ciocc1001

Spoiler alert:

This movie is like a picture of a desert. In a sandstorm. Made into a jigsaw puzzle.

There is no story, at least not enough of one to hold your attention for more than five or 10 minutes. So they took the movie and chopped it up into little bits, tossed it on the floor, and spliced it back together again.

This is to confuse you into thinking it is art.

Now here is the ending:

There is no story.

I cannot begin to convey the intellectual and spiritual riches of this exquisite, almost transcendental film. I've seen Rushmore about 50 times and I'm going to continue watching it til the end of my life. It is one of the ten best films I have ever seen. It entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing.

Never before have I seen such everyday people brought to the screen in such a believable and moving way. Rushmore is filled with one perceptive scene after another. It is a metaphorical masterpiece.

Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Wes Anderson has done it again! It is his juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. The characters are so richly drawn, finely acted and beautifully directed, that even when they're not speaking... we can read their emotions, we feel their pain.

I love it when I don't know what is going to happen, even within the context of a sort of romantic comedy. Rushmore is a terrific look at why people stay "together" in the sense of being a part of someone's life even when danger lurks around every corner.

Rushmore is undeniably one of the paramount achievements in modern film. This movie is about freedom -- the freedom to be yourself, to be unselfconscious, to let your mind roam and behave any way you want. Nothing about Rushmore is conventional yet--and this is important--it never tries to shock you in a cheap Hollywood way with violence, sex, or some special effects crap.

This film is so un cliche that you really have to praise the makers of this film. As soon as you sit down to watch it, it oozes class. The writing is witty and never, ever falls into kitschy cliche.

I think there is a lot of symbolism about art and the creative process in this movie. Not once is there a single frame of film wasted. The gorgeous visuals set a perfect backdrop for some of the greatest movie dialogue of all time.

Not.

And the title represnts false advertising. It is set in LA. About 10 seconds of the movie is actually in the Grand Canyon.

Spoiler alert!

It's, like, the California 90s version of instant nirvana enlightenment samadhi. Like take one look at the Grand Canyon and you are instantly transformed. yeah, right. It would take a bit more than that. Say, at least 15 minutes of screen time.

Yeardly Smith!

Time has not been kind to this movie. The first half descends into caricatures, rather than acting. And given the fine cast, one expects more. The low point is when Nancy barges into the party with her incredibly whiny voice, and you think "who is this incredibly annoying person?" And then when I discovered at the end credits that it was Yeardly Smith I realized it was truly great acting. Hey, its not easy being THIS annoying. I guess this is what the director wanted.

Fortunately, the movie eventually gets better as the characters gain depth through a personal self-discovery on the range sort of thing. Nothing like a little peace and quiet away from the city, eh? I think this was what the movie Grand Canyon was trying to get at in its crude sort of way.

My advice: If you get the movie, stick with it! It can only get better. And keep an eye out for Nancy!

This movie does what it sets out to do, and it does it perfectly. And yet when you begin to watch it you can't help but be sceptical, sceptical that Homer will stay, sceptical that you will find the whole thing credible. And yet by the end, you believe. And that is when a movie works, when you are able to suspend such doubts. And it works just as well today as it did 40 years ago.

Something to be aware of when watching the movie, which you might not find out until the end credits, is that the music is by Jerry Goldsmith, who later gained fame for the wonderful music in Patton and Star Trek: the Motion Picture, among other works. However, he did not write the title piece, "Amen." This guy is a great composer.

You mean there are actually people who don't like this movie? Inconceivable! This movie is as straight a 10 as I have ever seen. Casablanca is a solid 9 next to this.

I hate to say it, but this is the way most people and communities really are: they don't particularly want to be saved from the bad guys, and won't lift a finger to help anyone who tries - especially the church folks. This movie was made during the McCarthy era and was meant to depict it, but it is just as true a depiction of the hypocritical, corrupt demagogues running the country at this moment. No one cares, as long as they can make some money. And all the Gary Coopers have left town.

A quick note: A film professor said this movie was shot in real time, meaning that the amount of time depicted in the story corresponded to the time on the screen. I have never synchronized watches at the beginning of the movie, but this is one of the reasons you keep seeing shots of clocks: to keep reminding you of the time.

This movie might not be an entirely accurate depiction of what occurred, but it certainly is an enjoyable and inspiring movie. And I hope it will inspire viewers to look into this slice of history. With the internet, that is easy these days. I found a fascinating bio written by Michael Birdwell on the Alvin C. York Institute website. Did you know that York considered running against freshman Tennessee Senator Albert Gore in 1930? Just think: in a parallel universe, York's son might have run against George Bush!

This is one of those movies that stays with you the rest of your life. Watch it!

Take two tenuously related plots in two different foreign locales, start with one, then splice in scenes from the other at random, add artsy photography and some viewers will assume it is art because they can't figure out what the heck is going on and don't want to admit it. Hey, it worked for the English Patient, and it apparently fooled some reviewers are viewers with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Me, I don't even understand the title.

On the positive side, it was a truly great movie for the first five minutes. The rest should be viewed as National Geographic cinematography. Viewed on my laptop's DVD player the color looked especially beautiful. And the flying effects were extraordinary. If I might make a suggestion, perhaps Ang Lee should make a remake of Peter Pan. Seriously. He got the sense of fantasy down pretty good in this movie. He just needed a better plot, or perhaps running the two plots the movie contains sequentially, rather than on shuffle play.

And that's on a scale of 1 to 10.

I've seen worse movies, but I generally don't stay to the end. This movie has the cast and a good reputation, so I gave it my best try. But I don't like it.

And what's with this movie being labeled a comedy? This is just plain dishonest.

And in case anyone's interested, I lived in New York City, so I don't have a bias against movies from the Big Apple.

Unfortunately, the generation this movie appears to be aimed at still watches Teletubbies; that's the only one that would perceive the kids starring in this movie as adults, and the acting as competent.

Of course, I could be wrong; I couldn't bear to watch more than five minutes. I did fast-scan through the rest of the DVD, and it didn't seem to get any better.