info-494
Joined Apr 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
info-494's rating
This is typical Hamilton. Gorgeous teenage girls and dreamy photography. I must disagree with one of the comments from another poster saying there is no nudity in the film. He must have seen a cut version. I have to say I don't think the plot or the acting are the strong points of Hamiltons movies. It does feel sometimes like a voyeuristic excuse to present beautiful young women in varying degrees of nudity. This may be quite transgressive of western (specially American) taboos, which equate nudity to porn. Overall a quite unique film. Try to get the uncut version because, quite frankly, the whole point of Hamiltons focus is the female body, (he is mainly a photographer after all)
Well, that's it. After seeing "Shallow Graves" and "Trainspotting", I had sworn loyalty to director Danny Boyle. But after "The Beach", "A Life Less Ordinary" and "28 days later", I'm cutting off. "28 days later" is a tribute to the classic "(night, dawn, day)of the dead" series, plus a bit of "The Omega Man". It fails. The characters all behave erratically. I understand that one underlying theme in Danny Boyle's movies is how a group of people start out as having one type of relationship, and then changing *gradually* into another completely different thing. But in this case the changes are sudden, with practically no explanation, unbelievable. Another thing going against it is the weird digital/video resolution chosen for the film, plus the over used shaky scene recourse. ACK! Add to that some large plot-holes. Say what you may about the "night of the dead" series, but the storyline was impeccable. (once you buy the living-dead premise, of course)
I can't think of a nice thing to say about this movie... err...the "father" gave a decent performance, err.. and the psycho sergeant was mildly intriguing, but mainly because the other characters were so awful.
I can't think of a nice thing to say about this movie... err...the "father" gave a decent performance, err.. and the psycho sergeant was mildly intriguing, but mainly because the other characters were so awful.
I love those 70's flicks. They really experimented with no-nonesense plotlines, and didn't have the resources to exceedingly engross themselves in needless over-production. This last issue is a big problem with many of today's movies, where your eyes often pop out, but your brain usually falls asleep. Someone here complained about the score. I felt the music was great, it sets the whole tone of the movie. For example, in the fight scenes, it gives you an eerie sense of repetition and fatality that, come to think of it, really is the whole point of the movie. Bottom line, just for the premise alone, it's worth watching. Expect some basic production and a couple of cheesy lines. But this is overly compensated by excellent tension and engrossing plotline.