Reviews

35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
A visceral, harrowing portrayal of one family's experience during the 2004 tsunami
28 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not even sure it's fair to count what I'm about to say as a spoiler because it has become a widely known true story, but the warning is there anyway. From this point forward I will discuss all aspects of the film, including the ending.

I think it's important to point out that while the film's conceit--the focus on one Spanish-turned-British family who somehow managed to all survive--may bother some, and it's a worthy point, I also think that complaint is a little unfair. The creators of the film and all involved have been very clear that they became attached to this one woman's story, and that's the film's perspective. Maria Belon, the real-life mother of the family, was on the set much of the time ensuring that everything took place as it was. Who are we to deny her interpretation of that day? From her perspective, ethnicities took a back seat to humanity, and the people of Thailand took time away from their own grief and ailments to help her and her son. That is what she knows, and that is what this story is about.

For as much as I read about the tsunami sequence (and I read a lot about it), I still wasn't prepared for how visceral it was going to be. It's very difficult to watch--overwhelming, even. The 3D sound engineering is incredible...and loud. But you're in it, as much as I believe a viewer possibly could be. You panic for these characters. And when it's over, you feel as scattered as they do. It's a really remarkable, watershed moment in physical film making.

The journey that follows is paced and structured nicely. We follow Maria (Naomi Watts) and her eldest son, Lucas (Tom Holland) through their story until it comes to a distinct point, then we see where Henry (Ewan McGregor) and the other two boys are before their stories inevitably converge. Because I knew the ending of the story--because it was marketed as a story of their survival--this isn't the typical "will they/won't they" trope of disaster movies (and, I suppose, romantic comedies). It's more in the "how"--how will they find each other amidst the chaos, and when? And when they do is the only real critique I have of the film. The film has been building toward this moment and the actors have propelled us there emotionally--the sweeping, melodramatic score at the moment of their reunion is almost distracting, and I imagine it will become even more so upon repeated viewings when I'm less taken in by the story unfolding.

An ultimately minor quibble amongst an extraordinary movie, however. The three leads are sublime, brave, and earnest. Holland is a real find; the film sits squarely, unfairly on his shoulders and he carries it with real gravitas and poise that defy the fact this is his first on-camera film. McGregor's role is more limited, but no less powerful, particularly in one devastating scene when he must make the dreaded phone call home. Finally, Watts continues to prove that when it comes to physical and emotional anguish, no one can hit the same real nerve as she can. She gives way to the weight of the story (and water) as if she were a cartoon, bending her body, face, and voice to the will of the elements and the emotions. Her story on the page must read rather one dimensional, but on the screen it is deeply layered. Her connection with Belon is evident; she very much embodies this mother. Hopefully this will finally mark the turn in how people view her as an actress and she starts getting all the lofty praise she deserves.

The Impossible may have arrived too late and may be too intense for the award season powers that be, and it will always come with the asterisk of controversy with regard to is particular portrayal, but I feel like that complaint comes from those who decided the film was in the wrong before they saw it. As the film comes to its conclusion, it isn't a happy story about a family that found each other against impossible odds. It's a somber, honest conclusion about the pain of surviving and the fragility of life as much as it is about the marketed triumph of the human spirit. Spirit got this family far, but not as far as pure, inconsistent, and unfair luck. And I think this movie knows it.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant writing complemented with equally brilliant acting
21 September 2004
A previous review outlines a list of reasons that if you agree with, you should NOT see this movie...scroll down and find those because I agree.

If you don't fall into those categories, however, treat yourself to this six hour master-class in film-making. This deserved every award it received, and more. It's a shame only one actor from each category can win. All of them, Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, Mary Louise Parker, Emma Thompson, Jeffrey Wright (personal favorite), Patrick Wilson, Ben Shankmen, and Justin Kirk all brought out the depths and layers to their characters. Many played more than one role, and each having their distinctive personality and delivering it flawlessly.

The dialogue is uncanny. Jeffrey Wright's delivery of this, if possible, even stands out among the superb cast. He emotes with his entire body the heart-piercing lines of truth, and if one keeps and opens mind, it can't help itself but manifest in your mind.

There are those that dislike the films for the reasons they have, but I believe that has less to do with the film itself and more on its message; that being said this film isn't for everyone. It's brutal honesty in words and images is far from censored, and that should be taken into account.

But for those with an open mind (and two open evenings to view the film's two three-hour parts), should allow themselves the privilege of viewing this masterpiece.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Garden State (2004)
10/10
Absolutely refreshing
6 September 2004
I didn't really know what this movie was all about before going to it, other than I had heard pretty good things about it.

It was a refreshing break for movies as a whole. It's subtle sarcasm and wit are perfectly placed throughout the film, bringing in many laugh out loud moments.

What it manages to capture though is the true gift: the real life aspects of comedy, disappointment, taking chances, fear, etc., are all so flawlessly blended together that the movie's pace is extremely natural and relaxing. Very rarely can a movie go from making you laugh out loud to feeling the tears come out with the character themselves so smoothly and realistically, but this movie manages to do that. 10/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One of the few people that found it only...meh
20 August 2004
And by "meh," I mean I laughed out loud probably about five times during the hour and a half. That usually means it was awful (if it's a comedy), but those parts I did laugh at I found brilliant.

Those comedic parts had nothing to do with the character Napoleon. I found him exhausting and irritating to watch. There was a long stretch in the movie where all I could think was "Nothing's happening...nothing's happening...nothing's happening..." And in fact, nothing was.

Some of the outside characters would say or do something that I found absolutely hysterical, but for the most part, it just wasn't that funny to me. Those few parts did stand out and were even funnier the next day, reciting them with the friends I had seen it with (two of whom loved every second of it, one who felt like I did).

For me, it's a rental at best.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2003)
10/10
How could anyone even pose a threat to Charlize Theron?
6 March 2004
I really need to see the other movies that had a Best Actress nominated to see why Charlize Theron wasn't a slam dunk for the Oscar. She was NOTHING short of brilliant.

Her acting job in this movie was indescribably impeccable. The range and depth isn't even worth commenting on, because words could not do it justice.

I've heard that people were amazed by her performance but disappointed with the movie, and I don't know how they can think that. She is in nearly (except for a few short scenes with just Christina Ricci) every scene in the movie (which is an incredible feat to pull off so well).

The movie was depressing, gruesome, heartbreaking, and phenomenal. I had to sit for a little bit through the credits to gather myself after being hit so hard with such a "downer," yet amazing, movie.

Anyone who just loves to keep up with the Academy Award nominations, or appreciates incredible acting should definitely treat themselves to this.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cold Mountain (2003)
9/10
Excellent
28 December 2003
This movie was leading the Oscar race before it even came out--with it's budget and pedigree, it was touted as the next big epic. No pressure...

It succeeded. It's a great movie, gritty, powerful, engaging, and wonderfully directed and acted. It's not quite amazing, but it's worthy of the attention it has received (namely by the Golden Globes).

As much as I love Nicole Kidman and how well she did, Renee Zellweger is the best part of the movie. Her often humorous, yet diverse, roll was perfectly done on her part. Jude Law was great in the roll that where all the "gritty" parts take place, as he is a soldier in the Civil War who escapes to travel home (treason). Nicole Kidman tries to have a southern accent, and it slips every now and then. I'm not sure if she was supposed to have a big one, as I think her character doesn't originally come from the south...at any rate, she's great, as usual. While it's not as "rangey" of a character as past performances (namely Moulin Rouge), she takes her role and owns it, sans a perfect accent.

I didn't care for all the historical, not harsh, gore, but that's just me. The two and half hours don't fly by, but I was never pondering when the movie was finally going to end. It was very well done, just short of incredible. 9/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Can we say fab?
27 December 2003
Yes, we can! I mean honestly, what more can we say about an ultramod finale to the LOTR trilogy. Everything from Billy Boyd's singing, to Orlando's every move...perfection. Shore's music combined with every camera shot makes for an incredible, oscar-winning film. The cast is comprised of talented individuals that bring Tolkien's book to life. It does what it can, and as for the long ending that some audience members feel is too long...how could the film possibly end any sooner? The story itself is huge, so with all respect to finding closure in each aspect of the storyline, every moment of the ending is necessary. (And to the LOTR diehards...who wants to end the movie?) This is an absolutely fabulous movie, period.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Exactly what I expected...
29 June 2003
I went to see this movie with friends to have a good laugh, and because we're fans of Kelly, yet un-fans of Justin.

I was expecting a paper thin plot, bad acting, bad choreography, decent songs.

Which is what I got. Although, I must say that Kelly's acting was a notch better than I expected. I mean, it would be really challenging not to just barf having to read those cheesy lines, and she read them moderately well.

Her singing is, as usual, fantastic. Also, her black friend is quite good--both at singing and acting.

I gave this movie a 4/10 not because it was good, but because you couldn't have expected and Academy Award contender and it was a palatable way to pass the summer time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant!
19 May 2003
Unbelievable. This movie actually made my day.

It's really hard to describe, yet it does something that is almost NEVER done, if ever: every second of the movie was great, captivating, and FUN.

The movie sets can be described as an extremely well-done, tasteful, fun, amazing version of Austin Powers, but in a really good, cute way.

However, the thin story-line of Austin Powers is no where to be found in the movie--it's brilliant, from start to finish. The acting is great and the best part was the end! I love that they sang together! McGregor is one of my favorite voices and it was a great song.

10/10, easily!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 74th Annual Academy Awards (2002 TV Special)
Whoops...
13 April 2003
So many mistakes! Whoopi was OK, no Steve Martin, but not David Letterman. Anyway, my opinion on the awards given:

Best Picture: MOULIN ROUGE SHOULD HAVE WON! This is the most incredible movie I've ever seen, and it should have swept. But, if the academy wasn't ready for that, Gosford Park is the runner up. Witty, amazingly acted, and wonderfully original. Next is In The Bedroom, another underrated movie--it was great. LOTR is overrated, but it was better than A Beautiful Mind, which is severely overrated.

Best Actor: What can I say? It should be Ewan McGregor--he was the best part of that movie in every respect. However, with the options available, Tom W. should have won for In The Bedroom...anyone but Russel Crowe, really. He shouldn't have won either years.

Best Actress: Yep, Nicole Kidman. Unbelievable in every way. The next would be Sissy Spacek, with a flawlessly acted role. Again, anyone but Halle Berry.

Best Supporting Actress: Maggie Smith or Helen Mirren for Gosford Park. Next would easily be Marissa Tomei for In The Bedroom. Again, I found nothing special in Jennifer Connely's performance...she and that whole movie were totally and completely bland.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 75th Annual Academy Awards (2003 TV Special)
A generally better year
29 March 2003
In terms of the results happened more the way I wanted. Here's my take on the major categories:

Best Picture: Chicago deserved to win. Great movie (although NOT as good as Moulin Rouge). However, I think the top 5 should have been: Adaptation, Chicago, Far From Heaven, Frida, and The Hours. I think my favorite is Heaven, but Chicago should have won anyway.

Best Actor: NICOLAS CAGE SHOULD HAVE ONE!!! He did the most amazing, challenging performance I have EVER seen an actor do (except Ewan McGregor in M.R....I'm a fanatic). He was totally robbed, but then again I didn't expect him to win.

Best Actress: Victory for Nicole! Well-deserved-she was incredible in the Hours. Yet, my favorite was Julianne Moore for Heaven. Such an underrated movie in the academy's eyes, and she was unbelievable. But I'm really happy Nicole finally has an Oscar.

Supporting Actor: What can I say? Dennis Quaid is the winner hands down. But since he wasn't NOMINATED, Chris Cooper will have to do...actually he was really really good.

Supporting Actress: MERYL!! I LOVE YOU! I met her and she was incredibly sweet. Oh yeah, she did an amazing job in Adaptation. Catherine did extremely well too, though--just not quite the same.

PS~Steve Martin was hilarious, as usual. He was the same two years ago. It should just be all him, and maybe Billy Crystal too.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hours (2002)
9/10
Good
15 March 2003
And by good, that means the average of the amazing Nicole Kidman with the poor Julianne Moore. Best Actress? No. It should go to Julianne Moore for "Far From Heaven," BUT Julianne Moore was borderline terrible in this movie for me. I was expecting greatness and I got cue-card reading.

The movie itself was...good...a little disappointing considering how great everyone said it was. I mean, it was just--good. Like I said, without Kidman, the movie would've been headed for a Razzie (and Moore should get one for this movie).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boston Public (2000–2006)
Great drama
10 March 2003
Yes, it's far-fetched, but it's really good.

I don't watch TV dramas...ever...but when I heard that Tamyra Gray (from American Idol) would be on it eventually I thought it would be good if I got to know the characters.

Now, it's part of my schedule: Sundays 8-Simpsons; Sundays 9-Sex and the City; Mondays 8-Boston Public; Tuesdays and Wednesdays-American Idol.

I think the acting is done very well. Maybe all dramas are this good, but I think I can only handle so much of a well-done-but-out-there story line.

Overall, this show is great. 10/10!

Side note: Tamyra's performance of "I Will Always Love You" did what I thought I knew no one could do: do it much better than Whitney Houston. Like someone said before, it made my hair stand up and it gave me chills. I'm a huge Kelly Clarkson fan, but if Tamyra had done that performance, Kelly didn't touch her. WOW!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sex and the City (1998–2004)
10/10
My favorite
3 March 2003
Sure, there are other shows that bring more "laugh-out-loud"s (namely "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "The Simpsons"), but Sex and the City is more well done than any other show. The acting also is superior to any other TV show.

This show is simply great TV. Although it's hard to find a favorite character, here are mine from favorite to "least" favorite:

1) "Miranda" (Cynthia Nixon). She is ALWAYS funny! Sarcastic, cynical, pessimistic, funny, dark, sarcastic, I LOVE HER!! In addition, when necessary, she provides convincing depth. Everything about her is hilarious and she should have won four Golden Globes for her performances.

2) "Charlotte" (Kristin Davis). The most under-rated character. She is great, but not in the same sense as the others. She's the good-girl type, and she plays it flawlessly. It's insulting to me that she hasn't been nominated individually EVER.

3) "Carrie" (Sarah Jessica Parker). It's a love-hate relationship really. I think Sarah acts the best, but I just don't like her character. It's so "writer-esque," full of puns and not-so-funny jokes. That being said, she can carry emotions better than Kristin or Kim and maybe even Cynthia.

4) "Samantha" (Kim Catrall). One of the more fun characters. Acts well, but she doesn't have the same depth as the others overall (however she did stretch it in the fourth season when she actually falls in love). Honestly, she was my favorite at first, but the character itself kind of got old.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Shows where the real singers are...
23 February 2003
...and it's not performing at the VMAs. While I don't care for everyone's voice (actually, there's a lot I just skip), the one's worth watching are REALLY worth watching. Obvious favorites are Jennifer Holliday, Linda Eder (amazing in this), and Audra McDonald. However, my absolute favorite was Anna Kendrick-such talent for a younger girl. Worth watching.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hours (2002)
9/10
Very good
21 February 2003
This movie was excellently done. While I don't think it's quite Best Picture, it was well directed and acted. I've heard many different opinions on which actress stole the movie. After hearing the things about Julianne Moore and seeing Far From Heaven, I was expecting her to dominate.

She didn't.

Nicole Kidman is what this movie is all about. Even when she is doing nothing (which happens a little too frequently), it's captivating. Julianne Moore didn't turn on the acting ability until the last scene with her, and by then it was too little too late. I can understand why she got a nomination for SUPPORTING, but I don't think she should win.

Meryl Streep was second best in this film. She was her usual great self.

I think Kidman has outdone herself these last few years, with three completely different (and amazing) films: Moulin Rouge, The Others, and The Hours. WOW!

In short, Julianne Moore was OK (the little boy stole all the scenes from her...as did every other character), but Kidman acted the best. I was dissapointed to find out Streep wasn't nominated, but I think she acted better in Adaptation anyway.

Basically, it was a great movie. Very depressing, and slow, but very well done. 9/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chicago (2002)
10/10
The most entertaining movie I've seen in a long time...
12 January 2003
Before Chicago even came out, the Chicago vs. Moulin Rouge question filled the air.

Moulin Rouge is pretty much my favorite movie and I've seen it countless times, so it was pretty hard (in my mind) to beat. Like almost everyone else, I was anxious to compare.

Much to my surprise, the two are almost impossible to compare. Other than the fact they are both musicals and the vocals and dancing are amazing, they share nothing in common. Moulin Rouge is a love story, and Chicago is a...different story.

I gave Moulin Rouge a 10/10, which hardly seemed fitting for a movie of that caliber. I also gave Chicago a 10/10. Chicago, in my opinion, was more entertaining than Moulin Rouge. The only comparable parts are the beginning of Moulin Rouge with all of Chicago. I personally feel Chicago is better at this comparison. However, if I had to choose a movie, it would be Moulin Rouge. The love and sad songs of that movie overpower any fantastic dance number in Chicago.

Anyway, back to the movie. WOW! I had a smile on my face the whole time. Although I think Richard Gere has a great voice, I don't care for the sound of it. Catherine's and Renee's voices are unbelievable, and they both act their roles incredibly well. The "cell block tango" and Queen Latifa's number were my favorites of the whole movie. I would say this is the best movie of the year that I have seen (which, has yet to include: The Hours, About Schmitt, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Pianist, Far From Heaven, Gangs of New York, and the new Lord of the Rings...I'm WAY behind!)

DEFINITELY see this movie...you won't regret it!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
10/10
WOW!
19 October 2002
This was such a surprise! OK,yes, the beginning was way too typical horror movie, but the rest was SO WELL DONE. For the first time ever I screamed in a theater--four times! Absolutely scary without being gory (for the most part, except for those faces...ew). I was totally enticed from beginning (although not original, suspenseful) until the end. There's not much more to say other than GO SEE IT!!! 10/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
1/10
Not-so-great...(SPOILERS!)
5 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
The beginning of this movie is very good. It was very suspenseful and it made me jump. The part of the movie I have a problem with is the biggest part: the storyline. It has holes and more importantly it is so out there it makes the aliens look possible. I had no idea so much "fate" was going to be brought into this. The worst part was how the boy, Morgan, didn't die because his lungs were closed when the gas was going into him. That was just sappy writing. (Also, the aliens were like humans in a costume). 6/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bernie Mac Show (2001–2023)
'Merica!...
28 July 2002
This is the must UNFUNNY show I have ever seen. It's just him going "O llllooooooooorrrrrrddddddd" I have seen 4 episodes; none ever brought a smile to my face (except when laughing while making fun of how utterly stupid it was). If you want to watch an actual FUNNY show about the trials of parenting, tune into "My Wife and Kids." It's sickening to think that whoever plays Bernie took a spot Eric McCormick for an Emmy and for best comedy. *BARF!* -10/10
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Forrest Gump (1994)
10/10
Such an incredible movie...
28 July 2002
I honestly thought there was no way you could NOT like this movie. Well, apparently I was wrong. It's absolutely incredible! The movie discontinues an increasing trend that movies are held up by great effects rather than great acting. The three lead actors (Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise) all deserved Oscars for their stellar work. True, this follows the ingredients to get Oscars, BUT, it helped pave the way for that "recipe." 10/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gosford Park (2001)
10/10
I have a retraction to make...
3 July 2002
In my other comments I talked about how Maggie Smith carried the film... Well, as terrific as she does in her role, I have watched to movie on DVD a few times (I recommend subtitles for the mumbling...), I have come to realize that EVERY single person who acted in this movie carried it. The most deserved award this year of ANY award shows happened at the SAG Awards: Gosford Park won for best ensemble cast. How unfortunate for every actor BUT Hellen Miren (exceptional) and Maggie Smith (hilarious!) who didn't get nominated that should have.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gosford Park (2001)
10/10
Not for the dull-witted
8 June 2002
The greatest british movie of all time! This movie was slow, yes, but extremely well done. Maggie Smith deserves all the credit for carrying this film, however. Her role as the rich snob was PERFECTLY done! Everything down to the last detail; it was SO great. I'm sorry to all those people with room-temperature IQs who found this movie boring. Maybe you should stick to movies that suit your level better...like "Spot's Thanksgiving."
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The greatest laugh-out-loud move EVER
8 June 2002
This movie was absolutely and completely HILARIOUS!!! This (and Death Becomes Her of course) is the best black comedy ever. Everything about it is incredibly funny! My favorite part by FAR was when the anorexic girl lip-synced "Don't Cry Out Loud." Oh holy jesus that always brings me to tears laughing so hard! Other highlights include the dance w/ Jesus scene, the retard, the turned-deaf girl, and whoever played Kirsten Dunts' mom and friend. Not for the easily offended by any stretch of the imagination. But if God forbid you actually let yourself go to see a hilarious movie, SEE this one and just laugh.....REALLY HARD!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bowfinger (1999)
1/10
If I ever wasted a movie ticket...
8 June 2002
...it was to see this movie. So completely unfunny. Quite a shame, too, because I think Steve Martin is absolutely hilarious. I really wanted to like this movie, too. In fact, I made my friend go see it with me instead of the Sixth Sense...BIG mistake! We knew what was supposed to be funny, and it wasn't. It wasn't even Gosford Park (great movie) wit that was funny, this was just dull and boring and long and boring and dull. 1/10.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed