ProfessorFate
Lifetime Total
25+
IMDb Member
23 years
Reviews
The Color of Money (1986)
Fast Eddie Returns . . . With Severe Memory Loss?
Every great director makes a few stinkers, and this is certainly one of Scorcesese's. The problem is he committed a movie "mortal sin" - he actually made Paul Newman look uncool playing a character he had played previously who was very cool. That is unforgivable.
************SPOILERS AHEAD********************
As with so many bad movies it really comes down to a ridiculous script. Eddie Felson, a billiards phenom in his younger days who had been used and tossed away by an unscrupulous gambler, is older and wiser and now acts as the unscrupulous gambler by bankrolling young pool sharks . . . Huh? Did Eddie learn nothing from his earlier experience. A rather unbelievable character flaw considering where Eddie was at the end of "The Hustler"
Eddie decides to go on the road with a hotshot young pool player named Vincent (Tom Cruise) who is crazily cocky, dumb as a box of rocks, and presented in a smarmy way-over-the-top manner by Cruise. Vince has a girlfriend named Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) who early on reveals that she has no scruples herself. Uh, wait a minute. In "The Hustler" Eddie got involved with a girl, took her on a pool/gambling road trip with his evil gambler mentor and, without giving away the twists of that much better movie, lets just say it ended very badly. Wow, it seems Eddie has contracted a real bad case of memory loss which causes him to make every mistake he has made before. Who's is writing this dreck?
The implausibility's get worse. Eddie gives Vince a very valuable cue stick, sort of a gift to convince him to become his protégé. Then he tells Vince to not use it when he plays - any savvy pool player will see it and immediately identify Vince as a hustler. Okay, so why give it to the brash and volatile young Vincent? Of course Vince goes out without Eddie and takes the cue and mucks up Eddie's gambling game plan. Eddie gets mad and drives his car away, with Vince trying to chase him down like a jilted girlfriend. Then Vince gets mad and Eddie gets in his car and chases down Vince, like an older jilted girlfriend. Meanwhile Carmen is disrobing in front of Eddie every chance she gets. Then they all make up. Then the wise, sage pool hustler Eddie Felson devises a con job which involves putting his grubby old guy hands all over Carmen, knowing full well how jealous and insecure Vince is about his relationship with Carmen. This leads to a cringe-worthy scene after the con job in which Vince acts like the immature teenager he obviously is while Carmen and Eddie try to placate his anger by saying, "We were just acting!" It made me feel a little dirty, watching the great Paul Newman explaining how actors who kiss in movies don't really mean it. Who put these words in his mouth?
There's more, including one of Scorcesese's most gratuitous camera spins, doing 360's around Newman like some drunk teenager doing donuts in his souped-up Chevy in a supermarket parking lot, but why continue? This is simply a bad movie, all the more embarrassing because it almost taints the memory of its superior predecessor . . . almost.
On the plus side, Newman looks great, MEM is very sexy, and Forrest Whitaker turns up in a great cameo as a slightly crazy pool hustler. His character was more interesting during his brief screen time than anything Newman and Cruise could muster.
The rotten cherry on top of this melted pile of ice cream is the fact that THIS is the film for which Newman won his only Oscar. My advice for Newman fans (of which I am definitely one) is to avoid "The Color of Money" and remember the legendary actor for all his other great performances.
************SPOILERS AHEAD********************
As with so many bad movies it really comes down to a ridiculous script. Eddie Felson, a billiards phenom in his younger days who had been used and tossed away by an unscrupulous gambler, is older and wiser and now acts as the unscrupulous gambler by bankrolling young pool sharks . . . Huh? Did Eddie learn nothing from his earlier experience. A rather unbelievable character flaw considering where Eddie was at the end of "The Hustler"
Eddie decides to go on the road with a hotshot young pool player named Vincent (Tom Cruise) who is crazily cocky, dumb as a box of rocks, and presented in a smarmy way-over-the-top manner by Cruise. Vince has a girlfriend named Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) who early on reveals that she has no scruples herself. Uh, wait a minute. In "The Hustler" Eddie got involved with a girl, took her on a pool/gambling road trip with his evil gambler mentor and, without giving away the twists of that much better movie, lets just say it ended very badly. Wow, it seems Eddie has contracted a real bad case of memory loss which causes him to make every mistake he has made before. Who's is writing this dreck?
The implausibility's get worse. Eddie gives Vince a very valuable cue stick, sort of a gift to convince him to become his protégé. Then he tells Vince to not use it when he plays - any savvy pool player will see it and immediately identify Vince as a hustler. Okay, so why give it to the brash and volatile young Vincent? Of course Vince goes out without Eddie and takes the cue and mucks up Eddie's gambling game plan. Eddie gets mad and drives his car away, with Vince trying to chase him down like a jilted girlfriend. Then Vince gets mad and Eddie gets in his car and chases down Vince, like an older jilted girlfriend. Meanwhile Carmen is disrobing in front of Eddie every chance she gets. Then they all make up. Then the wise, sage pool hustler Eddie Felson devises a con job which involves putting his grubby old guy hands all over Carmen, knowing full well how jealous and insecure Vince is about his relationship with Carmen. This leads to a cringe-worthy scene after the con job in which Vince acts like the immature teenager he obviously is while Carmen and Eddie try to placate his anger by saying, "We were just acting!" It made me feel a little dirty, watching the great Paul Newman explaining how actors who kiss in movies don't really mean it. Who put these words in his mouth?
There's more, including one of Scorcesese's most gratuitous camera spins, doing 360's around Newman like some drunk teenager doing donuts in his souped-up Chevy in a supermarket parking lot, but why continue? This is simply a bad movie, all the more embarrassing because it almost taints the memory of its superior predecessor . . . almost.
On the plus side, Newman looks great, MEM is very sexy, and Forrest Whitaker turns up in a great cameo as a slightly crazy pool hustler. His character was more interesting during his brief screen time than anything Newman and Cruise could muster.
The rotten cherry on top of this melted pile of ice cream is the fact that THIS is the film for which Newman won his only Oscar. My advice for Newman fans (of which I am definitely one) is to avoid "The Color of Money" and remember the legendary actor for all his other great performances.
The Monuments Men (2014)
Bad story-telling and a tad vain
Here's the problem with "Monuments Men": Bad script. A group of art experts are introduced but we really don't know anything about them. Then we are expected to care about them and empathize with their cause. The script doesn't flesh out their personalities enough.
For example, there's a scene where Bill Murray's character gets a recording from his daughter in which she sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas". Bob Balaban's character surprises him by playing it over the camp PA system. It should be a touching moment, but it isn't because we don't know anything about his daughter or their relationship. Instead it just seems forced.
Then there's a bit of US propaganda in the film. The US soldiers have to save the artworks not only from the Nazis but also from the Russians. According to the script, only the Americans seem fit to handle the art treasures of the world. Was it just a coincidence that the token British and French soldiers died while all the Americans made it out alive? I'm American and this even bothered me.
Sure, we're all in favor of protecting art from senseless destruction, but the film has a rather superior attitude about it. "Look at how noble we are - defying death to save paintings and statues." I'm not so sure the answer to the question "Were the lives lost worth it?" is as obvious as the film would have us believe.
So yeah, the film is a bit awkward in it's plotting and character development, and a bit misguided concerning the life-or-death value of art. A definite misstep for Clooney and company.
For example, there's a scene where Bill Murray's character gets a recording from his daughter in which she sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas". Bob Balaban's character surprises him by playing it over the camp PA system. It should be a touching moment, but it isn't because we don't know anything about his daughter or their relationship. Instead it just seems forced.
Then there's a bit of US propaganda in the film. The US soldiers have to save the artworks not only from the Nazis but also from the Russians. According to the script, only the Americans seem fit to handle the art treasures of the world. Was it just a coincidence that the token British and French soldiers died while all the Americans made it out alive? I'm American and this even bothered me.
Sure, we're all in favor of protecting art from senseless destruction, but the film has a rather superior attitude about it. "Look at how noble we are - defying death to save paintings and statues." I'm not so sure the answer to the question "Were the lives lost worth it?" is as obvious as the film would have us believe.
So yeah, the film is a bit awkward in it's plotting and character development, and a bit misguided concerning the life-or-death value of art. A definite misstep for Clooney and company.
Dogville (2003)
On the wrong side of the tracks from "Our Town" lies "Dogville"
Lars von Trier takes the luscious fruit of "the American Dream", peels off the pretty facade, and reveals the ugliness, vanity, and judgment underneath. Yes, Dogville could be any town in the world, but it fits 21st century USA too well to ignore the connection.
The early theme of the film is, "You people need to be more accepting," which flies in the face of American self-sufficiency. We can make it alone through hard work and faith in God. We don't need anything from "outsiders".
When Tom introduces Grace and tells the denizens of Dogville that she will provide them with a chance to display their generosity and compassion, they are extremely skeptical. One of the delights of this film is watching that seed of skepticism evolve, first into a small plant of teamwork and trust, then later into a huge, monstrous tree of hate and intolerance.
There are many ways to analyze this film, but what first came to me was that it was an allegory of America's disdain for welfare. Grace must offer herself to the community and do little jobs for them in return for shelter. At first they must create work for her (she can do "things you don't want done"), but slowly the citizens expectations and demands increase, and they lord their power over her with threats and insults, much the same way many Americans act towards poor people who are on welfare ("They're lazy, they should get a job, they're not one of us."). Eventually Grace becomes literally "chained" to the community, a slave and criminal. Finally the citizens just want Tom to get rid of her, so similar to how much of America would like to have their poor and homeless problem just go away.
Another theme constantly repeated throughout the film is the theme of "arrogance". Grace mentions more than once the sin of arrogance, and it is most certainly that which brings about the violent conclusion of Dogville. America and arrogance? I'll let the readers decide the legitimacy of that connection.
"Dogville" is also about the presence of evil in all human beings. People appear decent on the surface, but given the right mixture of circumstances and motivations we are all capable of terrible acts. Following said acts we are also capable of rationalizing our behavior and deluding ourselves into believing we acted morally, perhaps even heroically. Patriots commit atrocities for their flag. True believers do likewise for their God.
Bravo to the brilliant Mr. von Trier for exposing the dark underbelly of the American Dream in such a pointed and creative way.
The early theme of the film is, "You people need to be more accepting," which flies in the face of American self-sufficiency. We can make it alone through hard work and faith in God. We don't need anything from "outsiders".
When Tom introduces Grace and tells the denizens of Dogville that she will provide them with a chance to display their generosity and compassion, they are extremely skeptical. One of the delights of this film is watching that seed of skepticism evolve, first into a small plant of teamwork and trust, then later into a huge, monstrous tree of hate and intolerance.
There are many ways to analyze this film, but what first came to me was that it was an allegory of America's disdain for welfare. Grace must offer herself to the community and do little jobs for them in return for shelter. At first they must create work for her (she can do "things you don't want done"), but slowly the citizens expectations and demands increase, and they lord their power over her with threats and insults, much the same way many Americans act towards poor people who are on welfare ("They're lazy, they should get a job, they're not one of us."). Eventually Grace becomes literally "chained" to the community, a slave and criminal. Finally the citizens just want Tom to get rid of her, so similar to how much of America would like to have their poor and homeless problem just go away.
Another theme constantly repeated throughout the film is the theme of "arrogance". Grace mentions more than once the sin of arrogance, and it is most certainly that which brings about the violent conclusion of Dogville. America and arrogance? I'll let the readers decide the legitimacy of that connection.
"Dogville" is also about the presence of evil in all human beings. People appear decent on the surface, but given the right mixture of circumstances and motivations we are all capable of terrible acts. Following said acts we are also capable of rationalizing our behavior and deluding ourselves into believing we acted morally, perhaps even heroically. Patriots commit atrocities for their flag. True believers do likewise for their God.
Bravo to the brilliant Mr. von Trier for exposing the dark underbelly of the American Dream in such a pointed and creative way.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)
So much more than just shocking sex
First off, this is a review of both volumes 1 & 2, considered as one film.
Secondly, the framework of this film is the life of a woman obsessed with sex, so obviously there are many graphic scenes of sexual acts. Sex is central to the plot. Those criticizing it for gratuitous sexual content and calling it pornography are ridiculous, and most likely part of the hypocritical sexual fascism the director is attacking, so their objectivity is highly questionable.
Lars von Trier has set up this elaborate plot and spiced it with all sorts of sexual content: some of it shocking (the S & M sequence is difficult to watch), some humorous (the "parade of penises") and some heartbreaking (Uma Thurman as "Mrs. H"). He gives us a character (Seligman) through whom we can safely observe and digest these scenes, and experience his unique comparisons to the sexual activities. But much more important than the sex and Seligman's often humorous tangents is the true theme of the film: the guilt Western society has placed on female sexuality. This film is downright profound in it's view of sexual oppression.
For those who doubt the film's depth, consider the topics covered in the conversations between Joe and Seligman: an examination of the true nature of love (which Joe cynically refers to as "lust plus jealousy"), the view of women in a traditional love relationship as a possession of the man (Joe slowly developed the "desire to be one of Jerome's 'things'."), political correctness and language and its relationship to democracy (Joe believes most people are too stupid for democracy), the comparison between the three elements of a Bach orchestration and three of Joe's regular lovers (who also represent three distinct types of sexual need - reliability, animal passion, and love), etc., etc. From fly fishing to spoons to the correct way to parallel park, from soul trees to the mothering instinct to man's place in the universe, there is SOOO much more going on here than just sex.
One of Lars von Trier's most extraordinary and bold films. I'll give it a nine for now, but I suspect it will age very well.
Secondly, the framework of this film is the life of a woman obsessed with sex, so obviously there are many graphic scenes of sexual acts. Sex is central to the plot. Those criticizing it for gratuitous sexual content and calling it pornography are ridiculous, and most likely part of the hypocritical sexual fascism the director is attacking, so their objectivity is highly questionable.
Lars von Trier has set up this elaborate plot and spiced it with all sorts of sexual content: some of it shocking (the S & M sequence is difficult to watch), some humorous (the "parade of penises") and some heartbreaking (Uma Thurman as "Mrs. H"). He gives us a character (Seligman) through whom we can safely observe and digest these scenes, and experience his unique comparisons to the sexual activities. But much more important than the sex and Seligman's often humorous tangents is the true theme of the film: the guilt Western society has placed on female sexuality. This film is downright profound in it's view of sexual oppression.
For those who doubt the film's depth, consider the topics covered in the conversations between Joe and Seligman: an examination of the true nature of love (which Joe cynically refers to as "lust plus jealousy"), the view of women in a traditional love relationship as a possession of the man (Joe slowly developed the "desire to be one of Jerome's 'things'."), political correctness and language and its relationship to democracy (Joe believes most people are too stupid for democracy), the comparison between the three elements of a Bach orchestration and three of Joe's regular lovers (who also represent three distinct types of sexual need - reliability, animal passion, and love), etc., etc. From fly fishing to spoons to the correct way to parallel park, from soul trees to the mothering instinct to man's place in the universe, there is SOOO much more going on here than just sex.
One of Lars von Trier's most extraordinary and bold films. I'll give it a nine for now, but I suspect it will age very well.
Parkland (2013)
A street level account of a horrific event
I'm pretty sure most everybody knows the story, but okay,
**************SPOILERS AHEAD**************
It seems some reviewers are criticizing "Parkland" for not being the movie they wanted it to be - in other words, it doesn't argue their conspiracy theory angle. No, it's not a movie that wallows in conspiracy theories. What it does do is present the impact of the JFK assassination on a group of people we normally don't hear about: the doctors and nurses at the hospital, the secret service agents, Oswald's brother and mother, the people at the Dallas FBI office, and Abraham Zapruder and his family. In my opinion it presents these stories extremely well.
The film is a moment-by-moment observation of what happened to these people on the day of the assassination and the days that followed. It reveals some fascinating details that may surprise even those who are well read on the topic. For example, we see Zapruder begin filming and get a look through his camera as the motorcade approaches, but then the director focuses on Zapruder as the shots are fired. Even those barely familiar with the assassination probably know the actual shooting only took a few seconds, but in the scene we live those seconds with Zapruder, and it's startling how lightning fast those seconds speed by. The audience is left dazed and numb at what has just happened, just like Zupruder and the others on the grassy knoll.
The Parkland hospital emergency room is literally stormed by the Secret Service, and the staff, who were chatting and relaxing a moment earlier, suddenly have the President's bloody body thrust before them. The director does a great job creating a palpable "you are there" feeling, allowing us to eavesdrop on the operating room and notice little details like Jackie's pill box hat riding atop JFK's body as he is wheeled in, or sharing the surprise when the doctor notices the President is wearing a lumbar support. Reading about the confrontation between the Dallas medical examiner and the Secret Service is one thing, but the scene as presented by the director is full of tension, anger and testosterone. Every scene at the hospital is absolutely compelling and perfectly paced.
The subplots involving Robert Oswald and the local FBI agents were also really well done, and the script cleverly weaves these two stories together near the end of the film.
I've done more than my fair share of reading on the topic, and it's obvious there was a conspiracy, but that's not the point of the film. No movie can do everything, and film makers who try to jam too much into a 90 minute film are foolish. I didn't see any lies or blatant distortions. What I did see was a riveting and compassionate look at a horrible event in US history. "Parkland" is brilliantly successful at what it sets out to do, and that's the only criteria upon which it should be judged.
**************SPOILERS AHEAD**************
It seems some reviewers are criticizing "Parkland" for not being the movie they wanted it to be - in other words, it doesn't argue their conspiracy theory angle. No, it's not a movie that wallows in conspiracy theories. What it does do is present the impact of the JFK assassination on a group of people we normally don't hear about: the doctors and nurses at the hospital, the secret service agents, Oswald's brother and mother, the people at the Dallas FBI office, and Abraham Zapruder and his family. In my opinion it presents these stories extremely well.
The film is a moment-by-moment observation of what happened to these people on the day of the assassination and the days that followed. It reveals some fascinating details that may surprise even those who are well read on the topic. For example, we see Zapruder begin filming and get a look through his camera as the motorcade approaches, but then the director focuses on Zapruder as the shots are fired. Even those barely familiar with the assassination probably know the actual shooting only took a few seconds, but in the scene we live those seconds with Zapruder, and it's startling how lightning fast those seconds speed by. The audience is left dazed and numb at what has just happened, just like Zupruder and the others on the grassy knoll.
The Parkland hospital emergency room is literally stormed by the Secret Service, and the staff, who were chatting and relaxing a moment earlier, suddenly have the President's bloody body thrust before them. The director does a great job creating a palpable "you are there" feeling, allowing us to eavesdrop on the operating room and notice little details like Jackie's pill box hat riding atop JFK's body as he is wheeled in, or sharing the surprise when the doctor notices the President is wearing a lumbar support. Reading about the confrontation between the Dallas medical examiner and the Secret Service is one thing, but the scene as presented by the director is full of tension, anger and testosterone. Every scene at the hospital is absolutely compelling and perfectly paced.
The subplots involving Robert Oswald and the local FBI agents were also really well done, and the script cleverly weaves these two stories together near the end of the film.
I've done more than my fair share of reading on the topic, and it's obvious there was a conspiracy, but that's not the point of the film. No movie can do everything, and film makers who try to jam too much into a 90 minute film are foolish. I didn't see any lies or blatant distortions. What I did see was a riveting and compassionate look at a horrible event in US history. "Parkland" is brilliantly successful at what it sets out to do, and that's the only criteria upon which it should be judged.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
A classic, but . . .
Here's the scoop about GWTW: Two hours of brilliance, 30 minutes of soapy melodrama, and two great final lines to wrap it up.
*****S P O I L E R S*****
The movie is great until Scarlet and Rhett get married. After that it devolves into the tale of two petulant, hard-headed people who never seem to be in love at the same time.
Rhett is deeply in love and happy after Bonnie Blue is born, but Scarlett seems jealous of his affection for their daughter and promptly destroys their happiness by kicking Rhett out of her bed.
She survives public embarrassment at Ashley's birthday party, thanks to Melanie's saintly temperament. Rhett basically rapes her in a drunken rage (after dramatically carrying her up the stairs), but Scarlet awakes the next morning blissfully happy. Must have been good sex. Well, apparently not for Rhett, who apologizes and asks for a divorce. Huh? He whisks Bonnie off to London, then returns to discover Scarlet is pregnant, so he promptly berates her and indirectly causes her to fall down the stairs, losing the baby. She calls for him on her sick bed. He declares his love for her. Problem is neither knows of the other's feelings. Rhett wants to try again, but it's Scarlet's turn to act selfish. Then Bonnie dies, which makes them both go crazy. Then Melanie dies. Scarlet finally figures out that Ashley doesn't love her, but it's too late to save her marriage.
Then they each get their famous final lines: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a dam." "Tomorrow is another day." The music swells. The end.
A great ending, but during the previous 30 minutes we are forced to deal with two rather unlikable people. What happened to the charmingly roguish cavalier and the prissy southern belle-turned-strong-businesswoman we saw in the first 2/3 of the film? Neither character is perfect, but the ugly, childish turns they take after they marry make that stretch of film almost unwatchable.
With a little more editing and re-writing, GWTW could have been perfect. As it is, it's still very good.
*****S P O I L E R S*****
The movie is great until Scarlet and Rhett get married. After that it devolves into the tale of two petulant, hard-headed people who never seem to be in love at the same time.
Rhett is deeply in love and happy after Bonnie Blue is born, but Scarlett seems jealous of his affection for their daughter and promptly destroys their happiness by kicking Rhett out of her bed.
She survives public embarrassment at Ashley's birthday party, thanks to Melanie's saintly temperament. Rhett basically rapes her in a drunken rage (after dramatically carrying her up the stairs), but Scarlet awakes the next morning blissfully happy. Must have been good sex. Well, apparently not for Rhett, who apologizes and asks for a divorce. Huh? He whisks Bonnie off to London, then returns to discover Scarlet is pregnant, so he promptly berates her and indirectly causes her to fall down the stairs, losing the baby. She calls for him on her sick bed. He declares his love for her. Problem is neither knows of the other's feelings. Rhett wants to try again, but it's Scarlet's turn to act selfish. Then Bonnie dies, which makes them both go crazy. Then Melanie dies. Scarlet finally figures out that Ashley doesn't love her, but it's too late to save her marriage.
Then they each get their famous final lines: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a dam." "Tomorrow is another day." The music swells. The end.
A great ending, but during the previous 30 minutes we are forced to deal with two rather unlikable people. What happened to the charmingly roguish cavalier and the prissy southern belle-turned-strong-businesswoman we saw in the first 2/3 of the film? Neither character is perfect, but the ugly, childish turns they take after they marry make that stretch of film almost unwatchable.
With a little more editing and re-writing, GWTW could have been perfect. As it is, it's still very good.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Similar to a bad James Bond film
You know the hackneyed device used in many of the Bond films - the overly talkative villain? He has to stop and explain everything or just wants to gloat, which gives Bond a chance to escape whatever dire situation he is in. That's this movie. I swear it seemed like all the dialog in "The Dark Knight Rises" was exposition. All the characters were saddled with clumsy speeches explaining what was happening. That's just one of the many problems with this long, over-wrought, lumbering excuse for an action movie.
I was not a fan of the first 2 entries in the series, except for Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker in the second film. This one has some nice special effects, and Ann Hathaway is okay as Catwoman, but that's about it.
There are some very good actors in DKR who are totally wasted. Tom Hardy is hidden behind a mask the whole movie as the villain Bane, and his dialog is mostly incomprehensible. Gary Oldman and Michael Caine are obviously just picking up a paycheck. Morgan Freeman gets to give Batman his high-tech toys and then fades into the background. It's kind of sad watching them sleep walk through this mess.
Then there's Christian Bale with his cheesy grumbling Batman voice. Is that really supposed to help hide his Bruce Wayne identity? There are moments where it is laugh-out-loud funny.
The script is convoluted and the pace of the film is awkward. Was this really made by Christopher Nolan, the same guy behind the brilliant "Inception"? Hard to believe.
It looks like they are setting the stage for yet another sequel, which will rake in the dough and and make all the fan boys happy. I will not be rushing out to see it.
I was not a fan of the first 2 entries in the series, except for Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker in the second film. This one has some nice special effects, and Ann Hathaway is okay as Catwoman, but that's about it.
There are some very good actors in DKR who are totally wasted. Tom Hardy is hidden behind a mask the whole movie as the villain Bane, and his dialog is mostly incomprehensible. Gary Oldman and Michael Caine are obviously just picking up a paycheck. Morgan Freeman gets to give Batman his high-tech toys and then fades into the background. It's kind of sad watching them sleep walk through this mess.
Then there's Christian Bale with his cheesy grumbling Batman voice. Is that really supposed to help hide his Bruce Wayne identity? There are moments where it is laugh-out-loud funny.
The script is convoluted and the pace of the film is awkward. Was this really made by Christopher Nolan, the same guy behind the brilliant "Inception"? Hard to believe.
It looks like they are setting the stage for yet another sequel, which will rake in the dough and and make all the fan boys happy. I will not be rushing out to see it.
Brief Encounter (1945)
When I want to have a good cry, this it the one.
I think I first discovered "Brief Encounter" in the early 80's. Ever since then it is the movie I pull out when I need a good old fashioned sob fest.
So many perfect elements:
-The bittersweet music of Rachmaninoff
-The breathtaking B&W cinematography
-Trains as a metaphor for limited time, carrying people in and out of our lives (and of course there's the sexual subtext).
-The writing. All you have to say is "Noel Coward". One of the best examples of opening up a play for the big screen.
-A little comic relief provided by Stanley Holloway and Joyce Carey.
-Trevor Howard, so charming and polite yet quietly passionate.
-Celia Johnson, whose luminous eyes perfectly project a refined manner one minute, then disabling shame the next.
-David Lean's direction. He obviously knew exactly what to do with all this repressed emotion and guilt.
-A perfectly ironic and tragic climax.
I won't bother with a plot rehash, but I will point out a few of my favorite moments.
-The "date" where they take the boat out. Begins on such a carefree note, then ends in the boathouse with the tortured declaration of doomed love.
-Laura on the train, day-dreaming about going to romantic places with Alec. Haven't we all done exactly that, only to have the dreams fade into reality.
-The scenes following the one in the friend's apartment. Our modern sensibilities are bewildered by Laura's shame, but it's a testament to Celia Johnson's performance that we still have such empathy for her.
-The walk to the platform when Alec reveals his "solution" to their situation. The look on her face and the way she says "Oh Alec" strikes a very specific nerve for me. Then the dialog when she's leaning out of the train window, and the train pulls away ever-so-slowly . . . probably the best heartbreakingly romantic scene ever. That is, UNTIL . . .
-The Dolly Messiter scene, and the brilliant way it is telegraphed earlier in the film. Of course by that time I'm on my second box of tissue.
I don't give many 10's, but this one was easy.
So many perfect elements:
-The bittersweet music of Rachmaninoff
-The breathtaking B&W cinematography
-Trains as a metaphor for limited time, carrying people in and out of our lives (and of course there's the sexual subtext).
-The writing. All you have to say is "Noel Coward". One of the best examples of opening up a play for the big screen.
-A little comic relief provided by Stanley Holloway and Joyce Carey.
-Trevor Howard, so charming and polite yet quietly passionate.
-Celia Johnson, whose luminous eyes perfectly project a refined manner one minute, then disabling shame the next.
-David Lean's direction. He obviously knew exactly what to do with all this repressed emotion and guilt.
-A perfectly ironic and tragic climax.
I won't bother with a plot rehash, but I will point out a few of my favorite moments.
-The "date" where they take the boat out. Begins on such a carefree note, then ends in the boathouse with the tortured declaration of doomed love.
-Laura on the train, day-dreaming about going to romantic places with Alec. Haven't we all done exactly that, only to have the dreams fade into reality.
-The scenes following the one in the friend's apartment. Our modern sensibilities are bewildered by Laura's shame, but it's a testament to Celia Johnson's performance that we still have such empathy for her.
-The walk to the platform when Alec reveals his "solution" to their situation. The look on her face and the way she says "Oh Alec" strikes a very specific nerve for me. Then the dialog when she's leaning out of the train window, and the train pulls away ever-so-slowly . . . probably the best heartbreakingly romantic scene ever. That is, UNTIL . . .
-The Dolly Messiter scene, and the brilliant way it is telegraphed earlier in the film. Of course by that time I'm on my second box of tissue.
I don't give many 10's, but this one was easy.
The Grey Fox (1982)
A Leisurely Romantic Western?
A very different kind of Western, "The Grey Fox" is set mostly in Canada, moves at an unhurried pace, and stars a senior citizen. Richard Farnsworth didn't make the jump from stunt man to actor until he was well past leading man age, but he was wonderful in films like "The Natural", "Misery", and "The Straight Story". This, however, has to be his best performance. He exudes subtle grace as gentleman train robber Bill Miner, who gets out of prison and is forced to adapt to a world that has passed him by. There's also a very sweet romance between Miner and a feminist photographer. My favorite part of the film is a montage of their courtship set to Miner singing "Betsy From Pike". I also loved the Irish music by the Chieftains, which seemed to fit perfectly with the lovely Canadian scenery. It will be too slow for most audiences, but if you love small independent films that don't pander to teenage moviegoers, this gem will be right up your alley.
Magnolia (1999)
Too long, terribly self-conscious
There's a line Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) says, something to the effect of "Life isn't short, it's long." That was at about the 2 hour mark, and I thought, "Yeah, so is this movie." "Magnolia" was an interesting idea, and there's some good stuff in it. Some of the acting is first rate (Julianne Moore, Philip Seymore Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall, and Melinda Dillon). Much has been made of Tom Cruise's performance, but I think he over-acts, especially in his big scene with Jason Robards.
One of the main problems is that the script tries to do too much. Some editing would have helped, like maybe limiting it to 2 or 3 of these stories. I would have cut the plot involving William Macy's character. Focusing on one whiz kid should have been enough. I also thought the subplot with Claudia and Jim the cop was pretty unbelievable. It was difficult for me to care much about their potential relationship since it seemed obviously doomed. There were just too many balls being juggled at once in this story.
I also had a problem with PT Anderson's direction. Very showy and self-indulgent, constantly calling attention to himself with his quick cuts from plot to plot and flashy camera angles. He really dragged out the big decisions made by the various characters: Cruise hanging on the phone with his assistant, the whiz kid's big speech, Moore unloading her guilt on everyone. The whole pacing of the film seemed off in the last hour.
Then there's the big pay-off, which I found ridiculous. While others attribute lots of hidden meaning to it, I found it pretty pointless. Really the film's message can be simply summed up with "coincidences happen, and you can't escape your past".
Basically I think "Magnolia is an over-rated film, worth watching once, but not worth all the reverence.
One of the main problems is that the script tries to do too much. Some editing would have helped, like maybe limiting it to 2 or 3 of these stories. I would have cut the plot involving William Macy's character. Focusing on one whiz kid should have been enough. I also thought the subplot with Claudia and Jim the cop was pretty unbelievable. It was difficult for me to care much about their potential relationship since it seemed obviously doomed. There were just too many balls being juggled at once in this story.
I also had a problem with PT Anderson's direction. Very showy and self-indulgent, constantly calling attention to himself with his quick cuts from plot to plot and flashy camera angles. He really dragged out the big decisions made by the various characters: Cruise hanging on the phone with his assistant, the whiz kid's big speech, Moore unloading her guilt on everyone. The whole pacing of the film seemed off in the last hour.
Then there's the big pay-off, which I found ridiculous. While others attribute lots of hidden meaning to it, I found it pretty pointless. Really the film's message can be simply summed up with "coincidences happen, and you can't escape your past".
Basically I think "Magnolia is an over-rated film, worth watching once, but not worth all the reverence.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Underwhelming and confusing
WARNING======THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS=====
The Hurt Locker" is about a US Army bomb disposal crew in Iraq. There's the expectedly tense opening scene in which a crew member gets killed while trying to defuse a bomb. This leads to a new crew member coming on board, Sgt James (Jeremy Renner). Unlike the previous guy, Sgt James is a rebel, a cowboy, a risk taker. He doesn't like to use the robot to first check out potential bomb sites. He prefers to put on the big anti-bomb suit and stroll down there himself and check things out in person. This annoys and scares his crew members.
The movie doesn't provide a lot of structure. The plot is very episodic, with the camera drifting from one situation to another without much exposition. This lack of plot might itself be a plot point – showing how life during war is episodic and unstructured. There's a lot of shaky camera work and the film seems to be trying very hard to look realistic and documentary-like.
The main set pieces of the film are the bomb disarming sequences. They go out in their hum-vee, James finds the bombs, and everybody holds their breath while he assesses the situation and snips a few wires. He finds a bunch of bombs in the trunk of a car, finds one inside a dead body, and even encounters an Iraqi man who is just walking down the street with a bunch of explosives strapped to his body. Iraqi citizens are constantly hanging around, but it's difficult to tell if they're the enemy or just bystanders. Again this might be on purpose, letting the audience experience the uncertainty the soldiers feel every day.
I guess these scenes are tense and unnerving . . . well, maybe for people who don't follow the news from Iraq, or people who have not seen many war films. They didn't do a lot for me.
James and his crew argue. They get drunk and smack each other around when they're off duty. We get the typical scenes of emotional breakdown, how they don't understand why they're fighting, and how civilians can't understand what they're going through.
There's a puzzling scene when they run into a character played by actor Ralph Fiennes and a crew of guys in the desert. Are they soldiers? What are they doing out there? A sniper starts firing at them. Very little is explained.
At one point Renner's character kidnaps an Iraqi man and makes him drive into Bagdad, where he breaks into someone's house while searching for a boy who sold him DVDs. Why did he commit this obvious breach of military etiquette? What does he want from the boy? Who was the guy in the house? Again, very little is explained.
OK, I get it, I get it - soldiers often don't know what's happening during war. Confusion and paranoia reigns. Honestly, I'm not the kind of guy who needs everything spelled out, but this whole movie seems to be a study in "fill in the blanks for yourself".
So, this is the Best Picture winner? Really? Personally I'd have chosen "Precious", "Inglorious Basterds", "Up In The Air", or "Avatar" over this. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very compelling, or even that interesting. We've seen most of this before, done better, with a bit more flair and clarity. I guess it won because of the "Bigelow Factor": the fact that it's a gritty war film directed by a woman. I guess that was Hollywood's "cause de jour" in 2008. "We gotta give an Oscar to a female director!". She did a pretty good job of directing, I guess, but it's nothing special. "The Hurt Locker" left me with one question: "What's all the fuss?".
The Hurt Locker" is about a US Army bomb disposal crew in Iraq. There's the expectedly tense opening scene in which a crew member gets killed while trying to defuse a bomb. This leads to a new crew member coming on board, Sgt James (Jeremy Renner). Unlike the previous guy, Sgt James is a rebel, a cowboy, a risk taker. He doesn't like to use the robot to first check out potential bomb sites. He prefers to put on the big anti-bomb suit and stroll down there himself and check things out in person. This annoys and scares his crew members.
The movie doesn't provide a lot of structure. The plot is very episodic, with the camera drifting from one situation to another without much exposition. This lack of plot might itself be a plot point – showing how life during war is episodic and unstructured. There's a lot of shaky camera work and the film seems to be trying very hard to look realistic and documentary-like.
The main set pieces of the film are the bomb disarming sequences. They go out in their hum-vee, James finds the bombs, and everybody holds their breath while he assesses the situation and snips a few wires. He finds a bunch of bombs in the trunk of a car, finds one inside a dead body, and even encounters an Iraqi man who is just walking down the street with a bunch of explosives strapped to his body. Iraqi citizens are constantly hanging around, but it's difficult to tell if they're the enemy or just bystanders. Again this might be on purpose, letting the audience experience the uncertainty the soldiers feel every day.
I guess these scenes are tense and unnerving . . . well, maybe for people who don't follow the news from Iraq, or people who have not seen many war films. They didn't do a lot for me.
James and his crew argue. They get drunk and smack each other around when they're off duty. We get the typical scenes of emotional breakdown, how they don't understand why they're fighting, and how civilians can't understand what they're going through.
There's a puzzling scene when they run into a character played by actor Ralph Fiennes and a crew of guys in the desert. Are they soldiers? What are they doing out there? A sniper starts firing at them. Very little is explained.
At one point Renner's character kidnaps an Iraqi man and makes him drive into Bagdad, where he breaks into someone's house while searching for a boy who sold him DVDs. Why did he commit this obvious breach of military etiquette? What does he want from the boy? Who was the guy in the house? Again, very little is explained.
OK, I get it, I get it - soldiers often don't know what's happening during war. Confusion and paranoia reigns. Honestly, I'm not the kind of guy who needs everything spelled out, but this whole movie seems to be a study in "fill in the blanks for yourself".
So, this is the Best Picture winner? Really? Personally I'd have chosen "Precious", "Inglorious Basterds", "Up In The Air", or "Avatar" over this. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very compelling, or even that interesting. We've seen most of this before, done better, with a bit more flair and clarity. I guess it won because of the "Bigelow Factor": the fact that it's a gritty war film directed by a woman. I guess that was Hollywood's "cause de jour" in 2008. "We gotta give an Oscar to a female director!". She did a pretty good job of directing, I guess, but it's nothing special. "The Hurt Locker" left me with one question: "What's all the fuss?".
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Hypocritical and Cartoonish
Peter Weir directed this movie? Really? The brilliant director of some of my favorite films (Fearless, The Year of Living Dangerously, Master & Commander) is responsible for THIS? I guess even the greatest directors are allowed one dud on their resume'.
Other reviewers have pointed out the obvious: Telling your students to tear out pages from a book is censorship and sort of the opposite of telling them to think for themselves.
My biggest problem with DPS is the cartoonish villains, especially the father and the head master. They're written so one-dimensionally Weir should have dressed them in all black and given them big Simon Legree mustaches to twirl. "How dare you act in a play! Now, back on the railroad tracks!"
The ending is corny, Williams seems miscast, the message is confused, the dialog is ridiculous . . . there's a lot to dislike here. I am amazed so many people love this film.
Other reviewers have pointed out the obvious: Telling your students to tear out pages from a book is censorship and sort of the opposite of telling them to think for themselves.
My biggest problem with DPS is the cartoonish villains, especially the father and the head master. They're written so one-dimensionally Weir should have dressed them in all black and given them big Simon Legree mustaches to twirl. "How dare you act in a play! Now, back on the railroad tracks!"
The ending is corny, Williams seems miscast, the message is confused, the dialog is ridiculous . . . there's a lot to dislike here. I am amazed so many people love this film.
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
A Revelation
Sometimes you see a movie that opens a door into a fascinating topic, into subject matter that is completely new and original, and that was the case when I first saw "Flags of Our Fathers".
I'd visited the statue of the raising of the Iwo Jima flag, and I'd long been a fan of the John Wayne movie, "The Sands of Iwo Jima", but I had no idea about the controversy surrounding that famous photograph.
This movie just sucked me in and didn't lose my interest for one second. It's brilliant story telling by Eastwood. Lots of films deal with the psychological effects of battle on soldiers, but "Flags Of Our Fathers" examines this subject from a completely new angle. This also might be the best movie ever made about war-time propaganda, revealing the nuts and bolts of manufacturing heroes for public consumption.
Sobering, thoughtful, and totally engrossing, "Flag's of Our Fathers" is a revelation of a film.
I'd visited the statue of the raising of the Iwo Jima flag, and I'd long been a fan of the John Wayne movie, "The Sands of Iwo Jima", but I had no idea about the controversy surrounding that famous photograph.
This movie just sucked me in and didn't lose my interest for one second. It's brilliant story telling by Eastwood. Lots of films deal with the psychological effects of battle on soldiers, but "Flags Of Our Fathers" examines this subject from a completely new angle. This also might be the best movie ever made about war-time propaganda, revealing the nuts and bolts of manufacturing heroes for public consumption.
Sobering, thoughtful, and totally engrossing, "Flag's of Our Fathers" is a revelation of a film.
Diner (1982)
Sex, Sports, Eating, Drinking and Life
Not much happens in the course of director Barry Levinson's film "Diner". A bunch of college-aged guys in late 1950's Baltimore gather over the Christmas holidays and eat french fries with gravy at their favorite local diner and talk about "stuff" . . . oh yeah, they also confront the painful necessity of making the transition from carefree adolescence to the responsibilities of adulthood.
The reason for the gathering: Eddie (Steve Guttenberg) is getting married. TV salesman Shrevie (Daniel Stern) is already married and prefers to cling to his single friends lifestyle instead of trying to understand his wife, Beth (Ellen Barkin). Fenwick (Kevin Bacon) is the smart and cynical black sheep son of a rich family, who seems to have a drinking problem. Boogie (Mickey Rourke) is a hairstylist/law student and a smooth-talking ladies man, but his mounting gambling debts are getting him into trouble. Billy (Timothy Daley) has escaped to college and gotten involved in a messy romance with a longtime platonic girlfriend. Then there's Modell (Paul Reiser), the soft-spoken philosopher/comedian of the group, who ponders the meaning of the word "nuance" and, in the film's funniest scene, torments Eddie over a roast beef sandwich. Eddie himself is a lazy, immature-yet-amiable lout who is making his bride-to-be pass a football quiz before tying the knot. The interaction between these friends sets in motion a story that is as deep as the meaning of life, and as shallow as the question of who's the better singer - Sinatra or Mathis? "Diner" is simply one of the best movies ever made about male-bonding. Working from a highly autobiographical script, director Barry Levinson has created a masterful comedy and an insightful character study. What he does so well is capture the way guys act when women aren't around - they smoke and drink and stay up all night and laugh and talk about cars and music and sports, and of course they rack their brains trying to figure out the opposite sex. Any woman wanting to understand the male psyche would do well to study this film.
More importantly he also perfectly captures the feeling of inevitable change hanging over these characters. There's this wistful desire to hang on to past relationships, to revel in familiar people and places before moving forward, before dealing with the anxiety of the approaching unknown. It's this quality that makes "Diner" such a special film. It can be enjoyed on a surface level for it's humor and nostalgia, or you can dig deeper and appreciate the profound observations it makes on the human condition. Either way it is an amazing film.
The reason for the gathering: Eddie (Steve Guttenberg) is getting married. TV salesman Shrevie (Daniel Stern) is already married and prefers to cling to his single friends lifestyle instead of trying to understand his wife, Beth (Ellen Barkin). Fenwick (Kevin Bacon) is the smart and cynical black sheep son of a rich family, who seems to have a drinking problem. Boogie (Mickey Rourke) is a hairstylist/law student and a smooth-talking ladies man, but his mounting gambling debts are getting him into trouble. Billy (Timothy Daley) has escaped to college and gotten involved in a messy romance with a longtime platonic girlfriend. Then there's Modell (Paul Reiser), the soft-spoken philosopher/comedian of the group, who ponders the meaning of the word "nuance" and, in the film's funniest scene, torments Eddie over a roast beef sandwich. Eddie himself is a lazy, immature-yet-amiable lout who is making his bride-to-be pass a football quiz before tying the knot. The interaction between these friends sets in motion a story that is as deep as the meaning of life, and as shallow as the question of who's the better singer - Sinatra or Mathis? "Diner" is simply one of the best movies ever made about male-bonding. Working from a highly autobiographical script, director Barry Levinson has created a masterful comedy and an insightful character study. What he does so well is capture the way guys act when women aren't around - they smoke and drink and stay up all night and laugh and talk about cars and music and sports, and of course they rack their brains trying to figure out the opposite sex. Any woman wanting to understand the male psyche would do well to study this film.
More importantly he also perfectly captures the feeling of inevitable change hanging over these characters. There's this wistful desire to hang on to past relationships, to revel in familiar people and places before moving forward, before dealing with the anxiety of the approaching unknown. It's this quality that makes "Diner" such a special film. It can be enjoyed on a surface level for it's humor and nostalgia, or you can dig deeper and appreciate the profound observations it makes on the human condition. Either way it is an amazing film.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Ridiculous
This is one of those movies that everybody seems to love, but I can't stand. Here's why.
They should have re-titled this "Ken & Barbie Go To Military Court". Cruise and Moore are completely unbelievable as their characters. They're both too young and good-looking to play navy lawyers. The roles cried out for more mature, hard-edged actors. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed both Moore and Cruise in other roles, but I think they're the wrong choices here.
The script never misses an opportunity to be obvious. The animosity between the two leads which turns to admiration. The overly sincere speeches about duty and bucking the odds. Then there's the climatic courtroom showdown between Cruise and Nicholson, which is so ridiculous I have to address with specifics:
*****************SPOILERS***************************
After his key witness kills himself, Cruise risks a court marshal by sending a subpoena to the evil Colonel Jessup (Nicholson). His strategy: he hopes to goad him on the witness stand into admitting he directly ordered the "code red" that caused Santiago's death. He thinks he can bully a hardened Marine Colonel. Forget evidence, he'll just admit the crime when he gets angry. All courtroom procedures are cast aside. Nicholson gets up in the middle of his testimony to leave. Uh, that's not allowed in court. But it does give the two macho guys a chance to yell at each other. Then the judge lets Nicholson give a long speech about how he defends the US. Aren't witnesses just supposed to answer questions? Well, not when it adds to the drama, or should I say melodrama. It's all so ridiculously over-the-top. The most cringe-inducing moment is when Nicholson finally admits he gave the order, "You're Damn Right I Did!" Nicholson the actor is too smart to be believed as a character so stupid. I rolled my eyes so much in this final scene that I think I sustained retinal damage.
Obvious, embarrassing, hackneyed, maudlin - I run out of adjectives to describe how silly this movie is. It's amazing what people will swallow when it's fed to them by big name stars.
They should have re-titled this "Ken & Barbie Go To Military Court". Cruise and Moore are completely unbelievable as their characters. They're both too young and good-looking to play navy lawyers. The roles cried out for more mature, hard-edged actors. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed both Moore and Cruise in other roles, but I think they're the wrong choices here.
The script never misses an opportunity to be obvious. The animosity between the two leads which turns to admiration. The overly sincere speeches about duty and bucking the odds. Then there's the climatic courtroom showdown between Cruise and Nicholson, which is so ridiculous I have to address with specifics:
*****************SPOILERS***************************
After his key witness kills himself, Cruise risks a court marshal by sending a subpoena to the evil Colonel Jessup (Nicholson). His strategy: he hopes to goad him on the witness stand into admitting he directly ordered the "code red" that caused Santiago's death. He thinks he can bully a hardened Marine Colonel. Forget evidence, he'll just admit the crime when he gets angry. All courtroom procedures are cast aside. Nicholson gets up in the middle of his testimony to leave. Uh, that's not allowed in court. But it does give the two macho guys a chance to yell at each other. Then the judge lets Nicholson give a long speech about how he defends the US. Aren't witnesses just supposed to answer questions? Well, not when it adds to the drama, or should I say melodrama. It's all so ridiculously over-the-top. The most cringe-inducing moment is when Nicholson finally admits he gave the order, "You're Damn Right I Did!" Nicholson the actor is too smart to be believed as a character so stupid. I rolled my eyes so much in this final scene that I think I sustained retinal damage.
Obvious, embarrassing, hackneyed, maudlin - I run out of adjectives to describe how silly this movie is. It's amazing what people will swallow when it's fed to them by big name stars.
Purgatory Flats (2003)
Absurd Take On Film Noir
Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.
His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.
Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.
In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".
The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.
I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".
It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.
If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.
His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.
Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.
In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".
The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.
I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".
It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.
If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.
A Family Thing (1996)
"Family Thing" is a Touching Thing
The plot for "A Family Thing" sounds unlikely when you first hear about it. An Arkansas man gets a note from his deceased Mother that she is not his real Mother, that he is actually the product of a sexual encounter between his Father and the family's black maid. The letter urges him to travel to Chicago to find his half-brother, who is a black man. Sounds like a scenario Hollywood would dream up for a broad comedy ("I'm white, you're black, but we're brothers?" Cue wacky music) or a liberal social piece on how we all should "just get along".
"A Family Thing" takes neither road. Instead it examines the realistic reactions the characters would have in such a situation. It services the racial element without getting preachy, and it finds comedy in unlikely places, but mostly it deals with the topic in a frank, straightforward manner.
Robert Duval plays the bewildered Earl Pilcher, a hard-working equipment rental store owner and self- described "redneck", who suddenly finds the very foundation of his life shaken by his Mother's startling post-mortum revelation. His Father's silence on the matter confirms the story, so Earl hops in his truck and drives to Chicago. He locates his half-brother, Ray, a good-natured Chicago cop nearing retirement, played by James Earl Jones. Ray is polite but cynical about the whole matter, with some deep rooted hatred for Earl's Father that he manages to keep from spilling over to much on to Earl. They part ways, but Earl is car-jacked and ends up in a hospital with a concussion, and the only thing they find on him is Ray's phone number. Thus the stage is set for an unorthodox family reunion.
Duval and Jones hit all the right notes as the perplexed brothers discovering each other, despite their distaste for their shared history. Duval's flawed but decent Earl is reminiscent of his performance in "Tender Mercies", subtle and understated. Jone's Ray is a kind-hearted man who has nursed the wounds from a hard life and come out better for the experiences. In a touching scene, beautifully under-played by both actors, the two men talk about their experiences in the Korean War while preparing to bed down for the night. They are two unlikely brothers sharing a room, and sharing their lives.
Michael Beach plays Ray's angry son, Virgil, a divorced bus driver who lost his chance at athletic stardom to a knee injury. But the most fascinating performance is delivered by Irma P Hall as Ray's (and Earl's) Aunt T. Aunt T is a cranky but soulful old woman who happens to be blind, but she sees things the other characters can't, and teaches them all a thing or two about the meaning of family. A scene where she recounts the night of Earl's birth is the emotional highlight of the film.
Don't expect any fireworks or explosions. "A Family Thing" is mostly a quiet, character-driven story. Do expect to be touched by the simple drama of human lives, relayed by a talented director (Richard Pierce) two insightful writers (Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson) and some very skilled actors.
"A Family Thing" takes neither road. Instead it examines the realistic reactions the characters would have in such a situation. It services the racial element without getting preachy, and it finds comedy in unlikely places, but mostly it deals with the topic in a frank, straightforward manner.
Robert Duval plays the bewildered Earl Pilcher, a hard-working equipment rental store owner and self- described "redneck", who suddenly finds the very foundation of his life shaken by his Mother's startling post-mortum revelation. His Father's silence on the matter confirms the story, so Earl hops in his truck and drives to Chicago. He locates his half-brother, Ray, a good-natured Chicago cop nearing retirement, played by James Earl Jones. Ray is polite but cynical about the whole matter, with some deep rooted hatred for Earl's Father that he manages to keep from spilling over to much on to Earl. They part ways, but Earl is car-jacked and ends up in a hospital with a concussion, and the only thing they find on him is Ray's phone number. Thus the stage is set for an unorthodox family reunion.
Duval and Jones hit all the right notes as the perplexed brothers discovering each other, despite their distaste for their shared history. Duval's flawed but decent Earl is reminiscent of his performance in "Tender Mercies", subtle and understated. Jone's Ray is a kind-hearted man who has nursed the wounds from a hard life and come out better for the experiences. In a touching scene, beautifully under-played by both actors, the two men talk about their experiences in the Korean War while preparing to bed down for the night. They are two unlikely brothers sharing a room, and sharing their lives.
Michael Beach plays Ray's angry son, Virgil, a divorced bus driver who lost his chance at athletic stardom to a knee injury. But the most fascinating performance is delivered by Irma P Hall as Ray's (and Earl's) Aunt T. Aunt T is a cranky but soulful old woman who happens to be blind, but she sees things the other characters can't, and teaches them all a thing or two about the meaning of family. A scene where she recounts the night of Earl's birth is the emotional highlight of the film.
Don't expect any fireworks or explosions. "A Family Thing" is mostly a quiet, character-driven story. Do expect to be touched by the simple drama of human lives, relayed by a talented director (Richard Pierce) two insightful writers (Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson) and some very skilled actors.
Ordinary People (1980)
An Extra "Ordinary" film
******SPOILERS*******
There are so many reasons I love this movie. To begin with, there's Robert Redford's direction. I can't think of another movie he has directed that I'd call memorable, but he certainly got it right on this one. From the opening shot of the lake, more meaningful for those not viewing the film for the first time, somberly presented with the delicate first notes of the Pacobel Canon. Then the picturesque scenes around Lake Forrest in all it's Autumnal glory, as the music gradually builds. A perfect upper-middle class neighborhood, with perfect houses and perfect lawns. But we soon learn that all is not perfect in this scene as Redford cuts from Conrad Jarrett singing with the glee club, to Conrad Jarret suddenly sitting bolt upright in bed, gasping for breath and drenched in sweat. The cause: his brother died in a boating accident, after which Conrad tried to commit suicide.
A few scenes later Redford tellingly begins the breakfast scene with a shot of Beth's hands setting glasses of orange juice on the table - first two glasses set down together, then the third glass very deliberately placed on the table by itself. In this simple gesture we get an immediate sense of Conrad's feelings of isolation, even in his own home, and Beth's idea of his position in the family. It is in this same scene that we first witness Beth's callous attitude toward her youngest son. The way she immediately takes away his French toast when he says he's not hungry, not even giving him a chance to change his mind, and brusquely shoves it down the garbage disposal. When her husband Calvin protests she coldly tells him, "You can't save French toast." Possibly a metaphor for how she feels about her damaged son. Then comes the condescending attitude, when she asks him if he wants her to sign him up for a golf tournament. He says, "I haven't played in a year." She counters with a judgmental, "Don't you think it's time you did?" In other words, Beth thinks it's high time her weak son got over his suicidal angst. In this deceptively simple scene Redford neatly sets the tone for the 3 main characters: troubled, isolated Conrad; supportive, puzzled Calvin; cold, unfeeling Beth.
The acting is brilliant. Hutton is easy to identify with as Conrad. The scenes where he courts Jeannine Pratt ( an engaging Elizabeth McGovern) show his warm and endearing side. He also skillfully captures Conrad's emotional turmoil. His scenes with Dr Berger (Judd Hirsch) show great range and depth. Their emotional breakthrough is honest and touching (and, by the way, copied almost shot-for-shot in the film "Good Will Hunting). Donald Sutherland hits the right notes as Calvin Jarrett. His big emotional scene at the end rings true precisely because of his steady, supportive characterization throughout the entire film. I love the scene where he talks to Beth about the day their son died. Hirsch is also quite good as Conrad's psychologist.
Top acting honors, however, must go to Mary Tyler Moore as Beth Jarrett. It would be easy to have Beth become a stereotypical monster mother whose rigid, demanding, unloving personality have probably contributed as much to her son's mental state as the family tragedy they have endured. But MTM's Beth isn't one dimensional. We see her warm moments, mostly with her husband and in a couple of key flashbacks. She's that good friend you think you're close to, but not really. Moore has so many great moments in the film. The scene with Conrad in the backyard, when she tries to draw him out, then quickly retreats when he mentions his dead brother. There's the picture-taking scene, which begins like a Kodak commercial, endures a blow-up by Conrad, and ends with the unflappable Beth casually saying, "Smile" as she snaps a picture. There's the big Christmas tree scene, where it becomes obvious that one sure way to draw Beth's ire is to let a friend find out personal family info before she knows about it. I also love the scene where she has lunch with Calvin in the department store. They're discussing private family business when a waitress intrudes. The way Moore cuts off her sentence, gives the waitress a curt, superficial smile, then resumes her sentence after the waitress leaves, is shear genius. But my favorite scene is the big golfing blow-up, where we see Beth go from being a lucky golfer to a screaming harpy in a matter of seconds. You have to feel sorry for her brother, Ward, when he steps in and tells her everybody just wants her to be happy. He should know better, having grown up with Beth. Her scathing reply make it clear she knows a lot about being unhappy:
"Happy? Ward you tell me what's happy? But first you better make sure your kids are safe. That none of them have fallen out of a tree, or been hit by a car, or drowned in that pool you're so proud of! Then you come to me and tell me how to be happy!"
I think Mary Tyler Moore gives a near perfect performance in "Ordinary People". With apologies to Sissy Spacek, MTM deserved the Best Actress Oscar.
One criticism of OP that I've heard is that it ends too neatly. Their complaint was something along the lines of, "Not every kid gets better." I don't see how this applies to OP. Sure, Conrad was helped by his therapy, and at the end of the film he is "better", though I get the sense he is far from healed. As for his family, it has been devastated AND strengthened at the same time. OP is a hopeful film that deals with complex issues in a very satisfying manner. I think it has aged well over the past 30 years, and it still ranks as one of my favorite films of all time.
There are so many reasons I love this movie. To begin with, there's Robert Redford's direction. I can't think of another movie he has directed that I'd call memorable, but he certainly got it right on this one. From the opening shot of the lake, more meaningful for those not viewing the film for the first time, somberly presented with the delicate first notes of the Pacobel Canon. Then the picturesque scenes around Lake Forrest in all it's Autumnal glory, as the music gradually builds. A perfect upper-middle class neighborhood, with perfect houses and perfect lawns. But we soon learn that all is not perfect in this scene as Redford cuts from Conrad Jarrett singing with the glee club, to Conrad Jarret suddenly sitting bolt upright in bed, gasping for breath and drenched in sweat. The cause: his brother died in a boating accident, after which Conrad tried to commit suicide.
A few scenes later Redford tellingly begins the breakfast scene with a shot of Beth's hands setting glasses of orange juice on the table - first two glasses set down together, then the third glass very deliberately placed on the table by itself. In this simple gesture we get an immediate sense of Conrad's feelings of isolation, even in his own home, and Beth's idea of his position in the family. It is in this same scene that we first witness Beth's callous attitude toward her youngest son. The way she immediately takes away his French toast when he says he's not hungry, not even giving him a chance to change his mind, and brusquely shoves it down the garbage disposal. When her husband Calvin protests she coldly tells him, "You can't save French toast." Possibly a metaphor for how she feels about her damaged son. Then comes the condescending attitude, when she asks him if he wants her to sign him up for a golf tournament. He says, "I haven't played in a year." She counters with a judgmental, "Don't you think it's time you did?" In other words, Beth thinks it's high time her weak son got over his suicidal angst. In this deceptively simple scene Redford neatly sets the tone for the 3 main characters: troubled, isolated Conrad; supportive, puzzled Calvin; cold, unfeeling Beth.
The acting is brilliant. Hutton is easy to identify with as Conrad. The scenes where he courts Jeannine Pratt ( an engaging Elizabeth McGovern) show his warm and endearing side. He also skillfully captures Conrad's emotional turmoil. His scenes with Dr Berger (Judd Hirsch) show great range and depth. Their emotional breakthrough is honest and touching (and, by the way, copied almost shot-for-shot in the film "Good Will Hunting). Donald Sutherland hits the right notes as Calvin Jarrett. His big emotional scene at the end rings true precisely because of his steady, supportive characterization throughout the entire film. I love the scene where he talks to Beth about the day their son died. Hirsch is also quite good as Conrad's psychologist.
Top acting honors, however, must go to Mary Tyler Moore as Beth Jarrett. It would be easy to have Beth become a stereotypical monster mother whose rigid, demanding, unloving personality have probably contributed as much to her son's mental state as the family tragedy they have endured. But MTM's Beth isn't one dimensional. We see her warm moments, mostly with her husband and in a couple of key flashbacks. She's that good friend you think you're close to, but not really. Moore has so many great moments in the film. The scene with Conrad in the backyard, when she tries to draw him out, then quickly retreats when he mentions his dead brother. There's the picture-taking scene, which begins like a Kodak commercial, endures a blow-up by Conrad, and ends with the unflappable Beth casually saying, "Smile" as she snaps a picture. There's the big Christmas tree scene, where it becomes obvious that one sure way to draw Beth's ire is to let a friend find out personal family info before she knows about it. I also love the scene where she has lunch with Calvin in the department store. They're discussing private family business when a waitress intrudes. The way Moore cuts off her sentence, gives the waitress a curt, superficial smile, then resumes her sentence after the waitress leaves, is shear genius. But my favorite scene is the big golfing blow-up, where we see Beth go from being a lucky golfer to a screaming harpy in a matter of seconds. You have to feel sorry for her brother, Ward, when he steps in and tells her everybody just wants her to be happy. He should know better, having grown up with Beth. Her scathing reply make it clear she knows a lot about being unhappy:
"Happy? Ward you tell me what's happy? But first you better make sure your kids are safe. That none of them have fallen out of a tree, or been hit by a car, or drowned in that pool you're so proud of! Then you come to me and tell me how to be happy!"
I think Mary Tyler Moore gives a near perfect performance in "Ordinary People". With apologies to Sissy Spacek, MTM deserved the Best Actress Oscar.
One criticism of OP that I've heard is that it ends too neatly. Their complaint was something along the lines of, "Not every kid gets better." I don't see how this applies to OP. Sure, Conrad was helped by his therapy, and at the end of the film he is "better", though I get the sense he is far from healed. As for his family, it has been devastated AND strengthened at the same time. OP is a hopeful film that deals with complex issues in a very satisfying manner. I think it has aged well over the past 30 years, and it still ranks as one of my favorite films of all time.
The Razor's Edge (1946)
Classic Hollywood, But A Few Problems
The direction of Edmund Goulding was excellent, great camera-work and lighting, it's a very lush, ambitious film. Gene Tierney look gorgeous and is a perfect b#tch as Isabel. I honestly think she's a better actress when she plays evil women (as in "Leave Her To Heaven"). Supporting performances were all fine, especially Anne Baxter playing the doomed Sophie.
The biggest problem with the film was the performance of Tyrone Power as Larry Darrell. He's sort of stiff and unemotional. I realize Darrell is not the easiest part to play - he's almost saintlike. I think I prefer the way Bill Murray played him in the 1984 remake. Murray's humor helped the audience relate to Darrell.
The script doesn't help Powers much. The scene where he cures Isabel's husband of his headache is almost laughable, the way Powers stares at him with those big black eyebrows. Did Darrell study philosophy or hypnotism in India? "The Razor's Edge" is still an enjoyable movie, though I think the 1984 version is probably a little better.
The biggest problem with the film was the performance of Tyrone Power as Larry Darrell. He's sort of stiff and unemotional. I realize Darrell is not the easiest part to play - he's almost saintlike. I think I prefer the way Bill Murray played him in the 1984 remake. Murray's humor helped the audience relate to Darrell.
The script doesn't help Powers much. The scene where he cures Isabel's husband of his headache is almost laughable, the way Powers stares at him with those big black eyebrows. Did Darrell study philosophy or hypnotism in India? "The Razor's Edge" is still an enjoyable movie, though I think the 1984 version is probably a little better.
I Wake Up Screaming (1941)
Fun Noir, Outstanding Performance by Cregar
What a wonderful thrill it is to discover a film I had never heard of and find it to be so enjoyable and fascinating. I found this one while browsing the DVDs at the library and checked it out based on the fact that it was a film noir and had a picture of Betty Garble and her famous legs on the DVD cover. "I Wake Up Screaming" has a crazy title which has little to do with the film's plot, but it's one of the most beautifully shot film noirs I've ever seen, and according to the interesting commentary track by noir expert Eddie Muller it's one of the earliest examples of that genre.
The story is sort of silly, but Victor Mature is well cast as a New York promoter and he has plenty of chemistry with his love interest, the lovely Miss Grable. Personally I found Carole Landis, who plays Grable's tough-talking sister, more attractive. She is stunning as the waitress-turned-starlet who manipulates all the men in the film. I was very sad to learn of her tragically short life. There's a real fire to her performance here in a relatively brief role.
But the real star of "I Wake Up Screaming" is Laird Cregar as the creepy, soft-spoken Inspector Cornell. As the lead detective on the a murder case Cornell is bent on convicting Mature's character, so much so that he follows him around like a vulture and even sneaks into his bedroom while he's sleeping. Cregar with his dark presence and huge body reminds me of a younger version of Orson Welles's crooked detective Hank Quinlin in "A Touch of Evil". He taunts Mature with a miniature hangman's noose and bullys Grable into admitting her love for Mature. It's a totally unexpected performance. Most actors would have played Cornell tough and hard, but Cregar uses his soft voice and intelligence as a counterpoint to his intimidating size. By the end of the film we care less about the murder mystery than we do about Cornell's fate. It's a fascinating performance and Cregar certainly belongs on any list of actors unfairly ignored by Oscar.
If you enjoy Film Noir and want a pleasant surprise, rent this movie.
The story is sort of silly, but Victor Mature is well cast as a New York promoter and he has plenty of chemistry with his love interest, the lovely Miss Grable. Personally I found Carole Landis, who plays Grable's tough-talking sister, more attractive. She is stunning as the waitress-turned-starlet who manipulates all the men in the film. I was very sad to learn of her tragically short life. There's a real fire to her performance here in a relatively brief role.
But the real star of "I Wake Up Screaming" is Laird Cregar as the creepy, soft-spoken Inspector Cornell. As the lead detective on the a murder case Cornell is bent on convicting Mature's character, so much so that he follows him around like a vulture and even sneaks into his bedroom while he's sleeping. Cregar with his dark presence and huge body reminds me of a younger version of Orson Welles's crooked detective Hank Quinlin in "A Touch of Evil". He taunts Mature with a miniature hangman's noose and bullys Grable into admitting her love for Mature. It's a totally unexpected performance. Most actors would have played Cornell tough and hard, but Cregar uses his soft voice and intelligence as a counterpoint to his intimidating size. By the end of the film we care less about the murder mystery than we do about Cornell's fate. It's a fascinating performance and Cregar certainly belongs on any list of actors unfairly ignored by Oscar.
If you enjoy Film Noir and want a pleasant surprise, rent this movie.
Local Hero (1983)
Wistful Masterpiece
"Local Hero" is a special movie. The plot is basically about a love affair between a man and a place. A Houston oil company executive named MacIntyre (Peter Riegert) is sent to Scotland to supervise the purchase of a remote coastal community so his company can tear it down and build an oil refinery. When he and his Scottish counterpart (Peter Capaldi) arrive they discover a quaint little fishing village with a quirky population, including a omnipresent speeding motorcyclist, a marine biologist with webbed feet, a Russian fisherman, and a baby of uncertain parentage. The local hotelier/lawyer/real estate agent/waiter (Denis Lawson) draws out the negotiations, hoping for a windfall for himself and his fellow citizens, giving the oil men a chance to develop a fondness for the remote seaside burg and it's eccentric residents. Reigert goes from button-downed businessman to seashell collector and star gazer (with each day he spends in the town MacIntyre sheds a piece of business attire - first his tie, then his coat, then his watch). He is seduced by the town and it's understated magic. The President of the company (Burt Lancaster) eventually flies in to help wrap up negotiations, albeit with a few major changes.
"Local Hero" moves at a leisurely pace which allows the audience to enjoy subtle character development and to simply observe everyday life. Director Forsythe injects a wry sense of humor and an unexpected sense of wonder into the film. One minute a man is doing his Jimmy Stewart impression, the next minute we're marveling at the beauty of the Aurora Borialas. The film works it's charms on us just as the town does with the oil men. As the movie winds down you'll find yourself wistfully sad that the experience is over, but much richer for having made the trip.
"Local Hero" moves at a leisurely pace which allows the audience to enjoy subtle character development and to simply observe everyday life. Director Forsythe injects a wry sense of humor and an unexpected sense of wonder into the film. One minute a man is doing his Jimmy Stewart impression, the next minute we're marveling at the beauty of the Aurora Borialas. The film works it's charms on us just as the town does with the oil men. As the movie winds down you'll find yourself wistfully sad that the experience is over, but much richer for having made the trip.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
What's wrong with "Kill Bill"
I actually enjoyed many aspects of the film, but it fails for the following reasons:
*******WARNING*****SPOILERS******
-While I think Lucy Liu is a pretty good actress (I loved her on "Ally McBeal") I think she is totally miscast in this role. At no time did I believe she was an assassin, and I never felt she was a threat to Uma Thurman's character. This role cried out for someone like Michelle Yeoh, an actress with a history of martial arts roles. Vivica Fox and Daryl Hannah both conveyed the necessary physicality and menace, but Lucy looked small and weak in the final battle vs "The Bride"
-The cartoonish squirting blood and unrealistic mayhem in the Crazy 88 fight. I know, it was meant to be cartoonish and unrealistic, but there has to be a certain amount of believability for an audience to buy into a movie, and this scene, with Uma mowing down henchman after henchman, just blew all credibility for the film.
-Filming out of chronological order. I know it has become a Tarantino trademark, and it works brilliantly in "Reservior Dog" and "Pulp Fiction", but here it's just confusing. Why not just present the saga of "The Bride" as it happened? The plot has enough drama without playing with the time line, which brings me to my fourth point . . .
-Style over substance. Tarantino is one of those directors who feels the need to constantly remind the audience, "Hey, look over here, I'm directing this movie!" There's enough camera movement and fast edits in this film to give you motion sickness. It's like a 2 hour music video. A well told story with some cinematic style is one thing - In "Kill Bill" the style over-whelms the story.
*******WARNING*****SPOILERS******
-While I think Lucy Liu is a pretty good actress (I loved her on "Ally McBeal") I think she is totally miscast in this role. At no time did I believe she was an assassin, and I never felt she was a threat to Uma Thurman's character. This role cried out for someone like Michelle Yeoh, an actress with a history of martial arts roles. Vivica Fox and Daryl Hannah both conveyed the necessary physicality and menace, but Lucy looked small and weak in the final battle vs "The Bride"
-The cartoonish squirting blood and unrealistic mayhem in the Crazy 88 fight. I know, it was meant to be cartoonish and unrealistic, but there has to be a certain amount of believability for an audience to buy into a movie, and this scene, with Uma mowing down henchman after henchman, just blew all credibility for the film.
-Filming out of chronological order. I know it has become a Tarantino trademark, and it works brilliantly in "Reservior Dog" and "Pulp Fiction", but here it's just confusing. Why not just present the saga of "The Bride" as it happened? The plot has enough drama without playing with the time line, which brings me to my fourth point . . .
-Style over substance. Tarantino is one of those directors who feels the need to constantly remind the audience, "Hey, look over here, I'm directing this movie!" There's enough camera movement and fast edits in this film to give you motion sickness. It's like a 2 hour music video. A well told story with some cinematic style is one thing - In "Kill Bill" the style over-whelms the story.
Apocalypto (2006)
Insert Superlatives Here
Let me begin by saying I am no fan of Mel Gibson. Actually I am a former fan turned bitter critic. I love his early work as an actor in "Mad Max", "Gallipoli", and especially "The Year of Living Dangerously", but was greatly disappointed by the crap that follow: "Bird on a Wire", "Air America", "Maverick", the "Lethal Weapon" movies, etc. I thought he showed some ambition by playing "Hamlet", but it seemed more like a desperate attempt by a "movie star" to prove to everybody he could "do serious work". Then came "Braveheart", which I think is fairly entertaining but obviously a rip-off, sort of "Spartacus Goes to England". Of course Gibson won lots of big awards for that film and became the darling of Hollywood, while I stewed about his renewed popularity. Then came more crap like "Conspiracy Theory", "What Women Want", "The Patriot". He became an actor that I actively avoided at the box office. His anti-Semetic rantings and recent DUI arrest just confirmed what a "tosser" he really was. "See, I told you so."
Then I saw the trailers for "Apocalypto". Against my better judgment I bought a ticket, fully prepared to be duped by Gibson once again.
Mel, if you're reading this, all is forgiven.
"Apocalypto" is one of the most exciting, suspenseful, and original films I've ever seen. Who'd have thought that a film about Mayan Indians, without a word of English in it, could be so satisfying? The simplicity of the plot, the lushness of the cinematography, the immediacy of the conflict, the brutal honesty of the violence, the dogged determination of the main character, the manic pacing and editing, the thrilling discovery of worlds we've never seen before, all combine to make this a fantastic film. Yes it's violent and bloody, but the violence is appropriate to the subject matter and it's certainly no worse than most of the artless schlock unleashed upon us every Halloween.
Move over Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson is ready to challenge you for the title of best actor-turned-director. For the first time in a long, LONG time, I am now looking forward to the next "Mel Gibson" project.
Then I saw the trailers for "Apocalypto". Against my better judgment I bought a ticket, fully prepared to be duped by Gibson once again.
Mel, if you're reading this, all is forgiven.
"Apocalypto" is one of the most exciting, suspenseful, and original films I've ever seen. Who'd have thought that a film about Mayan Indians, without a word of English in it, could be so satisfying? The simplicity of the plot, the lushness of the cinematography, the immediacy of the conflict, the brutal honesty of the violence, the dogged determination of the main character, the manic pacing and editing, the thrilling discovery of worlds we've never seen before, all combine to make this a fantastic film. Yes it's violent and bloody, but the violence is appropriate to the subject matter and it's certainly no worse than most of the artless schlock unleashed upon us every Halloween.
Move over Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson is ready to challenge you for the title of best actor-turned-director. For the first time in a long, LONG time, I am now looking forward to the next "Mel Gibson" project.
Back to the Future (1985)
A Perfectly Balanced Script
Much has been written about his hugely entertaining film. I just want to emphasis a few points: -The script is one of the best I've ever seen. Four, count them, FOUR climaxes! The pacing of the film is so delicately balanced, the last 30 minutes will leave you breathless. Humor, action, romance, it's all there. A really well written script.
-A GREAT and under-rated score. Just try to get the "Back to the Future" theme out of your head after a viewing. Throw in a couple of Huey Lewis songs which perfectly fit the film's mid-80's roots, AND MJF's rendition of "Johnny B Goode", and you've got a soundtrack worth purchasing.
-Hard to believe this movie is 26 years old. I just bought it and it has aged extremely well.
A valuable addition to anyone's DVD library.
-A GREAT and under-rated score. Just try to get the "Back to the Future" theme out of your head after a viewing. Throw in a couple of Huey Lewis songs which perfectly fit the film's mid-80's roots, AND MJF's rendition of "Johnny B Goode", and you've got a soundtrack worth purchasing.
-Hard to believe this movie is 26 years old. I just bought it and it has aged extremely well.
A valuable addition to anyone's DVD library.
Wo de fu qin mu qin (1999)
Exquisite Simplicity
Those who know director Zhang Yimou only through his recent, spectacular martial arts blockbusters ("Hero", "House of Flying Daggers") would do well to examine his earlier films, especially this lyrical, heartfelt story of devotion and love. In an age of 50% divorce rates, this simple tale of pure, innocent love will strike a chord in the heart of the most hardened of cynics. It can be appreciated for the social commentary (modern China's loss of innocence), the artistry of the production (breathtakingly gorgeous cinematography), or for the sincere emotion of the love story. This is the third time I've seen this film since its US release (early 2002 I believe?) and the end credits always find me blubbering in my popcorn. One of Zhang Yimou's most under-rated films. Truly remarkable.