothing. Nothing in this film has anything to do with anything else. Mike Figgis should be embarrassed about making this movie, which is like a bad senior thesis from an untalented film-school student. I've got news for him: Taking a bunch of pretty images and setting them to music does not a film make.
Dogville (2003)
A powerful film
I disagree with many of the film critics' comments about this movie. I don't see it as anti-American at all; in fact, one of the characters (Chuck, I believe), says to Grace that people are the same everywhere you go. Presumably, this means it's not just Americans von Trier is condemning but people in general. I've heard he dislikes the U.S., but even if that's true, I don't really care. Everything that happens in this film is real. People can be petty, vindictive, suspicious, small-minded, and just plain mean. The ball-and-chain thing was exaggerated to make a point, but even that isn't so far-fetched--we've all read about parents who chained their kid to a radiator. Roger Ebert says in his review, "I doubt that we have any villages where the helpless visitor would eventually be chained to a bed and raped by every man in town." Well, Roger, the town had only around 15 or 16 people, not counting the young children. Are you so naive as to think that a group of 15 people isn't capable of doing this? I wonder what world you're living in.
At first, I wasn't certain that the filming of the movie as a play, the chalk drawings, etc., added anything to the movie. But after thinking about it, I've changed my mind. The stage set made everything seem more closed and gave a very claustrophobic feeling, which has to be what the director intended.
The acting was superb, and while I've never been a big Nicole Kidman fan, this is the best performance I've seen from her. Even though the movie was three hours, I wasn't bored. But if you like action-oriented films, don't bother with this one. This film is more about ideas.
Dogville is the kind of movie that stays with you. The ending was extremely powerful. Just as I changed my mind about the stagey filming, I also changed my mind about the ending. I initially thought it was impossible that Grace could have reversed herself that quickly. One minute she was talking about the town's humanity, making excuses for their behavior by saying that she might have done the same things, and discussing forgiveness--and about two minutes later, she gave the order to destroy the town. But after thinking about it, I realized that Grace didn't change. She was that way all along. She said she was running away from someone, but that someone was herself.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Obvious stuff
My opinions about this movie are very similar to my opinions about Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." Moore strings together a lot of interviews and images, but I don't think they come together into a satisfying whole. We already know about most of the things he discusses, so it's not like we are going to learn anything new. This is basically just a documentary that says Moore is against the war--well, so what? Documentaries should try to have some semblance of objectivity, but there isn't much here. He basically set out to make Bush look bad (not like Bush needs any help from anyone to make him look bad, but still...). The documentary is too scattered for us to really know what he is trying to say, other than that war sucks and Bush is a moron--both obvious points (to me at least).
Dead Man (1995)
Ultimately unsatisfying but worth seeing for the acting, script
I have mixed feelings about this film. Some people would probably find the movie very slow-moving, but I liked the pace and the lyrical tone. I was a bit antsy during the opening scenes on the train, but then I started getting into the film, sort of the way you might immerse yourself in a hot bath very gradually. Also, the acting was first-rate.
I didn't like the constant fades between scenes; they made the movie very choppy and it started getting on my nerves. I also thought it was unrealistic that Blake, an accountant who said he didn't really know how to use a gun, was all of a sudden a crack shot. The ending wasn't particularly satisfying either.
Yet I'd still recommend the movie for the quality of the script, direction and acting. I also confess to loving Johnny Depp; I'd probably watch him read the Yellow Pages.
Overall, if you don't mind a film where the journey is more interesting than the destination, you'll like this film.
Bubble (2005)
Interesting lead-up, bad ending
I just rented this film, and while I did like certain aspects of it, I definitely didn't like the ending. For one thing, it was too abrupt. It almost seemed as if someone had showed up on the set, said, "Sorry, we have to shut down this production right now, so end it," and Soderbergh just tacked on an ending. Also, it appeared as though the director was trying to surprise us, but it was obvious from what happened earlier in the film that Martha had blocked out what happened, so the ending wasn't a big revelation.
I liked the naturalistic acting and dialogue, but it was a bit strange that both Kyle and Jake had absolutely no reaction when told that Rose had been murdered. Yeah, Kyle was passive, but still, it wasn't very realistic that he would have zero response. I also liked the gritty look of the film.
Overall, it all seemed rather pointless.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
nothing new to be learned here
I just saw this film and it really has me puzzled. I expected it be an anti-gun film, and parts of it are, but Moore tells us he is a lifetime member of the NRA, so his point of view is not clear. If he thinks guns are so bad, then why is he an NRA member? The film is muddled, with Moore trying to make connections that are simply not there. For instance, he goes after K mart for the fact that their bullets were used at Columbine. How is this their fault? Blaming K mart for selling bullets that were used in a crime is like blaming Budweiser because someone drank their beer, drove a car and hit a pedestrian. In addition, Moore doesn't at all address where the shooters purchased their guns. That to me seems more important, as a responsible gun dealer would certainly think twice before selling guns to teenagers.
There is a lot of footage of citizens target shooting, but the vast majority of people who enjoy the sport are not going to turn into violent criminals, so the connection is very tenuous, to say the least. Moore does make a valid point that America has a much higher rate of gun deaths than other countries that also allow gun ownership, but is not able to answer why this is so.
The film doesn't really go anywhere. It's a bunch of interviews and images with no coherent message. At the end of this type of film, the viewer should be able to figure out what the filmmaker had to say. But I have no idea what he was trying to say (other than the obvious--like showing a rally that included signs saying "Guns and children don't mix." Well, duh!) I didn't learn anything new from watching this movie or gain any insight at all into Columbine or the larger problem of violence. If you aren't going to learn anything new from a documentary, then it's pretty much a wasted two hours.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
If there's a point to this film, I'd love to know what it is.
I'm still scratching my head over this film. There are many problems with the movie. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and the story is pointless. There are two subplots-- the romance between Barry and Lena, and the trouble Barry gets into because of his call to a phone-sex line--but they don't really come together. The filmmaker doesn't seem to know what he wanted the movie to be--a comedy, a drama or a combination. And because he didn't know what he wanted, the film doesn't work on any of these levels. There is zero chemistry between Barry and Lena, so it is never clear what this attractive and successful woman sees in this strange, child-like man. All in all, it's a very unsatisfying movie. It just kind of meanders along without really going anywhere. The only redeeming quality is the acting--it was great to see Adam Sandler in a role that is very different from his usual comedies.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Great acting but weak plot
This was truly one of the most depressing films I have ever seen. I generally dislike movies about self-destructive people because I find them tedious, but the acting and directing were so good that I would recommend it. The script left something to be desired. I found certain parts of the film unrealistic -- at least two things come to mind. I don't recall exactly when the film was supposed to have taken place, but even if it was 20 years ago, electroshock therapy would never have been given to somebody when the staff knew for a fact that the patient's problem was pill addiction and not mental illness. The patient also would not be asked to sign a consent when she clearly was not able to consent. I know things like that happened in the 1930s, but not in recent years. The arrest of two of the main characters also did not ring true. Yes, they were in the south, with the stereotypical bunch of redneck cops, but last time I checked, you can't arrest someone for being a drug addict unless you actually find drugs on their person, and if the cops did find it, that scene was left on the cutting-room floor; it appeared from the script that the doctor saw the track marks and called the cops. I don't believe that would happen. It was as if the scriptwriter decided to purposefully exaggerate what would really happen just to punish these people. It would have been better if things evolved more naturally. The film did an excellent job with the special effects, which helped the viewer see the world through the eyes of drug addicts.
We Don't Live Here Anymore (2004)
Who Cares?
Does the world really need another film like this? I wish I had a dollar for every movie I've seen about a bunch of whiny, unhappy, self-destructive people who refuse to do anything about their problems. (Sadly, that sums up the general state of film-making these days.) That kind of plot, if you can even call it that, is so boring--who cares??? I sure didn't. This film has nothing important to say and no real point. When it ended, I felt nothing. The characters were all annoying and the motives for their actions were not always clear. For instance, when Jack decides not to leave his wife, she asks if it's because of the kids; he says no, but it's obvious he can't stand her, so then why does he stay? There is no explanation. The acting is very good, which is the only positive thing I can say about the film.
Crash (1996)
Should have been called "Trash"
I am truly amazed that anyone could like this film. I saw it on cable last night and it has to be one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen (and I like David Cronenberg). It has absolutely no point, the connection the film tries to make between car crashes and sexual passion is total BS (and if you've ever been in one, as I have, I'm sure you'll agree it ain't sexy), and it has no redeeming features whatsoever. It was tedious, disgusting, shallow...it's one of those films that acts like it has some grand message to impart, but in reality it's empty. It's a miracle I actually made it through the whole film. It was so bad I'm having trouble finding words to describe it. Bottom line is, if you haven't seen it yet, and even if it's on TV and you're bored, don't waste your time.
Pay It Forward (2000)
A bit hokey but worth seeing.
I find it interesting that most critics hated this film, but all of the people I know who saw it, as well as many of the people on this forum, loved it. Which is an indication that film critics are out of touch with what the general public wants.
I think a lot of critics hated it because the kid dies at the end, and that violates an unwritten rule of film-making: Thou shalt not kill off a child at the end of a Hollywood movie. The critic at "Salon" basically admitted that was one of the reasons he didn't like the film. Well, not to be cold, but boo-hoo. Yeah, it was very sad, and I was upset that the film ended that way, but people die every day, and guess what? Some of them are kids. It's funny that critics will put down a film for being too "Hollywood," but then when it actually veers in another direction, they get irritated.
Another reason the critics hated it is that critics, and journalists in general, are very cynical people who think the world sucks. So when they see a film that tries to be inspirational, a message film that actually might have something to say, they just rip it to shreds, put the word "inspirational" in quotes and say they want to puke. Yes, the film was a bit hokey, but I've seen a lot worse. The critics would rather see "realistic" movies, but realistic movies are so depressing. Just about every so-called realistic film I've seen is just a bunch of people lying to each other, killing each other, having sex with each other's wives...you name it. Why is this considered enjoyable? I went through a phase where I saw a lot of films like that, and some of them were very good, but now I'm sick of them. If I want real, I read the newspapers. I don't think most people go to the movies to see real life; they go to escape real life.
OK, enough about the critics. Overall, while I think the film was somewhat predictable, except for the ending, I also think it's worth seeing for the quality of the acting and for what the movie had to say. I do think it had elements of realism. Don't we all know someone like Eugene? I know I do; they may not be physically scarred but they are emotionally scarred. And even though most of us are not paying it forward, I do believe we are all connected. Maybe I've seen "It's a Wonderful Life" too many times (hey, I bet the critics hate that one too), but I think one person has the potential to affect the lives of so many others. And I can honestly say that the movie caused me to ask myself if there is more I can do to make a difference in the world. If a film causes you to question yourself (or to question anything, for that matter), then it has succeeded.