input: This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.

But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.

But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.

This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: huge Ramones fan. i do like the ramones, and i suppose if you hate them, then, besides being a avid Bush supporter, you might not like this classic.

it's immensely better than the sappy john hughes teen films and the like that littered the 80's. infinitely better than the American Pie's that plague us now.

There are some other great high school films: Switchblade Sisters, Fast Times..., Class of '84, Three O'Clock High, and the cheesy yet gripping(doesn't seem possible) River's Edge. But RnRHS will always be my favorite because it's the funniest and most fun, plus you can get up and dance with it.

I love you, Riff Randell.

10/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Nicolas Roeg's projects are variable to say the least, but are never less than interesting. "Insignificance" is obviously, first and foremost, an adapted stageplay: it's wordy and pretty-much 'room-bound'. BUT, it pays to view this film more than once: the underlying themes are not overtly presented and, what's more, it takes a while to adjust to the juxtaposition and role-reversals of the four protagonists: Einstein, McCarthy, Munroe, and DiMaggio.

Einstein is wracked by guilt over Hiroshima yet fancies the simplicity of a sexual liaison with Munro; Munro is sick of being seen as a bimbo and craves intellectual credence; Senator McCarthy is at the height of his witch-hunting powers but is an impotent sleazebag; DiMaggio is insecure about his celebrity, self-obsessed, and prone to violence. Each of them contains the seeds of their own destruction. Each character has a troubled, abused/abusive past and a questionable future. Gradually, we see that obsession itself is the central theme. America's obsession with its postwar cultural icons and mores; the obsessions of the protagonists for something none can have: peace-of-mind and/or happiness.

Compared with the theory of relativity, a proposed unified-field theory and, indeed, the cosmos itself, all the aspirations and interactions of Roeg's protagonists seem insignificant. Yet these aspects of the physical universe (it's all quantum, trust me!) affect us when they are applied to the development of the means to destroy us. Monroe's mention of the principle behind the neutron-bomb (without naming it as such) is not an anachronism per se, but can only be understood by a contemporary audience. Indeed, ALL the references within the script are only accessible to a knowledgeable viewer: one au fait with '50s occurrences/personality cults and how they affect us in the 21st century.

This film and its screenplay are either very, very clever, or extremely opaque and pretentious. Ultimately, however, probably insignificant.

live long and prosper :)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive