Q: The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.

House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative