Change Your Image
ndrwdyng71
Reviews
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
Just awful
This movie was so bad that it was actually painful to watch. Honestly, it's so over-the-top and outlandish that it's even impossible to enjoy this movie as a mindless pleasure. I would have forgiven the terrible dialogue and the worthless plot if the action was good, but it wasn't. The action in DESPERADO was ten times better. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO, it wasn't even always clear what was going on, and at times it seemed more like caroon violence than anything else.
Avoid at all costs!
Notorious (1946)
My favorite Hitchcock
Call me crazy, but NOTORIOUS has always been my favorite Hitchcock film. Not the most suspenseful (I think that title belongs to REAR WINDOW) not the most disturbing (PSYCHO, without a doubt), not even the most psychologically complex (VERTIGO, duh), just my favorite. It's just a genuinely entertaining film, a mildly suspenseful one, but with a love story that puts it above and beyond the rest of Hitchcock's masterpieces.
The scenes between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman are, let's face it, hot. Hard to imagine by today's standards, but it's true. And their love, compelling as it is, made me emotionally involved in the thriller. It's full of great shots, great scenes, but two stand out: The scene at the party and the final scene. Perfection.
Highly recommended.
Bringing Out the Dead (1999)
probably one of Scorsese's best
This film is grossly underappreciated. This represents director Martin Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader at their best. They gave us classics like TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, but they've outdone themselves here. Yeah, it's a masterpiece, but one that's not easily accessible.
Nicholas Cage plays Frank an ambulance driver who hasn't saved anyone in months, a man who is feeling guilty and about to break under the weight of the suffering and sorrow he sees in New York City. Scorsese, always working with religious sensibilities, turns this film into a three day descent into the underworld, with Frank being raised to life on the third day, just like Jesus was.
No story to speak of, but then that's the point--the lives of ambulance drivers are largely plotless. It's got the same strengths as other Scorsese classics--visually stunning, uncompromising in its portrayal of the darker side of human nature, and a dead-on portrayal of people at their most desperate. Add to that an almost dreamlike quality that makes the streets of New York look like some metropolitan hell. The thing that sets this film apart, however, is a genuine compassion for its characters. Scorsese's an excellent filmmaker, but he could sometimes be accused of portraying his characters a little coldly. This film is all heart, all the way through. This is the Scorsese of TAXI DRIVER and MEAN STREETS, the Scorsese who takes chances on projects that really mean something, the Scorsese that was missing in GANGS OF NEW YORK.
Fargo (1996)
A black comedy with heart
The Coen brothers are obviously skillful filmmakers, but it wasn't until FARGO until they revealed themselves as true artists, with something very valuable to say about the human condition.
From the opening shot to the end credits the Coens unfold their story with uncharacteristic confidence. A car drives through the snow to a haunting violin anthem. An awkward man meets with two criminals and asks them to kidnap his wife.
And the rest of the movie lives up to these first scenes, combining a cold filmmaker's eye with a real human heart. FARGO has what a lot of other Coen films are missing: sincerity. BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLER'S CROSSING, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY--they're all skillfully made and very unique, but really cold. Here, they've found the perfect balance--a satire of small town Midwestern life, a cool noirish plot, but some really devastating characters.
Jerry Lundegaard, for example. The guy's funny, but desperate, and you actually feel for him. But most of all in Margie Gunderson and her husband--wow, what a great addition to an already great film. Marge's a good person without being boring, and through Marge's eyes, the Coen's cold, ironic take on most stories is redeemed. In the end, FARGO is a film that does more than just impress. It moves the audience, ends up being an experience that they will never forget.
Blue Velvet (1986)
Stylish but empty
Consider the opening scenes of BLUE VELVET. A shot of red flowers against a white picket fence. A firetruck passes, a riding fireman waving at the camera. A man waters his lawn--but wait!--he's hurt, and his beautiful lawn his hiding a community of disgusting vermin.
No doubt about it, Lynch's got style. Most of his movies are masterpieces of style, and the guy knows how to get a reaction out of his audience. But is that enough? BLUE VELVET is all style and no substance--it's got great shots, a genuinely scary villain, some funny and some not-so-funny dialogue, but when you strip away all the artifice you merely have a movie with no soul. And that would be all right, it really would, if it weren't for the troubling themes that the movie unearths.
Jeffrey (Kyle McLachlan) returns to Lumberton, the idyllic town of his youth, and finds a severed ear in a field. The ear is his entrance into the underworld that lies beneath the false paradise of his small town, an underworld populated by nightclub singer Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) and the bogeyman, Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper). Frank has kidnapped Dorothy's husband and child, and is using his leverage to force Dorothy into a kinky S&M routine.
All this is stylishly filmed and intercut with a small-town satire. Lynch keeps us at arm's length, never letting us get too close to his characters. Every time they reveal an unexpected depth, we are kept off balance by the lighter side of the film--some really absurd and humorous dialogue or some shallow message of hope by the perky blonde Sandy (Laura Dern).
But wait a minute--there's a woman being sexually abused here. Not only that, but she seems to like it, asking Jeffrey to hit her. And Jeffrey is pulled into the sadomasochism too, actually obeying Dorothy's wishes. Lynch is pulling us into some serious stuff here, but why? What does it all mean?
In the end, nothing. Lynch is just doing what he does best: pushing our buttons. Pushing them skillfully, to be sure. But I'll be honest--that doesn't really do it for me. I don't care if the guys got skill; I want to see him treat his characters with the respect that they deserve. I want him to take the darkness in this film seriously, not gloss it over with some humorous Mayberry stuff or a trite dream about robins and some lesson about love.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Hypnotic, but essentially worthless
Ok, Ok. I admit it, this film had me riveted from start to finish. It's hypnotic, really, and many of the images are genuinely powerful. My problem is that, while Lynch is clearly a talented director with a sense of the power of film, he wields his power irresponsibly.
What we have here is a movie that is hypnotic but essentially meaningless. And I'm not saying that it's confusing. On the contrary, as I watched, many different explanations suggested themselves to my mind. But it would be a waste of time. Lynch himself acknowledges the inherent meaninglessness of it all with a conspiratorial wink--"no hay banda." There is no band. The whole thing is just artifice.
There are those of you who will say, "But wait! I've figured the whole thing out! Just listen!" To you I simply say, "Silencio!" What about all the others who think they have everything figured out, and their interpretation is completely different than yours. And even if you've managed to figure out the "right" interpretation, what does it matter? It's still just a mind-game, a visual Rubic's cube with absolutely no insights on the human condition.
Lynch has said about his paintings that he's really just going for a reaction from his audience. And he's doing the same with his films. Well, he certainly got a reaction out of me, but who cares? What happens after I recover from my initial reaction? This film is all surface and no depth. I'll stick with Lynch's "The Elephant Man" or "The Straight Story," films where Lynch knows the power of film and uses it responsibly.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)
How could they possibly have adapted Unbearable Lightness of Being?
This movie is competent on its own merits. Good performances all around, slow, thoughtful directing style, etc. However, although the film is faithful to Kundera's storyline, it is still not faithful to the spirit of the book. You can't really blame the movie--after all, the book was almost completely unadaptable.
The book was all about events followed by philosophical discussion. The philosophy and explanation of events is completely lost in the movie. Please, if you want to experience the full depth of THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, read the book before you watch the movie.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
A movie for the young and the young at heart
At a lengthy 2 plus hours with intense fight scenes aplenty, this movie doesn't exactly seem like kid stuff. Don't be fooled. Like the Disney Land ride that inspired it, this is a movie that can be enjoyed only by the young and the young at heart. Aged cynics should see something else. This is a movie for all the men and boys who have ever dreamed of making women swoon by skillfully wielding a sword, all the women and girls who have ever dreamed of being saved by a dashing young man.
Leave logic at the door, because like all those childish fantasies, this movie exists for the thrill of the moment, the clash of swords, cheeky one liners, and a bombastic score. The whole thing would be completely ludicrous if not for the performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush, who give a little class to the whole affair. They handle the material by going completely over the top, and winking conspiratorially at the audience as they do it. In his portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow, Depp combines equal parts drag queen and fiersome pirate to arrive at a character that captured my attention every moment he was on the screen. Geoffrey Rush isn't as good, but is good enough as the evil Captain Barbossa. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly get to play it straight, while simultaneously giving audience members something pretty to look at.
The plot is too complicated to adequately summarize in a short space, and why bother? The plot is inconsequential anyway, serving merely as a means for these actors to fight with their swords, swing around on ropes, and go broke for laughs. If you wanna enjoy this one, you might as well just let go and get in touch with your inner child. You'll be glad you did.
The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys (2002)
Better than it may seem at first glance
THE DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTAR BOYS is the latest in a long tradition of coming-of-age stories, and a pretty good one at that. It sticks true to the formula, but pushes the envelope at the same time.
What's unique about this film is that it forces its audience to grow with the main character, Francis Doyle. At the beginning of the film, Francis lives in a pretty carefree world of going to Catholic school and hanging out with his friends, and that is the world that the audience lives in for the first 20 minutes or so. It looks like kid stuff, but don't be fooled--there's some real darkness and depth just around the corner. Francis discovers about life, death, love, and pain, and all these revelations surprise the audience just as much as they surprise Francis.
Live action in the movie is interposed with the comic book adventures of Brakken and the Muscle, the superheroes who are Francis and his friend Tim's alter egos. It's a wonderful addition, adding a physical journey to Francis's confusing emotional journey.
All in all, a very competent film, made more so by wonderful performances from Kieran Culkin, Jena Malone, and Emile Hirsch.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Where bold filmmaking becomes excess
Well, it's finally happened. Martin Scorsese's gone completely over the top. There were signs of it happening in his other films--each one contained some sort of gore-fest, but they were all tempered by the compassion it had for its characters, the desire for redemption that was evident in Travis Bickle, Jake LaMotta, and sometimes even the hoodlums in GOODFELLAS.
What we have in GANGS OF NEW YORK is just nastiness for its own sake. Nastiness beautiful choreographed, skillfully captured on film, but mere nastiness nonetheless.
Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Di Caprio) returns to the Five Points district looking for revenge on Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis), the gang leader who killed his father years earlier. The Five Points houses the scum of New York, thieves, murderers, and rapists apparently lurking around every corner. The story starts to take off when Amsterdam becomes one of Bill's trusted colleagues. Matters are complicated by the fact that Amsterdam seems to have some genuine affection for the Butcher.
Any depth, however, is effectively lost under the rivers of blood that flow in this film. I'm not usually offended by violence, but how is anyone going to get anything out of this film if they have to cover their eyes half the time?
The Amsterdam/Cutting plot is intercut with New York politics, and these two stories both come to a head during the famous Draft Riots, filmed in Scorsese's typical kinetic style. It's a magnificent spectacle. But what are we supposed to make of the whole thing? Trailers inform us that "America Was Born in the Streets." The draft riots were a shameful chapter in America's history, not just an act of social uprising, but a chance for many angry New Yorkers to commit heinous acts of violence against African Americans. So you're telling me that Scorsese submits me to two plus hours of gruesome violence and then informs me that out of such filth America was born? Please.
Red Dragon (2002)
It's not "Silence," but it's still a skillful thriller
RED DRAGON is a blessed return to form for the Hannibal Lecter stories, closer to the spirit of the masterful SILENCE OF THE LAMBS than the embarrasing HANNIBAL. It's no work of art--this film isn't nearly as emotionally compelling as SILENCE, but it's still pretty good, and it manages to do something that HANNIBAL couldn't: to thrill the audience.
In much the same position as Clarice Starling is Will Graham, aptly played by Edward Norton. Graham is the FBI investigator who uses Lecter's help in finding a serial killer. The killer is "The Tooth Fairy," made both terrifying and sympathetic by Ralph Fiennes wonderful performance. He's so mesmerizing that you won't even notice when Lecter's not on the screen.
His character, however, is the most compelling in the movie. Hopkins and Norton, along with Emily Watson as the Tooth Fairy's love interest, give powerful performances but nothing like what we saw in SILENCE. Graham is a good protagonist but he's no Starling, and RED DRAGON doesn't treat it's characters, especially the victims, with the same compassion that we saw in SILENCE.
Comparisons aside, RED DRAGON succeeds as a thriller on its own merits. The atmosphere is wonderfully gothic, and there are a lot of really tense moments. Like I said, Fiennes is so compelling that the rest could suck and it would still be a pretty good movie!
Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (2001)
Life's a bitch and then you die
I'd say that about sums up 13 Conversations About One Thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie, it's just depressing as hell.
Which is surprising, considering that the "One Thing" is supposedly happiness. The writing is skillful to be sure, and the cinematography, although never flashy, is always wonderfully controlled. New York's never been more beautiful. The film follows a cast of characters through their lives in New York as their stories intertwine and follow similar themes. Each character tries to find happiness in his or her own way, and each has his or her own unique view of the world.
At the end, however, in typical existentialist fashion, none of these views or approaches to happiness is heralded as "the one true view." Instead, we are left with a hopeless, deterministic world where people are pushed around by impersonal forces, and the assurance that "you gotta believe in something" if you expect to make it through the day.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Oscar Wilde is probably rolling in his grave...
...along with Mark Twain, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, and the rest. Making Dorian Gray into a hero? Give me a break. And if they're going to insult a literary tradition like that, they should at least make the movie good. But it's not.
It'll be enjoyed by people who like to hear Connery utter such inane phrases as "The League is set" and "The game is on," but if these dialogue gems don't get your blood pumping, you probably won't enjoy this movie. The action is completely over the top and unbelievable, especially some of the scenes in Venice. Just painful to watch, really.
Skip the movie and go check out the books from your local library. Get to know these characters as they were truly meant to be, not dumbed down by Hollywood for general consumption.
Flatliners (1990)
Great premise, poor execution
The premise--a group of medical students resolve to, effectively, kill and then rescusitate each other in order to research the afterlife. Let's face it, this is a very fascinating premise for a movie, brilliant even, but unfortunately the rest of the movie does not live up to expectations.
There are so many issues here that are raised quite early in the film. The ethics of doing something like this, for example. The nature of death and the existence of an afterlife. God, even. But FLATLINERS, as if it was too afraid of the questions it was asking, abandons ship and opts for a run-of-the-mill supernatural thriller plot instead.
Don't get me wrong--as supernatural thrillers go, it's pretty skillful. The med school where most of the movie takes place is wondefully creepy, as are most of the settings and art direction for the rest of the film. However, because of the intriguing setup, most viewers will be left cold--the film just doesn't deliver on its promises.
Another fatal flaw is the repetition of the rescusiation scenes. This was suspenseful the first time, but each subsequent time it loses a lot of its punch. To combat this, the screenwriters jack up the risk a litle bit every time, nudging our heroes closer and closer to death. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.
This one's not worth it, but I would like to see a remake. One that's a little more intelligent, perhaps?
Adaptation. (2002)
A study of the value of storytelling
What an amazing film. On the surface it just seems like a really strange, tricky movie, one of those mind-bending, self referential things. Charlie Kaufman sets out to adapt a book called The Orchid Theif, but instead writes himself into the screenplay as the story spins out of control. Look a little deeper--Kaufman's not just saving face, he's exploring the struggles inherent in storytelling, and eventually finding the reason why he goes to all the troulbe anyway.
To tell a story, and to tell it well. Is it worth doing? That's the question that Charlie Kaufman must answer if he is going to finish his screenplay. He struggles, loses hope, finds different angles on the material, but finally gets it right. Brilliant script, excellent performances--we can forgive Kaufman for being a litle self indulgent, can't we?
Magnolia (1999)
The kind of movie that gets better every time you watch it
I think the thing I like most about Magnolia is that it's the kind of film that grows with you. Weaving together the stories of several compelling characters, the film develops themes that are as big as life itself: sin, pain, forgiveness, and redemption. At its conclusion, it leaves the audience with no easy morals or ideas to come away with, instead forcing them to reach their own conclusions. As a result, this is a movie that I can watch time and time again, gleaning new ideas and insights from it as I grow and become more mature myself. Give it a chance, it might be able to do the same for you.
Wonderful script, masterful direction, and brilliant performances aplenty. Also a wonderful soundtrack from underappreciated musician Aimee Mann. Give it a try, and prepare to be disturbed, shocked, and yes, even uplifted.
Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)
Interesting but unfocused
This movie is good in parts but absolutely terrible in others. It's got all the ingredients for a potentially good move. A great cast (especially Walken in one of his creepiest roles yet), an interesting premise, and some really great dialogue. Yet, the parts never quite combine into any sort of a whole. What this movie needs is some focus. There is far too much time wasted on unneccesary subplots.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Possibly one of the greatest of all time
Pulp Fiction is brilliant in almost every shot, every line of dialogue. Tarantino really filled this film with some wonderful touches, the quirky and profane dialogue, truly outlandish situations, and larger-than-life characters. You can tell that he really loves film--it just seems like the guy loves making movies and wants his audience to have fun, too.
The thing that really sends this film above and beyond others is the human heart beating at the center of this very rough film. In Vincent, Jules, Mia, and Butch, we have a cast of characters who approach the world with a definite sense of irony and cynicism. Yet, Tarantino tempers these sharper elements with some genuine human emotion: love, longing, and the desire for redemption. Highly reccomended.