Delilah's Reviews
One chick's opinion. :cool:
Index: 2046 (2004 - Wong) 4/5 The 400 Blows (1959 - Truffaut) 4.5/5 Adam's Rib (1949 - Cukor) 4/5 Aguirre, The Wrath Of God (1972 - Herzog) 4.5/5 Angels In America (2003 - Nichols) 5/5 The Apartment (1960 - Wilder) 4.5/5 Batman Begins (2005 - Nolan)4/5 Before Sunset (2004 - Linklater) 3.5/5 Being Julia (2004 - Szabo) 2/5 Big Fish (2003 - Burton) 3/5 Brazil (1985 - Gilliam) 4.5/5 Buffalo '66 (1998 - Gallo) 4/5 Cabin in the Woods 4/5 Capturing The Friedmans (2003 - Jarecki) 4.5/5 Chopper (2000 - Dominik) 4/5 Chungking Express (1994 - Wong) 4.5/5 Crash (2004 - Haggis) 4.5/5 The Crime Of Padre Amaro (2003 - Carrera) 3/5 Dark Blue (2002 - Shelton) Dawn Of The Dead (2004 - Snyder) 3.5/5 Day For Night (1973 - Truffaut) 3/5 The Debt (2010/1 - Madden) 4.5/5 Dirty Harry (1971 - Siegel) 4.5/5 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004 - Kaufman) 4/5 Finding Nemo (2003 - Stanton/Unkrich) 3.5/5 Finding Neverland (2004 - Forster) 4.5/5 Fitzcarraldo (1982 - Herzog) 4.5/5 Flirting With Disaster (1996 - Russell) 2.3/5 The Forgotten (2004 - Ruben) 1/5 The French Connection (1971 - Friedkin) 1/5 Garden State (2004 - Braff) 3.5/5 Genghis Blues (1999 - Belic) 4.5/5 Get Carter (1971 - Hodges) 3/5 Hamlet (2009 - Doran) Hedwig And The Angry Inch (2001 - Mitchell) 4/5 House Of Yes (1997 - Waters) 4/5 The Hulk (2003 - Lee) 1.5/5 I Heart Huckabee's (2004 - Russell) 4/5 In the Mood for Love (2000 - Wong) 5/5 The Iron Giant (1999 - Bird) 5/5 Jean de Florette; Manon des Sources (1986 - Berri) 5/5 Kill Bill, vol. 1 (2003 - Tarantino) 3.5/5 Kill Bill, vol. 2 (2004 - Tarantino) 4/5 The Last Picture Show (1971 - Bogdanovich) 5/5 The Long Goodbye (1973 - Altman) 3/5 Lost In Translation (2003 - Coppola) 5/5 The Machinist (2004 - Anderson) 4.5/5 May (2003 - McKee) 4/5 Malena (2000 - Tornatore) 4/5 The Manchurian Candidate (1962 - Frankenheimer) 4/5 The Manchurian Candidate (2004 - Demme) 3.5/5 The Man Without A Past (2002 - Kaurismäki) 3/5 M*A*S*H (1970 - Altman) 3.5/5 Muriel's Wedding (1994 - Hogan) 3.5/5 On the Waterfront (1954 - Kazan) 5/5 The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928 - Dryer) 5/5 Phantom of the Opera (2004 - Schumacher) 3.5/5 Picnic At Hanging Rock (1975 - Weir) 3.5/5 The Player (1992 - Altman) 4.5/5 Raising Victor Vargas (2003 - Sollett) 4/5 Rebecca (1940 - Hitchcock) 5/5 Reservoir Dogs (1992 - Tarentino) 4/5 Return Of The King (2003 - Jackson) 5/5 Return To Me (2000 - Hunt) 4/5 Roxanne (1987 - Schepisi) 5/5 Session 9 (2001 - Anderson) Shine (1996 - Hicks) 4/5 Sliding Doors (1998 - Howitt) 4.5/5 Sling Blade (1996 - Thornton) 4/5 Spider (2002 - Cronenberg) 4/5 Spiderman 2 (2004 - Raimi) 3.5/5 Strangers On A Train (1951 - Hitchcock) 4.5/5 Straw Dogs (1971 - Peckinpah) 3.5/5 Sullivan's Travels (1941 - Sturges) 4.5/5 Sweeney Todd (2007 - Burton) 4.5/5 Taxi Driver (1976 - Scorsese) 5/5 The Tick: The Entire Series (2001 - Edlund) 4/5 Troy (2004 - Petersen) 2/5 Truly Madly Deeply (1992 - Minghella) 3.5/5 Whispers of the Heart (1995 - Miyazaki) 4/5 Wit (2001 - Nichols) 2.5/5 Woman In The Dunes (1964 - Teshigahara) 4.5/5 Wordplay (2006 - Creadon) 4.5/5 XX/XY (2002 - Chick) 2/5 Related: Roman Holiday (1953)/Lost In Translation (2003), a Comparison The Kathy & Mo Show (live theater coming to DVD) |
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
The value of this film is its audacity, both in the portrayal of unswerving drive, and the reality of the filmmaking. Aguirre's madness and his drive are so interwoven that the psyche of the character is an impenetrable shell of audaciousness. He appropriates leadership of an expedition through mutiny and applies all available resources to his personal quest for power and fame. This is mirrored in Herzog's methods: filmed with one stolen camera on a budget of $360,000, Aguirre, the Wrath of God is a project that a more seasoned (read: saner) director would hardly dare. It is, in fact, a filmic record of an actual expedition; 400+ people spent 6 weeks cruising down the Amazon on rafts for the shoot. The tales of Herzog's film and Aguirre's expeditions diverge at their ends, however: Aquirre never finds the City of Gold, but this film established Herzog as an internationally acclaimed filmmaker. I recommend watching once for the story in the film, and then a re-watch with the commentary, for the story of it. |
Spiderman 2
This was great fun to watch! All the major elements are there, in force, in this excellent summer blockbuster: solid script, great performances, kick-ass soundtrack. I'd heard much of
LOVED that MJ is not just a damsel in distress - "HEY! < whistle > I'm talking to you!" was an awesome moment! I picked up the soundtrack immediately after, and am especially liking the Dashboard Confessionals' "Vindicated", which starts the end credits. This movie is more than a sequel - it seems to complete the story begun in Spiderman in a really satisfying way. |
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
That's the corner that Hedwig... turns. It's not about being gay. This is a story about self-acceptance.... about healing, and self-knowledge. It operates on a much deeper level than one expects. John Cameron Mitchell has given us a story about recapturing that which was lost - his own manhood, love of self. It's a fun ride, don't get me wrong. The music is awesome. I downloaded most of the soundtrack while watching the movie a second time. Visually, it's fun to look at - Hedwig's outrageousness is a given, but the film is also nicely peppered with symbolism, with cool animation and with glimses of true human beauty. I speak of Michael Pitt's lips. mrow. Seen once, this movie is a fun, funny, charming musical ride. On second viewing, I got even more out of it, as the symbolism of Hedwig's pursuit of Tommy gelled for me. There are hints, in the writing and the photography, that Tommy is a part of Hedwig that he needs to understand... and have understanding from... in order to be whole. Seeing that happen is unexpectedly moving. On a final note, I am pretty awed by John Cameron Mitchell, as his on-screen performance was foocking brilliant, and as writer/director, the supportive symbolism all came from his fertile little brain as well, and credits to a hugely creative intellect. I am already looking forward to his next directorial effort: Short Bus, in pre-production at this writing (6/14/04). IMDB says it's an exploration of relationships, through gender, art, other stuff... This I've gotta see! |
The 400 Blows - Truffaut - 1959
So much has been written of Francois Truffaut's ``The 400 Blows'' (1959) that I feel there's little I can add. Ebert's review touches on the major points and
|
The Crime of Padre Amaro
This is a gorgeously filmed story that raises questions about the humane interpretations of "right"
Gael Garcia Bernal (Y Tu Mama Tambien, Amores Perros) shows again why he is one of Mexico's hottest properties: the kid is HOTT.... oh yeah, and he's also really talented. Opposite him is a newer talent, Ana Claudia Talancon, whose performance as the young woman who falls in love with a priest is detailed and moving. Other lumiaries of mexican cinema bring depth to the cast - everyone is excellent. This story drags just a bit in the middle, as its attention is divided between the love relationship and the political aspects, but it's nothing to be put off by: overall, this is a very watchable story with an empassioned message, deftly told. |
Spider
Rightly, words have been attached to this film along the lines of "perfect pitch", "well-made" and "brilliant"... also "bleak", "unsparing" and "disturbing". These are all good words for David Cronenberg's story of a schizophrenic man who confronts alone the childhood event that unalterably changed his life.
Small by design, every major character is played by one of three actors: Gabriel Byrne, Miranda Richardson (in a dual role, at least) and Ralph Fiennes. Rounding out the cast was John Neville, another favorite of mine, though I'll admit it's starting to creep me out that he's still around. He was old in the 80's, already... Such a force in talent need hardly be reviewed. I'd only blather. They're each at the top of their game, and Cronenberg gives them room to prowl a bit in these roles. The performances are top-notch. The script and the handling of it are what really make this film though. Intelligence and a certain respect for the illness in question elevate this story to a level appreciable to any viewer, lending force and meaning to the intriguing story we're told. This is a writer with a deep understanding of how film can convey experience as well as story line, and employs cinematic accouterments to afford the audience a view from the inside of a story, with all it's confusion intact. |
Flirting With Disaster
Can you imagine if Patricia Arquette and Steve Buscemi had offspring? Think of all the teeth...
Anyway, the basic premise is that Ben Stiller is an adoptee, looking for his birth parents so he can get a sense of who he is before naming his now 4 month old son. He gets distracted by a neurotic Leone and his wife, played by Arquette, is distracted by an old high school chum, now metro- homo- and somehow also bi-sexual. Leone is the adoption agency rep who is helping Stiller, only her info is wrong wrong wrong, adding up to sub-hilious hijinks. The good news is, when he does finally find his parents, they're played by Lily Tomlin (YAY!!) and Alan Alda (yay) and they're pretty damn funny. Oh and his adoptive parents are played by Mary Tyler Moore, in a very funny turn... and that guy who plays the dad on Just Shoot Me. If you catch this, be warned: the closing credits fearute MTM going down on Mr Just Shoot Me and frankly, I'm emotionally scarred. All in all, this film is like when you order won ton soup and you get a huge bowl with one tiny but delicious won ton in it: ok, but it left me a little unsatisfied. |
Nice reviews SD.
Thanks for reminding me of Aguirre. Been meaning to watch that for ages. |
Troy (or: My Big, Fat Greek War)
First of all, I have seen the man I'm going to marry: Vincent Regan, who plays Eudorus. He's married, I've learned, but his wife is into directors, so I'm going to need someone to distract her while I switch Kenneth Brannaugh for Vincent. I'll also need Kenneth Brannaugh.
With that said, everything about Troy is BIG. The scale is BIG. The cast is BIG. B-Pitty is HUGE. Unfortunately, bigger doesn't always mean better. The things that work best are the less-touted, more medium-sized performances, mainly Eric Bana's Hector, Rose None of that is as big a problem as the miscasting of Pitt as Achilles. He has his moments with it. He just wasn't right for it and I'm still trying to figure out why. Oh, I know: because despite the enormous arms he grew for this, they've colored him like a girly-man. Petal pink lips and yellow hair and blue eyes... and bloodlust. It didn't come together. He didn't make it come together. Klaus Kinski he's not. By contrast, Bana's Hector is relatable, human, vulnerable at times, varied. It may even be a planned contrast that Achilles be more superficial, but Pitt's performance pays a high price if that was the idea. The biggest problem I had though was with the direction. Peterson went back to theatrical roots in the staging of some of this, most notably the political discussions, but he should have revisited Basic Directing for a refresher on beats. There's supposed to be a build to every scene, and too many important moments are just barrelled through, making everything seem pre-ordained. It doesn't make for compelling storytelling. Pitt wasn't the only odd casting choice. Of an array of principals, very few looked at all Greek. Hector's wife was so thin he risked lacerations just being within 2 feet of her... hardly the greek ideal. Helen, while certainly pretty, didn't seem terribly interesting. I did like that she and Bloom shared a bit of a resemblance, underlining their vanity and narcisism. On the up side, the love scene with Pitt and Bryce was hott! The battles were good. The two-man combat scenes were positively excellent. Those jumps Pitt did were highly impressive. Not a lot of people can get that much air while toting a big sword! The stunts and fx were excellent. I very much enjoyed the Tumbleweeds of Doom. Kudos to the costumer, especially the footwear, and to the jewelry maker. I don't know what the makeup person was up to though, with all that eyeliner on everyone. We weren't in Egypt, for crying out loud! All in all, there were some strong points, but this whole affair needed a bit more work. It could have been much improved, but it's not a painful way to spend three hours and it did introduce me to my sweet Vincent. Seriously, anybody know him or know anyone who knows him? Hook a sister up. |
Roxanne
This is a story of self-love. It has all the trappings of a typical romance: humor and poetry and saxaphones... and the best mood-lighting of all time. You know that hour
But the point of it is that we all have something (or a few things) that we allow to stand as barriers to love. The main character, CD Barnes (played with aplomb by Steve Martin) has a gigundous nose. He believes that no woman will see past it. He believes this so firmly, that when he meets Roxanne, who views the world through her telescope, where his nose is indiscernable, he is completely willing to believe that she won't love him because of it. The thing he learns though, is that the thing that makes him different is the thing that makes him special. Just when it seems that CD's love for Roxanne will be squelched by his physiogamy, the whole town is saved by his extraordinary sense of smell. Once he learns to appreciate that part of himself that makes him unique, CD is finally ready to accept the love that Roxanne could easily have had for him all along. What a hopeful notion. No wonder they call this a 'feel good' movie. The performances are a little uneven, suffering it seems from the director's failure to recognise the very point made above. Martin's performance is a classic blend of schtick and honesty. His physical humor brings the expected lightheartedness to the story but also pulls us in and makes us hope for CD. Darryl Hannah's Roxanne is not quite as sympathetic, but she has those moments when we see a bright, vulnerable woman. Rick Rossovich is the dumb-as-dirt object of confusion for Roxanne, the pretty boy that CD believes is what she really wants. (Nobody is listening when Roxanne says she hopes to meet someone with half a brain.) Rossovich is not quite up to the task, frankly. Oh, he's dumb, but he's so genuinely awkward in the role that he's barely tolerable. It's a serious "no contest" scenario, with this guy as Chris. Give me a George Clooney, and CD has someone to contend with, at least. And Shelley Duvall plays the Voice of Reason with heart and charm. The writing is ok, though there's a bit of choppiness here and there. That scene where CD finally learns the value of his Buick-sized honker seems shoe-horned in, as does the lengthy scene where CD matches wits with a local bully in a pub. All in all though, it's a very lovely story. Steve Martin's performance is highly relatable and it's a nice payoff when he finally gets the girl. (sorry if that spoiled it for any of you youngsters who were in diapers when this came out). |
Originally Posted by Golgot
Nice reviews SD.
Thanks for reminding me of Aguirre. Been meaning to watch that for ages. I just watched Aguirre yesterday... really enjoyed it. I'll be looking forward to hearing what you think. |
Hey excellent thread!! Looks like I need to dust off my review thread and put a couple more up to keep up! Well written and concise. Hope you stick around!
|
Kill Bill, vol 1
The quibbles: 1. The b&w fight scene with all the guys went on just a bit loooong. It was like a built-in pee break, just in case you forgot that the large soda at a theater is a 5 gal drum. 2. Question: what song is Elle whistling, when she's walking into the hospital? Is that from a spaghetti western or something? 3. When Uma wakes up from her coma... what was the thing with her looking at her hands? 4. I thought Michael Madsen was Bill. And I watched it twice and still thought that. The stuff that rocked: EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!!! Tarentino's style is so perfectly matched to the mood of a revenge piece that it's astonishing to learn the idea came from Uma. Everyone production-wise came through in spades on this - the music, the costumes, the photography, the fight sequences, the overall art of it... There are a lot of little touches, like the cross on Elle's eyepatch, that add style and humor. Favorite Moments/Bits: 1. The sheriff's glasses on the dashboard. 2. The Bride's fake name, and the fact that we never hear her real one. 3. Sound effects... did this win awards for sound editing? The squeek of Vernita's head sliding down the kitchen cupboard, and the crunch of the cereal all over the floor; the mosquitoe's bite sound; the metallic knock on Uma's dome when she wakes up; and the sake being dropped off-camera at the mention of the name "Hattori Hanso". 4. "Pussy wagon?! Ff****er." 5. The blood dropping on O-ren when her mother is killed and the snow falling later, when she is. Tarentino's fourth offering is great fun to watch. The performances are truly awesome. The fighting and stunt work is excellent and those sequences are shot pretty clearly, which has to be rough. Finding out during "The Making of..." that Uma was pregnant for the filming was a jaw-dropper. Overall, it's a fantasy with great emotional payoff - not to be taken too literally or seriously though. This story hearkens back to the Spanish revenge tragedies of a century past, a time when "pc" was not a part of the vernacular. |
Originally Posted by Sedai
Hey excellent thread!! Looks like I need to dust off my review thread and put a couple more up to keep up! Well written and concise. Hope you stick around!
You were one of the ones who inspired me to get this thing together. |
Kill Bill, vol. 2
Yeah!! This was just as fun to watch as Vol 1. The overblown nature of these characters is just as grabby is the first few we saw meet their demise. The parts fit together well - BB's "bang bang" invoking the song from the opening credits of Vol 1, for instance. The comparison of the two daughters, for another, serves to highlight the Bride's uniquely enforced sense of justice. This volume is more thoughtful than the first, with more emphasis on psychological advantage and emotional power plays, but still delivers in the fighting scenes and the enjoyment of watching the Bride overcome all obstacles to reach her goal. She's still the underdog, but look at Uma and her little muscles! She had to have worked really hard in prep for this. She looked capable of kicking some tail by the end.
Tarentino did a number of nifty tricks with this two-parter, but I especially enjoyed one part of the structure in Vol 2: Taking a long siesta between release dates was a gamble. The audience has time to cool off and you risk your central character losing their sympathy. Enter Budd: reformed, it seems. Peaceful, even when provoked, he's beat his sword into a plowshare, or at least a pawn shop, and I was feeling a little sorry for him when NinjaUma showed up. Then we see him bury her alive and you know... I wasn't feeling so sympathetic any more. That sequence did a great job of reviving my will to see asses kicked. That Tarentino kid's kinda smooth. I'm kind of glad I didn't see Vol 1 til last weekend, as seeing them for the first time a few days apart was pretty cool. Kill Bill is great fun to watch. It's a different world and the people are not like anyone you know... hopefully. It's not a world I'd want to live in, but it's certainly fun to visit from the safety of my sofa. Don't go in looking for a lot more than that. Sunday School's down the hall. But do be ready for a good time. |
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
http://images.killermovies.com/d/daw...ead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/daw...ead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/daw...ead/poster.jpghttp://images.killermovies.com/d/daw...ead/poster.jpg
This "remake" is the resurrection of the first Dawn...'s tagline, but apart from that and people holing up in a mall against flesh-eaing zombies, it's a whole new show. It's also such a well-done example of the genre, that there too: whole new show. I've seen a splattering of zombie flicks in my day, and went into this one expecting Cheese.. I was very pleasantly suprised. Universal did a fine job, raising Romero's baby. The opening sequence alone established it as far superior to any movie of it's ilk, and that's probaby the true test for this genre: if you can get past the gratuitous opening sequence of nice, happy people in a f'ed up world getting killed by Whatever and not think to yourself "well, at least it's just a matinee priced ticket", you're sitting pretty. And I was. All the usual elements are there, but most of the cheese has been held. Gone is the awkward dialogue, all the worse for it's delivery by non-actors. Gone is the embarassing gimp-gait of the zombies - these are track star zombies, and suddenly they're scary. They also seem to have a clearer focus than zombies of byegone eras, and for that director Zack Snyder deserves a nod. Gone is the painfully overdramatic and clunky soundtrack: this one is excellent and if you're listening carefully, it provides some comic backup to the unfolding events. Gone too, are several highly predictable stock scenarios in the zombie genre, praise be. Others, among them the much-touted "social commentary" of the original, are relegated to their proper place within a streamlined story. Huzzah! So what's left? Well, we have a fairly classical array of characters, many more than the original, which apparently featured just four people. And they're played by actual gosh-darnit actors! I'm still reeling from the shock of it. We also have a story line that is a little thin, but for the most part, the tension builds and the story moves along nicely. There's one rather roughly shoehorned-in scene with a girl and a dog, that accomplishes a few things, but it had the feel of a 3am rewrite. For the most part though, the characters are well-sketched and we get to care a little about several of the central ones. And we have some positively AWESOME special effects. The pyrotechnics are just spectacular. I twice felt like cheering for things that blew up. The stunts are amazing. The head-splats against the van when the old lady showed up with her crew were just excellent. There's also a face that gets half blown off that was some great sculpting. And the blood dried like blood. All-around awesome job by the Fx team. I especially liked the ending. The story continues through the closing credits, in a manner evoking Blair Witch and the fast-take scenes from The Ring, lending creepiness to the fate of the characters. Like 28 Days Later, we have the use of digital video, to world-disintegrating effect. Oh, and it's all sandwiched between some of the best opening and closing titles in memory. I don't know why, but I love when those things are done well. The bar has been raised in this genre. It was high time, really, but all the ketchup-blood and clumsiness in the past made it all the more fun to see this done up right. |
Woah. I missed this thread- I really love the blunt style you have with your reviews and I look forward to reading more!
|
Big Fish
I laugh now, at the whimsical trailers... "Oh look, how funny... a car stuck in a tree!" Then, a good two hours in, once your ass
The thing is, I got the feeling that important points in the story around the beautiful, touching part were sadly lacking. This movie seems to miss greatness by just l---x---l that much. Personally, I had a little trouble relating to Crudup's poutybitterboy character. Ok, your dad told a lot of stories a lot of times. You weren't beaten or belittled, so like... lighten the hell UP already. The treatment was gorgeous, though, in typical Burtonesque creepy lovliness. Speaking of which, whatup with the veins in Helena Bonham Carter's neck?? I was actually distracted by them! One day, the Reanimation on that chick is going to wear off and she's just going to fall into little quivvering pieces. Anyway, favorite moments: the shot of Crudup's character swimming in the pool, as shot through the window with the pool at bust level on the reflection of his mom. (aww!) and the moment when Lange crawled into the bathtub fully dressed. (awww!!) Overall, this is an entertaining movie, and the end is beautiful, but it just doesn't connect like I think it could have. |
Hey, Glitter!
Thanks for the encouragement. :) Yeah, I calls 'em as I see's 'em. It's just one chick's opinion, anyway, right? |
Lost In Translation - Why I LOVE This Movie
On first viewing, this movie has a great payoff in that final scene on the street. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) has been more or less emotionally isolated though this whole
It's the sort of missed communication that happens around every one of us, daily, but is poignantly illustrated with the medium of film: Put LIFE through the filter of a camera lense, and ART becomes Entertainment Whiskey becomes iced tea Reality becomes image NY becomes LA Culture becomes couture Johnny Carson becomes that scary little tv man Charlotte’s curves become Ana Faris’ anorexia Friendship becomes sex, in many movies, and we wonder if it will here… In similar fashion, Bob's question is echoed later in Charlotte's question to him: "what about marriage? Does it get any easier?" She's asking "is this all there is?" The answer to the question of what is lost is: detail. Detail is what is lost in translation. The appreciation for the details in a partner's life fades with familiarity and after 25 years.. or after only 2.. we fail to notice that they're smoking again, or what color the carpeting is. We stop caring if her scarf is long enough or what kind of shelves go into the study. This is pointed up pretty clearly several times, but especially in Bob's response to Lydia's probes about the carpet samples: “Whatever you like. I’m completely lost.” Additionally, I have to say: I'm in love with Bill Murray's performance in this film. The moment when he and Charlotte first start talking in the bar, and she says, "25 years (of marriage)... that's impressive." The look on his face, before he even says anything... is worth a paragraph of subtext. It's just heartbreaking. Similarly, at The Worst Lunch, before either of them speaks, that defensive "I didn't do anything" look on his face is just priceless. I'm shocked at my own admiration. I really would have never thought he could pull that off, and seeing it from such an unexpected source is wonderful. Charlotte herself is played to perfection by Scarlett Johansson. Having seen her previously only in Ghost World, it was great to see her range in this. The ten year career of this 20 year old actress serves her well, here. Of no suprise is Giovanni Ribisi's turn as Charlotte's husband. This kid is brill and a fine piece of casting. He adds weight to Charlotte's side of the equasion. The last thing I love about this movie is Japan. Of course the language provides comic relief. Beyond that, the two giggling local ladies in the back row of the waiting room were awesome. The contrast of cultures provides obvious meaning to the title, as our American protagonists are starkly contrasted against the locals. On a slightly deeper level though, this is an ancient culture which values honor... which is what this movie is about at its core. So, the happy ending, as I see it, is that that basic and valuable thing is not lost. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
3. When Uma wakes up from her coma... what was the thing with her looking at her hands?
|
Originally Posted by projectMayhem
I think she is reading the life-lines on her palms, and she can tell that she's been in that coma for however long it was. Nice reviews by the way.
Thank you. And, thank you! :) |
Capturing the Friedmans
Director Andrew Jarecki's documentary of the effects of trial-by-media on a typical middle-class family is was one of the most provocative movies I've ever seen. It's hard to believe it's not staged. Any student of body language or psychology will find this fascinating. The bulk of the footage for this 107 minute film was shot at the time, by the family in question. We're shown a typical-seeming american family (obviously dysfunctional, but it's unclear just how much) under a microscope during a horribly stressful time, yet only once does any of them decline to appear on camera. The whole thing raises very intriguing questions about what is true, what is compromised, what is denial and the role of our legal system in skewing the whole mess into an unsolveable puzzle. This is by far the best documentary I've ever seen. |
Picnic at Hanging Rock
This is a really pretty movie, right at the edge of "visually dazzling", even. If you haven't seen it, it's a period piece set in 1900, about a few girls who vanish during a field trip/picnic. The acting is pretty good, if a little melodramatic, but then
The meaning of the movie is kind of an enditement of the conservatism of the day, which (perhaps) contributes to the hampering of the investigation of these girls' disappearance. Despite being laid out in the poem in the opening scene, that theme is pretty muddled, though. I was ok with that when I thought it was a depiction of an actual event. In that case, I'd think there would be facts they might want to include, even if it was a little unclear how those facts contribute to the story. But you get to the end, and there's the disclaimer that "any resemblance to anything real is a big coincidence" and I start asking "why did I watch this again??" They're not so much telling a story as laying out a lot of possibilities, none of which are really solidified. I get that it was Victorian times and people were very careful about what they presented to society, but as the unseen watchers, we're really not privy to much, either. For example, there's all this wierd lesbian energy that's hinted at, and sort of expressed, and MIGHT be a motivation in a murder, or else that girl just killed herself, or maybe she killed herself because she was a lesbianand we don't actually know which it is. It's entirely unclear what the story is. I think if it's fiction, then someone ought to decide which it was and tell the story. It was fun to watch, though. |
House of WHAT THE ?!
|
The Hulk
Meh.
I find it interesting that as soon as anyone says they didn't like this movie, they get bashed for not appreciating an "intelligent" film. How "intelligent" is the idea of a snarling attack poodle? How much more art appreciation do I need to value a storyline that chokes repeatedly with graphics of cells mutating? The same cells... mutating the same way... every ******* time? Is it because I'm stupid that I find it unlikely that all those guys survived helicopter crashes? Cause it does. Seem unlikely. Also, David Banner ran amok. That scene at the end with the black backdrop looked like it was from "A Very Special Family Ties". And really, since he was plucked from nowhere and all the blame for this tragedy pinned on his ratty old shirt... I guess he should be allowed to run amok. I guess you could call it art that every part of the movies seemed to mutate out of proportion, like the cells in the exploding frogs. That works, I reckon. The name "Betty" though... that didn't work. |
Muriel's Wedding... bring kleenex.
Remove all sharp objects from your home before viewing this film. My god, what a sad movie.
|
Malena
Gorgeous! The town they shot this in, the people in the film, the lighting, the costumes, the fruit...
On second viewing: This movie attempts to operate on a lot of levels, and some of them are a bit swiss-cheesy. Bellucci's character, for instance, is a real woman who misses her husband, who needs money to get food, who is a living breathing person, but is very sketchily drawn as far as her passions and her desires. She's everybody's fantasy, on a second level... and in that, the fact she rarely speaks and makes so little contact makes sense and works. And she also represents the beauty and the innocence of Italy, and the prostitution, rape and decimation of that country by WWII. And on that level, her character makes sense all the way through. It would be a better movie if all three could somehow work all the time. |
Straw Dogs
|
Finding Nemo
I will admit to giggling at the beginning... when Nemo's dad is almost sucked into the propeller of the boat... only because I thought what a short movie it would be if that happened. But shortly after that, I was sucked in myself, and had a great time watching this one. The plot is compelling, the supporting characters are varied and vivid. The animation is gorgeous. But the high point for me was Ellen Degeneris' expertly acted character - a fish with no short term memory. Nevermind that she reminded me of my mom, she was ****ing hilarious. I was in tears from giggling over her attempts to speak "whale". Overall, a very touching, sweet and fun movie. I highly recommend it.
If you haven't seen it yet, do NOT look at the following pic: http://www.hawaiistories.com/heidi/a...yFoundNemo.jpg |
Rebecca
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
http://www.reel.com/content/boxart/vhs/1306.GIF
It's been a long time since I've had the impulse to applaud at the end of a film. I've seen some great stuff lately, but this is one of those that ends on such a high note. Really fabulous build, through the whole thing. Joan Fontaine was so meek for most of the movie that I wanted to shake her, but she grew 'nads finally, which was rewarding to see. Lawrence Olivier was really ahead of his time, stylisticly... he had a great sense of drama, but scaled it down well to the requirements of film. This story has a ton of great plot twists. I thought I knew what was coming, and we veered a whole lot from that, into almost a fresh story in the last act. Very fun writing. It's dated, only in the fact that no woman today would fail to fire that brooding hag of a house mistress. God, I loved hating her. Overall, this one's just excellent. Ooooooo....have you read the book by Daphne DuMaurier? I haven't seen the film yet though :( - oh but did you know that 'Rebecca' was the only film of Alfred Hitchcock's to win best picture? Did they use Joan Fontaines's characters first name in the movie? |
The French Connection
HATED it.
The only reason to see this is for Gene Hackman. Mr Puffy-Face was in incredibly great physical shape, delivered a stand-up performance and was all-around impressive. Otherwise... let's see: Screeching tires? check! Incessant car horns? check!! Sexism? And how!! Racism? BIG time!!! Ridiculous fashions and enormous cars? You betcha!! Machismo and not much else? BINGO. Also, during the scenes where there was ANY conversation of any import, there was this sound effect of sustained violins that I swear I could feel in the fillings in my teeth. I didn't want to turn it off, because it's a "classic" and I don't want to be ignorant about the classics, but all in all, I'd rather eat a live kitten than ever watch this again. |
Originally Posted by allthatglitters
Ooooooo....have you read the book by Daphne DuMaurier? I haven't seen the film yet though :( - oh but did you know that 'Rebecca' was the only film of Alfred Hitchcock's to win best picture?
Did they use Joan Fontaines's characters first name in the movie? Hitchcock is one of those filmmakers who really was ahead of his time. I took a class from someone who actually went with 'Hitch' and his friends to the premiere of Psycho. She said they were all excited before the movie, with the usual pre-show buzz, and afterward, no one knew where to look or what to say. They all thought he might be insane. haha! It seems like only by amassing a huge body of work was he able to establish that he wasn't nuts and did, in fact, know what he was doing. :) |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
http://www.homevideos.com/photosdates/roxan.jpeg
The writing is ok, though there's a bit of choppiness here and there....the lengthy scene where CD matches wits with a local bully in a pub. It's odd that you don't even mention Roxanne is an ingenious and witty updating of Cyrano de Bergerac. Steve Martin's script is wonderful and literate, and even with the happy ending keeps the heart and wistful soul of the original great work, all while adding his own take on love. I think L.A. Story is an even better screenplay, and Picasso at the Lapin Agile is better than it, but Roxanne is such a well written piece. |
great reviews a nd i love the i found nemo sushi picture!!! keep up the good work...
|
Originally Posted by Holden Pike
That scene is taken right from Rostand's play. A couple of those insults are even from Cyrano himself ("Kindly: Ah, do you love the little birds, So much that when they come and sing to you, you give them this to perch on?"), with hardly any modernizing.
It's odd that you don't even mention Roxanne is an ingenious and witty updating of Cyrano de Bergerac.
Steve Martin's script is wonderful and literate, and even with the happy ending keeps the heart and wistful soul of the original great work, all while adding his own take on love. I think L.A. Story is an even better screenplay, and Picasso at the Lapin Agile is better than it, but Roxanne is such a well written piece.
|
Originally Posted by susan
great reviews a nd i love the i found nemo sushi picture!!! keep up the good work...
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
The other I have not seen, but with your recommendation, I will see if I can Netflix it.
It premiered in Chicago in 1993, and had successful runs all over the country. The plot concerns a young Pablo Picasso and a young Albert Einstein having a chance meeting in a Parisian bar in 1904, before either had gained fame and accomplishment. It also has a surprise cameo near the end of the play from another key 20th Century figure (hint: he wears blue suede shoes). It's about art and love and the thrill of new ideas. It's very witty, very funny, and just a great night at the theatre. I saw productions of the original cast in New York, most of that cast in San Francisco, and a new touring cast in D.C. Good times, good times. There have been rumblings of a film adaptation here and there, but nothing serious. Until then, you can read it anyway.... http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg |
Originally Posted by Holden Pike
Netfilx won't have it. Nobody will. It isn't a movie, it's a play. A great one too.
They had it at Amazon.
It premiered in Chicago in 1993, and had successful runs all over the country. The plot concerns a young Pablo Picasso and a young Albert Einstein having a chance meeting in a Parisian bar in 1904, before either had gained fame and accomplishment. It also has a surprise cameo near the end of the play from another key 20th Century figure (hint: he wears blue suede shoes). It's about art and love and the thrill of new ideas. It's very witty, very funny, and just a great night at the theatre. I saw productions of the original cast in New York, most of that cast in San Francisco, and a new touring cast in D.C. Good times, good times.
There have been rumblings of a film adaptation here and there, but nothing serious. Until then, you can read it anyway.... |
Roman Holiday - Lost In Translation: A Comparison
Had the pleasure of watching a most charming movie this afternoon? It?s a story about two people who are away from home, kindred spirits who see each other very clearly and come to understand and care about each other in rather whirlwind fashion, but while their connection is genuine and beautiful, it is doomed from the start by the commitments in their lives. Opening scene, we meet our young heroine: fresh-faced and pretty, intelligent, educated, the embodiment of sweetness and decency. She is not alone, and yet terribly isolated, emotionally. Even when she allows herself an emotional outburst, the people closest to her are unphased and oblivious. Our heroine listlessly looks out her window over a strange city, and we feel how much she wants to experience the place... to connect to something. This is our introduction to the silent character in the piece: the city itself and the strange culture we?ll soon explore, and it isn?t long before she ventures out. We explore the city over her shoulder as she wanders the streets alone, rather aimlessly, taking in the history in the architecture, enjoying the food and music and interacting shyly with the locals. She begins a detached observer, but gradually allows herself to be affected by the charm of a new place ? purchasing a souvenir specific to the culture. She is touched at one point, by the written wishes of the people, and participates in the ritual herself. At this point, she runs into a man she had met fleetingly, a little earlier: also a displaced traveler and a little older and streetwise than she, they form a pact to escape into the city and enjoy all it can offer together. They share a smoke, a few drinks, music at a party and escape a light-hearted scuffle in the city streets. He provides a safe means for her to escape her confinement and experience not just the city, but herself, in this new place. He assists her in a moment of distress, and amusingly attempts conversation in the local language ? naturally, the overall effect is charming as hell. ?Nice guy?, we find ourselves observing. A third character provides counterpoint to the friendship of our happy couple: a photographer ? a bit shallow, bit of a flirt, but a good guy at heart, we see the contrast between the choices he makes in dealing with people and those made by our central characters. There?s the suggestion that he might not be entirely decent, bringing onto the screen the reality that our central characters have options that they actively decide (despite strong feeling) not to take. They do spend a night together, but fully clothed and nothing untoward happens. In the end, our hero chooses not to take advantage of this situation, and our heroine chooses to return to the duties of her life. We see the longing in him as he sits in his car and watches her walk away. So, how does it compare to Lost In Translation? Easy: every point above is true of both movies. True, Johansson's character is not a princess, but a philosophy major (and really... same diff, no?) and she didn't get an Academy nod for her performance in LiT, but there's no missing the fact that it's launched her career. I found the similarities striking, and yet both are firmly enough rooted in their "present" days, that they feel different. |
Taxi Driver
WARNING: "taxi driver" spoilers below
only when he loses his grip on his humanity was he recognised as a "hero", calling into question what we consider "heroic", as well as leaving his state of mind a bit of a question mark.
Jodi Foster's performance has been deservedly lauded, and Cybil Shepard was annoying, but tolerable. In fact, this movie has a lot of familiar faces who went on to be charicatures, and it's refreshing to see them, back when they were focused on storytelling. Kudos to Scorcese on maintaining the realism in this piece - it was the element that most made it all sympathetic, and has helped this film to endure, despite all the heinous hairstyles. |
Xx/xy
I almost turned this one off during the first act.
|
Woman in the Dunes
Bizarro. In a good way. This is a really creepy movie. It goes way beyond that, however, and explores the concepts of "capture", "escape" and "freedom". Adapted from his own novel by Kôbô Abe, this is a thinking (wo)man's horror movie. It's also got some hot erotic scenes, I'm not kidding.
The other major player is Hiroshi Segawa's photography. This is a two-hour film about a guy who falls into a trap, but my interest was sustained through the beat transitions by the brilliance of director Hiroshi Teshigahara's photography. It's metaphorical, artistic, beautiful, haunting.. and conveys the frustration of the central character very effectively. This one is not to be missed, and not to be forgotten. |
In the absense of LordSlaytan's wonderful reviews, your quick and witty comments are very refreshing. You have a wonderful voice in your writing.
|
Strangers On A Train
This was one of two shots that really grabbed me in this movie. The other is from a tennis match when everyone's heads are moving in unison and Our Antihero is staring right at the camera from the midst of the crowd. It's a
The acting was a bit stilted on everybody's part... just a tinge of camp. I think the concept would have been better served with a straighter treatment. Also, the tennis match was a bit of a dead spot, but worth slogging through for the infamous "carousel scene", near the end. I'd hate to ruin that one for anyone, so I'll simply say: they got it on one take. This is not one of Hitchcock's strongest films, but it is a good story. I'd recommend it as a study of early identity-theft flicks. |
Originally Posted by Mark
In the absense of LordSlaytan's wonderful reviews, your quick and witty comments are very refreshing. You have a wonderful voice in your writing.
On the MoFo review plate, Lord Slaytan's reviews are steak and mine are the parsley, but that's ok. I look good in green. :) |
Raising Victor Vargas
Peter Sollett's directorial debut features a cast of unknowns, who put the flesh on a somewhat spindly skeleton of a story with such heart and grace that we are drawn into their world.
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
On the MoFo review plate, Lord Slaytan's reviews are steak and mine are the parsley, but that's ok. I look good in green. :)
I haven't seen Raising Victor Vargas yet, but since you said the granny rocks, I will make a point to check it out. :) By the way...parsley is always good to have around....adds a subtle flavor and texture to the dish. ;) |
Originally Posted by Aniko
I love your reviews and opinions Delila. Even if I saw Lost in Translation a little differently than you did, I still enjoyed reading what you had to say about it...very insightful. You have a nice way with words. :)
I haven't seen Raising Victor Vargas yet, but since you said the granny rocks, I will make a point to check it out. :)
By the way...parsley is always good to have around....adds a subtle flavor and texture to the dish. ;)
|
Adam's Rib
The main thing I wanted was a good time, and a close second was to see the dynamic between the two lead actors. Remembering the all our adoration with which Ms Hepburn referred to Mr Tracy in her memoir, I found the scene pictured below to be ultimately rewarding.
Adam: Are you alright, Pinkie? Amanda: I guess I'm ok. Why? Adam: Well, I just wouldn't want to think of you being not alright. Amanda: You know what you are? You're lovable. I wonder if that looked like treacle to anyone who hadn't read her book. This was a well-constructed script, with a healthy dash of panache which won an Oscar nod for the writers, married couple Gordon and Kanin. I expected a romp, and wasn't disappointed, but saw some unexpected depth as well. The one word that I'd use to describe the point of the movie is actually a little deeper than I anticipated: transition. The opening scene of the street clock marking the transition into evening... the cartoonish scene cards announcing "that evening",etc... kept the action going and the beats clear, but they also reminded me that this time was a transition into a new world of thought about gender roles. I thought the casting was excellent for that purpose: KH's Amanda was pretty and clearly a woman, but also athletic and dressed in sharp lines. ST's Adam walked the line between respectably masculine and 'big ***** cat' with enough grace that he didn't give away the crying scene at the CPA's office. This movie was a stepping stone for Judy Holliday, who had been performing on Broadway in "Born Yesterday". Her reception in the Adam's Rib role sold her in the lead for the movie version of "Born Yesterday", for which she won an academy award. My other honorable mention goes to David Wayne, who played Kip the letcherous neighbor. Great character, fun song, nice foil... I need a guy like that across the hall from me! |
The Apartment
For instance... I did a little research on the information in Bud's opening speech, and a comparison to today's corresponding data: In 1960, population of NYC: 8,042,782 In 2002, population of NYC: 7,428,162 In 1960, 5th largest corporation: Consolidated Insurance (per Bud) In 2002, 5th largest corporation: Enron In 1960, pay for an actuary, level III (middle range) in NYC: $4924.40 a YEAR! Same in 2003: $76.268.00 a year. Then, rent for a mid-60's Manhattan 1 br, W of Central Park: $85/mo. (21% of the above income) Now, for the same area: $2000 a month (31% of that person's gross income....suddenly it's clear the real reason we stopped wearing pearls and furs after the 60's!) Then: instant coffee was hip Now: it's all about the Starbuck's, baby Then: nearly dead movie cuties got 10 sharp slaps from an MD and walked around for 6 hours. Now: same girlie gets a hypodermic of adrenaline jabbed through her sternum by a drug-dealing Eric Stoltz. Regarding Bud's morality, I think he had a sense of chivalry going on. I didn't think he enjoyed taking "credit" for banging a different woman every night, but rather that it was better the neighbors thought he (a single guy) was wild than for them to know that he was letting his apartment be used for adultery. He had a couple of moments where you saw that he had mensch potential, like when he said to Sheldrake that, "five bad apples is still a small percentage." He didn't just let him off the hook. I think Bud was a guy trying to figure out his own morality in a sea of new ideas about sexuality. 1960 was a bit of a turning point. My favorite quotes... he: Your mirror is broken. she: Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look how I feel bar floozie: Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring. Nothin'. No action. Dullsville. Bud: I used to l ive like Robinson Crusoe, shipwrecked among millions of people. Then one day, I saw a foot print in the sand, and there you were. |
Nice! :)
|
Thanks Delia for the great reviews, you realise that you have just increased my, To See List, thanks :cool:
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Thanks Delia for the great reviews, you realise that you have just increased my, To See List, thanks :cool:
|
The Manchurian Candidate
The main reason to see this movie is the performances. The cast does a superb job across the board. Of particular note is Liev Schreiber's turn as the candidate, which had suprising depth and an eerie resemblance to John Edwards at times. The story has been updated well, and resonates with the currently prevailing political climate. The sci-fi is a bit heavy on the -fi, but there is enough build to keep us engaged and Demme/Fujimoto conspire effectively to create a tension-filled world, particularly in the dream sequences, which start out very sketchy and confused, and eventually we see exactly what happened. I have not seen the original, so my perception of this film is uncomplicated by comparison. I think, overall, that it works well and is very effective as a thriller. The ads promise no one will breathe during the last 30 minutes. If you're willing to believe that's possible, then the hazy details of microchip implantation shouldn't bother you in the least, and even if it does, it's worth a watch. |
Le Passion de Jeanne d'Arc
This film is amazing. Carl Theodore Dryer's Le Passion of Jeanne d'Arc is a must-see for anyone with a true interest in film, theater or acting.
The Story In The Film The story is taken directly from manuscripts of the famous trial, with very few additions. The real trial was comprised of 22 sessions of interrogation, over a span of 6 months. Dryer eschews the famous military deeds of our heroine, and the splashy accusations of sorcery, to focus on the trial itself, and the universal conflict between simple faith and politicized theocracy. He includes here only the moments from the trial that he considered "significant or typical", and condenses the story into one day. The story begins with the opening of the trial. Renee Marie Falconetti, as Joan, is immediately captivating and will remain so until her last frame. This is an astonishing performance. Dryer tells the story almost entirely in close-up, and Falconetti shows us the soul of Joan with unvarnished (and un-made-up) openness. The result is one of the most moving performances I have ever seen. Also of note in the cast is the founder of the Theater of Cruelty The action of the film involves Joan being interrogated by a roomful of powerful figures bent on forcing her into a confession of heresy. They use tactics of debate, trick questions, forgery, bribery, blackmail, torture... and are confounded at every turn by the simple faith of their captive. In the end, they put her to death for her insistance that she will save France through a great victory and that God will deliver her, and one wonders if they ever saw that in her martyrdom, they bring about both these events. The Story Of The Film Criterion presents us with the dual story of Joan and that of the film itself. Like Joan's simple, direct connection with her God, this film was met with outrage and censorship because it did not echo the commonly accepted conventions of the story, nor did it support the politically motivated claims on Joan by contemporary French government factions. Dryer foregoes the depictions of the peasant girl hearing voices, and the virgin knight in shining armor, and instead gives us a starkly honest hour and a half with the psyche and the faith of the martyr. Dryer assembled a crew of trailblazers in the art of camera movement. The first sequence in the trial is one of maybe three establishing shots in the whole film, a 45 second dolly-shot that sweeps the entire courtroom. He uses extreme and conflicting camera angles to heighten the sense of disorientation that Joan feels. Her agitation is expressed in fast-cut changes in point of view. The film is comprised of over 1500 shots - double the average film of the 20's. The sets are simplistic, inspired by illuminated manuscripts of the day and the unbalanced proportions heighten the sense of things being askew. The near-constant close-up treatment of the actors echos the close-quarters combat that is the central conflict of the film. Crosses play a symbolic role, both the naturally-occurring ones and the manicured representations of them. Joan's nature is compared cinematically to flowers, birds and a crown that she weaves of straw. This is the level of detail that makes great film. In my opinion, while this film has a great deal going for it in the acting and the compelling story, the thing that sets it above so many other films is the dedication of writer/director Carl Th. Dryer to truthfulness. The film cost 9 million francs. I fed that into a currency converter and without adjusting for inflation, that's nearly $2 million USD. He had a castle built with four towers, a moat and a drawbridge, city streets and a central square, occupying some 700 sq. meters and kept the cast on site for the six months in which he shot the film more or less in sequence. No makeup was allowed on any actor. Falconetti's hair was really shorn off for the final scenes (over her many protests), and a Contemporary reviewers hailed The Passion of Joan of Arc as a masterpiece. I agree. They also regarded it as an "art film", and there I disagree: I think the universality of Dryer's subject and the fame of the story make it very accessable to a broad range of people. Catch it, if you can! |
thanks so much for all your reviews...i agree with you on the manchurian candidate...
|
Return of the King
After waiting in line to get into line to wait some more, I was happy once again to be seated in the middle of a roomful of geeks who love this story as much as I do. I have immense
This is a beautiful end to the story. I liked the scope and the magnitude of Helm's Deep, and I also liked the contrasting treatment of the battles in this one: they seemed more personal and small-scale, even though the armies were huge and the effects spectacular. Those flying pieces of buildings had me paralyzed and breathless. As did Sam's battle with Shelob. Since I last read these books years ago, events had conspired to obscure in my mind just how much Eowyn rocked. I now remember crying when I read that part of the battle, and it was one of many things that moved me to tears watching the movie. I think part of why this is all so emotional has to be credited to the beauty in the details. The sets and costumes and the landscape and all of it is just so gorgeous that in the quieter moments, you're swooning over how pretty it all is, and then it's back to the action. You don't get a rest that way. It's very effective! I do agree with the gripes about the Arwen story. It needed a little depth, while they were adding things. I also found it distracting that the front of Aragorn's crown reminded me of the Crystler Building. But those are both pretty small gripes. Overall... it's just wonderful. |
Hey, Susan! Thanks for reading! It kinda makes my day when people respond in this thread. :) I've been wondering what others throught of Manchurian..., not much seems to be written on it, so far. I'm curious now to see the original.
|
Reservoir Dogs
Great work by Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth, Reservoir Dogs is an excellent screenplay. I'd have added a little more dimension to one or two of the characters as they were fun and
Tarentino consistently, in all his films, makes great use of music. In this case, we have very creepy use of "Stuck In The Middle With You", and the one over the closing credits about "how can I cure this bellyache". It's reminiscent of Lynch using "Loveletter Straight to Your Heart" in Blue Velvet. When Hallmark used that song the following season, I nearly screamed. The plot itself could hardly be thinner. They were showing interview clips during the commercial breaks and QT said the idea for the movie came from watching "The Thing", as the characters in that movie are locked together and have to determine which of them is the enemy. I agree that it could be a little more fleshed out, but it did hold my interest all the way through. It's a pretty classic example of a guy talking up a tag line and getting a film out of it. Tarantino knew how the game is played. I was impressed with the way violence is handled in this. I appreciate the imagination on fx because I've done a few and have a hard time not getting jarred out of the story when the blood is the wrong consistancy or whatever. One of my favorite things was Mr Pink running outside and the rest of his story is told as sound effects under the final scene between Roth and Keitel. So cool. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
I appreciate the imagination on fx because I've done a few and have a hard time not getting jarred out of the story when the blood is the wrong consistancy or whatever.
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Me too, what did you think of the unbeleivable dark red stuff on the face of Johnny Depp in ummm errr oh yes "Once upon a time in Mexico" :sick: :skeptical:
|
Angels In America
After months of advance advertising for this, having seen and loved the stage versions, my (im)patience was answered with brilliance. Mike Nichol's Angels In America is http://www.hbo.com/films/angelsiname...l_vertical.jpgtranslated to the small screen with ultimate care and beauty and the effect is just as moving as the theatrical experience. I also can't sing the praises enough of HBO for it's willingness to bring a piece to the general public that deals with such hard topics with unvarnished emotional honesty.
The cast is a work of art. Pacino, Streep and Thompson each have their own resonances from decades of film work, and those are well-used here, but don't for an instant overshadow the brilliant performances delivered by these actors. The triple-casting of both Streep and Thompson is meaningful in both instances, and subtly supports Kushner's grand scheme. I honestly can't think of a performance from anyone in this cast that isn't spot on, but the flat out **** YES!! goes to Justin Kirk as Prior. I think the beauty of Kushner's script is that his focus is on the genuine struggle in his characters to be "good", by their own various definitions. Because he gives each their voice on that topic, he presents them and their various issues without judgement. Speaking as someone who was Mormon for 7 years, and who still holds a high opinion of the people and the religion (as religions go), and a person very familiar with the gay community and the AIDS situation, I consider it a marvellous and heroic undertaking to present all of this in a positive light, and with an emphasis on understanding. Truly beautiful and inspiring work. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
Hey, Susan! Thanks for reading! It kinda makes my day when people respond in this thread. :) I've been wondering what others throught of Manchurian..., not much seems to be written on it, so far. I'm curious now to see the original.
we bought the original in best buy for 10.00..interesting to say the least...same plot but different settings...and the ending has changed a bit... i liked the both of them a lot and while i think the older movie makes a little more sense..i prefer the updated remake |
I've been playing catch up on all your reviews Delila… well done… :yup: … and my "to see list" is growing… :)
|
Good job...
You should update your signature, no? |
Adams Rib...I liked your thoughts on it Delila.....and its one of my favorites with Kate and Spencer. Nice chemistry, good story, fun but still had depth as you mentioned. I also loved the court room scenes...in particular the circus lady lifting Spencer over her head to prove a point. And, towards the end when he’s still mad at her, but can’t help himself and calls her ‘pinkie’ in court....loved the expression on Kate's face. :laugh:
Also, from what I remember in a commentary once...Katherine is the one who pulled for Judy Holliday to get that supporting role. She was a treat to watch. Return of the King...nicely written Delila. I also thought it was a nice ending to the series. I agree with you...Eowyn did rock and I wish there were a little more depth with the Arwen part of the story. I didn’t notice Aragorn's crown...but I do wish he was shown a more than he was....maybe more of him fighting with the army of the dead...dunno. One very trivial thing...my dad noticed this (he’s very picky and I need to watch for it myself next time)...Frodo’s finger was cut off by Gollum, but at the end when the Hobbits are back in the shire and in the Tavern, Frodo’s finger is still there. I wonder if Hobbit’s grow their limbs back? :D The Manchurian Candidate and Angels In America...I loved your views on these. I’ll make sure to see them at some point. I may wait for MC to come out on DVD though. Susan....I haven’t seen the remake of “The Manchurian Candidate” yet and I’m curious why you liked the re-make better than the original. I’ve heard about some of the changes to the story and I’m curious if the re-make has as much of a dynamic impact as in the original...(the mother/son brainwashing/killing thing...and the ending were pretty powerful to me.) :) Whew....I guess that's enough for now. ;) |
Susan~ great deal on that film! I'd be curious to hear why you prefer the new one, too.
Caity~ :) Thanks!! I look forward to your thoughts on anything you saw here. Or, you know, on anything you see elsewhere. Garrett~ Good eye! I do need to update my sig. These last few were written previously and I just moved them here, and I have a few new ones I need to write. This silly "work" stuff keeps getting in the way. :rolleyes: Hopefully, today I'll get it all together. Aniko~ How cool is that that KH was pulling for the fresh talent?! She's so cool. (On a side note: my new doctor looks JUST like her, at about the age of 25. My jaw dropped. My next thought was: I have to tell Annie! :p ) Regarding hobbits, yeah, and if you cut off a limb and count the rings, you can tell how old they are. ;) I'll look for the missing finger, next time through. I remember watching for that, because fx are cooooool, but I don't remember now about that scene. I know it's missing at the end when he writes the end of his book. hmmm... |
Damn girl!!!
Your thread rocks!! Love the index. I need to get writing! |
:D
You just made my day! |
One very trivial thing...my dad noticed this (he’s very picky and I need to watch for it myself next time)...Frodo’s finger was cut off by Gollum, but at the end when the Hobbits are back in the shire and in the Tavern, Frodo’s finger is still there. I wonder if Hobbit’s grow their limbs back?
annie...in answer to the above question, if you look very closely, you will see that frodo is missing only the top of his finger, a very little bit of it...it surprised me too because in the book, i believe gollum bit his entire finger off....i also thought that nothing happened to his finger and now to explain why i enjoyed the remake of the manchurian candidate the new one was very timely and more to the point of where we are headed in the future (big corporate takeovers) rather than an outdated reason as putting a mccarthy fanatic in the white house...(not that this reason was just as timely in the 60's and just as creepy an idea as the remake, just the thought of anything like this ever happening scares me to death) i also liked the idea of the updated techniques that they used in the remake rather than the solitaire idea... i thought denzel did a much better job as bennett marco, although the roles were slightly different in each... i also thought that meryl streep did a bang up job as the scheming mother, although nothing can ever top angela lansbury's performance in the same role... what struck me about the new one was liev schreiber's resemblance to laurence harvey..rob and i both commented on this the ending of the original made more sense to me than the remake did, however in both versions,the son knows that he's being manipulated and in both versions he does something about it....what he does in the original seemed more realistic to me than what happens in the remake.... |
Nice Job Delila! :) :up: :up:
i think im going borrow The Manchurian Candidate from my library :) |
The Man Without A Past
Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac, the Soup Kitchen Dame Who Loves Him, and finding peace and happiness in a new life.
This film has good and bad, both in the extreme. First, the bad. (It's interesting enough to watch, so I'll end on an up-note.) I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead. No sale. In my experience, character is developed as people have experiences and learn from them. Remove all memory of the lessons learned, and it seems really unlikely that a person will suddenly turn into a stand-up citizen. Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101. The cast seems not only to have never acted before, but give the impression they've never seen it done. That said, it might seem unlikely that this one is worth watching. It is. The thing is, the story is told in a very human manner and with photography that adds visual appeal. The film is a good marriage of a bizarre situation, a poverty-wracked setting and emotionally supressed characters... all adding up (against all indications) to something that draws us in and makes us care what happens. I don't know how. Watch it and tell me! |
Grey-Ate Review Samsonite! im going borrow it from my library
|
Cool, Tazz! Let me know what you think, eh? :)
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac...
(It's hard to find a nickname for you y'know, btw. Isn't SD a dubious abbreviation in one country or another? So what else? We need some form of voting-poll type architecture up top of the thread. With options like, erm... Deliliamite? SamsonalDelite? Erm, someone suggest some...)
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
...I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead.
WARNING: "The Man without a Past" spoilers below
Not sure what you mean here about the new scruples. D'you mean the way he starts a new relationship despite having half-finished a previous one? He always had a work ethic, he still smokes like a chimney. What's changed? ;) (i've probably forgotten loads btw :):rolleyes: )
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101.
You've gotta love the way they shifted from pondering poetry to blunt realism without changing their expression or tone :). I felt like the director wanted to lay down some continuity with the consistantly-dour/visually-deadpan tone, so as to make the other bright and absurd events along the way seem more realistic/hard-earned. (I think he might've been taking the micky out of Finnish tendancies a bit too. Dunno :we-need-a-shrug-smilie: ;)) That was one of the things that drew me in, i think. The strange mixture of surrealness and straightforwardness in both the presentation, events and dialogue. |
Mssr de Got... :)
Originally Posted by Golgot
Cool review SDelila
(It's hard to find a nickname for you y'know, btw. Re: my name... It's a quandry. I considered "Sam", but then a "Sam" signed up about 3 days after I returned to posting. Samsonite seems rather macho... Some have been calling me Delila, which I kinda like. Alternately, I'm quite fond of this smilie :blush: Which could do for my Prince-esque symbol. Whichever.
Isn't SD a dubious abbreviation in one country or another?
Re: new scruples
WARNING: "The Man without a Past" spoilers below
There was some mention of his having stolen something at his job in his previous life. Also, yeah the relationship with the ex seemed like he'd never been invested in that marriage, but was genuinely in love with Llyudmilla, Queen of the Soup Zombies. ;)
Maybe the Finnish are all dead-pan like that? ;)
You've gotta love the way they shifted from pondering poetry to blunt realism without changing their expression or tone :).
I felt like the director wanted to lay down some continuity with the consistantly-dour/visually-deadpan tone, so as to make the other bright and absurd events along the way seem more realistic/hard-earned. (I think he might've been taking the micky out of Finnish tendancies a bit too. Dunno :we-need-a-shrug-smilie: ;))
That was one of the things that drew me in, i think. The strange mixture of surrealness and straightforwardness in both the presentation, events and dialogue. |
Thanks Lila :cool:
|
The Last Picture Show
Not accidentally, director/co-writer/editor Peter Bogdanovich's first major film met with critical success:
The film's kicker title "nothing much has changed" provides an informative starting point for looking at the story. The film is partially a comparison between young adults and their older progenitors, and there's plenty of common ground. The central character is 18 year old Sonny Crawford (played by Timothy Bottoms), a somewhat quiet, good-hearted young man. Sonny's interactions with the people in this forlorn little Texas town provide the Jeff Bridges handles the role of Sonny's best friend, bringing a charm and vulnerability to a character that is fairly unlikeable in Larry McMurtry's novel. Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burnstyn and Eileen Brennan bring depth, grace and passion to their roles. The most important feature in this film, as mentioned above, is it's dedication to truth. Bogdanovich's script is fairly devoid of flowery language, despite the fairly profound subject matter. The acting is uniformly direct, unvarnished and very honest. On the recommendation of Orson Welles (a friend of Bogdanoviich's), the film was shot in black and white, for clarity in the depth of field, and those background shots root the story in the run-down reality of a sun-ravaged and almost forgotten town. Another deep root for the story is provided by the music chosen to play on radios, television and record players throughout, sometimes illustrating subtext and at other times providing ironic contrast to the emotional reality of the characters. I'd highly recommend this as a look at how to effectively transform a novel to the screen. In the "Making of..." special feature, Bogdanovich recounts many times when he was informed that his script version was not up to par. "It's better in the book" met the response "then use the book" - a wise choice that paid off handsomely. |
My Goodness. Your a movie reviewing machine!! ;) :up: Good Job
|
Originally Posted by John McClane
My Goodness. Your a movie reviewing machine!! ;) :up: Good Job
Funny you should turn up just now, as I was just reading your reviews. You're only in 9th grade?? You write really well. Keep up the good work! |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/CoverArt/8530.jpg
Aki Kaurismäki's quirky tale of an amnesiac, the Soup Kitchen Dame Who Loves Him, and finding peace and happiness in a new life. This film has good and bad, both in the extreme. First, the bad. (It's interesting enough to watch, so I'll end on an up-note.) I had a problem with the premise of the whole thing. The notion behind this seems to be that if a person's past were removed, they'd be a better person. Our dome-dented protagonist, played by Markku Peltola, finds scruples in his new life that we learn he never had, prior to being attacked by muggers and left for dead. No sale. In my experience, character is developed as people have experiences and learn from them. Remove all memory of the lessons learned, and it seems really unlikely that a person will suddenly turn into a stand-up citizen. Also bad, and hold onto your hats because this is groundbreakingly bad: the acting. WOW!! From the "slowly I turned...." moments (of which there are comically several) to the march-and-stomp method of hitting their marks, this is more scenery-chewing than Acting 101. The cast seems not only to have never acted before, but give the impression they've never seen it done. That said, it might seem unlikely that this one is worth watching. It is. The thing is, the story is told in a very human manner and with photography that adds visual appeal. The film is a good marriage of a bizarre situation, a poverty-wracked setting and emotionally supressed characters... all adding up (against all indications) to something that draws us in and makes us care what happens. I don't know how. Watch it and tell me! Here's my review of it. As you may have guessed, I disagree with you about some of the things you've said in your review. The way I see it Kaurismäki doesn't say that you will be a better person if you lose your memory. How can he say that when we don't even get to know the main character before he loses his memory? And i wouldn't call the acting bad but rather different from the acting style that we see in most mainstream films. But you can read all about my views about this film in my review. |
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
haha! I've written all of these since last December, but most of them were done before I started this thread. I had them in a cold, dark place elsewhere on the 'net. Here, they're getting sunlight and gentle spring rains. It's quite encouraging. :)
Funny you should turn up just now, as I was just reading your reviews. You're only in 9th grade?? You write really well. Keep up the good work! |
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
I have seen this one and I liked it a lot.
Here's my review of it. As you may have guessed, I disagree with you about some of the things you've said in your review. The way I see it Kaurismäki doesn't say that you will be a better person if you lose your memory. How can he say that when we don't even get to know the main character before he loses his memory? And i wouldn't call the acting bad but rather different from the acting style that we see in most mainstream films. But you can read all about my views about this film in my review. I wondered about that. :) Interesting. While it's true that we don't spend time with the character before he's konked on the head, we do get glimses into his past in the way his ex wife relates to him, and the mention of his having stolen something at his old job. That's where I get the contrast with his more upstanding character, post-konk. Also: it was mentioned on the Netflix sleeve that he "discovers values he had never known". heh :D |
Oh right. I had forgot about that. But I still don't think it means that just because you lose your memory you will be a better person. I think it is more a criticism of society and that if you turn your back on society, which the main character is forced to do in a way, you will discover those values that ..eh.. Mr Netflix talks about.
|
Yeah... I see your point. I just have a bone in my head that makes me want to argue with people who say society is crap, though.
|
Hmmm... Okay.
|
It's been over ten years since I've seen The Last Picture Show, but two things have inspired me to see it again soon: 1) Peter Bogdanovich's commentary on Citizen Kane and 2) your review. Thanks Delila!
By the way, I find it interesting that Bogdanovich is a semi-regular on "The Sopranos" as Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist. |
Originally Posted by Mark
It's been over ten years since I've seen The Last Picture Show, but two things have inspired me to see it again soon: 1) Peter Bogdanovich's commentary on Citizen Kane and 2) your review. Thanks Delila!
By the way, I find it interesting that Bogdanovich is a semi-regular on "The Sopranos" as Dr. Melfi's psychiatrist. I watched the first few ep's of "The Sopranos" and really loved James Gandolfini, but the grinding banality got to me after a few hours (one of the hazards of catching these things on DVD, I guess). I think I'm becoming a prude in my old age. :indifferent: Anywho, glad you enjoyed the review! |
Truly, Madly, Deeply
Bereavement is a tough subject. Anthony Mingella's directorial debut, Truly Madly Deeply addresses this heart-wringing topic with intellect and humor.
Nina (Juliet Stevenson), has lost her lover, kindred spirit and playmate, Jamie (Alan Rickman). Whether from the shock of his sudden and unexpected removal from her life, or the fact that they really did have a good relationship, Nina has been unable to move on and is losing her interest in life and is emotionally still married to her memory of Jamie. It's a memory that is increasingly idealised, until she is visited by his ghost. Through his visitations, Nina finally faces the realities of her relationship with her lost love, and realises she wants to live. Just about that time, she meets a kookily charming art therapist (Michael Maloney) - convenient timing, to be sure, but then we do tend to see things when we're ready for them. This is a five-kleenex flick, but it's fun to watch. The relationship between Nina and Jamie is at points idyllic and charming, and also comments on the reality of even the best relationships. Michael Maloney manages to present an obvious threat to Shangri-La, but is so damn likeable that we don't mind. On a personal note, I was thrilled to find that I understood a good 50% of the spanish. woo hoo! :) |
Thanks for the review, this is one of my favourite Alan Rickman movies, I watched it a few weeks ago again, I used a few tissues. :D
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Thanks for the review, this is one of my favourite Alan Rickman movies, I watched it a few weeks ago again, I used a few tissues. :D
|
Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelila
It's really well done. With lesser talent, it could be schlock, but in the hands of these two, it's very effective.
|
thanks for the review...i love alan rickman...i saw this film a while ago and i adored it....just makes me want to see it again...
|
Good review. I'm going to go check this film out.
|
I shall also be checking this out.
|
Yeah, tis quality. (And was filmed near me ;))
One of the amazing things about it is that Juliet Stevenson is in just about every single scene, yet she carries it so well. Like you say D (that's the nickname i'm settling on for now ok? :)), with lesser actors it would've been schlock, but director and actors combine to full effect to make this as potent and involving as it is. The guy who plays Stevenson's love interest does a good job too (tho i was always a bit annoyed by the dove bit. Ghosts, fine. Doves in that situation? Not believable :rolleyes: ) |
John and Animal~ I'll be looking forward to hearing what you think of it. :)
GG~ you can call me D. I have to agree that the idea that he happened to have a live bird on his person is both unbelievable and a but unsettling. Otherwise, he was charming. I liked the hopping bit. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 03:46 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums