Alessandro-Nivola Movie Reviews

The destruction of Berlin in the last days of WWII is so convincing, you will be ducking and dodging with the citizenry from your comfy chair. This production is excellent all the way through. The movie is actually more accurate than the book, having the Russians capture the city and making Manfred's rank a Captain, which by his age and the progress of the war, makes more sense than Lieutenant. You will feel like you are there, and sometimes the involvement will have you squirming as well as drying the tears.

Lifetime Channel aired the miniseries in one piece as a 3:30 hr movie with commercial breaks recently (Nov 2003); and if the original was 240 minutes, as I have heard elsewhere, then that is why I am buying the tape. There may be additional scenes. I have read that Region 2 (Europe, etc.) already has "The Ring" on DVD, and so I will be hoping and looking for that to come out.

As you can tell, the first part of the story is more interesting to me, but I certainly recommend the whole video. I hope you enjoy "The Ring" as much as I have!

Although Inventing the Abbotts is centered on two well-treaded themes - love across a class divide and bad blood between families - it takes enough of a new approach to avoid cliches. For one thing, the animosity between the rich Abbotts and the working-class Holts is selective, with varying degrees of friendship and respect between certain members of each family showing through alongside the bitterness between others. The exact cause of that bitterness, centered on a long-ago business deal between the two families' fathers, is a combination of mystery and misinformation to the main character, Doug (Joaquim Phoenix). The resolution of that mystery plays out alongside Doug's changing relationship with the Abbotts' youngest daughter, Pamela (Liv Tyler) throughout the film, thus preventing the forbidden-love motif from becoming overbearing.

But the movie does remain a love story at heart, and Phoenix and Tyler are remarkably well-suited to the task. (They apparently were a real-life item for some time after filming - and the sincerity shows.) Complicating the picture are Doug's bitter, jealous elder brother Jaycee (Billy Crudup), who sows discord among both families throughout the film; Pamela's troubled relationship with her sisters and parents; and the hazards of growing up in general. In keeping with the avoidance of stereotypes and cliches, character development is strong almost across the board. The Holts' relative poverty is neither romanticized nor used exploitatively; and if the Abbotts prove that money can't buy happiness, neither are they made out to be shallow or heartless.

The 1950s setting is painstakingly executed as well, featuring a Smithsonian-worthy collection of period appliances, furniture and other everyday items (not to mention an authentic Greyhound bus). The lack of any racial diversity or an overtly political message about that era's injustices might be of some concern to the sensitivities of the politically correct, but the film does in fact address some such concerns (particuarlry the oppression of women) in a subtle but effective fashion.

For my money, this is perhaps the most underrated movie of the 1990s. Buy it while it's available!

Since coming to Hollywood John Woo has done little to impress. He mad a very strong debut with Hard Target but the film was cut to shreds and the impact severely muted. Broken Arrow was thoroughly unexciting and Face/Off is not much better.

The bulk of the blame lies not with Woo but with Travolta. As Sean Archer he's fine. But as soon as he becomes Castor Troy he turns the camp all the way up to 11. Face/Off eventually becomes an unashamed pantomime. Cage, as both characters, is very good. But Travolta takes Troy to the same place he took Vic Deakins in Broken Arrow. It's like he assumes that no matter what he does, it's automatically cool because IT'S A JOHN WOO FILM. Sorry, but that logic doesn't work out in real life.

The plot, while being crafty, doesn't really do much. Exactly what does Troy plan after becoming Archer? To look like his enemy for the rest of his life? If not it was a bad idea burning down the Plastic Surgery Joint then. Some interesting imagery is used and the subtext gives the movie a sharper edge despite its superficial appearance. All the 'gun ballet' stuff does is glamorise guns. And that's becoming real old hat.

Weird tho, when you think that this film is written by the folks that gave us The Mask and Death Wish V: The Face of Death. And John Woo would also dabble in face swapping later on with Mission: Impossible 2.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with Dolby 5.1 sound. The only extra is a trailer.

Director Woo fills the screen with slow motion gun battles and even slower motion character reveals. His action is usually immune to things like logic, physics and gravity but that never gets in the way. If you thought it was in the way, a stray bullet'd probably fly off the screen and hit you. Pretentious elements adorn the screen as much as gunfire. From a tremendous battle of good vs. evil to the sound of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' to white doves filling a church during a shootout. He puts a lot of respect toward the films top performances. In doing so, he sorts out the potentially confusing screenplay leaving only the most inattentive behind.

John Travolta has the responsibility of setting up the character of covert agent Sean Archer. Nicholas Cage, the terrorist Castor Troy. Both have to reveal not only the character but also their identifiable quirks, as they will quickly switch roles. Both actors appear to be having a blast at each other's expense. Closing out the confusing triangle is Joan Allen as Archer's brilliant wife. She is willing to allow the story to take its course, only getting involved when she is forced.

The screenplay nicely increases the stakes after the face Switch when both men use each others power to escalate their own needs. Woo's presentation of the final stand-off in the church is sure to bring a smile to your face with it's clever reveals. This is the stuff that elevates the story above most action fodder.

FACE-OFF is a great film with a lot to offer, especially to your sub-woofer. The audio transfer carries it well but the video transfer could use a remaster. There are no special features other than the trailer. Enjoy FACE-OFF.

Since coming to Hollywood John Woo has done little to impress. He mad a very strong debut with Hard Target but the film was cut to shreds and the impact severely muted. Broken Arrow was thoroughly unexciting and Face/Off is not much better.

The bulk of the blame lies not with Woo but with Travolta. As Sean Archer he's fine. But as soon as he becomes Castor Troy he turns the camp all the way up to 11. Face/Off eventually becomes an unashamed pantomime. Cage, as both characters, is very good. But Travolta takes Troy to the same place he took Vic Deakins in Broken Arrow. It's like he assumes that no matter what he does, it's automatically cool because IT'S A JOHN WOO FILM. Sorry, but that logic doesn't work out in real life.

The plot, while being crafty, doesn't really do much. Exactly what does Troy plan after becoming Archer? To look like his enemy for the rest of his life? If not it was a bad idea burning down the Plastic Surgery Joint then. Some interesting imagery is used and the subtext gives the movie a sharper edge despite its superficial appearance. All the 'gun ballet' stuff does is glamorise guns. And that's becoming real old hat.

Weird tho, when you think that this film is written by the folks that gave us The Mask and Death Wish V: The Face of Death. And John Woo would also dabble in face swapping later on with Mission: Impossible 2.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with Dolby 5.1 sound. The only extra is a trailer.

Director Woo fills the screen with slow motion gun battles and even slower motion character reveals. His action is usually immune to things like logic, physics and gravity but that never gets in the way. If you thought it was in the way, a stray bullet'd probably fly off the screen and hit you. Pretentious elements adorn the screen as much as gunfire. From a tremendous battle of good vs. evil to the sound of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' to white doves filling a church during a shootout. He puts a lot of respect toward the films top performances. In doing so, he sorts out the potentially confusing screenplay leaving only the most inattentive behind.

John Travolta has the responsibility of setting up the character of covert agent Sean Archer. Nicholas Cage, the terrorist Castor Troy. Both have to reveal not only the character but also their identifiable quirks, as they will quickly switch roles. Both actors appear to be having a blast at each other's expense. Closing out the confusing triangle is Joan Allen as Archer's brilliant wife. She is willing to allow the story to take its course, only getting involved when she is forced.

The screenplay nicely increases the stakes after the face Switch when both men use each others power to escalate their own needs. Woo's presentation of the final stand-off in the church is sure to bring a smile to your face with it's clever reveals. This is the stuff that elevates the story above most action fodder.

FACE-OFF is a great film with a lot to offer, especially to your sub-woofer. The audio transfer carries it well but the video transfer could use a remaster. There are no special features other than the trailer. Enjoy FACE-OFF.

Since coming to Hollywood John Woo has done little to impress. He mad a very strong debut with Hard Target but the film was cut to shreds and the impact severely muted. Broken Arrow was thoroughly unexciting and Face/Off is not much better.

The bulk of the blame lies not with Woo but with Travolta. As Sean Archer he's fine. But as soon as he becomes Castor Troy he turns the camp all the way up to 11. Face/Off eventually becomes an unashamed pantomime. Cage, as both characters, is very good. But Travolta takes Troy to the same place he took Vic Deakins in Broken Arrow. It's like he assumes that no matter what he does, it's automatically cool because IT'S A JOHN WOO FILM. Sorry, but that logic doesn't work out in real life.

The plot, while being crafty, doesn't really do much. Exactly what does Troy plan after becoming Archer? To look like his enemy for the rest of his life? If not it was a bad idea burning down the Plastic Surgery Joint then. Some interesting imagery is used and the subtext gives the movie a sharper edge despite its superficial appearance. All the 'gun ballet' stuff does is glamorise guns. And that's becoming real old hat.

Weird tho, when you think that this film is written by the folks that gave us The Mask and Death Wish V: The Face of Death. And John Woo would also dabble in face swapping later on with Mission: Impossible 2.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with Dolby 5.1 sound. The only extra is a trailer.

Director Woo fills the screen with slow motion gun battles and even slower motion character reveals. His action is usually immune to things like logic, physics and gravity but that never gets in the way. If you thought it was in the way, a stray bullet'd probably fly off the screen and hit you. Pretentious elements adorn the screen as much as gunfire. From a tremendous battle of good vs. evil to the sound of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' to white doves filling a church during a shootout. He puts a lot of respect toward the films top performances. In doing so, he sorts out the potentially confusing screenplay leaving only the most inattentive behind.

John Travolta has the responsibility of setting up the character of covert agent Sean Archer. Nicholas Cage, the terrorist Castor Troy. Both have to reveal not only the character but also their identifiable quirks, as they will quickly switch roles. Both actors appear to be having a blast at each other's expense. Closing out the confusing triangle is Joan Allen as Archer's brilliant wife. She is willing to allow the story to take its course, only getting involved when she is forced.

The screenplay nicely increases the stakes after the face Switch when both men use each others power to escalate their own needs. Woo's presentation of the final stand-off in the church is sure to bring a smile to your face with it's clever reveals. This is the stuff that elevates the story above most action fodder.

FACE-OFF is a great film with a lot to offer, especially to your sub-woofer. The audio transfer carries it well but the video transfer could use a remaster. There are no special features other than the trailer. Enjoy FACE-OFF.

It's a decent film to watch, but I didn't like the very darkly lit shots that were prevelant in this film. The young mute boy does a very good job and his relationship with Wiesz keeps the film interesting. Wiesz's character is quite unpredictable, where she refuses to have sex with her boyfriend of 6-months, but quickly sleeps with her ex after not seeing him for 9 years. I felt at times that she was a little too much like the mute boy, in that she needed to say more or at least we needed to delve more into her character to understand more about her. We didn't get to see more though, and she speaks very little in this film.

Overall a decent way to spend 87 minutes, but one viewing is enough. And be aware of the explicit nudity, both male and female.

Simply put, I WANT YOU is a character piece that revolves entirely around the incredible Rachel Weisz. Modesty aside, she's a beautiful woman, and the sexually explicit scenes played out here are not only tastefully well-done but appear to be closer to "real sex" than "cinema sex." It's the subtle nuances that Weisz brings to her character -- yes, in even the non-sex scenes -- that shows her true talent and gift with the camera.

Frankly, I'm amazed that she isn't getting more artistic work, based on the grace she shows in I WANT YOU.

It's a decent film to watch, but I didn't like the very darkly lit shots that were prevelant in this film. The young mute boy does a very good job and his relationship with Wiesz keeps the film interesting. Wiesz's character is quite unpredictable, where she refuses to have sex with her boyfriend of 6-months, but quickly sleeps with her ex after not seeing him for 9 years. I felt at times that she was a little too much like the mute boy, in that she needed to say more or at least we needed to delve more into her character to understand more about her. We didn't get to see more though, and she speaks very little in this film.

Overall a decent way to spend 87 minutes, but one viewing is enough. And be aware of the explicit nudity, both male and female.

Simply put, I WANT YOU is a character piece that revolves entirely around the incredible Rachel Weisz. Modesty aside, she's a beautiful woman, and the sexually explicit scenes played out here are not only tastefully well-done but appear to be closer to "real sex" than "cinema sex." It's the subtle nuances that Weisz brings to her character -- yes, in even the non-sex scenes -- that shows her true talent and gift with the camera.

Frankly, I'm amazed that she isn't getting more artistic work, based on the grace she shows in I WANT YOU.

Having seen all three parts of the Jurassic Park trilogy, it has to be said that Jurassic Park III has moved the great Tyrannosaurus Rex of a movie franchise to almost certain extinction. Admittedly Joe Johnston's direction is efficient if unremarkable, give or take the odd set-piece or another and it's not as if Jurassic Park III is awful, it's just average. Very average. It has no real story or plot to speak of and the biggest problem is that we have seen it all before, with the exception of some new previously unseen dinosaurs (wow)! From the moment Sam Neill joins up with his motley crew of would-be rescuers to travel to Isla Sorna you already know or can at least accurately guess who is going to survive and who is going to die (and in which order).

Not even the return of the always excellent Sam Neill as Dr Alan Grant and the addition to the cast of William H Macy can do enough to add weight and intelligence to this tired old sequel. Téa Leoni is also wasted and is only required to scream hysterically from time to time in that old-fashioned stereotypical way that women in this kind of formulaic B movie are required to do. Alessandro Nivola, a fine young actor does his best too but with such a tired and weak script, no amount of talent was ever going to lift this movie above the ordinary. In fact I'd rather search for my mobile phone in a big pile of dinosaur manure than have to watch another shameless and storyless Hollywood cash in such as this one.

Regardless, I saw it the night it opened, and I have to say it was a good deal better than the previous installment. It served its purpose as a sequel and a summer movie, without being sloppy and tedious.

I was very glad to see that Sam Neil had returned as Alan Grant. His presence was sorely missed in The Lost World. Many dinosaurs also returned, in addition to some new ones. The spinosaurus being the most notable. Its grand entrance was nothing short of spectacular, and the fight between it and the T-Rex memorable to say the least.

As much as I enjoyed seeing all the familiar faces, its too bad there weren't any familiar sites. I had hoped this movie's story would center around the island Isla Nublar, where the first Jurassic Park had taken place. It would've been nice to see that towering wooden Jurassic Park doorway again, or the visitor center, or even the raptor pen. And what ever happened to the Dilophosaurus'? When I walked through a department store, and saw that particular dinosaur figure in a box with the new JP3 logo, I naturally assumed they'd make an appearance in the movie. But they didn't Oh, well. Maybe next time.

Anyway, I thought this movie was great none the less. It offered more dinosaurs, more of the original cast, great action sequences, and it managed to stay under two hours. After seeing this, I actually look forward to the next Jurassic Park movie.

And another thing. Many people have said that this movie is actually a prequel to The Lost World. That's not true. You find that out less than ten minutes into the movie, when Alan Grant refers to the San Diego incident during his lecture.

Having seen all three parts of the Jurassic Park trilogy, it has to be said that Jurassic Park III has moved the great Tyrannosaurus Rex of a movie franchise to almost certain extinction. Admittedly Joe Johnston's direction is efficient if unremarkable, give or take the odd set-piece or another and it's not as if Jurassic Park III is awful, it's just average. Very average. It has no real story or plot to speak of and the biggest problem is that we have seen it all before, with the exception of some new previously unseen dinosaurs (wow)! From the moment Sam Neill joins up with his motley crew of would-be rescuers to travel to Isla Sorna you already know or can at least accurately guess who is going to survive and who is going to die (and in which order).

Not even the return of the always excellent Sam Neill as Dr Alan Grant and the addition to the cast of William H Macy can do enough to add weight and intelligence to this tired old sequel. Téa Leoni is also wasted and is only required to scream hysterically from time to time in that old-fashioned stereotypical way that women in this kind of formulaic B movie are required to do. Alessandro Nivola, a fine young actor does his best too but with such a tired and weak script, no amount of talent was ever going to lift this movie above the ordinary. In fact I'd rather search for my mobile phone in a big pile of dinosaur manure than have to watch another shameless and storyless Hollywood cash in such as this one.

Regardless, I saw it the night it opened, and I have to say it was a good deal better than the previous installment. It served its purpose as a sequel and a summer movie, without being sloppy and tedious.

I was very glad to see that Sam Neil had returned as Alan Grant. His presence was sorely missed in The Lost World. Many dinosaurs also returned, in addition to some new ones. The spinosaurus being the most notable. Its grand entrance was nothing short of spectacular, and the fight between it and the T-Rex memorable to say the least.

As much as I enjoyed seeing all the familiar faces, its too bad there weren't any familiar sites. I had hoped this movie's story would center around the island Isla Nublar, where the first Jurassic Park had taken place. It would've been nice to see that towering wooden Jurassic Park doorway again, or the visitor center, or even the raptor pen. And what ever happened to the Dilophosaurus'? When I walked through a department store, and saw that particular dinosaur figure in a box with the new JP3 logo, I naturally assumed they'd make an appearance in the movie. But they didn't Oh, well. Maybe next time.

Anyway, I thought this movie was great none the less. It offered more dinosaurs, more of the original cast, great action sequences, and it managed to stay under two hours. After seeing this, I actually look forward to the next Jurassic Park movie.

And another thing. Many people have said that this movie is actually a prequel to The Lost World. That's not true. You find that out less than ten minutes into the movie, when Alan Grant refers to the San Diego incident during his lecture.