Viggo-Mortensen Movie Reviews

If one is to compare this movie to the glorious book, one can only conclude that this endevor to film another Henry James novel is a very unfortunate attempt. Being Jane Campion's fan ever since "The Piano," I decided to watch the film as a work of its own, not based on James' book or anything else. The results were as follows. The movie isn't all that bad- the musical scores are beautiful, the actors are all right (with the exception of John Malkovich- he is a terrible Osmond), and the settings are charming. As the movie progresses from England to Florence to Rome and then back to England again, the protagonist, Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman) changes both internally and on the exterior. Jane Campion, as it always happens with 1990's directors, brought sex and feminism into the Victorian scenery. Feminism is understandable- you do feel it in the novel, but sex was a big no-no for James- for him it existed, as John Updike wittily observed, "only as a rumor." Some scenes were really miscreated- Isabel crying in the beginning of the film under a tree, or Osmond literally "fingering" Madame Merle with his index finger- that was just so comic. THAT I didn't expect from Campion. However, the film is full of other scenes, most of them very tastefully executed and gorgeous- the great Roman party, Madam Merle's conversation with Edward Rosier, and Ralph's death and funeral at the end. The ending, as John Updike said, is "frustrating." The saddest piano piece by Shubert is played as Ralph Touchett's coffin is lowered into the grave. As controversial as it is, "The Portrait of a Lady" is much better than the 2000 production of James's other novel- "The Golden Bowl," with Uma Thurman.

This movie was completely slagged off by US audiences, which just further illustrates the disaster that is American cinema. The Portrait of A Lady is brilliant film-making. It is a movie full of complex characters, divided emotions and intense drama. Most American's just don't get it. Campion's decision to begin the film in modern day with a series of women talking about love proves that not much has changed since Henry James wrote the classic novel on which the film is based. The film follows closely to James' story: Isabel Archer (Kidman in her finest role) comes to England to visit relatives and winds up inheriting a fortune. She falls under the spell of Madame Merle (Barbara Hershey deserved an Oscar)who introduces her to the sinister Gilbert Osmand (Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons mode)who simply wants her money and another beauty to add to his art collection. Isabel rejects a number of suitors in her quest to be an independent woman. She claims to her smitten cousin that she will never marry, but falls under the spell of Osmond. There are scenes of horror and heartbreak here, imaginative moments such as Isabel's "travelogue" through Europe as she begins to obsess over Osmond's entreaty that "I find myself absolutely in love with you." The supporting cast lead by Martin Donovan, Christian Bale, Shelly Winters, Shelly Duval and the priceless Mary-Louise Parker are superb. The much discussed final scene (which for some reason people don't understand) is a fabulous coda to this film. It mirrors an earlier scene when Isabel refused the proposal of Lord Warburton, and now finds herself in the same situation with her American suitor. Isabel runs toward the house, but rather than going inside, she turns back and the image freezes. Isabel is reconsidering the proposal of a man who truly loves her. What people don't like, obviously, is that we don't see her run back to his arms and tearfully say yes as the screen fades to black. We see Isabel caught in a moment of change and decision. This haunting final image is superb. Get a clue, people.

At first, I read the novel. I though I couldn't understand heroine's decisions. Isabel is a stubborn woman and is not clever. Her behavoir is strenge for me. I wondered why Henry James wrote her as incomprehensible woman.
But when I watched the movie, I could see her anothe angles. She has a strong will that never overcame by enyone . As a woman , she didn't run away from her choice and duty. Inculding me , any woman give up and reconcile anothe man who make advances(doubtful, I don't like man in this novel) herself.

John Malkovich( played Gilert Osmond) is very very great! He acted very mysterious man . Nicole Kidman is very beatifulc.
I think this film is highered by actors. I don't like Osmond in the novel but I like Osmond in the film. It make us contemplate.

If one is to compare this movie to the glorious book, one can only conclude that this endevor to film another Henry James novel is a very unfortunate attempt. Being Jane Campion's fan ever since "The Piano," I decided to watch the film as a work of its own, not based on James' book or anything else. The results were as follows. The movie isn't all that bad- the musical scores are beautiful, the actors are all right (with the exception of John Malkovich- he is a terrible Osmond), and the settings are charming. As the movie progresses from England to Florence to Rome and then back to England again, the protagonist, Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman) changes both internally and on the exterior. Jane Campion, as it always happens with 1990's directors, brought sex and feminism into the Victorian scenery. Feminism is understandable- you do feel it in the novel, but sex was a big no-no for James- for him it existed, as John Updike wittily observed, "only as a rumor." Some scenes were really miscreated- Isabel crying in the beginning of the film under a tree, or Osmond literally "fingering" Madame Merle with his index finger- that was just so comic. THAT I didn't expect from Campion. However, the film is full of other scenes, most of them very tastefully executed and gorgeous- the great Roman party, Madam Merle's conversation with Edward Rosier, and Ralph's death and funeral at the end. The ending, as John Updike said, is "frustrating." The saddest piano piece by Shubert is played as Ralph Touchett's coffin is lowered into the grave. As controversial as it is, "The Portrait of a Lady" is much better than the 2000 production of James's other novel- "The Golden Bowl," with Uma Thurman.

This movie was completely slagged off by US audiences, which just further illustrates the disaster that is American cinema. The Portrait of A Lady is brilliant film-making. It is a movie full of complex characters, divided emotions and intense drama. Most American's just don't get it. Campion's decision to begin the film in modern day with a series of women talking about love proves that not much has changed since Henry James wrote the classic novel on which the film is based. The film follows closely to James' story: Isabel Archer (Kidman in her finest role) comes to England to visit relatives and winds up inheriting a fortune. She falls under the spell of Madame Merle (Barbara Hershey deserved an Oscar)who introduces her to the sinister Gilbert Osmand (Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons mode)who simply wants her money and another beauty to add to his art collection. Isabel rejects a number of suitors in her quest to be an independent woman. She claims to her smitten cousin that she will never marry, but falls under the spell of Osmond. There are scenes of horror and heartbreak here, imaginative moments such as Isabel's "travelogue" through Europe as she begins to obsess over Osmond's entreaty that "I find myself absolutely in love with you." The supporting cast lead by Martin Donovan, Christian Bale, Shelly Winters, Shelly Duval and the priceless Mary-Louise Parker are superb. The much discussed final scene (which for some reason people don't understand) is a fabulous coda to this film. It mirrors an earlier scene when Isabel refused the proposal of Lord Warburton, and now finds herself in the same situation with her American suitor. Isabel runs toward the house, but rather than going inside, she turns back and the image freezes. Isabel is reconsidering the proposal of a man who truly loves her. What people don't like, obviously, is that we don't see her run back to his arms and tearfully say yes as the screen fades to black. We see Isabel caught in a moment of change and decision. This haunting final image is superb. Get a clue, people.

At first, I read the novel. I though I couldn't understand heroine's decisions. Isabel is a stubborn woman and is not clever. Her behavoir is strenge for me. I wondered why Henry James wrote her as incomprehensible woman.
But when I watched the movie, I could see her anothe angles. She has a strong will that never overcame by enyone . As a woman , she didn't run away from her choice and duty. Inculding me , any woman give up and reconcile anothe man who make advances(doubtful, I don't like man in this novel) herself.

John Malkovich( played Gilert Osmond) is very very great! He acted very mysterious man . Nicole Kidman is very beatifulc.
I think this film is highered by actors. I don't like Osmond in the novel but I like Osmond in the film. It make us contemplate.

Of course, every cinema lover must compare this film with "Dial M for Murder", by Hitckcock. Both are based in a play by Frederick Knott. I don't mind what Hitchcock said -he seemed not particularly happy with that movie of his-: "Dial M for Murder" was excellent as a suspense thriller and a model for theater on the big screen. A very clever plot. Grace Kelly was the victim of her husband, Ray Milland.

But what was really peculiar was precisely the character of Milland, who didn't show any single moment anything but a devilish cold and designing mind. He was a smiling practitioner of murder understood as a fine art, as an intellectual challenge. Instead Douglas in this film is a silly jealous killer with his habitual sour face. We see him even kill with a knife. A bore.

And if we forget the hitchcockian referece? Well, then, an undistinguised film, not very exiting on any account.

Having never seen the Alfred Hitchcock classic DIAL M FOR MURDER, I have absolutely nothing with which to compare this film, except the slick mystery/suspense thrillers of the 1980's and '90's. In this category, A PERFECT MURDER (1998) ranks among the better ones.

With Michael Douglas at his sordid best, Gwyneth Paltrow in the middle of her breakout year (doing films such as GREAT EXPECTATIONS--another re-make, SLIDING DOORS, HUSH and finally, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, which resulted in a well-deserved Oscar statue for her) and still-rising Viggo Mortensen, the screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly fits each of these actors' personas so neatly that you would swear the words were written with these actors fully in mind. Add in the lush photograghy, which successfully captures the deep, brooding tone of the film and you've got a real winner here.

Indoor shots in the townhouse where Douglas and Paltrow's characters live reveal tall ceilings and lots of sharp, sinister brown and orange colors. Shots in Mortensen's artist's loft display soft blue-gray hues and wide spaces filled with work (as opposed to the townhouse which is filled solely with material "things"). The dialogue fits each character and remains true. Even with all the twists and turns in the plot (expected in films like this, anyway), the story remains interesting and does not feel contrived.

It's amazing that Warner Bros. waited a full 5 years after this film's initial release to put it out on DVD. I think the wait was well worth it--both the sound and picture quality on this disc are excellent.

If you have noticed that I have only commented on the technical merits of A PERFECT MURDER and not the story, this is intentional, as the story itself is neatly summed up in one sentence--Douglas is a rich financial wiz who's married to an unhappy Paltrow who is happily cheating on him with Mortensen, uses his street smarts to figure out what's going on and then blackmails Mortensen to off wifey for him. The point in this film is not the story itself; rather, it is about style and the way in which it is presented. A PERFECT MURDER scores big on all counts. Michael Douglas is the main soldifying force in this film--it is impossible to think of an actor better suited for the erotic thriller sub-genre than he is; after all, he starred in the film that defined the erotic thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION. Add A PERFECT MURDER to the list.

Andrew Davis, you directed a very competent film with this outing. Viggo Mortensen, with your determination, hard work and those now-famous cheekbones, you've finally left your Leatherface days behind for good. Gwyneth Paltrow, we can't stop watching you. Michael Douglas, well, we love to hate ya!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Michael Douglas does it again this time as money hungry buisnessman whos buisness is going down the drain. Gwyneth Paltrow plays his two timing wife who has 100 million dollars at stake and is having an affair with Viggo Mortenson. Douglas finds out and decides to Paltrow killed by Mortenson. After a bad attempt that emotionally scars Paltrow, Douglas kills Mortenson and decides to take matters into his own hands. This powerful thriller is sure to leave you breathless.

Of course, every cinema lover must compare this film with "Dial M for Murder", by Hitckcock. Both are based in a play by Frederick Knott. I don't mind what Hitchcock said -he seemed not particularly happy with that movie of his-: "Dial M for Murder" was excellent as a suspense thriller and a model for theater on the big screen. A very clever plot. Grace Kelly was the victim of her husband, Ray Milland.

But what was really peculiar was precisely the character of Milland, who didn't show any single moment anything but a devilish cold and designing mind. He was a smiling practitioner of murder understood as a fine art, as an intellectual challenge. Instead Douglas in this film is a silly jealous killer with his habitual sour face. We see him even kill with a knife. A bore.

And if we forget the hitchcockian referece? Well, then, an undistinguised film, not very exiting on any account.

Having never seen the Alfred Hitchcock classic DIAL M FOR MURDER, I have absolutely nothing with which to compare this film, except the slick mystery/suspense thrillers of the 1980's and '90's. In this category, A PERFECT MURDER (1998) ranks among the better ones.

With Michael Douglas at his sordid best, Gwyneth Paltrow in the middle of her breakout year (doing films such as GREAT EXPECTATIONS--another re-make, SLIDING DOORS, HUSH and finally, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, which resulted in a well-deserved Oscar statue for her) and still-rising Viggo Mortensen, the screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly fits each of these actors' personas so neatly that you would swear the words were written with these actors fully in mind. Add in the lush photograghy, which successfully captures the deep, brooding tone of the film and you've got a real winner here.

Indoor shots in the townhouse where Douglas and Paltrow's characters live reveal tall ceilings and lots of sharp, sinister brown and orange colors. Shots in Mortensen's artist's loft display soft blue-gray hues and wide spaces filled with work (as opposed to the townhouse which is filled solely with material "things"). The dialogue fits each character and remains true. Even with all the twists and turns in the plot (expected in films like this, anyway), the story remains interesting and does not feel contrived.

It's amazing that Warner Bros. waited a full 5 years after this film's initial release to put it out on DVD. I think the wait was well worth it--both the sound and picture quality on this disc are excellent.

If you have noticed that I have only commented on the technical merits of A PERFECT MURDER and not the story, this is intentional, as the story itself is neatly summed up in one sentence--Douglas is a rich financial wiz who's married to an unhappy Paltrow who is happily cheating on him with Mortensen, uses his street smarts to figure out what's going on and then blackmails Mortensen to off wifey for him. The point in this film is not the story itself; rather, it is about style and the way in which it is presented. A PERFECT MURDER scores big on all counts. Michael Douglas is the main soldifying force in this film--it is impossible to think of an actor better suited for the erotic thriller sub-genre than he is; after all, he starred in the film that defined the erotic thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION. Add A PERFECT MURDER to the list.

Andrew Davis, you directed a very competent film with this outing. Viggo Mortensen, with your determination, hard work and those now-famous cheekbones, you've finally left your Leatherface days behind for good. Gwyneth Paltrow, we can't stop watching you. Michael Douglas, well, we love to hate ya!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Michael Douglas does it again this time as money hungry buisnessman whos buisness is going down the drain. Gwyneth Paltrow plays his two timing wife who has 100 million dollars at stake and is having an affair with Viggo Mortenson. Douglas finds out and decides to Paltrow killed by Mortenson. After a bad attempt that emotionally scars Paltrow, Douglas kills Mortenson and decides to take matters into his own hands. This powerful thriller is sure to leave you breathless.

Of course, every cinema lover must compare this film with "Dial M for Murder", by Hitckcock. Both are based in a play by Frederick Knott. I don't mind what Hitchcock said -he seemed not particularly happy with that movie of his-: "Dial M for Murder" was excellent as a suspense thriller and a model for theater on the big screen. A very clever plot. Grace Kelly was the victim of her husband, Ray Milland.

But what was really peculiar was precisely the character of Milland, who didn't show any single moment anything but a devilish cold and designing mind. He was a smiling practitioner of murder understood as a fine art, as an intellectual challenge. Instead Douglas in this film is a silly jealous killer with his habitual sour face. We see him even kill with a knife. A bore.

And if we forget the hitchcockian referece? Well, then, an undistinguised film, not very exiting on any account.

Having never seen the Alfred Hitchcock classic DIAL M FOR MURDER, I have absolutely nothing with which to compare this film, except the slick mystery/suspense thrillers of the 1980's and '90's. In this category, A PERFECT MURDER (1998) ranks among the better ones.

With Michael Douglas at his sordid best, Gwyneth Paltrow in the middle of her breakout year (doing films such as GREAT EXPECTATIONS--another re-make, SLIDING DOORS, HUSH and finally, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, which resulted in a well-deserved Oscar statue for her) and still-rising Viggo Mortensen, the screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly fits each of these actors' personas so neatly that you would swear the words were written with these actors fully in mind. Add in the lush photograghy, which successfully captures the deep, brooding tone of the film and you've got a real winner here.

Indoor shots in the townhouse where Douglas and Paltrow's characters live reveal tall ceilings and lots of sharp, sinister brown and orange colors. Shots in Mortensen's artist's loft display soft blue-gray hues and wide spaces filled with work (as opposed to the townhouse which is filled solely with material "things"). The dialogue fits each character and remains true. Even with all the twists and turns in the plot (expected in films like this, anyway), the story remains interesting and does not feel contrived.

It's amazing that Warner Bros. waited a full 5 years after this film's initial release to put it out on DVD. I think the wait was well worth it--both the sound and picture quality on this disc are excellent.

If you have noticed that I have only commented on the technical merits of A PERFECT MURDER and not the story, this is intentional, as the story itself is neatly summed up in one sentence--Douglas is a rich financial wiz who's married to an unhappy Paltrow who is happily cheating on him with Mortensen, uses his street smarts to figure out what's going on and then blackmails Mortensen to off wifey for him. The point in this film is not the story itself; rather, it is about style and the way in which it is presented. A PERFECT MURDER scores big on all counts. Michael Douglas is the main soldifying force in this film--it is impossible to think of an actor better suited for the erotic thriller sub-genre than he is; after all, he starred in the film that defined the erotic thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION. Add A PERFECT MURDER to the list.

Andrew Davis, you directed a very competent film with this outing. Viggo Mortensen, with your determination, hard work and those now-famous cheekbones, you've finally left your Leatherface days behind for good. Gwyneth Paltrow, we can't stop watching you. Michael Douglas, well, we love to hate ya!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Michael Douglas does it again this time as money hungry buisnessman whos buisness is going down the drain. Gwyneth Paltrow plays his two timing wife who has 100 million dollars at stake and is having an affair with Viggo Mortenson. Douglas finds out and decides to Paltrow killed by Mortenson. After a bad attempt that emotionally scars Paltrow, Douglas kills Mortenson and decides to take matters into his own hands. This powerful thriller is sure to leave you breathless.

Of course, every cinema lover must compare this film with "Dial M for Murder", by Hitckcock. Both are based in a play by Frederick Knott. I don't mind what Hitchcock said -he seemed not particularly happy with that movie of his-: "Dial M for Murder" was excellent as a suspense thriller and a model for theater on the big screen. A very clever plot. Grace Kelly was the victim of her husband, Ray Milland.

But what was really peculiar was precisely the character of Milland, who didn't show any single moment anything but a devilish cold and designing mind. He was a smiling practitioner of murder understood as a fine art, as an intellectual challenge. Instead Douglas in this film is a silly jealous killer with his habitual sour face. We see him even kill with a knife. A bore.

And if we forget the hitchcockian referece? Well, then, an undistinguised film, not very exiting on any account.

Having never seen the Alfred Hitchcock classic DIAL M FOR MURDER, I have absolutely nothing with which to compare this film, except the slick mystery/suspense thrillers of the 1980's and '90's. In this category, A PERFECT MURDER (1998) ranks among the better ones.

With Michael Douglas at his sordid best, Gwyneth Paltrow in the middle of her breakout year (doing films such as GREAT EXPECTATIONS--another re-make, SLIDING DOORS, HUSH and finally, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, which resulted in a well-deserved Oscar statue for her) and still-rising Viggo Mortensen, the screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly fits each of these actors' personas so neatly that you would swear the words were written with these actors fully in mind. Add in the lush photograghy, which successfully captures the deep, brooding tone of the film and you've got a real winner here.

Indoor shots in the townhouse where Douglas and Paltrow's characters live reveal tall ceilings and lots of sharp, sinister brown and orange colors. Shots in Mortensen's artist's loft display soft blue-gray hues and wide spaces filled with work (as opposed to the townhouse which is filled solely with material "things"). The dialogue fits each character and remains true. Even with all the twists and turns in the plot (expected in films like this, anyway), the story remains interesting and does not feel contrived.

It's amazing that Warner Bros. waited a full 5 years after this film's initial release to put it out on DVD. I think the wait was well worth it--both the sound and picture quality on this disc are excellent.

If you have noticed that I have only commented on the technical merits of A PERFECT MURDER and not the story, this is intentional, as the story itself is neatly summed up in one sentence--Douglas is a rich financial wiz who's married to an unhappy Paltrow who is happily cheating on him with Mortensen, uses his street smarts to figure out what's going on and then blackmails Mortensen to off wifey for him. The point in this film is not the story itself; rather, it is about style and the way in which it is presented. A PERFECT MURDER scores big on all counts. Michael Douglas is the main soldifying force in this film--it is impossible to think of an actor better suited for the erotic thriller sub-genre than he is; after all, he starred in the film that defined the erotic thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION. Add A PERFECT MURDER to the list.

Andrew Davis, you directed a very competent film with this outing. Viggo Mortensen, with your determination, hard work and those now-famous cheekbones, you've finally left your Leatherface days behind for good. Gwyneth Paltrow, we can't stop watching you. Michael Douglas, well, we love to hate ya!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Michael Douglas does it again this time as money hungry buisnessman whos buisness is going down the drain. Gwyneth Paltrow plays his two timing wife who has 100 million dollars at stake and is having an affair with Viggo Mortenson. Douglas finds out and decides to Paltrow killed by Mortenson. After a bad attempt that emotionally scars Paltrow, Douglas kills Mortenson and decides to take matters into his own hands. This powerful thriller is sure to leave you breathless.

This movie starts out with a nice hook: A forensics unit is excavating a mass grave in biohazzard suits. It echoes the original's "dessicrated grave yard" opening.

From there, the movie quickly runs out of steam as movie fate throws a few uninteresting characters into the stew of an unintersting cannibal family. Creepy mom talks with a larnyx box. Creepy little sister sits on Leatherface's lap who nods in agreement as annoying big brother moralizes about the saw being family, or something.

There is no suspense. There are no characters we like or loathe enough to care about whether they live or die. And all attempts at humor fall flat.

Leatherface does get a very nice silver plated saw, but even that is all shine and no substance. It might as well be Alec Baldwin for all we care.

The sad thing about it is all the other TCM movies are scary and fun and contain at least one element of shock and so you can't wait for this one to be out on DVD and when it comes out, it lacks even the jiggle of Jell-O.

If you must have a fourth TCM movie on DVD, make it House of 1,000 Corpses

this one is purely for fans and Leatherface is back in action. but it doesnt surpass the other 2. look close for Viggo Mortensen. wallops in familiar turf. if only Tobe Hooper directed it, then it would be good, but like I said, fo the fans

I enjoyed all of the Chainsaw movies, but this one is a cut above most of the sequels. Look for the character of Stretch from TCM II as a tv reporter following Leatherface's trail of murder. That was a nice touch. The deleted scenes and documentary make this DVD a winner!

This movie starts out with a nice hook: A forensics unit is excavating a mass grave in biohazzard suits. It echoes the original's "dessicrated grave yard" opening.

From there, the movie quickly runs out of steam as movie fate throws a few uninteresting characters into the stew of an unintersting cannibal family. Creepy mom talks with a larnyx box. Creepy little sister sits on Leatherface's lap who nods in agreement as annoying big brother moralizes about the saw being family, or something.

There is no suspense. There are no characters we like or loathe enough to care about whether they live or die. And all attempts at humor fall flat.

Leatherface does get a very nice silver plated saw, but even that is all shine and no substance. It might as well be Alec Baldwin for all we care.

The sad thing about it is all the other TCM movies are scary and fun and contain at least one element of shock and so you can't wait for this one to be out on DVD and when it comes out, it lacks even the jiggle of Jell-O.

If you must have a fourth TCM movie on DVD, make it House of 1,000 Corpses

this one is purely for fans and Leatherface is back in action. but it doesnt surpass the other 2. look close for Viggo Mortensen. wallops in familiar turf. if only Tobe Hooper directed it, then it would be good, but like I said, fo the fans

I enjoyed all of the Chainsaw movies, but this one is a cut above most of the sequels. Look for the character of Stretch from TCM II as a tv reporter following Leatherface's trail of murder. That was a nice touch. The deleted scenes and documentary make this DVD a winner!

There are really two different bad movies in this thing. There's a horribly inaccurate military film, and there's just a bad Demi Moore film (which isn't any thing new).

First there's the innacurate side to it. Commanders are the stereotype of old white men with cigars (the head of the army is a middle aged Japanese-American - end of story!). "Jane" is sent through tough POW camps...that no longer exist in today's training. Finally, of course, there's the uniform and equipment errors found common in most military films. Military research must have been scant because not much of it is shown here.

Second, its just a bad film. Bad dialogue, predictable characters...just bad.

Luckily, Ridley Scott made up for this with "Black Hawk Down." If you want a good movie about today's modern military, check that out. I'm sorry none of the characters are women, but hey - what are you gonna do?

I honestly don't know what possessed Ridley Scott to make this movie. It seems to have all the hallmarks for his particular style (military toys and a swashbuckling female). But the movie is well intended failure.

It's main asset and ultimate flaw is Demi Moore. She embodies one track determination with such fierceness. You can't help but root for her. However she treats all her costars as if they are getting in the way of her pumped up body display. She acts as if her head shaving is the ultimate cinematic moment of the movie. Then Scott treats us to numerous images of Moore working out. I felt as if I were stuck in a brutal workout video. As for her physique, five years ago her shape seemed way outrageous. But now Moore doesn't seem all that muscular. I guess that is a big indicator of how much society's conception of female beauty has changed.

Despite Demi's frantic exercising and sailor blue cursing, this movie is stolen by Viggo Mortenson's mysterious Master Chief Urgayle. What Moore lacks in depth, Mortenson fills in with numerous conflicted emotions. While the movie doesn't play up sexual tension, Mortenson drops subtle hints that he may find Moore's O'Neill alluring. Urgayle is already confused about his calling in life. He gives out brutality during SEAL training only to ponder his job in private by reading sensitive literature. O'Neill's presence makes his ambivalence more apparent. He alternately protects and abuses her, bouncing from one emotion to the next. He barges in on her in the shower, all to make a big show of how unattractive he thinks she is and yet spies on her at the local PX by hiding behind the produce shelves. What about his short-shorts? Whats up with that?

It all culminates in a lustful, psychotic rage at SERE camp, when Urgayle beats then attempts to rape O'Neill. The movie tries to make an argument that all conflicts are resolved between the two of them. But I think someone forgot to tell Viggo this. Because after this gruesome scene, his Urgayle again gives O'Neill predatory glances at a local bar. He shows a slight disconcerted flutter at her return to training (after a strange interlude of smear campaign against O'Neill). Urgayle botches a mission by trying to protect O'Neill. He seems to come clean at the end by giving her his prized medal and book of poems (by the always sexy D.H. Lawrence). It is this performance that gives the movie a chilling, seductive pull. But Mortenson should have been acting against a brick wall. Moore's complete disregard of his performance makes you wonder why Urgayle is obssessed with all things O'Neill.

Anyway, the movie feels lacking whenever Mortenson is not present. Why hasn't he now transcended all the low cal male stars such as that Matt Affleck duo, and taken a place beside the real stars such as Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Kevin Spacey, and Russell Crowe? As fun as The Lord Of the Rings is, Mortenson is shuffled aside by midgets and computer monsters. We need more Viggo in star roles at the movies!

I don't know what D.H. Lawrence would think about the use of his sensitive couplets during brutal military training. Perhaps the author "Of Human Bondage" would not find it insulting.

Despite its attempt to take on such a controversial issue, I found most of this movie just fell flat. I realize elite military groups like the Seals are one of the last bastions of male exclusivity, but the Israeli's have had women in combat positions in their army for some years. I personally wouldn't mind having a woman like Demi Moore in my platoon, and I don't think most guys would, either. On the other hand, if the guys hadn't resented Moore's presence, there wouldn't have been a plot, and Hollywood would have had even less of a movie than it was, and it was pretty thin to begin with.

I'm not that big a fan of Demi Moore, but I like Viggo Mortenson despite his being sort of a bad guy for much of the movie, and Ann Bancroft was excellent as the woman Senator. The movie does capture the drama and grueling intensity of much of the Navy Seal training. I've never been a military man myself, but I was a karate instructor for many years and I've had Seals in my classes occasionally, and I can say from personal experience that these guys are pretty tough. So I give it three stars for that, even if I find the movie's portrayal of the men's attitude somewhat implausible.

There are really two different bad movies in this thing. There's a horribly inaccurate military film, and there's just a bad Demi Moore film (which isn't any thing new).

First there's the innacurate side to it. Commanders are the stereotype of old white men with cigars (the head of the army is a middle aged Japanese-American - end of story!). "Jane" is sent through tough POW camps...that no longer exist in today's training. Finally, of course, there's the uniform and equipment errors found common in most military films. Military research must have been scant because not much of it is shown here.

Second, its just a bad film. Bad dialogue, predictable characters...just bad.

Luckily, Ridley Scott made up for this with "Black Hawk Down." If you want a good movie about today's modern military, check that out. I'm sorry none of the characters are women, but hey - what are you gonna do?

Despite its attempt to take on such a controversial issue, I found most of this movie just fell flat. I realize elite military groups like the Seals are one of the last bastions of male exclusivity, but the Israeli's have had women in combat positions in their army for some years. I personally wouldn't mind having a woman like Demi Moore in my platoon, and I don't think most guys would, either. On the other hand, if the guys hadn't resented Moore's presence, there wouldn't have been a plot, and Hollywood would have had even less of a movie than it was, and it was pretty thin to begin with.

I'm not that big a fan of Demi Moore, but I like Viggo Mortenson despite his being sort of a bad guy for much of the movie, and Ann Bancroft was excellent as the woman Senator. The movie does capture the drama and grueling intensity of much of the Navy Seal training. I've never been a military man myself, but I was a karate instructor for many years and I've had Seals in my classes occasionally, and I can say from personal experience that these guys are pretty tough. So I give it three stars for that, even if I find the movie's portrayal of the men's attitude somewhat implausible.

Pretty soon I'm going to find out if I can hang with the big boys of basic training in Cape May, NJ. I know that the U.S.C.G. is a cinch when compared to the S.E.A.L.S, but watching Demi Moore pump out those one-armed push-ups and hanging crunches is all the motivation I need to prepare myself for what's to come. Thanks, Demi!