SISTERS (1973) - April 30, 2004 (S)
An early thriller from Brian De Palma. Very Hitchcock-inspired (Psycho in particular; the twist towards the end comes straight out of that movie, as well as the killing off of a main character early on in the film). Features what is probably De Palma's most effective use of split-screen. None of the performances were all that great (Margot Kidder's French accent is one of the worst fake accents I've ever heard). But it still works, mostly because it does such a good job of being a Hitchcock clone (I guess being such an early film of De Palma's, he hadn't yet really developed his own distinct style. But even here it's clear he was already on his way to becoming more than just a Hitchcock rip-off). ***
Short reviews of all the movies I see, rated out of four. Reviews containing spoilers are marked with an (S).
Friday, April 30, 2004
Laws of Attraction
LAWS OF ATTRACTION (2004) - April 30, 2004
A somewhat mediocre romantic comedy. Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore play two opposing divorce lawyers who, after a lot of bickering, wind up falling in love. Brosnan and Moore are both really good, and have good chemistry, and yet something just doesn't work in this movie. I can't really put my finger on it. It was too long, despite being under 90 minutes, which doesn't help. Most of the time the dialogue was fine, but sometimes it felt like the writers were trying a little too hard to be clever. The movie have been worse, but considering how good the two leads were, it certainly could have been better. **1/2
A somewhat mediocre romantic comedy. Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore play two opposing divorce lawyers who, after a lot of bickering, wind up falling in love. Brosnan and Moore are both really good, and have good chemistry, and yet something just doesn't work in this movie. I can't really put my finger on it. It was too long, despite being under 90 minutes, which doesn't help. Most of the time the dialogue was fine, but sometimes it felt like the writers were trying a little too hard to be clever. The movie have been worse, but considering how good the two leads were, it certainly could have been better. **1/2
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Man on Fire
MAN ON FIRE (2004) - April 27, 2004
Oh man, I am torn. This was a good movie. There's no doubt about that. But the thing is, it could have been an EXCELLENT movie. Four stars, even. But Tony Scott, with his super-duper-overblown sense of "style" (style, in this case, meaning a LOT of fast cuts and grainy film stock) tries his hardest to ruin Brian Helgeland's excellent script. He doesn't, and that's a testament to how good the script was and how good Denzel Washington was. Because Sweet Jesus, this movie was so stylistically over-the-top, even Oliver Stone would be like "whoa buddy, you've got to calm down." The movie got of to a shakey (literally and figuratively) start, what with the super-crazy direction. And then for the first half hour or so, it seems like the Denzel Washington character is simply the cliched "grizzled alcoholic with a checkered past" (which he was, to a certain extent). But then he starts to become more of a character, and less of a cliche, and of course all the revenge stuff starts kicking in. And that stuff was pretty awesome. THAT'S what I wanted the Punisher to be. Gritty and unforgiving -- simply going to the bad guys' homes one by one and taking them down. But of course, Tony Scott never lets you forget that you are watching a movie; he is always there in the background, tugging at your shirt and shouting in your ear. "Wasn't that great!? 27 cuts in two seconds! Bet you thought it couldn't be done! What a great director I am!" Note to Tony: you could learn a thing or two (or three or four) from your brother. I only wish he had directed this movie. ***
Oh man, I am torn. This was a good movie. There's no doubt about that. But the thing is, it could have been an EXCELLENT movie. Four stars, even. But Tony Scott, with his super-duper-overblown sense of "style" (style, in this case, meaning a LOT of fast cuts and grainy film stock) tries his hardest to ruin Brian Helgeland's excellent script. He doesn't, and that's a testament to how good the script was and how good Denzel Washington was. Because Sweet Jesus, this movie was so stylistically over-the-top, even Oliver Stone would be like "whoa buddy, you've got to calm down." The movie got of to a shakey (literally and figuratively) start, what with the super-crazy direction. And then for the first half hour or so, it seems like the Denzel Washington character is simply the cliched "grizzled alcoholic with a checkered past" (which he was, to a certain extent). But then he starts to become more of a character, and less of a cliche, and of course all the revenge stuff starts kicking in. And that stuff was pretty awesome. THAT'S what I wanted the Punisher to be. Gritty and unforgiving -- simply going to the bad guys' homes one by one and taking them down. But of course, Tony Scott never lets you forget that you are watching a movie; he is always there in the background, tugging at your shirt and shouting in your ear. "Wasn't that great!? 27 cuts in two seconds! Bet you thought it couldn't be done! What a great director I am!" Note to Tony: you could learn a thing or two (or three or four) from your brother. I only wish he had directed this movie. ***
Monday, April 26, 2004
Lilo & Stitch
LILO & STITCH (2002) - April 26, 2004
Another somewhat underwhelming animated feature from Disney. It was mostly entertaining, though it lagged a bit in the middle. The main characters were all endearing (though I wonder how an alien who was biologically engineered to destroy and only destroy could learn to love and to be a part of a family). **1/2
Another somewhat underwhelming animated feature from Disney. It was mostly entertaining, though it lagged a bit in the middle. The main characters were all endearing (though I wonder how an alien who was biologically engineered to destroy and only destroy could learn to love and to be a part of a family). **1/2
Home on the Range
HOME ON THE RANGE (2004) - April 26, 2004
A kiddie but mostly entertaining cartoon. Not exactly a fitting end to Disney's 60+ year legacy of making traditionally animated films, but I'm not convinced that this is really the end. I'm sure in a couple of years when a couple of CG cartoons flop, they'll announce the triumphant return of Disney to traditional animation and make a lot of money cashing in. Anyway, this was essentially a cute movie, with good performances all around and good animation. Even at under 90 minutes it still felt a bit long, but it was never boring or anything. About a group of three plucky cows who go on an adventure to save their farm. Because of the movie's flat look, the instances of 3D animation seemed more out of place than usual. Oh well. Brother Bear would have been a better swan song, but this will have to do. **1/2
A kiddie but mostly entertaining cartoon. Not exactly a fitting end to Disney's 60+ year legacy of making traditionally animated films, but I'm not convinced that this is really the end. I'm sure in a couple of years when a couple of CG cartoons flop, they'll announce the triumphant return of Disney to traditional animation and make a lot of money cashing in. Anyway, this was essentially a cute movie, with good performances all around and good animation. Even at under 90 minutes it still felt a bit long, but it was never boring or anything. About a group of three plucky cows who go on an adventure to save their farm. Because of the movie's flat look, the instances of 3D animation seemed more out of place than usual. Oh well. Brother Bear would have been a better swan song, but this will have to do. **1/2
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) - April 22, 2004 (S)
The latest weird Charlie Kaufman movie, and certainly the best of the bunch (that I've seen, at least). Jim Carrey (in what is easily his best performance, and most understated) plays a guy whose ex-girlfriend has him erased from her mind, so he decides to do the same. Jim Carrey's character (who is somewhat Barry Egan-esque) became someone I really cared about. A lot of weird stuff happens in the movie, but it never seemed like weirdness for weirdnesses sake (like most other Charlie Kaufman movies). I liked how the beginning was actually the end. I didn't figure that out until towards the end, so that was pretty good. Anyway, I think this was essentially a character study dressed up in a really fancy wrapper. And it was a good character study. ***1/2
The latest weird Charlie Kaufman movie, and certainly the best of the bunch (that I've seen, at least). Jim Carrey (in what is easily his best performance, and most understated) plays a guy whose ex-girlfriend has him erased from her mind, so he decides to do the same. Jim Carrey's character (who is somewhat Barry Egan-esque) became someone I really cared about. A lot of weird stuff happens in the movie, but it never seemed like weirdness for weirdnesses sake (like most other Charlie Kaufman movies). I liked how the beginning was actually the end. I didn't figure that out until towards the end, so that was pretty good. Anyway, I think this was essentially a character study dressed up in a really fancy wrapper. And it was a good character study. ***1/2
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Tube
TUBE (2003) - April 20, 2004 (S)
Oh man. A stupid, convoluted Korean action movie. For the first half hour or so the movie doesn't even bother to explain what's going on. It's totally nonsensical. The bad guy is introduced but is given no motive until at least an hour into the movie. Then finally we find out that he is some kind of government-trained super assassin whose girlfriend (or wife?) may or may not have been killed by the main character (it isn't clear at all -- like almost everything else in this stupid, stupid movie). The main character is ultra-underdeveloped. Also two of the main female characters look quite similar, causing a bit of confusion. The movie finally picks up some steam with some good action and some decent character stuff towards the end, but it's too late by then. Plus then the movie does the unthinkable, killing off the main character. That's certainly not allowed in a cheesy action movie like this. Plus the bad guy doesn't die! That's just not right at all. The stuff in the subway control center kind of reminded me of the Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, but of course that movie was about a trillion times better than this crap-pile. *
Oh man. A stupid, convoluted Korean action movie. For the first half hour or so the movie doesn't even bother to explain what's going on. It's totally nonsensical. The bad guy is introduced but is given no motive until at least an hour into the movie. Then finally we find out that he is some kind of government-trained super assassin whose girlfriend (or wife?) may or may not have been killed by the main character (it isn't clear at all -- like almost everything else in this stupid, stupid movie). The main character is ultra-underdeveloped. Also two of the main female characters look quite similar, causing a bit of confusion. The movie finally picks up some steam with some good action and some decent character stuff towards the end, but it's too late by then. Plus then the movie does the unthinkable, killing off the main character. That's certainly not allowed in a cheesy action movie like this. Plus the bad guy doesn't die! That's just not right at all. The stuff in the subway control center kind of reminded me of the Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, but of course that movie was about a trillion times better than this crap-pile. *
Monday, April 19, 2004
Buffalo Soldiers
BUFFALO SOLDIERS (2001) - April 19, 2004 (S)
This is Gregor Jordan's first film after Two Hands. While it definitely isn't as good as that movie, it's still pretty good. Joaquin Phoenix is good (as usual) as a soldier who uses the army's resources to make money. Ed Harris is also good as a clueless but well-meaning colonel. I liked the ending, in which Joaquin is lauded as a hero and reassigned to Hawaii, where he gleefully resumes his illegal dealings. At times it sort of reminded me of Three Kings, and that's certainly a good thing. ***
This is Gregor Jordan's first film after Two Hands. While it definitely isn't as good as that movie, it's still pretty good. Joaquin Phoenix is good (as usual) as a soldier who uses the army's resources to make money. Ed Harris is also good as a clueless but well-meaning colonel. I liked the ending, in which Joaquin is lauded as a hero and reassigned to Hawaii, where he gleefully resumes his illegal dealings. At times it sort of reminded me of Three Kings, and that's certainly a good thing. ***
Friday, April 16, 2004
Kill Bill: Volume II
KILL BILL: VOLUME II (2004) - April 16, 2004
Now this was a good movie. It was surprising in that it was not at all like Volume I. It could hardly even be called an action movie. However it was still excellent, and it definitely fleshed out the characters a lot more. The final confrontation between Bill and The Bride was really really good. The dialogue was really good and David Carradine was excellent. And so was Uma, of course. QT does it again! ****
Now this was a good movie. It was surprising in that it was not at all like Volume I. It could hardly even be called an action movie. However it was still excellent, and it definitely fleshed out the characters a lot more. The final confrontation between Bill and The Bride was really really good. The dialogue was really good and David Carradine was excellent. And so was Uma, of course. QT does it again! ****
The Punisher
THE PUNISHER (2004) - April 16, 2004
A cheesy, stupid but marginally entertaining movie. Despite the fact that he is the Punisher, Frank Castle doesn't seem to do much punishing. Thomas Jane is really good, as usual, but the movie is not. The beginning goes on a bit too long (we know his family is going to die, so just get to it). The whole midsection of the film is pretty much devoid of action. There is one big fight where the Punisher takes on the Russian, a huge wrestler, but it is less a fight, and more just watching Thomas Jane take a beating until he finally pushes the Russian down the stairs. And it seems to be played more for laughs than anything else, as Thomas Jane keeps reacting wackily to the Russian's great strengh. Plus it keeps cutting to the "wacky" neighbours, which doesn't help (and in fact all of the Punisher's neighbours are pretty much superfluous). Plus the Punisher spends most of the movie trying to trick the villain into thinking his wife is cheating on him. I want the Punisher to be breaking into bad guys' homes and shooting them in the back of the head while they're shaving, not skulking around like that guy from Othello. The big action sequence at the end was pretty good (if a little short) but at that point I was so not into the movie I didn't even care. *1/2
A cheesy, stupid but marginally entertaining movie. Despite the fact that he is the Punisher, Frank Castle doesn't seem to do much punishing. Thomas Jane is really good, as usual, but the movie is not. The beginning goes on a bit too long (we know his family is going to die, so just get to it). The whole midsection of the film is pretty much devoid of action. There is one big fight where the Punisher takes on the Russian, a huge wrestler, but it is less a fight, and more just watching Thomas Jane take a beating until he finally pushes the Russian down the stairs. And it seems to be played more for laughs than anything else, as Thomas Jane keeps reacting wackily to the Russian's great strengh. Plus it keeps cutting to the "wacky" neighbours, which doesn't help (and in fact all of the Punisher's neighbours are pretty much superfluous). Plus the Punisher spends most of the movie trying to trick the villain into thinking his wife is cheating on him. I want the Punisher to be breaking into bad guys' homes and shooting them in the back of the head while they're shaving, not skulking around like that guy from Othello. The big action sequence at the end was pretty good (if a little short) but at that point I was so not into the movie I didn't even care. *1/2
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Kill Bill: Volume I
KILL BILL: VOLUME I (2003) - April 15, 2004 (Third viewing)
Man. What a sweet movie. Despite having problems with a bum DVD and a lousy player, I thoroughly enjoyed this. Sweet action, and excellent direction by QT. Everything about it is super-sweet, from the music to the visual look to the over-the-top violence. Tomorrow can't come soon enough! ****
Man. What a sweet movie. Despite having problems with a bum DVD and a lousy player, I thoroughly enjoyed this. Sweet action, and excellent direction by QT. Everything about it is super-sweet, from the music to the visual look to the over-the-top violence. Tomorrow can't come soon enough! ****
Saturday, April 10, 2004
The Ladykillers
THE LADYKILLERS (2004) - April 10, 2004 (S)
While not one of the Coen brothers' best movies, even their worst movie is better than most regular movies. Tom Hanks is a highlight in this movie about a heist gone bad. I liked how, by the end, everyone was dead. Dark comedy. And being a Coen brothers movie, it certainly looked good. I also liked the cat, Pickles. The funniest part probably being when Garth Pancake (GK Simmons, who was almost as over-the-top as Tom Hanks) was trying to demonstrate that the plastic explosive was harmless without the detonator, hitting it with a hammer and blowing it up in the process. "Frankly ma'am, I'm not sure I heard anything at all." Also, that garbage-barge seemed to make awfully frequent trips to that island... ***
While not one of the Coen brothers' best movies, even their worst movie is better than most regular movies. Tom Hanks is a highlight in this movie about a heist gone bad. I liked how, by the end, everyone was dead. Dark comedy. And being a Coen brothers movie, it certainly looked good. I also liked the cat, Pickles. The funniest part probably being when Garth Pancake (GK Simmons, who was almost as over-the-top as Tom Hanks) was trying to demonstrate that the plastic explosive was harmless without the detonator, hitting it with a hammer and blowing it up in the process. "Frankly ma'am, I'm not sure I heard anything at all." Also, that garbage-barge seemed to make awfully frequent trips to that island... ***
Monday, April 05, 2004
The Entertainer
THE ENTERTAINER (1960) - April 5, 2004
A mostly entertaining movie about a washed out entertainer and his relationship with his family. Laurence Olivier was really good in the title role. Altogether well-made, but yet again, muffled classroom speakers + heavy British accents = trouble. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't missed so much dialogue. Oh well. Some of the scenes on the stage reminded me of Children of Paradise, though the movies weren't similar at all. Plus Children of Paradise was a million times better. **1/2
A mostly entertaining movie about a washed out entertainer and his relationship with his family. Laurence Olivier was really good in the title role. Altogether well-made, but yet again, muffled classroom speakers + heavy British accents = trouble. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't missed so much dialogue. Oh well. Some of the scenes on the stage reminded me of Children of Paradise, though the movies weren't similar at all. Plus Children of Paradise was a million times better. **1/2
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Hellboy
HELLBOY (2004) - April 3, 2004
Perhaps it's because it's been such a long time since I've seen a movie in the theatres, but I enjoyed this quite a lot. Right from the beginning, with all the stuff with the Nazis, I was into it. The movie was action-packed, but the action never felt overwhelming. I really liked the character of Hellboy, and all his wisecracks (shouting "it's for you!" as he slams a ringing phone into a bad guy's head -- gold). I also liked the character of Abe Sapien. Plus that Nazi assassin who kept winding himself up was really cool. Guillermo Del Toro's super-rapid editing during action scenes didn't bother me nearly as much as it did during Blade 2. In fact, I only really noticed it a little bit in the first action sequence (with the Nazis). Just a really fun movie. Definitely makes me want to read the comics. Hopefully it'll do well so they'll make some sequels. ***1/2
Perhaps it's because it's been such a long time since I've seen a movie in the theatres, but I enjoyed this quite a lot. Right from the beginning, with all the stuff with the Nazis, I was into it. The movie was action-packed, but the action never felt overwhelming. I really liked the character of Hellboy, and all his wisecracks (shouting "it's for you!" as he slams a ringing phone into a bad guy's head -- gold). I also liked the character of Abe Sapien. Plus that Nazi assassin who kept winding himself up was really cool. Guillermo Del Toro's super-rapid editing during action scenes didn't bother me nearly as much as it did during Blade 2. In fact, I only really noticed it a little bit in the first action sequence (with the Nazis). Just a really fun movie. Definitely makes me want to read the comics. Hopefully it'll do well so they'll make some sequels. ***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)