reporterman2000
Iscritto in data ott 2002
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
Stiamo ancora lavorando all'aggiornamento di alcune funzionalità del profilo. Per visualizzare I loghi, le suddivisioni delle valutazioni e i sondaggi per questo profilo, vai a versione precedente.
Recensioni19
Valutazione di reporterman2000
This may be my favorite Clint Eastwood movie. Clint is excellent in the title role, and I like Josey Wales as a character perhaps more than any other Eastwood incarnation because he's human, has a heart, and never pulls his gun on anybody who hasn't drawn a gun on him first.
The movie has aged beautifully. The DVD is the only version worth watching, thanks to the letterboxed compositions. God, does Eastwood know how to frame and shoot a movie. Visually and technically, "Josey Wales" is as good as these things get -- and it's almost 30 years old!
I was also pleased to discover that this isn't the typical revenge flick, a'la "Dirty Harry" and Eastwood's Man With No Name pictures. Wales does have a score to settle, but he has morals and regroups with a renegade community of social outcasts who end up saving his life (as well as his soul).
The whole movie, basically, is about how Wales goes about accidentally accumulating the companions he needs to overcome the bad guys (who are almost stereotypically bad). What's more interesting is that Wales' newfound saviors include an old woman, two Native Americans, and ... gulp! cringe!... Sondra Locke. Oh, well. Every movie must have its flaw, and she's definitely it.
There's also a lot of unexpected humor. I love the scene where Josey sends his Union tormentors on the "Missouri river ride," which is immediately preceded by the great moment where he asks the snake oil salesman how the elixir works on stains. My favorite moment in the film is the scene in which he rides out to meet with Will Sampson as Ten Bears, the mean Comanche who aims to slaughter Wales' crew. This powerful moment elevates Wales to the status of a true hero.
Oh, there are some annoying bits. Eastwood spits tobacco entirely too often, and the picture softens up and drags just a bit in the middle. But it's all worthwhile, building up to an exciting climax and a final scene that allows Josey to maintain his mystery while still riding off into the sunset. This is a great movie. Watch it and "The Patriot" as a double feature and see if you can find any similarities.
The movie has aged beautifully. The DVD is the only version worth watching, thanks to the letterboxed compositions. God, does Eastwood know how to frame and shoot a movie. Visually and technically, "Josey Wales" is as good as these things get -- and it's almost 30 years old!
I was also pleased to discover that this isn't the typical revenge flick, a'la "Dirty Harry" and Eastwood's Man With No Name pictures. Wales does have a score to settle, but he has morals and regroups with a renegade community of social outcasts who end up saving his life (as well as his soul).
The whole movie, basically, is about how Wales goes about accidentally accumulating the companions he needs to overcome the bad guys (who are almost stereotypically bad). What's more interesting is that Wales' newfound saviors include an old woman, two Native Americans, and ... gulp! cringe!... Sondra Locke. Oh, well. Every movie must have its flaw, and she's definitely it.
There's also a lot of unexpected humor. I love the scene where Josey sends his Union tormentors on the "Missouri river ride," which is immediately preceded by the great moment where he asks the snake oil salesman how the elixir works on stains. My favorite moment in the film is the scene in which he rides out to meet with Will Sampson as Ten Bears, the mean Comanche who aims to slaughter Wales' crew. This powerful moment elevates Wales to the status of a true hero.
Oh, there are some annoying bits. Eastwood spits tobacco entirely too often, and the picture softens up and drags just a bit in the middle. But it's all worthwhile, building up to an exciting climax and a final scene that allows Josey to maintain his mystery while still riding off into the sunset. This is a great movie. Watch it and "The Patriot" as a double feature and see if you can find any similarities.
I want the Costner bashers to sit down and watch "Rebirth of the Mothra III" on Sci-Fi Channel some time. Then they'll know that they have seen the worst movie ever made.
"Waterworld" is an escapist fantasy/action picture, not unlike the James Bond and Indiana Jones pictures. Costner's performance works on exactly the same level as the Connery/Moore/Brosnan portrayals of 007 and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indy -- straightforward, grim, stoic, a little mean-spirited, a little cruel, unafraid of dirt, grime, death, or salt water.
It's not perfect by any means. I'm sure Costner hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back. Now is the time for the extended DVD version; maybe that will explain where all those cigarettes came from, and how the Smokers converted raw crude into gasoline.
7 out of 10. Costner bashers should get over themselves and start giving Michael Bay and George Lucas what they deserve.
"Waterworld" is an escapist fantasy/action picture, not unlike the James Bond and Indiana Jones pictures. Costner's performance works on exactly the same level as the Connery/Moore/Brosnan portrayals of 007 and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indy -- straightforward, grim, stoic, a little mean-spirited, a little cruel, unafraid of dirt, grime, death, or salt water.
It's not perfect by any means. I'm sure Costner hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back. Now is the time for the extended DVD version; maybe that will explain where all those cigarettes came from, and how the Smokers converted raw crude into gasoline.
7 out of 10. Costner bashers should get over themselves and start giving Michael Bay and George Lucas what they deserve.
I checked out "The Shining" on DVD and was disappointed to realize that it hasn't aged well since the last time I'd seen it. It had always been one of my favorite movies and probably my favorite Stanley Kubrick film, but several things troubled me on seeing it again recently. In fact, I shut the player off and didn't even finish the movie.
To be blunt, the movie opens in terribly boring fashion, a series of static head shots involving Jack Nicholson and two actors of zero charisma. I refer to the scene in which Mr. Ullman explains to Jack Torrance the horrific history of the Overlook Hotel. Frankly, today it looks like amateurish filmmaking as it is nothing more than people talking and reacting to what they're hearing. Given Kubrick's mastery of the image, couldn't he have found a more visual way of giving us the Overlook's backstory? I think of how Peter Jackson handled the backstory in "Fellowship of the Ring," and "The Shining" just looks so made-for-TV by comparison.
The movie is so static, so dialogue-driven, that I can't imagine how it played on the big screen. As I was 10 years old in 1980, I've only seen "The Shining" on TV. I'm afraid it might be more at home on the small screen, given Kubrick's curious preference for a locked-down camera and predictable editing style.
Something else totally kicked me out of the movie. As Ullman is touring the Torrances around the grounds, they come to the Snowcat, and he asks, "Can both of you drive a car?" What the hell? Why wouldn't Wendy be able to drive? Was this movie made in 1957? It's a tiny point, but I just couldn't go on with a movie that had aged so terribly over just 23 years.
Intellectually, I know this is a film of superior intelligence and great style. It's just that the style played better 15 years ago than it does today. Here's a suggestion: Peter Jackson should do a remake. He could really do a great job with the story, blending Stephen King's terrific characterizations and settings with seamless special effects that would terrify and enthrall today's audiences.
Too bad it'll never happen.
To be blunt, the movie opens in terribly boring fashion, a series of static head shots involving Jack Nicholson and two actors of zero charisma. I refer to the scene in which Mr. Ullman explains to Jack Torrance the horrific history of the Overlook Hotel. Frankly, today it looks like amateurish filmmaking as it is nothing more than people talking and reacting to what they're hearing. Given Kubrick's mastery of the image, couldn't he have found a more visual way of giving us the Overlook's backstory? I think of how Peter Jackson handled the backstory in "Fellowship of the Ring," and "The Shining" just looks so made-for-TV by comparison.
The movie is so static, so dialogue-driven, that I can't imagine how it played on the big screen. As I was 10 years old in 1980, I've only seen "The Shining" on TV. I'm afraid it might be more at home on the small screen, given Kubrick's curious preference for a locked-down camera and predictable editing style.
Something else totally kicked me out of the movie. As Ullman is touring the Torrances around the grounds, they come to the Snowcat, and he asks, "Can both of you drive a car?" What the hell? Why wouldn't Wendy be able to drive? Was this movie made in 1957? It's a tiny point, but I just couldn't go on with a movie that had aged so terribly over just 23 years.
Intellectually, I know this is a film of superior intelligence and great style. It's just that the style played better 15 years ago than it does today. Here's a suggestion: Peter Jackson should do a remake. He could really do a great job with the story, blending Stephen King's terrific characterizations and settings with seamless special effects that would terrify and enthrall today's audiences.
Too bad it'll never happen.