Tom-275
Joined Sep 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews20
Tom-275's rating
Noting criticisms of this here, I've seen "wooden acting" and "slow pace" mentioned a number of times. Granted. It wasn't perfect, by any means.
However, I've watched the whole thing three times, and it seems to get better every time. Oddly, this was my reaction to the novel "Dune" also; I didn't particularly like it the first time, got into it the second and third times I read it until I appreciated it for what it was - a classic. This mini-series did its best to treat the book seriously, much better than the wretched Lynch 1984 version. (How anyone could like that one is beyond me. But, I guess, if you did somehow manage to like it, you won't like this one; too serious for you.)
I've never criticised any movie for not religiously following the book; you can't, frankly, especially if the book is long and intricate and written well before the movie. So, this one deviates at times, but not disastrously so. The "weirding" effect in this one was, frankly, "weird," and I didn't particularly like it. This one also toned down the "female vs male" paradigm, probably for PC reasons more than anything else. I've seen criticism of this movie for its "stereotypes" in this regard, however, and they are not justified. (As if all gender roles have to be compliant with current PC-esque attitudes toward gender equality, which have often given us "fem-male" testosterone-driven freaks as "role models," particularly in sci-fi.
The best thing this one does is portray how Paul becomes the Messiah, and how Jessica used the Fremen's superstitions to create it. The Harkonnens were much better than in Lynch's version; yes, their "grossness" comes across strong on screen, but remember they were gross in the book also. TV and film are visual mediums, so the base grossness comes across much easier and faster. Still, the Baron was dangerous in this one, unlike the freak in the Lynch version.
Watch this one, give it a chance. It captures the spirit of the book better than any effort yet.
However, I've watched the whole thing three times, and it seems to get better every time. Oddly, this was my reaction to the novel "Dune" also; I didn't particularly like it the first time, got into it the second and third times I read it until I appreciated it for what it was - a classic. This mini-series did its best to treat the book seriously, much better than the wretched Lynch 1984 version. (How anyone could like that one is beyond me. But, I guess, if you did somehow manage to like it, you won't like this one; too serious for you.)
I've never criticised any movie for not religiously following the book; you can't, frankly, especially if the book is long and intricate and written well before the movie. So, this one deviates at times, but not disastrously so. The "weirding" effect in this one was, frankly, "weird," and I didn't particularly like it. This one also toned down the "female vs male" paradigm, probably for PC reasons more than anything else. I've seen criticism of this movie for its "stereotypes" in this regard, however, and they are not justified. (As if all gender roles have to be compliant with current PC-esque attitudes toward gender equality, which have often given us "fem-male" testosterone-driven freaks as "role models," particularly in sci-fi.
The best thing this one does is portray how Paul becomes the Messiah, and how Jessica used the Fremen's superstitions to create it. The Harkonnens were much better than in Lynch's version; yes, their "grossness" comes across strong on screen, but remember they were gross in the book also. TV and film are visual mediums, so the base grossness comes across much easier and faster. Still, the Baron was dangerous in this one, unlike the freak in the Lynch version.
Watch this one, give it a chance. It captures the spirit of the book better than any effort yet.
Hollow Man's big weakness is the ending; the final 20-25 minutes of the movie turns into one more lame "he's dead - no he's not!" routine that anyone who's ever seen a slasher film has seen before.
Hollow Man does have it's strong suits though. Two things it does particularly well are the invisible effects and it's willingness to take on gritty subject matter. This is a Verhoeven film after all, so I guess the second point shouldn't be a surprise. The question of what an invisible man would do with his new-found power goes all the way back to Plato and the Ring of Gyges. Verhoeven's answer is -- rape, violence and murder. This is a turn off for some people, who criticize the subject matter as being beneath contempt. Two reasons why I think this is an invalid criticism of this film: 1) For all it's money, this is a B-movie concept, with all the gratuitous subject matter that comes with it, and 2) Real-life experiences when societal norms break down indicate that behaviors such as rape and murder escalate greatly, so the Bacon character's behavior, while often over the top, isn't all that unbelievable. Without the restraint of society, the Bacon character goes to satisfy every lust and impulse, including feeling up female co-workers, killing animals that annoy him, raping a sexy neighbor (a reportedly graphic scene that was cut in the theatrical release but will be on the DVD) and murdering potential threats to his plans.
Who will like this? Horror/sci-fi lovers, lovers of B-films and action movies. If those movies tend to not be your cup of tea, you will probably be better off avoiding Hollow Man. With the ending as weak as it is, you're not missing a great film anyway.
Hollow Man does have it's strong suits though. Two things it does particularly well are the invisible effects and it's willingness to take on gritty subject matter. This is a Verhoeven film after all, so I guess the second point shouldn't be a surprise. The question of what an invisible man would do with his new-found power goes all the way back to Plato and the Ring of Gyges. Verhoeven's answer is -- rape, violence and murder. This is a turn off for some people, who criticize the subject matter as being beneath contempt. Two reasons why I think this is an invalid criticism of this film: 1) For all it's money, this is a B-movie concept, with all the gratuitous subject matter that comes with it, and 2) Real-life experiences when societal norms break down indicate that behaviors such as rape and murder escalate greatly, so the Bacon character's behavior, while often over the top, isn't all that unbelievable. Without the restraint of society, the Bacon character goes to satisfy every lust and impulse, including feeling up female co-workers, killing animals that annoy him, raping a sexy neighbor (a reportedly graphic scene that was cut in the theatrical release but will be on the DVD) and murdering potential threats to his plans.
Who will like this? Horror/sci-fi lovers, lovers of B-films and action movies. If those movies tend to not be your cup of tea, you will probably be better off avoiding Hollow Man. With the ending as weak as it is, you're not missing a great film anyway.
Honestly, as much as I've enjoyed Kubrick's stuff through the years, I put off watching this one, just because I thought I was going to hate it.
I didn't.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is a superb film. It isn't in the "Strangelove/2001/Clockwork Orange" stratosphere; I think the best comparison to another Kubrick film would be "Barry Lyndon." Both "Eyes" and "Lyndon" are period pieces, both are beautiful to look at, both move very slowly (and thus turn many people off), and both are only indirectly "about" anything. In "Lyndon," we saw the life of a rags-to-riches-to-rags Irishmen. Here, we see a few days in the life of a wealthy American couple. What is the hardest thing to do in life today, if you're a wealthy person in our post-modern world? Stay interested? Separate reality from fantasy? That seems to be what Kubrick was saying, at least that's what I heard in the film. Of course, the sexual dynamic of man and woman is the most obvious theme, but I'll be different and state that I don't think that's really what the film is about. Kidman and Cruise's characters are so bored with life (and increasingly with each other) that they begin using sex as a weapon to tear into one another. Through a string of rather improbable events, they both "survive" intact, and at the end they both realize they've been lucky. Both of them step back from the fantasy-land they were driving each other to, and turn to each other in the end. Actually, for Kubrick, a remarkably conservative statement, I think.
Oh yes, maybe its just my somewhat indulgent sense of irony, but I for one think its wonderful that the last word ever spoken in a Stanley Kubrick film was "fu_k."
Here's to ya Stanley.
I didn't.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is a superb film. It isn't in the "Strangelove/2001/Clockwork Orange" stratosphere; I think the best comparison to another Kubrick film would be "Barry Lyndon." Both "Eyes" and "Lyndon" are period pieces, both are beautiful to look at, both move very slowly (and thus turn many people off), and both are only indirectly "about" anything. In "Lyndon," we saw the life of a rags-to-riches-to-rags Irishmen. Here, we see a few days in the life of a wealthy American couple. What is the hardest thing to do in life today, if you're a wealthy person in our post-modern world? Stay interested? Separate reality from fantasy? That seems to be what Kubrick was saying, at least that's what I heard in the film. Of course, the sexual dynamic of man and woman is the most obvious theme, but I'll be different and state that I don't think that's really what the film is about. Kidman and Cruise's characters are so bored with life (and increasingly with each other) that they begin using sex as a weapon to tear into one another. Through a string of rather improbable events, they both "survive" intact, and at the end they both realize they've been lucky. Both of them step back from the fantasy-land they were driving each other to, and turn to each other in the end. Actually, for Kubrick, a remarkably conservative statement, I think.
Oh yes, maybe its just my somewhat indulgent sense of irony, but I for one think its wonderful that the last word ever spoken in a Stanley Kubrick film was "fu_k."
Here's to ya Stanley.