Change Your Image
The_Man_In_White
If you are reading this then I must have really made an impression on you on one of these boards somewhere. That could either be a good or a bad impression, but I choose to believe that you harbor no ill feelings towards me and welcome you to my profile.
I didn�t think I would write anything here, but I never thought I would spend so much time at IMDb some odd months ago.
Well then, let�s get started�
*****
Me.
I live in Connecticut. I am 28. I am a movie lover. All other information will have to be derived from my posts or PMs.
I have used IMDb originally as a resource for film trivia. Oddly enough, I never thought to post questions on the I Need To Know Board. But then again, I never originally thought of posting anywhere on the boards�
I began adding my 2� on the Bram Stoker�s Dracula Board after reading some disparaging comments about the film by some other IMDb users. I felt I had to defend the film, so I wrote both a review and several defensive posts, the latter becoming a crusade that continues to this day.
I now post on Film General on a regular basis after work and on weekends, but you might just find me anywhere. I�m just that kid of guy. [winkgrin]
*****
My Favorites.
My absolute favorite movie is:
Bram Stoker�s Dracula (1992)
Other current favorite films include:
1984 (1984)
All Over the Guy (2001)
Bent (1997)
Big Night (1996)
Big Tease, The (1999)
Deep End, The (2001)
Dinner Rush (2000)
Elizabeth (1998)
First Wives Club, The (1996)
Gods and Monsters (1998)
Hamlet (1990)
Mambo Italiano (2003)
Melvin Goes to Dinner (2003)
Mostly Martha (2001)
Much Ado About Nothing (1993)
Pacte des Loups, Le (2001)
Peter�s Friends (1992)
Phantom of the Opera, The (2004)
Remains of the Day, The (1993)
Second Skin (Segunda piel) (2000)
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
Titus (1999)
Urbania (2000)
This list is subject to change, as I am always watching new movies, re-watching old ones, and constantly changing my opinions.
*****
What else do you need to know?
Please feel free to comment, question, and/or compliment me on any of the above content.
Reviews
Troy (2004)
Not only an unfaithful adaptation but an insult. Fans beware!
I'm aware that not many people will take the time to read Homeric poetry or the Greek plays at their leisure, but what saddens me about the movie TROY is that it is the primary impression that many people will have of the Trojan War legend.
Artistic license is expected, and when done well it is welcome. But the cliché drivel this movie buttresses its storyline and dialog on are insulting, to Greek literature *as well as* to its audience.
To begin, the 10 year war between the Spartans and the Trojans is reduced to a 16-day skirmish, with 12 non-fighting days of funeral rites. You can hardly call what happens in this movie a "war."
Don't expect too much reverence to the original story. The writing in any case is awful. When Helen mouths the anachronistic retort, "Don't play with me," you wonder if Paris will respond with, "Don't be a playah hate-ah." Subsequent dialog contains lame one-liners and grade-school history lessons, and the story comes across as visual Cliff Notes...painfully inaccurate Cliff Notes.
The cast is awful. You'll be treated to misplaced British accents (and mangled ones at that, via Brad Pitt) and formulaic historical-epic dramatics, delivering all the charm of "SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE trying to be SPARTICUS. Brad Pitt as Achilles and Orlando Bloom as Paris seem to be able to manage two different facial expressions each. Their performances were embarrassing to watch; they seem to be reading their unconvincing, mechanical,self-consciously historic dialog from cue cards. ONE REDEEMING MEMBER of this otherwise ill-talented lot IS ERIC BANA, who delivers a commendable performance as Hector. He is as I'd imagined reading "The Iliad." Thank god for him, as the rest of the cast seem to have graduated from the William Shatner School of Semantics.
Another pro to this movie's many cons is the historically correct fighting sequences. The writers must have been paying more attention to the History Channel in this regard to the detriment of other writing concerns, such as plausible character development and an explanation (or apology) for Pitt's mullet.
Watch this with caution if you are at all a fan of Greek antiquity or Classical mythology. If you are a civilian to either, I regret the fact that this will be your first impression of this story. What you have is an attempt to combine an alpha-male spectacle of violence with a TITANICesque romantic love tragedy to make the bodice-ripper, Ivory/Merchant fans swoon with wistful delight.
And sadly, it comes off as majestic as an episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS.
Big Eden (2000)
Are you a middle-aged gay man from a small town? Read on
If you prefer SIX FEET UNDER to QUEER AS FOLK, then you are bound to find something to like in BIG EDEN. As opposed to the often ridiculously epidemic sexploits and caddy size-queen humor of QUEER, this gay-cinema drama offers a more mellow outlook from the point of view of a neurotic, insecure 40-something protagonist whose too busy fumbling his way towards self-acceptance to come up with witty one-liners and realize that flannel is a big fashion no-no.
Middle-aged New York artist Henry (likeably played by Arye Gross, who some may remember from the first few seasons of ELLEN) goes back homea small town called Big Edenwhen his grandfather suffers a stroke. The problem is: his grandfather doesn't know he's gay, and that he's carried a torch for a local hunk for 20 years.
What I loved about this movie is that it is not centered around impossibly beautiful, Abercrombie-model 20-somethings panting for each other in some prep school or humping each other after meeting in a club. This is about average-Joe looking guys with struggles that feel a little more palpable and common, thrown into a story that has enough tension in it to make it interesting.
Arye Gross plays Henry well, though his character is definitely self-absorbed in his own neurotic apprehensions. I never felt that he was too flat, but I did find something lacking not just in his character, but in this movie. Too quiet and quaint, perhaps?
The small town atmosphere was both believable and hammy: the townsfolk include archetypes in the form of old blue-collar townies who sit on the porch of the local shop and do
nothing, and a meddling, casserole-baking old widow determined to put her matchmaking services to work on the beleaguered Henry. We get the sense it's a small backwater, but that people are also open minded (the general store serves cappuccino!) as you see later when they become involved in Henry's love life. I loved the town, but it also seemed far-fetched to have all these provincial country-folk so involved in the amorous pursuits of gay men. It was a lovely fantasy, though, and a positive vision of how things could be.
It was a quietly charming story, and at times moving. One scene between Henry and his grandfather nearly had me in tears.
I recommend at least one viewing, though it is not the best movie on the subject I have ever seen. I would sooner and more enthusiastically recommend ALL OVER THE GUY and MAMBO ITALIANO bar none (more entertaining & better dialog), but this movie was fairly good in its own humble, unglamorous way.
The Phantom of the Opera (1989)
A time traveling Christine and a Phantom into human taxidermy.
When this film opensapparently in the year 1989a young woman is running through busy New York streets into a small music bookshop. There she finds a rare piece of sheet-music from an unknown composer, and when she starts to sing from it the pages turn to blood.
This young woman, one Christine Day, is a music student at Julliard and is on her way to an audition. When she sings from the piece she found at the old shop, a vagrant sandbag swings across the stage and knocks her out cold.
After a whirlwind montage reminiscent of THE WIZARD OF OZ, she awakes in 1885 London. Now she is Christine Daae, a young Victorian ingénue songbird, lifting herself up during a rehearsal at a London opera house inexplicably dressed as a male page, not at all bothered or puzzled by her new surroundings. So begins this liberal interpretation of Gaston Leroux's classic tale of obsession and horror.
There is much alteration to Leroux's original mythos. For starters, the entire story and its characters have been transported from Paris to London, so that everyone can speak in Merchant-Ivory British accents
everyone, that is, except for Christine, who (even while transported to Victorian England) is still an American. And of course, another significant difference is that Christine travels through time. I'm sure Leroux would have added that in, though, had he thought of it while writing his novel.
Then, of course, there is the Phantom himself. This Phantom is different than his predecessorshe combats muggers in dark urban alleyways a la Batman, seduces prostitutes, and skins his victims' flesh, which he then uses to sew onto his own tissue-deteriorated face.
Robert Englund plays the title character with the same macabre pleasure he brings to his role in the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series. In fact, with his latex face mutations, he looks very similar to his Freddy Kruger persona, and as the Phantom he seems to delight in preying on his victims. The Victorian setting is not altogether inappropriate considering the emphasis on the Phantom's ghastly appetite for murder, evoking the menace of a blood thirsty Jack the Ripper.
Overall this movie is an entertaining flick. The acting becomes hammy as with many horror films, but the suspense is thrilling even for those familiar with the original story, because you just don't know who screenplay writer Sandefur is going to decide to kill off in his spirit of deviation. It is part period drama, part slasher (mostly slasher) with not too much emphasis on writing or character. This is a movie that explains the Phantom's facial paroxysm as the curse of a demonic midget who melts his face in exchange for talent and renown. But if you're in the mood for a laughable/gory ghost story, this movie is quite enjoyable.
Swing (1999)
Lisa Stansfield rocks in this delightful homage to the swing revival!
The reason I saw Swing at all is because I am a big Lisa Stansfield fan. When I discovered she was making her theatrical debut in a movie about a struggling swing band, I was excited not only to see Ms. Stansfield in her first acting role, but to hear her cover some great big-band standards with that signature voice of hers.
If you get nothing else out of this movie at all, the soundtrack is worth at least one viewing.
Overall, I thought this movie was rather entertaining and very charming, a characteristically cynical and quirky British comedy, with a few minor snags, mainly from plot holes and dialog. (Also, as an American viewer, it was difficult at first to get used to the heavy Liverpool accent.) The one-liners at times try too hard to be funny, but luckily those moments were often quickly followed by one of the movie's greatest strengths, its music.
It's not to say the film has nothing BUT its soundtrack to keep it entertaining. Hugo Speer gives a commendable performance as the frustrated protagonist Martin Luxfordan unlucky chap whose last get-rich-quick-scheme landed him a 2 year prison sentence. While serving time, he learns to play the saxophone from his inmate, and is inspired to change his ways during his parole by starting a swing band. Life is not easy for Martyhis parents live in the projects and his brother is a conniving thief who sells his unsuspecting targets the very security systems he breaks into. Things are so bleak you just beg for some light at the end of the tunnel. But Marty plucks right along persuading his friends to join in on his enterprise and holding out hope that he can live his dream. This set-up, while not thoroughly original, is played out well by Speer. When the movie is not rip-roarin' to the sounds of the jazz age, its up to Speer to make us root for Marty, which he succeeds in doing with devilish charm.
Enter Joan, the ex-girlfriend, played by Stansfield. Marty singles her out to be the lead singer of his developing band (surprise! surprise!) but there's one snagJoan is married to the police officer who put Marty away in the first place. This sets up all sorts of wonderful possibilities for a love triangle, but Danny McCall comes off as almost unbelievably psychotic as Joan's husband Andy. He seems more obsessed with his job (the man wears police uniform pajamas to bed)than with keeping Joan's affections, and instead of insecure about his marriage he comes off as unreasonable and inexplicably bent on making Marty's life a living hell. It also becomes increasingly difficult to understand why Joan married the man in the first place, since he displays not even one iota of a redeeming quality. But it is fun to see Joan square off against Andy later in the film, in moments where Stansfield shines in ferociousbut fabulousglory.
Despite some minor but persistent flaws, this movie is a pleasure to watch. Peppered with an odd array of supporting charactersincluding the intimidating Mighty Mac and his Orange Brigade brass section who look like they're armed for a hit(mob-style, not musical)the film occasionally takes a delightfully bizarre turn even in otherwise predictable moments.
I would definitely recommend this movieI have seen it several timesespecially if you are looking for an easy, unchallenging but delightful story about the spirit to overcome adversity, an homage to the swing revival movement at the end of the 90's, or a chance to see Lisa Stansfield take down the Liverpool police department.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Artsy kaleidoscope version of a Gothic classic.
Though not the most faithful version to Stoker's novel, Coppola's lavish cinematic effort is sumptuously detailed and well written. James V. Hart's screenplay retains many aspects of the original novel not seen in other Dracula films, but imposes a love story between the legendary vampire and the story's heroine, Mina Murray. Diverting from the original monstrous figure terrorizing Victorians in the 1897 book, this movie portrays Dracula as a more romantic anti-hero pursuing his immortal love.
Gary Oldman's performance as Dracula alone is worth watching; his transition from ancient, eccentric recluse to dark, dashing gentleman is seamless. His sympathetic portrayal, along with brilliant costume design and make-up effects, breathe new life into a very familiar character.
At the film's opening, we are introduced to the historic mercenary who inspired Dracula, Vlad the Impaler, offering an origin for Dracula's cursed immortality--the suicide of his beloved wife causes him to renounce God. Some 400 years later in Victorian London, young solicitor Jonathan Harker sets off for his ill-fated trip to Transylvania. (Keanu Reeves' stoic performance, though not brilliant, actually works here as the repressed and reserved Victorian gentleman.) While Harker assists in Dracula's purchase of London property, he shows the count a picture of his fiancé Mina, which sets up the film's love story--Mina reminds him of the wife he lost centuries ago.
While much of Stoker's plot is retained and respected, the film's bent on portraying Dracula and Mina as star-crossed lovers imposes a tension between the two not originally intended by Stoker that often leads to artificially sentimental dialogue and scenarios. After Dracula imprisons Harker in his castle, he sails to London and courts Mina in scenes completely invented for the movie (strolling to the cinema, waltzing by candlelight). Meanwhile, Dracula is attacking Mina's close friend, Lucy, whose mysterious illness from Dracula's visits is actually the central part of the novel. When Lucy's condition worsens, her three suitors (all included for the first time in any film version) call upon metaphysical guru Professor Van Helsing, the Obi One Kanobi of the Dracula legend. As Dracula desperately romances Mina, Van Helsing gathers the incredulous gentlemen together in a hunt to vanquish the vampire and, in consequence, love's fulfillment.
The film's treatment of the book is better than most, but what really sets this version apart is its artsy cinematography. It's very mesmerizing--the story is told in a sort of dream-like kaleidoscope, with transitions that vary from fluid to frenetic. The romantic sub-plot, woven throughout the entire film, sometimes works in this style. When Dracula recounts his past to Mina over a glass of absinthe, images of his former bride falling to her death are collaged in the background. This one scene conveys the essence of the entire film--Dracula sees Mina as his last hope for rekindling his lost love.
This film is an opulent visual feast that fluctuates from faithful literary homage to complete artist license--with a few moments of contrived dialogue and unforgivable sentiment--that ultimately shines as a beautiful cinematic masterpiece.