jamie-120

Well...

This is obviously a low-budget action film. It's too highly derivative, though, to be interesting for any reason unless maybe you're interested in the further adventures of someone involved in making it. The actors weren't just mailing it in, so I give them credit: they did as well as they probably could given the boring script and low budget. Whoever did the sound effects made a humorous decision to add them to virtually every sudden movement in the entire movie, destroying any fleeting illusion of realism which might have tried to slip between the wall-to-wall physical impossibilities of the action scenes. Well, actually, there were some extended "dramatic" scenes, like where Oliver (or was it Roland? I forgot which was which already) watches his dead brother's wife bathing and is so inspired by her beauty that he tells her simply "You have a nice back." Of course, with writing like that, whatever wafts of realism might have tiptoed past the sound effects and the action sequences would have been dropped dead cold in their tracks by a head-shot like that line, in the same fashion as some of the hapless victims of the overeager gore effects team succumbed to their inevitable -- read "predictable" -- deaths.

Just two more examples should suffice to illustrate the quality of the writing. First, the two main characters face off with guns, then both throw away their guns at the same time to "finish this like men" (which is actually what they say when they do it). Uh huh. Real smart, "men". Then they go on to an even sillier final "final showdown". I'll leave a shred of suspense in it for you should you decide to see this turkey and spare you a description of that face-off. But my favorite part was the handy provision of a small array of GARDEN TOOLS (including a pitchfork -- gee, wonder if/how that will play into the action? *yawn*) right outside the villain's OFFICE. In the hallway. Yeah, you know, nothing says professionalism in the evil boss industry like some garden implements close by. Remember, there's no sunshine in this post-apocalyptic world.

Hmmm... bah, thinking and this movie do not mix.

OK, I wasn't going to comment on this movie, but I just had to ask Kath0rz -- at the risk of getting an answer I'd really rather not hear -- what _exactly_ she meant when she said that a movie featuring cows and Hugh Jackman was "a dangerous combination". (I mean, you had to know it wasn't _that_ kind of movie. Especially with Marisa Tomei in it.)

OK, Mark? First off, you're a little weird. "I Blow Up"... but anyway, given what you had to work with, this movie didn't really suck that much, which actually is probably the only thing you really need to know.

For the rest of you... "Coven" (that's "KO-ven", not "KUH-ven", if you please) is a _long_ way from Hollywood, so just relax and enjoy(?) it for what it is: a finally-realized personal project of a fascinatingly driven -- and, yes, weird -- man which 99.9% of us would never have known existed (that goes for both the man and the film) if not for "American Movie".

"Northwestern" due in 2004? Hey, let 'er rip... I'm curious to see how it turns out.

OK, this one won't win many Oscars... but it's fun, has some witty wisecracks in it, and of course Kelly Hu wearing practically nothing has to count for something on the watchability scale. :-) This is one of those movies where you know what you're going to get before the curtain goes up -- the only question is how well did they do it? In this case, fairly well. They "did it up" with special effects, dramatic scoring, nicely choreographed fight scenes, etc., but never quite took their tongues out of their cheeks entirely. 6/10 for me.

(contains mild spoilers)

I liked the film pretty well, and I, for one, did _not_ suspect anything in the first half of the movie was unreal, perhaps because it was so detailed, and also perhaps because there was nothing presented on screen to "give it away" (Nash's mind was nimble enough to keep up appearances?). Hence I was totally surprised by the revelations which followed.

I _loved_ Ed Harris; this guy is one of the best in the business, even when he plays the same kind of character repeatedly. I love him every time.

Regarding Jennifer Connelly, what can I say besides Marry me Jen??? :-D

Crowe was good, but you already know that.

The two things I found disappointing were the whitewashing of the real-life story and the romantic ending. A truly beautiful mind needs something more satisfying than "you're my whole world, baby" sap -- but Hollywood today has turned its back on God, so that's all we're left to play with.

I heartily agree with the other enthusiastic reviews of this movie, so instead of repeating their comments I'll just add a couple of notes which I didn't see in anyone else's remarks.

One thing that really drew me into this movie was how, over and over, I would be watching a scene play out and there would be a _very_ few words exchanged, with minimal "dramatizing music" or other "play-ups" adding dramatic weight, and I'd just ache for more words to be said. So much was happening _to_ the characters (mostly internal, as the film focuses more on people than events) and they went through it with such a minimum of dialogue. That made a strong impression on me as it left me wanting more; wishing somehow they could make it alright by just saying more of what was obviously on their hearts.

Another thing I loved about this movie was the distinctiveness of the characters. One had false teeth; one rarely (if ever) bathed; one was called "Shorty"; and, of course, the unforgettable mugs of Palance and Marvin -- and the distinctiveness of these wasn't all simply in their appearances. Before long they started to feel like my own friends. My heart broke watching their whole world pass them by.

If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the "underwater shots" of the "fish" "swimming". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.

One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as "The Greatest American Hero" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something.

I only watched this movie because it came on late at night and I was up. I missed the first couple of minutes, so I didn't know what was on, just that it was a movie. It took about 2/3 of the movie before I started to "get it"; until then, I had been spending a lot of mental energy simply trying to figure out _what_ this movie _was_ -- not the title, I mean what it _was_. Some parts of it still don't make much sense, but, strangely enough, I actually enjoyed this oddball film. I thought all the major players nailed their characters pretty well, and the bizarre story kept me guessing enough to have fun watching. There were some good laughs (mostly intentional), and one thing I very much appreciated was that, while each character was cohesive and most of the main ones were multi-faceted, the scripting was unpredictable; that brought the characters (and the movie) to life for me. These people were fun to watch and I was always curious about what would happen next.

The one thing I _really_ don't get, though, is... what the heck was the deal with Sam Scott??? The guy was a raving looney. I kept waiting for the explanation to be that that whole TV show was an elaborate setup by Matt's parents, or something... but apparently it was real. And did the show really end the way it appeared to? If so, shouldn't Matt have, like, been arrested, or something?!!? LOL! I don't care; it was still a fun movie to watch.

"What if they made a really good Dolph Lundgren movie and nobody came?"

Well, if they put it out directly to video, ... :-)

I saw "Men of War" on broadcast TV, so of course some of the nastier stuff was censored. Still, I think I got the idea. And it was a good idea! This movie continually impressed me with excellent dialogue, good character development, humor, and most of all a story that I actually cared about. Sure it was somewhat predictable, but there were some unexpected developments, mostly centering on the ability of the supporting cast -- and I mean way down the list to some of the bit parts -- to behave in ways not anticipated by the principals. This made for a rather unorthodox movie. I also really enjoyed the soundtrack; good music, well suited to each scene. Did I mention the dialogue? I did? Well, I'll mention it again, because usually that's the last thing I expect to like in a DL movie, but this one was smartly scripted.

My favorite character was Po, who was exceptionally well written and nicely played by BD Wong. It took all of about 15 seconds for me to like this guy; his intelligence and wit were quickly evident even through the language barrier. Actually, that's one thing that impressed me a lot: they managed to come up with broken English script that comes across as totally believable. If I were a mercenary in SE Asia, this is a lot like how I'd expect people might really talk to me.

I can't say this is a great movie; it has its shortcomings. The themes explored were already old hat by the time this film was made, and there is a strange schizophrenia to the film; it's half story-movie and half action-movie-with-big-hero-star-dude. But the strong points seem to carry it pretty easily, perhaps because the makers realized before/during production what we do when we see it, and compensated. For example, the film does visit certain cliches, but it doesn't dwell on them, expecting them to make a huge impression on the viewer. It's as though the makers realize that a given situation is old hat, and are almost apologetically including it simply out of necessity, then moving on to "what they REALLY wanted to show us". I think that shows respect for the intelligence of the audience, treating us as though we've actually seen a movie before -- imagine that!! -- and I appreciated it.

Since Lundgren is the "star" here, I guess I'll close by saying that he was very well used. The story is the real star, which is why this movie works so well. Lundgren has never been a top-notch actor, and isn't one here, but that's not important. This movie tells a story and it uses all of its assets, not just shoving big Dolph in our faces over and over again. When he says something, or does something, it's because it was his turn to do so. Really, I'm very impressed by how well this worked.

(BTW, lest you get the wrong impression, I actually like Dolph Lundgren, and have enjoyed some of his films, usually almost exclusively for the action. I just don't think he's Oscar material.)

I haven't read all the other user comments, but I agree with almost all that I did read. A few additional thoughts:

One of the oddities of this film is how sparse its on-screen elements are. The cast is small, almost like a stage play, and every set almost seems to have been deliberately scrubbed of any extra objects or people. (The one place where this seemed distractingly improbable to me was inside the apartment/house where Hawke and Law lived. There were absolutely no sources of entertainment visible, at least that I noticed; this does not seem plausible for the human race. Even the most driven must surely relax once in a while, no?) In most of the scenes there are only 2 or 3 people; when there are more, such as in the Gattaca "work room", the rest are almost a backdrop, doing nothing at all to distract the viewer from the primary players. In that sense it reminded me of some comic books I've read, and also of some "artist's conception" drawings of buildings being planned -- you know, the ones where there are, say, 3 people walking across a giant skyway? There are a number of scenes just like that in "Gattaca". Other than the parenthetical note above, I approve.

The whole cast was indeed very good, but I have to single out Jude Law. His portrayal of the once-golden boy, now hopelessly broken yet still alive, is riveting. I can't think of a more compelling performance in recent memory. I disagree with whoever said Thurman and Hawke weren't very good here; they were exactly what this film called for. Their restrained emotions beneath affectedly placid exteriors were just what one would expect in a repressive society (regardless of what form the repression takes). Hawke's character was easy to sympathize with, and Thurman seemed very human beneath an almost-too-cool exterior. (FWIW, I'm not a great Uma Thurman admirer; she's fine and all, but "not my type" I guess. She did a nice job here, and that's what I liked.)

This movie also had one other thing that I haven't heard anyone mention: the pace. It is slow. Surprisingly, it doesn't become boring; the feeling I had was similar to watching a "pan" of a nature scene or perhaps something from "Qoyaanisqatsi" (sp??): as things pass before your eyes, you have time to let them sink in before the next one comes along, but not so much time that you lose interest. It is remarkably well-paced throughout, focusing one's attention on just the right details for just the right amount of time. Both the pacing and the minimalism contribute to that. The other reason it works so well is that the concepts are disturbing enough to merit substantial consideration.

Not for everyone, perhaps, but if you have a super-MTV attention span, "Gattaca" is a worthwhile view.

I haven't had this much fun watching a film since "The Matrix". Just saw "Drive" and it's a blast! The action (and there's LOTS of it) is way over the top, but the premise makes it easy to swallow, so that doesn't get in the way. Nothing but fun, fun, FUN! Well cast, and nicely focused on its high points: a great-looking action star, excellent choreography, a slick -- but substantial -- comic relief, bad guys who relish their jobs, and a cutie who manages to make a wild film even wilder (love ya, Brittany!), a la Chris Tucker in "5th Element". Like action? Want to smile? "Drive" is your film.

I'm not sure I've ever seen another Roman Polanski movie, but I've sure heard his name plenty, so when I see that "Frantic" is coming up on cable, I get mildly interested. Harrison Ford in the lead? Hey, should be pretty good, right? Well, 2 hours later... all I can think is, Why was this movie made? It's like a "filler movie". Through the entire thing, I kept waiting for a reason for its production to present itself. I'm still waiting.