Movies to Start off the New Year....sort of
"Sort of," because this list is actually an overlap of end-of-2006 and early-2007 movies that I saw...
NOVEMBER:
Casino Royale (2006): A-
[Note: Best Bond movie ever, in my humble opinion. For once, I feel as though I can actually understand and relate to that strange 007 psyche that I used to see as barbaric and womanizing (albeit also oftentimes witty, daring and enticing).]
DECEMBER: (Did I really only see one flick in December? Sad.)
Rocky Balboa (2006): B-
JANUARY (Don't ask why I watched these first four flicks):
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003): D+
The Punisher (2004): F-
[Note: Worst movie I've seen in a long, long time; it boggles my mind that they're making a sequel! 28% on Rotten, but I think it deserves a 0%.]
Lake Placid (1999): F
Blade II: Bloodhunt (2002): D-
Dirty Pretty Things (2003): A-
The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen (2000): B/B+
[Note: Has anyone seen both this version and the old one, who can let me know if it's worth my while to go back to the original?]
Gone With The Wind (1939): A-/A
Seabiscuit (2003): A-
The Rainmaker (1997): B/B+
United 93 (2006): B/B+
My Fair Lady (1964): B+/A-
Ying xiong, a.k.a. Hero (2002): B+/A-
Fall Reviews Thus Far
SEPTEMBER
9/11 (2006): C+
The Illusionist (2006): B
Gothika (2003): C+
Disclaimer: I'm well aware of how badly this movie was received by the critics (15% on RottenTomatoes.com), but for some reason I actually somewhat enjoyed it. Now, that's not saying I ever want to see it again, but simply that it entertained me for a couple of hours. This could be explained by the fact that I needed a break from schoolwork and this was all I could find on TV, as well as the fact that around this time I was deeply interested in some aspects of psychology, making me slightly intrigued by how they tried (poorly) to relate psychology to the horror story. And so it goes.
Casablanca (1942): A-Run Lola Run! (1998): B
OCTOBER
Secondhand Lions (2003): B-
Lagaan (2001): AIf you want to explore Bollywood cinema, I've been told this is one of the best, plus I really enjoyed it myself. On top of that, it's also a great introduction to the game of cricket.
Wise Blood (1979): B
Gettysburg (1993): B
Manchurian Candidate (1962): AJohn Q. (2002): C
NOVEMBER
Dil Chahta Hai (2001): A-
My excursion into Indian cinema continues, and is yet to be disappointed!
Born into Brothels (2004): APhone Booth (2002): B+/A-
Nowhere in Africa (2001): A-
Hamlet (1990): B
Note: This is not a knock against Shakespeare's play, but merely this filmed version of it.
Summer Reviews (Concluded)
JULY
Road to Perdition (2002): B-
American Streetfighter (1992): F
Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002): F
Mystic River (2003): A-
In the Bedroom (2001): B+
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999): F
[Note: Not a big fan of modernized versions of Shakespeare plays.]
An Officer and a Gentleman (1982): B+
Twist of Faith (2004): B+/A-
[Note: One problem I had with the film was their seeming misconstrual of what something in canon law called
"mental reservation" really is. They imply that one can not answer questions and can lie to "protect the interests of the Church." The problem is that hiding sin, as far as I can tell, would
not be in the "best interests of the Church,"
ever (even if certain Church "leaders" have wrongly thought so). Another problem comes when they get critical of people supporting the corupt church, for (as far as I know) money given to a parish doesn't go to the diocese as a whole, let alone the lawyers hired by the diocese--there is a separate fund for that. I'm not 100% sure about all of this, and it isn't to say I don't have my own problems with canon law, the Church's hierarchical structure, and most of all, the corruption. Overall though, I appreciate the film more than I criticize, and am glad the movie is getting the truth out there more than many of my own Church "leaders" are willing to do so.]
Kung Fu Hustle (2004): A-
[Note: I like to think of this film as a cross of styles between Quentin Tarentino,
The Matrix,
Crouching Tiger, and good old Asian humor.]
House of Flying Daggers (2004): B+
The Office - Season One (2005): A-
Deliverance (1972): C+
AUGUST
The Island (2005): B-
Mulholland Dr. (2001): B+/B
Enemy at the Gates (2001): B-
Waking Life (2001): C+/B-
Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001): A
June Movie Reviews
17 reviews here (way too many for one month!) for the blog that probably nobody ever checks these days. To help you understand my ratings, if a movie has a B or higher, that means that I have some interest in possibly seeing it again. If it is an A- or higher, then I'm pretty open to a second viewing. This may not apply in every case though, since sometimes really good films just don't seem worth watching again. Hope that helps.
Bowling for Columbine (2002): C+I'm torn on how to review this. As a film, it was quite entertaining and often comical. Yet, this movie also beat out what I believe should have won for best documentary that year,
Winged Migration (which I give an A rating). Additionally, while I realize no documentary is "purely objective," it's embarassing just to watch some of the ways in which Moore presents "the facts."
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004): C-As with the last one, again you have a pretty well presented and entertaining documentary. The problem comes with the facts, which I find considerably more disturbing in this film, because of the way it presents the United States and our President to American citizens and the world on such significant issues. Keep in mind also, that I never really supported Bush in going into Iraq. I'm just not a big fan of wacko conspiratorials. Additionally, I think Moore could have made a decent film with legitimate arguments criticizing the Iraq War; so, I have a hard time comprehending why he went the route he did, unless (1) he really is nuts or (2) he's a cold rational man in it for the money, and knew that the bigger the conspiracy, the greater the sales.
Under the Tuscan Sun (2003): C+I haven't read the bestselling book, but I wish I had. All I really enjoyed from the movie was Italian music and beautiful landscape from Tuscany and Italy in general.
The Godfather (1972): A+Awesome movie about the problems of evil and corruption and the difficult choices we are sometimes faced with in life. A fascinating portrail of the mafia, to say the least!
The Godfather, Part II (1974): ADespite what many critics say, I don't think this one lived up to the first (a very difficult task, I must admit). Nevertheless, it was an excellent film, raising some of the same issues as the first, just not as dramatically.
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004): DI somewhat enjoyed the first Bridget Jones, but I should have at least looked at reviews before seeing this sorry sequel. A 27% rating on RottenTomatoes.com says it all.
Closer (2004): CExcellent acting in a seemingly meaningless story just didn't do it for me.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004): B+Awesome special effects, and honestly, the history behind the film and the fact that the whole project came from the mind of a novice filmaker, led me to enjoy it even more. The story clearly could have been better, but the movie's still a good light-hearted entertainer.
The Godfather, Part III (1990): BI do agree with critics in general that this was the worst of the three, which is sad to say, because I honestly think it had potential to be as good as the first, the way the Godfather's children were brought into the story and all. What sounds nice in theory didn't play out as well in picture though.
Calendar Girls (2003): CInteresting true story. However, I didn't need to see it told over a 90 some minute film; a single page news story would have sufficed.
The Notebook (2004): A-/B+First, I must say that the book is better, but I did enjoy the movie. An excellent story about love in way I haven't seen done before.
Wilde (1997): B-I've been reading a lot of Oscar Wilde's works lately, also listening or seeing a number of his plays performed. This biographical movie wasn't as good as his writings, though it has it's good points. My main two complaints were (1) the dry acting at times and (2) lack of emphasis upon his struggles with Christianity (something even a cursory reading of his work reveals to be central to his thought).
War of the Worlds (2005): C+I've now realized this H.G. Wells' story would have been much more reasonable to folks at the start of the 20th century rather than the 21st: there are just too many problems in light of the technological developments we've had over the last 100 years. For Spielberg to go ahead then and (1) make it for a 21st century audience and (2) set in a 21st century time period, is complete idiocy. Still, the special effects were often stunning, and I must also admit that I was pretty captivated throughout the whole film, even if frustrated at times (especially by the fact that the boy didn't die after going over the hill into that inferno of gunfire and bomb explosions!).
Total Eclipse (1995): C+After watching Wilde, I decided to take on another historical portrayal of a literary figure (at the request of a co-worker), this time the famed 19th century French poet named Arthur Rimbaud (known to some especially for later influencing The Doors), focusing on his affair with fellow French poet Paul Verlaine. While I hope people know about Wilde, I have a feeling few having heard of these two men, their poetry, or their homosexual love affair. (I have a strong hunch this was the movie that led to so many calling diCaprio "gay.") Perhaps akin to
Calendar Girls, while I found the movie to be a fascinating window into aspects of the 19th century I knew little or nothing about, I didn't need a feature-length film on it, at least not one of this quality. Their poetry may be excellent, but as Ebert I think notes correctly, "To write great poems is a gift. To be interesting company is a different gift, which neither Verlaine or Rimbaud exhibits in
Total Eclipse. [Note: both were often incredibly obnoxious, rude, and seemingly prideful gentlemen] One admires the energy and inventiveness that Holland, Thewlis and DiCaprio put into the film, but one would prefer to be admiring it from afar."
Superman Returns (2006): B/B-I think I'm giving this one a better review than the majority, perhaps because I'm often partial to comic-based films. My initial thought simply was that, while it wasn't great, it was good enough to see again in the future, but that might just be nostalgia taking affect. Any fuller review for this one, including a possible grade change, will have to wait until I've watched the very first Superman (and perhaps the second), which I haven't seen since I was a kid.
Big Fish (2003): B-Okay, this post is getting lengthy, so I'll keep these remaining two reviews short and sweet.
Big Fish was a creative story, full of imaginative tales to wonder at, and definitely worth seeing once, but I didn't find anything in the film that was so lasting that it'd be worth viewing again. Still, it was enjoyable in its own way.
Super Size Me (2004): BThis was a solid documentary that was both informative (and largely fair in its presentation of the facts--take note, Mr. Moore) and entertaining. I highly recommend it, though I see little need to watch it again for myself. Oh, and by the way, I had a nice medium McDonald's french fries while viewing this one, and I savored every bite!
All of that being said, the moral of the story appears to be, I need to start watching better movies! Any recommendations people? (Steve or Brad, I'd really like to get that list Steve put together--please email it too me if you can.)
May Movie Reviews
The Last Sammurai: B+ [Edit: grade dropped to a B]This one is difficult to rate. Ever since my Modern Japan history class several years back, I've been interested in the Japanese and their entanglements with "the West." While I don't think this film lives up to it's Western frontiers counterpart
Dances with Wolves, it's nonetheless a very beautifully done film. Definitely worth it just for the gain of a better sense of the attrocities of Western imperialism as well as the intriguing lifestyle of the Sammurai. I probably would have chosen a different actor than Tom Cruise though.
Alexander: B- [Edit: grade dropped to a C]This one gets a B-, mainly just because it was different, kind of like the first time you watched Hercules or Xena on TV. (After all, who isn't half interested in ancient Greek history and legends.) Yet when it comes to the actual acting alone, this movie would easily drop a whole grade. Still, it's worth seeing just to get a very general (and Hollywood-style) picture of the life of Alexander, one of the great military leaders in world history.
A Beautiful Mind: ABy far the best of the movies I've watched in May, Ron Howard does an excellent job at taking an incredible true story and making an amazing (and inspiring) motion picture out of it. Being the sucker for "movies that make you think" that I am, I couldn't help getting drawn into this one, and it's probably the only one on this list that I'll definitely give another watch to somewhere down the line.
Chariots of Fire: B-Surprisingly, this is the first time I've ever seen this film. I know it won an academy award for best picture in 1981, but frankly I was a little disappointed, most of all because the famous theme music that everyone has heard before is only played once in the entire movie...at the very beginning! You'd think they could have used it at least once more, perhaps towards the end during the final races at the Olympics, but no. Despite this, the acting was decent and the true story an inspiring one (even if again, not entirely accurate). It's a classic that everyone should see once.
Johnny English: DOh dear...I don't want to be reminded of this one. I had a bad feeling when checking it out from the local library, yet I watched it nonetheless! Why? What possessed me?! Please, I beg of you, do not watch this movie. It will kill brain cells.
That's all for now then. I apologize for all incoherencies in these remarks, but I'm not taking time to review them.
Coming next month:
Big Fish,
Bowling for Columbine, and much, much more...
Recent Viewings
Wallace & Gromit -Curse of the WerewolfWhat an endlessly imaginative and funny film. A.
Thumbsucker Lousy protagonist, but decent supporting roles. C.
Match PointIncredible, depressing, philosophically wretching. A.
Brokeback MountainOverrated and, well, sort of boring. C.
Green Street
One of the many brutal fight scenes in "Green Street"This movie (released to about 10 screens in the US under the name "Green Street Hooligans") depicts life as a member of a football 'firm', which is what the Brits call a gang of football fans who have a penchant for violence. To understand the nature, I'll explain a quick bit of history. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, football grounds had no seating, there were only railings, known as terraces, where fans would stand and watch the entire game. If you were in a visiting team's firm, the goal was to rush over to where the home fans were standing and 'take over' their area, by violent means if they didn't run straight away. Successful invasions from the away supporters would help them gain respect from other teams, just as a home team successful defending their area or running the away fans out.
Obviously, due to the amount of violence this caused, it is no longer an occurance in football stadiums. But as a consequence, the firms (which still do exist in the dark alleys and pubs of England) have moved into the streets. Specifically, "Green Street" is about an American college student who was wrongly kicked out of Harvard and through coincidental circumstances falls in with West Ham United's firm, the Green Street Elite (yes, the very team I went and saw and whose ground is the picture of my Facebook profile. I didn't see any hooligans though).
The film is, of course, very brutal and contains several extended scenes of graphic violence, but it's also very true in some senses. I don't think firms are as prevalent as they used to be, and you never see articles in the papers about hooligans anymore, but I'm sure they still exist. The truthfulness comes though, from the fact that some kid could just fall in with them and get wrapped up in it. As was clearly shown by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, humans are, at their essence, animals. And when the law isn't close at hand or you've had a few pints, they can often revert to that sort of behavior.
Ebert makes a great point in his review that at first he was thinking of all of the different people who would have been better for the part of an American who goes to England and gets in fights all the time than Elijah Wood, but then he realized that was exactly what the movie was about. Any normal person could fall into the same trap that Wood's character does, and it's that much more realistic when its an innocent-faced, unsuspecting actor like Elijah Wood.
