kanerazor Reviews

Iron Man (2008)

A blast-one of the best comic book movies!

[9/10 · 30 April 2008]

Iron Man provides about as much fun as one could ask. While it lacks the emotional punch of films such as Superman: The Movie or Batman Begins, the film has many virtues going for it and could be enjoyed any number of times.

The movie has some of the most visually inventive special effects I have ever seen. Watching all of Tony's inventions come to life consistently put a smile on my face. Plus the humor in the film is considerable. Jon Favreau knows how to brighten a viewer's day, and the film never ceases to be a joyous crowd pleaser.

The cast adds to Iron Man tremendously. I'm not usually a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she knew how to add spice to the role of the loyal love interest and she shared great chemistry with the hero. Terrence Howard makes a strong right hand man; all of Tony's goofy indulgences were made that much more entertaining by the contrast with his responsible, endearingly square best friend. Plus the caring bond between the two of them gave the film more heart. Jeff Bridges isn't given the kind of memorable villain role the likes of Willem Dafoe and Terence Stamp have gotten in the past. The movie is sometimes too light for its own good and the good vs. evil battle is not that compelling. However, Bridges is one of the best actors in history and he still manages to create a character we love to hate. Of course the most entertaining supporting character may have been the robot...

However the unquestionable star of this show is Robert Downey Jr., who elevated the film to another level entirely using his magnificent charisma. I found myself wanting to applaud Tony Stark even when he was at his most hedonistic, because he was just that charming. And when he chose to be a superhero, you'd be hard pressed to find someone you'd want to root for more. Downey of course proved himself to be too human in the past, but after years of his being clean his talent has finally taken over and brought him the role of a lifetime.

Here's hoping Iron Man lives on forever and its gifted star is only beginning his reign as a major Hollywood force!

The Ruins (2008)

Fun, sexy horror film

[8/10 · 6 April 2008]

The Ruins is a tense, consistently entertaining scare flick that will give all horror fans their money's worth. The early scenes of the film don't add too much, b/c it's obvious where the story's gonna go, but none of the scenes are boring and it is necessary that we know the characters somewhat in order to care about their plight.

Once the action shifts to the archaeological site, the intensity never really lets up. We feel the characters' nonstop fear, as they seemingly have no way out of their predicament and they're being attacked by something they don't know in ways they are virtually powerless to anticipate or prevent. While it does become a little easy to predict the story towards the end, that doesn't keep The Ruins from being a really fun popcorn flick.

One thing to my fellow male fans: in this era of political correctness and PG-13 ratings, I have no qualms about lauding The Ruins for its nudity. The hot blonde girl shows everything, while the only male nudity is virtually subliminal:)

Cloverfield (2008)

Tremendous thrills!

[9/10 · 15 January 2008]

Some people have derisively compared this film to The Blair Witch Project because it was all told from the point of view of someone's shaking camera. Unless you have motion sickness, I don't think that's a bad thing. What matters is who's in front of the camera. While The Blair Witch Project featured annoying people screaming at each other, this movie actually made me care about the characters. In fact if it had continued with the romantic drama tone established during the first half hour, I STILL think it would have been worth watching and that's the biggest compliment I can give it.

Of course people will be watching this movie for the visceral pleasure and Colverfield delivers. Many thrilling visual and sound effects wowed me (there were a few times I yelled out in shock at a sudden scare). Any horror film will also benefit from a sense of entrapment and this movie pulls off the seemingly impossible feat of making New York City seem claustrophobic because there was seemingly nowhere to hide from the monster.

What is the monster? Whatever it is clearly is meant to be an allegory for the carnage 9/11 inflicted on New York, much the same way Godzilla was meant to be an allegory for the damage inflicted on Japan by the atom bomb. There are moments seemingly recreating the documentary footage from 9/11, and they give the film verisimilitude. Touching upon real life horror, plus creating characters that we can relate to and care about, and assaulting our senses with incredible sights and sounds leads to entertainment worth watching many times over. Perhaps the 80 minute run time will bother some people, but on the other hand I think that's better than a film wearing out its welcome. Great job J.J. Abrams and company!

Cinderella Man (2005)

Disappointingly routine sports biopic

[6/10 · 11 June 2005]

While I enjoyed this movie very much watching it, it's resonated with me so little I'd tell anyone who asks that it's just okay. I'd give it a slight recommendation, but only as a period piece, b/c it does a somewhat moving job recapturing the feel of the Great Depression. The characters are so flat I felt like I never even met them. The hero is just a complete saint and the villain so evil he brags about the fact that he killed an opponent. And of course, the hero must win so that he can keep his angelic family together and happy. When they pile stuff on like that, of course it's completely obvious what's gonna happen.

Perhaps some more focus on Braddock's career would have established him as an underdog much better. As it is, we see his early great days, then jump ahead to the depression where we see how much pain his family's in, and when he decides to box again it's mentioned in passing how his career went downhill after one fight. We do see a fight where he does poorly, but that's not enough. The championship match is apparently the greatest upset in boxing history, and I wasn't getting that vibe at all.

Perhaps some more focus on the depression would have been better. Paddy Considine had a memorable supporting character, but he's barely there. I think some newsreel clips or some more stuff in the "Hoovervilles" would have been great. The tagline says Braddock brought America to its feet when it was on its knees, so maybe if I got a better sense of how on its knees the country was the victory would have been much more inspiring. As it is almost everything is about Braddock and his wife, and they have such great hearts that of course they can't wind up unhappy! Maybe it would have been better if they gave the wife part to a character actress, instead of Renee Zellwegger who'd insist on hogging screen time. Oh excuse me, ACADEMY AWARD WINNER RENEE ZELWEGGER! Of course I'm biased b/c I can't stand her, so even though I love Russell Crowe I definitely didn't care about the family's togetherness.

Perhaps some more focus on the opponent Max Baer would have been great. I heard the new book about the fight by Jeremy Schaap focuses on both fighters, and that sounds like an interesting read. Apparently Baer spent the rest of his life remorseful about the fighter he killed, and he was one of the most popular champions ever. In the movie he's such a monster I couldn't take him seriously-the character was out of place in a drama as serious in tone as this one. I at least liked the goofy charm Craig Bierko brought to the part, in what I hope's a star making performance. Baer seemed kind of like a dopey monster as played by him-he actually reminded me of Biff in Back to the Future. Again, not a serious threat, but the only character who I thought brought some life to the proceedings. Paul Giamatti's one of my favorite actors, but I just thought he was given a typical gruff trainer role to work with here.

The movie's been mentioned as the first serious Oscar contender of the year, but I think the only areas where it deserves consideration are art decoration and cinematography.

Signs (2002)

Lame, Lame, Lame

[5/10 · 19 April 2005]

I loved The Sixth Sense as much as anyone and Unbreakable is one of my favorite movies (yes, Unbreakable, and I'll defend it to no end) so I was highly disappointed by this one. Let's just say I have a whole bunch of issues with this movie.

1)The entire thing was an overlong second rate version of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds.

2)Those were real birds and they're still terrifying, which is a lot more than I can say for some idiot in a bright green Halloween costume.

3)Why would the aliens, with all their brilliance that enables them to travel galaxies, try to conquer a planet that's 65% covered by the substance that kills them! Some people have tried using the defense that it's holy water, but that doesn't explain why Dr. Reddy thought they were afraid of the lake. This is just a huge plot hole. What's with Shyamalan's water phobia? I thought that was OK as David Dunne's weak point, but why would he use the same thing twice? It didn't make sense here.

4) That whole "swing away" twist. I'm sorry, I have nothing to say about that other than I thought it was COMPLETELY RETARDED!

5)The ending was much too heavy handed. Shayamalan may as well have had God personally come down and tell the aliens "Leave the Hess family alone!"

No one hits a home run every time, and I was willing to overlook this misstep by Night and still be excited about his next film. After seeing The Village, however...

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

Confused grating disappointment

[3/10 · 17 April 2005]

I am a huge lover of all films, especially classics and horror flicks. I had heard about this film for years and was really excited when I rented it, but was thoroughly unsatisfied by the product. Where do I begin...

The setup is very compelling. I loved seeing Jane as a talentless brat and Blanche as the quiet older sister who grows up to become the hottest actress in Hollywood while Jane turns into a drunk laughingstock. Then when it looks like Jane cripples Blanche, I was horrified and my eyes were glued to the screen. It was all downhill from there.

First of all, I have to take issue with Bette Davis's performance. I know that's sacrilege, but I couldn't stand her. I'm not sure how much of the blame should be divided among her, the screenplay and the director but her character was so over-the-top that it just became cartoonish at times. Some would of course argue that that's to the film's benefit, because they love the black comedy. I've heard that the film is a favorite of drag queens, and I can see why. But I think it severely undermines the film's merits as a HORROR movie, which is how it's almost always qualified. If they wanted to go the black comedy route, they should have gone farther with that b/c I thought as they did it things just didn't mix. Davis's caricature was such a glaring contrast to the sincere performance of Joan Crawford, as well as pretty much everything else in the movie.

Speaking of Crawford, though, I found her character mind-boggling at times. So it was established that Blanche has been trapped by Jane for all the years since the accident. Why couldn't she just leave? Surely the top actress in Hollywood would be able to afford personal care! Some fans might say that's answered at the end of the movie, but I'll come back to that. When Jane was torturing her that much, why couldn't Blanche at least call the police and say she was being held against her will? It's mentioned during the movie that Jane's started going insane, so maybe it hasn't been going on that long, but if Blanche doesn't even get any visitors ever, she must sense something's wrong. And then when Blanche goes through the INCREDIBLE ordeal of getting to the phone downstairs when she's home alone after Jane's taken out her phone, why doesn't she use that to CALL THE POLICE! Some might say she was concerned about Jane and wanted to get a doctor for her, but I'm sorry, when a character's such a one-dimensional doormat, I stop caring about here. If the ending is supposed to justify all this, well I think whatever Blanche did was more than made up for by the endless abuse Jane subject her to, and I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise.

When Elvira found Blanche, I was relieved thinking at least the movie was going somewhere now with Blanche about to be rescued. BUT WHY DID ELVIRA LEAVE THE HAMMER OUTSIDE WITH THAT PSYCHO RIGHT NEXT TO IT? Gee, who thought Jane would bash her head in? I was again happy when Edwin found Blanche, but he just ran off stammering! What the hell was the point of him even being in the movie? I'm thinking there just wasn't enough story to fill out a film otherwise. I thought he was just an annoying fat guy, and he turned out to be an annoying heartless fat guy. How did Victor Buono get an Oscar nomination for that? Why am I not surprised that people never saw or heard of Mr. Buono again after this movie?

While the movie had glaring flaws, I thought it would at least be great to see Blanche saved and Jane killed at the end. But instead, one of the worst twists in history was thrown at us! The only things the film had in its favor at any point were a sympathetic heroine and a contemptible villain. So what do they do at the end? Make Blanche responsible for her own trouble and Jane a lovable loon! Even if Blanche paralyzed herself, Jane kept her a prisoner, starved her, beat her, and berated her endlessly. And let's not forget SHE MURDERED ELVIRA! I'm not buying the mental illness excuse the movie tries-Jane was a monster her whole life and apparently towards the end became a monster unable to handle how pitiful she was. The pathetic attempt at shocking viewers just made me wish I'd never met either sister! Oh, and by the way-Jane's giddy dancing at the end? A RIPOFF of the INFINITELY superior Sunset Boulevard!!!!!!!

The Vanishing (1988)

An absolutely chilling, deeply unsettling horror masterpiece

[10/10 · 28 December 2003]

The Vanishing is a movie only those with ice in their veins can ever forget. The direction is absolutely brilliant, from the opening frames until the very end. I felt Saskia's fright when she thought she lost Rex initially, and her description of her dream made me feel chills. When she disappeared, Rex's combination of rage, frustration, anxiety, and grief was torture to watch. A particularly powerful moment was when he slammed the car door shut so hard the window crumbled into pieces.

Watching Rex become consumed in every way by his quest to find Saskia was also extremely difficult to watch, although it was certainly inevitable. I found the professor's description of his actions appalling in many cases, the most notable one being when he fixates on Saskia and we see his POV. Seeing Saskia warmly respond to him was devastating, knowing what would happen. Throughout the film there was an overwhelming sense of doom and isolation, like this was a cruel world where even in the most idyllic settings evil lurked everywhere and attempting to fight it was futile. Rex undergoes one of the most harrowing emotional ordeals of any movie character ever, and when he is at the end of his rope his crucial decision would seem so insane out of context but viewers understand that it really is his only choice. The shock ending, especially the way it was done, almost made me scream, and I will never forget the final shot. The Vanishing could be shown in any film class on direction, as an example of perfection. Material that could have been turned into just a mediocre thriller with would have seemed like a lame twist was turned by George Sluizer into an utterly harrowing filmgoing experience. And that is the right word, because a movie like The Vanishing is not just watched-it is experienced.

I estimate I have seen around 700 movies in my life, and horror is my favorite genre. I have only seen two films that left me so scared that after they ended I couldn't even move. One was Psycho, which I saw 10 years ago when I was only 12. The other one was just this year-The Vanishing.

The Virgin Spring (1960)

The most heartbreaking movie I have ever seen

[10/10 · 8 July 2003]

This small film may not be as ambitious as Bergman's more renowned The Seventh Seal, but I have seen so many movies from throughout history and I have seen very very few that affected me so deeply. It is such a simple story, but Bergman's direction makes it a film that stays with viewers forever.

The opening shot of the frightening Ingeri is chilling. We don't know anything yet about any of the characters or the story, yet this is still scary, because of the dark lighting and the actress's brilliant mannerisms. Ingeri clearly looks possessed, and when we find out later that she placed a horrifying curse on Karin it makes sense. The use of lighting and imagery throughout the movie is incredible. When Karin was first introduced, I immediately fell in love with her. She was so gentle, and so caring, and looked like an angel, especially with the way shots of her were lit. She invites Ingeri to go to the church with her, because Ingeri doesn't get to go out much.

This review contains spoilers: When the story reaches the woods, Karin's sweet, innocent nature is further established when she gives much of her food to the swineherds and gives them company. Knowing what was going to happen made this scene unbearably tense, and of course that gets much worse when Karin realizes their intention and tries to escape, but is cornered and then falls over a branch and is left vulnerable. The camera cuts away, but next we see the men, after having laid her on the ground, lifting up her legs and spreading them apart. That's certainly not graphic compared to some things we see nowadays, but I found it devastating to watch because it was Karin, such a beautiful girl who deserved nothing of this sort. While Karin is getting raped, we see Ingeri across the river, holding a stone at first but then letting it fall and simply watching contentedly as Karin continues to get violated. With all the sincere kindness Karin has show Ingeri, the hatred she receives in return is absolutely appalling.

Then we see Karin get up after the rape, and her dirty tear stroked face is such an awful contrast to the smiling picture of beauty we saw earlier. As if taking away her purity wasn't enough, one of the men picks up a huge stick and strikes a fatal blow to her head, and then they steal her dress. Bergman's mise-en-scene throughout this scene is outstanding.

Later after Tore finds out the truth about his guests, the scene with him preparing for his bloody revenge will scare even the most jaded viewer. The mise-en-scene is once again amazing during the murders, especially the use of the fire. After he is subdued by his horror at his own rage, I was moved by Mareta's quietly saying "Let us go find Karin".

Karin's dead unclothed body, with her eyes chewed out by buzzards, is one of the most unforgettable images in a movie absolutely packed with them. When Tore picked up the body, and the spring magically appeared, it put a bittersweet smile on my face, as though God was saying everything would be okay. The final shot with Tore asking God for forgiveness as he had the body of his only child was moving beyond words. I've read criticism of the ending, as some feel the spring didn't belong and it was not like Bergman to include something affirming a belief in God like that. If it had not been there, the film would have been that much more cryptic, but I feel it was incredible either way. I actually woke up in the middle of the night after I watched this movie, recalling images after that rape and thinking "I can't believe those monsters did something so horrible to such an innocent young girl" but then I reminded myself that the film is teaching us not to be full of hate and vengeance. I compared the rape images to the one of Tore murdering that young boy. Wes Craven's horrible remake Last House on the Left used the tagline "Keep telling yourself 'It's only a movie'", but this is the film that needs that tagline. I had to tell myself that to keep from being depressed.

This one movie is enough to show why Ingmar Bergman is considered a filmmaking immortal.

Chinatown (1974)

Exciting, captivating, and harrowing-one of the greatest films ever made!

[10/10 · 22 February 2003]

Chinatown is one of the rare films that showcases the absolute full potential of the Hollywood dream factory. Everything about this film is absolutely perfect. It's really a shame that Chinatown came out the same year as The Godfather Part II (which is my favorite movie ever) and only got an original screenplay Oscar-virtually ANY OTHER YEAR it would have easily gotten Best Picture and Director, and who knows what else.

The story alone makes this a classic thriller. Robert Towne really put together an incredible screenplay, which requires you to pay close attention to figure out everything happening but is worth every bit of the effort. As all the pieces of the puzzle come together, the film just gets more and more mesmerizing. The dialogue is incredible; I can count on one hand the number of films I've seen that were as quotable. The highlights are the exchanges between Gittes and Cross, as well as the famous scene with Gittes and Evelyn. The film remains incredibly absorbing right up until the devastating finale. Polanski had to fight Towne to put that ending on there, but for good reason. This ending left me horrified, but Chinatown just would not have been the same movie without it. Polanski directs the entire thing brilliantly-he evokes so many different emotions out of the viewers just right and leaves us with the feeling that we have just been exposed to events that should have remained hidden, if only to prevent emotional scars.

The acting is uniformly excellent, from the leads to Escobar and Yelburton to Evelyn's servants to the farmers in the San Fernando Valley, and everyone in between. That includes the director himself in a very gory cameo. I want to talk about the leads. Jack Nicholson is an actor who I used to think was very overrated. I'd primarily seen his films in the past 15 years or so, and thought he always played himself, complete with grinning and rudeness. When I saw Chinatown though, I was blown away. There is one scene where he's telling the dirty joke and seems like JACK, but other than that there is not a trace of the regular character. Gittes is a cynical, wounded private eye who at first is simply trying to make a living, then clear his name, and then finds himself in love and wanting to care and protect in spite of himself. Nicholson nails every aspect of the performance, and after watching him here I went out to see other early works of his such as Five Easy Pieces. John Houston is also exceptional, playing one of the most contemptible villains ever, and my guess as to the reason he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor is simply because the Academy hated his character far too much.

However, I think Faye Dunaway deserves the most praise here. She delivers one of the best performances I've ever seen by an actress in any movie. At first Evelyn is so icy (I've heard some even call her a femme fatale, even though that label is certainly not appropriate once you watch the entire film) and we wonder what she could possibly be hiding. Then later we see that she is in great pain, but can only wonder why. I was especially moved by her when she softly told Gittes "Please believe me; I would never have hurt Hollis. He was the kindest most gentle man and you wouldn't believe what he had to go through for me." After the revelation, I found myself never having cared about a movie character more. I haven't seen Dunaway's other starring roles, but it's clear why she was one of the top actresses of the 1970s, and I'm glad she won Best Actress for Network two years after this.

I've made an effort not to spoil anything in this remarkable film. Anyone who wants to see everything a movie can be needs to experience Chinatown.

Superman (1978)

So wonderful and majestic-an all-time classic!

[10/10 · 17 February 2003]

There are a number of films that make me think "nothing represents movie magic better than this" because they are incredibly grand and beautiful. That small list includes The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, Star Wars, Superman: The Movie, and E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial. There is no question that Superman is the least lauded out of all of those; however, it is a movie that never fails to leave me in awe.

Director Richard Donner and writer Tom Mankiewicz were simply overflowing with passion for Superman, and treating him as an American myth resulted in this amazing labor of love. The opening shots of the comic book opening with the child's voice over were such an inspired touch, and then we see the the awesome opening credits as John Williams's score sets the perfect mood of grandeur and wonder befitting the greatest of all superheroes. The segment on Krypton may look fake by today's standards but considering the resources they had at the time it was an outstanding achievement and just as easy to appreciate now. Much has been made of the symbolism of Jor-El as God sending his only son to Earth, and I feel that lends the film an extra level of majesty.

The segment in Smallville was just as compelling in its own way (according to Mankiewicz, they were very deliberately trying to make this movie like 3 different films). The film was differing from the comic book substantially, doing away with the whole concept of Superboy and showing Clark Kent as an confused awkward adolescent not knowing who he is or where he came from, or having completely grasped what his powers are or why he was put on Earth. I actually wanted to see more of this part because it's so fascinating, but the idea is being explored beautifully right now in Smallville. The part where the tragedy occurs and Clark realizes he must leave is so poignant it made me want to cry. Then in the fortress of solitude, we are back to the grandeur of the Krypton segment, and the film continued to leave me in awe at how many levels it worked on.

In Metropolis things get much lighter and faster, but no less exciting. The early segments watching Superman save people are great, and the romance with Lois Lane is really nice (although the not-very-charming and too-old Margot Kidder is the movie's only flaw in my book). That especially goes for the flying part, with its very touching voice over expressing Lois's love for Superman. Gene Hackman is perfect as the hilariously evil Lex Luthor, and the whole final segment with Superman foiling his plot is consistently thrilling. The ending of the movie has drawn a lot of criticism, but I personally found it very moving watching Superman think so strongly with his heart. And who's to say you can't do what he did-is there anyone who can fly and has his strength that can prove that? The montage of voices from earlier in the film made it a very powerful moment.

Whatever virtues the film may have, by far its greatest is Christopher Reeve. He nails the role so perfectly it amazes me that they were able to find such a person. Superman is a perfect boy scout, and the role could have been incredibly corny, but Reeve, by coming across as both so innocent and so charming, makes it virtually impossible NOT to be won over by him. And he also is perfect in the equally challenging role of Clark Kent. As portrayed by Reeve Clark was not just the bland alter ego of the exciting Superman, but rather someone who was hilarious and immensely likeable and charismatic despite being the biggest nerd you will ever find. For his incredible effort, Reeve can take the satisfaction of knowing that he helped make a film that remains a major classic a 25 years after its release. I was born in 1981, and so never got to see this in theaters, but I hope Warner Bros. will release that director's cut on the big screen where it belongs.

Somewhere in Time (1980)

One of the most achingly beautiful movies ever

[10/10 · 3 December 2002]

Somewhere in Time is a movie any sensitive person with a heart will love, I guarantee you. From the opening at the theater to the unbelievably moving final scene, I have never seen a film so passionately and yet so innocently depict the power of absolute, all-encompassing, unconditional love.

The story is so simple, yet therein lies the beauty. Richard Collier, a man with no love in what otherwise seems like a nice enough life, becomes enchanted at the sight of Elise McKenna's painting and with only the power of his heart travels back to her time. Once there, he looks for Elise, and finds her. Elise is confused and does not immediately respond because of her manager W.F. Robinson, but she quickly returns Richard's love. I will not say anymore, other than that the ending made me feel so warm and yet made me want to cry. You will be hard pressed to find a movie lighter on plot, and there are many questions left unanswered, but that's perfect because Somewhere in Time is very surreal, and dreamlike even. The emphasis is not on watching events, but on simply feeling love, and this is as close as anyone has ever come to making a movie out of pure emotion.

Jane Seymour looks radiant while on screen but this is Christopher Reeve's movie. Reeve, after amazing everyone with his talent, good looks, and charisma in one of the biggest blockbusters ever, could have become one of Hollywood's all-time great leading men. Instead, a series of horrible decisions about what roles to take and not take made it so that he had to do TV movies to pay the bills by the late 1980s. To this day, to 99% of the public he is the paralyzed Superman and nothing more. But this is the one movie that shows what should have been. He very convincingly depicts Richard first as goofy kid, then as empty older man, then as someone simply awestruck by love and determined to let nothing stop him from getting the breathtaking Elise. Then, in the final scenes, he portrays his anguish so remarkably it is wrenching to watch.

Also deserving of special mention is Christopher Plummer, who seems to be an extraordinary actor on the basis of the two films I've seen him in (the other is The Insider). A lesser actor would have made Robinson into a mustache-twirling villain, and brought the whole production down to the level of a soap opera. Plummer, however, with his nuanced performance, makes us hate Robinson, but also makes us his feel his pain. Through his subtle mannerisms, we see that Robinson himself deeply longs for Elise's love, but has probably never been loved and never will be loved by anybody. We thus realize how incredibly lucky Richard is. I personally saw Robinson as perhaps someone whose father never loved him and whose mother died when he was very young, and he has spent his whole life wanting to truly take care of someone like Elise but it is as if he has been rendered incapable. He is still contemptible for the things he does to Richard, but he is also a tragic figure, and the script has nothing to do with that-it's all Christopher Plummer.

John Barry's score is also among the most enchanting in movie history, in my opinion. I have never heard a score which so wonderfully conjured up feelings of timeless love. Jeannot Szwarc may not be a well known or otherwise accomplished director, but he does this one perfectly. This movie in the wrong hands could so easily come across as corny and trite, but instead it is such an absorbing masterpiece. Every element in this movie is just perfect, and it should be universally considered one of the greatest love stories of all time (if not the greatest, like I think it is).

As it is most people have never heard of it, but it is nice to know that a small devoted following gives it the recognition it deserves. I hope it continues to win people's hearts for generations to come.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

Amusing, but give me a break

[1/10 · 16 November 2002]

When I saw this movie months ago, it was simply an "indie hit" and i thought "I can see what the fuss was about." But since then, the more successful it's gotten, the more I've grown to loathe it. $200 million+! Come on, no Julia Roberts movie has ever even made that much! And I'm sure fans of this movie will say that it deserves to be more successful, because it is about a "real" woman. Well for a movie that's supposed to speak to "real" people, this sure comes across as a silly banal fantasy. I have to say that it's missing that special ingredient present in the best romantic comedies-romance.

Help me out here, what exactly is so great about Toula? That she works at a travel agency? That she knows how to use a computer? That she eats white bread sandwiches? That she's confident? Woe is me, if only I could find such a remarkable woman. Many films are insulting to the audiences' intelligence in that they take a beautiful woman, change her hair and give her glasses, and claim she's "ugly". This movie is just as bad in a different way. Nia Vardalos does make herself look quite gross at the beginning of the movie. And after getting the contacs and perm, she's not ugly anymore. However, she is certainly no Miss Universe and the film's expecting us to believe that John Corbett would take one look at her and instantly be infatuated is ridiculous. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but here the attraction was based purely on outer beauty at first. And let's talk about inner beauty-when do we see that? Toula seems reasonably nice, but nothing like Gwenyth Paltrow's character in Shallow Hal. And she's not charming either. I had a film class TA at school once who liked kinda like Toula, but I thought she was very attractive because of her lovely personality. I think the only time Toula even shows a hint of personality is when she jokes with Ian about the "old lady ass kicking".

I found no memorable dialogue or chemistry whatsoever between the leads in this movie (I don't care how Julia Roberts looks, Notting Hill had those in spades) and the whole story line, what there was of one, was dumb. OK so he sees her once after she's made over, and from then on out he kisses the ground she walks on, doing everything he can to make her happy without even asking for anything in return other than her love (Oh Ian, you came and you gave without taking...bleh). I'm guessing the reason this movie has been such a colossal hit is because it appeals to the fantasies of all the unattractive middle aged women out there who daydream that if they got a makeover they could have a perfect man idolizing them instead of being stuck with their fat bald husbands who always forget their anniversaries and birthdays.

Now maybe I'm kind of missing the point, and the most important thing about this movie is not the romance but the comedy. Well okay, I thought that was decent. I laughed at the Windex, and there were other lines and moments which I thought were clever. But it's nothing special. The whole movie was basically a sophomoric sitcom (maybe that's a reduntant phrase) with one dimensional stereotypcial characters and contrived silly situations.

Not that that can't be entertaining. I'll reiterate that I liked the movie in the theater. My comments have been so negative just because I'm so sick of all the attention and praise it's getting. I'd say that this movie is worth maybe a DVD rental, or better yet just watching on tv if you have nothing better do. I agree with the person on the message board who said that, given all the challenging, mesmerizing independent fare out there, it's upsetting filmgoers have made My Big Fat Greek Wedding the most successful independent movie of all time by a huge margin. I think in a fairer world, where effort and talent proportionately yielded box office, this movie would have made the one making $24 million (still a huge profit off of a $3 million budget) and Memento and Christopher Nolan would be reaping the benefits of a $200 million gross.

Riding in Cars with Boys (2001)

A disgusting, despicable film!

[1/10 · 12 November 2002]

OK so there was this woman named Beverly D'Onofrio, who got pregnant as a teenager and found it interfered with her dreams of going to NYU and being a great writer. And she decided that since her son "ruined her life" she would force him to make it up to her and make him suffer his whole life. And then she wrote a book which is intended to make us care about her, and then Drew Barrymore and Penny Marshall made a movie out of that book which not only tried to present that as a heartwarming story, but tried to throw in some light comedy and period music to make the thing more "charming".

Possible spoilers ahead:

I HATED this movie. I have never hated a movie so much in my life, and I can't imagine how many I have seen. And that's because this movie morally offended me, trying to make me love a person who is so deserving of contempt. There were many points in this film where I literally cringed or gasped at the way Beverly treated or spoke to Jason, and the utter hatred she was displaying towards him. And that continued throughout his life. I have never seen such a selfish woman depicted in a flattering light; even when he was 20 Jason couldn't have 10 seconds to make an important personal phone call. Not when poor precious Beverly wanted him to take her somewhere. I wanted to strangle her during that horn honking scene. And to the fans of the movie who say "Beverly redeemed herself at the end" I say

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's exactly what she did not do. After two hours of watching her torment her son, it was horrifying when he tried to confront her and she hit him and yelled "I was a GOOD MOTHER!" And after actually showing him bursting into tears and pouring his heart out about how much he was suffering, the filmmakers tacked on some 10 second attempt at Beverly being nice on there and that was supposed to make up for everything. No, I think that was completely forced and didn't make me loathe this movie any less. Any minimal impact it might have had was undone by next showing Beverly talking to her father and acting amused/offended at the notion that she caused Jason's problems.

Beverly had sex. It was HER fault she didn't get to do everything she wanted before suddenly becoming a mother. Jason didn't asked to be born; he was an innocent child who clearly had a good heart and just needed to be loved like the rest of us. He deserved all the sympathy in this story, Beverly none. And some might say that maybe I'm being judgmental; it's incredibly difficult to be a teen mom. I'm sure it is; I don't know any personally so maybe I would have had a little compassion for Beverly IF the movie didn't also show Faye, who become pregnant at the same age and still loved her child unconditionally. To anyone who dare try and justify that by saying that Faye was lucky enough to have a girl, and Beverly got stuck with a boy (and looks like that was supposed to be a big deal, I've seen that shot of Beverly looking at her newborn and crying so many times), that makes Beverly even worse in my eyes. Maybe some people are unstable and can't help how they act, but if Beverly would have been nicer to a daughter, then that means she quite deliberately chose to mistreat her son, and I find that despicable. Frankly if I was Jason and my only parent felt that way towards me, I think I literally would have committed suicide. I heard this story was changed considerably from D'Onofrio's memoirs; I hope her actual behavior wasn't much worse. I also hope Jason turned out all right and there really was an Amelia.

Some miscellaneous thoughts: -I read that Beverly was really 17 when she gave birth. By changing the age, I guess they intended to make us sympathize with her even more. Certainly didn't work for me, especially since, again, Faye was the same age. It didn't help matters any that Drew Barrymore did not look 15 at all; all that that make-up and hair did was make her look like a really idiotic grown woman.

-Certain scenes such as Beverly throwing herself down the stairs, which was played for laughs, were clearly meant to endear her to us. The effort only made me hate her more in retrospect.

-Steve Zahn drew infinitely more sympathy out of me with his character. Yes, Ray was a drug addict, and a bum, and a terrible husband, but beneath it all I got the feeling that he really truly loved Jason, a feeling Beverly never once gave in spite of how many times she licked her hand and fixed his hair.

Yes I am a guy, and I've read that this was the type of movie for which the label "chick flick" was virtually invented. But don't let my gender taint the validity of my opinion; I'm writing simply as a person whose mother loves and cares for him tremendously and feels all moms should be like that. And if they're not, they shouldn't be treated as nice people whom we're supposed to care for. I find it very sad that there are teen mothers out there who, in spite of the circumstances, do their best to raise their children in a loving, nurturing environment, and are trapped in poverty, while Beverly D'Onofrio gets a major motion picture made about her.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Beautiful Masterpiece

[10/10 · 8 September 2002]

1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:

1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.

2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.

3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening.

4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything.

I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch!

Gosford Park (2001)

"PEDIGREE" DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY!

[1/10 · 18 July 2002]

First off let me say that I have to take issue with IMDB's putting "A great review of an excellent film" as the main user comment; just taking one look at the user comments shows how much that does NOT represent the opinion of most of us who care to post. I will say that looking at the comments was very gratifying, I couldn't believe the user rating was 7.6/10 but gladly most of us will talk about this film for what it really is.

I have never been so outraged when watching the Academy Awards as this year, as two of the very best films from an extraordinary year, Memento and The Royal Tenenbaums, lost out to this worthless self-indulgent piece of garbage! The Academy is so f**king full of itself I'm not sure I'll ever even watch the Oscars anymore. This movie is NOT polished and NOT witty at ALL! I would honestly like to sit down with some of these critics who rave about the movie and have them tell me exactly what they found so funny. This movie is NOT a comedy by any stretch of the imagination. Memento literally had more laughs than this movie-3 solid ones (when Leonard says "I'm chasing this guy...no wait, he's chasing me", when he kicks the guy in room 9 instead of 6, and when he finds out he's being charged for 2 hotel rooms). I watched this movie with a theater full of people and a few people only even CHUCKLED when one of the characters said "fart". Oh yeah, that's really witty, why didn't Look Whose Talking Too sweep the Oscars?

I've never seen such a case where critics seemed to love a movie because doing so made them "refined". "Oh a Robert Altman ensemble period piece, let me make out my best film of the year review right now, I can fill in the character names after I watch it!" How were we supposed to care at all about the class conflict when there was hardly anyone in either class who wasn't despicable and/or boring? I couldn't even keep track of any of the character's names or attributes, there were just so many of them Academy Award Winner Julian Fellowes was bombarding us with he seemed to have forgotten to make any of them memorable. Emily Watson's was the only one that even bordered on it. 0x1,000,000 still equals 0. Compare this to The Royal Tenenbaums, that had a much smaller ensemble of characters but they were all infinitely more compelling. The plot, meanwhile, was worthless. It takes well over an hour for the murder to even take place, and then everything was so predictable, even the final "twist". I've heard this movie compared to Agatha Christie by so many sources; well I loved And Then There Were None and Witness to the Prosecution and IMHO to mention this in the same breath as Christie IS A TRAVESTY!

Given that the movie has no value as a comedy, a character study, or a murder mystery, what is it? I guess it was a chance for Robert Altman to have his trademark "brilliant" overlapping dialogue with many British characters in a "thoughtful" (read: SLOW) movie and show what an "artist" he truly is. Apparently in his case that's enough for a barrage of Top 10 lists and year end awards, as well as for Roger Ebert to be throwing a temper tantrum saying "This guy is 74 years old and he's never won an Academy Award!" Please, do yourself a favor and skip Gosford Park, because this emperor has no clothes.

Spartacus (1960)

Epic cinema at its finest

[10/10 · 20 March 2002]

Stanley Kubrick essentially disowned this movie, saying it was not really his work. It's true that Anthony Mann directed the first half, and the movie on the whole lacks trademark touches of Kubrick, who was basically a director for hire. There's a reason you don't find this in his box sets.

Having said all that, this is a movie anyone should be THRILLED to have on his resume. It's rare you find something that shoots so high and makes a bullseye. Certain things, such as the extremely long time at the beginning we simply watch a blank screen while music plays, would have come across as pretentious and irritating in most anything else, yet it's okay here because this movie doesn't just act like it's a larger than life masterpiece, it delivers the goods! The sets and location shooting are breathtaking at many times; the sight of the hundreds of slaves marching into battle made my jaw drop. And there's plenty of substance beneath the style; the story line is gripping and goes far beyond that of many similar movies in terms of complexity. As far as the performances, they are uniformly great. Kirk Douglas, a stellar leading man, suits the title role perfectly, Laurence Olivier is amazingly detestable as the villain, and the supporting cast, which includes Jean Simmons, Tony Curtis, and Charles Laughton, is highlighted by Peter Ustinov's justly Oscar winning performance. Despite a 3 hours+ running time, Spartacus is never once boring, and despite being a rabble rousing film about a hero, is never once predictable or cliche. The famous "I'm Spartacus" scene towards the end has been parodied many times, and it's easy to see why it made such a huge impression on filmgoers. Works like this are among the best examples of "movie magic" and it should be required viewing for any film school student!

Paths of Glory (1957)

Smashing!

[10/10 · 14 March 2002]

This movie does not get the recognition it deserves; it is not only one of Kubrick's best works but one of the best films of any director I have ever seen. It made little impact at the Oscars that year, and never shows up on things like the AFI 100 Years 100 Movies list, but it's great that IMDB users have placed it so high in the Top 250. That inspired me to see it, and hopefully will many others. For those who don't know, it's about an impossible attack during World War I that fails, and how the piggish army generals make three innocent subordinates the scapegoats and have them sentenced to death. The movie is absolutely heart-wrenching without having to resort to the slightest bit of manipulation; I found myself wanting to lash out at the screen at times because I was so furious at the injustice of the matter. Adolphe Menjou really sinks his teeth into the role of the main heavy, and Kirk Douglas is just exceptional as the angry officer fighting futilely for justice. The interactions between the two of them are among the best dramatic scenes you will find anywhere, and the trial is horrifying, and yet so gripping. At times such as the final scene, the movie is too poignant at times for me to even do justice with words. All I can say is SEE IT! It's a 10/10!!!!

The Killing (1956)

Thrilling film noir

[9/10 · 14 March 2002]

Kubrick first showed what a master craftsman he really is with this consistently entertaining, impressive heist movie. All the elements-the narration, the acting, the dialogue, the camera work, the editing, and of course the direction-combine to keep you consistently tense as you wait to see how the thieves' master plan turns out. They have it planned so thoroughly and carefully, but then again, when so much is involved, couldn't just one awry domino knock them all down? Watch for yourself and find out, you will be glad you did!

Killer's Kiss (1955)

Not bad...

[7/10 · 14 March 2002]

This movie is nothing remarkable; it's an hour long tale of boy meets girl, boy fights girl's evil boyfriend, boy gets girl. I hope that not considered a spoiler. Still, Kubrick shows tremendous promise in his direction of this, his second feature and first that most of us can watch (if anyone know of a way to get a hold of Fear and Desire please let me know). The movie, in addition to being well photographed, possesses terrific atmosphere, really creating the feeling of being in the slums with characters. Silvera is kind of cartoonish as the villain, and all three main characters are somewhat one dimensional (granted it's hard to develop them in such a short time) but they are interesting nonetheless. If you like film noir, you might want to give this a look, and if you're a diehard Kubrick fan like I am, definitely go for it. I say 7/10.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Kubrick's unheralded work of art

[10/10 · 5 March 2002]

Warning: Plot spoilers ahead

Stanley Kubrick made many a masterpiece, no film lover would deny that. It's unfortunate however, that Barry Lyndon is often cited as a failure on his part, for it is breathtaking by any standards. It is beautifully constructed; not the least of its merits are the gorgeous sets, the haunting score (right up there with that from A Clockwork Orange), and the dazzling use of natural light. The screenplay also deserves praise, with the cryptic "spoiling" narration being an oddly effective touch. We the viewers are made to care about Barry's well being; I for one was rooting for his happiness in the beginning and was deeply saddened by his ultimate fate. In particular, I agree with the opinion of David Hughes, author of "The Complete Kubrick": the death of Barry's young son Bryan is one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever committed to cinema. Leon Vitali does a great job as Lord Bullingdon (especially during the intense climactic duel) but Ryan O'Neal in the title role is the film's one weakness. An actor with more charisma and range would have been better suited; O'Neal seems to be phoning it in at times. However, he is still an appealing star, and does not diminish the quality in any way.

All in all, this movie is long and slowly paced, and unlike most everything you've seen. It's not for all tastes, but if you like cinematic art, please give it a chance.

A very enthusiastic 9/10.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Brilliant, deft, imaginative, thought-provoking, absorbing!

[10/10 · 13 February 2002]

Rushmore was a highly enjoyable movie, but Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson have really outdone themselves with this amazing piece of work. IMHO it's the best film of 2001, and while I don't think it's gotten the critical recognition it deserves I am thrilled to see that it's earned an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. The movie gives us a wonderful array of characters, and presents their intertwined stories in a creative and charming manner. Everything from the story book narration to the shots of magazine covers, book covers, etc. filling the screen to the slick editing to the mesmerizing soundtrack enhances the film considerably and that would still not add up to so much were it not for the superb script, the confident, skillful direction and terrific performances from top to bottom. I was really hoping the cast would get a Screen Actors Guild nomination for Best Ensemble, but although that didn't happen everyone should still be commended. Gene Hackman is exceptional as wayward patriarch Royal, Anjelica Houston earns sympathy as long-suffering Etheline, Ben Stiller, in a rare dramatic role, shines as temperamental Chas, Gwenyth Paltrow is compelling playing rootless Margot, Luke Wilson breaks your heart as empty Richie, Owen Wilson is remarkable in his limited screentime as self-loathing Eli Cash, and Danny Glover and Bill Murray lend great support as Henry Sherman and Raleigh St. Clair, respectively. See The Royal Tenenbaums however you can, movies like this are all too rare!