MovieMeditation’s Diary Reviews // “Come and meditate with me!”

→ in
Tools    





MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... current day count
241 .......................... 266

__________________________


August 9th

—— 1986 ——
THE FLY
—— horror ——
REWATCH


Be afraid...
Be very afraid...


Review from my horror list
The master of body horror flies straight onto the big screen with his masterpiece, 'The Fly'. I simply love the daunting director, David Cronenberg, and his otherworldly vision of brilliance. But there was a time where I didn't know anything about this guy. Back when I first watched this movie I had no clue about what to expect from it, especially not with that pest infested bland black background, which did bug me a little, though only in a good way. But with that said, I didn’t actually think this little science project from Cronenberg would come off as such a major success, transporting the viewer directly into this daringly gruesome but undeniably beautiful tale of lost love and long limbs. What I was prepared for was actually an insect infection, but instead I got an insect affection, now how about that…

I must admit, I was entirely ready to experience an overgrown fly-man invade a local town or something, which would only make this supersized fly swarm above what could easily transform into the largest pile of filmic feces ever created. But thankfully, it didn’t go like that, which I should have known beforehand, especially with all the buzz surrounding the film and the fact that it is directed by someone like David Cronenberg. Because, here is a director who knows his horror; who can make the disgusting seem delicate and the terrifying terribly heartbreaking. We are being presented with what might be one of the most repulsive creations ever put to screen, and yet we have sympathy for it and we are moved by it. But that is because he has his priorities straight, and knows how to build up his characters and their individual mentalities, so that we eventually understand what is to come. Once we reach the tragic and almost torturous finale, where we are presented with a character and her necessity to do the unbearable, we feel just like she does… like a little helpless insect, trapped inside a Venus flytrap...

Director, David Cronenberg, puts an interesting twist on the undying tale of the beauty and the beast with his masterwork, ‘The Fly’. This piece of handcrafted greatness is unreachable on so many levels of filmmaking, simply because it succeeds even though it shouldn’t. Presenting the audience with golden gore galore, but still having its main focus on telling a great story of heartbreaking love, while also adding the directorial trademark of a social commentary. Jeff Goldblum is a brilliant actor, who are substantially suitable for the role of the weird scientist, almost passing for a fly himself in terms of looks (no offense intended). In many ways, this is a career-definitional slice of cinema from the director, and to some extent, it may be Cronenberg’s crowning work…



uh, uhm, wha-what? why no perfect rating for Brundlefly?

+

__________________________



MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... current day count
11 .......................... 9

__________________________

January 1st

The Party (1968)*



Just plain old slapstick humor! I love this one, and although it mainly plays on gags and fun without much story, it doesn't try to be anything but that. You are just having a great time and it is ideal to watch with a bunch of friends or family members. Peter Sellers is awesome and the fact that everything is mainly improvised makes it even better. There is so many classic scenes in it that it makes up for what is less great!

My favorite scene is when he ties his shuelaces detonating the bomb.




Thanks for checking in, Beatle! I expect you to catch up with each and every review in here.

I love that as well, though I think most of the great stuff comes at the actual party.



Thanks for checking in, Beatle! I expect you to catch up with each and every review in here.

I love that as well, though I think most of the great stuff comes at the actual party.
Welcome, MM! You rule, man! No, no, I will do every single one. I am that nuts.

Honesty, I posted that, because it's the only I remember!






February 13th

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)



There will be spoilers in this review… I have wanted to watch this for so long, especially because of my growing interest of the great Dustin Hoffman, and the fact that it won Best Picture and also because it is a fairly beloved film all over the cinematic world. But to be honest, I feel like I ended up with two movies in my hands; one was decent but clichéd, the other was daring and heartfelt. I had a hard time seeing any form of originality and true greatness in the beginning of this, as everything just felt overdone, typical, too obvious or simply too safely played. We got the father who works too hard and therefore isn’t there for his child nor his wife and the relationship with both of these people. He is suddenly put to the test when he looses his wife, in which he discovers how much he has lost by not being there with his son, while also realizing how bad his relationship was with his wife and how he cannot change that now, though he is now more than ever willing to change, and so on… Not much new there, and not that well executed either. I especially hated the pancake scene, as it felt so forced, but I did see the point and contrast of this scene, when we were introduced to the "same scene" later on, with the same subject and a much more down-toned atmosphere...

Anyways, even the courtroom scene didn’t really get to me, nor did I really care for it, or the characters' positions. It wasn't until Hoffman went into the bar and said he had lost the custody of his child, and when he had to tell his son why he must leave to be with his mother instead. The boy was now completely in focus, and his innocence and confusion was clear as ever. That also brings me to the phenomenal performance by the boy in this film. He was so believable in the role and outshined both Hoffman and Streep in my opinion. And please don’t say the classic argument that children of a young age don’t “act” - because that is bullsh*t… Anyways, decent film but the originality and its will to actually be different and go all the way came too late in the film. I was hoping for the film to go on for a longer time than it did, since it just started to be great, but that ending is extremely perfect though.

__________________________


I love this film. Hoffman and his final victory gave me strength during some rough times. I think the acting overall is great. I agree, it's a cliche and is stiffly executed, but when the boy fell seeing Dustin fighting for him and the boy enduring it is for me a special scene to which I can't compare anything alse.



MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... current day count
243 .......................... 269

__________________________


August 9th

—— 1994 ——
T H E
SHAWSHANK
R E D E M P T I O N

—— drama ——
REWATCH


A novel adaption that allegedly transformed into the greatest movie ever made
may move down a few blocks in my own book of personal preferences…


The ludicrous and almost laughable label of picture perfect perfection, might actually be the most absurd and unfortunate element about this film, since no movie should ever be dubbed the best of the bunch, especially not when the bunch in question is the entirety of cinema itself. I can see why people would point towards possible perfection though, because I agree that this movie is pretty much perfect in every way. But I don’t see how people come to the conclusion that this is the best movie ever made, since the two things are very different, at least if you have the ability to think of perfection as a feasible fault. ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ may not be the greatest movie ever made, but it might as well be one of the most perfect pictures ever put to the big screen. So how does that make any sense?

In the movie we are watching seemingly ordinary people behind bars use their optimism and determination for freedom, to gradually raise the bar for the boring barebones prison life they are trapped in, all the while their own personal point of view has a strong saying in this matter and the overall movie experience. What truly connects the viewer to the screen is the strong human core and down to earth attitude of the film, showing more signs of life as it is right now, rather than how it was or has become over time. These people are destined to change their current situation, whether that means making some drastic and daring choices along the way, though mostly they hold themselves fully responsible for it and therefore don’t intend harm to anyone who might not be brave enough to do the same thing. Andy Dufresne is an interesting character who equally weighs his own personal mission with the people around him, making him a hero like no other. Ellis Boyd Redding, or simply “Red”, seems written with Morgan Freeman in mind, since he completely captures the long and endless enduring’s in prison and how you simply learn to live with it. All these characters in the film are far from cardboard cut-outs, but most of them are still slightly clichéd or substantially thin. But what this movie succeeds in is not deep character studies per say, but more what lies deep within these characters – human emotions and honest depictions of these emotions. When we see a pitiful prisoner or a powerful prison guard, this movie dives deeper than just faces and facades. We see who these people are and they all wear their heart on their sleeve, though some are blacker than others.

And it is this human connection that pull us into the film, even when some characters feel clichéd and perhaps a bit too downplayed. In the end, thi is a comfortable company to be following throughout and there is not one thing you can really hate about them or their place in the film. We follow these people, who all have a hard time living at the worst place possible, yet they all try to make things turn out the best way possible for them and their inmates. Sometimes it feels a little forced, but it never comes across as flat-out false, nor does it seem stilted even when being strictly structured for dramatic perfection. This film is pretty much the definition of perfectionism. The story, the characters, the themes, the music, the visuals – almost everything is on point and supervised to suit the subject matter and story structure. Actually, this film is almost too perfect in a way. Sometimes it just feels too cleanly cut, too well rounded and too damn comforting for such an uncomfortable set-up. I wasn’t necessarily looking for more uncomfortable scenes, because it does have such scenes as well, but unfortunately the execution is rarely that raw and gritty. It all feels too finely manipulated and as soon as it doesn’t it is for the purpose of pulling our heartstrings or making us feel the pain of the character so this aspect can be used later on.

Everything has a planned purpose and everything feels measured and calculated, but it fails to give me something unique or exciting. I just wish it was more daring or different, instead of this crowd and critic pleaser film, which fails to go against the system like the people of which the film represents. I understand that it didn't gain all of its great reputation upon release, but what I mean is just that it aims to deliver this certain type of drama that is universally understandable and relatable. I may not find it to be a personal favorite but I understand why people love it so much. It is a masterpiece in its own right, delivering pretty much what it promises and gives us this emotionally strong and heartfelt story that makes for a comfortable cinematic experience. You could say that ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ is a movie that so flawlessly takes the long walk, but ends up imprisoning itself into perfectionism. It is far from easy to point out something cinematically weak or emotionally dull, because you just can't throw anything at this film because of how smooth it follows every rule and regulation. But in the end its strength is also what makes it come out on the other side looking weak. This film doesn't think too much outside its four walls, but you just can’t hate on this film no matter how hard you try. Not that I want to hate it either, because it is a rock solid film that hits all its marks and is pretty much perfect in every way… and that’s also why my rating cannot be. Well, I hope that makes some kind of sense.




+

__________________________



March 11th

Batman Returns (1992)



I might have seen this one as a kid but I really don’t remember anything from it; except for maybe the villains… So, since I kind of enjoyed Burton’s first take on the Batman universe, even though I didn’t exactly love it, I thought I had to give this sequel a look – especially because it seems like a highly regarded sequel and there is even some who think it is actually better than the first. It got to be said though, that even if I enjoyed the first one, it was mainly because of the always-great Jack Nicholson and his performance, as well as an atmosphere that was typical Burton but definitely more on his darker side. Also, it was minimalistic yet effective and Burton had his signature style clear from the beginning but except for when The Joker was around, it was never overly silly or going all costume-crazy...

With ‘Batman Returns’, however, it seems as if Burton gained full control over the project and was allowed to mess around with it as much as he wanted to. And oh my God how did I hate this film! I read many reviews stating this film brought back nostalgia to them; well, I didn’t see it as a kid so this was the weirdest piece of filmmaking in a long time… Yes, it’s definitely clear to see who directed it, but to me it felt like Burton on some heavy drugs or something. And the atmosphere was so clunky and weird that sometimes blood would squirt all over the place, and in the next scene penguins were wearing bombs on their back to supposedly comedic effect. What the freaking hell? And considering the clear evidence of A-list actors, they all seemed so distant in the film, like if they didn’t know what to do either, or how they should approach their character and which tone to go for. And seriously, how can anyone love DeVito in this? Even considering the campiness of this flick. I have never seen someone overact more than him playing this role.

I always wondered how the hell the Batman-franchise ended up like it did in ‘Batman Forever’, and maybe more importantly, how it ended up being George Clooney with Bat-nipples and a bunch of oversaturated set-pieces and more overacting actors in the God-awful ‘Batman & Robin’. Looks like this sequel was the answer, because I really had a hard time looking from Burton’s Batman from 1989 to Schumacher’s Batman in 1995, only 6 years later... Anyways, to end the discussion, ‘Returns’ was a clumsy, campy, weird, senseless, annoying, pessimistic piece of pathetic filmmaking – at least in my opinion – and I know there is people out there who love the film, but it seems pretty certain that I will never ever grow to love this in my life.

t direction. There was a glimpse or two of something a bit heavier and a bit more well



I've never been a fan of Burton, but he does know how to create an atmosphere. It shows here too. The beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer is probably the best thing in this. Nuf said. I agree with you 100%.



I've never been a fan of Burton, but he does know how to create an atmosphere. It shows here too. The beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer is probably the best thing in this. Nuf said. I agree with you 100%.
You are really beginning to scare me, Beatle, about actually going through this thread front to back. not that I complain at all though

Awesome that you agree, most seem to like it so it's nice to see someone also thinking less of it.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Michelle Pfeiffer was amazing in this. Almost (but not quite ) as good as Julie Newmar, just an amazing embodiment of such an amazing femme fatale. I have to disagree overall though, this is one of the better Bat flicks pour moi, I'd have given it at least another 2 full popcorns!

I didn't mind Devito in this is as well I thought Christopher Walken was by far the worst in this film though, it was like you said, he seemed really distant in this



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Thanks for your comment, CiCi! I appreciate it. And yes, I understand the appeal of this film and who knows if my opinion will change in the future!
Just remember the Pfeiffer and anything can happen!



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I try my best not to let the opinions of others justify or hinder my appreciation of a film. If people consider Shawshank Redemption to be the best film of all-time...I'll still watch it on the merits of it being a film, just like any other film. This is a film that didn't win Best Picture. This is a film that barely made any money at the box-office. This is a film that people did NOT call a masterpiece when it was first reviewed. This is a film that I love and adore.

I first watched it when I was up at a cottage with my family. There was a tiny little TV in the basement with maybe two VHS tapes in the drawer. One of them was a Jane Fonda work out video, the other was Shawshank Redemption. I watched it immediately. Fell in love immediately and knew that this was something else.

Every now and then I'll see it on the television when I'm flipping the channels. I'll stop to see where it's at in the story and find myself sucked in and watching the entire thing.

Looking back at that year in the Oscars. What won that year? Forrest Gump. Don't get me wrong, but that would have been my THIRD choice to win Best Picture. Not only was Shawshank Redemption nominated, but so was Pulp Fiction. Two films that are by definition, CLASSICS, in cinema. Forrest Gump is not. It's a feel good film that people seemed to want to push onto others.

Darabont wasn't even nominated for Best Director? Say what?!?!?!?! Did Woody Allen really need a nomination for Bullets over Broadway? Adapted Screenplay? Nope.

So what did this film win at the Oscars? Absolutely nothing.

Is it the Best Film of All-Time? Who knows, probably not. Is it universally loved? For the most part. At least everyone that I know seems to like it. Does the poster ruin the film? Does the poster plot hole in the film ruin the film? Does it sitting at IMDB's #1 spot ruin the film?

All I can say is....not for me.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Usual Suspect, you do know that I just used the talk about "the greatest film of all time" to transition into my own personal point of view, which is how I think it does everything too perfectly and safe and fails to give me something more than just a solid drama - which does make it a really good film for me but not top grade material. Also I talk about how I'm against all that "greatest movie ever" bs, which makes your talk about not winning awards etc. not really connect with what I try to say. Your post is great but I don't think I'm the person to be standing on the other end of it.

But it's cool that you put up some facts and figures here without just downtalking my review, even though it doesn't exactly relate that much to my review if I should say so myself. I didn't hate this movie, I didn't dislike it, I didn't even find it "just okay". I like this film a lot. But I can definitely understand if you love this film so much, many do.

Thanks for commenting!



I guess I just don't understand the statement of "it's a perfect film, which means I cannot give it a perfect rating".
That's merely a sum up and if you read the review you would understand why I come to that conclusion.

This movie is missing dept and dares not to do anything unpredictable, dramawise. I think its flaw is that it tries so hard to be perfect and it takes all the steps a drama should, it has all the characters a drama should, it just plays it too safe and I don't see anything that special about it.

So that's what I mean. That it is a "perfect film" is what makes it imperfect to me. It's a sterile drama that goes all-in on all the dramatic buttons. Again, it's a solid film, but it was missing quite a bit to be perfect in my eyes.



MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... current day count
244 .......................... 270

__________________________


August 11th

—— 1961 ——
THE
HUSTLER

—— drama ——



"So I got talent? So what beat me?"
"Character."


I always enjoy these films that build themselves around some sort of sport, which always makes for some interesting characters, mindsets and ambitions. I was looking forward to finally watching this film, since I have been fascinated about finding out who the hell this “Fast Eddie” was, who I had heard about before but never looked into. ‘The Hustler’ is a story about a pool player who knows his game well, which encourages him to always aim for perfection and is never satisfied with what he gets. Therefore, he travels a long way to meet the notorious “Minnesota Fats” and take him on in a game that calls for high stakes and few mistakes. But can Fast Eddie handle the huge sums of money or will he hustle himself by the end of it all?

‘The Hustler’ is quite clear about the premise and the point it wants to get across the pool table from the very beginning. The character of Fast Eddie comes with great possibilities and interesting ideas, but personally I feel like there was so much more that could have been explored with this film. Eddie is a winning pool player with a losing personality, always wanting to score big and beat everyone around him in the game he knows best. Unfortunately, he is pretty much blind to the reality around him and his constant striving for sums of immeasurable sizes makes him a despicable human being with no proper sense of his surroundings. Fast Eddie is definitely a fascinating character, but I feel like he is more interesting to look at than study. I would like him to have had a bit more depth, since I feel like he is a very surfaced character with traits that doesn’t really tackle his inner identity that well. Like his character, his portrayal is more show than tell, which makes us notice the rough edges of Fast Eddie and the misfortunes he is responsible for, but I think the film sets up the possibilities for a much deeper and more complicated character study. Ultimately it ends up being a very simple movie, about a loser who is great at winning, but is still a loser by the end of it all. I would have wished for more implicit struggles and a better look inside the mind of Fast Eddie, instead of mostly glancing over his pool playing skills and his outspoken personality.

If I should describe the character of Fast Eddie in a different and fun way, you could say he is like the black ball on the pool table. He is the one who has the final say in things and the one who ultimately wins the game. But not before everything around him has went down a black hole first, which makes him alone and vulnerable in the open. After all, he may be the winning element, but it can still be someone else who pushes him towards his doomed destiny and down into the darkness. His reasons for ending up in such a situation can actually be caused by his own choices and judgments throughout, which makes Fast Eddie mainly responsible for his own failures and thereby putting himself into misfortune. Again, conclusively Fast Eddie is a very interesting character, but his cinematic portrayal could have been stronger and with greater impact. Paul Newman was good in the role, but personally I enjoyed Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats a whole lot more. Many of the characters are missing depth though, but one of the reasons for that is because they keep introducing new ones along the way, who are never properly fleshed out when the movie ends. I know it is about Newman and the journey of Fast Eddie, but still I didn't even think that his character or performance was enough to carry the entire film.

Overall, I feel like this is a very uneven film that could be so much better with the proper focus. I though it looked great in terms of cinematography and general technical achievements, while also having an interesting concept about greed, honor, pride, respect, character and what not. I do think this might grow on me with time, since there was much about it that I actually liked. It was nice to have a film about sports and such, which isn’t about the main character winning, but how he is ultimately defeated by it all and how we have a main character we actually have a hard time cheering for. I’m fairly confident I will find this a lot better on a second watch and I know how many older movies doesn’t conceal their messages and themes like those of today, so I might be unnecessarily bashing this film for nothing of importance.




++

__________________________



MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... current day count
243 .......................... 269

__________________________


August 9th

—— 1994 ——
T H E
SHAWSHANK
R E D E M P T I O N

—— drama ——
REWATCH


A novel adaption that allegedly transformed into the greatest movie ever made
may move down a few blocks in my own book of personal preferences…


The ludicrous and almost laughable label of picture perfect perfection, might actually be the most absurd and unfortunate element about this film, since no movie should ever be dubbed the best of the bunch, especially not when the bunch in question is the entirety of cinema itself. I can see why people would point towards possible perfection though, because I agree that this movie is pretty much perfect in every way. But I don’t see how people come to the conclusion that this is the best movie ever made, since the two things are very different, at least if you have the ability to think of perfection as a feasible fault. ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ may not be the greatest movie ever made, but it might as well be one of the most perfect pictures ever put to the big screen. So how does that make any sense?

In the movie we are watching seemingly ordinary people behind bars use their optimism and determination for freedom, to gradually raise the bar for the boring barebones prison life they are trapped in, all the while their own personal point of view has a strong saying in this matter and the overall movie experience. What truly connects the viewer to the screen is the strong human core and down to earth attitude of the film, showing more signs of life as it is right now, rather than how it was or has become over time. These people are destined to change their current situation, whether that means making some drastic and daring choices along the way, though mostly they hold themselves fully responsible for it and therefore don’t intend harm to anyone who might not be brave enough to do the same thing. Andy Dufresne is an interesting character who equally weighs his own personal mission with the people around him, making him a hero like no other. Ellis Boyd Redding, or simply “Red”, seems written with Morgan Freeman in mind, since he completely captures the long and endless enduring’s in prison and how you simply learn to live with it. All these characters in the film are far from cardboard cut-outs, but most of them are still slightly clichéd or substantially thin. But what this movie succeeds in is not deep character studies per say, but more what lies deep within these characters – human emotions and honest depictions of these emotions. When we see a pitiful prisoner or a powerful prison guard, this movie dives deeper than just faces and facades. We see who these people are and they all wear their heart on their sleeve, though some are blacker than others.

And it is this human connection that pull us into the film, even when some characters feel clichéd and perhaps a bit too downplayed. In the end, thi is a comfortable company to be following throughout and there is not one thing you can really hate about them or their place in the film. We follow these people, who all have a hard time living at the worst place possible, yet they all try to make things turn out the best way possible for them and their inmates. Sometimes it feels a little forced, but it never comes across as flat-out false, nor does it seem stilted even when being strictly structured for dramatic perfection. This film is pretty much the definition of perfectionism. The story, the characters, the themes, the music, the visuals – almost everything is on point and supervised to suit the subject matter and story structure. Actually, this film is almost too perfect in a way. Sometimes it just feels too cleanly cut, too well rounded and too damn comforting for such an uncomfortable set-up. I wasn’t necessarily looking for more uncomfortable scenes, because it does have such scenes as well, but unfortunately the execution is rarely that raw and gritty. It all feels too finely manipulated and as soon as it doesn’t it is for the purpose of pulling our heartstrings or making us feel the pain of the character so this aspect can be used later on.

Everything has a planned purpose and everything feels measured and calculated, but it fails to give me something unique or exciting. I just wish it was more daring or different, instead of this crowd and critic pleaser film, which fails to go against the system like the people of which the film represents. I understand that it didn't gain all of its great reputation upon release, but what I mean is just that it aims to deliver this certain type of drama that is universally understandable and relatable. I may not find it to be a personal favorite but I understand why people love it so much. It is a masterpiece in its own right, delivering pretty much what it promises and gives us this emotionally strong and heartfelt story that makes for a comfortable cinematic experience. You could say that ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ is a movie that so flawlessly takes the long walk, but ends up imprisoning itself into perfectionism. It is far from easy to point out something cinematically weak or emotionally dull, because you just can't throw anything at this film because of how smooth it follows every rule and regulation. But in the end its strength is also what makes it come out on the other side looking weak. This film doesn't think too much outside its four walls, but you just can’t hate on this film no matter how hard you try. Not that I want to hate it either, because it is a rock solid film that hits all its marks and is pretty much perfect in every way… and that’s also why my rating cannot be. Well, I hope that makes some kind of sense.




+

__________________________
I agree 100%. I always thought it's the most overrated film ever. I love both Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, but never been a fan of King. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic, brilliant film, but, as you say, it's so stiff, it couln't possibly come near to "the best film ever", if such a thing exists. Seems you and I agree on everything, this is becoming unbearable.