SinjinSB

Last night I watched the world premiere of this movie at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. While it made me chuckle several times, it just didn't seem to be very cohesive. I tended to enjoy the bits set in the modern day versus the silly caveman scenes. Though I am a big fan of John Cleese, his scenes didn't do much for me in this movie. One my favorite bits was Dan Marino explaining proper urinal etiquette. I think that was one of problems, it was more just a collection of bits than a complete movie. Some of the scenes were tied together, but it didn't seem to flow very well. With a $17.50 ticket price for this 72 minute film, I didn't feel I got my money's worth.

** (out of 4)

A solid sequel to my favorite superhero movie. While I have been unimpressed with most of the recent superhero movies (The Punisher, Hulk), the Spider-Man movies have continued to remain a step or two ahead of the pack. While not staying 100% true to the original comics, they don't stray too far. The production is top-notch and give us a visual treat with out going too far beyond believability. Despite some initial reservations, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst have proved to be quality choices for the roles of Spider-Man and Mary Jane. Along with a solid supporting cast and good direction by Sam Raimi, the Spider-Man movie franchise has set the bar for superhero movies in the 2000s. I'm looking forward to the next installment. Unfortunately Spider-Man 3 isn't coming until 2007. Meanwhile, I remain hopeful for other quality additions to the genre.

*** (out of 4)

My copy of this movie is truly silence with no musical score. Whenever I watch a movie that is completely silent, initially I find it a little hard. But when the film is well made, as this one is, it doesn't take long to adjust and focus on the story as you are drawn into it. I feel Hitchcock was a master of the silent film genre with his ability to tell such a deep story with very few intertitles. Relying instead on the expressions of the actors and written notes and signs in the movie, without having to cut away to an intertitle, which allows the film to flow more fluidly instead of constant cutting between the live action and the title cards. Ivor Novello in the lead role of Roddy and in his prior work with Hitchcock in The Lodger really impressed me with his talent of conveying his feelings strictly through facial expressions and acting without the use of sound. Hitch is also good at using subtle exaggeration and focus on action to help take the place of the sound in his silent films.

The story is that of a young man in school who is falsely accused of theft by a lady that he had danced with and he is willing to take the blame for a friend of his and is expelled from school. This leads to the downhill spiral of his life as leaves home after his father calls him a "LIAR!". Things get worse from there as ends up working as a gigolo in Paris, getting in fights, losing a large sum of money, and eventually hitting bottom.

In this film we really begin seeing a lot of Hitchcock's visual style that he is so famous for. He has some really good use of fades and graphic matches between scenes. Two of my favorite where the fading out on the pocket watch and into a large clock, and the other being the scene where he fades out on a photograph and then back in on the real person. I really enjoyed the symbolic shot of Roddy heading down the escalator, showing us that is in heading downhill in his life. And my favorite "Hitch" shot in this movie was the point-of-view shot when the lady was leaning back in her chair and it cuts to Roddy walking into the room and we see him upside down on the screen. I also thought Hitchcock did a great job of portraying Roddy's seasickness towards the end of the film. I really enjoy seeing Hitchcock's style developing in his early silent films, that will become so prominent in his later, more famous movies. I also really appreciate Hitch's working in comedic scenes into his serious movies. My favorite humorous scene in this movie is the peashooter scene early in the film.

Without giving too much away, I would have liked to see a more typical Hitchcock ending to this film.

*** (out of 4 stars)

This is a very entertaining comedy. The dialogue is lightning paced and flows quickly from one character to the next without a break in between. Cary Grant is excellent in his attempts to keep his ex-wife from re-marrying and on the staff of the newspaper. Rosalind Russell plays the part of his ex-wife well, matching his banter in kind. This movie is worthy of all the praise it gets. One thing I realized while watching this film, a lot of the classic comedies are founded on good witty dialogue. Unlike most of the comedies made today which seem to be founded in silly site gags and bathroom humor. Given a choice, give me the classics any day.

***1/2 (Out of 4)

The Lodger is universally considered the best of Hitchcock's silents. It's a story that's loosely based on the Jack the Ripper killings in London. In this movie the serial killer is known as The Avenger and is killing blondes, which has the fair-haired girls of London worried. During this time a mysterious man shows up looking for a room to rent from a family. This lodger has some quirky habits of going out on foggy nights and has them wondering who exactly this lodger that's living in their house really is. This movie definitely showcases Hitchcock's early talent for the thriller genre and he keeps you guessing throughout. I have read that Hitchcock wanted a different ending, but that it was shot down my the movie executives. I won't mention the endings to avoid spoiling the movie, but I would have liked to see it Hitch's way. Unfortunately this was long before the days of shooting alternate versions, so we just have to imagine how he would have done it. It's amazing to me to watch Hitchcock's quality movies from the 1920s-1970s. He truly deserves the title, The Master of Suspense. He dedicated his life to the art of filmmaking and we get to reap the benefits.

*** (Out of 4)

A very enjoyable film starring Bing Crosby as a progressive Irish Catholic priest who comes to St. Dominick's, a church that is struggling. Initially, he's not very welcome by most, including old Father Fitzgibbon...but with his charm and the song in his heart, he manages to slowly grow on the folks as he finds subtle ways to solve everyone's problems. This is a heartwarming movie without being over-sappy.

*** (Out of 4)

Experience Thanksgiving with four different families (Jewish, Vietnamese, Hispanic, African American) in a Los Angeles neighborhood. It has a lot of the typical holiday family issues and few not so typical. I think basically it's showing that even though the cultures are very different, the way people react to the holidays is pretty universal. It has a nice blend of humor mixed with the stress of holiday and makes for enjoyable feast. As a side note, it has a reference to my alma mater, UCSB...which, to set the record straight, does not have a business school.

*** (out of 4)

The Coen's brought us a fine addition to the gangster genre. Though it's not 100% your prototypical gangster movie, it's a fine fit with the Coen brothers' touch added. The movie had a nice look and feel to it and I really enjoyed watching the characters interact. In particular, I thought Gabriel Byrne's performance was outstanding. His style gave the film a bit of a noir-ish touch. If you're a fan of the genre or the Coen brothers, I think you'll enjoy Miller's Crossing.

***1/2 (Out of 4)

With remakes, there's always going to be a comparison to the original. I think I would have liked this movie a little more if I had not already seen Tarkovsky's 1972 original. The first question with remakes I suppose should be why? I can see the reason for this film being to bring a really good sci-fi story to the younger generation that probably won't be seeing the 165min Russian original. I heard some comments that this movie was too slow or too boring. Well, in that case, I'm sure they wouldn't have had the patience for the original. I've also heard some sci-fi fans who really appreciate Soderbergh's version...in those cases, I'd consider the idea of doing the remake a success. I'm sure some of them would definitely appreciate the original, but I'm sure a certain percentage wouldn't be willing to sit through the same slow-paced story when the running time is nearly twice as long in the original. Soderbergh did a fine job with this movie and did fairly well at capturing the feeling of the original in a quicker time. If that was his vision, then I think he succeeded. He didn't really add anything new to this story. This movies is pretty much an exact, but compacted, copy of the original Tarkovsky film. The actors were adequate, but I didn't get the emotion, albeit subtle, that I got from the Russian original. I personally feel the gratuitous shots of Clooney's butt were unnecessary. In my opinion, Clooney's lead character may have been better with a lesser known actor. He plays the role fairly well and it's one of his more subtle performances to date, but you can't help but see certain Clooneyisms come out from time to time, especially when he gets upset. Though I feel Soderbergh did well to cast lesser knowns in the supporting roles. All in all, it's a decent remake bringing a solid sci-fi story to modern day fans of the genre, but I'd recommend the original to those who can make it through the epic length Russian version of this story.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

The best way to describe this movie is "fun". It's a quality heist flick with a very nice cast...and the mini coopers! You might say there's nothing really new here, but it's all done well. I've easily seen a dozen heist movies in the past few years, but this one is one of the best of the bunch. All of the actors played their characters well and really brought them to life with their little quirks. And the stunt work was phenomenal. From the minis to the boat chase in the canals of Venice, it was all very believable with the actors doing most of their own stunt work. This movie is a remake and I've been a little down on the large quantity of remakes in recent years. But the term remake is pretty loose here. The only real similarities are that it's a heist film that uses mini coopers for the getaway cars. The story is very different. With all due respect to the 1969 original, which I also enjoyed, this movie stands on it's own.

*** (Out of 4)

A fairly entertaining road trip movie in Mexico with two teenage boys and an older woman. Nothing too deep and meaningful here, but a bit of a fun trip on the way to "Heaven's Mouth" beach. I think much of this movies notoriety surrounds it's sexual escapades of these characters. I would warn you not to watch the movie looking for some good sex scenes, because they're not very titillating and a couple of the scenes were actually a turnoff to me. Though I really enjoyed the acting between the main characters and found them to be very believable, especially the two friends.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

I'd guess that most won't have the patience for Tarkovsky's epic length Russian Sci-fi film. Besides being 165 minutes long, it's VERY slow paced. I admit that early into this I wasn't sure I'd make it through and 10 years ago I'm sure I wouldn't have. But if you have the patience for such a film, you will be rewarded with a solid sci-fi film. It's main theme has been seen in later films, but I'd venture to say none have covered it better. I haven't seen Soderbergh's 2002 remake yet, so the comparison will have to wait. I'm sure the 99 minute run time will appeal to the more modern audience, but I'm sure it won't have the same feeling. The length and slow pace of this earlier film was deliberate and I don't think that feeling could be duplicated in a shorter movie.

*** (Out of 4)

In recent years, there have been countless movies about conmen. And there have been plenty of movies about fathers in questionable occupations that are reunited with their daughters. But this movie's simplicity has them all beat. Maybe because Ryan and Tatum O'Neal are also real life father and daughter, it's easy to believe them in this movie. This was Tatum's first movie and she deservedly won the Oscar for it...the youngest person to win an Academy Award. Filmed in black & white, this film had a good look. Along with an appropriate soundtrack made it easy to believe it was back in the 1930's.

***1/2 (Out of 4)

This masterpiece was really made what it is by the excellent performances of its stars...Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, and Eva Marie Saint. On top of that it was a great story by Budd Schulberg, directed brilliantly by Elia Kazan. With all that talent, it is simply one of the great movies. Regardless of how you feel about the specifics of this story of corruption in the dockworkers union, it really is a basic story of human struggle between right and wrong that we can all relate to. The scenes between Brando and Eva are very touching and realistic, but I must say, the famous "I coulda been a contender" scene really is deserving of all it's praise. A very touching scene between two brothers and the eventual ultimate sacrifice that comes from it. Watching this movie for the first time in 2003, makes me long for this time when the really great movies were made.

**** (Out of 4)

This movie tells the true story of "Bloody Sunday". On January 30, 1972, there was a civil rights March that took place in the Northern Ireland town of Derry. The protestors who were marching against internment were fired upon by English troops...27 were shot, killing 13 protestors. The protestors, led by Ivan Cooper, took great care to insure that it was a peaceful march. Yet, reminiscent of Kent State, the military was over zealous and fired on unarmed protestors. This film was shot with hand held cameras and had long takes, giving much the feel of a documentary...putting you right in the middle of the action. The majority of the film focused on the preparation of the March both by the protestors and the military, leading up to the big conflict at the end. Though I wouldn't call this a great film, I am really glad to have seen it since it is a piece of history I wasn't previously aware of. Although being very familiar with the civil rights movement in the United States, the story seemed very familiar to me.

A decent psychological thriller, but it falls a little short of being really good. It borrows from some excellent sources with some bits of Hitchcock, Agatha Christie, and The Twilight Zone. Unfortunately it's got a bit of slasher film which is what keeps me from recommending it higher. If you can handle some genuinely grotesque scenes and jump cuts galore, the rest of the movie is definitely worth checking out. For that reason, I won't say too much more about it to avoid spoiling any parts of the movie. It's well acted, well directed, and a good story. I think having seen so many of these kind of movies, some of it was slightly predictable...but there are plenty of surprises for everyone.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

X2 is a good sequel that picks up right where X-Men left off. All of the same characters (and actors) return, along with a few new mutants. Since the first movie focused on introducing the X-Men to us, this movie was able to concentrate on the story a little more. Not only is society up in arms, thanks to the government's negative spinning on the situation, but we didn't really think that the plastic jail would hold Magneto for long did we?! So the X-Men once again find themselves battling on two fronts. If you're a fan of superhero movies, you'll probably be pleased with how the series is progressing on the big screen.

*** (Out of 4)

Before the blockbuster release of Spider-Man in 2002, the Marvel classic comic, X-Men, came to the big screen. This is a good movie that tells us the origin of several members of the X-Men. It deals with the fact that these mutants are outcast from society and considered dangerous, second class citizens by the majority of the non-mutant society. While really they are just people trying to cope with their differences and trying to make it in an unaccepting world. Throw in a couple of bad guys and it makes for some good action. Not only do the X-Men have to fight society, but fellow mutants that have chosen the use their powers against society. I only have a minimal knowledge of the X-Men comics, but from what I can tell their transition to the big screen is pretty successful. The actors all play their roles well and the story is interesting enough to hold your interest between the special effects and action scenes.

*** (Out of 4)

Lawrence Kasdan brought this Stephen King novel to the big screen. It started off like a Stand by Me later in life with Four buddies in Boston. It becomes obvious that there has been some dark events in their past. They take a hunting trip and next thing you know they are battling sh*t weasels. Initially this movie seemed like it had potential, but by the end I couldn't wait for the movie to be over. I didn't care what happened at that point. Morgan Freeman's talent was wasted on this horrible movie.

Someone probably could have taken the legend of the leprechaun and made a decent horror, but unfortunately is not it. It falls short with it cheesiness and excessive gore...it may be the only movie I've seen with death by pogo stick. Really, the only reason to watch this movie is if you want to see Jennifer Aniston in her first feature film (pre-Friends). Her character isn't too far from Rachel Green. This is just your typical horror movie with a leprechaun doing the killing. I think a better idea for a horror story with leprechauns would have been to have the little one creatively punish people based on their wishes...then again, just about anything would have been better than this movie.

*1/2 (Our of 4)

A nice story of Leprechauns and Fairies. It stars Randy Quaid in probably his most subtle role to date, which is fitting and appreciated. Colm Meaney is excellent as the leprechaun, Seamus Muldoon. This movie falls a little short of being a classic in the fantasy genre, but it's a decent enough tale for the St. Patrick's Day season. It was made for television, so it lacks a little of the bigger production but the costumes are good and the special effects aren't bad. Probably the biggest fault of this movie is it's running time at nearly 3 hours. It has a fair bit of romance thrown in along with the battles in the forest, Irish song & dance, and other bits of merriment. I think the wee ones might be more patient with this epic length movie, while older folks may grow a bit weary waiting for it to play out.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

A decent, but not great, kidnapping movie. The script is a bit too unbelievable and they try to keep you guessing. It's held together by some decent star power...James Caan, Benicio Del Toro, Juliette Lewis. I did have a bit of a problem believing Taye Diggs and Nicky Katt as two hardcore professional bodyguards. Ryan Phillippe played his part well, but it was still a little hard to picture him as a badass. There's an extreme amount of violence and not for the faint of heart. If you can take it, it's not a bad diversion on for a Sunday evening.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

A pretty unexciting story about an American father and daughter who move into a house they inherited in Ireland. Problems are abound as the home is inhabited by an unlucky leprechaun, Lucky. Things are going bad from the start. They find out that $13,000 is owed on the house and they are likely to lose it...Molly is having problems at school. I bet without even seeing it, you can imagine how this one turns out. It's not awful, but I think most will find it a little hard to sit through. Save this one for the wee-est in the clan, as they might be well enough amused. <br>

** (Out of 4)

When I first starting watching this movie, I couldn't help but be reminded of Home for the Holidays. Sure enough, it played out much the same with the same kind of scenarios. Whereas the actors in the other movie were able to keep us entertained, the likes of Piper Laurie and Vitamin C couldn't quite draw me in. It's not bad and if you want to see an Irish-American family reunion and all that ensues. Right from the start, the mother states that she's taken the pledge and there will be no drinking. Almost everyone is having relationship problems or some kind that would definitely drive some to drink. If you want to see how it plays out, sneaking liquor, who's sleeping with whom, then it will probably squeak by marginally holding your attention. Sometimes it's good to watch these kind of movies to make you feel better about your own family. I will warn you there is a scene that rivals the hot tub scene with Kathy Bates and Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt, though not quite so graphic.

**1/2 (Out of 4)

I'm not a big musical fan, but sometimes they're alright. Somehow when a couple Irish folk come to a southern town and meet up with some sharecroppers, it's not totally unbelievable that they would break into song at dance at the drop of a hat. Finian McLonergan (Fred Astaire) brings his daughter Sharon (Petula Clark) from Ireland to American in search of gold. While searching for the gold, there are some run ins with a five foot leprechaun and some corrupt politicians. There is a bit of racism addressed, but that is dealt with when Sharon wish the racist Senator knew what it was like to be black and he magically is turned black and sees the error of his ways with the help of a little spell from the leprechaun. A fun film.

*** (Out of 4)