Change Your Image
dwasserm
Reviews
For Love or Money (1993)
My hero!
Some people have suggested that Fox's character in this movie is
just Alex P. Keaton all over again. I think they missed the point.
Alex was in love with money. Doug is not as materialistic; he
doesn't desire money for its own sake, but views it as a tool that
will help him realize his dream. Alex was self-centered. Doug
cares about other people. He is successful because he can
empathize with people and give them what they need. He is very
inspiring. This movie is described as a comedy, but I didn't find it very
funny; I cared about the characters too much to laugh at them.
Chances Are (1989)
A beautiful love story
People call this a comedy, but when I just watched it, I laughed
only once. I guess the problem is that I first saw it when I was 14,
and I wasn't old enough to understand that it wasn't meant to be
taken seriously. There were quite a few scenes that were meant
to be funny, but I cared too much about the characters to laugh at
them.
I suggest that you watch this film next time you're falling in love,
and try to take it seriously. I think you'll find that, despite a few silly
flaws, it's one of the most moving love stories you've ever seen.
Made in America (1993)
Hey, this is funny!
I don't see why so many people are trashing this one. I admit that there's plenty about it that doesn't make any sense, but there's plenty of good humor in it. The best part is the filming of the commercials. Who would have thought that a shoot that goes horribly wrong would produce footage much better than what was intended? Also, Nia Long is BEAUTIFUL. Out of all the films I've seen, I think this one is a hair above average.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
SPOILERS: about the ending
Another user wrote: "The 'twist' ending was the equivalent of
finding out that everything up until that point had been a dream."
Others wrote similar things. I don't agree. Keep in mind that Kint
testified before a grand jury, so anything that they could check had
to be true (e.g. the attack on the taxi cops, and Edie working on the
extradition case.) He couldn't lie too much and still have a
consistent story. So I believe that his story is supposed to be at
least 90% true. Kujan figured out that Kint was lying because he
saw the names that Kint read off the wall. Most of these, Kint just
used in anecdotes to build up his character. The only one that he
worked into the story was "Kobayashi." So that's one thing we can
be sure he lied about: the man who picks him up at the end is not
really named Kobayashi. We should know that anyway, because
he doesn't look Japanese at all. That's one of the few clues that
there's something wrong with Kint's story.
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
(SPOILERS) Oddities in the portrayal of schizophrenia
I've seen plenty of movies that deal with delusions, and I'm used to
the fact that generally they try to make it clear what's real and what
isn't. So I felt like this one played a dirty trick on me. I wonder if
anyone figured out that Charles wasn't real before Rosen said he
wasn't. In the beginning, everything about Charles is perfectly
plausible and consistent. The second time I watched, I looked
carefully for any hints that he wasn't real. The first thing I could find
was that he overheard Nash's remark about fluid exchange, even
though Nash spoke too quietly for anyone to overhear. By that time
Charles' reality was too well established.
I can understand Nash seeing and hearing Charles even though
Charles isn't there. I find it hard to understand that Nash could
see Charles turn off the record player, failing to notice that he had
really turned it off himself. I see this as deliberate deception of the
audience. (Notice that after Nash's hospitalization, there are no
more examples of the imaginary characters manipulating real
objects.)
Perhaps Nash's brilliance is reflected by the fact that in the early
stages, he could create a completely consistent and plausible
delusion. In contrast, after his hospitalization he claimed that
Charles had a cloaking device. This sort of tampering with the
laws of physics is what I expect from a delusional schizophrenic.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Why so ugly?
I give it 7 out of 10.
I decided I had to see this film when I saw a picture of Rivendell in Newsweek. Unfortunately FOTR has very few beautiful scenes like this one, and too many ugly ones. Of course some ugliness is necessary to the story, but Jackson put in far more than necessary. (E. g., we don't need to see Saruman training his orcs.) Lothlorien should have been beautiful; it was merely dim and dreary. I was also disappointed by the casting of Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett. The roles of Arwen and Galadriel are bit-parts that don't require much acting; they only require perfect faces, and perfect faces were not cast.
The other thing I'll complain about is that Frodo whines too much, giving Gandalf opportunities to utter speeches that are supposed to sound wise, but are actually trivial. There wasn't nearly so much of that in the book.
Miss Congeniality (2000)
very funny, some plausibility problems (CONTAINS SPOILERS)
I give this one 8 out of 10, because it's a good original story, and made me laugh a lot. Just a few minor problems: I think they should have made it more plausible for Gracie to get into the top 10. Recall that they were going to fix the pageant, but the fix was canceled when the other agents left, so she had to get into the top 10 on her merits, and did so, even though up to that point in the pageant she had made a total ass of herself. After she made the top 10 her behavior improved greatly, and it was almost believable for her to be #2, but they could have made her improve sooner to make it more plausible.
BTW, people describe this as an ugly-duckling-becomes-a-swan story, but I didn't see that happen. Gracie does learn to walk like a woman, but her personality remains essentially the same.
Rounders (1998)
Does no-limit make sense?
I don't understand how people can play poker with no betting limits. Suppose that I have more money than anyone else at the table. You have a good hand, and you bet big. What do I do? I bet my whole pile. It doesn't matter what cards I have; you can't match my bet, so you have to fold. So whoever has the most money can win every hand. Have I missed something? If I have, someone please email me to explain this.
Duets (2000)
What an idiotic plot.
I didn't find any of the main characters in this movie to be worthy of my interest. All of them have serious problems, but instead of dealing with them, they just get on stage and sing a beautiful song, and then we feel wonderful and we're supposed to think that everything's better now. Sentimental nonsense. I rate the story 2 out of 10, but the music is good enough to bring it up to 4.
D.O.A. (1988)
Where's Meg?
I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.
Election (1999)
unusual narration
When a character in a movie speaks directly to the audience, he is usually a sympathetic protagonist who gives reliable information about the story. In this movie, all of the major characters speak directly to the audience, but I don't find any of them sympathetic, and I don't think any of their statements are meant to be taken at face value. They all make biased statements that reveal more about the speakers than about the things they are discussing.