Change Your Image
wbg02
Reviews
Timeline (2003)
at best fair, mostly mediocre
I thought the book was mediocre to fair and after having just seen the movie, that is how I rate the film as well. First of all, the English and French languages in the fourteenth century would be unintelligible to most modern speakers. To have all the characters be able to communicate with the people from the past, rather than just the couple of experts in the ancient form of the languages as in the book, is a glaring mistake caused by lazy film-making. Secondly, the film, apparently to justify the heroes aiding the French, have the English as all bad and the French as the "good guys". The book more realistically portrays both sides as being led by ruthless men. On the plus side for the film, director Richard Donner, an old pro, was able to present a visually captivating final siege of a castle. The movie also rightly focuses on the character Marek portrayed by Gerard Butler who gives by far the best performance in the movie. Timeline avoids the temptation of making the film all about the character of its only known "star", Paul Walker.
The movie's basic flaw is also the fundamental problem of the book. It is essentially just one chase scene after another. Of course the same could be said of Chricton's Jurassic Park; however, being chased by dinosaurs on an island is more thrilling than being chased by Englishman through innumerable castle hallways. More seriously, the sense of wonder presumably an archaeological team would have if it would suddenly plop into medieval Europe is mostly absent. Since the premise is so weak, the book only briefly and the movie hardly at all allows the characters to explore the 1300's before they are running around again. To sum up, the movie is competently done. This is not a case of a movie destroying a great book. It is just a film that couldn't rise above its weak foundation.
Murder by Decree (1979)
good performances but fundamentally flawed movie
Let me begin on a positive note by stating that I was very impressed with the performances in the movie. Christopher Plummer surprisingly but effectively infuses Sherlock Holmes with emotion and at times a giddy enthusiasm. James Mason's Doctor Watson is no doddering old man. He lacks the Holmesian spark of genius, yet he is a capable contributor to the investigation. The real surprise is Genevieve Bujold. Although appearing in only one scene, her character has an emotional transformation that is quite moving.
Normally, with solid acting and strong production values, I would give this movie a passing grade. Yet, the drawbacks are so central to the plot itself that they make the movie fundamentally flawed. I understand the conspiracy theory espoused on the Jack the Ripper murders does not have to be historically accurate to make the movie a good piece of entertainment. However, the conspiracy of the elite is presented with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. From the first scenes in the concert hall, the viewer knows the direction of where the story is going. ***Mild spoiler*** The Star Chamber confrontation with John Gielguld's Lord Salisbury is just a gratuitous slander of a public official. It was not needed and made the thesis less credible. ***End spoiler***
Yet the above is not my main complaint. What is inexcusable for a Sherlock Holmes movie is that there is no MYSTERY. In a Holmes movie, one expects to have the mind challenged to interpret clues. There are hardly any clues at all in this movie; and none presented with any amount of context that would allow the viewer to think. To put it bluntly, there is 10 times more deductive reasoning used in one episode of a Law & Order television show than in the two hours of Murder by Decree. The producers were so intent on making an attack on the Victorian establishment that they forgot to make a Sherlock Holmes movie.
I am hard on Murder by Decree because an opportunity for a great movie was wasted. It had good actors giving strong performances, effective use of set and location shooting, and an interesting idea of having a famous fictional detective hunt for an infamous serial killer. Yet, the solution to the murders is presented in an obvious manner without a hint of mystery. What could have been a classic is just a watchable but flawed movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Absolutely great, 10/10
I must admit it is difficult for me to write an objective review of The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Therefore, I waited until all three movies were released before I submitted this review. As background on my perspective, I first read The Lord of the Rings as a boy of 13 and I was awed by the power and imagination of the story. I read it again during my college years. I still loved it. The innumerable characters, the thrilling battle scenes, and the huge scope of the story still impressed me. The idea that this could be turned into a movie did not even enter my mind. Since 1998, when reports of the making of the film trilogy hit the internet I became increasingly excited about the prospect.
Some of my initial thoughts after viewing the film in December of 2001 were the following: Fellowship of the Ring is a great film. It is a film of a battle between good and evil, which has both thrilling fight scenes and quiet, beautiful moments. The opening introduction briefly portrays a battle in as large scale as anything portrayed on film up to that time. However the filmmakers did the little things right as well, from the small round doors of the Hobbit homes to wrist straps bearing the White tree, symbol of the Kings of Gondor. It is a blockbuster that does not give you a Hollywood ending (as Empire Strikes Back, the best of the Star Wars trilogy). The reaction of the audience I went to see it with is telling; most were smiling knowing they had seen something worthwhile but almost in disbelief of the realization of how much more the characters have to endure before they reach the end of their quest. The acting is great
.
Now that I have seen the entire trilogy and multiple viewings of the Fellowship in particular, I am still greatly impressed by the movie. Peter Jackson and company should be praised for not overwhelming the first film with action to grab the casual viewer. They were confident enough of the story and the viewers to give us a slow but picturesque beginning in the Shire. This first film has a lovely episodic quality as our heroes pass though various realms of Middle Earth. The action included was exceptional especially the scenes in the Mines of Moria. The battle in Balin's Tomb immediately followed by the Bridge of Khazad Dum was a thrilling set piece that still moves you even after several viewings. I think only because it was topped by Helm's Deep in Two Towers and the Fields of Pelennor in Return of the King that the Moria scenes are not spoken of more often. The acting was superb by the whole cast. Of course, Ian McKellan became Gandalf in the film. However, special kudos should go to Viggo Mortensen. Viggo and the writers made Aragorn a real person, not a stereotypical perfect hero.
I feel pity for those because of their limited imagination can not appreciate the heart of this film because it is of the fantasy genre. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some extreme Tolkien loyalists who can not accept a single change in the story. I think other reviewers have expressed well the concept that books and films are different forms of art and changes had to made to make the story work as a film. Now that the Rings hype is over, I wish that this small minority of people will take a fresh look at the movie and appreciate it for what it is: a classic movie epic with tremendous production values, superb acting, and above all a great story.
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
not one of the great epics but quite good
Dr. Zhivago is not one of the great epics but it is a good movie. First, this movie is not as powerful as David Lean's classic Lawrence of Arabia. The Last Emperor is a better example of a movie in which the main character is buffeted and overwhelmed by the forces of history rather than makes history. As a historical drama set in early 20th century Russia, the underrated Nicholas and Alexandra works better as an informative historical epic. At its core Dr. Zhivago is a tragic romance epic yet The English Patient is a more moving example of this niche.
However, I do recommend the movie. The acting is very good. Omar Sharif does an admirable job in a basically reactive role. His character is not a man of action but a doctor and poet who does his best in difficult and changing circumstances. Julie Christie is absolutely stunning in both her acting and beauty. (Now, I understand why John Rhys-Davies used his first meeting with Christie as inspiration for the scene in which Gimli encounters the elf Queen Galadriel in Lord of the Rings.) Rod Steiger is very good in a complex role in which his character is despicable, worldly, fundamentally amoral, yet with the ability to pity all at the same time. Although, what should be taken as a testament to the quality of the cast, Tom Courtenay in a smaller role received the Oscar nomination for best supporting actor instead of Steiger. The movie has a beautiful score that rightly won the Oscar that year. The cinematography is at times too pretty for its own good. The scene with the protesting Russian workers needed less color coordination and more grimy reality. Yet, that drawback is minor compared to Lean's effective use of Finnish landscape as a substitute for the Russian wintry expanse. Also, the ice palace is an indelible movie image. Therefore, if you expect a classic you might be disappointed but Dr. Zhivago is quite good.
Dante's Peak (1997)
watchable but formulaic disaster movie
Dante's Peak is essentially a formulaic disaster movie. However, several aspects to this movie at least make it watchable. Most importantly, the two leads, Pierce Brosnan as the geologist and Linda Hamilton as the small town mayor, give good performances. They are likable stars, which makes the viewer care about the fate of their characters. Another good point is that the movie does not include the stereotypical sleazy government or corporate type that ignores the warnings of the disaster. The objections Brosnan's boss raises to his alarm are reasonable. Finally, the computer-generated effects are well done.
Yet, I can not give the movie a passing grade. At its heart, it is just a CGI update of a genre that died out in the 1970's. Also, possibly because of the fictional setting and the complete dependence on CGI, the danger that the town will be destroyed is never compelling. The viewer wishes that Brosnan and Hamilton (and the dog) are saved, and the movie gives you interesting visuals, but not much more. Therefore, a 6/10 for Dante's Peak, worth a viewing if its on cable but not worth renting or buying.
Bring It On (2000)
Dunst & Dushku in a fun movie
There are two ways a viewer can appreciate this movie. First, you can like it as an enjoyable, energetic teen movie that pokes fun at the earnestness of high school cheerleaders and cheerleading competition. Yet, it doesn't cross the line into cynicism, since even the characters critical of these peppy but serious cheerleaders get with the program by the end. The other major attraction, of course, is the eye candy. The viewer gets over 90 minutes of Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku in cheerleader outfits. (There's even a bikini/car wash scene.)
All pitch in to make the movie fun. The writers maintain the lighthearted balance throughout. The director keeps the plot moving quickly, and the cast seems to be enjoying themselves. All this encourages the viewer to go along with the ride.
Dune (1984)
imperfect but still fascinating to watch
When it was released, Dune was considered a disappointment, not living up to its potential of being a `serious' science-fiction classic. However, I appreciate Dune for what it is, a movie with an interesting plot, and a distinctive look and music. The actions of the Emperor and the rival dynasties of the Atreides and Harkonnen are like 19th century European power politics at its most ruthless. When the setting turns to the desert planet Dune, the story includes many Arab-like aspects. Director David Lynch infuses the movie with a peculiar look, far different from the sci-fi movies by George Lucas, Ridley Scott, or James Cameron. The music by Toto works well most of the time. One of the drawbacks of the movie is its length; it needed to have been longer to portray the scope of the epic story. Also, there are no great performances. Kyle MacLachlan was just ok in the starring role. (He is much better in his other collaborations with Lynch, Blue Velvet and the TV show Twin Peaks.) To me the presentation of the Harkonnens is not well done, the three characters are over the top and under-developed villains. After recently seeing the Dune mini-series, though, I appreciate more what the movie was able to achieve. It included all the major concepts of the story in much less time screen time than the mini-series. In conclusion, it is probably accurate to label this an interesting failure. Yet, nearly 20 years after its release, it is still fascinating to watch.
Ben-Hur (1959)
great epic film
Ben-Hur is a classic epic film. The movie has it all. It deals with the concepts of friendship, betrayal, and revenge in between great action scenes and religious elements as well. For the few who do not know the basic plot, Charlton Heston plays Judah Ben-Hur a Jewish nobleman in Roman ruled Judea. Stephen Boyd is Messala a Roman, boyhood friend of Heston's character who has returned to Judea as a top lieutenant of the new Roman governor. Ben-Hur's refusal to betray Jews who are against Roman rule begins a long chain of events which brings him down to a slave than miraculously back to prominence and an opportunity to defeat his friend turned enemy in a chariot race.
This movie is filled with memorable scenes. The most notable, of course, is the chariot race that to this day is one of the best action sequences ever filmed. (For the younger viewers, this inspired for the pod race in Star Wars: Phantom Menace and the soap box derby episode of the Simpsons.) If one is inclined to nit-pick, I do believe the mother and sister characters are a little under-developed and a couple of scenes could have been shortened. However, those are minor quibbles. What makes this movie the best sword and sandal epic made by Hollywood is that it has heart along with spectacle. In certain times, the life of Jesus intersects with Ben-Hur. And tellingly, the movie ends with a miracle and a renouncement of violence not with a bloody battle. Ben-Hur is one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time.
Wyatt Earp (1994)
ambitious but not very good
I admire the fact that "Wyatt Earp" tries to give the viewer a more comprehensive look at the legendary lawman, however "Wyatt Earp" falls short as a movie. It was worthwhile to show Earp's early brush with the law and his early career as a lawman in Dodge. Unfortunately, most of the events were presented in such a slow, laid back style that rarely the story achieved dramatic tension. This laconic style seems to have muted the vibrancy of the acting performances. There are many good actors in this movie like Michael Madsen and Tom Sizemore yet only Dennis Quaid's Doc Holliday was memorable. Long movies need to have a big payoff at the end. "Wyatt Earp" unfortunately just fizzled after the famous gunfight in Tombstone and the murder that causes Earp's ride for vengeance. As a more complete picture of the legendary Old West figure, this is worth a viewing, but someone looking for a dramatic, entertaining movie see "Tombstone" instead.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
flawed but good
This movie clearly has several defects. First, it seems to take forever for the mission to get started. The back-story of Captain Decker and Ilia are explained in a couple of cliched lines. There is hardly any real action in the story; most of the characters just look out the main viewer for long periods of time. However, there are some good aspects such as the sumptuous score by Jerry Goldsmith, a quite stunning looking cloud and alien ship entity, and an ending that although is not as deeply profound as `2001', is clever. I must recommend the Director's Cut DVD. It adds some special effects that the filmmakers literally ran out of time to create. More importantly, it subtly tweaks several scenes to give the movie a much better flow. Therefore, a 6/10 for the original movie version and a 7/10 for the new DVD.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Good war movie
I definitely recommend Enemy at the Gates. It is an epic (my favorite type of movie) with the Battle of Stalingrad as the backdrop. Its focus is on the battle between two snipers, the Russian played by Jude Law and the German played by Ed Harris. Two supporting characters are a Soviet political officer played by Joseph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz as the love interest. Bob Hoskins is also very good as Nikita Khrushchev. Although it is shown mostly from the Russian perspective, it shows the flaws and cruelty of both the Soviets and Nazis. As a person who is a history buff, I appreciate the large-scale portrayal on the big screen of a historical event that did not involve Americans.
Regarding the controversy over the accents used, I personally agree with the decision to not have the actors use Russian and German accents. The most authentic way to present this event is to have the movie done in Russian and German. If you think about it, having these historical dramas done in the English language is not completely "realistic". Obviously, they are done so to make them accessible to the American audience (and the increasingly English speaking international community) and hence more profitable. If there are no English speaking characters in the event being shown, forcing actors to speak English with accents does not make it more real.
Back to the movie, kudos to the producers for making a tense, gripping, war drama.
Back to School (1986)
good 80's comedy
Rodney Dangerfield shines as a self-made millionaire who decides to enroll in his son's college. Rodney's trademark one-liners are combined in this movie with a likable character. BTS also has good performances from the rest of the cast especially Burt Young(from Rocky fame) as his driver, Sally Kellerman(MASH) as the love interest, and Sam Kinison in a great scene as an overly intense professor. I saw it in the movies back in '86 and I have recently seen it on TV. It still made me laugh.