davidbeoulve Reviews

Sin City (2005)

Visually, artistically evocative with an engaging storyline.

[9/10 · 2 April 2005]

You will hear that Sin City is violent, bloody, and full of sex - the latter isn't entirely true. What makes the movie excellent is its superb story lines, acting and artistic deliverance to the audience.

Sin City's artistry hearkens back to film noir and dark comic books. Its characters offer a gritty, stylized look that will remind you of Pulp Fiction, without seeming as real.

The movie features several stories whose characters intersect briefly with each other, mostly by passing by each other in a single bar, and moving on with their tales. Each character's portrait is well done, and gives you a solid feel for them. There are some real heroes, good guys in this movie, though several are "anti-heroes" they are the good guys, looking out for others in this rotten, dark city-scape. Bruce Willis' character is the only straight arrow in the bunch.

The violence isn't gratuitous because of the black and white delivery. Some truly graphic scenes of flesh rending are shown with white silhouettes on a black background. The violence is inventive, and many times the audience gasped, laughed, or made other noises. In one scene I found myself laughing out loud with the rest of them.

The movie is truly engaging.

Without giving spoilers, it is something you need to see to understand. The story is deep enough, and the acting good enough, to merit viewing without knowing much else.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Terminator 3: Least of the 3. No Spoilers.

[10 August 2003]

While the movie was not bad by any stretch of the imagination, it was not a James Cameron film, and therefore did not have the same flow as his works, which include the last two Terminator movies.

The story follows its natural progression in the trilogy quite well, though many people may find its inevitable turns unsettling. It does leave itself open for more in the series.

Arnold looked more buff, more ripped and in better shape than he did in the second movie. He did a good job, marred only by the fact that he did not have James Cameron directing.

The movie is worth seeing, and even worth owning. It is not, however, perfect nor will it go town into the movie annals of notable works.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

The worst in the series of excellent "Speghetti Westerns"

[4/10 · 23 April 2003]

This movie, unlike the two previous ("A Fist Full of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More"), is borish, long, contrived, and for once, the "Man without a Name" is anything but a good guy. In this movie he's a liar, a thief and is more interested in money; compare this to the first movie where he is more of a quiet hero who ends up giving his money away to a girl, her husband and son and leaves town with nothing more than he came in with (although the town is cleaned up) and the second where, although less of a benefactor, he helps take down a vicious madman.

The story is a rampant anti-war film made in 1966, right when the war in Vietnam was really heating up. The last two movies did not make themselves allegories (which rarely hold up as good classics over time) but rather well crafted short stories made into movies.

Do yourself a favor and skip "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". It's one of those things where, until you see the movie, you won't realize how much worse the dialogue, pace and tempo is.

Spirited Away (2001)

A deep moralistic tale created by an imagination the likes of which I have never seen...

[10/10 · 31 October 2002]

Its in English, excellent dubbing, one of the best I've seen. It's a really magical movie, such as Field of Dreams (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0097351). It's about morality, good and evil, greed and love, loyalty and distrust.

I'm not sure that I've seen any movie put so many deep moral issues into a single story so successfully. For the videophiles, the animation is the best I have seen of any Anime. If this is what they are putting out in Japan now, we are so behind the times now in the U.S. It was more fluid than Princess Mononoke (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119698).

Don't read about the story behind the film, at all. You owe yourself the experience of following the protaganists' exploration, fear, and wonder.

Just go see it, and rest assured, as voted by many IMDB users, this film is worth watching.

The Dark Crystal (1982)

Still a great fantasy tale

[10/10 · 27 April 2002]

The Dark Crystal holds well against the test of time. It has been only recently that movies that take place in a completely different fantasy world ("The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring") have become more feasible. Still, the Dark Crystal stands as an excellent tale of good versus evil.

Jim Henson and crew spent much to much time creating this movie, and the depth of their effort shows. However, some adults might find the story simplistic, and it is in the same manner that Labyrinth is. However, like Labyrinth, Dark Crystal succeeds in taking you to another place and immersing you in another world.

If you are a viewer interested in fantasy worlds, Dark Crystal will please you well. If you haven't seen it in years, get the DVD. It has a wonderful "making of" section, deleted funeral scenes, and isolated musical score.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

It's about human nature, set in a fantastic story...

[10/10 · 7 January 2002]

I have never read J.R.R. Tolkien's books, but it's obvious from watching the Lord of the Rings that the movie attempts to put everything it can from the book onto the big screen, and it works.

The Lord of the Rings is really about the nature of humanity. Tolkien breaks up human nature into four races, the Elves, who represent our most noble aspects and possibility of quiet greatness, the Dwarves, who represent our baser instincts, our drive and courage, Humans, who represent our flaws and potential, and finally the Hobbits, who represent our innocent and communal nature.

From there, Tolkien erects this fantastic world in which to set his story, which is excellently portrayed in the movie not by narrative history, but in live-action scenes with backdrops never to be seen again in the entire movie, just to retell history, or visit a certain city along the journey of the main characters.

The shere breadth of the film is incredible. Tolkien didn't write his book with the limitations of film and budget in mind, so he crafted incredibly diverse realms, and these are beautifully portrayed in the movie.

Ian McKellen brings his presence and experience to bear, and indeed all of the actors do a good job at their assigned roles. Not just adequate, but good.

The bottom line is that the movie is done well, perhaps faithfully, and certainly worth viewing or purchasing on DVD in its own right. Those afraid to see it for "spoiling the book" are making a mistake. Even if the movie isn't exactly like the book (and what movie can be?), it's the best movie I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. Better than Gladiator.

It's a fantastic tale, you'll enjoy it.