Lagniappe

Only 1000 words? Oh dear. So much for the five page essay.

First, let me be up front - I LOVED FOTR! It certainly would be included on a list of my PERSONAL top ten. Whether it should be listed as one of the top movies of all time is a question I will address a later.

Are there flaws in this film? Yes. As with all films, there were moments that fell short of perfection. However, one must be careful to separate matters of personal taste from actual shortcomings with the movie.

There were badly edited moments. There were drawn out and/or repetitive slow motion scenes. And I can understand those who felt this movie was an endless, monster infested, three hour chase scene - part of the difficulty lies in trying to condense hundreds of pages of detailed text and a time frame of years into one movie. Had Peter Jackson been able to include all he wanted, this film would have been far longer than three hours. Some things had to be sacrificed, and much of what was lost were the restful pauses and conversations that would have lessened the frantic pace and helped define character relationships.

That having been said, I think Jackson still managed to do an excellent job of establishing the characters within the parameters he was allowed. Some reviewers felt that the film lacked characterization. However, during one's initial viewing, there is so much occurring, it is easy to miss the subtle glances and facial expressions that mark much of the character interaction in this film. This is a movie that should be seen multiple times in order to get the full impact. Perhaps there is merit in the idea that a movie should convey its entire message in one viewing, but even I had trouble telling some of the characters apart the first time, and this from someone who *read* the book!

There seems to be controversy over whether LOTR deserves to be a top rated film. Admittedly, I have never studied film and would not know a gaffer from a gopher if it bit me – but in this I am not unlike MOST of those who contribute to the IMDb top 250 Movies of All Time. We vote based upon mainstream films we enjoy. However, as taste varies, so will those films that reach us at that most elemental level. Personally, I go to the cinema looking for movies that will show me new vistas, open new worlds and appeal to my active imagination and creativity. The films I enjoy run the gamut from westerns, to comedies, to quirky offbeat flicks that defy classification. Some of `good' films…some are not so good. But they all generally share two of the elements that appeal most to me, characters to whom I could relate and a setting that tickled my imagination. LOTR had both.

I have seen many of the movies that others considered `the best.' Some are favorites of mine, but others I found exceedingly tedious. Does this mean I think they are bad films? No. Do I purposely go out of my way to give them a 1 in order to lower their ratings? Of course not! I am not so egotistical as to assume that, just because I do not fully appreciate a film, it must be horrible.

Perhaps those who protests the presence of LOTR as a top film do not understand that `fantasy' fans have been waiting for a movie like this for years! Any given year usually has a least a couple quality dramas, but really well crafted fantasies are a rarity. Most fantasy movies are generally targeted at children, or never rise above the level of your typical B-grade popcorn flick. Not so with LOTR. Here is a film, part of a larger epic, which is made for adults. It is dark and far more complex than some, `silly little movie filled with fairies and wizards.' Furthermore, it garnered critical acclaim, including 13 Oscar nominations, of which it won four. Its success can be seen as vindication that fantasy is indeed a viable genre, and can be well executed by someone who really cares.

So you see, LOTR is more than a `movie' to most of us – it is a step towards legitimacy for a genre we love. Thus we are passionate about its success. Of course, the fantasy genre will not appeal to everyone, and if someone genuinely dislikes this film for legitimate reasons, that is valid. However, I have read more than one review for LOTR where someone blatantly bragged that they gave the film a lower rating that they really felt it deserved because they either don't like the fact it is so successful or they don't like the fans. This says a great deal more about the reviewers' own prejudices than it does about the movie.

Which brings me to my final comment. I do not understand WHY some of those who did not like the movie feel obliged to insult those who did. Calling the movie a `geek-fest' or referring to its fans as `nerds' is totally unnecessary and does not add any weight to your opinion. In fact, it only makes those who resort to such tactics appear foolish and petty. Comments about `fanboys who have no lives, no girlfriends and live in their parent's basement' are not clever. There are tired old cliches that those of us who enjoy fantasy and sci-fi had been listening to for years I suspect that some of the nay-sayers actually enjoyed the film, but are so fearful of being labeled a `nerd' that they feel the need to assert their `superiority' by tearing others down – humanity at its worst.

In the final analysis, this film will appeal to many. Others will dislike it. This is true of any film. My recommendation is that you see it and make up your own mind.

I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.

I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'

Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!

Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.

Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.

First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.

I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.

Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.

This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.

Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.

By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'

Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'

"The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" is not a show ruled by conventions. It strays far from the formulaic scripts that seem to dominate network television. After all, when was the last time you saw a show that dealt with rocket-powered Victorian vampires, mechanical gunslingers, time travel and the Holy Grail? Is it science fiction? Is it fantasy? Is it action/adventure? Is it historical drama? Is it camp? All of the above? I don't know. What I do know is that it is refreshingly different.

Granted, Jules Verne ain't Shakespeare, and the first few episodes had more than a fair share of "cringe" and "wince" moments. However, the interesting plots, complex characters and fantastical gadgets kept me coming back. Thank goodness, as the show has done nothing but improve. The characters (and actors) really seem to be hitting their stride. What a combination: The angst-ridden Phileas Fogg; his daring, dynamic secret-agent cousin, Rebecca; the erratic genius/ funnyman, Passepartout and the young, idealistic and accident-prone, Jules Verne. Add escapades all over the globe (and through time) and you've got endless possibilities for adventure!

Furthermore, in a medium which too often relies on gratuitous violence and vulgar language for cheap thrills, "Jules Verne" is one television show the whole family can watch and enjoy without having to worry about R-rated content.

So, if you are seeking something outside the mainstream, something alternately brilliant and cheesy, something both humorous and tragic, something clever, cryptic and occasionally outrageous, this may be it!

This show more than deserves a second season… and a third… and a forth…

Keep the Aurora Flying!