IN: Review: A movie of outstanding brilliance and a poignant and unusual love story, the Luzhin Defence charts the intense attraction between an eccentric genius and a woman of beauty, depth and character.

It gives John Turturro what is probably his finest role to date (thank goodness they didn't give it to Ralph Fiennes, who would have murdered it.) Similarly, Emily Watson shows the wealth of her experience (from her outstanding background on the stage). To reach the tortured chess master (Turturro) her character has to display intelligence as well as a woman's love. Watson does not portray beauty-pageant sexuality, but she brings to her parts a self-awareness that is alluring.

In a chance meeting between Natalia (Watson) and Luzhin, she casually stops him from losing a chess piece that has fallen through a hole in his clothing - a specially crafted piece that, we realize later in the film, has come to symbolize his hopes and aspirations. Later, as their love affair develops, she subtly likens dancing to chess (Luzhin has learnt to dance but never with a partner); she encourages him to lead her with "bold, brilliant moves" and in doing so enables him to relax sufficiently to later play at his best (and also realize himself as her lover).

This is a story of a woman who inspires a man to his greatest achievement and, in so doing finds her own deepest fulfillment, emotionally and intellectually (Or so we are led to believe - certainly, within the time frame, Natalia is something of a liberated woman rather than someone who grooms herself to be a stereotypical wife and mother).

The Italian sets are stunning. The complexity of the characters and the skill with which the dialogue unfolds them is a delight to the intelligent movie-goer, yet the film is accessible enough to make it a popular mainstream hit, and most deservedly so. Chess is merely the photogenic backdrop for developing an emotional and emotive movie, although the game is treated with enough respect to almost convince a chess-player that the characters existed. Although a tragedy of remarkable heights by a classic author, the final denouement is nevertheless surprisingly uplifting.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: 1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: When many people say it's the "worst movie I've ever seen", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like. However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry. This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness. I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.

---Spoiler alert---

Oh my, where to begin. Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after. Puke. Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY. The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier. The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them). I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0)
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive