Change Your Image
RFSJ
Reviews
Reacher (2022)
It kept me surprised!
I haven't read any of the books and I don't think I saw the Tom Cruise stuff either. So the plot and characters were new to me. I found I enjoyed it a lot. Pacing was pretty good, and I only had to go back once or twice to get a bit of exposition or watch an important seen over again. I love that the good guy wins in the end, as it should be. I must admit I think that Alan Ritchson is so handsome and hunky and nice in this that he's almost Superman-esque. Not that I mind! I did think the sex scene was gratuitous (was it in the book?) but done nicely. The shots of Reacher under the shower definitely were gratuitous - here's to all the ladies and gay dudes watching, it seems to say. Great fight scenes, truly surprisingly evil villains, perfect for my vacation away.
The King (2019)
Historical Inaccuracy Is Too Much
This film starts out well by depicting Hal and Thomas, the sons of Henry IV Lancaster, and how Hal assumes the throne. The first third is fine. However. The supposed machinations to get Henry V to go to war in France are so wildly off the mark as to ruin the movie. Much of the Battle of Agincourt itself was depicted accurately. But the Dauphin was not present, and he did not challenge Henry to single combat. The King did not personally surrender to Henry either. There was no assassination attempt on Henry historically, and both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Justice were loyal and favorites of Henrym unlike in the movie. Oh, and in the royal Court bishops do not wear mitres- that's only in church services.
Mambo Italiano (2003)
Cute, but strangely passé
I just saw this film in Jan. of 2007. Perhaps that's why I was disappointed. I admit I found it a bit derivative. It reminded me of the move and play _Jeffrey_ of 1995. But that's secondary. The most disappointing thing to me was the ending. (Warning: spoiler alert) In the end, it seemed to me that the going-back-in-the-closet-and-marrying-a-woman by the hunky and gay Nino was shown in a dismayingly approving, or at least accepting, way. Even though there's a hint of straying on Nino's part, the overall impression seemed positive. I was saddened by this. That's not a message I want to see in an otherwise gay-affirming movie. Yes, the movie was done in 2003. Yes, the comparison with the lead Angelo was effective. Yes, Angelo reconciles with his family and gets a new boyfriend. But couldn't Nino struggle and then finally accept who he is? Although suppressing who you are seems so "Boys in the Band," in this movie, that's apparently perfectly OK.
Batman Begins (2005)
I like it!
Batman Begins does a good job of setting the stage - it's plausible and believable. I hadn't heard much about it one way or another, and I was pleasantly surprised. I found it a bit long in places, but not overly so. The setup for the proximate conflict took a little bit getting into, but the surprise about two-thirds along was very well managed. The time lines are straightforward - not a lot of confusing jumping back and forth. Christian Bale showed just the right depth for Bruce Wayne. Michael Caine was his usual excellent self, and Morgan Freeman was a delight. I did not guess who Sgnt. Gordon was until the credits.
Time to go back now and see the first one - does the Batman saga do better than Star Wars at continuity?
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Definitely Left an Impression-of What, I'm Not Sure Yet!
I just saw the 4 PM showing - it was full, the newscrews are out in Midtown, and most showings are sold out. Like other reviewers, I'm having a hard time putting my arms around it. Some initial thoughts:
1. Although mostly biblical, there are some licenses taken, one of which I find very disturbing: Jesus is never recorded as saying to Pilate anything like "I do not blame you, but the one who sent me to you." It's not a throwaway line, and 'way too much mischief can be made out of it. It should not have been included.
2. The conflation of the 4 Gospel stories is somewhat problematic for me, since each wrote with a specific theological point of view, and none intended to be primarily or onlybiographical. All agree on Jesus and that he was tried and executed, but the point of view is in the details of each Evangelist's text, and that is muddied a lot in this treatment.
3. The Resurrection is almost just glossed over, when in fact it, together *with* the Crucifixion, is the central Christian story about Jesus. Crucifixion without Resurrection is merely a politically expedient death; Resurrection without Crucifixion doesn't make any sense. *Both* are needed and are essential to understand Christ.
4. I was dismayed that the proclamation in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, by the centurion that Jesus was indeed God's Son, was missing from this movie. For a film purportedly made to proclaim Christ as Lord, to miss the fact that a foreigner actually is the one who gets it (in Mark, everyone else has fled) is a key theological point that would have added much.
Having said all that, my current vote is provisional, based mostly on production values, which are extremely realistic. A revised vote based on the film's content will have to come later.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Shocked and Appalled
I'm absolutely amazed at those reviewers who liked this movie. Both my companion and I thought it was a complete waste of time and money. Hackneyed plot, terrible editing and production values, trite effects, all combined to produce a movie that we both would have walked out of, except there were people on either side of us in our aisle.
This isn't even good enough for straight-to-video.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
A Rather Good Update!
Without giving away too many details, this was an excellent update and extension of the original story written by Bram Stoker and alas, never very well filmed in my opinion. There are a lot of great references to the novel, such as when Dracula says, when offered something to drink, (wait for it....) "I never drink....coffee." (!)
I also thought the plot extensions from the original were plausible as well. One may quibble about the theology of the explanation behind how Dracula came to be, but it does hold together. Part of the problem in resurrecting Dracula is that he very clearly and completely dies at the end of the novel, so one either has to pretend that didn't happen at all, or posit some way in which Dracula returns anyway notwithstanding his demise back in 1896. The screenplay does an OK job of this; watch the movie to see exactly how.
Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss (1998)
Poignant, funny, and oh-so-true!
I recommend this movie to anyone, gay or straight, who has had an unrequited love. Everyone will be able to empathize with Billy as he does ever more pathetic things to be with his love. It's poignant and sad, but also joyous and funny. See it with a friend or lover! The acting is superb, and the fantasy scenes are well-crafted. Some of the stereotypes are a bit broad, but only enough to let you see them for exactly what they are.
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)
Well-crafted, beautiful
A beautiful and well-crafted film with a fine screenplay. The Musketeers are excellent, and the historical details rich and elegant. The scenes of the King's palace are sumptuous! My only quibble is with Dicaprio - as Phillipe he was excellent, but his portrayal of Louie was somewhat weak. Leo has a hard time being truly cruel - perhaps he will grow into it. Other than that, a great movie - action, intrigue, suspense, and sex - so what that it's set in 17th century France?