Change Your Image
yawn-2
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
La La Land (2016)
Something new, not really comparable to the classic American musicals
Aside from being one of the most genuinely enjoyable movies I've seen in years, La La Land is a very interesting film without any direct peers (although I suppose, in a way, it is "Whiplash After Anger Management"; it will be interesting to see if Damien Chazelle has another story in him). As others have pointed out, it's more like Jacques Demy's musicals than anything else, but it's really not much like those either and nobody under around 50 (aside from dedicated musical freaks and faithful attendees at repertory movie houses) has seen Demy anyway.
You can't compare La La Land to any previous American musical romance, not directly (the few people I've talked to who say they didn't enjoy the film insist on doing exactly that). What Chazelle has done is tweak just about every element of the classic formula for the modern audience, then integrate those elements into a very modern, very emotional storytelling form. In doing this, he's actually created something entirely new. It doesn't matter at all that his leads aren't particularly great singers or dancers and it doesn't matter at all that the score is a little thin; it's the total package that has made this movie such a stunning success with audiences. It's modern cinematic alchemy which draws on the past glories of the American musical without actually copying them. As a film it completely avoids nostalgia, even as its lead characters drown in it at times. That's quite a trick to pull off, just as it's a real achievement to employ magical elements like "dancing in the stars" with a modern audience and not get laughs where you don't want them.
By current standards, virtually all classic American movie musicals are defined by their episodic structure. About a month before I saw La La Land, I saw the TCM revival of Singin' in the Rain, which is probably the consensus choice as the most enjoyable musical of the classic era. It's also one of the very best written, but it's still a collection of outstanding production numbers linked by a plot that is almost incidental. That's perfectly fine and it's what we expect from the classic musicals; it's part of what makes them so much fun.
La La Land is a different kind of fun. It's all about its own structure; it has a story-driven flow to it and is far more dependent on strong acting than the old musicals ever were. It's not just a matter of removing mid-century corn from the script; it's built around a very modern form of storytelling that was just starting to emerge around the time musicals went out of fashion. It is much more emotional than it is technical (in its music and dance as much as in its words) and it wouldn't work at all without top-flight acting, something you definitely can't say about even the greatest classic musicals.
Since it's unlikely we are on the cusp of a glorious new age of musicals, La La Land will likely stand as a singular achievement: maybe the most emotionally realistic musical ever, while still a total escapist fantasy. I find that very often the best films are the ones that had the least chance of getting made; it's a perfect example of one.
Grand Prix (1966)
Incredibly underrated, then and now - play it over two nights
Grand Prix is ALWAYS slammed for what John Frankenheimer once called his choice to make a "Grand Hotel" picture rather than a "Test Pilot" picture, but that's got it all wrong. Except for length, this is one of the great date movies of all time: insane machines on the edge of disaster, men who makes the insane choice to go there with them, oodles of sexual politics and romance under great pressure, gorgeous...I mean GORGEOUS imagery of spectacularly beautiful places and a remarkable score to match, one of Jarre's most hummable in a long career of hummable orchestral scores. It is the most emotional movie about racing anyone is likely to make and it has been a source of sheer wonder to me why most critics dismiss it as "soap opera with gasoline" and the like. Maybe I should do a two-hour date movie cut...like almost all of the Cinerama roadshow pictures, it IS too long and that's it's one major failing. I first saw it over two nights on NBC about a million years ago; it's probably better that way. Play to the intermission, pick it up again the next night.
Except for Yves Montand, who seems to have been incapable of giving anything less than an intriguing performance, this is not an actor's showcase by any means, but everyone's OK or better and the movie is really about extreme and exotic situations involving people, rather than about the people themselves. It's a snapshot of a particular moment in European racing history that has far more dramatic potential than today's Formula 1: obscenely dangerous cars and circuits, a pre-sponsorship economic model that meant few drivers made any real money (certainly nothing close to what the risks they took were worth) and a certain c'est la vie attitude about the safety of both drivers and spectators. Only the truly obsessed played this incredibly deadly game.
Shot on 65 mm, it's probably always looked great, but on current Bluray/upscale/4K gear, it's just stunning. It quite literally looks like it was shot on top-tier digital last week. Because sports are a kind of news event, seeing the largely deceased male cast (and a great number of real drivers who later perished in crashes; the first recognizable face in the film is Lorenzo Bandini, who was killed at Monaco the following year) with this kind of visual immediacy is actually a bit disturbing. It's not like watching Citizen Kane; gorgeous as the current Bluray is, you never find yourself thinking "What's Joe Cotton doing alive?" You may very well have that thought about Jim Garner or Brian Bedford, as they look almost as if they are in a live feed from Monaco.
"Le Mans" is (probably) the best racing film ever made for racing fans. Grand Prix is the best racing film ever made for everyone.
Mister Magoo (1960)
Yes, it's awful
Trust me, there is one reason and one reason only that these incredibly lame cartoons hung around TV in syndication for decades: THEY WERE CHEAP.
The ONLY good and memorable thing about this abysmal single-season hack job is the theme music and title sequence, which are really very good and which promise infinitely more fun that you will ever actually get watching these dull, amateurish cartoons. Compared with the truly classic and apparently immortal "Mr. McGoo's Christmas Carol," this is just sheer garbage to be avoided at all costs. Proof that even superior performing talent can never, ever overcome bad writing and and cheapjack production budgets.
Damages (2007)
Slick, addictive, morally reprehensible...I love it!
In approaching this, the first thing you have to come to terms with is there are NO good guys, none, zero, zip, nada. This is a legal fantasy show set in a moral universe far closer to Tony Soprano's than Perry Mason's. Hewes and Associates isn't a real law firm: it's a professional practitioner of extortion and blackmail. Patty Hewes never goes to court because she'll do absolutely anything to destroy her opponents long before they can get her into one. We're supposed to give her a pass because she's taking on big-time corporate criminals and other easy-to-hate plutocrats. And we do...but there's this lingering bad taste you can't quite shake off and that's the real genius of the thing.
Damages may be the most morally bankrupt show on TV; it's also incredibly well-acted and despite a non-linear storytelling approach that I generally find tiring, superbly written and directed. Just don't go looking for any role models in this pit of vipers.
Hearst Castle: Building the Dream (1996)
The Anti-Citizen Kane
Well, this is the best spin ol' fascist, racist press baron Hearst will ever get on the most benign part of his life story. Since the man's lasting public image has been almost entirely shaped by Citizen Kane since the 1940's, it's probably good that something like this film is around as a modest counterpoint. Never mind that even some of the guides at the castle will tell you that the Hearst family's primary reasons for donating it to the state were more about tax avoidance than any great desire to share it with the 99%. Beautifully made and quite spectacular on the IMAX screen at Hearst Castle, I can't imagine why anyone would want to own a copy, unless there is no possibility of ever seeing it there.
Heat (1995)
Enthralling...and extremely overrated
OK...I like this movie. I like Michael Mann in general. But the idea that "Heat" is some kind of definitive crime movie is pretty silly.
It does get lots of points for being a very long movie that never really drags at all. But it would still have been much better with a half-hour (or more) cut out of it. The film school touches intended to produce an "epic" nearly all misfire; the VERY strong supporting cast somehow keeps several of them from turning into major LOL moments.
The performances of the leads are wildly overrated by IMDb members. Pacino mugs his way through this, as he does most of his films since "Scarface." DeNiro is much better but nowhere near the top of his game. People always praise Val Kilmer for "keeping up" with these icon guys, but the reality is they aren't running all that hard to begin with. That said, Kilmer is good here, as is the entire supporting cast.
Crime movies don't have to be realistic to be great (see "Sin City") but it's incredible how many people think Michael Mann makes "realistic" action films. Yeah, he's obsessed with technical details and gets them right more often than most directors. But there's just about nothing realistic about "Heat" or "Collateral"; they both exist in a make-believe LA populated by make-believe good guys and bad guys. Frankly, if you think Mann's crime films are true-to-life, then everything you know comes from movies and TV and headline news.
Don't get me wrong here; I highly recommend you see "Heat" and "Collateral" - they are both extremely well-made and pretty damn riveting. But if seeing either one is some kind of life high point for you, I'd respectfully suggest you need to get a new life.
Hustle (2004)
Big FUN! Recaptures the wit and whimsy of 60's British commercial TV
From the marvelous, absolutely thrilling opening title sequence to the vintage splitscreen shots and cliché montage tricks, this is an incredible breath of fresh air from the BBC - leave it to the state-owned broadcaster to revive and update a style that is distinctly commercial: the Lew Grade/ITC adventure shows of the 1960's.
Man, TV used to be fun! This is the first show I've seen in ages and ages that makes me feel the way I felt watching TV as a kid. Here are these incredibly cool adults doing incredibly cool things; if I were 12 today and watching this, I know I couldn't wait to grow up. What fun adults have!
The fact that there is exactly NOTHING new here never even registers, because the whole package is so sharp and intelligent. It's a real shame Hustle is on the second-tier AMC cable channel in the US; I think it could be a huge hit on HBO or even one of the networks.
Tony Jordan, you are a bloody credit to our generation. Bravo!
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Lame, as expected without Singer...or an idea for a story
After reading so many reviews of this obviously written by kids who just haven't had time to develop any real critical faculties yet, I feel very sad. So much enthusiasm for this disorganized mess depresses me, because it means the Brett Ratners of the cinema world are winning the war. It's criminal that this talentless hack was allowed to destroy what was a pretty elegant series of films.
Listen, adults: this movie isn't competent to lick the boots of either of the previous X-Men films. There is more of everything you go to movies for in the first five minutes of X2 that in the entirety of this inept pile of missed opportunities.
That said, this is not the worst movie I've seen this year, but it's certainly the most disappointing. There is so little substance to the script that even Sir Ian, probably the finest, most mesmerizing actor alive today - a man who can damn near stop time with a single glance - can't hold his character together. Imagine what a pickle the lesser mortals are in here.
Considering the remarkable quality of the first two X-Men films, this big, loud Bruckheimer-esq movie is a crying shame, but hardly an unexpected one. One hopes Bryan Singer's new Superman film is good enough that we will be compelled to forgive him for abandoning what was looking like the best series of the current comic book/superhero era.
I started glancing at my watch after only 15 minutes. Don't bother with this.
Thief (2006)
"Does not pull in the viewer?" Are you sure you're watching this show?
Four episodes in, "Thief" is an exercise in calculated tension; this is the first weekly series to grab me since season one of "The Sopranos." It feel rough, jazzy, messed up the way real life is messed up. Society would probably be better off if every single character in "Thief" were eliminated, but let's face it - "society" is not, never has been and never will be Disneyland.
Yeah, it does looks "ugly" - because it's about seriously ugly things. If you need obvious heroes in your entertainment or think everything should be shot to look like "ER", this is clearly not going to work for you.
It's not very pleasant, but it is riveting. No way I would wait for the DVD to find out what happens.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
It was 1978 and everyone in the audience was about to wet their pants
No, this is not the best film about the Vietnam War; it's hardly about Vietnam at all. The vets who don't like it have it wrong, as do the Vietnamese who found it racist. It could be any war, with any combatants. But because the (primary) victims here are recognizable American archetypes, Americans will feel this in their gut more than any other war film I know of. This is one of the very few post-war Hollywood films that shows a sincere reverence for the lives of small town Americans.
After seeing it in a very high quality theater on its initial release, I walked out thinking it was easily one of the best movies I had ever seen - and that I never wanted to see it again. But I looked at it today on cable and found that not much had changed about it, or me. I don't want to see it again...but I want you to see it.
Even now, the Russian Roulette scene (in context, people: watch all that comes before it first) is the single most intense sequence I've seen; it makes the end of "Reservoir Dogs" seem like a cartoon. Best Walken performance, period. Meryl Streep glows, DeNiro has seldom been more affecting. A unique classic...it is not surprising that Cimino didn't have another movie in him after something this wrenching.
The Last Waltz (1978)
Marty lets you watch the 60's die!
A headstone at the end of the road.
In a way, this is the film equivalent of the Rolling Stone's weary, drug-addled 70's masterpieces like "Exile on Main Street." Man, these guys look TIRED. Not one is even 40 yet, but they all sound like they are speaking from beyond the grave. It's hard to imagine that this movie has inspired anyone to pick up a guitar and go on the road. It almost comes off as a cautionary tale, a VH1 Behind the Music without the second-act redemption. The stench of drugs, desperation and defeat are truly palpable.
I think the musical performance here is somewhat overrated (most of the many great moments are provided by the guest artists, not by The Band), but as a document of a certain moment in time, this film has no peers.
Flightplan (2005)
Pretty good payoff, but a long road to get there
Here's a twist: this mainstream, totally implausible, highly derivative Hollywood film actually has an ENDING! And not a bad ending, but you have to get through a bit more than an hour of "this is a thriller, dammit!" directing before things start to gel.
Somebody like Carl Franklin, who made the highly derivative but highly entertaining "Out Of Time," might have been able to work wonders with this pretty creaky material. He certainly would have been more relaxed; this movie starts right out with all the usual cliché fast cuts and dramatic music cues that just scream "INTENSE SCARY STUFF AHEAD." Despite all that, this is one of the longest short movies I've seen in a long time. It doesn't exactly drag, but it's so similar in tone to so many other "thrillers" that it seems pretty glacial until the last 25 minutes, which are tight and fairly imaginative.
Why Jodie Foster would choose to do this claustrophobic missing kid movie so soon after "Panic Room" is the biggest mystery here. She is just fine and I guess this is the sort of strong woman role her fans like to see her in. Everybody supporting her is at least passable, but she pretty much carries the film on her own. She also looks her age and does not resemble the frightening, stoned image that has been staring down at us from billboards for the past month.
Note to airplane people like myself: you might be best off skipping this flight. Some very, very laugh inducing things happen onboard this "A474" super jumbo, which looks a lot like the Airbus A380. I especially enjoyed a freakishly convenient systems patch panel wired with...1/4" phone jacks.
The Constant Gardener (2005)
A very good book transformed into a truly great film
This is, by far, the best adaptation of Le Carre for the big screen, ever. Only the BBC's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" is in the same league. It also contains what is, for me, the first totally unqualified great performance of Ralph Fiennes. He's always been very good, but nothing he's done before matches this. He does more with less here than anybody has in a very long time. See Fiennes in this and then just try to imagine any of today's box office champ "celebrities" in the same role.
Fernando Meirelles and his screenwriter Jeffrey Caine do something remarkable here: they put the deep emotional responses of a serious reader of the novel on the screen. You have to bring your own emotion to Le Carre; he doesn't tell you how to feel. You have to get there yourself. Here the filmmakers quite literally fill in the emotional gaps in Le Carre's story and create an extraordinary work of art that operates on four or five levels at one time, building to a bitterly cynical and crushingly sad climax that is nevertheless beautiful to behold.
One of the great achievements of cinema in this decade.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
Bad. Really, really bad.
The producers of this are the luckiest people in Hollywood at the moment. Thanks to the celebrity-snogging factor, they've been saved from the box office drubbing they so richly deserved. How sad. People really are sheep.
The first hour is (barely) passable; the second is just dreary. Things explode and lots and lots of people are killed; this is just as much a video game as either of Jolie's awful Lara Croft pictures. The extended action sequence in which the married cold-blooded killers (oh...they are "professionals," so we're not supposed to notice that they are the scum of the earth) destroy their house while trying to kill each other and then play violent make-up games is utterly predictable and utterly revolting. This movie has the moral core of a New York pimp. It also has no ending, but you can say that about 2 out of 3 Hollywood movies these days.
If this were truly played for laughs it might have been a kick, like the original version of "The In-Laws" with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. But it's not funny, not by a long shot. I guess the one consolation is that, based on appearances at least, Pitt and Jolie will probably use some of their take from this pile to do something good out in the real world.
Somebody give Doug Liman a script, please. I think he may aspire to being a movie director, not just a wholesale consumer of firearms and ammunition.
Forrest Gump (1994)
Vastly overrated, but still a very good movie...but please see "Being There"
Way, way too many people think this is the greatest movie ever made. They clearly haven't seen enough movies and their idea of a great book must be something like "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Americans do tend to be a sentimental lot, fond of oversimplification and easy answers. Still, my China-born wife, daughter of a party member who didn't know ANY of the cultural or historical references when she first saw it, thinks it's the best American movie she's seen. So there is something universal and powerfully emotional here.
More than anything else, this is a work of superior craftsmanship that seems to inspire many people to read far too much into it. This is not a profound film, but it is a very well-made, highly entertaining one.
So many others have mentioned "Being There" as the smarter, meaner version of "Gump" that I'd like to add my voice to that chorus. It is a travesty that "Being There" is now largely forgotten. If you admire the structure of "Gump" make sure you get around to renting it. Hell, if you hate "Gump" get around to renting it.
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005)
Wow. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Imagine that.
This is truly extraordinary; it knocks out just about every other "teen" or "young adult" movie I've seen. But it's totally unfair to limit it by labeling it that way; it's far, far better than any other movie of any kind I've looked at so far this year.
What we have here is a phenomenal ensemble cast of young actors, each of whom is capable of rich, multi-leveled performance, a first-rate director who makes time absolutely fly, gorgeous locations and a stunningly moving series of stories that is never once mawkish or overly sentimental. It has been years since I saw a film that makes me recalibrate my own definition of "good." This one does it; right now I find it hard to believe that I actually wrote nice things about "Mean Girls."
The humanity of this film is nothing less than astonishing; there is much for anyone of any age to savor here. I sincerely wish that this does not end up being the best film any of these four remarkable actresses make in their hopefully long careers...but it's hard to imagine a better one.
A Little Romance (1979)
26 years later, still magical and a work of supreme craftsmanship
I've never been able to get this out of my head since its first release; it is one of the best films I've ever seen. I just looked at the DVD and was amazed at how many details I still remember from that first viewing 26 years ago. Gunfire-addled IMDb voters are dead wrong; this should be a 9+, but I guess it gets docked two points for having no explosions and only one shooting (with a blank pistol, which probably doesn't count).
The only "modern romances" in the same league are Richard Linklater's "Sunrise/Sunset" films, which I urge all fans of "A Little Romance" to see.
As fine as Diane Lane has been in recent films, I don't believe she's ever been as good as she is here, 13 years old and simultaneously fresh as new snow and polished as silver plate. She absolutely belonged on that TIME magazine cover. It's a miraculous performance which may owe more to director Hill than to Lane herself, but who cares? Just enjoy it...her interview feature on the DVD is excellent, by the way.
With the exception of "Marathon Man" and a couple of British TV plays, you can't find better late-period Olivier. He's simply delightful. If you are really perverse (like me), watch this and then compare with "The Boys from Brazil," a dreadful Olivier movie from the previous year, which should have qualified Sir Larry as the all-time champion "great actor working like hell while thigh-deep in pure crap." Here it's the exact opposite: the consummate old pro, totally relaxed, tossing off another memorable performance because he's in a terrific movie that he doesn't have to try and save. This is how I choose to remember the older Olivier. Another old pro, Broderick Crawford, damn near steals the movie in his too-brief cameos. He has a wonderful moment with Thelonious Bernard that will charm anyone who's dealt with an aging person's fading memory.
Arthur Hill, yet another reliable old guy, puts a nice turn on the #2 step-dad character. Who ever looked better in a business suit? The only truly unbelievable thing in the movie is that such a smart and understanding man would actually marry Sally Kellerman's vapid, starstruck mother character. Heavens, what a bitch. She doesn't deserve Arthur, and the scene in which he ejects equally vapid Potential Next Husband David Dukes from their lives is a classic of real-world, real man macho.
It's a real shame that Thelonious Bernard didn't have a film career, but if you can only star in one movie, this is a pretty damn good one for it. The iconic freeze-frame final shot of him leaping above traffic to wave goodbye is something one never forgets. It's like the alternate universe version of the last shot in "The 400 Blows."
One more thing: thank heavens there was no sequel.
National Treasure (2004)
Disney's Finest Crap for the Kiddies - I hope Harvey picked up a nice check, at least
Wake up! This is a kid's movie made with an adult budget and at least four A-list actors. On that level it's fine; my 10 year old daughter has seen it twice and loves it, but then she's at an age when something like this seems complex and clever, like Nancy Drew on steroids. Grownups should look elsewhere...but apparently many of them like it just fine here. That just flat out amazes me.
Why, why, why so many raves on IMDb for this overlong, incredibly derivative and mind-numbingly mediocre movie? I especially like all the comments by people who say "I'm not a Nicholas Cage fan but I really liked him in this." Well, I AM a Nicholas Cage fan and he isn't even trying here (which means he's still better than most living actors). See him in "Matchstick Men" to get an idea of what he's capable of, circa 2004. Similarly amusing are all the "Best since Raiders of the Lost Ark" notes. Believe me, this doesn't belong on the same planet with that classic. The Brendan Frasier "The Mummy" is vastly better than this and great fun for Indy fans, while somehow not ripping him off, at least not egregiously. Too scary for most kiddies, though.
Maybe it's just fun to watch top flight actors like Harvey K. and Jon V. go slumming like this. Maybe that's it. But I was ready for some fresh air after the first 40 minutes - and there were another 91 to go. Yawn.
Oh yeah: Diane Kruger is very, very pretty and can act to boot. Generally I tend to side with Marianne Faithful, one of the world's famous blonds herself, who once said that "All blonds are the same." Diane is a powerful exception; it would be nice to see her in something worth my time. If not my car.
The Amazing Panda Adventure (1995)
I know two people who like this movie!
Lighten up! This movie IS FOR KIDS! My 9 year old daughter and her Chinese mom really enjoyed this. The admittedly fake storyline (which could have been stolen from any of about nine million family wildlife movies) is overcome by the sheer personality of the panda cub and the terrific scenery. There are very few movies that depict either pandas or the beautiful Chinese panda reserves. The movie also shows the American contribution to the preservation of the pandas; the Chinese government wasn't doing much at all until American naturalists got involved in the 70's.
Kids will enjoy this and you crabby adults will survive it.
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Wow...this absolutely sucks compared to its own sequel!
My definition of a cinematic idiot is anyone who found "The Matrix" confusing. If you are NOT one of those people, I strongly suggest you see "The Bourne Supremacy" WITHOUT SEEING THIS FIRST. I did and I'm really, really happy about it.
"Identity" is extremely mediocre stuff, whereas the sequel is an instant classic. If you are a sharp moviegoer you'll get all the background information you need from the skillful and very clever use of flashbacks in "Supremacy." It has a better story, better acting, better music, better locations and MUCH better action. "Supremacy" also has a fresh, unique and genuinely thrilling visual style, while this is exactly like a hundred (maybe a thousand) other films and TV shows.
"The Bourne Supremacy" is essential. This movie is completely unnecessary.
The Pacifier (2005)
Pretty bad...but not exactly trash
Boy...this guy Shankman is the luckiest guy in Hollywood. Four hits in a row, despite the fact that he's an utterly incompetent filmmaker. "The Pacifier" is easily the most inept movie I've seen recently. I suppose you can place some of the blame on the script, but I think a better director, with the same material, could have easily come up with something at least fully coherent.
But...it's got a lot of nifty moments, particularly in the second half. Shankman is at least fair at directing actors; his problem is he has no idea how to put a movie together so that it adds up to more than a mishmash of scenes. This is my first experience with "The Vin" and he's just fine with this simple material. The kids are also fine, and I always enjoy Lauren Graham, who really needs to be working more. It's also a pleasure to see Faith Ford again; I hadn't seen her since her "Murphy Brown" days. And I guess Chris Potter is now the guy who gets the call when Mark Harmon's fee would blow the budget.
Nothing any normal adult should choose to see, but if your kids insist, you could do worse than this. Not a whole lot worse, mind you.
Garfield: The Movie (2004)
Good for what it is: short!
As other reviewers have pointed out, this has almost nothing to do with the comic strip, which began as an almost subversively mean and cynical enterprise, but quickly turned into a sentimental printing press, churning out unlimited money for its nearly talentless creator and associated pack of industrious marketing managers.
Trust me, this is a good thing. If you know nothing of the strip you'll probably think this is a fairly effective 80-minute giggle, as I did. It's like watching Bill Murray do a bunch of B-minus stand up material in your living room, which is a lot better than sitting through "The Matrix Reloaded" or any recent Jackie Chan movie.
Look. If you've got kids, they will probably be the reason you have to sit through this. Unlike most every other talking animal movie, there is a good chance you won't utterly hate this one.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Exceptional - the best we'll get unless somebody picks up Adam Hall's "Quiller" novels
Most spy/action movies suck hard - this is probably the best one since "Marathon Man." Super sharp, super smart with absolutely breathless action, THE best car chase of all time and a pitch-perfect supporting cast; are there any working actors better than Joan Allen and Brian Cox?
I haven't seen "The Bourne Identity" but I feel as if I have, due to the extremely skillful use of flashbacks in this film. Greengrass' "put you right in the center of the explosion" approach is perfect for this material. Fabulous score, too. This is absolutely how the spy/action genre film should be done; what are the DePalma apologists who still think "Mission: Impossible" was a good movie going to do after seeing this?
I'm surprised the movie did good business, considering the general collapse of moviegoer intelligence over the past 30 years; you must pay attention or you will be left behind. It's worth expending a few brain cells on something this accomplished.
Extracting a movie this good from the labored, uninspired writing of Robert Ludlum is quite a feat. The same team of filmmakers could create a series of superthrillers, each one more intense than the last, by grabbing the "Quiller" series by the late Adam Hall (who also wrote "The Flight of the Phoenix" under another name). The Quiller books may be the most heart-pounding espionage novels ever written.
Hitch (2005)
Another really fun movie wrecked by a rotten third act
Why? Why can't Hollywood scriptwriters come up with good endings? What IS the problem?
On the way out of this, my wife asked me how I thought it compared to "Runaway Bride." I almost burst out laughing, because both movies have EXACTLY the same problem: a pretty good or great first hour, followed by a whole string of false, cheap-jack scenes building to a highly predictable ending.
Go see this. See if you don't have a great time right up to the moment Eva Mendez visits Will Smith's apartment. See how the whole movie just falls apart from that moment on.
I'm so tired of this.
Battle of Britain (1969)
Amazing historical document, but fairly dull cinema
I remember following news of the making of Battle of Britian, and as a 10 year old airplane nut and future pilot/flying fanatic, I was stunned at the hardware that was assembled for it. But somehow I never got around to seeing it until now.
One thing is certain: nothing like this will ever be filmed again. No one could assemble the vintage airplane fleet, get the necessary government permissions and most importantly, secure the insurance!
From the Brit point of view, this has to be a national historic treasure. Amateur historians can argue over the ultimate impact of the battle on the outcome of the war; they like that kind of misery. The bottom line is that the battle was an enormously important cultural event for the British people that still resonates today. The DVD is first-rate and I'm sure no one growing up in Britain will get to age 12 without seeing it.
Many reviewers have raved about the aerial sequences; the five minute, nearly dialog-free climactic battle scene is remarkable stuff. The film is also unflinching in its depiction of the sudden, yet horribly slow deaths many of the pilots suffered, making it an unusually honest war film for the 60's.
But...wherever we're on the ground, we're struggling to stay awake. With the possible exception of Robert Shaw, no one in the enormous A-list cast makes an impression that lasts longer than a few seconds. The entire Plummer/York marital conflict subplot is not only unnecessary, it's also half-formed and never resolves; it just vanishes near the end. The movie just vanishes at the end as well, but that's in keeping with history.
If you're looking for gripping drama, look elsewhere. But if you have an interest in the history or aviation in general, you must see this.