This is a really good film, despite the reviewer that made weak points ...
593188
This is a really good film, despite the reviewer that made weak points out of mole hills.  If you're the type of viewer who needs the film to actually scrawl the date and time at the beginning of each scene, this film is not for you.  Time passes, which is why one reviewer complained about the lead's agoraphobia--we see her struggling with it, then "suddenly" cured, then suffering with it again, and all for very good plot-driven reasons and spread over a period of time.

I saw this film clandestinely as a kid.  The film has several gotcha moments where even though I knew what was coming, it still startled me into  jumping--sign of a grade A thriller.  The film has atmosphere--one moment ordinary life is going on, the next the world has become eerie and threatening.

All in all, this film is certainly worth inclusion in your horror/suspense collection.
1422708
This is one of my favorite films from the past couple of years, but I can definitely see where people who don't like it are coming from.  It is a little vague and ambiguous, but for me that adds to the film rather than detracts from it.  There is a great performance from Johansson, and the cinematography is absolutely fantastic (maybe a little kuberick esque).  If you're willing to take a leap into the realm of surrealism then give this a try.
968572
That some people just get waaaay to silly when their chosen film doesn't win an Oscar!
Chicago is a fabulous film, much stronger than Gangs of New York for one big reason for me, I walked out of Gangs wondering why the movie was made. It was beautifully filmed, well acted by Daniel and others certainly, but the movie had a huge cloud of depression running throughout. And when it got to the end it made me feel like MS' message was "Life is pointless, you won't make a difference no matter how hard you try, so why bother?"
It was really a shame becasue it truly had some good moments and Daniel was just superb, I do think he should have gotten the oscar..but oh well.
Now Chicago, ahh Chicago, for a film that is also about a depressing subject like Gangs, the Piano as well as The Hours it left you smiling and humming as you left the theater.
My BF who isn't a big musical fan loved this film and we both just had the time of our lives. Even more so since we saw Gangs on the same day!
Renee is amazing, she isn't a broadway star but she CAN sing and she was lovely and very convincing as Roxie, who ISN'T supposed to be as talented as Thelma.
Catherine Z-J was simply amazing as was Queen Latifah. But who really impressed me was Richard Geer, a lukewarm actor in my opinion and someone I thought was "OK" suddenly lit up the screen and impressed me so much. He obviously worked very hard and was so amusing as Billy Flynn, even if the others hadn't been as strong as they were I think I would have enjoyed this film. I've heard folks who've seen the original stage show say the movie is actual stronger and better as they cleanup a choppy plot and made it flow better for the song transitions.
As for the Moulin Rouge comments, OK the movie was awesome, it also deserved the Oscar but it didn't get it and that has NOTHING to do with why Chicago did! Relax people please....
And I say BRAVO to Chicago, you deserved it!
2974174
Just so we're clear, I'm reviewing the FILM and not the DVD...

Ok, so I've seen Wilder's 1974 film and liked it more than most, but it never really sat comfortably with me as `the film it could have been'.  The material is so ripe and yet the film had this filmy `un-eventfulness' that corroded what could have been absolute perfection.  Like I said, I liked it more than most and yet I still recognize that something was off, despite a killer cast and director.  Then I saw `His Girl Friday' (a film I was unaware was based off the same stage play) and it all clicked.

Hildy NEEDS to be a woman.

It is funny to think that a mere gender change can make all the difference, but the same dialog spouted between ex-lovers makes a much broader impact, and it doesn't hurt that the chemistry created contains a stiffer upper-cut.  Lemmon and Matthau make a great team, don't get me wrong, and they built on that chemistry for years, but there is something about the way that Russell and Grant spar off one another that is otherworldly.

The film centers on Hildy, a newspaper reporter who is reporting to her boss, her ex-husband Walter, with her resignation.  She is quitting the newspaper business and getting married.  Walter isn't going to take this lying down.  Not only is he still infatuated with his ex-wife, but she is his best reporter, and he isn't about to lose her.  So, he manipulates the situation to get her to stay for one last report, and once she's been bitten by the bug she has a very hard time walking away.  As the situation spins out of control thanks to circumstances beyond all control, these two are forced to reevaluate what it is that they want from each other and their lives; and their careers.

I find it baffling that this was ignored entirely by Oscar.  Not only is Rosalind Russell Oscar worthy here, but Grant is also at the top of his game, and the sensationally written dialog certainly deserved an Oscar nomination.  This is one of those great comedies of times past that deserves all the attention it can get.  One of the best!
712132
Though we are all familiar with prejudices in one form or another (honestly, we all have something), I think that the overload of steady prejudicial events in the film might be overwhelming to some viewers (however realistic the events are in different contexts).  What I think this film captures best is the isolation of modern life that we all experience from time to time (or more regularly for others).  I think the people in LA, in general, experience more isolation in their daily lives than in other places in the country (not that we don't experience it in New York City as well - it's just that in NYC, it's in a different form - mostly by choice).  The first time I ever went to LA, I was shocked that at 10 p.m. on a Friday night, the streets were virtually empty, that you absolutely needed a car to get anywhere, that there wasn't much interaction amongst people just walking around on the street in the downtown area.  It was very different to me than what I was used to (and I'm guessing that people from out of New York City might have some opinions about New York too).

Though there is a decent amount of individual redemption in the film, something that struck me (that I haven't seen any other recent reviewer mention) is that the words "I'm sorry" are spoken only three times of the course of the entire film.  Officer Ryan says it twice (once to the HMO lady - actually he says he apologizes, not technically "I'm sorry" in that instance - because he needs something from her and once for saying the f-word while trying to pull Thandie Newton's character out of the burning SUV).  The only other time is when Thandie Newton's character says it to her husband for her reaction to his behavior (or lack of) while they are being harassed and molested by Officer Ryan.  From a writing standpoint, I thought that it was really insightful and smart to show redemption in ways that don't require words like "I'm sorry."  Though many people would choose the burning car scene as the most powerful and emotionally redemptive scene, for me, there are two other scenes that recognize redemption in a more intimate, less public format (because I think that true redemption comes from within).  In one scene, Sandra Bullock's character tells her maid she's the best friend she has.  And in another, Officer Ryan takes care of his very ill father (the scene where he kisses his father on the head).

As for the burning SUV scene, I was impressed mostly by the how the scene looked - how realistic the sun setting in the west looked in the background and its affect on the viewer.  For me, the sunset reflecting off of the dusty windshield reminded me of early morning driving east and the sun hitting the glass a certain way and no matter what you do - visor, sunglasses - you can't fight it.  There's this hazy blur that takes over at sunrise and sunset and that, combined with the orange of the flames and the subtly sun-silhouetted (and terrified) Thandie Newton gives a very authentic feel to the scene.  Not to mention that the light also makes Officer Ryan look a lot more severe and intense than he appears in any other scene in the film.  You can see every line in his face, every detail - not many actors would do that - it's visually remarkable.

To end, this is a noteworthy film with some uncomfortable observations about modern life.  Might make you look within a bit too.
1147939
This film gets excellent treatment in this DVD, despite the quibbles one might have over over-acadamized touches in some of the essay/commentary material, but I suppose that only goes to prove the film's impact and staying power.  Lots of interesting extras, well worth the investment, especially for Sam fans.
I have a mixed reaction to the voice-over commentary, much of which is interesting, some of which I find debatable.  I take exception to the idea that David is in fact the "heavy", though his passive-aggressive conduct is note-worthy.  Peckinpah may indeed have originated this notion, but he was known to be argumentative, and not always the most trustworthy interpreter of his own films (Major Dundee as Moby Dick in the desert?).
I think he may have been trying to down-play the idea of David as home-defending hero, which he knew would be a reaction, and was mainly planting the idea that the character wasn't all that admirable. I mean, if David's the heavy, who's the protagonist?
A quick glance at many of the non-academic reactions to the film's climactic sequence should give a clue as to whom the audience at least wants to root for. Maybe we're meant to be completely repulsed, and not pull for anyone in the final melee, but that's tough to do; I don't believe the case can be made that the local toughs are the good guys, anyway.
David Sumner is definitely the film's protagonist, and rather like Alex in the other infamously violent film released the same year, A Clockwork Orange, he attracts audience sympathy despite his flaws. The director needs for the audience to identify with someone in his story, while setting them up to question what that identification means.
Also, the voice-over guy is locked into a woman-good, man-bad mindset, at least in regard to the Amy and David couple.  According to the commentator, David is completely cold, uncaring, vicious, selfish, and other bad stuff, while Amy is his noble, all-virtuous victim.  Not only does this contradict the usual Peckinpah-as-misogynist stuff available in the "Man of Iron" documentary, but it goes against the director's running theme of violence and complicity.  He completely ignores Amy's role in pushing David into a more macho, violent stance - he only seems interested in finding ways to denigrate the David character, and you can hear his argument running out of steam toward the end.
As for "Man of Iron" - I had seen it broadcast some years ago, and recall being somewhat disappointed, though I appreciated it more on seeing it again.  It is rather rambling, with some I think dubious interiew subjects - the screenwriter Alan Sharp for instance, who apparently only worked on one picture with Peckinpah, which he seemed ashamed of, and otherwise didn't seem to really know the man or think too much of his work.  The documentary tends to go off on tangents, like the obligatory woman-hating and brutal-behaviour accusations, which go mostly unsupported here.  On the other hand, Kristofferson, Coburn, R.G. Armstrong, L.Q. Jones and others offer lots of interesting incidents and insights, and make it overall a valuable, touching look at the maverick filmmaker.
501448
There might be a few spoilers here. Just saying.

 I saw "The Butler" last night. A good, very ambitious, but flawed film, definitely worth seeing for its emotional overview of the Civil Rights struggle of the '60's and '70's (and continuing into the '80's), and the great performances by Forest Whitaker as Cecil Gaines and Oprah Winfrey as his wife, who I think shared a great chemistry. The film had some very good, very moving moments--it was based, loosely, on the life of Eugene Allen, who served as a waiter and eventually as the chief butler to the President from 1952 until 1986. I think the film would have been better served had it followed his life a bit more closely. Cecil Gaines' son becomes an almost Forrest Gumpian/Tom Joadian character who manages to coincidentally find himself somehow thrust smack dab into the middle of just about ever major turning point in the Civil Rights movement--he's at the lunch counter in Woolworth's, he's beaten as a Freedom Rider, he just happens to be there when Dr. King is assassinated, he becomes a Black Panther--you name it, ma, and he's there. It's an effective yet unsubtle plot device, I suppose, to give an overview of history, and the events that are portrayed are done so in an effective manner and are a powerful testament to the fundamental courage of those involved in the Civil Rights Movement and the utter hell they went through just to be treated like human beings, but it's too much to be happening to one person when so many individuals were involved. It's just a bit contrived for a serious drama. Also, I found the casting of most of the Presidents to be, well, less than stellar, especially Johnson and Nixon, although the image of LBJ carrying on intense conversations with his staff while sitting on the toilet with the door open was hilarious, because, well, he really did that. I also suppose I have a bit of an issue with the official title of the film: "Lee Daniel's The Butler". Really? Could there be a bit of an ego issue here? Even Orson Wells didn't go with "Orson Wells' Citizen Kane", and he had an ego that could change the tidal patterns. Everyone knows who directed the film, the work can speak for itself. All in all, though, the film was interesting, well worth watching, and at times a very powerful portrayal of the Civil Rights movement, with a somewhat mixed bag of performances, although Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey were excellent.  A very good film, but could have been better.
3174954
I'm a fan of Amazon reviews because you find regular people not in the critic business often writing more perceptive ideas about a book or film or whatever than a lot of critics do. I find that in the responses here to one of the greatest and most difficult mainstream movies ever made, Persona. I want to add a few elements. First, that most of Bergman's films are not hard to follow at all in terms of narration, as this one is. Second, that this is his response to the tradition of experimental film as it existed from the 40s to the 60s (and I guess no longer exists). Third, that as a director who had established himself on the international stage it took tremendous guts to make a film this obscure and intense, and he never quite did it again (though came close in Cries and Whispers).  As Bergman admitted, he was obsessed with reviews and basically wanted everybody to like his stuff, yet over and over he took tremendous chances, never more than with Persona. I taught this film for 25 years in a college class, partly because I wanted to understand it better myself. I'll never forget the first time I saw it, staggering out of a barn showing in the Berkshires with no idea what I'd seen, but a burning desire to comprehend it. Really, some people here have grasped it pretty well, some on a single viewing. I've seen it eight or ten times. Let me add a few things. First, Elizabeth's muteness is a fairly realistic portrait of a nervous breakdown. I had a mother-in-law who did the same thing, went limp. Second, the opening is what I call the "mad montage." It first of all tells us that this is a film, and you can put any piece of film together with any other. Second, the montage kind of makes us crazy in preparation for a film about two women breaking down each in her own way. Third, you can take in the movie from several angles: the psychological, as a study of breakdown and obsession and losing identity; as a study of art and artists: for Alma, Elizabeth as an actress is a kind of goddess, and she projects her own fantasies on her; third, it is a statement about film itself, at once a distortion and an illumination of reality: one of the central images, from the very first shot, is of illumination. As Picasso said, art is a lie that shows us the truth. In movies Persona is a demonstration that  truth. Among the most disturbing aspects of Persona is that this work of fiction includes things that are terribly true: the monk burning in Vietnam, the Jewish boy rounded up by the Gestapo. So there's another theme for you: what is the illuminating lie of art, and what is the truth? Plus, if you strip away all the masks, who are you? As a practical matter: the celebrated "mirror scene" near the end actually tells you what you need to know about Elizabeth, her desperate and failed attempt to escape from who she is, from all the lies.
3965276
Firstly, what a great film - finally available on DVD. Well worth getting even though you should please note the following:

There appears to be an entire 'reel' that has undergone a problem with transfer towards the end - there appears to be 'rain' on film (indoor scenes, too) and there are about three places during the film where the colour flickers momentarily.

I mention this simply to assure people who buy it that the error will probably be noticeable but won't detract from the film. It appears to be a fault of the transfer and not of the DVD itself.
1536592
This film won numerous awards and deservedly so. I will not add to the clutter except to say rent it (available on Netflix streaming) and watch it alone if you are a tad more sensitive then a car crash fan. I gave this film 4 stars a decade ago. I brought my opinion up to four and a half stars. Frequently my opinions slip years later, but this is an exception for an exceptional film.
669438
A very good effort by all concerned.

Any film based (however loosely)on true events and real people will run into challenges and Defiance is no different. It would not be surprising to learn that the real Bielskis were not quite as noble and altruistic as they come to be portrayed here; but that is not really the point of a 2 hour movie.

I particulalry enjoyed the scenes of day to day living in the forest. Craig and the rest of the cast were convincing. Craig's character, Tuvia was often faced with extremely hard choices/moral dilemmas and his reactions were credible, as was his indecision in the marshes when the young brother steps into the breech in his stead. And generally, if you had not read their story the narrative was tense.

One beef I had was the fact that the most nervous member of the group was always on guard duty at camp!  For that task, you'd place your most trusted guys, not the most skittish. Also, there would have been other safety rules-eliminating wood smoke by day, particulalry when Germans were expected nearby, keeping noise down etc. At times the camp seemed a bit to free and loose, given the potential for discovery.

Still, as a WW2 movie fan, I'd say this was one of the better efforts I have seen and is well worth watching.
383694
Its a shame that many reviewers don't see the sublime social commentary or inate poetry of this film, but I do understand why many are turned off by it.  This is an intellectual war film, and does not have the same feel of a "Saving Private Ryan" or a "Black Hawk Down" (which are both great films, and in my opinion slightly better than this one).  That being said, this film is  very well done...but if you don't appreciate the art of it you will find it lacking. Especially if you expected a "Private Ryan" experiance set in the Pacific Theater of WW2.
I give it 4 stars, simply because I don't consider it a "masterpiece" as some have stated. Some of the narration is contrived and cliche, something you'd expect to hear in a sophomore level creative writing course. Maybe this was intentional, as the ages of the soldiers would be around that age. I personally tend to think the writer simply ran out of inspiration.  Even so, this film is better than most. Worth a purchase? I'd rent it first...
723842
The film is well made for the most part and it captures most of the action leading up to the trial of the West Memphis Three nicely.  I understand the choice of music by Metallica because that is what the defendents  listened to, but the areas in the film where it is employed feels misplaced and really jarring.  The question of the knife being sent and accepted by the filmmakers and then turned over to police feels undeveloped and somewhat shady.  Why didn't the filmmakers want to interview themselves on this situation that they found themselves in?  This whole thing made them part of the story now--in a very provocative way.  You know, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  I found the film a good companion piece to the book, though, "Devil's Knot," which seems to go much, much deeper into he story.  While the film was very good and it brought all the players and events into view, it doesn't go very much beneath the surface of this controversial murder case.  My big question: why didn't the defendants at any point just jump up and just scream, "We are innocent...we didn't do this!"  It's a good question, no?  Because while they may have been innocent, and I think that they are, they sure look and act pretty guilty in the film. Very strange case, indeed.
1225882
I don't undersand why this movie was mutilated so badly by the critics...it's not a bad movie!  I'm not saying that it is perfect.  In fact I'm not even saying its great, but it is still more intelligent and interesting than most of the stuff that's out there nowadays.  I'm going to try to explain the levels at which this movie works well and the levels at which it fails.
First off, it fails as a love story.  It tries to develop the forbidden love relationship between Crowe and Ryan but falls flat in that regard.  Their feelings for one another are never truly portrayed in depth enough to make an effective love story.  And personally I find it ridiculous that they could have Meg Ryan's character so distressed and preoccupied with saving her beloved husband who is in dire jeopardy while at the same time falling for Russell Crowe.  Can you imagine having the state of mind and desire to cheat on your spouse when he/she is being held hostage by terrorists and you are the only person who can do anything to get him/her back safely?  Its possible I guess, but it seems unlikely.  But this is the only major criticism I have of this movie.  Now, let me tell you why its good!  First of all, it gives a very interesting and accurate portrayal of the turbulent nature of certain areas in the world today.  It gives the viewer a very up close taste of third world terrorism and violence.  What "Traffic" did to portray the North American narcotics trade, "Proof of Life" does for Kidnap & Ransom terrorism.  This is one of those films I think people should see if for nothing else, then as an informative portrayal of some of the uglier aspects of our world as it is today.  It even takes a bit of time to explain that much of the increased corruption and instability is a result of the Cold War ending.  I found these aspects of the film very interesting.  David Morse's desperate situation as the terrorists' hostage is portrayed very well.  Although this film isn't intended as a pure action movie at all, it culminates in a high risk covert rescue mission led in by Russell Crowe once it becomes obvious that all other options to save Morse's life are gone.  And this was definitely my favorite part of the movie!  From a military perspective, the planning, insertion and tactical execution of a covert operation is one of the best, most accurate portrayals I've seen in a modern film.  If you find this kind of thing interesting, you will really appreciate the attention to detail in "Proof of Life".  When it gets down to it, this film isn't going to please everybody.  If you want to see a dramatic love story, this isn't going to do it for you.  If you want to see a Hollywood rock n'roll action flick, this isn't going to do it for you.  But if the subject matter interests you, or if you are a fan of Tom Clancy type real world fiction, you won't be disappointed.
899421
While I didn't respond quite as strongly to this as to Ms. Arnold's amazing first feature `Red Road',
this is still very strong film making. Unlike `Red Road', the subject has been covered before - a damaged,
angry neglected teenager, acting out against the world, getting in over her head sexually, behaving in ways that
even she would be hard pressed to explain. But if the general terrain is a familiar, the sense of rage and
power is one we rarely see given to a young female character, and - for the most part - there's a sense of raw
honesty and truth that eludes the vast majority of films about teens.

Mild spoilers ahead.

For every moment that the film flirts with clich (e.g. the good boyfriend/bad boyfriend choice - more subtle than
usual here, but still a little too neat), there are others that are original, complex and unique. I just wish the
ending didn't feel like a forced hopeful note, that a few of the symbols along the way (e.g. the White Horse)
weren't so on the nose, and that Katie Jarvis, marvelous most of the time in the lead, but a non-pro, had a
couple more colors and nuances in her performance. But none of those drawbacks, while substantive, keep
this from being an important film by an important young filmmaker.
3137151
3  stars

I had this DVD sitting around for about a year before I got around to starting it. The Amazon reviews weren't exactly good and I was in no rush to watch it (got the DVD for free).

Having been involved in some low budget film-making in New York with Youtube director Frank Stamm, I started this film last night (and will probably finish it this weekend) and I wanted to post a review to counter the many negative reviews on Amazon. For a low budget film, it's actually pretty good.

What the film is not: It's not a fast-paced intense horror film, so the box art is a little misleading.

What the film is: It's a low-budget film made with some care. In terms of quality it reminded me of some of the Asian soap operas my wife watches (which are shot in actual rooms rather than on sets): you can see that there wasn't a huge budget, and it runs a little slow, but the quality is decent enough that you can keep watching pretty easily.

Most of the primary actors have some talent. The couple actors who are horribly stiff thankfully have had very small parts in the film.  The main character is a woman (Christine Charters?) and the actress who plays her is great. She's a capable actress, she's pretty, and she's seen in some revealing outfits.

I could recommend buying this film used, but more for people who like independent film than horror movie fans. The film is sort of like a low-budget soap opera with horror elements.
1130943
I really liked this movie. The acting was great, the visuals were amazing. I'm not sure why there are reviewers that are so angry about this film. Don't let them shy you away from watching it, it's definitely worth a look.