Viggo-Mortensen Movie Reviews

Unfaithful was okay for a melodrama but a tad too idealized for my blood. Its hook at keeping me interested was Olivier MartinezÕs raw sexiness. Walk on the MoonÕs story is so much more interesting, erotic and poetic in obvious as well as subtle ways. 1st, Viggo Mortenson is a worthy temptation to stir the waters of doubt. The writers and actors present more conflict articulating a marriage at crossroads of changing times and a couple that married too young. There are also more interesting subplots. The husband (wearing toy cowboy attire or trying to dance to Jimi Hendrix), mother-in-law (strong and loving) and kids all add more interesting dimensions to the infidelity Diane Lane brings to the screen. She is not all selfish addiction and has more rounded reasons for seeking really rockinÕ bons temps with the blouse man. This added more suspense and satisfaction at the end. As enticing as ViggoÕs eyes and voice are, the soundtrack is rich and offers a pleasantly and sensually surprising selection of songs. I can pick which movie I prefer, but don't make me choose between Walker Jerome and Paul Martel. It just ain't fair.

I freely admit that it was Diane Lane's impeccable performance in Unfaithful that prompted me to rent this film. I was equally impressed by her talents in this film. Anna Paquin was amazing as well as the rest of the cast.

The film deals with sexual repression. . . and the consequences of an awakening one Jewish mother of two experiences by having an affair on a family vacation during the summer of love.

As the first man walks on the moon, his experience coincides with this lady's first walk on the terrain of an extramarital affair. Both are free in a new frontier. She and her daughter both sneak to be a part of woodstock with harrowing results. Pay particular attention to Lane's return from the festival . . .she's nails it. Diane Lane portrays this character with both sympathy and scorn... breathtaking.

~~~~~~~~~A Walk on the Moon has to be one of my favorite films. There is so much that is good in this film. It is a tender, gentle, heartbreaking, and beautiful story of a housewife in 1969 finding her way in the world. It is also the story of her teenage daughter discovering herself and coming to terms with the confines of Judism, the struggles of teenager-hood, and the freedom of the summer of 1969.

Viggo Mortenson and Diane Lane are excellent in this film. Viggo is~~ finally emerging~~ as~~ an A-list actor with~~ his~~ performances in Lord of the Rings but Diane Lane is still underappricated.

There are several beautiful scenes in this film one of them being a tender scene under a waterfall--tastefully done. And the other a tearfully beautiful scene between father and daughter. While this movie might not end in a happy Hollywood manner it ends in an extremely satisfying way. Also check out the soundtrack!~~~~~~~~~

Witness is critically acclaimed and everyone likes it, but probably me. There's something lacking in this film that keeps it from my honor list (four stars or above). As usual, the acting is fine when Ford is included, but the story line bothers me a bit and I think I know what's missing.

John Book is Ford's character and he takes up a case which includes an Amish boy and his sister, big sis, and the uncovering of crooked cops in his own precinct. The Amish boy witnesses a murder and Book finds out its a cop behind it, but as he investigates he gets shot and he escapes with the boy and his sis to Amish territory where he seeks assylum.

This movie has some really good points, so let me point them out first.

1. Harrison Ford is outstanding, why he didn't win best actor for this the world will never know, but he did a great job with a city cop who has to change and learn of a new culture far from his own.
2. This film put the Amish and their culture for America to learn about. I admire their culture and beliefs and their moral duties, which you learn a great deal about. Again, I am all for movies that teach you things as well as entertain you at the same time. This film does that, sort of.
3. The plot is original, for its time, although many spins have made off it, films that now make fun or attempt to include the Amish in it have come about as a result to this film's success.

Here's the problem with it. The film was intended to be a romance/thriller/drama and it failed. The thrillingness of it is very good, it is successful at keep us glued seeing if the bad cops will find Ford stashed with the Amish. But the romance and drama are pitiful and unrealistic.

Ford's character, although believable, is kind of lost. He finds himself at the care of these Amish folks and yet he doesn't know what to do. He can't return to the city cops, so he just sits there and bides his time. I never could figure this out. Why doesn't he go to a different city? Seek out of state jurisdiction? Instead he just remains, willingly, among the Amish learning their customs as he checks in with his partner to see how things are. But this is so stupid and unbelievable. Damn, if I was him I'd be on the move. Who cares if your car doesn't work, walk or borrow a carriage of theirs. Sheesh!

OK, the romance is dumb. I don't think it works and the reason why I think it doesn't works is because Kelly McGillis' character has to step out of character for it to even happen, which is a total no no. There is this one scene that makes me puke, it is when McGillis is bathing and she doesn't mind that Book is watching her in the nude. She even turns to stare at him, showing all like "Come and get me, big boy."

This is not a born and bred Amish gal, this is stupid Hollywood being perverted. It's this incident that takes her out of character for good and it ruins the movie, making viewers uncomfortable like me. A real Amish girl would never do such a thing. I almost wonder if the director knew this but did it anyway to make a statement or demonstrate that "physical pleasure is more important than one's Faith." It wouldn't surprise me.

This film would've been better if McGillis's character hadn't turned into a sex symbol, but been a woman who loved her Faith more than her own lust. That would've been character development and more realistic. I guess I'm so sick of these lady roles being these easy, bare all sex symbols that have no personality or originality in their character.

The end is also unbelievable. Three bad cops show up to find Book and kill him, so they go right into the heart of the Amish community and start shooting up the place. This reminded me of a cheesy western that Clint Eastwood would sport. Give me a break.

This film has some reality in it, but a whole lot of typical hollywood as well. I'm sorry, but the out of step character of McGillis and the ending was just unsatisfactory to give this movie more than three stars.

This film was magical for me, and I've always enjoyed the topic of forbidden love. For those who haven't seen this movie, other reviewers have spelled out the plot very nicely.

The heart of the story is the juxtaposition of the hardened, big city detective in the midst of Amish country, and it centers on his relationship with a young, beautiful Amish woman and her son. Exteme opposites that do, indeed, attract. The sparks fly between them and keeps the viewer captivated (at least it did for me). Kelly McGillis played an exceptional role in this film (her first film, I believe). I'd rate it as her best performance by a long shot. It was also one of Harrison Ford's better roles. And Lukas Haas was very convincing in all but one scene.

The cinematography and Jarre's music was lovingly layered, and displayed throughout the Pennsylvania local. The barn raising scene was especially wonderful, and gives the viewer a true yearning for a simpler, more family-oriented life.

Not everything worked in this picture, however. In a couple of places the editing seemed haphazardly done. The scene where the cops are on the front porch of Ford's sister and questioning her is an example (the voice-over didn't work at all). Also, the scene at the end when Sommer is leading Ford and McGillis out from the barn, you could almost sense the director calling "action" and the scene beginning. Pretty disturbing for this caliber of film. Another minor annoyance was when Danny Glover, after being shot, raises the shotgun toward the ceiling with one hand and pulls the trigger. There was absolutely no recoil. I don't have a clue why this scene wasn't redone. Anyone who knows anything about firearms will shake their heads. Finally, and more importantly, the 'bad' cops just weren't convincing as real people...ala...human flesh and blood. They seemed to be punched out from the standard Hollywood cookie-cutter.

That's a lot of stuff not to like in one of my favorite films (I also have several more minor items that I didn't mention). But I forgave these transgressions to my suspension of disbelief, and ended up really enjoying this film. I haul it out every so often just to be transported to another world and watch a great love story done to perfection (no melodramatic "smaltz" here). Between 1 and 10, I give "Witness" a marginal 8. A little more care in those areas I mentioned and this could have been a 10.

Although I suppose "Bladerunner" is the movie that showed Harrison Ford could do something outside of "Star Wars", I personally think "Witness" was one of the most important movies of his career, because it's a complete departure from a science fiction storyline, and therefore paved the way for all the Tom Clancy stuff and other movies that featured him as a romantic hero.

Here he plays John Book, a police detective who has to interrogate a small Amish boy who is the only witness to a brutal murder in a train terminal washroom. When the boy makes an ID that implicates a respected fellow police detective, Book gets wounded, but realizes that he must get the boy and his widowed mother (Kelly McGillis) back to the Amish country and go underground. Thus, much of the movie concerns itself with the fish out of water experience he has, trying to pass as an Amish man, learning about their life and falling in love with the boy's mother. This is dangerous territory for her, as her father-in-law warns her that if she steps out of line, she will be shunned by her community. And then of course, the corrupt police have been looking for Book and the boy, remember. Final showdown is about as you would expect it, and glad to have it so. One interesting note is the pretty good performance by Alexander Godonoff, the defected ballet dancer, as a jealous suitor of Kelly McGillis. Too bad he died so young; he might have branched into a whole new career here.

I hadn't seen this for many years before finding it among the tapes at a bed and breakfast place last summer. I was pleased to find it as enjoyable today as it was years ago, and my friend who had never seen it was enthralled, as you would be, too.

Witness is critically acclaimed and everyone likes it, but probably me. There's something lacking in this film that keeps it from my honor list (four stars or above). As usual, the acting is fine when Ford is included, but the story line bothers me a bit and I think I know what's missing.

John Book is Ford's character and he takes up a case which includes an Amish boy and his sister, big sis, and the uncovering of crooked cops in his own precinct. The Amish boy witnesses a murder and Book finds out its a cop behind it, but as he investigates he gets shot and he escapes with the boy and his sis to Amish territory where he seeks assylum.

This movie has some really good points, so let me point them out first.

1. Harrison Ford is outstanding, why he didn't win best actor for this the world will never know, but he did a great job with a city cop who has to change and learn of a new culture far from his own.
2. This film put the Amish and their culture for America to learn about. I admire their culture and beliefs and their moral duties, which you learn a great deal about. Again, I am all for movies that teach you things as well as entertain you at the same time. This film does that, sort of.
3. The plot is original, for its time, although many spins have made off it, films that now make fun or attempt to include the Amish in it have come about as a result to this film's success.

Here's the problem with it. The film was intended to be a romance/thriller/drama and it failed. The thrillingness of it is very good, it is successful at keep us glued seeing if the bad cops will find Ford stashed with the Amish. But the romance and drama are pitiful and unrealistic.

Ford's character, although believable, is kind of lost. He finds himself at the care of these Amish folks and yet he doesn't know what to do. He can't return to the city cops, so he just sits there and bides his time. I never could figure this out. Why doesn't he go to a different city? Seek out of state jurisdiction? Instead he just remains, willingly, among the Amish learning their customs as he checks in with his partner to see how things are. But this is so stupid and unbelievable. Damn, if I was him I'd be on the move. Who cares if your car doesn't work, walk or borrow a carriage of theirs. Sheesh!

OK, the romance is dumb. I don't think it works and the reason why I think it doesn't works is because Kelly McGillis' character has to step out of character for it to even happen, which is a total no no. There is this one scene that makes me puke, it is when McGillis is bathing and she doesn't mind that Book is watching her in the nude. She even turns to stare at him, showing all like "Come and get me, big boy."

This is not a born and bred Amish gal, this is stupid Hollywood being perverted. It's this incident that takes her out of character for good and it ruins the movie, making viewers uncomfortable like me. A real Amish girl would never do such a thing. I almost wonder if the director knew this but did it anyway to make a statement or demonstrate that "physical pleasure is more important than one's Faith." It wouldn't surprise me.

This film would've been better if McGillis's character hadn't turned into a sex symbol, but been a woman who loved her Faith more than her own lust. That would've been character development and more realistic. I guess I'm so sick of these lady roles being these easy, bare all sex symbols that have no personality or originality in their character.

The end is also unbelievable. Three bad cops show up to find Book and kill him, so they go right into the heart of the Amish community and start shooting up the place. This reminded me of a cheesy western that Clint Eastwood would sport. Give me a break.

This film has some reality in it, but a whole lot of typical hollywood as well. I'm sorry, but the out of step character of McGillis and the ending was just unsatisfactory to give this movie more than three stars.

This film was magical for me, and I've always enjoyed the topic of forbidden love. For those who haven't seen this movie, other reviewers have spelled out the plot very nicely.

The heart of the story is the juxtaposition of the hardened, big city detective in the midst of Amish country, and it centers on his relationship with a young, beautiful Amish woman and her son. Exteme opposites that do, indeed, attract. The sparks fly between them and keeps the viewer captivated (at least it did for me). Kelly McGillis played an exceptional role in this film (her first film, I believe). I'd rate it as her best performance by a long shot. It was also one of Harrison Ford's better roles. And Lukas Haas was very convincing in all but one scene.

The cinematography and Jarre's music was lovingly layered, and displayed throughout the Pennsylvania local. The barn raising scene was especially wonderful, and gives the viewer a true yearning for a simpler, more family-oriented life.

Not everything worked in this picture, however. In a couple of places the editing seemed haphazardly done. The scene where the cops are on the front porch of Ford's sister and questioning her is an example (the voice-over didn't work at all). Also, the scene at the end when Sommer is leading Ford and McGillis out from the barn, you could almost sense the director calling "action" and the scene beginning. Pretty disturbing for this caliber of film. Another minor annoyance was when Danny Glover, after being shot, raises the shotgun toward the ceiling with one hand and pulls the trigger. There was absolutely no recoil. I don't have a clue why this scene wasn't redone. Anyone who knows anything about firearms will shake their heads. Finally, and more importantly, the 'bad' cops just weren't convincing as real people...ala...human flesh and blood. They seemed to be punched out from the standard Hollywood cookie-cutter.

That's a lot of stuff not to like in one of my favorite films (I also have several more minor items that I didn't mention). But I forgave these transgressions to my suspension of disbelief, and ended up really enjoying this film. I haul it out every so often just to be transported to another world and watch a great love story done to perfection (no melodramatic "smaltz" here). Between 1 and 10, I give "Witness" a marginal 8. A little more care in those areas I mentioned and this could have been a 10.

Although I suppose "Bladerunner" is the movie that showed Harrison Ford could do something outside of "Star Wars", I personally think "Witness" was one of the most important movies of his career, because it's a complete departure from a science fiction storyline, and therefore paved the way for all the Tom Clancy stuff and other movies that featured him as a romantic hero.

Here he plays John Book, a police detective who has to interrogate a small Amish boy who is the only witness to a brutal murder in a train terminal washroom. When the boy makes an ID that implicates a respected fellow police detective, Book gets wounded, but realizes that he must get the boy and his widowed mother (Kelly McGillis) back to the Amish country and go underground. Thus, much of the movie concerns itself with the fish out of water experience he has, trying to pass as an Amish man, learning about their life and falling in love with the boy's mother. This is dangerous territory for her, as her father-in-law warns her that if she steps out of line, she will be shunned by her community. And then of course, the corrupt police have been looking for Book and the boy, remember. Final showdown is about as you would expect it, and glad to have it so. One interesting note is the pretty good performance by Alexander Godonoff, the defected ballet dancer, as a jealous suitor of Kelly McGillis. Too bad he died so young; he might have branched into a whole new career here.

I hadn't seen this for many years before finding it among the tapes at a bed and breakfast place last summer. I was pleased to find it as enjoyable today as it was years ago, and my friend who had never seen it was enthralled, as you would be, too.

The only reason to watch this film is if you must have a Viggo Mortensen eye-candy fix. This is one of the crappiest things I have seen in a long, long time. The script is something they pulled out of the closet from 1973 and never bothered to update. It has some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard: Nouri, playing the cardboard-cutout mafia don, is the only actor who somehow manages to deliver his lines without sounding like someone wound him up. And let us not even begin to talk about the rest of the characters...I defy anyone to tell me what the accent is that you very occasionally hear Mortensen use.

What make this movie even more of a disappointment is that the opening sequence and the first 5 minutes of the film are very well done and set you up for a decent film experience...and then you wait in vain.

This film is only for those who can appreciate "real" cinema. It respects Japanese tradition, and utililizes the martial art's "Codes of Honor". The story itself is well written, with plot twists, suprises and a gratifying conclusion. The director's guidance and the cinematographer's visionary skills are to be praised as well. However, the true mastery in this piece is in the acting. Viggo Mortensen and his counterpart Ryo Ishibashi deserve the highest marks. Their realistic, on-screen duo performance makes Gibson and Glover in Lethal Weapon and Tucker and Chan in Rush Hour, pale in comparison. Overall, I highly recommend American Yakuza as a solid piece of work, for all discerning film-goers.

This film was a brilliant surprise in comparison to the many "mafia", and "karate" movies available today. This film was an intelligent, alternative to the standard "shoot first and ask questions later", action films that are so popular in the nineties. Viggo Mortensen plays a character that was released from prison, and accidentally saves a member of the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) and thereby achieves a high status within the Yakuza. And this is just the beginning of one of the richest action movie plots in the last century. Not only do the actors give incredible, believable performances, but the plot is plausible as well. I will not go into further details on the plot for fear of giving something away, but suffice it to say, it is filled with twists, turns, surprises, and REALISTIC dialogue. My highest recommendation of this film is that their action scenes are not exaggerated. They are things that could realistically happen. No one, out-runs explosions, no one dodges an unheard of amount of bullets, and the characters don't all blow things up first and ask questions later. The characters have depth, and are intelligent, and very well acted. I cannot stress enough that this is a quality piece of film, far beyond the capacity of most action films. If you are in the mood for tense, and electrifying action that is plausible and realistic see this movie!

The only reason to watch this film is if you must have a Viggo Mortensen eye-candy fix. This is one of the crappiest things I have seen in a long, long time. The script is something they pulled out of the closet from 1973 and never bothered to update. It has some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard: Nouri, playing the cardboard-cutout mafia don, is the only actor who somehow manages to deliver his lines without sounding like someone wound him up. And let us not even begin to talk about the rest of the characters...I defy anyone to tell me what the accent is that you very occasionally hear Mortensen use.

What make this movie even more of a disappointment is that the opening sequence and the first 5 minutes of the film are very well done and set you up for a decent film experience...and then you wait in vain.

This film is only for those who can appreciate "real" cinema. It respects Japanese tradition, and utililizes the martial art's "Codes of Honor". The story itself is well written, with plot twists, suprises and a gratifying conclusion. The director's guidance and the cinematographer's visionary skills are to be praised as well. However, the true mastery in this piece is in the acting. Viggo Mortensen and his counterpart Ryo Ishibashi deserve the highest marks. Their realistic, on-screen duo performance makes Gibson and Glover in Lethal Weapon and Tucker and Chan in Rush Hour, pale in comparison. Overall, I highly recommend American Yakuza as a solid piece of work, for all discerning film-goers.

This film was a brilliant surprise in comparison to the many "mafia", and "karate" movies available today. This film was an intelligent, alternative to the standard "shoot first and ask questions later", action films that are so popular in the nineties. Viggo Mortensen plays a character that was released from prison, and accidentally saves a member of the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) and thereby achieves a high status within the Yakuza. And this is just the beginning of one of the richest action movie plots in the last century. Not only do the actors give incredible, believable performances, but the plot is plausible as well. I will not go into further details on the plot for fear of giving something away, but suffice it to say, it is filled with twists, turns, surprises, and REALISTIC dialogue. My highest recommendation of this film is that their action scenes are not exaggerated. They are things that could realistically happen. No one, out-runs explosions, no one dodges an unheard of amount of bullets, and the characters don't all blow things up first and ask questions later. The characters have depth, and are intelligent, and very well acted. I cannot stress enough that this is a quality piece of film, far beyond the capacity of most action films. If you are in the mood for tense, and electrifying action that is plausible and realistic see this movie!

This film starts with choir singers over the credits, which is quietly peaceful and then gets quietly irritating - setting the scene for the rest of the film.

Eric Stoltz looks virtually unrecognisable from the previous role I've seen him in, in 'Mask' with Cher. I know he had a lot of makeup and prosthetics on during that film, but not even the eyes look familiar.

Surprisingly enough, one of the ten rules of movies doesn't happen! The old cop says at the start of the film that he will be retiring in two years and three months, and that normally means he dies in his protégé's arms after a fatal shoot-out, but not this time. I was surprised.

Christopher Walken is the only reason for watching this film, particularly if you're a fan. I'm not THAT big a fan (only seen him before in 'Sleepy Hollow' and 'Blast From The Past'), but alongside Jack Nicholson, that guy has the creepiest eyes ever! When he appears - with bad hair - the film seems to lift almost, and his presence alone makes the film watchable.

If you're a 'Friends' fanatic, watch out for Adam Goldberg (playing Gabriel's sidekick, Gerry. He played Eddie, in the episode where Joey moved out and Chandler had to get a new roommate.)

Certain parts remind me of certain films, particularly 'Sixth Sense' and 'Devil's Advocate'. Now if it had Keanu Reeves in it . . .

One of the fight scenes is diabolical! You have to laugh watching it, it's very low key, and there's hardly any effort put into it, which is kind of bad. I could fight better than that, myself!

I wasn't sure why this film was rated an 18, when I started watching it. The 'gory' bits are few & far between, but the worst it makes you do, is look away from the screen for barely a second - you want to see the gory bits. It could have got away with being rated a 15 maybe.

I did expect this to be darker, and more of a gothic fantasy film. Reading the blurb at the back, I expected it to be based in heaven, or at least partially, but it wasn't. I'm left sitting on the fence with this film. I wouldn't say it was a great film, but I wouldn't say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen (that place is proudly taken by 'Lost Highway', and will remain there). It's a very strange concept for a film, definitely not one that's been thought of beforehand. I won't be watching the sequels, I think one was enough for me.

Throughout this decade I've watched some pretty horrible horror films. The only good films I could find were Candyman and Event Horizon. But then I came across The Prophecy, which is one of the best horror films of this decade. It's not frightening in your usual horror film sense, but has more of an intellectual feel to it. It's not an insult to your mind as most slasher films are. This film is full of intriguing thoughts and ideas, especially with writer-director Gregory Widen's version of how an angel's physical form on Earth would be like. The film starts off a bit confusing but becomes more easy to understand as the film goes along. There's the soon to become priest named Thomas Dagget, played very well by Elias Koteas who now has a high-profile due to his role in The Thin Red Line. You can also catch Koteas' role as a demon in Fallen in which he is even better at it than Christopher Walken! Anyway, Thomas sees visions of angels being killed, he loses his faith and becomes a cop. This might sound kind of funny on paper but watching it is pretty serious. A good angel named Simon (portrayed perfectly by Eric Stoltz) murders another angel, Usiel who is one of Gabriel's men, in self-defense. Autopsy reports show Usiel has the physical attributes of an aborted fetus, has no eyes and never did, and is a hermaphrodite. Thomas investigates on this case and discovers a bible on Usiel that has a 23 chapter of Revelations that states of the Second Coming, another war between angels. It states the war occurs because angels are jealous of the fact God loves humans more than angels because humans have souls. In order for this war to begin, the bad angels, led by Gabriel in an unforgettable performance by Christopher Walken, need the soul of a recently deceased Colonel Hawthorne, who is supposed to be the most evil person on Earth. Simon manages to steal Hawthorne's soul before Gabriel and places it in the body of a young girl named Mary. Thomas and Mary's teacher, Katherine (in a fine performance by Virginia Madsen) get caught up in this storm of events and must find a way to prevent the apocalypse from occuring.

What I've just typed down about The Prophecy must be very confusing. It's actually a lot easier to understand then it seems. The acting in this film was very good. The lead performances by Koteas, Madsen, Walken, and Stoltz were excellent. I liked Stoltz's character the most but he left the movie too early. The overall plot idea was great and had an epic feeling. There was one particular scene where we see a vision of hundreds of angels impaled that I found very disturbing. It's one of the more haunting images on film these days. This film is also very humorous with most of the comedy supplied from Walken.

There were a couple of things I didn't like too much about this movie. Why did Simon visit Thomas? That seemed more of an excuse to get Thomas even more involved in the war. The fact that this movie is very short. It left some interesting ideas or scenes that could have easily fit in. The ending, but it's a very minor problem, isn't as great as the rest of the movie. Without giving too much away I feel a downbeat ending like in The Exorcist and The Omen would have worked better in The Prophecy. After all, a prophecy is something you can't prevent. But the ending's somewhat made up for with Koteas' thought-provoking final words and the musical score. Some people may not like the fact that Gabriel is portrayed as a jealous celestial being. All in all, The Prophecy is a supernatural thriller that should not be missed if you enjoy movies like the Exorcist or if you're a fan of the cast. There is a sequel to The Prophecy and another one in the works, but I don't plan on watching them simply because I am mostly content with the way the first film ended.

Christopher Walken does movies that are either really forgetable, or incredible to the point that you find yourself thinking about the movie days after you've seen it. Well I'm glad to say that The Prophecy falls into the latter catagory. Walken plays archangel Gabriel, who is leading a revolt in heaven against god. A heavenly civil war, for lack of a better word. Gabriel is in search for the soul of a recently deceased General(since humans know more about the art of war, who better to help his side out?),the only problem is that an angel fighting against the revolt,Simon(excellent acting job by Eric Stoltz), has beat him to it and has hidden the soul inside of a young girl. So the battle begins. The Prophecy is one of those movies that was very well done but didn't make much of a showing in the theaters. The reason for this may have been lack of promotion, because everyone who I talked into seeing this movie loved it. If you are looking for a movie done in the style of the exorsist or the omen, give The Prophecy a try. Especially if you are a fan of either Christopher Walken or Eric Stoltz, this is a must buy.

There is a strange ambiance in this movie, as if we were dealing with spies in an Cold War era..You would expect Keitel's character to walk in the next Cafe Rouge to meet a Russian couple for dinner and ...well, conversation...Dave Arnold's music is just great, adding the necessary eerie side to the foggy London streets on which our DEA man chases his prey. Great work altogether, and a must see for Americans in Europe...

I caught this movie on TV one Saturday afternoon while flipping through the Channels. Seeing Harvey Keitel got my attention but the movie itself kept it. It's a really good movie. I was suprised that I hadn't heard of it before. Check it out. Its a great deal especially at the price Amazon offers it for.

I thought that I had seen all of Harvey Keitel's films but, due to the inexplicable failure of this film to attain a theatrical distributor in the U.S., I had never even heard of this one. Then I caught it on Bravo a few weeks ago and it knocked me out! It's a gritty, tough British crime film in the tradition of THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY. The cast is very good - of course, Keitel is excellent as a weary American liaison to the English police, but Craig Kelly (currently in the Brit TV series QUEER AS FOLK) is also impressive as Chris, a young man struggling to survive the mean streets of London. This film is truly a pleasant surprise.

An appealing concept that has been gorgeously filmed, "Reflecting Skin" manages to fall far short of remarkable. While I appreciated the film's attempt to show us how evil might be perceived through the eyes of a child, I found the notably poor acting of the children (and much of the rest of the cast) to be immensely distracting. The few moments of brilliance are overshadowed by all the clumsiness that sews them together. Instead of finding the performances to be quirkily Lynchian as other reviewers have suggested, they struck me instead as being just plain bad. While I certainly would recommend this film as being worth seeing if you have absolutely nothing else on your list of things to do, I can't in good conscience offer it anything higher than a 3 out of 5 stars.

Not only is this film one of the most visually stunning pieces of cinematography this side of a great R.E.M. video, it is a brilliant (albeit dark) and frightening portrayal of humanity's loss of innocence. The references to the A-bomb are not to be brushed aside, as the bomb itself and its implications form the basis for this descent into madness. I can't believe the person who compared it to an Ed Wood film! Are you sure you saw the same film? I've seen it four or five times, and it still fascinates me. The ending is a relentless jawdropper, and the score is haunting. ADD TO SHOPPING CART NOW!!

A unique and deeply moving film by Philip Ridley. The dreamlike atmosphere never becomes disconnected from reality, which adds to the impact. Humorously oddball scenes suddenly become serious and human, while moments of quiet introspection are often interrupted by a jolt of unexpected hilarity. The moments of beauty and poignance go well beyond anything David Lynch has accomplished -- though Lynch fans would certainly enjoy this movie.

The excellent musical score sounds like a cross between Ralph Vaughan Williams (or Gerald Finzi) and Philip Glass on an exceptionally good day. There are several well-integrated references to moody icons: Andrew Wyeth's paintings, the stuffed birds of "Psycho" -- and in the breathtaking final sequence, the sliver of a cloud slicing across the moon (here, the setting sun) as it does at the start of "Un Chien Andalou," the root of the surrealist film tree.

This is absolutely *not* a movie for everyone. Those who have no patience with leisurely, meditative character studies -- or who couldn't care less about brilliant cinematography -- should stay away. On the other hand, fans of (for example) Ingmar Bergman's dark, intense films of the 1960s will love this movie.

"The Reflecting Skin" should already be on DVD. The fact that it's currently out of print even in VHS is little short of ... well, surreal.

The previews, at least the theatrical ones, for 28 Days are misleading. They put the emphasis on its comedic moments. The movie is actually a drama, a cautionary tale about the toll substance abuse has on one young woman. Because the character is rescued before she hits bottom or does anything she will forever regret, the humor has its place here.

Sandra Bullock is Gwen Cummings, a writer who loves to party. She lives with an Englishman named Jasper [Dominic West], who makes the perfect playmate. They drink, they go out to dinner, they drink some more, they go dancing, they go home and drink even more. When they can remember, they pop a few pills to make things even merrier. One night they light some candles to enhance a lovemaking session. In the process they nearly burn their apartment down. Things come to a head when they arrive late and higher than kites at her older sister's wedding. Gwen ruins the special day, then commandeers a limo, wrecks it and winds up in jail. The judge gives her a suspended sentence but orders her to go to a rehab center. Typical of an addict, Gwen minimizes the extent of her problem. She does not think she needs to be in the center because she believes she can give up her habit on her own. She is in for some surprises, not all of them pleasant.

I will admit that Ms. Bullock is not one of my favorite actresses. She's fairly lightweight. I've also never seen much chemistry between her and her costars when she's chosen to do romantic roles. She has her good points. Off screen, she is a great businessperson. In a movie like 28 Days, she is not afraid to be seen looking unglamorous, and this does lend credibility to her performance. She is also wise enough not to try to dominate a picture.

There are two fine supporting actresses. Elizabeth Perkins is convincing as Gwen's sister, who has spent a lifetime rescuing Gwen and is sick of it. Azura Skye is touching as Gwen's young roommate, Andrea, whose problems are quite serious.

The depiction of a rehab center here is a very Hollywood vision. Most of the patients are stereotypes of what addicts are like. Still, 28 Days is a likable movie, and it does provide a message. For more accurate portrayals of drug and alcohol addiction, I would recommend Postcards From the Edge and Girl, Interrupted. Two of the finest films on the subject are much older - The Lost Weekend [1948] and The Days of Wine and Roses [1962].

Director Betty Thomas has achieved something rare: A modern movie that tackles a serious issue and emerges with it's tastefulness intact. "28 Days" has the plot of a drama, the soul of a comedy, the feel of a documentary and a fabulous performance by Sandra Bullock that gives each genre a place in the delicate mix of this wonderful movie.

Bullock is Gwen Cummings, an alcoholic, pill popping journalist who is sentenced to spend 28 days in a rehab center she drunkenly steals a limo and crashes it into a house. Leaving behind her boozy British boyfriend Jasper (superbly played by Domonic West), Gwen soon finds the support and understanding of her eccentric and often hilarious new neighbors. There's Eddie (Viggo Mortensen), the washed up baseball player who'll sleep with anyone; Oliver (Mike O'Malley), the wisecracking Park Avenue pot addict; Andrea (Azura Skye), a young woman addicted to drugs and a preposterous soap opera called "Santa Cruz," which she eventually turns everyone on to; and Gerhardt (Alan Tudyk), the wacky German. "28 Days," unlike an "Erin Brokovich" where one star dominates, is an ensemble film that allows a variety of talents to shine. And with a cast of this caliber, sometimes that shine rivals the stars themselves in brightness.

Despite many humorous moments, it's the dramatic aspects of "28 Days" that make it great. When Gwen becomes so desperate for her pills that she jumps out the window to get some she threw away earlier, the obsessiveness and despair of dependency are captured at their most vivid. Then there's her troubled relationship with her sister Lily (sensitively portrayed by Elizabeth Perkins), who can't decide whether she wants to give up on the woman who has never been there for her, or stand by her in the hope that she will reform, risking having her heart broken yet again.

It's because Bullock and screenwriter Susannah Grant have made Gwen such a likable character that these situations have real bite. Sine we can't decide whether we love her or hate her, we keep watching the movie on the edge of our seats, searching for something that will proove to us once and for all what Gwen Cummings is. The movie wisely avoids giving us a straight answer to that and many other questions, allowing the viewer instead to make their own decisions and create their own relationaships with the characters and the things they encounter.

"28 Days" is a triumph for all involved. There's nothing better for a cynical critic like me then proof on the screen that films moving stories with engaging characters are still being made. Perhaps the best news of all is the resurrection of Sandra Bullock's career after three flops in a row. If she continues to show such wise judgement in choosing her projects, this poor man's Julia Roberts may be topping the A-list once again.

Sandra Bullock's character goes to rehab. She hates it at first then sees she should be sober. Its a funny movie thats not very preachy and it has good characters. The dvd has cool features like how to make that gum wrapper chain thing, and actual scenes from Santa Cruz.

The previews, at least the theatrical ones, for 28 Days are misleading. They put the emphasis on its comedic moments. The movie is actually a drama, a cautionary tale about the toll substance abuse has on one young woman. Because the character is rescued before she hits bottom or does anything she will forever regret, the humor has its place here.

Sandra Bullock is Gwen Cummings, a writer who loves to party. She lives with an Englishman named Jasper [Dominic West], who makes the perfect playmate. They drink, they go out to dinner, they drink some more, they go dancing, they go home and drink even more. When they can remember, they pop a few pills to make things even merrier. One night they light some candles to enhance a lovemaking session. In the process they nearly burn their apartment down. Things come to a head when they arrive late and higher than kites at her older sister's wedding. Gwen ruins the special day, then commandeers a limo, wrecks it and winds up in jail. The judge gives her a suspended sentence but orders her to go to a rehab center. Typical of an addict, Gwen minimizes the extent of her problem. She does not think she needs to be in the center because she believes she can give up her habit on her own. She is in for some surprises, not all of them pleasant.

I will admit that Ms. Bullock is not one of my favorite actresses. She's fairly lightweight. I've also never seen much chemistry between her and her costars when she's chosen to do romantic roles. She has her good points. Off screen, she is a great businessperson. In a movie like 28 Days, she is not afraid to be seen looking unglamorous, and this does lend credibility to her performance. She is also wise enough not to try to dominate a picture.

There are two fine supporting actresses. Elizabeth Perkins is convincing as Gwen's sister, who has spent a lifetime rescuing Gwen and is sick of it. Azura Skye is touching as Gwen's young roommate, Andrea, whose problems are quite serious.

The depiction of a rehab center here is a very Hollywood vision. Most of the patients are stereotypes of what addicts are like. Still, 28 Days is a likable movie, and it does provide a message. For more accurate portrayals of drug and alcohol addiction, I would recommend Postcards From the Edge and Girl, Interrupted. Two of the finest films on the subject are much older - The Lost Weekend [1948] and The Days of Wine and Roses [1962].

Director Betty Thomas has achieved something rare: A modern movie that tackles a serious issue and emerges with it's tastefulness intact. "28 Days" has the plot of a drama, the soul of a comedy, the feel of a documentary and a fabulous performance by Sandra Bullock that gives each genre a place in the delicate mix of this wonderful movie.

Bullock is Gwen Cummings, an alcoholic, pill popping journalist who is sentenced to spend 28 days in a rehab center she drunkenly steals a limo and crashes it into a house. Leaving behind her boozy British boyfriend Jasper (superbly played by Domonic West), Gwen soon finds the support and understanding of her eccentric and often hilarious new neighbors. There's Eddie (Viggo Mortensen), the washed up baseball player who'll sleep with anyone; Oliver (Mike O'Malley), the wisecracking Park Avenue pot addict; Andrea (Azura Skye), a young woman addicted to drugs and a preposterous soap opera called "Santa Cruz," which she eventually turns everyone on to; and Gerhardt (Alan Tudyk), the wacky German. "28 Days," unlike an "Erin Brokovich" where one star dominates, is an ensemble film that allows a variety of talents to shine. And with a cast of this caliber, sometimes that shine rivals the stars themselves in brightness.

Despite many humorous moments, it's the dramatic aspects of "28 Days" that make it great. When Gwen becomes so desperate for her pills that she jumps out the window to get some she threw away earlier, the obsessiveness and despair of dependency are captured at their most vivid. Then there's her troubled relationship with her sister Lily (sensitively portrayed by Elizabeth Perkins), who can't decide whether she wants to give up on the woman who has never been there for her, or stand by her in the hope that she will reform, risking having her heart broken yet again.

It's because Bullock and screenwriter Susannah Grant have made Gwen such a likable character that these situations have real bite. Sine we can't decide whether we love her or hate her, we keep watching the movie on the edge of our seats, searching for something that will proove to us once and for all what Gwen Cummings is. The movie wisely avoids giving us a straight answer to that and many other questions, allowing the viewer instead to make their own decisions and create their own relationaships with the characters and the things they encounter.

"28 Days" is a triumph for all involved. There's nothing better for a cynical critic like me then proof on the screen that films moving stories with engaging characters are still being made. Perhaps the best news of all is the resurrection of Sandra Bullock's career after three flops in a row. If she continues to show such wise judgement in choosing her projects, this poor man's Julia Roberts may be topping the A-list once again.

Sandra Bullock's character goes to rehab. She hates it at first then sees she should be sober. Its a funny movie thats not very preachy and it has good characters. The dvd has cool features like how to make that gum wrapper chain thing, and actual scenes from Santa Cruz.