Keyser Corleone's Movie Memoirs

→ in
Tools    





The Franchise (1944-2020) R.I.P.
Smokey and the Bandit (1977) - Directed by Hal Needham

Smokey an the Bandit is a movie I've been wanting to see for years, and as usual, I was busy. This review is my special honor to Burt Reynolds for sharing his talent with the world. I think I'm gonna check out the other two sometime, despite the reviews. They won't change the fact Smokey and the Bandit is a classic.


The second movie is worth watching, but if you're watching it for Burt Reynolds, don't waste your time with the third movie. If I remember correctly, he basically only has a cameo appearance in the third movie.

Watch Hooper, The End or The Cannonball Run if you're looking for another one of his fun movies.



The second movie is worth watching, but if you're watching it for Burt Reynolds, don't waste your time with the third movie. If I remember correctly, he basically only has a cameo appearance in the third movie.

Watch Hooper, The End or The Cannonball Run if you're looking for another one of his fun movies.
If it's that bad, I need to see what a B-movie rate car movie is like.



The Franchise (1944-2020) R.I.P.
If it's that bad, I need to see what a B-movie rate car movie is like.

If I remember correctly, Jackie Gleason was supposed to be The Bandit in the third movie, but test audiences didn't like it, so the movie was redone with Jerry Reed as The Bandit.

I think that just proves that only Burt Reynolds could be The Bandit,



Edward Scissorhands (1990) - Directed by Tim Burton

"I am not complete."



Tim Burton's had a hell of a history, hasn't he? Mr. Pee-Wee Frankenweenie is known for his dark and eccentric visuals more than anything, and he always does what he can to keep that up when the situation calls for it. I think a good contender for his most "Burton" work is Edward Scissorhands, a favorite throughout my preteen-to-early-teen years.

Edward Scissorhands is a unique "Beauty and the Beast" meets "Frankenstein" combo telling the story of an incomplete artificial man with scissors for hands, taken from his isolated castle-home in an act of kindness. But the constant kindness of the townsfolk soon goes haywire as the town attempts to use him for their gain, and turn all of the blame on him... except for the family who took him in, including the young girl who starts to fall for him.

While Batman did have its share of Gothic scenery and sets, Edward Scissorhands is the film that really shows Burton's style at its most recognizable form. While the simple-minded townsfolk all live in their simply-made homes of very similar architecture, with all of the residents sharing similar minds, the structure of Edward's castle is beautiful, showing off a very creepy outlook while displaying a plethora of plants and tree-trimmed statues of an almost adorable nature, mirroring Edward's outside-isn't-inside persona. This is mirrored by a hand-shaped bush in the center of the front garden.

In this way, the characters and the scenery match each-other in personalities and mindsets compared to visual outlook. It takes a whole town to turn against Edward as soon as one of their own tries to use him (two if you count the hair salon scene). The hair salon scene shows some naked statues used for modelling in the backroom, which to me mirrored the owner's, or Joyce's, sexual desires which have found their way to Edward all too quickly.

But the real story is between Edward and Kim, or Johnny Depp and Winona Ryder. Not only are both of their performances wonderful, but the tension between them as events unfold only gets more and more powerful until the cliffhanger end that leaves a lasting impression of a sad ending that you just love either way due to its heart and charm. And this is a movie that's all about charm. The dancing in the snow scene always just keeps me glued.

Everyone in the cast felt necessary, except for the religious fanatic. Her actress could've been a hell of a lot better. But the rest of the cast was perfect for their roles. Kathy Baker's exaggerated performance as the lonely-in-love Joyce felt so realistic, and impressively annoying to the point that her intolerable behavior is a treat to watch. And there isn't a scratch to be found on Depp's performance as Edward. While Edward's character isn't based on sharp wit, it's hard to find a person who can play someone so alone and innocent, desperately trying hard to fit in despite his off-putting handicap.

And might I add that the costume design was quite excellent? I'm not just saying this for Depp's costume. The hairstyles, the clothes, everything felt either humble and carefree or self-absorbant depending on the character. Everyone payed attention to what they wore in this setting.

Edward Scissorhands is the movie that really put Johnny Depp into the spotlight, and rightfully so. I was amazed by it the first time I had ever seen it and I still am. The visual charm, the diverse characters, the wonderful acting, and the romantic tension are all so powerful that by the end, one can't wait to watch it again. Or, at least this might be true for big Burton fans. If you want a good movie just for some Tim Burton charm, this is a serious contender.




The Flintstones (1994) - Directed by Brian Levant

"Yabba-dabba-doo!"



The thing about live-action film adaptations of cartoon shows is that you have to walk a very fine line between the real and the fictional, knowing when to balance the two and when to place more emphasis on one or the other. But you must also be able to stay true to the source material, which is something that a lot of movies fail at. For The Flintstones, it's a bit different. The representation of the cartoon was nearly perfect, but the emphasis on the real or the fictional was two strong multiple times.

This infamous adaptation follows everyone's favorite caveman, Fred Flintstone, as he ends up being promoted to the vice persident of the company he works for. But what Fred doesn't realize is that not only did he get there because Barney secretly owed him a favor, but that he's being used in a conspiracy to fire a bunch of his buddies and steal a bunch of money.

I'm going to go over the problems with the move first. The biggest problem is the plot. Instead of keeping it simple like the cartoon, the movie makes the fatal mistake of being all about what is likely THE single most boring subject any kid could ever hear about: business. That's most of the plot.

Second, the movie has a few miscasts. While every actor in this film is a good one, Elizabeth Taylor doesn't look at all like Wilma's mother, while the rest of the cast looks almost exactly like their counterparts. Second, Rosie O'Donnell as Betty Rubble? Who's zero-watt stone age idea was that? Hell, I would've rather picked Winona Ryder!

But I'll be very frank. I love the cartoon, and I am glad that the spirit of The Flintstones was copied nearly perfectly. John Goodman shines as Fred Flintstone in an almost scary clone of him that keeps the movie going, with the only problem being that he was a little more stupid. The rest of the cast (who I didn't criticize) fit the Bedrock bill perfectly as well. And personally I thought crappy CGI dinosaurs were a real charmer as well as the Jim Henson Dinosaurs style puppets.

The level of cartoon insanity was also a clear and refreshing charm of the movie. If movies like Transformers and Masters of the Universe are an indication, it's that a lot of the time people are trying to hard to be modernized and realistic. I can't even begin to describe the horrors of the live-action Sonic the Hedgehog. We don't get that with the Flintstones. We get most of the bedrock we know and love.

So this movie will be really love it or hate it, especially if you're a Flintstones fan. I thought i was decent, and I'll let you decide your love level for yourself. You can call it a modern piece of cacve-art, or you can let it be buried in the rubble.




Fight Club (1999) - Directed by David Fincher

"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!"



David Fincher is slowly becoming on of my favorite movie directors. I've seen three of his movies: Alien 3, Se7en, and Fight Club, in that order. What I love about him is his ability to go very in-depth into the very soul of psyche, what makes us who we are. Psychological dramas and thrillers are one of my favorite genres, and I get underwhelmed if there isn't enough analysis in a psychological drama. Otherwise, it's just a drama. And I have not seen a psychological drama go more in-depth than Fight Club, a movie that already had to compete with the terrifically terrifying Se7en.

Fight Club is a novel-based film about an insomniac who's been joining support groups to relieve his stress, but is in trouble again when a woman starts doing the same thing he's been doing. Eventually, he meets an easy-going and philosophical soap maker who claims to be everything this insomniac wants to be, and convinces him to start a club for fighting to relieve stress. But this so called club soon turns into a violent gang, and the gang soon turns into a cult that plans to bring society to its knees.

Now what I'm about to say may upset you: There's is a serious plot twist near the end. Now what I'm going to say next might piss you off: I knew the twist of the movie before actually watching it. This helped me see the movie in two lights so I could deliver a proper analysis. The whole movie, narrated by Edward Norton, is about the Narrators journey into his own mind, his own chaos, and the world around them slowly being altered by his "friends," his psyche, and his uncertainty of the future. His need to control things manifests into a false form of freedom which is slowly taking control of the world in a new light.

Not only does the movie boast an incredible evolution of the character and the world around him (as well as that farther away but influenced by him and his friend), but the movie has other strong points. The most notable strong point is FIncher's love of unique cinematography, turning simple CGi moments into twisted and surrealist moments of almost uncomfortable ecstacy that drives the audience to keep guessing at what's going to happen next, even if they flat-out tell you.

And I'm not going to end this without bringing up the acting. My personal favorite cast member was Helena Bonham Carter, who's performance as poverty-mistress Marla was a reminder that reality is what the insomniac is facing even in his own little world, seemingly effortless portraying the stress and uncertainty that mirrors the Narrator's own. And Norton's role as the Narrator/insomniac felt all too convincing to be written off as an act. In fact, both Carter and Norton made Brad Pitt's wonderful performance as the soap maker Tyler look like a little kid mimicking Mickey Mouse. And then, of all things, there's pop rock musician Meat Loaf playing a former bodybuilder coping with testicular cancer, on who appears on and off in the movie. That was a great role, too.

But one thing I notice about Fight Club is the same thing I noticed in Se7en: the need to make an adult movie without resorted to countless moments of sex, blood and language. I think Fincher has a habit of providing social, maybe political and psychological commentary in almost brutally honest ways, taking these adult topics we mistake for maturity into consideration and turning them into either examples of the horrors we face in this world, or turning our habit to mistake these things for real adulthood into mental extremes. Fight Club is an example of how we lust for the things that are considered adult, but are in truth terrible for us. When Tyler wants the Narrator to ease up and let go of a need to control everything, he himself is controlling things more than the Narrator realizes.

Fight Club is my favorite movie of the 90's. The twists, the characters, and the analysis of our modern interpretations of the modern world are all put to their limit without being overdone, and skillfully filmed and directed in an almost surrealist manner. This movie stood out more than sore thumbs, more like shiners and scars on a man's face after entering the Fight Club.




Scarface (1983) - Directed by Brain De Palma

"The world is yours!"



I easily find myself attracted to gangster movies, not for the violence or for the plots, but for the retribution and comeuppance of those that commit these terrible acts of violence and deception. I think one of the greatest examples of characters that get these in the end is without a doubt Tony Montana, A.K.A. Scarface.

In the loose 1983 remake of a classic 1930's gangster flick, Scarface centers around Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who's hiding away from Fidel Castro in Miami, Florida. As Montana rises up the ranks of gangster-hood, he becomes further set about from the world he claims to own, and puts those he loves but doesn't trust in more danger. And the world he owns will betray him after he breaks a taboo among gangsters: he got high on his own supply.

I saw this classic Brian De Palma film (and the first of his movies I've seen) because I've heard mixed things about it. And though I don't deny it's classic status, I believe it's a fair bit overrated. The movie has a lot of strong points and iconic scenes, so it's a hard movie to complain about. But those that see its problems might see scars on the face of the movie as well as Al Pacino.

I'll start with the strengths. First strength: Al Pacino's acting. I always expect a good job from Al Pacino. Ever since I first viewed The Godfather and his role as Michael Corleone, I never considered he'd do a bad job in a gangster movie or a drama. So far, I haven't been dissappointed. The other actors were mostly good, but since the movie focused on Tony Montana, there wasn't a lot of room for most of the cast, even Michelle Pfeiffer.

Second strength: Brian De Palma's direction. There wasn't any flaw in his cinematography. Every scene was perfectly placed, starting from the beginning to the dramatic end. I expected that, to be honest. Brian De Palma is a classic director, and many consider this his best movie.

Third strength: The plot. Watching Tony Montana's character shift from a caring person to a total ass is an interesting evolution when you look at the way he affects the world around him. Plus, one interesting thing after another just keeps punching the audience in a powerful manner.

Fourth Strength: The quotes. There are a lot of fantastic quotes about life, the world, gangsters, etc. I would watch this movie again just for the quotes alone.

Fifth strength: The sets. Gangster movies need great sets. Without them, they feel more like a typical crime movie. It's rare to have a fantastic gangster movie with minimal sets, like Reservoir Dogs. The mansions in this film are beautiful, and the Florida scenery is phenomenal. It's a beautifully filmed movie with beautiful places. And these strengths encompass some of the most important things in filmmaking in my eyes, so I'll still give it a high rating.

Now I'll go into the cons. First con: The f-bombs. I know I just praised the quotes, but I never said the dialogue as a whole was perfect. Even Pfeiffer asked him if he could stop saying that. It's hard to appreciate most of the dialogue of the central/titular figure when every fifth word's the f-bomb. It gets very tiresome very quickly.

Second con: The soundtrack. I'm sorry, but I just don't think a gangster drama needs a Giorgio Moroder soundtrack. I understand it's an 80's movie that's set in the... 80's, but this is Scarface, not Footloose.

Third con: The character development. This isn't like The Godfather where the world around the central figure affects him and evolves him, because then you can get away with little to know character development, in part because of careful foreshadowing. This is about Tony Montana affecting the world around him, and the characters don't get a lot of screen time in comparison to him. Some of them are generic. For example, Gina is a stereotypical irresponsible little sister who gets a little annoying. What really sets Sosa aside from other gangsters?

Fourth con: I don't like Tony Montana. Shouldn't the main character be a bit more likable? He starts out as a little bit of an ass, but he jut gets worse and worse! If I want to spend three hours with a guy the movie places too much emphasis on, I'd at least want to feel like I can have a beer with him.

Well, overall, Scarface is a great movie. But for a first-time view, I CANNOT call it five-stars at all. Tony himself was a bit of a scar on the movie. But at least the rest of the surface is pretty enough to enjoy a fine gangster movie. Anybody who wants a typical great gangster movie should check this out, but I warn you: Tony Montana is a dick the size of a flagpole. He might want to live the American Dream, but he certainly was not a dream come true. But it has some wonderful strengths which rival that of Coppola and Scorsese films, so there's that.




Come and See (1985) - Directed by Elem Klimov

"You can't join the partisans without a gun."



I might have brought this up before, but I'm a war movie fan. While I'm still lacking in movie-going quantity, I'm addicted to war-film quality. That's why I checked out this obscure but classic Russian movie called Come and See, the final film directed by Elem Klimov before he got bored with cinema.

Come and See is a stressful war drama about a sixteen-year-old boy who joins a Soviet resistance during World War II. And as the pains of war dig deeper into his mind, he loses himself.

This was a movie that was hard for me to love in one area of filmmaking, but dreadfully easy in others. I'll get that criticism out of the way: I'm addicted to character development, and the development her was minimal for most of the cast.

However, I have never seen an anti-war movie like this. I mean, it's not Grave of the Fireflies, but it's very powerful and heartbreaking. This is exactly what war does to people. Here we have a wonderfully acted teenager hoping for glory and action in the battlefields of war, an yet as soon as he does, one thing leads to another to turn him into a pain-stricken zombie soldier who eventually can't be told apart from any other partisan. The movie is often classified as a psychological drama, but this doesn't come from any dialogue like in most psych-dramas and thrillers.

The power of the anti-war movie and the psychological drama are all told through the incredible cinematography an story development that turn this from a piece of cruel reality to a nightmare you can't wake up from. This movie describes a word I learned recenly: oneiroid, taking the Greek word from dream. It means, "dream-like." This movie is like that, but it's not a Lynchian dream sequence with confusin plot twists. No, this is a nightmare where you know what terrible things are going to happene eventually. Because that's what war is: a living nightmare. And there may not be any other movies that fit that bill as perfectly as Come and See. Even the Mozart music had a serious effect on the terror the story and camera placed.

Come and See isn't a bloody movie, but it certainly is not for the faint-hearted. This is one of the most disturbing and distressing movies one may ever see for its situations alone. It stands out because of that, and because of its oneiroid playout. What a benchmark in Russian cinema!




Tower Heist (2011) - Directed by Brett Ratner

"A robbery can change very quickly."



It's a shame about Ben Stiller. I've been a fan of him for years, but many of his more recent movies just haven't been that great at all. It's a shame he's not far from becoming another Adam Sandler, because it feels like he'll star in anything. It probably wasn't the best idea to put him of all people in a crime comedy, because with him and Eddie Murphy behind the wheel, I expected this decent movie to be a lot better.

Tower Heist is a crime-com about an apartment manager who finds out his boss has been embezzling money from the company, including everyone's pensions. Furious at his boss, he gathers a bunch of fellow employees and a local convict to steal from his rich boss while the man is under house arrest until the trial starts.

Now, I liked the story quite a bit. It had a lot of potential to be something great, had a few decent twists, and a great ending with a high moral standard despite the attempted theft by the main characters. What happened to Ben Stiller's character at the end of the film felt right, just perfectly in line.

There were parts about the movie that were well filmed and directed, and parts that weren't. I guess it all depended on what was necessary. The direction was usually fine during the dramatic parts, an a little underwhelming during the comedy.

And speaking of the comedy, this movie wasn't funny enough. For those who don't know, the director, Brett Ratner, directed the Rush Hour trilogy. And even with Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy as major characters, there just wasn't enough humor. The dialogue was just fine except for the lack of great gags. There was a fair share of chuckles, but that's it. It's great to see Eddie Murphy acting like a crazy, obsessive criminal since we see Eddie Murphy doing the thing that made him famous in the first place: be humorously pretentious. But there's not much else alongside that.

In the end, Tower Heist has its strong points, but they may be tainted by the flaws. Depending on what you're paying attenion to, you might not be bored. Just don't expect the funniest movie ever.




Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018) - Directed by Morgan Neville

"The greatest thing that we can do is to help somebody know that they're loved and capable of loving."



The best thing about documentaries is not the amount of true information or the art of direction. It's how much the movie makes you feel something for the subject in question. This is more true for biographical docs than any other kind.And the best example of this would probably be a movie about the work and messages of one of the most wonderful and loving/lovable men who ever lived: Fred Rogers.

Won't You Be My Neighbor is a recount of the life and work of Fred Rogers, known for his hit children's series, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. As the film goes deep into the history of the series, it also recounts the ground-breaking morale content, Rogers' contributions to society, and his ability to love people even when in sadness.

I watched the show often when I was a toddler, but elementary school is the era of being obligated to grow out of puppets other than Kermit. So I had no fanhood left when I watched this. And when it was done, I felt nothing but absolute love and respect for this man. This is not only one of the most informative documentaries I've ever seen, but one of the most eye-opening and touching.

Althroughout the movie, we got to see that the real Mr. Rogers was not a joint-smoking alter-ego for a television icon (did you know Barney is a tantric sexpert? Yikes.) No. Anyone who saw the show was looking at the real deal, even if he was using handpuppets. The characters he played we occasionally pieces of his own personality, and the topics he would cover are almost brutal in truth but handled lightly throughout the show. Those who worked with him were amazed to see him do things like that, and I was amazed when I realized he in a way was his own show. This man had a moral code more impressive than any man I have met in my life.

To see Fred Rogers' history in pictures was almost overwhelming. What happened in his life to lead to these things? This was a man who could spread the real messages of peace and love everywhere. He was even able to convince Richard Nixon's people who wanted to pull funding from children's television that children's television was a great thing if done right. And Rogers did it right.

There is so much moral content to take from this film, all worth it. The whole world can learn a thing or two from Mr. Rogers, and the basis of his show is much more powerful in this film to the point where I want to watch the show in my age just for the moral standards of this man alone. This level of emotion through morals and truth makes this currently the greatest documentary I've ever seen. It took the year 2018 to do it.




The Game (1997) - Directed by David Fincher

"Discovering the object of the game is the object of the game."



Every so often, a man's gotta do something unique to really stand out from the crowd. It's a hard thing to do when it feels like all of the ideas have been done before, and it's even harder to do when you're pulling pieces from different stories. In the end, it's sometimes best to let things turn into a real mindwarp so a level of interest can be obtained. David Fincher's The Game is a fairly unique experience with an unexpected and happy (if not underwhelming) ending and a twisting and twisted story.

David Fincher's third film is about a rich investment banker who's brother gives him a voucher for a company that makes unique "life-changing" games for those who apply. But after the game starts, this banker finds himself the center of a series of pranks which soon turn into a scandal involving his friends, enemies, and even complete strangers who are in on it.

The Game is a part of Fincher's history of mindwarps, and the mindwarping starts from the very beginning of the film, similarly to Se7en. However, the build up is much slower than Se7en, a movie that thrills a man from the beginning in a dark and gross way. But the story does manage to get more and more interesting until the very end, where the ending, while happy, doesn't really seem fit for a thriller. A psychological movie? Sure. But not a thriller.

With all of that said, I've never seen a story quite like this. The twists and turns the movie took all felt right, as if there could not have been any more fitting piece in the puzzle. And I'm going to point out that the acting in the movie was nothing short of exceptional. The fear the characters felt, as well as the knowledge and discoveries of the twists and how the characters react seemed authentic. This is one of the most well-acted movies of the 90's. And the dialogue matched. It's actually a very quotable movie when you get down to it.

The only serious complaint I have about the movie is the music. It was dull throughout, and did nothing to help the atmosphere of the film (except for Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit.") Howard Shore has made some incredible music over the years, so I expected much more from him. But it was lame.

The Game is a fun movie for what it's worth, but it's not one of Fincher's best. It makes for a good series of plot twists, like Twin Peaks, but unlike that show, the suspense often gets waned down by underwhelming music and cinematography. For a thriller, it could have been more thrilling, but as a psychological movie, it's fairly well done.




Pulp FIction (1994) - Directed by Quentin Tarantino

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."



Is Pulp Fiction really one of the greatest movies of all time, and a landmark in modern cinema as well as a stepping stone for the independent industry? Or is it just seriously overhyped by people with a Rated-R fetish for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll? There are many reasons to consider this a flop. I see criticism of this movie quite often in many common forms. But I have to disagree, because I understood the movie and its hype the first time I ever saw it. Pulp Fiction is easily one of the greatest movies of the 1990's.

Pulp Fiction is an anthology of connected stories involving a day in the lives of everyday ********. You've got (now imagine this to the theme of Gilligan's Island) the black hitman, and his best friend, the big crime boss, and his wife, the boxing man, the pumpkin and his honey bun robbing restauraaaants! Each of these people have their own story to tell, and they're only barely connected in a day in the life of crime.

No wonder there's all the criticism. The stories are all out of chronological order, starting in the middle of the whole story and ending at about the same place. The dialogue doesn't have a bunch of philosophical one-liners or anything, with the most philosophical line being a bible verse that lasts about five sentences long and may be hard to memorize. Jackson drops f-bombs like the army at the beginning of the movie, so there's that.

But there's something people are missing. There's a reason why the mocie's called "Pulp Fiction." That's not a title Tarantino pulled out of his ass, no. The movie is supposed to carry resenbliences to pulp fiction magazines. You know, adult oriented comics that handle "lurid subject matter?" They could have many different unrelated stories. If this were a movie that just had a bunch of unrelated stories, would it be any different from another anthology movie? Would it stand out? Not to mention, the cost of having to hire more and more actors who may or may not even be any good would be a problem. And if the movie was told in chronological order, it would only be worse. It's the responsibility of the audience to pick and choose certain things from each story to hold onto as you progress through the film. By this logic, the story-writing of Pulp Fiction is clever and well-placed. And it stands out from other crime movies. This was the best decision Tarantino ever made in his history as a director.

As far as other strengths go, the acting was extraordinary. This movie was a real comeback for John Travolta, who got to relive a little of his Saturday Night Fever/Grease days by having a dance with Uma Thurman. And Samuel L. Jckson never shined brighter than he did in this movie. I've seen plenty of Jackson films, and this is definitely his best role. His story, like Bruce Willis' story, is about living a morally crappy life and finding the path to redemption, probably indicating a great change in his life. The same can't be said for Vincent Vega/John Travolta. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean. Excellent mirroring and foreshadowing, if you ask me.

Yes, there's a good deal of f-bombs in Pulp Fiction. But the truth is, some people do talk like that, and the movie isn't flooded with characters like that. It's loosely based on pulp fiction magazines, so expect a more violent and adult approach to the everyday life of a group of criminals, junkies, etc. Plus, there are a lot of quotes to take away from it just because the quotes are things you don't normally hear, and their occasionally funny. I mean, do you really think the only thing on a hitman's mind is murder? If he wants to talk about what big macs are called in Europe, I think anybody can do that.

There are tiny little flaws throughout the movie which barely mean anything if you ask me. For one, you can barely see a bullet hole before anyone shoots in that direction. And Quentin Tarantino's acting is pretty lame, but he only has five minutes of screen time, so it's not like Keanu Reeves' role in Dracula or Sofia Coppola's role in The Godfather: Part III (sorry, Francis.) This little flaws are so minor that I just don't pay attention to them.

Another one of my favorite things about Pulp Fiction is the soundtrack. Everyone who knows cinema knows that Tarantino likes to use classic radio hits in intentional lue of a soundtrack composer, so instead of using music to build up suspenseful moods, you get the realistic approach and have no music at all during these suspenseful moments. I'm a huge music fan myself, so that's something I can easily get behind.

Pulp Fiction is both treasured by the world, and misunderstood. I'm a proud member of the "treasured by the world" scene, as I am with Roots by Sepultura, another polarized piece of art. This movie is unique, unintentionally quotable, memorable, brilliantly acted, and definitely in a league of its own. And I'll add it's actually not quite as graphic as some people have let on. Kill Bill, Vol. 1 is way worse. And to be clear, just so you know I'm not one of those "the bloodier, the better" guys, you can oftentimes find me watching Aladdin just for the fun of it, because I still love kids movies. But if you're over 18 and don't let crime and what not bother you, consider checking this out sometime.




Leben findet einen weg...
Think we have similar ratings on the movies we've both covered, Keyser.
I think the only one I'd rate totally differently is Black Panther. You had a
where I'd mark it down to about
. Not one of the MCU's best for me, I found it kinda boring, but, it's just my opinion. It's not as bad as Thor or Thor The Dark World, but it was pretty bland for me.


Liked your RoboCop review too, and, in the last line you mentioned the remake, I would certainly like to see your thoughts on that God-awful pile of garbage
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'



Alien (1979) - Directed by Ridley Scott

"Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility."



Making a horror movie must be one of the most daunting tasks ever for the constantly thinning amount of original or good scares one can attempt. The idea that you can make an original horror movie has been scoffed at for decades. But new thrills can be made with new special effects, and new story elements.

In the classic era of horror, we didn't have the right kinds of special effects for space travel and what not, and monsters were even harder to make. But in the mid-60's, Star Trek gave us some answers, and science fiction had been taking a massive turn for the better. It was about time someone put together another good sci-fi horror movie sometime after the original 1950's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the once young prodigy Ridley Scott gave us an answer to all of that with a new kind of space opera that left chills of many kinds down peoples' spines for the last few decades: Alien.

This classic late-60's horror film tells a horror story beyond anything you've heard around a campfire. As a spacefreighter receives a signal from a dead planet in the middle of nowhere, the crew awakens from their hypersleep to investigate. But when an alien creature is brought on board for studies, it quickly evolves into a terrifying monster that none of them understand... or have a chance against.

I first saw this movie during my teen years, and this along with its sequel are two of my favorite movies. this movie really stands out from the other horror movies I've seen for its constant build-up and its dark atmosphere so chillingly ethereal that it's overpowering. Right from the beginning, one gets the signal that the film is going to take a turn for the worst quickly. And right after the opening credits have finished, it does. And while the film leaves certain questions unanswered, the ease one gets from the ending after the constant horror leaves a man satisfied.

The sets in this film are extraordinary, as well as the alien's costume design. It's hard to find sets this realistic in a sci-fi movie, and sets so chilling and uneasy in horror or sci-fi! Star Trek's been trying. H.R. Giger was the man responsible for one of the most iconic (and hardest to draw!) monsters in motion pictures. The different abilities and the evolution of the monster all fit very well within the film's weird theme: believe it or not, it's the horrors of sex and it's mistreatment! Whoa. Who wouldn't thought a xenomorph was a penismorph? But if you know about Giger's history with Dead Kennedys, it's no surprise. I think people really underestimate this movie's status as a "monster movie" like vampire and werewolf flicks, but this thing's a lot scarier than those.

The music has it's own part to play in the chills as well. The film has a soundtrack that starts out nice and pretty, but eventually starts getting all the more creepy as the alien evolves into a real monster. The man responsible is Jerry Goldsmith bringing us one of his greatest film scores in his whole history, and one of the greatest of horror films. And it pairs perfectly with Scott's sense of cinemotagraphy. Blade Runner and Alien are proof that he loves slow building, and slow building may work better for Alien than for any movie.

And finally: the acting. The film features Sigourney Weaver as Lt. Ellen Ripley (the lead character of the series, also known by fans as "the bitch,"), and also features Tom Skerrit, John Hurt, Iam Holm (a favorite), Veronica Cartwright of the 1978 film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and more. While the cast isn't quite as well developed and memorable as the marines from the sequel, the cast of Alien clearly put their hearts into the roles as they all deliver their characters effortlessly. Sigourney Weaver is a real show-stealer, even as she goes head-to-head with Ian Holm. Who can go head-to-head with Ian Holm? This was one of the most well-put together casts of the 70's, and it's scary that Aliens had a better cast. The only flaw this movie has is not having enough development for the characters.

Alien is one of the greatest movies ever made, no doubt. It's a serious chill thrill, the scenery and cinemotagraphy are incredible, it's very ethereal, and it has a brilliant cast. This movie doesn't really on countless sex, violence or f-bombs, and stands out among the sci-fi and horror crowd as something people can't write off as another classic piece of horror cheese, setting a new example for what you can do with sci-fi horror and taking one big leap for horror-kind from classic 50's pieces The Day the Earth Stood Still. I recommend this for anybody who just likes movies in general.



Review requested by SeeingisBelieving



War and Peace, Part 1: Andrei Bolkonsky (1966) - Directed by Sergei Bondarchuk

"I know of only two real evils in life: remorse and sickness. And happiness is the absence of those two evils."




When I first heard of the 1966 Russian film adaptation of War and Peace, I had read that it was a seven-hour film. I took it as a challenge (I passed this challenge before with a live Grateful Dead album and Satantango), but when I heard it was four movies spread across seven hours of total time, I lost some of that interest. I tried the first movie, anyway, expecting it to be bothersome in one way or another. But it only got better and better, and eventually my eyes were practically glued.

This faithful adaptation of the classic epic novel follows two main characters: Andrei Bolkonsky, son of a Russian general, and his best friend Pierre Bezukhov, an illegitimate son of a rich nobleman. When Pierre inherits his father's entire estate, and Andrei goes to join the battle against Napoleon Bonaparte, both of their worlds turn into a battle for true happiness as they struggle to find what they want from life. But before finding that, they have to find what life means.

The movie was beautifully shot from the get-go. I didn't even know people could do that with a camera back in the mid-60's. I mean, I expected some quality to come from the filmmaking in one way or another (this is a Mosfilm release, after all), but the cinematography brought in an epic, dreamy, and yet somehow dramatic kind of beauty that hypnotized me on occasion. If you asked me for great examples of cinematography, I'd give you this as one of my first recommendations.

But the real beauty of the film is how accurately the characters are portrayed as soul-searchers lost in the midway point between the horrors of the real world and the imbalance of their own little worlds. As the film is narrated by these two characters, one must wonder what it is they really want. And buy the end of the film, it seems like they have it figured out. But one can still only guess, because the ending of this film is really only a quarter of the way there! And while the dialogue and acting were incredible, the writing of the two characters was the real catcher.

One goal of a movie adaptation is to get the audience interested in the book. I'm hella interested in the novel. War and Peace is one of the most skillfully crafted international movies I've ever seen, and I'm greatly looking forward to the last three parts. The last three aren't over two hours like this one, but I know I'll be entertained. I know War and Peace is like the longest novel ever written, but like I said with that Grateful Dead album and Satantango: "Challenge accepted!"




Pearl Harbor (2001) - Directed by Michael Bay

"Because of this unprovoked, dastardly attack by Japan, I ask that the congress declare a state of War."



War movies are something I've had an eye for ever since I was eleven. Believe it or not, it was the 45-minute war scene in Pearl Harbor that kindled my love for war movies. But as a romance movie, there's hardly anything to be kindled, and Pearl Harbor relies on love triangles and cheesy love letters more than it does on the attack itself.

The drama based on the true and terrible event in American history shows two childhood friends joining the Air Force right on the verge of Word War II. When one soldier (Ben Affleck) leaves his new love interest (Kate Beckinsale) to join in real fighting, he's mistaken for dead and his friend (Josh Hartnett) ends up in a relationship with the girl. When he returns, the three are locked in a love triangle right on the verge of World War II's beginning: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

WOW, what a cheesy romance movie. You should hear the love poems sent between Affleck and Beckinsale. Actually, no. Don't. That's two minutes of your life you'll never get back. And it has a very familiar love triangle story that doesn't do anything for a story based on an American tragedy. While the film is fairly well acted, you don't know very much about the characters other than this love triangle going on, when the movie was brimming with potential for well developed and lovable characters. This is especially true for Alec Baldwin's role as historical figure Jimmy Doolittle.

But like most people say (and I agree), the forty minute war scene, the attack on Pearl Harbor, is without a doubt one of the most well-directed action scenes I have ever seen. It's phenomenal. It's almost worth getting through the three-hour love-romp just to watch this scene. The production values are incredible, the stress is real (unlike the romance), and the characters shine at their brightest when acting.

But the story is oh so incredibly predictable. It's a simple love story with simple characters, and believe it or not, when I caught an hour and a half of it on TV when I was eleven, when the big plot twist before the last fight scene came up, I knew exactly how the movie was going to end. No surprise, and I was a crappy critic back then.

Pearl Harbor is an extremely passable epic war movie only made partially worth the three hours by its wonderful was scene. Michael Bay has the potential to be an amazing director, and he squanders it severely. His Transformers days really began with this movie, and it's a shame he didn't put the same care into the war scene as he did with the characters and story.




Leben findet einen weg...
What's surprising with Pearl Harbor, is that it doesn't matter how realistic and shocking the battle scenes were, or how well put together the choreography was... it's that the movie tries so hard to make you care for the characters, and yet you end up absolutely hating them. Especially Beckinsale.
I reviewed this as well a while back, rated it 12%



I seen Pearl Harbor I can't remember much except it was very average for me. I like war films too, I haven't seen many new war films that are decent. I can't say I would want to watch anything from Michael Bay again. What other war films have you seen that you really liked?