IN: Review: This movie is a brilliant lesson on Japanese history set in at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate shortly before the Shogunate lost a big battle against the loyalist, who wanted the emperor back on the throne to rule Japan. Really, I had to read a lot of history to get the entire background.

Shintaro Katsu (also known as the original Zatoichi) gives a superb performance as Izo Okada, one of the four Hitokiri(=Human Slayer) of the Bakumatsu. He is a simple samurai who looses all of his wealth. In order to have a good life he becomes a retainer of Takechi Hanpei (played by Tatsuya Nakada = Ryonosuke out of Sword of Doom). Hanpei is a ultra-nationalist politician who lets his band of Hitokiri assassinate a lot of high ranking pro-west politicians in order to achieve his political goals. Izo Okada follows his leader without really questioning what they are doing. As long as he has money to go and drink and spend at his whore. Okada's killings get more and more brutal in the course of the movie and he is proud to have a reputation based on fear wherever he goes.

It is a splendid portrait on the life of a simple samurai who gets caught up in political affairs and is really to naive to realize what is happening. First after being betrayed and tortured and always having talks with Sakamoto ( who is a samurai who rejects violence) does he change his ideas and views on life. But too late....

Watch the movie to see the end of Izo Okada...

Shintaro Katsu and the rest of the staff give a brilliant performance. Each actor reaches up to their role. The sword-fights a very unique and fast...probably faster than several movies nowadays...

Check it out if you have the chance!!!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Love Trap is not a short, it's quite obviously a full length feature film with a running time of 105 minutes.

While I'm writing this, I might as well talk a bit more about Love Trap. I'm frequently asked what makes Love Trap different... this is how I respond to that question: 1) It introduces characters - one in particular - that have never been seen before in film, period.

2) It reveals more truth about love, and delves more deeply into the very concept of love, than any other U.S. film ever made, in my humble opinion.

3) Structurally, as in the way the story is told, it is unlike any love story you've ever seen.

4) It offers extremely timely insights on various cultural issues, both within and outside the Black community.

Over time, people will come to see Love Trap as about as wholly an original work as possible in this era, delightfully refreshing, authentic and honest. It is a rare morality play full of food for thought.

Please visit www.lovetrapmovie.com for complete and accurate info about this film.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The premise is a bit better than the execution, but that doesn't mean the film is worth a look. Splendid supporting cast makes this a fun mystery to unravel. Raines is great as the resourceful woman determined to solve this puzzlement. I always enjoy Thomas Gomez.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.

One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.

There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.

Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.

Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.

CD
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive