The Z/Web Archive

This is a film that started with a gimmicky premise -- is mental patient Prot really an alien from the planet K-PAX as he claims? -- and never gets beyond it. It could have been a good film if there was some depth too it, but it enjoys playing with the gimmick so much that it never gets around to anything intelligent. Ultimately pointless.

My first thought about this film: the producers should have made an executive decision to go with or without English in Russian accents because as it is, every other actor seems to have a different idea, and some actors change their mind during the picture. It hurts what's otherwise a well-acted story. The story is based on a real-life incident in the 1960's when a new Russian sub, K19, is dispatched on its first voyage. It was rushed to see for political reasons, and it's not ready. During the voyage, to test some nuclear missiles, one of the nuclear engine develops and problem. If it's not fixed, it could explode and set off the warheads. Since there's a U.S. destroyer nearby and tensions are high, it could also set off World War III. The captain must make decisions which effect the lives of his crew and his country, and oh yeah, the radio's out and he can't talk to Moscow for orders. The film is on the long side, and the story's certainly complex, with lots of Soviet political stuff going on, and there are scenes where the excitement of the story feels staged, like they throw in an emergency or two to keep you awake. But ultimately, the men are heroes, when that emerges the story's engaging on its own. I also liked that the story didn't just end with them being rescued, but followed up on what happened to them after they returned home to the Soviet Union. Much better that I'd heard.

Interesting little romance with a twist: Leopold is a 19th century Duke brought forward in time to modern New York City. Unfortunately, he only has a week before the time portal appears again. But during this week he meets Kate (Meg Ryan), a marketing consultant, and his achronistic ways (he's polite, stands up when a lady leaves the table, rides a horse to chase down a Central Park purse-snatcher, etc.) charm her. Silly and implausible, but the characters are so likable you don't care and just want to see them get together. Fun.

Today I was planning to take my mom back home and we were just getting ready to leave when Uncle Keith showed up out of the blue. That was cool. His timing was better than if he'd come on the weekend when I was gone! I set up a video chat with Uncle Lloyd in Springfield and that was cool: he and Keith chatted for over an hour. Keith only stayed the one night, however, but Grandpa sure appreciated seeing his son for a bit.

Cool WWII action-comedy with Clint Eastwood and a bevy of stars. Clint is Kelly, and he leads a group of men attempting to sneak behind German lines to rob a bank holding $16 million in German gold. Absurd spoof, but fun; I especially liked the music by Lalo Schifrin (the guy who created the Mission: Impossible theme.)

Wow! Even better than Kill Bill: Volume One! The first half (it really should have been one long movie) was long on action and short on depth; this half is the reverse (minimal blood this time). There is some cool action, but not the extended fight scenes of the original. In this movie we learn more about the backgrounds of the people involved, learn how Beatrice was trained, and discover why Bill tried to kill her in the first place. The ending is awesome: profound yet satisfying. The two together really make a long but terrific film. The visuals are incredible, and the music spans a dozen genres and styles, yet every song fits perfectly. The opening day matinee I went to received a huge applause when it ended, so I predict this is going to be a huge hit. It's deserved as well. You also don't need to see Volume One to enjoy this: the backstory is clear enough that this film works on its on, though a few jokes and references might be unclear without the first one.

Wow, what a film! While I can see that some people wouldn't like this -- it's violent, loud, and wild -- I loved it. I didn't go in thinking I would, either. While I'm a Tarantino fan, I don't worship him or anything. This film, split into two movies because it was too long, had me dreading it would feel incomplete. Far from it. The action is amazing and the finale makes Matrix Reloaded feel like an amateur production. No silly 100 Mr. Smith's here: this is real multi-fighting with Uma taking on a zillion samuri solo. I appreciated that unlike many multi-fight scenes that look staged because the fighters stand in line and wait their turn to be masacred, in this they attack in large batches (much more realistic) and she still dispatches them with terrific ease.

The plot is a simple one, brilliantly executed: Uma plays a member of an assasination team who was betrayed and left for dead. After four years in a coma she wakes up seeking revenge, and goes after her former teammates one by one. (That, essentially, is the plots for part two, as she doesn't get to all on her list in this movie.) The revenge plot has been done before (see Payback for instance), but what makes this so awesome is the way Tarantino directs it. He's totally aware that this is a film and shoves it in your face. It's all about style and every frame drips it. I heard him comment he's a Sergio Leone fan (he loves The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) and this film could be an homage to Sergio. It's got the great close-up zooms of faces and the startling in-your-face music. Everything's over the top, from the colorful sets and costumes to the B-movie dialog and action. It's just a wonderful blend of camp, blood, and cartoon. In fact, there's an anime sequence in the middle that's bloody fantastic (literally).

If you're the least bit squeamish, don't see this film. There is a lot of blood. Literally. Only Peter Jackson's Dead Alive tops it in that category. Limbs and heads fly. But it's done in such a way that the violence is so artistic as to be beyond reality, mocking extreme violence. Besides, there's something satisfying and cathartic about the revenge fantasy. This is a live-action cartoon full of frenetic action, ultra-

John Woo's best film, an action movie with a conscience. It's a tale of duality, with the life of a cop mirroring the life of a hired killer who wants to go straight. Throughout the film, they constantly switch white and black hats: he's hero, no he's the hero, no he's the bad guy and the other guy's the hero. Lots of existential dialogue and more flashbacks than a time-travel pic. Dramatic visuals, more like an opera than a shoot-em-up, with excessive blood and violence that dance across the screen like poetry. Ultimately the film asks the question: who is the killer? The cop kills bad guys while the assassin is hired to kill other criminals, so is he okay? Complex, profound, and thought-provoking, with an action overlay that is exciting and humorous.

I really like the way Iris bases her novels on character over plot. In this particular novel, however, she's a little heavy-handed. In addition to the whole "serial killer on the loose" plot, we're in the middle of a romance/war between the best friend, the heroine, and the wealthy lover. Some of the conflicts in this felt forced and overdone, and the outcome was brutally obvious from the beginning (which it was supposed to be, since the woman was closing her eyes to her best friend as a lover, but since we could see it from the beginning, it made wading through hundreds of pages of her hemming and hawking tedious). The serial killer plotline is superior, with an unknown killer telephoning our heroine with frighting threats and hints of future violence. She's lost her young daughter to a killer years ago and that motivated her to become a top forensic sculpture (she creates facial models from skulls to help identify bodies). By threatening to kill a little girl, the killer forces the woman to bond with the new child (who's physically similar to her own), with the plan to kill them both after they've bonded: diabolically cruel, to say the least. The chase is on, the killer always several steps ahead. Who is he? I fell for the red herring candidate, but right from the beginning, which made the ending uncomfortable. While the killer's identity was thus a surprise, it felt a bit artificial, almost like Iris decided on the twist after the novel was originally written with the other guy as the killer. (I doubt she did that; my perception is clouded by my pre-judgement of the situation.) A good novel, exciting and tense, with some interesting bits on police work and serial killer stuff. There were stereotypical aspects I didn't like -- the killer's dad was a religious fanatic (gee, that's original) -- and there were some odd technical mistakes toward the end (please, I retouch digital photos and if it's done right, no one can tell). But overall this was an excellent book. Interestingly, two of the best characters in the book, Monty, a cadaver dog and his partner, a hard woman named Sarah, apparently feature in Iris' next novel, of which this paperback included an excerpt. I'm definitely going to have to read that book.

I'd never seen this "classic" musical. It's not bad, but not as good as I expected. I'd actually heard of few of the songs before, but most are forgettable and I didn't particularly like style of music (too old fashioned for my taste). Yul Brynner won an Oscar as the king of Siam, I don't know why: his "Siamese" accent was terrible. In fact, most of the acting was bad, typical of musicals: singers are cast instead of actors. I can see that at one time this might have been more interesting, back when going to Siam was an exotic and rare journey, but these days with a global community at the touch of dial, it's rather pedantic. Boring.

A slight disappointment, mainly because it doesn't really achieve the levels it aims at. It's good. The cinematography is amazing, the acting is excellent, the story's not bad: but the whole doesn't add up to a great film. I did like that the creators came up with new perspectives on the King Arthur myth: this is different from the stories you've heard before. In this version, Arthur's a Roman who's stationed in far-away Britain, leading a troup of knights who've been conscripted to serve Rome for 15 years. He and his knights fight against the native Britons, blue-painted savages who live in the forest and are led by a mystic named Merlin. But when the Romans decide to leave Briton, abandonning it to the vicious Saxons of the north, the Britons need a leader, and Arthur ends up becoming that man. (Yes, he's leading the people he used to fight against.) Interesting twist, though I have no idea if it's actually based on any real evidence. It's an epic film with some good battles. The most spectacular scene is the battle on the ice where we have awesome shots from below the ice of soldiers marching across the frozen top. Overall it's an excellent film, but somehow feels empty and lacking by the finish. There's a spark missing. Everything's too pat, too polished, the grand speeches too obvious. Trimming it would have helped (it's much too long at 2:10). And the luminous Kierra Knightly doesn't show up until an hour in, another mistake (the story is much more interesting with her in it). I liked it, but I wouldn't bother watching it again, if that tells you anything. There's just not enough depth.

Really impressive film. I didn't remember the original that well (except for the cheesy special effects), but this one gives it epic scale and realism the story deserves. In terms of special effects, I was slightly disappointed: while the digital animals and such are amazing and completely believable, it seems compositing is still a skill that needs work, as in several scenes the assemblage of people and digital creatures seemed slightly fake. But that's a minor complaint. Overall, the film and story work. It's a fun adventure ride with a real story behind it.

Fascinating retelling of Shakespeare's King Lear set in Texas in the Old West. Lear, played by Star Trek's Patrick Stewart, is a ruthless ranch owner with three daughters. After he divides his property among them, they throw him out. Good stuff, with complex gray characters, though it goes downhill a bit when it gets into action stuff at the end.

Grisham's books lately all seem to be about money with no plot. This one's no exception: a penniless lawyer becomes a multi-millionaire overnight, then foolishly loses his fortune. It's a lightweight morality tale against greed. However, Grisham does tell a good tale, and while a lot of the book is numbers -- the costs of everything the guy is buying -- it's still an intriguing read. I would have preferred a different ending, where some of the people the guy hurt are compensated, and I have a few problems with the character development of the main character (one moment he's wanting to vomit listening to other lawyers talk about who has the most expensive yacht, the next he's buying a $30 million private jet), but overall it's good fun. Very lightweight, but it's fortunately not preachy (like the unreadable The Chamber).

Similar in style to some of Edgar Rice Burroughs' stuff, this book was okay, but the foreshadowing was so strong it made the story too predictable. It's basically about a quest to find the lost diamond mines of King Solomon, and of course there are lots of trials and adventures along the way. Fun for a quick read, good for kids. I would have liked it more when I was younger, but somehow I missed it.

I thought this was more of a political thriller and wasn't too excited, but it had a lot more action than I expected and I liked it. (On the other hand, my mom didn't like it for exactly that reason.) The action is extremely realistic, sudden and chaotic, and deadly. It's a decent story about a terrorist attack on U.S. civilians in Saudia Arabia and in an unprecedented move, a team of U.S. investigators go in to find the killers. They are hampered by Saudi officials, red tape, and politics, which is realistic but frustrating to watch. In the end it's the killers who attack again and give themselves away. The last thirty minutes or so are non-stop action and it's excellent and the best part of the film for me -- though the trailers don't do a good job giving you the proper feel for the film. The ending is a bit depressing, implying that nothing has been accomplished. My reaction was, if that's the case, why even make the movie?

Pretty good crime drama flick with odd coincidences and mistaken identity themes. Not quite as good as I was led to believe by reviews, but decent enough.

Cool action flick with Jet Li chopping up bad cops in Paris. He's a Chinese cop brought in to help take down a Chinese criminal, but the corrupt French inspector kills the crook and frames Jet with the crime. From then on Jet's on the run, dashing all over Paris and beating up anyone who gets in his way. Good action, excellent fighting, and a decent (though predictable) story. Great fun.

I saw the film a while back and it confused me enough I wanted to read the book. The book's typical annoying Patterson, pretentious and overly dramatic. But a few of the scenes are good, and some of the characters are well done. The casting in the film had always bothered me, but reading the book, I realized it was dead on. As to the "sensational" plot, it was overdone and forced. Can't he write about anything but psychotic killers? My understanding is that genuine psychotics are rare, but he makes it seem like every one of us has one for a neighbor. It gets old after a while, especially with no explanation. Not a badly written book, but one that promises more than it delivers. At least it reads fast. That's one thing I do like about Patterson's stuff.

I wanted to see this again after reading the book recently, and it's better on second viewing. I didn't like it that much the first time -- I thought it was confusing and a bit trivial. There are parts of the book that are much better, but the ending of the film is far better than the book's lame ending. Not bad, but just trimmed and sanitized too much compared to the book.

Interesting film which questions the whole sexual identity thing. A perfectionist woman who has yet to find Mr. Right, ends up falling for a girl. But she's so conservative and unsure about her sexuality that she doesn't want to admit the relationship to her friends or family. Though it tries, there is nothing earthshattering here (Chasing Amy covered similar territory), but the characters are different and the dialog occasionally innovative (Amy was more consistently brilliant). Unfortunately, the film doesn't really enlightened us about anything important and seems more like it's trying to capitalize on gay popularity.

I knew little about this going in -- so little I thought the title was a metaphor. It turns about to be about kids flying kites in Afghanistan (apparently they do that there, though it seems an odd hobby for such a place). While overall this is an excellent movie, I found the beginning confusing: we open with a writer receiving a batch of his first book in the mail and the way it was shot you only caught a glimpse at the title and I must have been halucinating because I could have sworn in one shot it was a copy of The Kite Runner, which made me think the author's character was the author of the movie and that the extended flashback was everything that had happened to that author when he was a kid. Instead, it turns out the story is utter fiction -- but that confusing premise at the beginning weakened the film for me. Why not just show the book clearly so we can see what's going on? Why purposely play coy with the book like that? It was an odd directing decision that hurt an otherwise excellent film. The story is a powerful one of redemption: two boys grow up together in Afghanistan, but apparently one is lower class, the son of the other's family servant (this was also not clearly presented in the film until too late). When the rich boy doesn't rescue the servant boy he resents him for he reminds him of his guilt and he contrives to have the servant boy -- his former "best friend" -- sent away. Later the rich boy and his father must flee the country when the Russians invade and they end up in America, where the boy becomes an author, but he's still haunted by the way he treated his supposed best friend and returns to Afghanistan to make ammends. Some people I was with seemed shocked or horrified by the Afghanistan lifestyle (quite brutal under the Taliban), but I was much more intrigued by the bond of the two boys and felt that should have been explored more in the film as that was the core subject. Still, despite a few flaws, this is an excellent film and I highly recommend it.

I saw this a long time ago but only recently got the DVD when it came out. This is Roman's first film and it's a masterpiece. It's very different from Hollywood productions. The story is unbelievable simple and complicated. There are only three actors in the entire production, a woman and two men. The gorgeous young woman is married to a wealthy older guy and they are going sailing for day and night (a quick 24-hour trip). On the way they meet a young hitchhiker and for reasons we aren't clear about initially, bring him along. Later this makes sense when the woman acuses her husband of bring the boy along just so he can show off and that makes a great deal of psychological sense. On the boat, the young man is clueless and repeatedly humiliated by the older man who's an expert sailor, but the young man has heart though he's not too intelligent (he's young). Of course two men and one woman is asking for trouble and that's exactly what we get. There are all sorts of emotions brewing below the surface: the mysterious relationship between the husband and wife; the relationship between the young man and the older one; the relationship between the boy and the woman. Eventually this leads to the violence we are expecting: the boy is killed by the man. Or is he? There's some question about that initially and soon we're wondering if it's the boy who will kill the old man. Or maybe the woman will kill her husband. Or maybe none of that. The entire film is essentially a setup for a dozen possibilities and I won't reveal the actual outcome, but just say that it's brilliant and very non-Hollywood. The final scene is so telling about the relationship of the husband and wife, and the final frame is amazing, and reminds me of the great short story, "The Lady or the Tiger." Modern film-goers will probably want more action in a movie; in this film nothing happens yet everything does. It's all about what could happen rather than what does. It's one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. Fascinating and you could watch the "harmless" discussions over and over they are so filled with depth and drama and an undercurrent of potential horror.

Surprisingly good film. Yes, it's predictable, and yes it's fun, but it has a few moments of actual decent dialog and an occasional thought. The plot's simple: a peasant boy takes over for a dead knight and becomes the best jouster in the world. My favorite thing about the film was the technique to include modern rock music and certain aspects of modern speech (like a character saying "Wow"). If that was badly or indiscriminately done, it would be terrible, but it works beautifully in this movie, giving us a medieval setting with a modern tone. It's a light comedy with some action and romance, and it works. There are so some nice conceits, like having Geoffrey Chaucer as one of the main characters.

Better than I expected. I'm not big on mob flicks, but this had a different premise as it's about young guys looking to make their mark and move up in the mobster world. They're led by the son of the head dude, who doesn't think his son has what it takes to be in the business. Given his chance with a simple task of retrieving some money, everything goes wrong. The money is accidently lost in a small town, and the guy brings in his friends to track it down. The small town's corrupt sheriff ends up with the money and won't give it back, leading to a climatic gunfight. What I liked about the film was the money trail: that was humorous and reminding me of Elroy Leonard capers like Get Shorty or Quentin Tarantino films. Unfortunately, the money trail was too brief a part of the plot. Once the sheriff gets the money it's down to a mere gunfight. I also thought it was rather absurd that the amount of money we're talking about was a mere $500,000. Supposedly that was going to float the mobster's business and if he didn't get it, he'd be dead. Come on, a half mil? Wouldn't it be like $5 million or something significant? You're gonna bring an army of mobsters to a small town in the middle of nowhere over a half million? I don't know. Not a bad film, but not a great one either. Extremely average, though it has a few nice moments. Generally a waste of a good cast.

The premise felt totally predictable and a retread of countless other "oh I'm pregnant" movies, but it's surprisingly tender and well done, with a realistic and light-hearted approach to a complex and awkward situation. It does have the author's taste for crudity which occasionally goes too far, but most of the time it serves as dramatic contrast for the film's drama, enhancing the serious moments of the film. Nothing too profound, and not even that original, but decently handled with an appealing cast.

Really cool kung fu comedy with fantastic cartoon-like special effects, stylish martial art moves, crazy characters, and a hilarious plot. The story's about a war between the Axe Gang and the people of a slum. In the middle of the conflict is a young man who wants desperately to be a gangster but is hilariously incompetent. As the war escalates, better and better assassins are brought in, each crazier than the next. But all is not as it seems. I won't spoil it by revealing more, just emphasize that this is an awesome film with a great story at its core and it's probably the most fun you'll have at the movies this year.

I loved the concept of this, but it's one of those easily messed up ones and I half-expected it to be disappointing. Instead, I loved it! It's silly and goofy and clever, but never too much of any of them. For instance, the plot is pretty obvious -- a unlikely Kung Fu warrior, a fat panda bear, saves the world -- and most movies would try to complicate that with pointless sub-plots or feeble attempts at a surprise ending. This movie just accepts reality and gives you plenty of other entertainment besides the predictable plot, and thus it's just enjoyable, not annoying. The jokes are a bit, um, heavy on the fatness of the main character, but he's so lovable and doesn't seem to mind and even uses his fatness as a weapon and thus such humor doesn't come across as negative or in bad taste and we feel comfortable laughing when the panda struggles to get up the 1,000-step climb to the Kung Fu headquarters at the top of the mountain. The violence in the film is cartoony and harmless (no one dies or is even injured) so the film is appropriate for youngsters, but there's enough here that adults will find it pleasant. The conclusive moral is terrific as well: what makes you great is belief, not destiny or some secret charm. The film doesn't get much deeper than that, but that's just fine for this kind of movie. Lots of fun and you don't have to be a martial art fan to enjoy it.