Ian-Hart Movie Reviews

Nothing personal is set in Northern Ireland during the 1970's, when the Troubles were at their height. The story centers on one memorable night when two former friends, one a UVF member and the other a humble catholic fatehr raising two children. The meaning of the title is most likely a comment on the war that has been going on for years, that the war is no longer about personal hated toward a specific person for anaction they had done, but for just what they represent. The movie isn't that centered but the ending does give off the message very clearly: Violence is wrong. Duh! We know that but the message comes heartbreakingly and most unfairly, but then again all violence is unfair.

I have been studying late modern Irish history for a few years now and this is one of the best works depicting Northern Irish life that I have seen. Not only were the 1970s a confussing time in Northern Ireland, but more than likely Catholics and Protestants alike found themselves on opposite ends of the battlefield from some of thier closest childhood friends. I think that the movie vividly gives the viewer an understanding at just how complicated the situation in Northern Ireland really was during the early years of the Troubles. The film shows that things like violence and peace were not always as black and white as they seemed. Although the movie may leave the lay-person a little in the dark at times when dealing with some of the deaper issues involved, it does get the point across that the violence in Northern Ireland was very confusing and not everything was as it was thought to be. Even for the people educated in Northern Irish history it may take a few viewings to catch all the little subtalties that make this film a real find.

Highlander and Highlander 2. In 1985 Gregory Widen created a wonderful modern fantasy world which we all know and love by heart. Then Davis and Panzer took it upon themselves to create an awful franchise off it. Highlander 2 was their first mistake before a series that ignores the events of the original film and another movie that does the same but stays with the story. Don't ask me about the carton. NE ways. Highlander 2 is everything the first isn't. It's awful except the idea of Connor in the future was interesting and Connery's Ramirez was again enjoyable, however it takes a beautiful story of good versus evil and makes a sci fi future story out of it. If you can find this for a good price near the price of the director's cut go for buying this set, otherwise just buy the first film, director's cut and widescreen.

"Killing Me Softly" is not that Roberta Flack song Hugh Grant sang on stage in "About a Boy." It is the film version of thriller of the same name written by Nicci French (a pen name of husband-wife team Nicci Gerrard and Sean French). But what is most attractive is not the origin of the film; it is the first English-speaking film by the critically acclaimed Chinese director Chen Kaige, known for his masterpieces like "Farewell My Concubine" and "Yellow Earth." And this thriller set in modern London stars Heather Graham and Jeseph Fiennes (credits in that order), plus Natascha Richardson ("Ronin") and special appearance of Ian Hart (the first "Harry Potter") . So, you ask me, why should I give only two stars? Wait a minute, please, but I tell you the story first.

Heather Graham is Alice, an American, living in London for 18 months and working as a web site designer there. She has an English boyfriend (who watches football games on TV), but one morning on her way to office she meets Joseph Fiennes's world-famous mountain climber Adam when Alice accidentally touches his hand, waiting for the signal on the street. She instantly falls in love with him madly; even in her office she cannot shake off his image; and finally she follows him, goes to his house, and just wants him. All these things happen in about 5 hours of a day.

And they get married. But soon Alice learns that she does not know anything about his past, not surprisingly. Then, anonymous letters warning her about him start to come. Then, Alice begins to suspect that Adam, behind his wild character, is trying to hide some horrible secret that might be connected with the terrible accident that happened on the mountain. Or, is that really an accident?

OK. This is a thriller which uses a premise: "Can you trust your husband?" Yes, once Hitchcock did it (the title should remain unnamed, but you might remember that breathtaking car-running-by-the-cliff scene). For the reasons below, "Killing Me Softly" never achieves that height. The film is thrill-free, and is saddled with incredible plot and creaky dialogues. I don't like to talk like this especially when I like Heather Graham very much, but before I write this review, I checked it on video, and sorry, but I cannot still change my mind. (I am a Japanese, and was lucky to see the film earlier than many people in the world as the film was theatrically released here in Feb. 2002, one year before American release). Yes, thrill is gone.

What happened? Joseph Fiennes does his best, so does Heather Graham, but there is no chemistry between them that might make us believe in their love-turns-fear relation. Furthermore, the director Chen Kaige is too intent on portraying the sex scenes of them, many of them describing ... how do you say in English ... a sort of kinky stuff. (So, if you really want to see my point, see the unrated version.) Besides, what can we audience do but giggle when we see usually great Fiennes holds a poor panting goldfish on his palm, to illustrate the lack of oxygen up among the high mountains? Or when Heather is mugged in the street of London, robbed of her bag, and Fiennes chases the robber desperately, hits the guys's head against the telephone booth (breaking the glass), and beats the hapless criminal (but which?) to the pulp? And see what they would do after that (I keep that part secret for you). In short, everything is too unbelievable, even by the standard of melodrama or potboiler.

There is, however, some good points about the film. The photography is very beautiful, capturing the lively feelings of the streets of London, and it is no so-called "postcard" beauty. British photographer Micheal Coulter is famous for his works like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" "Notting Hill," and "Sense and Sensibility" and his London is strangely other-worldly feeling, I mean, totally different London. The film is always stylish, and the soundtrack is by Patrick Doyle even though his music (good itself) tends to hammer as if to instruct us what to feel.

It is cruel to say this, I know, but "Killing Me Softly" is, considering the talent involved, a great disappointment. The film may gain a cult status, and if you ask me whether I like it or not, I say I like it. But will I recommend this to my friends? No.

One last curious thing; one of the executive-producers is Ivan Reitman ("Evolution" "Twins" and others).

It's a pity that such a brilliant screenplay should've been thrown to such a thud ending.

The movie starts with an amazing pace, the cinematography plush with its Londonscapes, and each scene pregnant with that suspenseful tension (both sexual and otherwise) -- we can sense that behind those hyperactive bedsheets something is afoot as a mountaineer falls in passionate love with a citygirl web designer. They marry in a couple of days and bells are achiming, birds are afluttering etc etc, until the woman receives an anonymous note "It was a mistake to marry him." Everything in the film, up until the last 15 minutes is nail-biting (although much more has been bitten on the screen I may as well add.)

But then, we get treated to an abysmal gyp: the person behind the whole intrigue and suspense was THE most predictable one in the entire plot, for THE most predictable (and doozy) reason conceivable.

The voyeurism here borders almost on soft-porn, eye-in-the-hole viewers take note. The screenplay is something to use in film schools, marvellous. The cinematography is stupendous. But the writer should've been fired before he ruined it all.

2/5 material, 1 point each for Fiennes and Graham, who will definitely be on my watch-list from now on! But I hope they'll quickly scoot past this utter tripe of a B-grade film.

"We spend our lives searching for our other half, you're it." ~Adam

The suspense in this movie is brilliantly woven into a steamy romance. When Alice (Heather Graham) looks into world-famous mountain climber Adam's (Joseph Fiennes) eyes, she feels his chemistry. Soon she learns that he climbs mountains and is equally qualified to take her to the heights of her passion.

While watching this movie, the viewer is convinced of all sorts of fallacies which later turn out to be incompletely insignificant. I did love the element of uncertainty.

Alice is wandering around in "Wondering about her Husband Land" while Adam has no idea that those closest to him are rather psychotic.

There are so many scenes which just burst with creativity in this movie. I love the scenes where Alice is wandering around in the snow and then Adam suddenly appears. He suddenly appears a lot in this movie and is presented as a violent man. They do keep his character from getting too creepy but play up his "I want to control a woman" aspects.

I think it is almost that he wants a woman to trust him so much, he plays games with her heart. This is really a tale of passionate love. It is about living on the edge and not being afraid to fall off the cliff of desire. It is about allowing yourself to need someone and allowing yourself to trust someone.

I did have to laugh at one point when I saw Alice in MY ROBE. I could tell it was the same robe because the texture and the color where exactly the same. How amusing. Alice spends a lot of time in robes and coats and boots. She always looks so loveable and cozy. The black skirt and white shirt tied at her waist was also rather sexy.

There is a scene where Alice talks about princesses and dragons and there is even a castle in this movie. The entire movie is presented from the woman's perspective and they do try to present this story as "Alice's Adventure." Yes, the dragon definitely gets the princess. Alice wants to be controlled on some level, it seems to excite her mind. She really spends most of the movie trying to solve the mystery of her marriage than worrying that her husband is a dragon.

I loved it when Adam said: "Will you think about me today?" The suspense when he says: "Do you Trust Me" is almost unbearable. We imagine the worst. The letters that keep arriving also keep us on the edge.

I did get a bit worried about the goldfish, but fortunately it was put back into the bowl. It was a bit of a Dr. Suess moment. The cat is also a bit creepy in this movie.

This is a tale of obsessive love where both characters seem equally obsessed and this causes the fires of their passion to burn like an untamable fire. There are scenes of the woods and London and it really does take you out of your ordinary existence.

The suspense in this movie was the reason I really loved it.

If you enjoyed "Fatal Attraction," "Memento," "Unfaithful" or even "Secretary," then you will probably be adding this movie to your list of suspenseful favorites.

This is however another "NC-17" movie dancing around "unrated." It seems directors and distributors are pushing the rating systems to the limit or don't give a care about viewers who want to know what they will be watching.

It would be nice to know what you are going to watch, before you get involved in the story and want to keep watching. I'd like to see less of the flesh and more of the creativity this movie offers. Give us romance, yes! We women love it. This movie is very "romantic."

"Killing Me Softly" is not that Roberta Flack song Hugh Grant sang on stage in "About a Boy." It is the film version of thriller of the same name written by Nicci French (a pen name of husband-wife team Nicci Gerrard and Sean French). But what is most attractive is not the origin of the film; it is the first English-speaking film by the critically acclaimed Chinese director Chen Kaige, known for his masterpieces like "Farewell My Concubine" and "Yellow Earth." And this thriller set in modern London stars Heather Graham and Jeseph Fiennes (credits in that order), plus Natascha Richardson ("Ronin") and special appearance of Ian Hart (the first "Harry Potter") . So, you ask me, why should I give only two stars? Wait a minute, please, but I tell you the story first.

Heather Graham is Alice, an American, living in London for 18 months and working as a web site designer there. She has an English boyfriend (who watches football games on TV), but one morning on her way to office she meets Joseph Fiennes's world-famous mountain climber Adam when Alice accidentally touches his hand, waiting for the signal on the street. She instantly falls in love with him madly; even in her office she cannot shake off his image; and finally she follows him, goes to his house, and just wants him. All these things happen in about 5 hours of a day.

And they get married. But soon Alice learns that she does not know anything about his past, not surprisingly. Then, anonymous letters warning her about him start to come. Then, Alice begins to suspect that Adam, behind his wild character, is trying to hide some horrible secret that might be connected with the terrible accident that happened on the mountain. Or, is that really an accident?

OK. This is a thriller which uses a premise: "Can you trust your husband?" Yes, once Hitchcock did it (the title should remain unnamed, but you might remember that breathtaking car-running-by-the-cliff scene). For the reasons below, "Killing Me Softly" never achieves that height. The film is thrill-free, and is saddled with incredible plot and creaky dialogues. I don't like to talk like this especially when I like Heather Graham very much, but before I write this review, I checked it on video, and sorry, but I cannot still change my mind. (I am a Japanese, and was lucky to see the film earlier than many people in the world as the film was theatrically released here in Feb. 2002, one year before American release). Yes, thrill is gone.

What happened? Joseph Fiennes does his best, so does Heather Graham, but there is no chemistry between them that might make us believe in their love-turns-fear relation. Furthermore, the director Chen Kaige is too intent on portraying the sex scenes of them, many of them describing ... how do you say in English ... a sort of kinky stuff. (So, if you really want to see my point, see the unrated version.) Besides, what can we audience do but giggle when we see usually great Fiennes holds a poor panting goldfish on his palm, to illustrate the lack of oxygen up among the high mountains? Or when Heather is mugged in the street of London, robbed of her bag, and Fiennes chases the robber desperately, hits the guys's head against the telephone booth (breaking the glass), and beats the hapless criminal (but which?) to the pulp? And see what they would do after that (I keep that part secret for you). In short, everything is too unbelievable, even by the standard of melodrama or potboiler.

There is, however, some good points about the film. The photography is very beautiful, capturing the lively feelings of the streets of London, and it is no so-called "postcard" beauty. British photographer Micheal Coulter is famous for his works like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" "Notting Hill," and "Sense and Sensibility" and his London is strangely other-worldly feeling, I mean, totally different London. The film is always stylish, and the soundtrack is by Patrick Doyle even though his music (good itself) tends to hammer as if to instruct us what to feel.

It is cruel to say this, I know, but "Killing Me Softly" is, considering the talent involved, a great disappointment. The film may gain a cult status, and if you ask me whether I like it or not, I say I like it. But will I recommend this to my friends? No.

One last curious thing; one of the executive-producers is Ivan Reitman ("Evolution" "Twins" and others).

It's a pity that such a brilliant screenplay should've been thrown to such a thud ending.

The movie starts with an amazing pace, the cinematography plush with its Londonscapes, and each scene pregnant with that suspenseful tension (both sexual and otherwise) -- we can sense that behind those hyperactive bedsheets something is afoot as a mountaineer falls in passionate love with a citygirl web designer. They marry in a couple of days and bells are achiming, birds are afluttering etc etc, until the woman receives an anonymous note "It was a mistake to marry him." Everything in the film, up until the last 15 minutes is nail-biting (although much more has been bitten on the screen I may as well add.)

But then, we get treated to an abysmal gyp: the person behind the whole intrigue and suspense was THE most predictable one in the entire plot, for THE most predictable (and doozy) reason conceivable.

The voyeurism here borders almost on soft-porn, eye-in-the-hole viewers take note. The screenplay is something to use in film schools, marvellous. The cinematography is stupendous. But the writer should've been fired before he ruined it all.

2/5 material, 1 point each for Fiennes and Graham, who will definitely be on my watch-list from now on! But I hope they'll quickly scoot past this utter tripe of a B-grade film.

"We spend our lives searching for our other half, you're it." ~Adam

The suspense in this movie is brilliantly woven into a steamy romance. When Alice (Heather Graham) looks into world-famous mountain climber Adam's (Joseph Fiennes) eyes, she feels his chemistry. Soon she learns that he climbs mountains and is equally qualified to take her to the heights of her passion.

While watching this movie, the viewer is convinced of all sorts of fallacies which later turn out to be incompletely insignificant. I did love the element of uncertainty.

Alice is wandering around in "Wondering about her Husband Land" while Adam has no idea that those closest to him are rather psychotic.

There are so many scenes which just burst with creativity in this movie. I love the scenes where Alice is wandering around in the snow and then Adam suddenly appears. He suddenly appears a lot in this movie and is presented as a violent man. They do keep his character from getting too creepy but play up his "I want to control a woman" aspects.

I think it is almost that he wants a woman to trust him so much, he plays games with her heart. This is really a tale of passionate love. It is about living on the edge and not being afraid to fall off the cliff of desire. It is about allowing yourself to need someone and allowing yourself to trust someone.

I did have to laugh at one point when I saw Alice in MY ROBE. I could tell it was the same robe because the texture and the color where exactly the same. How amusing. Alice spends a lot of time in robes and coats and boots. She always looks so loveable and cozy. The black skirt and white shirt tied at her waist was also rather sexy.

There is a scene where Alice talks about princesses and dragons and there is even a castle in this movie. The entire movie is presented from the woman's perspective and they do try to present this story as "Alice's Adventure." Yes, the dragon definitely gets the princess. Alice wants to be controlled on some level, it seems to excite her mind. She really spends most of the movie trying to solve the mystery of her marriage than worrying that her husband is a dragon.

I loved it when Adam said: "Will you think about me today?" The suspense when he says: "Do you Trust Me" is almost unbearable. We imagine the worst. The letters that keep arriving also keep us on the edge.

I did get a bit worried about the goldfish, but fortunately it was put back into the bowl. It was a bit of a Dr. Suess moment. The cat is also a bit creepy in this movie.

This is a tale of obsessive love where both characters seem equally obsessed and this causes the fires of their passion to burn like an untamable fire. There are scenes of the woods and London and it really does take you out of your ordinary existence.

The suspense in this movie was the reason I really loved it.

If you enjoyed "Fatal Attraction," "Memento," "Unfaithful" or even "Secretary," then you will probably be adding this movie to your list of suspenseful favorites.

This is however another "NC-17" movie dancing around "unrated." It seems directors and distributors are pushing the rating systems to the limit or don't give a care about viewers who want to know what they will be watching.

It would be nice to know what you are going to watch, before you get involved in the story and want to keep watching. I'd like to see less of the flesh and more of the creativity this movie offers. Give us romance, yes! We women love it. This movie is very "romantic."

Why can't filmmakers trust the author (cf. Coppolla's ill-thought "Dracula")? Doyle was a craftsman; the Hound of . . . is arguably his most gripping and fascinating Holmes narrative; the Rathbone/Bruce version holds up beautifully; Hammer's Cushing/Lee outing, though lurid, is a delight; Jeremy Brett's BBC presentation is true to the core; but this latest entry is infuriating; Richard Roxburgh's Holmes verges on the sluggish (and I hold with the other discerning reviewer who cites the wrong-headedness of writing in a Holmes who used cocaine while on a case; apparently no one on the scriptwriting team read Doyle too closely), Hart's Watson testy and offputting, and black-hearted Stapleton -- here the always wonderful Richard Grant -- is far more appealing than the two leads; so much of this version just bogs -- the opening scene in Baker Street, for example, with Dr. Mortimer, a thrilling narrative in nearly every other filmed Hound, lies as flat as Roxburgh's line delivery. Don't engage this Holmes -- take a hansom cab to the real Baker Street where Rathbone, Cushing and Brett are enshrined. This is Road-show Doyle -- and he, as well as, Holmes, deserve 1st-class bookings. Always.

The actors are first rate and the choice of location is very good, however, this version of the "Hound of the Baskervilles" portrays our hero and his companion in a way that was not originally intended. We see Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson coming out of the bathroom together with a towel wrapped around each waist. Watsons' facial expression seems to imply some sort of guilty pleasure had just taken place. Later we see Sherlock Holmes injecting himself with some sort of drug. His drug usage is sharply out of context with the original story. There is another Sherlock Holmes story known as the "Seven percent solution" which in fact involved drug usage, but this story is not suppose to be that way. To cross over from one story, and put it into another story, causes some damage to the original story. When Sherlock Holmes walks into a room, he is suppose to have a presence, unfortunately, this actor was made up to look very plain. It is hard to distinguish between the key actors and the rest of the cast. Doctor Watson and Lestrade seem to be very much watered down from their original bigger than life characters, by the way they are dressed, the way they carry themselves, and the way others react to there presence. The Hound was replaced with an animation of a dog, and this really looks bad, very much like a cartoon. There is no mention of what makes this dog so scary. In the original story we are told how the dog had been treated in order to make it wild, and also how the animal was made to take on some sort of mystical quality as a result of a luminous mixture that was applied to it making it glow in the dark. A lot of important details were left out of this film.

I've been a long time Sherlock Holmes fan and I found this movie to be as exciting and compelling as any version of Hound of the Baskervilles ever filmed. A lot of unneccessary exposition is cut away, (thank goodness - no boring recount of Sir Hugo's life AGAIN!)leaving a lean, atmospheric, action packed story. Richard Roxburgh makes a wonderful Holmes, perfectly capturing the great detective's sharp wit, quirky humor and incisive style. Roxburgh's Holmes is much more a man of action than we've seen in a while and its a nice change to see Holmes' physical strength, as well as the mental acumen. (No slam on Jeremy Brett intended; his health excluded too much physical action, particularly near the end of the Granada series.) Ian Hart was a surprising Watson, passionate and strongly independent. Hart's Watson easily carries the part of the movie where Holmes is absent, usually a Waterloo for many 'Hound' movies. This Holmes and Watson are feisty and combative, not quite the smooth working team together we've come to expect. Their relationship seems more like a ongoing work in progress, learning to confide in and trust one another. (One hopes they'll make more movies to address this issue.) Richard Grant is a nasty Stapleton and Matt Day is one of the few to make Sir Henry Baskerville actually interesting. The production is very gothic, enhanced by some Danny Elfman-esque music. Although there are a few flaws, namely Holmes' taking cocaine on a case and Watson's rather startling, gossipy dinner conversation about his friend that makes him look disloyal, on the whole, I found this to be one of the best versions ever.
Purists, quit carping and enjoy. Its been a very long time since we've had something new to talk about!

This film, although sporting many elaborate Hollywood props full of explosions and tribal wars, has taken a potentially exciting and meaningful screenplay and altered many key components of Defoe's original novel to incorporate a mushy love story (taking away from the feel of Defoe's original). Many dramatic and important scenes I hoped would be in the movie were either altered beyond recognition or missing altogether, and the "politically correct" additions are a final blow to this sinking ship. This film is about as true to the novel as the 1970 animated version with talking animals.

I don't know how the plot of this film compares with the book - I read it so long ago that I remember only Crusoe, Friday, and the bad guys from the other island, all of whom are here. What I can say is that this is an elegantly filmed, well-acted survival story. It grabs you right at the beginning and holds its intensity right through to the end. Pierce Brosnan is excellent as Robinson Crusoe. (I like him best in films where he has a chance to do more than look pretty such as "Taffin," "The Heist," "The Tailor of Panama," and "Evelyn," along with this one.) And William Takaku makes a believable Friday. In this version, Crusoe goes through hell, but comes home to a happy ending.

What can I say? I liked this movie. This is the story of Robinson Crusoe, a shipwrecked Scottish noble. (Okay, I admit it, I read the original book, but I've completely forgotten most of it, it was a little over 15 years ago).

I found this book to be quite nice, even without the literary comparison. Brosnan plays a character well entrenched in the ways of his time. He is in self-imposed exile, traveling from place to place, until misfortune in the form of a shipwreck leaves him abandoned on a deserted island with only a dog for companionship.

Eventually befriending a native, (Friday) Crusoe learns crucial lessons on what it means to be a human being, and alters his perceptions on slavery and the human condition.

Overall, despite a few peccadilloes (Brosnan's Scottish accent was sometimes a little 'slurred') I quite enjoyed this movie. I recommend it for anyone who likes Pierce and can overlook the fact that it doesn't follow the book to the letter.

This film, although sporting many elaborate Hollywood props full of explosions and tribal wars, has taken a potentially exciting and meaningful screenplay and altered many key components of Defoe's original novel to incorporate a mushy love story (taking away from the feel of Defoe's original). Many dramatic and important scenes I hoped would be in the movie were either altered beyond recognition or missing altogether, and the "politically correct" additions are a final blow to this sinking ship. This film is about as true to the novel as the 1970 animated version with talking animals.

I don't know how the plot of this film compares with the book - I read it so long ago that I remember only Crusoe, Friday, and the bad guys from the other island, all of whom are here. What I can say is that this is an elegantly filmed, well-acted survival story. It grabs you right at the beginning and holds its intensity right through to the end. Pierce Brosnan is excellent as Robinson Crusoe. (I like him best in films where he has a chance to do more than look pretty such as "Taffin," "The Heist," "The Tailor of Panama," and "Evelyn," along with this one.) And William Takaku makes a believable Friday. In this version, Crusoe goes through hell, but comes home to a happy ending.

What can I say? I liked this movie. This is the story of Robinson Crusoe, a shipwrecked Scottish noble. (Okay, I admit it, I read the original book, but I've completely forgotten most of it, it was a little over 15 years ago).

I found this book to be quite nice, even without the literary comparison. Brosnan plays a character well entrenched in the ways of his time. He is in self-imposed exile, traveling from place to place, until misfortune in the form of a shipwreck leaves him abandoned on a deserted island with only a dog for companionship.

Eventually befriending a native, (Friday) Crusoe learns crucial lessons on what it means to be a human being, and alters his perceptions on slavery and the human condition.

Overall, despite a few peccadilloes (Brosnan's Scottish accent was sometimes a little 'slurred') I quite enjoyed this movie. I recommend it for anyone who likes Pierce and can overlook the fact that it doesn't follow the book to the letter.