Monday, June 30, 2003
Fatal Attraction is certainly a disturbing storyline: happily married man meets woman and has an affair with her and then she goes psycho and refuses to leave him alone. Michael Douglas and Glenn Close are the leads. I think the fact that I don't like Glenn Close made it easier to hate her character, who is one of the most disturbing characters ever on the screen. She doesn't seem to be able to let go to Douglas- she starts by calling him all the time, and then visits him at work, and then when she sees that things aren't going her way she does drastic stuff like pouring acid on Douglas' car and boiling his daughter's prized rabbit. This woman is so sick that we actually feel sorry for the hell she puts Douglas and his family through, even though he is morally bankrupt, cheating on his wife.
The movie is a gradual buildup of tension like most good thrillers, and culminates in some very tense moments at the end. A caveat: I am going to talk about the ending. I had a few problems with the ending and how it was done. First of all, Douglas goes to Close's apartment with the intention of killing her and strangles her before he decides not to. Then Close comes at him with a knife and he fends her off. All this is very tense and would be a great ending but it isn't enough, because immediately after this scene we go through the next 5 minutes which are a kind of cool down period before the final climax. And during the climax, Douglas subdues Close, who is trying to attack his wife (played well by Anne Archer), and submerges her head in the bathtub full of water. It appears that she has drowned but a few seconds later you can see a few bubbles on the surface which is a hint that she is still breathing. Then all of a sudden she pops back up violently to try to kill Douglas. I don't care if she is still alive, if she was held under water for a long time she would not have the strange to spring back to life the way she does in the film. I thought this was too unrealistic.
Overall the film is very good at building the pressure and the level of anxiety in the film until it reaches the conclusion. The performances by the leads are very strong. I question the casting of the daughter, who actually looks like a boy. I didn't understand that. Otherwise a solid film.
Scott's Rating:
Fatal Attraction : 3 stars
The movie is a gradual buildup of tension like most good thrillers, and culminates in some very tense moments at the end. A caveat: I am going to talk about the ending. I had a few problems with the ending and how it was done. First of all, Douglas goes to Close's apartment with the intention of killing her and strangles her before he decides not to. Then Close comes at him with a knife and he fends her off. All this is very tense and would be a great ending but it isn't enough, because immediately after this scene we go through the next 5 minutes which are a kind of cool down period before the final climax. And during the climax, Douglas subdues Close, who is trying to attack his wife (played well by Anne Archer), and submerges her head in the bathtub full of water. It appears that she has drowned but a few seconds later you can see a few bubbles on the surface which is a hint that she is still breathing. Then all of a sudden she pops back up violently to try to kill Douglas. I don't care if she is still alive, if she was held under water for a long time she would not have the strange to spring back to life the way she does in the film. I thought this was too unrealistic.
Overall the film is very good at building the pressure and the level of anxiety in the film until it reaches the conclusion. The performances by the leads are very strong. I question the casting of the daughter, who actually looks like a boy. I didn't understand that. Otherwise a solid film.
Scott's Rating:
Fatal Attraction : 3 stars
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
John Wayne has made almost exclusively two types of movies in his career: westerns in which he is a hero, saves a town, and shoots all the bad guys, and war films where he is the hero, fights for his country, and shoots all the bad guys. Most of his war films, in fact almost all, are about WWII but The Green Berets is actually about Vietnam. I was surprised even to realize that he was still alive in the late 1960s. Anyway, to the film.
The film is made in the late 1960s, so it is still while the war is going on. It is about an outfit of Green Berets (hence the title) that are led by Col. Kirby (Wayne) to really two different stages: the first part they are forced to defend a camp in Vietnam from attack, and then a group of them go on a special op to capture a general and blow up a few things. I personally thought that the first part was not as strong as the second part. While the Vietcong is attacking the camp it's pretty hard to figure out exactly what is going on and who is where. And I just thought that it was kinda stupid that these guys are totally outmanned and forced to abandon the camp and then the next day a plane comes in and wipes out the Vietcong so the Americans go right back in and start to rebuild. I thought that that was rather unrealistic.
And the second part of the film is really totally unrelated to the whole agenda of the first part, almost as if the movie is really just two little episodes. The second part is better, though, and more interesting. I thought the detail of the plan to capture the general and the little human-interest stories interwoven had a nice touch. I had a little problem with the film's conclusion, though, just because it was so unresolved. War movies are supposed to have endings where the main character leaves the war, or dies, or the war ends, or something. That's how we know that it's a story from start to finish rather than just two and a half hours of shoot the bad guy. Unfortunately we do not get that in this film.
The Green Berets is not anti-war or pro-war but rather lets the viewer make up their mind as to how they are going to take it, because it can be interpreted both ways. And I respect the film for that. While a little bit dated with the special effects (the light red colored blood, for example) it's still viewable today and you can get something out of it. Not the best Vietnam war film I've ever seen, in fact, the same film could have really been made about any war. Not a bad film though!
Scott's Rating:
The Green Berets : 3 stars
The film is made in the late 1960s, so it is still while the war is going on. It is about an outfit of Green Berets (hence the title) that are led by Col. Kirby (Wayne) to really two different stages: the first part they are forced to defend a camp in Vietnam from attack, and then a group of them go on a special op to capture a general and blow up a few things. I personally thought that the first part was not as strong as the second part. While the Vietcong is attacking the camp it's pretty hard to figure out exactly what is going on and who is where. And I just thought that it was kinda stupid that these guys are totally outmanned and forced to abandon the camp and then the next day a plane comes in and wipes out the Vietcong so the Americans go right back in and start to rebuild. I thought that that was rather unrealistic.
And the second part of the film is really totally unrelated to the whole agenda of the first part, almost as if the movie is really just two little episodes. The second part is better, though, and more interesting. I thought the detail of the plan to capture the general and the little human-interest stories interwoven had a nice touch. I had a little problem with the film's conclusion, though, just because it was so unresolved. War movies are supposed to have endings where the main character leaves the war, or dies, or the war ends, or something. That's how we know that it's a story from start to finish rather than just two and a half hours of shoot the bad guy. Unfortunately we do not get that in this film.
The Green Berets is not anti-war or pro-war but rather lets the viewer make up their mind as to how they are going to take it, because it can be interpreted both ways. And I respect the film for that. While a little bit dated with the special effects (the light red colored blood, for example) it's still viewable today and you can get something out of it. Not the best Vietnam war film I've ever seen, in fact, the same film could have really been made about any war. Not a bad film though!
Scott's Rating:
The Green Berets : 3 stars
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Murder by Death is a movie that makes fun of pretty much every famous detective ever depicted on film. Nick and Nora Charles, Miss Marple, Sam Spade, Hercule Poirot, and some guy who in the film is called Sidney Wang. Anyway, a man invites them all to his house for dinner and a murder, and the plot thickens. This movie was difficult for me to watch simply because I had it on tape, watched the first 40 minutes, then accidentally taped over it. So I had to wait until it came on TV again. Fortunately it was on within a week and so this time I watched the rest live so I didn't take any chances with my VCR.
The movie has a good cast, including Peter Sellers, Peter Falk, Maggie Smith, Alec Guiness, and David Niven. Out of all of them the one that gave me the most laughs by far was Sellers' Wang. Funny stuff. Anyway, the movie is pretty funny overall but gets downright ridiculous near the end as all the detectives try to top each other with ridiculous stories that is only topped by the most ridiculous situation of them all, which is the actual truth of the situation. The movie is written by Neil Simon so you know the comedy is going to be good, and it is, but when it crosses the line and becomes way too bizarre that's when the appeal goes down.
Scott's Rating:
Murder by Death : 2.5 stars
The movie has a good cast, including Peter Sellers, Peter Falk, Maggie Smith, Alec Guiness, and David Niven. Out of all of them the one that gave me the most laughs by far was Sellers' Wang. Funny stuff. Anyway, the movie is pretty funny overall but gets downright ridiculous near the end as all the detectives try to top each other with ridiculous stories that is only topped by the most ridiculous situation of them all, which is the actual truth of the situation. The movie is written by Neil Simon so you know the comedy is going to be good, and it is, but when it crosses the line and becomes way too bizarre that's when the appeal goes down.
Scott's Rating:
Murder by Death : 2.5 stars
Saturday, June 21, 2003
"Who was Joan of Arc?"
"uh...Noah's wife?"
One of the memorable early scenes in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I am ashamed to admit that I had never seen this film before, except for the first 10 minutes or so. The '80s saw so many of these teen films, both of the Breakfast Club variety and of the similar Fast Times variety. And I also saw a lot of comparisons between this film and the later Wayne's World. The plot is rather simple: Bill and Ted (Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves) must get an A+ on their oral report in history the next day or they flunk and Ted is sent off to military school in Alaska. In comes Rufus (George Carlin) to take them on an adventure in a time travel phone booth and they proceed to bring back historical figures for their report. The funniest scenes in this movie are watching the overtly stereotypical performances of the historical figures. The scene that I laughed at the most is when they are all put in jail and Sigmund Freud questions the interrogator about his mother.
At 90 minutes the movie is fast paced and short but sweet but a movie like that really couldn't pull it off if it was much longer. As it is I think there were a few scenes of Napoleon that could have been left out. The movie is not uproariously funny, but it has its moments. It is an amusing teen comedy, and an entertaining movie.
Scott's Rating:
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure : 3.5 stars
"uh...Noah's wife?"
One of the memorable early scenes in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I am ashamed to admit that I had never seen this film before, except for the first 10 minutes or so. The '80s saw so many of these teen films, both of the Breakfast Club variety and of the similar Fast Times variety. And I also saw a lot of comparisons between this film and the later Wayne's World. The plot is rather simple: Bill and Ted (Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves) must get an A+ on their oral report in history the next day or they flunk and Ted is sent off to military school in Alaska. In comes Rufus (George Carlin) to take them on an adventure in a time travel phone booth and they proceed to bring back historical figures for their report. The funniest scenes in this movie are watching the overtly stereotypical performances of the historical figures. The scene that I laughed at the most is when they are all put in jail and Sigmund Freud questions the interrogator about his mother.
At 90 minutes the movie is fast paced and short but sweet but a movie like that really couldn't pull it off if it was much longer. As it is I think there were a few scenes of Napoleon that could have been left out. The movie is not uproariously funny, but it has its moments. It is an amusing teen comedy, and an entertaining movie.
Scott's Rating:
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure : 3.5 stars
Thursday, June 19, 2003
The movie Family Business centers around a burglary. The elements seem to be all there for a success, but the execution is botched. The burglary? Yes, but this also describes the whole movie. The elements are in place for a great movie: just take a look at the McMullen family. Jesse McMullen is the eldest, played by Sean Connery. His son, Vito, is played by Dustin Hoffman. And Vito's son, Adam, is played by Matthew Broderick. The movie is really about the relationships between those three characters. But pretty much everything goes wrong.
First of all, the lineage doesn't make sense. Jesse is Scottish (ok that works), but he apparently had Vito with an Italian so Vito is half Italian. Dustin Hoffman...an Italian? Doesn't seem likely. And then Vito is married to a Jewish woman who had Adam, who is half Jewish. This works, because Matthew Broderick is Jewish, but the half that he is Jewish is from his mother, and last time I checked...Dustin Hoffman is Jewish! These things tend to bother me.
To put the plot in simplest terms, Jesse is a big swindler who lives a life of crime, Vito did at one point but shied away from it because he wants his son Adam to live a life free of what he grew up with. Adam feels smothered by his father, and eventually finds out an "easy" burglary that he wants both his father and his grandfather to do with him. They do, and in the process try to rebuild their relationships, and perhaps find out more about themselves. The burglary, as the audience can see coming from a mile away, is no good; there are problems and Adam gets caught.
But, in the end, it seems the only thing that the people involved find out about themselves is that they like to be criminals. The thing about that is that I thought the whole movie was trying to show how they disavow the life of crime and band together. It's as if the logical plot was just thrown out of the window. Jesse ends up going to prison for 15 years, and suddenly while in prison a short time, dies. It is hard to believe that Sean Connery, 15 years ago, would die of natural causes when self-admittedly in the movie he is only in his 60s.
The one credit I give to this film is that the acting is decent. You know a good actor when he can take a bad movie and still have a good performance. And out of the three, I thought that Dustin Hoffman did the best job. I believe that he has the purest acting talent out of the three. Connery and Broderick are both entertainment-type actors, that fit one role and play that wonderfully and entertain the audience but don't have premium acting value. Connery is defined by James Bond, and Broderick is defined by Ferris Bueller, and that is that. Hoffman can play such a variety of roles (from a woman in Tootsie to an autistic man in Rain Man), and although he spends half the film yelling and screaming, which was a bit tasteless, he does a good job.
One thing I want to say about this film is that the music score is terrible! The music that they play while the caper is being attempted does not fit at all with the situation, and the closing credits song is terribly out of place. Sean Connery's character has just died and there is a very somber moment as Hoffman and Broderick spread his ashes and there is a shot of the ashes being blown away as a very upbeat song is played. Talk about tasteless! I think the guy that was in charge of the music score must have been on acid when he worked on this movie.
Ok well I've spent most of the time bashing Family Business, and for the acting talents it's disappointing but if you like Sean Connery, or Dustin Hoffman, or Matthew Broderick, or all three as I do, you might get a kick out of it.
Scott's Rating:
Family Business : 1.5 stars
First of all, the lineage doesn't make sense. Jesse is Scottish (ok that works), but he apparently had Vito with an Italian so Vito is half Italian. Dustin Hoffman...an Italian? Doesn't seem likely. And then Vito is married to a Jewish woman who had Adam, who is half Jewish. This works, because Matthew Broderick is Jewish, but the half that he is Jewish is from his mother, and last time I checked...Dustin Hoffman is Jewish! These things tend to bother me.
To put the plot in simplest terms, Jesse is a big swindler who lives a life of crime, Vito did at one point but shied away from it because he wants his son Adam to live a life free of what he grew up with. Adam feels smothered by his father, and eventually finds out an "easy" burglary that he wants both his father and his grandfather to do with him. They do, and in the process try to rebuild their relationships, and perhaps find out more about themselves. The burglary, as the audience can see coming from a mile away, is no good; there are problems and Adam gets caught.
But, in the end, it seems the only thing that the people involved find out about themselves is that they like to be criminals. The thing about that is that I thought the whole movie was trying to show how they disavow the life of crime and band together. It's as if the logical plot was just thrown out of the window. Jesse ends up going to prison for 15 years, and suddenly while in prison a short time, dies. It is hard to believe that Sean Connery, 15 years ago, would die of natural causes when self-admittedly in the movie he is only in his 60s.
The one credit I give to this film is that the acting is decent. You know a good actor when he can take a bad movie and still have a good performance. And out of the three, I thought that Dustin Hoffman did the best job. I believe that he has the purest acting talent out of the three. Connery and Broderick are both entertainment-type actors, that fit one role and play that wonderfully and entertain the audience but don't have premium acting value. Connery is defined by James Bond, and Broderick is defined by Ferris Bueller, and that is that. Hoffman can play such a variety of roles (from a woman in Tootsie to an autistic man in Rain Man), and although he spends half the film yelling and screaming, which was a bit tasteless, he does a good job.
One thing I want to say about this film is that the music score is terrible! The music that they play while the caper is being attempted does not fit at all with the situation, and the closing credits song is terribly out of place. Sean Connery's character has just died and there is a very somber moment as Hoffman and Broderick spread his ashes and there is a shot of the ashes being blown away as a very upbeat song is played. Talk about tasteless! I think the guy that was in charge of the music score must have been on acid when he worked on this movie.
Ok well I've spent most of the time bashing Family Business, and for the acting talents it's disappointing but if you like Sean Connery, or Dustin Hoffman, or Matthew Broderick, or all three as I do, you might get a kick out of it.
Scott's Rating:
Family Business : 1.5 stars
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
I just watched the film Castle Keep. Is this a comedy? a drama? a war movie? No, it's none of these, it's just the genre called a TERRIBLE movie. The movie, made in 1969, is about a group of 8 soldiers that happening to be wandering around Belgium in 1944 and stumble upon a castle that they take up residence. Burt Lancaster plays Major Falconer, a one-eyed man that romances the woman of the castle, because her husband is impotent and wants a son. Peter Falk plays Sgt. Rossi, a man whose passion seems to be only for sleeping with a baker's wife and making bread. I suppose the movie is supposed to be a war film, as the last third of the movie is a battle between the indifferent American unit trying to defend the castle against the Germans. But the movie does not seem to want to make a statement on war, not even if it is good or bad. So if the movie does not stand for anything and is not trying to influence the audience one way or another it must be made for its entertainment value. The only problem is, the movie isn't entertaining! The plot makes no sense until they get to the battle. The characters don't seem to want anything to do with the war, or with the movie for that matter. The only redeeming part of the movie, that earned it a half a star in my book, is a scene with a "supernatural" Volkswagen that is pretty funny. Other than that, steer cleer of Castle Keep.
Scott's Rating:
Castle Keep : 0.5 stars
Scott's Rating:
Castle Keep : 0.5 stars
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Ok well I watched the movie Funny Face about...oh probably 5 days ago now but I went away for the weekend and didn't get a chance to review the movie until now. So I will try to reconstruct my memories of the film. Basically, Funny Face is one of those '50s musicals, starring Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn, and featuring music by Gershwin. As with most musicals, the plot is not the strongpoint. Astaire is the photographer for Quality Magazine, and he tries to get bookkeeper Hepburn to come out of her shell and be a model for the magazine, they fall in love and blah blah blah happy ending. This doesn't matter though. The movie is about the performances of the leads, their chemistry, and the music. I was familiar with 2 of the songs, and overall most of them held their own. Astaire is well known for being a wonderful dancer and pairing up with Ginger Rogers for many memorable films in the '30s and '40s. He is a little older here, but still has the touch in singing and dancing numbers. Most people regard Astaire and Gene Kelly as the top two dancers in film of all time. Now that I've seen both I believe that each is wonderful in his own right. I believe that the difference between the two is that Kelly is a bit more flashy in his dancing numbers: he attempts to reach for the outrageous and the showy and is able to nail it. Astaire is more conventional and fundamental and is equally talented.
Audrey Hepburn is not known as a premiere singer or dancer: in fact, in My Fair Lady her songs were dubbed by Marni Nixon, so they must not have thought highly of her voice. Some of her songs are done well, and others leave something to be desired in this film. I thought she did a good job singing "How Long Has This Been Going On?" and also in a song with the two other main characters singing "Bonjour Paris". Audrey Hepburn is one of my favorite, if not my very favorite, actresses of all time. She handles herself with such grace and dignity in all of her roles, even when her character is less than desirable morally (Eliza Doolittle and Holly Golightly being examples) and always lights up the screen with her smile and her beauty. And she doesn't disappoint in this role either. She plays the role exactly how she needs to play it, downplaying her character's moods in some scenes and overplaying it in others, for the right effect.
The third lead, the magazine owner, played by Kay Thompson, who I've never heard of, was also a very good performance. She had a very good voice and played the role just how it needed to be played.
This is not the best musical I've ever seen; it's not even in the top 5, but it was enjoyable and worth watching.
Scott's Rating:
Funny Face : 3.5 stars
Audrey Hepburn is not known as a premiere singer or dancer: in fact, in My Fair Lady her songs were dubbed by Marni Nixon, so they must not have thought highly of her voice. Some of her songs are done well, and others leave something to be desired in this film. I thought she did a good job singing "How Long Has This Been Going On?" and also in a song with the two other main characters singing "Bonjour Paris". Audrey Hepburn is one of my favorite, if not my very favorite, actresses of all time. She handles herself with such grace and dignity in all of her roles, even when her character is less than desirable morally (Eliza Doolittle and Holly Golightly being examples) and always lights up the screen with her smile and her beauty. And she doesn't disappoint in this role either. She plays the role exactly how she needs to play it, downplaying her character's moods in some scenes and overplaying it in others, for the right effect.
The third lead, the magazine owner, played by Kay Thompson, who I've never heard of, was also a very good performance. She had a very good voice and played the role just how it needed to be played.
This is not the best musical I've ever seen; it's not even in the top 5, but it was enjoyable and worth watching.
Scott's Rating:
Funny Face : 3.5 stars
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Before I review the movie Indiscreet, let me just point out that it is a tragedy that AMC has now found the need to have commercials during its movies. I don't know when this happened, sometime when I was away at Tech I guess, but now they have commercials every 10 minutes, and a lot of times they are at horrible moments. Now I guess TMC is the only channel left (besides channels that I don't get like HBO) that doesn't have commercials. ok.
Indiscreet is a romantic dramedy starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. He meets her, pretends he is married but separated an unable to get a divorce. They fall in love, she finds out the truth, and decides to get back at him. If this movie can be considered a comedy I must have missed something. There were two scenes in which I actually laughed, one of which being a scene in which Cary Grant dances, which was so ridiculous that it was funny. These are two very fine actors, and the movie is generally enjoyable. One thing I noticed that kinda threw me off is that, especially in the very beginning of the movie, Ingrid Bergman looks quite attractive but her teeth are yellow. That was kinda a turn off, and I was wondering about that, until I saw a scene about 15 minutes later where she was smoking, which ended the mystery. In terms of romantic comedies of the '50s this movie is nothing special, but entertaining and fun to watch for a little diversion. The ending, though, is so terrible that it definitely knocked a star off of my rating. I hate movies with endings where you go "what?! that's the end?!" Why can't people learn how to make a good ending?!?!
Scott's Rating:
Indiscreet : 2.5 stars
Indiscreet is a romantic dramedy starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. He meets her, pretends he is married but separated an unable to get a divorce. They fall in love, she finds out the truth, and decides to get back at him. If this movie can be considered a comedy I must have missed something. There were two scenes in which I actually laughed, one of which being a scene in which Cary Grant dances, which was so ridiculous that it was funny. These are two very fine actors, and the movie is generally enjoyable. One thing I noticed that kinda threw me off is that, especially in the very beginning of the movie, Ingrid Bergman looks quite attractive but her teeth are yellow. That was kinda a turn off, and I was wondering about that, until I saw a scene about 15 minutes later where she was smoking, which ended the mystery. In terms of romantic comedies of the '50s this movie is nothing special, but entertaining and fun to watch for a little diversion. The ending, though, is so terrible that it definitely knocked a star off of my rating. I hate movies with endings where you go "what?! that's the end?!" Why can't people learn how to make a good ending?!?!
Scott's Rating:
Indiscreet : 2.5 stars
Saturday, June 07, 2003
The movie Antwone Fisher is about a man, played by newcomer Derek Luke, who has never been loved. Heck, he hasn't even been liked. He never knew his parents, was put in a foster home where his foster mother beat him and his babysitter sexually abused him, and saw his best friend shot in the head in an attempted robbery. He joins the Navy and gets in trouble for getting into fights rather easily with other shipmates. And is that a surprise? No! He doesn't know anything other than maltreatment and violence. He is sent to a psychiatrist, though, and that changes his life. The story sounds rather old but to its credit the movie is still able to tap into the emotions of its audience and have an impact.
We have all seen movies in which blacks are mistreated and abused by whites growing up, but this movie has the rare seen plot of blacks being abused by other blacks, which definitely heightens the awareness that even within cultures there is violence and abuse. Both leads in this movie are very good- Denzel Washington plays the psychiatrist who finds out more about himself through his visits with the troubled youth. Denzel Washington has given wonderful performances in so many movies, it is almost a shame that he won an Oscar for playing a very evil man (Training Day).
I had a few issues with the movie: there are a few scenes which hint at some marital troubles between Davenport (the psychiatrist) and his wife, and that storyline isn't resolved at all. Also, there are a couple things near the end that seem rather far-fetched. But overall the movie is solidly directed by Washington, in his first directorial role, and superbly acted. Although the movie was filled with negativity and the abuse that was done to Antwone Fisher was hard to watch the movie of course had a happy ending. Overall, a good movie, and I would recommend it for watching on a rainy day like today.
Scott's Rating
Antwone Fisher : 3.5 stars
We have all seen movies in which blacks are mistreated and abused by whites growing up, but this movie has the rare seen plot of blacks being abused by other blacks, which definitely heightens the awareness that even within cultures there is violence and abuse. Both leads in this movie are very good- Denzel Washington plays the psychiatrist who finds out more about himself through his visits with the troubled youth. Denzel Washington has given wonderful performances in so many movies, it is almost a shame that he won an Oscar for playing a very evil man (Training Day).
I had a few issues with the movie: there are a few scenes which hint at some marital troubles between Davenport (the psychiatrist) and his wife, and that storyline isn't resolved at all. Also, there are a couple things near the end that seem rather far-fetched. But overall the movie is solidly directed by Washington, in his first directorial role, and superbly acted. Although the movie was filled with negativity and the abuse that was done to Antwone Fisher was hard to watch the movie of course had a happy ending. Overall, a good movie, and I would recommend it for watching on a rainy day like today.
Scott's Rating
Antwone Fisher : 3.5 stars
Friday, June 06, 2003
Yesterday I watched the film Adaptation. What an incredible film this was. Everyone must drop everything, run out, and watch it right this second! To attempt to describe the film would not be doing it justice, but I will try to go through a brief overview. The story is about screenwriter Charles Kaufman's struggle to write a movie based on Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief. Charlie Kaufman is a real person and The Orchid Thief is a real book. In the movie, Kaufman decides after struggling with it just to make a movie describing his struggles (which is what we are watching all along). Kaufman, and his foil, his twin brother, are both played by Nicholas Cage. A parallel story shows Susan Orlean in the process of researching and writing her book, about the man John Laroche. Orlean is played by Meryl Streep, and Laroche by Chris Cooper. In the last half of the movie these two parallel stories intertwine.
I went along the first hour or so of the movie really liking it: you can't watch the movie passively, you won't get anything out of it: and what the movie preaches about Hollywood movies nowadays is very true to form. But it's the last 35 minutes that make the movie: what happens is so completely unexpected and so poignant that I almost cried and then was given some relief at the somewhat heart-warming ending. The movie is just SO well done, and really leaves an indelible impression on you. Chris Cooper won an Oscar for his role, as well he should have, and Meryl Streep was also very good, but Nicholas Cage's performance was so exceptional. I went through the film really being able to sympathize with Cage's Charlie Kaufman and feeling all the emotions that he felt as the movie carried on. This is a mark of a great performance, and his ability to play his brother, who is almost the exact opposite of him, at the same time is great. The movie is funny and tragic at the same time. You must see this film!
Scott's Rating:
Adaptation : 4 stars
I went along the first hour or so of the movie really liking it: you can't watch the movie passively, you won't get anything out of it: and what the movie preaches about Hollywood movies nowadays is very true to form. But it's the last 35 minutes that make the movie: what happens is so completely unexpected and so poignant that I almost cried and then was given some relief at the somewhat heart-warming ending. The movie is just SO well done, and really leaves an indelible impression on you. Chris Cooper won an Oscar for his role, as well he should have, and Meryl Streep was also very good, but Nicholas Cage's performance was so exceptional. I went through the film really being able to sympathize with Cage's Charlie Kaufman and feeling all the emotions that he felt as the movie carried on. This is a mark of a great performance, and his ability to play his brother, who is almost the exact opposite of him, at the same time is great. The movie is funny and tragic at the same time. You must see this film!
Scott's Rating:
Adaptation : 4 stars
Thursday, June 05, 2003
It's a real tragedy that Ian Fleming died relatively early in life, with only about a dozen stories about the British spy James Bond. What has happened with the Bond franchise is that the producers want to keep making Bond movies, but they eventually ran out of Ian Fleming material. In fact, The Living Daylights, made in 1987, was the last Bond film that came from Ian Fleming material. And what happens is the plot becomes stale, and the movie formula is so overdone that it just loses all freshness. This was evidenced by the last two bond films, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World is Not Enough, that in my opinion are the worst two in the whole series. Now, we have to speak relatively, because even though I think they are worse I still like them because they are Bond films, and Bond films are simply fantastic.
The newest installment in the Bond series is Die Another Day, the fourth film for Pierce Brosnan, who in my opinion is a very good fit for the role once occupied by Sean Connery and Roger Moore, among others. What I was looking for in this movie is whether the producers dared to do anything different from the status quo of Bond films. And the beginning was very interesting. Bond is captured by the North Koreans in the opening sequence and tortured before finally being let go. Usually the opening of the sequence shows Bond in a heroic escape from a sticky situation, but in this one he does not escape, and while the opening sequence was very lengthy (15 minutes whereas it's usually 5 or so) it was something unique. As for the rest of the film, I was a bit disappointed at the rather unbelievable escapes and certain scenes. I know that the whole premise of all of these films is unrealistic but lately the trend has been a little too over the top for my chase. Jinx (Halle Berry) holds her own as the Bond girl, and the bad guy is a little better than the ones the last few films have had to offer. My favorite sequence is a car chase- which is much better than the car chase in Tomorrow Never Dies, in which for part of it Bond is not even in the car- in which Bond and bad man Xao trade shots, so to speak, over an icy sheath.
How does this film compare to past Bond films? Well, it doesn't hold a candle to the first several films, which remain the best, but I think it's a bit of an improvement over the last two. I hope the series is going back in the right direction of recent films like Goldeneye, but we'll have to see, when the next one comes out. Oh and by the way the title song, Die Another Day, sung by Madonna, is so terrible. The way those have been going recently they shouldn't even have a title song. Oh well.
Scott's Rating:
Die Another Day : 3 stars (out of a possible 4)
The newest installment in the Bond series is Die Another Day, the fourth film for Pierce Brosnan, who in my opinion is a very good fit for the role once occupied by Sean Connery and Roger Moore, among others. What I was looking for in this movie is whether the producers dared to do anything different from the status quo of Bond films. And the beginning was very interesting. Bond is captured by the North Koreans in the opening sequence and tortured before finally being let go. Usually the opening of the sequence shows Bond in a heroic escape from a sticky situation, but in this one he does not escape, and while the opening sequence was very lengthy (15 minutes whereas it's usually 5 or so) it was something unique. As for the rest of the film, I was a bit disappointed at the rather unbelievable escapes and certain scenes. I know that the whole premise of all of these films is unrealistic but lately the trend has been a little too over the top for my chase. Jinx (Halle Berry) holds her own as the Bond girl, and the bad guy is a little better than the ones the last few films have had to offer. My favorite sequence is a car chase- which is much better than the car chase in Tomorrow Never Dies, in which for part of it Bond is not even in the car- in which Bond and bad man Xao trade shots, so to speak, over an icy sheath.
How does this film compare to past Bond films? Well, it doesn't hold a candle to the first several films, which remain the best, but I think it's a bit of an improvement over the last two. I hope the series is going back in the right direction of recent films like Goldeneye, but we'll have to see, when the next one comes out. Oh and by the way the title song, Die Another Day, sung by Madonna, is so terrible. The way those have been going recently they shouldn't even have a title song. Oh well.
Scott's Rating:
Die Another Day : 3 stars (out of a possible 4)
Monday, June 02, 2003
Yesterday I finished watching the movie Terms of Endearment, known for being a big tear-jerker. The movie stars Debra Winger as Emma, a woman that is so desperate to get out of her mother's tight grasp that she marries Flap (Jeff Daniels) at a very young age and then moves away to Iowa. The movie centers on the relationship by mother (Shirley MacLaine) and daughter, and takes a tragic turn when the daughter is stricken with cancer. When I was watching the film, a number of questions came up in my head. I thought about the characters and what appeals to movie fans. The audience truly cares about a character when the character is portrayed in a positive light; when the character is what the audience member wants to be and can see themselves as. This didn't happen for me in this movie. None of the characters are someone that anyone would want to be and I don't think that they can generate sympathy. The main character, Emma, is no better than her husband, who cheats on her with one of his college students. People tend to feel sorry for Emma because of how her husband treats her but they tend to forget that in the movie she cheats on him too! And hers is even worse because she doesn't have the guts to admit that she has cheated on her husband. There is a deathbed scene near the end where she has the perfect opportunity to come clean with her husband and ease his guilt a little bit but she cannot do it. And then there is Aurora, Emma's mother. She is a truly odd character, who clings way too close to her daughter throughout her life and then ends up mysteriously starting up a romance with her next door neighbor, a woman-chasing astronaut played by Jack Nicholson. Why in the world would she take up a relationship with this man, who represents everything she is not? And what's the deal with two admirers of hers (one of them played by a young Danny DeVito) that show up in exactly 3 scenes and are not heard from for about an hour of the picture? That storyline is just abruptly left off; it's like the whole plotline was edited out and they just left a few remnants of it in the beginning, leaving the viewer thoroughly confused. With all these issues, the one compliment I can pay the film is that despite its shortfalls it actually does leave you feeling sad at the end for what has happened to the characters, which means that someone in the movie did something right, and I believe it was the strong performances of the two leads, Debra Winger and Shirley MacLaine. MacLaine won an oscar for her performance, as did Nicholson, but I have no idea why Jack won the oscar. Don't get me wrong, I love Jack, but he wasn't even in the movie that much, and I felt that it was one of his weaker performances. Go figure!
Scott's Rating:
Terms of Endearment : 2 stars (out of a possible 4)
Scott's Rating:
Terms of Endearment : 2 stars (out of a possible 4)
