erin_aaron
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
20 years
Reviews
Gangs of New York (2002)
Too much violence and blood ruins what could have been an excellent film.
"Gangs of New York" was a story that had tremendous potential. The backdrop of ethnic gang war in this era, place and setting was so interesting, it really could have been the movie of the year. "Gangs of New York" tells the story of 'Amsterdam' (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young man who, as a boy, witnessed his father's gory death at the hands of 'Bill the Butcher' (Daniel Day Lewis) in the course of a bloody Irish gang street war in one of the most violent places of the mid-19th century. As an adult, Amsterdam finds himself seeking to get close the the man who killed his father in order to exact revenge, while falling for a dangerous and enchanting woman (Cameron Diaz) who becomes the missing link between Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher. It all culminates in another, more grandiose street war. The very premise of the movie was fascinating enough to place it on the must-see list of millions of people.
Unfortunately, under Scorsese's directorship, the movie is little more than an overblown blood and gore fetish film starring mostly talented, but incredibly miscast actors (namely Cameron Diaz, but nearly everyone with the exception of Daniel Day Lewis).
Appropriate use of bloodshed and violence in a movie has certain characteristics. First, it should not be excessive and gratuitous. "Gangs of New York" was both, and rather than adding to the film, the violence and gore seriously detracted from it. Second, it should be necessary to the movie. Although this was a movie about street gang warfare, this was no "Saving Private Ryan". More than half of the violence and bloodshed in the movie does not take place during a street war. Nor is it used to portray the futility and horror of violence and war. Honestly, I'm surprised Scorsese didn't have Daniel Day Lewis kick a puppy to death while the sky rained blood.
"Les Miserables", while not a perfect adaptation of Victor Hugo's work of art, was a far more effective portrayal of street war and rebellion.
"Gangs of New York" received credit where credit was not due. A truly good director can make an excellent film without relying on blood and gore shock value and name recognition of the leads. Scorsese shows his true, very ugly, colors here. Teenaged boys and adults with strong stomachs may enjoy this film; others will be disgusted and disappointed.
Unfortunately, under Scorsese's directorship, the movie is little more than an overblown blood and gore fetish film starring mostly talented, but incredibly miscast actors (namely Cameron Diaz, but nearly everyone with the exception of Daniel Day Lewis).
Appropriate use of bloodshed and violence in a movie has certain characteristics. First, it should not be excessive and gratuitous. "Gangs of New York" was both, and rather than adding to the film, the violence and gore seriously detracted from it. Second, it should be necessary to the movie. Although this was a movie about street gang warfare, this was no "Saving Private Ryan". More than half of the violence and bloodshed in the movie does not take place during a street war. Nor is it used to portray the futility and horror of violence and war. Honestly, I'm surprised Scorsese didn't have Daniel Day Lewis kick a puppy to death while the sky rained blood.
"Les Miserables", while not a perfect adaptation of Victor Hugo's work of art, was a far more effective portrayal of street war and rebellion.
"Gangs of New York" received credit where credit was not due. A truly good director can make an excellent film without relying on blood and gore shock value and name recognition of the leads. Scorsese shows his true, very ugly, colors here. Teenaged boys and adults with strong stomachs may enjoy this film; others will be disgusted and disappointed.
Calendar Girls (2003)
Restore your faith in humankind...
Like many people I know, I look forward to the weekend as a chance to unwind and escape, especially when there's a new movie to rent - and sometimes, the latest zombie flick or murder mystery just won't do. When you're in the mood for something that will warm your heart, make you laugh, appeal to emotions that we all share, and generally restore your faith in humankind, "Calendar Girls" is just the ticket.
"Calendar Girls" is the story of two best friends, Annie and Chris (both expertly cast), who set out to raise money for the local hospital after Annie's husband is stricken with terminal cancer. The snappy and idealistic Chris comes up with the idea of creating a tasteful "nudie" calendar using the middle-aged, seemingly prude members of their local womens' group as models. What happens next is beyond Annie's wildest imagination; their goal to raise money for charity is smashingly successful, and the calendar girls become overnight celebrities in their modest little community.
Without the right casting and screenwriting this story could have ended there, in an overly simplistic and predictable manner. However, "Calendar Girls" goes so much further, forcing the girls' attention back to the joys and hardships of their personal lives, as well as facing the tough questions and realities about their original goal and what they have done to accomplish it. It plays on the common emotions that we all have experienced: fear, grief, loss, idealism, success, arrogance, failure and ultimately reflection. You can read the alternating pain and elatement on the faces of every character, and you can't help but feel for them.
Critics of this movie have focused mainly on its similarity to "The Full Monty"; however, unless you watch "Calendar Girls" with this idea firmly planted in your mind, you will probably not be bothered by any similarities between the two films. "The Full Monty" was an excellent movie in its own right, but while "Calendar Girls" captures the same humor and realness, it adds a little something more: heart.
Life is painful and hard, a fact that "Calendar Girls" addresses with grace and tact. Sometimes it's nice to relax with a beautiful movie that will make you feel good. I could not recommend this movie more highly.
"Calendar Girls" is the story of two best friends, Annie and Chris (both expertly cast), who set out to raise money for the local hospital after Annie's husband is stricken with terminal cancer. The snappy and idealistic Chris comes up with the idea of creating a tasteful "nudie" calendar using the middle-aged, seemingly prude members of their local womens' group as models. What happens next is beyond Annie's wildest imagination; their goal to raise money for charity is smashingly successful, and the calendar girls become overnight celebrities in their modest little community.
Without the right casting and screenwriting this story could have ended there, in an overly simplistic and predictable manner. However, "Calendar Girls" goes so much further, forcing the girls' attention back to the joys and hardships of their personal lives, as well as facing the tough questions and realities about their original goal and what they have done to accomplish it. It plays on the common emotions that we all have experienced: fear, grief, loss, idealism, success, arrogance, failure and ultimately reflection. You can read the alternating pain and elatement on the faces of every character, and you can't help but feel for them.
Critics of this movie have focused mainly on its similarity to "The Full Monty"; however, unless you watch "Calendar Girls" with this idea firmly planted in your mind, you will probably not be bothered by any similarities between the two films. "The Full Monty" was an excellent movie in its own right, but while "Calendar Girls" captures the same humor and realness, it adds a little something more: heart.
Life is painful and hard, a fact that "Calendar Girls" addresses with grace and tact. Sometimes it's nice to relax with a beautiful movie that will make you feel good. I could not recommend this movie more highly.
Citizen Ruth (1996)
Watch this one more than once!
Occasionally you will see a movie that may take you some time to decide whether you enjoyed it. By the second time you see it, you're better able to fully appreciate the movie without becoming wrapped up in confusing or disturbing plot elements. "Citizen Ruth" is one of the best examples of this phenomenon I have ever seen. If you've seen it before, give it another chance. If you have not, give yourself some time to reflect after watching it. You will not be disappointed.
"Citizen Ruth" is the story of a woman, Ruth Stoops (Laura Dern could not have been a better choice for this role), who has spent her difficult life making a lot of bad choices. She is a quick-tempered, irresponsible but naive junkie, who you can't help but root for. When she finds herself pregnant yet again, with no intention of giving up the model airplane glue and spray paint she regularly huffs, the judge makes it clear that with all of her previous run-ins with the legal system, Ruth had better "take care of the problem" or face serious charges.
When the local pro-life group, the Babysavers (Kurtwood Smith was another excellent choice to play the leader of this group) catches wind of the judge's comments, they set out to save Ruth and her unborn child. This, of course, turns out in a hilariously disastrous way, when pro-choice gets involved to even up the playing field. Ruth's naivete makes her easy for both sides to manipulate, and neither pro-life nor pro-choice winds up looking very good.
The ending to this movie is not, in my opinion, as predictable as it seems, and it really gives you something to think about - what is "life" and how much (both in material and ethereal terms) is it worth, particularly when it's placed in the hands of somebody who is in such poor control of her or his own? Is it ethical to take advantage of somebody's lack of knowledge for your own gain, or is it even okay to try to change somebody's mind? Is Ruth Stoops a bad person, or just a misunderstood and desperate woman? And what about her final choice?
This movie is worth a second look, and at a $3 rental fee, what do you have to lose?
"Citizen Ruth" is the story of a woman, Ruth Stoops (Laura Dern could not have been a better choice for this role), who has spent her difficult life making a lot of bad choices. She is a quick-tempered, irresponsible but naive junkie, who you can't help but root for. When she finds herself pregnant yet again, with no intention of giving up the model airplane glue and spray paint she regularly huffs, the judge makes it clear that with all of her previous run-ins with the legal system, Ruth had better "take care of the problem" or face serious charges.
When the local pro-life group, the Babysavers (Kurtwood Smith was another excellent choice to play the leader of this group) catches wind of the judge's comments, they set out to save Ruth and her unborn child. This, of course, turns out in a hilariously disastrous way, when pro-choice gets involved to even up the playing field. Ruth's naivete makes her easy for both sides to manipulate, and neither pro-life nor pro-choice winds up looking very good.
The ending to this movie is not, in my opinion, as predictable as it seems, and it really gives you something to think about - what is "life" and how much (both in material and ethereal terms) is it worth, particularly when it's placed in the hands of somebody who is in such poor control of her or his own? Is it ethical to take advantage of somebody's lack of knowledge for your own gain, or is it even okay to try to change somebody's mind? Is Ruth Stoops a bad person, or just a misunderstood and desperate woman? And what about her final choice?
This movie is worth a second look, and at a $3 rental fee, what do you have to lose?