This is a thriller like you haven't seen before... The basic idea is a man who realizes he is sleepwalking, and who fixes a camera to his shoulder to find out what he's doing at night, and where his wife and children have gone. Not before very long, dead bodies are found, and the sleepwalker is on the run. Along the way, there are a lot of twists and turns, and a finale you'll never guess! I bet they're gonna remake this film in the US within the next five years, but I think there is little to improve. Don't walk out or rewind or unload the disc before you've seen the very end!
Reviews
14 Reviews
In America
(2002)
True And Touching - A Family Movie As It Should Be
22 January 2004
I was expecting one of those sweet family pictures, Disney style. But from the first scene, this one was different. You're getting involved with a family (parents with two daughters) who just lost their two-year-old son. Each of them finds his or her own way to deal with this great loss. Mother is getting pregnant again, and this time around, her life and the life of the unborn child are in danger.
This engaging story is told in a simple way, no manipulations, just pure life. Jim Sheridan admitted that the film is built around a lot of personal experiences of his own and his family - maybe that's way this film is so truthful and touching. Besides, the actors are fantastic, especially the true life sisters who play the family's daughters in the film.
I've seen quite a lot of movies so far, and so it does not happen very often that a movie really "moves" me emotionally. This one did.
This engaging story is told in a simple way, no manipulations, just pure life. Jim Sheridan admitted that the film is built around a lot of personal experiences of his own and his family - maybe that's way this film is so truthful and touching. Besides, the actors are fantastic, especially the true life sisters who play the family's daughters in the film.
I've seen quite a lot of movies so far, and so it does not happen very often that a movie really "moves" me emotionally. This one did.
Dangerous Liaisons
(2003– )
What a waste...
19 January 2004
Oh Lord, this was really bad! You think with all those marvellous actresses and actors and this brilliant story, nothing can go wrong, but - they marred it completely.
Starting with hilarious miscasting (Catherine Deneuve is far too old and not sensuous enough), over boring, wooden dialogue to incompetent camera work - there is one scene which has two of the leading characters talking to another, and you don't even get to see the face of one of them!
Shifting the story into the present may be an interesting idea, but the script does not take the simplest care in adapting to this.
See another version of this, the Stephen-Frears-film if you can. But do miss this one!
Starting with hilarious miscasting (Catherine Deneuve is far too old and not sensuous enough), over boring, wooden dialogue to incompetent camera work - there is one scene which has two of the leading characters talking to another, and you don't even get to see the face of one of them!
Shifting the story into the present may be an interesting idea, but the script does not take the simplest care in adapting to this.
See another version of this, the Stephen-Frears-film if you can. But do miss this one!
One of the very few "erotic films"
6 March 2003
I saw this one back in 1982 in a theater when it was advertised as a porn movie that was produced to entertain women as well - without being disgusting.
I've seen it a couple of times since then, and it's still one of the very few porn movies that are really erotic. Based on the famous tale of "1001 nights", everybody involved in this movie did his/her best to produce a sensual atmosphere.
If you are used to the run-of-the-mill porn produced nowadays, this will be a pleasant surprise for you. They don't make movies like this anymore.
9 out of 10.
I've seen it a couple of times since then, and it's still one of the very few porn movies that are really erotic. Based on the famous tale of "1001 nights", everybody involved in this movie did his/her best to produce a sensual atmosphere.
If you are used to the run-of-the-mill porn produced nowadays, this will be a pleasant surprise for you. They don't make movies like this anymore.
9 out of 10.
Den 5:e kvinnan
(2002)
Great Thriller!
3 January 2003
I saw this movie as a two-part mini-series on German television in a dubbed version. The works of Henning Mankell, author of the original novel, had been recommended to me. So although I expected something above the average TV stuff, this really knocked me off my feet! The story is excellent and provides lots of unexpected twists and turns, and casting and acting are just plain beautiful. This goes especially for the villain. One has got to get used to the camera work here, it resembles the hand-camera style of the Dogma series. I should perhaps note that this is a film about violence against women, and it's done in a way women should like. Don't miss this one!
Impressionen unter Wasser
(2002)
Wonderful To Look At!
19 August 2002
This movie was shot over a period of several years and shows the amazing world under water. There's no comment, no plot, just images edited by Leni Riefenstahl and music by Georgio Moroder. Almost every single shot gives a different answer to the question "how can life on earth look like?".
I watched this film on TV, after a very busy day. I felt perfectly relaxed and amazed afterwards.
It's even more amazing that this project was developed by a woman who is almost 100 years old!
There's just one thing I'd like to criticize: The film is too short by just 45 minutes - there were a lot of creatures that I would have liked to watch a little longer.
Apart from this, I rate this one 10 out of 10.
I watched this film on TV, after a very busy day. I felt perfectly relaxed and amazed afterwards.
It's even more amazing that this project was developed by a woman who is almost 100 years old!
There's just one thing I'd like to criticize: The film is too short by just 45 minutes - there were a lot of creatures that I would have liked to watch a little longer.
Apart from this, I rate this one 10 out of 10.
Death in Granada
(1996)
Beautiful to look at!
17 May 2002
I didn't know much about Garcia Lorca or Spanish history; I was interested in this movie just because some of my favorite actors are in it.
The plot itself is not very intriguing, and the main character can hardly keep one's interest to keep on watching. But I'm glad I saw the film because of its incredible camera work. Most of the scenes were so beautifully lit and filmed that I could not get my eyes off the screen.
So, if you're interested in Spanish history or Garcia Lorca, this is a must. If you like to see films with excellent camera work, this is also a must.
For everyone else: forget it.
All in all: 6 out of 10.
The plot itself is not very intriguing, and the main character can hardly keep one's interest to keep on watching. But I'm glad I saw the film because of its incredible camera work. Most of the scenes were so beautifully lit and filmed that I could not get my eyes off the screen.
So, if you're interested in Spanish history or Garcia Lorca, this is a must. If you like to see films with excellent camera work, this is also a must.
For everyone else: forget it.
All in all: 6 out of 10.
Mary, Queen of Scots
(1971)
Could have been so much better!
16 October 2001
With all the talent involved, this could have been a wonderful film, a classic. As it is, it shows how a film fails if its pace is wrong.
The careful elaboration of the story and its characters in this film need a certain slow rhythm in both directing and editing. But the film looks as if someone had clumsily edited out all those moments of silence, where the emotion of the characters is shown not by letting them talk but just by keeping our eyes on them.
Still, it's rewarding to watch, especially for the two leading ladies.
The careful elaboration of the story and its characters in this film need a certain slow rhythm in both directing and editing. But the film looks as if someone had clumsily edited out all those moments of silence, where the emotion of the characters is shown not by letting them talk but just by keeping our eyes on them.
Still, it's rewarding to watch, especially for the two leading ladies.
Long Hello and Short Goodbye
(1999)
Lots Of Flaws and Lots Of Gems
29 September 2001
I have rarely seen a film that was so rewarding in many ways, yet so disappointing in many others. It still is worth looking at.
Here is what I liked: The plot is quite original and full of surprising twists and turns, crossing and double-crossing. The pace of the whole film is excellent, like you're watching a John Carpenter movie (one of his earlier works, that is...). The finale is a masterpiece. Great camera work, great editing. Lots of images you won't forget. Superb performances by all the supporting actors and actresses. One of the best main title sequences I've ever seen. Great score.
And here is what I hated: Krebitz is totally miscast as an undercover police officer. You can not believe anything she does or says. The costumes for Krebitz are ridiculous, making her look more like modeling for sexy beach wear. She's always nice to look at, though, but it does not help to make her character believable. There's absolutely no chemistry between Hosemann and Krebitz, no sparkles. There are quite a few giant plot holes, badly covered. Most of the dialogue is so badly written that it hurts your ears.
All in all, a movie both to love and hate...
Here is what I liked: The plot is quite original and full of surprising twists and turns, crossing and double-crossing. The pace of the whole film is excellent, like you're watching a John Carpenter movie (one of his earlier works, that is...). The finale is a masterpiece. Great camera work, great editing. Lots of images you won't forget. Superb performances by all the supporting actors and actresses. One of the best main title sequences I've ever seen. Great score.
And here is what I hated: Krebitz is totally miscast as an undercover police officer. You can not believe anything she does or says. The costumes for Krebitz are ridiculous, making her look more like modeling for sexy beach wear. She's always nice to look at, though, but it does not help to make her character believable. There's absolutely no chemistry between Hosemann and Krebitz, no sparkles. There are quite a few giant plot holes, badly covered. Most of the dialogue is so badly written that it hurts your ears.
All in all, a movie both to love and hate...
Ulee's Gold
(1997)
Another film gem ruined by a happy ending
18 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This is a superb film with extraordinary performances and a lot of moving scenes. It proves once more that it doesn't need explosions, fist fights, car chases, etc to keep one's interest. For me, the happy ending ruined everything. Examples: a drug addict recovers completely after just a few days in the country, a woman who spent her life in bars and on the street returns into being a loving mother, and an imprisoned son asks his father "you've got to kill them, dad" one day - and promises to return back to a normal life just few days later, saying "hope I'll remember how to work, dad". Top on this list is the surname of Ulee's love interest. Her name is Connie Hope. Anyhow, I strongly recommend this movie to anyone interested in good stories well told.
Life of Brian
(1979)
Monty Python's at their best
15 September 2000
This is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. Get a copy without commercials in between, invite a gang of friends, support them with enough beer or anything, and have a good time. Even after viewing it several times, it still makes you laugh out loud, thanks to the funny performances and the witty dialogue.
The Dead Zone
(1983)
Waiting for the Director's Cut
4 April 2000
This is one of the good Stephen-King-based movies, but it could have been much better.
First: the cast is perfect! Each character comes to life the way King described him or her in his novel. The script is a clever adaptation of this 600+ pages thriller, and Cronenberg does a good job in letting it all come to life.
But: the whole movie looks like somebody came in right before it was going to be released and said, "cut it down to 100 minutes." A lot of scenes are obviously shortened, like starting in the middle of a conversation, or ending abruptly without being properly resolved. Best example here: the last scene, where Sara's "I love you, Johnny" is obviously voiced-over. (Several sources claim that Cronenberg had shot an ending similar to the one in the novel, with Sara visiting Johnny's grave and suddenly having a kind of vision of Johnny standing next to her, but he had to cut it, because otherwise the film would have been too long.)
The editing, too, looks like someone tried to speed up the movie instead of using the original pace. It's a shame, with all the creative input by the great cast and Cronenberg himself.
17 years after "The Dead Zone", King-movies like "The Green Mile" run for about three hours and thus perfectly capture the mood and the pace of King's novels.
Production executives out there, if you read this: - give novel adaptations the time they need. - give us a Director's Cut of "The Dead Zone". What we've seen until now, is a good movie. What a Director's Cut can show, might be a classic!
First: the cast is perfect! Each character comes to life the way King described him or her in his novel. The script is a clever adaptation of this 600+ pages thriller, and Cronenberg does a good job in letting it all come to life.
But: the whole movie looks like somebody came in right before it was going to be released and said, "cut it down to 100 minutes." A lot of scenes are obviously shortened, like starting in the middle of a conversation, or ending abruptly without being properly resolved. Best example here: the last scene, where Sara's "I love you, Johnny" is obviously voiced-over. (Several sources claim that Cronenberg had shot an ending similar to the one in the novel, with Sara visiting Johnny's grave and suddenly having a kind of vision of Johnny standing next to her, but he had to cut it, because otherwise the film would have been too long.)
The editing, too, looks like someone tried to speed up the movie instead of using the original pace. It's a shame, with all the creative input by the great cast and Cronenberg himself.
17 years after "The Dead Zone", King-movies like "The Green Mile" run for about three hours and thus perfectly capture the mood and the pace of King's novels.
Production executives out there, if you read this: - give novel adaptations the time they need. - give us a Director's Cut of "The Dead Zone". What we've seen until now, is a good movie. What a Director's Cut can show, might be a classic!
Mercury Rising
(1998)
Disappointing on all all levels
2 February 2000
Concerning all the talent and all the money involved in this production, it's disappointing to see that it all turned out as a thriller that does not thrill. The characters are all cardboard, and there's no turn in the story you haven't seen hundreds of times before. Sometimes it seems as if material has been cut out that might have brought some depth to the characters. For example, we never get to know very much about the Bruce Willis character. Willis himself is far from his best on this one, mostly grimacing instead of acting. The only thing about this movie I find remarkable is the score by John Barry, but even his efforts can't save the movie.
The Edge
(1997)
Disappointing
15 November 1999
While the main titles were running, I expected a real good movie: Anthony Hopkins in the lead, Donald McAlpine on camera, and, most promising, David Mamet wrote the script.
But from the first scene, at the airport, the situation between Hopkins, McPherson and Baldwin was obvious. Having seen the trailer, I knew the two men would soon find themselves alone in the wild woods facing a hungry bear.
When they did, after 30 minutes or so, I waited for those Mametian twists and turns. But they never came. Hopkins found evidence for adultery, but it was soon clear that the Hopkins character was too good to kill Baldwin, while the Baldwin character was too weak to kill Hopkins. So the whole film, including the ending, was predictable.
As it moves along, the only things that keep you interested are Hopkins' fine acting, McAlpine's terrific camera work (you'd better get the widescreen version!) and some of the intelligent dialogue.
The rest is boring, as is the film as a whole.
But from the first scene, at the airport, the situation between Hopkins, McPherson and Baldwin was obvious. Having seen the trailer, I knew the two men would soon find themselves alone in the wild woods facing a hungry bear.
When they did, after 30 minutes or so, I waited for those Mametian twists and turns. But they never came. Hopkins found evidence for adultery, but it was soon clear that the Hopkins character was too good to kill Baldwin, while the Baldwin character was too weak to kill Hopkins. So the whole film, including the ending, was predictable.
As it moves along, the only things that keep you interested are Hopkins' fine acting, McAlpine's terrific camera work (you'd better get the widescreen version!) and some of the intelligent dialogue.
The rest is boring, as is the film as a whole.
Tell Your Friends