JayDee's Movie Musings

__________________

Ok pretty sure this is the last of them and that every little review has now been collected here in this thread.





This is a very curious film, like no Western I've ever seen before.

It reminded me of films like Forrest Gump and North in that it tells the tale of one man's incredible and fantastical life, a film where you feel it may be revealed at any time to be a fantasy or fable. It's a very sad and touching movie at times, but is also wildly funny

The film's great strength without doubt is Dustin Hoffman's wonderful performance, charting the character's life from a teen through to old age.

All in all this is a film I can definitely see myself revisiting frequently. It's a very engrossing and moving film.





Despite being a big fan of Kevin Costner I only just got round to finally seeing this a couple of days ago. I've had the DVD sitting for a few years but not got round to it, mostly because of the 3 hour running time. Trying to find the time for it and also making sure I was in the mood for it.

Anyway I thought it was spectacular. A truly sweeping, thoughtful and poetic epic which looks just absolutely stunning. The cinematography is amazing, turning the land into not just a backdrop but a character in its own right. There are so many little moments that put a little smile on my face. I'd also say it's one of those rare films where hardly a word is wasted. Almost every bit of dialogue has some reason to be there.

Due to it's length and slow pace it may not be one I revisit a lot but whenever I do I think I will always find it a gripping, touching story.




This shares a lot of similarities to Dial M for Murder (which I posted about a week or so ago - now presented below) so you would assume it would share some of the things I was unsure about. But it doesn't. The performance of the actors and Hitchcock's direction give this one much more energy and tension in my eyes. And the plot is a wonderfully ghoulish idea.

I must admit however I completely missed the gay element of the characters, only learning of it in the extras. Must be more observant!

Perhaps not one of Hitchcock's absolute classics, but extremely entertaining nonetheless.








I'm saying sort of because it's the first time I've actually sat down and watched it from start to finish. Caught parts of it on TV loads of times and when added up I'm sure I had seen all of it.

Anyway onto the film. While I perhaps don't love it quite as much as others on here it is a very good film, mixing action and suspense wonderfully. The performances of the three main actors are all excellent as well, especially when they are actually out on the boat and begin to bond against the threat of death that surrongs them.

The first half is decent but it's when they get out on the boat and it turns into a three hander that it really goes up a few levels in terms of quality and excitement. And from the moment they realise that the shark is actually hunting them it is a wonderful edge of the seat ride through to the end.




Wow this Argentine film has to be one of the oddest films I've ever seen. In fact if I had just guessed at the plot beforehand I could probably have come up with a better summary than I can after seeing it.

To look at the film is quite stunning. As a mostly silent film great importance is given to the striking black and white images and the many graphic tricks it has up its sleeve. It's main inspiration clearly seems to be Metropolis, perhaps with an added little bit of Tim Burton-esque quirkiness.

The plot isn't anything special but then that's not what this film is about and won't be the reason for anyone seeing it.

I'm not actually sure what rating to give this film it's got me so baffled. I would switch every few minutes between finding it pretentious and annoying to then just being brainwashed by the striking imagery.

So for now I'm actually going to leave it unrated as I really don't know what to award it. Empire awarded it 5 stars, The Independent 1 star. And I can totally understand both of those views



And now the first two mini reviews I ever posted, almost a year ago now.




Was really quite disappointed with this. Either it was falsely advertised at the time or I remembered the promotion for it wrong. I was expecting something more feel-good with a bit more adventure. Instead I thought it quite dull, slow and sad. The first half in particular was really slow before it picked up a little after that. I felt the acting wasn't up to much other than Keisha Castle-Hughes (who is excellent). She was very natural but with many others you could really see they were trying to act but without the talent or experience to quite pull it off. Gave it a slight amatuer production feel.

For a nice score, beautiful scenery and Castle-Hughes' performance I'll give it

-








I'm unsure what to make of this one. The story and dialogue are excellent; really well written. Particularly how the killer has to abandon his inital plan but comes up with an ingenius plan B almost instantly. The performances, particularly Ray Milland's, are all very impressive. However as it's written and basically shot as a play I didn't quite get into it as much as I would like to with a good film

I think I'll need to give it a second viewing to cement my opinion but for now I'll go ++

Good to see another fan of Dances With Wolves. Its a great film. I also love Dial M For Murder, which is currently my second favourite Hitchcock film.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Yeah I was really impressed with Dances with Wolves.

On first viewing I'd have Dial M at about 8th or 9th probably, which sounds low but I think says more about the high quality of Hitchcock's films than the lack of quality for Dial M.

David Lean is the Epics director! Loved all of his movies. Just made a memo to myself to watch Ryan's Daughter again.

An extrememly entertaining comedy/drama from James L. Brooks. It's a witty film; brought to life by a sharp script with some great lines, that is about the state of journalism as much as it is about the complex lives of three characters that inhabit it. For me while everything in between is great, the opening and closing of the film were a little weak. The prologue is quite funny but just feels like it's trying to hard to be cute and clever, while the epilogue feels unnecessary.

The main reason why this film was such a hit for me was definitely the performances of the central trio of William Hurt, Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks. Separately they are all great, but it's their chemistry with each other that really gives this film its spark. The way each character interacts with each other is great. Each relationship has a great mix of love, friendship, hate, respect, jealousy etc.

As I said all three performers are excellent but certainly the star has to be Holly Hunter. It's got to be the most I've enjoyed an actress' performance in a long while. She brings great humour to the table with some great line deliveries, but also quite a sad poignancy to the tightly wound, conflicted character of Jane. There's also something about her that reminded me of those women frequently found in screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s.

For a comedy that features a romantic triangle it was refreshing that it wasn't as straightforward or formulaic as could be expected. Instead we get a fairly realistic, complex tale about real and complicated characters. William Hurt's character (Tom Grunick) is a vapid, vacant and eventually unethical representation of journalism's decline. And yet he still somehow remains a fairly likeable and affable guy, largely down to his easygoing nature and readiness to admit to his shortcomings. Holly Hunter's character (Jane Craig) is wonderful at her job and a true idealist about holding on to journalistic integrity, but becomes hopelessly unstuck when it comes to relationships. As Joan Cusack's character says “Except for socially, you're my role model.” So you understand why she's become a bit of a workaholic. She then falls for Tom, despite him being an example of everything she hates about the direction the news business is heading in. There's a great moment where she realises her feeling for him and her face contorts in horror. And then there is Albert Brooks who is supposed to be the moral centre of the piece but even he's a bit of a pr**k! When confronted with and when things don't go his way he becomes very petty and spiteful.

Oh and although Joan Cusack only has a relatively minor role, she also deserves some praise for bringing a high hit rate of laughs considering her time on screen. She is great in the classic scene near the start where there is a frantic rush to get the tape delivered on time.

The film is very successful (at least I believe it is) at creating the world of the newsroom, and being there at the shift from proper, responsible and respectful journalism to what we have now; a world where it is no longer about accurately reporting the news, but a world of ratings and revenue. Journalistic standards and values have declined, as the newsbusiness has 'evolved' into just another brand of showbiz. It's a world where physical appearance and superficial charms come out on top of intellect and skill. And this was one of the main reasons why I preferred this to Network. It portrays the same message and points, but is able to do it in a much more subtle way than the over the top, overwrought (though still quite enjoyable) Network.

I didn't exactly dislike Brick, but I wasn't as impressed by it as others were. The "high school noir" conceit just felt a bit silly to me, and distracting from the story. I don't regret watching the film; it was nicely put-together and acted, especially Gordon-Levitt. I dunno, it just didn't grab me. Still worth a watch for fans of neo-noir, indie films, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Nothing short of a masterpiece. The only other Argentine film ive ever seen is The Secret In Their Eyes. Of course, it is no match for La Antena.

Great review of Broadcast News, only I think William Hurt was in Broadcast News, not John.

Please choose which of the following best captures my embarrassment -

Can't believe I did that throughout the whole review. I even read through it a couple of times to check for any mistakes and at no point did that jump out. Anyway thanks for the compliment and for pointing that out, will go and amend it just now.

I do that too.

What, get William and John Hurt mixed up?


Perhaps a masterpiece, perhaps the most pretentious and superfluos film I've ever seen! Still not sure. Though it's nice to hear from someone else who has seen it. I asked when I originally posted it but no-one else seemed to have caught it. Definitely one that needs a rewatch someday for me to cement my opinion.

Not seen Secret In Their Eyes but blind bought it on DVD for a couple of pounds a while back. Only other Argentine film I think I've seen is Bombon el Perro; quite a sweet, touching little film. Oh and The Motorcylce Diaires I think was an Argentine production..

Yep.

Let me start by admitting that I love the Muppets. Absolutely love them! So to be honest this new movie could just have been two hours of Kermit & co. sitting around a table in a darkly lit room, having an existential discussion about life and death, and I would most likely still have had a good time. The fact that the film is such good fun means that I just loved it.

The actual plot is nothing to write home about. It is just there to serve the purpose of bringing the Muppets back together. If six months was taken to write the script, five minutes probably went on the plot. And I'm ok with that. If I remember correctly I think it's actually an almost carbon copy of the plot for It's a Very, Merry Muppet Christmas.

When it comes to the rest of the script however you can tell that this isn't a project that the studio bosses have just handed off to any old writer to get done. It's fairly obvious that this is written by someone with a great love for the Muppets. It's full of great warmth and affection for the characters. The script successfully creates a wonderfully nostalgic, old school tone while also retaining a knowing, winking-to-the-camera sensibility. As a result it achieves that tricky feat of being both smart and silly, and works as a lovely tribute to the legends that are the Muppets.

The songs are a delight and fit right in with the tradition of a Muppets song. As you'd expect based on his Flight of the Conchords output, Bret McKenzie delivers some terrific songs which are in parts funny, touching, quirky and damn catchy. While 'Muppet or a Man' won the Oscar (and is excellent) it's run close for title of my favourite song by 'Life's a Happy Song'. 'Pictures in my Head' is lovely and touching as well, while there are some enjoyable uses of 'We Built This City', and a bizarre barbershop version of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit.'

While the Muppets are, and were always going to be, the stars here, the human members of the cast are able to solidly hold their own. Jason Segel and the adorable Amy Adams both put in fine performances. Adams in particular deserves credit for making the most out of her one dimensional character and lack of any real story. Chris Cooper puts in a fine showing as the villainous oil baron, really going along with the fun of it all. “Maniacal laugh!” The cameo performers may not be as big name as in the old Muppet films (Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Orson Welles, Bob Hope, Liza Minelli, John Cleese, Peter Falk etc) but a few of them do deliver nice laughs. Oh and for the first time in what seems like an age Jack Black actually approaches being fairly funny.

I just think the film is so damn loveable! While I don't expect everyone to love it I find it quite hard to believe (verging on the impossible) that anyone could really dislike this. There is already a sequel in the pipeline and I've just got my fingers crossed it's even half as good as this.

My favourite film of 2012 this far. And while there will no doubt be 'better' films this year, they'll have to go some for me to like them more.

An important, landmark film. Probably one of the most essential movies of the 70s. These are accolades I've seen this film labelled with for quite a while. And now that I've seen it, I understand why and would echo those sentiments. It's a finely crafted film of extremely high quality.

A great deal of the interest for me came just from learning about one of the most intriguing and important moments in American history. While I knew the broad strokes of the Watergate/Nixon story it was very intriguing to learn about it more thoroughly, about all the little ins and outs, the facts, the lengths of the investigation and who was involved. As much as it's about the Watergate scandal it's also about the journalistic process. It depicts it at it's purest core, and it comes across very inspiring. I think just about anyone who sees the film will think (even if just for a second) how great it would be to be a journalist, breaking a big story. It really shows what an incredible task Woodward and Bernstein took on; how tough a slog it was, and throughout I kept thinking how easy it would have been for me to give up if I was in their shoes

While I don't know anything about the production of the film it feels like it must have been a risky and tough sell at the time. With it taking such a comprehensive and realistic approach it hardly comes across as the most obviously commercial of films. It doesn't show their journalistic journey as being incredibly exciting or action packed, instead producing a restrained, unshowy account. Add to that the fact of it being extremely dialogue heavy, and that the two lead performers rather tone down their star appeal to play extraordinarily normal, everyday guys and it's a surprise (and quite heartening) that the film was such a large success, coming in as the #4 highest grossing film of the year. I wonder how such an 'adult' film would fare today. In those terms it reminds me of David Fincher's Zodiac; a film that concentrates on the painstaking process of the investigation, rather than concerning itself with a sensationalised reconstruction of the events.

To take that further, when you consider the style in which the film is presented it's a good deal more engrossing than you feel it really should be. It basically follows a pattern of – three scenes where they interview people, two scenes where they are talking on the phone, one scene where there's a meeting in the office and then back to the start on a loop. And yet somehow it completely draws you in. And so many of the moments have now become staples of the genre – the good guys being bugged and having their lives in possible peril, clandestine meetings with a shadowy figure – that at times I felt I had to remind myself that this is actually real. This really happened!

Hoffman and Redford both put in strong, solid performances but I can see why neither was nominated for an Oscar. They are not really allowed to show any great range of emotions, nor do either have personal character arcs. The story has the arc and they are just a part of that. I think they should both be congratulated for not grandstanding, for not attempting to grab the glory. To me it instead feels like their only interest was to just contribute to the whole experience and accomplishmen of the film. Someone else who most certainly merits mention is Jason Robards who portrays Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post. He provides an injection of weary passion and humour to the film. He also delivers perhaps one of my favourite quotes in quite a while. “Nothing's riding on this except the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of the country. Not that any of that matters but if you guys f**k up again I'm gonna get mad.”

My immediate reaction to the ending was one of slight disappointment. I was expecting it to go all the way, climaxing at the point where they uncover the fact that Nixon himself is involved. However after thinking about it for a moment and going back to rewatch it, I really quite loved it in it's low-key, subtle way. You have Richard Nixon on the TV screen being sworn in as President, while in the background Bernstein and Woodward are frantically writing the story that will bring him crashing down, the clacking of the typewriter keys becoming almost deafening. And then the simple, non-sensationalist way they detail what eventually became of all those involved in the crimes and cover-ups.

And if you want two more indications that show just how much I appreciated the film, afterwards I went and further investigated the case, checking to see how long their investigation took and what Bernstein and Woodward did afterwards. After all when you've brought down the President of the United States what do you do for an encore? And the other indicator? That I almost immediately went and bought the DVD so I could learn more from the extras. And I knew right away it was a film I wanted in my collection

Would I call it one of the absolute 'must see films' out there? I'm not sure but at the very, very least it's damn close.

Just as with Dog Day Afternoon (that review to follow later) this wasn't quite what I was expecting. Based on a famous scene I was expecting a deeply unsettling and harrowing experience. Which is probably the reason I had put off watching it for so long. And yes while there are a few moments like that, particularly that scene, and a fairly unnerving mood always lingering, there are actually long stretches of the film that in its own way are quite beautiful. Some of the scenery captured by the cinematography is just gorgeous, it looks stunning and harsh.

The acting from the four rowing mates is all very strong. Voight and Beatty are good but of particular, and indeed surprising note, would be Burt Reynolds. I always thought of him in the same kind of mould as a Mr. T, a David Hasselhoff or a Lou Ferrigno. While they might be popular I wouldn't consider them for the most part to really be proper actors, mostly coming across as just a caricature. They usually play slightly different versions of themselves, mostly as that's all they can do. Here however Reynolds proves to be a bit of a revelation, giving a fairly powerful showing as the tough, untamed warrior Lewis.

While it is quite a slow build for the most part the film is able to work on the level of just a pure adventure film, largely down to the incredibly impressive whitewater scenes where you can see that is really is the actors themselves who are shooting the rapids. They are wonderfully shot and probably the film's highlight. Although that accolade should probably go to the duelling banjos scene, an exhilarating and graceful moment before it all goes to hell.

However while there are some positives I'd say there were also a number of cons in my mind. The message of man's relationship and interaction with nature, and the ridiculous notion that man can control it without consequences does work, but I wouldn't say it's the most subtle of commentaries. Indeed what occurs later on is foreshadowed extremely early when Lewis comments “We're going to rape this whole god-damned landscape.” I also felt that they should have had more trials and tribulations actually caused by the wilderness to show the point, so that it was a man v nature battle as opposed to man v man in nature.

I felt that the characters of the mountain men felt very stereotypical, portraying them as perverse, inbred hillbillies makes them feel sort of like they belong in a schlocky horror film. And as for the rape scene I have two queries about it. One, while they did have a gun in such a situation I think there would be a great temptation and survival instinct to try and fight them off. The second, and larger problem for me though was the lack of impact it seems to have on Beatty's charcter. While I appreciate the film has the themes of what it takes to be a man and far you would go to survive; and you could argue that it just shows him being strong and survivalist on his part, but I felt that after such an ordeal there should be evidence of him being traumatised.

Then there is the fact that Jon Voight's Ed is able to scale a sheer cliff. Setting aside the fact that his character doesn't seem the most likely to be able to conquer this challenge, you then have the facts that he is tired, battered and beaten. He is climbing with his bare hands, with no climbing equipment, while carrying a bow and arrow. Even for Spider-Man that would be a hell of an achievement! It just felt very far-fetched. And not the most logical plan either, given that if there was a shooter above you you would be leaving yourself potentially in a very vulnerable position.

There were then two other problems I had but which I understood. While it forces Ed and Bobby to step up if they want to survive, the fact that Reynolds' Lewis is sidelined for the last portion is a shame, as he was an intriguing character. And the ending felt quite anti-climatic compared to the tense atmosphere that is present for the most part. It feels like it should end as soon as they get off the river as that is their whole goal, first just as the end of the journey and then out of a desperate need. But I understand the need to show the impact on them and also what happens afterwards in regards to the police, but if you're going to do that I feel it should be more in-depth. So what I'm saying is that I feel the film should either be shorter, or should be longer to have more time to deal with the aftermath.

An interesting film but not one I was overly enamoured with on first viewing, and didn't quite appreciate why it's considered the classic that is by many.

Let's see... Deliverance is really complex and deeper than some of the more obvious points it makes. The four lead characters can be seen to represent four different sides of the masculine personality or they could be seen to just about comprise one complete male person. You say that you want to see signs of trauma from Bobby, but at this point, he's more concerned with the embarrassment of people finding out what happened to him. Besides that, Drew seems to be suffering enough trauma for everyone at this point. Not to mention that Lewis's bone is sticking out of his flesh.

In fact, you didn't discuss the scenes involving what to do with the dead body and what subsequently happened to Drew. Drew is the most sensitive guy there and he seems deeply disturbed by what happened. Also, what do you think? Was Drew shot? Was the guy with the shotgun on top of the cliff the same as the earlier rapist? You question the need for and the ability of Ed to make that climb, but Ed is the only one left who can do it and he has no choice. If there is a shooter, the three men will never get out of there unless Ed "neutralizes" him. Besides that, Ed has to overcome his buck fever to save his friends, so it's certainly the proper plot development.

Lewis was basically the leader before his accident, but once again, his strength (or is it really a weakness?) causes him to lose that position, and for all we know, he may lose his leg too due to his lack of belief in insurance, not so coincidentally Bobby's field of business. This is the thing about poet James Dickey's novel and screenplay. He may have a few obvious lines, but overall, the film can be taken much more poetically and metaphorically than most adventures or even straight dramas. The two vllains may seem like something from a schlocky horror flick, and I'm sure that they're serial killers, but if Drew wasn't shot, it truly was nature which caused all the protagonists' subsequent problems and not the backwoods people. If Ed shot the wrong man then the guy with the shotgun atop the cliff was just trying to defend himself and Ed is a murderer. By the way, who do you think will have the most guilt and regret for the rest of his life? Based on the movie, it appears to be Ed.

I have things to say about All the President's Men, but I'll save them for later.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Thanks for taking the time to reply Mark. When you've taken so much time on a review it's always nice to get some feedback other than just positive rep, even if it's to disagree.

Anyway I appreciate what you've written (your passion is already making me question myself! ) and I certainly make no claims that I'm correct about my views, purely just my opinion. And I may have overlooked elements (especially the deeper points) which would be important to truly enjoying it. I knew I've done it on first viewings before.

I've not saying that Bobby should be ready to kill himself but I personally felt there would be a bit more of a reaction. We see him lunge at the body once and that's it. I've never been in that situation or know anyone who has; but I imagine he would either be traumatised, vengeful, comatose from shock, trying to deny it to the others and himself, more aggressive when telling them not to spread the word or whatever. Just something more than buckling down and getting on with it. While it might be necessary for their new mission to just get the hell out of here, I think it would be damn near impossible to do that.

My reviews aren't particularly planned out. I just start the review and see where it takes me, so I'm likely to skip over stuff. The scene where they discuss what to do was quite interesting, as we see the different viewpoints of the characters. Lewis taking a bit of an Old West stance to the situation, while the seemingly more educated and reasonable Drew believes in the system. I suppose it could also perhaps be seen as a general distrust in 'the man', something that seemed very commonplace in the 70s with Vietnam, Watergate, Attica etc. So that could be distrust in the military, the government, the police or in this case the legal system.

Personally I didn't take it that he was shot. I took it that Drew either fainted or had a stroke from the stress, or more likely for me he felt he could not go on after what he had been a part of and just allows the water to take him. I think (and I could be remembering this wrong) there was a slight shake of his head before he goes in as if he has just decided. Hell who knows, to take a fantastical view on it maybe it was the river claiming him as recompense for his part in the deed. Then it really would be nature fighting back

Perhaps not the 'need' for him to do it but it just didn't seem like much of a plan, though you could argue he didn't feel he had any other options. If there was someone up there waiting to pick them off he would be putting himself in a very vulnerable position. He may just give the shooter a perfect target, and with Ed only having a bow and arrow as opposed to a gun he would find it very difficult/impossible to respond. And while I meant to tie that in with the other two points that I understood plot wise, I still think that even if he felt he had to do it, actually accomplishing it would be beyond him. I feel the desperation and adrenaline could only take him so far.

I would imagine it would certainly be Ed, as is indeed shown by his nightmare. The fact he is unsure over whether he shot the right man or not would most likely haunt him, forcing him to replay the event over and over in his mind every day. He may also feel guilt (even if he shouldn't) about what happened to Bobby, wondering whether he could have done something to stop it or not, asking why it was Bobby and not him. Perhaps even feeling guilt over the whole trip seeing as he wonders why exactly he keeps going on these adventures with Lewis, and now with Ed and Bobby dragged into it.

Oh no now I'm worried! Do you have some major disagreemens about All the President's Men as well? Anyway again thanks for taking the time and trouble to comment at length. And for keeping it civil as I know it's one of your absolute favourites.

Good reviews, JD. I like the new format, too. I am very pleased to see how much you enjoyed All The President's Men.

If you mean would it make its money back/make a profit, I think, for the most part, the answer would be yes. What it wouldn't do, is what the current Hollywood suits want, which is a film that grosses at least $600m. At the moment, you'd have a lot more trouble getting a major studio to greenlight a $50m film, which is projected to gross $100m-$200m (look at the trouble Scorsese had getting the money for Shutter Island) than a $200m+ film which they hope will gross $500m+. The truth is, they're willing to risk taking the kind of bath John Carter's giving Disney, because the profits are hundreds of millions, rather than tens of millions.

Also, as I've said many times, the overseas (mainly non-English speaking) market is very important now and, as people in those countries don't care for subtitles any more than English speaking peoples do, dialogue light, simply plotted films are the order of the day.

Well, people respond differently to certain events. You can be shocked by events that happen and then get past them quickly to move on to the matter at hand only to get hit by them twice as hard afterwards. Then there's people who break down emotionally instantly and are like that for days or weeks. What I'm trying to convey here is that it's difficult to knock on a character development like that, because of how you would imagine yourself to respond to such a situation. That's just flawed logic. You should look at it from the character's point of view and then decide whether you think it credible or not from what you've already seen from him.