Chris-564
Joined Sep 1999
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.
Reviews23
Chris-564's rating
Hollywood's been getting better at producing more intelligent horror/thriller films of late. I'm not sure what's going on; perhaps it's something they're putting in the bottled water. Anyway - "The Sixth Sense" is a lovely example of what a "taught psychological thriller" should be all about. Shyamalan's opus about a little boy and his counsellor hits exactly all the right buttons, and does so whilst cranking up the tension to an almost unbearable level.
It is not overly gory, it does not rely on hugely fantastic special effects to stun and amaze the audience, neither does it resort to clichéd shock tactics. It is a great example of a good idea for a good film cleverly executed. The performances are good by all, but a special mention must go to Haley Joel Osment who plays a difficult and demanding role with the ability and talent of an actor five times his age. Toni Collette is also superb as his troubled mother, and it is very refreshing to see her tackling such a diverse range of roles (including such films as "Muriel's Wedding", "Emma" and "Velvet Goldmine").
I will confess that the storyline was somewhat spoiled for me, as somebody I know (and now despise) had the stupidity to tell me what the twist was. So, rather than appreciating what should have been an excellent exercise in astounding revelations, I sat through the movie thinking "oooh, that's clever" and "of course, I understand why that happened". I feel rather cheated out of watching it for the first time, all in all, which is more than a little disappointing. So, if you have seen the film, or you know the twist for some other reason, then keep your mouth firmly shut, and don't spoil it for others. And therin lies the film's main weakness - it is extremely vulnerable. A great deal of the film's effectiveness relies on the fact that people will not talk about it to other people who have not seen the movie. And, as we know, people have a tendency to blab.
This gripe aside, "The Sixth Sense" gains a lot of praise (and deservedly so) for being a cunning little movie with a nice line in scaring the pants off you. I feel that a great deal of praise should also go to the studios who produced this film (Hollywood Pictures and Spyglass Entertainment), for not leaving it to fester, or become a low-budget B-movie, a straight-to-video job, as it could easily have been. These sorts of thrillers are ten-a-penny these days, and it's nice to see that they recognised Shyamalan's talent for writing and directing, and gave the project a budget, a distribution and a cast it deserved. (Although one can speculate that it's reaping the rewards by taking in a phenomenal amount of money - rightly so, too).
The cinematography is well done, the soundtrack not too intrusive, and there are no appalling performances to spoil the rest of the movie's grandeur. "The Sixth Sense" is a good movie, pitched at exactly the right level, and it's a great night out at the cinema too. Even my parents enjoyed it, so it must be doing something right!
It is not overly gory, it does not rely on hugely fantastic special effects to stun and amaze the audience, neither does it resort to clichéd shock tactics. It is a great example of a good idea for a good film cleverly executed. The performances are good by all, but a special mention must go to Haley Joel Osment who plays a difficult and demanding role with the ability and talent of an actor five times his age. Toni Collette is also superb as his troubled mother, and it is very refreshing to see her tackling such a diverse range of roles (including such films as "Muriel's Wedding", "Emma" and "Velvet Goldmine").
I will confess that the storyline was somewhat spoiled for me, as somebody I know (and now despise) had the stupidity to tell me what the twist was. So, rather than appreciating what should have been an excellent exercise in astounding revelations, I sat through the movie thinking "oooh, that's clever" and "of course, I understand why that happened". I feel rather cheated out of watching it for the first time, all in all, which is more than a little disappointing. So, if you have seen the film, or you know the twist for some other reason, then keep your mouth firmly shut, and don't spoil it for others. And therin lies the film's main weakness - it is extremely vulnerable. A great deal of the film's effectiveness relies on the fact that people will not talk about it to other people who have not seen the movie. And, as we know, people have a tendency to blab.
This gripe aside, "The Sixth Sense" gains a lot of praise (and deservedly so) for being a cunning little movie with a nice line in scaring the pants off you. I feel that a great deal of praise should also go to the studios who produced this film (Hollywood Pictures and Spyglass Entertainment), for not leaving it to fester, or become a low-budget B-movie, a straight-to-video job, as it could easily have been. These sorts of thrillers are ten-a-penny these days, and it's nice to see that they recognised Shyamalan's talent for writing and directing, and gave the project a budget, a distribution and a cast it deserved. (Although one can speculate that it's reaping the rewards by taking in a phenomenal amount of money - rightly so, too).
The cinematography is well done, the soundtrack not too intrusive, and there are no appalling performances to spoil the rest of the movie's grandeur. "The Sixth Sense" is a good movie, pitched at exactly the right level, and it's a great night out at the cinema too. Even my parents enjoyed it, so it must be doing something right!
Ah, it's Bond, what do you expect, hmmm? Maybe some revolutionary insight into the profound existence of man? Corset-ridden comedy of manners? Or a superspy bedding lithe young beauties simply because he knows how to use his weapon effectively (hee, hee). If you expect any but the latter, you're going to be sorely disappointed. "The World Is Not Enough" doesn't pretend to be anything it's not, which is as refreshing as cinema gets at the moment. It's a cheesy yarn of... actually, no, I don't remember the storyline - something about oil, bankers and wanting to take over the world - but the visuals are superb, the acting fairly solid with flashes of brilliance, adequately directed and greatly enjoyable. What more do you want, eh?
There are sterling performances from Dame Judi Dench as M, and from Robert Carlyle as Renard. Unfortunately, Carlyle is chronically underused: we only get a brief indication of the emotional pain the character goes through. Renard does what he does for a completely different reason to any other BondBaddie (TM), but this is only lightly touched upon. After all, isn't a great idea for a character? A man who feels no pain, who will get stronger and stronger until the day he inevitably dies? He is, after all, the perfect victim AND the perfect villain: a man with nothing left to lose.
I've always had a soft spot for M ever since Dench stepped into the role. She may be MI6's "evil queen of numbers", but the bean-counter from Oxford has depth, heart and commitment. "T.W.I.N.E." expands her role greatly; we get to see a lot more of her ability to care. There's a slightly implausible bit when we are asked to believe that the head of MI6 cannot escape from a cell with a tiny wee padlock on it, but the rest of it is a tough acting role, and Dench plays it superbly.
As for Brosnan, well, he plays Bond very well indeed. It's hard to imagine Connery running down a gantry with an automatic machine gun in each hand blowing people away left, right and centre, as he does in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but who cares? Brosnan makes the role his own, and I, for one, enjoy his performances immensely. Desmond Llewelyn makes his last appearance as Q, and it's very touching indeed. I shall sorely miss him saying "Pay attention, 007", in his own inimitable style, knowing that what will follow is the coolest selection of gadgets that will fuel kids' imaginations the world over. Let's face it, we all want the car, don't we? It would certainly make getting into London a hell of a lot easier, wouldn't it?
John Cleese is good as R, Q's replacement, and Marceau plays an interesting character very well. Denise Richards isn't really as bad as everybody else makes out (although she's certainly weaker than some of the other performances), but hey - what does she bring to the role? Pneumatic breasts that will stand her in good stead should she ever be in a potentially dangerous drowning situation. This may sound harsh - sorry, Denise, if you are reading this (as if), but you must have understood this when you took on the role. Michael Apted directs competetantly, although it doesn't have the same narrative strength as his "Gorillas in the Mist" or "P'Tang Yang Kipperbang", both previous sterling efforts.
In summary, then, this is not the best Bond movie by a long shot. It's not even the best Brosnan has done. He is, in this author's humble opinion, the best Bond there has been (controversial, but hey - I like him). "T.W.I.N.E." is good fun, executed fairly well. The narrative may lose you at times, but it's one set-piece after another. You don't come out disappointed.
There are sterling performances from Dame Judi Dench as M, and from Robert Carlyle as Renard. Unfortunately, Carlyle is chronically underused: we only get a brief indication of the emotional pain the character goes through. Renard does what he does for a completely different reason to any other BondBaddie (TM), but this is only lightly touched upon. After all, isn't a great idea for a character? A man who feels no pain, who will get stronger and stronger until the day he inevitably dies? He is, after all, the perfect victim AND the perfect villain: a man with nothing left to lose.
I've always had a soft spot for M ever since Dench stepped into the role. She may be MI6's "evil queen of numbers", but the bean-counter from Oxford has depth, heart and commitment. "T.W.I.N.E." expands her role greatly; we get to see a lot more of her ability to care. There's a slightly implausible bit when we are asked to believe that the head of MI6 cannot escape from a cell with a tiny wee padlock on it, but the rest of it is a tough acting role, and Dench plays it superbly.
As for Brosnan, well, he plays Bond very well indeed. It's hard to imagine Connery running down a gantry with an automatic machine gun in each hand blowing people away left, right and centre, as he does in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but who cares? Brosnan makes the role his own, and I, for one, enjoy his performances immensely. Desmond Llewelyn makes his last appearance as Q, and it's very touching indeed. I shall sorely miss him saying "Pay attention, 007", in his own inimitable style, knowing that what will follow is the coolest selection of gadgets that will fuel kids' imaginations the world over. Let's face it, we all want the car, don't we? It would certainly make getting into London a hell of a lot easier, wouldn't it?
John Cleese is good as R, Q's replacement, and Marceau plays an interesting character very well. Denise Richards isn't really as bad as everybody else makes out (although she's certainly weaker than some of the other performances), but hey - what does she bring to the role? Pneumatic breasts that will stand her in good stead should she ever be in a potentially dangerous drowning situation. This may sound harsh - sorry, Denise, if you are reading this (as if), but you must have understood this when you took on the role. Michael Apted directs competetantly, although it doesn't have the same narrative strength as his "Gorillas in the Mist" or "P'Tang Yang Kipperbang", both previous sterling efforts.
In summary, then, this is not the best Bond movie by a long shot. It's not even the best Brosnan has done. He is, in this author's humble opinion, the best Bond there has been (controversial, but hey - I like him). "T.W.I.N.E." is good fun, executed fairly well. The narrative may lose you at times, but it's one set-piece after another. You don't come out disappointed.
"The Shining" is (I think) the very first movie directed by Kubrick that I ever saw. I can't say I've ever looked back. There is little to tie all of Kubrick's films together - one of the greatest things I admired about him was his ability to triumph in a number of different genres. And this is certainly a triumph of horror.
"The Shining" is the only movie that really makes me scared any more - and it doesn't get any easier each time I watch it. The atmosphere is so intense, it will leap out of the film and invade your house. When you leave the cinema, or stop the video recorder, you will look at everything around you very differently. When I saw the movie a couple of years ago, and I had a live-in job at a hotel, I could not help but shiver as I wandered through the corridors late at night to check the fire doors and so on. It is a film you will never forget.
What's clever is that Kubrick deftly manages to avoid making you sympathise with any character - you feel sorry for Shelley Duvall, certainly, but you can also see why Jack Nicholson might find her so irritating. Scatman Crothers as Mr. Halloran is also an interesting character, although his position in the film is one open to debate: is he there to symbolize hope? To provide the kid with the knowledge of his powers and that he is not alone?
Classic scene follows classic scene; when you think it can't get tenser, it does; when you think the images and sound can't unnerve you any more, they will - this is a film that constantly surprises, shocks and genuinely frightens. Strange, then, that Stephen King - who wrote the book on which the film is based) should dislike the film so much (he once famously stated that Kubrick knew nothing about horror). The acting is good - Nicholson as the questionably mad/possessed/tortured author, Duvall as the irritating wife pushed to the limits, Danny Lloyd as the troubled child.
But the true genius lies in the steadicam sequences, the stunning set, the brilliant cinematography and sound, the interspersed shots of horrors past and the inevitability of horrors future. This is a stylish film, the work of a true genius, recently voted the scariest film of all time by "Empire" magazine in the United Kingdom. It is a film that you will remember, simply because you won't be able to forget it. How many films can you say that of today?
Horror has come a long was since 1980 - the re-writing of the slasher movie with "Scream", the introduction of new and exciting premises of horror such as "The Blair Witch Project", and slicker, and more intelligent thrillers like "The Sixth Sense". (I appreciate these are recent films, but I cannot think far back enough at the moment!) However, all horror films have a long way to go before they can measure up to this film - one of the most intense and inspired horror films cinema has to offer.
"The Shining" is the only movie that really makes me scared any more - and it doesn't get any easier each time I watch it. The atmosphere is so intense, it will leap out of the film and invade your house. When you leave the cinema, or stop the video recorder, you will look at everything around you very differently. When I saw the movie a couple of years ago, and I had a live-in job at a hotel, I could not help but shiver as I wandered through the corridors late at night to check the fire doors and so on. It is a film you will never forget.
What's clever is that Kubrick deftly manages to avoid making you sympathise with any character - you feel sorry for Shelley Duvall, certainly, but you can also see why Jack Nicholson might find her so irritating. Scatman Crothers as Mr. Halloran is also an interesting character, although his position in the film is one open to debate: is he there to symbolize hope? To provide the kid with the knowledge of his powers and that he is not alone?
Classic scene follows classic scene; when you think it can't get tenser, it does; when you think the images and sound can't unnerve you any more, they will - this is a film that constantly surprises, shocks and genuinely frightens. Strange, then, that Stephen King - who wrote the book on which the film is based) should dislike the film so much (he once famously stated that Kubrick knew nothing about horror). The acting is good - Nicholson as the questionably mad/possessed/tortured author, Duvall as the irritating wife pushed to the limits, Danny Lloyd as the troubled child.
But the true genius lies in the steadicam sequences, the stunning set, the brilliant cinematography and sound, the interspersed shots of horrors past and the inevitability of horrors future. This is a stylish film, the work of a true genius, recently voted the scariest film of all time by "Empire" magazine in the United Kingdom. It is a film that you will remember, simply because you won't be able to forget it. How many films can you say that of today?
Horror has come a long was since 1980 - the re-writing of the slasher movie with "Scream", the introduction of new and exciting premises of horror such as "The Blair Witch Project", and slicker, and more intelligent thrillers like "The Sixth Sense". (I appreciate these are recent films, but I cannot think far back enough at the moment!) However, all horror films have a long way to go before they can measure up to this film - one of the most intense and inspired horror films cinema has to offer.