Ian-104

I agree wholeheartedly with Roger Ebert - "The Cell" is one of the best films of 2000. It is beautifully disgusting and disgustingly beautiful all at once. Tarsem has created a movie which realize an non-typical fear: having your body follow your mind. As is mentioned in the film, the body can be tricked by the mind into believing what it sees is real - a problem tackled with grace and an immediate solution here.

Despite the beautiful visuals, the acting is minimal. And, actually, I mean that in a good way. The dialogue is sparse - the visuals are the obvious stars. But the spurts of dialogue are immensely important. They frame the story, accentuate the finer points such as the different types of schizophrenia affecting Carl and Edward. (as an aside on the subplot with Edward - I would've loved to have seen his parents reaction after Catherine went into Carl's mind.)

The film has numerous scenes which will no doubt become infamous in years to come: D'Onofrio's Carl Stargher marching down the steps from his throne as his curtains/cape flows behind him; Stargher hanging above the body of a victim; King Stargher playing another character's intestine as if it was a music box; Lopez's flashy dominatrix uniform as well as her gorgeous "imitation" of the Virgin Mary (which, quite honestly, I don't see what all the fuss was about - the scene in which this appears is not graphic and is probably one of the calmest in the film.)

All-in-all, I was stunned. This is by-far (in my opinion) the best film out so far this year. If the Academy overlooks this film (in the effects department anyway) come February, I will incredibly shocked.

Kudos to Jennifer Lopez, Vincent D'Onofrio, Vince Vaughn and Tarsem Singh for an intense experience.

I just watched this movie on STARZ! a little while ago and, while it isn't a masterpiece, it was pretty refreshing...and it was well-made. It's got a great cast of characters---namely the "golden" actors and actresses that haven't really gotten the respect or screen time they deserve in their later years. Actors and actresses like Shirley Jones, Charlton Heston, Barbara Bain, Harvey Korman, Carroll O'Connor, Mike Connors and Shelley Winters. Plus, it's got a nice little cast of younger actors including Christopher Lambert in the title role, Crystal Bernard, Taylor Nichols and Mykelti Williamson.

The basic premise of the film was a bit shady to me at first. I mean, out of nowhere a young man---who is apparently a little slow in the mind---shows up at a retirement home (he was sent by his "Aunt Edna") and instantly becomes the best friend of everyone, especially Addison (Charlton Heston), who we learn was a professor of philosophy at a university for 22 years. I loved Charlton's role in this movie. It was nice to see him doing something calm and fun for once. Another rather amusing character is Leo, played by Carroll O'Connor, who is constantly cracking jokes and poking fun at all of his "friends." A chef before he was admitted to the home, he always has something to say about the food. This character was very reminiscent of Connor's role as Archie Bunker on "All In The Family" and it's a welcome return in my opinion. Shirley Jones and Shelley Winters were terrific, Shirley as a friendly elderly woman who is loved by Addison, Shelley as the mean old broad who co-operates the Lakeview Retirement Home with her doctor son, Richard, played by Taylor Nichols. Crystal Bernard plays Jean, a sweet nurse who instantly takes a liking to Gideon, who is played by Christopher Lambert. This was a real change of pace for Christopher, who is mainly known for movies like "Highlander" and "Mortal Kombat." I mean, he actually ACTS in this movie. Something I didn't know he could do. After all those nonsense action films, you'd think he'd have forgotten how to act. But, apparently, he's been keeping it tucked away. He is terrific as Gideon. I'm tempted to call it Oscar-caliber work only I know he'll never get nominated because he is Christopher Lambert. Mike Connors is a laugh as a sweet old former boxer who is trying to find a way to stand up for himself. Mykelti Williamson shines as a handy man who makes friends with Gideon and discovers one of his secrets---he can't read. Harvey Korman also brings a nice little touch to the film with his brief appearances where he asks if the phone calls that are received are for him. The final phone call is especially funny. However, my personal favorite was Barbara Bain as Sarah. After all these years, Bain has remained as beautiful as ever and can still act with the best of 'em. She was wonderful to watch onscreen.

Now, I must applaud Claudia Hoover, the director of the film, for her...bravery...in making such a movie. I don't know if this is her first attempt at filmmaking or not but either way it's a fine piece of work. You get a feel for the characters and you feel for the characters. While there were a few botched places here and there in the beginning, it quickly melded together into a delightful, funny, sweet, romantic and tearjerking film that will keep you wondering just what it was about Gideon that made him so special. Definitely check this out.

This film was not as horrible as everyone said it was. Maybe if you're a big Hitchcock freak, you'd be disappointed. Completely understandable. However, for those of us who had never seen the original, this was a pretty fair intro to it. I actually just watched the original last night on Encore and, personally, found it rather boring for the 40 minutes after the death of Marion Crane. I mean, nothing really happens except Arbogast getting slashed and falling down the stairs. Otherwise, there ain't much to it.

I'll be the first to admit the film is a classic but I'm not afraid to criticize it simply because it's been touted as the best horror film of all time or because it's Hitchcock. It's definitely ONE of the best horror films but I wouldn't go so far as the best. And I, truthfully, had the same problem with the new one. While I thoroughly enjoyed, that 40 minute period is just straight up boring.

I must say that I enjoyed both versions equally and I didn't really see a problem with a remake. It's just a movie, if you don't like the idea of it, don't watch it. Simple.

Now for some of the aspects and some miscellaneous comments: For those of you out there who are upset about the butt shot after Anne Heche keels over in the shower...it was originally in the 1960 version. Hitchcock got the shot but never put it in because he knew it would most likely be rejected. So, all Van Sant did was simply fill in what couldn't be shown 38 years ago.

No harm in that. As for the masturbation scene...well, I don't know what to tell you about that. It was freaky but most of the people in the theater I went to started laughing at that scene. So, it really didn't bother me. The whole supposed lesbian thing with Julianne Moore's character I never quite picked up...was she supposed to be a lesbian? I heard she was but never saw an indicator...who knows?

My basic point is this: It's a remake. Whoopee. The only reason it's being so harshly criticized is because people simply can't believe it was remade SHOT-FOR-SHOT (mostly). So maybe Van Sant shouldn't have done it almost identical to the original. But I don't see it as a big deal, quite personally. It's not a masterpiece but (in my opinion) neither was the original. Hitch made much better movies than this, among them "The Birds," "Frenzy," "Topaz," "Rope," etc., etc....this is just another remake in my opinion. So, basically, just be a little less picky if you watch this and you're a huge fan of the original.