The Love Dragon Reviews

Drawing Flies (1996)

good, not great

[28 August 2002]

I watched this film the other day not knowing what to expect, only knowing that it was the "lost View Askew film", so I was pretty excited.

The film was, very indie, a lot of poor sound and at times boring and at times decent cinematography. And the Jake character and actor made me laugh/wince.

However, some very decent dialogue, an interesting storyline and an amazing performance by Jason Lee elevated this film.

I am a huge huge huge Jason Lee fan......I kinda wish I was him, and i have always thought he needs to get some deeper peformacnes. I love...LOVE his hilarious trademark characters in the Kevin Smith films, and a few others, but I think he needs some serious dramatic roles....this film provides him with some depth, some drama, and some chances for his hilarious self. Whenever he wasn't on screen i kinda spaced out and got bored. I know it's weird to say he's amazing in a pretty thin film like this, but he really was. I hope to see him get more starring and dramatic roles in the future.

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

I don't know....

[13 July 2002]

I'm not sure of this film. I saw it in the theatre on it's opening day and though enjoyed the film's technical aspects acting and such, i was enraged at how unfaithul it was to the book. whenever they felt it would be too long or boring to include a certain part they'd just kill someone.

However, I saw it again reluctanty (girlfriends...ugh), and actually enjoyed this.

The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favourite novels ever, and the film butchered it....however, the second time, I already knew this and instead just watched the film...on it's own it is actually a really great film. I almost hate to admit it. The worst part was the rushed ending, even wihtout the novel, they should have continued it longer, most movies are like 3 hours these days anyways, so who cares about time, they could have made a lot better wiht an extra half hour.

Ah well, i don't know what to say, if you haven't read the book, see this film and enjoy, if so, then try watching it twice and pretend it has nothing to do wiht the book.

Also, the final fight between Pearce and Caviezel (Mondego and Dantes) is shot better than any ohter scene this year so far, really cool.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Awesome! Possible spoliers.

[2 July 2002]

The spy genre seems top be a little out of steam these days. The only good spy film I've seen in a long time was Spy Game, saved by the two leads, the terrific technical aspects, and the human side it brought to the story. It's like watching the same movie over and over again, commmon endings, bad performances, predictable twists. I have no idea why people liken The Bourne Identity to these garbage films. Okay, so it was a disappointmetn to the book, but what movie isn't? The performances in this movie are very good, save Potente's accent changing, especially in the smaller parts like Chris Cooper's and Clive Owen's, who had little material to work with. First, I thought when the showed the Wombosi tape and the meeting, that this movie would take the common path and focus too much on other issues besides the main plot (Matt Damon). But that quickly changed, and I was presented wiht a very well shot, slightly cliched, but excellent spy thriller. The fight scenes were awesome, the car chase almost as good as Ronin's...but Ronin sucked besides that so who cares.....and my favourite scene of the movie, and tied for favourite of the year so far (with the final duel in Monte Cristo) is when Damon and Owen are in the woods having their spy showdown....I've always wanted to make a movie just so I could have a scene shot like that...but Liman got to it first. Oh yeah, Doug Liman....Swinger's was awesome too, nice switch. See it! This is top grade action thriller, a wonderful spy movie, and just a plain awesome movie....I don't know what anyone's problem wiht it is.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

I want my 2.5 hours back!

[29 June 2002]

Mulholland Dr. is the worst movie made in 2001. There were a lot of really bad ones, but this tops them all, every single piece of garbage made that year. Everyone is saying this is art, it's a dreamlike masterpiece. I bet it doesn't make any sense because Lynch is just plain dumb. To start off, I want to say the acting is rock bottom, the plot, obviously non-exsistent, the cinematography uninspired, and seemingly good, but just ordinary work I've seen before that has been used better, not just because Lynch wants the film to look as weird as it can. Oh yeah, did I mention Lynch needs some direction courses?? People say this is reminiscent of Memento, in that it is confusing.....Memento used an original interesting plot device to get the viewer more interested to and to tell the story the best way it could. This is confusing just for the sake of being confusing. because there are a lot of people who see confusing things, and just say they like them. This isn't art, it's jumbled images thrown together for the sake of confusing you, with no reason. You want weird? Coen brothers do weird good. For example, this film leaves it up to the viewer to guess waht happens and doesn't, but not intentionally. It's just a scrambled mess of random images, most of which I laughed at they were so bad. Barton Fink uses a similar device. It leaves it all up to you what happened and doesn't, but it is for a reason, it is to move the story and to tell it well...

The humour was bad, the technical aspects useless and unoriginal, as well as imitating work better done, the acting atrocious, the story...ugh, what story........all this movie offers is those very bad qualities, and 2.5 hours of throwing in the most ridiculous things just for the sake of being ridiculous, because Lynch is dried up....not that he ever had any talent.....grrrrrr!!! I'm so angry while writing this that all my good and valid points sound stupid....but this movie is bad in every way possible, if you like it, you're either an idiot, or you're just saying that because, after all it's a masterpiece (HAHAHA)

Memento (2000)

In my top ten of all time for sure.

[10/10 · 31 October 2001]

I rank this film ten out of ten, one of very few films to get that from me. It is excellent and has almost no flaws.

There are spoliers in this review, and it should be read only by those who have seen the film already.

I can't say much that is new, but I do want to defend this film.

Pretty much everyone has pointed out one major flaw in the film, if he can't make new memories, how come he knows he has a condition?

I'll tell you how!

It is often mentioned throughout the film how people with his condition can make new memories through repetition, such as the test that Sammy was taking (but didn't respond to). But Leonard, unlike Sammy, was really experiencing that condition, and therefore could learn through the repetion that he mentioned that he has a memory loss problem.

Ha, take that everyone who thought they were right!

If you have further arguments to present please contact me.

Before Night Falls (2000)

In my top ten of all time.

[10/10 · 21 August 2001]

BEFORE NIGHT FALLS, directed by Julian Schnabel is the best movie made since SCHINDLER'S LIST, and just might surpass it.

There is hardly anything I would change about this movie, it is in my mind as perfect as they could have made it. The only thing that could have been better was going deeper into Bardem's character, but I don't think that they really needed to, because like in OUT OF AFRICA, the character is not gone into very deeply, but the performance of Meryl Streep, or in this case Javier Bardem makes you feel like you know Arenas. The tiniest nuance is played out beautifully by Bardem, who had to learn Cuban Spanish and English with a cuban accent as well as gain a lot of weight, and probably hours of thought put into his performance.

The writing is amazing, going from one event to the other, more about the author and what happens around him than an actual basic plotline. The music is terrific and well chosen, and Burwell's original score is the best original music in film history. The cinematography is innovative and excellent, audiences have seen few examples of the photography used in this film.

And to top it all off, Julian Schanbel does a perfect job of directing, showing Arenas's life with a beautiful new narrative technique, while at the same time showing the contrast of the Revolution and it's events and the beautiful Cuban country. As in the memoir by Arenas, the film is seen through Arenas's eyes, and it is like the whole world is gay, in a sense, and it's fabulous. I also love how when showing the documentary footage, and Bardem read excerpts of Arenas's writing, it was spoken in Spanish, being true to the author's work, while the beautiful Burwell music played.

Granted, this film is not for everyone, in fact I expect ninety percent of people to detest it, but to me, it is an amazing movie that is one of the few to get a ten out of ten from myself.

Absolutely fabulous, but if you like a basic, clear plotline with rising events, climactic end, action, and humour that comes out as jokes and not just funny situations and such, you won't like it. In fact, as I said, I expect most people reading this not to like it, but to me, it may be in my top five, should've won best picture.

The Score (2001)

Okay film.

[4/10 · 15 July 2001]

The score is a very good drama suspense movie until it reaches it's third act, when it immediately turns cliched, and I could have sworn that I had seen every scene in the third act before with different faces.

An intelligent drama, with enough attention to the characters to make it human too. But, as soon as that third act begins, it takes the easy, cliched way out, and falls into a terrible mess.

Angela Basset's character could have been cut out, then the movie would have been shorter and better. Also, the motivation from that girlfriend thing is cliched.

The three leads all deliver powerhouse, possible Oscarworthy performances. Brando is hilarious and very realistic as De Niro's boss. De Niro finally does a good job in a good movie- that hasn't happened since Heat. His character is traditional De Niro, and he plays him really well. But the standout showstealer is Edward Norton. Every single performance this kid has given with the exception of "Everybody Says I Love You" has been in my mind Oscarworthy. He again shows us that he can give us an intense performance that is also funny, and shows more of how the character is.

Good cinematography, and mediocre Shore Score, and slightly flawed direction by muppeteer Franzk Oz are some the the film's elements that I have not mentioned.

You should rent this flick, it's not worth theatre prices, and it has no huge F/X that condemn it to be seen only at the theatre. Just don't expect a crime movie like Heat.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Good God!

[8/10 · 21 June 2001]

I do not want to write a proper review- pnly to say a few words on Arronofsky's picture REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.

Whe I rented this film- I expected a good film- not groundbreaking or Oscar best picture stuff. But when I watched it- I was so shocked by it's power and terror created something in me I had not felt ever before. The final minutes of the film are so shockingly powerful and horrific that I- who am desensitized to everything I've seen for the past long time- was disturbed. I don't get disturbed at films. When films want to disturb and they are good at just that- I am not disturbed- but I get the overall effect- so films don't lose their power. But REQUIEM FOR A DREAM not only disturbed me- it truly shocked and chilled me- I couldn't sleep. I was so disturbed- I hadn't felt that way EVER!!!!!!!!!!

Not ever have I been so moved and emotionally affected by a film or anything before. This film is best picture stuff- it should've tied with BEFORE NIGHT FALLS last year. Normally- it would've won- but Before Night falls was amazing too- though not in the same way.

For once in my life- I do not want to see a film just one more time (or a hundred, depending on how much I like it). REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is an amazing film, one of the best ever made. However, it's power and brilliance cannot stand up to it's terror. Absolutely groundbraking- but I advise you if you have not seen it never to see it. It may be one of the best films ever- but it just isn;t worth it- do not see this film.,

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Simply amazing.

[8/10 · 17 May 2001]

This is a truly great film that will both chill you to the bone and make you laugh your a** off- sometimes at the exact same time.

Movies nowadays are all computer animated- but the effects in this film are without a doubt the best EVER put on screen. The transformation scene is the best achievment in make up and special effects to date.

Landis's direction is superb, backed up by wonderful performances and great cinematography.

The characters are real, and act realistically. At the exact same moment this movie can make you wet your pants in horror and humour. And the eerie score, as well as the great moon soundtrack that doesn't fit at all. However, that is precisely why it works so well, like at the end, when the credits roll- happy music plays right after a chilling, disturbing, powerful, and frightening scene.

Overall, this is one of the best films ever made, and the best horror film made (I don't count Jaws as horror, but if I did, Jaws would be best). So amazing both artistically and technically that I cannot express how great it is. And the howl of the werewolf in this movie is the most frightening sound EVER.

All the Pretty Horses (2000)

Better than what critics say.

[10/10 · 11 May 2001]

ALL THE PRETTY HORSES is a pretty good film that could have been awesome with a little touching up.

The direction was very good, the cinematography first rate and Henry Thomas gave an outstanding performance.

But...

Penelope Cruz was terrible. I like her- but... ugh! Also, less of her and Damon's romance should've been cut out.

The very beginning didn't at all capture my attention, with the black fade out crap.

This is a very good movie, but it doesn't measure up to such gems from this year as Traffic, Tigerland, Wonder Boys, Cast Away, Snatch, Gladiator, and especially Quills.

The Contender (2000)

Paging Michael Mann. A spoiler or two (maybe)

[6/10 · 16 March 2001]

THE CONTENDER is a pro-democratic anti-republican mess of propaganda and preaching, with some very strong points, though.

The acting in this film is very good, the editing and cinematopgrpahy are pretty good, and the value of women's rights is strong. This movie is good, and enjoyable. But it is not great.

As one other user as mentioned, the direction is a bit preachy, the pro-democrat stuff is very obvious, and Sam Elliot looks like he's having trouble acting without a horse.

What this film needed was Michael Mann, director of "The Insider", "Heat", "The Last of the Mohicans", "Manhunter", and some other well directed films. This film is Hollywood, when it could have been a really taut, interesting political thriller, had Man directed it. However, Lurie's Hollywood and light style hamper it's message and it's style and quality. Also, small things effected this film. This may be a spoiler so look out! During the protagonists closing speech at her confirmation, a patriotic Hollywood music plays. Look at the scene in "The Insider" where Wigand has his interview for 60 minutes, a music plays afterwords that shows the pain and suffering he has gone through, as well as the power and enrgey it took for his answers, it made it a powerful, but not at all persuasive or patriotic or heroic speech. In The Contender, the protagonist's speech could have been just as powerful as Wigand's with the mucis played after Wigands. Just small little things.

In the end, THE CONTENDER is worth watching, but don't expect All the President's Men, The Candidate, or any of the memorable courtroom drama's prodiced by Hollywood. Too Hollywood, small mistakes, good acting.

Rolo.

Gladiator (2000)

Old fashioned fun.

[7/10 · 22 February 2001]

When I first saw GLADIATOR in the theatre, I was amazed. I hadn't seen anything like it before. When I saw it on video, I began to actually consider the film, as one always does. I found it quite different.

What makes a motion picture good. The acting has to be good, the story original, the directing careful and good, the dialogue realistic, the screenplay well written, the cinematography original AND good, and entertaining.

In Gladiator, the acting is great, fantastic, even. Phoenix is evil as Commodus, Harris on target as Marcus Aurelius, Nielson convincing as Commodus' sister, and seems to care for Maximus and her child. Russell Crowe amazing, being exactly what the writer and director wanted him to be: tough, caring, slightly emotionless, though, and at times funny.

The story is quite original, it mixes true historical events and fictional sequences alike to create something wholly new. The pacing is perfect, and the dialogue and screenplay are good. The sub plots are involving and one comes to care for the charcters.

The cinematography tells a good story. Old fashioned camera angles are used, as well as technically impressive photographing techniques are employed in the film. The action scenes are exactly what Scott wants them to be, confusing, violent, compelling, and showing not only the common horrors of war and violence, but also those invovled's feelings and what it was like to be there in them.

There is no question that Gladiator is not entertaining- it is! Old fashioned Rome stuff and today's violence, as well as involving charcters.

So why not like the film? Okay, there are historical inaccuraces, but Scott doesn't want it to be real. Spartacus had inaccuraces, Ben-Hur did, too, no one is complaining of them.

In addition to the above things, the art direction is beautiful, the score compelling, the costume design good (however inaccurate), and some good old Braveheart style violence.

I keep thinking to myself, this film isn't that great, it doesn't even deserve a nomination, but then I think about what I tell you, and I realize it really is a great film.

I have not seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Chocolat, so I can't say anything about those. However, Erin Brokovich was just awful! But I'm reviewing Gladiator here. Traffic was gret too, but I have only seen it once in the theartre, so I have not really had a chance to truly evaluate it.

In conclusion, Gladiator is an amzing film, not to be missed. I give it eight out of ten, but even now I find that I am giving it a lesser score than I think it should. I don't want to like this film, but I can;t help it!

Hannibal (2001)

Good film, but flawed.

[19 February 2001]

HANNIBAL is the much anticipated sequel to the brilliant thriller "The Silence of the Lambs". The film is directed by Ridley Scott, of BLADE RUNNER and GLADIATOR. Starring in the film is Sir Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Giancarlo Giasomething or other, and Gary Oldman (uncredited).

People coming to see this film expecting another SOTL will be very disappointed. Instead of being about psychological terror, like SOTL, HANNIBAL uses the more modern gore and shock effects to create terror. Julianne Moore does what she can with a poorly written role, in her wooden sort of way. The supporting cast, however, is great. Gary Oldman is brilliant under pounds of makeup as An old patient of Lecter's. Hopkins seems to have fun with the role instead of his creepiness in SOTL. Ray Liotta provides some moments of humour, while Giancarlo Giasomething or other is excellent as inspector Pazzi, he and Gary Oldman are the best parts about the film.

The dialogue is bland, the script is not at all well written. The characters are underdeveloped and unrealistic. The plot is ridiculous after the changes made from the book, and the pacing poor. While SOTL is one of the best and scariest films of time, disturbing and showing how awful humans can be, HANNIBAL seems to have no meaning. I will compare this film to WHAT LIES BENEATH. Both films try to be scary but come up short.

This movie was good, I suppose I would have liked it more had I not read the book or seen SOTL. In the original, Jodie Foster was amazing and Hopkins gave one of film's best peformances ever.

HANNIBAL was more like SOTL than people think, it's just the writing and other aforementioned flaws that make it seem much worse. The film sometimes seemed funny, when it should have been scary. I think that this was done intentionally by Scott and Hopkins.

The art direction and cinematography are first rate, I must mention.

In conclusion, I think this movie was a huge success; ridiculous and laughable at times, which I suspect was intended. Worth a viewing, but definately not great, or even as good as it sounds in my review. 5/10.

The Godfather (1972)

Not as good as I remember.

[2/10 · 8 February 2001]

I saw this movie years ago, and I loved it. It was my favourite movie. This morning, I watched it again, and began to pick it apart.

This movie is first and foremost overlong. Unnecessary dialogue and scenes weaken the raw effect that could have been produced. The musical sequence after Pacino does his restauant thing is unlike any other in the movie, it doesn't fit in. The part of the movie detailing Pacino's stay in Italy is poorly done, and also doesn't fit in.

Some of the performances are dull, such as Keaton's, Lettieri, and Conti. Yes, I do believe Brando's part is badly written. I know I will be hated for saying this, but the character constantly changes, and his dialogue is never consistent. Brando does his best, and I don't think anyone could have done better, but it was still not a great part. The only outstanding performances were those of Caan and Pacino. Caan's acting is raw and Pacino is right on target.

Besides the main theme, music is weak and unfitting. As I have said, some of the scenes don't fit, and the music score doesn't help any. At one moment, the movie is a gritty masterpiece, and at another a cheesy, cliched piece of film, going back to the traditional style of film, ruining the film's effect. Had the movie cut all the silly dialogue, not to mention the sans-dialogue scenes that aren't even poetic, which a dialogueless scene should be, the effect might be better.

Also, to throw some more mud, the romance between Keaton and Pacino is awful, and no chemistry is arisen.

A disappointment, but not to be missed. I recommend a single viewing. One more thing, this film certainly doesn't deserve to be the best ever, it shouldn't even be in the top one hundred, but it doesn't deserve a "1" rating, I only give it that because I want the average rating to go down.