11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
A Positive Review.
14 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In reading other comments for the film, it seems apparent to me that many people have missed the point. Why are there people complaining about the lack of a plot? Why are there people who think that Bob and Charlotte's relationship is based on un-requited love?

*Slight Spoilers

Firstly, this is a bold, under-dramatic film that dares to be real. It's character driven so the plot, as it were, is one that proceeds from moment to moment, a series of portraits that brilliantly shows how life can be. Personally, I appreciate a film that doesn't try to exist within the framework of what you would expect. I like it that it didn't feel the need to create tension or conflict, or whatever else a film is supposed to have to be interesting. Can't a film just be about how things sometimes are, in a witty and well-portrayed way?

As for the two main characters' relationship; it is not one of falling in love, as shown by the fact that there were no advances made by either of them (which some people seemed disappointed by.) Instead they had a mutual connection and a 'real' feeling of being comfortable with each other which can be hard to find. Essentially, the film is set at a time in both their lives when they needed a friend, and the beauty of this is brilliantly stated, and fluently, by Sofia Coppola, who has had the audacity to make a film that does not feel conventional, and because of that can have a greater emotional impact.

The film is a snapshot. Do photographs have a plot? I applaud Coppola for not feeling like she had to make Bob and Charlotte have a sexual relationship, with Charlotte's husband finding out, perhaps Bob's wife, creating all kinds of conflict-ridden scenes that have been done a hundred times in other films. My point is; this is not that type of relationship, or film. A viewer has to realise this. It's about how people, in a very ordinary sense, can subtly effect your life. Or not so subtly. Or maybe just a celebration of the possibility of human friendship and its lingering effects on others, since Bob and Charlotte will no doubt never forget each other.

As for the technical points of the film, there is no need to comment on them, since how brilliant the acting and direction is has been commented on many times, even by those who were disappointed by the story. (Someone mentioned something negative about the mundanity of the conversations. But extraordinary, non-real conversation would have seemed out-of-place here. And anyway, besides the introductions [which incidentally also introduced us to the characters in a way], I thought the dialogue was excellent and witty.) Other comments made have concerned the Japanese culture. It is certainly the cause of many a smile, and for this I wonder what the Japanese reaction is. My reaction was one that thought it wasn't overdone, although it could have been, and if you have any kind of common sense the viewer should be able to realise that this is in every way a caricature of Japan and its people. (Since when have films not been allowed to make light fun of certain cultures. It happens all the time.) And as for the many shots of the city itself, I thought, within their documentary-esque style, they were revealing and eye-opening. It's the city as it is, and some of the high shots were stunning. There's a quick glimpse of outside the city, but it is the city (which comes alive as another character), which is the important set-piece. Whereby I see how some of the areas portrayed about Japan, Tokyo and its people could be grating or offensive, it is important to realise that this is the view of the city and its people that Bob and Charlotte are subjected to. On Charlotte's one excursion out of the city, we are able to appreciate some of the finer aspects of the culture, though Coppolla couldn't indulge in this further because the character didn't. And the character didn't (as some commenters would have liked) because it wasn't in her character to do so. In a way, Charlotte was in emotional limbo, and instead of going out in search of the Japanese culture, she connected with someone who felt closer to home: American Bob. And likewise for Bob.

Anyway, I kinda lost my way after not discussing the technical prowess, so I'll keep it short and sweet now. Bill: excellent. Scarlett: excellent. Verdict; excellent, deep film. I just wanted another positive comment posted among the negatives.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Somewhere between positive and negative
5 November 2003
It's awesome to watch, a visual treat. Has everything we've come to expect from the Matrix, and more. It delves deeper philosophically, taking its lead from Reloaded, but in a more satisfying way. The first third of the movie tends to get most of the philosophy out of the way which leaves the greasy goodness of the action, which is what most of the fans would want anyway. We talk of the implications and the possibilities of the ending to this trilogy, and while the storyline didn't live up to all the possibilities I had envisioned, I still felt happy. The battle scenes were so mind numbingly expansive, the visuals intriguing, that I just ended up soaking it all in and not really thinking about it too much. If this film is going to fail with the fans anywhere, it will probably be in the ending. But then it's not really that bad an ending. What can I say? I liked it. 8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
READ THE BOOK
27 September 2003
I watched the film after much raving from a friend, and felt disillusioned by the whole thing at the end. I felt something was missing. I love the medium of film as an artform so can appreciate this film as exactly that; art. But for me, at the end of the day, the film was only a trigger for me to want to find out more, delve deeper. So I bought the book. It's the best book I've ever read. They always say the book's better than the film, and the truth is half the time it is. It's true here too. While the book may never make any more revelations than the film does, it's more beautiful, deeper, emotive, and leaves you in a state of quiet melancholy. Watching this film again afterwards only left me feeling utterly disappointed as it could do nothing to repeat the kind of emotional response I had reading the book. It's quite simple, if you're serious about film and culture, watch both, enjoy both, fall in love with the book. Incidentally, it's by Jeffrey Eugenides and his second novel Middlesex ain't too bad either.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ballet (1989)
Empty
27 May 2003
As the first and so far only review of this film I will summarise the plot for any of you who feel like taking on the challenge of finding a copy of this film. The story follows Jennifer Connelly, a ballerina, and her exploits as she grows closer to the leading male in the film, only then for mysterious things to start happening. I wont say any more regarding the plot because it's pretty thin, one more sentence about it would pretty much tell you everything that happens in it. This is not the worst film I have ever seen, but it's also far from the best. Stuff happens without explanation, and it's not easy to figure out for yourself why said stuff happened. Connelly looks like she would rather be somewhere else at times, and so her performance lacks charisma. So considering the film rides on her performance, it would probably be quite apt to say that the whole film lacks charisma. I gave it 4 out of 10.
10 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crawlspace (1986)
seems we all got bored with this one...
9 May 2003
... what is the point of a build up, characterisation, if you dont go through with your plans? this it what happened in this film. first 50 mins were great- largely- there was tension built, good characterisation especially with kinski, but then it's like the director and everyone involved decided they were bored with it and wanted it over as quickly as possible. there were things earlier on that you felt would be explained later, the promise of nudity that never delivered, explanation for some of kinskis antics, but there was no catharsis. people suddenly died, and you didn't even get to see it happen, then one gets 'trapped' in the crawlspace kinski uses to spy on other people (which he doesn't do too well), but its like kinski dont even care and just carries on watching one of his old films. hoping the rats will get her.and the ending is dire. i seriously wouldn't bother sitting through this if you havent already.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Phenomena (1985)
At last I'm home
27 February 2003
A horror fan for years, until now I hadn't come across anything that really satisfied my thirst. The first Argento film I've watched, but it won't be the last, and if some of the reviews for this film are anything to go by; the other Argento films being better; than im in for a treat. I love the score and the dreamy qualities that propel this film above almost every other horror, or attempt at horror, film ive ever seen. And ive seen a lot. If possible, try and catch the uncut version 'phenomena', over 'creepers', simply because it's longer and you can sit back and bask in its beauty. Top class.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dentist 2 (1998)
7/10
What you want in a horror
14 December 2002
I wonder if anyone else found similarities between Bernsen's acting and that of Nicholson's in The Shining. Don't think for one minute that I am putting these two films in the same echelon as each other, but half way through I started to notice that Bernsen's madness was similar to Nicholson's, and then Jamie went and got trapped in the bathroom and Bernsen did what he did. Very The Shiningesque. It's his performance in this film that I enjoyed the most and that makes the film, the other actor's acting pedigree is nothing special. Bernsen shines. As for the film, I can't believe that this and the first one have such low ratings. They're horror movies; they have nudity, gore, violence, cringing moments of horror, and the odd jumpy moment. What more could you want from one. This is one of the best horror movies around, guaranteed to freak you out. If you don't like horror movies, don't watch them, or these, and then lower the rating of these masterpieces with your lower than deserved ratings.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather (1972)
6/10
Overrated
26 February 2002
A mate of mine loves this film, and the whole genre to boot. He made me watch this, instilling in me the notion that it was the second best film ever, behind its sequel.

Im glad I watched it, if only to argue with my mate. This film is overrated. It's good but not good enough for a top ten spot, especially when there are better films of its genre out there. Goodfellas comes to mind, and I even found Casino more entertaining.

Basically, I like a film which leaves me thinking about it, and moved. This didn't really do either. Apparantly the sequel is better. I hope so.
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
if i say what i think of this film, it won't be printed.
11 January 2002
This film deserves no more than this; ABSOLUTE PILE OF HORSE****!

DONT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH IT!

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL WARNING!

Im only writing this bit here because it is necessary in order to allow me to warn you against this film.
5 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
different,ill give it that.
10 January 2002
I doubt most people who watch or have watched this film will like it. If they do, it surely can only be for the reason that it is so poor it keeps it interesting because you keep wondering what is gonna be ballsed up next. The score is momentarily enigmatic, Reagan's Theme being particularly good. The acting is mostly dire, though how anyone else would have acted with such poor a script I do not know. The plot developments are laughable, the cinematography interesting with an attempt to be artsy though first and foremost Boorman should have made sure the film had a good script and capable actors. Despite the numerous flaws this film has, there's something about it which will keep me returning to watch it. For any Blair fans out there, she has never looked better than in this film. Arguably the only reason to watch it, except to witness the poorness for yourself.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Roller Boogie (1979)
8/10
Fun. Not mean't to be taken seriously
6 January 2002
To watch this film and enjoy it you either have to enjoy the skating shows put on, the disco music, or fancy one of the cast.

I watched this film and enjoyed it. I suppose I fancied Linda Blair in it, but other than that the only reason I liked it was because it was simple fun, not to be taken seriously. It's easy on the eyes, and easy on the eyes. Eye candy, if you will. :-)
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed