Recent Topics

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 20, 2024, 01:27:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Members
  • Total Members: 54
  • Latest: zappman
Stats
  • Total Posts: 111911
  • Total Topics: 4497
  • Online Today: 37
  • Online Ever: 323
  • (January 11, 2020, 10:23:09 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 35
Total: 35

Member's Reviews

Chaplin, a review by Antares


Chaplin (1992) 3.5/5 - I'm a big fan of silent films and Charlie Chaplin is one of my favorites, so I was looking with great anticipation back in 1992 when Richard Attenborough made this film. This is my second viewing of this film, and upon finishing it, I realized that I liked it a whole lot more the first time I watched it back in 1992. I have read that Attenborough submitted a director's cut that was close to 16 minutes longer, and he felt that the studios editing ruined the flow of the film. Maybe that is so, but until a director's cut is issued on DVD, we're stuck with this version, and some things that were done don't work. The novelty of the scenes where Attenborough tries to move the story along as if we're watching a silent film, now appear amateurish or hokey. The character played by Anthony Hopkins, whom we find out in the end is fictional, is a weak device to propel the narrative. On the good side, Robert Downey Jr. nails Chaplin's mannerisms and technique and probably should have won the Oscar for his portrayal. Moira Kelly and Diane Lane are both good in their limited roles as two of Chaplin's wives. I think this film should have dealt with more of Chaplin's woes during the late 40's and early 50's, and not just brushed aside their importance. Maybe this is more fleshed out in the director's cut, but for now, we'll never know. All in all, it's an OK biography of one of the great artists of cinema.

(From Antares' Short Summations on January 2nd, 2011)

Member's Reviews

Buried, a review by Jon


Buried
3 out of 5



Paul is a U.S. contractor working in Iraq. After an attack by a group of Iraqis he wakes to find he is buried alive inside a coffin. With only a lighter and a cell phone it's a race against time to escape this claustrophobic death trap.

Buried is a very clever film and brilliantly made. Ryan Reynolds is fantastic, proving what a great actor he truly is. His delivery of the script makes sure there is humour in what is a very bleak premise. Also, to say we are trapped with Reynolds inside the coffin, Rodrigo Cortés inventive direction is never lazy. It is at once a masterclass in film technique and bursting with originality too.

The problem is, it just isn’t scary and the claustrophobia of the story –the very reason it has been made this way- ultimately throttles the potential. I can’t think of anything to compare it with, except the CSI episode directed by Quentin Tarantino (Grave Danger), which in one sense was easier because it employed characters the viewers already knew well, in another sense it was less ambitious because it used all of those characters freely and took the pressure off the victim, but the acid test was the nail-biting suspense. For all its technical endeavour, Buried just didn’t grab me the same way. It does have its moments and there is a truly awesome one before the last act.
 
After the first few panic fuelled minutes, it becomes apparent Buried does have a few tricks up its sleeve and the plot is more open than I expected. To say it can only be effectively driven by Ryan, it really is very inventive. However, it then has to commit to its ideas and it just doesn’t gel. I can honestly say the ending wasn’t predictable, but it was only not predictable because it had no connection with the audience. Ryan as Paul can communicate with various people on a mobile phone and he gathers a handful of names that become essential to the conclusion... but mean nothing to us whatsoever. What was a potential conspiracy comes off as contrived, which is a shame.

I expected to be terrified! After the first act, I thought I’d underestimated it and it had more to say than a simple thriller, with political and moral tones coming to the fore, but by the end it was rather flat. Still worth seeing for the originality and sheer entertainment, just don’t expect too much.

Who the hell am I to say though? The film is getting exceptional reviews, so maybe I just missed something.

(From Jon's Horror-thon 2010 on October 10th, 2010)

Member's TV Reviews

Tom's Random Star Trek Reviews, a review by Tom


TNG 1.10 Hide and Q
WriterDirector: Joseph L. Scanlan
Cast: Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (Commander William Riker), LeVar Burton (Lt. Geordi La Forge), Denise Crosby (Lt. Tasha Yar), Michael Dorn (Lt. Worf), Gates McFadden (Doctor Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi), Brent Spiner (Lt. Commander Data), Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher), John de Lancie (Q), Elaine Nalee (Klingon Survivor), William A. Wallace (Wesley (25 years old))

Probably my least favorite TNG Q episode. Though I like all scenes with Q onboard of the Enterprise (especially his interactions with Picard), I do not like the stuff on the planet. Also this episode has some really ridiculous scenes, like Tasha Yar crying because Q send her into the "penalty box" and Picard comforting her with his "now we have a new rule: The chief of security is allowed to cry if she is in the penalty box"-speech.

Rating:

(From Tom's Random Star Trek Reviews on October 6th, 2009)