Mayan Movie Reviews

To start this off, the first episode on the disc (of three) has the lowest production values of the entire Excess series. The animation budget appears to be at the bare minimum for the entire episode. Even the action scenes are reduced to near-slideshow quality.

However, there are many humorous scenes in that episode... especially the 'sexual assault'. Hilarious.

I guess they were saving up the money for the final two episodes.

Well, that's fine with me becuase the final two episodes are amazing. Well worth the price of the disc. They really turn things loose. It's spectacular. The animation is spot-on, and there are so many memorable moments. The action scenes are very creative and well-directed. The story wraps up nicely.

I didn't much care for Nanvel up to this point. Now I think she's my favorite character. Yuji's got some great "Additional Theater" stuff on the disc as well. "EXCITING!"

If you enjoyed the action and pacing of the final volumes of Macross Plus, this is for you. And Burn Up fans, this is what we've all been waiting for. Excess at it's best. I dare say that no one will walk away disappointed with the finale of this series.

Extras are average. Disc layout is easy to navigate. In the end, I've got no complaints. Highly recommended to all anime fans.

Though I have not yet seen the DVD or VHS versions of the movie, I was lucky enough to see it in theatres while in Australia, October of 2002. The Aussie culture shines brilliantly in this film, leaving nothing out.. not even "pokies". There are moments during the movie where I laughed almost hysterically. The acting is great, hilarious lines and characters that could easily be my friends. DO NOT MISS THIS MOVIE

This is definitely a beautiful, well-filmed movie. The story stays a bit of a mystery throughout. Ms. Rampling is quite good. When I looked at her career and the movies in her filmography, I was surprised to see that such a fine actress really hasn't been in that many good movies. Not a young woman anymore, Ms Rampling is still very alluring. This film has a few erotic moments, but not to the degree that some reviewers are stating. If you like a thought-provoking type of character study and a beautiful loking film this could be a good one for you.

Marie (Charlotte Rampling) and her husband, Jean arrive at their summer home for their annual holiday. As they re-open the house and prepare meals, they move about their tasks almost wordlessly. Their relationship is clearly strong, and there is an atmosphere of contentment. They obviously love each other and revel in each other's company.

The next day, they go to the beach. After massaging oil onto Marie's back, Jean tells his wife he is going for a swim. She sleepily adds that she will take a nap, and she does.

Jean never returns, and his body is not found. Marie returns to her teaching job in the city.

Marie cannot accept the idea that her husband may be dead, so she doesn't. She has conversations with him, rushes home to be with him, and even shyly admits that she may date Vincent, a man her friends think would be good for her. She talks of Jean in the present tense, and her acquaintances seem unable to confront her about this.

Charlotte Rampling is a wonderful and much under-appreciated actress. She is amazing in the role of Marie--a woman who finds the truth simply too difficult to bear, and yet on the surface she appears to have remarkable self-restraint.

Keep your eyes open for Marie's mother-in-law. She should get the Mother-in-Law of the Year Award!

Under the Sand may be the most astoundingly beautiful film all year, not to mention one of the most heartbreaking portraits of grief on the screen since The Sweet Hereafter. It's sober, solemn, and somehow liberating--I feel more human now that it's over, and seeing it has become a pleasurable thing to look back on.

The film, about a woman in her fifties (Charlotte Rampling) whose husband disappears on the beach and is never seen again, is a fascinating examination of loss and a profoundly moving film about love. It is fiercely unsentimental, almost bitterly angry at times, in the way that we curse those we love who have left us without warning. The brilliant final shots, which do absolutely nothing to explain what really happened to the husband, or what will happen to the wife, make exactly the right ending.

Rampling is the most perfect thing about the film--never before has her total prescence been so apparent on the screen, and the effect is astonishing. Time has only worked to ripen her unusual, angular radiance; she's luminous and sensual in every act we watch her perform. The film's images, each so clean and smooth, unable to contain their own natural brilliance, are sheer poetry: fingers, clutching sand; the way that light and water can distort the human figure; the buttering of a piece of toast; finally, the canvas of the human body and the beauty of its conjunction with another in an act of love.

Under the Sand is a reminder of what love and loss really are--you can see them in nearly every shot of Charlotte Rampling's unforgettable, candid face.

This is definitely a beautiful, well-filmed movie. The story stays a bit of a mystery throughout. Ms. Rampling is quite good. When I looked at her career and the movies in her filmography, I was surprised to see that such a fine actress really hasn't been in that many good movies. Not a young woman anymore, Ms Rampling is still very alluring. This film has a few erotic moments, but not to the degree that some reviewers are stating. If you like a thought-provoking type of character study and a beautiful loking film this could be a good one for you.

Marie (Charlotte Rampling) and her husband, Jean arrive at their summer home for their annual holiday. As they re-open the house and prepare meals, they move about their tasks almost wordlessly. Their relationship is clearly strong, and there is an atmosphere of contentment. They obviously love each other and revel in each other's company.

The next day, they go to the beach. After massaging oil onto Marie's back, Jean tells his wife he is going for a swim. She sleepily adds that she will take a nap, and she does.

Jean never returns, and his body is not found. Marie returns to her teaching job in the city.

Marie cannot accept the idea that her husband may be dead, so she doesn't. She has conversations with him, rushes home to be with him, and even shyly admits that she may date Vincent, a man her friends think would be good for her. She talks of Jean in the present tense, and her acquaintances seem unable to confront her about this.

Charlotte Rampling is a wonderful and much under-appreciated actress. She is amazing in the role of Marie--a woman who finds the truth simply too difficult to bear, and yet on the surface she appears to have remarkable self-restraint.

Keep your eyes open for Marie's mother-in-law. She should get the Mother-in-Law of the Year Award!

Under the Sand may be the most astoundingly beautiful film all year, not to mention one of the most heartbreaking portraits of grief on the screen since The Sweet Hereafter. It's sober, solemn, and somehow liberating--I feel more human now that it's over, and seeing it has become a pleasurable thing to look back on.

The film, about a woman in her fifties (Charlotte Rampling) whose husband disappears on the beach and is never seen again, is a fascinating examination of loss and a profoundly moving film about love. It is fiercely unsentimental, almost bitterly angry at times, in the way that we curse those we love who have left us without warning. The brilliant final shots, which do absolutely nothing to explain what really happened to the husband, or what will happen to the wife, make exactly the right ending.

Rampling is the most perfect thing about the film--never before has her total prescence been so apparent on the screen, and the effect is astonishing. Time has only worked to ripen her unusual, angular radiance; she's luminous and sensual in every act we watch her perform. The film's images, each so clean and smooth, unable to contain their own natural brilliance, are sheer poetry: fingers, clutching sand; the way that light and water can distort the human figure; the buttering of a piece of toast; finally, the canvas of the human body and the beauty of its conjunction with another in an act of love.

Under the Sand is a reminder of what love and loss really are--you can see them in nearly every shot of Charlotte Rampling's unforgettable, candid face.

A few anime fans may recognize some parts of 'Megazone 23 Part 1' from the rarely-seen 'Robotech The Movie: The Untold Story'. Portions from MZ23 and 'Southern Cross' were cobbled together into a presentation that attempted to bridge the first two generations of 'Robotech' together. The resulting production was rightfully seen as a pathetic travesty by both Robotech nuts and otaku in general. Unfortunately, this was how I first "saw" this fairly entertaining and historic bit of 80s anime. Luckily, a friend let me borrow his MZ23 platter, and I found it to be a pretty good show, with plenty of the standard 80s anime staples: vehicles transforming into robots (in this case, a super-size motor bike), several moments of speed-line-laden high-velocity action, & a bit of gratuitous violence & female naughty bits. You know, the good stuff, and a great way to completely forget my first impression of this flick. Interestingly enough, 'Robotech: The Movie' producer Carl Macek also produced & directed the English-dub rendition of 'Megazone 23'. Was it his way of saving face in the wake of the whole butchery debacle? Hmm...

The plot is reminiscent of 'The Matrix'. Our hero Shogo, a rice-burner-ridin' speed demon and Mickey-D's till jockey, gets caught up in an unbelievable conspiracy-slash-cover-up-type-thingy, and discovers that the world he lives in isn't what it seems. With the help of a special top-secret convertible motor bike, he does what he can to fend off the clandestine forces who attempt to eliminate him. The ending is similar to that of 'The Empire Strikes Back'-- it leaves you hangin'! But then, what didja expect from a DVD labeled 'Part 1'? Speaking of 'Empire', there's one scene near the beginning where the protagonists are watching a movie, and the scene they're viewing looks just like the part where Han kisses Leia right before he's turned into a carbonite popsicle. Proof positive that 'Star Wars' truly is a worldwide pop-culture phenomenon!

This disc includes both the original Japanese language track and an English dub. The voice work on the English dub isn't too bad, and features a few familiar voices that you might recognize from other notable 80s anime & 'toons. But for the purist, the original Japanese dialogue (with or without English subtitles, whatever your preference) is obviously the only way to fly!

'Late

Megazone 23 is not on the level as say Akira, but it's just an '80's classic...in my opinion as good as early Gundam flicks. It is a prime example of that genre.

Megazone 23 was one of the earliest OAV series produced, and was considered groundbreaking when it was released. I'm really happy that Streamline made part one available on DVD! Unfortunately, they haven't released the second or third parts yet. I asked one of the guys working at the Streamline booth at Anime Expo 2001 when they were going to do so, and he said that he didn't know when or even if they were. Hopefully he was wrong, and the rest will be released domestically!

I found this film's execution to be uninspired and unexceptional, although there were some aspects to the film that make it stand out from your average sci-fi tale.

First off, the movie's pluses. The supporting cast, including Law, Arkin, and Borgnine was strong, and both Hawke and Thurman were good (too understated though, seemingly by design). The movie also had style. In addition to style, it had some good messages, including anti-discrimination, and threats posed to individual liberty by technological 'advancement'. The most important message was that the human spirit, if strong enough can accomplish virtually anything.

These are certainly admirable themes. The movie just failed to deliver them in a mature and convincing way. Below I outline some of the problems, as I see them (beware of spoilers).

While realism is generally not the goal of science fiction, much of the science and several plot developments here were totally implausible. In terms of the science, the film gives too little allowance to the role of environment in human development; while this approach adds drama, it makes the film patronizingly simplistic. The weak hearts of the two protagonists also had no science fiction basis-it was just a plot device. Some other plot implausibilities: 1) the idea that one could (almost) hide their genetic signature, and 2) that people would no longer pay attention to facial appearances, something evolution has steered us towards recognizing for millennia.

The movie also felt flat; this was clearly the tone the film was going for, but I felt it took it too far. We needed to at minimum feel Vincent's passion for flight, and the couple's romantic passion. While there's no denying there was chemistry between Hawke and Thurman, the performances were too muted. We should have felt Vincent's excitement about his final achievement, but we don't, partly because we have no sense of what he will be doing in space.

Other characters and relationships were too simplistic as well. I know men can be boys, but the paring down of the brothers' relationship to little more than a game of chicken seems too extreme; where was the subtlety and nuance in their-or any of the other- relationship?

Many viewers criticize Gattaca for its implausibility. When the film was released, I recall reading a movie review entitled "You're too smart for Gattaca," which cited the improbability of the hero's success in a society where he is constantly subjected to testing to confirm his genetic "purity" and where the slightest trace of bodily detritus can expose him as an imposter.

I would respectfully submit that such critics have hit upon the central theme of the film without fully realizing it; the sheer implausibility of the hero's success under these conditions is precisely the point, and is what makes the story so powerful and poignant. The story is, after all, intended in part to be a cautionary tale.

In spite of the film's persistent "realistic" emphasis on the physical implausibility of the hero's success, however, it also bears emphasis that the ending, with Vincent rocketing to the heavens, is a genuinely Romantic assertion of faith that innate human intelligence and spirit can overcome bodily defects and limitations.

The ending also has mythological overtones of apotheosis (deification). In this respect, Vincent has heroic antecedents in Hercules and gnostic Christianity. Hercules' divine spirit was taken by the gods into Olympus after the self-inflicted destruction of his body by fire, and after the accomplishment of feats even more implausible than those confronted by Vincent. Similarly, Chirst ascended into heaven after his physical body was destroyed on the cross. Like both, Vincent endures great bodily suffering, but like both he ultimately transcends the physical limitations of the body.

As such, the story by its very design calls upon viewers at once to realize the physical impossibility of the hero's predicament, while at the same time suspending their disbelief in order to have faith in his ability to succeed against the odds. In this way, the story can be viewed as a contemporary and highly stylized variation on age old mythological and religious themes.

The world of Gattaca is one where people are stratified in society by their genetic composition. Racism and classism are things of the past. Those who are bred to be genetically superior are dominant in society compared to those conceived naturally and tethered with the possibilities of a plethora of medical problems.

In this world, Vincent (Hawke) is a person trying to overcome his own DNA by impersonating a genetic superior. In this reality, impersonation isn't just looks... The movie takes great pains to show how appearance has become secondary in identification.

This movie is not the best execution. It has an excellent cast, and the supporting cast tends to run away with the film. Hawke and Thurman give somewhat cold performances, along the lines of the film itself. I think this film's strongest points are an excellent premise (one that is very relevant today with health care becoming increasingly oriented towards risk stratification)and a wealth of supporting cast talent (especially Jude Law, whose performance is stellar, and it's always nice to see Ernest Borgnine in a movie).

This movie is true science fiction, not aliens and space ships and the like. It's sci-fi like Bradbury is sci-fi. It's thinking sci-fi.

As a note, the title Gattaca is derived from the letters GTAC, which stand for the letters used to represent the nucleic acids which make up DNA (Guanine, Thymine, Adenine, and Cytosine).

I found this film's execution to be uninspired and unexceptional, although there were some aspects to the film that make it stand out from your average sci-fi tale.

First off, the movie's pluses. The supporting cast, including Law, Arkin, and Borgnine was strong, and both Hawke and Thurman were good (too understated though, seemingly by design). The movie also had style. In addition to style, it had some good messages, including anti-discrimination, and threats posed to individual liberty by technological 'advancement'. The most important message was that the human spirit, if strong enough can accomplish virtually anything.

These are certainly admirable themes. The movie just failed to deliver them in a mature and convincing way. Below I outline some of the problems, as I see them (beware of spoilers).

While realism is generally not the goal of science fiction, much of the science and several plot developments here were totally implausible. In terms of the science, the film gives too little allowance to the role of environment in human development; while this approach adds drama, it makes the film patronizingly simplistic. The weak hearts of the two protagonists also had no science fiction basis-it was just a plot device. Some other plot implausibilities: 1) the idea that one could (almost) hide their genetic signature, and 2) that people would no longer pay attention to facial appearances, something evolution has steered us towards recognizing for millennia.

The movie also felt flat; this was clearly the tone the film was going for, but I felt it took it too far. We needed to at minimum feel Vincent's passion for flight, and the couple's romantic passion. While there's no denying there was chemistry between Hawke and Thurman, the performances were too muted. We should have felt Vincent's excitement about his final achievement, but we don't, partly because we have no sense of what he will be doing in space.

Other characters and relationships were too simplistic as well. I know men can be boys, but the paring down of the brothers' relationship to little more than a game of chicken seems too extreme; where was the subtlety and nuance in their-or any of the other- relationship?

Many viewers criticize Gattaca for its implausibility. When the film was released, I recall reading a movie review entitled "You're too smart for Gattaca," which cited the improbability of the hero's success in a society where he is constantly subjected to testing to confirm his genetic "purity" and where the slightest trace of bodily detritus can expose him as an imposter.

I would respectfully submit that such critics have hit upon the central theme of the film without fully realizing it; the sheer implausibility of the hero's success under these conditions is precisely the point, and is what makes the story so powerful and poignant. The story is, after all, intended in part to be a cautionary tale.

In spite of the film's persistent "realistic" emphasis on the physical implausibility of the hero's success, however, it also bears emphasis that the ending, with Vincent rocketing to the heavens, is a genuinely Romantic assertion of faith that innate human intelligence and spirit can overcome bodily defects and limitations.

The ending also has mythological overtones of apotheosis (deification). In this respect, Vincent has heroic antecedents in Hercules and gnostic Christianity. Hercules' divine spirit was taken by the gods into Olympus after the self-inflicted destruction of his body by fire, and after the accomplishment of feats even more implausible than those confronted by Vincent. Similarly, Chirst ascended into heaven after his physical body was destroyed on the cross. Like both, Vincent endures great bodily suffering, but like both he ultimately transcends the physical limitations of the body.

As such, the story by its very design calls upon viewers at once to realize the physical impossibility of the hero's predicament, while at the same time suspending their disbelief in order to have faith in his ability to succeed against the odds. In this way, the story can be viewed as a contemporary and highly stylized variation on age old mythological and religious themes.

The world of Gattaca is one where people are stratified in society by their genetic composition. Racism and classism are things of the past. Those who are bred to be genetically superior are dominant in society compared to those conceived naturally and tethered with the possibilities of a plethora of medical problems.

In this world, Vincent (Hawke) is a person trying to overcome his own DNA by impersonating a genetic superior. In this reality, impersonation isn't just looks... The movie takes great pains to show how appearance has become secondary in identification.

This movie is not the best execution. It has an excellent cast, and the supporting cast tends to run away with the film. Hawke and Thurman give somewhat cold performances, along the lines of the film itself. I think this film's strongest points are an excellent premise (one that is very relevant today with health care becoming increasingly oriented towards risk stratification)and a wealth of supporting cast talent (especially Jude Law, whose performance is stellar, and it's always nice to see Ernest Borgnine in a movie).

This movie is true science fiction, not aliens and space ships and the like. It's sci-fi like Bradbury is sci-fi. It's thinking sci-fi.

As a note, the title Gattaca is derived from the letters GTAC, which stand for the letters used to represent the nucleic acids which make up DNA (Guanine, Thymine, Adenine, and Cytosine).

"Down in the Delta," directed by Maya Angelou, tells the story of Loretta (played by Alfre Woodard), a single mother who lives in Chicago and faces economic hardships. She and her kids move to the family's rural ancestral home to live with her uncle (Al Freeman, Jr.). This change of setting has a profound impact on the family.

Those familiar with Angelou's fine books will probably see similar themes explored in this film. Solid performances are turned in by the excellent ensemble cast. I was especially impressed by Mpho Koaho as Loretta's young son. And veteran performer Esther Rolle turns in particularly moving performance as Loretta's Alzheimer's-afflicted aunt.

This film does a good job of exploring a variety of interconnected relationships in this multigenerational context. The film celebrates family ties and family tradition, as well as one's capacity to overcome adversity.

I watched this movie the first time just because of the cast. I've always thought Alfre Woodard was wonderful, and don't get me started about Mary Alice, Al Freeman Jr., and Esther Rolle! I just loved it, and I caught it again when it ran on cable a while back. I've told everyone I know to see it. It's what so-called traditional family values are all about: caring and integrity and your family heritage, and, most of all, LOVE!

It was also good to see Wesley Snipes step out of his usual bada*** roles into something different--he pulls it off pretty well.

This is the type of movie that causes you to stop and think. It shows some of the extremes you go through to keep family together. It also helps point out a lot of what happens day to day that is taken for granted. All the while you wonder what happens next. this is one movie that you don't want any breaks once you start watching it. So get comfy and have a drink and snack before you start.

Though this is not one of Gene Kelly's best movies, it certianly is quite good. The dance numbers aren't that great, even though they are well done. The exception is "Why Am I So Gone About That Gal?", which is both beautiful and red hot! The plot is a bit complicated, but it is very compelling. A must see for any Gene Kelly fan.

(refering to VHS)
This is one of the lesser known musicals and perhaps it doesn't have some of the innovation of "Singing in the Rain," or "An American in Paris," it is still a delightful musical. I have been a big fan of musicals for years and of Gene Kelly in particular. Kay Kendall is a delight, Taina Elg is lovely and very Parisien, and Mitzi Gaynor is darling as the down to earth American that keeps Gene's feet on the ground. The success of "Chicago," hopefully shows Hollywood that musicals appeal is not gone just more sophisticated. Buy it for the fun of it.

Rarely seen - but retored to TOTAL fabulousness on this PRISTINE DVD ~ THIS IS A MUST-SEE!

ESPECIALLY, if you have never heard of the much, much lamented and sadly missed KAY KENDALL ~ what a fabulous performance! Miss Kendall is funny, witty, charming and she sings too! As for 'that' drunk scene ! AND - yes, in one or another way it IS a musical version of 'Rashomon ' seen through various bejewelled eyes and gloves!

Dance numbers? Different and timeless.

Sound? Great restoration by the experts.

AND the rest of the ladies? TANIA ELG, and MITZI GAYNOR [STILL 'HERE']form just a perfect trio with Miss Kendall. {Tania's audition is quite a hoot - as is the rather avant-garde Mitze Gaynor 'Wild Ones' [cycle gang] dance number with Icon Gene Kelly}.

Mr. Kelly is a smart, sexy, seductive and utterly brilliant leading man ~ a gracious legacy!

You cannot fail, but to be yanked out of the blues with this one!

This movie is set in rural Mexico in the early years of the twentieth century. An emotionally lost, sexually-frustrated woman, Harriet (wonderfully portrayed by Fonda), leaves her southern belle existence to tutor children on a hacienda in Mexico. Just before leaving, she watches Ambrose Bierce deliver a lecture to a group of journalists where he issues a manic, mean-spirited farewell to that life. Bierce (Gregory Peck)has also decided to go to Mexico. She's desperately trying to find herself; he has calmly and systematically set out to lose himself. They meet again in a band of rebels led by General Tomas Arroyo (Smits) and the excitement (and love triangle) begins.

The movie is very loosely based upon the novel The Old Gringo, by Carlos Fuentes. Unlike the character known as the Old Man or the Old Gringo in the novel, Ambrose Bierce is immediately identified by name and is immediately recognizable by character traits. In the novel, the Old Man is very enigmatic, vague and hard to place. Here, the Old Gringo is all that one would expect Ambrose Bierce to be -- abusive, arrogant, conflicted, bitter, supremely sarcastic and, strangely enough, admirable. Gregory Peck was so Bierce-ish, at times I was enchanted.

If you've ever wondered how Ambrose Bierce met his end, this is a nice flight of fancy.

The Old Gringo--an historically-based novel by Mexican diplomat, intellectual and author Carlos Fuentes--is a sensitive, complex, and ultimately satisfying portrayal of the Mexican people and a core period in their history. Not only is the acting intense and heartfelt, but also the hemisphere is turned upside down and one is allowed in for a moment to a world that trips to modern resort beaches can never access--the passionate, fascinating, suffering, poverty-stricken, and tempted-to-revolution nature of life in Latin America. For Fonda, herself a young revolutionary (disagree if you like) during the Vietnam War, and those like myself who have been to war-stricken lands like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and, yes, today's Mexico with its Zapatista movement in Chiapas, the passion of a people actively engaged in fundamental rhythms of everyday life and survival is inspiring beyond words. Each of the three principle characters--the young revolutionary general (Jimmy Smits), the spinster American school teacher (Jane Fonda) and the self-exiled American writer Ambrose Bierce (Gregory Peck)--are presented with a common dilemma, a dilemma presented to many of us of relative wealth and privilege (i.e., any American by comparison with our third world brothers and sisters) by the choice between our life of comfort and relative ease as compared with a life of sacrifice and commitment to a greater common good. The dilemmas are real, the passions are palpable, and a world turned upside down--like the upside-down map of the hemisphere on revolutionary General Poncho Villa's wall--is a wonder to behold. From the brutal "murder" of a horse to the beautiful and sensitive portrayals of the peasant people in the midst of revolution, this movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I am glad I have found out where to get it because at one time I had been told it was unavailable. It will now hold a spot on my shelf with a number of other signicant "main stream" pictures on Latin America, including Olmos's 1992 "American Me", Nava's 1983 "El Norte" and Oliver Stone's 1986 "Salvador"--pictures that had to be made but could only have been made by the right person in the right time. Puenzo as director with Fonda, Peck, and Smits were the right people coming together in the right place for this one.

Peck and Fonda at their best and typical Smits; an emotional feast