Viewed in
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
Hugh Grant stars as a single playboy whose life is changed when he befriends a twelve year old boy.
Liked
The acting, the writing.
Thoughts
I really liked the characters in this thoughtful film.
Hugh Grant was fantastic. Even though portraying a womanizer was easily in his wheelhouse, he was not a caricature, but a human soul, with loneliness seeping through his eyes. Nicholas Hault was was very believable as the kid. It was quite a breath of fresh air to have a young character who was not cute/hip/sharp. Instead, he was just an awkward boy, struggling to fit in at school, getting embarrassed by his mother, and dealing with hormones. Together they created a memorable duo who served as the heart of the film.
The writing had a good balance of funny dialog and cute moments with undertones of depression and isolation. They felt like real people dealing with issues, not in a gritty way, but in a smart, entertaining way. One thing I found to be interesting was that it had two characters doing internal monologues. Considering this was from a Nick Hornsby novel, I assume this was done to help put the character's innermost thoughts/emotions onto screen. And it basically worked, even if it felt odd.
About a Boy worked as a tender comedy-drama thanks to some really likable, and human, lead characters. The only drawback was getting Roberta Flack's "Killing Me Softly" stuck in your head afterward.
What I would change
Taken out the two hallucinatory moments near the beginning, as they were distracting and unnecessary.
Showing posts with label drama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drama. Show all posts
About Schmidt
Viewed in
2003
Premise
In his attempt to win another Oscar, Jack Nicholson plays a recently-retired and recently-widowed man who goes on a soul-searching adventure.
Who should watch
Nicholson fans.
Thoughts
I liked it because it was weird and subtle. Jack Nicholson demonstrated that he has acting range with this low-key, subdued performance.
People suckered into 'from the director of "Sideways"' marketing might be sorely disappointed. They probably will find it lacking spunk and slow.
I was warned ahead of time of Kathy Bates being nude. So it was not that big of a deal for me. I understood the context of the scene, and was not just purely a publicity stunt.
What I would change
On second thought, the Kathy Bates nude scene was unnecessary.
2003
Premise
In his attempt to win another Oscar, Jack Nicholson plays a recently-retired and recently-widowed man who goes on a soul-searching adventure.
Who should watch
Nicholson fans.
Thoughts
I liked it because it was weird and subtle. Jack Nicholson demonstrated that he has acting range with this low-key, subdued performance.
People suckered into 'from the director of "Sideways"' marketing might be sorely disappointed. They probably will find it lacking spunk and slow.
I was warned ahead of time of Kathy Bates being nude. So it was not that big of a deal for me. I understood the context of the scene, and was not just purely a publicity stunt.
What I would change
On second thought, the Kathy Bates nude scene was unnecessary.
Ace in the Hole
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Kirk Douglas plays a newspaper writer who turns a trapped local man into a national sensation.
Loved
The sharp writing.
Liked
Douglas' performance and old school film-making.
Hated
The awkward love scene.
Thoughts
A very cool, biting film.
Very much like his other works, this film's greatest strength was the excellent writing and dialogue. I was shocked by the themes of sensationalistic journalism and when the media puts itself above the story. These scenes were just timeless and had a harbinger-like quality. I am a huge fan of Network, but now I'm amazed that there was something just as harsh, funny and interesting made 30 years earlier!
In addition to the fantastic story, it was supported by sharp dialogue and strong (pre-method era) acting. I liked Douglas much better here than in Spartacus as the slick, career-driven writer. Jan Sterling balanced Douglas with a restrained, worn-spirit performance as the emotionally trapped wife of the physically trapped man. As for the dialogue, there were some great lines echoing the themes of the film. One of my favorite moments was Douglas' character's rant about being stuck in New Mexico; I could almost see the beautiful words pour out as he punched it out in Shakespearean tempo.
While it has been a long time since I had seen Sunset Boulevard or Wilder's other great works, this film was definitely one of his finest, and arguably his best masterpiece.
What I would change
The extremely out-of-rhythm scene when Douglas' character grabs Jan Sterling's character's hair and places her head between him and the camera. Perhaps they had to deal with the Hays code, and could only imply a kiss (or a love scene)? Otherwise, that was a glaring hiccup in an otherwise awesome film.
2010
Premise
Kirk Douglas plays a newspaper writer who turns a trapped local man into a national sensation.
Loved
The sharp writing.
Liked
Douglas' performance and old school film-making.
Hated
The awkward love scene.
Thoughts
A very cool, biting film.
Very much like his other works, this film's greatest strength was the excellent writing and dialogue. I was shocked by the themes of sensationalistic journalism and when the media puts itself above the story. These scenes were just timeless and had a harbinger-like quality. I am a huge fan of Network, but now I'm amazed that there was something just as harsh, funny and interesting made 30 years earlier!
In addition to the fantastic story, it was supported by sharp dialogue and strong (pre-method era) acting. I liked Douglas much better here than in Spartacus as the slick, career-driven writer. Jan Sterling balanced Douglas with a restrained, worn-spirit performance as the emotionally trapped wife of the physically trapped man. As for the dialogue, there were some great lines echoing the themes of the film. One of my favorite moments was Douglas' character's rant about being stuck in New Mexico; I could almost see the beautiful words pour out as he punched it out in Shakespearean tempo.
While it has been a long time since I had seen Sunset Boulevard or Wilder's other great works, this film was definitely one of his finest, and arguably his best masterpiece.
What I would change
The extremely out-of-rhythm scene when Douglas' character grabs Jan Sterling's character's hair and places her head between him and the camera. Perhaps they had to deal with the Hays code, and could only imply a kiss (or a love scene)? Otherwise, that was a glaring hiccup in an otherwise awesome film.
Adventureland
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In 1987 Pittburgh, a college graduate is forced to work at the local amusement park, and learns about life.
Who should watch
Those who like smart, realistic coming-of-age dramas.
Thoughts
No sophomore slump for director Greg Mottola.
Probably due to the marketing, I thought I was watching a teen sex comedy with wacky characters (which would make sense given the settings). I was pleasantly surprised by the believable story about a young man learning about love and complicated relationships. Given my lack of sexual/romantic experience, I totally related to the awkwardness and shattered idealism exhibited by the main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg.
The cast was very good. I know she gets blasted for lack of acting in the 'Twilight' series, but I thought Kristen Stewart was very sympathetic as the troubled love interest of Eisenberg. As for the minor characters, they were all excellent, kids and adults alike, unknowns and stars alike. Granted it was a small part, but I do not see why there is so much hate for Ryan Reynolds' acting. Krisetn Wiig and Bill Hader were hilarious as the bosses of the park.
As mentioned before, I did not classify this as a comedy whatsoever. Though there were some very funny moments, such as when the bosses are chilling in their office, Eisenberg runs in being chased by a an angry, dangerous cusomter, Hader deals with the customer, then the bosses return to chilling, as if nothing interested had just happened.
Another thing I really liked was the selection of music. There was a great collection of appropriate music for the era, from excellent (Velvet Underground and Lou Reed) to to popular (Falco and Foreigner).
While Eisenberg was very good at portraying a naive young man, his character lacked the charm for me to love this semi-loser lover boy. A bigger issue I had was the last act. The last complication was a love story cliche and the happy ending seemed a little too Hollywood after all the excellent realistic relationships and behaviors of the characters beforehand.
Overall, it was a nice little film with flawed young adults growing up before our eyes. It might be something that entertains and enlightens young moviegoers.
What I would change
Not sure.
2009
Premise
In 1987 Pittburgh, a college graduate is forced to work at the local amusement park, and learns about life.
Who should watch
Those who like smart, realistic coming-of-age dramas.
Thoughts
No sophomore slump for director Greg Mottola.
Probably due to the marketing, I thought I was watching a teen sex comedy with wacky characters (which would make sense given the settings). I was pleasantly surprised by the believable story about a young man learning about love and complicated relationships. Given my lack of sexual/romantic experience, I totally related to the awkwardness and shattered idealism exhibited by the main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg.
The cast was very good. I know she gets blasted for lack of acting in the 'Twilight' series, but I thought Kristen Stewart was very sympathetic as the troubled love interest of Eisenberg. As for the minor characters, they were all excellent, kids and adults alike, unknowns and stars alike. Granted it was a small part, but I do not see why there is so much hate for Ryan Reynolds' acting. Krisetn Wiig and Bill Hader were hilarious as the bosses of the park.
As mentioned before, I did not classify this as a comedy whatsoever. Though there were some very funny moments, such as when the bosses are chilling in their office, Eisenberg runs in being chased by a an angry, dangerous cusomter, Hader deals with the customer, then the bosses return to chilling, as if nothing interested had just happened.
Another thing I really liked was the selection of music. There was a great collection of appropriate music for the era, from excellent (Velvet Underground and Lou Reed) to to popular (Falco and Foreigner).
While Eisenberg was very good at portraying a naive young man, his character lacked the charm for me to love this semi-loser lover boy. A bigger issue I had was the last act. The last complication was a love story cliche and the happy ending seemed a little too Hollywood after all the excellent realistic relationships and behaviors of the characters beforehand.
Overall, it was a nice little film with flawed young adults growing up before our eyes. It might be something that entertains and enlightens young moviegoers.
What I would change
Not sure.
Ali
Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Will Smith stars Muhammad Ali in this biography, directed by Michael Mann.
Loved
Jon Voight.
Liked
Exciting boxing scenes.
Disliked
Subpar story-telling, playing it safe.
Thoughts
It's got its moments.
The movie rides or dies with Smith's performance. Unfortunately, it was uneven. At times he was brilliant, grabbing the screen by sheer personality, like his rant after being sentenced for draft-dodging. But other times just felt like Smith doing an impression of Ali. This might've been the case where a lesser known actor would've been better served.
Flanking Smith was a deep cast with solid performances, like Mario Van Peebles, Jamie Foxx, Giancarlo Esposito, and Jada Pinkett Smith. But the scene-stealer was Voight as Howard Cosell. His best supporting nod was well-deserved with his phenomenal performance, full of bite and charm.
The boxing scenes were incredible. Energetic choreography, underrated sound, well-planned cinematography and crisp editing showed clearly how each fight was won/lost. I'm not a boxing fan, but it gave me an appreciation for the sport from that era.
It was up to Mann to decide on how much hero-worship to do in a biography, but it usually leads to uninteresting subjects. There were some potential themes, such as how well-paid athletes easily go broke, or how Ali's changed tactic to attrition led to the dicey subject of head trauma. But the story never went deep enough to express anything substantial. Pretty much the only weakness they gave him was womanizing, a very stock vice.
As much as I enjoyed Voight's performance and the immersive boxing fights, Ali came off as wandering biography. Reenacting some of Ali's biggest moments (and trying to get Will Smith an Oscar), but ultimately had nothing to say.
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Will Smith stars Muhammad Ali in this biography, directed by Michael Mann.
Loved
Jon Voight.
Liked
Exciting boxing scenes.
Disliked
Subpar story-telling, playing it safe.
Thoughts
It's got its moments.
The movie rides or dies with Smith's performance. Unfortunately, it was uneven. At times he was brilliant, grabbing the screen by sheer personality, like his rant after being sentenced for draft-dodging. But other times just felt like Smith doing an impression of Ali. This might've been the case where a lesser known actor would've been better served.
Flanking Smith was a deep cast with solid performances, like Mario Van Peebles, Jamie Foxx, Giancarlo Esposito, and Jada Pinkett Smith. But the scene-stealer was Voight as Howard Cosell. His best supporting nod was well-deserved with his phenomenal performance, full of bite and charm.
However, I was frustrated by the long, unfocused narrative. While I never knew that Ali interacted with Malcolm X, the fascinating subplot sadly didn't contribute to the film, nor say anything interesting about Ali as a whole. Meanwhile, Ali waited seven years to get his shot at redemption, but as a movie experience I never felt that gauntlet of time. This caused the "Thrilla in Manilla" to pop up suddenly, without buildup, without feeling like a climax, when it was the film maker's intentions.
As much as I enjoyed Voight's performance and the immersive boxing fights, Ali came off as wandering biography. Reenacting some of Ali's biggest moments (and trying to get Will Smith an Oscar), but ultimately had nothing to say.
All is Lost
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Robert Redford stars as a man stranded on his crippled sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Liked
Redford, fascinating premise, and patient story-telling.
Thoughts
Pretty entertaining thanks to strong acting, interesting premise, and realistic story.
Much like Castaway or Gravity (which incidentally came out the same year as this), the star power of its lead was vital. With a compelling life-or-death premise, accompanied with the challenge of essentially a dialog-less narrative, you need someone the audience will want to root for as the hero goes through the drudgery of survival. Redford, being the sole name on the cast, carried the film effortless with his craggy, yet dignified face and ageless presence.
I also liked that the plot was very believable, with a lot of waiting in the sun. The film makers let the story unfold, without the pressure of forcing something "exciting" in every scene. In between the couple of storm sequences, the movie took its time to show the minutiae and resourcefulness required to survive, such as him salvaging his ship as it slowly sank, or using navigation tools to plot his path into shipping lanes. His difficulties in hailing a ship were fascinating and heart-breaking. The ambiguous ending was a nice touch to his journey.
It was great to see a living legend like Redford, back onscreen, still bringing his A-game, especially inhabiting an interesting challenge of a movie like this. Had it been released one year early/later, All is Lost might've gotten more attention, which it definitely deserved.
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Robert Redford stars as a man stranded on his crippled sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Liked
Redford, fascinating premise, and patient story-telling.
Thoughts
Pretty entertaining thanks to strong acting, interesting premise, and realistic story.
Much like Castaway or Gravity (which incidentally came out the same year as this), the star power of its lead was vital. With a compelling life-or-death premise, accompanied with the challenge of essentially a dialog-less narrative, you need someone the audience will want to root for as the hero goes through the drudgery of survival. Redford, being the sole name on the cast, carried the film effortless with his craggy, yet dignified face and ageless presence.
I also liked that the plot was very believable, with a lot of waiting in the sun. The film makers let the story unfold, without the pressure of forcing something "exciting" in every scene. In between the couple of storm sequences, the movie took its time to show the minutiae and resourcefulness required to survive, such as him salvaging his ship as it slowly sank, or using navigation tools to plot his path into shipping lanes. His difficulties in hailing a ship were fascinating and heart-breaking. The ambiguous ending was a nice touch to his journey.
It was great to see a living legend like Redford, back onscreen, still bringing his A-game, especially inhabiting an interesting challenge of a movie like this. Had it been released one year early/later, All is Lost might've gotten more attention, which it definitely deserved.
All the President's Men
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.
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.
Amadeus
Viewed in
2010
Premise
The genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is witnessed through the jealous eyes of his colleague and rival, Antonio Salieri.
Loved
Beautiful classical music, fantastic acting, the "Requiem" scene.
Thoughts
A fantastic musical and cinematic experience.
I am probably an average fan of classical music. Yet I loved every song in this film. This film gave me a deeper appreciation for the intricate depth and layers in Mozart's works. I wanted to pump up the volume, just to soak every note and chord. In addition, I have never heard Mozart with vocals, so the operas were quite interesting. Imagine how much more vibrant and engrossing for my ears had I been watching this in a 5.1 sound system.
Though I was a little sad to discover that the plot was too good to be true, it was really, really good. To see Mozart through a mortal's eye was ingenious and an excellent method to care for Mozart's character. After all, most of us cannot relate to such a genius. In addition, I was able to empathize with Salieri, who was technically the antagonist.
The acting was as wonderful as the music, especially F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce as Salieri and Mozart, respectively. Abraham owned his character, masterfully showing us the joy of listening to artistic greatness, and at the same time being eaten alive by his own mediocrity. Hulce, on the other hand, got the flashy job of being a rebellious, crude, and child-like genius. And that laugh! Oh, so delightful.
This film was before his time, but Hulce's performance actually reminded me of Michael Jackson. Both were former child prodigies deprived of normal childhoods, thus had a distorted child-like need as adults.
My favorite scene was Salieri attempting to dictate "Requiem" while Mozart was bed-ridden, gravely ill. Music, story, acting, and director Milos Forman's execution converged to create greatness. I loved how easily the genius flowed from Mozart, how Salieri set aside his internal conflicts for the sake of art. Plot-wise, Mozart had to explain each each section, piece by piece for Salieri to understand, but at the same time, the film exposes to the audience the inner workings of a masterpiece. As the pieces of the puzzle assembled, a cinematic crescendo rose like a tidal wave of movie magic. Sometimes words cannot accurate describe the joy of basking in great art. Such is one example.
The movie length of two hours and forty minutes was intimidating, but the time needed for the audience to listen and appreciate the music as well as Abraham and Hulce's performances. I would have preferred less scenes in the madhouse, Salieri narrating the story, but it really was a joy to see Abraham's acting, as his character indulged in his memories of Mozart's music.
My only complaint was camera technique. My cinematography knowledge is lacking, but I assumed they used wide lenses. In any case, there were numerous scenes, in which images on the sides were distractingly distorted. Not sure if it was the camera's fault or the lenses' fault.
As a movie and music lover, I adored this film, and it deserved its accolades. It will forever belong in my pantheon of memorable and re-watchable films.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Premise
The genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is witnessed through the jealous eyes of his colleague and rival, Antonio Salieri.
Loved
Beautiful classical music, fantastic acting, the "Requiem" scene.
Thoughts
A fantastic musical and cinematic experience.
I am probably an average fan of classical music. Yet I loved every song in this film. This film gave me a deeper appreciation for the intricate depth and layers in Mozart's works. I wanted to pump up the volume, just to soak every note and chord. In addition, I have never heard Mozart with vocals, so the operas were quite interesting. Imagine how much more vibrant and engrossing for my ears had I been watching this in a 5.1 sound system.
Though I was a little sad to discover that the plot was too good to be true, it was really, really good. To see Mozart through a mortal's eye was ingenious and an excellent method to care for Mozart's character. After all, most of us cannot relate to such a genius. In addition, I was able to empathize with Salieri, who was technically the antagonist.
The acting was as wonderful as the music, especially F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce as Salieri and Mozart, respectively. Abraham owned his character, masterfully showing us the joy of listening to artistic greatness, and at the same time being eaten alive by his own mediocrity. Hulce, on the other hand, got the flashy job of being a rebellious, crude, and child-like genius. And that laugh! Oh, so delightful.
This film was before his time, but Hulce's performance actually reminded me of Michael Jackson. Both were former child prodigies deprived of normal childhoods, thus had a distorted child-like need as adults.
My favorite scene was Salieri attempting to dictate "Requiem" while Mozart was bed-ridden, gravely ill. Music, story, acting, and director Milos Forman's execution converged to create greatness. I loved how easily the genius flowed from Mozart, how Salieri set aside his internal conflicts for the sake of art. Plot-wise, Mozart had to explain each each section, piece by piece for Salieri to understand, but at the same time, the film exposes to the audience the inner workings of a masterpiece. As the pieces of the puzzle assembled, a cinematic crescendo rose like a tidal wave of movie magic. Sometimes words cannot accurate describe the joy of basking in great art. Such is one example.
The movie length of two hours and forty minutes was intimidating, but the time needed for the audience to listen and appreciate the music as well as Abraham and Hulce's performances. I would have preferred less scenes in the madhouse, Salieri narrating the story, but it really was a joy to see Abraham's acting, as his character indulged in his memories of Mozart's music.
My only complaint was camera technique. My cinematography knowledge is lacking, but I assumed they used wide lenses. In any case, there were numerous scenes, in which images on the sides were distractingly distorted. Not sure if it was the camera's fault or the lenses' fault.
As a movie and music lover, I adored this film, and it deserved its accolades. It will forever belong in my pantheon of memorable and re-watchable films.
What I would change
Nothing.
Amant, L'
Viewed in
1999
Premise
In colonial Vietnam, a French lady learns some hardcore love from a Vietnamese businessman.
Who should watch
Jane March fans.
Thoughts
Horrible movie. Allegedly, the plot was about race and colonialism etc. But that was a lame excuse for interracial sex scenes. How bad was the story? The business man creeps his hand on hers and they instantly fall in love. I should try that sometime in real life.
As for the gratuitous sex scenes, they went from unintentionally funny, to arousing, to creepy. I am sure Jane March was legal, but the story presented her as a 15 year old.
What made this experience worse for me was because my French film teacher made us watch this as a social commentary film.
What I would change
Not bothered making such garbage.
1999
Premise
In colonial Vietnam, a French lady learns some hardcore love from a Vietnamese businessman.
Who should watch
Jane March fans.
Thoughts
Horrible movie. Allegedly, the plot was about race and colonialism etc. But that was a lame excuse for interracial sex scenes. How bad was the story? The business man creeps his hand on hers and they instantly fall in love. I should try that sometime in real life.
As for the gratuitous sex scenes, they went from unintentionally funny, to arousing, to creepy. I am sure Jane March was legal, but the story presented her as a 15 year old.
What made this experience worse for me was because my French film teacher made us watch this as a social commentary film.
What I would change
Not bothered making such garbage.
American Hustle
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence star in a story of a 1970's con man forced to help the FBI take down corrupt politicians.
Loved
Acting, 1970's hair, Adams' cleavage, Bale's gut, Louis C.K.'s subplot.
Liked
Visual flair, watching sleazeballs out-conning each other, Adams-versus-Lawrence scene.
Disliked
Confusing plot, underwhelming ending, Cooper's casting.
Thoughts
Man, was this a lot of fun.
There was a great panache that celebrated the ridiculousness of the 1970's glamour, from music to outfits, to that gorgeous, gorgeous hair. Seriously, there needed to be an award for best movie hair. Every character was fascinating to look at. Bale, known for taking on physically punishing roles, beat his sex appeal to a pulp with a combover and gigantic gut. But the scene-stealer was Adams' where-did-that-come-from-?! cleavage.
With all this cinematic candy, it was not surprise that the film was crammed with indulgent shots, which occasionally slowed the momentum, like the disco scene.
Oh yeah, the acting was very good too. It was a joy to sit back and watch a bunch of sleazebags out-conning each other. Nothing will ever match Robert DeNiro-Al Pacino showdown from Heat, but the Amy Adams-Jennifer Lawrence dance club encounter came pretty darn close. Louis C.K.'s subplot about his fishing story was inspired irreverence. Lastly, the cameo was obvious but brilliant at the same time.
I would agree that director David O. Russell needed to add more substance to the overflowing style. While the con games were fun, I sometimes couldn't tell who had the upper hand in every situation. By the end, I was confused enough to find the climax unexciting.
Another issue was Cooper as the wild FBI agent. When he was a douchebag or idiot, Cooper knocked it out of the park hilariously, but I didn't buy into his serious/smart side. So half of the time, he seemed oddly miscast.
American Hustle's visual flair was undeniably great, and battle of the wits was tantalizing in the moment. The problem was after the credits rolled, I wondered if any of the characters actually had a brain. Considering its overrated accolades, keep your expectations lower so you won't feel scammed.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence star in a story of a 1970's con man forced to help the FBI take down corrupt politicians.
Loved
Acting, 1970's hair, Adams' cleavage, Bale's gut, Louis C.K.'s subplot.
Liked
Visual flair, watching sleazeballs out-conning each other, Adams-versus-Lawrence scene.
Disliked
Confusing plot, underwhelming ending, Cooper's casting.
Thoughts
Man, was this a lot of fun.
There was a great panache that celebrated the ridiculousness of the 1970's glamour, from music to outfits, to that gorgeous, gorgeous hair. Seriously, there needed to be an award for best movie hair. Every character was fascinating to look at. Bale, known for taking on physically punishing roles, beat his sex appeal to a pulp with a combover and gigantic gut. But the scene-stealer was Adams' where-did-that-come-from-?! cleavage.
With all this cinematic candy, it was not surprise that the film was crammed with indulgent shots, which occasionally slowed the momentum, like the disco scene.
Oh yeah, the acting was very good too. It was a joy to sit back and watch a bunch of sleazebags out-conning each other. Nothing will ever match Robert DeNiro-Al Pacino showdown from Heat, but the Amy Adams-Jennifer Lawrence dance club encounter came pretty darn close. Louis C.K.'s subplot about his fishing story was inspired irreverence. Lastly, the cameo was obvious but brilliant at the same time.
I would agree that director David O. Russell needed to add more substance to the overflowing style. While the con games were fun, I sometimes couldn't tell who had the upper hand in every situation. By the end, I was confused enough to find the climax unexciting.
Another issue was Cooper as the wild FBI agent. When he was a douchebag or idiot, Cooper knocked it out of the park hilariously, but I didn't buy into his serious/smart side. So half of the time, he seemed oddly miscast.
American Hustle's visual flair was undeniably great, and battle of the wits was tantalizing in the moment. The problem was after the credits rolled, I wondered if any of the characters actually had a brain. Considering its overrated accolades, keep your expectations lower so you won't feel scammed.
The American
Viewed in
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
George Clooney stars as a hitman in hiding in a small Italian village.
Loved
George Clooney's performance.
Liked
The character study.
Thoughts
If I had to use one word to describe this excellent piece of work, it would be "subtle".
Everything about it was subtle, none more exemplified than Clooney's performance. He was mesmerizing, as he was able to express his characters emotions, introversion, and paranoia with minimal dialog. In fact, the directing and acting were good at putting this internal stuff onscreen that the story would have been just as clear had I watched on mute. All of those quiet moments truly built up for a wonderful, emotional payoff in the climax.
The only non-subtle aspect was the cinematography. Throughout the film, my eyes were treated to beautiful shots of unique Italian villas and vast natural landscapes. Just gorgeous eye candy.
As a pure character study, it clearly cared more about the people in the story than the story itself; I assume if I thought twice about the plot, there might be some unanswered loose ends. Also, I am certain that its pace and silence would likely bore the typical moviegoer.
This was truly an elegant, underrated film. While he was not nominated, Clooney's performance should not be overlooked.
What I would change
Nothing.
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
George Clooney stars as a hitman in hiding in a small Italian village.
Loved
George Clooney's performance.
Liked
The character study.
Thoughts
If I had to use one word to describe this excellent piece of work, it would be "subtle".
Everything about it was subtle, none more exemplified than Clooney's performance. He was mesmerizing, as he was able to express his characters emotions, introversion, and paranoia with minimal dialog. In fact, the directing and acting were good at putting this internal stuff onscreen that the story would have been just as clear had I watched on mute. All of those quiet moments truly built up for a wonderful, emotional payoff in the climax.
The only non-subtle aspect was the cinematography. Throughout the film, my eyes were treated to beautiful shots of unique Italian villas and vast natural landscapes. Just gorgeous eye candy.
As a pure character study, it clearly cared more about the people in the story than the story itself; I assume if I thought twice about the plot, there might be some unanswered loose ends. Also, I am certain that its pace and silence would likely bore the typical moviegoer.
This was truly an elegant, underrated film. While he was not nominated, Clooney's performance should not be overlooked.
What I would change
Nothing.
American Graffiti
Viewed in
2000
Premise
Two high school graduates have some more growing up to do in their last night with their buddies in the 1960's America.
Who should watch
People who grew up in the 60's?
Thoughts
I liked the cast and the music. The characters were created with care by the great George Lucas. Also, the Harrison Ford cameo was quite interesting.
However, even for the high school coming-of-age aspect of the story, I had a lot of trouble relating to the characters or the times. Which is unfortunate, because it looked like a good movie, but I did not feel it.
What I would change
Nothing.
2000
Premise
Two high school graduates have some more growing up to do in their last night with their buddies in the 1960's America.
Who should watch
People who grew up in the 60's?
Thoughts
I liked the cast and the music. The characters were created with care by the great George Lucas. Also, the Harrison Ford cameo was quite interesting.
However, even for the high school coming-of-age aspect of the story, I had a lot of trouble relating to the characters or the times. Which is unfortunate, because it looked like a good movie, but I did not feel it.
What I would change
Nothing.
American Gangster
Viewed in
2007
Premise
The rise and fall and redemption of Frank Lucas, successful black American mobster.
Who should watch
Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington fans. Those who like crime dramas that are about character over action.
Thoughts
When nearly three hours felt like only two, you know you're watching some good stuff. This was one of this year's best 'Big Hollywood movies'.
The first reason this film worked was because of the remarkable story. Even though he was a drug dealer and murderer, I rooted for him, because in a twisted way, we was fighting American racism. Image is not everything, but it still tells something about you as a person. The big twist that I loved was how Frank Lucas and the man that brough him down helped each other bring down one of the most corrupted police forces in America. That redemption packed a nice emotion punch.
The other reason to watch this film was because of the superb acting. While this was no 'Malcolm X' level acting, I could not keep my eyes off of Denzel because of his presence. Russell had the less glamorous role, but he held his own with a great, subtle performance. But the scene-stealer was Josh Brolin as a corrupt cop. He had help from his 'I am evil' moustache, but man, he oozed with nastiness. There was solid acting all around. There was this great moment when Ruby Dee as Lucas' mother confronted him about his actions. One does not need to speak to tell a story.
Another aspect that must be appreciated was the visual detail by the film makers. At times, it felt like a period piece. There was a lot of 1960's and 19770's America tapestry that filled out every corner of the film, as well as being a minor character in the story.
Watch this film for the great story and acting. It does not matter how big the budget and names are in a movie, when it's done like this, it's just great film.
Two random notes. I was happy that John Hawkes from 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' got a nice supporting gig. And if you stayed all the way to the end, you got to see Denzel shoot you in the face, just like the trailer.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
The rise and fall and redemption of Frank Lucas, successful black American mobster.
Who should watch
Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington fans. Those who like crime dramas that are about character over action.
Thoughts
When nearly three hours felt like only two, you know you're watching some good stuff. This was one of this year's best 'Big Hollywood movies'.
The first reason this film worked was because of the remarkable story. Even though he was a drug dealer and murderer, I rooted for him, because in a twisted way, we was fighting American racism. Image is not everything, but it still tells something about you as a person. The big twist that I loved was how Frank Lucas and the man that brough him down helped each other bring down one of the most corrupted police forces in America. That redemption packed a nice emotion punch.
The other reason to watch this film was because of the superb acting. While this was no 'Malcolm X' level acting, I could not keep my eyes off of Denzel because of his presence. Russell had the less glamorous role, but he held his own with a great, subtle performance. But the scene-stealer was Josh Brolin as a corrupt cop. He had help from his 'I am evil' moustache, but man, he oozed with nastiness. There was solid acting all around. There was this great moment when Ruby Dee as Lucas' mother confronted him about his actions. One does not need to speak to tell a story.
Another aspect that must be appreciated was the visual detail by the film makers. At times, it felt like a period piece. There was a lot of 1960's and 19770's America tapestry that filled out every corner of the film, as well as being a minor character in the story.
Watch this film for the great story and acting. It does not matter how big the budget and names are in a movie, when it's done like this, it's just great film.
Two random notes. I was happy that John Hawkes from 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' got a nice supporting gig. And if you stayed all the way to the end, you got to see Denzel shoot you in the face, just like the trailer.
What I would change
Nothing.
American Splendor
Viewed in
2005
Premise
The biography of Harvey Pekar, as told and illustrated by Harvey Pekar.
Who should watch
Anyone who enjoys great, artsy films.
Thoughts
This film was weird, funny, unique and just plain awesome.
Pretty much every great film requires a great story. Here, it displayed Harvey Pekar's unique life and personality. On top of that, the story also had a cute and realistic love story about two dysfunctional, anti-social nerds. The great story and dialogue helped make the acting great. Paul Giamatti deserved to be nominated for his awesome job as Harvey. He was dead on. How do I know? Read the next paragraph.
What made this film so unique and crazy was that the filmmakers totally obliterated the fourth wall*. There were absolutely hilarious scenes of the real Harvey narrating the film, with the camera pointed at the real Harvey, and Paul Giamatti (in costume as Harvey) walking from the movie set into the recording studio that Harvey is in. Even Harvey's real-life family and friends get involved in the madness. This obliteration perfectly fit the tone and humor of the story and enhanced the film experience to levels of greatness.
*There is an acting term called 'knocking down the fourth wall'. In most cases, characters in a story are not aware of a camera looking at them, as if all four walls of their room are solid. Occasionally, that fourth wall comes down, and the characters talk and interact with the camera or audience.
What I would change
Nothing.
2005
Premise
The biography of Harvey Pekar, as told and illustrated by Harvey Pekar.
Who should watch
Anyone who enjoys great, artsy films.
Thoughts
This film was weird, funny, unique and just plain awesome.
Pretty much every great film requires a great story. Here, it displayed Harvey Pekar's unique life and personality. On top of that, the story also had a cute and realistic love story about two dysfunctional, anti-social nerds. The great story and dialogue helped make the acting great. Paul Giamatti deserved to be nominated for his awesome job as Harvey. He was dead on. How do I know? Read the next paragraph.
What made this film so unique and crazy was that the filmmakers totally obliterated the fourth wall*. There were absolutely hilarious scenes of the real Harvey narrating the film, with the camera pointed at the real Harvey, and Paul Giamatti (in costume as Harvey) walking from the movie set into the recording studio that Harvey is in. Even Harvey's real-life family and friends get involved in the madness. This obliteration perfectly fit the tone and humor of the story and enhanced the film experience to levels of greatness.
*There is an acting term called 'knocking down the fourth wall'. In most cases, characters in a story are not aware of a camera looking at them, as if all four walls of their room are solid. Occasionally, that fourth wall comes down, and the characters talk and interact with the camera or audience.
What I would change
Nothing.
Amores Perros
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Alejandro González Iñárritu's and Gael García Bernal's breakout movie that's a Mexican 'Pulp Fiction' mixed with 'Crash' and Westminster Dog Show.
Who should watch
People who enjoy fancy multiple-storyline movies.
Thoughts
There was some good stuff, even though this style of story-telling was getting gimmicky. Bernal was a great presence. Despite all the coincidences and chance happenings, a lot of the character behavior was realistic and sympathetic. My favorite storyline was the former guerrilla-turned-wino-turned-hit man who was hired to kill a man by his business partner.
Just a warning: those no dogs were hurt, there were plenty of realistic scenes of animal cruelty. This may be a bigger deal in the post-Michael Vick era.
What I would change
A steadicam every once in while would have been nice. I was glad I did not try to watch this on a plane.
2007
Premise
Alejandro González Iñárritu's and Gael García Bernal's breakout movie that's a Mexican 'Pulp Fiction' mixed with 'Crash' and Westminster Dog Show.
Who should watch
People who enjoy fancy multiple-storyline movies.
Thoughts
There was some good stuff, even though this style of story-telling was getting gimmicky. Bernal was a great presence. Despite all the coincidences and chance happenings, a lot of the character behavior was realistic and sympathetic. My favorite storyline was the former guerrilla-turned-wino-turned-hit man who was hired to kill a man by his business partner.
Just a warning: those no dogs were hurt, there were plenty of realistic scenes of animal cruelty. This may be a bigger deal in the post-Michael Vick era.
What I would change
A steadicam every once in while would have been nice. I was glad I did not try to watch this on a plane.
Any Given Sunday
Viewed in
2005
Premise
Chronicles the highs and lows of a fictional pro American football team.
Who should watch
Oliver Stone fans. Al Pacino fans.
Thoughts
In this movie, Oliver Stone proved he can make an MTV-style movie, but then he went overboard with it for the action scenes. Each game felt like a flashy sports music video interrupting the story.
Other than that, I liked everything else: the awesome cast, sports legend cameos, eclectic music, and ample screentime to give all the characters room to breath.
For football fans, I recommend checking out the short-lived 'Playmakers' series for a deeper and coherent portrayal of the sport and business.
What I would change
Less of the MTV editing.
2005
Premise
Chronicles the highs and lows of a fictional pro American football team.
Who should watch
Oliver Stone fans. Al Pacino fans.
Thoughts
In this movie, Oliver Stone proved he can make an MTV-style movie, but then he went overboard with it for the action scenes. Each game felt like a flashy sports music video interrupting the story.
Other than that, I liked everything else: the awesome cast, sports legend cameos, eclectic music, and ample screentime to give all the characters room to breath.
For football fans, I recommend checking out the short-lived 'Playmakers' series for a deeper and coherent portrayal of the sport and business.
What I would change
Less of the MTV editing.
The Apartment
Viewed in
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine star in Billy Wilder's classic about a man who lets his work superiors use his apartment for trysts, but complications and a romance of his own ensue.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, it's been a long time and the details are fuzzy. I do recall liking the characters and the dialogue, which should not be surprising considering the cast and Wilder's writing. Though I did not think it was as great as everyone said it was.
What I would change
Not idea.
1996
Formats
VHS
Premise
Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine star in Billy Wilder's classic about a man who lets his work superiors use his apartment for trysts, but complications and a romance of his own ensue.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, it's been a long time and the details are fuzzy. I do recall liking the characters and the dialogue, which should not be surprising considering the cast and Wilder's writing. Though I did not think it was as great as everyone said it was.
What I would change
Not idea.
Apocalypse Now
Viewed in
1999, 2002 (Redux)
Formats
DVD
Premise
Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece about an American captain (Martin Sheen) sent into the heart of Cambodia during the Vietnam War to kill a renegade Green Beret (Marlon Brando).
Thoughts
My memory is probably hazy on both versions, but I loved the original. This was definitely one of those films in which the journey meant more than the destination. I still remember those haunting visuals, scenes, dialogue, and characters. It was a surreal, chaotic, maddening, insightful, and ambiguous trip. A must-see for movie buffs.
The Redux version had a couple of gems of a scene, but I do not think they really added to the entire aura of the film. In fact, they kind of stalled the momentum.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999, 2002 (Redux)
Formats
DVD
Premise
Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece about an American captain (Martin Sheen) sent into the heart of Cambodia during the Vietnam War to kill a renegade Green Beret (Marlon Brando).
Thoughts
My memory is probably hazy on both versions, but I loved the original. This was definitely one of those films in which the journey meant more than the destination. I still remember those haunting visuals, scenes, dialogue, and characters. It was a surreal, chaotic, maddening, insightful, and ambiguous trip. A must-see for movie buffs.
The Redux version had a couple of gems of a scene, but I do not think they really added to the entire aura of the film. In fact, they kind of stalled the momentum.
What I would change
Nothing.
Apollo 13
Viewed in
1995, 1996, 1999
Premise
Based on the harrowing flight of Apollo 13.
Who should watch
Those interested in one of the most inspiring parts of American space history.
Thoughts
Overall, this was a very enjoyable film with a sense of authenticity.
The aspect that stands out the most for me was the amazing story. It was a triumphant tale that teaches us that with teamwork we, as humans, can overcome any obstacle.
Obviously, it is easy to ruin a good story. However, it is impossible to ruin it when Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, James Horner, and great special effects are involved.
Even if you are unfamiliar with American space history, I would still recommend this excellent film for its realistic tension and genuine inspiration.
What I would change
Nothing.
1995, 1996, 1999
Premise
Based on the harrowing flight of Apollo 13.
Who should watch
Those interested in one of the most inspiring parts of American space history.
Thoughts
Overall, this was a very enjoyable film with a sense of authenticity.
The aspect that stands out the most for me was the amazing story. It was a triumphant tale that teaches us that with teamwork we, as humans, can overcome any obstacle.
Obviously, it is easy to ruin a good story. However, it is impossible to ruin it when Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, James Horner, and great special effects are involved.
Even if you are unfamiliar with American space history, I would still recommend this excellent film for its realistic tension and genuine inspiration.
What I would change
Nothing.
The Artist
Viewed in
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
A silent film about a silent film star's fall from grace.
Loved
Silent film premise.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Story.
Thoughts
Sadly, this was a classic case of the premise being better on paper than on screen.
The premise and spirit of doing a silent movie about silent movies was brilliant. I enjoyed the fun acting by the cast. And I especially dug the play on sound and sound editing.
For me, I didn't find the story to be interesting, so the novelty of watching a modernized silent movie wore off about halfway in. Also, there was this wonderful moment when sound breaks through the "fourth wall", and I thought the film would venture into Pleasantville, only to be disappointed by its retreat back to status quo.
I really wanted The Artist to succeed because the hook was so interesting and cool, but the old dogma of "story is everything" still applies to movies new and old.
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
A silent film about a silent film star's fall from grace.
Loved
Silent film premise.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Story.
Thoughts
Sadly, this was a classic case of the premise being better on paper than on screen.
The premise and spirit of doing a silent movie about silent movies was brilliant. I enjoyed the fun acting by the cast. And I especially dug the play on sound and sound editing.
For me, I didn't find the story to be interesting, so the novelty of watching a modernized silent movie wore off about halfway in. Also, there was this wonderful moment when sound breaks through the "fourth wall", and I thought the film would venture into Pleasantville, only to be disappointed by its retreat back to status quo.
I really wanted The Artist to succeed because the hook was so interesting and cool, but the old dogma of "story is everything" still applies to movies new and old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)