donny-31 Reviews

Trainspotting (1996)

Disgusting

[1/10 · 25 July 2006]

I was disgusted with this film within ten minutes.

If the film has a point, I will never know it.

I was repulsed.

I became physically ill.

Junkies don't act like that, and they certainly don't slap their arms like that.

What was the point with being forced to watch Ewan McGregor take a crap and then play around in it?

This film was nominated for an Oscar.

This film was influential with the youth of America, if not the world.

This film was not funny.

This film was pointless.

This film was retchingly creepy.

And then, Siskel & Ebert gave it Two Thumps Up®, so everyone knew that it was wonderful and an Oscar contender.

Not exactly Great Expectations, but what can you expect from the generation that listens to Fifty Cent?

The Big Sleep (1946)

There's only one reason to love this movie...

[5/10 · 20 August 2005]

I love Bogart. I love Bacall. I love Chandler. I love Philip Marlowe.

I used to think I loved The Big Sleep. I used to TELL people I loved The Big Sleep. But tonight, ten or fifteen years later, I don't love it anymore.

They all seem to have memorized their lines that afternoon, right before the shoot. There is almost no reaction to each other, and I mean everybody. They talk too fast, as if they were copying the "ambience" of His Girl Friday, which was already "dated" about ten minutes after filming.

This is not acting. This is Pushing Them Out, at maybe the rate of ten or so per year.

The screenplay is a mess; it seems to have been re-written a dozen times by a dozen different people. I can't believe William Faulkner had something to do with this screenplay, but they claim he did.

But there IS something to love about this film. It's the cars.

This movie has the greatest cars of any Forties b/w film. Has Jay Leno seen this movie? Somebody call him and clue him in. These are terrific cars in this movie. I think I'll watch them again.

The Contender (2000)

Love those Hollywood Left-Leaning Liberals!

[9/10 · 20 August 2005]

I thought this film was wonderful; I gave it a nine.

You will seldom see better performances in such an arena - a political one, that is. Joan Allen is HUGE in this movie, Gary Oldman is Cosmically Right In There, and we even have a wonderful piece of work from Jeff Bridges.

Of course this film shows a bias that I prefer, so I like it a little more because of that. In general, showcases for hardball, power-play politics tend to be overdone (that's my opinion, anyway), but I found this one to be both cerebral and satisfying.

My only (minor) disappointment was in finding out "the truth" about the allegations against Allen's character. But I guess it was given in order to equal out the truth we are given about her rival and her detractor.

Great Expectations (1998)

Great Expectations, Great Film

[10/10 · 27 July 2005]

"There are some things we are not given to understand," a preacher once said to me, and here are two of them: (1) this film is on my Best of the Best list, but Roger Ebert thinks it's only "good," not "great;" (2) all of the comments about this picture are positive and over the top, but IMDb rates it only 6 point something. How do these things work? And another thing - why is it that when I say a movie is Great, people don't rush right out and buy it? There are some things we are not given to understand, my friend.

The acting was wonderful. The little kids who later grow up to be Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow were beautiful and perfect, Hawke and Paltrow continued beautifully and perfectly, Anne Bancroft was astonishing, De Niro was excellent, and so was everybody else.

Others' opinions do matter to me, but not nearly as much as my own. That's just the way it is. So let me say it again, just to be saying it - this picture is one of the Best of the Best. Everything about it is wonderful; there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I am artistically uplifted from seeing it; it is a Joy.

The Matrix (1999)

Not exactly 2001

[6/10 · 25 July 2005]

This movie promises us 2001: A Space Odyssey, but gives us Shootout at the OK Corral.

This is a movie for teenagers and people who like teenagers and people who want to be teenagers. Check the message board: it's teenagers arguing about the worth of this movie, from a pool where both ends are shallow.

I wish Keanu Reeves and L. Fishburne all the good fortune in the world, but acting at this level will wash them up before they're fifty.

This movie is all special effects and razzle-dazzle. There's just nothing to it. Of course, it's listed very high on this site's list of great movies, because there are so many young kids here voting on movies.

My indictment of this movie and its sequels is similar to my indictment of this web site - it was a good idea; it's still a good idea; but it just doesn't deliver. It's certainly not the fault of this site that most of the people writing are too young to be on their own in the world, but I hate that IMDb panders to them, much the same way that I hate how these movies pander to them.

Yes, they're the ones who go to the movies more than anyone else. It's just a plain fact.

And yes, the Academy Awards are a joke. Put all of this together, along with our Ratings System, and you have the reason that American movies that could be Great, are not.

The Madness of King George (1994)

Enjoyable, it you can make it through the first 20 minutes.

[7/10 · 17 July 2005]

I have just read Ebert's review of this picture, and it seems he must have seen this one while doing something else at the same time. It isn't as good a picture as Mr. Ebert would have you believe, but it's OK. Ebert even misquotes King George on a very important line: The King says, as he approaches clarity, "I have remembered how to seem," a line of great import, but Ebert misquotes "I have remembered how to seem myself."

That reviewer misquotes again on an important line, when certain courtiers are remarking on the new nation USA - one says "the Colonists sent him packing; why not we?" but the reviewer quotes "the Colonists sent him packing; why not me?"

The film starts slow - v e r y s l o w - and I almost shut it off and rewound. No getting around it...the first twenty or thirty minutes are boring. But it gets better. Altogether, it's OK - but not great. You'll like Helen Mirren, and you'll like Ian Holm.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Car Crashes and Explosions and That's It

[4/10 · 8 July 2005]

This movie is for young teen and pre-teen boys, I guess. It's certainly not for adults of normal intelligence.

Woo's direction is hokey. The doves are too much John; does the movie have to be about you, every time?

Cruise's acting is hammy. One more boyish grin and I've had it.

Thandie Newton sleepwalks and looks as if she's starving to death. I ate two sandwiches just looking at her.

Brendan Gleeson was miscast; he is too tough-looking for the slimy character he plays. This is like one of the worst Batman scripts - a drug manufacturer wants to make everybody deathly ill so he can sell medicine to make them well? This is either comic-book stuff or extreme paranoia or else the pharmaceutical-FDA connection really is Satanic.

I did enjoy some of it; the adrenaline-pumping scenes are seductive for the little kid in all of us.

This is not a good movie, IMO. It fails everywhere: it is poorly written; poorly acted; poorly directed. That's my opinion, and it's very true. I am Don Coyote of OpinionSoup.

Quills (2000)

A beautifully-done, boring film

[4/10 · 4 July 2005]

I didn't like this film at all. I stopped it and rewound it about 30 minutes in.

The acting was good; I am particularly fond of Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush. The directing was good. The cinematography was first-rate, and the costumes were perfect. I liked the glimpse of Napoleon and the trip into the morés of that time.

It was the story I didn't like. Not the screenplay, mind you - the story. It is a boring story. I am no prude; I've done many of the things that the adolescents who post on this board snicker about. I'm as much a hedonist as the next fellow.

However, in my opinion, if the Marquis de Sade had not been an aristocrat...if he were writing in another time - say, this one - he might possibly get some action at a free-hosted web site. Beyond that, the man's life is a huge bore. This film will even have Satanists yawning.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Even with many small flaws, this is one of my favorite comedies.

[10/10 · 31 May 2005]

In order not to make anybody angry about the small complaints I have, let me say first: I love this film. I have a copy and I have watched it three times.

This movie was shot in several Mississippi towns, and I live in one of them. My wife, Jonnie Wilson Harthcock, was in the movie, but her scenes were cut and re-shot. My darling was the (first) waitress who says "Yes, Sir" to George Clooney in the hotel where they first encounter John Goodman's character Big Dan. Jonnie had Alzheimer's. I tried to impress this upon the Casting Director, but she liked Jonnie's looks for that small part. But my poor dear could not remember not to look down at her feet when she hit her "spot" by the table. So they had to re-shoot it with somebody else.

John Goodman lied to me, outside. How did he lie to me? He was a nice guy...knew I was Jonnie's husband...he said "She did great. Really, she did great." She did not do great, but John Goodman was very nice for no particular reason. Why was he even in this movie, I ask myself...so briefly and inconsequentially...probably has or had a contract with the Coens.

For Mississippians there's a lot of funny stuff that nobody else would get. For instance, all the towns the characters mention are real towns, but very jumbled up. Many scenes were shot in my town of Yazoo City, but they called it Itta Bena, which is an actual small town up in the Delta, but not as scenic as Yazoo. The "Woolworth's" that Clooney gets thrown out of is the old Saxon Hardware (now a trendy, artsy furniture re-do place). Did you notice...the guy who throws Clooney out calls it "Woolsworth." Of course, there never was a Woolworth's there, but the people who own the building left the signs up until they wore out.

I am a big fan of the Coen Bros. to begin with, so don't think I love this film just because they shot it in my town and my wife was supposed to be in it. It's extremely funny and well-done. The three principals do a great job of lip-syncing some terrific music, and Tim Blake Nelson is beyond hilarious.

Here are my small complaints:

First, Parchman Farm (which is way up in the Delta, nowhere near here) never had chain gangs busting rocks. We don't have any rocks around here, and especially not up at Parchman. And why would they be busting them? And on a dirt road? And why were the prisoners all totally out of rhythm with the music?

Second, where did the guys get gophers to eat? We don't have any gophers...that's a Western rodent. I think the Coens chose gophers because what they boys COULD have caught and eaten - squirrels or rabbits - are too cute and popular for movie fans to see spitted, roasted and eaten in a comedy. "Let's just say 'gophers'; nobody likes gophers."

Third, we don't have horned toads in Mississippi; those are Western toads. And the so-called "toad" that the fellows thought that Turturro's character was turned into by the siren was not even a toad; it was a frog.

And finally, the film showed a lack of knowledge of Mississippi dancing, music and dialog of that era. Bluegrass is not Mississippi music, for instance; it is Kentucky music. Most of the accents were fictitious "generic southern," not Mississippi at all, and the dancing was just slapstick.

Still, a very entertaining movie. At OpinionSoup.com, we love it!

Mississippi Burning (1988)

These events bad enough without revisionism...

[3/10 · 29 May 2005]

I am from Mississippi. I lived through these times. Secretly, I did things to help in the voter-registration of Black folks; things you could get killed for, in those days. I know whereof I speak.

Therefore, let me say this: the events this film seeks to depict were bad enough without any inventions. But invent they did. Every local Black person in this movie is noble and a great singer. Their buildings, however, would lead you to believe they couldn't put tin on a roof straight. Why try to improve on facts? Every White person depicted in this film is an idiot. Out-houses in the sixties? KKK ruling the roost in an entire town?

Where are the rich, educated, "landed gentry" who were behind all this violence, encouraging the rednecks with nods and winks? Not in this movie. But I know they exist, because I know some of them...a few who are still living. Mostly it is their children I know, who still feel the same way about Blacks, and still do the same encouraging of White trash.

This film does not show how things really were. It seeks to make things look even worse, to people who don't know any better. It is a terrible story, with moments of good acting from many of the stars. It is the script and the direction that are awful.

What you see in this movie is not true. The truth is far worse.

Liam (2000)

Like Dickens during the depression

[8/10 · 20 May 2005]

Move a Dickens story up into the time of the Depression. Add elements of Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath." Add the blackshirt Fascists from "1900." Add a little boy whose father and brother are involved in desperate economic problems complete with unions and favoritism, as in "Billy Elliot."

Make it very dark, and very drear. Let the camera see drearily, smokily, darkly, unclearly.

Let the characters speak in their own, natural way, without regard to an American audience having difficulty understanding them.

This is "Liam." It is an indictment of religion, the undeniable caste system of the UK, and of government in general. It is a film that was difficult to watch, although never did I say anything like "this is bad." It was just difficult to watch.

Everything rang true, and it was heartbreaking, with a few uplifting moments...but very few. This is an excellent film, a very well-acted film, well-directed and with an excellent screenplay. But difficult to watch, in spots.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

This film is an example of why sequels shouldn't be made.

[1/10 · 28 April 2005]

This film is positively awful, from start to finish. It has no plot, no character development, and it shamelessly rips off the original...with the bus over the cliff thing, the T-Rex footfalls jiggling the puddles of water thing, and even the disembodied hand thing. Jeff Goldblum with a black daughter, the mother of whom we do not meet, is absurd. They even rip off the godawful Japanese monster movies, with the T-Rex stamping through the streets of a major city. The dialog is flip and nonsensical. The two kids from the first JP are prominently featured in the ads and credits, but appear for about ten seconds...this, I suppose to fool the kids who wanted to see them again. All in all, this is the best advertisement there could ever be for not making sequels. This film totally sucks, and Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. That's my opinion, and it's very true. rrcanna

Velvet Goldmine (1998)

Excellent, Exciting, Erotic

[10/10 · 13 March 2005]

The review that's up on the index page was written by someone who didn't understand the movie, who doesn't understand playing music, and who doesn't understand the seventies. I am an ex-musician of the period of this film, and I am still excited from seeing it for the first time tonight (yes, it IS seven years later). Everyone nailed their parts, especially the major male leads, and the music was perfect. I found this film to be authentic and extremely good. I recommend it highly. Those familiar with the music of Lou Reed and Iggy Pop will recognize the ambiance of the tunes, and one is also reminded of David Bowie. The glimpses we are given of the business of the music business are very clever and well-done. For bisexual males and ex-glam musicians, this film is (as they say) riveting, electrifying!

Empire of the Sun (1987)

In This Movie Fan's Top Ten

[10/10 · 24 February 2005]

Having read others' comments here, I must conclude that some people shouldn't be reviewing movies.

This is a magnificent film, with stellar performances by John Malkovich and Christian Bale. I expected the excellent portrayal that we see with Malkovich, but that director Spielberg got such a perfect performance in this debut from twelve-year-old Christian Bale is nothing less than astounding. It is in my opinion the finest performance one could ever expect from a child, and this opinion, of course, speaks both to the acting and to the directing.

The film is fair, true, and uplifting. I am not a "cryer," but I cried when the American planes appeared. When Jim was reunited with his parents, I broke down.

The horror of war is shown in uncommon ways, not the least of which is the loss of innocence of this child.

"Haven't I taught you anything?" asks Malkovich's character.

"Yes," Jim replies. "You taught me that people will do anything for a potato."