Change Your Image
a2d_music
Reviews
American Movie (1999)
Good filmmaking... sad lives
I didn't much enjoy American Movie. Not because it was a
bad film inherently, but I didn't much care for the people in
it. These aren't people seeking the "American Dream" --
these are depressed and *depressing* lives. And these
poor people are used by the documentary as comedic foil.
I felt bad for them. It felt like Jerry Springer took the camera
to his guests' homes. This is sad, not funny. Could have
been brilliant if it were made with that poignance in mind.
What should have been a serious look is used as a joke.
These LIVES are used for humor on film! Shame.
Batman (1989)
One dimensional characters in a two dimensional setting
I'll say the positive things first: Jack Nicholson is GREAT in
this movie, providing a nice mix of menace and camp. Gotham City looks quite good through Tim Burton's lens.
Now, the criticisms: We are given no reason to care about
the characters. When Alfred reminds Bruce that Vicki Vale
is "special," I want to yell out "WHY?!?!?!" The character is
a cardboard cutout: she has no particular attributes, no
specific personality. She just *is*. Of course, maybe she
seems special in comparison to Bruce Wayne, played more like a large rock than an internally hurt man. Keaton
is a better actor than this, so I can only blame the script or
Burton - probably both. Tim Burton tends to be a better
visual director than person director, especially when the
character isn't already "self directing" in the script. And
don't get me started on Knox, the reporter. He's a lovable
goof character - which is fine in its place. But supposedly
he's some gifted reporter (gifted enough that a respected,
serious photojournalist wants to work with him on the Batman story), and I'm sure that Knox couldn't write a
cohesive sentence.
Of course, underneath it all, this is just a comic book cum
movie. Perhaps it doesn't bear a serious film criticism.
Fair enough. But even then, this film doesn't hold up. The
movie looks like and acts like a comic book, from camera
cuts that reflect panel drawings to the tenor of the dialog.
Fine. Burton succeeds in this endeavor in a technical
sense. But there is a fundamental problem with this is that
movies need more fleshing out than a comic book allows.
Panel to panel, the reader connects the dots in his own
way. A movie doesn't permit this so easily, so when the
narrative is left as sparse as the comic, the film feels
incomplete. An already used but ideal example is the relationship between Bruce and Vicki. In a graphic novel, it
is best left to the imagination that the characters develop
together and find out what it is that is so... "special" about
each other. In a movie, we turn ourselves over to the
experience too much to create that separate world as the
film happens. Thus, what we're left with is a strained
moment - after Bruce and Vicki have just ONE date - where
Vicki asks, "Are we going to try to love each other?" Of
course, the line was asked so flatly, Kim might as well
have asked, "Do you want crackers with the soup?" But I
can't blame her - there's no relationship for her to react to.
Blah. Looks good, great job Jack. Those two elements
earn it a 6/10.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Almost a perfect film
And it would be a perfect film were it not, in the end, a
simple comedy. I love a good comedy - and this fits the bill
amongst the best, but it could have been more. There are
deeper issues that could have been explored and discovered better than they were. Ideas regarding expression, behavior, and control were never brought into
focus.
Regardless of this, it is still a 9/10 movie. It is bizarre and
funny - one would half expect it to be a Terry Gilliam film
along the lines of Brazil! A wonderful, if ultimately
lightweight, film.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Good...
Not the best in the trilogy, but a solid pulp-comic book
adventure. This feels a bit more soulless than the other
entries in the series... perhaps because they tried so hard
to surpass the first. Kate Capshaw = Tonya Roberts (from
A View To A Kill) in that they both just whine, scream, and
get in the way. But past that, a very solid film. Escapist fun.
Casino Royale (1967)
A mess...
And an unfunny mess at that. Nothing in this film made me
even crack a smile. With 5+ directors and just as many
writers, its no wonder that the story makes no sense, lacks
continuity, and well... just plain fails.
I will say one positive thing: the concept of the 007 number
and James Bond name being used by different agents is a
good one. Before I even ever saw this movie, I thought
that would be a good way to account for the different Bond
performers and personalities over the last 30 years. Of
course, what makes this more impressive is that this film
came out before the first casting change in the official Bond
series.
But - and this is a BIG but - the film is still a pathetic,
unfunny hodgepodge that is not worth the rental price.
Avoid this film like you would avoid an STD.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Bond: Let's Get Silly
Others have described this one in detail, so I'll just cut to
the chase and keep it short. Connery is wooden in this
film, easily his worse entry in the official canon (Never Say
Never Again is worse but doesn't count). He's looking very
old for Bond, which is somewhat ironic, considering that
Roger Moore, who replaced him the next outing, is three
years older than Connery yet looks younger in his early
outings. And aside from this... this movie is just silly and campy.
Practically a comedy. It isn't unwatchable, but it is more
akin to Austin Powers than Connery's Bond, who once was
a dark, brutal agent under orders. Diamonds are forever, but this film won't endure that long.
You Only Live Twice (1967)
A bit wacky, but...
Yes, thing get a little silly in this film after four fairly taut entries. But this movie is fun! Of course, the series has really started to veer sharply from Fleming's creation, but by now Bond in film has his own mythos. One of my guilty pleasures in the bond realm is this flick, but it isn't generally a fan favorite... so my advice is rent before you buy (if you can find a copy for sale!).
From Russia with Love (1963)
Getting better...!
Dr. No was good - this is better! The Bond "tradition" is finally starting to set itself up. This film is still, like its predecessor, very serious... but it works brilliantly here. Of course, this movie seems all the more remarkable when compared to some of the films that followed in later years -- which seem practically farcical in comparison.
Dr. No (1962)
started it all...
Not, by far, the best Bond movie, but still quite good. This
film feels a little overlong, and the motivations aren't clear,
but Sean Connery has already nailed the character of James Bond.
My main problems with the film stem mostly out of a dissatisfaction with the plot - we are never really told what
Dr. No's deal is; his goals are unclear. Also, the title
sequence leaves much to be desired.
On the other had, it has the image of the ultimate Bond girl,
and some of the best biting Bondian comments in the series... "and you've had your six." is just the epitome of
cool. Telling of things to come!
The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
Not the best, but not the worst!
Pretty decent film, would be a great one were it not for some bad jokes (slidewhistle, anyone?), more J.W. Pepper than we ever could possibly need, and a terrible Bond girl.
But there are some other elements to this film that would have made it classic if not marred by those other errors: great score, great villain, great twisting story. A must see, but not a must have.
Octopussy (1983)
Moore's Best Bond Film
Without a doubt, Octopussy is undoubtedly Roger Moore's
best outing as Bond. For one thing, they finally got the
blend of humor and action right - a problem with the earlier
Moore films. Moore somehow looks younger than he does
in "For Your Eyes Only," which makes no sense (as FYEO
came before this one). But with that comes great energy
from old Roger, which is very welcome.
The plot may be insanely complex, but it IS unquestionably
original - it isn't just another megalomaniac who wants to
expunge the earth and start over in the sea or in space or
whatever.
Moore may or may not be the best Bond (this is open for
debate - let me just say that Ian Fleming originally preferred
Moore over Connery back in the day) - but in whatever case,
Octopussy marks a high point in the series, along with
Goldfinger, OHMSS, and Goldeneye.
Brazil (1985)
"cinematic rape" - Terry Gilliam
I'll keep this short - enough comments are out there already for
you to agree/disagree with... or enough to make you want to see
it (or not see it) for the first time.
The Criterion 3 DVD version of this film is almost as trancendental as the film is itself. The "battle for Brazil" is
also almost as dramatic and ironic as the story of Sam in the
film. See this move, and see it multiple times. This is the
wonderstuff of movies. Brilliant, sad, funny, horrific, and
wonderful. It isn't for everyone, and it isn't the "best" movie
of all time, but it is perhaps the film that says the most about
our world in a fantasy context! Stunning
Time Bandits (1981)
Intelligent enough for children, exciting enough for adults...
Or some such quote from the man himself. Terry Gilliam made a
brilliant fantasy film when he crafted this movie. I enjoyed it
when I first saw it back in the early 80s, and I have kept it as
part of my video (then DVD) library since that time. As an
adult, I thoroughly enjoy the juxtaposition of concepts and the
imaginative use of details and "set based" foreshadowing, along
with the commentaries on modern society tangentially alluded
to... as a child, I loved the midgets and the personification of
Evil. And of course, that the hero in this rather adult
adventure was a child (like Goonies did as a child... though of
course Goonies seems weak as an adult). This is not Gilliam's
best film from an objective point of view - but it is a
fantastic fantasy - an escape. Don't listen to the naysayers.
Time Bandits is a fantastic
Thunderball (1965)
a bit of a snoozer...
Not a bad Bond movie by any stretch, but it sure drags at times.
As Mike and the bots on MST 3K said, "underwater fight scenes are the drum solos of movies." Very rarely interesting and always too long. And the undercranking is sort of obnoxious.
But this one is still quite entertaining when it gets over itself. A middle of the road Bond
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Not as bad as most claim
So he's no Connery or Moore or even Brosnan. I think this is a classic Bond film. The biggest drawback is this incarnation of Bond's total lack of charm... however, he had more charm than Timothy Dalton, who was the antithesis of a Bond character. The story is interesting enough. But most importantly, we see James Bond have feelings; this is all too infrequent in the series.
Connery managed it on occasion, Moore did sometimes in an amazing display of underacting. We have it full force here.
Goldfinger (1964)
the best Bond? No. But still damn good!
No one can question this movie's impact on the series or the genre. It blew the doors open, in fact, for a previously somewhat taboo genre of film that was looked at in the same light as "True Crime" and other pulp 'zines.
But for all that, it is still not the perfection of the Bond series. The difficulty is balancing the series on an equalized playing field. 'Dr. No' cannot be compared, on a simple level, with 'For Your Eyes Only,' for example. The series evolved, the character (in the films, at least) evolved, etc. As such, it is hard to call any Bond film the BEST.
With all that in mind, we are simply left with personal preferences. Connery is at his peak as Bond, and the villain Goldfinger is the beginning of the true Bondian "supervillain".
Because it is the first such extension, it can't help but be lacking - the form was not yet perfected. This is not a discredit to the film for the time however. Just an attempt to balance the series.