Change Your Image
agitpro
Reviews
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
It's a Pistalero Fairy Tale
Personally I thought this was perhaps the second most entertaining film I've seen this year, surpassed by the other Depp vehicle "Pirates".
In all I thought it was a wonderful homage to the previous vehicles in the series and to the disasters that the Crow movies turned into (come on, just look at Depp's character at the end...)
The one element that really did it for me, that set the whole thing up, was that initial opening scene. Oddly enough I expect that's exactly what an opening scene is supposed to do. The idea that the stories he was telling about Mariachi, first name El, were exagerated and charicaturish made the movie that much more enjoyable. There wasn't a single character that wasn't over-the-top or at least played to the hilt, from the somberly sensual Mariachi, to the stoic and manly General, to the sweetly sadistic and paranoid CIA agent.
I was entertained from one end of the film to another, mildly confused with some of the cheap editing, but quite willing to pass that off as an homage to the first film.
An $18 movie if there ever was one.
I just think that El should stop hanging around women.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Ho, hum. So What? Who Cares?
Thought I'd throw those in.
This movie will look like crap on television, and it doesn't look much better on the big screen.
Save your money, Johnny Mnemonic was a better movie.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Ho, hum. So What? Who Cares?
Thought I'd throw those in.
This movie will look like crap on television, and it doesn't look much better on the big screen.
Save your money, Johnny Mnemonic was a better movie.
Hot Millions (1968)
What a great Tutorial
I thought I'd enjoyed Sneakers until I saw Hackers. I thought I'd enjoyed AI until I saw Circuitry Man. I thought I enjoyed Demon Seed until I saw Dungeon Master. I thought I'd enjoyed Johnnie Mnemonic until I saw the Matrix, but this movie set them all back on their heels.
Sir Peter's depiction of the archetypal Hacker is phenomenally well done, and how they managed to predict that Social Engineering skills would be brought to bear in the world of hacking was a phenomenal display of foresight. If Kevin Mitnick's life were ever to be fictionalized more than it has been by the Media and released as a comedy I'd suspect this is what the script would turn out to be like.
Karl Malden and Bob Newhart both provided excellent portrayals of the archetypal 60's executives who still seem so prevalent in today's business world, showing where much of the security concerns of today should be focused.
View this if you're a computer geek, and if you're involved in computer security this movie should be required.
Atanarjuat (2001)
Brought a good book
and didn't read it. Though if the movie were filmed in English I would have been asleep before cracking the first page.
It is long, and people did stay seated, though I noticed several of them had to be nudged by their neighbours, or by theatre staff.
The scenery in the movie is expansive, but not terribly impressive. The acting is acceptable, even commendable for so many amatuers. The direction is strong and un-noticed. They even manage to cover tracks and trails properly leaving the wilderness looking as it should.
The only things I can think of, is that it would have been a much more interesting tale to hear an ancestor tell, than to watch on screen. And it would have taken a sixth as long to tell.
Watch it, but bring quarters for the video games in the lobby, you might want them.
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
Borrow it from someone to waste your time
I watched this movie last night, and thought it was ok. But, after reading the first few comments today I found myself feeling annoyed and put-out that I someone else wasted their money on this movie for me.
Destroying the Jack Ryan character in favour of having a young popular good-looking jock play it was a mistake. I can't even overcome my disappointment by attempting to view the character as a kind of archetype of Clancy heroes. Affleck's characterization of Jack Ryan as a weak, simpering, mewling post-adolescent was a horrible dissolution of the character I'd come to expect and certainly didn't even touch Ford's protrayal despite its insipidness when compared to Baldwin's portrayal.
In my mind Clancy allowed his creation to be betrayed.
Freeman definitely puts the boots to the other actors (once again!) and manages to walk away from the film without any egg on his face. I don't know how he does it, but if for nothing else this ability he must be commended on. After all, this is a man who was capable of finding work after being in a Kevin Costner production.
Liev Schrieber also does a phenomenal job in playing a Clancy character the way it was meant to be instead of some waffling new-age commando.
BTW - does anyone know where I can get a cell-phone, wireless PDA and the supporting commercial infrastructure that can resist the EMP of a nuclear blast? Or perhaps glass that doesn't shred bodies to mince when shattered by a blast wave?
At least Paramount won't have to worry about this movie being pirated. I can't imagine who would want to waste the drive space.
We Were Soldiers (2002)
Not worth the $12. Be a good rental though.
If you want your money's worth who up 30 or 40 minutes late and go to the bathroom when they start delivering telegrams.
As a commentary and an illustration of the attitude and interest of Americans in the conflict in Vietnam, and of the 'We Can't Be Touched' attitude of the American military leadership oof the time, this movie tops any other that I've seen, but from an acting and directorial side, this movie could have been -way- better.
The weakness in this movie stems solely from the poor direction. I'm sure that when Randall Wallace gets some more practice in he'll be a pretty good second unit director, but the studios have to stop giving him so much money. Randall seemingly lost touch with any idea of what over-acting is about and managed to make everyone except for the principal actors into characatures of real people ("No - uh-uh Not MY husband.") His setups were crystal clear ("I'm having a baby today" - classic red shirt line) and his fixation on injuries was gratuitous (lets use a full minute of film to show his burned face as the chopper lifts off - a flash on his face and reaction shots all around would have been more effective, as it was I started examining it to see how the makeup was applied). Top that off with CGI that was poorly scaled, poorly matted, poorly detailed and choppy, it made the whole film look amateurish (measured against the CGI in Starship Troopers and Final Fantasy). Thank god for Mel Gibson, Barry Pepper and Sam Elliot, at least they gave the film some aspect of quality.
The battle scenes were really well developed and provided a good insight into just how confused and chaotic modern warfare can be with its drop and deploy mentality.
If I were to compare this movie to any other, I'd say that it was on par with Thin Red Line, though not as pretentious and with a lot more over-acting. I would have to disagree with those that think to compare it with Saving Private Ryan (a well acted movie whose approach took on the quality of Documentary) or Black Hawk Down (a well acted movie with the quality and approach of a documentary). 10 years ago We Were Soldiers would have been branded Commercial Propoganda, now its just a not-very-good movie.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
The Philosopher's Stone was a Phenomenal Success
I was engaged by the books, intrigued by the advanced ideas that they presented to youngsters and impressed that so many of today's "politically correct" parents would allow their children the chance to read something that provided them with a much more 'real world' approach to life than many fantasies. Indeed that seems to be the whole draw of the series (like any of the best, Narnia, Middle Earth or The Princess Bride) they don't shy away from the plausible.
And it was amazing to see it transferred to the screen with so much intact. That took fortitude. And to do so without losing any of its young viewers (at least in the showing I saw) was just as amazing a feat.
I am impressed.
But if someone doesn't explain to me what a "Sorcerer's Stone" is, then I'm really lost. I know a Philosopher's Stone changed base metals (like Lead) into Gold, but the Sorcerer's Stone is a complete mystery.
Lets hope we don't get too jaded, or the performers get too old, or the wait get too tiresome, before the next one comes out. Because I want to see it NOW.
(To be sure I almost sat through another screening without a bathroom break.)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Bring out your trolls!
I was impressed, impressed enough to want to see it at least twice more in the theatre, impressed enough that I can't wait until next Christmas to see the next one.
Peter Jackson has finally made Tolkein interesting. Lord of the Rings is a horribly boring book that made little sense, this movie brings it all into perspective and gives the whole idea of Middle Earth a more plausible and exciting ring to it.
My only concern is for how well the quality of the CGI is going to stand up to being viewed on a television. LOTR shows every sign of having the CGI too thinly layered or not saturated enough, signs that make the CGI stand out like blood on a white sheet when viewed on a television. Other than that I was impressed.
Shooting forced perspective shots like that has proven the downfall of many previous movies, but here they've made it work like it never has before.
If you didn't like it, tough, its pretty obvious that statements like that are part of the underwhelming minority.