CONSTANTINE (2005) - Feb. 26, 2005
Though I haven't read any issues of Hellblazer, the comic on which this movie is based, I think it's a safe bet that it's better than this movie (especially since it was created by Alan Moore). The movie started off okay; it was well directed, and Keanu Reeves was quite good as the very grizzled John Constantine. But after a while I found myself losing interest, and I was getting pretty bored by the time the film slowly lumbered to its conclusion. It was overlong by at least half an hour, which didn't help, plus the plot got really convoluted towards the end. Peter Stormare injected some life into the movie as Satan, but his part was, unfortunately, quite tiny. **
Short reviews of all the movies I see, rated out of four. Reviews containing spoilers are marked with an (S).
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Garage Days
GARAGE DAYS (2002) - Feb. 25, 2005
About a band's struggles to make it big, this film features some over-the-top direction by Alex Proyas (but in a good way -- the direction never really gets in the way of the movie). There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, and it was entertaining all the way through. ***
About a band's struggles to make it big, this film features some over-the-top direction by Alex Proyas (but in a good way -- the direction never really gets in the way of the movie). There are a few chuckle-worthy moments, and it was entertaining all the way through. ***
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Where Have all the People Gone?
WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE GONE? (1974) - Feb 24, 2005
About a mysterious explosion that kills most of the earth's population, and a family that managed to survive. Though it was obviously made on an ultra-low budget, it was still somewhat effective in its depiction of a post-apocalyptic world. It reminded me a bit of the comic series "the Walking Dead" (but without the zombies). Some parts were more effective than others, and it was a bit slow in parts, but it was generally pretty good for a low budget TV movie. **1/2
About a mysterious explosion that kills most of the earth's population, and a family that managed to survive. Though it was obviously made on an ultra-low budget, it was still somewhat effective in its depiction of a post-apocalyptic world. It reminded me a bit of the comic series "the Walking Dead" (but without the zombies). Some parts were more effective than others, and it was a bit slow in parts, but it was generally pretty good for a low budget TV movie. **1/2
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
The Cooler
THE COOLER (2003) - Feb. 23, 2005
William H. Macy plays a "cooler," whose job is to bring people bad luck in a casino. His luck starts to turn when he falls in love with a waitress. Macy and Maria Bello are good as the couple, but Alec Baldwin is the real star of the show as a old-school casino boss being pushed out by a younger, Steve Wynn type. He steals every scene he's in, so you're sort of just waiting for him to pop up again in all the scenes where he's absent. The stuff with Macy and Bello was fine, but the stuff with Baldwin was so good it was hard for anything else to compare. ***
William H. Macy plays a "cooler," whose job is to bring people bad luck in a casino. His luck starts to turn when he falls in love with a waitress. Macy and Maria Bello are good as the couple, but Alec Baldwin is the real star of the show as a old-school casino boss being pushed out by a younger, Steve Wynn type. He steals every scene he's in, so you're sort of just waiting for him to pop up again in all the scenes where he's absent. The stuff with Macy and Bello was fine, but the stuff with Baldwin was so good it was hard for anything else to compare. ***
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Fugitive
THE FUGITIVE (1993) - Feb. 22, 2005 (Third Viewing)
A superlative thriller. Harrison Ford is really good as the man on the run, trying to prove his innocence. Tommy Lee Jones is equally good as his dogged pursuer. The movie is well directed and extremely entertaining throughout, despite being over two hours. ***1/2
A superlative thriller. Harrison Ford is really good as the man on the run, trying to prove his innocence. Tommy Lee Jones is equally good as his dogged pursuer. The movie is well directed and extremely entertaining throughout, despite being over two hours. ***1/2
Monday, February 21, 2005
P.S.
P.S. (2004) - Feb. 21 (2005)
Topher Grace and Laura Linney are both excellent in this film about a woman in her late thirties who begins a relationship with a student. Topher Grace in particular was really good, and effectively proves that he is a far better actor than his work on That '70s Show would lead you to believe (not that he's bad in that). The movie was written and directed by Dylan Kidd, whose Roger Dodger was far better than this, but oh well. At least he's finally discovered how to use a tripod. ***
Topher Grace and Laura Linney are both excellent in this film about a woman in her late thirties who begins a relationship with a student. Topher Grace in particular was really good, and effectively proves that he is a far better actor than his work on That '70s Show would lead you to believe (not that he's bad in that). The movie was written and directed by Dylan Kidd, whose Roger Dodger was far better than this, but oh well. At least he's finally discovered how to use a tripod. ***
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Fear in the Night
FEAR IN THE NIGHT (1947) - Feb. 20, 2005
DeForest Kelly stars as a man who has a dream that he murders someone, and then wakes up to find clues that he actually did it. Essentially plays out like a long episode of the Twilight Zone. The movie was clearly made on a very low budget, but remains entertaining throughout (the 72 minute running time probably helps). Worthwhile, if only to see a very young Bones in his first movie role. ***
DeForest Kelly stars as a man who has a dream that he murders someone, and then wakes up to find clues that he actually did it. Essentially plays out like a long episode of the Twilight Zone. The movie was clearly made on a very low budget, but remains entertaining throughout (the 72 minute running time probably helps). Worthwhile, if only to see a very young Bones in his first movie role. ***
Red
RED (1994) - Feb. 20, 2005
This film, about a woman who strikes up a friendship with a retired judge who eavesdrops on his neighbours' phone calls, is probably the best of the "three colours" trilogy. However, it shares the same flaws as the other two (the main character is never really fully developed). This is essentially a minor quibble, as the film is well made and certainly entertaining from start to finish. The problem (and the problem I had with the other two) is that I was expecting a masterpiece along the lines of the Decalogue. These three films were all good, definitely, but not great. They all seem like the type of movie that would improve on repeat viewings, so perhaps when I revist them in a few years I'll find that I like them better. ***
This film, about a woman who strikes up a friendship with a retired judge who eavesdrops on his neighbours' phone calls, is probably the best of the "three colours" trilogy. However, it shares the same flaws as the other two (the main character is never really fully developed). This is essentially a minor quibble, as the film is well made and certainly entertaining from start to finish. The problem (and the problem I had with the other two) is that I was expecting a masterpiece along the lines of the Decalogue. These three films were all good, definitely, but not great. They all seem like the type of movie that would improve on repeat viewings, so perhaps when I revist them in a few years I'll find that I like them better. ***
Saturday, February 19, 2005
White
WHITE (1994) - Feb. 19, 2005
While this slightly better than the first film in the trilogy, Blue, it's still not quite the masterpiece it's made out to be. About a man who starts a new life when his wife leaves him, it suffers from the same problem as the first film -- the protagonist is somewhat mysterious, and his motivations are never fully explored. Like with Blue, since we never really come to know this guy, it's hard to really care what happens to him. It's very well made and entertaining throughout, but I just can't help but be disappointed. ***
While this slightly better than the first film in the trilogy, Blue, it's still not quite the masterpiece it's made out to be. About a man who starts a new life when his wife leaves him, it suffers from the same problem as the first film -- the protagonist is somewhat mysterious, and his motivations are never fully explored. Like with Blue, since we never really come to know this guy, it's hard to really care what happens to him. It's very well made and entertaining throughout, but I just can't help but be disappointed. ***
Friday, February 18, 2005
Blue
BLUE (1993) - Feb. 18, 2005
About a woman who loses her husband and son in a car crash, this film is seemingly pointless and somewhat disappointing. I'm willing to give Kieslowski the benefit of the doubt, since the Decalogue was so excellent, and I don't know, maybe I just didn't get it. Perhaps if I ever watch it again I'll understand what the movie was trying to say, but as it stands now the whole thing seems sort of pointless to me. Juliette Binoche was reasonably good as the woman dealing with her grief, but her character seems to react to the loss by going into shock and holding her emotions inside, which is well and good, but it makes it sort of hard to ever come to care about her or even really know her, since she rarely speaks. And since the movie is entirely plotless and completely about her character, it makes it kind of hard to ever really get into it. I don't know; it seems like the type of movie that might improve on repeat viewings, but right now I think it went over my head. **1/2
About a woman who loses her husband and son in a car crash, this film is seemingly pointless and somewhat disappointing. I'm willing to give Kieslowski the benefit of the doubt, since the Decalogue was so excellent, and I don't know, maybe I just didn't get it. Perhaps if I ever watch it again I'll understand what the movie was trying to say, but as it stands now the whole thing seems sort of pointless to me. Juliette Binoche was reasonably good as the woman dealing with her grief, but her character seems to react to the loss by going into shock and holding her emotions inside, which is well and good, but it makes it sort of hard to ever come to care about her or even really know her, since she rarely speaks. And since the movie is entirely plotless and completely about her character, it makes it kind of hard to ever really get into it. I don't know; it seems like the type of movie that might improve on repeat viewings, but right now I think it went over my head. **1/2
Monday, February 14, 2005
Priest
PRIEST (1994) - Feb. 14, 2005
About a gay Catholic priest who questions his faith, this film is an exceptionally heavy-handed critique of the Catholic church. I suppose for those who find this subject interesting, this may serve as an insightful look at the church, but those who couldn't care less about this stuff (ie: me) are out of luck. But even for those who fall into the former category, the film is far too preachy (no pun intended) to ever be really effective. The performances are good, particularly Tom Wilkinson as another priest, but that's about it. **
About a gay Catholic priest who questions his faith, this film is an exceptionally heavy-handed critique of the Catholic church. I suppose for those who find this subject interesting, this may serve as an insightful look at the church, but those who couldn't care less about this stuff (ie: me) are out of luck. But even for those who fall into the former category, the film is far too preachy (no pun intended) to ever be really effective. The performances are good, particularly Tom Wilkinson as another priest, but that's about it. **
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Umberto D.
UMBERTO D. (1952) - Feb. 13, 2005
Essentially plotless, this film follows an old, retired man, Umberto D, as he struggles to support himself and his only real companion, his dog. The performances, particularly Carlo Battisi in the title role, are really good, and Vittorio De Sica's direction is quite excellent. Being an Italian neorealist film, it is, of course, quite slow, but it's so well made that you barely notice. ***1/2
Essentially plotless, this film follows an old, retired man, Umberto D, as he struggles to support himself and his only real companion, his dog. The performances, particularly Carlo Battisi in the title role, are really good, and Vittorio De Sica's direction is quite excellent. Being an Italian neorealist film, it is, of course, quite slow, but it's so well made that you barely notice. ***1/2
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Ong-Bak
ONG-BAK (2003) - Feb. 12, 2005
Tony Jaa proves without a doubt that he's going to be the next big martial arts star in this movie about a man who goes into the big city after a statue's head is stolen from his small town. The action sequences - including a chase through a busy city, and the whole end part where Jaa takes on a couple dozen guys - are... well, I think the only word for it is "awesome." There were just so many parts where the only possible reaction is, "oh man, that was AWESOME." The action certainly ranks right up there with the best stuff Jackie Chan has done. As for the movie itself, it wasn't all that great, but I was never bored, which is pretty much all you ask for in a movie like this. But really, when the action is this good, who cares about the rest of the movie? It's like complaining that the dialogue sucks in a porno film. It's quite astounding that this is Tony Jaa's first movie; I can't wait to see where he goes from here (especially now that he is becoming - deservedly so - a big star). ***
Tony Jaa proves without a doubt that he's going to be the next big martial arts star in this movie about a man who goes into the big city after a statue's head is stolen from his small town. The action sequences - including a chase through a busy city, and the whole end part where Jaa takes on a couple dozen guys - are... well, I think the only word for it is "awesome." There were just so many parts where the only possible reaction is, "oh man, that was AWESOME." The action certainly ranks right up there with the best stuff Jackie Chan has done. As for the movie itself, it wasn't all that great, but I was never bored, which is pretty much all you ask for in a movie like this. But really, when the action is this good, who cares about the rest of the movie? It's like complaining that the dialogue sucks in a porno film. It's quite astounding that this is Tony Jaa's first movie; I can't wait to see where he goes from here (especially now that he is becoming - deservedly so - a big star). ***
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
The Aviator
THE AVIATOR (2004) - Feb. 8, 2005
Well, that was a bit of a disappointment. It certainly wasn't bad -- it was really well made, and well acted. It was a good movie. But it wasn't great. I never really connected with it like I did with Gangs of New York, or Casino, or Goodfellas, or Raging Bull. It was almost always interesting on a visual level; I particularly liked the sort of technicolor look of the early part of the film. The story, on the other hand... The beginning part, with Hughes struggling to get Hell's Angels made, was probably the most interesting. But then the rest of the film deals with Hughes' various aeronautical endevours, which got a bit old after a while. The movie was almost three hours long, and while it was never boring, it probably would have benefited from a bit of trimming. Another problem is, though it seems like Howard Hughes should be a fascinating subject for a movie, what with all his eccentricities and such, this just doesn't seem to be the case. I blame John Logan. Though he wrote the excellent Gladiator, and the very good The Last Samurai, pretty much everything else he's done has been a big dud (with the worst offender being Bats -- one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen). Though with Gladiator and Samurai, he was credited with two other writers, but with The Aviator and Bats, he has sole credit. I have to wonder how much of the former two films he actually wrote... ***
Well, that was a bit of a disappointment. It certainly wasn't bad -- it was really well made, and well acted. It was a good movie. But it wasn't great. I never really connected with it like I did with Gangs of New York, or Casino, or Goodfellas, or Raging Bull. It was almost always interesting on a visual level; I particularly liked the sort of technicolor look of the early part of the film. The story, on the other hand... The beginning part, with Hughes struggling to get Hell's Angels made, was probably the most interesting. But then the rest of the film deals with Hughes' various aeronautical endevours, which got a bit old after a while. The movie was almost three hours long, and while it was never boring, it probably would have benefited from a bit of trimming. Another problem is, though it seems like Howard Hughes should be a fascinating subject for a movie, what with all his eccentricities and such, this just doesn't seem to be the case. I blame John Logan. Though he wrote the excellent Gladiator, and the very good The Last Samurai, pretty much everything else he's done has been a big dud (with the worst offender being Bats -- one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen). Though with Gladiator and Samurai, he was credited with two other writers, but with The Aviator and Bats, he has sole credit. I have to wonder how much of the former two films he actually wrote... ***
Monday, February 07, 2005
Keep 'Em Flying
KEEP 'EM FLYING (1941) - Feb. 7, 2005
Why does every Abbott and Costello movie have to have musical numbers and a romantic subplot? All I want is to see the duo get into wacky hijinks. Which they do, playing a couple of guys who follow their friend into the air force. Fortunately, the romantic subplot is barely given any screen-time, but there were at least four songs and the movie comes screeching to a halt during every one of them. **1/2
Why does every Abbott and Costello movie have to have musical numbers and a romantic subplot? All I want is to see the duo get into wacky hijinks. Which they do, playing a couple of guys who follow their friend into the air force. Fortunately, the romantic subplot is barely given any screen-time, but there were at least four songs and the movie comes screeching to a halt during every one of them. **1/2
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Casino
CASINO (1995) - Feb. 5, 2005 (Fourth Viewing? Fifth?)
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is right up there with Goodfellas. Perhaps not quite as good, but definitely right up there. Martin Scorsese's direction is brilliant and about as good as anything he's ever done. Robert DeNiro gives one of his last great performances as an oddsmaker who attempts to run a casino. The movie is extremely long but it moves by at such a quick pace you don't feel it at all. ****
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is right up there with Goodfellas. Perhaps not quite as good, but definitely right up there. Martin Scorsese's direction is brilliant and about as good as anything he's ever done. Robert DeNiro gives one of his last great performances as an oddsmaker who attempts to run a casino. The movie is extremely long but it moves by at such a quick pace you don't feel it at all. ****
Friday, February 04, 2005
One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975) - Feb. 4, 2005 (Second Viewing)
Jack Nicholson gives an amazing performance in this slow-paced but very well-made movie about a mental institution. The film is essentially entertaining though it feels a bit on the long side at times. ***
Jack Nicholson gives an amazing performance in this slow-paced but very well-made movie about a mental institution. The film is essentially entertaining though it feels a bit on the long side at times. ***
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Hitch
HITCH (2005) - Feb. 3, 2005
This film is essentially entertaining, up to a certain point -- the part (which happens in every romantic comedy ever made) where there's a misunderstanding and it looks like the couple is going to break up for good. Except this movie stretches that part out to a ridiculous length; really, if you have to put this part in a movie (which clearly you do) there is no reason it should be any longer than five minutes. There is absolutely no question that the couple will get back together, so anything longer than that and you really begin to test the audience's patience. It's just so pointless. Well, other than that the performances were good -- Will Smith is expectedly charming as Hitch, and Kevin James is quite funny as one of his clients. The movie is never really laugh-out-loud funny but there are a few chuckle-worthy moments. If they had just trimmed about half an hour (mostly from the aforementioned "fake breakup" part) this could have been a better-than-average romantic comedy. **1/2
This film is essentially entertaining, up to a certain point -- the part (which happens in every romantic comedy ever made) where there's a misunderstanding and it looks like the couple is going to break up for good. Except this movie stretches that part out to a ridiculous length; really, if you have to put this part in a movie (which clearly you do) there is no reason it should be any longer than five minutes. There is absolutely no question that the couple will get back together, so anything longer than that and you really begin to test the audience's patience. It's just so pointless. Well, other than that the performances were good -- Will Smith is expectedly charming as Hitch, and Kevin James is quite funny as one of his clients. The movie is never really laugh-out-loud funny but there are a few chuckle-worthy moments. If they had just trimmed about half an hour (mostly from the aforementioned "fake breakup" part) this could have been a better-than-average romantic comedy. **1/2
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
In Good Company
IN GOOD COMPANY (2004) - Feb. 1, 2005
Dennis Quaid is excellent (no surprise there) in this movie about a man who finds himself demoted, with his new boss young enough to be his son. Topher Grace, as the boss, proves that he's a really good actor, creating a character distinct from Eric Foreman. The movie is well directed and well written, and quite entertaining. ***1/2
Dennis Quaid is excellent (no surprise there) in this movie about a man who finds himself demoted, with his new boss young enough to be his son. Topher Grace, as the boss, proves that he's a really good actor, creating a character distinct from Eric Foreman. The movie is well directed and well written, and quite entertaining. ***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)