IN: Review: I liked this movie. It was pretty cool. It has it all: cars, gun shooting, fighting, and even a token girl. It does not excel in any of this things, with the exception of the cars. A bit of shooting, a bit of fighting, a bit of smooching around, and LOT's of car, with a great chase near the end. The jump, you may say, is impractical, but according to our good friends here at the IMDB it is possible, so the movie ain't as bad as people are painting it. It has some quality, and I liked to watch it. In fact, I loved the film. And I didn't need to turn off my brains to watch it. I wasn't always thinking "Is this possible?" or tramp like that. 9 in 10.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.

As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.

The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.

The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.

To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This movie starts out brisk, has some slow moments in the middle, but generally moves along well, has a few very good moments, then peters out at the end of Act 3. I was able to get to see this in LA premieres 2 times (with 2 different endings). Jason Lee is a star, but he is not tomorrows leading man. He is humorous and holds his own, but he is better served as a supporting actor. Julia Stiles does 'ok' in a comedy role, new for her, but she doesn't 'steal' this movie, the way a star of her caliber should. For an actress who has so much potential(10 Things, Save the Last Dance, O), it is hard to watch her continue to do roles that are so 'average', and then not have her take the role and run away with the movie (like Daniel Day-Lewis did in 'Gangs'). Selma Blair is a good young actress as well, and does an 'ok' job. I didn't expect an academy award performance from her, and she didn't deliver one, but, her performance was adequate. Chris Koch delivers another film that is 'above average'. Perhaps the problem lies in the script more than anything else. I 'did' like this movie! But, it is not a movie where you walk away and say...'that was great!'...This 'story' has been done so many times before and there was just not much new here. The rehearsal dinner scene was probably the best in the movie, and Larry Miller gives an incredible performance in a supporting role (he could be the best surprise of the film). If you want to go see a movie that will make you laugh a few times, and have an enjoyable evening, I can still recommend this film, but unless they have changed the ending...again...leave during the church scene, or you will surely be disappointed.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.

The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.

The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).

That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.

The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative