Damn, I only have time to watch movies on weekends part 08: AJ, the toupee, and the groovy movie caper
Submitted by AJDaGreat on Tue, 05/31/2005 - 11:58
Tags:
- 1. Se7en (1995) - Okay, maybe this has gotten pretty overrated at the IMDB, where its rating places it as the 48th-best film of all-time, but this is still a pretty great movie. It's nice to see a mystery/thriller with a twist ending that makes perfect sense, and one that has something to say as well. In addition, for a serial killer movie, it's pretty even-handed. Morgan Freeman is wonderful as always, and this may be my favorite Brad Pitt performance. I'd say someone else in the cast did a great job too, but that would be a spoiler. I think the idea of a movie about killing people based on the seven deadly sins is kinda brilliant, though I'm not sure about the logistics of the gluttony one. Okay, if someone sticks a gun to your head and tells you to start eating spaghetti, you'd certainly comply at first. But there has to come a point where you realize that eating this much spaghetti is going to kill you, so you refuse to eat and just let him shoot you. I'm baffled as to how one could actually let oneself die from eating too much spaghetti.
- 2. The Piano (1993) - This is a gorgeous, poignant film, but with its fair share of flaws as well. I will offer the disclaimer that this might all make more sense if I traded in my Y chromosome for an X, since this film seems to be more targeted towards women. But I don't understand how Harvey Keitel can force Holly Hunter into allowing him to molest her, and that makes her fall in love with him. And remember, this is the early 1800s, where everyone was far more prudish about sex. Today, this would be like Keitel raping her every day for a month for Hunter to get her piano back. On top of that, I didn't think Sam Neill's character was very well-developed. He was just bland, and although Neill's performance lends some humanity to the character, I still have no idea what this guy wants or cares about. In addition, it's slow as molasses, but I didn't really mind that. Once again, all these things might make perfect sense to me if I were a woman. On the other hand, the acting was great; in fact, Anna Paquin might have given the best child performance I've ever seen. The cinematography used color beautifully, and the music was fantastic. In the end, I thought it was a good film with some issues.Spoiler: Highlight to viewIn addition, I don't understand why Hunter's character considers suicide only after she's gotten exactly what she wanted. She has the love of her life, she's getting off this Godforsaken island, she has her piano... and that's when she tries to kill herself?
- 3. Alias: Season 1 (2001-2002) - I really like this show, but like my thoughts on Curb Your Enthusiasm, perhaps this is just a placebo to feed my 24 addiction. It's not as dark as 24, but just as adrenaline-pumping, and I think I've gotten almost as invested in the characters and plot twists as I am in 24. Jennifer Garner is an unlikely candidate for a spy; she looks too cute and naive to be so dangerous. She surprised me, though, by being utterly convincing as a spy, albeit an emotionally vulnerable one. Victor Garber, Michael Vartan, and Ron Rifkin are also quite great, but I think the supporting cast might be even better. Kevin Weisman (Marshall) is simply hilarious, Carl Lumbly (Dixon) deserves to be a bigger star... but my favorite character is probably Will Tippin. I found his subplot really fascinating, though it did take a few miscalculations towards the end: I also really like that the fight scenes in Alias get lots of blunt objects involved. I think that's a natural reaction; if someone was attacking me in a well-furnished room, I'd grab whatever I could find to throw at them and / or hit them with. I think more Hollywood fight scenes should involve blunt objects. In any case, this is usually where I wrap things up by telling you whether I'll be watching future seasons of the TV show. I'm glad to say I have concrete evidence: I have already rented the first disc of season 2 of Alias. So there.Spoiler: Highlight to viewYou'd think Jack Bristow would've given Will at least a little information on the Circumference, rather than hooking Khasinau with one little reference and having nothing to reel him in with. Jack should've figured that they'd be questioning Will about it and that giving him nothing to go on would end in disaster. And then there's that laughable scene where Will scribbles black marker over a picture of Jack Bristow and gasps when he realizes Jack was the kidnapper. Gimme a break. He could've colored black over a picture of Henry Winkler and gotten the same effect. "Oh my God! I was kidnapped by the Fonz!"
- 4. Throne of Blood (1957) - If there's any director as consistently great as Akira Kurosawa, I'd like to know who he is. Kurosawa is a visceral poet, a master of haunting imagery, and that's in top form here in this MacBeth adaptation. A good handful of nightmarish scenes will stay in my memory for a long time - the encountering of the prophet in the forest, Lady Washizu's breakdown (Toshiro Mifune is great as always, but Isuzu Yamada gives him a run for his money), and especially that ending. God, what an ending. Throne of Blood isn't the best Kurosawa film I've seen (it occasionally gets a little bogged down with discussing politics in the region, involving people and places we don't really know - and besides, it would be hard to top Rashomon, one of my all-time favorites, anyway), but it's definitely up there.
- 5. The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) - The brilliance of this film is that it takes the image of the macho, heavy-drinking, trigger-happy, all-American cowboy and turns it on its ear. It's not what you expect out of a Western. It spends the first half-hour with the main characters trying to ensure there is legal prosecution of the villains, when most of the characters (and possibly the audience) want to see some action. When they tell Dana Andrews he'll hang for a crime he (probably) didn't commit and he seems a little broken up about his wife and kids and all that rubbish, the vicious posse tells him he's taking it like a woman. It's a really gripping film... up until the last two minutes, when it becomes rather ham-handed and unbelievable. Fortunately, this misstep only lasts about a minute, and the last shot is wonderful. I figure one bad minute out of 75 is still worthy of masterpiece status.Spoiler: Highlight to viewIf you were about to be hanged and wanted to write your last words to your wife, would you spend the whole letter preaching about the importance of the law? I didn't think so.
- 6. Seinfeld: Season 4 (1992-1993) - Here's where the show really delves into postmodernism. The arc to this season involves Jerry and George creating a pilot for a show about nothing, a show involving their everyday lives. The main characters in the show-within-a-show are Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer. Jerry Seinfeld, played by Jerry Seinfeld, plays Jerry Seinfeld in the sitcom. Kramer wants to audition to be Kramer. Meanwhile, the individual episodes often have subplots that come from the writers' everyday lives, and the characters continue to have off-the-cuff conversations about anything under the sun. At the same time, the show really begins to flirt with the bizarre: Kramer is a suspected serial killer known as the "Smog Strangler", George plays Trivial Pursuit with a rude kid who lives in a bubble, Jerry drops a Junior Mint into a man's chest cavity. It's a transitional season for the show, and damn is it entertaining to watch it all go down. Just as funny as the actual show is a tape that Jerry sent in to Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, which simply must be seen. A great choice for a special feature.
- 7. The Frighteners (1996) - You probably noticed that this entry seems like an anomaly in the types of movies I normally watch. When one of these comes up, it usually means I watched a film with my friends. The Frighteners was a rather entertaining film, though. Its rules aren't really clear or consistent (one minute the spirits can fly and go through entire houses, the next they get trapped under some dirt that has been shovelled onto them), the person who's behind it all is a pretty shallow, uninteresting character (), and the ending is pretty ridiculous, but no matter. The plot isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's just a thread for corny humor, fun performances from Michael J. Fox and Jeffrey Combs (among others), and great special effects. I enjoyed it too much to not call it a good movie.Spoiler: Highlight to viewwhen your serial killers' motivation is to break a freakin' record, it's time for a rewrite
- 8. Pather Panchali (1955) - This is the first film in Satyajit Ray's Apu trilogy. Unfortunately, I don't have the urge to see the other two any time soon. I couldn't really get into this movie. In the first half-hour before Apu even shows up, it's a real bore. It gets a little better after that - we get some poignant moments, some interesting moments, but mainly it's still boring. It's possible, though, that this isn't the best introduction to Indian film, and since I haven't seen any other Indian films, I'm not accustomed to the style or something like that.
- 9. True Romance (1993) - During this movie, I thought of the discussion we've been having about Sin City being an adolescent boy's masturbatory delight. I think True Romance is actually very similar. It's not all that realistic (), and the direction isn't good enough to for style to triumph over substance (like it is in Sin City), but it's an enjoyable enough movie. I was actually a little moved by the ending monologue. The cast is fantastic, even Christian Slater. Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper's scene together is brilliant... but something seems a little off. Actually, I think Brad Pitt said it better in his selective commentary on the DVD:Spoiler: Highlight to viewhow likely do you think it is that the main characters are the only ones that survive a hotel shootout?That's the problem with this film: the bad things just seem to bounce off. But in the end, it's fun enough to recommend.Spoiler: Highlight to viewit's a movie where a guy's father dies, and then that's never mentioned again.
- 10. Trouble in Paradise (1932) - Lubitsch predicts Enron: "I see! You have to be in the Social Register to keep out of jail. But when a man starts at the bottom and works his way up, a self-made crook, then you say, 'Call the police! Put him behind bars! Lock him up!'" - thief Gaston Monescu
- There was a time when I surely wouldn't have appreciated this type of subtle, sophisticated humor. I'm very glad to have waited this long. This is a wonderful film that is constantly witty but also gets in a handful of really hilarious moments. It is too restrained to be a screwball comedy, but it says so much with subtlety and innuendo. The film must have actually been rather risqué for its time. Kay Francis is incredibly appealing as the rich widow who makes crook Gaston Monescu (Herbert Marshall, who should've been a bigger star) her new secretary. Ernst Lubitsch makes films that are very funny and often poignant, all with a graceful sophistication and subtlety that became known as the Lubitsch touch. He is really one of the best directors of the early 20th century, and he rarely gets the respect he deserves.
- 11. Stand By Me (1986) - Perhaps I sound like a pretentious pseudointellectual for insulting such a well-intentioned movie, but I think this one's pretty damn overrated. It's cliché and cloying, yes, but I think its biggest problem is the subplot involving the older, teenaged villains. There's not one interesting character in the lot of them, and the movie would be stronger if they were simply left out.
- Now onto the kids. The movie does work sometimes, and that's mainly when it's depicting the little things kids do, like insult each others' mothers. And I did like the character Chris Chambers played by River Phoenix, and was sincerely saddened when the older Gordie was talking about his death in the end (this should be no spoiler, because it's mentioned clearly on a newspaper in the beginning). But the film is uneven - sometimes it understands 12-year-olds, and sometimes it doesn't. I'm going to deconstruct one scene in the film: the one where Gordie tells his friends the story of Lardass Hogan entering a pie-eating contest. The point is that Gordie is a great storyteller and writer, Chris likes the story because he's on the same wavelength as Gordie, Vern doesn't get it because he's a little slow, and Teddy suggests a violent ending because he's that kind of kid. But there are three problems with this scene: (1) The story sucks. Even for a 12-year-old, this story is pretty immature and dumb. (2) The characterization of Vern is really awkward. Having him ask if Lardass had to pay to enter the contest is just kinda nonsensical. I don't buy it. (3) The characterization of Teddy is even weirder. I don't believe he'd tell his friend the ending was terrible. And then suggesting Lardass shoot his dad (who was not mentioned in the story) is a really clumsy, obvious way to portray Teddy. This scene is just a microcosm, as much of the rest of the film is equally hard to stomach.
- This film has been praised to death, so maybe I was just in a bad mood when I watched it, but much of it seems so fake. River Phoenix and Wil Wheaton make a decent team, though, and the outdoor cinematography is very nice. Oh, and the soundtrack is wonderful. It's not a terrible film, but it's certainly not all it's cracked up to be.
- 12. Layer Cake (2004) - For solid, intelligent summer entertainment, Layer Cake is hard to beat. It has been advertised as being directed by the producer of Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and I'm not sure it's a totally apt comparison. It's not really as funny or as stylish as those films, but then again, it's not trying to be, and it's well-written enough to stand on its own. The opening monologue is especially well-written and really helps set the stage for a different kind of drug dealer. This guy is no Scorsese-esque gangster. Daniel Craig is an excellent lead and he carries the film well, but the supporting cast (particularly Colm Meaney and Kenneth Cranham) is great too.
- 13. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) - When I first heard about the plot synopsis of Prizzi's Honor, I thought it would be a masterpiece of dark humor. "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other"? Sounds hilarious! I pictured a man and a woman meeting at a bar, hitting it off, love at first sight, etc., and then each one gets up the next day to find that, purely by coincidence, their most recent assignment is each other. But their love is more important than that, so after they each realize what's going on, they plan to get out of the business - which will also mean dealing with their employers. Granted, this plot would be more contrived than what actually happens in Prizzi's Honor, but given that I thought Prizzi's Honor was not funny and slow as hell, I'm not sure that would be a terrible thing.
- Now we have Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which has a premise clearly stolen from Prizzi's Honor, but it's a little more in the vein I had pictured. Maybe writer Simon Kinberg experienced the same disappointment that I faced with the earlier film. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is still a quite flawed film, but I must admit I did enjoy it more than Prizzi's Honor. It's certainly funnier; Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have great chemistry in trading jab after jab. Unfortunately, this only starts to happen in the second half of the film. The first half they are just a boring married couple who eventually start to kill each other when they realize they're both spies. You saw in the preview how they were destroying the house trying to kill each other, right? You probably guessed that eventually they'd get to a point where they could easily do away with each other, but both found they loved each other too much to do it, right? Well, you were wrong. They both die. (cough cough) Nah, just kidding, you were right. So much of the first half is pretty predictable and bland. The second half it actually becomes pretty great; there's a highway action scene that is both exciting and hilarious. It stays on a good streak until the really anticlimactic ending sequence. The action is good (more action scenes should take place in department stores), but there's no payoff. Fortunately, the very last scene is hilarious again.Spoiler: Highlight to viewI don't understand how killing a bunch of faceless villains suddenly solved all their problems. It's like a video game - you kill all the bad guys, then you win.
- So I don't know what to make of all this. I suppose for the boring trying-to-kill-each other segment of the movie I should at least rate this in the center tier, but I had too much fun to not at least call it a good movie. To sum up, let me say this. This is the worst Doug Liman movie I've ever seen, the best Angelina Jolie movie I've ever seen, and middling for Brad Pitt. So hopefully that'll tell you if you'll like it or not.
- 14. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) (watched again) - Still a wonderful film, but still a muddled ending. My reaction was pretty much the same as the first time I saw it. Instead of reviewing it again, I'm going to tell you how I would re-edit the last one-third of the film. Spoiler: Highlight to viewI would have Adam Sandler go to Utah before he goes to Hawaii. He would take care of the phone-sex people then, and afterward he would come back and start loading up on pudding. This would remove the car crash and hopefully prevent the line Sandler says to Philip Seymour Hoffman about having a love in his life making him strong, which was pretty cheesy. Then Sandler would get to Hawaii and give his speech about having enough pudding to follow Emily Watson wherever she goes when he's down there. Cut down the time spent in Hawaii (though you could keep in the scene in which Watson tells Sandler's sister that he never found her), and end with the same wonderful scene of Sandler learning to play the harmonium.
- 15. Pulp Fiction (1994) (watched again) - I recently wrote up some detailed thoughts about this film here, and I'm afraid I don't have a whole lot else to say. Even though it's been a year and a half since I saw it, I remembered it pretty well. I will say one thing about the DVD's special features: watching Siskel and Ebert talk about Tarantino and the world's reactions to him makes me realize that most people really had no idea what to think of this movie. I'm really baffled as to how people could think this film was too violent. This is the least violent film Tarantino has ever been involved with, and it's certainly less violent than Tarantino's debut Reservoir Dogs. However, I did like how Siskel and Ebert talked about recognizing Hollywood script formulas and how Pulp Fiction is worlds away from convention.
- 16. Playtime (1967) - There never will be another director like Jacques Tati, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Though I did like Playtime a lot more than Mr. Hulot's Holiday (which I didn't really like the first time I saw it), I am still quite baffled as to how people could think this film is such a masterpiece, and can only conclude that they do so just because it's fashionable. Sure, the film is beautifully shot, and the static, sterile, gray scenery contrasts very well with the business of movement from the people in it. But if you're going to make a film with no plot, no important dialogue, and no characters we know anything about, your movie better be damn funny, and Playtime isn't. It does have a point to get across about the absurdity of modern society, but that point would be made if it were not an often-agonizing two hours long. Take, for example, the 45-minute segment of the film that starts at about an hour into the film and takes place entirely in the restaurant. For the first half of this section, nothing even remotely funny happens. It's not like people are trying to be funny and failing; no, there are not even attempts at humor. (Okay, to be fair, one man accidentally uproots a tile from the floor, and that's mildly amusing, but that's it for the whole 25 minutes) Yes, there is some fun to be had in the visual framing and in the sounds and rhythms of life, and I would even go so far as to call it a good movie, but I am utterly baffled as to why so many unneccessary scenes were kept in here.
- In closing, check the IMDB and note that the genre of this film is classified as a comedy/drama. Now THAT's funny. Nothing even close to being dramatic happens in this film, and I can only conclude that the "drama" comes from the absence of humor.
- 17. The Red Shoes (1948) - You may recall that I was a little underwhelmed by Black Narcissus, but now I see where all the fuss about Powell and Pressburger comes from. The story tends towards melodrama, but it is very well-written melodrama, and so engaging that you hardly notice the parts that flirt with the cliché. The cast is great, especially Anton Walbrook, but like Black Narcissus, the directions is the thing to really watch for here; the technicolor is gorgeous and the ballet sequences are masterfully surreal. I may have to check out some more Powell/Pressburger collaborations - especially A Matter of Life and Death, that sounds pretty awesome.
- 18. the last half of Bad Boys II (God knows when) - I was only half-concentrating on this film for most of the time, but I think I could tell it was pretty crappy. Joe Pantoliano made me laugh a couple times, but he should be getting better work than this. And here's a hint to all you budding screenwriters: if you're writing a guy movie with lots of explosions, and you want to spice it up even more by adding some bare breasts, don't put them on a corpse. Most men won't be aroused by naked dead people.
- 19. Cheers: Season 2 (1983-1984) - Another great season for this show. It's very funny and actually knows a lot about human nature. The show enjoys playing with the concept of the man's place in society; I am thinking especially of Cliff's Rocky Moment and Norman's Conquest. I'm not sure I like the end of this season, though. A cliffhanger is fine, but this is just plain depressing. But I guess I'll have to watch season 3 now...
- 18. Paris, Texas (1984) - I loved, loved, loved this movie. It is rare to see a film that is not only this intelligent and clever, but also so heartfelt. In truth, I haven't been this invested in characters for a long time. They are never cardboard cutouts or plot devices - every character seems like a real human being, and the performances were just magnificent. And the movie is absolutely gorgeous. I've never seen a movie that can make awkward silences and nothingness so fascinating, and the landscapes are simply breathtaking. This film also has some of the best driving scenes I've ever seen. This may sound like a bizarre thing to love a movie for, but you haven't seen a great driving scene until you've seen Paris, Texas. The ending was sheer brilliance. Harry Dean Stanton's long speech had me in tears; it explains everything, and yet, it explains nothing (I think I stole that one from Pauline Kael's take on Citizen Kane, but whatever). Many 80s films are dated and feel trapped in their era, but this movie is absolutely timeless.
- 19. Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (2005) - Never the slave to pop culture, I saw this film a month after it came out, by myself, in a theater with about 15 people in it. And I went to the bathroom during the opening commercials.
- The truth is that the first two movies and the first half of this film just feel like set-up for the last hour of this movie. But since Lucas finally gave us what we wanted, I must confess that I couldn't bring myself to hate this movie, much as I tried. Oh, I was prepared to. I actually thought the opening scene was kinda ridiculous, because the heroes suddenly had whatever powers suited their needs. Since when can R2D2 shoot oil and fire out of his body? Since when do all Jedi have Batarangs? And how can Obi-Wan be nearly unconscious one minute and then kicking ass the next? I don't think action scenes are interesting when the characters can just do whatever you feel like. But all in all, this is not the terrible film that the first two films were. The romantic dialogue is still absolutely abysmal (I think if Ernst Lubitsch is burning in hell, it should be his torture to have to listen to this dialogue over and over again), but this outing actually put together decent acting and a half-decent script. Not exactly high praise, but what do you expect out of George Lucas? He actually put together a handful of fine setpieces in this installment. However, I am glad that this franchise is finally, finally over.
- Notice that I am refusing to mention those things that everyone can't stop praising in this movie. You know. It rhymes with "meshal affects" and uses a lot of something that rhymes with "Me me lie." I am taking this stand because while meshal affects can be impressive, they alone cannot possibly make a good movie. So in the end, it doesn't really matter what I think of them.
- By the way, during the boring parts of the movie I began to imagine scenes that might have been deleted from the script. Here would be my guesses:
- Scene 1: Anakin and the Jedi Council
- Mace Windu: As you know, Anakin, we are rather bitter that Palpatine appointed you to the Jedi Council. Therefore, we will appoint you to the Council, but we will not give you the rank of "Master."
- Anakin: What? That's absurd! That's insane! That's infuriating!
- Mace Windu: In fact, (the other Jedi snicker) we are going to give you the rank of Poopyface.
- Anakin: (stands aghast)
- Mace Windu: Do you like that rank, Anakin?
- Yoda: (chortling)
- Mace Windu: I can't heeeear yoooouuu...
- Anakin: (defeated) Yes, Master.
- Mace Windu: Have a seat then, Poopyface Skywalker.
- Scene 2: (some lines spoilerized) Spoiler: Highlight to viewAfter Mace Windu finds out Palpatine is the Sith Lord
- (Mace Windu is driving his flying car. He picks up his cell phone and dials Yoda.)
- Yoda: Hello?
- Mace Windu: Yoda! How's it going?
- Yoda: Up, what is?
- Mace Windu: Hey, listen. Turns out Palpatine's a bad guy. I'm heading over there now to kick his ass. You wanna come?
- Yoda: (hears static) Hear you I cannot.
- Mace Windu: (moves his phone to the right a few inches) Can you hear me now?
- Yoda: What?
- Mace Windu: Ah, forget it. (hangs up) Damn, flying cars, lightsabers, but we still can't make a cell phone that gets decent reception. [/spoiler]Spoiler: Highlight to viewI probably won't die and Palpatine probably won't become more powerful or anything like that.
- Scene 3: The ending
- Obi-Wan: Well, Jar Jar, you didn't seem to talk at all this episode.
- Jar Jar: Yessa. Meesa shutting up for good now.
- Obi-Wan: That's right, you didn't appear in episodes 4, 5, or 6. A pity.
- Jar Jar: Rightsa.
- Obi-Wan: Of course, we'll still have to put up with those ewoks...
- Jar Jar: (breaks down to his/her knees; looks up at the sky) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSA!!!
- 20. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) - This movie is a powerful emotional experience, and definitely the most powerful animated film I've ever seen. Yes, the film is quite depressing, but so is war, and though this material could have made for quite a maudlin film, Grave of the Fireflies is above all that. It doesn't pander and it holds nothing back, and it's oftentimes a difficult film to watch (be warned). There are simpler moments of childhood innocence in the film, and that's what the title refers to, but Setsuko's sickness is just all the more heartbreaking as a result. Japan proves again that to make a brilliant animated film, you don't need 3D CGI. You just need compelling characters and plot.
- 21. Batman Begins (2005) - This is easily the best Batman movie out there. It is also probably Christopher Nolan's worst film. I think Nolan is a brilliant writer/director, and he's elevated the series to new heights, but this sort of material isn't all that well-suited for him. But like Nolan's other films, it helps if you think of this as a character study first and an action movie second. It is nice to finally see a Batman movie that has something behind the dark style, that explores Bruce Wayne's psyche. As someone who has never read a Batman comic book and only seen a few episodes of that old-school Batman cartoon show, I didn't know hardly anything about his dark past, and I loved seeing it fleshed out here. On top of that, the cast is really quite fantastic. Christian Bale is the best Batman yet. Liam Neeson and Tom Wilkinson are wonderful, and of course Morgan Freeman can do no wrong. However, there is something that feels a little lacking in the film, and unfortunately I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps I was just expecting too much from Christopher Nolan, but the film seems less sharp than his previous work; maybe it's just the pressures of having to make a commercially successful film. I'm happy the guy has found success, but he might be better suited for indies than blockbusters.
- To be honest, I can't agree with some of the criticisms I've heard of the film 'round here. Everyone keeps talking about the shaky camera during action scenes, but I'm normally sensitive to that sort of thing (I thought that about The Bourne Supremacy as well as Fellowship of the Ring), and I didn't notice that at all here. I suppose if I watched the film again and tried to look for incomprehensible action, I might notice it, but I think the action worked fine for me. As for Katie Holmes, I thought she could hold her own. She certainly wasn't the strongest part of the cast, but it's not like she stuck out like a sore thumb.
- I considered putting this in my Good Movies tier, but I definitely think it's a better movie than Revenge of the Sith and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, so it's going one step above.
- P.S. I've heard the sequels are going to be called Batman Continues, Batman Lingers, Batman Wears Out His Welcome, and Batman Finishes.
- 22. Dancer in the Dark (2000) - Imagine a Dogme 95 film, with shaky camera, muted colors, natural lighting, and direct sound... and all of a sudden, it breaks into a lavish Hollywood production number. The style of this film is really fascinating, and it even made me enjoy some of Bjork's music (though not all of it). The acting is really quite great, even Bjork's. The story, on the other hand, starts interesting, but takes a wrong turn when we get to the trial. Spoiler: Highlight to viewOf course, the only way to end this film was in tragedy, but there must have been a better way to get there than with this idiotic trial scene. Lars von Trier clearly knows nothing about America's justice system, because this trial makes a mockery of the entire judicial branch. I don't care how incompetent the court-appointed attorney was, he should have figured that not speaking at all in the film was a bad move. Okay, they probably just didn't choose to show us that part, but he could have at least told Selma to stop keeping Bill's money troubles a secret, otherwise she could die. I get that he was supposed to be incompetent, but there's a difference between being incompetent and being a big stuffed animal that does absolutely nothing. And where were the objections to the prosecutor accusing Selma of being a communist? We can't discriminate against them (anymore). And anyway, why does Selma not get a verdict of insanity? She's clearly delusional, thinking that Oldrich Novy is her father, fantasizing that her life is a musical. The trial is ridiculously one-sided, and unfortunately it undermines everything that comes afterwards.
- 23. Three Kings (1999) - When Richard Linklater made School of Rock, I thought it was sort of a mainstream underdog comedy with indie sensibilities. I guess David O. Russell's Three Kings is like an action-comedy with indie sensibilities. It may contain one too many explosions and have a couple moments that are a bit too predictable, but all-in-all it is a wonderful, clever film with a lot of humanity to it. It's like no other war film I know of, and the interesting story is told with style, humor, and great performances from Clooney, Wahlberg, Jonze, and (sigh) Cube.
- 24. George Washington (2000) - ...and this, on the other hand, is nothing but indie. Gorgeous cinematography, poetic dialogue, slow pacing, and a fascinating slice-of-life story. The film seems to demand a rewatch to fully comprehend all of its layers, but luckily the film is very interesting on my first viewing as well. The acting hits all the right notes. I'd love to see what David Gordon Green comes up with next.
- Note: This review was originally going to contain a rant about how I hate the term "loss of innocence" when describing this type of film, but I couldn't really think of much to say about that.
- 25. The Game (1997) - This film gets a bad rap from some critics, and it's easy to see why. If you can't accept that Michael Douglas would do the things he does, the movie becomes pretty damn implausible. But I like to think that the extensive psychological profile convinced CRS of exactly how Douglas would act. And the idea that a company could penetrate into every aspect of a man's life is so creepy to me that I really enjoyed this atmospheric thriller. Sean Penn is great, but this is really Douglas's movie, and he holds everything together very nicely.
- 26. Down by Law (1986) - Here is a buddy movie where the buddies never seem to really get along, and with everything thrown off-kilter by a third character (Roberto Benigni) who operates on an entirely separate plane of existence. We see Zack (Tom Waits) and Jack (John Lurie) each get framed for their crimes, end up in the same jail cell, and escape with Benigni in tow. This could be a dark film-noir plot, but the humor (especially Benigni's hilarious rabbit monologue) turns it into a quirkier, more fun film. This is my first Jarmusch film, but I already knew about his long, static shots, and they make for a beautifully stylish film. It's an often wonderful and engaging film, but if there's meaning behind all this, it's pretty abstruse.
- 27. Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) - Another masterpiece by Robert Bresson, Au Hasard Balthazar is a heartfelt story about sad characters and the donkey that drifts through life. The donkey isn't really actively involved in the story, but he creates a brilliant, subtle visual motif, and we learn a lot about the characters from how they treat the donkey. I'd go on, but to be honest, I really just wish I wrote what Roger Ebert wrote...
- 28. NewsRadio: Seasons 1 and 2 (1995-1996) - In a word, hysterical. In more words... It's actually really nice to watch a show that wasn't a big network draw, since NBC never expected this show to compete with Seinfeld, Friends, or Frasier ratings-wise. That allowed us to skip silly "romance suspense" (i.e., keeping Dave and Lisa apart a whole season even know we all knew they were meant to be together) - they got together by the second episode. It allowed the writers to do what they wanted, avoid the drama, and work on being simply hilarious. And hilarious this show is, due in no small part to the extremely talented cast that has such wonderful chemistry together. I was already a fan of Dave Foley and Phil Hartman before I started, but this show has definitely made me a big fan of Andy Dick, Khandi Alexander, Maura Tierney, and Vicki Lewis. Even Joe Rogan was great before he started forcing people to eat horse anus. And then there's Stephen Root, before he started getting typecast as the shy nerd, playing billionaire Jimmy James with masterful comic timing. James is very rich and gets just what he wants, but he is no Mr. Burns; he's a fun-loving, generous man you can't help but love. He's probably my favorite character on the show. Now here is where I usually tell you if I'll pick up future seasons when they're released on DVD: most definitely.
- Oh, and by the way... (paraphrased)
- Matthew: So you told them it was against company policy to date me?
- Dave: Yes.
- Joe: Hey, what about you and Lisa?
- Dave: Joe, the policy only applies to Matthew.
- Joe: Well, that doesn't seem fair.
- Matthew: No, you'd be surprised, there are a lot of company policies that only apply to me.
- 29. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) - Say what you want about David Mamet; when in his peak, he could write dialogue like nobody's business. It's brought to life on the screen by one of the greatest ensemble casts in any movie, ever (Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Al Pacino, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin, and Jonathan Pryce). So what's not to like? The characters were complex and interesting, the commentary on salesmanship was insightful, and the film flew by in no time at all. Mamet's style is still sharp and darkly humorous, but the film is also very good at making us sympathize with the characters and how they have to feign a sense of dignity and control when in reality they're just getting more and more desperate inside. Great, underrated film.
- 30. Seven Up (1964) / 7 Plus Seven (1970) - So these are the first two entries in the Up Documentaries. If you are unfamiliar with this series, British documentarian Michael Apted went and interviewed twenty 7-year-olds of varying socioeconomic class in 1964. He goes back every seven years to see how their lives have changed. I'm not sure I can really say much else about these films because the series is really in its formative stages at this point. I think the real point is to see how the people evolve. It's sort of a reality show without the stupid gimmicks, that actually tries to capture real personalities. I am certainly intrigued by these first two entries. I don't think I'm going to review each film individually unless I come up with something really insightful to say about a particular episode. So check back with me in a little while for a review of 21 Up / 28 Up / 35 Up / 42 Up.
- 31. South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999) - Most people either find South Park incredibly hilarious or absolutely terrible. I, however, am in the middle. I think the social satire is often clever, but I rarely find the show laugh-out-loud funny. It usually relies on shock value humor, and since I don't find it all that shocking when small children use bad words, that aspect doesn't really work for me. And yet, last semester I watched the show semi-regularly - maybe out of boredom, maybe just because there was nothing else I wanted to watch.
- So of course I was drawn to this movie, and found more of the same. I laughed a few times during the film, and had a smile on my face during the satire of broadcasting standards and the plot twists towards the end of the film, but I couldn't call this a good movie. The Saddam / Satan plotline was really dumb, Terrance and Philip are incredibly irritating, and the shock value is still lost on me. Still, South Park has its charms, and I almost liked this enough to recommend it. Almost.
- 32. Equilibrium (2002) - Time for a little screenwriting quiz, okay? Your setting is a future dystopia where hatred and war have been eliminated by forcing every human to take a drug that ceases all human emotion. What's the most interesting, creative thing you can think of to happen there?
- Time's up. If you picked "A guy stops taking the drug", you fail. And if you added, "There is hardly any impetus for him to make this life-changing decision", you have been expelled.
- This isn't a terrible movie, but it's not really a good movie either. It's disappointing in its wasted potential. It's like the screenwriters came up with the setting, and for the plot, just picked the first thing that popped into their heads. So with this limit, the film is okay, sometimes boring, but it should be a lot better. Really, this is a film where Christian Bale is on a team that has to shoot puppies, and Bale, won over by his cute little puppy eyes, insists that we, uh, take the puppy in for testing. Since the film isn't working, we begin to notice little implausibilities that shouldn't even come to mind. Like, if the purpose of all this is to eliminate hate and war, why do the clerics spend all their time destroying beautiful artwork and puppies? Shouldn't they eliminate things that inspire hatred too, like Rush Limbaugh? And besides that, isn't it impossible for them to feel NO emotions? Certainly, Taye Diggs's character (among others) has to have emotions to act the way he does. Well, around 2/3 of the way into the film, the story does start to work better, and there are some decent plot twists. But the ending is just awful - The good news is, the film is pretty slickly directed, and there are a few decent scenes when Bale discovers how to feel (I liked the Citizen Kane homage). But all-in-all, the film is pretty disappointing.Spoiler: Highlight to viewit's just a lot of senseless death and explosions with no real stakes. It's implausible, too, that Christian Bale could sneak two huge guns into this place, kill about thirty faceless drones and two major characters, and escape with just a little scratch.
- 33. Written on the Wind (1956) - I'm not usually a fan of melodrama, but from the most acclaimed film of Douglas Sirk, the master of melodrama, I was expecting something that overcame the limitations of the genre and really had a life of its own. Thankfully, the movie delivers. Melodrama characters sometimes seem like lifeless tools from some bizarre melodrama universe, but Written on the Wind actually had characters I cared about who acted like real human beings. Sirk has some damn good directing chops too; the lavish Technicolor looks great, and some shots are quite brilliant. In closing, does anyone else think Rock Hudson looks a little like Sean Penn?
- 34. Alias: Season 2 (2002-2003) - This season takes the rudiments of season 1 and makes them into a masterful show. While season 1 was pretty episodic (seems a strange thing to criticize a TV show for, but whatever), season 2 has each episode add to the overall storyline, and the season is all the more gripping for it. I will say that the ending twist of "The Getaway" and the whole next episode "Phase One" is some of the most brilliant TV I have ever watched. Why can't action movies be this good? I think the makers of 24 and Alias should make serial action movies. They'd be some of the best ever made. Now in case you haven't been paying attention, this is where I usually tell you if I'll watch the next season's DVDs. Given the ending line of this season, how can I possibly not? One of the best cliffhangers I've ever heard, and I'm dying to see what they do with it.
- 35. Secrets and Lies (1996) - An adopted woman finally meets her birth mother Cynthia. Then there is a birthday party for Cynthia's other daughter. That's pretty much all there is to this movie plot-wise, but all the details are so wonderfully executed that this movie becomes a real masterpiece. It deals with many of the same themes as Tokyo Story, but unlike Tokyo Story, it is not excruciatingly boring. Mike Leigh didn't tell his actors any more than their characters knew, and as a result, the acting feels all the more real. When you consider that pretty much everything in the film was improvised, these performances are really amazing. I normally don't like performances that involve non-stop crying, but here Brenda Blethyn sells it completely. This is one of the most underrated films of the 90s.
- There was one shot I really loved in this film. It doesn't spoil any plot details to talk about it, but the shot contains a bit of a surprise, so I've spoilerized it. Spoiler: Highlight to viewThis film stars no Hollywood hunks or babes. Everyone is very average-looking, as most ordinary people are. The people Timothy Spall takes pictures of are the same way. I was a little surprised in the one shot when he took a profile shot of a really gorgeous woman. But the brilliance of the shot is how she turns to the other side and reveals her face mangled in an accident. It turns out she wants Spall to make the picture look as ugly as possible so she can collect more money.
- 36. 3 Women (1977) - Apparently the idea for this film came to Robert Altman in a dream. I'd say I'm not entirely sure what this film means, but then again, I'm not sure if Altman did either. But as it is, it's a fascinating journey into the subconscious of a brilliant director. This may have been Altman's most stylish film, and the result of all the murals and swimming pools is a hypnotic success. Shelley Duvall and Sissy Spacek are also quite brilliant. But I have a question. This is the fourth film I've seen that plays with the shifting identities of multiple women (after Persona, Mulholland Drive, and Celine and Julie Go Boating). But why is this sort of thing never done with men? Why is it always the women who change personalities?
- 37. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) - Throughout the summer season, a lot of movies set out to be simply entertaining. They don't really intend to have much of a point or message, but they try to be fun. Most of these movies are forgotten in a few years, but some manage to create lasting impressions in the public's mind. A handful even go from being entertaining blockbusters to being true classics. And I am really baffled that some people tried to put this film in the latter category. It is not a bad movie. It's too long, and the ending is totally implausible, but it is for the most part enjoyable. One should watch it and move on. I am utterly confused how this has become an instant classic. What distinguishes this movie from the rest of the summer blockbusters? Johnny Depp's performance, you say? Well now I am even more confused. Honestly, from all the acclaim praising Depp as becoming the most unique character of all-time, you'd think he was the second coming. I was completely underwhelmed by Johnny Depp. He was good, sure, but cream-in-your-jeans amazingly brilliant? I think not. This is an okay film, but I really hope audiences gain a little perspective within a few years. There are tons of more entertaining films out there.
- 38. The Birds (1963) - "It may be a given that horror movie characters are flat, but don't you think we would be more engaged in the movie if we knew who the characters were and could therefore care why they were killing and/or being killed?" - me, on Halloween (1978)
- Man, horror movies just can't win with me. Halloween is one of the most acclaimed of the genre and I criticized it for having undeveloped characters. Now here is The Birds, a movie that spends its first 50 minutes with no horror at all. It's strictly character development, and it's boring as hell. The first 25 minutes go through a lame prank that Rod Taylor plays on Tippi Hedren (whose character is apparently publicly known as a practical joker). Then we see Hedren go to extreme lengths to get him back, told in agonizingly specific detail. Punk'd it ain't. So we go through and see these mildly interesting characters, developed through some really bland, flavorless dialogue. The acting is okay, except for Veronica Cartwright who is terrible. In fact, all of the child acting is laughable; just watch the scene in the schoolroom. Someone should have told Hitchcock that kids don't normally speak in unison. Soon enough the birds start attacking, and that does add some life to the film. I think the idea is that Hitchcock wanted to take a harmless, good-natured creature and make a horror movie out of it, and the result is very creepy. This is all well and good until the ending. Now, I know Hitchcock often has problems with ending his films, but here he doesn't even try. This isn't an ending. The film just stops abruptly. It is never explained why birds are attacking, why it is only happening in Bodega Bay, or why now. I'd talk about the ending in spoiler tags, except there is nothing to spoil.
- In the end, this is a pretty clumsy attempt from the Master of Suspense. I'm sure the lovebirds have more significance than I realize, but I still find it hard to care. It's not the worst Hitchcock film I've seen, but it's down there. I should add that I don't really like horror movies in general, but there are a good number that I like better than this one.
- 39. Five Easy Pieces (1970) - This film is a product of it's time; in its counterculture style, rebellious ideals, and young Jack Nicholson, it is so very 70s. As a result, it feels a little dated, but I don't really mind. This is still a wonderful film, with Jack Nicholson playing a complicated character who's never quite sure what he wants out of life, but does know he wants to get out of his car in a traffic jam and play a piano sitting on a truck. It's a fascinating 70s film that deserves a better DVD release - the sound quality on this one is piss-poor.
- 40. Trainspotting (1996) - Yeah, it's not quite as intense as Requiem for a Dream, but if you're looking for slightly lighter fare (that still has its fair share of gruesomeness, which no drug movie should be without), this is still a masterful film about some addicts' complex relationship with the heroin lifestyle. In fact, this may be a truer movie than Requiem for a Dream (though not being too familiar with the addict's lifestyle, I may never know for sure), which by comparison seems a little too moralistic (doing drugs --> really bad things happening). Trainspotting, however, points out: "People think it's all about misery and depression and death and all that shite, which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not f***ing stupid." And yet the movie never seems pro-drug, but simply trying to paint an accurate picture of the lifestyle. It is a sharp script brought to life by Danny Boyle's slick direction and Ewan McGregor's great performance.
- 41. Z (1969) - This film has been compared to the "documentary-style" Battle of Algiers. I thought Battle of Algiers was a bit overrated, and to be honest, I thought Z suffered from some of the same problems. Maybe I just don't get this sort of movie, but I yearn for more character development than these films care to offer, as they are too focused on portraying the investigation or the war. However, I did like Z better than Battle of Algiers; at least Z doesn't try to remain completely neutral throughout the movie, and the investigation really was quite fascinating. I loved the ongoing deconstruction of what exactly happened on the night of the assassination.
- 42. Wedding Crashers (2005) - Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn quote rules about wedding-crashing to each other throughout this movie. Unfortunately, the makers of this movie need to brush up on their comedy rules as well...
- Rule #17: You know those times in romantic-comedies where everyone gets depressed, the comedy is pushed to the side in favor of sad drama, and of the two people you know are going to end up together in the end, one of them hates the other? Here's a secret, guys: no one likes that part. It's a good idea to keep that part to a minimum, or if possible, don't have it all. In Wedding Crashers, that part of the film lasts about FIVE HOURS.
- Rule #4: Cliche characters aren't funny, especially old ladies who say words like "dyke" and "asshole."
- Rule #21: If you're going for bizarre humor, make sure the scene is humorous and not just bizarre. Nearly everything that Keir O'Donnell and Jane Seymour do is not funny and just embarrassing and awkward.
- Rule #22: A corollary to rule #21. If you're going for something that's bizarre and tasteless, the scene better be damn funny, because if it doesn't make people laugh, then all they'll see is tastelessness. This rule should definitely have been enacted for the scene in which Will Ferrell talks about picking up girls at funerals.
- Rule #43: Putting Christopher Walken in a comedy and then actively preventing him from doing anything remotely funny or even interesting should be a crime.
- And now I'm going to found a new rule, rule #137. Bradley Cooper is a fine actor who has done a great job on Alias. He deserves a good movie career, and could probably be quite funny if given good material in a comedy. It could have even been this comedy; the role of Female Lead's boyfriend that you know will never end up with her because Male Lead must get her is often a thankless one, but given how large his role is in this film, he could have had opportunities to be funny. But if you start off by having the guy nearly kill Male Lead's Best Friend in touch football, have the guy turn out to be a real douchebag who doesn't care at all about his fiancee's feelings, have the guy beat the crap out of Male Lead and threaten to murder him, have his character be played like an unnerving psychopath, and give him a name like "Sack Lodge", audiences will begin to wonder what the hell the screenwriters were thinking.
- However, the screenwriters did follow what seems to be the #1 rule of comedy lately: Fuck the script, hire good comedic actors with chemistry, and the movie will just make itself funny.
- 43. Night of the Living Dead (1968) - This is one of those rare horror movies that actually really worked for me, putting it in a selective club that also includes Alien and Rosemary's Baby. Perhaps I find people struggling to survive more captivating than people being killed. George Romero does so much with so little, creating interesting characters and a gripping environment for various horrors. Many films that shocked audiences in their time seem tamer to today's audiences, but some of the more ghastly scenes in this film still shocked me today (such as the zombies' feast, or the ending, or ). I will definitely have to catch Dawn of the Dead.Spoiler: Highlight to viewwhen the little girl became a zombie and attacked her dad
- P.S. Judith Ridley is really hot.
- 44. Curb Your Enthusiasm: Season 3 (2002) - Season 3 is definitely a step up from the second season and the episodes I've seen from the first season. A comedy show is treading on very thin ice to make episodes about a terrorist attack and Larry's mother dying, but I think it was done tastefully for the most part. My favorite episodes this season were The Benadryl Brownie ("Do you know anything about tampering?") and Krazee-Eyes Killah ("Are you my Caucasian?"). However, in some of the other episodes, I still felt I wasn't laughing as much as I could. Most of the episodes have just two or three conversations that crack me up, but the rest of the episode, while enjoyable, doesn't make me laugh. Perhaps even I felt a little uncomfortable at the two darker episodes, but Cheri Oteri's guest appearance just sucked. Ah, well. I definitely enjoy this show quite a bit, and I am eager to check out the 4th season.
- 45. Twin Peaks (1990) (TV-movie) - I was in the mood for some more David Lynch, and checking his ranked filmography on the IMDB, I saw the best-rated full-length film he directed was this Twin Peaks pilot. After watching the movie, I am convinced that either (a) people were voting for the show more than this movie and the show is actually much better, or (b) I wouldn't get the appeal of the show if I watched it. It is a good movie but certainly not worth the 8.6 rating, and it is definitely not David Lynch's best work. If you have an opinion whether the answer is (a), (b), or something else, feel free to comment.
- 46. Alias: Season 3 (2003-2004) - I was really excited about the plot twist at the end of the second season. The way they dealt with that in this season was pretty fantastic. In fact, the trippy, hypnotic episode "Conscious" (guest starring David Cronenberg) was simply amazing. Everything about the Passenger was very well-done too. However, I didn't really like this season as much as the last one. For one thing, the messing with chronology has begun to wear thin for me. It's really beginning to annoy me how every episode starts in the middle of the action and then goes to a scene subtitled "72 Hours Earlier." The worst example (and one of the worst episodes of this show ever) was "Blowback", which shows an episode from the good guys' perspective and then from the bad guys' perspective. This trick is normally something I'd really enjoy, but they re-used so much footage here that it seems like they just came up with a 30-minute episode and had to find some way to stretch the time. Another misstep is the annoying character of Lauren. And the treatment of Dixon is very disappointing. He takes over as the new director and is quickly reduced to providing boring exposition. I really missed seeing Dixon in action. Still, the acting remains excellent across the board, so even when the writing dragged, it's still loads of fun to see Jennifer Garner, Michael Vartan, Ron Rifkin, Victor Garber, Kevin Weisman, and David Anders doing their stuff.Spoiler: Highlight to viewI won't even talk about her accent, but it just seems like such a cop-out to have Vaughn's wife be the secret bad guy. I was kinda hoping for Vaughn to actually have to deal with this love triangle, but the series provides an easy out by just having her be evil.
- Oh, one more thing. I know this show always has plenty of ill logic and inconsistencies that we are supposed to ignore in the name of excellent action and drama, and I'm okay with that, but I want to point out one particularly annoying one. Spoiler: Highlight to viewSloane sleeps with Irina Derevko one time and knocks her up, leading some characters (mainly Jack) to wonder whether Sloane is Sydney's real father. It turns out Sloane got Irina pregnant shortly before she faked her own death and left Jack. So since Sydney knew her mother for a few years, she would already be born when Sloane sleeps with Irina. There is no possible way Sloane could be her real father.
- 47. Shane (1953) - The farmer and the cowman should be friends. One man likes to push a plow, the other likes to chase a cow, but that's no reason why they can't be friends... except in this movie. The homesteaders are being terrorized by the Ryker gang, and the law seems powerless to help them. Then the heroic Shane comes along. It's not the most original concept for a movie, but although the film is about those larger-than-life Western themes of heroes and villains, everything is not so black and white. In fact, Ryker is able to defend himself in a well-written speech. It is, however, pretty un-PC when dealing with that damn Yankee who insults Confederate heroes Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson by calling them "rebs." It's pretty reactionary today, and it was probably reactionary in 1953 as well. Nonetheless, this is a pretty compelling movie with a lot of great, iconic scenes. Not my favorite Western, but a pretty great one.
- 48. Being John Malkovich (1999) (watched again) - Still one of the best films of the 90s, and my favorite Charlie Kaufman film, though I may owe rewatches to his other works. It is a brilliant exploration of the nature of identity and what makes us who we are, in a dazzlingly original film that also contains plenty of truly inspired weirdness. Even the flaws I remembered from the first time I saw it were solved this time. I remembered thinking the middle was a bit muddled, but I think the younger me was just weirded out by Maxine's peculiar sexual fetish. In fact, I didn't remember the wonderfully subversive ending either, so I definitely think this viewing has only heightened my appreciation of this fantastic film.
- 49. Happiness (1998) - I'm a sucker for this kind of movie, with a good handful of characters just going about their lives, and Happiness is one of the best. It's about shocking things like murder, rape, and pedophilia, and it has a dark sense of humor about all of its events, but through all that it manages to be totally honest and sincere. If all that sounds like an oxymoron to you, you may not have the stomach for this movie, and the film is certainly not for everyone, as it deals frankly with some pretty horrific acts. However, the characters who commit these acts are sympathetic and three-dimensional, and the film refuses to demonize them, which may make the movie all the more shocking for some people. Nonetheless, I loved its examination of humanity and the lengths one will go to to feel happy and loved.
- 50. The Wild Bunch (1969) - I was pretty impatient throughout the first 45 minutes of this film, but then I turned it off, watched the rest the next day, and loved it. I'm going to give the film the benefit of the doubt that had I not been so tired, I would have liked the first 45 minutes too. But if I ever rewatch it and still find the first 45 minutes boring, I will be very mad at this movie for fooling me into thinking it was excellent throughout.
- The Wild Bunch is a movie about Western anti-heroes in a time that can no longer appreciate them. They're past their prime, looking for that so-called last big score, that does not, and cannot, end well. The film had a grand, epic feel, but it feels ironic juxtaposed with these characters, who seem like they are only committing crimes because they know nothing else. The film is an excellent study of these characters, portrayed beautifully by the cast, punctuated by telling flashbacks and truly thrilling action scenes (featuring some of the best action editing ever). It, however, doesn't have the impact today that it had back then; apparently the violence in this film shocked everyone in 1969, so much that the MPAA threatened to give it an X-rating. Nowadays you can see this kind of violence in an episode of Alias. But though it is no longer controversial, it is still a brilliant movie, one of the all-time great Westerns.
Author Comments:
Comments welcome, as always.
By the way, the corny title is my attempt at the title for some cheesy children's book or episode of Scooby-Doo.
I love it when you're home for the summer and you start updating these lists like mad. Thanks for all the reviews! Sorry Stand By Me didn't work for you. I remember loving that movie, but I'd certainly have to see again to affirm those feelings.
Thanks for the kind words, Jim. I'm glad people appreciate me cranking these things out. I suppose in a different mood some of the characterizations in Stand By Me might work better for me, but I still think I'd be really annoyed by the older bullies subplot. I expect much better out of Kiefer Sutherland.
So tell me, what did you think of my re-editing of Punch-Drunk Love? I watched it with two friends, Michael and Alan, and we talked about the ending as it was happening. Michael said he thought the movie was ending when Sandler meets Watson in Hawaii , which is what I thought when I first saw it, but that's only 66 minutes in. Alan, on the other hand, thought the ending was perfect as is. What did you think?
I wish I could oblige you, but I don't remember the ending in enough detail to comment (or even be fully cognizant of what's different in your version). I don't remember having a problem with it though.
The real ending has Sandler collecting pudding and then flying to Hawaii. He gets Watson's number from his sister and then finds Watson. They meet in silhouette. This feels like the ending, in my opinion. Then there are a few more scenes in Hawaii, including one scene that has a heart-shaped iris on Sandler and Watson holding hands, which also feels like the ending. Then they get back to California and their car is hit by the phone sex men. Watson starts bleeding a little and Sandler beats the crap out of those guys. Then Watson's in the hospital and Sandler leaves her, heads to Utah, and has a standoff with Philip Seymour Hoffman, making him say "That's that." Then Sandler gets back, finds Watson has been discharged, brings the harmonium to her place, and tells her that he has enough frequent flyer miles to go with her whenever she travels (she travels a lot on business). Then they kiss, and then there's that great ending shot of Sandler getting better at playing the harmonium.
Ah yes, thank you for the refresher! Happily (for me), I like the existing ending. I like the way the Hawaii scenes are tempered by the knowledge that they still have these unresolved problems out there, lurking.
I'm surprised you didn't like that line in Punch Drunk Love about the love in him making him strong. I thought it was a beautiful moment and well-delivered. Up until then he felt so weak and unfocussed, and his rage would explode in random directions. I saw that line as indicating that love refocussed all that raw passion. Oh well, each to his own, I guess. That just happens to be one of my favourite film moments ever. And it's only partly due to my stange attraction to Adam Sandler. :)
I do like your interpretation of the line, but I think that should have shown through in the character. Directly saying it just makes for unrealistic dialogue. I don't believe a human being would say that.
P.S. I've heard the sequels are going to be called Batman Continues, Batman Lingers, Batman Wears Out His Welcome, and Batman Finishes.
Ha! Nice.
Hi AJ,
Batman Begins was probably the worst blockbuster I've seen this year (not that I've seen a lot), boring claptrap that bitterly holds onto a sense of earnest storytelling whilst being completely devoid of intelligence. For instance, Liam Neeson's character is obviously the villain at the finale, to say that spoils nothing since anyone who couldn't figure that astonishing development needs to lay off the narcotics. Yet he also happens to be the best supporting character of the film, cut off at the knees by wretched plotting. Also, Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne since Val Kilmer, but his silly gravelled voice (it made me laugh...often) and protruding chin make him the weakest Batman, I found myself terminally dreading the Bat Suit. And Katie Holmes is dreadfully bad, which isn't a surprise since her character is given only 2 intelligent lines of dialogue in the film, yet she has the right look for the film. Alas the film is a baffling group of contradictions, riddled with idiotic plot holes (how did they save ALL those gassed citizens, etc.) and dreadfully awry action scenes purloined from Wong Kar-Wai, yet directed by an talented person who buoys up these failings with great visual storytelling (in the beginning anyway). Yet what matters most comes down to something simple, no Batman film is worth it's salt if you want to see more Bruce Wayne, is it.
:?)
Hey stooky! Good to have you back!
I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this comment, since I don't really disagree with some of the things you said (the gravelly voice was a bit much), but I definitely didn't think it was boring. As for the gassed citizens, I think the gas must have been less lethal when sprayed in a sprawling dose than when sprayed directly in a character's face. I thought it was pretty intelligent for a superhero movie, but there were certainly plenty of people around here who disliked the film, so perhaps I'm biased in favor of Nolan or some of the actors.
thanks,
I should point out that I can't stand Batman, as a comic book hero he was slim, angry jockular billionaire fights crime because he was scarred in his youth by bat based trauma (whatever), and the movies just make me roll my eyes. As for gas being less lethal, good point, but why make it less lethal with the stated intentions. I realize I'm asking for some kind of common sense in a movie about a big man bat, but hey. Sin City was so much better, I guess that's my point.
Fantastic Four has gotten an early review.
:?)
Oh, I agree that Sin City was better. I believe it was Jim who called Kill Bill "the ultimate triumph of style over substance", but I think that applies more to Sin City. I do, however, think Batman Begins is one of the better superhero movies (in a genre that really has few movies I like) and definitely the best Batman movie.
I recently wrote a short review of The Birds which started with
It could help to think of The Birds as one of Hitchcock's many metaphorical marriage movies... and then again, perhaps not. If you aren't horrified by marriage then you might want to stick with Psycho , Jaws , Alien , The Shining or Herbie: Fully Loaded .
Great Trainspotting review, thanks! How 'bout that toilet scene? :-)
I too felt Z was overrated, but liked The Battle for Algiers quite a bit. Before you write off the genre though, have you seen Bloody Sunday?
I actually saw the toilet scene before, in the film class I took in 12th grade. But yes, that was pretty brilliant. I see now that the rest of the movie was not quite so bizarre, but I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing...
Alright, I'll give the genre one more chance, but that's it. Most documentaries have more humanity than these "documentary-style" films. And I am by no means a history buff, so I can't appreciate them for that.
Throne of Blood: a director as consistently great as Akira Kurosawa? Only Tarkovsky comes to mind. I haven't seen all his films yet, but it's possible he made only masterpieces: Andrei Rublev, Nostalghia, The Mirror, Solaris, Stalker, Ivan's Childhood, and The Sacrifice.
I would say Kubrick, but I already know you disagree. Murnau comes close. Bergman made too many films to be so "consistent", but he may have as many masterpieces as Kurosawa.
I'll have to check out more Tarkovsky; I've only seen The Mirror and Andrei Rublev. Nonetheless, I think another thing that amazes me about Kurosawa is that he created so many masterpieces while remaining very accessible; his films appeal to pretentious critics and casual film fans alike. I'm not sure Tarkovsky could say the same thing (nor Murnau or Bergman).
I don't know why you'd think I'd disagree about Kubrick, as I do think he was a brilliant filmmaker. His consistency was impressive too, but to be fair, after he made his first acclaimed film (The Killing), he only made another 10 films in the next 43 years. He didn't exactly have the stamina of Kurosawa (30 films in 50 years), but of the 6 Kubrick films I've seen within those 10, only one has been less than great (Full Metal Jacket), and four are masterpieces in my opinion (Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork Orange).
Because Kurosawa's films are so Western-influenced, I'll probably always enjoy watching them more than Tarkovsky films because they require less work from my Western-weaned mind. And though Kurosawa's masterpieces are incredible, nearly perfect films, I think that Rashomon and Seven Samurai are slightly overrated in their significance. In the end, Kurosawa's masterpieces are awesome but very much the same as each other. Consider Andrei Rublev and especially The Mirror in that light and you can see where I'm getting the idea that some of Tarkovsky's films are perhaps more significant works than anything Kurosawa (or Mizoguchi, for that matter) ever made.
Okay, I'll give you that Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, and Ran all have a similar feel (Throne of Blood perhaps less so due to its fantasy elements), but Ikiru and High and Low are entirely separate entities, showing that Kurosawa is by no means just a niche director. And Rashomon may have similarities with the first four I mentioned, but it is doing something completely different in brilliant ways. Just because they're Western-influenced and stomachable by the masses doesn't mean they're less significant than more abstract films. In fact, sometimes I think it is easier to create an acclaimed film just by stringing together scenes and images with brilliant direction/cinematography than to actually use the art to augment a comprehensible narrative as Kurosawa does. And since being able to understand what's going on in a movie seems to be a negative thing for many foreign critics, Kurosawa's films must be tremendous accomplishments to become so acclaimed, don't you think?
By less significant, I meant that Kurosawa's films made a lesser contribution of new filmic language, method, etc. than, say, Tarkovsky's The Mirror. Even Rashomon's 4-perspective narrative was preceded by one cut of Life of an American Fireman, Citizen Kane, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but especially an early 30s film that told a single story from multiple perspectives exactly as Rashomon did whose title I can't remember and can't find (kicking myself now - the title itself even indicates the multiple-perspective approach). I don't know anything about High and Low, but Ikiru is a really damn good reimaging of quiet character dramas or Neorealist pictures, and the others are really damn good reiterations of romantic westerns and war epics.
I can't comment on which type of film is harder to craft, though I'll concede that something like the relentless perfection of Chinatown must've been a real bitch. And I don't think comprehensibility is frowned upon by foreign critics. Anyway, I don't care how a film became acclaimed, or even that it is acclaimed. Do I like it? Do think it's an utterly fantastic, important film? Do you? That's what I care about, and luckily, that's what we're talking about.
Fair enough about the acclaim. In turn, I can try to talk about film on an intellectual level or read opinions by other critics, but when judging whether I think something is an utterly fantastic film, I don't really care about the contributions it made to filmic language. As for which type is harder to craft, what I really meant was that I tend to think Kurosawa's type of film, where he uses his artistry to fit a narrative, is a greater achievement than stringing together a collage of images and scenes. But to be fair, you probably know more about Tarkovksy's achievements with filmic language and method, so I might not be grasping how great an achievement his films are.
Well, it seems like you just said that even if you knew more about Tarkovsky's contribution, you wouldn't care. :-)
I would care, it just wouldn't affect my opinion of how great the film is [much]. And maybe I don't care because I've just never really been in that state of mind, but if I fully comprehended Tarkovsky's influence on film technique, I would care more.
Found it! Rashomon's multiple-perspective narrative was most directly preceded by Thru Different Eyes, which shows murder trial witnesses telling the same story from different perspectives. Naturally, it wasn't as well-crafted as Kurosawa's masterpiece, though.
Since it's so obscure that it doesn't even have 5 votes yet on the IMDB, I think it's possible that Kurosawa never even heard of the film.
5 votes on IMDB has little to say about its popularity at the time of release, and is far more influenced by its current availability and enduring appeal. I'd imagine it's likely Kurosawa never saw Thru Different Eyes, which in my head means what I always meant: the existence of Thru Different Eyes (and to a lesser extent, those other titles mentioned above) diminishes the importance of Rashomon, but not the skill of Kurosawa.
Sounds like I'd definitely be a sucker for Happiness, too.
Oh, yeah, if you like movies about f*cked up people, you will love Happiness.
i happen to dislike the first 45 minutes of the wild bunch as well... or at least thats the part i have a problem with.
I think I agree with every one of your criticisms of The Wedding Crashers, even if, for all that, I did think it was pretty funny, especially in the middle.
Great review!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I must confess, I laughed a good number of times during the film, but primarily the film made me angry - angry that the state of mainstream comedy films is such that, for all its flaws and wasted potential, Wedding Crashers still got great reviews. Maybe that's not entirely the movie's fault, but alas. That's one sin that can't be covered by making me laugh a few times.
I smell ya there. Even if I liked it, it was a merely decent comedy and certainly not fantastic. The reviewers slobbered like restaurant critics returning from a month without food in the desert piling into the nearest Burger King.
Too bad.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
:-) GREAT analogy.
Thanks!
And in return, as I said, great review!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs