Commentaires de mvassa71

Good acting performances wasted on confused, meandering plot lines and irritating musical embellishments. It kept me intrigued until the 5th episode when it all began to go off track and become an exhausting chore.

Missed opportunity.

Frustrating show, at least the first season. Lovely to look at. Good acting. But the storyline is so muddled and disjointed, it was hard to make sense of who was who and what their motivations were. Some plotlines were pointless. Major characters were one dimensional. Also, its really unnecessarily gory. You can get the point across without showing drill bits penetrating flesh.

The truth hurts. But the truth is, Trump is an anti-democratic thug who used fear and anger to further enflame a divided country. How do we know this? It's all on video.

20 years after the release of "Time Will Tell", I was expecting something more, and maybe better, but this film was a real letdown. Other than a few personal anecdotes, most notably from Bob's half-sister and cousin, there is nothing new here that we haven't heard before.

Also, the editing of live concert footage was rather insulting. The director would splice audience shots from different concerts, which I found very annoying and dishonest.

Stylistically, the documentary lacked the allure that really good documentaries have, like "The Two Escobars", or "The Fog of War"... This was more of a meat and potatoes effort.

This was a movie produced by the Marley's, and is clearly just another money grab by them.

If you haven't seen "Time Will Tell", go watch it, it's much better.

But better yet, if you love Bob Marley and the Wailers, and really want good info, read the book "Catch a Fire", by Timothy White, it's fantastic.

This documentary could have been so much better, but the filmmakers decided to tackle the subject matter with kid gloves, and it is just a boring, prolonged conversation like you might see on Oprah, complete with soft lighting and exquisite decor. What we hear is the two women serving up platitude after platitude, and it soon gets a bit too much to bear. Martina comes across as the more mature and empathetic one, whereas Evert seems to still harbor a slight degree of antagonism. All in all, nothing special here. I'd be happier to just look up one of their matches on Youtube. The scenes of them driving 5mph in a Thunderbird down a leafy country lane looked more like a commercial for allergy medication than a sports documentary.

About halfway through this movie, I realized I hadn't blinked once. That's when I knew that I was watching a really good film. Kurt Russell is no slouch of an actor. He was riveting. This was a well crafted cop flick where everyone seems to have dirt on someone else, and meanwhile, there are crimes being committed, and L.A. is about to erupt in rioting.

The great thing about this flick is that it doesn't try to be more than it is. Which is just a very entertaining, suspenseful cop movie.

Well worth a watch.

Or two.

Somehow I was roped into believing this installment would be better than the previous two, which I thought were grossly overrated. I was duped again. It's amazing how many people think this movie, and the whole series, is quality. It's awful. From the first one to this one, the plot is unnecessarily convoluted, hard to follow, and filmed in a relentlessly frenetic pace, as though to camouflage a story that lacks excitement to begin with. It's all far fetched espionage gimmickry that requires a heightened suspension of disbelief. None of the characters are likable, and Damon is majestically milquetoast and boring. The plot is basically a prolonged chase scene, embellished with telecommunications gadgetry, spy-tech mumbo-jumbo and instantaneous escapes to various countries. We're supposed to think a lot is happening, and the tension is supposed to be building. Wrong. I was starting to fall asleep, actually. We're also to believe that because of multitudinous European locations, the movie must be sophisticated. But the most irritating element to the movie was the herky-jerky photography; again, seemingly meant to fool us into an on-the-edge-of-your-seat mindset. All it did was annoy me, and remind me of stupid forensic cop shows on cable TV. And the flashback scenes were laughably amateur, as well. How this movie has such a high rating here is beyond me. The whole series of Bourne films belong in the garbage bin. They comprise one muddled, disjointed, uninspired and ultimately stupid story that should have been saved for the writers strike to replace a few CSI episodes. Brutal.

This is a great film, with a gripping murder mystery at it's core, but there are many things that make up this movie, and they are all important. It is a study of the the larger society during the WW2 era, racial politics, human frailty, and human dignity. The cast is great, and you'll see many familiar faces, including a young Denzel Washington. The acting is across-the-board superb. There is hard won humor and wry wisdom in the film, it has excellent pacing, and good use of retrospective. My only complaint is the score by Herbie Hancock. The movie is set during WW2, but the music is all 80's synthesizer. Totally out of place and it detracts from the film a bit. But all in all, this is well worth a watch, you will love this movie and enjoy trying to figure out who the killer is!

I'm not suggesting that Michael Mann will never make a great movie again, but in reality, he hasn't since "The Insider". "Heat" and "The Insider" came back-to-back, and I suppose now represent the zenith of Mann's career. Both are among my favorite films ever. But ever since, his choice of material and actors has been disappointing. The execution of his material has been disappointing. He seems to be pandering to Hollywood and big paychecks instead of producing the goods that challenge and inspire his audience, something he is quite capable of. Maybe Al Pacino is the missing link. Maybe he is the talisman that could bring Mann back from the edge of irrelevance. You'd think that the power he earned coming off of those two great films would have afforded him the ability to continue making intelligent, character-driven suspense dramas. It seems, however, that he just put things on cruise control, and "Miami Vice" is the latest result. As if to wave the white flag and declare without any doubt that he's run out of ideas, he's gone back to the 80's to rehash his old television success. And he fails again. There are signature Mann moments that you inevitably fall for, but when the credits roll, I was deflated one more time. Foxx and Farrell are a joke as Crockett and Tubbs. The love story is insulting to the audience on about five different levels, and the plot is just kind of pedestrian. If it's on free cable, I'd recommend it, otherwise, skip it.

Trainspotting grabs you by the proverbials from the first scene and doesn't let go. An astounding portrait of friendship, addiction, sexuality, young adulthood, poverty, Scotland, misery, perseverance, loyalty and redemption. It skewers mainstream values while showing that the rejection of these values in favor of a junkie's lifestyle is ultimately a dead end, and just as vapid as mainstream life can be. The film develops it's characters extremely fast and with precision. We are drawn to them and feel an affinity with them for a variety of reasons, even though they are all in one way or another, degenerates. But we pull for them to beat their habits, to get out of their miserable conditions. But we never pity them, because despite their predicament, they manage to live it up and live life, and feel emotion and express their desires. There is also plenty of humor to go around, much of it dark. The editing, soundtrack, acting and story suck you in to an "experience". The film has heart and soul and set a new standard in it's way. It is such an original work of art, with many memorable scenes. The mark of a brilliant film is when you become overwhelmed with sentimentality when the credits roll. Such was the case with the great "Trainspotting".

I feel like I just took a blow to the gut after finishing with this movie. What started off as a stylish, clever, fast paced, funny film with a promising premise, deteriorated into a preposterous and grotesque send-up of Hollywood cop-buddy movies. But if skewering the ridiculous was the filmmaker's intent, he only managed to skewer himself, and what ultimately was his own irritating movie. There were several smart one-liners and amusing gags, but not nearly enough to overcome the general sophomoric brand of comedy that prevails throughout. The film veers way off course in pursuing an absurd storyline, and it all goes to hell very fast. I could barely finish watching it, it was so stupid. "Hott Fuzz" was a major disappointment for me, especially since it garnered high marks from notable publications, and this esteemed site as well. Utter garbage.

I actually saw this movie before I saw "The Guns of Navarone", and I have to say, I prefer "Force 10". It seems like it always comes on TV on a rainy Saturday afternoon, and I'll always get sucked right in. I've probably seen it about 10 times. Despite some laughable special effects, and otherwise dated production value, this war movie packs a good action punch. Not many WW2 movies are set in Yugoslavia, and that's one of the interesting elements of the film. The story itself is a classic "Against the Odds" type affair, involving a covert Allied mission with a dual purpose. The great Robert Shaw is a standout, and a young Harrison Ford shows why he eventually became the superstar he is. Rousing music, tense action sequences, shootouts, knife fights, bombings,rescues,deceit and trickery make "Force 10" a lot of fun.

This movie had "Snooty British Period Piece" written all over it, and I'm sure many people who saw the film thought that too. It moves at a methodical pace, and it is embellished with Edwardian grandeur, from the sets to the acting and the story itself. Many people are put off by this kind of stuff. I tend to give everything a chance. This film is unique in that it tells two stories at once; the first, a love story of sorts, and the other, an intriguing geopolitical battle of wills. The photography, score, acting, and set design are absolutely brilliant. It's hard for me to describe how I feel about this great film. There is a melancholy about it that touches my heart. It makes you long for an England that no longer exists. And it entertains! The story is fantastic, we need to know how everything is resolved. And the ending, in some circles, is movie legend. This is Merchant-Ivory's best production by far. This is the kind of film you wish you could have been a character in, that is how charming and captivating it is. I will always cherish this film and keep it as my own personal treasure.

This under the radar movie was so subversively funny and unique, I had to rate it 8 stars. There are so many quotable lines, ridiculous scenarios, and repulsive people in it, that it all made for a deliciously funny film. It pokes fun at office conventions, takes the mickey out of the bureaucratic, corporate mentality, examines peoples attempts at being human beings in a dehumanizing environment, and it does so in a light hearted, unpretentious way. The reason this film still resonates is because it touched on truths, and made people laugh at the absurdity of conformity and hollow authority. A true cult classic, and an example of one of the many shades of American humor.

Wow. Another hugely disappointing movie that I expected to be brilliant. Hats off to the trailer-maker, it looked like it was going to be really good. It looked like it would be cutting-edge, tense, scathing, and relevant. It was none of these things. Like the dreadful "United 93", it seems like a pointless, shameful exploitation of a recent tragedy in the name of making a buck. I'm not a big fan of the monarchy, but the writers here took massive liberties in depicting the royals as callous, cold and detached in the aftermath of Diana's death, even though they very well could have been. It seems to me very unfair to essentially have made up words put in one's mouth, particularly when dealing with such a delicate family matter. The movie itself plays more like a "Made for TV" movie. Were it not for some sweeping panoramic views of the Scottish Highlands and world class hype, I think it wouldn't have made it beyond television. Well done to Helen Mirren, who was spot-on as the Queen. The Tony Blair character did a pretty good job. But they were basically impersonations. Most of us remember the details of what happened with Diana. Do we really need to see this made up crap? Waste of time....

This film captivated me when I saw it in the theater back in 1987. I was already somewhat of a Rourke fan, having enjoyed his work in "Rumble Fish" and "The Pope of Greenwich Village". "Angel Heart" made me a believer for good. His performance was so charismatic and raunchy, but also subtle and nuanced. He's the anti-hero. He plays a Private Dick who goes on a wild goose chase through New York and New Orleans, seeking a missing person. That's the basic thrust of the story, but it is filled with twists and turns and menace and mayhem, and the lush photography and spot-on set designs are a pleasure to the eye. It has elements of "Gothic" horror, but it is really more of a mystery/thriller. Despite Robert DeNiro's presence throughout the film, Lisa Bonet's massive sex appeal, and Alan Parker's excellent direction, it is Rourke who carries the film. His acting is so human and true and vulnerable, especially at the film's crescendo, that it leaves a lasting imprint on the memory. Angel Heart is an underrated gem of a film, that although has a cult following, should be more universally honored for it's originality and overall excellence.

This film was very underwhelming. It was a numbing, sedated trip back to World War 2, when life was picture perfect, even in war. You can almost hear the echo of "ACTION!" at the beginning of every scene, and it all seems so choreographed. It has an artificiality about it. Ryan Phillipe's performance was one of the dullest, one-dimensional performances I've seen in a long time. Eastwood struck out with this one, just like he did with the hugely overrated "Million Dollar Baby". The honesty of "Unforgiven", and to a lesser extent, "Mystic River" has been replaced with stereotypes and cop-outs. The only good things about this film were the pleasant-to-look-at photography, and a really strong role by Adam Beach, who played Ira Hayes.

This unpretentious British indie film is a rough diamond in the rough. It chronicles the lives of a handful of blue collar workers trying to survive in early 90's London. It's almost documentary in style and narrative, which lends a feeling of authenticity, which is helped also by fine performances all around. Shows the humor, frustration and dashed dreams in an unforgiving society, and it has heart. It is at times funny, heart wrenching, and touching. The accents are thick, so you may appreciate the subtitles that are on some versions. I found them distracting, so I put some tape over the bottom of the screen. I had to strain a few times to understand, but I don't think the subtitles were necessary. Well worth a watch.

Sadly, Miller's Crossing is not universally recognized as such, and to this day remains more of a cult classic. The dialog is razor sharp, fast paced and witty, steeped in quirky language from a bygone era. The acting is stellar, the photography poetic, and the score has a haunting melancholy about it. The sets perfectly portray a prohibition-era city. They create a world you want to jump into and inhabit for a while, even though it's a world full of deceit, treachery, mayhem and murder. The complex plot may require an additional viewing or more to capture all the nuances that make up a terrific story, that at it's core, is less gangster movie and more of an existential meditation. I can think of no other movie with writing as good as this. Simply masterful, it is laced with dark humor and acerbic wit, and once you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you realize what a tremendous achievement the film really is. The litany of quotable lines is endless. Some of the action scenes are legendary, the actors are all well cast and developed, and do a superb job. My only complaint about this great film is that it had to end.

I just caught this movie on cable for the first time since I saw it as a kid when it came out, and it was just as amusing, if for slightly different reasons this time around. This film is a reflection of a simpler time, kind of like how our parents view the 50's. The political incorrectness is hilarious for it's absurdity, and the fact that few people even blinked an eye at it then. The movie is stupid but funny, offensive but charming, and at times is even clever in it's direction and editing. The song routine is a cult classic on it's own merits! If a movie can elicit at least three lengthy belly laughs, it's worked. And "Nerds" worked to a "T".

Hugely disappointing effort here. I was expecting better from Nolan, after the great "Batman Begins", but this was a real letdown. The story is disjointed and confusing in that it keeps jumping back and forth in time so much that you lose the time line, and it all gets muddled. You're not sure what is taking place when. The dialogue is lacking and the direction is not nearly as inspired as I'd hoped. Christian Bale is more effective playing Americans than Brits somehow, and his Cockney accent is not very convincing. Jackman is underwhelming. The major secret of the film is so absurd and deflating that I felt cheated as the credits popped up. If you want to see a "Turn of the Century Magic Movie", rent "The Illusionist" a much more elegant film, and although it relies more on the supernatural and the suspension of disbelief, it is far less ridiculous and contrived than this dung heap.