Viewed in
2000
Premise
The story of how Woodward and Bernstein uncovered Watergate.
Who should watch
History buffs. Fans of Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford.
Thoughts
It was interesting to see how the events unfolded. This came from an age in which 'based on a true story' meant what it said. Perhaps it was my age or my exposure to parodies, but I did not feel much emotional impact during the film.
What I would change
Nothing.
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1976. Show all posts
Bad News Bears
Viewed in
2008
Premise
A disgruntled drunk manages a rag-tag team of misfit youngsters in a little league.
Who should watch
Walter Matthau fans. Those who want a sports comedy full of mean spunk.
Thoughts
Overall, this was a ton of fun.
The late great Walter Matthau was perfectly cast as the bitter, failed-professional coach. Everything from his body language to his drunken rants were hilarious.
What was surprising to me was that the kids were equally strong as Matthau on screen, especially Tatum O'Neal. Instead of lazy caricatures, they were full of spunk and nastiness. When the coach cussed them out, they would cuss right back. They behaved like kids! I laughed out loud numerous times between the tug-of-war between the coach and his kids.
While this movie formula has been used countless times, this was the best of its kind that I had ever seen. I was caught off guard on how mean and spirited this film was. And that was a good thing.
What I would change
Toned down the serious nastiness in the final game. I know there is always psychological and ethical ugliness when overly competitive adults manage little league teams, but this aspect was never present in the first two acts. I hate it when films enter a different genre abruptly.
Random
I understand it was before days of PG-13 ratings and political correctness, but I have trouble calling a film containing derogatory words for blacks, Hispanics, and gays a family film. While it was realistic that kids would use these words without awareness, but that understanding only works with adult audiences. If I were a parent, how would I handle this?
2008
Premise
A disgruntled drunk manages a rag-tag team of misfit youngsters in a little league.
Who should watch
Walter Matthau fans. Those who want a sports comedy full of mean spunk.
Thoughts
Overall, this was a ton of fun.
The late great Walter Matthau was perfectly cast as the bitter, failed-professional coach. Everything from his body language to his drunken rants were hilarious.
What was surprising to me was that the kids were equally strong as Matthau on screen, especially Tatum O'Neal. Instead of lazy caricatures, they were full of spunk and nastiness. When the coach cussed them out, they would cuss right back. They behaved like kids! I laughed out loud numerous times between the tug-of-war between the coach and his kids.
While this movie formula has been used countless times, this was the best of its kind that I had ever seen. I was caught off guard on how mean and spirited this film was. And that was a good thing.
What I would change
Toned down the serious nastiness in the final game. I know there is always psychological and ethical ugliness when overly competitive adults manage little league teams, but this aspect was never present in the first two acts. I hate it when films enter a different genre abruptly.
Random
I understand it was before days of PG-13 ratings and political correctness, but I have trouble calling a film containing derogatory words for blacks, Hispanics, and gays a family film. While it was realistic that kids would use these words without awareness, but that understanding only works with adult audiences. If I were a parent, how would I handle this?
Carrie
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sissy Spacek stars as a bullied telekinetic high school girl, who doesn't realize she's about to be pranked at her prom. Based on Stephen King's novel.
Loved
Spacek's performance.
Liked
Relatable teenage angst themes, 1970's style, strong characters.
Hated
Occasional annoying camerawork.
Thoughts
It reminded me The Exorcist, in the sense that it tried to be more than just a frightening gore fest.
Overall, the characters were interesting, complex, and grounded in realism. Spacek was very sympathetic as the ostracized and confused teenager. Many of the themes of bullying, teenage angst and backlash, and sexual repression still resonate deeply in today's world. So while it took a while for blood and guts to actually happen, I was rarely bored, simply because I was tuned into Carrie's painful world. But when it finally came to the carnage, Spacek turned up the crazy. Her "don't f*ck with Carrie" face belonged in the pantheon of cinematic badass moments.
The rest of the cast was very good too. Even though her character was too over-the-top, Piper Laurie was very frightening as Carrie's crazed mother. I also enjoyed Amy Irving's performance as one of the classmates who felt remorse. Lastly, why didn't anyone tell me John freaking Travolta was in this?!
For lack of better description, this was shot in the 1970's, and it definitely felt like it was shot in the 1970's. Lenses smeared in petroleum jelly, jerky camera movements, crazy extreme closeups, blatant symbolisms and music cues, suspect audio quality, and artsy-fartsy camera angles were all present in this film.
One of the cheesiest moments was when the scene actually fast-forwarded just so it could get to the next line faster. Apparently, jump cuts were too trippy. Another unexpected aspect was the sheer amount of nudity. Despite the artistic cinematography, it still felt a tad sensationalistic to be showing so much boobage and vegetation in a serious horror flick.
In general, director Brian De Palma's style accentuated the film. I really dug his slow-motion shots, they really helped build the tension in the right spots. But there were times where it got in the way. Like there was an elongated crane shot that covered various parts of the prom, but when it ends up on Carrie and her date, it's still wide and kind of out of focus, when that moment of the two really needed to be something closer and intimate. Then there's the annoyingly dizzying one take of them spinning one way and the camera encircling them the other direction. And it just. Won't. Stop.
What's funny is that I'm not a horror fan, yet, I was a slightly disappointed by the underwhelming (and tame) amount of carnage in the last act. I've never read the novel, but I'm aware that large chunks of the last act were omitted in the film adaptation, probably due to budget reasons. But the result was a rushed ending that also took away more opportunity for Carrie to kill more people.
Carrie definitely appealed more to my inner film buff than my inner horror fan. It had a great old school vibe, and was full of strong ideas and characters. I couldn't help but still find numerous haunting parallels to today's teenagers dealing with cyber-bullying, sexual confusion, and lashing out through violence.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sissy Spacek stars as a bullied telekinetic high school girl, who doesn't realize she's about to be pranked at her prom. Based on Stephen King's novel.
Loved
Spacek's performance.
Liked
Relatable teenage angst themes, 1970's style, strong characters.
Hated
Occasional annoying camerawork.
Thoughts
It reminded me The Exorcist, in the sense that it tried to be more than just a frightening gore fest.
Overall, the characters were interesting, complex, and grounded in realism. Spacek was very sympathetic as the ostracized and confused teenager. Many of the themes of bullying, teenage angst and backlash, and sexual repression still resonate deeply in today's world. So while it took a while for blood and guts to actually happen, I was rarely bored, simply because I was tuned into Carrie's painful world. But when it finally came to the carnage, Spacek turned up the crazy. Her "don't f*ck with Carrie" face belonged in the pantheon of cinematic badass moments.
The rest of the cast was very good too. Even though her character was too over-the-top, Piper Laurie was very frightening as Carrie's crazed mother. I also enjoyed Amy Irving's performance as one of the classmates who felt remorse. Lastly, why didn't anyone tell me John freaking Travolta was in this?!
For lack of better description, this was shot in the 1970's, and it definitely felt like it was shot in the 1970's. Lenses smeared in petroleum jelly, jerky camera movements, crazy extreme closeups, blatant symbolisms and music cues, suspect audio quality, and artsy-fartsy camera angles were all present in this film.
One of the cheesiest moments was when the scene actually fast-forwarded just so it could get to the next line faster. Apparently, jump cuts were too trippy. Another unexpected aspect was the sheer amount of nudity. Despite the artistic cinematography, it still felt a tad sensationalistic to be showing so much boobage and vegetation in a serious horror flick.
In general, director Brian De Palma's style accentuated the film. I really dug his slow-motion shots, they really helped build the tension in the right spots. But there were times where it got in the way. Like there was an elongated crane shot that covered various parts of the prom, but when it ends up on Carrie and her date, it's still wide and kind of out of focus, when that moment of the two really needed to be something closer and intimate. Then there's the annoyingly dizzying one take of them spinning one way and the camera encircling them the other direction. And it just. Won't. Stop.
What's funny is that I'm not a horror fan, yet, I was a slightly disappointed by the underwhelming (and tame) amount of carnage in the last act. I've never read the novel, but I'm aware that large chunks of the last act were omitted in the film adaptation, probably due to budget reasons. But the result was a rushed ending that also took away more opportunity for Carrie to kill more people.
Carrie definitely appealed more to my inner film buff than my inner horror fan. It had a great old school vibe, and was full of strong ideas and characters. I couldn't help but still find numerous haunting parallels to today's teenagers dealing with cyber-bullying, sexual confusion, and lashing out through violence.
Marathon Man
Viewed in
2005
Premise
After a secret agent's death, his brother is drawn into a mysterious plot against his will.
Who should watch
Fans of the cast.
Thoughts
There were two reasons to watch this. First was for the heavyweight cast of Dustin Hoffman, Laurence Olivier, and Roy Scheider. The second reason was for the famous dentist torture scene, in which the victim's teeth were pulled one-by-one. It was a squirm-fest.
Despite these and some inventive writing, it lacked a feeling of greatness. Perhaps the rest of the movie was a letdown after the torture scene.
What I would change
Nothing.
2005
Premise
After a secret agent's death, his brother is drawn into a mysterious plot against his will.
Who should watch
Fans of the cast.
Thoughts
There were two reasons to watch this. First was for the heavyweight cast of Dustin Hoffman, Laurence Olivier, and Roy Scheider. The second reason was for the famous dentist torture scene, in which the victim's teeth were pulled one-by-one. It was a squirm-fest.
Despite these and some inventive writing, it lacked a feeling of greatness. Perhaps the rest of the movie was a letdown after the torture scene.
What I would change
Nothing.
Network
Viewed in
2000, 2010
Formats Watched
DVD
Premise
A satire about television when a station stumbles upon a cash cow in the form of a news anchor gone insane on live television.
Loved
The performances, monologues, and timeless themes.
Disliked
The bad lighting.
Thoughts
When I first watched it in 2000, I was astounded by how most of the film still applied to television 25 years later. A decade later, I was in awe by how relevancy it had to 24-cable television and the internet. I am certain this masterpiece will still apply a hundred years from now in whatever technological entertainment form.
The themes, satire and commentary were, rich, vibrant and thick with honesty. I laughed with glee at some of the stranger-than-fiction absurdities in the film that reflected my current world. Sensationalism, blind celebrity-worshiping, fact-less punditry, the Middle East, dehumanizing apathy, and the power of money were just some of the issues explored.
The monologues, especially in the second half, were some of the greatest I have ever heard. Howard Beale (Peter Finch) got all the glitz, but re-watching it, I'm reminded about how much human truth was painfully explored between Max (William Holden) and the ratings-mad Diana (Faye Dunaway), as well as Max and his wife (Beatrice Straight) after admitting the affair. Diana's monologue, incessantly talking about ratings during a weekend getaway, climaxing in sex, was pure genius in writing and delivery.
The cast was phenomenal. Most usually only remember Finch, but Holden, Dunaway, and Straight were the heart of the film. Everyone got a chance to deliver these wonderful lines with soul and pain. Walter Cronkite's daughter played a Stockholm syndrome hostage. Tim Robbins had a small, but noticeable part. So many cool actors that I haven't even mentioned Robert Duvall. Lastly, how in the world did Ned Beatty NOT win for best supporting actor?
It definitely felt like I was watching a play. Turned out the screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky, was a playwright. Plus, there were words that nearly had me pausing and scrambling for the dictionary. Another reason for the vibe was the lack of a score, save music within the story.
My only complaint was some of the scenes seemed to lack good lighting. I don't know if it was budget, logistics, or intentional. In any case, it was distracting when I could not see a character's face or reaction.
I cannot think of a greater satire masterpiece than this for intelligent moviegoers (with a little patience for talking heads).
What I would change
Nothing.
2000, 2010
Formats Watched
DVD
Premise
A satire about television when a station stumbles upon a cash cow in the form of a news anchor gone insane on live television.
Loved
The performances, monologues, and timeless themes.
Disliked
The bad lighting.
Thoughts
When I first watched it in 2000, I was astounded by how most of the film still applied to television 25 years later. A decade later, I was in awe by how relevancy it had to 24-cable television and the internet. I am certain this masterpiece will still apply a hundred years from now in whatever technological entertainment form.
The themes, satire and commentary were, rich, vibrant and thick with honesty. I laughed with glee at some of the stranger-than-fiction absurdities in the film that reflected my current world. Sensationalism, blind celebrity-worshiping, fact-less punditry, the Middle East, dehumanizing apathy, and the power of money were just some of the issues explored.
The monologues, especially in the second half, were some of the greatest I have ever heard. Howard Beale (Peter Finch) got all the glitz, but re-watching it, I'm reminded about how much human truth was painfully explored between Max (William Holden) and the ratings-mad Diana (Faye Dunaway), as well as Max and his wife (Beatrice Straight) after admitting the affair. Diana's monologue, incessantly talking about ratings during a weekend getaway, climaxing in sex, was pure genius in writing and delivery.
The cast was phenomenal. Most usually only remember Finch, but Holden, Dunaway, and Straight were the heart of the film. Everyone got a chance to deliver these wonderful lines with soul and pain. Walter Cronkite's daughter played a Stockholm syndrome hostage. Tim Robbins had a small, but noticeable part. So many cool actors that I haven't even mentioned Robert Duvall. Lastly, how in the world did Ned Beatty NOT win for best supporting actor?
It definitely felt like I was watching a play. Turned out the screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky, was a playwright. Plus, there were words that nearly had me pausing and scrambling for the dictionary. Another reason for the vibe was the lack of a score, save music within the story.
My only complaint was some of the scenes seemed to lack good lighting. I don't know if it was budget, logistics, or intentional. In any case, it was distracting when I could not see a character's face or reaction.
I cannot think of a greater satire masterpiece than this for intelligent moviegoers (with a little patience for talking heads).
What I would change
Nothing.
Omen
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Gregory Peck's adopted son might be the son of the devil.
Who should watch
Gregory Peck fans. Those who like part mystery, part horror.
Thoughts
It was not what I expected. At times, the story had a big mystery aspect, and there was some well-acted scenes by the late great Peck.
It was creepy, just because I found creepy kids to be super creepy. Harvey Stephens was convincing as the evil Damien. Personally, other than the creepy kid aspect, the movie did not impact me much. Perhaps if I was familiar with the Bible, then I would react better to the story.
I have only known director Richard Donner for his good-spirited action films, such as 'Superman' and 'Goonies'. To realize he started here was quite unexpected. In terms of special effects, that decapitation scene was spectacular.
Jerry Goldsmith did some excellent satanic-sounding music.
I understand its pioneering, but for me, it was a decent horror movie, with some mystery-chasing and Gregory Peck.
What I would change
No idea.
2008
Premise
Gregory Peck's adopted son might be the son of the devil.
Who should watch
Gregory Peck fans. Those who like part mystery, part horror.
Thoughts
It was not what I expected. At times, the story had a big mystery aspect, and there was some well-acted scenes by the late great Peck.
It was creepy, just because I found creepy kids to be super creepy. Harvey Stephens was convincing as the evil Damien. Personally, other than the creepy kid aspect, the movie did not impact me much. Perhaps if I was familiar with the Bible, then I would react better to the story.
I have only known director Richard Donner for his good-spirited action films, such as 'Superman' and 'Goonies'. To realize he started here was quite unexpected. In terms of special effects, that decapitation scene was spectacular.
Jerry Goldsmith did some excellent satanic-sounding music.
I understand its pioneering, but for me, it was a decent horror movie, with some mystery-chasing and Gregory Peck.
What I would change
No idea.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Viewed in
1999
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Nicholson stars as a convict who faked his insanity to get out of prison finds himself in a world of hurt at the mental institution.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, the details are fuzzy, but I recall liking it a lot, especially Nicholson's presence and performance. Definitely looking forward to rewatching this in the future.
What I would change
NA
1999
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Nicholson stars as a convict who faked his insanity to get out of prison finds himself in a world of hurt at the mental institution.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, the details are fuzzy, but I recall liking it a lot, especially Nicholson's presence and performance. Definitely looking forward to rewatching this in the future.
What I would change
NA
Rocky
Viewed in
2006
Premise
The rise of Rocky Balboa.
Who should watch
Boxing and underdog fans.
Thoughts
I thought it was alright. As I watched Stallone's acting and dialogue, I understood why Rocky Balboa was such a likable and memorable character. Definitely one of Stallone's best works.
What I would change
The underdog story felt cliched.
2006
Premise
The rise of Rocky Balboa.
Who should watch
Boxing and underdog fans.
Thoughts
I thought it was alright. As I watched Stallone's acting and dialogue, I understood why Rocky Balboa was such a likable and memorable character. Definitely one of Stallone's best works.
What I would change
The underdog story felt cliched.
Taxi Driver
Viewed in
2000
Formats
DVD
Premise
Robert De Niro stars as the disturbed taxi driver in Martin Scorsese's classic.
Loved
Pretty much everything about it.
Thoughts
It's been awhile, but I feel like this film has been a part of my cinematic memory forever. I don't think I will every forget De Niro's magnetic performance, Jodie Foster's plucky charm, the haunting cinematography and monologues, the famous lines, and the jaw-dropping ceiling-dolly shot through the hotel. I really should re-watch this sometime to give it a better review.
What I would change
Nothing.
2000
Formats
DVD
Premise
Robert De Niro stars as the disturbed taxi driver in Martin Scorsese's classic.
Loved
Pretty much everything about it.
Thoughts
It's been awhile, but I feel like this film has been a part of my cinematic memory forever. I don't think I will every forget De Niro's magnetic performance, Jodie Foster's plucky charm, the haunting cinematography and monologues, the famous lines, and the jaw-dropping ceiling-dolly shot through the hotel. I really should re-watch this sometime to give it a better review.
What I would change
Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)