chunga95

I am sad The West Wing is no longer on the air. In its wake few, if any, TV shows have proved to be a capable and stimulating substitute. There is no replacing The West Wing, only watching other shows that are equally entertaining and uplifting.

With our recent subscription to Amazon Prime Instant Videos my wife started watching this show (with my strong urging!). In three months' time she experienced the emotional highs and lows that many of us had while the show was on the air. She understands me now when I say that most TV is crap. After TWW, everything pales in comparison.

This review is for the people who are aware of the show but never got around to watching it. If you see The West Wing on streaming video - stop watching other streaming shows and watch this! I re-watched many of the episodes with her and it was fantastic to see them again (even though I watched a lot of the show when it was on).

IMHO, The West Wing is a love letter to American politics. Many of us are cynical and downright distrustful of our elected representatives. This show, which I believe to be a decent representation of reality, highlights the patriotism, dedication, and ideologue necessary to govern. Its easy to think of people working in government as self-centered and dishonest. TWW peels the curtain back and instills in us a sense of hope and faith that our government is fundamentally honest, moral, and dedicated to us.

The show is extraordinarily compelling: it presents the debate about national issues and makes them accessible. Granted, the dialogue and rationale is heavy to the left, but gives weight to both sides (not equal weight, though). It shows triumph and defeat and reminds us the best idea or position does not always win. The characters of TWW are exceedingly human and anyone can relate to their struggle.

The production value is movie quality, the acting is first-rate (not to mention the A-list cast), the writing is sublime. That said, TWW is a sum greater than its parts and is still spectacular television, even 6 years after it went off the air. I wish they would start this show again with a Republican president that puts today's issues front and center and shows how the other side deals with running the country. It could be done, but TWW was lightning in a bottle and my wish will go unfulfilled.

Watch this show and become engrossed in one of the greatest TV shows of all time! It's smart, heartfelt, compelling, dramatic, insightful, funny, relevant (even 6 years later), and always, always entertaining.

'Gladiator' is the story of General Maximus. Like the famous movie tag line Maximus is the general who became a slave, a slave who became a gladiator, a gladiator who defied an emperor. It has been little more than 11 years since this movie was made and its influences and precedents are legion. More than that, it may yet be the best of all the historic Roman movies (Ben Hur, Spartacus, etc).

For one, the character Maximus is a great expression of the Athenian Ideal. He is a citizen soldier, trusted leader of one of Rome's greatest armies. He serves Rome because, in Maximus' own words, he has seen much of the rest of the world, which is brutal and dark - Rome is the light. He believes in Rome and in its exalted leader, Caesar Marcus Aurelius. Maximus' defining characteristic is love - love of country, love of Caesar, and most importantly love of his family. He does not seek power nor influence, he only wishes to do his duty with honor. Russell Crowe fleshes out this character expertly, and brings a quiet soul to a very violent life. Winning the Oscar for his performance understates how timeless and beautiful an acting job he gave.

His antagonist, Commodus, is quite the opposite. While Marcus Aurelius pointedly prefers Maximus, he spurns Commodus from assuming the throne because of his weakness and immorality. Joaquin Phoenix deliciously plays the corrupt and vile Commodus and creates one of the great 'characters-you-love-to-hate'. When the movie was still playing in theaters the common review I heard was 'but I hated Joaquin Phoenix'. I would ask why, and the response usually centered around how 'creepy' or 'slimy' he was. Joaquin made the villain so sinister he made us hate him, as we were meant to. Connie Nielsen gives a heartfelt and stoic turn as Lucilla, who in many ways reflects the broken heart of Rome and its hope that it can be whole again.

Most movies, particularly in the modern era, tend to cast antagonist and protagonist as very similar in character and ideology save one critical, large difference. Here, 'Gladiator' gives us polar opposites: Maximus the general who fights for honor and love and idealism, Commodus who schemes and lusts for self-serving power. It makes for an extremely compelling script with a venerated supporting cast, many of whom were already well-established classical actors such as Richard Harris, Derek Jacoby, and Oliver Reed. They bring gravitas to small but critical roles and supply the weight of Roman political intrigue.

Enough cannot be said for Ridley Scott's vision and direction. In so many ways, the movie is an accurate portrayal of Roman history, and in others a wild fantasy of it. He paints a grand and imposing visage of ancient Rome that is as much a character in the movie as any actor. It gives scope to the stakes Maximus and Commodus are playing for. Stylistically, the influence of this movie has oft been repeated, but never duplicated. The violence is simultaneously brutal and vague, bloody and implied. The cinematography is at times elegant and vicious, still and harried. Its a great blend that keeps your eyes glued to the screen and leaves a thin, glossy veneer that elevates the movie above slasher B-flick violence, which is precisely what gladiator fighting was. The gray tones of Germania, the warm sepia tones of Trujillo, the bright granite of Rome - a wonderful color palette that Ridley paints with to perfection. I especially like many of the Rome scenes that mix shots in half-shadow, half-light underscoring the divided, dark nature of the Roman empire.

Its a stylistically transcendent and progressive movie of conscience and soul that tells a very old, classical tale. Many professional musician friends of mine did not like Hans Zimmer's music score at all, but I disagree. Its simplistic and stirring and fits the movie perfectly. It cues the audience into the horror, the tension, and the grandeur that was ancient Rome. This movie will endure because it has a timeless soul and is told artfully and truthfully. I have seen many of the 50s/60s period epics that are so revered, but I do not think they will stand the test of time as well as Gladiator will. To me, a product of post-modern cinema, those movies do not connect emotionally nor historically. Ridley Scott brought an historic grittiness to 'Gladiator' that I think will endure and, consequently, was one of the forerunners to the last ten years of cinema where movies are now revered for their gritty accuracy, rather than their bubble gum ignorance of it. Like the conflict between Maximus and Commodus, 'Gladiator' is a refined study in balance and conflict and threads this needle expertly with as poetic an ending in movies as you'll ever see. It is great now, and still will be when movie lovers not yet born discover it.

Not new news: Transformers DOTM is not the best movie ever, nor is it the best of the series, so far. The story is riddled with holes, the acting (from some people in particular) is passable, and it has more than its share of moments that make you think "really?".

That said, this is a great summer action flick. Expect an entertaining, visually and audibly stimulating movie, and your expectations will be exceeded. For all its many, many faults, this Transformers movie is fun and thoroughly entertaining.

It has some elements of the first two movies that contribute directly to the plot, but stands alone quite well. Not having seen the first two movies you would not be lost, although seeing the first two would give you a stronger appreciation for where the movie enters, character-wise. Transformers is long on action and short on making sense. Many times during the movie I caught myself wondering "how did we get here?". I believe this was the editing, which probably omitted many bridge elements of the story in favor of pacing and effect. Nonetheless, the actions sets are spectacular and, once again, found myself caught up in them cheering till the end.

For 2 1/2 hours of escapism, entertainment, and eye candy (in all its forms) I rated it a 7. Withdraw the action sequences and the non-sequitur comedy bits would leave this movie a 2, which should give you some idea the impact these elements play in the overall movie. Have the correct expectation, you won't be disappointed. Expect Olivier playing Henry V, and I'll ask you what in the hell you're doing at a Transformers movie!

'The Hurt Locker' surprised me on many levels. In many regards it has all the trappings of the conventional war movie: soldiers' daily grind, explosions and gun violence, gritty realism and tragedy. What sets this movie apart is the characters.

Moreso than any other war film I've watched, I felt like this was more of a character study first and a war movie second. Jeremy Renner expertly plays SSgt. James, a replacement EOD team leader deployed to Iraq. His brazen style immediately clashes with the other two regular members of the team, Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Spc. Eldrige (Brian Gerarghty). As they anticipate their unit's rotation back home, tensions rise as they have to continue to perform their ordinance detonation duties.

I thoroughly enjoyed Renner's character. SSgt. James is a moral, caring, and thoughtful leader. But, his thirst for action pushes Sanborn and Eldrige out of their comfort zones. EOD is dangerous enough, and James' antics test their resolve and grit. Where the movie separates itself from other war movie is this: the action serves the character, as opposed to characters thrown into action. Each mission reveals new dimensions about our heroes, their fears and ambitions, what they are trying to preserve and protect. The dialog and the actors' portrayal felt very organic to me. These are real people having real conversations, in realistic situations, trying to operate rationally and compassionately in the most illogical and irrational of circumstances.

There are no preachy political overtones or lessons on the morality of war. There really is no villain, except a faceless, formless enemy. There is nothing except the next mission and trying to survive it. The documentary style cinematography and gritty locations are great. I felt like I was in the Humvee many times, in modern Iraq, privileged to conversations and emotions rarely shared except in dire circumstances.

That said, I don't know if this movie is as good as it's being reviewed. It is an excellent film. If you're a fan of war movies this certainly is a don't miss. It's thrilling, wonderfully filmed, and the acting is great, if understated. Still, there's something missing that keeps this movie from being a top-echelon flick. In the end, though, this is an engrossing and entertaining movie that should not be missed!

Movies are escapism. They take us to other worlds, based in our reality or not, and tell us stories. These stories either reflect the best or worst of our natures, our dreams and nightmares, and communicate these themes on multiple levels. It has been said of many movies that 'it takes you to another world/place/time'. Only with "Avatar" is this true.

There's not much to say about the movie that watching the film won't say for itself, so it's pointless to try and communicate that here. Instead, I want to focus on the experience. I watched 'Avatar' on IMAX-3D and, despite not seeing it in any other format, can confidently say this is the ONLY way to see it. At the end of the movie, I didn't want it to be over. I wanted to stay in Pandora. Never has a movie had an effect on me like this. I was literally, in every sense of the word, transported to another world, another time. To say the visuals are stunning and breathtaking are paltry adjectives for such eloquent film making.

Many people have and will degrade the movie for it's 'lack of an original story'. What they don't understand is that this is not an 'American' movie, if you will. The film's story is taken from legend, legend that a thousand cultures across the planet share, and roots it firmly and beautifully in another world. It's characters and mythology are anchored in the human subconscious, which allows the audiences to fully embrace this new world Cameron has shown us.

It's one of the highlight movie experiences of my life and it is my hope it will be for you. As has been said of other James Cameron movies: he doesn't reinvent the wheel, he just shows it rolling in a whole new way. There are a thousand positive things to be said about 'Avatar' but the only one that deserves mention is this: see it the way it is intended to be seen, or miss out on the cinematic opportunity of a lifetime.

I think it's funny that many people pan this movie for having no plot or substance. What did they think they were buying a ticket for? C'mon folks, it's Bruno!!! It's been an hour since I left the theater and I'm still choking on popcorn because of how hard and often I was laughing. The point of a movie is to entertain. The point of a comedy is to make you laugh. Bruno delivers on both fronts and more.

One of the great things about 'Borat' was that, like a horror movie, there were some parts so intense I literally had to turn my head away from the screen (the fight in the hotel). Sacha Baron Cohen ups the ante and, by my estimation, has two or three moments like this in 'Bruno'. It's like watching a magician - you're mesmerized, captivated, and when it's all over, if your pants are still dry, you wonder how he pulls these gags off.

If you've seen the trailer then, yes, you've seen the movie. The difference is they cannot show any more of the movie than that in a TV or movie trailer spot. It's not for the faint of heart or squeamish. The funniest parts (and there are loads of them) are saved for ticket buyers. 'Bruno' is maximum hilarious.

On the IMDb discussion boards a few years ago, someone asked what made "Lawrence of Arabia" (LofA) such an important movie. The poster had watched the film but was left scratching his head as to why this was such a significant and revered movie. If you have seen the movie and are asking yourself the same questions, hopefully this will help.

You might have wondered why this movie lasts almost four hours with an intermission. When LofA was made, going to the cinema to watch a movie was a bigger deal than it is now. It was commonplace for movies to last this long, and lengthy epics with a cast-of-a-thousand were the flavor. This is the only significant quality this movie shares with other contemporary movies of the time.

Obviously, this movie takes place in the Middle East. As far as western audiences were concerned, LofA might as well have taken place on the moon for all that was understood of Arabian culture and history in 1962. LofA transports us to an alien land with strange characters and values. To help tell this story, the movie is anchored by established actors like Sir Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, and Claude Rains. While Hawkins and Rains perform familiar characters, Guinness and Quinn paint credible portraits as Arabic royalty and tribal leader. That their characterizations still ring true today is a testament to their portrayals. Only in the last 10 years or so has western cinema begun to maturely portray Middle Eastern culture. Omar Sharif, one of the few actual Middle Easterners with a prominent role, demonstrates the complex beauty and brutality of this culture.

Of course the real star was newcomer Peter O'Toole. His was a risky casting and proved to be one of the best of all time. The real genius of LofA is its simplicity. Here is the man Lawrence, here is what happened, here's how he felt about it all. This is made possible by O'Toole. At the time, campy presentational acting was still the prominent style of movie acting. O'Toole was part of the new blood of method acting, made en vogue famously by Brando and "On the Waterfront", that was showing the audience, not telling, the emotional fabric of a character. Watch O'Toole's eyes on his close-ups. He communicates more depth and presence than any dialog could provide. He draws the audience in, includes them in his triumphs and despairs, all the while impressing the hope and ambition of Lawrence.

Steering the ship is David Lean. He makes nearly every minute of the movie matter. An important part of the story is the environment of LofA, the desert. It's such an integral part that Lean treats the desert as a character. Lean takes the audience to another world to show how the desert is a huge factor to the method of madness Lawrence finds there; why a man is killed simply for drinking from a water well, why Lawrence is the Giver of Life, why crossing the desert for gold is honorable, why it is important that Arabia be ruled by Arabians, not the British or Turks. There's a scene where Lawrence is crossing the Devil's Anvil. In that sequence Lean includes a shot of a dust devil (the tornado-looking thing) spinning fiercely on the baked ground. If this movie were made today, a CGI-artist would make this. Of course CGI didn't exist in '62, but nonetheless Lean patiently set up in the desert to capture this phenomenon and include it. It's a small color, but important the vast and vibrant world he communicates.

If this movie were made today, it would be filled with snappy dialog and probably focus on big action sequences. Lean makes every minute of the movie matter because everything that happens serves the characters. The movie lasts nearly four hours, not because that was the style of movies in that era, but because it takes that long to diligently explore the characters of Lawrence, Feisal, Sheriff Ali, and abu Tayi. Lean's direction and crafting was revolutionary. The movie stills holds currency in our modern culture because the movie's direction, acting, and characterizations ARE timeless and of no particular era.

There are a thousand variables that make a great movie, but if you're looking for the important qualities to latch on to, it's how this movie is timeless. This movie was a radical departure from the hammy "epics" of the time and set a nearly unreachable standard for every movie that follows. It was great in 1962, great today, and will be great in 50 years.

Just got out of the movie and I'm still on high. Experiencing this movie was like being in the middle of an atomic explosion with popcorn. I won't say much, this movie speaks for itself, except to say - for once - you really fear the Dark Knight. An absolute must see. This movie hits every note, and there were some high ones. As far as cinematic experiences go - this one rates up there with Saving Private Ryan (though that movie is way ahead of anything that has come or will ever come), Lawrence of Arabia, LOTR: Return of the King, Dances With Wolves, The Godfather Part II, Gladiator, and etc....

One trace of a spoiler though..... no cussing, hardly any blood, and *as best I can remember* no one is shot. For a movie this spectacular to be so reserved in these areas, a masterstroke of genius.

This post is probably gonna tick you off. But I don't want to flame on your tastes. I'm not gonna trash what anyone thinks is the best movie. This is just a very long-winded argument about why The Godfathers stand as milestones in cinema. Spoilers throughout.

I've read a number of posts who think the characters are hollow. There are long scenes when the characters seems to be doing nothing, or just *thinking*. That's one of the great parts of the film. There are deep threads of loyalty and family and duty throughout the trilogy, and the original Godfather (and ptII) is one of the few films that does these moments justice. The cast assembled does what few ever have: you can "see" them thinking. Brando, Pacino, DeNiro, Strasberg (of course), Duvall - all masters of what is probably the most difficult talent to achieve on film. Pacino is especially great at this in GpartII when you watch him agonize over what to do with (if you've seen it) *you-know-who*. There is a subdued intensity to each character, living a life where death is always around the corner of one bad mistake. They're thoughtful, intelligent, and conflicted. The gift of these movies is they don't telegraph these undercurrents or make it painfully obvious. If you let yourself, the characters draw you in to these processes.

Much of our current standards for cinema are based on flair and fast-action-packed-editing. Not to sound cheesy, but the Godfathers unfold like a rare flower, slow and with purpose. Keep in mind, there are no accidents in movies. That is to say, what you see in the frame is completely planned (as much as can be in cinema). Watch the scene where Brando is advising Pacino on the particulars of the business. There is real heartbreak between them, two men doing the family's business. Vito Corleone never wanted it to be Michael, and neither did Michael want it for himself, but both esteem the family more than themselves, and so they discuss this ugly business. If this movie were made today, the scene would only be a few snappy lines, some quick wit dialogue, and cut to the big explosion. This is a gem of a scene because you watch the actors put these emotions away to do what's brutal and necessary, and in a sense, say goodbye.

Watch Brando in the car after the meeting with the Five Families. He comes to a chilling realization about who is behind the war, but how? Watch this scene and then re-watch the meeting with the Five Families for the moment this realization hits him. It happens and is gone in a second, but in that second you see him decide what to do. He tucks away his anger and waits. He waits until Michael takes over, and passes this knowledge on to him without ever telling him what to do. This is where the art of direction makes this possible. Without a word ever being spoken about what's coming, Michael takes over the family business and sets the table to take control over all the families. Of course, when the hits are actually being done, and splicing them into the scene where Michael's niece is being christened, is the best form of ironic cinematic poetry. What makes the GpartI and GpartII connection is you see the same process in DeNiro/Young Vito. After he's shaken down for the last time by Don Fanucci, he decides what and how to do it in a second - and DeNiro shows that, without a word ever being spoken.

Of course, there are the iconic moments of the movie. The horsehead in the bed, (in the restaurant with Solozzo and McCluskey) Pacino coming to a boil as the train gets louder in the background, the opening scene with the undertaker (a great homily to Italian-Americans), Brando moving around the room and brushing his cheek, Fredo on the lake reciting the Hail Mary, Pacino kissing Fredo in Cuba, Sonny on the causeway, etc...

These are just a few of examples of what make these movies great. I've read where people can't identify to the characters. How many of us really can identify with the people we see on film? The Godfathers paint a portrait of a life unknown to just about everybody. The real gangsters liked it so much, they emulated the fictional parts (like the hand-kissing). The films are poetry, but there's nothing poetic about the events in it. The characters are sublime, but there's nothing sublime about their character. The movies don't give anything away (who saw the Fredo thing coming?), but are transparent at the same time. I know this is high minded and stuffy, but hopefully, even if you're not a fan, you can understand why the films are so highly regarded.

But, for the haters, I'll give you GpartIII - what in the h*ll was he thinking letting Sofia Coppola act? Part III is by far a weak addition to the trilogy...unless you're a die hard fan...not worth seeing. Now rub your eyes if you read the whole thing....