I have learned my lesson and will not be including the television shows in this schedule. I have found that with those DVDs it's easier to watch them whenever I have extra time. While I have a skeleton schedule of when it might be best to watch a lot of TV at once, I am going to try taking things as they go September. We'll see.
Instead, I will just list them:
CSI Miami: Season 1 (25 episodes)
Hercules: Season 1 (13 episodes and 5 movies)
Looney Toons: Volume 1 (60 cartoons; 320 minutes)
Movie schedule for September:
September 1: Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason
September 2: The Man in the White Suit (Sir Alec Guiness)
September 3: The Journey of Natty Gann
September 4: Bambi
September 5: The Seven Samurai
September 6: Shadowlands
September 7: Cinderella (Julie Andrews)
September 8: In the Valley of Elah
September 9: Death Race 2000
September 10: Blackboard Jungle
September 11: The Hobbit
September 12: Richard III (Olivier)
September 13: Lucky # Slevin
September 14: Identity
September 15: The Agony and the Ecstasy
September 16: January Man
September 17: Planet Terror
September 18: Libeled Lady
September 19: There Will Be Blood
September 20: My Fellow Americans
September 21: Mean Creek
September 22: Something the Lord made
September 23: The Strangers (horror film)
September 24: A Love Song For Bobby Long
September 25: Comic Book: The Movie
September 26: Braveheart
September 27: Flight of the Phoenix (Jimmy Stewart version)
September 28: Rear Window (Jimmy Stewart/Hitchcock)
September 29: Ingmar Bergman's The Passion of Anna
September 30: The Untouchables
Out of all of these, The Seven Samurai will likely be the most interesting experience. I have tried watching that film for years, and have never been able to finish it.
Oh, and my husband said he wanted to watch some of these, so I actually had to arrange this schedule around his. That was difficult, especially since he wants to watch the longest movies on the list. Hopefully, he is much appreciative.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Woah Nellie!
This has been a very busy week, which is why I haven't posted since Monday. The good news is that I have been keeping up with my schedule, for the most part. I am right on schedule with the movies, even though I haven't posted any reviews.
On the TV front, things aren't looking so good. I am 1 episode behind on CSI, after tonight I will be 5 episodes behind on Kung Fu, and I am 18 episodes behind on Frasier. All told, I have 18 hours of TV to watch by Monday night. I do have a plan for that, though. First, Monday was set aside for TV, so there is that. If I can get home by 8, I can probably get a good 7 or 8 of TV in. If so, I just need to watch 3 or 4 hours a night Friday-Sunday. I think that's manageable.
On the movie side of things, it's just been crazy. I only have 3 more to go for the next month. I can't believe I've made it even this far. Having a set schedule really seems to help out. On a sad note, I just hit my first defective DVD. Alas, Jeepers Creepers could not be watched at all; started pixelating in the first 30 seconds, and couldn't be fixed. That sucks, too. I remember really liking the first hour.
Moving on, I am way behind on reviews, so I am just going to bunch all of these together. Most of them will just be short remarks.
All That Heaven Allows: This film's look blew me away. I actually feel sorry for anyone that was forced to watch it on old black and white televisions because this is one of the most stunningly beautiful movies I've ever seen. Whoever did the lighting and the cinematography deserved in Oscar. I've never seen anything like it.
As for the other aspects of the film, I liked it for the most part. My one gripe is that Rock Hudsons's character was the most boring character ever. He was written to be an absolutely perfect, all-knowing, peaceful man who is one with nature. It was completely unbelievable. I also had a problem every time I saw him hunting. I can't imagine Rock Hudson ever being a woodsy type of guy in his real life.
Still, the movie isn't really about him, so though I complain, it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film. Jane Wyman is pretty good, though her character is pretty close to being saintly as well. The highlight of the movie is the writing. I think the movie was meant to be an "Everyman" play. All the characters are really just metaphors for the issues explored in the film.
The movie deals with a recently widowed older woman (though Wyman was only in her early 30s) who ends up falling in love with a younger man, to the horror of her family and friends. The writer offers up so much criticism of American life, I don't even know where to begin. It offers a harsh rebuke to those who value materialism and status above all else, and who judge each other based on whether or not they live according to "the way things ought to be." There is a scathing rebuke to those who dare to criticize without understanding and even caring. It criticizes teenagers and college students who think the world revolves around them, and judge their parents based on their world view. Her kids can't even imagine that someone their mom's age would have the ability to fall in love again and have a romantic relationship, and believe she is being taken advantage of.
There is an interesting part of the story where her kids keep trying to get her to buy a TV (and end up getting her one) to keep her company. I always find it interesting when films condemn people that choose to "experience" life through television - and movies - rather than getting out and really living. Apparently it's all right to watch just those films. Still, I agree with the message. It has nothing nice to say about media (tv and film) entertainment, particularly how it isolates us and gives us a false perception of how people should be living.
Overall, I found this movie interesting, and applicable today. And again, the look of it just gorgeous. I will likely watch it again next year when I am done with this. I own the Criterion edition, and there are quite a few special features I want to watch.
Pinocchio - I love this movie. I wouldn't say it's one of the greatest Disney flicks, but it is one of my favorites. There is just something about the adventure and the music that hooks me every time. In 80 or so minutes, I can act like a kid again, singing along to some of my favorite Disney songs. "I Got No Strings" is my absolute favorite Disney song. On the other hand, my husband's only response was "Ya know, this film is really annoying." To each his or her own, I suppose.
Kung Fu: I did not expect the pilot to be as good as I remembered, but it was. I have always preferred the flashbacks to the David Carradine scenes in the US, but it is very entertaining overall. The episodes themselves are of lesser quality, though still fun. The one exception is the episode I watched Wednesday night called "Eye For an Eye." That was a remarkable moment of television, and a death scene that I am shocked made it past the censors.
Frasier: The episodes have been even better than I remembered, and since this my favorite show of all time, I had high expectations. The writing and acting are just superb. I had forgotten that Patrick Stewart guest starred in the final season. I am thinking of having a marathon of just Frasier tomorrow night.
One of my favorite scenes so far:
Frasier asks a woman over whom he wants to date, but Martin doesn't know that and starts hitting on her. Frasier gets upset and does the ol' "Dad, can I see you in the kitchen" routine:
Martin: I thought you brought her for me (i.e. a date)?
Frasier: Since when do I *bring* you women?
CSI: Pretty uneven, and I found several to be very boring. The last couple I watched were good, and I am coming up on the episodes that I remember being some of the best ever, so I have hopes that things will get better.
Overall, I am pleased with my progress. I already have my September schedule done and will be posting that next.
On the TV front, things aren't looking so good. I am 1 episode behind on CSI, after tonight I will be 5 episodes behind on Kung Fu, and I am 18 episodes behind on Frasier. All told, I have 18 hours of TV to watch by Monday night. I do have a plan for that, though. First, Monday was set aside for TV, so there is that. If I can get home by 8, I can probably get a good 7 or 8 of TV in. If so, I just need to watch 3 or 4 hours a night Friday-Sunday. I think that's manageable.
On the movie side of things, it's just been crazy. I only have 3 more to go for the next month. I can't believe I've made it even this far. Having a set schedule really seems to help out. On a sad note, I just hit my first defective DVD. Alas, Jeepers Creepers could not be watched at all; started pixelating in the first 30 seconds, and couldn't be fixed. That sucks, too. I remember really liking the first hour.
Moving on, I am way behind on reviews, so I am just going to bunch all of these together. Most of them will just be short remarks.
All That Heaven Allows: This film's look blew me away. I actually feel sorry for anyone that was forced to watch it on old black and white televisions because this is one of the most stunningly beautiful movies I've ever seen. Whoever did the lighting and the cinematography deserved in Oscar. I've never seen anything like it.
As for the other aspects of the film, I liked it for the most part. My one gripe is that Rock Hudsons's character was the most boring character ever. He was written to be an absolutely perfect, all-knowing, peaceful man who is one with nature. It was completely unbelievable. I also had a problem every time I saw him hunting. I can't imagine Rock Hudson ever being a woodsy type of guy in his real life.
Still, the movie isn't really about him, so though I complain, it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film. Jane Wyman is pretty good, though her character is pretty close to being saintly as well. The highlight of the movie is the writing. I think the movie was meant to be an "Everyman" play. All the characters are really just metaphors for the issues explored in the film.
The movie deals with a recently widowed older woman (though Wyman was only in her early 30s) who ends up falling in love with a younger man, to the horror of her family and friends. The writer offers up so much criticism of American life, I don't even know where to begin. It offers a harsh rebuke to those who value materialism and status above all else, and who judge each other based on whether or not they live according to "the way things ought to be." There is a scathing rebuke to those who dare to criticize without understanding and even caring. It criticizes teenagers and college students who think the world revolves around them, and judge their parents based on their world view. Her kids can't even imagine that someone their mom's age would have the ability to fall in love again and have a romantic relationship, and believe she is being taken advantage of.
There is an interesting part of the story where her kids keep trying to get her to buy a TV (and end up getting her one) to keep her company. I always find it interesting when films condemn people that choose to "experience" life through television - and movies - rather than getting out and really living. Apparently it's all right to watch just those films. Still, I agree with the message. It has nothing nice to say about media (tv and film) entertainment, particularly how it isolates us and gives us a false perception of how people should be living.
Overall, I found this movie interesting, and applicable today. And again, the look of it just gorgeous. I will likely watch it again next year when I am done with this. I own the Criterion edition, and there are quite a few special features I want to watch.
Pinocchio - I love this movie. I wouldn't say it's one of the greatest Disney flicks, but it is one of my favorites. There is just something about the adventure and the music that hooks me every time. In 80 or so minutes, I can act like a kid again, singing along to some of my favorite Disney songs. "I Got No Strings" is my absolute favorite Disney song. On the other hand, my husband's only response was "Ya know, this film is really annoying." To each his or her own, I suppose.
Kung Fu: I did not expect the pilot to be as good as I remembered, but it was. I have always preferred the flashbacks to the David Carradine scenes in the US, but it is very entertaining overall. The episodes themselves are of lesser quality, though still fun. The one exception is the episode I watched Wednesday night called "Eye For an Eye." That was a remarkable moment of television, and a death scene that I am shocked made it past the censors.
Frasier: The episodes have been even better than I remembered, and since this my favorite show of all time, I had high expectations. The writing and acting are just superb. I had forgotten that Patrick Stewart guest starred in the final season. I am thinking of having a marathon of just Frasier tomorrow night.
One of my favorite scenes so far:
Frasier asks a woman over whom he wants to date, but Martin doesn't know that and starts hitting on her. Frasier gets upset and does the ol' "Dad, can I see you in the kitchen" routine:
Martin: I thought you brought her for me (i.e. a date)?
Frasier: Since when do I *bring* you women?
CSI: Pretty uneven, and I found several to be very boring. The last couple I watched were good, and I am coming up on the episodes that I remember being some of the best ever, so I have hopes that things will get better.
Overall, I am pleased with my progress. I already have my September schedule done and will be posting that next.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Which is scarier?
I decided, half way through the movie I was watching Saturday night, to wait and review the two films to be watched over the weekend. The reason being, a funny questioned occurred to me: Which is scarier - a horror film or Bette Davis in, well, anything?
Saturday night I watched The Letter, an old B&W film set in the Philippines, starring Bette Davis. In it, Davis' character kills a man whom she says tried to "make love to her;" a euphemism for rape back then I would imagine. She is married to a very busy business man, and they are both friends with a lawyer. The lawyer defends her for free, but as he starts to dig deeper, he discovers that things are not exactly what they appear.
I had never seen this film before, and was not sure what to expect. Though I love classic films, and especially love Bette Davis, more often than not in the past two weeks I have been striking out on films I've watched. I was pleasantly surprised by this. Bette Davis gave a superb performance here, reminding me at times of Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate. For the most part, the movie was great fun to watch, with an ending I didn't really see coming.
About ten minutes into the film, I started laughing, and about 45 minutes in my husband joined me. Our laughter had nothing to do with how bad the film was, because it wasn't; it was just so much fun watching Bette Davis. More than any other actress in movie history, she was capable of playing an absolutely cold, calculating and overall terrifying woman. She had these eyes that scare the crap out of me to this day. The movie is in the old style melodrama, for which Davis was perfect. It delighted me to no end to see how absolutely evil she looked at times.
Another reason I was laughing while watching Bette Davis was because I knew that tonight I was going to watch a horror film. It made me question whether anything in the horror film could be scarier than watching Bette Davis.
That brings me to tonight's movie: Black Christmas. A Canadian movie filmed in 1974, this pre-dated all the American slasher films like Halloween and Friday the Thirteenth. This was clearly a low-budget film, but it made the most of what it had, its minimalist style heightening the tense atmosphere. There is extremely little gore, only a bit of blood, and you don't really see anything. Even so, it is quite scary, and in just the way I like. I have reached a point where I don't want any gore or gratuitous sex. Seeing a horror film that is scary while showing next to nothing was satisfying.
The film makes excellent use of shadows, and there are scenes that the recent film The Strangers (on my list) clearly borrowed. There is an extended scene where the killer's shadow can be seen behind the protagonist, who is talking on the phone. I thought it was one of the scariest points of the film. This was a fairly slow film with more plot than scares, but as a big horror film fan, I think it has a lot going for it.
A side note: this film was clearly not an American film. A few Canadian accents aside, the main plot has to do with a sorority sister that is pregnant and wants to have an abortion. She and her boyfriend argue about it through much of the film. There is also an old lady who swears a lot, and one of the characters makes some very raunchy jokes. While this movie did all right here in the US when it was released, I cannot see any American filmmaker wanting to make a horror film that deals so frankly with abortion as this film does.
Actors note: There are several actors here that are unknowns but go on to have great careers. Margot Kidder of Superman fame is here, as is Andrea Martin. John Saxon plays the police officer in charge. He later played pretty much the same character a decade later in A Nightmare on Elm Street (and one of the sequels).
Overall, I had a great time watching the two very different films this weekend. I think these two are definitely a keeper.
Saturday night I watched The Letter, an old B&W film set in the Philippines, starring Bette Davis. In it, Davis' character kills a man whom she says tried to "make love to her;" a euphemism for rape back then I would imagine. She is married to a very busy business man, and they are both friends with a lawyer. The lawyer defends her for free, but as he starts to dig deeper, he discovers that things are not exactly what they appear.
I had never seen this film before, and was not sure what to expect. Though I love classic films, and especially love Bette Davis, more often than not in the past two weeks I have been striking out on films I've watched. I was pleasantly surprised by this. Bette Davis gave a superb performance here, reminding me at times of Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate. For the most part, the movie was great fun to watch, with an ending I didn't really see coming.
About ten minutes into the film, I started laughing, and about 45 minutes in my husband joined me. Our laughter had nothing to do with how bad the film was, because it wasn't; it was just so much fun watching Bette Davis. More than any other actress in movie history, she was capable of playing an absolutely cold, calculating and overall terrifying woman. She had these eyes that scare the crap out of me to this day. The movie is in the old style melodrama, for which Davis was perfect. It delighted me to no end to see how absolutely evil she looked at times.
Another reason I was laughing while watching Bette Davis was because I knew that tonight I was going to watch a horror film. It made me question whether anything in the horror film could be scarier than watching Bette Davis.
That brings me to tonight's movie: Black Christmas. A Canadian movie filmed in 1974, this pre-dated all the American slasher films like Halloween and Friday the Thirteenth. This was clearly a low-budget film, but it made the most of what it had, its minimalist style heightening the tense atmosphere. There is extremely little gore, only a bit of blood, and you don't really see anything. Even so, it is quite scary, and in just the way I like. I have reached a point where I don't want any gore or gratuitous sex. Seeing a horror film that is scary while showing next to nothing was satisfying.
The film makes excellent use of shadows, and there are scenes that the recent film The Strangers (on my list) clearly borrowed. There is an extended scene where the killer's shadow can be seen behind the protagonist, who is talking on the phone. I thought it was one of the scariest points of the film. This was a fairly slow film with more plot than scares, but as a big horror film fan, I think it has a lot going for it.
A side note: this film was clearly not an American film. A few Canadian accents aside, the main plot has to do with a sorority sister that is pregnant and wants to have an abortion. She and her boyfriend argue about it through much of the film. There is also an old lady who swears a lot, and one of the characters makes some very raunchy jokes. While this movie did all right here in the US when it was released, I cannot see any American filmmaker wanting to make a horror film that deals so frankly with abortion as this film does.
Actors note: There are several actors here that are unknowns but go on to have great careers. Margot Kidder of Superman fame is here, as is Andrea Martin. John Saxon plays the police officer in charge. He later played pretty much the same character a decade later in A Nightmare on Elm Street (and one of the sequels).
Overall, I had a great time watching the two very different films this weekend. I think these two are definitely a keeper.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Orgazmo
So.....I watched Orgazmo for the first time. It's too bad Team America is already opened because I wish I could watch that right now. I need to reassure myself that Trey Parker is more talented than he seems in this film. The concept for this movie is funny: A Mormon needs a few thousand dollars so he can marry the woman he loves at the Temple in Salt Lake City. After various misunderstandings, and an offer of a substantial amount of money, he hesitantly agrees to star as a superhero in a porn film. Hilarity ensures.
The first half of the film hits some funny notes, in a dumb sort of way. I especially loved the idea of a Mormon knowing karate. The problem is that it stops being funny about half way through. There are only so many times the same jokes can be done before they get old.
Watching this film I was amazed at how quickly Trey Parker grew as a writer. South Park started at about the same time Orgazmo was released, with the feature film released two years later. Then they peaked five years later with Team America. Luckily I didn't see Orgazmo before any of that, otherwise I may have avoided anything with Trey Parker's name attached to it.
The first half of the film hits some funny notes, in a dumb sort of way. I especially loved the idea of a Mormon knowing karate. The problem is that it stops being funny about half way through. There are only so many times the same jokes can be done before they get old.
Watching this film I was amazed at how quickly Trey Parker grew as a writer. South Park started at about the same time Orgazmo was released, with the feature film released two years later. Then they peaked five years later with Team America. Luckily I didn't see Orgazmo before any of that, otherwise I may have avoided anything with Trey Parker's name attached to it.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Towering Inferno (1974)
In my mind, there has never been a big blockbuster film with a better cast than this. It's an embarrassment of riches. Look at this list:
Paul Newman
Steve McQueen
William Holden
Fred Astaire
Faye Dunaway
Jennifer Jones
Richard Chamberlain
Robert Wagner
Robert Vaughn
OJ Simpson (lol)
Mike Lookinland (a.k.a. Bobby Brady)
And it's a disaster flick! This is about as cool as it gets.
There are a few problems, though:
1. Why were people in the 70s so obsessed with reds and oranges? This film has some of the ugliest interior designs ever. Ever!
2. Though the cast is great, a few of them get next to nothing to do. This is really quite remarkable considering the film is nearly 3 hours. Most of the film is completely devoted to action scenes.
3. Faye Dunaway. I will admit that she's a great actress, and has been in several great movies, but I just don't like her.
4. Steve McQueen doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the film. There can never be enough Steve McQueen.
But all of those are easily overcome by how larger than life this movie is.
One other interesting thing I noticed. This was a big popcorn movie, but the cast is quite old. Newman and McQueen were the stars and they were 49 and 44 respectively. Holden was older, and Astaire was much, much older. Richard Chamberlain was the "young" guy, and he was 40. Even more surprising is the age of the women. Faye Dunaway was the leading lady, and she was 33 when this film was made. Two others were more than a decade older. I can't even imagine Hollywood putting out a major blockbuster without twentysomething actors. There aren't even any teenagers in The Towering Inferno. Amazing how the important age demographics have shifted in the last 25 years.
Overall, I am so glad I watched this. It never fails to entertain.
Oh, and I checked on imdb, and this movie was released in December. How messed up is that?
And on another note, the last couple of days have been a real test for me. I started school Wednesday, and it's been difficult to find time to watch anything. Tonight I hit an even bigger roadblock: I wasn't in the mood to watch a movie. Thankfully, I have been able to overcome all of that. Let's hope I can keep it up.
Paul Newman
Steve McQueen
William Holden
Fred Astaire
Faye Dunaway
Jennifer Jones
Richard Chamberlain
Robert Wagner
Robert Vaughn
OJ Simpson (lol)
Mike Lookinland (a.k.a. Bobby Brady)
And it's a disaster flick! This is about as cool as it gets.
There are a few problems, though:
1. Why were people in the 70s so obsessed with reds and oranges? This film has some of the ugliest interior designs ever. Ever!
2. Though the cast is great, a few of them get next to nothing to do. This is really quite remarkable considering the film is nearly 3 hours. Most of the film is completely devoted to action scenes.
3. Faye Dunaway. I will admit that she's a great actress, and has been in several great movies, but I just don't like her.
4. Steve McQueen doesn't show up until 45 minutes into the film. There can never be enough Steve McQueen.
But all of those are easily overcome by how larger than life this movie is.
One other interesting thing I noticed. This was a big popcorn movie, but the cast is quite old. Newman and McQueen were the stars and they were 49 and 44 respectively. Holden was older, and Astaire was much, much older. Richard Chamberlain was the "young" guy, and he was 40. Even more surprising is the age of the women. Faye Dunaway was the leading lady, and she was 33 when this film was made. Two others were more than a decade older. I can't even imagine Hollywood putting out a major blockbuster without twentysomething actors. There aren't even any teenagers in The Towering Inferno. Amazing how the important age demographics have shifted in the last 25 years.
Overall, I am so glad I watched this. It never fails to entertain.
Oh, and I checked on imdb, and this movie was released in December. How messed up is that?
And on another note, the last couple of days have been a real test for me. I started school Wednesday, and it's been difficult to find time to watch anything. Tonight I hit an even bigger roadblock: I wasn't in the mood to watch a movie. Thankfully, I have been able to overcome all of that. Let's hope I can keep it up.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Fritz Lang's M
I managed to keep the schedule and watched M yesterday, and I loved it even more than I did the first time. Made in 1931, M was the first german "talkie" film, and possibly Fritz Lang's best work. Peter Lorre, who classic movie lovers probably know from Casablanca, gives a superlative acting performance that really carries the film at the end.
I have been struggling with how to write a review for this film. It is a German film made in 1931, so it is dated. It is subtitled, and a lot of people don't like watching films with subtitles. So if I say the movie is great, people might get the wrong impression. This is not a modern film. It doesn't have the cinematography that we are all used to today. It doesn't have a stirring soundtrack, though it does use sound in a way that even today seems a bit unique.
So I won't review it. It's one of those movies you just have to see for yourself. Instead, I'll just summarize it. If this doesn't motivate you to see it, then nothing will.
M is a movie about a serial killer and rapist of children, set in Germany circa 1931. After months of children being taken, people are starting to become paranoid, and begin accusing each other. The police are under a tremendous amount of stress and start cracking down hard on all criminals. The "civilized" criminals find this bad for business, so they decide to try and track down this killer themselves. Most of the movie is a psychological procedural. Everything you've seen in Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, Kiss the Girls, etc., it all started here. There are even fingerprints. It also features a minor, yet detailed caper, so everything you've seen in films like The Heist, The Score, and various other organized crime heists, they all started here. Fritz Lang was a Jew in the 1930s, and this film reflects that. It was banned in Germany after it came out, and if you see it, and you know how the Nazis dressed, you'll know why. In the last 15 minutes, though, the film shifts gears, and it becomes a morality play. And, unlike the vast majority of films, it doesn't really take any sides; it just shows all of them clearly. Indeed, my husband said after watching it with me last night that the movie was, "very thorough."
Watching M 78 years after it was released is a wonderful experience. I guarantee that if you watch you will be shocked it's that old. There is more symbolism and mythology packed into this movie than two or three Hollywood movies released today combined.
More than anything, though, M is just entertaining. It's a little old, which means the sound is something we're not used to, but M is a genuine thriller.
I have been struggling with how to write a review for this film. It is a German film made in 1931, so it is dated. It is subtitled, and a lot of people don't like watching films with subtitles. So if I say the movie is great, people might get the wrong impression. This is not a modern film. It doesn't have the cinematography that we are all used to today. It doesn't have a stirring soundtrack, though it does use sound in a way that even today seems a bit unique.
So I won't review it. It's one of those movies you just have to see for yourself. Instead, I'll just summarize it. If this doesn't motivate you to see it, then nothing will.
M is a movie about a serial killer and rapist of children, set in Germany circa 1931. After months of children being taken, people are starting to become paranoid, and begin accusing each other. The police are under a tremendous amount of stress and start cracking down hard on all criminals. The "civilized" criminals find this bad for business, so they decide to try and track down this killer themselves. Most of the movie is a psychological procedural. Everything you've seen in Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, Kiss the Girls, etc., it all started here. There are even fingerprints. It also features a minor, yet detailed caper, so everything you've seen in films like The Heist, The Score, and various other organized crime heists, they all started here. Fritz Lang was a Jew in the 1930s, and this film reflects that. It was banned in Germany after it came out, and if you see it, and you know how the Nazis dressed, you'll know why. In the last 15 minutes, though, the film shifts gears, and it becomes a morality play. And, unlike the vast majority of films, it doesn't really take any sides; it just shows all of them clearly. Indeed, my husband said after watching it with me last night that the movie was, "very thorough."
Watching M 78 years after it was released is a wonderful experience. I guarantee that if you watch you will be shocked it's that old. There is more symbolism and mythology packed into this movie than two or three Hollywood movies released today combined.
More than anything, though, M is just entertaining. It's a little old, which means the sound is something we're not used to, but M is a genuine thriller.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Dave
Kevin Kline: Dave/President Mitchell
Sigourney Weaver: Mrs. Michell
Frank Langella: Chief of Staff
Kevin Dunn: Communications Director
Ving Rhames: The President's assigned Secret Service agent
On paper, the plot for Dave seems pretty complex. The American president, Bill Mitchell, is a cad who tries to have affairs on the down low. The Secret Service helps him achieve that by hiring body doubles to stand in for him during those times where all he has to do is walk through a room and wave. This allows the president to sneak out the back door to get his funk on. Unfortunately, during one of his rendezvous’, the president suffers a severe stroke and collapses. While in mid-coitus. At this point, anyone who knows their US Constitution knows that the 25th Amendment should be kicking in, and the Vice President should be taking over. Turns out, the president’s Chief of Staff is a power hungry politician who has spent decades waiting to be president. Even worse, the vice president is, apparently, the last decent politician alive. The Chief of Staff knows that if the VP takes over and then the president dies, everything he and the president have worked for, illegally of course, would fall apart. So, this scheming fellow comes up with a cunning plan: ship the VP off to Africa on some good will tour, keep the fact that the president is practically dead under wraps, and have the latest body double pretend to be president. This all will go on just long enough for the VP to be taken down on false criminal charges, forcing the fake president to install a new VP, the chief of staff. Then, the real president will be allowed to die, the fake president will be allowed to fake a death, and the guy who thought up this absolutely absurd plan will become the next president of the United States. Explained like this, Dave sounds like a bad movie.
It’s not. The movie isn’t about how all those implausible things happen, or even why. Dave is about what a guy would do if he was given the chance to pretend to be president. While writing this review, I was astounded that I didn’t realize Dave was very similar to Capra's films. Everything about his life is too good. He is always upbeat, and an obsessive do-gooder. He manages a temp agency so he can help people find jobs. He cares about everyone. When he is given the opportunity to play the president, he wants to do all he can to help all Americans. In other words, he is a Good Guy. It's hard to believe that a Capra-like formula can still work after all this time. Luckily, Kevin Kline smoothly steps in as the modern day Mr. Smith. Kline seems to play Dave effortlessly. There are several moments where all he does is mug for the camera, but even that is charming. Somehow, he makes Dave's behavior of being nice and likable all the time seem normal, when we all know it isn't. Watching him try to cheer up a homeless child, shooing the media away so the kid won’t be scared, I began to wonder if there is a politician left alive that would do that.
Kevin Kline doesn't go it alone in this film, though. Sigourney Weaver gives another great performance, playing the First Lady. She and Kevin Kline have great chemistry, which is important. A significant amount of time is put into developing their relationship. There's a joke in the movie about how she didn't realize he wasn't her husband until he started noticing she was a woman. Turns out, the First Lady is a Good Woman. Perfect for a Good Guy. I don’t see this movie working nearly as well without Sigourney Weaver. Kevin Kline is forced into a role whom a lesser actor would have portrayed an idiot, and he manages to play as hopeful. The movie needed a nice, wise-to-the-world adult to play beside him to keep the movie from feeling to much like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Weaver is perfect for that role.
There are a couple of minor twists and turns, and the Bad Guy gets what’s coming to him, but most of that is done swiftly. There is one point where Dave is given a major roadblock, but he beats it down a couple of minutes later. The breezy manner in which this film is written and directed works perfectly to keep the audience from thinking too much. This is not a knock in the film, either. Not every film needs to be a high brow morality play. Dave manages to weave a message of morality into a light, charming movie.
One final note. The only reason Dave goes along with this whole thing from the beginning is because he’s told that the Vice President is insane. Well, the VP does show up in the film. My husband watched Dave for the first time last night, and his biggest reaction was to the VP’s first scene.
Sigourney Weaver: Mrs. Michell
Frank Langella: Chief of Staff
Kevin Dunn: Communications Director
Ving Rhames: The President's assigned Secret Service agent
On paper, the plot for Dave seems pretty complex. The American president, Bill Mitchell, is a cad who tries to have affairs on the down low. The Secret Service helps him achieve that by hiring body doubles to stand in for him during those times where all he has to do is walk through a room and wave. This allows the president to sneak out the back door to get his funk on. Unfortunately, during one of his rendezvous’, the president suffers a severe stroke and collapses. While in mid-coitus. At this point, anyone who knows their US Constitution knows that the 25th Amendment should be kicking in, and the Vice President should be taking over. Turns out, the president’s Chief of Staff is a power hungry politician who has spent decades waiting to be president. Even worse, the vice president is, apparently, the last decent politician alive. The Chief of Staff knows that if the VP takes over and then the president dies, everything he and the president have worked for, illegally of course, would fall apart. So, this scheming fellow comes up with a cunning plan: ship the VP off to Africa on some good will tour, keep the fact that the president is practically dead under wraps, and have the latest body double pretend to be president. This all will go on just long enough for the VP to be taken down on false criminal charges, forcing the fake president to install a new VP, the chief of staff. Then, the real president will be allowed to die, the fake president will be allowed to fake a death, and the guy who thought up this absolutely absurd plan will become the next president of the United States. Explained like this, Dave sounds like a bad movie.
It’s not. The movie isn’t about how all those implausible things happen, or even why. Dave is about what a guy would do if he was given the chance to pretend to be president. While writing this review, I was astounded that I didn’t realize Dave was very similar to Capra's films. Everything about his life is too good. He is always upbeat, and an obsessive do-gooder. He manages a temp agency so he can help people find jobs. He cares about everyone. When he is given the opportunity to play the president, he wants to do all he can to help all Americans. In other words, he is a Good Guy. It's hard to believe that a Capra-like formula can still work after all this time. Luckily, Kevin Kline smoothly steps in as the modern day Mr. Smith. Kline seems to play Dave effortlessly. There are several moments where all he does is mug for the camera, but even that is charming. Somehow, he makes Dave's behavior of being nice and likable all the time seem normal, when we all know it isn't. Watching him try to cheer up a homeless child, shooing the media away so the kid won’t be scared, I began to wonder if there is a politician left alive that would do that.
Kevin Kline doesn't go it alone in this film, though. Sigourney Weaver gives another great performance, playing the First Lady. She and Kevin Kline have great chemistry, which is important. A significant amount of time is put into developing their relationship. There's a joke in the movie about how she didn't realize he wasn't her husband until he started noticing she was a woman. Turns out, the First Lady is a Good Woman. Perfect for a Good Guy. I don’t see this movie working nearly as well without Sigourney Weaver. Kevin Kline is forced into a role whom a lesser actor would have portrayed an idiot, and he manages to play as hopeful. The movie needed a nice, wise-to-the-world adult to play beside him to keep the movie from feeling to much like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Weaver is perfect for that role.
There are a couple of minor twists and turns, and the Bad Guy gets what’s coming to him, but most of that is done swiftly. There is one point where Dave is given a major roadblock, but he beats it down a couple of minutes later. The breezy manner in which this film is written and directed works perfectly to keep the audience from thinking too much. This is not a knock in the film, either. Not every film needs to be a high brow morality play. Dave manages to weave a message of morality into a light, charming movie.
One final note. The only reason Dave goes along with this whole thing from the beginning is because he’s told that the Vice President is insane. Well, the VP does show up in the film. My husband watched Dave for the first time last night, and his biggest reaction was to the VP’s first scene.
Monday, August 17, 2009
My life so far
I have gotten through 9 movies. I have only begun, but I have already made more progress at knocking these suckers out than ever before.
The rest of the month is going to be a real test, though. Out of the 9 movies I have watched so far, I had seen 6. Out of the remaining 12 movies for this month, I have seen 7. Even though it's only 5 movies I have never seen, I am a little worried that they all might suck.
And this leads me to something else. The mos surprising aspect of this experience is how disappointing many of these DVDs have turned out to be. Out of the 9 I've watched:
1 I ended up hating
1 was good but I can't handle the material
1 was all right
3 weren't as good as I thought,
1 I enjoyed
2 were as mediocre as I remembered.
When I started this, I never would have believe that the first DVD would be the most entertaining. The worst part is that a full third of the films weren't as good as I remembered them being. This does not bode well. Luckily, out of the next 12 films, I have seen five within the past year and a half and loved them. Plus I have Pinocchi. I've never watched an animated Disney movie made before 1970 that was bad.
The really scary thing is that I start school Wednesday. That will be the true test.
The rest of the month is going to be a real test, though. Out of the 9 movies I have watched so far, I had seen 6. Out of the remaining 12 movies for this month, I have seen 7. Even though it's only 5 movies I have never seen, I am a little worried that they all might suck.
And this leads me to something else. The mos surprising aspect of this experience is how disappointing many of these DVDs have turned out to be. Out of the 9 I've watched:
1 I ended up hating
1 was good but I can't handle the material
1 was all right
3 weren't as good as I thought,
1 I enjoyed
2 were as mediocre as I remembered.
When I started this, I never would have believe that the first DVD would be the most entertaining. The worst part is that a full third of the films weren't as good as I remembered them being. This does not bode well. Luckily, out of the next 12 films, I have seen five within the past year and a half and loved them. Plus I have Pinocchi. I've never watched an animated Disney movie made before 1970 that was bad.
The really scary thing is that I start school Wednesday. That will be the true test.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Da plane! Da plane!
Island in the Sky (1953)
John Wayne - Dooley
This film came to DVD only a few years ago. Back when I managed a movie store, old guys would come in from time to time and ask for this one, The High and the Might, and Ice Station Zebra. The first two are John Wayne films, and the last one is a Rock Hudson flick. All are on my list to watch. When I finally got word that these three films were being released, and it completely freaked me out that they were released the same day, I told all the old regulars. I sold out of all three in a few hours. All of them bought The High and the Mighty and Ice Station Zebra, and most bought Island in the Sky. I've been interested in watching all three ever since.
As you can see from the title, the first one up is Island in the Sky. This is one of the lesser known John Wayne movies. Taking place right after WWII, John Wayne and others play pilots who had been drafted to fly in combat, but are now mostly commercial pilots. John Wayne's crew gets lost in Canada due to issues with the compass and cloud coverage, and end up crashing somewhere in the mountains in the dead of winter. The rest of the film switches back and forth between Wayne trying to keep his crew alive and sane, and the rescue team desperately trying to track the missing crew down before it's too late.
Here's my experience watching it:
Wow. There is a commercial at the beginning promoting a ton of John Wayne films finally on DVD. I so want to have a John Wayne marathon. Must. Resist.
I think Leonard Maltin is bit of a putz. He clearly loves films, but his review of every film might as well be nothing but, “OMG THIS MOVIE IS TEH BEST EVR!" Still, his introductions are fairly informative. He let me know to be on the look out for a lot of actors who aren't in the credits.
Wow. John Wayne, James Arness, Fess Parker and the dude that played Alfalfa. It’s like half of my childhood together in one film. Too bad Fess Parker is as dull as a doornail.
It’s sad watching John Wayne smoke knowing how he died. And it’s just weird to be reminded how everybody smoked in movies back then.
The crash landing was pretty intense for a film made in 1953.
Wow, some of these guys I recognize from a ton of old films. Regis Toomey was in Spellbound and The Bishop’s Wife. Paul Fix was the judge in To Kill a Mockingbird, though I will always remember him as the grandfather of The Bad Seed. Then there’s Harry Carey, Jr, a man well-known to those that watch old westerns. More modern movie audiences might recognize him as the Tombstone marshal in Kurt Russell’s pretty awesome western made in 1993.
Some guy is on the screen wearing a fantastic fake beard.
This film tries something I don’t recall ever seeing in a John Wayne move: a voice over. This may have not been the best choice. The voice, the director’s, works for many parts. Unfortunately, the camera is often focused for long moments on a silent Wayne attempting to emote his internal dialogue. Let’s just say John Wayne is perhaps not the best actor in the world.
Even without the trademark camera angles from Gunsmoke that made him seem as tall as the Jolly Green Giant, James Arness still looks like one tall mofo. And can you believe he’s still alive? Woah.
I didn’t know the YMCA even existed back then.
OMG It’s the dude who did the voice of Friar Tuck in the animated Robin Hood! I recognized that voice immediately. Honestly, I’m not sure what he said through much of the film. I couldn’t listen to him without descending into giggles. It also didn’t help that he even looks a bit like Friar Tuck.
Who knew Wheaties cereal was around before 1953? Not me.
There are a few completely ridiculous moments in this film. For instance, “The ammunition is frozen.” LOL
I looked up at one point and noticed that I still had 45 minutes ago. I was stumped to come up with anything left to show that could take that long.
It is sad that one of the guys died, but my husband and I couldn’t help laughing during is final moments. He died walking in circles in a blizzard, ending up collapsing right next to the plane, the rest of the crew not far away screaming his name in unison like morons. The execution was so bad it made the entire scene comical.
In this film, there are four crews. One has John Wayne, one has James Arness, one has Alfalfa and one has Friar Tuck. James Arness plays perhaps the funniest character in the film, which really freaked me out. I’ve always thought of him as a serious badass. Alfalfa is a co-pilot for a really boring crew. Friar Tuck is great just to listen to, single-handedly making his crew full of win. And John Wayne’s crew spends half its time falling apart while waiting to be rescued. That was pretty depressing.
Did you know that Canada is a dangerous area to fly over? It turns out the only reason they can’t find the survivors is because there’s something abut Montreal that messes with their compasses. Apparently it takes God to see you safely through. Those Canadians must be the most religious people on the face of the planet.
John Wayne is freakin’ awesome when he gets all violent, yelling at his charges. On the other hand, he shows more remorse and sadness in this film than perhaps all his others combined. It’s kinda depressing to see him look like he’s going to cry.
As you may have guessed from my previous gushing about all the actors I recognized, acting talent was not exactly a, shall we say, prerequisite for being cast in this film. It was never what drove people to see John Wayne. Despite this, one actor stands out as having real talent: Lloyd Nolan. Most people don’t know this guy, he was more of a character actor. I only know about him because I am a huge fan of Murder, She Wrote. His last performance was an episode of that show, after which he promptly died. I was so struck by the morbidity of that, I immediately tried to find out what his other work was. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen most of it. It’s too bad he wasn’t cast in more high profile films.
There is a great exchange at the very end of the film. When the rescue planes fly over the survivors, they drop bags of supplies and other items. One of those items is a letter informing all the guys about how their families are doing back home. The guy reading the letter tells Dooley that his wife and six kids are fine. One of the other crew members turns to Dooley and says, “Hey, I didn’t know you had a wife and kids.” Wayne’s response is, “Yeah.” And then the movie ends. My response is, “WTF? You have a family?” Well, actually, my first response was, “Does that 'yeah' mean you have six wives or six kids." My humor is pretty sad sometimes. But seriously, he had a family? WTF?
Overall, I can see why it took so long for this to be released for purchase. Though I had heard that part of it was due to the Wayne estate trying to hold it back, it isn’t even close to being one of John Wayne’s best films. It isn’t even that close to being a good film. If anyone wants to see a good John Wayne movie that features planes, watch The Flying Leathernecks; even today that one holds up. The only thing that got me through was that, unlike with most older films, I can forgive bad plots in John Wayne and James Stewart films. I like those two so much I will even watch their bad films. I enjoyed watching it (husband didn't like it), and I suspect that most John Wayne fans, or fans of the old 40s and 50s action movies, would like it as well. Still, I think I will be sending this one to dad for Christmas. I know he'll love it.
John Wayne - Dooley
This film came to DVD only a few years ago. Back when I managed a movie store, old guys would come in from time to time and ask for this one, The High and the Might, and Ice Station Zebra. The first two are John Wayne films, and the last one is a Rock Hudson flick. All are on my list to watch. When I finally got word that these three films were being released, and it completely freaked me out that they were released the same day, I told all the old regulars. I sold out of all three in a few hours. All of them bought The High and the Mighty and Ice Station Zebra, and most bought Island in the Sky. I've been interested in watching all three ever since.
As you can see from the title, the first one up is Island in the Sky. This is one of the lesser known John Wayne movies. Taking place right after WWII, John Wayne and others play pilots who had been drafted to fly in combat, but are now mostly commercial pilots. John Wayne's crew gets lost in Canada due to issues with the compass and cloud coverage, and end up crashing somewhere in the mountains in the dead of winter. The rest of the film switches back and forth between Wayne trying to keep his crew alive and sane, and the rescue team desperately trying to track the missing crew down before it's too late.
Here's my experience watching it:
Wow. There is a commercial at the beginning promoting a ton of John Wayne films finally on DVD. I so want to have a John Wayne marathon. Must. Resist.
I think Leonard Maltin is bit of a putz. He clearly loves films, but his review of every film might as well be nothing but, “OMG THIS MOVIE IS TEH BEST EVR!" Still, his introductions are fairly informative. He let me know to be on the look out for a lot of actors who aren't in the credits.
Wow. John Wayne, James Arness, Fess Parker and the dude that played Alfalfa. It’s like half of my childhood together in one film. Too bad Fess Parker is as dull as a doornail.
It’s sad watching John Wayne smoke knowing how he died. And it’s just weird to be reminded how everybody smoked in movies back then.
The crash landing was pretty intense for a film made in 1953.
Wow, some of these guys I recognize from a ton of old films. Regis Toomey was in Spellbound and The Bishop’s Wife. Paul Fix was the judge in To Kill a Mockingbird, though I will always remember him as the grandfather of The Bad Seed. Then there’s Harry Carey, Jr, a man well-known to those that watch old westerns. More modern movie audiences might recognize him as the Tombstone marshal in Kurt Russell’s pretty awesome western made in 1993.
Some guy is on the screen wearing a fantastic fake beard.
This film tries something I don’t recall ever seeing in a John Wayne move: a voice over. This may have not been the best choice. The voice, the director’s, works for many parts. Unfortunately, the camera is often focused for long moments on a silent Wayne attempting to emote his internal dialogue. Let’s just say John Wayne is perhaps not the best actor in the world.
Even without the trademark camera angles from Gunsmoke that made him seem as tall as the Jolly Green Giant, James Arness still looks like one tall mofo. And can you believe he’s still alive? Woah.
I didn’t know the YMCA even existed back then.
OMG It’s the dude who did the voice of Friar Tuck in the animated Robin Hood! I recognized that voice immediately. Honestly, I’m not sure what he said through much of the film. I couldn’t listen to him without descending into giggles. It also didn’t help that he even looks a bit like Friar Tuck.
Who knew Wheaties cereal was around before 1953? Not me.
There are a few completely ridiculous moments in this film. For instance, “The ammunition is frozen.” LOL
I looked up at one point and noticed that I still had 45 minutes ago. I was stumped to come up with anything left to show that could take that long.
It is sad that one of the guys died, but my husband and I couldn’t help laughing during is final moments. He died walking in circles in a blizzard, ending up collapsing right next to the plane, the rest of the crew not far away screaming his name in unison like morons. The execution was so bad it made the entire scene comical.
In this film, there are four crews. One has John Wayne, one has James Arness, one has Alfalfa and one has Friar Tuck. James Arness plays perhaps the funniest character in the film, which really freaked me out. I’ve always thought of him as a serious badass. Alfalfa is a co-pilot for a really boring crew. Friar Tuck is great just to listen to, single-handedly making his crew full of win. And John Wayne’s crew spends half its time falling apart while waiting to be rescued. That was pretty depressing.
Did you know that Canada is a dangerous area to fly over? It turns out the only reason they can’t find the survivors is because there’s something abut Montreal that messes with their compasses. Apparently it takes God to see you safely through. Those Canadians must be the most religious people on the face of the planet.
John Wayne is freakin’ awesome when he gets all violent, yelling at his charges. On the other hand, he shows more remorse and sadness in this film than perhaps all his others combined. It’s kinda depressing to see him look like he’s going to cry.
As you may have guessed from my previous gushing about all the actors I recognized, acting talent was not exactly a, shall we say, prerequisite for being cast in this film. It was never what drove people to see John Wayne. Despite this, one actor stands out as having real talent: Lloyd Nolan. Most people don’t know this guy, he was more of a character actor. I only know about him because I am a huge fan of Murder, She Wrote. His last performance was an episode of that show, after which he promptly died. I was so struck by the morbidity of that, I immediately tried to find out what his other work was. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen most of it. It’s too bad he wasn’t cast in more high profile films.
There is a great exchange at the very end of the film. When the rescue planes fly over the survivors, they drop bags of supplies and other items. One of those items is a letter informing all the guys about how their families are doing back home. The guy reading the letter tells Dooley that his wife and six kids are fine. One of the other crew members turns to Dooley and says, “Hey, I didn’t know you had a wife and kids.” Wayne’s response is, “Yeah.” And then the movie ends. My response is, “WTF? You have a family?” Well, actually, my first response was, “Does that 'yeah' mean you have six wives or six kids." My humor is pretty sad sometimes. But seriously, he had a family? WTF?
Overall, I can see why it took so long for this to be released for purchase. Though I had heard that part of it was due to the Wayne estate trying to hold it back, it isn’t even close to being one of John Wayne’s best films. It isn’t even that close to being a good film. If anyone wants to see a good John Wayne movie that features planes, watch The Flying Leathernecks; even today that one holds up. The only thing that got me through was that, unlike with most older films, I can forgive bad plots in John Wayne and James Stewart films. I like those two so much I will even watch their bad films. I enjoyed watching it (husband didn't like it), and I suspect that most John Wayne fans, or fans of the old 40s and 50s action movies, would like it as well. Still, I think I will be sending this one to dad for Christmas. I know he'll love it.
The Duke
I am watching my first John Wayne film today. I haven't see it, but I can't wait. I have about four or five of his movies to watch over the next year, and I'm looking forward to every single one.
Who wouldn't want Gene Hackman on their side?
Class Action
Gene Hackman as Jedediah Ward
Mary Mastrantonio as Maggie Ward
Laurence (Larry) Fishburne
Class Action is a featherweight film, so you won’t find any in-depth analysis here.
This is a fairly low-key film about a father and daughter with a frosty relationship who square off against each other in the court room. On the one side is the daughter representing the big, bad corporation. On the other is the father representing the little guy. I’ve only seen it a couple of times, but I’ve always found it entertaining.
I love Gene Hackman. Love, love, love him. Superman, Unforgiven, Crimson Tide are great movies. He’s awesome in Heist. Hoosiers is fun because of him. He even makes Uncommon Valor kick ass, and that has a dorky Patrick Swayze in it! And let’s not forget Royal Tennenbaums. I asked my dad to take me to see this when I was 15 (rated R, for some freakin’ reason) because even back then I loved him.
Oh wow. I just checked imdb, and Hackman’s going to be 80 next year. He’s actually 5 months OLDER than Clint Eastwood. I never would have guessed that. He sure didn’t look older than him in Unforgiven.
Oh, Robert David Hall! CSI connection (I stopped watching when Fishburne came along)! I think he looks a lot better with a beard.
Ric Flair! Those were the days.
Because this film is rated ‘R’, my dad had to take me to see this when I was 15. I never understood why the rating was that high. There’s no violence, and no sex. The most skin you see is a woman’s shoulder. At the most, this movie is PG-13.
There’s a point fairly early in this film where Mary Mastrantio screams. As crazy as this sounds, her scream sounded familiar. Sooo, I looked her up on imdb, and now I know why. In the same year this film came out, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was released. The only two things I usually ever think about concerning that film is how much Kevin Costner annoys me and how great Alan Rickman is. I never think about the name of the actress who played Maid Marian. However, the one thing I will *never* forget is that when the Sheriff of Nottingham captured her, she screamed “Robin” over and over again. Even at 15, I was embarrassed for all women at her behavior. Turns out that that scream made more of an impression than I ever imagined. Who knew you could identify someone by their scream?
Fred Thompson! Amazing how different a man can be when someone tells him what to say.
Oh, the mom’s dead. What a cheap catalyst to bring father and daughter together on an emotional level. That’s pretty messed up. I kinda liked her.
Wow. I so don’t care about Maggie Ward’s relationship with her boyfriend. Minesweeper is much more interesting.
Laurence Fishburne, Larry in this film, does a very good job considering he’s given next to nothing to do. This is right before he really broke out on his own. I know Boyz in the Hood came out around that time, and What’s Love Got to Do With It was only a couple of years down the road. He really is a remarkable actor. The thing I find interesting is that in all his scenes with Hackman, Fishburne is pretty low key. But when he is playing across Mastrantrio, he knocks his performance out of the park. I wonder if he just wasn’t comfortable working with Hackman.
The music sounds like an 80s leftover track. I remember that even the great song in the end, "If You Don’t Know Me By Now," had a resurgence in popularity in the late 1980s.
This movie features a major court case, but there is not too much court room action. It’s more of a family drama centering around a father and daughter that don’t understand each other. Gene Hackman is great on both levels. On the other hand, while I think Mary Mastrantonio is quite good just playing his daughter, she is mediocre in many of her other scenes. The movie is all right, simple, and is held up fairly well by Gene Hackman. Plus, Hackman and Mastrantonio genuinely seem to be father and daughter. Their scenes together are the best in the film.
Half way through the movie, I was reminded of that more recent film, Runaway Jury. That film was certainly better than Class Action, but the level intensity Hackman exhibits in both films is fairly similar. The only difference is that Hackman was given better lines in Runaway Jury. Oh, and he got to act with Dustin Hoffman, which made him look even better.
Though I don’t recommend buying this film, if you love Gene Hackman as much as I do, it’s worth a rental. He’s very good in this.
Gene Hackman as Jedediah Ward
Mary Mastrantonio as Maggie Ward
Laurence (Larry) Fishburne
Class Action is a featherweight film, so you won’t find any in-depth analysis here.
This is a fairly low-key film about a father and daughter with a frosty relationship who square off against each other in the court room. On the one side is the daughter representing the big, bad corporation. On the other is the father representing the little guy. I’ve only seen it a couple of times, but I’ve always found it entertaining.
I love Gene Hackman. Love, love, love him. Superman, Unforgiven, Crimson Tide are great movies. He’s awesome in Heist. Hoosiers is fun because of him. He even makes Uncommon Valor kick ass, and that has a dorky Patrick Swayze in it! And let’s not forget Royal Tennenbaums. I asked my dad to take me to see this when I was 15 (rated R, for some freakin’ reason) because even back then I loved him.
Oh wow. I just checked imdb, and Hackman’s going to be 80 next year. He’s actually 5 months OLDER than Clint Eastwood. I never would have guessed that. He sure didn’t look older than him in Unforgiven.
Oh, Robert David Hall! CSI connection (I stopped watching when Fishburne came along)! I think he looks a lot better with a beard.
Ric Flair! Those were the days.
Because this film is rated ‘R’, my dad had to take me to see this when I was 15. I never understood why the rating was that high. There’s no violence, and no sex. The most skin you see is a woman’s shoulder. At the most, this movie is PG-13.
There’s a point fairly early in this film where Mary Mastrantio screams. As crazy as this sounds, her scream sounded familiar. Sooo, I looked her up on imdb, and now I know why. In the same year this film came out, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was released. The only two things I usually ever think about concerning that film is how much Kevin Costner annoys me and how great Alan Rickman is. I never think about the name of the actress who played Maid Marian. However, the one thing I will *never* forget is that when the Sheriff of Nottingham captured her, she screamed “Robin” over and over again. Even at 15, I was embarrassed for all women at her behavior. Turns out that that scream made more of an impression than I ever imagined. Who knew you could identify someone by their scream?
Fred Thompson! Amazing how different a man can be when someone tells him what to say.
Oh, the mom’s dead. What a cheap catalyst to bring father and daughter together on an emotional level. That’s pretty messed up. I kinda liked her.
Wow. I so don’t care about Maggie Ward’s relationship with her boyfriend. Minesweeper is much more interesting.
Laurence Fishburne, Larry in this film, does a very good job considering he’s given next to nothing to do. This is right before he really broke out on his own. I know Boyz in the Hood came out around that time, and What’s Love Got to Do With It was only a couple of years down the road. He really is a remarkable actor. The thing I find interesting is that in all his scenes with Hackman, Fishburne is pretty low key. But when he is playing across Mastrantrio, he knocks his performance out of the park. I wonder if he just wasn’t comfortable working with Hackman.
The music sounds like an 80s leftover track. I remember that even the great song in the end, "If You Don’t Know Me By Now," had a resurgence in popularity in the late 1980s.
This movie features a major court case, but there is not too much court room action. It’s more of a family drama centering around a father and daughter that don’t understand each other. Gene Hackman is great on both levels. On the other hand, while I think Mary Mastrantonio is quite good just playing his daughter, she is mediocre in many of her other scenes. The movie is all right, simple, and is held up fairly well by Gene Hackman. Plus, Hackman and Mastrantonio genuinely seem to be father and daughter. Their scenes together are the best in the film.
Half way through the movie, I was reminded of that more recent film, Runaway Jury. That film was certainly better than Class Action, but the level intensity Hackman exhibits in both films is fairly similar. The only difference is that Hackman was given better lines in Runaway Jury. Oh, and he got to act with Dustin Hoffman, which made him look even better.
Though I don’t recommend buying this film, if you love Gene Hackman as much as I do, it’s worth a rental. He’s very good in this.
No way I'm sleeping after this
Sleepers
Robert De Niro
Brad Renfro
Brad Pitt
Jason Patric
Only a few notes for this film. Was mostly just trying to steel myself to get through it.
1. Didn’t know John Williams composed the music for this film. There were no notes bthat were particularly memorable, but the music did enhance the graphic scenes of the film.
2. It’s interesting to see Brad Pitt in the middle of the five-year span where he was in movies just about every year that were major hits.
3. Had another scary moment where I thought I was watching a defective DVD. Turns out we bought this DVD so long ago that it's one of those you have to turn over half way through.
This film centers around four young boys who are sentenced to time in a boys’ detention center after a prank they play tragically hurts an innocent bystander. While incarcerated, some of the guards take a violent interest them. All four suffer physical and sexual abuse the entire time they are locked up, the worst being the last day. The consequences of these events are far-reaching. Sleepers is a classic story of revenge, and even going into this film blind you would realize this within the fist ten minutes. By the time one of the boys is given a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo, it is clear where the rest of the film is headed. This isn’t the most subtle film ever made.
And this leads me to something else. As I have gotten older, I have had a more and more difficult time watching films with rape scenes and implied rape. I have been able to deal with some, like Mystic River, that feature vague references to it, and don’t show much if anything. As mentioned above, Sleepers isn’t exactly a subtle film. It spends an extended amount of time dealing with the raping and implied raping of children, in my mind the worst kind of rape. I haven’t been able to watch it since it was released more than a decade ago. And no, I'm not an idiot who bought a movie I didn't want to see. It was not for me. My husband thinks it was very well made, so he decided to buy it. Naturally, Murphy’s Law has the last laugh, and it came down to me to watch it.
While the graphic scenes of abuse disturb me, I cannot deny that the first two thirds of the film are very well executed. All four of the young actors give outstanding performances, and the story is very strong and moving. Unfortunately, the movie stumbles in the third act. Somehow, Brad Renfro and the three other young actors whose names I don’t even know are far better than most of the adults, all of whom I do know. Brad Pitt is fine, if a bit bland. Cruddup and Ron Eldard are interesting, if stuck with one-note characters. The real problem lies with Jason Patric. He is so bad he brings the film down a notch from the greatness it could have achieved. The worst part of this is that he provides the voice-over for the entire film. He sounds like a guy trying to memorize his lines in monotone rather than someone who’s actually ready to record. He makes Harrison Ford’s voiceover in Blade Runner sound energetic. He sounds like someone that showed up to collect a paycheck. In other words, he is a blight on this film
The actor who stands out as great happens to be a great actor: Robert De Niro. He plays a priest who tries to watch over the four boys, and ends up playing a pivotal role in the revenge playing out in the third act. To me, this is one of his finest performances, proving that he is more than capable of playing a likable, conflicted man in a low-key, nuanced manner. There is a scene where he is finally told what the boys were put through while incarcerated. The camera stays on a close-up of his face the entire time. While his face barely even moves, his growing realization of the horrors the boys experienced storms through his eyes. It is one of the best scenes in the film.
Sleepers covers several different themes, unfortunately not all explored when the boys have grown up. The first part of the film deals extensively with what it means to be a man. The four boys are constantly told that men are to never take anything from anyone, to never appear weak. One of the boys' fathers tells the story of a hero in their neighborhood who was attacked by a man who disfigured his face. The hero waited eight years to get his revenge, shooting the man in his legs while he was lying in a bathtub. Being taken advantage of by men stronger than them had a very obvious effect on the boys in the second act. All four boys tell their parents not to visit while they're locked up, and will only tell their parents they are doing fine. In one scene, De Niro visits one of them, and the boy is so ashamed he can barely look the priest in the eye.
All of this was explored in the second act, yet the theme was dropped by the third act. This made no sense to me. I was wondering the entire time how these men must have felt all these years later about their abuse after listening to men for years tell them that real men do not allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Two of them talk about how they're still scared, even leaving the light on to sleep, but it seems as if the men should feel more than just fear. The issue of how men deal emotionally with being taken advantage of is not something Hollywood explores often. Unfortunately, in a story that seems the perfect opportunity to deal with this issue, the filmmaker shows no real interest in it.
All in all, despite my distaste for the abuse scenes, I have to acknowledge that the film is pretty good. Jason Patric is just bad, and the third act is underwhelming, but De Niro more than makes up for it. The priest's personal struggle in the final act over the decision of whether or not to lie under oath, to swear to God to tell the truth, in order to help the four men he watched over as boys get revenge on those who abused them makes it worthwhile.
Robert De Niro
Brad Renfro
Brad Pitt
Jason Patric
Only a few notes for this film. Was mostly just trying to steel myself to get through it.
1. Didn’t know John Williams composed the music for this film. There were no notes bthat were particularly memorable, but the music did enhance the graphic scenes of the film.
2. It’s interesting to see Brad Pitt in the middle of the five-year span where he was in movies just about every year that were major hits.
3. Had another scary moment where I thought I was watching a defective DVD. Turns out we bought this DVD so long ago that it's one of those you have to turn over half way through.
This film centers around four young boys who are sentenced to time in a boys’ detention center after a prank they play tragically hurts an innocent bystander. While incarcerated, some of the guards take a violent interest them. All four suffer physical and sexual abuse the entire time they are locked up, the worst being the last day. The consequences of these events are far-reaching. Sleepers is a classic story of revenge, and even going into this film blind you would realize this within the fist ten minutes. By the time one of the boys is given a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo, it is clear where the rest of the film is headed. This isn’t the most subtle film ever made.
And this leads me to something else. As I have gotten older, I have had a more and more difficult time watching films with rape scenes and implied rape. I have been able to deal with some, like Mystic River, that feature vague references to it, and don’t show much if anything. As mentioned above, Sleepers isn’t exactly a subtle film. It spends an extended amount of time dealing with the raping and implied raping of children, in my mind the worst kind of rape. I haven’t been able to watch it since it was released more than a decade ago. And no, I'm not an idiot who bought a movie I didn't want to see. It was not for me. My husband thinks it was very well made, so he decided to buy it. Naturally, Murphy’s Law has the last laugh, and it came down to me to watch it.
While the graphic scenes of abuse disturb me, I cannot deny that the first two thirds of the film are very well executed. All four of the young actors give outstanding performances, and the story is very strong and moving. Unfortunately, the movie stumbles in the third act. Somehow, Brad Renfro and the three other young actors whose names I don’t even know are far better than most of the adults, all of whom I do know. Brad Pitt is fine, if a bit bland. Cruddup and Ron Eldard are interesting, if stuck with one-note characters. The real problem lies with Jason Patric. He is so bad he brings the film down a notch from the greatness it could have achieved. The worst part of this is that he provides the voice-over for the entire film. He sounds like a guy trying to memorize his lines in monotone rather than someone who’s actually ready to record. He makes Harrison Ford’s voiceover in Blade Runner sound energetic. He sounds like someone that showed up to collect a paycheck. In other words, he is a blight on this film
The actor who stands out as great happens to be a great actor: Robert De Niro. He plays a priest who tries to watch over the four boys, and ends up playing a pivotal role in the revenge playing out in the third act. To me, this is one of his finest performances, proving that he is more than capable of playing a likable, conflicted man in a low-key, nuanced manner. There is a scene where he is finally told what the boys were put through while incarcerated. The camera stays on a close-up of his face the entire time. While his face barely even moves, his growing realization of the horrors the boys experienced storms through his eyes. It is one of the best scenes in the film.
Sleepers covers several different themes, unfortunately not all explored when the boys have grown up. The first part of the film deals extensively with what it means to be a man. The four boys are constantly told that men are to never take anything from anyone, to never appear weak. One of the boys' fathers tells the story of a hero in their neighborhood who was attacked by a man who disfigured his face. The hero waited eight years to get his revenge, shooting the man in his legs while he was lying in a bathtub. Being taken advantage of by men stronger than them had a very obvious effect on the boys in the second act. All four boys tell their parents not to visit while they're locked up, and will only tell their parents they are doing fine. In one scene, De Niro visits one of them, and the boy is so ashamed he can barely look the priest in the eye.
All of this was explored in the second act, yet the theme was dropped by the third act. This made no sense to me. I was wondering the entire time how these men must have felt all these years later about their abuse after listening to men for years tell them that real men do not allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Two of them talk about how they're still scared, even leaving the light on to sleep, but it seems as if the men should feel more than just fear. The issue of how men deal emotionally with being taken advantage of is not something Hollywood explores often. Unfortunately, in a story that seems the perfect opportunity to deal with this issue, the filmmaker shows no real interest in it.
All in all, despite my distaste for the abuse scenes, I have to acknowledge that the film is pretty good. Jason Patric is just bad, and the third act is underwhelming, but De Niro more than makes up for it. The priest's personal struggle in the final act over the decision of whether or not to lie under oath, to swear to God to tell the truth, in order to help the four men he watched over as boys get revenge on those who abused them makes it worthwhile.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Success!
Was finally able to watch Sleepers, but am feeling a little woozy (not because of the film), so I will put it up tomorrow.
Friday, August 14, 2009
It has happened
I was afraid this would happen at some point. I don't like some of the movies I have to watch. Though the vast majority of the movies were bought by and for me, there are a few that were not. Sleepers is one of them. I feel about Sleepers the same way I do about From Hell: well made, but not something I ever want to see again. I have been avoiding it for a day and a half. After writing this, I think I'll be able to put it in the DVD player. We'll see.
Deep Impact
Deep Impact
Robert Duvall
Téa Leoni
Elijah Wood
Morgan Freeman
Vanessa Redgrave
James Cromwell
Maximilian Schell
I remember that after seeing this in theaters back in 1998 I walked out liking it. Today is the first time I’ve watched it since, and while I don’t think it’s the good movie that I remembered it being, I know why I walked out feeling that way. Deep Impact is an odd little movie. It is an end of the world disaster film, but besides a few scenes with some mostly bad special effects, and Elijah Wood trying to hunt down the girl he loves, there’s really no action at all. The scientific explanations for the disaster and attempts at rescue are laughable. The plot itself is simple to the extreme, and not a single character is written with any depth. Indeed, there are so many characters, so many story threads, that the films ends up being little more than a collage of scenes. The weird thing is, it works. Not on any level of greatness. Not as a popcorn movie. Not even as a good movie. But on an emotional level, this film is moving.
Disaster films have always been popular. The idea that something so dangerous and so overwhelming happens that endangers thousands or millions, or in this film billions, of peoples’ lives is pretty intense. Throw in some cool action scenes and some great special effects, and voila, you’ve got the perfect popcorn film. But the one thing these movies make sure not do is give the audience too much time to think. Deep Impact offers time to think in spades.
I could go through and describe to you the details of the plot, tell you about all the different characters, but there’s really no point. The story is generic, and the characters are paper thin, largely due to the monstrous size of the cast. In fact, two seconds after the film was over I realized I couldn’t remember the name of a single character. None of that matters. This movie goes out of its way to force an American audience to honestly think about what they would do if a comet was coming towards earth, and the President of the United States tells you that only 1 million Americans can be saved.
Unlike Armageddon, which is about the people that save the world, this film is more interested in the people left back on Earth, waiting for the heroes to finish the job. It is much easier to identify with these people. Though we all would love to be the hero, the fact is I don’t know anyone that would qualify as capable to fly a ship to a comet, land on it, sink some nukes into it, and fly back out again. I barely felt a connection to the heroes at all, other than an affection for Robert Duvall. But the people left behind, waiting to hear their fates? I could relate to those people.
It takes a little over an hour to get there, but once it looks like the astronauts have failed, the president starts talking about making sure humans live on. This is when I started to become emotionally invested in the outcome. Without letting the people know, the government had spent months quietly building a shelter, the Ark, that is capable of keeping one million Americans alive. 200,000 scientists, doctors, artists, etc. have already been handpicked, but the other 800,000 will be picked at random by using the handy dandy Social Security Number. Oh, and if you’re over 50, you won’t get picked at all unless you’re part of the 200,000 professionals and experts.
The film sets very strict parameters, too. None of those “If I knew I was going to die I’d go out with a bang” ideas are permitted. The president declares marshal law, freezes all wages, and prices. The military runs the show, and those that step out of line will be met with a violent response. At one point, a character is watching television and sees a man lying down in the dirt, killed by a US soldier because he had raised his prices to make a profit and tried to complain at the violent way in which he was forced to end it. So, what do you do? You still have to survive. The comet isn’t coming for a while yet. You need money to eat, and as the president says, “you will pay your bills.”
And this is where the film excels. Every character in the movie starts finding out whether they are going to live or die. In each scene, I found myself thinking about how I would handle the different outcomes. What if I was too old? What if my neighbor was going to survive but not me? What if I was going to survive but not my neighbor? What if I was supposed to survive but there was a mistake on the list, and I was prevented from getting on the Ark. How would I live the remaining days of my life if I knew the world as I know it was coming to an end? What about the people that have to make the decisions about which scientists, doctors, artists and other necessary professionals get to live? Would I be able to live with myself after doing something like that? And what if I happened to be in the army? What would it do to me having to treat my fellow citizens the way the soldiers are forced to do in the film?
It is possible to ponder this because there are so many scenes where it looks like the characters are quietly struggling with these same questions. And it doesn't hurt that this film features two of the greatest actors of our time. Morgan Freeman does an outstanding job playing the president. Though he is not technically the main character, much of the movie rests on his shoulders. He is able to show a man who has been saddled with the greatest burden a leader can ever shoulder. He handles it not just with compassion, but with a sense of calm backed with steel that made me believe that he could keep a country from an all out panic. Vanessa Redgrave is barely given anything to do at all, yet I found her profoundly moving. There were entire scenes where all she did was sit and watch what was happening on television – her daughter, played by Téa Leoni, was the anchor of the news show that apparently everyone watched. Watching how she wordlessly reacted to hearing the president say that because of her age she wouldn’t even have the hope of being saved was one of the most powerful moments of the movie for me. Redgrave is a real treasure. The question that permeates the last half of the film is, “Would I be able to face knowing when I was going to die with dignity, or would I fall to pieces?” I am still trying to answer that, but a large part of me hopes that I would be able to deal with it as gracefully as Freeman and Redgrave.
The moment when I knew this film was different came during the death of two characters. Téa Leoni is standing on a beach in the arms of her estranged father, played by Maximilian Schell, watching a gigantic wave coming towards them. In most disaster flicks, I would be thinking about how awesome that wave looked. In this film, all I could think about was how scared I would be, and how much it would mean to me to be there facing the end with my own estranged father.
Oh, and there was one more question that kept going through my mind: “How on earth did Tea Leoni get so lucky as to have parents played by Vanessa Redgrave and Maximilian Schell!”
Robert Duvall
Téa Leoni
Elijah Wood
Morgan Freeman
Vanessa Redgrave
James Cromwell
Maximilian Schell
I remember that after seeing this in theaters back in 1998 I walked out liking it. Today is the first time I’ve watched it since, and while I don’t think it’s the good movie that I remembered it being, I know why I walked out feeling that way. Deep Impact is an odd little movie. It is an end of the world disaster film, but besides a few scenes with some mostly bad special effects, and Elijah Wood trying to hunt down the girl he loves, there’s really no action at all. The scientific explanations for the disaster and attempts at rescue are laughable. The plot itself is simple to the extreme, and not a single character is written with any depth. Indeed, there are so many characters, so many story threads, that the films ends up being little more than a collage of scenes. The weird thing is, it works. Not on any level of greatness. Not as a popcorn movie. Not even as a good movie. But on an emotional level, this film is moving.
Disaster films have always been popular. The idea that something so dangerous and so overwhelming happens that endangers thousands or millions, or in this film billions, of peoples’ lives is pretty intense. Throw in some cool action scenes and some great special effects, and voila, you’ve got the perfect popcorn film. But the one thing these movies make sure not do is give the audience too much time to think. Deep Impact offers time to think in spades.
I could go through and describe to you the details of the plot, tell you about all the different characters, but there’s really no point. The story is generic, and the characters are paper thin, largely due to the monstrous size of the cast. In fact, two seconds after the film was over I realized I couldn’t remember the name of a single character. None of that matters. This movie goes out of its way to force an American audience to honestly think about what they would do if a comet was coming towards earth, and the President of the United States tells you that only 1 million Americans can be saved.
Unlike Armageddon, which is about the people that save the world, this film is more interested in the people left back on Earth, waiting for the heroes to finish the job. It is much easier to identify with these people. Though we all would love to be the hero, the fact is I don’t know anyone that would qualify as capable to fly a ship to a comet, land on it, sink some nukes into it, and fly back out again. I barely felt a connection to the heroes at all, other than an affection for Robert Duvall. But the people left behind, waiting to hear their fates? I could relate to those people.
It takes a little over an hour to get there, but once it looks like the astronauts have failed, the president starts talking about making sure humans live on. This is when I started to become emotionally invested in the outcome. Without letting the people know, the government had spent months quietly building a shelter, the Ark, that is capable of keeping one million Americans alive. 200,000 scientists, doctors, artists, etc. have already been handpicked, but the other 800,000 will be picked at random by using the handy dandy Social Security Number. Oh, and if you’re over 50, you won’t get picked at all unless you’re part of the 200,000 professionals and experts.
The film sets very strict parameters, too. None of those “If I knew I was going to die I’d go out with a bang” ideas are permitted. The president declares marshal law, freezes all wages, and prices. The military runs the show, and those that step out of line will be met with a violent response. At one point, a character is watching television and sees a man lying down in the dirt, killed by a US soldier because he had raised his prices to make a profit and tried to complain at the violent way in which he was forced to end it. So, what do you do? You still have to survive. The comet isn’t coming for a while yet. You need money to eat, and as the president says, “you will pay your bills.”
And this is where the film excels. Every character in the movie starts finding out whether they are going to live or die. In each scene, I found myself thinking about how I would handle the different outcomes. What if I was too old? What if my neighbor was going to survive but not me? What if I was going to survive but not my neighbor? What if I was supposed to survive but there was a mistake on the list, and I was prevented from getting on the Ark. How would I live the remaining days of my life if I knew the world as I know it was coming to an end? What about the people that have to make the decisions about which scientists, doctors, artists and other necessary professionals get to live? Would I be able to live with myself after doing something like that? And what if I happened to be in the army? What would it do to me having to treat my fellow citizens the way the soldiers are forced to do in the film?
It is possible to ponder this because there are so many scenes where it looks like the characters are quietly struggling with these same questions. And it doesn't hurt that this film features two of the greatest actors of our time. Morgan Freeman does an outstanding job playing the president. Though he is not technically the main character, much of the movie rests on his shoulders. He is able to show a man who has been saddled with the greatest burden a leader can ever shoulder. He handles it not just with compassion, but with a sense of calm backed with steel that made me believe that he could keep a country from an all out panic. Vanessa Redgrave is barely given anything to do at all, yet I found her profoundly moving. There were entire scenes where all she did was sit and watch what was happening on television – her daughter, played by Téa Leoni, was the anchor of the news show that apparently everyone watched. Watching how she wordlessly reacted to hearing the president say that because of her age she wouldn’t even have the hope of being saved was one of the most powerful moments of the movie for me. Redgrave is a real treasure. The question that permeates the last half of the film is, “Would I be able to face knowing when I was going to die with dignity, or would I fall to pieces?” I am still trying to answer that, but a large part of me hopes that I would be able to deal with it as gracefully as Freeman and Redgrave.
The moment when I knew this film was different came during the death of two characters. Téa Leoni is standing on a beach in the arms of her estranged father, played by Maximilian Schell, watching a gigantic wave coming towards them. In most disaster flicks, I would be thinking about how awesome that wave looked. In this film, all I could think about was how scared I would be, and how much it would mean to me to be there facing the end with my own estranged father.
Oh, and there was one more question that kept going through my mind: “How on earth did Tea Leoni get so lucky as to have parents played by Vanessa Redgrave and Maximilian Schell!”
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
I have been struggling with a cold for the past few days, which has been slowing me down quite a bit. This resulted in me taking a little longer to polish this and post it than I thought it would.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Harrison Ford - Is an introduction really necessary?
Kate Capshaw - Willie
Another movie that isn’t that serious, so I figured I would just go with the notes I made again, and give a short summary at the end.
Notes:
Oh. My. God. How on Earth could I have forgotten that it starts off with Kate Capshaw singing “Anything Goes” in Cantonese? Spielberg and Lucas seem to have a hidden passion for 1930s musicals. Of course, that wasn’t all Spielberg had a passion for.
Harrison Ford gets a great entrance. And in a white suit no less. It makes his eyes look the bluest I’ve ever seen them. Since his eyes are actually hazel, they normally look brown, so this surprised me. I was instantly reminded why he was the first man I ever had a crush on.
The prologue serves an interesting purpose: it shows that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’s first thirty minutes of ridiculousness was not a fluke. While the first fifteen minutes are not as over the top in slapstick humor as the last film, it has its moments. I was depressed to realize that this is proof positive that if Harrison Ford had shown an interest in doing anything but standing in front of the camera to collect a paycheck in the last film, it may have been all right.
Noticed for the first time that the sign outside the club says “Club Obi Wan.”
I am hard-pressed to decide which is more ridiculous: Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge, or Indiana Jones and tagalongs surviving the fall from a plane in a life raft. Could go either way.
The Vietnamese kid played a fairly amusing character in Goonies the year after this was released, which makes sense since it was a kids’ movie. It is surprising that he’s pretty amusing in this one, too. That’s very rare for a child actor. The only real misstep was when he tried to cry, but it only lasts for a few seconds, so it was endurable.
I am very conflicted about Kate Capshaw in this film. On the one hand, she plays one of the dumbest, shrillest, annoying, and offensive female characters to come out of Hollywood in the last 25 years. On the other hand, it was clear from the very first scene of the film that she was deliberately modeled after the dumb blondes that were very popular in films back in the 1920s and 30s. It’s not her fault. And there are a (very) few scenes where Capshaw moves away from that and shows that she probably would have been better used as a more serious character. She wasn’t that bad of an actress. Her response to being told to hold on in the cool bridge scene at the end is one of the funniest moments in the film. Plus I love her in Space Camp (that's right, I said it), so it's hard for me to criticize her too much.
Hollywood seems to have been interested in India in the 1980s. James Bond spent some time there in Octopussy the year before.
The chilled monkey brains still makes me smile. Ick.
The relationship between Indy and Willie is just not believable. I cringed during all their intimate scenes. Ford and Capshaw have little to no chemistry, and considering the fact that Indiana Jones showed nothing but annoyance with her for the first 40 minutes, his sudden interest makes no sense. Well, it coinciding with her arriving at dinner dressed in beautiful Indian clothing may have played some part. I don’t think my dislike of their relationship was completely the fault of the actors, though. Kate Capshaw was given the unpleasant task of trying to follow up Karen Allen’s Marion, who was feisty, independent and self-reliant woman. And it didn't hurt that Ford and Allen had chemistry. I believe Marion to be one of the greatest love interests of all time. Willie is the exact opposite of all that she represented, and it just doesn’t seem to be a good match for Dr. Jones.
I have always found this film to be a bit underwhelming. I think the the two screenwriters must take much of the blame for this. This opinion was strengthened when I looked up their credits on imdb. Though they did write American Graffiti, they also wrote Howard the Duck. I will admit to having an affection for that film (What? So I like bad 80s films. Sue me). But there is a reason it is universally acknowledged as a bad film.
The scene where Willie has to stick her hand through a hole with insects crawling all over the place is still one of the creepiest moments of all time. As much I love Harrison Ford, I would think twice about sticking my hand through that as well.
Oh, that’s right. I remember now why Spielberg was responsible for the PG-13 rating. The sacrifice scene. Wohoo!
The mine shaft scene is one of the coolest action scenes ever, and quite obviously inspired the designers of a few video games.
*checks imdb*Ha! I knew that guy was Dan Akroyd. It’s the first time I ever noticed. He never gets a close-up, and you only ever see his profile, but he was still recognizable.
I never paid to Indiana Jones' motivations in this film, until now. Though I have known for a long time that this film is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I never thought that the film conveyed this to the audience. I admit, it never seemed important enough for me to even look for any evidence because one doesn't need to in order to enjoy the film. This time, the clues seemed fairly obvious. Most noticeably, Jones shows no interest in collecting items for museums. He hunts artifacts for profit. There is even a nod to this at the end when Willie and Ford discuss putting the relic they have in a museum. Considering how unsubtle all the Indiana Jones movies are, it surprises me that this aspect of his character doesn't stand out that much.
The worst I can say about this movie is that there were several boring parts, especially once Indy and the other two are captured. I mean, Indy was getting tortured, and I couldn't bring myself to care. The best that I can say is that it is far better than The Kingdom of the Skull. It was fun, and the acting was good. Harrison Ford still looked incredibly hot, and was still interested in the character. The action scenes were great, despite the silly one with the life raft. Overall, I think my reaction to this movie can best be summed up with this: I can’t wait to watch The Last Crusade.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Harrison Ford - Is an introduction really necessary?
Kate Capshaw - Willie
Another movie that isn’t that serious, so I figured I would just go with the notes I made again, and give a short summary at the end.
Notes:
Oh. My. God. How on Earth could I have forgotten that it starts off with Kate Capshaw singing “Anything Goes” in Cantonese? Spielberg and Lucas seem to have a hidden passion for 1930s musicals. Of course, that wasn’t all Spielberg had a passion for.
Harrison Ford gets a great entrance. And in a white suit no less. It makes his eyes look the bluest I’ve ever seen them. Since his eyes are actually hazel, they normally look brown, so this surprised me. I was instantly reminded why he was the first man I ever had a crush on.
The prologue serves an interesting purpose: it shows that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’s first thirty minutes of ridiculousness was not a fluke. While the first fifteen minutes are not as over the top in slapstick humor as the last film, it has its moments. I was depressed to realize that this is proof positive that if Harrison Ford had shown an interest in doing anything but standing in front of the camera to collect a paycheck in the last film, it may have been all right.
Noticed for the first time that the sign outside the club says “Club Obi Wan.”
I am hard-pressed to decide which is more ridiculous: Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge, or Indiana Jones and tagalongs surviving the fall from a plane in a life raft. Could go either way.
The Vietnamese kid played a fairly amusing character in Goonies the year after this was released, which makes sense since it was a kids’ movie. It is surprising that he’s pretty amusing in this one, too. That’s very rare for a child actor. The only real misstep was when he tried to cry, but it only lasts for a few seconds, so it was endurable.
I am very conflicted about Kate Capshaw in this film. On the one hand, she plays one of the dumbest, shrillest, annoying, and offensive female characters to come out of Hollywood in the last 25 years. On the other hand, it was clear from the very first scene of the film that she was deliberately modeled after the dumb blondes that were very popular in films back in the 1920s and 30s. It’s not her fault. And there are a (very) few scenes where Capshaw moves away from that and shows that she probably would have been better used as a more serious character. She wasn’t that bad of an actress. Her response to being told to hold on in the cool bridge scene at the end is one of the funniest moments in the film. Plus I love her in Space Camp (that's right, I said it), so it's hard for me to criticize her too much.
Hollywood seems to have been interested in India in the 1980s. James Bond spent some time there in Octopussy the year before.
The chilled monkey brains still makes me smile. Ick.
The relationship between Indy and Willie is just not believable. I cringed during all their intimate scenes. Ford and Capshaw have little to no chemistry, and considering the fact that Indiana Jones showed nothing but annoyance with her for the first 40 minutes, his sudden interest makes no sense. Well, it coinciding with her arriving at dinner dressed in beautiful Indian clothing may have played some part. I don’t think my dislike of their relationship was completely the fault of the actors, though. Kate Capshaw was given the unpleasant task of trying to follow up Karen Allen’s Marion, who was feisty, independent and self-reliant woman. And it didn't hurt that Ford and Allen had chemistry. I believe Marion to be one of the greatest love interests of all time. Willie is the exact opposite of all that she represented, and it just doesn’t seem to be a good match for Dr. Jones.
I have always found this film to be a bit underwhelming. I think the the two screenwriters must take much of the blame for this. This opinion was strengthened when I looked up their credits on imdb. Though they did write American Graffiti, they also wrote Howard the Duck. I will admit to having an affection for that film (What? So I like bad 80s films. Sue me). But there is a reason it is universally acknowledged as a bad film.
The scene where Willie has to stick her hand through a hole with insects crawling all over the place is still one of the creepiest moments of all time. As much I love Harrison Ford, I would think twice about sticking my hand through that as well.
Oh, that’s right. I remember now why Spielberg was responsible for the PG-13 rating. The sacrifice scene. Wohoo!
The mine shaft scene is one of the coolest action scenes ever, and quite obviously inspired the designers of a few video games.
*checks imdb*Ha! I knew that guy was Dan Akroyd. It’s the first time I ever noticed. He never gets a close-up, and you only ever see his profile, but he was still recognizable.
I never paid to Indiana Jones' motivations in this film, until now. Though I have known for a long time that this film is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I never thought that the film conveyed this to the audience. I admit, it never seemed important enough for me to even look for any evidence because one doesn't need to in order to enjoy the film. This time, the clues seemed fairly obvious. Most noticeably, Jones shows no interest in collecting items for museums. He hunts artifacts for profit. There is even a nod to this at the end when Willie and Ford discuss putting the relic they have in a museum. Considering how unsubtle all the Indiana Jones movies are, it surprises me that this aspect of his character doesn't stand out that much.
The worst I can say about this movie is that there were several boring parts, especially once Indy and the other two are captured. I mean, Indy was getting tortured, and I couldn't bring myself to care. The best that I can say is that it is far better than The Kingdom of the Skull. It was fun, and the acting was good. Harrison Ford still looked incredibly hot, and was still interested in the character. The action scenes were great, despite the silly one with the life raft. Overall, I think my reaction to this movie can best be summed up with this: I can’t wait to watch The Last Crusade.
Tonight will be a twofer
I have watched Temple of Doom, but after spending a day and a half writing that ridiculously long Generations review, I need to clear my head. And watch last night's Cubs game. Plus I need some serious sleep. I'll have the Indy review up by 9 tonight, and Deep Impact some time around midnight.
Generations (very, very long review)
Star Trek: Generations (long review)
Captain Picard: Patrick Stewart
Lt. Commander Data: Brent Spiner
Captain Kirk: William Shatner
Soran: Malcolm McDowell
I need to preface this review by stating that I am a huge Star Trek fan. I grew up on the original and Next Generation series, and love Deep Space Nine. By the time I was 7 or 8 I had every single episode of the original series memorized. I have had a crush on Spock since I was 10. I know who the two female Klingons in this film are. I know that the sole black actor (who plays a human) with dialogue in the film is Tim Russ, and that he has appeared in three of the Star Trek series, co-starring in one of them. I not only know that there is a joke about Deanna Troi crashing the Enterprise, I know why it is funny. While I don’t dress up in full Star Trek regalia and congregate with others at the many conventions (all right, I have been to a couple, but I never wore a costume!), it is safe to say that I can be considered, perhaps, somewhat of an expert on Star Trek. As such, it can only be expected that my review will be slightly (ok, very) biased, and very long.
So here we go.
After a rather boring span of opening credits, the movie immediately shifts into high gear. A champagne bottle floating through space crashes into the brand spanking new Enterprise B, commemorating its maiden voyage. On board as a guest, to the media’s excitement, is the retired Captain James T. Kirk, there to watch as a brand new captain take the first Enterprise Kirk will not command. It is clear that neither the retired captain nor the young, new captain are comfortable with this situation. Both Scotty and Chekov are along for the ride, providing moral support. They also gently tease him about the nauseating hero worship he is forced to endure. After nearly 30 years , the chemistry between these three actors is so strong, and their interaction so effortless, it is as much fun to watch them as it seems to have been for them to be in this movie. Of course, within minutes, Kirk is put into a situation where he can save the day, and another Enterprise, once more. Only this time, he sacrifices his own life in the process. It is a hero’s death worthy of Captain James T. Kirk. The entire fifteen minutes that Kirk is on the screen at the beginning features a combination of light humor, intense action and a bit of serious drama. It is also the high point of the movie.
My disappointment in the rest of the film has nothing to do with Kirk being a better actor, or that I love him more than the Next Generation crew. He isn’t and I don’t. It’s that while the writers seemed to have had no problem writing for the original characters, they had no clear idea how to transfer the newer characters to the big screen while also bridging the two generations. This is a bit shocking since they had been writing for the Next Generation characters for four years by that point. There are various problems big and small that permeate the movie, not all of it connected to the writing.
The technical aspects were a mixed bad. A surprising misstep is the music. Even the worst Star Trek movies feature, at the very least, interesting and memorable music. Some have great music. An hour after watching this film, I couldn't remember a single note. I do remember that it was boring. On the other hand, I was surprised to find the lighting of the movie, particularly the contrasts of dark and light in Picard's Ready Room to be stimulating, and one my favorite aspects of the film. The worst technical feature is undoubtedly the combination of direction and editing, resulting in something that looks like an extended television episode rather than a film that belongs on the silver screen.
A minor annoyance is the genesis of an embarrassing tradition: Worf is turned into little more than a joke. Pavel Chekov was made to look like a bit of an idiot in the original Star Trek show for comic relief, but in the films, he was written as a mature character. It worked very well because by the time the second film was released, Walter Koenig was noticeably older. Worf moved in the opposite direction, despite Michael Dorn looking older, even under a ton of makeup. While the Klingon did provide some comic relief in the show, as well as on Deep Space Nine later, Worf was always treated with respect. In the movies, he is written as a buffoon half the time. Some of the things he had to do in the succeeding movies are too embarrassing to think about. I hope he got well paid. Ironically, one of the writers of this film went on to write the best Worf episodes on Deep Space Nine. He also went on to be the show runner of the new Battlestar Galactica. Proof positive that one bad movie does not necessarily reflect on a writer’s skill.
The only other source of humor in the film is much more pervasive, and one of the two major problems with the film: Data. I think Brent Spiner did a terrific job playing a tricky character in the television series. He imbued the android with a subtle mixture of curiosity, grace, and a sweetness that worked well in the Star Trek world. And unlike most of the characters on the show, Data was allowed to really grow. By the end of the series, he was barely recognizable as the emotionless, naïve and slightly clueless android who escorted the very elderly Dr. McCoy down a corridor of the new Enterprise in the pilot episode. The writers (and Spiner who had a lot of control over his parts in the script) threw out every single thing that defined who Data was for seven years, and created a loud, obnoxious and irritating android. In the film, Data decides to install his emotion chip he keeps on display (he got it in a very bad episode – a sign?). This could have been an interesting aspect of the movie. It wasn’t. I have seen Spiner in interviews; he is hilarious and has excellent comedic timing. For some reason, none of that comes across here. There are times he even seems to be uncomfortable. Data is supposed to be struggling with his emotions, but Spiner plays Data so over-the-top that those around him, for the most part, are reduced to little more than tapestries. Less than an hour into the movie, I actually felt sorry for every actor unfortunate enough to be standing next to him. Patrick Stewart is the only one who manages to hold his own, but it clearly took all of his tremendous skills to overcome that much melodrama. I found myself wondering how a scene between Data and Kirk would have played out in this film. Brent made Shatner look like the epitome of subtlety. I wonder what effect exposure to this overacting would have had on the Shat. It might have been epic.
Still, despite both my dislike of Data in this movie and the weird lack of good humor among the new crew, this movie still could have been salvaged. Watching the Enterprise D crash onto the planet (thanks, Deanna) is one of the greatest thrills I've ever had in a theater. The majority of the Kirk scenes are great, including The Scene where he meets Picard, which is highly entertaining. Even Malcolm McDowell managed to contain his tendency towards overacting. These could have offset how annoying Data was, and certainly the minor technical disappointments. But in order to do so, the movie needed one essential ingredient: a well-executed story. Unfortunately, the story is the movie’s greatest weakness.
The original movies often had a lot of humor in them. Everyone involved was smart enough to realize that the stories being written often had a trace of ridiculousness in its stories. They knew that the movies, just like the show, would work best if the writers and actors didn’t take themselves too seriously. It also helped that the actors worked well with this. The Generations script was primarily forcing the crew to play it straight and serious. In order for it to work it needed to execute one heck of a dramatic punch. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine excelled at this. That show featured the darkest, most powerful plots in all of Star Trek. While there was comedy, it was often of the darkest kind, and there were episodes that had none at all. But they were so well written, and so well executed, that several were nothing short of excellent. In order for there to be a dramatic punch, the audience has to care deeply for the characters. This is incredibly difficult for Star Trek films to pull off. They have to be accessible to audiences new to Star Trek while trying to stay within the framework of the vast, intricate Star Trek universe. There’s very little time to explain back stories that took years, sometimes decades, to create. If Generations could have pulled that off, it likely would have been a good film. In fact, it could have been one of the best. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t to be.
The key plot of the movie is Picard’s story. It is this pivotal plot around which everything revolves, the story on which the overall quality of the movie depends. It is literally what determines whether or not Picard will not only be able, but even want to save the universe. There, of course, is a bad guy, but the key struggle for Picard in this film is internal. As with all the Next Generation stories, there is some external force that causes the conflict. In this case, the force is called the Nexus, an energy ribbon that transports beings into a dimension in which their every wish and desire is catered to. As Guinan, adequately played by Whoopie Goldberg, tells her friend Picard, time and space have no meaning in the Nexus. You can be taking breakfast to the love of your life, only to walk through the door and find yourself in a barn standing next to the horse you happened to be thinking about. It is so enticing and overwhelming that one of the characters spends nearly a century obsessed with finding a way back in, having no problem killing hundreds of millions of life forms in the process. The plot depends on Picard not only getting caught in the Nexus, but more importantly, facing a personal crisis so powerful that having the Nexus sooth his emotional pain makes returning to his time and space very difficult. This was always going to be a difficult sell. Like Kirk, Picard has always shown more dedication to his career than anything or anyone else. What could possibly make him even think about giving it up? Patrick Stewart lobbied hard for the motivation to be that Picard is informed right before the Nexus is found that his three remaining family members are killed, burned alive. The intention was for Picard to feel devastated that he had sacrificed not just his entire life, but now his entire family line, to the job. Stewart felt that Picard’s fresh wounds would have the effect of his desire to continue his family’s legacy, helped along by his shame at having pushed that responsibility on to his recently deceased brother, becoming as powerful as the pull he feels to his career.
This type of heavy drama hinged on the audience being able to connect with Picard’s pain. It is here where the tight confines of all Star Trek movie plots collided with a terrible decision by the writers. Although character development wasn’t exactly a defining feature of the television show, because of the character back story restrictions forced on all Star Trek movies, not to mention there being too many characters, there is even less time for it in Generations. As such, every second of it needed to count. For some reason, the writers wasted time that could have been used carefully developing Picard's story by focusing more than they should have, more than they needed to, on Soran. The result of this decision sank the film. Both story arcs ended up being unsatisfying. The writers spent just enough time hinting that Soran was a complex, interesting guy, but not enough for the audience to make an emotional connection. Picard's internal agony never makes much of an impression on the audience, other than a sense that it is highly melodramatic. There was just too much time between each scene specifically designed to show how much he was hurting. The audience doesn't even find out the cause until more than 45 minutes into the film. Not only that, but his indecision in the Nexus is practically nonexistent. He spends most of his time trying to convince Kirk to come back with him. This all resulted in making Picard's story arc seem completely useless, and worse, making him pale in comparison to Kirk. The writers tried to have their cake and eat it, too. What they ended up with is a film that is shallow and a waste.
It is easy to see why the writers didn’t want to choose. On the one hand, there is Malcolm McDowell who, somehow, some way, managed a subdued, interesting performance. There are hints throughout the film that the writers had a fascinating idea for how this character worked. Here was a man who lost everything, but for a brief moment was able to live as if he had gotten it all back. Then to his horror, he is jerked back without his consent to his own time. Unable to face it, he spends decades doing nothing but trying to find a way back. There are aspects to that that would have been interesting to explore. On the other hand, you have Patrick Stewart, who is a great actor, not to mention the star of the film. The best episodes of the show were ones that featured Picard struggling internally. Starting off the chain of Next Generation movies by showcasing the tremendous acting skills of the star would have made for a hell of an entrance to the big screen. The writers could have highlighted that this crew was different, more serious, precisely because it was led by an actor who could keep the drama from turning into melodrama. Instead, the writers made the amateur mistake of not choosing which angle to fully explore, probably thinking they could do both. This one mistake condemned the film to mediocrity.
One final point about the film, and this one has upset me since the first night I saw it back in 1994. Kirk’s first death is vastly more heroic and fitting than his second one. Going out while single-handedly saving the new Enterprise that was next in line after the one he cared so deeply about is poignant. Being brought back and not directly, single-handedly saving anyone was not worthy of a man such as James T. Kirk. Not to mention that his death the first time got it right: he died alone. Another example of the film's inability to offer any type of real meaning to the audience.
This review is long not (only) because I’m a huge Star Trek fan. For the past few years, I have been lamenting how the Next Generation movies just aren’t that good, and trying to figure out why. First Contact performed the best, but even that one isn’t great. I certainly wouldn’t put it in the same category as Star Trek II. This disappoints me because I think this crew could have been used well enough to make some really good movies. The problem is that the writers tried to follow the same formula used in the first six movies with a cast of characters that wasn’t designed for that. The best Next Generation episodes were far more cerebral, and allowed Patrick Stewart’s, and to a lesser extent Brent Spiner’s, acting to really shine. In the films, Picard was forced into being more of an action hero than he really was, Data remained coarse and Spiner a little awkward, and the rest of the crew became completely interchangeable.
Except Generations. I really think that the writers for this film meant to create a script that wrote the Next Generation characters the way they were designed to be. Unfortunately, because of the major writing mistakes with the script, they just couldn’t pull it off. So, the writers, and I suspect even more the producers, decided to just stick with the tried and true formula of keeping Star Trek lightly humorous and full of action. I think this is why all of the movies headlined by Captain Picard, even First Contact, don’t stand out. They’re barely even Star Trek, and they are definitely not marked by what defined the television show: a good balance between a morality-focused story, good, subtle acting, and action. The Next Generation did have action, but it rarely ever overpowered the dramatic power of the story. At least the best episodes didn’t. And finally, frankly, the cast seems to have been incapable of handling the type of humor every single actor in the original show handled effortlessly.
I firmly believe that if the writers had turned in a better script, chosen to focus less on Soran and more on Picard's emotional trauma, and reduced the number of characters, the movie could have established a different model for the Next Generation movies. If that had happened, I think we would have seen some excellent movies that played to the talents of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. They would have been very different from the first six Star Trek films, but they also would have had their own identity. It’s sad that we never got this.
Captain Picard: Patrick Stewart
Lt. Commander Data: Brent Spiner
Captain Kirk: William Shatner
Soran: Malcolm McDowell
I need to preface this review by stating that I am a huge Star Trek fan. I grew up on the original and Next Generation series, and love Deep Space Nine. By the time I was 7 or 8 I had every single episode of the original series memorized. I have had a crush on Spock since I was 10. I know who the two female Klingons in this film are. I know that the sole black actor (who plays a human) with dialogue in the film is Tim Russ, and that he has appeared in three of the Star Trek series, co-starring in one of them. I not only know that there is a joke about Deanna Troi crashing the Enterprise, I know why it is funny. While I don’t dress up in full Star Trek regalia and congregate with others at the many conventions (all right, I have been to a couple, but I never wore a costume!), it is safe to say that I can be considered, perhaps, somewhat of an expert on Star Trek. As such, it can only be expected that my review will be slightly (ok, very) biased, and very long.
So here we go.
After a rather boring span of opening credits, the movie immediately shifts into high gear. A champagne bottle floating through space crashes into the brand spanking new Enterprise B, commemorating its maiden voyage. On board as a guest, to the media’s excitement, is the retired Captain James T. Kirk, there to watch as a brand new captain take the first Enterprise Kirk will not command. It is clear that neither the retired captain nor the young, new captain are comfortable with this situation. Both Scotty and Chekov are along for the ride, providing moral support. They also gently tease him about the nauseating hero worship he is forced to endure. After nearly 30 years , the chemistry between these three actors is so strong, and their interaction so effortless, it is as much fun to watch them as it seems to have been for them to be in this movie. Of course, within minutes, Kirk is put into a situation where he can save the day, and another Enterprise, once more. Only this time, he sacrifices his own life in the process. It is a hero’s death worthy of Captain James T. Kirk. The entire fifteen minutes that Kirk is on the screen at the beginning features a combination of light humor, intense action and a bit of serious drama. It is also the high point of the movie.
My disappointment in the rest of the film has nothing to do with Kirk being a better actor, or that I love him more than the Next Generation crew. He isn’t and I don’t. It’s that while the writers seemed to have had no problem writing for the original characters, they had no clear idea how to transfer the newer characters to the big screen while also bridging the two generations. This is a bit shocking since they had been writing for the Next Generation characters for four years by that point. There are various problems big and small that permeate the movie, not all of it connected to the writing.
The technical aspects were a mixed bad. A surprising misstep is the music. Even the worst Star Trek movies feature, at the very least, interesting and memorable music. Some have great music. An hour after watching this film, I couldn't remember a single note. I do remember that it was boring. On the other hand, I was surprised to find the lighting of the movie, particularly the contrasts of dark and light in Picard's Ready Room to be stimulating, and one my favorite aspects of the film. The worst technical feature is undoubtedly the combination of direction and editing, resulting in something that looks like an extended television episode rather than a film that belongs on the silver screen.
A minor annoyance is the genesis of an embarrassing tradition: Worf is turned into little more than a joke. Pavel Chekov was made to look like a bit of an idiot in the original Star Trek show for comic relief, but in the films, he was written as a mature character. It worked very well because by the time the second film was released, Walter Koenig was noticeably older. Worf moved in the opposite direction, despite Michael Dorn looking older, even under a ton of makeup. While the Klingon did provide some comic relief in the show, as well as on Deep Space Nine later, Worf was always treated with respect. In the movies, he is written as a buffoon half the time. Some of the things he had to do in the succeeding movies are too embarrassing to think about. I hope he got well paid. Ironically, one of the writers of this film went on to write the best Worf episodes on Deep Space Nine. He also went on to be the show runner of the new Battlestar Galactica. Proof positive that one bad movie does not necessarily reflect on a writer’s skill.
The only other source of humor in the film is much more pervasive, and one of the two major problems with the film: Data. I think Brent Spiner did a terrific job playing a tricky character in the television series. He imbued the android with a subtle mixture of curiosity, grace, and a sweetness that worked well in the Star Trek world. And unlike most of the characters on the show, Data was allowed to really grow. By the end of the series, he was barely recognizable as the emotionless, naïve and slightly clueless android who escorted the very elderly Dr. McCoy down a corridor of the new Enterprise in the pilot episode. The writers (and Spiner who had a lot of control over his parts in the script) threw out every single thing that defined who Data was for seven years, and created a loud, obnoxious and irritating android. In the film, Data decides to install his emotion chip he keeps on display (he got it in a very bad episode – a sign?). This could have been an interesting aspect of the movie. It wasn’t. I have seen Spiner in interviews; he is hilarious and has excellent comedic timing. For some reason, none of that comes across here. There are times he even seems to be uncomfortable. Data is supposed to be struggling with his emotions, but Spiner plays Data so over-the-top that those around him, for the most part, are reduced to little more than tapestries. Less than an hour into the movie, I actually felt sorry for every actor unfortunate enough to be standing next to him. Patrick Stewart is the only one who manages to hold his own, but it clearly took all of his tremendous skills to overcome that much melodrama. I found myself wondering how a scene between Data and Kirk would have played out in this film. Brent made Shatner look like the epitome of subtlety. I wonder what effect exposure to this overacting would have had on the Shat. It might have been epic.
Still, despite both my dislike of Data in this movie and the weird lack of good humor among the new crew, this movie still could have been salvaged. Watching the Enterprise D crash onto the planet (thanks, Deanna) is one of the greatest thrills I've ever had in a theater. The majority of the Kirk scenes are great, including The Scene where he meets Picard, which is highly entertaining. Even Malcolm McDowell managed to contain his tendency towards overacting. These could have offset how annoying Data was, and certainly the minor technical disappointments. But in order to do so, the movie needed one essential ingredient: a well-executed story. Unfortunately, the story is the movie’s greatest weakness.
The original movies often had a lot of humor in them. Everyone involved was smart enough to realize that the stories being written often had a trace of ridiculousness in its stories. They knew that the movies, just like the show, would work best if the writers and actors didn’t take themselves too seriously. It also helped that the actors worked well with this. The Generations script was primarily forcing the crew to play it straight and serious. In order for it to work it needed to execute one heck of a dramatic punch. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine excelled at this. That show featured the darkest, most powerful plots in all of Star Trek. While there was comedy, it was often of the darkest kind, and there were episodes that had none at all. But they were so well written, and so well executed, that several were nothing short of excellent. In order for there to be a dramatic punch, the audience has to care deeply for the characters. This is incredibly difficult for Star Trek films to pull off. They have to be accessible to audiences new to Star Trek while trying to stay within the framework of the vast, intricate Star Trek universe. There’s very little time to explain back stories that took years, sometimes decades, to create. If Generations could have pulled that off, it likely would have been a good film. In fact, it could have been one of the best. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t to be.
The key plot of the movie is Picard’s story. It is this pivotal plot around which everything revolves, the story on which the overall quality of the movie depends. It is literally what determines whether or not Picard will not only be able, but even want to save the universe. There, of course, is a bad guy, but the key struggle for Picard in this film is internal. As with all the Next Generation stories, there is some external force that causes the conflict. In this case, the force is called the Nexus, an energy ribbon that transports beings into a dimension in which their every wish and desire is catered to. As Guinan, adequately played by Whoopie Goldberg, tells her friend Picard, time and space have no meaning in the Nexus. You can be taking breakfast to the love of your life, only to walk through the door and find yourself in a barn standing next to the horse you happened to be thinking about. It is so enticing and overwhelming that one of the characters spends nearly a century obsessed with finding a way back in, having no problem killing hundreds of millions of life forms in the process. The plot depends on Picard not only getting caught in the Nexus, but more importantly, facing a personal crisis so powerful that having the Nexus sooth his emotional pain makes returning to his time and space very difficult. This was always going to be a difficult sell. Like Kirk, Picard has always shown more dedication to his career than anything or anyone else. What could possibly make him even think about giving it up? Patrick Stewart lobbied hard for the motivation to be that Picard is informed right before the Nexus is found that his three remaining family members are killed, burned alive. The intention was for Picard to feel devastated that he had sacrificed not just his entire life, but now his entire family line, to the job. Stewart felt that Picard’s fresh wounds would have the effect of his desire to continue his family’s legacy, helped along by his shame at having pushed that responsibility on to his recently deceased brother, becoming as powerful as the pull he feels to his career.
This type of heavy drama hinged on the audience being able to connect with Picard’s pain. It is here where the tight confines of all Star Trek movie plots collided with a terrible decision by the writers. Although character development wasn’t exactly a defining feature of the television show, because of the character back story restrictions forced on all Star Trek movies, not to mention there being too many characters, there is even less time for it in Generations. As such, every second of it needed to count. For some reason, the writers wasted time that could have been used carefully developing Picard's story by focusing more than they should have, more than they needed to, on Soran. The result of this decision sank the film. Both story arcs ended up being unsatisfying. The writers spent just enough time hinting that Soran was a complex, interesting guy, but not enough for the audience to make an emotional connection. Picard's internal agony never makes much of an impression on the audience, other than a sense that it is highly melodramatic. There was just too much time between each scene specifically designed to show how much he was hurting. The audience doesn't even find out the cause until more than 45 minutes into the film. Not only that, but his indecision in the Nexus is practically nonexistent. He spends most of his time trying to convince Kirk to come back with him. This all resulted in making Picard's story arc seem completely useless, and worse, making him pale in comparison to Kirk. The writers tried to have their cake and eat it, too. What they ended up with is a film that is shallow and a waste.
It is easy to see why the writers didn’t want to choose. On the one hand, there is Malcolm McDowell who, somehow, some way, managed a subdued, interesting performance. There are hints throughout the film that the writers had a fascinating idea for how this character worked. Here was a man who lost everything, but for a brief moment was able to live as if he had gotten it all back. Then to his horror, he is jerked back without his consent to his own time. Unable to face it, he spends decades doing nothing but trying to find a way back. There are aspects to that that would have been interesting to explore. On the other hand, you have Patrick Stewart, who is a great actor, not to mention the star of the film. The best episodes of the show were ones that featured Picard struggling internally. Starting off the chain of Next Generation movies by showcasing the tremendous acting skills of the star would have made for a hell of an entrance to the big screen. The writers could have highlighted that this crew was different, more serious, precisely because it was led by an actor who could keep the drama from turning into melodrama. Instead, the writers made the amateur mistake of not choosing which angle to fully explore, probably thinking they could do both. This one mistake condemned the film to mediocrity.
One final point about the film, and this one has upset me since the first night I saw it back in 1994. Kirk’s first death is vastly more heroic and fitting than his second one. Going out while single-handedly saving the new Enterprise that was next in line after the one he cared so deeply about is poignant. Being brought back and not directly, single-handedly saving anyone was not worthy of a man such as James T. Kirk. Not to mention that his death the first time got it right: he died alone. Another example of the film's inability to offer any type of real meaning to the audience.
This review is long not (only) because I’m a huge Star Trek fan. For the past few years, I have been lamenting how the Next Generation movies just aren’t that good, and trying to figure out why. First Contact performed the best, but even that one isn’t great. I certainly wouldn’t put it in the same category as Star Trek II. This disappoints me because I think this crew could have been used well enough to make some really good movies. The problem is that the writers tried to follow the same formula used in the first six movies with a cast of characters that wasn’t designed for that. The best Next Generation episodes were far more cerebral, and allowed Patrick Stewart’s, and to a lesser extent Brent Spiner’s, acting to really shine. In the films, Picard was forced into being more of an action hero than he really was, Data remained coarse and Spiner a little awkward, and the rest of the crew became completely interchangeable.
Except Generations. I really think that the writers for this film meant to create a script that wrote the Next Generation characters the way they were designed to be. Unfortunately, because of the major writing mistakes with the script, they just couldn’t pull it off. So, the writers, and I suspect even more the producers, decided to just stick with the tried and true formula of keeping Star Trek lightly humorous and full of action. I think this is why all of the movies headlined by Captain Picard, even First Contact, don’t stand out. They’re barely even Star Trek, and they are definitely not marked by what defined the television show: a good balance between a morality-focused story, good, subtle acting, and action. The Next Generation did have action, but it rarely ever overpowered the dramatic power of the story. At least the best episodes didn’t. And finally, frankly, the cast seems to have been incapable of handling the type of humor every single actor in the original show handled effortlessly.
I firmly believe that if the writers had turned in a better script, chosen to focus less on Soran and more on Picard's emotional trauma, and reduced the number of characters, the movie could have established a different model for the Next Generation movies. If that had happened, I think we would have seen some excellent movies that played to the talents of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. They would have been very different from the first six Star Trek films, but they also would have had their own identity. It’s sad that we never got this.
Star Trek: Generations (Short Version)
Star Trek: Generations
Captain Picard: Patrick Stewart
Captain Kirk: William Shatner
My long, geeky review will be after this one, so I will keep this short for those who have no interest whatsoever in that type of thing. For those who read the next one, if any do (I have my doubts about this), I still recommend reading this. It is a good counterpoint for the things I complain about in the next one.
This was the first Star Trek film to feature the crew from the second series. It was actually being written in the final season of the show. A show that I really liked (though not so much anymore). Sadly, I think this movie is flawed. It is the only Star Trek DVD I had that was still unopened, including all 7 seasons of Deep Space 9 and the 3 seasons of the original series. It just doesn’t excite me. Despite all this, I think it is a decent popcorn movie. A lot of the film is fun, there are a few very good moments, and the first 15 minutes are fantastic.
The primary flaw, around which everything else rotates, is that the film is mediocre. The characterizations of everyone who is not in the first 15 minutes feel incomplete. Unfortunately, “everyone” includes the entire crew of the second series. Much of the movie is less like a film than a television episode. The direction is static, and the editing often makes the acting look worse than it likely was. The writers never found a good way to bridge the new crew to the silver screen, and it damages the movie severely. In short, much of the movie wanders from scene to scene, very few reaching anything other than functional.
A major problem is that, unlike the original Star Trek movies, the cast of this one is huge, resulting in several being used as little more than set pieces. The characters with dialogue in the first 15 minutes are given more meaningful things to do than some of the characters from the Enterprise D, who were supposed to be the focus of this film. None of the movies with the original crew featured more than 9 or 10 characters. This one tries to fit 14. As much as it pains me to admit, three or four of the characters probably should have just been dropped from the film. Keeping them dragged the entire film down.
The key reason to see this film is for the first 15 minutes. Kirk, Scotty and Chekov are a lot of fun to watch. Indeed everything about the beginning of the movie is fun to watch. It manages in that short amount of time to effectively (being the key word) put more humor, action, drama (not melodrama), and pathos than the rest of the film does in more than 90 minutes. What’s more, the writers were able to pack a more dramatic punch with these actors than they were able to do with all the others combined. They are easy to identify with, even the new ones, so you feel their worries and fear quite strongly. It is a shame that these characters, and not just the three from the original series, could not have been the entire cast. The writers clearly had a better grasp of how to write for them than anyone in the rest of the film. This is ironic because the two writers had written for Star Trek: The Next Generation for about four years by then; they should have been experts with the new crew. Alas, it was not to be.
Captain Picard: Patrick Stewart
Captain Kirk: William Shatner
My long, geeky review will be after this one, so I will keep this short for those who have no interest whatsoever in that type of thing. For those who read the next one, if any do (I have my doubts about this), I still recommend reading this. It is a good counterpoint for the things I complain about in the next one.
This was the first Star Trek film to feature the crew from the second series. It was actually being written in the final season of the show. A show that I really liked (though not so much anymore). Sadly, I think this movie is flawed. It is the only Star Trek DVD I had that was still unopened, including all 7 seasons of Deep Space 9 and the 3 seasons of the original series. It just doesn’t excite me. Despite all this, I think it is a decent popcorn movie. A lot of the film is fun, there are a few very good moments, and the first 15 minutes are fantastic.
The primary flaw, around which everything else rotates, is that the film is mediocre. The characterizations of everyone who is not in the first 15 minutes feel incomplete. Unfortunately, “everyone” includes the entire crew of the second series. Much of the movie is less like a film than a television episode. The direction is static, and the editing often makes the acting look worse than it likely was. The writers never found a good way to bridge the new crew to the silver screen, and it damages the movie severely. In short, much of the movie wanders from scene to scene, very few reaching anything other than functional.
A major problem is that, unlike the original Star Trek movies, the cast of this one is huge, resulting in several being used as little more than set pieces. The characters with dialogue in the first 15 minutes are given more meaningful things to do than some of the characters from the Enterprise D, who were supposed to be the focus of this film. None of the movies with the original crew featured more than 9 or 10 characters. This one tries to fit 14. As much as it pains me to admit, three or four of the characters probably should have just been dropped from the film. Keeping them dragged the entire film down.
The key reason to see this film is for the first 15 minutes. Kirk, Scotty and Chekov are a lot of fun to watch. Indeed everything about the beginning of the movie is fun to watch. It manages in that short amount of time to effectively (being the key word) put more humor, action, drama (not melodrama), and pathos than the rest of the film does in more than 90 minutes. What’s more, the writers were able to pack a more dramatic punch with these actors than they were able to do with all the others combined. They are easy to identify with, even the new ones, so you feel their worries and fear quite strongly. It is a shame that these characters, and not just the three from the original series, could not have been the entire cast. The writers clearly had a better grasp of how to write for them than anyone in the rest of the film. This is ironic because the two writers had written for Star Trek: The Next Generation for about four years by then; they should have been experts with the new crew. Alas, it was not to be.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Coming soon
I watched "Generations" when I was supposed to, but am finding the review difficult to right, which is just insane. It's a Star Trek movie. It shouldn't be this hard. Unfortunately, it turns out that I care so much about the shows that my reflections on the movie have become quite in-depth. I am trying to cut the size down a bit.
I am thinking of writing up a generic one, and then posting a longer one with all my geeky thoughts about the movie to satisfy my own need to rant.
I am thinking of writing up a generic one, and then posting a longer one with all my geeky thoughts about the movie to satisfy my own need to rant.
Monday, August 10, 2009
My experience so far
Well, I'm only three movies in and I've already seen one that I hated. What a miserable experience it was watching The Getaway. It's a relief to know that I like the next few movies I'm going to watch. At least, I think I do. I haven't seen Deep Impact since it came out. Maybe it sucks. And I hope knowing how awful the last Indiana Jones movie was won't destroy my enjoyment of Temple of Doom. We'll see.
So far, this has been fun. The hardest part is stopping myself from watching more than one movie a day. I know if I start that I'll get sick of watching movies and will stop doing it. It seems that I was right in that writing a review for each movie is a great motivator. I haven't felt like watching movies this much in a long time.
I'm now trying to psych myself up to watch Sleepers in a few days. I didn't care for a lot of the traumatic events that occur in the film. I haven't wanted to watch it since I saw it in the theater with my husband. It's one of the rare films in the collection that was not bought for me. The only thing that's keeping me going is the hope that it might make for a very interesting review.
I actually picked every single one of the films on the list this month by random. I separated out my master list of unopened DVDs by category in stacks, calculated how many I need to watch a month to get through each of the categories by the deadline, and then picked the needed amount from the middle of each of the stacks. Well, technically some of the categories like drama had several stacks. I do have more than 350 DVDs to watch after all. I think I might go through the movies and pick the ones I know I don't like, and make sure to watch a couple of those a month. I would rather spread them out than be miserable watching a lot of movies I don't like in the course of a single month.
So far, this has been fun. The hardest part is stopping myself from watching more than one movie a day. I know if I start that I'll get sick of watching movies and will stop doing it. It seems that I was right in that writing a review for each movie is a great motivator. I haven't felt like watching movies this much in a long time.
I'm now trying to psych myself up to watch Sleepers in a few days. I didn't care for a lot of the traumatic events that occur in the film. I haven't wanted to watch it since I saw it in the theater with my husband. It's one of the rare films in the collection that was not bought for me. The only thing that's keeping me going is the hope that it might make for a very interesting review.
I actually picked every single one of the films on the list this month by random. I separated out my master list of unopened DVDs by category in stacks, calculated how many I need to watch a month to get through each of the categories by the deadline, and then picked the needed amount from the middle of each of the stacks. Well, technically some of the categories like drama had several stacks. I do have more than 350 DVDs to watch after all. I think I might go through the movies and pick the ones I know I don't like, and make sure to watch a couple of those a month. I would rather spread them out than be miserable watching a lot of movies I don't like in the course of a single month.
The Getaway (1972)
The Getaway (1972)
Steve McQueen – Doc McCoy
Ali McGraw – Mrs. McCoy
Director: Sam Peckinpah
I have to get two things out of the way out of the way right off the bat. First, I think Steve McQueen is the coolest cat to ever come out of Hollywood. Second, I don’t like Sam Peckinpah’s treatment of women in his films. These two things provided a major conflict for me in The Getaway. In the end, my hatred for the director won out. Peckinpah was always better than most at portraying vivid characters. Unfortunately, he was at his absolute best when he got the chance to show women who allowed themselves to be physically and emotionally dominated; reveled in it even. In Peckinpah’s world, women respond only to men that dominate them, emotionally and physically. His films highlight women that are willing to put up with being slapped around and beaten, and will even gleefully leave men that treat them with adoration and respect for violent men. The audience is treated to scene after scene featuring a criminal and a couple he kidnaps. The wife falls for the kidnapper. That is not necessarily bad, but in nearly every scene the husband is tied up and forced to watch his wife have sex with the criminal. After a while, it goes from merely showing a counterpoint to the McCoy’s marriage, to just being gleeful in showing such cruel behavior.
In this film, the woman who has a husband who is respectful and nonviolent leaves her husband for a criminal. That husband is so traumatized by what his wife does, and what he is forced to witness, that he hanged himself. The implication is that the husband is weak and impotent. Mrs. McCoy, who is slapped around by her significant other and can’t even trust him because he is a criminal who spent years in prison, fights tooth and nail for her marriage. In the beginning, she sleeps with a politician to get her husband out of prison. Through the movie, Doc McCoy struggles with this infidelity, an infidelity that he essentially asked her to commit. Yet the wife calls him weak for not getting over it. Once he gets over her infidelity, despite being killers and robbers, and having a relationship based in domestic violence, they manage to save their marriage.
This aspect of all Peckinpah films leads to a problem: The Getaway is obviously supposed to be about a husband and wife who don’t trust each other because of all the problems that go wrong on the heist, not to mention the fact that the wife sleeps with a politician to get her husband out of prison. This is what the book on which this film was based was about. It would have been an interesting relationship to see explored. Instead, because of Peckinpah’s portrayal of how he views a natural relationship between a man and woman to be, the suspicion comes through as something every husband and wife experience, rather than events criminals go through. Hence, it doesn't add any tension to the film, and isn't even explored that much.
Despite all of this, if the movie had any redeeming qualities, it may have been easier to handle than it was. I have always enjoyed films with bank heists and wild chases across the country. Combining this with Steve McQueen seems like a fail-safe recipe for an exciting film. Unfortunately, the film is saddled with a lazy script, rife with plot holes and inconsistencies. After an hour, I didn’t care who lived and who died, just as long as it ended as soon as possible. The key problem is that it wants to portray Doc McCoy as an elite bank robber, but time after time his actions show him to be a foolish amateur. At one point he shows that he is aware that the people chasing him know which hotel he is heading for, yet he goes there anyway. Even worse, when he and his wife get there, he acts as if he isn’t aware of the danger he is in at all. Time after time, problems occur, all of them his own making. He shows absolutely no remorse over killing people, yet after having one guy he failed to kill come back to haunt him, he chooses not to kill him again. As you have probably guessed, this guy comes back once more. His stupid mistakes indicate lack of experience; not the type of a guy people hire to steal money for them. In the end, I think this film would have worked better as a comedy filled with a series of hilarious high jinks revolving around a fumbling, incompetent bank robber. I doubt I could laugh any more at his incompetence than I did tonight.
On a side note, this review took me two hours to write. At one point, I told my husband how difficult it was, and he said it should be easy, and that I just needed to write “It sucked.” Part of me thinks that it may have been better to go with that.
Steve McQueen – Doc McCoy
Ali McGraw – Mrs. McCoy
Director: Sam Peckinpah
I have to get two things out of the way out of the way right off the bat. First, I think Steve McQueen is the coolest cat to ever come out of Hollywood. Second, I don’t like Sam Peckinpah’s treatment of women in his films. These two things provided a major conflict for me in The Getaway. In the end, my hatred for the director won out. Peckinpah was always better than most at portraying vivid characters. Unfortunately, he was at his absolute best when he got the chance to show women who allowed themselves to be physically and emotionally dominated; reveled in it even. In Peckinpah’s world, women respond only to men that dominate them, emotionally and physically. His films highlight women that are willing to put up with being slapped around and beaten, and will even gleefully leave men that treat them with adoration and respect for violent men. The audience is treated to scene after scene featuring a criminal and a couple he kidnaps. The wife falls for the kidnapper. That is not necessarily bad, but in nearly every scene the husband is tied up and forced to watch his wife have sex with the criminal. After a while, it goes from merely showing a counterpoint to the McCoy’s marriage, to just being gleeful in showing such cruel behavior.
In this film, the woman who has a husband who is respectful and nonviolent leaves her husband for a criminal. That husband is so traumatized by what his wife does, and what he is forced to witness, that he hanged himself. The implication is that the husband is weak and impotent. Mrs. McCoy, who is slapped around by her significant other and can’t even trust him because he is a criminal who spent years in prison, fights tooth and nail for her marriage. In the beginning, she sleeps with a politician to get her husband out of prison. Through the movie, Doc McCoy struggles with this infidelity, an infidelity that he essentially asked her to commit. Yet the wife calls him weak for not getting over it. Once he gets over her infidelity, despite being killers and robbers, and having a relationship based in domestic violence, they manage to save their marriage.
This aspect of all Peckinpah films leads to a problem: The Getaway is obviously supposed to be about a husband and wife who don’t trust each other because of all the problems that go wrong on the heist, not to mention the fact that the wife sleeps with a politician to get her husband out of prison. This is what the book on which this film was based was about. It would have been an interesting relationship to see explored. Instead, because of Peckinpah’s portrayal of how he views a natural relationship between a man and woman to be, the suspicion comes through as something every husband and wife experience, rather than events criminals go through. Hence, it doesn't add any tension to the film, and isn't even explored that much.
Despite all of this, if the movie had any redeeming qualities, it may have been easier to handle than it was. I have always enjoyed films with bank heists and wild chases across the country. Combining this with Steve McQueen seems like a fail-safe recipe for an exciting film. Unfortunately, the film is saddled with a lazy script, rife with plot holes and inconsistencies. After an hour, I didn’t care who lived and who died, just as long as it ended as soon as possible. The key problem is that it wants to portray Doc McCoy as an elite bank robber, but time after time his actions show him to be a foolish amateur. At one point he shows that he is aware that the people chasing him know which hotel he is heading for, yet he goes there anyway. Even worse, when he and his wife get there, he acts as if he isn’t aware of the danger he is in at all. Time after time, problems occur, all of them his own making. He shows absolutely no remorse over killing people, yet after having one guy he failed to kill come back to haunt him, he chooses not to kill him again. As you have probably guessed, this guy comes back once more. His stupid mistakes indicate lack of experience; not the type of a guy people hire to steal money for them. In the end, I think this film would have worked better as a comedy filled with a series of hilarious high jinks revolving around a fumbling, incompetent bank robber. I doubt I could laugh any more at his incompetence than I did tonight.
On a side note, this review took me two hours to write. At one point, I told my husband how difficult it was, and he said it should be easy, and that I just needed to write “It sucked.” Part of me thinks that it may have been better to go with that.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
As Good As It Gets
As Good As It Gets
Jack Nicholson - Melvin
Helen Hunt - Carol
Melvin: “What if this is as good as it gets?”
I watched this movie nine hours ago and tried to write a review immediately after, but I couldn’t do it. I really enjoyed watching it, but when I started typing out the review I ran into a problem: how I felt about the movie after thinking about it was a lot different than how I felt while watching it. I decided to let things stew in my brain for a little while and figure out why.
The last time I saw this film, nearly a decade ago, I thought it was a cute romantic comedy. I remember liking Helen Hunt’s performance. This time around, I found Helen Hunt’s performance to be even better than I remembered, but it did not come across as a cute romantic comedy. There are several funny moments, and there are romantic moments, but it feels far too serious and sad to be labeled as cute.
The best part of this film is Helen Hunt; she is stunning. Her experience in a sitcom served her well with all the funny scenes, but her ability to switch from comedy to serious drama in just a few heartbeats is breathtaking. This turns out to be a good thing because even though the movie is about her, Jack Nicholson does everything he can to make it about him, and not in a bad way. Hunt somehow keeps that from happening.
Though the acting shines in this film, it suffers from a mediocre script clumsy direction. There is a point about a third of the way through the movie where the characters' motivations stopped making sense. Rather than the story flowing organically, the characters seemed to be nothing but props used to play specific scenes. That James L. Brooks' career has mostly been in television is evident on the screen. The entire thing felt more like an extended sitcom or television drama than a film. The situations sometimes threatened to become very sappy and over the top, but the actors managed to keep the scenes light enough that it never quite reached that point. Brooks doesn’t show any skill in knowing how to zoom in and out on a character without taking you right out of the scene. There was one point where it felt like I was watching a soap opera because of the way the camera zoomed in so obtrusively on Helen Hunt.
Despite the script's overall problems, the concept of the story is interesting and something that is not usually touched on in Hollywood. Since the “normal,” perfect relationships exist only in Hollywood movies, how much should a woman put up with in order to have a relationship with a man? Should a woman be willing to put up with someone who has an abrasive behavior if he loves her and is trying to change?
In the film, Carol is in a tough situation. She is a single mother, working as a waitress and has a son with severe health issues. She is so caught up with trying to make enough money to scrape by while taking care of her son that she has next to no opportunities to find a man to date. And that is the crux of the film. She is desperate for affection. She spends her entire life making everyone around her feel better. She puts up with a cruel, bitter man with next to no complaints. She helps a man who is borderline suicidal come back from an emotional edge and gives him comfort he needs precisely when he needs it. Yet she doesn't have what she really wants: a (heterosexual) man who will give her love and affection. In a situation like that, it comes as no surprise that when Melvin starts offering incredibly romantic, complimentary words to her, she starts giving him chance after chance to win her over. Unfortunately, this concept barely comes across because of a serious defect with the film.
It is an interesting fact that even the best acting can’t overcome a lack of romantic chemistry. Nicholson and Hunt have none. They do have a type of chemistry, but it is purely platonic. When Carol comes close to telling Melvin that he looked sexy, it was in no way believable. It felt like she was talking to her brother. When he stares at her from across the room in what is supposed to be adoration, he looks more like a proud father. Because of this lack of any real romantic passion, it makes no sense that she would put up with his cruel behavior towards others, and especially towards her.
Despite these problems, unbelievably, the movie is a pleasure to watch. All credit goes to the actors. They somehow keep the film alive with their combined talent. Though the movie’s flaws are apparent on reflection, while I was watching, it was easy to sit back and just enjoy the ride. In the end, the movie is fun and has interesting things to say about how much we are sometimes willing to put up with just for the sake of companionship. But I don't recommend thinking too much about how well the movie is executed after you're done watching.
Jack Nicholson - Melvin
Helen Hunt - Carol
Melvin: “What if this is as good as it gets?”
I watched this movie nine hours ago and tried to write a review immediately after, but I couldn’t do it. I really enjoyed watching it, but when I started typing out the review I ran into a problem: how I felt about the movie after thinking about it was a lot different than how I felt while watching it. I decided to let things stew in my brain for a little while and figure out why.
The last time I saw this film, nearly a decade ago, I thought it was a cute romantic comedy. I remember liking Helen Hunt’s performance. This time around, I found Helen Hunt’s performance to be even better than I remembered, but it did not come across as a cute romantic comedy. There are several funny moments, and there are romantic moments, but it feels far too serious and sad to be labeled as cute.
The best part of this film is Helen Hunt; she is stunning. Her experience in a sitcom served her well with all the funny scenes, but her ability to switch from comedy to serious drama in just a few heartbeats is breathtaking. This turns out to be a good thing because even though the movie is about her, Jack Nicholson does everything he can to make it about him, and not in a bad way. Hunt somehow keeps that from happening.
Though the acting shines in this film, it suffers from a mediocre script clumsy direction. There is a point about a third of the way through the movie where the characters' motivations stopped making sense. Rather than the story flowing organically, the characters seemed to be nothing but props used to play specific scenes. That James L. Brooks' career has mostly been in television is evident on the screen. The entire thing felt more like an extended sitcom or television drama than a film. The situations sometimes threatened to become very sappy and over the top, but the actors managed to keep the scenes light enough that it never quite reached that point. Brooks doesn’t show any skill in knowing how to zoom in and out on a character without taking you right out of the scene. There was one point where it felt like I was watching a soap opera because of the way the camera zoomed in so obtrusively on Helen Hunt.
Despite the script's overall problems, the concept of the story is interesting and something that is not usually touched on in Hollywood. Since the “normal,” perfect relationships exist only in Hollywood movies, how much should a woman put up with in order to have a relationship with a man? Should a woman be willing to put up with someone who has an abrasive behavior if he loves her and is trying to change?
In the film, Carol is in a tough situation. She is a single mother, working as a waitress and has a son with severe health issues. She is so caught up with trying to make enough money to scrape by while taking care of her son that she has next to no opportunities to find a man to date. And that is the crux of the film. She is desperate for affection. She spends her entire life making everyone around her feel better. She puts up with a cruel, bitter man with next to no complaints. She helps a man who is borderline suicidal come back from an emotional edge and gives him comfort he needs precisely when he needs it. Yet she doesn't have what she really wants: a (heterosexual) man who will give her love and affection. In a situation like that, it comes as no surprise that when Melvin starts offering incredibly romantic, complimentary words to her, she starts giving him chance after chance to win her over. Unfortunately, this concept barely comes across because of a serious defect with the film.
It is an interesting fact that even the best acting can’t overcome a lack of romantic chemistry. Nicholson and Hunt have none. They do have a type of chemistry, but it is purely platonic. When Carol comes close to telling Melvin that he looked sexy, it was in no way believable. It felt like she was talking to her brother. When he stares at her from across the room in what is supposed to be adoration, he looks more like a proud father. Because of this lack of any real romantic passion, it makes no sense that she would put up with his cruel behavior towards others, and especially towards her.
Despite these problems, unbelievably, the movie is a pleasure to watch. All credit goes to the actors. They somehow keep the film alive with their combined talent. Though the movie’s flaws are apparent on reflection, while I was watching, it was easy to sit back and just enjoy the ride. In the end, the movie is fun and has interesting things to say about how much we are sometimes willing to put up with just for the sake of companionship. But I don't recommend thinking too much about how well the movie is executed after you're done watching.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Harvey Birdman
So, yeah. I watched the 2 episodes I was scheduled to watch. Thank God each one is only 12 minutes. That show is so not made for me. Out of the two episodes combined, I think there were maybe four or five things I laughed at. Mike only laughed at one thing. He told me I should sell it immediately. There are only 11 episodes left, and since each is only 12 minutes, I am going to try and rough it out. I don't want to sell something after barely watching it.
Besides, it may get better. The first episodes of most shows are rarely ever good.
The problem for me is that the subject could be so very funny, but most of the jokes are on the level of fart jokes. Very disappointing.
Besides, it may get better. The first episodes of most shows are rarely ever good.
The problem for me is that the subject could be so very funny, but most of the jokes are on the level of fart jokes. Very disappointing.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sea Hawk
The Sea Hawk (1940)
Errol Flynn
With
Brenda Marshall
Claude Rains
Donald Crisp
Summary: Set in the late 16th century, Spain is trying to take over the world. It is preparing its Spanish Armada to first attack and conquer England, and then the world. Queen Elizabeth is in denial, and short on funds. One of her advisers is acting sneaky. The only man left to defend England is Errol Flynn!
All right, so the character's name isn't Errol Flynn, it's Captain Thorpe. But who cares? Errol Flynn movies are just like John Wayne movies, the character's name doesn't matter.
As with all pirate movies, this is entertaining fluff, so I don't feel the need to do a real in-depth review. On the other hand, since it didn't exactly require my full attention to enjoy the movie, I made notes while watching. I thought I'd share those first, with an overall review at the end. I hope you enjoy.
Notes:
The one thing I have always liked about the old black and white swashbuckling movies is the opening music. The sound of brash trumpets heralding the exciting adventures sure to come always gets me excited.
Hearing a supposedly Spanish character speaking in an English accent is fantastic. Listening to a Spanish king tell one of his minions in an English accent to “Proceed to England as my ambassador” is hilarious. Apparently the only difference between the English and Spanish in the 16th century was that the Spanish had goatees.
And of course the one English guy who is clearly a traitor to his country has a goatee.
It is so obvious that this is an American movie. The Spanish king has a gigantic 16th century world map on the wall behind him, yet America takes up more than half the map.
It is an indisputable fact that a pirate ship is incomplete without a monkey.
The good guys in this movie, the English pirates, are mostly played by Americans, complete with American accents. The old adage that the English always play the bad guy holds even in a movie where the good guys are English.
All of the slave labor manning the oars are old white man. And apparently only the Spanish used slaves. In the 16th century.
Errol Flynn is so refined, and looks great in tights. No one has ever looked as dashing as he does swinging through the air on a rope.
Apparently, 16th century English pirate ships have lower level balconies. Perfect place for a beautiful woman to stand so that a dashing pirate can gaze down upon her from above.
Oh, Errol Flynn. A pirate with a heart of gold. Has no problem fighting off half a dozen men at the same time, but fumbles shyly when facing one beautiful woman. Honorable and noble to the very core. Not too afraid to tell a woman he loves her. Looks gorgeous. And has hair to die for. I would betray my country for you any day.
Queen Elizabeth: “Captain of the Guard. You will accompany Captain Thorpe to my private chamber where he will wait my further pleasure.” Tee hee
I love Claud Rains. He’s so deliciously slimy. He emotes more with a look than many can do with a monologue.
LOL The movie uses sepia color for Central America. Not racist at all.
That final sword fighting scene is fantastic! Starts off slow, but the last minute or so is just breathtaking. Errol Flynn was quite an athletic guy.
Overall, this was a lot of fun to watch, which is precisely what Errol Flynn movies were all about. Flynn is in fine form here: charming, charismatic, and heroic. My only problem was that it really slows down half way through when his character disappears for nearly 20 minutes once he's been captured by the Spanish in Panama. Even with Claud Rains, the loss of Flynn’s energy is very noticeable. Up to that point, when Flynn wasn’t around, the heavy drama never lasted for more than a couple of minutes. And half the scenes he wasn’t in were lighthearted. More than 20 minutes of heavy, almost depressing, drama was a bit hard to swallow. And this is made worse by the fact that when Flynn does come back on the screen, the drama and seriousness continues without stop. I don’t dislike serious action movies, but after more than an hour of a lighthearted swashbuckling romp, with Errol Flynn at his charismatic best, it was very hard to watch more than ten minutes of him not only speaking no more than two words at a time, but also not cracking smile a single time. He doesn’t have enough of a presence to handle those types of scenes for such an extended length. The ten-minute scene where Flynn and his crew escape enslavement on a Spanish ship had barely any dialogue, and it was excruciating to watch. The moment Errol Flynn gave his charming little smile after taking over the Spanish ship, the movie immediately felt better. The movie flowed swimmingly after that, he got the girl, words of love were expressed on both sides, he killed the English traitor in a thrilling sword fight, and saved England single-handed. Happy ending for everyone except the evil Spanish empire.
I had forgotten how wonderful it is to watch Errol Flynn. He wasn't a great actor, but he was handsome and charming with an athletic body to boot, all of which have inspired thousands of pirate romance novels for decades.
Errol Flynn
With
Brenda Marshall
Claude Rains
Donald Crisp
Summary: Set in the late 16th century, Spain is trying to take over the world. It is preparing its Spanish Armada to first attack and conquer England, and then the world. Queen Elizabeth is in denial, and short on funds. One of her advisers is acting sneaky. The only man left to defend England is Errol Flynn!
All right, so the character's name isn't Errol Flynn, it's Captain Thorpe. But who cares? Errol Flynn movies are just like John Wayne movies, the character's name doesn't matter.
As with all pirate movies, this is entertaining fluff, so I don't feel the need to do a real in-depth review. On the other hand, since it didn't exactly require my full attention to enjoy the movie, I made notes while watching. I thought I'd share those first, with an overall review at the end. I hope you enjoy.
Notes:
The one thing I have always liked about the old black and white swashbuckling movies is the opening music. The sound of brash trumpets heralding the exciting adventures sure to come always gets me excited.
Hearing a supposedly Spanish character speaking in an English accent is fantastic. Listening to a Spanish king tell one of his minions in an English accent to “Proceed to England as my ambassador” is hilarious. Apparently the only difference between the English and Spanish in the 16th century was that the Spanish had goatees.
And of course the one English guy who is clearly a traitor to his country has a goatee.
It is so obvious that this is an American movie. The Spanish king has a gigantic 16th century world map on the wall behind him, yet America takes up more than half the map.
It is an indisputable fact that a pirate ship is incomplete without a monkey.
The good guys in this movie, the English pirates, are mostly played by Americans, complete with American accents. The old adage that the English always play the bad guy holds even in a movie where the good guys are English.
All of the slave labor manning the oars are old white man. And apparently only the Spanish used slaves. In the 16th century.
Errol Flynn is so refined, and looks great in tights. No one has ever looked as dashing as he does swinging through the air on a rope.
Apparently, 16th century English pirate ships have lower level balconies. Perfect place for a beautiful woman to stand so that a dashing pirate can gaze down upon her from above.
Oh, Errol Flynn. A pirate with a heart of gold. Has no problem fighting off half a dozen men at the same time, but fumbles shyly when facing one beautiful woman. Honorable and noble to the very core. Not too afraid to tell a woman he loves her. Looks gorgeous. And has hair to die for. I would betray my country for you any day.
Queen Elizabeth: “Captain of the Guard. You will accompany Captain Thorpe to my private chamber where he will wait my further pleasure.” Tee hee
I love Claud Rains. He’s so deliciously slimy. He emotes more with a look than many can do with a monologue.
LOL The movie uses sepia color for Central America. Not racist at all.
That final sword fighting scene is fantastic! Starts off slow, but the last minute or so is just breathtaking. Errol Flynn was quite an athletic guy.
Overall, this was a lot of fun to watch, which is precisely what Errol Flynn movies were all about. Flynn is in fine form here: charming, charismatic, and heroic. My only problem was that it really slows down half way through when his character disappears for nearly 20 minutes once he's been captured by the Spanish in Panama. Even with Claud Rains, the loss of Flynn’s energy is very noticeable. Up to that point, when Flynn wasn’t around, the heavy drama never lasted for more than a couple of minutes. And half the scenes he wasn’t in were lighthearted. More than 20 minutes of heavy, almost depressing, drama was a bit hard to swallow. And this is made worse by the fact that when Flynn does come back on the screen, the drama and seriousness continues without stop. I don’t dislike serious action movies, but after more than an hour of a lighthearted swashbuckling romp, with Errol Flynn at his charismatic best, it was very hard to watch more than ten minutes of him not only speaking no more than two words at a time, but also not cracking smile a single time. He doesn’t have enough of a presence to handle those types of scenes for such an extended length. The ten-minute scene where Flynn and his crew escape enslavement on a Spanish ship had barely any dialogue, and it was excruciating to watch. The moment Errol Flynn gave his charming little smile after taking over the Spanish ship, the movie immediately felt better. The movie flowed swimmingly after that, he got the girl, words of love were expressed on both sides, he killed the English traitor in a thrilling sword fight, and saved England single-handed. Happy ending for everyone except the evil Spanish empire.
I had forgotten how wonderful it is to watch Errol Flynn. He wasn't a great actor, but he was handsome and charming with an athletic body to boot, all of which have inspired thousands of pirate romance novels for decades.
Quick list
Here's the schedule of stuff I plan on watching through the rest of this month. Number in parentheses corresponds to number of episodes to watch.
August 7
Movie: The Sea Hawk
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 8
Movie: As Good As It Gets
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 9
Movie: The Getaway (original)
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 10
Movie: Star Trek Generations
TV: Harvey Birdman (3)
August 11
Movie: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 12
Movie: Deep Impact
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 13
Movie: Sleepers
TV: Frasier (4)
August 14
Movie: None
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 15
Movie: Class Action
TV: Frasier (5)
August 16
Movie: Island in the Sky
TV: Frasier (5)
August 17
Movie: Dave
TV: Frasier (5)
August 18
Movie: M
TV: Frasier (5)
August 19
Movie: none
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 20
Movie: The Towering Inferno
CSI Season 6 (2)
August 21
Movie: Orgazmo
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 22
Movie: The Letter
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 23
Movie: Black Christmas
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 24
Movie: All That Heaven Allows
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 25
Movie: none
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 26
Movie: Pinocchio
TV: Kung Fu (3)
August 27
Movie: Jeepers Creepers
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 28
Movie: Once Upon a Time In America
TV: CSI Season 6 (1)
August 29
Movie: The Dark Knight
TV: CSI Season 6 (1)
August 30
Movie: Teeth
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 31
Movie: None
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 7
Movie: The Sea Hawk
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 8
Movie: As Good As It Gets
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 9
Movie: The Getaway (original)
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 10
Movie: Star Trek Generations
TV: Harvey Birdman (3)
August 11
Movie: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 12
Movie: Deep Impact
TV: Harvey Birdman (2)
August 13
Movie: Sleepers
TV: Frasier (4)
August 14
Movie: None
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 15
Movie: Class Action
TV: Frasier (5)
August 16
Movie: Island in the Sky
TV: Frasier (5)
August 17
Movie: Dave
TV: Frasier (5)
August 18
Movie: M
TV: Frasier (5)
August 19
Movie: none
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 20
Movie: The Towering Inferno
CSI Season 6 (2)
August 21
Movie: Orgazmo
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 22
Movie: The Letter
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 23
Movie: Black Christmas
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 24
Movie: All That Heaven Allows
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 25
Movie: none
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
August 26
Movie: Pinocchio
TV: Kung Fu (3)
August 27
Movie: Jeepers Creepers
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 28
Movie: Once Upon a Time In America
TV: CSI Season 6 (1)
August 29
Movie: The Dark Knight
TV: CSI Season 6 (1)
August 30
Movie: Teeth
TV: Kung Fu (2)
August 31
Movie: None
TV: CSI Season 6 (5)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)