The Corona Diaries

It'd been a while since I last saw Snake Eyes. I remember watching it a lot in the early 2000's cause TBS and TNT used to show it almost every weekend or every other weekend. Eventually, I saw the unedited version. Anyway, this is still a largely watchable movie. Nicolas Cage giving one of his signature wacko performances combined with Brian De Palma's slick direction and storytelling techniques keep it always entertaining at the very least. The big "conspiracy" behind the events that unfold doesn't feel particularly novel or interesting, and the movie works better in the moment than it probably does in the grand scheme. But again, you've got a real oddball Cage performance and De Palma's signature brand of direction, and those things make Snake Eyes a fun enough watch.

Oh, and that awesome 15-20 minute opening tracking shot.

Sleepless in Seattle is one of my Mom's favorite romantic comedies. Before now, I'd only seen chunks of it, but now having seen the whole thing...I have to wonder why it's so popular in the first place. I mean, I can see how many would be charmed by the performances of its leads, cause both Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan do turn in legitimately good performances, in my opinion. They're not the problem. The problem for me boils down more to the movie's structure. You see, the way romantic comedies usually tend to work is that the leads build chemistry with one another on-screen so that we start to get invested in whether or not they get together by the end. But by its nature, this story here keeps Hanks and Ryan apart for 99% of the runtime, so that means they don't have the opportunity to build chemistry with each other. Instead, we just have to go on the assumption that they're going to be good together merely because they're shown to have certain similarities. So when it comes to the ending when they finally get together, it just...feels kind of empty.

Again, I can see why a lot of other people would enjoy this movie, but for me, the inherent structure of this movie seemed to be working against itself.

I first saw this movie back around 2005 on a VHS copy, and haven't since, so it's safe to say my memory on this was fuzzy enough that this viewing was almost like a first viewing all over again.

Bottom line, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a fun movie. It has the feel of a good old-fashioned swashbuckler and also feels like the kind of movie that was inspiration for some of the more modern entries into the genre, like Pirates of the Caribbean. But whereas most movies like this now seem more half-hearted in that kind of approach, Prince of Thieves feels more genuine. Sure, Kevin Costner isn't even attempting to do an English accent here, but the rest of the movie is so enjoyable that something like that ultimately feels like small potatoes. You've got some really fun action and swordfight scenes, humor that feels natural instead of forced -- cheesy in some instances, sure, but always charming instead of annoying -- and a rousing score by Michael Kamen.

But of course, the true MVP of this movie is Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Rickman, over the course of his career, built quite the reputation for being the calm and composed, yet delectably enjoyable villain or snide presence. Here, though, he just fucking lets loose and it is a true joy to behold. I've never seen an Alan Rickman performance this energized, and it's absolutely clear he was relishing every minute of it. If this movie was going for a much darker tone, then such a performance would certainly feel out of place, but it fits in and maybe even singlehandedly enhances the atmosphere here. It may not be one of his most nuanced performances, but it's absolutely one of his best.

Now, the script could've been developed a bit more, but it gets the job done. However, there's one element to it that just struck me as odd and totally unnecessary, and that's the inclusion of a witch that The Sheriff frequently consults for guidance on his schemes. This is a Robin Hood movie. Why in the hell is there a witch in here? Her inclusion adds nothing and just feels like an awkwardly shoehorned-in element that shouldn't be here to begin with.

At the end of the day, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves does exactly what it needs to do. It's a very 90's 90's movie, but in a way that works, with personality to boot.

This...was kinda okay, I guess? I mean, don't get me wrong -- it's your standard modern "new and improved" (if we're just changing the definition of improved) update on a well-trod story where the "new take" feels more generic than anything else. And yet...I didn't hate it. Did I like it? It's complicated. I enjoyed some of the performances to a degree, the action scenes held my interest -- the first big one featuring Robin as a part of some, like, "Black Ops Unit" of Crusaders going through an Arabic city with the intent of exterminating enemies (with bows and arrows, of course) I won't deny legitimately entertained me and helped set the tone for the rest of the movie for me -- and the movie overall held my attention well enough.

But I enjoyed it pretty much the same way I do fast food. It satisfies in the moment, but I move on to more nutritional options soon enough and don't give this particular meal a second thought from there on out.