Change Your Image
G'aal
Reviews
Lost in Translation (2003)
I'd rather be lost ANYwhere else
I now know what it's like for those who didn't enjoy "Return of the King" and thus are in the minority opinion, exasperated as to how the masses could love it so (I found it to be one of the finest examples of moviemaking on record). Despite the lauding of this movie as "beautiful" and "perfect", I found it to be highly uninteresting at its best, nearly pedophilic at its worst.
This is just NOT a good movie. I feel like George and Jerry when they're describing their collaborative sitcom as being "about nothing". Well, this isn't far off. The completely unbelievable premise of a sad-sack, whiskey-soaked Murray and his troubled 18-year old co-star forging a bond that ultimately comes close (but doesn't get there, thankfully) to sexual is made worse by obviously inexperienced direction, a cliche-riddled script and slower-than-molasses pacing. A few scattered dalliances around town and a lot of grimaces and despair between the two leads ultimately ends up in -- you guessed it -- nothing happening. Goodbye, back home we go, our unnatural attraction unrequited.
I know that the tendency is to believe the majority and discard the voices of the few dissenters, but this is one of those rare cases where the majority is deeply in the wrong. This is a stay-away-at-all-costs movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
You'll be surprised at how good it is the SECOND time around
I admit it: I'm a bit of a late-blooming Middle Earth geek. I never played D&D role-playing games as a kid, but in recent years have actually played them with a group of guys who grew up on that stuff. Regardless, I was NOT a Lord of the Rings fan whatsoever when the first movie came out. In fact, I knew very little about it, and indifferently agreed to go to see it two years ago.
I was completely blown away.
Since then, I've become a full-fledged LOTR fan, having devoured the books now twice. Last year, a group of us (yes, the same thirtysomething dorks that I play role-playing games with) went to see "The Two Towers" at 12:01 a.m. the day it opened. We did the same thing again this year with "Return of the King".
This is an utterly fantastic movie, and the phraseology understates just how tremendous it really is. This is the epitome of an epic film and is, in my opinion, the "biggest" movie (scope, grandeur, depth, overall size of presentation) ever made. It is a HUGE movie, without question the "biggest" of the series. You don't have hundreds of orcs at a time like in "Fellowship" or even ten thousand in battle like in "Two Towers" -- you have a HUNDRED THOUSAND. You don't just have a cave troll, you have twenty hammer-wielding trolls. You don't have three Oliphaunts like in "Two Towers", you have a dozen. Throw in swarms of fell beasts, Nazgul, the army of the dead and the kitchen sink while you're at it. This is an unbelievably impressive movie.
I saw it a second time with my 11-year old daughter (also a LOTR nut) and the emotions shifted. I was of course still impressed, but much of my feelings shifted to pride. I was proud of Aragorn for finally assuming the leadership mantel, proud of Gandalf for being the born leader he is, proud of Eowyn for standing up to the Witch King, proud of Merry for going to battle against all odds and *especially* proud of Sam's courage through adversity. His stand against the feral, horrific Shelob is a sight to behold (and the special effects, especially when she has him cornered and is coming at him from above and to the side, are jaw-dropping).
I'll be honest: I loved the original movie, as I felt it spun a tale of classic good versus evil, which clearly etched the undermanned, underdog human/elf/dwarf/hobbit fellowship against the legions of evil. It had "heart". The second movie was good, but lost some of the original's wondrousness along the way. The final chapter regains the franchise's "heart" with a classic tale, told in a soaring, rousing fashion. I'm not sure if I like "Fellowship" or "Return of the King" better, but I'm happy to say that it's a damn close call either way.
See the movie once more, at least. See if your amazement turns to another emotion or two along the way. I know mine did.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Awesome ... as in awesomely bad
To date, I have yet to have walked out of a movie in disgust. Watching "The Matrix Revolutions", sadly, sent leave-impulses coursing through me during the movie which I had to fight to overcome. Ladies and gentlemen, it is THAT bad.
*MILD SPOILERS*
The treat of the original "Matrix" was just that: the Matrix itself. The characters are much more interesting within the Matrix, the color palette is more vivid, the story itself becomes a mystery, twisting and turning through the various corridors. Even in "Reloaded", the Matrix still stands front-and-center as the venue of choice in the movie. Sure, the rave scene sucked, and yes, the philoso-babble was completely overplayed. Tragically, Morpheus' slow decent into utter irrelevancy begins with this movie. There are flaws -- deep flaws -- that lower "Reloaded" several steps below the original, and yet in the end, the movie still revolves around the Matrix. Within the Matrix (as always), an engrossing set of circumstances unfold, including the highly-charged (and completely enjoyable) freeway chase scene, the Smith clone battles and the Trinity/Smith showdown, amongst others. No, it wasn't as good as the first, but unlike some posters, I found it to earn a passing grade as a decent and sometimes spectacular sequel.
The third movie fails on ALL counts. Bizarrely, the Wachowskis almost completely abandon the Matrix in this movie. The ONE thing that separates this film from another run-of-the-mill sci-fi action movie, and they ditch it. Instead, we get dour, dingy characters who we care surprisingly little for preparing to battle an inexorable swarm of sentinels that, perversely, I began to root for halfway through the movie. The sentinel battle was nowhere NEAR as cool as some people might have you believe. The effects were ok, but definitely NOT "jaw-dropping". We get to see giant swarms of these things getting mowed down by RoboCop lookalike machines, which makes the tense ending of the original "Matrix" (where, allegedly, *only* EMPs can kill sentinels) a complete fraud. The cliched scene where the morphed "face" talks to Neo was so bad that it made me yearn for the rave scene in "Reloaded". The Trinity death scene is so absurd that I had to take care not to burst out laughing in the theater. She's lying there, you sense something is wrong but you can't tell precisely what, then the camera pans out and she's impaled in three places. You think if you were impaled that you might, you know, scream your fool head off in agony? How about bleed profusely? Instead, she and Neo instead have a soft, totally unconvincing conversation (their chemistry is zero) and then she dies. Lastly, the Smith/Neo battle is bad, anticlimactic and underwhelming.
What a terrible way to end the franchise. Don't listen to those that say this movie was enjoyable, enlightening, questioned the purpose of existence, etc. It was an overlong, overloud, overblown yet incredibly underwhelming fraud.
The Matrix: 8.5 The Matrix Reloaded: 6.5 The Matrix Revolutions: 3.5
See the first two but -- trust me -- don't bother with this one. This is one of those rare cases where you're better off not knowing how it all ends.
Outbreak (1995)
I really don't know exactly why, but it's in my top 20
There's just something about this movie that really appeals to me.
Maybe it's the all-star cast, which is about as long of a list of recognizable names as you'll ever see for a movie. Dustin Hoffman, Renee Russo, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Cuba Gooding Jr., J.T. Walsh ... I was scanning through the credits and saw that a blast from the past was in it, too: Lance Kerwin, of "James at 16" fame.
Perhaps it's the relentless pace. This movie doesn't slow down very often, and for its genre, that's what you want: action, and lots of it. But it has a heart, too, so it's not mindless, gratuitous action, which you could argue that "Terminator 3" (which I liked anyway) has.
It could be the subject matter. Invisible villains (bacteria spores) are some of the most frightening, and with SARS and HIV rampant in certain areas of the world, it hits home. Not to mention the impending threat of bio-terrorism. The bug in this movie kills fast and completely: the "perfect biological weapon". Like "the Terminator", you wonder how the hell they are going to stop it, even though you know they will and can probably guess essentially how. It's compelling viewing, regardless.
Or maybe it's just a combination of all the above, plus the heart factor I mentioned before. You definitely connect with the characters in this film. I've found that doing so is a must toward liking the movie. If you are bored or disinterested in them, you're going to feel the same way about the movie. Here, you like them all. Even the villain, Major General McClintoch, isn't pure evil, just utterly misguided and jealous in guarding his "life's work".
To me, this is the perfect Sunday night movie. Plenty of action for entertainment without being something you have to puzzle over to "get". It feels pleasant throughout and yet has some terrific drama. I know the final helicopter vs. plane scene was cheesy, but I don't care, I enjoy that showdown as much as any other scene in the movie.
A very good musical score and rock-solid directing further strengthen this excellent movie. I *highly* recommend it. Don't stress over the small illogical aspects (believe me, you can find them in just about every movie, especially action movies), just sit back and have some fun. 10 out of 10.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Richly deserving of its acclaim
Reading through the various posts, I see that the overriding theme amongst the movie's few detractors was that it was "overly long" and "boring", even prompting one poster to rename the movie "Bored of the Rings."
Well, these people clearly haven't read the books and thus are not Tolkien fans. J.R.R. Tokien's books are VERY long and descriptive, and even the hard core fan has to wade through certain elements. However, the books are thrilling, sweeping epics, microcosms of the age-old struggles between good and evil. In this context, Tolkien has created a complete alternate world, populated by humans and similarly-evolved races such as elves, dwarves and hobbits, and mixes courage, determination, love and magic to create "Middle Earth".
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring accomplishes what no film maker dared attempt in the 47 years. It encapsulates the first book of the trilogy in jaw-dropping fashion onto film. And that bears repeating: the movie is so amazing, so awe-inspiring, so wondrous that through much of the movie, I felt my jaw literally dropping open. It's THAT good.
The cast is nearly perfect: Ian McKellan *is* perfect as Gandalf the Grey. The standoff at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum will go down with the alien's tail slowly encircling Lambert in "Alien", the initial emergence of the creature from the black lagoon and other horror/fantasy epic moments as one of the all-time great scenes in cinematic history. Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett and the rest of the remarkable ensemble cast give the performances of their careers. The special effects, despite some that claim otherwise, leave the viewer on the edge of their seat throughout. And the good news is that since the movie has grossed over $800 million world-wide to date, the second and third installments of the trilogy will benefit with post-production special effects improvements.
If you haven't seen this movie, you've missed out, big time, unless you can find it still playing somewhere. The big screen is far and away the best place to view this masterpiece, especially sitting up close. I saw it three times in the theaters and would see it again today if it were playing nearby. And I know where I'll be the day "The Two Towers" is released: in my local theater, sitting close, watching yet another epic bit of storytelling unfold.
A gigantic 10 out of 10.
The Rockford Files: Backlash of the Hunter (1974)
One of a kind
Does it get better than this?
Car chases. The mob. The damsel in distress in nearly every episode. And good ol' Jim Rockford, always in one fix or another, but with a heart of gold, a silver tongue and a printing press in his car so that he can create a fake business card for every occasion.
Much of this series was 70's stereotype, but James Garner absolutely carried it. His magnetism, good guy/tough guy persona and yet his utterly human characteristics (living in a trailer, always being chased by bill collectors or auditors, hurting his hand when delivering a right cross to a bad guy) have never been equaled since.
I used to race home when I was a kid and plant myself in front of the television when it showed on daytime reruns during the early 80's. For a long time, it seemed to disappear from television altogether, then sporadically ran on networks like TNN. I was delighted when TV Land purchased the rights and began showing it daily at 9:00 Pacific. It's been moved to 10:00, but I'll gladly stay up the extra hour to watch it.
What a great show. The television movies were good in their nostalgic way, but nothing matches (nor will ever match) the charm, humor and quality of the original.
10/10.
Insomnia (2002)
Bleak as a winter in the hinterlands of Alaska ...
SPOILER ALERT It's astounding to me that the rabble actually gave this depressing, overlong, no-one-to-root-for "thriller" an overall rating of 8.1.
Admittedly, I'm generally not much of a fan of Robin Williams, and yet I give him kudos for taking on this role. And he plays it well. The inextricable link between his character and that of Al Pacino is mildly interesting, yet lacks real tension. Why? Because (mild spoiler here):
Al Pacino, the film's alleged good guy, is in reality a bad guy!
Not only is he under heavy I.A. investigation for alleged misdeeds as a detective for the L.A.P.D., he establishes midway through the movie that he's an utter reprobate by covering up the accidental killing of his partner -- or was it an accident? Thus, we spend basically the entire second half of the movie loathing both he and Robin Williams, perhaps even more so Pacino's self-destructing, overwhelmingly depressing character. Going in, I was aware that this would be a dark character study, but phrasing it that way is the understatement of the year.
In the end, we get what we have already figured out we must have: the death of both the protagonist and the antagonist. Yet this isn't cathartic, nor poignant, nor any type of neo-self actualization -- it's just bleak, any way you slice it. And that sums up this movie pretty accurately.
5 out of 10 for decent acting and some nice cinematography.
Aliens (1986)
The "perfect organism" en masse in the perfect movie
"Aliens" is, without question, the greatest science fiction action/adventure movie of all time. This is a spellbinding, jaw-dropping epic of a movie masterpiece that pulls off the rarest of feats -- it actually tops its predecessor, the inimitable "Alien", even going so far as to make it look the slightest bit campy and predictable by comparison (though it still remains a groundbreaking, chilling, landmark science fiction/horror classic).
"Aliens" interweaves competing themes and juxtaposes action, character development, suspense, cameraderie, fear and heroism brilliantly. The movie is far more multi-faceted than the original, which surpassed it on the horror and suspense fronts only. "Aliens" adds doses of realism to make the entire viewing experience seem more "human" -- the Hudson whining at times seems ad-libbed, the dialogue is unmatched in a movie of its genre and the heroism is, remarkably, under-glorified. The characters make mistakes throughout the movie, a deft touch by Cameron and counter to the typical Hollywood action hero "kick ass" mentality.
Every single character in "Aliens" is likeable at one time or another, even the villain Burke. Think of all the great ensemble casts you've seen in the past, whether they be on television ("The Mary Tyler Moore Show", "Cheers") or on the silver screen ("Fried Green Tomatoes", "The Shawshank Redemption", etc.). Psychologically, this is an important method to convey and establish a connection between the viewer and the movie. Conversely, movies that fail to develop that connection sufficiently tend to suffer as a result. "Aliens" far and away does the best job of this in the entire series, well ahead of the original and light-years ahead of the successors.
Speaking of which, the third installment was flawed, choppy and illogically constructed but nonetheless a worthy effort and the fourth a debacle in both form and function. My suggestion is that the viewer pop in the original, view and enjoy its atmosphere and cat-and-mouse terror, then immediately view the roiling, adrenaline-inducing, light-speed second installment. You will walk away from that session marvelling at how this franchise was born and raised. See the third one at a later date and consider the fourth one a wayward child and move on.
There's Something About Mary (1998)
Clearly a reflection of the times, as SAT scores drop further
Our "culture" is at present at the nadir of this millennium in terms of art, music, quest for knowledge, philosphy and most other like measures. To us, we're vapidly thrilled when Erkyl prances about, when some poor sap takes a baseball to the groin and it's caught on video and when the atonal dissonance of Nirvana blasts at us on MTV. Having said this, it is perfectly understandable why the Gen-X dominated masses rated this putrid, purile movie as highly as they did.
This movie was so bad that "reprehensible" does not go far enough as an apt description. I've only seen one other movie in which I felt similarly moved to just walk out of the theater in silent protest to the terrible moviemaking I was so unfortunate to have witnessed. Don't believe the slack-jawed uninformed when deciding whether or not to see this film -- avoid it, take a wide berth around it and go see ANYTHING else.
Now, the typical response to those of us who found this movie to be incredibly bad in all respects is that we are "bible thumpers" or can't respect the anti-political correctness the movie adheres to. Sure we can. It's just a fascinatingly bad moive. The specific vulgarities were nauseating, yes (the sperm in the hair perhaps being the topper), but the real objection is in that EVERYONE in the entire movie is a complete and utter reprobate, from Ben Stiller's imbecilic character to Cameron Diaz's sexy but senseless (she's a doctor? Give me a break) character. And those were the two most intelligent characters in the entire movie. The remaining coterie of scumbags aren't worth mentioning. And the final scene, where she throws over $10 million/year Brett Favre for our "hero"? Laughably pathetic.
Go watch "The Barney Movie" -- compared to this drivel, that was a cinamatic masterpiece.