Q: I am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. Thought visually stunning like all of Ang Lee's work (each still frame seems worthy of a print), I was really disappointed by the film's disjointed pace. It really was too long.

The story is set in Civil War era Missouri, and is about a young man (Roedel) who joins the feral forces of the Bushwackers, sort of renegade Confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the Jayhawkers, their Union counterparts. He and his close friend, Jack Bull Chiles played by Skeet Ulrich, join the group after Chile's father is shot point-blank and his home is burned, presumably by Jayhawkers. The story follows Roedel's and Chiles' raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war, including former slave who fights for the Bushwhackers (Daniel Holt played by Jeffery Wright), and a war widow played by Jewel.

It seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point, it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. For example, the agitation among Roedel's group caused by former slave Holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol, and then dropped until later in the movie. A young villian/bully Bushwhacker hates Roedel and directs much angst and violence against him, but, we never know why. Some of the characters never seem to surface; I think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history.

The historical detail was excellent. I loved looking at the housing, furniture, clothes, etc., and I thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters, though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. Unless you really enjoy history or are a huge Ang Lee fan, though, take a pass on this one. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like "The Shining"? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.

So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.

This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as "scary". It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.

Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.

There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Well-made but basically dreary low-life melodrama which, according to the accompanying interview with lead Isabelle Huppert, writer/director Pialat infused with a good deal of autobiographical detail; given the mainly unsympathetic characters involved, it doesn't do him any compliments - and he does seem to have been a troubled man, as Huppert also says that Pialat often disappeared for days on end during the shoot!

The acting is uniformly excellent, however; despite their relatively young age, Huppert and co-star Gerard Depardieu (as the title character!) were already at the forefront of modern French stars - a status which, with varying degrees of success, they both still hold to this day.

I have 3 more of Pialat's films in my "VHS To Watch" pile, albeit all in French without English Subtitles; due to this fact but also LOULOU'S oppressive realism - in spite of its undeniable artistic merit - I can't say that I'm in any particular hurry to check them out now... OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative