THE ARISTOCRATS (2005) - May 31, 2005
A stupid, boring, trainwreck of a movie. It is very rare that I'm this bored during a movie, but it was excruciating, especially towards the end. The movie consists entirely of comedians telling and talking about one, very very unfunny joke. The joke isn't funny and most of the comedians admit it -- it's essentially just a juvenile sort of game of trying to be more disgusting than the last guy. And it's fine, I guess; if someone told it to me at a party or something I'd smile and perhaps even chuckle. But after the thirtieth or fortieth time it became incredibly repetitive, and such an ordeal to sit through. Plus we have to hear about the history of the stupid joke, and the many many MANY nuances of telling it - I DON'T CARE. This isn't interesting. Shut up, all of you. This may be useful to aspiring comedians on a technical level, but aside from that I don't see how it's supposed to be entertainment. It doesn't help that the film's rapid-fire editing style rarely allows a single person to talk for more than five seconds or so. It feels like the editor had ADD, and was constantly getting bored with his own footage (though I can't say I blame him). Towards the end it got quite oppressive, like listening to the same bad song on loop for ninety minutes. This was a terrible movie and I hated almost every second of it. ZERO STARS
Short reviews of all the movies I see, rated out of four. Reviews containing spoilers are marked with an (S).
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
The Final Cut
THE FINAL CUT (2004) - May 30, 2005
Robin Williams gives one of his better performances in this interesting sci-fi film set in the not-too-distant future. A technology called Zoe records a person's entire life, which is then edited together like a movie by a "cutter." Williams plays a cutter whose life essentially revolves around his job. This was a good film and it deserved some kind of theatrical release, though I could certainly see that it would be hard to market. There were some interesting observations about the nature of our memories. I also liked Omar Naim's direction; it sort of reminded me of Kubrick, though obviously Naim is nowhere nearly as good as the K-man. This is the type of movie that you continue to think about well after the credits have rolled, and one of the better movies I've seen in a while. ***1/2
Robin Williams gives one of his better performances in this interesting sci-fi film set in the not-too-distant future. A technology called Zoe records a person's entire life, which is then edited together like a movie by a "cutter." Williams plays a cutter whose life essentially revolves around his job. This was a good film and it deserved some kind of theatrical release, though I could certainly see that it would be hard to market. There were some interesting observations about the nature of our memories. I also liked Omar Naim's direction; it sort of reminded me of Kubrick, though obviously Naim is nowhere nearly as good as the K-man. This is the type of movie that you continue to think about well after the credits have rolled, and one of the better movies I've seen in a while. ***1/2
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Flight of the Phoenix
FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (2004) - May 29, 2005
An enjoyable film about a group of people who try to rebuild their plane after crashing in the middle of the desert. My main problem with this movie was that there was not a single surprise the entire time -- not because the movie was predictable (though it essentially was), but because the trailer literally gives the entire movie away, right to the final minute. At this point I'm used to trailers giving away a lot more than I'd like, but this was just ridiculous. Aside from that the movie was fine. There was nothing really special about it, but it was well-made and entertaining throughout. ***
An enjoyable film about a group of people who try to rebuild their plane after crashing in the middle of the desert. My main problem with this movie was that there was not a single surprise the entire time -- not because the movie was predictable (though it essentially was), but because the trailer literally gives the entire movie away, right to the final minute. At this point I'm used to trailers giving away a lot more than I'd like, but this was just ridiculous. Aside from that the movie was fine. There was nothing really special about it, but it was well-made and entertaining throughout. ***
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Silver Streak
SILVER STREAK (1976) - May 22, 2005
Gene Wilder is really good in this film about a man on a train who witnesses a murder and then gets caught up in the events that follow. Richard Pryor is also quite good, though he doesn't pop up for about an hour. The film is funny at times and really enjoyable throughout. ***
Gene Wilder is really good in this film about a man on a train who witnesses a murder and then gets caught up in the events that follow. Richard Pryor is also quite good, though he doesn't pop up for about an hour. The film is funny at times and really enjoyable throughout. ***
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) - May 21, 2005 (Second Viewing)
This movie is just as good on a second viewing as it is on the first. Maybe better, even. It's good in so many ways I can't even begin to list them all. I only wish the first two prequel films were this good. It certainly makes me want to watch the originals again. Too bad I can't watch them on DVD. ****
This movie is just as good on a second viewing as it is on the first. Maybe better, even. It's good in so many ways I can't even begin to list them all. I only wish the first two prequel films were this good. It certainly makes me want to watch the originals again. Too bad I can't watch them on DVD. ****
Friday, May 20, 2005
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) - May 20, 2005
Awesome. Super awesome. Super mega awesome. This is easily the best of the prequel trilogy and certainly right up there with the originals. The opening space battle - beginning with an impressively long shot - was really exciting and certainly the best one from this trilogy (though it still can't touch the one from ANH or, the best one of all, the one from ROTJ). General Grievous made for a good villain, though I'd like to know what his deal was (he seemed to be some sort of part man / part machine, but they didn't go into that at all). Then of course there was Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, who gave what had to be one of the best bad guy performances of all time. He was just so sinister, and the scenes where he's manipulating Anakin are among the best in the movie. Ewan McGregor was equally good as Obi-Wan, and seemed to be channeling the spirit of Alec Guiness. And Hayden Christensen was really good as Anakin, whose descent to the dark side was treated really well. Everything about this movie was really good. It was certainly the darkest of the Star Wars films, from the execution of all the Jedi to Anakin's horrible disfigurement and transformation into Darth Vader. I particularly liked the way it bridged this trilogy to the Original Trilogy, with all the little references and what not. The final scene of the movie, in which baby Luke is given to his parents on Tatooine, was so good it brought a tear to my eye (I'll also admit that I got a little choked up during the scene in which the twins were born; there was just something special about actually seeing Luke and Leia being born). I'm really looking forward to seeing this again. ****
Awesome. Super awesome. Super mega awesome. This is easily the best of the prequel trilogy and certainly right up there with the originals. The opening space battle - beginning with an impressively long shot - was really exciting and certainly the best one from this trilogy (though it still can't touch the one from ANH or, the best one of all, the one from ROTJ). General Grievous made for a good villain, though I'd like to know what his deal was (he seemed to be some sort of part man / part machine, but they didn't go into that at all). Then of course there was Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, who gave what had to be one of the best bad guy performances of all time. He was just so sinister, and the scenes where he's manipulating Anakin are among the best in the movie. Ewan McGregor was equally good as Obi-Wan, and seemed to be channeling the spirit of Alec Guiness. And Hayden Christensen was really good as Anakin, whose descent to the dark side was treated really well. Everything about this movie was really good. It was certainly the darkest of the Star Wars films, from the execution of all the Jedi to Anakin's horrible disfigurement and transformation into Darth Vader. I particularly liked the way it bridged this trilogy to the Original Trilogy, with all the little references and what not. The final scene of the movie, in which baby Luke is given to his parents on Tatooine, was so good it brought a tear to my eye (I'll also admit that I got a little choked up during the scene in which the twins were born; there was just something special about actually seeing Luke and Leia being born). I'm really looking forward to seeing this again. ****
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Madagascar
MADAGASCAR (2005) - May 18, 2005
A somewhat mediocre cartoon about a group of zoo animals who must adapt when they suddenly find themselves in the wild. It was essentially entertaining, and all the performances were fine, but... it just wasn't that great. It didn't help that it ran out of steam pretty much as soon as they got to the wild. A group of crazy penguins, also from the zoo, stole every scene they were in and were easily the highlight of the whole thing. They should have been the stars of the movie. **1/2
A somewhat mediocre cartoon about a group of zoo animals who must adapt when they suddenly find themselves in the wild. It was essentially entertaining, and all the performances were fine, but... it just wasn't that great. It didn't help that it ran out of steam pretty much as soon as they got to the wild. A group of crazy penguins, also from the zoo, stole every scene they were in and were easily the highlight of the whole thing. They should have been the stars of the movie. **1/2
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002) - May 17, 2005 (Fifth Viewing)
While this is definitely superior to Episode I, it is flawed in many ways and certainly nowhere nearly as good as the Original Trilogy. George Lucas' over-reliance on CGI can definitely be felt more here than in the previous movie. While some of the special effects are extremely impressive, much of the film looks artificial; this is particularly true of the CGI "sets," most of which don't look even a little bit authentic. As well, the relationship between Anakin and Padme - which is central to the film - is a bit weak. They barely have any chemistry together, and it's quite baffling as to why Padme would even be in love with Anakin -- he spends most of the movie brooding and/or whining. I do think, however, that Hayden Christensen gives a good performance. Yes, he's whiney, and maybe even a little bit annoying -- but that's the character. He's a whiney brat. He's just a teenager who does not have the emotional ability to deal with his enormous powers, which is ultimately why he succumbs to the Dark Side. I like the way that Palpatine essentially produces a war in order to assume power, and the way he encourages Anakin, sensing and exploiting his emotional weakness. Obviously that'll be explored more in the next movie. Two more days! ***1/2
While this is definitely superior to Episode I, it is flawed in many ways and certainly nowhere nearly as good as the Original Trilogy. George Lucas' over-reliance on CGI can definitely be felt more here than in the previous movie. While some of the special effects are extremely impressive, much of the film looks artificial; this is particularly true of the CGI "sets," most of which don't look even a little bit authentic. As well, the relationship between Anakin and Padme - which is central to the film - is a bit weak. They barely have any chemistry together, and it's quite baffling as to why Padme would even be in love with Anakin -- he spends most of the movie brooding and/or whining. I do think, however, that Hayden Christensen gives a good performance. Yes, he's whiney, and maybe even a little bit annoying -- but that's the character. He's a whiney brat. He's just a teenager who does not have the emotional ability to deal with his enormous powers, which is ultimately why he succumbs to the Dark Side. I like the way that Palpatine essentially produces a war in order to assume power, and the way he encourages Anakin, sensing and exploiting his emotional weakness. Obviously that'll be explored more in the next movie. Two more days! ***1/2
Monday, May 16, 2005
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999) - May 16, 2005 (Sixth or Seventh Viewing)
I like this movie, though I can definitely see what people don't like about it. For one thing, most of the film seems sort of useless, like it has no real impact on the series as a whole. What was the point (in the grand scheme of things) of Jar Jar? The Gungans? The Pod Race? The final battle? Darth Maul? Naboo? The Midichlorians? None of these things have much of an impact, if any, of the other five movies (though I have yet to see Episode III). Really, the only things of importance in this movie are the fact that Anakin was a nice little kid, and some of the political maneuvering that Palpatine does in the senate. This is stuff that could have been accomplished in about fifteen minutes, rather than a 130 minute movie. So certainly, there is a sense of wasted time, like why does this movie even need to exist? But then it is enjoyable. The pod race, as useless as it is, is well done and quite exciting. The lightsaber fight at the end with Darth Maul was also really good. This is definitely the weakest of the Star Wars films, and the least Star Warsy (compared to the Original Trilogy), but it's still really entertaining. And as far as big summer action movies go, this is pretty much as good as it gets. ***1/2
I like this movie, though I can definitely see what people don't like about it. For one thing, most of the film seems sort of useless, like it has no real impact on the series as a whole. What was the point (in the grand scheme of things) of Jar Jar? The Gungans? The Pod Race? The final battle? Darth Maul? Naboo? The Midichlorians? None of these things have much of an impact, if any, of the other five movies (though I have yet to see Episode III). Really, the only things of importance in this movie are the fact that Anakin was a nice little kid, and some of the political maneuvering that Palpatine does in the senate. This is stuff that could have been accomplished in about fifteen minutes, rather than a 130 minute movie. So certainly, there is a sense of wasted time, like why does this movie even need to exist? But then it is enjoyable. The pod race, as useless as it is, is well done and quite exciting. The lightsaber fight at the end with Darth Maul was also really good. This is definitely the weakest of the Star Wars films, and the least Star Warsy (compared to the Original Trilogy), but it's still really entertaining. And as far as big summer action movies go, this is pretty much as good as it gets. ***1/2
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Time of the Wolf
TIME OF THE WOLF (2003) - May 15, 2005
A slow-paced (putting it mildly) film about a bunch of characters in some kind of post-apocalyptic society. Michael Haneke makes the interesting (but not necessarily entertaining) choice to leave the viewer completely in the dark about pretty much everything -- the characters are not developed in the least, and their situation is pretty much a complete mystery. And there's no plot whatsoever. Essentially, the movie begins, some stuff of little to no significance happens, and then it ends. By the end of the movie we barely know the characters any better than when it started. The film was well made, I suppose, and it's never entirely boring. And it is sort of interesting to just be thrust into this world and watch as these characters (who we never get to know, really) interact with nothing particularly important happening. But it's not really very entertaining. And sort of pointless, too. **1/2
A slow-paced (putting it mildly) film about a bunch of characters in some kind of post-apocalyptic society. Michael Haneke makes the interesting (but not necessarily entertaining) choice to leave the viewer completely in the dark about pretty much everything -- the characters are not developed in the least, and their situation is pretty much a complete mystery. And there's no plot whatsoever. Essentially, the movie begins, some stuff of little to no significance happens, and then it ends. By the end of the movie we barely know the characters any better than when it started. The film was well made, I suppose, and it's never entirely boring. And it is sort of interesting to just be thrust into this world and watch as these characters (who we never get to know, really) interact with nothing particularly important happening. But it's not really very entertaining. And sort of pointless, too. **1/2
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Unleashed
UNLEASHED (2005) - May 14, 2005
A surprisingly enjoyable action movie starring Jet Li as a man who was essentially brought up as a dog, trained only to fight and to kill. This is probably the best Jet Li movie that I've seen; it wisely avoids the over-the-top wirework that has plagued pretty much all of Li's American movies. The action was actually really good, easily the best I've seen since Ong-Bak. Though this movie isn't nearly as cram-packed with action as Ong-Bak was, the stuff between the action was actually quite good, so it doesn't really matter. Bob Hoskins chews the scenery and gives a really entertaining performance as Li's "uncle" Bart. Morgan Freeman is good (as always) as a kindly father-figure who helps Li to rediscover his humanity. And Li himself was actually quite good, creating a character that we actually come to care about. ***1/2
A surprisingly enjoyable action movie starring Jet Li as a man who was essentially brought up as a dog, trained only to fight and to kill. This is probably the best Jet Li movie that I've seen; it wisely avoids the over-the-top wirework that has plagued pretty much all of Li's American movies. The action was actually really good, easily the best I've seen since Ong-Bak. Though this movie isn't nearly as cram-packed with action as Ong-Bak was, the stuff between the action was actually quite good, so it doesn't really matter. Bob Hoskins chews the scenery and gives a really entertaining performance as Li's "uncle" Bart. Morgan Freeman is good (as always) as a kindly father-figure who helps Li to rediscover his humanity. And Li himself was actually quite good, creating a character that we actually come to care about. ***1/2
Friday, May 13, 2005
Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!
WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON! (2004) - May 13, 2005
I don't get this movie. It pretty much spends the whole time developing Josh Duhamel and Kate Bosworth's relationship, with Topher Grace essentially leering at her from the background. And yet she ends up with him, for some bizarre reason. That's sort of like having a movie with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and then having them break up at the end. It doesn't work. It doesn't help that Topher Grace's character is barely likeable (particularly compared to Josh Duhamel); Grace seems even more sarcastic than usual here, if that's even possible. Other than that the movie was essentially enjoyable, I suppose, but... what's up with that ending? **1/2
I don't get this movie. It pretty much spends the whole time developing Josh Duhamel and Kate Bosworth's relationship, with Topher Grace essentially leering at her from the background. And yet she ends up with him, for some bizarre reason. That's sort of like having a movie with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and then having them break up at the end. It doesn't work. It doesn't help that Topher Grace's character is barely likeable (particularly compared to Josh Duhamel); Grace seems even more sarcastic than usual here, if that's even possible. Other than that the movie was essentially enjoyable, I suppose, but... what's up with that ending? **1/2
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Kicking & Screaming
KICKING & SCREAMING (2005) - May 11, 2005
Not that I was expecting much out of this movie, but it was still surprisingly bad. You'd think it wouldn't be possible to mess up a movie about a rag-tag group of kids in a sports team; all you really have to do is stick to the formula and you'll end up with a cheesy but enjoyable film. This movie's first (and fatal) mistake is that it takes all the emphasis off the kids, and puts it on the coach -- Will Ferrell, who is essentially playing Homer Simpson (good intentioned but ultimately an obnoxious jerk whose emotions swing wildly). The problem with Ferrell in this movie is that he is way over-the-top, and yet at the same time he seems to be restraining himself, not giving the full-out Will Ferrell persona we've come to know from SNL. That would be fine if he were trying to create an actual character, but that is far from the case. It's clear that the director (Jesse Dylan, who also directed How High and is a complete hack) simply rolled the cameras and let Ferrell go wild, so... why the restraint? What's the deal? The whole thing got pretty boring, and felt like it was at least two hours despite being only ninety minutes. Robert Duvall was fine, but he is clearly too good for a stupid movie like this. *1/2
Not that I was expecting much out of this movie, but it was still surprisingly bad. You'd think it wouldn't be possible to mess up a movie about a rag-tag group of kids in a sports team; all you really have to do is stick to the formula and you'll end up with a cheesy but enjoyable film. This movie's first (and fatal) mistake is that it takes all the emphasis off the kids, and puts it on the coach -- Will Ferrell, who is essentially playing Homer Simpson (good intentioned but ultimately an obnoxious jerk whose emotions swing wildly). The problem with Ferrell in this movie is that he is way over-the-top, and yet at the same time he seems to be restraining himself, not giving the full-out Will Ferrell persona we've come to know from SNL. That would be fine if he were trying to create an actual character, but that is far from the case. It's clear that the director (Jesse Dylan, who also directed How High and is a complete hack) simply rolled the cameras and let Ferrell go wild, so... why the restraint? What's the deal? The whole thing got pretty boring, and felt like it was at least two hours despite being only ninety minutes. Robert Duvall was fine, but he is clearly too good for a stupid movie like this. *1/2
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Kingdom of Heaven
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005) - May 8, 2005
A visually arresting film by Ridley Scott about a blacksmith who eventually becomes the leader of a group of Christians in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Orlando Bloom is better than usual in the main role, and doesn't come off here nearly as feminine as he usually does. The film is refreshingly complex in its portrayal of the two sides, showing the Muslims as essentially being the Christians' equals, rather than simply two-dimensional villains (as in something like King Arthur). The movie does lag a bit around the middle, but for the most part is quite entertaining. The special effects are really impressive, particularly during the battle scenes and in the recreation of Jerusalem at the time. There wasn't a single moment where I thought that something looked clearly artificial, despite the fact that computers were clearly used to portray the gigantic armies. The whole movie was really visually impressive, but I guess that's not much of a surprise considering it was directed by Ridley Scott. ***1/2
A visually arresting film by Ridley Scott about a blacksmith who eventually becomes the leader of a group of Christians in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Orlando Bloom is better than usual in the main role, and doesn't come off here nearly as feminine as he usually does. The film is refreshingly complex in its portrayal of the two sides, showing the Muslims as essentially being the Christians' equals, rather than simply two-dimensional villains (as in something like King Arthur). The movie does lag a bit around the middle, but for the most part is quite entertaining. The special effects are really impressive, particularly during the battle scenes and in the recreation of Jerusalem at the time. There wasn't a single moment where I thought that something looked clearly artificial, despite the fact that computers were clearly used to portray the gigantic armies. The whole movie was really visually impressive, but I guess that's not much of a surprise considering it was directed by Ridley Scott. ***1/2
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Jersey Girl
JERSEY GIRL (2004) - May 5, 2005
A stupid, cheesy, predictable but entertaining movie by Kevin Smith. This is easily Smith's worst film; it seems as though he has intentionally dumbed himself down so he could have a hit at the box office. Fortunately this wasn't the case, so hopefully he'll get back to what he does best. There are glimmers of what makes Smith great here - little bits of dialogue that remind you for a few seconds that this is the same man who wrote Clerks - but they are few and far between. For the most part this is a stupid little movie that could have been written and directed by anybody. And it works, I suppose -- this is a movie that aims very very low, but certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do. Note to Kevin Smith: stop pandering. Just make a movie where people talk. Leave the Garry Marshall movies to Garry Marshall. **1/2
A stupid, cheesy, predictable but entertaining movie by Kevin Smith. This is easily Smith's worst film; it seems as though he has intentionally dumbed himself down so he could have a hit at the box office. Fortunately this wasn't the case, so hopefully he'll get back to what he does best. There are glimmers of what makes Smith great here - little bits of dialogue that remind you for a few seconds that this is the same man who wrote Clerks - but they are few and far between. For the most part this is a stupid little movie that could have been written and directed by anybody. And it works, I suppose -- this is a movie that aims very very low, but certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do. Note to Kevin Smith: stop pandering. Just make a movie where people talk. Leave the Garry Marshall movies to Garry Marshall. **1/2
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
House of Wax
HOUSE OF WAX (2005) - May 4, 2005
I absolutely hated this movie. It was atrociously bad. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that was good about it. It was badly made, it was unpleasant, it was boring, it was slow-paced (it takes about an hour for the first person to get killed). The "characters" were all just cliches -- the party girl, the black guy (who says stuff like "awww yeah!" and calls people "dog"), the wacky guy, the main slasher-movie girl (the one who runs up the stairs when she should be running out of the house), the bad-ass with a heart of gold. The whole movie was essentially a rip-off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, which was also terrible. And it was all so stupid. And so unpleasant! So very unpleasant. Who is supposed to enjoy this movie? What's enjoyable about it? Someone needs to explain that to me. ZERO STARS
I absolutely hated this movie. It was atrociously bad. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that was good about it. It was badly made, it was unpleasant, it was boring, it was slow-paced (it takes about an hour for the first person to get killed). The "characters" were all just cliches -- the party girl, the black guy (who says stuff like "awww yeah!" and calls people "dog"), the wacky guy, the main slasher-movie girl (the one who runs up the stairs when she should be running out of the house), the bad-ass with a heart of gold. The whole movie was essentially a rip-off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, which was also terrible. And it was all so stupid. And so unpleasant! So very unpleasant. Who is supposed to enjoy this movie? What's enjoyable about it? Someone needs to explain that to me. ZERO STARS
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Assassination of Richard Nixon
THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON (2004) - May 2, 2005
Sean Penn is excellent in this film as Sam Bicke (a name whose similarity to Travis Bickle is clearly intentional, as this movie owes a great deal to Taxi Driver). The film is plotless, focusing entirely on Sean Penn's character and his descent from mildly crazy guy to really crazy guy, and it works, mostly because Penn's performance is so good. ***
Sean Penn is excellent in this film as Sam Bicke (a name whose similarity to Travis Bickle is clearly intentional, as this movie owes a great deal to Taxi Driver). The film is plotless, focusing entirely on Sean Penn's character and his descent from mildly crazy guy to really crazy guy, and it works, mostly because Penn's performance is so good. ***
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Sullivan's Travels
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941) - May 1, 2005
A well directed, well written and extremely entertaining film about a director who pretends to be a hobo to make his next movie more authentic. Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake were both really good delivering the kind of snappy dialogue you don't see in movies anymore. The movie was more than just snappy dialogue though, as the characters became people we really care about. The movie was a sort of comedy/drama, though mostly a comedy. At ninety minutes long there wasn't a wasted moment in the film, and the whole thing just flew by. ****
A well directed, well written and extremely entertaining film about a director who pretends to be a hobo to make his next movie more authentic. Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake were both really good delivering the kind of snappy dialogue you don't see in movies anymore. The movie was more than just snappy dialogue though, as the characters became people we really care about. The movie was a sort of comedy/drama, though mostly a comedy. At ninety minutes long there wasn't a wasted moment in the film, and the whole thing just flew by. ****
Downfall
DOWNFALL (2004) - May 1, 2005
A powerful film about the last few weeks in Hitler's bunker at the end of World War II. It's nice to see Hitler portrayed not as a two-dimensional monster, but as a regular person; brutal in his policies and prone to bursts of rage, but also at times kind to those around him. It helps that Bruno Ganz's performance is quite excellent. The movie isn't only about Hitler however, but about several characters in and around the bunker at the end of the war (sort of a Nazi Magnolia). The movie is really well directed, though at around two and a half hours it feels a tad long, but that's a fairly minor complaint. ***1/2
A powerful film about the last few weeks in Hitler's bunker at the end of World War II. It's nice to see Hitler portrayed not as a two-dimensional monster, but as a regular person; brutal in his policies and prone to bursts of rage, but also at times kind to those around him. It helps that Bruno Ganz's performance is quite excellent. The movie isn't only about Hitler however, but about several characters in and around the bunker at the end of the war (sort of a Nazi Magnolia). The movie is really well directed, though at around two and a half hours it feels a tad long, but that's a fairly minor complaint. ***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)