Films I Watched - January, 2004
Submitted by lbangs on Fri, 01/02/2004 - 11:12
Tags:
- 1/30 - Confessions of a Dangerous Mind - Somebody should probably slap Charlie Kaufman, but since Hollywood is too busy kissing his butt, that probably won't happen any time soon. He's incredibly talented, sure, but not only is he stereotyping himself into a cozy little pigeonhole. He is also slowly producing scripts that increasingly resort too heavily on clever tricks; in other words, a criticism that many unfairly leveled against Being John Malkovich is threatening to come true, and I unfortunately fear a lost-with-my-head-up-my-clever-ass dip with Kaufman a la the Coen brothers. Luckily, he isn't quite there yet. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is still a rather impressive script, but I fear George Clooney's remarkably assured direction and the cast's game efforts (especially Sam Rockwell) make the screenplay sparkle brighter than it should. Clooney has obviously been paying attention to what was going on behind the camera during his years of acting, and he delivers a creative tour de force that dazzles with its daring and variety. This is no mere vanity project. Clooney is truly a director to watch. Sam Rockwell also spins off an impressive performance, and the entire cast follows suit. While I fear I am sniffing hubris on Kaufman's breath, a fact that makes me a bit worried about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is a sharp, twisted minor delight. It dazzles and demands one's respect, even if it refuses to linger long in the mind. ***
- 1/28 - We Were Soldiers - After Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and Saving Private Ryan, the war genre is becoming a tricky one to work. A filmmaker can go crazy deciding on the proper tone to set or a way to make the film unique. Two films, Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers, recently tried to revitalize the timeworn subject, and while the critics praised the Scott-helmed Hawk, Randall Wallace’s Soldiers is easily the superior film. Perhaps the key to the film’s success is the uneasiness it faces, and not only in the carnage. jgandcag is partly right; Soldiers does share a certain spirit usually not seen outside of World War II films, and certainly not often seen in films set in the jungles of Vietnam. This is not an easy film to pigeonhole, though. This is a shock. It brings values that seem set throughout the movie into question, and it leaves one with conflicted emotions. Perhaps in that regard, this film captures a side of the war that few Vietnam films have; it does not easily allow for pat conclusions. I was surprised at how well made this film was. The excellent acting from all involved enhances Wallace’s efforts to keep the brutal, bloody bodies connected to real characters. He doesn’t neglect the opponents or the home front, and while his dialogue can slip into slogans, a flaw conspicuous mostly at the beginning, he has done a stellar job grounding this conflict in the lives of the people fighting it. The dialogue isn’t the only flaw; the montage at the 1:40 mark makes the horrible decisionSpoiler: Highlight to viewWhile the film never falters in its respect for the soldiers spilling blood (and that goes for the victims of either side, a rare effort in this field) Soldiers eventually does question the war itself. At the end, beside a waving American flag that at first appears the symbol of pride, the Vietnamese officer regrets that America will now feel like this is its war, and he predicts the end will still be the same except for the increase in the number of bodies. We know he is right, and the flag changes from a boasting emblem into a mark of ownership. It this context, it is a tragic mark, yet still a noble one.but the truth is that We Were Soldiers is surprisingly stirring, moving stuff, humane enough to encompass many of the individuals affected by the war. Its strengths outweigh its flaws. The result is an excellent war film, one that refuses to give easy conclusions (logical or emotional), and one that has the utmost respect for the fighters while not quite anointing the fight itself. *** 1/2Spoiler: Highlight to viewto include action poses of the photographer that unintentionally seem humorous and distracting (the photos themselves would have done the same trick much better). Additionally, the ending of the battle unfortunately shifts in tone a bit too close to an action film, which somewhat seems to trivialize the actual events, and the occasional moment of cliché (usually patriotic) threatens to push the carefully created characters into icons (which would have been fatal),
- 1/26 - Unforgiven - Eastwood learned from a master, Sergio Leone, but while he dedicates this film to that great director, he really draws more from John Ford in creating this Western. We have the aging gunman forced to come to grips with his past, themes of brutal order battling brutal lawlessness, the passing of wilderness into civilized cities, and even a writer confronted with the clash of truth against legend. Eastwood sat on this fantastic script for years, supposedly waiting until he was old enough to play the title role; as a result, Eastwood seems to have spent that time breathing Munny's air. Where Clint often seems in many post-Dirty Harry films to be all too aware of his iconic status, here he gives one of his most natural performances ever. He is an icon rather than just acting like one. He proves just as capable behind the camera, framing his very human characters so that some of them eventually become the legends they are supposed to be. The pace is impeccable, slowly unfolding a story that leads to a quite natural conclusion, and Eastwood maintains a fine balance of conjuring archetypical grandness while sinking roots into specific characters and situations with unusual grace. I hated Westerns until I finally watched Stagecoach and Once Upon a Time in the West in the late eighties. In 1992, I caught both this film and a re-release of The Wild Bunch in the theater, and I have been hooked to the great films in the genre ever since. Unforgiven certainly rests very comfortably in the elite company of the other three I’ve mentioned, and that’s a mighty recommendation. ****
- 1/25 - Ice Age - In an industry where a creative style often equals a commercial death at the box office, Ice Age is a surprisingly entertaining entry into the computer animated family film genre. Sure, in order to keep the kiddies’ attentions, it is quite short, and this means the story explodes rather than develops, but this also means the pace keeps the film from dwelling too long in the gooey sentimentality that often mires these pictures, an advantage that works wonders. The rendering style is a new look, not simply a copy of Pixar, Disney, or Shrek’s templates, and the characters are well drawn, both in terms or art and character. Ray Romano’s voice work is simply there, but John Leguizamo is terrific (why is this manically talented man not a star yet?), Denis Leary’s is quite good, and even the wonderful Jack Black, Jane Krakowski, and Stephen Root lend their efforts. The story is a patchwork of elements used before (quite recently, in fact), but the pieces still stitch together into a dazzling whole, the humor made me laugh out loud several times, and several scenes thrill. Ice Age is a fine family film, better than many higher praised ones. ***
- 1/22 - All Quiet on the Western Front - It is too too easy to laugh at the acting at the opening of the film. It is dated, displaying grand expressions better suited to a distant stage than to an intimate cinema. Those faces, charged with war-going fury, are really too much, looking as if Wally and the Beav decided to march and claim Eddie's blood with their bare hands. All Quiet on the Western Front instantly dates itself, flashing the fact that it is indeed a product of 1930; just two years ago, silent films were still winning the Oscars and American producers were still trying to figure out how this whole sound stuff was going to change acting. Perhaps this actually helps the film. The opening reminds you just how old this film really is, a fact viewers are likely to forget once the war scenes begin. Explosions, armies of thousands, the occasional body part - add some blood and color film, and these scenes would not be too out place in some contemporary war films. Sure, occasionally, a character preaches a bit, but Saving Private Ryan proves a little sermon now and then still finds a home in modern film. Besides, think about this for a minute. A mere twelve years after the end the war, and Hollywood is making a movie from the point of view of the Germans. It is a sympathetic film, not a hateful attempt at drawing horns out of the top of an evil country's head. These soldiers suffer, die, and have little idea why. They are people, people that must have struck Americans as not unlike themselves, and if that doesn't hit you as incredibly daring, consider Hollywood in 2013 making a humane portrait of al-Qa'ida members set in 2001, and then imagine it winning the Best Picture Oscar. If moments seem dusty or primitively warmed-over, All Quiet on the Western Front is more edgy and modern than many mainstream films today, and it is incredibly moving. He may not show off, but Lewis Milestone proves a master at framing shots, infusing images with narrative and emotional power, and moving the camera in energetic sweeps rarely seen at the time. He captures all the emotion the old school acting might let loose, and he ties it all together into a mighty film that transcends its obvious weaknesses. Standing with the first four Best Picture Oscar winners, a group that includes Wings, The Broadway Melody, and Cimarron, All Quiet on the Western Front stands out in sharp relief as a work of incredibly effective, serious, and startling art. It still does. ****
- 1/17 - Night Train to Munich - This 1940 film shows Carol Reed was still just warming up. Rex Harrison charms, Radford and Wayne recreate their breezy cricket fan roles from The Lady Vanishes (to lesser effect), and Otto Kanturek and Carol Reed craft some terrifically dark shots, but the whole affair, despite some great dialogue, really doesn't go far or fast enough to make for a truly thrilling train ride of a suspense film. ** 1/2
- 1/17 - Hero - What a beautiful rush! Zhang Yimou takes an unexpected dip into wuxia, and spends much of the film forcing viewers' jaws open and yanking the bottom plate to the floor. What might be more unexpected is the film's twist into political philosophy, and while it might end that particular journey a bit too quickly and simply, it at least gives this opulent epic quite a bit to feed the brain as well as the eyes. Oh, and it does feed those eyes. A few of the computer images may push matters a bit, but this movie provides so many incredible scenes to gaze at that to quibble would be to complain that a few of Airplane's jokes aren't top rate. It would rather miss the point. Additionally, for an adventure that speeds by with incredible speed, Hero certainly gives its characters more definition and charisma that most action movies ever give their inhabitants. This is a high-water mark for its genre, a surprise from drama-master Zhang Yimou, and a delight for film fans. *** 1/2
- 1/15 - Runaway Jury - John Grisham is an artless hack. He has his formula, and simply rotates a few particulars around to arrive at any given novel. Granted, he has recently went outside the legal world, and I haven't read any of his work in those other areas, but on the strength of his legal novels, I can rather confidently predict that he will be remembered more for the money he made off them than for his skill. As usual, a great film can go some way to redeem weak sources, but Runaway Jury simply bathes in them. The acting is terrific, at times bringing more meat to the bare boned characters Grisham coughs up, but unfortunately, the script keeps them rather centered on the predictable, boring, cast-iron creations Grisham has again recycled. Inspired line deliveries, even a most obvious attempt to recreate the fire of Mann's Heat with a mid-movie meeting of titans Hackman and Hoffman cannot get the embers glowing. The story manages to be both predictable and incredibly implausible at once, which is no small feat and perhaps impressive on some meta-level, no doubt, but it certainly helps put this dog of a drama down. Add Grisham's simplistic preaching undiluted at all by the adaptation and some horrible, amateurish direction from film dud Gary Fleder (he has done some great television work, though, so perhaps this sort of big-budget undertaking is simply too much for him), and you have a nicely cast, healthily funded bomb. Even given the novel this is shackled to, this should not be this bad. Oh, but it is. And long, much too long. * 1/2
- 1/10 - Lost in Translation - Somehow managing to convey a sense of ennui while remaining consistently engrossing, Lost in Translation may seem as Sofia Coppola's , but it doesn't play as a copy of any film. This is a fresh, beautiful vision, one that is wide and perceptive enough to linger on details and catch the uniqueness in the mundane, the precious in the ordinary. The story is a quiet one that is hardly spectacular, but the characters are very real, desperate and lonely, and their interactions delight even as they refuse to drift into the fantastical. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson deserve the kudos they are receiving. They bring to round life characters that might seem flat on the page, delivering natural nuances that never seem showy. Coppola's vision is all her own and dead-on, highlighting what others might miss and bringing beauty to boredom. Even the look of the film dazzles with bland pastels and muted neons. A fascinating film, Lost in Translation exerts a subtle but adamantine grip on one's memory days after the credits roll. It refuses to be a fantasy, but it is fantastic in a way few films are. ****Spoiler: Highlight to viewBrief La Dolce Vita Encounter During Tokyo Holiday
- 1/9 - Star Trek: Nemesis - Well, I was all set to watch The Bourne Identity, but upon close examination, I discovered that this film alone out of the batch I borrowed from a friend was in Yokelvision, so back in the bag it went. Instead, I watched the latest of the Star Trek franchise. Of the Next Generation films I have seen, I believe First Contact is my favorite. One of that film's strengths is how it dumps all the boring characters off on earth and primarily focuses on the people in which the audience is interested. Nemesis attempts to include everybody in the mix, and as a result, too many scenes seem pointless and distracting from the main plot. The story is a pretty good one, with some great ideas, but frustration mounts every time the film pulls away from the engaging main plotline to a minor scene with, say, Riker, Worf, or Troi. Unfortunately, this really keeps the main story from developing as it should, and the action scenes, while competent, are hardly thrilling. This part of the Star Trek saga is not nearly as bad as you've heard, but really, given these intriguing ingredients, it should have been much better that it is. ** 1/2
- 1/7 - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - For the one person here who does not already know and might actually care, here is the deal. I hate Jerry Bruckheimer films with a pure passion. In 1986, at the tender age of thirteen, I realized I was out of step with my peers. I was suckered into seeing “the greatest film ever” in the theater, and I left wondering what everybody saw in the snooze fest that is Top Gun. I did not really know that name Bruckheimer, not yet, but the years rolled by, rushing many more films my friends were jazzed about and I could not stand into my life. I suffered through such gems as Beverly Hills Cop II and Days of Thunder. Around this time, I discovered the two evil men behind this dross. I could blame Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer for this endless stream of crap soiling the modern film scene. Don died in 1996, so now, Jerry gets all my love. Unfortunately, the worst was yet to come. A disturbing pattern emerged. I would torture myself with a Bruckheimer film, say, Con Air, and walk out of the theater swearing never to see another frame that bore his name. In a year or two, without fail, mind you, a new group of friends with great taste bends my ear swearing that Bruckheimer’s new film is his first good one, one so amazing I cannot miss it. Somehow, I believe them, and somehow, I end up wasting another two hours of my life watching another mutilation of celluloid. Oh, he won some critics over, and the public definitely loves him, but I hated, hated, hated Armageddon. I did not like Enemy of the State, and even found his stabs at serious film such as Black Hawk Down oddly cold and unmoving. I can’t stand his action formulas (team up hot stars with hyperactive directors who can’t stop shooting music videos and roll ‘em!), I don’t like his television shows (CSI is all gimmicks and flash to these eyes, and I always guess the endings in the first fifteen minutes anyway), and I loath his dramas (such as Coyote Ugly and what little I could stomach of Pearl Harbor). In 2002, the public was briefly on my side, rejecting such trash as Bad Company and Kangaroo Jack. Then arrived Pirates of the Caribbean, and once again, dear friends pulled me aside and told me, really, I should give this one a shot. So I did. The results? Pirates is not as bad as I feared. Instead of the usual walk-on high-profile actors, this Bruckheimer production boasts a great cast that seems tuned into the film’s vision. Gore Verbinski aims to direct movies, not commercials for the attention-challenged, and the screenwriters put some thought into the twists and turns the snaky plot winds through. Johnny Depp was good, if not quite the amazing force of nature I was lead to believe he would be, but Geoffrey Rush impressed me even greater. Few actors can bouncy from creepy little runts to grand evil pirates as apparently effortlessly as Rush. Still, at over two hours, lacking any real character revelations or development (a too-often over-looked ingredient for adventure films), and with clumsy editing often under-cutting some well set-up fight scenes, this film really bored me. I had to fight to stay awake, and I noticed my wife was checking her watch about as frequently as I considered dozing off. That ending, with its odd mash of Steven Spielberg mysticism and danger and Raimi-inspired undead slapstick, was just the final nail in the coffin. As a film produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, the ultimate film hack, and based on a DISNEY AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE, for crying out loud, this is better than it really deserves to be. All the same, it was not very fun, and I can forgive a swashbuckling pirate films many sins, but boring me ain’t one of them. **
- 1/3 - Freaky Friday - The film begins by forcing the poor viewer to listen to Simple Plan's horrid rendition of Happy Together, and for the first twenty or thirty minutes, this remake of Freaky Friday doesn't get much better. Perhaps the oddest defect in these dreary opening minutes is Lindsay Lohan's lame attempt to play a young teenager. Luckily, the body switch shocks this puppy into life, and until a lame ending, almost saves the day. Lohan strangely proves much better at being the mother than the child, and Jamie Lee Curtis proves her comedic tour de force in A Fish Called Wanda was no fluke. In fact, Curtis owns the movie, and that says something; it is no mean feat for a woman of 46 to steal an entire family flick from an 18 year old. Sure, this Disney effort still plays matters way too safe, especially in portraying a teenage life from the point of view of writers closer the mother's age than the girl's, a forced effort no amount of name-dropping the Stripes or the Hives can completely solve, but my, the middle of this film is unexpectedly funny. Mark Harmon is as likeable as ever, and while most of the younger folks are hardly defined, I'm probably going to hell for finding Haley Hudson attractive. Sadly, the film flops at the end, reminding us all that even a better Disney film is still a Disney film. However, if I wasn't being so darn tough with my ratings, this would probably nab three stars. As it is, I am being tough, and this mix of the great and lame pretty much evens out to an average, alright film. My, though, this might have been great. ** 1/2
- 1/1 - The School of Rock - This film is the rare site of a movie kicking and thrashing, trying desperately not to sink beneath the bland formula it is drifting within. That it manages to keep its head above the mire is a tribute to the terrific, game cast that manages to inject The School of Rock with much more personality and fun than it really should have. Despite what industry watchers (a notoriously stunted group) marveled at, was any intelligent person really shocked that Jack Black can not only carry a comedy but elevate it? He is not alone, of course, as the kids are pretty great, even when saddled with roles more stereotypes than characters, and Joan Cusack gives the stand-by principal much more life than the script ever did. Yes, some of the lines dealing with rock music are fun, but really, it is not the screenplay which gives this formula film juice. It is the cast, and they luckily are up to the task, buoying every frame above the muddy swamp it might have splashed down into. Not a great comedy, but surely an example of how to salvage a mediocre, commonplace one with manic talent. Over-rated? Sure, but still a minor miracle. ***
Author Comments:
I'm rating the films on a zero to four star basis. No, I don't really know why. It just seems like a decent idea. ** 1/2 is average.
I like the "stars" addition to your reviews. I'm going to have to check out Freaky Friday one of these kid-movie-nights when Amelia is a bit older, but I have to admit I was secretly hoping to find your Bourne Identity review over here when I clicked through. :-)
Thank you. I'm not really sure why I decided to add the stars, but it seemed groovy at the time, and I'm very glad somebody likes it.
I almost watched Bourne, but then my wife decided she was up for going out (rare in these days of PhD. studies), so we hit the dollar theaters. Twice, in fact, as you can see.
I also enjoyed the commentary track to the Singin' in the Rain DVD I received for Christmas, but I decided not to count that as a real 'viewing'. Still, quite fun; Cyd Charisse has a voice every bit as exotic as one would hope for, and the only flaw to the comments is that Debbie Reynolds acts as a mere MC and hardly says a word herself.
Hopefully, I'll get to Bourne soon. That same friend also loaned me The Recruit (which I'm sorta dreading) and Star Trek: Nemesis (which I have no idea what to expect from).
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I found The Recruit adequate, but I have a hunch you'll find it sub-adequate. Not sure why. I completely forgot about Nemesis, so I'll have to add it to my queue, it being the only Trek movie I haven't seen yet. Oh, and we have that Singin' in the Rain DVD, but I haven't tried the commentary track yet; I'll have to check it out!
Well, I'll try to be a bit more positive about The Recruit then. I think many of my friends liked it, so it must just be the trailer that discouraged me...
I'll let you know what I thought aoubt Nemesis when I see it!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Don't go out of your way to be positive about it. "Adequate" is hardly a ringing endorsement!
True, but hey, I'm seeing it for free, so I want to like it. Considering that I really was dreading it, I'll take all the positive attitude I can muster. :o
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Oh, and I think Freaky would be great parent and child viewing, although Amelia will probably need a bit more time before she will enjoy it.
The film plays somewhat like a superior Disney Channel film, if that gives you any idea of what it is like.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
A superior Disney Channel film? I'm a little surprised you're familiar with Disney Channel movies, lbangs.
I saw one recently about a basketball team at a Jewish school, and the song they played during the suspenseful basketball scene repeated "dreidel, dreidel" over and over again. It was great in a horrible kind of way....
Ah, I have three nieces under six and a sister in the second grade. Lizzie McGuire is very popular with this crew. I have to at least try and keep up with these matters.
I missed that basketball movie, though... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
That's a good way to put it - superior Disney Channel film. While I do realize that Freaky Friday does recycle a lot of ideas, I did enjoy it and I gave it a higher rating probably becuase I thought it was going to be aweful, so I was caught off guard.
I can certainly understand that. Heck, if not from the good vibes I felt from other folks on this site, I probably wouldn't have even watched the film! It was definitely better than I expected.
Let's hope I can say the same for Pirates of the Caribbean when I see it tonight...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I hope so too! Looking forward to your Pirates review perhaps as much as your Bourne review (but neither quite as much as your Hero review :-).
Ah, too bad! I had hoped you'd enjoy Pirates more. I know I did. I'm coming to think maybe you should just stay way from the movies on my Welterweights, Tier 2 list. Pirates, The Rock, Spiderman, X-Men, etc. A veritable mine field for you! Sure, there are a few gems on there, but you've got to take your life in your hands to find them.
Of course, as I noted in my own review, I am one of the teeming masses that loved Depp in the role, but I do think Geoffrey Rush was shamefully overlooked in the movie (by me as well). I just caught a scene or two of his on screen in some store last night, and it was enough to remind me how well he did.
So you weren't tempted to say "my favorite Bruckheimer movie" and leave it at that? :-)
I do seem to have bad luck with the films on that list, don't I? (Although I liked Enter the Dragon, Face/Off, Robocop, and Die Hard at least as much as you do, I think.)
I really can't say Pirates is my favorite Bruckheimer film. I know I liked Thief (one of his first, and actually a rather good film), Crimson Tide, and Black Hawk Down (not a great film, but still...) better than Pirates. Pirates was certainly not the huge dud Pearl Harbor or Armageddon was, though, and for that, I am glad.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I knew you liked Face/Off and Die Hard, but I didn't know about the other two. Somehow I expect I'd like Robocop a bit less if I watched it today, and Enter the Dragon a bit more. It's been quite awhile on both of those. Time is a tricky thing on lists like these. Do I try to keep them a snapshot of how I felt when I saw them, or try to keep them up to date with my current tastes? I'll just keep flying by the seat of my pants, I guess.
Dang, I'm bummed I'm going to have to keep waiting for that Bourne review, but certainly I applaud your decision to put the Yokelvision copy back in the bag. :-)
Thanks for honing my anticipation of Lost in Translation! I'm quite looking forward to the DVD release of that one.
You are not the only one bummed! I usually try to keep reviews focused on the film in question, but I really had to explain why the Bourne reaction was missing. Perhaps I was pushed to it by frustration. I don't know, but I really would have rather watched Bourne than Star Trek.
I expected to enjoy Lost in Translation. I didn't expect to love it as much as I do. I can't stop thinking about it.
Believe it or not, a big screen really fits this film well, capturing the crazy huge electric mess that is Tokyo.
Interesting note: Talking with my wife (who also loved the film), I realized that many of my favorite musical artists have made killer songs about Japan and Tokyo (Bruce Cockburn's Tokyo (one of the best songs nobody outside of Canada has heard, it seems), Graham Parker's Discovering Japan, Elvis Costello's Tokyo Storm Warning). Not important, but I thought it was interesting...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
(PS - My brain must still be away for the weekend. I just previewed my post and caught around five typos. Yipes!)
There's an interesting article up at the NYTimes titled Hollywood's Land of the Rising Cliché. It mostly concerns Kill Bill, The Last Samurai, and Lost in Translation. In a nutshell:
The Washington Post has a related article (in my mind anyway) on how Japan is cool, and their pop culture exports are flying.
Maybe I'll make the trip to see Lost in Translation on the big screen, based on your recommendation. Sadly, it probably won't happen, but the chances are a bit better since Kill Bill Vol. 2 was delayed.
Thanks for the links!
I find it somewhat interesting that some folks took as jokes what I (in several instances) took to be just scenes enforcing alienation.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I feel like I've been slightly hard on Lost in Translation recently. I really did like the film a LOT (soooo close to loving it) and it really did strike me as one of the best of the year, hands down. You seemed to have liked it more than I did, but I still acknowledge that it is a very close to great film.
I really, really, really hope it manages a Best Picture nomination...I just can't see it happening for such a quiet, offbeat film.
I also hope it does, but you might be right.
I know how you feel. I think I felt that way about American Beauty. I liked it, but when several friends starting calling it one of the best films ever made, I found myself shying away...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
The story manages to be both predictable and incredibly implausible at once, which is no small feat and perhaps impressive on some meta-level, no doubt, but it certainly helps put this dog of a drama down.
Good line! I won't be seeking out Runaway Jury anytime soon.
Thanks!
Runaway Jury was bad. I was wondering why it flopped so hard, and now I know why. Sad note of trivia - that director helmed the classic Subway episode of Homicide: Life on the Streets.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, great review of All Quiet on the Western Front! I think it may be one of my favorites of your positive reviews. Your rants, on the other hand, are harder to pick a favorite from. Rants are easier to write than raves, aren't they?
Thanks!
Yes, I find it much harder to write a review that catches my love of a film than one which harnesses my hatred. It is what makes my Favorite lists so hard to finish!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Great review for All Quiet On The Western Front, one of the great movies about war along with Paths Of Glory and The Grand Illusion.
Thanks!
I hope you stick around and toss up a few lists of your own. I'm getting the feeling I'd dig 'em.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Heh, you should make a 100 Least Favorite Movies and 100 Least Favorite Albums list. Now that would be amusing.
I'm glad you enjoyed Ice Age. My gut definitely cried out "boring cheap CGI capitalizer with all the best parts in the trailer" before seeing it, and I was happy to be wrong. I've had many opportunities to rewatch that one, and while I still think it's pretty uneven, the funny stuff is funny, the cave painting scene remains wonderfully poignant (it's become one of my favorite animated scenes), and it's managed to grow on me a bit from my original warmer-than-lukewarmish reaction. I may bounce it up 2 or 3 spaces on my animated movie ranking.
I liked it. It was no Bug's Life or The Wrong Trousers, but for fear of my head, I'll tell you I enjoyed it at least as much as Monsters, Inc., the weakest Pixar film I've seen yet.
I think I wasn't really expecting to like this one, so it was a pleasant surprise.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Good write up of We Were Soldiers. Though I didn't like the film very much, the one part that was I really liked was when the three men stranded in the dark call for a flare and when it fires, we see the line of VietCong. Wow...that was so well done and shocking.
Thank you. That scene was quite effective.
I *really* expected to hate that film...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs