Change Your Image
GenXer
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1967)
Were people in the 60s really this dumb?!!
Musicals are not exactly my cup of tea. But I'm capable of appreciating a well-written and well-performed production. Quite a few stage productions have had excellent big screen adaptations. The list is impressive: The King and I, My Fair Lady, Sound of Music, 1776, etc. And there is a long list of great original movie musicals: Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Funny Girl, etc. These lists are long enough to embolden me to try out this lesser known film.
I was mortified!
I mean, seriously, WTF is this? The only good thing about this movie is its production design. In every other respect, it's pure unapologetic garbage: dumb superficial plot, horrible over-the-top acting, tasteless and unsightly dance numbers, and songs that sound like the singers were making them up as they were going along!
What's astonishing is the success of this musical on stage in the early 60s, and the generally positive critical reception of the movie. At least it flopped at the box office, which may indicate the people of that era were not completely off their rockers.
I still don't get the large volume of positive reviews on this site. But hey, to each their own.
Watch at your own risk. If 15 minutes into it you still can't figure out what to make of it and feel like shutting it off and walking away, trust your own judgement. It won't get any better. It really IS trash!
King Kong (1976)
Still my favorite version
Don't get on my case! The original 1933 version is a timeless classic that changed the way movies were made. This 1976 remake is not a classic. But I think it is way better than all of the past 47 years of trash-talking suggest.
It's beautifully photographed and John Barry's haunting score definitely enriches the experience. The facial aimatronics were ground-breaking at the time and hold up very well even today. And of course, Jessica Lange is a bombshell who pulled on all the right strings when I saw this film at the tender age of 14!
But most importantly, the characterization of King Kong as a romantic beast with a kind heart is done very effectively. As the movie progresses, we come to identify with the poor ape who is uprooted from his home by the upstart western invaders. This is a metaphor for how our modern culture and capitalist system alienates us from each other. Kong and Dwan are both exploited in their own way by the same system. In that sense, they are kindred spirits - which makes this film a most unusual but somewhat powerful love story.
If you're a fan of this film, give the 3-hour TV cut a try - but maybe just once. It has about 45 minutes of additional footage, but the pacing is somewhat sluggish, and the music is redistributed in a non-engaging way. It cuts out the language and mild nudity, which is not a big deal. But the PG-level violence of the theatrical cut is an integral part of the narrative and is sorely missing in the TV cut. I saw this cut today. It was interesting, but it also heightened my appreciation for the theatrical version!
Savage (1973)
Brilliant!
For those of us who have forgotten or were not around to see why Spielberg was such a sensation in the 70s, this gem is a reminder.
From the opening credits, we are drawn into the streamlined and fast-paced story that never lets up. Much like Jaws, there is not a single wasted frame anywhere in this film. If anything, it's a bit over-edited, but that's likely to make it fit into the running time limit.
Martin Landau and Barabara Bain have never been more engaging or dynamic, together or separately, befofe or since. They are the epitome of a true power couple. There is no direct hint at a romantic affiliation, no doubt on purpose to build and maintain tension as the would-be series advances through its episodes. From what I have read, the network was enthusiasitc toward greenlighting the series. So I speculate that it wasn't launched because Landau and Bain opted to go with ITC's Space:1999 instead. In retrospect, that's a shame. I think a Savage series would have been sensational, and Space: 1999 would have been just fine with another pair of actors in the lead.
You don't have to be a Spielberg fan to admire this film's bold and visionary style which must have seemed all the more so in 1973.
I encourage you to give this one a try. Available on YouTube in glorious VHS quality!
The Mandalorian: Chapter 24: The Return (2023)
Is it over yet?
The first season was very good. An honest space western in the best tradition of the original Star Wars (the movie, not the franchise).
The second season was excellent: Deep character development and climactic convergence with the primary Star Wars storyline and the way of the Force.
The third season was very well-made but, ultimately, pointless. So this season was all about the reunion of the Mandalorian factions to recapture Mandalore. I mean, OK. Who gives a f@&k?!
The Mandalorians are just one race among many in the Star Wars universe. They are a warrior race with rigid traditions. Their existence is interesting, but best when taken in relatively small doses.
Toward the end of this season, I found myself increasingly distracted by Star Trek:Picard. Totally different frachise, but one in which I was actually emotionally invested in the characters and what they stood for. Din djarin was interesting to me only because of his ties to Grogu. And Grogu was interesting to me because he seemed to be a baby version of Yoda, i.e., a Jedi in the making. Once he decided to become a Mandalorian instead, I lost most of my interest in him. It was like, OK, kid, if you'd rather waste your life on these limited fanatics vs. Claim your rigfhtful place in the Jedi order, it's your frickin' loss. Stop wasting others' time!
I know a lot of you disagree, and that's your right. If you loved how this show ended, I'm deeply happy for you.
Cocaine Bear (2023)
Could not sit through it
I am not really qualified to review this movie - for the simple reason that I haven't seen all of it. I turned it off and walked away about 45 minutes into it because it was turning my stomach. Then I got second thoughts and decided to give it another chance. So I came back to see the rest of it. 15 minutes later, I turned it off and walked away for good.
Yes, the gore and violence were disgusting, but I am not squeamish and can tolerate that stuff just fine if it serves a good narrative.
Speaking of narrative, this movie is supposed to be funny. I didn't think it was. It was laced with endless feeble attempts at humor that were more sad and pathetic than anything else. The violence and gore were clearly meant to add to the humor, but they really added to the sadness and pathetic-ness. It's like, if you can't come up with a clever joke, just throw some gore at the audience. They'll think it's funny.
Well, not all audiences think that crap is funny. I don't know who would. But as it turns out, I've never done cocaine or any other kind of drug. I'm guessing that may be the problem. This movie was probably made for potheads and cocaine users who can get the inside jokes. I couldn't, so I hated it. If you're a boring straight arrow like me, you'll probably hate this piece of s%!t too.
Anyways, save your money and wait till you can see it for free. I'll never again see the $20 I blew on this load of bear manure.
Dziewczyny z Dubaju (2021)
Well-made but disingenuous
This is a well-made film ... about stupid people who get themselves into difficult situations .... and dishonest people who exploit that stupidity.
The problem is that this film claims to be a great deal more than this. The text narrative at the end tries to convince us that what we just saw was an example of sex-traficking. This is incorrect, insincere, and a slap in the face of people whose lives have been and continue to be touched by this horrible crime.
Sex trafickig is when a weak and defenseless person, like a child or teenager, is kidnapped, cut off from family and support system, and forced into sexual slavery under threat of violence or even murder.
Of course, this is not what this movie is about at all. These are fully grown adult women who are willing participants out of sheer greed and raging hormones. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, and not all prostitutes are desperate teenage runaways and street corner hookers. Many "high class" escorts actually like their job and even make a very good living doing it.
A better movie about sex traficking is "Taken", or even Rambo 5! I'm sure there are others that I'm just not familiar with. But knowing that atrocities portrayed in "Taken" can and do happen, assigning the label of sex-traficking to the deliberate trashy lifestyle portrayed in "Girls to Buy" is a shameless disservice to the true victims.
Not saying you shouldn't watch this film. Just don't let yourself be had by its pretentious message.
The Orville: Twice in a Lifetime (2022)
The best episode Star Trek never made .... and never will
In its first season, The Orville was a clever parody of (some say a love letter to) Star Trek.
In the second season, it established itself as a legitimate rival to Star Trek in every way, in addition to its signature element of modern humor.
Now in its third season, it is proving itself to be superior to anything that Star Trek ever put out.
This episode deals with a theme that no one has ever dared tackle before: the moral legitimacy of devotion to family. And it does it in a way that is a real wake-up call.
Of course, it does so within the sci-fi envelope and the fantasy notion of time travel. But the question itself is very viable in the real world.
Why do people have families? It is certainly not because it is their way of raising the quality of life for everyone and contributing to human civilization. The simple but horrific answer is that people have families to multiply their own sense of significance - positive, negative, or neutral. There is strength in numbers. When we are single, we are only one person. Once married, there is instantly two of us. And our numbers go up with the addition of each child, child's spouse, and grand child. Sure, it is a risk since we never know for sure how our marriage or family will turn out. But the alternative of living and dying alone is terrifying enough to make us choose to take that risk.
The ugly and horrific side of this equation is the shift in our moral compass that goes with it. Before family comes along, we can afford to be idealistic and principled. But once we have children, then our priorities shift completely toward doing what is best for them, and everything else becomes a distant second. We willingly undermine, discredit, and stab in the back anyone if it creates more socioeconomic opportunities that can benefit our children. The end begins to justify the means.
Although this was the direct and unambiguous message of this episode, many people who read this review will undoubtedly hate it and hate me for writing it. Why? Because it exposes the ugly side that many of us have but go into great lengths to hide and deny ... even to ourselves. This goes even for people who say they loved this episode but lack the courage to admit what it is really about. I applaud The Orville for having the sheer balls to put the idea out in the open -- finally.
Top Gun (1986)
I had forgotten how much fun this is!
I saw this film in 1986 on a big screen with state of the art THX sound. I remember admiring the technical achievement but not liking the movie all that much. I thought it glorified a bunch of arrogant self-entitled brats. This was before the millennials came along!
Saw it again yesterday and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Part of it was because it validated the sensibilities of my youth. Today's young people might find it tacky and the jokes corny. But this was my generation, and yes, we were cool once!
Although it now looks somewhat humble compared to the production value of today's blockbusters, there is a certain innocence and sweetness to this movie that did not come across at all the first time. It was a simpler time back then. One interesting observation is that the interactions among the pilots is now perceived as homo-erotic. Back then, it was seen as just good clean camaraderie and friendship.
The one problem that now I have with this film is the way it treats the token non-white character. As if referring to the black aviator as Sundown isn't offensive enough, he also turns out to be the only character that Maverick gets physically rough with. That is the one thing about the period's sensibilities that I don't miss.
Looking forward to seeing the new one when it comes out on home video!
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Part IV (2022)
A New Hope must have been Deja vu all over again for Leia
I'm still not getting the point of this series. Is this supposed to be a meaningful tie-in between the two trilogies? More and more, it seems like yet another unnecessary remake of A New Hope with an unapologetically woke twist.
Four down, two to go. This had better start making sense soon.
The Twilight Zone: Try, Try (2020)
It's not the destination. It's the journey.
On the surface, this episode is an interesting twist: Groundhog Day from the girl's point of view. Oh, and to those of you who were astute enough to recognize the obvious: congratulations!
The fundamental premise of this episode is the alternative perspective that it offers on the nature of life experiences and their impact on our growth and development.
In Groundhog Day as well as in this Twilight Zone episode, the daily repetitions represent the cyclicality of life experiences. We are all moving toward the eventual end. But we are not doing it in a straight line. In fact, most of what we do is circular and repetitious in form. With each cycle, we learn a bit more that we apply to the next cycle. With each cycle, we are a slightly different person from who we were in the last.
We get into multiple relationships. We hold multiple jobs. We make multiple deals and ventures, etc. Each one of these experiences becomes a building block for who we will eventually be at the end of our lives.
The message of Groundhog Day is that, eventually, we will learn and grow enough to not only be a happier and more graceful human being, but to also get the girl as a bonus. Precisely the type of hopeful and optimistic message one would expect from a feel-good romantic comedy.
But what if, instead of growing and maturing, we just learn more and more meaningless facts? What if we strive toward a singular goal (winning over a girl) for so long, that it becomes all that life will mean to us? What if by the time we fail to reach our goal for the millionth time, we are so bitter and desperate that we lose our very soul?
Welcome to The Twilight Zone!
If you put both material (GH Day and TZ) together, the collective moral of the story could be that it is not the destination that matters, but the journey. Phil Connors was after the girl to be sure, but he was also open to the broader human experience and learned to care about and help others (and himself) through the cycles of repetition. In contrast, Marc (or whatever his real name was) never took his eye off the prize, until in the end, all he saw was the prize, his failure to attain it, and nothing else.
This is powerful stuff guys. Think about it. Or not. I really can't tell you what to do!
The Twilight Zone: A Human Face (2020)
If you hated this episode, read my review. You need help.
Let me cut to the chase. The alien was not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor. If you didn't catch that, you are exactly what this story is referring to.
We live on a planet of 7M people with scarce resources and fragile social and political structures. The only way to keep a semblance of order is to identify the fastest and most reliable route to manipulating and controlling large populations. That is through discouragement of critical thinking and naked appeal to people's raw and unresolved emotions and personal issues.
One name for this is mass marketing.
Another is social brainwashing.
Another is patriotism.
Another is religion.
Another is superstition.
This episode is trying to show you how anyone (yes, including an alien) can get you to do what they want you to do by learning and pushing your buttons. And more importantly, that this isn't just a theoretical concept. It has been done and improved throughout history.
In the old world, the signs were political movements and major religions.
The new worldwide connectivity is taking this concept to new levels. Today's sharp divisions demonstrate the power of these new platforms.
"The phone is on the internet".
Try reacting less and thinking more.
The Book of Boba Fett: Chapter 7: In the Name of Honor (2022)
Good riddance to a meaningless and inconsequential mini-series
I'm a little biased. I never understood the appeal of Boba Fett. To me, he was always a throw-away side character who served his purpose in ESB and ROTJ. His anti-climactic end in the mouth of the sarlacc was all that he deserved.
His growing popularity over the decades made little sense to me. His appearance alongside his father/donor in AOTC, though wholly unnecessary, was clear fan service in acknowledgement of this popularity. OK, so it made a lot of the fans happy. No harm, no foul.
So I was intrigued when they decided to bring his character back in the second season of The Mandalorian. I just assumed that they had interesting plans for him. His appearance in the last couple of episodes of season 2 was cool and heroic. Of course, his fan base collectively lost their s@#! With the post-credit scene of him gunning down Bib Fortuna in cold blood and taking over Jabba's throne. It was just cool and promising all around.
But then we were treated to this "Book of Boba Fett" nonsense, the best part of which by far were the two episodes that had nothing to do with him. On top of all this, Temuera Morrison is a terrible actor. He was terrible in AOTC, but I chalked that to Lucas' crappy directing. But he's just as bad now, only older. What exactly happened in this show that I should care about? What was this show about anyway?
So just like that, it's over. Well, good. It was nice to see Mandy and Grogu again. And of course, the treatment of Luke, R2, and Ahsoka was handled beautifully. But it's time to move on. Looking forward to the third season of The Mandalorian.
Old (2021)
Some of the WORST acting ever put on film - Yikes!
What in the world is going on with our boy M. Night? He's been making movies for almost 30 years. You'd think by now he would know the basics of how to get the right performance out of his cast, and by "right", I mean the kind that would look acceptable on the screen. This film looks like it was made by a cinematographer who has no clue about getting performance out of people.
Early in his career, Shyamalan did not carry much weight in Hollywood. So his actors didn't hang on his direction and just did their thing. This explains the acceptable performances in his early films, like The Sixth Sense. Bruce Willis was an established star who was not about to take direction from a 28-year old Indian nobody. Toni Collette was her brilliant self who gives a magnificent performance regardless of the director. Sam Jackson does his own thing and listens to no one. Same with Mel Gibson, Joachim Phoenix, Bryce Howard, Adrien Brody, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, etc.
Today, Shyamalan is a big name. When he recruits all these small time foreign actors and gives them a shot at their Hollywood debut, they do exactly what he tells them to do! BIG mistake! He just makes them look awful -- every single blessed one of them.
BTW, the same thing can be said for George Lucas. Brilliant visionary, but a crappy actor's director. He was an unknown when he made Star Wars, so Hamill, Ford, and Fisher didn't take him that seriously and made their own mark. Even more so with Guinness and Cushing. But since he was a powerful tycoon when he made the prequels, his directions made some really gifted actors look like idiots. They all needed other roles to prove they weren't!
This is a shame since the story of this movie is actually quite interesting. So many people badmouth the climax. I thought it was the best part. It finally shifted the focus from the characters back to the story. It almost saved the film - almost!
Good story. If the acting doesn't get too much on your nerves, you may like this one.
No Time to Die (2021)
Right Time to Die
This movie is a fitting end to an experiment that began in 2006.
Historically, there has been a consensus on what (not who) James Bond is. He is an ideal being - someone who does not, perhaps cannot, exist in real life. He is smart, genius-level smart. He has exceptional breeding and impeccable taste. He is strong, athletic, in incredible physical condition. He is irresistible to women, so much so that he can even convince lesbians to switch teams. He is a patriot; all he does is for queen and country. He is a gentleman in demeanor, but underneath, he is a sociopath. He kills and allows to die without feeling a second of remorse or grief. He makes light of the darkest situations and is impervious to basic emotions like love, fear, and anxiety.
Connery, at least early on, did a perfect job of channeling this improbable presence. But the potion started to thin gradually with Lazenby, and by the time Brosnan became mainstream, Bond had been reduced to a caricature of his former self. In 2006, it was time to add some substance.
Enter Daniel Craig as the rough and coarse lump of clay that was meant to be molded into the suave, smooth, but lethal gentleman spy that we know and love. This transformation was meant to happen in the course of a few movies. But after Casino Royale, the choice was made to maintain status quo. Maybe it was because too many people fell in love with this new version of Bond. Or perhaps Craig lacked the necessary range, and resilience. Regardless, they did the unforgivable: they gave Bond a backstory. Not only was that unnecessary, it flew in the face of everything that Bond was built to be. For decades, people especially men watched these films to forget their own mundane existence and spend just a couple of hours pretending to be a better version of themselves. James Bond's backstory was the backstory of every man who watched him and fantasized about being him. Once he got his own backstory, that option was snatched away from his true followers. Public anger was a perfectly understandable response.
So the public yearning to reclaim the lost hero was inevitable. This time, switching actors was simply not going to be enough. It was imperative for this version of Bond to die.
And now it's done.
Like most other films in the franchise, this movie has a lot of plot holes. And like the best films in the franchise, the plot holes are so beautifully camouflaged that most people either don't notice or don't mind. I enjoyed this film and walked away hopeful and optimistic that the Bond that is promised to return will be the real deal, and not another experiment.
We can't live without hope.
Impostor (2001)
A casualty of 9/11?
I am an avid movie buff and yet had never heard of this movie until just a couple of weeks ago. So I assumed it was just an obscure low budget indy film that came and went like a fart in the wind. Imagine my surprise to learn it was a major Hollywood production with a $30M budget which was real money back in 2001.
And that last word may have been the problem. This movie was released shortly after 9/11. With scenes of alien attacks on major cities and destruction of buildings and landmarks -- the timing could not have been worse. Hence the dismal $8.5M worldwide box office performance.
Give this one a try. It's a highly stylized movie with a great story and fast-paced directing and editing. The only potential problem - the acting a is a bit over the top, but that by itself is by no means a show stopper.
I liked it. Hope you will too.
Reminiscence (2021)
Much better than given credit for
The reviews are so overwhelmingly negative that I almost feel a moral obligation to come to the defense of this movie.
It is not a prefect effort, and perhaps it could have been better. But it is solid work for what it is. A great deal of thought, talent, and craftsmanship went into making this film, and it shows. The story was engaging. Honestly, I was bracing for boredom and found myself somewhat riveted once the story got going after the first 10 minutes or so. Parts of this movie were quite beautiful in design as well as narrative.
Without giving too much away, the story somewhat mirrors Vertigo, but within a film noir format. Perhaps it could have been better if the narrative was more realistic and gritty vs. Artistic and noir-ish - but who knows?
Lisa Joy ought to be commended for an intriguing story, meticulous and nuanced direction, and good pacing that causes neither confusion nor boredom - two ailments that many modern movies suffer from.
This isn't an action or superhero flick. You've got to pay attention and have your thinking hat on. If that's not your idea of entertainment, then take a pass. It is very respectable work. Enjoy it.
Lucy in the Sky (2019)
Not bad for what it is ...
... which is NOT science fiction nor a philosophical discussion on the nature of existence!
People should lighten up and stop ripping this movie because it's not what they expect it to be. This story is based on a bizarre real event that took place in 2007 when a married female astronaut lost her mind and attempted to kidnap the girlfriend of a fellow male astronaut with whom she had an affair.
It's actually a decent portrayal of how intense and unquestioning allegiance to a cause can lead to dangerous obsessions and destructive behavior. It happens very often, and it doesn't get enough attention from the entertainment industry.
Natalie Portman is convincingly creepy - by design!
Give this movie a break. It's well done.
Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Artsy Broadway musical -- loosely based on Mary Poppins
Making a sequel to a timeless classic is a thankless job. There are big shoes to fill, and most people are too busy comparing it to the original to appreciate or even notice the new things that it offers. True artists come up with original concepts instead of trying to add to a story that doesn't need any additions. But this is show business, and brand recognition can mean big dollars. You don't have to make another classic - just one that takes people on a nostalgia trip for a couple of hours before they totally forget about what you've done and spend the rest of their lives re-watching the original.
This movie is not in the same league as the original Mary Poppins. It will never be remembered as a timeless classic. But it's good, well-constructed, commercial entertainment. The production value is top-notch. The acting is surprisingly good. And the music is competent and somewhat catchy. But it feels more like a Broadway play than a movie.
The original had a strong story with a timeless message. The musical numbers either advanced the story or established the characters. This one, on the other hand, seems to be ABOUT the song-and-dance numbers. The story is used as a thread to tie together all of the spectacle while providing a boat load of fan service. Too bad, since this story does have the potential to be more.
As much as I love the original though, I've always been bothered by its socialist undertones: use your tuppence to feed the damn pigeons instead of letting the filthy capitalist pigs invest it! Here, it's gratifying to see that what saves the collective butts of the Banks offspring is the fact that the old man went ahead and invested the tuppence anyway!
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
It's time for Star Wars to dare to be more -- again
What made Star Wars Star Wars? For those of us old enough to remember, it was fresh; it was bold; it was DIFFERENT. Although it had its roots in ancient myth, matinée serials, and westerns, it dared to go against the grain of the cynical and hyper-realistic face of American cinema in the 1970s and usher in a new era of energy, optimism, and imagination, fueled by never-before-seen technology, visual and sound effects, and unprecedented use of a lush and brilliant symphonic score.
So I ask you: how many of these elements are present in TFA? Without giving too much away (I'm not putting a spoiler warning on this), very little if any.
Star Wars was the product of the creative mind of a young George Lucas who was not afraid to rock the boat. TFA is the work of a nervous and not-so-daring J. J. Abrams who was under enormous pressure to use tried and true formulas to give Disney maximum return on its investment. There is no comparison.
Lucas and Spielberg both began their careers as avant garde visionaries before becoming isolated from the mainstream mindset in their towering empires. Abrams is nothing more than a gifted fan boy who revels at mimicking and one-upping the masters, with absolutely no original idea or vision of his own. He was given this assignment simply because the Disney brass considered him a safe bet after the disappointment of the prequels caused by the aforementioned isolation of George Lucas from the mainstream. Unlike Lucas and Spielberg who had a story to tell in their youth, Abrams does not care about the story, so long as it is told very loudly. He is NOT the real deal, and neither is his work.
I am somewhat optimistic about Episode VIII knowing that it is in the hands of Rian Johnson. I'm not sure he will be any better than Abrams, but he will likely be different, and this case, different is good.
Meanwhile, enjoy this recent product which, like The Phantom Menace, will go on to set box office records before being harshly judged by history.
Unknown (2011)
Major plot hole and cheesy politics tarnish an otherwise great effort
Watching this movie was an unusual experience. I began by expecting it to be a long Twilight Zone episode. Then I was turned off by what seemed to be a contrived and overly artsy narrative, then I got confused. By the time I started coming out confusion, about three quarters into the movie, I was at the edge of my seat. And through it all, I was mesmerized by Diane Krueger.
This is an ambitious movie that's trying to be an old-fashioned, hard-hitting, thought-provoking, espionage thriller. And it comes damn close to hitting its mark. Unfortunately, it falters on two key points.
First, it is impossible to forge an identity as a university faculty. And it's even more impossible (?) to fake a university. The story loses all of its credibility on this point alone.
Second, it all at the end gets reduced to a reactionary Hollywood left-wing piece of hysterical propaganda aimed at the evil Corporate America. Enough already!
This director has a real talent for bringing out the charisma in his actors. Diane Krueger and Bruno Ganz stood out for me, but I was impressed with everyone's performance. They were all natural, believable, and likable.
At the very least, I hope this kicks off a trend in Hollywood that will replace this silly infatuation with sequels, remakes, and reboots.
Thanks for the attempt.
The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
Intelligent psychodrama -- perhaps unintentionally!
There is plenty of evidence supporting the claim that this movie is a misfire: a feeble attempt to be science fiction and a love story at the same time, and failing on both fronts. But I think that from a different perspective, it is actually a smart and thought-provoking little film -- although Nolfi might not have intended it that way!
In spite of its good acting and engaging chemistry between Damon and Blunt, I did not enjoy watching this film. It made me angry, because I kept thinking that the Adjustment Bureau, as an entity, was far more important and pressing than being obsessed with a girl that one has met in the bathroom and has spent a grand total of 7 minutes with -- no matter how beautiful or charismatic she may be. When faced with the awe and grandeur of a superhuman presence who has steered the course of human civilization, all other mundane concerns shrink into insignificance. The fact that David Norris didn't get this simple concept showed me just how contrived and dishonest this movie was. I was ready to walk out in the middle of it.
What kept me watching it though was the possibility that this was precisely Nolfi's point. Here is a young man destined to assume a position of great leadership, and yet his life is marked by an endless stream of poor judgments and bone-headed decisions. From the fraternity prank, to kissing a strange girl he just met in the bathroom after losing a big election, to his senseless obsession with her, to his lack of curiosity about the greater notion of an Adjustment Bureaus, to hitting an elderly gentleman in the hospital waiting room ... This guy simply was not playing with a full deck. He was unbalanced, irrational, compulsive, and generally not very bright, and apparently not at all curious. Who wants to have someone like that in the White House anyway?! At the end, he gets the girl, and we get to breathe a collective sigh of relief that his life has been shifted away from the Presidency, and the danger has been averted!
I am giving George Nolfi a lot of credit here with this interpretation. I hope I'm right. If not, the guy is just an awful writer.
Black Swan (2010)
If you hated it, it's probably because you didn't understand it ...
... and that's by design.
The central theme of this film is so disturbing and distasteful that it had to be communicated in the most subtle and subdued way. It had to be this way to avoid the box office-killing NC-17 rating, and also to keep scores of people from being disgusted and turned off. Darren Aronofsky, known for his blunt style, had to resort to this extreme subtlety out of necessity, and the result is a film that is brilliant.
Now that you've had enough time to stop reading before hitting a spoiler, here is the bottom line. This film is about an obsessive-compulsive young woman slowly losing her mind. The reason: her sexually abusive mother. That's it. The incestuous relationship is only hinted at various points in the film. I noticed four, although there may be more: 1) When the mother gets Nina to lick the frosting off her finger, 2) When the mother tells Nina to take off her shirt and she yells "no", suggesting that getting undressed at her mother's command was not an unusual occurrence, 3) When Nina jumps into bed moments before the mother comes into the room asking "are you ready for me?" (this one's a dead give-away -- what else can it mean?), and 4) Spout's theory that "... coming home, still high from rolling, Nina's mom accosts her in her state and has sex with her. However because of her state, Nina is more responsive than usual because she is imagining that she is with Lily (it is later revealed that Lily never came home with Nina). That's why the shot of the mom on top of Nina is one of the mom smiling before she continues oral sex with Nina."
In ballet, Nina has found refuge from this horrific existence, which explains her obsession with her art. In the end, she cracks up from the inside, and this is what we get to witness from her point of view.
Along Came Polly (2004)
Light and fluffy comedy; Aniston and Messing should have switched roles
The reviews were so negative when this movie came out that I passed on seeing it. But I recently caught the first 10 minutes on TV and was surprised at how funny and engaging it was. Oh, and Debra Messing was a bit of a revelation (never watched Will & Grace). So I just watched the whole thing on PPV, and it was far from perfect, but still worth the $3.
The biggest weakness is in casting of Jennifer Aniston as the female lead. She has a knockout body, but she simply lacks the personal charisma that her part calls for. I was more emotionally moved by Messing's return scene than any of the scenes with Aniston. It would have been more effective to cast the much prettier Messing in the sympathetic role and Aniston as the "cold, heartless bitch". But whatever, Aniston is the bigger star, so she gets the bigger part.
Baldwin, Brown, and Hoffman are hysterical.
Catch this one on PPV or DVD when you're in the mood for a few lightweight laughs.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
The only scary thing about this movie is the stupidity of its characters ...
... and that of the audience that buys into it.
A little over a decade ago, as Hollywood blockbuster budgets were getting blown out of control, many of us predicted that someone was going to pick up a camcorder and create a blockbuster at a shoe string budget. Shortly afterward, we witnessed a misfire (The Last Broadcast), and a bull's-eye (The Blair Witch Project). The genius of the latter was not only in its simplicity but also its believability. The paranormal connection was left open to debate. It was a clever little film.
Not so with Paranormal Activity which insults its audience's intelligence and apparently manages to get away with it. Roger Ebert's 3.5-star rating of this movie is testament to the old man going senile. Real terror is the result of identifying with characters who make the same decisions that we would under similar circumstances. What can you say about an audience that actually identifies with the endless string of bone-headed and utterly idiotic mis-steps of the two main characters, as well as the contrived and highly questionable plot-moving claims of the "expert", such as "leaving the house will not help at all"? Oh yeah? Then how about calling 911? Or sleeping in another room? Or taking shifts sleeping? Or just staying the hell awake one friggin' night?! Or just going some place where there are a lot of people instead of insisting on being cooped up inside the house? ....
It's been almost four decades since The Exorcist, and this is the state of the sensibilities of the modern moviegoer?
In the distant future portrayed in the film Idiocracy, a blockbuster is a movie called simply "Ass", which consists of 90 minutes of a man's butt making a variety of noises. We are not quite there yet, but seem to be well on the way!
Moonraker (1979)
One of the Best.
It's interesting that some of the most beloved Bond films are also some of the worst (Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only), and some of the most reviled are among the best (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Moonraker, The Living Daylights).
This movie set a new high in entertainment value when it was released in 1979. It was the necessary upgrade of the franchise in the new era ushered in by Star Wars a couple of years earlier. It preserved the best of the genre (espionage intrigue, plot twists, Bond mystique, beautiful women, gadgets, humor, haunting cinematography, and mesmerizing music), but brought them out of the gloomy and cynical Cold War atmosphere and into a more futuristic and optimistic format. It kept the Bond franchise fun at a time when the standards for fun had taken a quantum leap.
Roger Moore does a nice job in his last credible portrayal of 007. Alas, his age became increasingly distracting starting with the next outing.
A lot of fun. Deserves much more credit than it is usually given.