I KNOW I'm giving way too many stars for this, but I don't care; The Doors were one of my very first favourite groups. I fondly recall, when I was 11, and Elektra Records released 'The Doors' Greatest Hits', and the album-length version of 'Light My Fire' was played all the time on the radio, and I was mesmerized by the instrumental middle of the song, got the album from my parents for Christmas, and started a lifelong love affair with the band. Yes, Jim Morrison is highly overrated. Yes, the movie is an extremely self-indulgent mess and it can be quite incoherent and incohesive. But the Sixties, the L.A. rock scene back then, and especially Morrison's life, were just like that, so it is oh so fitting! I adore the fact that it was Oliver Stone's labour of love (one of thankfully many) and that the surviving members of the band basically had full input. I would take this and 'Talk Radio' (my personal favourite Stone's throw) over a hundred of Stone's politically over-the-top movies any day! When I was 17, I took my life savings and visited, on my own, nine European countries, including France and its capital, Paris. Did I go for the Eiffel Tower, wild romance on Richard Linklater-esque trains, or its outstanding magic and sidewalk cafes? No--train-wise I had to put up with a stupid labour strike, such that an overnight sleeper car from Berne, Switzerland to Paris had to be switched, in the middle of the night, FOUR times, just so they could prove a point. And it was just to see Morrison's grave. I met 20 fantastic people who had made the pilgrimage from all over the world, and it was my first time having red wine and smoking pot. The graffiti and the sculpture of him, in the Pere Lachaise cemetery, were fascinating, as was his life. Would I go through that again? Of course I would. It's Val Kilmer's best work by a mile. The film just oozes charisma and breathes life--just as the band's work must have done back in the day. Worth a purchase and re-watches (I watch it each year on Jim's birthday and accidentally bought it twice), for any fan of 60's music or its culture. A bonafide classic when Stone was actually really something.
A beautiful and stunning work, from both the acting primes of Catherine Deneuve, Jean Marais and Delphine Seyrig, and the directorial prime of Jacques Demy. One of the most exquisite and memorable transfers of a children's fable to the big screen.
I went into watching this expecting the worst, but it wasn't bad. (In comparison, I gave the Bigelow original a 9/10). To its advantage was an intriguing update of the original W. Peter Iliff screenplay to incorporate a) more extreme sports; and b) more aspects indicative of the present generation, great cinematography and both Delroy Lindo and Ray Winstone--who are both 'cash money' in terms of great supporting actors. Disadvantages include awful soundtrack choices, a highly-unbelievable and lazily-written, underdeveloped script, the actors selected aren't nearly in the class of Patrick Swayze, Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey and Lori **** the director's no Kathryn Bigelow. Good for a watch, out of curiosity, especially if you liked the original and are a fan of extreme sports. Otherwise, it's probably not worth your time.
Though I haven't watched a lot of them yet (I've mainly devoted my time, of late, to catching up on 1920-1970s cinematic milestones), I have a profound respect for the new roles Liam Neeson has taken on in recent years. It makes me think of what would have been had my favourite actor ever, James Cagney, hadn't basically retired for the quiet life in the early 60's, when the perfect storm of 'great actors in B-movies' hit the fans. My lady is more a horror aficionado, and of recent vintage films, so it was nice to throw this on for a spin and show her its neo-noir tendencies, almost as if going through a 'make your own movie' template, checking them off one-by-one. I don't mind that sort of rote predictability if it's done right, and, though heavily flawed, for the most part it does. By the climax, I basically only cared for four things: that the kidnapped girl, Matthew Scudder and TJ were alive, and that the two kidnappers/murderers got their just desserts, whether it be lengthy incarceration or murder, anything so their crime spree would be ended. The film was well-made and a very enjoyable experience, so considering the relatively minor flaws (especially the one-dimensional aspect of the antagonists), I would definitely recommend at least a watch for most cinephiles out there, especially those interested in 'true crime' type of contemporary American cinema.
I realize that I gave this too many marks, but if there's anything I have realized about cinema, it can best be said by a line that I watched, performed by Jean-Louis Trintignant, where he stated (and I paraphrase), something like, 'I can't remember the movie, but I can recall my feelings', and that sums up nicely why I feel the way I do about the movie. It's an interesting idea acted well by very good actors (a lot of people dismiss Marlon Brando's work here, but I don't think it's that bad, honestly). If anything, the problem here is the movie doesn't know where to go after it's decent start.
This was a decent watch, not for cinematic reasons per se but for making the world a better place. I watched this with my son, Julian, and I was pleased with how they took the true story, including the actual dolphin from it, and, especially for kids, promoted environmentalism, caring for animals, etc.--really solid and important aspects that need to be, more than ever, emphasized in the youth of today. My only qualms is that I have very mixed emotions about the casting. I know that to get an important environmental message heard, and thus the film watched, you have to incorporate Hollywood megastars. I simply wish this didn't have to be the case. The story would have come across better with unknown actors--or simply as a sincere documentary without the Hollywood B.S.
The other day, my lady Tammy and I watched director Glazer's recent 'Under the Skin' and loved its otherworldly wackiness and ambience, and as I had his first two films on DVD, we decided that at the very least, this first one demanded immediate investigation. I've adored Ray Winstone's work since his early days working in the films of Sir Alan Clarke, and Ben Kingsley's always a treat. Watching the characters brought back such awesome memories of my teenage days, travelling throughout England and continental Europe in December, 1986, as well. We can't wait to hopefully check out 'Birth' later this week...This was definitely one of the best and most original British gangster movies since the likes of 'The Long Good Friday' and 'Mona Lisa' from that era...
This was an odd experience, as I just recently ended a self-imposed 12-year moratorium on relationships, due to a couple of bad ones I had within a short period of time in the early 2000's. It was very intriguing to see a type of dystopia exist in which 'singledom' was so vilified to the point of actually being against the law. I would never have previously thought that such a state of events was possible, but recent trends in 'political correctedness' on the one hand and both religious and political radicalism on the other means that, sadly, nothing is impossible anymore. I thought it was a remarkable idea for a film, and both the soundtrack and cinematography were outstanding. The bizarre script and bold direction brought forth some of the best acting I have yet seen from Colin Ferrell, Rachel Weisz and John C. Reilly, as well. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing other films by this brazenly original writer/director. Long may his almost-Bunuelian take on things go forth.
Though I tend to go for both older films (those made before 1970) and especially so when it comes to the horror/thriller genre, I saw parts 3 and 5 upon theatrical release (yes, I know it's really not right to see film series out of sequence but I simply don't care) and they were intriguing and decent, don't ask me why. Now that I both date a horror film aficionado and my 13-year-old son himself is one as well, I have decided to check out the contemporarily well-received original (I may decide now to see the entire series, and in order, but really who's to say?). Instantly, such trusted, bankable actors as Cary Elwes and Danny Glover give it credibility, just as Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave such films as 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' way back in days gone by. This was much better than I felt parts 3 and 5 were, by the way.
The beauty of Tarantino's films is that he can glean the finest qualities from lesser works and synthesize them into something even greater than the sum of their parts. The frustrating aspect of his work is that one gets the impression that even in doing so, he has only up to this point been scratching the surface of that which is possible from that intellect. I hope that his assertion that he's doing only two more films and then is retiring is baseless and thoroughly untrue. In saying that, I must admit that I enjoyed his ode to the spaghetti westerns of days gone by and that using that template as a mirror to the great racial divide that has splintered America to its core since its beginning and has stayed unchanged was nothing short of audaciously brilliant.
This was an outstanding debut by the New Zealander Blomkamp. Consistently enthralling and keeping one at the edge of his seat. THIS is a recent film, like 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World', that should have spawned sequels. Much better than his follow-up, 'Elysium' (I haven't watched any others he's made since; hope he doesn't end up a cinematic one-trick pony like M. Night Shyamalan...).
I went into this having only seen 'The Book of Eli' by these directors, The Hughes Brothers. I quite liked that film, although I did feel their vivacious stylizations interfered with the telling of the story. Seeing this earlier film of theirs confirmed that suspicion, though it's still a fine film. Though Johnny Depp (the brothers' 5th choice for the lead) does a fine job as the film's protagonist (I haven't read Alan Moore's graphic novel yet, so I can't say how this filmic adaptation compares), it certainly would have been interesting to see how any of their previous choices would have done (in order of their preference): Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Connery, Jude Law and Brad Pitt (but especially either of the first two). It has a fine supporting cast, is beautiful to look at and is consistently intriguing. I especially liked Heather Graham (I think this is solidly amongst her best work), Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane and, most significantly, Katlin Cartlidge. Boy, do I ever miss her in films made ever since.
Easily the worst film I have ever seen that wasn't helmed by a female director. I am usually very picky when it comes to selecting movies to watch, hence my usually high satisfaction as a cinephile. I can't believe I wasted my time on this vile piece of garbage and that this ever saw a cinematic release when there MUST be ****, millions, of better things that could have been made instead. The Lumiere brothers must be rolling in their graves at how cinema has been travestied.
Just watched this inexplicably for the first time, after having seen and adoring its first two sequels. As a teenager when this hit theatres, I never really felt the urge or inclination to see this at the time. Action films weren't big for me back then. Now as a father of a teenager myself, it's interesting seeing what's now considered 'a classic' for the first time. This easily deserves its lofty status as one of the finest action movies ever made, especially of the 80's. Alan Rickman, now deceased, played with distinction one of the finest cinematic villains ever. This film--closely followed by 'Pulp Fiction'--is the most important work Bruce Willis ever made. I enthusiastically hope that should someday Willis either leave this plain or decide not to make any more DH films that they simply put the franchise to rest. He was born to play this character. Anyone else in his shoes could never fit the iconic bill.
Though I have always been a DC enthusiast, I was intrigued by the idea of the Deadpool movie, and knew I'd end up watching it (I probably see 70% of DC films that are released and maybe 20% of Marvel ones). I enjoyed its definitely postmodern approach--and wish Reynolds' Green Lantern movie had one-tenth the humour and charm that THIS film had. It'll be very interesting to see how comic-book movies are affected, both short- and long-term by its massive success.
Though I tend to go for older science fiction, and, on top of that, from proven directors, two things sold this for me (and I ALMOST ended up seeing this at theatres as a result): John Goodman and J.J. Abrams--the first being solid in everything he does and the second with the Midas touch, especially when it comes to my favourite of genres. I really admired its originality. The cloying nature of the antagonist, the ambiguity of the unique situation and the way everything was tied together quite neatly left me both very satisfied as a cinephile and yearning for hopefully its inevitable sequel.
This was a very bizarre and unique viewing experience for me. I greatly enjoy cinematic puzzles, and directors who have the wherewithal, guts and personal integrity to stick to their guns and project their distinct visions without caving in to corporate pressure or normal sensibilities. It is work like this at the cinematic vanguard that makes cinema the most aesthetic of all art forms and the greatest and most intrinsically satisfying component of my life. Though I have Glazer's previous two films, I have sadly not seen them yet, a condition I hope to remedy as soon as possible. A woman and actress of Johansson's beauty is perhaps one of only a select few currently out there who could pull this sort of thing off. And yes, this would make a remarkable double bill with 'The Man Who Fell to Earth'.
Normally this sort of film wouldn't interest me, but I was fascinated by the cast (Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci ARE four of my favourite contemporary American actors) AND I liked the three previous films I've seen about the fashion industry ('Ready to Wear', 'Zoolander' and of course 'Death Wish 5: The Face of Death'). I was really pleased by the comedy caused by the **** pettiness and downright superficiality of everyone involved, which says SO much about contemporary **** the climax and denouement, are both touching and so fitting. The strong writing and acting made this much better than it had any reason to be.
My son Julian (13) and my lady Tammy, themselves two horror-film aficionados, and I went and saw this theatrically, and we were all quite pleased, though at least Julian and I tend to go for the classic stuff. Well worth checking out, if you're in for this sort of thing.
This was a solid and highly enjoyable take on the spaghetti western by Rodriguez that rightfully put the director on the map and provided star Antonio Banderas the breakthrough he needed in the American marketplace. Though I love his work on the Sin City films, particularly the first, his incredible earlier trilogy will always hold a special place in my cinephilic heart. My recent project of coming to terms with classic Westerns has only further helped me enjoy these more recent contemporary releases.
This was a very entertaining, enjoyable and well-made horror film. In saying that, there WERE three distinct flaws that came to mind: One, I'm not sure a marriage THAT troubled would be allowed to adopt a child; two, I don't see how ANYONE as intelligent as that pair are proposed to be would ever adopt anyone without having the necessary background information; and three, being a parent myself, there's no way on God's green earth that I would have continued the social experiment of the orphan's adoption the very first moment that something bizarre happened, or that things went awry. Keeping my aforementioned small problems with the film's plot problems in mind, I still greatly enjoyed the film and it was highly enjoyable throughout. I particularly enjoyed the troubled artwork of the orphan in question (shown in neon, only when ultraviolet light was presented).
This was solid and very enjoyable. My lady and I are huge classic rock and blues aficionados, and we tend to especially enjoy biopics of great musicians, so when I found out this was out, it was a natural accompaniment with a big bottle of Chilean red wine for a date night indoors. Greatly talented yet ill-starred musicians that are quickly catapulted to **** only to die in hideous and tragic circumstances are particularly fascinating--and Janis Joplin certainly fits the bill. I'm not sure I've seen any other of Amy Berg's works, but this was very well thought out and made. I haven't seen any other films about Janis, but in seeing this I can't see how any other could be any more definitive. Now to see the recent ones on Chet Baker, Miles Davis and Jimi Hendrix...
Unfortunately this has become because of political correctness and its backlash almost impossible to rate objectively. In the 2016 North American wish to either redo every successful film ever made and present every conceivable variant in the process, for what could be deemed the lack of any possible originality of ideas, I still tried to enter this with an open mind, and see this as if the two films from the 80's (which I enjoyed very much the one time I saw each of them) had never existed. I should state I saw this in 3D (which I hardly ever do), with my lady and our respective sons. I felt that it was quite funny and that the special effects were excellent. Next to 'Avatar', the use of 3D was the best I have ever seen. It's a popcorn flick well-worth seeing. Though I haven't seen any other movies by Feig or starring McCarthy, it made me want to go back and give them a shot at some time in the near future. There was something for everyone--both my lady and I enjoyed it very much--and the boys, three and thirteen years-old respectively, loved it as well. Give it a shot.
I decided to celebrate the Summer Solstice by watching 'The Departed'. Don't ask me why. I had previously loved the Hong Kong-made 'Infernal Affairs' trilogy on which this is based. Usually I hate when international masterpieces get remade, but this was a sterling exception. This was controversial when it took in a cartload of Oscars, particularly finally a directorial nod for Scorsese, but don't be misled--it's easily one of his finest works. This is my Golden Rule on both remakes in general, but especially American remakes of international (particularly foreign-language) great films. When in doubt, check the label: 1. Director? (check) 2. Cast? (check) 3. Script? (check) 'The proof is in the pudding!'
This was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The **** of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you would think that by this time, everything in the land of zombie movies would have been done to death, but I remain consistently admiring of just where the best and most thought-out renditions of the template can go. In THIS case, the most intriguing dynamic is a cowardly husband choosing his life rather than helping his wife out of a horrible crisis, then infanticide (or worse) of his own children, rather than face their wrath over the poor decision he had made. It's interestingly hilarious that when you think about it, humanity is doomed because a 12-year-old had to go back and get a picture of his mother, because he was afraid that without it, he would forget what she looked like...A surprisingly satisfying work, that for horror fans, is worth a purchase and rewatching. I'm admittedly more for classic films, from the 20's to 60's, but for contemporary horror cinema, I liked this a lot, especially Jeremy Renner and Imogen Poots. It's no surprise to me that they soon became superstars.
With director Cimino's recent death and his reputation in tatters since the debacle of 'Heaven's Gate', I decided to visit 'The Deer Hunter'. Though over three hours long, it's astonishing, paced so achingly right and I can see why he rightfully earned the 'carte blanche' that would unfortunately lead to his downfall (as well as an entire studio's) as soon as he made his next film. But to reach such heights and to have such ambition--as well as undeniable talent--is a victory in and of itself. Just armed with the main five actors alone, at the zenith of their craft, a fine script (really the first interesting and well-deliberated Vietnam film to hit the big screen) and Vilmos Zsigmond behind the camera meant that this would prove something special. Scenes that will haunt you forever. My favourite shot is the incredible 360-degree pan shot around Linda's bedroom when she realizes she's given up on Nick and is going to declare her love to Michael--extraordinary stuff. What's YOURS? Many film lovers who despise Cimino's work instantly clam up when 'The Deer Hunter' is **** there's a reason for that. It's deservedly considered one of the finest American films of the 70's--a decade that was chock-full of great ones.
My least favourite Tarantino film by a mile but still solid and great fun. I seriously hope he abandons his wish to only do two more films (after his recent 'The Hateful Eight') and then retire, but chacun son gout, as the French would say, and everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, right? And if anyone of recent vintage (the past 25 years) deserves that, it's Tarantino, I suppose, but still, I hope he's lying.
This was outstanding, and ranks right up there for me, both in terms of Stephen King adaptations in general and Cronenberg's work in particular. It also houses one of my very favourite Christopher Walken performances. When I see Martin Sheen be such a jerk here, it both makes me realize where his son Charlie gets that side of his personality from and makes me fear, even though I'm Canadian, the fact that Donald Trump actually has a chance of being the next president of the United States. It also reaffirms in my heart the great adoration I have for Brooke Adams.
Sheer brilliance. Deep down, EVERYONE has a love/hate thing about identical twins. On the one side, they wish they had that kind of communion with someone, that sort of magical intimacy they share, having someone basically the exact same as **** that same one-of-a-kind companionship is scary as hell. I haven't seen, from my fellow Canadian, either 'Scanners' (1981) or 'Naked Lunch' (1991), so I can't honestly say whether or not my assertion can be thus extended, but I dare ANYONE to find in horror a finer run than Cronenberg had, in 'Videodrome', 'The Dead Zone', 'The **** this, 'Dead Ringers'.
Hahahahaha! I'm still laughing from just how gross-out Sir Peter Jackson's first two films are! He sure has come a long way since then! Just imagine if the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, as well as King Kong, were helmed by him back THEN! =)
Outstanding. My second favourite Malick film next to Badlands. I'm not sure anyone has ever been better at photographing fire. The only other of his films I have seen thus far is 'To the Wonder', but it's films like this that make me such a lover of cinema. I'm not a Richard Gere fan in the slightest (though I have always loved Brooke Adams), but it's roles like this that cement his reputation as a cinematic icon in my books. I didn't say 'actor' because I'm not really sure that's his strength--it's more a presence, such as Alain Delon in 'Le Samourai'.
While it's clearly not as superlative as its famous predecessor, it's simply because of both Heath Ledger's outstanding and Oscar-winning performance, and the character of the Joker's etching in our collective unconscious as the greatest comic-book villain ever created (with Lex Luthor a very distant second place). This is still a masterwork, and is an excellent coda to the finest filmic trilogy ever made. As great as Christopher Nolan is as a director, and as fine a film as 'Interstellar' is, I really don't know if he'll ever be able to top his work here, on these three films. But I, for one, am certainly looking forward to finding out...
This has no competition. It is the very finest comic-book character movie ever made. Knowing the Burton, Donner and Nolan filmic adaptations of Batman and Superman exist helps me to sleep at night. They are Exhibit A of 'How to Make a Comic-Book Movie'. Nothing else has ever come even remotely close. These seven films (I include 'Superman II' because it was mostly Donner's work)--and Nolan's trilogy especially--are what I imagine a great director like Kubrick, Hitchcock or Kurosawa would have come up with, if they had ever been asked to make a Superman or Batman movie. They are the easiest for an audience to identify with because in these the scripts most approximate human emotions and the typical conundrums of the human experience--in short, are the closest, in a good way, they come to the complexities of the human condition. Peerless.
This was a captivating film I had wanted to see for some time now. Even though I know the world is like this, I keep on with hope, optimism and blind faith that something can be done to ameliorate the human condition on a global scale. No one should have to live like this unless of course they choose to do so.
This was really enjoyable. I know I over-rate Anderson films but it's because I highly enjoy both his visual sensibility and the quirky style of humanistic humour that's pervasive in his work. I also greatly admire Adrien Brody's acting--so taken together, even though this isn't considered one of his better efforts, it was 4.5/5 or 9/10 for me.
This would have only been ordinary because it's simply adequately directed, has an entire cast of unknowns save for the star, and is from a cliché-riddled script, but this is honestly one of Michelle Pfeiffer's more interesting performances. While she's not entirely convincing as a career-Marine, she's certainly more so than Demi Moore, who tried the stunt not long afterwards, and she's certainly believable as a caring teacher. An intriguing film for Simpson and Bruckheimer to be associated with, this was back in the day, after her career-defining 'Catwoman' role in 'Batman Returns' that she was still getting great starring roles (I greatly look forward to checking her out opposite Daniel Day-Lewis in 'The Age of Innocence'). My favourite work of hers will always be in 'Scarface', but this is right up there IMHO--some really fine acting by her. It's simply a shame only one note was asked of her--had it been a more multi-dimensional character (ie., love or family interests--I've read a possible romance scene with Andy Garcia was left on the cutting room floor so they could focus on her interaction with the students), it would have been even more inviting to watch.
One of Fincher's masterworks--though I like others better. He's definitely one of the only people alive who could have succeeded with this very intriguing story. There are moments--when Benjamin's coming into his own, both with Tilda Swinton's character and with Cate Blanchett's--that are amongst the finest and most invigorating I have ever seen in cinema. I'm curious how I'll find it when I rewatch it in a few years. I have the impression that as I come to terms with age and gather more wisdom in my own skin, this story will only grow in my heart and appreciation--for both the highs and the lows. That is a spectacular magic trick for a movie to do--and Fincher's downright full of them.
Definitely not Nolan's best but probably my favourite (at least tied with 'Batman Begins') because I love the Norwegian original so much AND the subtle changes Nolan made with it, as well as what the three stars (Al Pacino, Robin Williams--in his first villainous role, I believe, and Hilary Swank--in probably my favourite performance of hers, next to the downright decadence and naughtiness she displayed in 'The Black Dahlia') bring to the table here. I greatly enjoyed the five short extras on my DVD (a double-sided disc I bought years ago that has 'The Devil's Advocate' on the other side, yet unwatched): a conversation/interview of Nolan with Pacino; 'Day for Night: The Making of...'; 'In the Fog' (which interviewed cinematographer Wally Pfister); Nathan Crowley: production designer; and 'Eyes Wide Open' (which interviewed sleep disturbance experts), which thankfully I viewed before I watched the movie, to enhance my experience. Greatly recommended to fans of contemporary crime thrillers, regardless of whether you watched the Norwegian original or not. There are enough differences to still make it worth your while as a cinephile.
This unique take on the heist-film-gone-wrong was excellent--stylish and intelligently made, yet very funny and inexpensive. Tarantino's accolades from giving American cinema the resuscitation it needed mirrors what has happened, at least since the 70's, with Martin Scorsese's 'Mean Streets', both in terms of entertaining violence and usage of music in the scoring of films. I greatly thank Harvey Keitel for taking a chance on Tarantino back then--It paid off in spades.
Probably my favourite Tony Scott film, amidst stiff competition. The acting of both Hackman and Washington, plus the fine supporting cast, is top-drawer, and Scott keeps the suspense up, the film's as tight as a drum. It's rumoured that there were plenty of script doctors, including Quentin Tarantino, but that's no crime--especially when it works. One of my favourite submarine films--it's up there in my books with 'Destination Tokyo' (I haven't seen my DVD of 'Das Boot' yet). It's a great shame that Scott decided to take his life a few years back. He was a much better director than I used to give him credit for. I guess it's true that we don't realize just how good people are until they're gone. This film's essential for war film enthusiasts or those who enjoy suspense films or thrillers: It wouldn't be out of place in the oeuvres of, say, Sir Alfred Hitchcock or David Fincher, and would make a great double-bill with 'Lifeboat' or 'They Were Expendable'.
Definitely top-tier Woody Allen. The writing, acting and directing are first-rate, as he finishes off another of his artistic purple patches. I'm not an Alan Alda fan in the slightest simply because he's so good at this slimy, know-it-all persona that he once again carries off so effortlessly here. An essential watch for all cinephiles, and worth a purchase and rewatches for Woody Allen enthusiasts.
This was a solid debut for Hazanavicius and a very fun film. There's uneven pacing, but I was very pleased with this, which seemed an interesting hybrid between the James Bond and Pink Panther film series. I loved the scoring and cinematography as well. Dujardin's character was a bit strange and the pacing was a tad uneven, but those are small flaws. This is the first of Hazanavicius' films I have seen, though I have 'The Artist' on blu. I've heard that in the sequel, he jumps a decade to the 60's--it would be interesting, if they decide to eventually continue the series, if each film could be of following decades, straight through to the present day. It was clever of the writers, through parallelism, to subconsciously suggest a linkage of the **** to radical Arab terrorists, so soon after 9/11, and, six years before 'Skyfall', what anyone knowing anything about espionage and counterintelligence would undoubtedly know--that all agents would probably be bisexual. I look forward to checking out Hazanavicius' other films, and hope there are eventually more in this series, for I have loved all kinds of spy films and spoofs of them, in the history of cinema.
I distinctly remember being in Grade 8 when the film came out, and for four major reasons: 1) The excellent TV commercial, with John Carpenter's spooky music and the spider crawling out of the mouth of the mask; 2) The decent book adaptation written for young adults, that I read at the time, and thoroughly enjoyed; 3) Karen Carpenter died of a heart attack from anorexia nervosa; and 4) Major songs on the radio around that time were 'Centerfold' by The J. Geils Band and 'Bette Davis Eyes' by Kim Carnes. Though I had not yet seen the previous two films and wasn't old enough (the R-rating, and my parents were somewhat strict about that kind of thing), I really wanted to see it, but over the years, I never really got around to it, until recently I found used the entire 'Halloween' franchise on a 10-blu ray pack, and no longer have any sort of excuse, really. I loved Wallace's work in 'Stephen King's It' (except for the last half-hour, but that's probably the book's fault and not the director's) and I thought his 'Vampires: Los Muertos' was rather underrated, so an added attraction for me was to watch his directorial debut here. He impressed me. I enjoyed the film and all of the extras on its blu ray very much. If you like horror films at all, you should watch this. Protagonists Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin are very good here, and I liked Dan O'Herlihy even better than when I had previously seen him in 'The Virgin Queen', 'Imitation of Life', 'The Cabinet of Caligari', 'Good Against Evil' and the first two 'RoboCop' films, and, as always, Dean Cundey provides excellent cinematographical work and the soundtrack by Carpenter and Alan Hogarth is dependably solid. Don't bother with the negative reviews that came out at the time the film was released: Most people were upset that the film didn't have Michael Myers in it, and didn't give it a chance. Find out for yourself--in my humble opinion, it's worth both purchasing and at least a rewatch.
Being a) the shortest boy in my class in my early years; b) the smartest; and c) adopted by parents of mixed ethnicity (which was a rarity in my small city at that time, the mid 70's), I was a natural target for bullies. At every conceivable instance (and a lot of inconceivable ones as well!), I fought all comers, often coming home black-and-blue, and exhausted--I may have lost some matches to bigger and older boys, but if they were going to win, they were at least going to pay for it, and feel the after-effects for a while. (Thankfully this ended when I was talking with my friend, who was carrying home his personal baseball equipment, when I was approached. I asked if I could borrow his bat for a second, and that ended that. I wouldn't recommend that as a solution to others, for legal reasons. Thankfully the bully's mom and mine were friends, and when he ran home crying and told her what happened, she replied, 'If Billy did that to you, then you deserved it.') I don't often do so, but I watched the DVD extras before I watched the film (I usually wait until afterwards). Edgerton's impressive directorial debut here, as well as script, fulfilled (at least to my eyes) his purpose, that of making a psychological thriller along the level of his directing idols, Sir Alfred Hitchcock and David Fincher. The three main stars, Edgerton, Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall (I kept thinking she was Anne Hathaway!), did very good work here. I never really went for Bateman's work when he was younger, but a good friend often watched 'Arrested Development' when I was over, a few years back, and I have grown to like his acting, but he really hits it out of the park here. Had this not been an independent production but a more big-budget affair (i.e., David Fincher), I think he could have gotten an Oscar nomination--he's THAT good here. There was the occasional logical issue I had with the film afterwards, when I stopped and REALLY thought hard about it, but I have no problem with that kind of thing, if I enjoy everything else (which I did). Highly recommended. Definitely worth buying and rewatching--and I can't say that about most films made today. I hope that Edgerton doesn't give up acting, because he's definitely good at it, but I hope he also keeps on writing scripts and directing. Simply based on 'The Gift', he has an admirer in me for life.
I really enjoyed this Cronenberg film. Though my favourite films of his are the incredible ones he did in my teens, during the 80's ('Videodrome', 'The Dead Zone' and 'The Fly' are nothing short of outstanding, and works that no one else could have come up with), he's really been thinking outside of the box for the past decade (even for a consistently interesting creature such as he), and it's only been recently, with both Sarah Polley and Denis Villeneuve emerging as vital directors, that his ranking as the greatest Canadian director ever chas even had suitable competition for comparison. I remembered when this came out, and I believe a critic from 'The Globe and Mail' interviewed Cronenberg at its opening at Cannes, and he was almost apologetic about using Pattinson. It sounded like he didn't want to have to direct him. He made the excuse that he couldn't get funding for his projects from North America anymore, which is a dirty rotten shame, and had to go to Europe and Asia any time he wanted to make a film in order to have it bankrolled, and the Japanese insisted on star power to put moviegoers in the seats, and said there'd only be financial backing if Cronenberg directed Pattinson. This was my first experience watching the actor's work, and he did a fine job, no problem. The supporting cast was strong, with many of my favourite character actors of late, such as Paul Giamatti and Jay Baruchel. The script, co-written by Cronenberg, was a strong statement about just how out of touch the very rich are with the other 99% of us. I docked my mark by 1/10 because I was pissed off that Cronenberg degraded one of the finest actresses of our lifetime, Juliette Binoche here. I can't even talk about it. It was as difficult for me to tolerate as Spike Lee having Christopher Plummer call Jodie Foster a c*** in the otherwise excellent 'Inside Man'. Lee's off my Christmas card list for sure this year, but Cronenberg being a fellow Canadian (I bet you thought I was going to say white, hahaha), I'll be less angry. But he better look over his shoulder if he tries something like THAT again. I was THAT close to crossing HIM off my Christmas card list too... I also remember from the time the film came out, an article and rating on the film (I think it was 'The Globe and Mail' as well, and by the same critic who had earlier interviewed him), saying that when he watched it, he watched a few teenage girls leaving the theatre (most probably because Pattinson was in it), saying it was the worst movie they had ever seen. That's the only evidence you need that this is a fine movie, well worth your time.
Neil Gaiman is so contemporarily vital, both in literature and cinema, because he more than anyone else (with the possible exception of Terry Gilliam) notes that children and adults alike are fascinated with what lies outside our observable and tangible realms of existence. He realized the reasons storytelling have been significantly important since the dawn of mankind, and devised, as the Brothers Grimm did, that fairy tales and children's stories had to be haunting and entertaining to be both memorable and timeless. This is a great film depicting the growing sense as a child approaches adolescence that their parents and their world aren't exactly as they seem, and that through their trials and tribulations (the 'rites of passage', if you will) they'll reach the 'happy medium' they need to in order to find true happiness in their lifetimes. I definitely hope that all of Gaiman's books and graphic novels are made into movies (I most anticipate the 'Miracleman' graphic novels--both those by him and Alan Moore). Ones so well-written would truly be 'comic book movies' worth watching for me.
Decent, though a disappointment after enjoying Bakshi's great run of Spider-Man cartoons from the 60's. The animation style and great soundtrack--dated in a fine way--make up for such a lousy and uninspired script. I'd much rather come across Shirley Clarke's similarly titled film from the 60's instead.
Unfortunately, it appears with every passing day that the great American paranoid political thrillers of the 60's and 70's, with its strongest work bookended by 'The Manchurian Candidate' (eerily foreseeing the JFK assassination) and 'All the President's Men' (placing a coda of closure on the Watergate scandal), simply haven't aged a day, and are as timely as ever in conceptualizing the palpable fear that ordinary citizens have in those in control of their destinies, namely the police and government of their communities. It's the American ideal that any person born, regardless of circumstances, is in control of their destiny, and that with hard work, guile and determination, can make something of himself. Whether that was ever the case is questionable, but it seems more than ever that the people in power are in control of way more than we could ever suppose, or would ever want to know. This was a nice smaller-scale film that, incredulously, Coppola was able to dish up in a run that is one of the finest a director would ever have, up there with Hitchcock's in the late 50's-early 60's, and Melville a decade later. It's definitely excellent work by Hackman (along with his Popeye Doyle in the pair of great 'French Connection' movies), and is up there with the greatest dissertations ever about the double-edged sword of surveillance, namely De Palma's 'Blow Out' and Antonioni's 'Blow-Up'. As a human being, I only wish this film wasn't as important as it is.
I have a special place in my heart for the medical thriller. Looking back, I believe it stems both from being sick a lot when I was a kid, and from really enjoying great ones over the years, like 'Coma' and 'Outbreak'. As well, more recently I remember the panic both my son's mother and I tended to have when our son was born during the SARS epidemic back in 2003. Needless to say, when one of these films comes along, it's only a matter of time before it crosses my path. Director Soderbergh is intelligent enough to really make this material work, going at it from every conceivable angle (and many inconceivable ones!) yet still giving it coherence in a decent runtime (not a Bay-esque three hours) and there's enough star power to keep one's attention. The best kind of review for these sort of films is that it leaves you thinking twice before you have an affair, or even throw out your Kleenex, and that's specifically what Soderbergh's work here does.
I would readily admit this is one of my favourite science fiction films from the 90's. It's intelligent, well-acted and directed, and the special effects it has HELPS the story rather than IMPEDES it. Though she hasn't done much lately, either in the director's chair or acting, Jodie Foster is one of my favourite contemporary American actresses, and it's intriguing how her great talent's been utilized of late (ie., 'Elysium', and I'm still very mad at Spike Lee for having Christopher Plummer call her a **** in 'Inside Man'). Personally, I must admit that I myself have worried what other worlds' inhabitants would think of our civilization from the messages it might get from Earth. Though I thankfully haven't lost any sleep over it (I have 'Thumper' in the apartment above me to thank for that), as Led Zeppelin would say in the classic 'Stairway to Heaven', '...and it makes me wonder'. As what happens in most of these movies, it's rather anticlimactic once the different cultures meet. I'll say to my dying day that the most difficult thing to do in cinema is end a film. Here (unlike perfect sci-fi masterpieces, like '2001: A Space odyssey' or the more recent 'Children of Men') the decent but otherwise unspectacular ending makes me avoid a perfect rating here. But it's awfully close, worth both owning and rewatching, and provides fairly early evidence (which would come to bold fruition in 'Killer Joe') that Matthew McConaughey could actually act. It's also a tossup between this, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' and 'Back to the Future' for my favourite Zemeckis moment.
