Change Your Image
bkam
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ôdishon (1999)
Brilliantly Loathsome
This slow-moving, hypnotic film takes viewers on a journey from the banal loneliness of a businessman into the horrors which one hopes exist only within the confines of nightmare. The plot is perfectly paced to execute this method, which one might describe as slow-torture of diegetic reality. With majestic acting in the two lead roles, the film is as seductive as Asami with its increasingly macabre storyline. The viewers' curiosity at the strange situation builds into suspense, which in turn sets the stage for an unthinkably intense climax. The cinematography and score contribute to the singularity of this goal, all the while instilling an anxiety in the audience which remains at that critical point between over-the-top "scare scenes" and a merely intriguing plotline. Instead, one becomes as entangled in the film's "reality" as does its protagonist. Many viewers will emerge from the film with such a defiled perception of reality as to force them to question the very possibility of trust between *any* two individuals. (Seriously. I had a hard time talking to my friends for a little while after I saw this movie.) While this may seem undesirable to most viewers... well, quite frankly, it probably *is* undesirable to most viewers. Recommended only for the strong of stomach and mind, and even they will probably not escape unscathed. [9/10]
Scarface (1983)
Unspectacular but satisfying
Small spoilers (I describe a few scenes in sparse detail).
Scarface, while it can claim no real originality (and indeed is based on an older movie which I have not seen), is an entertaining and well-done movie about the rise and fall of a crime boss. Naturally, the plot has been done to death, but Al Pacino helps as the consistently good and occasionally excellent lead, and the acting all around is reasonably bearable and convincing. The score, while a bit too 80s at times, fits well with Tony's rage, and generally adds to the suspense of the film.
The main merit of this film is its unrelenting portrayal of the criminal life. The camera somehow manages to maintain a sense of the headstrong stupidity which Pacino captures so well, accentuating the unpredictable and ruthless attitude of the protagonist. In no way does the film attempt to soften or to justify Tony's extreme and for the most part imprudent actions. He is not a good guy who has to do a couple of violent things to stay on top. From the beginning, he is a sadistic idiot, and as he says in the chillingly great restaurant scene, he is the bad guy. He is stubborn to the end, and it is partly his inane impenitence that makes his character so memorable. This is the way the film remains suspenseful, as well, because the audience never knows what this crazy guy is going to do next. The ending, while I won't spoil it, fits perfectly with his character and the film refuses to withhold a single blow from its audience even here in its dying throes. The reason this film is great is because Tony is not a hero, but a villain, and furthermore that it never condescends to give him any heroic traits. The movie itself is as ruthless as Tony, and it is the masterful relationship between film and character in this film that combines to leave a lasting impact. [8/10]
Le pacte des loups (2001)
Unique adventure movie, solid all around
Le Pacte des Loups is a fairly impressive movie. What other movie can spend two and a half hours on a ravaging monster fought by a scientist and his loyal Iroqois "brother" in 18th century France, and keep its audience enraptured? Its plot is a bit obscure in places, admittedly, leaving the audience not so much in suspense as confusion, but this is the unconventionality that comes with such a unique work. The acting was a bit above average, the actors and actresses combining well with the enchanting atmosphere and succeeding in making memorable characters. The score also contributes to the film's mysterious mood, and great cinematography (although occasionally overdone) helps it out too. While all this goes a long way to making a great film, it is the dazzling action sequences that make it a classic. The choreography is great, the sound effects make you feel as if you're standing a foot away, and the mystery of the movie is such that nearly every battle's outcome is uncertain. If the romance is trite, a few lines seem out of place, and the plot falters a bit, overall, this is still quite a movie to watch if you're looking for a lot of adventure and action. [8/10]
Mystery Men (1999)
Occasionally entertaining but unsatisfying
Mystery Men is a strange amalgam of elements that left me wondering what type of movie I had just sat through. On the one hand, it tries to be a slapstick comedy, on the other a satire of hero-villain stereotypes, yet it never really succeeds in doing anything. The comedy present is mostly in the form of humorous one-liners, while many scenes appear serious in an attempt at irony that is quite confusing. I can only take the action to be a try at humorous parody of the typical super-hero fare, yet it succeeded mainly in being awkward. The plot was perfectly abysmal, the score uninteresting, and thus the film was overall fairly un-engaging. The acting was good, especially considering the bizarre characters and lines in the film, but it wasn't quite enough to overcome the uneasiness created by so many other parts of the movie. Also, some very bad acting (especially between Ben Stiller and the waitress) detracted from the strange but somewhat laudable performances throughout the remainder. The cinematography was decent, and to its credit the movie was effective in creating a very unique ambience; unfortunately, the interesting environment was used for the most part to alienate the viewer, leaving one trying to figure out what's important in the film. I must make the disclaimer that I am almost entirely unfamiliar with most superhero movies (or comic books, etc), so perhaps the failure in comprehension was my fault and not the movie's. Overall, original idea, good setting, reasonable acting, and I laughed a few times; on the other hand, none of that saves it from the overwhelming sense of unjustifiable weirdness (and normally I like weird movies). [5/10]
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Hate to say it, but... Riveting
The smallest of spoilers. Despite its lumbering and sometimes excruciating pace, this movie kept my eyes locked on the screen. It is not that the film is pleasant to watch; on the contrary, many times it makes its viewing extremely difficult. Yet it is so rich in detail and realism that it has a sort of twisted charm to it. Not that the plot is realistic, because few would say that Bill Harford had a typical night. Instead, it is the human emotion which is real, and in many ways it is the sheer brilliance of the acting that makes this bizarre situation into a hauntingly familiar one. Tom Cruise is perfect for the role, and some have argued this is not because of his talent, but the fact that he is not a good actor. Kubrick seemed to play on this, and molded the character of Harford into one who is at once acting and not acting, real and fake. This is made possible by the strange relationship between actor and character in this case--this is definitely not Tom Cruise's typical role.
Kidman, on the other hand, is absolutely superb. Having read that Kubrick had forced her to film some scenes hundreds of times until she was crying after each shoot, I expected some sincere acting. She well exceeded my expectations, however, with such strikingly poignant acting that I was almost immediately drawn into the lives of this semi-functional couple. Without her, how could Harford have the drive to do what he does in the film? She is excellent, as are all of the supporting actors and even those in even one scene (the desk-clerk, Domino, Mandy, etc).
The cinematography is also top-notch. If my eyes did not deceive me, there were some strange tricks in this film. I saw an eye move across Harford's back as he enters his home in one scene (replayed it like 5 times to confirm it). Things like that combined with the already outstanding camerawork add another layer of macabre deception which the film embraces. Near the beginning, when Kidman is describing what happened at Cape Cod, there is another artful use of the camera as it follows her hysterics, nodding downwards to watch as she collapses with laughter. Given that this was an unfinished movie by Kubrick, the high quality of the cinematography overall is a tribute to his genius.
The score was simple and repetitive--and yet so enormously effective. Those piano notes, reaching their apex when Harford returns home near the conclusion of the film, are really only a few dissonant notes, but they mix with the visual imagery and the atmosphere of the film to become a cacophany in the mind of the viewer. There are numerous musical references in the film as well. The score fits perfectly with the ambiance of the film.
The suspense of this film was maintained at a high level throughout, reminiscent somewhat of Blue Velvet with its inexplicable darkness, which is one of the most suspenseful films I have ever seen. Certainly there is a Lynchian element in the darkness of the film and the way the film's reality changes drastically during the conversation with Ziggler. And yet, while discordant realities may be Lynch's specialty, Kubrick focuses on the depraved reality, all the locations of his films having their own psychology which can essentially go insane the way his protagonists are wont to do. We are given reality filtered through the protagonist's increasingly unstable psychology, and this film is an extraordinary example of it.
This film is not for everyone. It is long, it is dark, it does not have a typical easily-understood plot. It is character-driven, and at that, features a character whose reality many viewers would not be comfortable to reside in for three hours. It is not easily understood. It is not all that it seems, but is more like a message from Kubrick whose ideas I can really only scratch. If you're intrigued, you will probably enjoy this film. If you're disgusted, you will probably hate it. I doubt there's many who fall in the middle. [9/10]
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)
Not much to say about this one
Mild spoilers... What can I say? The script is full of historical references which are just not unlikely but completely impossible, and the plot does not offer a particularly good reason to suspend disbelief. The film tries to build its credibility with numerous offhand references to real history or literature (Faust, Alexander the Great, the Library at Alexandria, etc), but rather than achieving the sort of serious overtone that I can only assume was the intent, it simply dishonors the memory of such greatness with blatant idiocy. I was also utterly bewildered at the film's attempts to maintain realism while bringing in the occult. Somehow, the film's realism is just awful, even in a genre where a large degree of that can be forgiven.
The acting, predictably, is nothing special. However, I must admit I was prepared for worse. Jolie delivers her stupid lines rather passably. The other characters are bad, but for the most part unobtrusively so. The main problem with the acting and the whole existence of the film is that Jolie is simply not the strong woman that Lara Croft is supposed to be. Not having seen the first or played the game, I had always assumed that Jolie was supposed to be the female response to Indiana Jones or something, powerful, smart, dangerous. In Tomb Raider , this always seems to be the goal, but for naught, since Jolie fails physically. That's right, she just looks weak. Many of the stunts that must be her are pulled off with strain, and often she does not look comfortable. She simply lacks the physical strength. In short, she just can't make it look easy, which is half the battle (and one which male protagonists achieve again and again). I have nothing against women in action movies, but compared to Nikita or the like, Lara Croft pales as a female lead.
The cinematography and score are unmemorable, which is good, because if one could remember them, they probably wouldn't be very pleasant memories. There is little humor and less suspense. For all the action scenes, of which at least a few should have been spectacular, the film seems slow-paced. A few were worth seeing, but for some reason there is a huge disparity between the potential of the scenes and their actuality. Many of the scenes, rather than being cool, seemed somehow like they could have been cool, but failed. I'm not sure if I can explain my feeling on that any better. Overall, not particularly worth your while. [3/10]
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Self-righteous, hyped, and overrated, but in the end, an average flick
This film fails to top the original, and that film did not particularly impress me in the first place. This second attempt at a fusion of fighting and philosophy ends up being a confusing blend of pseudo-intellectualism, blatant and stupid symbols, and aesthetic but unsatisfying action. The plot itself is somewhat directionless, meandering from place to place in search of action and "answers" without really finding anything. This is not aided by the acting; at the start of the film, upon seeing Neo, a friend humorously and correctly predicted that Keanu Reeves would keep the same expression the entire movie. Morpheus' lines are worse than in the original, and Lawrence Fishburne does a worse job with them. The failed attempts at presenting a meaningful look at the dichotomy between man and machine are brought out in the early scenes, making the first half of the movie not only slow but pointless. Enter Councilor Hamann looking like the Wizard of Oz to waste ten minutes with such insights as "Some machines are bad; others are good." The irony is his own realization that for all his speaking he made no point; unfortunately, this insight was lost on those who could have removed the pointless scene from the movie.
While the supporting characters are somewhat acceptable, the Architect takes the cake as one of the worst characters I've seen onscreen. Purporting to be the knowledgeable authority with answers to Neo's questions, he simply presents a line of inconsequential jargon that leaves the audience universally dumbfounded. For a large majority of the people to whom I spoke, they simply didn't understand what he is saying, so beset is it with laughable stabs at intelligent vocabulary. For another group, however, his message is easily understandable, but to these the character appears even more ridiculous, for they realize how utterly devoid of meaning is everything he says. Transforming even the simplest idea into a forty-second oration of crap, the Architect manages to use more words more incorrectly than I have ever heard in a major motion picture. His odious presence in the film is surely one of its greatest handicaps, since he is central to Neo's mission (and thus the plot). His speeches, as well as many others in this poor, confused film speak volumes of the problems with popularity. It is almost as if the masses saw the first Matrix, said, "Wow, that's deep!" The Wachowski brothers then looked at each other, shrugged, and said, "Why not deeper?" and dove into a whole world of convoluted casuistry.
That said, the cinematography, score, and action are all acceptable-for an action movie. If one enters expecting not true cinema, but rather some special effects more or less rammed down one's throat, it is somewhat bearable. In the end, the film is rather average. However, while most average films are not above poking fun at themselves, The Matrix remains self-righteous for its duration, and in taking itself so seriously it proceeds to do itself more harm than good. Go in to see some expensive CG which is in some parts actually worse than the effects of the first (Neo looks like a pixel-y video game character in many of the scenes) and you may or may not be entertained. [5/10]
Memento (2000)
I guess I'm hopping on the bandwagon...
Mild spoilers follow; general comments on aspects, no revelations here.
Normally I have a tendency to take issue with the status quo and play devil's advocate. Stupid? Perhaps. Amusing? Most definitely. Memento, however, overcomes my instinct by its nature as a piece of nearly flawless filmmaking. Any mundane aspects of the plot are completely obscured by the incredible structure of the film, and indeed, the simplicity of the story (insofar as one can know the real story) is a perfect complement to the film's complex execution. The incredible acting, particularly by Guy Pearce, also makes Leonard's shattered world a convincing if not a completely comfortable place to reside for a few hours. While some of the lines are not perfectly executed, the script for the most part is brilliant.
To this, add masterful cinematography which emphasizes the way in which Leonard is forced to live: shots which imitate a jarring blow, a slip of memory, deja vu... The protagonist's entire experience is mirrored excellently in each shot.
As for the mood, get ready for some realistic suspense. Ever wake up and forget where you are, or even just wake up thinking you were facing the other way in bed? Makes your heart race a little, doesn't it? Now imagine your life in danger, searching for meaning in a broken reality, in which every second you are bombarded by new surroundings that rise up from a few minutes of hazy memory. Suspense is the fear of the unknown, and in this film, nothing is known for certain. Hence, it is one of the most suspenseful films I can remember.
The best part is this film's repeat performance value. I am not one to easily sit through a movie (or even a song) twice unless I truly loved it, and even then I normally like to wait a while. Having just seen the film for the third time, I can say that every time was more enjoyable than the previous. As you are less confounded by the sheer unorthodoxy of the film, you begin to take in details which make the film not a shallow experiment in film making but a rich world behind a broken lens. I guarantee that you will come to understand things better and to spot amazing clues as you watch the film additional times. There are some images gone in a blink, or conversation easily overlooked. Your mind simply filters out some of the dialogue as meaningless since you have no stable references on a first viewing. Having grasped the plot, you will now have the necessary understanding to enjoy together all the intricacies of the dialogue.
Overall, a great film. It is an intelligent idea executed with true genius. [10/10]
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
There have been worse sequels
Small spoilers follow; I describe a few scenes but don't give much away. While I'm not exactly an authority on the first two films, I recall well enough what happens in those, and this one makes a good follow up. Despite this film's somewhat wandering plot and cliché cliffhanger of an ending, it is pretty enjoyable. The acting is not spectacular, but two of the four central characters are supposed to be robots, so what do you expect? The camerawork is often interesting, and the film has quite a few humorous moments. The action is great (but not incredible) throughout. The chase, while obviously enormously expensive, had sort of a breakneck speed. While I'm aware that this is the nature of car chases, the pace of the cutting removed my ability to focus on the action and get a real sense of suspense (see the motorcycle/truck chase of the second). Much of the movie is at least somewhat gripping, though, and I found myself wanting to know what will happen next more often than waiting for the standard fare to play itself out. The premise with its innumerable incarnations still manages to support the film without seeming too stale. I think most will agree that the one-on-one duel between the machines is quite a spectacle. Overall, solid action and worth seeing. [6/10]
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)
I laughed a very few times in spite of myself
Having seen the previews, I thought this movie would pretty much be How to Lose a Guy Viewer in 10 Minutes. To my credit, I saw it on an airplane to Hawaii and paid nothing extra to see it. To the film's credit, it managed to keep me staring at it for its duration. Plot-wise, there is nothing to say. Everything you need to know is explained in the previews. There is not a split second of suspense throughout the entire film. Yet this is entirely expected and to hope for a complex storyline is to be sitting through the wrong film. The acting was exactly what was expected, the cinematography wholly unremarkable, the realism unsurprisingly lacking, and the score unmemorable. Realistically, the only elements that have a chance of redeeming the film are the romance and the comedy. Considering the nature of the film, the romance is, like all else, as predictable and superficial as the rest of the film, although not as annoying as it might have been. So we come to the aspect of humor. I must say, that despite all of these markedly low expectations and the desire not to laugh at such a tragic example of the flaws of American culture, the film was overall fairly amusing. I found myself smiling or laughing enough to keep me from unplugging the headphones from the armrest and unplugging my mind from its consciousness. Kate Hudson, whose acting in Almost Famous was good if memory serves, pulled off the role as reasonably as can be expected for a film with such low potential. McConaughey was also occasionally funny, although perhaps his friends were the most humorous. Overall, while I couldn't recommend it to anyone, I know those who like this sort of drivel will see it anyway, and for its genre it's slightly more bearable than similar films. See it if you have little dignity, little choice, and little expectation, and you may laugh a little. [5/10]
Super Troopers (2001)
Just plain stupid with a few redeeming moments
There is not much that can be said favorably about this movie. The premise is stupid, the acting unremarkable, the `humor' not humorous for the most part, and nothing else particularly redeeming. I am all for suspension of disbelief, and I am a fan of stupid humor, but even preparing myself for a silly film I was not really prepared for the idiocy that was Super Troopers. I watched it because my friends often quote from it. While there are some good one-liners, the situational comedy was not up to par, and was really just an excuse for a bunch of guys to live out their idiotic fantasies onscreen, rather than actually entertain an audience. That said, there are a very few moments that are memorable. If you're interested in seeing this film because your friends talk about it, that's about the only reason to see it. The funny moments, which are sparse to begin with, do not really make it worth seeing in its own right apart from referencing it with your friends (and my recommendation if your friends like this film a lot is to make new friends). I watched it with my brothers, and while we laughed a number of times, normally when we get together to watch a comedy we can't stop laughing. Bad sign for a "comedy." [3/10]
Nikita (1990)
Fun but not León
Nikita, while good, does not approach the high art that is León. While the fact that this plot has been imitated so frequently must make it seem less original than at its release, it was never really ironclad to begin with. On the other hand, it fits perfectly the more character-driven progression that is the movie's aim. Like Besson's masterpiece, a strong character in difficult situations powers the film, yet Nikita, for all her gender issues, is simply not developed enough to support the considerable weight bestowed upon her by this director's dead-serious style. Yet this is structural and by no means the fault of Perillaud who is excellent. She pulls off many instances of double roles which are not easy: she is strong but unsure, brutal yet smart, masculine but feminine, animal yet human. To accentuate this is the artful but not annoying cinematography which has what seems like a fresh angle and style for all the various aspects of Nikita. While not entirely typical, neither was the score entirely memorable. And while this film has much more to offer, it must be said that the action scenes were first-rate. Never tame and often surprising, they gave a true sense of struggle rather than any glorification of gore. Overall, the film is excellent as action, strong as a film, and worth seeing in the original French. [7/10]
The Transporter (2002)
Plot holes? Of course, but who cares?
If you were expecting an involving, strongly emotional film during which you form a relationship with the characters, then how did you end up with this film? Sure, the characters are flat, and even the plot has some big problems. Just get your cartoon-sensibilities out and try to enjoy it!
That said, the score is somewhat enjoyable in my opinion, the camerawork is outstanding (if it doesn't bug the hell out of you which it seems to do to some people). There's not much to be said for any of the actors apart from Jason Statham, who is perfect for the part. Someone mentioned that he has the Bruce Willis look going on, which is true, while he also has that cool accent. And those are two guys who can pull off having receding hairlines without going totally skinhead and looking like a slab of meat (like Vin Diesel). If you liked that look and accent in Snatch or the Italian Job you will probably like it here too. In my opinion he is a perfect action hero: cool, calm, in control, powerful, fast, and anything but annoying. Most heroes fail in one of these respects at some point during a film.
So now the important part: the action sequences. These really make up for the lack of coherence and character development. Maybe you think that nothing could make up for a lack of coherence; well obviously you're not the action type and should stay away from this film! If you can get over it, then some of the scenes are quite beautifully done, so rhythmic and well-choreographed as to look like dancing. Some of the scenes are reminiscent of Kiss of the Dragon (and even one of the villains is the same guy). That reminds my brothers and I watched it, we were many times reminded of other action movies: Ronin, Speed, Terminator 2, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Lethal Weapon 4, The Professional, the Fast and the Furious (some of these are not surprising due to their mutual associations with Luc Besson). But while you might just think it copies these other films, it basically does many of the cooler things in these films in a borderline montage of action that leaves you with a sense of tribute to the genre rather than a copycat. Plus, it has many scenes which are extremely original. Overall, if you're into the action, this movie has some intense and spectacular scenes. If you aren't, don't see this movie so we don't have to hear you complain about it. [7/10]
The Even Stevens Movie (2003)
TV Classic
Sure, it's stupid, full of trite gags that have been seen time and time again. But once you get over yourself and just watch the movie, it's pretty entertaining. Not surprisingly, there is not too much to be said about the score or cinematography. Still, the acting is fitting for the film and the movie throws a number of loops. I'm into art films and not just a 10 year old watching the Disney channel, but I laughed out loud a number of times. If you like the show Even Stevens, you'll like this one. Just admit it, it's is a funny show, no matter how terrible the rest of the Disney channel is, and this is a fittingly funny movie to go with it.
Funny parts (small spoilers): Mootai's relationship with Ren is pretty hilarious, and the directors even restrained themselves from making an overly sappy end to it. Ren is her usual dramatic self. Miles is the great over-the-top game show host who never drops that ridiculous intonation and flashes that game show host smile as he ruthlessly TEARS THE FAMILY APART! Oops, got a little carried away there. Louis brings his normal antics to the screen, and Beans humorously lowers the status quo with both his lines and his face. Tom does a good job as goofy weirdo while Alan and Tawny come in as the cliche good friends when the family is in a crunch. It's the familiar characters that really make this funny movie into such an enjoyable one. While it might warrant a [6/10] on its own, I give it an [8/10] for the greatness of the show and the fun of watching it with my younger siblings.
And is it just me or did Tawny get way hotter than when she was in the show? (She's only a year or two younger than I am so I'm allowed to say that.)
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Clever but not Intelligent, Fun but not Philosophical
The Boondock Saints is a fun movie. I just finished watching it again, and I have seen it several times since I purchased it six months ago. One thing I noticed this time was that it is fairly detail-oriented, and the way that the plot unfolds differently from the way that the events proceeded can be confusing. Many things important to the plot are more or less mumbled. So my suggestion: don't watch this one when there are people walking in and out of the room, because I found myself explaining what happened many times.
That said, the movie is not so difficult once you get used to it, and it's a wild ride from start to finish. With strong violence, this movie conveys a message that is slightly more elevated than other action flicks, in that it recognizes the gratuity of its own brutality. The frequent references to movie and television heroes soften the holiness of the protagonists by showing that they have learned not truly from religion, but from pop culture. Despite this, the religion in the film adds an interesting angle.
The acting is sometimes rough, but both Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus look and sound perfect for their characters. Willem Dafoe goes overboard sometimes but also does his character convincingly. Rocco provides some comic relief that actually fits quite well into the film. The rest of the characters are pretty insignificant but play the parts of scum in an effective (if satirical) way.
The score is great, very energetic and fun, much like the film itself. The cinematography is as cool as can be expected from the budget, of which I know nothing but the film as a whole gives the impression that it was not large.
Despite its religious overtones, don't expect a movie about morals or philosophy, which is brushed over as good is pitted against evil in a somewhat typical way. One difference is that this time the good guys are hunting down the bad guys to kill them, whereas in most films the bad guys do the hunting, or the good guys hunt but don't kill, or the good guys end up kiling without hunting. While the plot of the film is interesting, it is not revolutionary, and even its good ideas are somewhat mitigated by its overall roughness. To summarize, don't expect a brilliantly intelligent film, but if you're in the mood for a serious action movie with likeable heroes and a knack for humor, this one is a good choice. [7/10]
Detour (1945)
Timeless Masterpiece
This film does what most can't seem to afford to, and cuts to the chase, which is ironic because you would be hard-pressed to find a lower-budget film. The plot, while thoroughly contrived on the surface, takes on a rich depth by virtue of its narrator, who is in many ways untrustworthy. For example, every scene with Sue in it has something wrong with it. That pervasive song, the London fog and impossible cross streets in New York, and the general vagueness and lifelessness of the situations and people surrounding his memories all contribute to the question: Does she even exist? His highly improbably stories about Haskell and Vera leave the viewer wondering whom to trust, particularly considering Vera's remarks about his appearance, which contradict everything we see in the man. Tom Neal pulls off the part beautifully, playing a character who is convincing and easy with whom to sympathize while still narrating an all but impossible story. Ann Savage as Vera is (in my book) one of the most chilling characters in film history, with her piercing glare and cruel retorts. If nothing else, the car scene in which she wakes during one of Al's voiceovers makes this film worth seeing. Overall, the acting is superb.
The dialogue is downright funny in many places in addition to being clever throughout. The score, while more or less dominated by the song "I Can't Believe That You're in Love with Me," is effective because this song is so fitting to describe the relationship (fantasy?) between Sue and Al. The rest of the music is not particularly memorable but fits the film well. Watch for the use of utterly nonsensical slang that I can only attribute to satire of the genre.
To summarize, this film takes what it has and goes far with it. The 68 minute running time is perfect, without dragging the thing out as many films (even good ones) do today. The fact that this film is almost sixty years old and still funny and engaging makes it a fairly timeless masterpiece in my opinion. 8/10 in its own right, bumped up to 9/10 by the incredible small budget, short shooting time (6 DAYS!), and otherwise undistinguished actors.
Stargate (1994)
Solid, Original Adventure Flick
Stargate's plot, acting, and score all contribute beautifully to the mysterious ambiance that is the essence of this enthralling and suspenseful film. While your disbelief definitely needs to be suspended to cover some inconsistencies, the atmosphere and action of the movie make it worth your while. Not only does Stargate combine science fiction with history, but it weaves them together in a way that remains exciting the entire film, despite major changes of environment. Upon hearing some major elements of the film, one might think that aliens, ancient Egypt, and atomic bombs could only come together in some kind of bizarre montage. However, this film is strongly plot-driven, and while this does make it typical in some respects, the plot itself is remarkable. Hardly artsy, the score is in many places Hollywood-ish, presenting emotion in a straightforward manner, yet it too is enjoyable. None of the acting is spectacular, but this is made up for by the characters' wholesome qualities and ability to change (however slightly) over the course of the movie. To summarize, while nothing in the film is a complete divergence from the standard, it follows the Hollywood style in a manner that is original enough to make a solid and enjoyable adventure. This is the actualization of the potential within the Hollywood film "template": a good story told well in all respects. [9/10]
The Italian Job (2003)
Heist Adventure
While it was a fairly typical heist movie, this film was more in the adventure category to me than action. Its lack of cursing, violence, and sex in some ways was refreshing, but on the other hand it did lose some of the grittiness of a movie about lowlifes. I'm not saying that there needs to be another movie in which everyone betrays each other and ends up dead, but rather that the honor among thieves theme may have been pushed too far in this movie.
The energetic and enjoyable score and the cool but entirely unartistic camera work help to give the movie some of its character. The acting was fine, with nobody particularly memorable and without much opportunity for good acting; despite this, the characters' individual talents were fun throughout the film. Two static but still entertaining characters are "Napster" (who's funny) and Handsome Rob (who's just sweet). The plot is utterly predictable in every way; they made no attempt to disguise Steve's betrayal at the beginning (even though I'm informed that the previews showed this--never watch TV). Neither was there any doubt over whether Stella would help them. As a result many of the early scenes were dry and cliché.
The action scenes are typical, but typically entertaining. I was impressed by the fact that they made those stupid looking minicoopers semi-cool, and the final elaborate plan unfolds rather well. If you're into heists or cool non-violent action but you don't mind a Deus ex Machina, a trite plot, and an unmemorable cast, this is one for you. I should mention that for reasons entirely unfathomable to me, my female friends seem to be of the ludicrous consensus that Ed Norton and Mark Wahlberg are hot (never mentioning Jason Statham whose coolness boosts him far above them IMO), so if you're one of those kind of people that might make the film better for you. [5/10]
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
Not Disney's Greatest
Lilo and Stitch in no regard achieves the level of Disney classics like Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King in my mind, possibly because my nostalgia for childhood overshadows the flaws of those films for me. On the other hand, it does have a number of funny scenes and the same appealing animation. Furthermore, it marks a departure from the fairy-tale trend in earlier Disney movies to give science fiction a go (some of the ways in which it parodies this genre are pretty intelligent). Lilo is a good character, if somewhat inconsistent, and Stitch supports a large part of the film with his destructive antics. The movie as a whole, however, never really knows how to resolve the conflicts within itself. The transformation of Stitch to family member is contrived and marks an artificial conclusion to the film. Although David's pidgin and many local stereotypes set the atmosphere for the film, it fails to truly reconcile the oddity of the aliens with the Hawaiian setting; the aliens vacillate between being other-worldly and being human. Such inconsistencies prevent the viewer from feeling really satisfied with the film in its entirety, and while animation normally makes the willing suspension of disbelief easier, this one pushes it. However, both Lilo and Stitch are reasonably likeable characters, particularly for children (like my sister), and there are enough clever ideas to make the film worth seeing if you're in the mood. [6/10]
Adaptation. (2002)
Comedic Masterpiece
I just watched this film again for the second time last night, and, while the repeat performance wasn't better than the first, the first was so incredible as to make up for this. The film has a fresh novelty all around it, a style of humor that is unlike any other film I have seen, including Being John Malkovich by the same writer and director. It is intensely self-reflexive and self-referential, and at once it is a comedy, pokes fun at itself, parodies its own genre, becomes a film of the genre it purports to despise, and parodies that! A real screenwriter wrote the screenplay for this real movie, and this movie is about a screenwriter writing a screenplay and failing, and ending up writing himself into the screenplay. And guess what he's doing in THAT screenplay? Referring to himself as if he were writing a screenplay! Confused? Well see the movie--there are certainly jokes where it takes about 10 seconds to register since the film is such a hysterical entanglement of levels.
One thing that was rewarding on the second viewing was appreciation of the score, which maintains the same tune throughout the film and yet is mutable, changing from the contrast-laden and intriguing music of an intellectual film to the understated but mood-setting Hollywood scoring of an action film.
The acting is noteworthy. Meryl Streep does her part well, if not spectacularly. Chris Cooper on the other hand, "is such a fun character" (hehe). Nicholas Cage is just phenomenal, playing two distinct parts so well that you never confuse them even though the characters look so similar.
The cinematography, dialogue, acting, and scoring, however, are not only good on their own merit; they are infinitely better as a result of being a satire of these same attributes in other films. *SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT* It begins as an intellectual and self-important drama, much along the lines of American Beauty. The film is exactly as Kaufman (in the film) wants it to be (not artificially plot driven, just "being"). As his character in the film finds the need to change, not only does he change, but the characters in his screenplay change and the movie (Adaptation) itself changes character. This type of humor makes the film hilariously self-aware. The entire movie is a character in its own right who makes fun of other films. While most dramas which follow along the same lines as this film in its first half are self-important, they lack the self-awareness of this film which makes it unique. This is an "intelligent film" in the truest sense!
Almost precisely halfway through the film, it becomes what at the start was Kaufman's nightmare. This is where the film gets out-of-control funny and breaks all the rules. The contrast between the twins works itself out brilliantly, and the cliche-ridden second-half of the film is non-stop laughs because of how it was discussed and treated in the first half of the film. Not only this, but the fact that it is such an accurate parody of action flicks with its dramatic scoring and moralizing lessons and car chases, also adds to the humor. And who can forget the Deus ex Machina?? It not only breaks all McKee's rules but also all of Kaufman's, ending in the most trite way imaginable--only it is exactly this triteness that makes it seem not cliche but genius, because of the way the film manipulates viewers and is aware of itself (also breaking McKee's rules).
While all the aforementioned aspects of the film (score, cinematography, acting, etc) are all remarkable, it is the structure that is unimaginably and intricately *brilliant*. The first time I laughed uncontrollably throughout, the second time I appreciated many of the finer details, and I would recommend this film to anyone not afraid of slightly bizarre movies and somewhat knowledgeable about film. [10/10]
Chasing Amy (1997)
Entertaining but Overly Ambitious
This film, while often humorous and occasionally moving, is not really Kevin Smith's best. While it does have some funny moments, especially with Jay and Silent Bob's appearance, it tries to depart from the typical dick and fart joke, but fails to reach the level of a compelling drama. The film itself is a fairly straightforward commentary on dealing with a lover's past in relationships, but the normal Kevin Smith humor disrupts the flow of any meaningful message the film might otherwise have conveyed. Even ignoring its ambivalent mood, many of the scenes intended to address truly important problems in relationships were ineffective, either being unconvincing as a result of bad acting, overly drawn-out as a result of bad directing, or just plain sappy. On the other hand, certain scenes are reasonably convincing (if you can get over Joey Lauren Adams' voice and Ben Affleck's existence). See it if you want neither an overboard comedy nor a serious drama. [6/10]
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)
Solid Action Movie
Small spoilers (lines and scenes from the movie mentioned) within. With such a tame beginning, one might expect a humorous movie, maybe a little romantic, with some non-violent action thrown in for kicks. This movie is anything but that. It's pretty violent with impressive action sequences. You have to suspend disbelief, sure, but it's well worth it. With humorous dialogue ("No, it's not a fantasy! I'm in the goddam PTA!") at the appropriate lulls and an atypical but effectively sadistic villain, the film is reasonably respectable. Jackson adds to the film's character as the cheap detective ("I never did anything right my whole life. Not one damn thing. That takes skill!"). The score and sound effects, which blend together in a Herrmann-esque fashion, enhance the action and suspense. While it's always clear who's going to win, this is not one of those movies where the heroes are bulletproof--Davis and Jackson are both hurting by the end of the film. You gotta love when Davis zips up a line of Christmas lights using a flaming body as a weight. While the film over-emphasizes her looks (or lack thereof), it's not too in your face about it. Some inane lines are not annoying but just remind you that you're watching an unabashed action flick. Not stimulating or intelligent at all, but achieves its modest goals of excitement and action. [7/10]
Finding Nemo (2003)
Not Perfect but Surely Entertaining
Despite its sometimes sappy and cliché plot, this is a fun movie. Many of its jokes fall flat, incomprehensible to the child audience yet too immature for the adults. On the other hand, the many references to other movies (The Shining and Psycho) are hilariously fitting. The animation is often stunning, with all the creatures filled with vitality. What's cooler than the mysteries of the deep, and this film presents them charmingly. I laughed out loud one or two times, but I smiled a lot, and I didn't feel patronized (much) by the film's targetting of a youthful audience. Overall fun and entertaining. [7/10]
Y tu mamá también (2001)
Intimate Look at Life
Y Tu Mamá También presents not so much a general view of life but rather a personal look at the journey of three individuals one summer. From this very specific experience, it offers many insights into life and relationships. With shades of Kate Chopin's Awakening Luisa journeys with Tenoch and Julio in pursuit of a mythical beach. On the way, the cinematography and setting offer a view of Mexico's strange blend of crudity and indomitable vitality. Through dialogue which permeates the film, the characters tell both their histories and their current situations. The emotional and sexual ground that is covered is sometimes amusing and sometimes offensive, but always lively. The characters tell the secrets and live the dreams that will die without any expression in the lives of many. The acting is not incredible but is exactly what it should be. The simple plot allows for complex and shifting relationships between the characters through their activities and conversations. The film's "climax" is predictable but nonetheless provocative, while the conclusion is in keeping with the reality which grounds the characters' dreams throughout the movie. Despite the whimsical journey, all three characters are repeatedly brought to back to the fact that their actions have consequences; if their trip is a flight of fancy, then the conversations are occasional crash-landings into cold, hard real life. Its narration and events are so true to el ritmo acelerado de la vida (the pace of life) that the movie leaves the viewer nostalgic for those events in the characters' past. Overall well-done, but the lack of a unifying theme or idea leaves the viewer open to wondering what the point was. [8/10]
Blue Velvet (1986)
Suspenseful Wackiness!
Blue Velvet is a bizarre but interesting look at the underside of small-town USA. With an excellent, haunting score, the film manages to sustain a high degree of suspense for the majority of the film. Jeffrey is a good protagonist, probing into the mystery of Lumberton in a compelling and exciting manner. Frank is one of my top five villains, Dennis Hopper playing a perfect (almost too perfect!) psychopath that is guaranteed to make you shiver. The cinematography is excellent, with cuts that leave you simultaneously fearful and curious. Many bizarre situations (and flashbacks to these situations) set a mood which forces you to wonder if there's a grotesque force undermining your town. [8/10]