Change Your Image
jeffthemartin
Reviews
Eragon (2006)
As good as the book....if you liked the book
Eragon is a knock-off amalgamation of Star Wars, LOTR and other sci-fi/fantasy epics; it's mildly interesting because it's chock full of classic story ideas and characters, but the writing is second-rate. I was hoping the movie would be better than the book; that it would have been re-molded by the screenwriter and director into a more engaging package. It wasn't.
The film looks good: the costumes and armor are beautiful, and the make-up is stellar. The digital dragon works well enough not to be distracting, and the rest of the visual effects are fine. The filmmakers assembled an amazing group of actors; veterans (Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich) and newer faces alike, they all turn in amazing performances. (I would love to see Eragon and Arya in a different story.) But a film is a whole, and individual great performances don't count for much when they're not well-directed in a strong screenplay.
If you liked the novel, you will like the movie. I enjoyed the movie because I like the fantasy genre, and because I am a student of film-making and appreciated the numerous positive elements. If you're new to the world of Eragon, and are looking for great fantasy entertainment, watch Lord of the Rings.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
A disappointing follow-up to X-Men 1 and 2
I was really looking forward to this movie, but I was disappointed. The acting and special effects were great, and the story had a lot of potential, but the movie just wasn't put together in a gripping, exciting way.
The superhero characters I have enjoyed getting to know through X-Men 1 and 2 are still there, but instead of doing cool stuff, they just strut around, serving the script. I feel their passion, but not their motivation.
At the end of a huge tragic scene, some of the characters start crying. When this happened, I felt suddenly catapulted out of the mood of the movie; I was just watching the actors cry, and I felt nothing, because the movie had done such a terrible job of telling the story during that scene.
One of the things I like about X-Men 1 and 2 was that the movies and characters are so strongly grounded in reality. X-Men 3 is closer to its comic-book origins, and suffers because of it. The comic-book X-Men have fantastical histories; almost all of them have died and/or lost their mutant powers multiple times. For me, the strength of the first two movies is being able to identify with the characters, even while being awed by their powers. In this movie, reality is a distant memory, and the mutants' powers are little more than a special-effects freakshow.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
A decent start; I have high hopes!
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrode, is a decent start to the Chronicles of Narnia movie franchise. I was sufficiently entertained that I will watch it again when it comes out on DVD, and I am looking forward to the next Narnia movie! This movie falls short of excellent because it tries too hard, and the strain shows. The film-makers were in the unfortunate position of having to convince the studio execs at Disney and Walden Media that they could do a good job making The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrode. The problem is, I am not a studio exec. I want an excellent movie, regardless of how much money it might make.
There are only a few changes made from the book. They shortened up the timeframe a little, showed things that are only hinted at in the book, and increased the tension and drama in a few scenes. None of these changes were bad decisions, but many of them weren't integrated into the plot very well. Rather than feeling the added tension and drama, all I was thinking about was that the screenwriters had made these changes purely to try to make the story better. On a micro level, the movie delivered excellent individual scenes and characters, but the elements didn't quite connect together to make a great movie.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrode hits one of it's most emotional notes before it even gets to Narnia. The movie opens with warplanes bombing the city of London, England, terrorizing its inhabitants. Fearing for the safety of the children, the citizens of England have implemented a program whereby children are sent out of the city to live where they will be safer. This dramatic scene introduces us to the four Pevensie children, played by four superb young actors.
In spite of great source material and a very handsome budget, the quality of the acting is the main strength of this movie. The children's performances are so very sincere and whole-hearted that I didn't even think about what an excellent job they were doing until after the movie was over. Peter is the perfect older brother left in charge: not quite sure of himself as a leader because of his youth and inexperience, but absolutely determined to follow in his father's footsteps and do his best to keep his younger brother and sisters safe. Edmund is the surly younger brother, chafing under Peter's authority and trying desperately to validate his own worth. Susan is the older sister, mothering the two younger ones the best a 15-year-old can, and cute Lucy, so adorable, yet brave and adventurous, is the youngest, for whom any one of her brothers and sisters (except perhaps Edmund) would lay down their life in an instant.
Another excellent performance is put on by the actress playing the White Witch/Queen of Narnia. When I saw previews for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrode, I wasn't sure if I would like the way the White Witch was played. I thought she looked too much like an actress in glamorous make-up. But the full realization of her character, in the context of the movie, was completely satisfied convincing.
The Witch's general, a minotaur, and her captain of police, a wolf, were developed into more complete and satisfying characters than in the book. There is an added scene between Peter and the wolf captain that makes their second, climactic meeting more meaningful because of the relationship the two enemies have developed.
There was a lot of talk on internet discussion boards to the effect of "they'd better do a good job with Aslan's character." As with the rest of the movie, Aslan is good, but not excellent. He looks like a real lion, he is majestic and interacts with live actors well, but he doesn't feel quite as alive as he should. If he were a human actor, I would say that his make-up and costume are excellent, and his voice is good, but he's just not that great an actor. I applaud the film-maker's efforts though, and with this experience, I am sure they will do a better job with Prince Caspian.
Andrew Adamson and his fellow film-makers have showcased an impressive array of talent in making The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrode; now if they can learn to work together a little more fluidly, and the studios give them the opportunity, the big screen future is very bright for The Chronicles of Narnia.
The Island (2005)
A worthy movie
I don't think this movie deserves all the bad reviews it's gotten. Sure, it's not the best movie in the world, but it is fun and exciting, and makes you think about some very relevant social issues. The movie is definitely science fiction and action, and will probably appeal most to fans of these kinds of movies.
"The Island" is set a mere 15 years in the future, and it addresses a currently hot social (or is it political?) issue. (Spoiler alert). The main characters in the movie, (played with exquisite sexiness by Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johannson) are clones, created for one purpose: to provide replacement body parts for their originals. (End spoiler).
The male, known as Lincoln Six Echo, is the focus of the movie. It is his mind that opens the movie, and forces the rest of the plot. Lincoln is dissatisfied with his life in a sterile underground institution. He and his fellows are told that they are lucky to be alive; that they are the sole survivors of a cataclysmic event that has poisoned the outside world, forcing them all to live in this underground facility. The goal in life of all good inhabitants of the facility is to win "the Lottery." Winning the Lottery means that the person gets to travel to "The island," the last remaining toxin-free paradise on upper earth.
About the time that his good friend Jordan Two Delta (Johannson) wins the Lottery, Lincoln discovers that the real world and their place in it is disastrously different than they have been led to believe. Science fiction meets action when Lincoln begins to take control of his own life, and to help Jordan do likewise.
Lincoln and Jordan are fascinating and unique characters because they are incredibly naïve. Avoiding more spoilers, take my word for it that they have good reason to be naïve. This is interesting because it allows the characters to face simpler issues without dumbing down the movie. For instance, Lincoln is not allowed to have bacon for breakfast, and can't understand why. The audience knows why and can identify with his very real confusion, but they don't have to get all serious and deal with complex emotional issues.
It's easy to find things to criticize about "The Island." There are numerous plot holes, rampant product placement, and so much more the movie could have done. Yet it is still a good movie. It's fun to discuss the plot holes and could-have-beens with your friends, especially for those of us who are interested in how movies are produced. Whether or not you mind the product placement is, I guess, a matter of taste. Personally, I've never been bothered by product placement; I usually don't even notice it.
For the intellectual among us, "The Island" offers lots of fodder for discussion. For fans of science fiction and action, it is a worthy contribution to these genres.
Serenity (2005)
Transcends all genres
It would be superficial to say that Serenity is a science fiction movie. Serenity is a movie that uses genres as a foundation upon which to build a story about real people, who just happen to be vagabonds on a rusty old spaceship.
The plot: Malcolm, captain of the space-ship Serenity and his crew are doing their usual gallivanting around in space, trying to eke out a living in a politically hostile environment, with one difference: their crew is temporarily supplemented by a young doctor (Simon) and his mentally unstable, but very telepathic, younger sister, River. Simon and River are fugitives from the afore-mentioned political hostility, embodied by a sword-wielding man known as "the Operative". The crew, the fugitives, the government, and a group of very evil secondary villains called Reavers, provide a magnificent cast of characters whose conflict (and other interactions, but mostly conflict) kept me spellbound for the entire movie.
I've long been a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, but Serenity is better than either. Reflecting on the movie afterwards, I kept finding similarities to Star Trek: Voyager. Both shows focus on a small ship and her rag-tag crew. The crews squabble a lot, but ultimately pull together for the common good. However, I liked Serenity much more than I ever liked Voyager because it was so much more real and alive. Star Trek has science fiction, and interesting characters. Star Wars has this plus a nice background mythology and some realistic grittiness. Serenity includes all of the above, plus humor, more grittiness, sex, theft, and really nasty bad guys. The result is a realistic universe that people in this messed up world can relate to.
In the last few years a lot of science fiction and fantasy movies have had two things: lots of characters with British accents, and cheesy lines. Serenity once again leaves its competitors in the dust by transcending all predictability by using fairly neutral, Chinese, and American accents, as well as a British accent from (I think) India. Instead of cheesy lines, it goes for totally-unexpected-and-hilarious, such as: "Been more'n a year since I had anything twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!" There is no denying that the language is odd, and it may take you a while to get used to it. But stay with the language, because it's so worth listening to! The odd terminology and turns of phrase drive home the fact that this is not just another sci-fi copy.
I've always assumed that if you notice computer graphics in a movie, it is because they are badly done. Serenity dashed this theory for me. The three or four times I noticed effects elements, they didn't take center stage or in any way distract from the movie. They simply communicated the necessary information to the audience and then got out of the way and let the story continue. The shots of planets were extremely beautiful; an excellent counterpoint to other, more disturbing, images in the movie.
As I mentioned before, Serenity has some elements that border on horror. The filmmakers made an excellent decision when they decided to leave most of the disturbing imagery to the audience's imagination. The Reavers are a hideous and evil "people" whose presence could easily have been overplayed for shock value. But the film judiciously cuts around them, never showing more than a glimpse of their horrible faces. In place of these images are lines such as, "You know he's better off dead than what the Reavers would have done to him." Once again, the movie is about the characters, rather than about something as superficial as Reaver make-up.
I can only think of one negative thing to say about Serenity: There were a few times during big action scenes when two characters would hold an important (and usually emotional) conversation. Obviously, in terms of sound mixing, you have to turn the environmental sounds down so that you can hear the dialog, but I think they went too far. Two or three times, the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me.
On the other hand, there was another kind of mood change that I liked a lot. Being a mentally unstable psychic, River expresses a lot of her personality inside her own head. In the medium of film, it is easy to go inside someone's head, and Serenity does a marvelous job of it. I didn't grow up watching movies, so I have often found myself a little confused when movies do things like this. In Serenity it was always crystal clear to me, and the revelations brought by these psychic journeys helped connect the audience to River and her huge part in the story.
Serenity is an excellent movie. It might be a little confusing at first, but if you are a action movie fan or science fiction fan at all, or if you just like great story-telling, you will like it.
The Snow Walker (2003)
A fine movie, but lacks Hollywood dazzle.
The Snow Walker isn't a top-of-the-line Hollywood movie, but anyone who is interested in Inuit culture or wilderness survival will probably like this movie.
The plot goes as follows: Charlie, a young, Caucasian, partying bush pilot is taking Kanaalaq, a full-blooded, living-off-the-land Inuit girl to the hospital. Their plane crashes and they have to walk across hundreds of miles of barren tundra. The real story, however, is the psychological journey of Charlie from a young, irresponsible, insensitive prat, to a responsible and caring person. Most of Charlie's personal journey involves his coming to realize that the Inuit way of life is just as important and meaningful to the Inuit as his own culture is to him (perhaps even more so). By the end of the movie, you almost think he might stay and live with the Inuit people he finds.
As simple as the story is, I found it a little hard to follow sometimes. It's clear that Charlie and Kanaalaq are in the middle of nowhere, and that their lives are in danger if they can't get to "civilization" soon. It's also clear that Charlie undergoes a big personal journey. Beyond that, there were a few points in the movie where I wasn't quite sure what was happening, or if what I thought was happening was real. It's as though the movie-makers were so steeped in the story that they forgot that the audience wasn't. It's also possible that I am just too accustomed to the distinctive structure and style of Hollywood movies. I would like to think that these lesser-known film-makers were just doing things differently, not badly.
I have always been fascinated by the bleak yet beautiful Arctic. I have also been fascinated with adventure stories for my entire life. This movie showcases both. I grew up reading books by Farley Mowat (upon whose work this movie is based), and other stories set in harsh, wintery climates. Yet somehow, this movie doesn't have the same fascination that those books had for me. Certainly I've changed in 15 years, but there's another reason. This movie doesn't as effectively describe the complex interplay of humanity and environment as the books I read did. Understanding the conflict between the characters and their environment is crucial to a story like this, but hunger, disease, and fatigue don't come across on screen very easily so maybe that's why they left it out.
I really wanted to like this movie. It tells a good story, it has a nostalgic (for me) setting, and it was even made in my native Canada, by many Canadians (although director Charles Martin Smith is, I believe, American). If I compare it to the multi-million dollar movies I am used to seeing, it pales. But by itself it stands as a fine work of art.
(If you watch this on DVD, I recommend watching the "making of" documentary. One of the interesting things I learned was that Annabella Piugattuk, who plays Kanaalaq, is a true-blooded young Inuit woman who actually knows how to live off the land, just like her character.)
13 Going on 30 (2004)
Great story concept, but formulaic movie
I guessed (correctly) before I watched this movie that it would be formulaic. Apart from the story idea of a 13-year-old waking up one morning as a 30-year-old and having no memory of the last 17 years of her life, there is nothing original about the movie. Jenna Rink was a girl who tried to fit in, who liked boys, who went to school, who had parties, and listened to music, etc, etc. The older Jenna sleeps around, shops for the latest fashions, goes to bars, and falls in love.
The DVD cover for the movie shows Jenna and Matty in each other's arms, so I guess it's no secret that they have a romance. Half way through the movie, when we find out that Matty is engaged to another woman, I was a little offended by the crass way the movie seemed to brush aside this relationship in favor of the one between him and Jenna. After getting over my annoyance, I was quite prepared for their new romance to take the usual road to a happy ending. It didn't, which was a pleasant surprise, but also a little bit confusing. The ending was part of that original good story idea, but the intervening movie muddled things up a little.
I remember watching an actor's commentary one time, and (I think it was) Anne Hathaway saying that every movie needs to have a montage. Whether or not this is true, "13 Going On 30" definitely has too many montages. This works well to showcase 80's music (more on that later), but it doesn't do much to back up the story. The movie hardly gets going when there is another series of shots set to loud music, taking us out of the flow of the story, and making us forget much of the emotional connection we may have had to the characters in the previous scene.
Because the 30-year-old Jenna exists in 2004, she was a 13-year-old in the 80s. From a technical standpoint, the movie does a great job of incorporating the 80s into the movie. The costume designer says that she tried to appeal to current teens in costuming the young Jenna's friends, but they are undoubtedly 80s. Beyond the montages, 80s music is featured extensively, and quite cleverly, in the plot. To Jenna, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is the latest musical hit. In a world that has suddenly flown beyond her 13-year-old mind, she clings to this, and uses it to great personal advantage.
As with many big Hollywood movies, it's hard to say why a movie isn't "good." The story is there, there are talented people making the movie, there are talented people acting in the movie (including a hilarious Andy Serkis!), but somehow, 1+1+1 only equals 2.
I was warned that this movie was made for 13-year-old girls. Maybe that's why I didn't get much out of it.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
Guns and marriage.
Before seeing "Mr. & Mrs. Smith," I'd never gone to a movie because of the actors who are in it. Movies are such a collaborative effort that it's usually very difficult to say it's good or bad because of an actor. This movie is a little simpler. I like the work of director Doug Liman ("The Bourne Identity"), but this movies greatest strength is undoubtedly that the majority of screen time is given to images of two of the coolest, most beautiful people in the film industry.
"Mr. & Mrs. Smith" is an action movie, and it is a movie about John and Jane Smith's marriage. As an action movie, there is nothing particularly novel or interesting about it. If you like big explosions, and guns, and knives, and more guns, you will enjoy watching this movie. I don't particularly mind these things, but they were not nearly as interesting as the relationship between John and Jane. (Many people say it's actually the relationship between the actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but I'm not going to go there.) The concept of the story is thought-provoking. A married couple discovers that they have each been leading a secret life that their partner knows nothing about. When they find out, it revolutionizes their relationship.
The parts of the movie that focus on their marriage are the parts that I enjoyed watching. Not the scenes where they were in marital counseling, but the scenes in which momentous things are happening all around them, and suddenly they realize that their relationship is blossoming into something different. These scenes made me believe that they were John and Jane (rather than Brad and Angelina), and that the characters had a relationship that, fundamentally, was realistically human. This allowed me to identify with them.
When I was watching this movie, my experience was marred by noise. Not people-in-the-theater noise, but the-volume-was-too-loud noise. Before you think I should shut up and call the theater about this, let me say this. I was sitting just 5 seats over from where I sat during "Revenge of the Sith" and although that movie was also uncomfortably loud, it didn't bother me. Here's why: in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" the loud explosions, and over-long gun fights don't do very much to advance the interesting story of John and Jane's marriage. Instead, they show-case a dizzying array of weapons, and yet another boring scene of bad guys being killed while the good guys emerge from the fight virtually unscathed. If this were an artistic choice, and were anywhere near original, I might not complain. But I know it is pandering to the masses; that it is an effort to take more ticket money from those who have a thirst for stupid action and senseless killing.
If you like Brad or Angelina, you will like this movie. If you don't like gun violence, you will likely be turned off. If you are married, you will identify with or laugh at what I think are the best parts of the movie.
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
Beautifully poetic, a masterpiece in storytelling!
"House of Flying Daggers" is even better than "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" because it goes further. Both movies are in Chinese, with lots of stylized martial arts, co-star Ziyi Zhang and are made by some of the same people, but "House of Flying Daggers" is a step above. Although she plays a completely different person, it's almost as if the Ziyi Zhang character has grown up. In "Crouching Tiger" she is an impetuous and pouty teenager with no respect for authority. In "Flying Daggers" she is mature, and thinks of others as well as herself (while being no less skilled or deadly).
Although they have the same MPAA rating (PG-13), I found "Flying Daggers" to be a little rougher than "Crouching Tiger." The body count is higher, and there is definitely more blood. Depending on how you define sex, "Flying Daggers" is less graphic, but also rougher. By themselves, these things do not make the movie better, but the violence and sexuality really do further the plot and aid greatly in character development. There is nothing gratuitous about them. "Flying Daggers" is exquisite in its visual poetry, and very realistic in it's portrayal of people.
One of the things I heard over and over again about "House of Flying Daggers" was that the Ziyi Zhang character, Mei, is blind. Before seeing the movie, I was skeptical about the believability of a blind person doing martial arts. I'm still not completely convinced, but the film-makers and actress definitely do an excellent job of suggesting that it could be possible. Mei's incredibly attuned hearing is proved very early in the movie when she plays "the echo game." In this game, she stands in the middle of a circle of 30 or 40 drums. Her opponent throws beans at the drums, and to win each increasing complex round of the game, she must indicate the order in which the drums were hit. The game escalates into a scene that stunned me with its elegant beauty. In the scenes in which the blind Mei is fighting, she is always in very close proximity to her opponents. When they are not within striking range, she radiates fear and vulnerability, but she never ceases to listen ferociously for their every move, and when they finally attack, her counter-attack is deadly.
I have never seen a movie plot that goes through as many twists and turns as this one does, but that wraps up so perfectly. I was so awed by the beauty of the movie, that it never occurred to me that there would also be plot twists worth paying attention to. There were, and I was glad that I had payed attention to who was who, and read the introduction at the beginning of the movie, or I might have been very confused by the end of it. There were a few times when I did guess what was coming, but even then it wasn't quite in the way I expected it. Although it was convoluted, the plot was never forced or gimmicky. I never found myself wondering, "How did we get to this point?" It always made perfect sense that the characters could act this way, given who they were and the situation they were in.
Although the plot of the story being told in this movie wraps up, the movie also ends in a slightly open-ended fashion. This story is done, but the characters lives continue. It's not as though it's begging for a sequel; it's embracing reality. Life does not end at the end of a major event in one's life, it's just that major events tend to make better stories. "House of Flying Daggers" is a masterpiece of storytelling.
You will inevitably hear this movie compared to both "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", and "Hero." "House of Flying Daggers" is undoubtedly the most beautiful, the most thought-provoking, and the best-made.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
See it once, then move on.
There are some movies that everybody should see. Movies that delve deeply into the human spirit, and vividly expose it so that we are moved, or even awed by the enormity of what we have just experienced. "Schindler's List" and "The Shawshank Redemption" fit into this category.
There are other movies that connect less broadly with all of humanity, but are nevertheless masterpieces to a more select group of people. This category includes "Star Wars" "Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix." Just below this is the category in which I would place "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." (By the way, there are many lower categories). It's not a bad movie, it's just not great, or excellent, or anything above fine.
Movies are so expensive these days that nothing obviously inferior ever gets to theaters. There aren't any major factors that make this an inferior movie. It's silliness comes to mind, but that may well be a strength, in the opinion of many. There is the obligatory romance, explosions, bad guy(s), etc, etc, there's just not much beyond that. The plot of the movie is a little aimless. From a hilarious opening, (complete with singing dolphins singing which for me, are the musical highlight of the movie), the story quickly swells to world-wide proportions. At that point, however, it levels off to a series of strange and bizarre events and characters held together only by that fact that they happen to, or cross paths with, the main character, Arthur Dent. In the right context, a factory as big as a solar system could be a fascinating place. Unfortunately, it doesn't come across as very exciting in this movie. Likewise, many of the characters' physical oddities could be very funny, or even scientifically interesting. Instead, they are closer to grotesque.
There were probably many CG effects in this movie that blended so perfectly that I didn't even notice them, but the ones I did notice didn't impress me. I'm told that the transportation device used in the huge factory is closely modeled after its description in the book, but it seems weird, and it looks even weirder. Even some of the effects that were well done (such as the transition between the different parts of Zaphod's personality) didn't add much to the story.
The movie has the same wittiness and silliness as the book. I read the book 3 or 4 years ago, and I remember thinking, "This book is obviously clever and well written, but it isn't exactly my cup of tea." It's quirky, it's random, but also witty, and original. Although I once laughed for 15 minutes straight after reading a passage from it, I was not thoroughly captivated by it (as compared to say, my college roommate who once quoted from the book in his sleep). I thought the book was "quite good" but not "excellent." The movie is down-graded to "good." Any fan of Douglas Adams, or of the Discworld books, and most science fiction fans will probably enjoy watching this movie once, after which they will seek out better movies.
Titanic (1997)
Gets better with age.
It's been 6 or 7 years since I last watched "Titanic," and I liked it even better now than I did then. This is mostly because I'm older and more mature; I found that I could read the characters' emotions better, and guess what they were thinking and feeling, even when they didn't say it or show it in an obvious way. I have to also give the actors credit for performances that gave me subtext to read.
In a movie, acting choices are filtered through the director and editor, and I liked what they chose. It would have been so easy to show characters strutting around in fine clothes, or running wildly around in life-jackets, but the film goes beyond that. For example, one strutting gentleman provides third-class passenger Jack with a convenient model of how to carry himself like a gentleman. Some of the most poignant shots in the chaos of the sinking ship focus on crying children. Many of these shots are only seconds long, but carry an enormous weight of emotion and story-telling.
I generally prefer linear stories without distracting literary devices like "stories within stories." ("The Notebook"'s use of this device was almost too much.) "Titanic" is an exception. Its clever integration of a modern-day story with the main story of the Titanic's sinking impresses on us that *this really happened.* In the opening scenes, the modern story smoothly feeds us the necessary technical and historical data to give us a context into which we can place the drama that follows. As the movie ends, two stories blend together; the modern story is really a continuation of Rose's story that begins when she boards Titanic.
Another common device in movies (although this one is born out of necessity) is to have the same character, at different ages, played by different actors. In many instances, I'm not convinced that these two very different-looking people could be the same person. Titanic's Rose (at age 17 and age 101) is utterly convincing. In a modern, big-budget movie (in case you were sleeping in 1997, Titanic was, at that time, the most expensive movie ever made) I take for granted that the hair and make-up will be styled to emphasize the similarities between the two actors. As far as casting look-alikes, that also shouldn't be too hard, considering all the aspiring actors there are out there. Where this movie really goes the extra mile is in the acting. Old and young Rose share so many facial expressions, vocal inflections, gestures and movements that I never once thought of them as different people.
With all these fine actors, and the obvious ability to capture stellar moments, I'm surprised at how much screen time director James Cameron allows for shots of inanimate objects. As the Titanic's front end begins to sink in earnest, tilting the ship up on end, there is a famous shot of dinner plates falling off a shelf and smashing on the floor. This shot is famous because people (like me) who were obsessed with the movie when it came out know that these plates were exact replicas of the plates on the actual Titanic, made by the same company that supplied the Ship of Dreams with its tableware. I admit that one could hardly make a movie set aboard the sinking Titanic without somehow showing the ships dramatic death throes, but there were just a few too many shots of furniture floating around, or wood splintering that distracted me from the incredibly intense *human* story being played out.
"Titanic" may not be a perfect film, but it certainly was a....um....watershed. "Jurassic Park" showed the world that computer animation could do amazing things. "Titanic" quietly and (for that time period) innocuously used this tool to create shots on a scale as grand as the ship had been. Cameron pulled out all the stops when it came to getting the details right. While the average film viewer might not have noticed this, had it not been so hyped, it impressed people on an intellectual level and helped set standards of realism and integrity in Hollywood. "Titanic" won 11 Academy Awards, and it deserved every one of them.
Saved! (2004)
A good movie about significant issues.
To me, a superb book or movie is one I want to read or watch again almost as soon as I've finished it. "Saved!" was almost like this. I wanted to watch it again, but more because it is complex, and addresses people and issues that I want to understand better than because it's a superb movie.
The fact that the movie is complex is a double-edged sword. Part of the complexity is just bad story-telling. For example the characters of Roland and Cassandra don't feel quite fully integrated into the central plot, revolving around Mary. Yes, they interact with her, sometimes in meaningful ways, but just as often, the movie strays from Mary to tell the story of Roland and Cassandra. At the end of the movie, I was left wondering whether I had missed something important about these, and other characters.
One could argue that this is like real life--people don't focus an entire year of their lives on Mary just because she is the main character of a movie. No, but a movie is not real life, and it functions best as a concise story, following one person's journey.
Even if "Saved!" is not a perfect example of story-telling, it is valuable as a discussion-starter about Christianity. One of the main themes of the movie is Christianity as a club (pun intended). Various characters in this movie use (or defend themselves against) metaphorical beatings with "Christian" values. Christianity becomes a tool that some people use to get what they want, while others think "shouldn't we be loving one another?" The other meaning of "club" is also apparent: there are strict rules for being a "good Christian," and those who don't follow these rules are not in the club, and are not treated with very much respect.
One of my friends said I would love or hate this movie, but I don't. I think it did a decent job of telling a story about some very important issues.
Undercover Blues (1993)
Love and ridicule
Unlike most people who see this movie (including my friend who recommended it to me), the character "Muerte" (or "Morty") was not my very favorite part. He was funny, yes, but I was more impressed by the two quirky main characters, (played by Dennis Quaid and Kathleen Turner). Quaid's character, especially, had a hilarious dead-pan humor that made me like him and laugh.
"Undercover Blues" simultaneously embraces and ridicules spy-movies. The plot structure is fairly typical, (other than the fact that the protagonist spies have an 8-month-old baby). There are good guys and bad guys, and I was reminded of Ocean's 11 and 12 at the end. The main characters have the typical prowess of professional spies, yet they spend as much time mocking themselves as using their skills. I found this duality unique and refreshing, while the formulaic plot didn't stretch my limited Sunday-evening-lethargic brain-power.
One other thing that impressed me about this movie was the main characters' relationship. It is unusual enough to find movie characters who are married, rather than trying to attract mates, or having affairs, or just sleeping together. This movie has only one romance, and it is a happily married couple who are totally in love with one another! There is no gratuitous sex, but it is clear that this couple enjoys and values their intimacy, and have no desire to stray from it.
If you're looking for a fun, fairly innocent action movie, try this one.
PS: It also has a cute baby!
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The most stunning Star Wars movie.
"Revenge of the Sith" packs a powerful impact both visually and emotionally, and is undoubtedly the most stunning of the 6 Star Wars films.
"Sith" is an amazing movie, but not just because it is an enormous triumph of film-making. It is amazing in how graphically it portrays evil. The movie is rated PG-13, and it earns it. This is the chapter in the saga in which Anakin Skywalker, so recently an innocent (if cocky) boy, comes fully onto the path of evil. The evil is not something only talked about, or hinted at (although it is also that). It's right there on the screen, and it's graphic and shocking.
Getting one's hand cut off with a light-saber is about as clean a dismemberment as you could hope for (apart from surgery). There is no blood, and it's over quickly. In the original Star Wars series, there are a few dismemberments, but they are not particularly disturbing. In "Sith" they are. This movie is not for children.
After struggling through 5 Star Wars movies with stiff dialog and awkward romances, someone has finally figured out how to solve these problems. For the first time (at least in the most recent three movies), when the inevitable line was uttered, "I've got a bad feeling about this," it actually made sense, and it was only said once! In Episode II, the romance between Anakin and Padme was so awkward it's a wonder they ever got together. In Episode III, they can finally talk to each other, and we can feel their emotions. Granted, the stakes are higher in their relationship at this point, but they act like people now, instead of like puppets. I don't know if George has finally wised up, or if other people have pressured him to improve these aspects of the movie, or if the actors are just better, but I was pleasantly surprised.
As Roger Ebert says, ""Episode III" is a return to the classic space opera style that launched the series." Episodes I and II make more sense if you think of them as warm-ups to this movie. Kind of like "Lord of the Rings" is really one movie, and watching "Fellowship" by itself is unsatisfying. "Revenge of the Sith" opens with more space ships on screen at one time than I think have ever been seen. The ensuing battle absolutely blew me away, visually. (In a way, this scene is easier to understand when you read the novel. The book takes time to explain that the Jedi must draw on the power of the Force to navigate the insanely chaotic maze of ships and laser fire to do the impossible things they do.) The first Star Wars movie had 360 effects shots. This one has 90 minutes of effects shots. With 2,151 in a two and a half hour movie, this basically means that the movie is as much *drawn* as it is live action. The realism of animation is growing exponentially, so that there were only a few times out of those 2000 shots that I noticed looked anything other than completely real.
During and shortly after the movie, my brain, all of its own accord, starting shuffling around all its Star Wars memory files to incorporate what it had just experienced. I went to this movie expecting it to tie the "old" Star Wars series in with the "new." It went far beyond that, clarifying countless nuances and actions of characters in the original movies. As George Lucas first envisioned it, Star Wars really is one huge movie. The six movies encompass fascinating character arcs not only for Anakin, but also for Palpatine and Obi-Wan, and even minor characters like Owen and Beru. George has gotten a lot of flak (including from me) for "messing up" the Star Wars universe with his latest 3 movies. Now he's giving us some pay back, and it feels really good!
American Graffiti (1973)
This movie is forty years old, but it still connects with young people
It's nice, and I'm sure George Lucas appreciates it, to put all the Star Wars hype aside for a moment and realize that way back in 1973 George Lucas made a film called "American Graffiti" that had nothing at all to do with Star Wars, and is a very good movie.
"American Graffiti" follows a number of high school students and recent graduates in a small town on a late summer night in the early 1960s. Two of them (Curt and Steve) are planning to go to college. Unlike my experience, staying in their home town is actually an attractive, or at least viable option, so whether or not they will go is a very serious question that the movie revisits often.
On this night, we meet Curt and Steve and their friends, and over the course of the night, various people have different adventures, occasionally crossing paths. I learned from watching an interview with George Lucas that inter-cutting the 4 major character stories was a revolutionary idea when Lucas made this movie. It allegedly made the movie a difficult sell for him, but one has to admire his talent for thinking of the idea, and his creative conviction for sticking with his plan. Compared to telling the stories in the traditional linear fashion, the inter-cutting helps to tie the movie together, emphasizes the relationships between the characters and gives the audience a feeling of *being there* watching the events unfold instead of being told a story.
It would be completely unjust to review "American Graffiti" without mentioning the music. As a modern film-goer, I took for granted that the movie was filled with songs from the time period in which it was set. Watching the "making of" documentary, I learned that this was also a revolutionary idea of George's. Although the film-makers put a lot of effort into integrating the music, so that, for example, it would seem to come from a car stereo where appropriate, I found that the music supported the movie more by the atmosphere it created and the 60's associations that the songs brought to mind.
I was born in 1979, so unlike George and the films' other writers, I completely missed the 60s, and even the 70s (when the film was made). It is a great testament to the quality of the acting that I completely believed in the movie's characters and even strongly identify with them. George Lucas wanted to make this movie to document his experiences cruising in California as a high school student. Forty years later, I am happy to have had this same experience by watching "American Graffiti".
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
A typical odd-numbered original series Star Trek movie.
I've seen most of the Star Trek movies, and they are mostly alright. I guess it's important to say that I'm not a huge "Trekkie." I've watched most of the movies, and I read a few Star Trek novels in my youth. Star Trek is average as far as science fiction universes, and the stories I've seen or read that are placed there are also generally average. I'm also more a fan of "The Next Generation" than the original series (on which this movie is based).
The structure of "Star Trek V" contains one of my favorite story elements--themes from early on that come back later. The movie opens with Jim Kirk rock-climbing, and a few times, later in the film, he finds himself once again climbing. This gives the story a nice neatly packaged feel that appeals to me. The theme ties the story together, and the character traits exemplified by Kirk climbing a mountain have a broader significance.
The movie also contains a cliché element that I dislike: people doing stupid things. In this case, the stupid thing is that the crew of the Enterprise sets out on their mission at all. Their ship, we soon discover, is in terrible condition because it was "put together by monkeys," (as Scotty hilariously hyperbolizes). Yet, they set out on an important mission anyways. What offends me, by conveniently ignoring realism, is that they encounter no serious set-backs due to their ship being in the beta/testing phase. I once read that the original Star Trek series, as compared with The Next Generation, based a lot of it's conflict (in the literary sense) on malfunctioning technology. If this is true, they seem to have gotten away from that in this movie. However, the story is set it up as if the malfunctioning ship should cause problems later on, and when it doesn't, I don't get that nice, wrapped up feeling.....
"Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" certainly has that western "frontier" feeling to it. Although it is cleverly woven into the story line, the fact remains that characters in a high-tech world end up camping out under the stars, riding horses, rolling in the dirt and shooting one another. It has a nice swashbuckling attitude, and is really fun, if you like that kind of stuff. I'm more a fan of the more enlightened aspects of Star Trek--"exploring strange new worlds", creatively using technology, and the personal lives and relationships of the characters. This last thing is a big part of this movie, but the others aspects are relegated to the background.
It's an interesting phenomenon, and a huge coincidence, but I think it's true what they say: odd numbered Star Trek movies just aren't as good! I recommend Star Trek [2]: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek [8]: First Contact.
The Notebook (2004)
A smart movie inhabited by real people
"The Notebook" can easily appear to be a typical Hollywood movie, but it's a smart movie inhabited by real people, and that is why it is worth watching.
The story is the typical formula "boy meets girl, and at first they're happy, but then stuff happens, and there's a big surprise ending." Even the fact that the story is told, in large part, from the perspective of an old man isn't very original. What makes this a smart movie is that it assumes we know the formula, and it doesn't try to hide from it. It faces the challenge head-on, as if to say, "we are going to do such a good job of telling this typical Hollywood story that you won't care that it's been told a million times before." Most strikingly, the film recognizes that even though the story contains A BIG REVELATION, most people are going to figure it out half way through the movie, so there's no point in going to ridiculous lengths to hide it.
While the story is typical, the actors and characters are not. Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling, as the romantic leads, play their parts with utter sincerity and believability. The characters are likable, not because they're hilarious, or perfect, but because they are normal goofy people, with their share of likability and good looks, balanced by imperfections. Their relationships to each other and to their families are just like real life--they fight, and they make out, all in the same day. The parents are not just parents--they are real people, with the same range of emotions and personality traits as any other person.
For me (a 25-year-old, recently married male) all this added up to me identifying very strongly with the characters in this film, while not being distracted by clichés.