Post by Dracula on Oct 3, 2014 17:47:43 GMT -5
Alright, decided to set up an thread to archive as much old CS Film Club stuff as possible. I think it's pretty much impossible to archive everything, but we can get the best bits right? Anyway, I'm going to start by archiving the my reviews each round and the reviews of the film I recommended, and maybe some stray conversation that they inspired. You all can save your stuff here too if you like. Warning, some of the spoiler tags didn't carry over when I copied these, so read at your own risk.
Round 1(started 10/30/2006)
Round 2(11/13/2006)
Round 3 (11/29/2014)
Round 4 (12/18/2006)
Round 5 (1/6/2007)
Round 6 (1/23/2007)
Round 7 (2/10/2007)
Round 8 (2/28/2007)
Round 9 (3/18/2007)
Up next is the story of Erika Christensen and her father, Michael Douglas. She is a drug addict, he is the new man in America hired by the government to fight the war on drugs. Watching her fall into the trap of drugs is both disappointing and annoying (I am extremely anti-drug), while Douglas fights with the decision of focusing on the country or focusing on his daughter.
I could say more about the other stories, but I'm not sure what. All in all, Traffic is a skillful and intriguing movie, and, like Bubble, despite my reservations, many of the images will probably stick in my brain, picking at themselves, until I have to watch it again.
Stars (out of four): ***
Round 10 (4/3/2007 IMDB Round)
To Be Continued...
Round 1(started 10/30/2006)
Dracula said:
Howl’s Moving Castle
I’ll start by giving a brief overview of my love/hate relationship with Anime. I’ve never understood why so many grown adults seem to like the childish animated fare offered by the likes of Disney, Pixar, and the like. Call me a cold hearted cynic, but I’ve never been one to turn off my intellect in order to enjoy works that are meant for six year olds. I really find it bizarre that anyone over ten would go to one of these things for any reason other then to accompany their kids. I really hate the type of Spielbergian whimsy that seems to fuel most of this crap. I’ve heard many people say that the works of Pixar tend to be filled with in jokes and subtext to make them enjoyable for adults, but really that sounds to me like their just adding things in so that adults will sit through these juvenile cartoons without being bored out of their minds. That said I have nothing against the medium of animation, I like the artistry and work that goes into its creation and production, unfortunately in America it is wasted on a bunch of snot nosed kids.
I then began to hear about more mature and adult oriented animation coming out of Japan. I had been highly unimpressed by the few sample of anime that had crossed my path, like Pokemon. But I began to hear more and more about the darker type of anime available. Finally as I was flipping through channels at 1:00 AM I stumbled across Akira, a film I had heard about, that was just beginning on HBO Action. It was being showed in widescreen so I though “what the hell” I watched it and it blew my mind. It was really awesome. Akira is to date my 97th favorite movie of all time. Fully prepared to embrace Anime I quickly rented Ghost in a Shell, and well, it was a sobering experience to be sure. I actively disliked the movie, it had neat visuals but the plot made no sense and it’s abrupt ending was really disappointing. This made me realize that in Anime, as with every genre results vary greatly.
Which brings me to the works of Hayao Miyazaki. I had heard that Miyazaki was the greatest of all Anime filmmakers. I was very skeptical of this however, I had seen most of My Neighbor Totoro when my adventurous sixth grade teacher thought it would be the perfect film to show the class. I found it every bit as childish and falsely whimsical as all the Disney movies I’d been avoiding all along. This discouraged me from seeking out Miyazaki for a while. Then early this year Turner Classic Movies decided to show a marathon of Miyazaki’s movies two a week for a month. The first night they were showing Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. These were both on a number of “Best of” lists that I was trying to complete and this seemed like a good opportunity to sit through them both without having to pay to do it, and then cross them of the lists. I was quite pleasantly surprised. Spirited Away had much of the ridiculous whimsy that I dislike, but it seemed more natural then most Disney movies and was such a creative visual spectacle that I really didn’t care. Then came the real treat, Princess Mononoke absolutely blew me away. That is a truly spectacular film. Fully exieted I tuned in the next week to see Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Castle in the Sky. Nausicaä was exellent, but I was sorely disappointed by Castle in the Sky. It was a strange mix of things, it lacked much of the epic nature that I liked about the three previous entries and had underdeveloped characters and strange comic relief. The other Miyazaki film I saw the next week was Porco Rosso, a movie generally lacking in most of the childishness I have reservations about, still despite being a very stylish film I felt it was possibly the least epic of all the movies and was marred by lots of poor decisions. I skipped Kiki’s Delivery Service because it looked way too childish for my tastes, so the only Miyazaki movies I had yet to see were The Castle of Cagliostro, which I still haven’t seen, and Howl's Moving Castle, which is the subject of this review.
Myazaki seemed to be on a roll having just finished his best two films. So it was fair to go into Howl's Moving Castle with fairly high expectations. Unfortunately it failed to live up to these expectations at all. Of all the Animes I named, it actually reminded me of the most of was Ghost in the Shell, in that it had very good interesting visuals but the plot is a mess.
I disliked the first half of the movie a lot, it was slow and I was waiting for the plot to finally kick in. The movie then started to get a lot better at the one hour point, specifically once Sophie visited Madame Suliman and the greater plot started to unfold, then the movie began to show some real promise. I began to see how the magic was working and saw some real intrigue going on. I was eager to see how this would play out. Unfortunately all the promise of the third quarter of the movie is tossed away by last half hour, where instead of focusing on the war and political intrigue that has been set up, it devolves into an exercise in strange metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
The film’s main flaw is that its main character is also its weakest. I had no interest at all in this underdeveloped chick who did very little throughout the film other then be confused and observe glimpses of the greater conflict that is going on. It is like what Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind would have been like if Nausicaä had stayed home done nothing except screw things up while other people went and engaged in the central conflicts of the story off screen. It then ends on an infuriating deus ex machina.
There were things to admire in the film. As I said previously the third quarter of the film is great, also the few actual glimpses of the war are very interesting. Howl is an interesting character, that is when he’s actually on screen, and the voice acting was great, especially Tatsuya Gashuin’s performance as Calcifer the Flame. I was also intrigued by the running theme of vanity, that is until it was abandoned along with any sense of cohesion in the last half hour. The animation was also interesting except that much more attention was clearly placed on the backgrounds then on the character animation.
All in all I was not impressed with Howl's Moving Castle. It was a little better then Castle in the Sky, but there’s no doubt that it is minor Miyazaki.
**1/2 out of Four
I’ll start by giving a brief overview of my love/hate relationship with Anime. I’ve never understood why so many grown adults seem to like the childish animated fare offered by the likes of Disney, Pixar, and the like. Call me a cold hearted cynic, but I’ve never been one to turn off my intellect in order to enjoy works that are meant for six year olds. I really find it bizarre that anyone over ten would go to one of these things for any reason other then to accompany their kids. I really hate the type of Spielbergian whimsy that seems to fuel most of this crap. I’ve heard many people say that the works of Pixar tend to be filled with in jokes and subtext to make them enjoyable for adults, but really that sounds to me like their just adding things in so that adults will sit through these juvenile cartoons without being bored out of their minds. That said I have nothing against the medium of animation, I like the artistry and work that goes into its creation and production, unfortunately in America it is wasted on a bunch of snot nosed kids.
I then began to hear about more mature and adult oriented animation coming out of Japan. I had been highly unimpressed by the few sample of anime that had crossed my path, like Pokemon. But I began to hear more and more about the darker type of anime available. Finally as I was flipping through channels at 1:00 AM I stumbled across Akira, a film I had heard about, that was just beginning on HBO Action. It was being showed in widescreen so I though “what the hell” I watched it and it blew my mind. It was really awesome. Akira is to date my 97th favorite movie of all time. Fully prepared to embrace Anime I quickly rented Ghost in a Shell, and well, it was a sobering experience to be sure. I actively disliked the movie, it had neat visuals but the plot made no sense and it’s abrupt ending was really disappointing. This made me realize that in Anime, as with every genre results vary greatly.
Which brings me to the works of Hayao Miyazaki. I had heard that Miyazaki was the greatest of all Anime filmmakers. I was very skeptical of this however, I had seen most of My Neighbor Totoro when my adventurous sixth grade teacher thought it would be the perfect film to show the class. I found it every bit as childish and falsely whimsical as all the Disney movies I’d been avoiding all along. This discouraged me from seeking out Miyazaki for a while. Then early this year Turner Classic Movies decided to show a marathon of Miyazaki’s movies two a week for a month. The first night they were showing Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. These were both on a number of “Best of” lists that I was trying to complete and this seemed like a good opportunity to sit through them both without having to pay to do it, and then cross them of the lists. I was quite pleasantly surprised. Spirited Away had much of the ridiculous whimsy that I dislike, but it seemed more natural then most Disney movies and was such a creative visual spectacle that I really didn’t care. Then came the real treat, Princess Mononoke absolutely blew me away. That is a truly spectacular film. Fully exieted I tuned in the next week to see Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Castle in the Sky. Nausicaä was exellent, but I was sorely disappointed by Castle in the Sky. It was a strange mix of things, it lacked much of the epic nature that I liked about the three previous entries and had underdeveloped characters and strange comic relief. The other Miyazaki film I saw the next week was Porco Rosso, a movie generally lacking in most of the childishness I have reservations about, still despite being a very stylish film I felt it was possibly the least epic of all the movies and was marred by lots of poor decisions. I skipped Kiki’s Delivery Service because it looked way too childish for my tastes, so the only Miyazaki movies I had yet to see were The Castle of Cagliostro, which I still haven’t seen, and Howl's Moving Castle, which is the subject of this review.
Myazaki seemed to be on a roll having just finished his best two films. So it was fair to go into Howl's Moving Castle with fairly high expectations. Unfortunately it failed to live up to these expectations at all. Of all the Animes I named, it actually reminded me of the most of was Ghost in the Shell, in that it had very good interesting visuals but the plot is a mess.
I disliked the first half of the movie a lot, it was slow and I was waiting for the plot to finally kick in. The movie then started to get a lot better at the one hour point, specifically once Sophie visited Madame Suliman and the greater plot started to unfold, then the movie began to show some real promise. I began to see how the magic was working and saw some real intrigue going on. I was eager to see how this would play out. Unfortunately all the promise of the third quarter of the movie is tossed away by last half hour, where instead of focusing on the war and political intrigue that has been set up, it devolves into an exercise in strange metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
The film’s main flaw is that its main character is also its weakest. I had no interest at all in this underdeveloped chick who did very little throughout the film other then be confused and observe glimpses of the greater conflict that is going on. It is like what Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind would have been like if Nausicaä had stayed home done nothing except screw things up while other people went and engaged in the central conflicts of the story off screen. It then ends on an infuriating deus ex machina.
There were things to admire in the film. As I said previously the third quarter of the film is great, also the few actual glimpses of the war are very interesting. Howl is an interesting character, that is when he’s actually on screen, and the voice acting was great, especially Tatsuya Gashuin’s performance as Calcifer the Flame. I was also intrigued by the running theme of vanity, that is until it was abandoned along with any sense of cohesion in the last half hour. The animation was also interesting except that much more attention was clearly placed on the backgrounds then on the character animation.
All in all I was not impressed with Howl's Moving Castle. It was a little better then Castle in the Sky, but there’s no doubt that it is minor Miyazaki.
**1/2 out of Four
Knerys said:
Spartan
Starring: Val Kilmer, William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, Kristen Bell, Derek Luke, Tia Texada
Summary: Master Gunman Scott (Kilmer) is tapped to investigate the disappearance of the President's daughter. But the deeper he goes that more things are not what they seem.
Review: I did not realize this was a David Mamet film when I picked it, but I'm glad I didn't because I have my own take on Mamet. Having said that, I'm happy to say that this is definitely one of his best. I feel Mamet likes to restrict the emotional wavelength of his characters by bogging them down with too much dialog (like his female lead in Oleanna), but in this movie I felt very much involved with the feeling and actions of the characters. Kilmer delivers one of his better performances, using his natural intensity to infuse Scott with that hard-edged , yet still has a beating heart, persona needed to pull off this character. He is supported by some experienced veterns and some very talented new comers. Derek Luke, Tia Texada, and Kristen Bell all turn in solid performances. William H. Macy, though billed highly, doesn't have much screen time but plays his role well, and Ed O'Niell is almost unrecognizable but contributes to some of the most memorable parts of the film.
Much of the film itself is filmed in close-up, which puts the focus on the characters and their situations rather than the action, making it a much more powerful. If Michael Bay had done this it would have been a disaster, but Mamet's touch works very well with the dialog, action and plot. I may even consider rethinking my stance on David Mamet...
8.5/10
Starring: Val Kilmer, William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, Kristen Bell, Derek Luke, Tia Texada
Summary: Master Gunman Scott (Kilmer) is tapped to investigate the disappearance of the President's daughter. But the deeper he goes that more things are not what they seem.
Review: I did not realize this was a David Mamet film when I picked it, but I'm glad I didn't because I have my own take on Mamet. Having said that, I'm happy to say that this is definitely one of his best. I feel Mamet likes to restrict the emotional wavelength of his characters by bogging them down with too much dialog (like his female lead in Oleanna), but in this movie I felt very much involved with the feeling and actions of the characters. Kilmer delivers one of his better performances, using his natural intensity to infuse Scott with that hard-edged , yet still has a beating heart, persona needed to pull off this character. He is supported by some experienced veterns and some very talented new comers. Derek Luke, Tia Texada, and Kristen Bell all turn in solid performances. William H. Macy, though billed highly, doesn't have much screen time but plays his role well, and Ed O'Niell is almost unrecognizable but contributes to some of the most memorable parts of the film.
Much of the film itself is filmed in close-up, which puts the focus on the characters and their situations rather than the action, making it a much more powerful. If Michael Bay had done this it would have been a disaster, but Mamet's touch works very well with the dialog, action and plot. I may even consider rethinking my stance on David Mamet...
8.5/10
Round 2(11/13/2006)
Dracula said:
Benny & Joon
Watching this film was not a pleasure I'm sad to say. I found this movie to be simplistic and predictable. The only reason I think this movie is still remembered today is because of Johnny Depp's performance, and frankly I think it too is overrated. Sure he creates an interesting character, but the dude is so strange that he is in no way believable. This isn't a fantasy movie like POTC or Edward Scissorhands where a character can be over the top and still fit in. I knew exactly where the whole thing was going in the first twenty minutes and my predictions were right. The film also has a rather confused sense of mental illness. Joon’s condition goes unnamed but seems like a jumble of symptoms of autism and Schizophrenia, both vastly different illnesses. The film also has an absolutely abysmal soundtrack that made an already annoying movie almost unbearable.
*1/2 out of Four
Watching this film was not a pleasure I'm sad to say. I found this movie to be simplistic and predictable. The only reason I think this movie is still remembered today is because of Johnny Depp's performance, and frankly I think it too is overrated. Sure he creates an interesting character, but the dude is so strange that he is in no way believable. This isn't a fantasy movie like POTC or Edward Scissorhands where a character can be over the top and still fit in. I knew exactly where the whole thing was going in the first twenty minutes and my predictions were right. The film also has a rather confused sense of mental illness. Joon’s condition goes unnamed but seems like a jumble of symptoms of autism and Schizophrenia, both vastly different illnesses. The film also has an absolutely abysmal soundtrack that made an already annoying movie almost unbearable.
*1/2 out of Four
Moviebuff801 said:
O.K., I've seen my movie, so I'll give a brief review:
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
After having seen the remake, I was definitely interested in seeing the original. So, I was happy to see my expectations met. Obviously not as suspenseful as the 2004 remake, the original Manchurian Candidate is still a good piece of entertainment with purely interesting performances and, as always, an intriguing story. This is probably one of those rare occasions where I enjoyed both the remake and original equally.
8/10
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
After having seen the remake, I was definitely interested in seeing the original. So, I was happy to see my expectations met. Obviously not as suspenseful as the 2004 remake, the original Manchurian Candidate is still a good piece of entertainment with purely interesting performances and, as always, an intriguing story. This is probably one of those rare occasions where I enjoyed both the remake and original equally.
8/10
Round 3 (11/29/2014)
Dracula said:
Tape
I enjoyed this movie a lot. For some reason, I’ve spent the last five year confusing this movie with David Cronenberg’s Spider. I didn’t really know what to expect. The movie was really really great. It had a sort of Dogme-esque minimalism. It was shot on digital video with a $150,000 budget. The film takes place entirely in one hotel room and in real time. There were only 3 characters in it, Vince (Ethan Hawke), Jon (Robert Sean Leonard), and Amy (Uma Thurman). I won’t get into plot details as this is the kind of film that unravels slowly. The whole set up makes this movie sound unwatchable cheap, but it isn’t. The movie is unlike anything Linklater has done before, it’s darker (although strangely lighter then it appears) and it’s not his writing. Still, Linklater really makes work, he often moves the camera from one actor to the next rather then cutting between them, this is probably to build tension between them. Stephen Belber’s dialogue is sort of knowingly esoteric, a little like the dialogue in Linklater’s other films with a pinch of Kevin Smith. In other hands this dialogue could have fallen flat, but the actors here manage to pull it off. Robert Sean Leonard isn’t quite as good here as Hawke and Thurman but he doesn’t hurt the film. It is a bit obvious that this is based on a play, and Linklater makes a bit of a misstep in using some overly flashy camera work in one scene involving cocaine, but over all I was blown away by this movie.
**** out of four
I'm ready for the next round
I enjoyed this movie a lot. For some reason, I’ve spent the last five year confusing this movie with David Cronenberg’s Spider. I didn’t really know what to expect. The movie was really really great. It had a sort of Dogme-esque minimalism. It was shot on digital video with a $150,000 budget. The film takes place entirely in one hotel room and in real time. There were only 3 characters in it, Vince (Ethan Hawke), Jon (Robert Sean Leonard), and Amy (Uma Thurman). I won’t get into plot details as this is the kind of film that unravels slowly. The whole set up makes this movie sound unwatchable cheap, but it isn’t. The movie is unlike anything Linklater has done before, it’s darker (although strangely lighter then it appears) and it’s not his writing. Still, Linklater really makes work, he often moves the camera from one actor to the next rather then cutting between them, this is probably to build tension between them. Stephen Belber’s dialogue is sort of knowingly esoteric, a little like the dialogue in Linklater’s other films with a pinch of Kevin Smith. In other hands this dialogue could have fallen flat, but the actors here manage to pull it off. Robert Sean Leonard isn’t quite as good here as Hawke and Thurman but he doesn’t hurt the film. It is a bit obvious that this is based on a play, and Linklater makes a bit of a misstep in using some overly flashy camera work in one scene involving cocaine, but over all I was blown away by this movie.
**** out of four
I'm ready for the next round
Round 4 (12/18/2006)
Dracula said:
L.A. Story
The city of Los Angeles has a population of about four million. That mean only one in every sixty million people in America will really care about this film’s satirical elements. They may understand these elements by the city’s reputation, I’ve never been there but I was able to spot most of the places they were trying to satirize elements of the city, mainly because these moments of satire occur with the subtlety of a pie in the face.
Harris K. Tellemacher played by Steve Martin who also wrote the screenplay, is a weatherman looking for meaning in his dull Los Angeles life. He learns that his longtime girlfriend has been cheating on him with his agent and breaks up with her, meanwhile he starts a fling with perky clothing store clerk SanDeE* (sic.) played by Sarah Jessica Parker. He then falls for an English newspaper reporter played by Victoria Tennant. The resulting love triangle plays out in predictable fashion. There’s also a subplot about a talking freeway sign I won’t get into.
L.A. Story is an uneven mix of pretentious intellectual relationship comedy, Satire about the city of Los Angeles, and the type of broad “comedy” that Steve Martin has clung to his entire career.
Satire is a very dialogue driven form, in good satire words are used like weapons. In Steve Martins satire dialogue stick mainly to plot and satire is carried out by unfunny physical humor. For example, early in the film a traffic jam on L.A.’s famous freeways turns into a gun fight, an event which none of the participants are at all surprised at. It isn’t funny or overly insightful, and it doesn’t help the plot at all, but it is thrown in anyway to make this film with a highly conventional romance plot have some reason to exist. When Martin tries to make his point with dialogue instead of visual gags it’s much more successful, like when martin comments while giving a tour of the city “You know, you're really nobody in L.A. unless you live in a house with a really big door.”
The intellectual relationship movie has been done much better by Woody Allen for the last thirty years. With L.A. Story Martin really want to make the west coast equivalent of an Allen movie. But Allen has the benefit of knowing not to try for a laugh in every single scene. In order to make sure the movie looks smart enough Martin opens with a La Dolce Vida homage and gratuitously fills the script with heavy handed Shakespeare references. In order to make the film look important they lift the famous fast motion highway shots from Koyaanisqatsi and toss them in.
All the films lame pretensions could be forgiven if it was actually funny but it wasn’t. I’ll admit that I laughed once and chuckled about nine times. But for the most part the film failed to affect my funny bone.
** out of four
The city of Los Angeles has a population of about four million. That mean only one in every sixty million people in America will really care about this film’s satirical elements. They may understand these elements by the city’s reputation, I’ve never been there but I was able to spot most of the places they were trying to satirize elements of the city, mainly because these moments of satire occur with the subtlety of a pie in the face.
Harris K. Tellemacher played by Steve Martin who also wrote the screenplay, is a weatherman looking for meaning in his dull Los Angeles life. He learns that his longtime girlfriend has been cheating on him with his agent and breaks up with her, meanwhile he starts a fling with perky clothing store clerk SanDeE* (sic.) played by Sarah Jessica Parker. He then falls for an English newspaper reporter played by Victoria Tennant. The resulting love triangle plays out in predictable fashion. There’s also a subplot about a talking freeway sign I won’t get into.
L.A. Story is an uneven mix of pretentious intellectual relationship comedy, Satire about the city of Los Angeles, and the type of broad “comedy” that Steve Martin has clung to his entire career.
Satire is a very dialogue driven form, in good satire words are used like weapons. In Steve Martins satire dialogue stick mainly to plot and satire is carried out by unfunny physical humor. For example, early in the film a traffic jam on L.A.’s famous freeways turns into a gun fight, an event which none of the participants are at all surprised at. It isn’t funny or overly insightful, and it doesn’t help the plot at all, but it is thrown in anyway to make this film with a highly conventional romance plot have some reason to exist. When Martin tries to make his point with dialogue instead of visual gags it’s much more successful, like when martin comments while giving a tour of the city “You know, you're really nobody in L.A. unless you live in a house with a really big door.”
The intellectual relationship movie has been done much better by Woody Allen for the last thirty years. With L.A. Story Martin really want to make the west coast equivalent of an Allen movie. But Allen has the benefit of knowing not to try for a laugh in every single scene. In order to make sure the movie looks smart enough Martin opens with a La Dolce Vida homage and gratuitously fills the script with heavy handed Shakespeare references. In order to make the film look important they lift the famous fast motion highway shots from Koyaanisqatsi and toss them in.
All the films lame pretensions could be forgiven if it was actually funny but it wasn’t. I’ll admit that I laughed once and chuckled about nine times. But for the most part the film failed to affect my funny bone.
** out of four
JBond said:
The Hustler
This movie wasn't what I was expecting, I was expecting a movie much like The Sting, full of tricks, deceit and suspense. But it wasn't about that at all, it was harldy even about pool, it was much more about character. That's kind of where I had a small problem about it, it was only about Paul Newman's character, "Fast Eddie". I guess I was hoping to learn more about the antagonist, Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), who turned out to hardly be in the movie. He won at the begining, lost at the end, and mostly stood around looking cool and respected.
Eddie was an interesting character though, but really only in the last 30 minutes or so. After his pathetic display at the begining of not knowing when to quit, there was this awkward courting part of the movie that lasted maybe 40 minutes where Eddie picked up a bigger loser than himself who was battling alcoholism and complusive lying. He practicly encouraged her behavior, slapped her around once or twice, and generally took advantage of her. This made it a little difficult to like his character, but in 1961 it was probably looked at differently. It also felt oddly placed in the movie, only in the end did I realize it's purpose. Only after his attitude (with the help of George C. Scott) pushed her to suicide did he develop enough character to have the endurance to beat Minnesota Fats...I guess, it seemed confusing to me. It would seemed to me all he had to do is not play til 7 in the morning.
Still, I enjoyed the movie which had some great moments and writing at times and Paul Newman is always fun to watch...though I still prefer him as the swarthy, cunning con-man as opposed to the pathetic, cocky, kid.
Overall, I would say that I'm sure it's a higher regarded movie than what I say of it, but like L.A. Story isn't for Dracula, The Hustler isn't right for me.
7.5/10
This movie wasn't what I was expecting, I was expecting a movie much like The Sting, full of tricks, deceit and suspense. But it wasn't about that at all, it was harldy even about pool, it was much more about character. That's kind of where I had a small problem about it, it was only about Paul Newman's character, "Fast Eddie". I guess I was hoping to learn more about the antagonist, Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), who turned out to hardly be in the movie. He won at the begining, lost at the end, and mostly stood around looking cool and respected.
Eddie was an interesting character though, but really only in the last 30 minutes or so. After his pathetic display at the begining of not knowing when to quit, there was this awkward courting part of the movie that lasted maybe 40 minutes where Eddie picked up a bigger loser than himself who was battling alcoholism and complusive lying. He practicly encouraged her behavior, slapped her around once or twice, and generally took advantage of her. This made it a little difficult to like his character, but in 1961 it was probably looked at differently. It also felt oddly placed in the movie, only in the end did I realize it's purpose. Only after his attitude (with the help of George C. Scott) pushed her to suicide did he develop enough character to have the endurance to beat Minnesota Fats...I guess, it seemed confusing to me. It would seemed to me all he had to do is not play til 7 in the morning.
Still, I enjoyed the movie which had some great moments and writing at times and Paul Newman is always fun to watch...though I still prefer him as the swarthy, cunning con-man as opposed to the pathetic, cocky, kid.
Overall, I would say that I'm sure it's a higher regarded movie than what I say of it, but like L.A. Story isn't for Dracula, The Hustler isn't right for me.
7.5/10
Round 5 (1/6/2007)
Dracula said:
Get Carter
Unfortunately my viewing of Get Carter was not under the best of circumstances. I was distracted at the time, my mind was in another place. Further I had to pause it a lot. Thus my opinion of the film will not be definitive and my review will not be up to my own usually high standards.
I went in to Get Carter with very high expectations. I had read somewhere that it had been voted the all time greatest British film of all time. The high regard the film is generally held in made me really look forward to this. So was it the greatest British film of all time? Hell no. But it did provide a relatively compelling crime movie.
I think my main problem with the movie was its lack of clear exposition early in the film. The film failed to explain what was going on early and as such never grabbed me.
What the film does succeed at are violence and T&A. I was not expecting such an action like appeal from such an acclaimed film. Still this material lacks the visceral thrills of something like Bullitt, the gritty realism of something like The French Connection, or the camp value of something like Shaft.
Still Caine is great in it and there were definitely great moments, the unexpected ending was also very shocking.
*** (out of four)
Unfortunately my viewing of Get Carter was not under the best of circumstances. I was distracted at the time, my mind was in another place. Further I had to pause it a lot. Thus my opinion of the film will not be definitive and my review will not be up to my own usually high standards.
I went in to Get Carter with very high expectations. I had read somewhere that it had been voted the all time greatest British film of all time. The high regard the film is generally held in made me really look forward to this. So was it the greatest British film of all time? Hell no. But it did provide a relatively compelling crime movie.
I think my main problem with the movie was its lack of clear exposition early in the film. The film failed to explain what was going on early and as such never grabbed me.
What the film does succeed at are violence and T&A. I was not expecting such an action like appeal from such an acclaimed film. Still this material lacks the visceral thrills of something like Bullitt, the gritty realism of something like The French Connection, or the camp value of something like Shaft.
Still Caine is great in it and there were definitely great moments, the unexpected ending was also very shocking.
*** (out of four)
Headhunter said:
Matchstick Men
I tend to find Nicolas Cage films a bit hit or Miss...he has done some great action films and some mighty crap too, so it was apprehension and hope that i chose this film. Nick cage did a great performance but then I aint good at judging performances. I think the best performance was from Alison Lohman who played the 14 year old despite being MUCH older in the reality of the charactor and real life....I didnt realise till I looked her up on IMDB.
The film is about 2 con artists as they try to make there fortune from coning innicent people into GIVING them there money, when Cages charactor finds out he has a daughter and she decides to meet her father and find out about his life. this is a decent enough story line to be going on with and its the twist at the end of the film that i didnt see comeing, tho i probably should have but i didnt, so it completly got me
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!: the con was on Cages charactor and EVERYONE was part of it, he lost everything
a good film and i give it a rating of 8/10
I tend to find Nicolas Cage films a bit hit or Miss...he has done some great action films and some mighty crap too, so it was apprehension and hope that i chose this film. Nick cage did a great performance but then I aint good at judging performances. I think the best performance was from Alison Lohman who played the 14 year old despite being MUCH older in the reality of the charactor and real life....I didnt realise till I looked her up on IMDB.
The film is about 2 con artists as they try to make there fortune from coning innicent people into GIVING them there money, when Cages charactor finds out he has a daughter and she decides to meet her father and find out about his life. this is a decent enough story line to be going on with and its the twist at the end of the film that i didnt see comeing, tho i probably should have but i didnt, so it completly got me
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!: the con was on Cages charactor and EVERYONE was part of it, he lost everything
a good film and i give it a rating of 8/10
Round 6 (1/23/2007)
Dracula said:
Fail-Safe
I once read a review of George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead. The reviewer liked some of the ideas behind the film, but wasn’t able to enjoy the movie. Having seen the zombie movie genre lampooned in Shaun of the Dead, this reviewer was unable to take that type of film seriously again. Fail-Safe brings us an example of this situation as well, but in this case we’re dealing with more heavy weight filmmakers.
In 1964, two films related to the possibility of a nuclear disaster in the wake of an accident opened, Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove. Both films feature airplanes heading towards Moscow planning to drop bombs because they’ve received the wrong orders, both films deal with a number of people in a war room desperately trying to stop the planes, both films show the president desperately trying to convince the Russian Premier that an accident was occurring, both films were shot in Black and White. The two films couldn’t have been more different.
Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove is a masterpiece of cinema, it takes the most dire and serious situation and has the courage to laugh in its face. Dr. Strangelove makes the exact same point as Fail-Safe, and it makes it better then any thriller ever could. Kubrick’s film really ruins Lumet’s Fail-Safe for me, which is unfortunate because Lumet’s film is really quite a respectable piece of work.
Fail-Safe has a certain mounting tension that every great thriller should have, it’s clear that Lumet’s experience in live television drama was put to full use here. The performances are all stellar, and the script is well written. Had Dr. Strangelove never been made, I would probably have gotten more out of Fail-Safe, unfortunately it was made, and it really kills most of Fail-Safe’s tension. [BLACKOUT]When Moscow finally is destroyed I couldn’t help but think of Slim Pickens riding the bomb down. [/BLACKOUT] The film does end in a perfect, shocking way however, and that that counts towards a lot.
*** out of four
I'm good for the next round
I once read a review of George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead. The reviewer liked some of the ideas behind the film, but wasn’t able to enjoy the movie. Having seen the zombie movie genre lampooned in Shaun of the Dead, this reviewer was unable to take that type of film seriously again. Fail-Safe brings us an example of this situation as well, but in this case we’re dealing with more heavy weight filmmakers.
In 1964, two films related to the possibility of a nuclear disaster in the wake of an accident opened, Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove. Both films feature airplanes heading towards Moscow planning to drop bombs because they’ve received the wrong orders, both films deal with a number of people in a war room desperately trying to stop the planes, both films show the president desperately trying to convince the Russian Premier that an accident was occurring, both films were shot in Black and White. The two films couldn’t have been more different.
Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove is a masterpiece of cinema, it takes the most dire and serious situation and has the courage to laugh in its face. Dr. Strangelove makes the exact same point as Fail-Safe, and it makes it better then any thriller ever could. Kubrick’s film really ruins Lumet’s Fail-Safe for me, which is unfortunate because Lumet’s film is really quite a respectable piece of work.
Fail-Safe has a certain mounting tension that every great thriller should have, it’s clear that Lumet’s experience in live television drama was put to full use here. The performances are all stellar, and the script is well written. Had Dr. Strangelove never been made, I would probably have gotten more out of Fail-Safe, unfortunately it was made, and it really kills most of Fail-Safe’s tension. [BLACKOUT]When Moscow finally is destroyed I couldn’t help but think of Slim Pickens riding the bomb down. [/BLACKOUT] The film does end in a perfect, shocking way however, and that that counts towards a lot.
*** out of four
I'm good for the next round
Doomsday said:
25th Hour
I'll be frank, I am not a fan of Spike Lee in any sense. I've seen only a few of his movies and I just don't like the guy, his direction, or what he really stands for. I went in thinking although Edward Norton is in this, this is still going to be a movie with some message saying how someone is being oppressed. I'm glad it went the other way, more focusing on struggle and living with your mistakes. There were many solid performances throughout, and Rosario Dawson even surprised me. Aside from Norton, to me the standout performance was Brian Cox, especially when he's driving Ed to jail. The end was a little ambiguous for me, but that didn't hurt the movie. You thought it was going to end one way, but then almost leaves it up to the viewer, which I thought was a good choice for this film. I enjoyed it.
B+ so says Doomsday
By the way, sign me up for next round.
I'll be frank, I am not a fan of Spike Lee in any sense. I've seen only a few of his movies and I just don't like the guy, his direction, or what he really stands for. I went in thinking although Edward Norton is in this, this is still going to be a movie with some message saying how someone is being oppressed. I'm glad it went the other way, more focusing on struggle and living with your mistakes. There were many solid performances throughout, and Rosario Dawson even surprised me. Aside from Norton, to me the standout performance was Brian Cox, especially when he's driving Ed to jail. The end was a little ambiguous for me, but that didn't hurt the movie. You thought it was going to end one way, but then almost leaves it up to the viewer, which I thought was a good choice for this film. I enjoyed it.
B+ so says Doomsday
By the way, sign me up for next round.
Round 7 (2/10/2007)
Dracula said:
The Warriors (1979)
The Warriors is a movie who’s main claim to fame remains two memorable lines:
“Can yoooou dig it?”
and
“Waaaarrrrrriiiorsss, come out to play-i-ay!”
It can be guessed by the fact that both of these lines are anchored by elongated words, that this isn’t a movie known for its subtle acting. Quite the opposite, the acting is the worst part of this thing.
Strangely the movie seems to have the same vision of the future as Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”. Both present vaguely dystopic futures populated by over the top gangs. The difference is that “A Clockwork Orange” is a very smart satire and “The Warriors” is a campy exploitation movie. The movie takes place in a near future where New York is swarming with over the top gangs. Cyrus, the leader of the largest gang, holds a meeting where all the gangs send delegates to discuss a plan to unite all the gangs and take over the city. Luther, the psychotic leader of a gang called The Rogues assassinates him and blames it on The Warriors. The rest of the film shows The Warriors trying to return to their Coney Island turf, with every gang in the city trying to stop them.
The main plot holes here are A. Why would anyone believe Luther when he accuses the Warriors of murdering Cyrus, the guy seems like a complete lunatic. B. The Warriors could easily escape if they just changed out of their costumes and split up.
The film could be enjoyed as the type of campy fare it seems to be trying to be, but it undermines this on a few occasions where it depicts The Warriors as Misogynistic rapists. There is a place for this type of material, but not in movies like this which are trying to be mindless entertainment. These scenes destroys all the sympathy the viewer has with The Warriors, and hence brings any fun the movie has built up to a screeching halt.
** out of four
The Warriors is a movie who’s main claim to fame remains two memorable lines:
“Can yoooou dig it?”
and
“Waaaarrrrrriiiorsss, come out to play-i-ay!”
It can be guessed by the fact that both of these lines are anchored by elongated words, that this isn’t a movie known for its subtle acting. Quite the opposite, the acting is the worst part of this thing.
Strangely the movie seems to have the same vision of the future as Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”. Both present vaguely dystopic futures populated by over the top gangs. The difference is that “A Clockwork Orange” is a very smart satire and “The Warriors” is a campy exploitation movie. The movie takes place in a near future where New York is swarming with over the top gangs. Cyrus, the leader of the largest gang, holds a meeting where all the gangs send delegates to discuss a plan to unite all the gangs and take over the city. Luther, the psychotic leader of a gang called The Rogues assassinates him and blames it on The Warriors. The rest of the film shows The Warriors trying to return to their Coney Island turf, with every gang in the city trying to stop them.
The main plot holes here are A. Why would anyone believe Luther when he accuses the Warriors of murdering Cyrus, the guy seems like a complete lunatic. B. The Warriors could easily escape if they just changed out of their costumes and split up.
The film could be enjoyed as the type of campy fare it seems to be trying to be, but it undermines this on a few occasions where it depicts The Warriors as Misogynistic rapists. There is a place for this type of material, but not in movies like this which are trying to be mindless entertainment. These scenes destroys all the sympathy the viewer has with The Warriors, and hence brings any fun the movie has built up to a screeching halt.
** out of four
Halo7 said:
Three Kings
Three Kings was a suprising movie. By the looks of it I was expecting some deep introspective drama on the Iraq war. I didn't expect C4 Nerf Footballs and dialouge on Michael Jackson. But I was not dissapointed with the product at all. Its hard to find such an enjoyable product focused around the Gulf War but Three Kings manages to pack enough action and emotion to make a very well balanced film. Although a very unrealistic vision the movie does make some very real statements about War policy that I thought was very nicely done. The movie never seems to take itself too seriously even when death and destruction is occuring. Very good film.
9/10
Three Kings was a suprising movie. By the looks of it I was expecting some deep introspective drama on the Iraq war. I didn't expect C4 Nerf Footballs and dialouge on Michael Jackson. But I was not dissapointed with the product at all. Its hard to find such an enjoyable product focused around the Gulf War but Three Kings manages to pack enough action and emotion to make a very well balanced film. Although a very unrealistic vision the movie does make some very real statements about War policy that I thought was very nicely done. The movie never seems to take itself too seriously even when death and destruction is occuring. Very good film.
9/10
Round 8 (2/28/2007)
Dracula said:
Stranger than Fiction
In the 90’s, an undeniable force emerged on the in the independent film world, that of Quinton Tarentino. Unfortunately, most of what was good about Tarentino was ripped off by every other aspiring filmmaker for the next decade. Everything from Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead to Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels came off as shameless rip-offs of Tarentino’s style. The new Marc Forster film Stranger than Fiction suggests that aspiring screenwriters have found a new voice to steal from: Charlie Kaufman.
The film revolves around Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), a dull IRS agent who lives a rather mundane life. One morning he begins to hear the voice of someone narrating his life like a third person omniscient narrator in a novel. The narrator eventually begins accurately predicting aspects of his future, eventually revealing that he will die later on in the story being told. This revelation of impending mortality inspires Crick to seize the day and seek a relationship with Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a baker he had an attraction to while visiting her shop on a tax audit.
Meanwhile it is apparent that the narration in Crick is hearing is in fact the text of a book being written by acclaimed author Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) who is suffering from writer’s block. Penny Escher (Queen Latifah) is a motivater that was sent by Eiffel’s publisher to help break her writers block. Dustin Hoffman is also featured as literary expert Jules Hilbert, who is aiding Crick in determining what variety of book he is living out.
The Charlie Kaufman influence is obvious on Zach Helm’s screenplay for Stranger than Fiction. The movie really wants to be a metafilm like Being John Malkovich, unfortunately the screenplay is more formulaic then it wants to be. The movie relies far to much on coincidence, for example, Crick discovers the author at the single most convenient possible time he could discover her. The “moral” of the story is explained in detail at the end, despite the fact that it is completely unsupported by the film that preceded it. Does anyone else notice that this notion of comedy and tragedy was analyzed to a greater degree in Woody Allen’s Melinda and Melinda which oddly also featured Will Ferrell?
There are problems with the characters as well. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Ana is a complete *****, and Ferrell’s Crick isn’t much of a prize either, it is unclear why these people would fall for each other. Thompson’s Eiffel does not seem like the literary genius she s made out to be and the book she is writing does not seem like a masterpiece, and Queen Latifah (in a role that was clearly written for Wanda Sykes) seems to only be present in order to give Eiffel someone to talk to.
The film’s quirks seem artificial, the CGI time tables that emerge throughout the first quarter of the film are completely gratuitous, they serve no purpose other then to add Gondry-esque visual trickery to the film. The dialogue is trying to hard to be quirky as well, when Hoffman’s character learns something about what the narrator has been telling Crick and decides to help him after having just said there was nothing he could do. Crick notes his sudden turn around and says: “Ten seconds ago you said there was nothing you could do” to which Hoffman replies “Its been a very revealing ten seconds.” Is it just me or does this exchange sound an awful lot like a similar conversation between Nicolas Cage and his pregnant girlfriend toward the beginning of the 1996 action film The Rock. What kind of hip metafilm rips dialogue from a Michael Bay movie?
There is a lot to complain about in Stranger than Fiction, but in reality it sort of works in spite of itself. There were clever moment throughout and I enjoyed most of the scenes, and there were definitely some good laughs to be had. Unfortunately the film doesn’t really come together to make a greater whole. This may be the first Kaufman-esque metafilm to be better enjoyed with the brain left at the door.
*** out of four
In the 90’s, an undeniable force emerged on the in the independent film world, that of Quinton Tarentino. Unfortunately, most of what was good about Tarentino was ripped off by every other aspiring filmmaker for the next decade. Everything from Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead to Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels came off as shameless rip-offs of Tarentino’s style. The new Marc Forster film Stranger than Fiction suggests that aspiring screenwriters have found a new voice to steal from: Charlie Kaufman.
The film revolves around Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), a dull IRS agent who lives a rather mundane life. One morning he begins to hear the voice of someone narrating his life like a third person omniscient narrator in a novel. The narrator eventually begins accurately predicting aspects of his future, eventually revealing that he will die later on in the story being told. This revelation of impending mortality inspires Crick to seize the day and seek a relationship with Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a baker he had an attraction to while visiting her shop on a tax audit.
Meanwhile it is apparent that the narration in Crick is hearing is in fact the text of a book being written by acclaimed author Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) who is suffering from writer’s block. Penny Escher (Queen Latifah) is a motivater that was sent by Eiffel’s publisher to help break her writers block. Dustin Hoffman is also featured as literary expert Jules Hilbert, who is aiding Crick in determining what variety of book he is living out.
The Charlie Kaufman influence is obvious on Zach Helm’s screenplay for Stranger than Fiction. The movie really wants to be a metafilm like Being John Malkovich, unfortunately the screenplay is more formulaic then it wants to be. The movie relies far to much on coincidence, for example, Crick discovers the author at the single most convenient possible time he could discover her. The “moral” of the story is explained in detail at the end, despite the fact that it is completely unsupported by the film that preceded it. Does anyone else notice that this notion of comedy and tragedy was analyzed to a greater degree in Woody Allen’s Melinda and Melinda which oddly also featured Will Ferrell?
There are problems with the characters as well. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Ana is a complete *****, and Ferrell’s Crick isn’t much of a prize either, it is unclear why these people would fall for each other. Thompson’s Eiffel does not seem like the literary genius she s made out to be and the book she is writing does not seem like a masterpiece, and Queen Latifah (in a role that was clearly written for Wanda Sykes) seems to only be present in order to give Eiffel someone to talk to.
The film’s quirks seem artificial, the CGI time tables that emerge throughout the first quarter of the film are completely gratuitous, they serve no purpose other then to add Gondry-esque visual trickery to the film. The dialogue is trying to hard to be quirky as well, when Hoffman’s character learns something about what the narrator has been telling Crick and decides to help him after having just said there was nothing he could do. Crick notes his sudden turn around and says: “Ten seconds ago you said there was nothing you could do” to which Hoffman replies “Its been a very revealing ten seconds.” Is it just me or does this exchange sound an awful lot like a similar conversation between Nicolas Cage and his pregnant girlfriend toward the beginning of the 1996 action film The Rock. What kind of hip metafilm rips dialogue from a Michael Bay movie?
There is a lot to complain about in Stranger than Fiction, but in reality it sort of works in spite of itself. There were clever moment throughout and I enjoyed most of the scenes, and there were definitely some good laughs to be had. Unfortunately the film doesn’t really come together to make a greater whole. This may be the first Kaufman-esque metafilm to be better enjoyed with the brain left at the door.
*** out of four
dr evil said:
Nixon
I have to admit I was not looking foward to watching this film. From reading the films synopsis i thought that it would be a boring 3 1/2 hour history lesson, and while yes it was basically a 3 1/2 hour history lesson, it wasnt boring.
I am not really sure what to say about this film other than that i thought it was good.
7.5/10
Sorry i didnt say that much about the film, but i couldnt think of anything else to say. I might add more later.
I have to admit I was not looking foward to watching this film. From reading the films synopsis i thought that it would be a boring 3 1/2 hour history lesson, and while yes it was basically a 3 1/2 hour history lesson, it wasnt boring.
I am not really sure what to say about this film other than that i thought it was good.
7.5/10
Sorry i didnt say that much about the film, but i couldnt think of anything else to say. I might add more later.
Round 9 (3/18/2007)
Dracula said:
J.S.A.: Joint Security Area
South Korea has become the new powerhouse of Asian cinema in recent years. Japan used to be the biggest cinema nation in Asia, later it was Hong Kong, but today South Korean cinema is at the height of its international fame. This new-found fame has been largely due to the work of Chan-Wook Park, especially his 2003 film Oldboy which won the Gran Prix at the Cannes Film Festival. Oldboy was in fact the middle part of a trilogy of films centered around the theme of revenge. I loved Oldboy, but had serious reservations about the other films in that trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance.) Beginning to fear that Park is a one hit wonder, I checked out an earlier film of his, JSA (the oldest of his films to be released in the USA), with hesitation.
JSA directly explores the tensions between North and South Korea. A shooting incident has occurred in the demilitarized zone leading to a military stand-off between the two sides of the peninsula. A Swiss-Korean officer is sent in to conduct a neutral investigation of the incident. The investigation leads her to learn of a friendship that formed between two North Korean Soldiers and two South Korean Soldiers, a friendship that turns deadly.
JSA was an interesting work, it seems to be making a very interesting, albeit fairly obvious, message about the tensions between North and South Korea. It is a well made and well directed movie. Unfortunately the characters are not very interesting or well developed. The investigative flashback structure has also been used more effectively in a number of other movies.
Many of the elements in the movie have been seen in other films. The film’s structure is reminiscent of Rashomon (1950) via A Soldier’s Story (1984) and Courage Under Fire (1996.) The “fraternizing enemies heading for disaster” elements are reminiscent of A Midnight Clear (1992.)
All in all, JSA is a good movie. It’s well made and it makes an interesting statement. I just wish they had made for a more interesting human story to make their statement with. I hope someday I’ll see a Chan-Wook Park movie that lives up to Oldboy, but this isn’t it.
*** out of four
Sorry this is late, I’m good for the next round.
South Korea has become the new powerhouse of Asian cinema in recent years. Japan used to be the biggest cinema nation in Asia, later it was Hong Kong, but today South Korean cinema is at the height of its international fame. This new-found fame has been largely due to the work of Chan-Wook Park, especially his 2003 film Oldboy which won the Gran Prix at the Cannes Film Festival. Oldboy was in fact the middle part of a trilogy of films centered around the theme of revenge. I loved Oldboy, but had serious reservations about the other films in that trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance.) Beginning to fear that Park is a one hit wonder, I checked out an earlier film of his, JSA (the oldest of his films to be released in the USA), with hesitation.
JSA directly explores the tensions between North and South Korea. A shooting incident has occurred in the demilitarized zone leading to a military stand-off between the two sides of the peninsula. A Swiss-Korean officer is sent in to conduct a neutral investigation of the incident. The investigation leads her to learn of a friendship that formed between two North Korean Soldiers and two South Korean Soldiers, a friendship that turns deadly.
JSA was an interesting work, it seems to be making a very interesting, albeit fairly obvious, message about the tensions between North and South Korea. It is a well made and well directed movie. Unfortunately the characters are not very interesting or well developed. The investigative flashback structure has also been used more effectively in a number of other movies.
Many of the elements in the movie have been seen in other films. The film’s structure is reminiscent of Rashomon (1950) via A Soldier’s Story (1984) and Courage Under Fire (1996.) The “fraternizing enemies heading for disaster” elements are reminiscent of A Midnight Clear (1992.)
All in all, JSA is a good movie. It’s well made and it makes an interesting statement. I just wish they had made for a more interesting human story to make their statement with. I hope someday I’ll see a Chan-Wook Park movie that lives up to Oldboy, but this isn’t it.
*** out of four
Sorry this is late, I’m good for the next round.
droidguy1119 said:
I will do you one (three) better and I will make a valiant attempt to watch all four movies before the end of the round.
I'll get back to you on your movies sometime tomorrow cause I know you've seen a lot of movies so I'll try to make a larger list.
I'll get back to you on your movies sometime tomorrow cause I know you've seen a lot of movies so I'll try to make a larger list.
droidguy1119 said:
Here are two of my reviews. I'll get the other two up tomorrow.
I watched both of these almost two weeks ago and have been trying to watch the other two. My thoughts are a little fuzzy, had I been smarter I would have written the reviews much sooner.
Road to Perdition
I have had Road to Perdition on my list of movies to watch for quite some time now. I think, perhaps, a picture had begun to form in my head of the kind of movie it would be, and the final product was not quite what I had imagined.
My biggest complaint about the movie is mildly ridiculous, but I think a relevant point to make. Like Mendes' first movie, the film is scored by Thomas Newman, who would also go on to score Mendes' most recent movie, Jarhead. Having seen Jarhead, my problem with the score for Road to Perdition is that, unlike the later movie, I can hardly tell the difference between some parts of the score and the score for American Beauty, most particularly a sequence in Perdition involving the same plucky, frantic notes that play every time Kevin Spacey fantasizes about Mena Suvari. I felt that Newman's score failed to set the movie in the proper place for the first half of the movie, and found it an unnecessary distraction. One part of the ending was overwhelmingly predictable. Additionally, the film was not quite as gritty as I had imagined. I suppose that's not a flaw against it, but it lessened some of the tension and urgency for me.
The things I appreciated were Jude Law's creepy photographer villain, especially during the scene in a hotel room with Dylan Baker -- in my opinion, the best sequence in the movie. Tom Hanks is also excellent, in the scenes where he robs the first bank, the scene at the farmhouse with his son talking about the differences between Michael (Tyler Hoechlin) and Peter (Liam Aiken).
Given how much I like American Beauty and how much I really enjoyed Jarhead, I have to admit that I found Road to Perdition a little underwhemling. It was far from bad and overall I enjoyed it, but as a sophomore effort and as a film in general it feels slightly inferior to Mendes first and most recent films.
Stars (out of four): ***
Traffic
Traffic is another film I've been meaning to watch for some time. I have not seen many of Soderbergh's movies -- in fact, outside of the Ocean's Eleven series, I believe I have only seen one film of his, Bubble, an overly experimental film that I appreciated for its technique but hated for many of the elements of its story. Bubble is a film that insistently avoids concrete resolution, letting the picture sit in the audience's mind, and sit it does. At least it is a memorable picture, I suppose. Traffic is not as inconclusive as Bubble, but I did think that perhaps it was building towards something more than the movie delivers.
There are multiple stories on display. They are all interesting, although the one I liked the most was that of Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman, who are trying to get a notorious drug dealer played by Miguel Ferrer to testify against a contact in America who gets the drugs (in this case cocaine) across the border. I'm not sure why I found it the most interesting, perhaps it is because Ferrer is given a genuine character as opposed to a one-dimensional criminal.
I watched both of these almost two weeks ago and have been trying to watch the other two. My thoughts are a little fuzzy, had I been smarter I would have written the reviews much sooner.
Road to Perdition
I have had Road to Perdition on my list of movies to watch for quite some time now. I think, perhaps, a picture had begun to form in my head of the kind of movie it would be, and the final product was not quite what I had imagined.
My biggest complaint about the movie is mildly ridiculous, but I think a relevant point to make. Like Mendes' first movie, the film is scored by Thomas Newman, who would also go on to score Mendes' most recent movie, Jarhead. Having seen Jarhead, my problem with the score for Road to Perdition is that, unlike the later movie, I can hardly tell the difference between some parts of the score and the score for American Beauty, most particularly a sequence in Perdition involving the same plucky, frantic notes that play every time Kevin Spacey fantasizes about Mena Suvari. I felt that Newman's score failed to set the movie in the proper place for the first half of the movie, and found it an unnecessary distraction. One part of the ending was overwhelmingly predictable. Additionally, the film was not quite as gritty as I had imagined. I suppose that's not a flaw against it, but it lessened some of the tension and urgency for me.
The things I appreciated were Jude Law's creepy photographer villain, especially during the scene in a hotel room with Dylan Baker -- in my opinion, the best sequence in the movie. Tom Hanks is also excellent, in the scenes where he robs the first bank, the scene at the farmhouse with his son talking about the differences between Michael (Tyler Hoechlin) and Peter (Liam Aiken).
Given how much I like American Beauty and how much I really enjoyed Jarhead, I have to admit that I found Road to Perdition a little underwhemling. It was far from bad and overall I enjoyed it, but as a sophomore effort and as a film in general it feels slightly inferior to Mendes first and most recent films.
Stars (out of four): ***
Traffic
Traffic is another film I've been meaning to watch for some time. I have not seen many of Soderbergh's movies -- in fact, outside of the Ocean's Eleven series, I believe I have only seen one film of his, Bubble, an overly experimental film that I appreciated for its technique but hated for many of the elements of its story. Bubble is a film that insistently avoids concrete resolution, letting the picture sit in the audience's mind, and sit it does. At least it is a memorable picture, I suppose. Traffic is not as inconclusive as Bubble, but I did think that perhaps it was building towards something more than the movie delivers.
There are multiple stories on display. They are all interesting, although the one I liked the most was that of Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman, who are trying to get a notorious drug dealer played by Miguel Ferrer to testify against a contact in America who gets the drugs (in this case cocaine) across the border. I'm not sure why I found it the most interesting, perhaps it is because Ferrer is given a genuine character as opposed to a one-dimensional criminal.
It's not a criticism against the movie, but I was disappointed to see the character die -- after being smart enough to avoid the car, wouldn't he be at least suspcious when his eggs taste funny? Oh well.
Up next is the story of Erika Christensen and her father, Michael Douglas. She is a drug addict, he is the new man in America hired by the government to fight the war on drugs. Watching her fall into the trap of drugs is both disappointing and annoying (I am extremely anti-drug), while Douglas fights with the decision of focusing on the country or focusing on his daughter.
My biggest problem with this story is that Christensen, who starts out nice and slowly turns into an angry, embittered addict, is let off quite easily by the movie -- she never seems to feel remorse for what she's done and yet the movie lets her off the hook at the end, seemingly placing her, happy, in recovery despite an intense resistance only minutes before. It would have been nice to have one more scene in between the one where Douglas finds her on the bed and when she's in the meeting, thanking her parents.
I could say more about the other stories, but I'm not sure what. All in all, Traffic is a skillful and intriguing movie, and, like Bubble, despite my reservations, many of the images will probably stick in my brain, picking at themselves, until I have to watch it again.
Stars (out of four): ***
Round 10 (4/3/2007 IMDB Round)
Dracula said:
For a Few Dollars More
My experiance with Sergio Leone has been mixed. I have never finished A Fistful of Dollars, somthing about that movie just doesn't grab me, the fact that it is basiclly a remake of Yojimbo didn't help. There were some interesting things going on in that movie, but I don't think it really worked. On the other end of the spectrum I think TG,TB,&TU is really great and OUATITW is a straight up masterpiece. I don't think For a Few Dollars More is quite up to the standards of his last two films but it is a solid film, fitting right in with the trend of improvement I've noticed among Leone's westerns.
The film is about two bounty hunters played by Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef who are both trying to find the same bandit played by Gian Maria Volontè who has a $10,000 price on his head. This bandit, named El Indio, is working with a fourteen member gang, so Eastwood and Van Cleef hesitantly decide to form an alliance against him.
The story here is simple and to the point. The production values here are nothing to write home about, and the dubbing crazyness seems more annoying here then in later Leone flicks. Leone's style simply isn't fully formed here, but it is preasent enough to make watching For a Few Dollars More pretty damn enjoyable.
Leone isn't a master here, but his experimentation in these Dollars films pay off in a big way in Leone's next two films.
*** out of four
My experiance with Sergio Leone has been mixed. I have never finished A Fistful of Dollars, somthing about that movie just doesn't grab me, the fact that it is basiclly a remake of Yojimbo didn't help. There were some interesting things going on in that movie, but I don't think it really worked. On the other end of the spectrum I think TG,TB,&TU is really great and OUATITW is a straight up masterpiece. I don't think For a Few Dollars More is quite up to the standards of his last two films but it is a solid film, fitting right in with the trend of improvement I've noticed among Leone's westerns.
The film is about two bounty hunters played by Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef who are both trying to find the same bandit played by Gian Maria Volontè who has a $10,000 price on his head. This bandit, named El Indio, is working with a fourteen member gang, so Eastwood and Van Cleef hesitantly decide to form an alliance against him.
The story here is simple and to the point. The production values here are nothing to write home about, and the dubbing crazyness seems more annoying here then in later Leone flicks. Leone's style simply isn't fully formed here, but it is preasent enough to make watching For a Few Dollars More pretty damn enjoyable.
Leone isn't a master here, but his experimentation in these Dollars films pay off in a big way in Leone's next two films.
*** out of four
shained said:
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Like jbond i too didnt know this was on for over 3 hours when i sat down to watch it, alos like him though i found it a very enjoyable 3 hours. I'm not the biggest retro fan of movies and black and white films are not usually my choice, knowing the age of the fiilm, over 50 yrs old, the fact it was in black and white and then the fact it was over 3 hours long i was not overly enfused about seeing it desite its high ranking on imdb. The film starts relatively slow paced introducing the village and providing the story for their problems, the fact everytime they harvest bandits come in and steal all their food and take their women. Thhe story then fllows 4 of the vllages as they travel to a nearby town to hire some samurai to fight off the impending attack from the bandits, the problem being they only have food and shelter to offer and no money. Eventualy they get a rag tag bunch of samurai , well 5 are samurai ones a youngish kid and 1, well you dont know what he is but hes the funniest and best character in the entire film Kikuchiyo. In the second hour of the film he has so many great one liners and tantrums its very much like a comedy, he was hilarious and the best character in it imo he provided so much comic relief from the distraught villagers and overwhelming odds against the bandits and i think the film would have seemed overlong without his character. Even though Kikuchiyo was my favourite Katsushiro, think it was him anyway, he's the cool hard one of the bunch. One of them characters who is always silent but kicks ass when it comes to battle, i always love them . The battle sequence near the end is very good considering its age, some of it is a bit dated but what do you expect from a film over 50 years old. In the end the film does have a slightly depressing message but overall it is one of triumph in the face of adversity, honour and as was mentioned before selflessness.
Overall a very good film 8/10, would possibly have gotten a 9 or even a 10 if it was watched closer to the time it was made. The 3 hours seemed a breeze
I'll be in for the next roud
Like jbond i too didnt know this was on for over 3 hours when i sat down to watch it, alos like him though i found it a very enjoyable 3 hours. I'm not the biggest retro fan of movies and black and white films are not usually my choice, knowing the age of the fiilm, over 50 yrs old, the fact it was in black and white and then the fact it was over 3 hours long i was not overly enfused about seeing it desite its high ranking on imdb. The film starts relatively slow paced introducing the village and providing the story for their problems, the fact everytime they harvest bandits come in and steal all their food and take their women. Thhe story then fllows 4 of the vllages as they travel to a nearby town to hire some samurai to fight off the impending attack from the bandits, the problem being they only have food and shelter to offer and no money. Eventualy they get a rag tag bunch of samurai , well 5 are samurai ones a youngish kid and 1, well you dont know what he is but hes the funniest and best character in the entire film Kikuchiyo. In the second hour of the film he has so many great one liners and tantrums its very much like a comedy, he was hilarious and the best character in it imo he provided so much comic relief from the distraught villagers and overwhelming odds against the bandits and i think the film would have seemed overlong without his character. Even though Kikuchiyo was my favourite Katsushiro, think it was him anyway, he's the cool hard one of the bunch. One of them characters who is always silent but kicks ass when it comes to battle, i always love them . The battle sequence near the end is very good considering its age, some of it is a bit dated but what do you expect from a film over 50 years old. In the end the film does have a slightly depressing message but overall it is one of triumph in the face of adversity, honour and as was mentioned before selflessness.
Overall a very good film 8/10, would possibly have gotten a 9 or even a 10 if it was watched closer to the time it was made. The 3 hours seemed a breeze
I'll be in for the next roud
To Be Continued...
