bengreenb Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Deserves to be a classic

[7/10 · 31 July 2007]

This film was groundbreaking when it was released in 1968. I watched it in 2007 and found it to be better in every way-- yes, even special effects-- than most sci fi films coming out today. I plan on watching it on a big screen. The simple fact is that the film is strong in just about every respect.

Why do I give this movie a 7 out of 10 instead of a higher rating? Really, it comes down to two main things:

1) not every movie can age perfectly. The excessive amount of time given to some of the cheesier elements of the space age technology takes away from this otherwise enjoyable movie. "Cling shoes", for example.

2) personal preference. I generally prefer dramas, actions, comedies, and thrillers to epics. although i might rate this higher after seeing it on the big screen.

So, in summary: It's a classic and deserves to be, but it's not one of my personal favorites.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Oneiric

[7/10 · 31 July 2007]

Mulholland Dr is the best modern portrayal I have seen of the oneiric, film noir aesthetic. Oneiric means dreamlike, and it is the most appropriate word for describing this film, in which the viewer can barely tell if they're watching someone's dream, real life, or a movie about a movie, or perhaps some alternate universe. An unlimited plethora of theories abound as to what is actually going on throughout this confusing and engaging movie. It is a Rorschach test, a beautiful ink blot without a label. And that adds to its enjoyability, making me want to watch it again.

The film is filled with surreal, repetitious motifs, lesbian eroticism, and intriguing symbolism. Watch it, but don't expect to make any sense out of it. To quote Ebert's review: "This is a movie to surrender yourself to. If you require logic, see something else. "Mulholland Drive" works directly on the emotions, like music."

This will always be a cult classic, but it will never be a classic. I gave it a 7 out of 10 because a higher score would require that it had a coherent plot and meaning. Symbolism and cool aesthetics are interesting, fun, and artistic, but the plot is what makes a true classic.

The Graduate (1967)

50s ethos, 60s pathos

[5/10 · 19 July 2007]

I had a lot of difficulty relating to the main character, Ben Braddock. At first, he rejects Mrs. Robinson's attempts at seducing him. Then, with a very clear head, he decides to call her up and have sex with her. It's difficult to have sympathy for a character who made such a decision with a clear head-- what does he expect but to get caught? The protagonist of this movie is both too good and too bad at the same time. He is a prude with a giant unignorable super-ego on one hand, and a guy who makes stupid, morally questionable decisions on the other. In other words, a coward.

This movie was significant for its place in film history, no doubt. It created a bridge between the ethos of the 50s-- marry the girl you love, be respectful at all times, be prude when you're in the public sphere-- and the pathos of the 60s-- running away from society without any coherent plan, breaking sexual boundaries, and rebelling against ones parents. Think about it-- Ben, despite all of the disaproval he meets from his elders along the way, is actually pursuing the girl they originally begged him to pursue! If this movie were really about breaking away from the 50's as its apologists claim it is, he would have gone off with a black woman from the other side of town, not the timid girl next door (Elaine Robinson).

It does have a lot of interesting symbolism, and its an undeniable fact that it was a milestone for American cinema. (Could a movie like Garden State emerge without this having been released decades earlier?) For all of its latent symbolism and historical significance, though, one must ask some very basic questions of this movie-- was its plot good? Was it entertaining? For me, the answer is that the plot was very interesting but limited by its unexciting dramaturgy. I feel like only the first and last 10 minutes of the film are really exciting.

It's the film equivalent of listening to a song by The Beatles-- it's well arranged, has an interesting theme, but is nonetheless not as good as people think it is-- under the pretense of being loud and rebellious, it's a harmless, cooing reaffirmation of boring middle-class values.

The Transporter (2002)

The rare movie that is worse than its sequel

[4/10 · 18 July 2007]

I watched this movie after watching Transporter 2, and to my surprise, found myself enjoying this one much less than the sequel.

There are some things I like about this movie, though. Although the Chinese girl pisses a lot of people off (at least that's what the negative comments on the forums here seem to indicate) I actually found her to be endearing, and the main highlight of the movie.

Other characters, however, were just cheesy. The Villain looked more like a failed pop musician than some evil rich guy, so the match-up between him and the main character was completely unexciting from the get-go.

The action is not as fast paced and riveting as the sequel. This movie definitely doesn't warrant a re-watch.

Wall Street (1987)

Greed ain't so good

[7/10 · 18 July 2007]

This movie is about greed. Greed has a good side, and a bad side. At first, our main character Bud Fox sees greed as a good thing. Naive and opportunistic, he relentlessly works his way up to getting the respects of Gordon Gekko, one of the kings of Wall Street, a veritable genie of unadulterated greed.

Fox comes of age and eventually realizes that greed has a bad side. Greed that destroys without creating-- greed without respect to justice-- is wrong.

The acting in this movie is superb, and one can't help but admire the cast here. Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, etc. are all excellently suited for the roles they take on here. It helps that their script is good.

The technical aspects of this movie are all done well. I liked the soundtrack, the filmography, etc.

All in all, it's a good film about the 80's, about capitalism, and about the dark side of greed. Check it out.

Aliens (1986)

Suffers from the same flaws as Alien

[3/10 · 12 July 2007]

I only watched an hour of this movie before I decided it was no major improvement to the horribly overrated Alien.

The action doesn't even start until an hour into the movie! And the action isn't even that good! If you enjoyed Alien for some reason, it's likely that you'll enjoy this. If you found that Alien was dismally boring throughout (like I did), I can guarantee you that you won't like this movie any more than the former.

The dialogue is cheesy, and not in a funny way either. However, I can't help but admit that the scenery, filmography, and direction is excellent, just like in Alien. What kills both of these movies, though, are the scripts!

Raging Bull (1980)

The power of jealousy

[6/10 · 7 July 2007]

This movie shows us the power of jealousy. It shows us how it can ruin our own lives, and the lives of the ones we love. The film delivers on this potent theme through a combination of skillful direction, acting, and cinematography.

As far as the writing, I found it to be quite good as well. My only regret was that the character of the boxer's wife was not developed very well.

All in all, I highly advise this film to those who enjoy dramas and sports movies and epics. These are not genres I generally enjoy, but if they were, I would give this movie something like 7 or 8 stars rather than 6. I can see plenty of reasons why this would be seen as a classic in the eyes of many, but it's just not my type of film (I prefer sci-fi, action, comedy, thrillers, etc.) for reasons of personal taste. It's definitely worth a watch, though.

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

Great film noir

[6/10 · 1 July 2007]

I highly recommend this film. The acting is excellent, the direction is superb, and the writing is good. The only thing I disliked about it was the soundtrack-- they should have opted for some soulful jazz rather than whatever bland instrumentation they opted for.

The cinematography was simple, and yet that made it all the more effective. Today's movies almost never hold a single shot for more than a minute. The "still frame" used in so many scenes of The Postman Always Rings Twice allows for the actors to really rise to the top of their game-- which they do, and enjoyably so.

I won't spoil the ending, but I must admit I didn't like it so much. Watch this movie and decide for yourself.

Regardless, this movie is worth repeat watching when you have friends over on a rainy day.

Alien (1979)

A historical milestone, yes, but also a bore

[3/10 · 1 July 2007]

This film was historically significant for its work with special effects and cinematography. It is not fun to watch, though. I found the film slow-paced and unexciting. It might have been a shock to see an "alien" on screen in 1979, but watching such a movie today is the film equivalent of playing the first Mario games-- it's dated. We see special effects every day now, not only in movies but in advertisements on TV. This movie relies on its special effects, which are admittedly well done, but are not enough to justify rating a movie highly in 2007.

The Alien didn't scare me. More than anything, it grossed me out... but it never induced horror or fright.

I'd suggest this film to the film professors, but not to my friends.

Demolition Man (1993)

A fun watch

[6/10 · 27 June 2007]

This film has all the ingredients that good action movies require: funny one-liners, a pretty girl, a macho gun-slinging tough-guy, and a badass villain blowing stuff up. The story was surprisingly interesting-- it portrays a dystopian future in which everything and everyone is sanitized to the point of ridiculousness. This future society serves as the foil to both the tough guy cop played by Stallone and the super criminal played by Snipes.

This film is not for people who are easily irritated by an occasional lack of realism or the existence of mistakes/plot holes. The best occasion to watch a film like this is when you want to kick back and enjoy yourself, have a few laughs, and enjoy some fast paced action. This movie, in short, is entertaining.

Sleeper (1973)

Likable, but overly self-indulgent

[5/10 · 27 June 2007]

I had the reaction to this movie that I usually have had to Woody Allen flicks in the past. It's funny, filled with interesting jokes and ideas, but in the end I felt like Woody had more fun than I did.

The scenes where he has petty arguments with Diane Keaton just didn't strike me as funny. To be more specific, I don't think she's funny. Woody Allen is on screen, inducing laughs from his Jewish sense of humor, while she tags along and does a pretty bad job of playing along with it. This is a comedic routine with a long and time-honored tradition: the joker and the straight man. The problem is she can't play a good straight (wo)man-- she's just not fit to act the role. If Woody would choose actresses that can act better, rather than choosing ones on the basis of his relationships off film, his movies would be twice as good.

Basic Instinct (1992)

Hitchcock would approve

[7/10 · 25 June 2007]

This is how thrillers are supposed to be done. This film, described perfectly as an "erotic thriller" is always teetering on the edge of either violence or sex. It is a thrill. Everything from the dialogue to the aesthetics are done in a way which maximize the impact of this film. Sharon Stone is at the top of her game, and Michael Douglas is up there too. The story approaches a sort of real life drama that it is rarely seen in Hollywood films-- it is truly a classic of the nineties.

For those renting or buying the DVD, I recommend the special edition which features a commentary by the insightful literary critic Camille Paglia. Her knowledge of art history and her astute recognition of symbols led me to look at this enjoyable film in a new light.

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Good, but the plot is cut short

[6/10 · 25 June 2007]

There were many things I liked about this movie. The animation was beautiful. The setting and concepts were developed beautifully as well. The storyline was engaging, if not confusing at times. This is a movie that is action-filled but also makes you think, much like the Matrix (which was heavily influenced by it).

It has some sore spots, though. My main problem with it was that the plot was too short-- not much happened over the course of the movie. It was as if the movie gets us excited and interested but doesn't carry through by developing the plot further. I plan on watching the sequel to it, because I think that may be the only way to get satisfaction from the storyline. If I were to watch this film and not watch its sequel, it would be like watching the introduction and some of the body of a movie without ever getting to see its conclusion.

I didn't much like the soundtrack. It didn't seem to match the setting at all. Rather than be intense and futuristic, it was a simple high-pitched instrument of some sort, fit more for a horror or thriller film than a futuristic action anime flick. The Matrix's soundtrack was the right type of sound for a film like this, not annoying string arrangements.

Overall, this was good, though. I look forward to watching the sequel as I just rented it last night.

Total Recall (1990)

Cheesy, but has some fun parts

[4/10 · 25 June 2007]

Like any Schwarzanegger flick, it has Arnold's tough and entertaining swagger, but nonetheless this film doesn't warrant watching twice. The dialogue provided to the actors is clichéd, and really limits the potential of the film.

One of the major disappointments for me was that the sexy Sharon Stone gets shot half-way into the movie. In the time that her character is still alive, her performance is limited incredibly by the unimaginative writing that curses this movie.

The special effects were the weakest point in this movie. They were cheesy to the point of not even being funny. Perhaps the stupidest special effect I have ever watched on film was the fetus-like "thing"--the leader of the rebellion on Mars-- emerging from the torso of one of the rebel's, like some retarded baby-Yoda.

Everything that's good about this movie can be ascribed to two people: Arnold Schwarzanegger and Phillip K. Dick (upon whose book this movie's story is adapted from). Arnold provides the action and laughs, while Dick's story provides some interesting material on a philosophical and conceptual level. This movie also made me aware that The Matrix clearly stole several concepts from Dick's book.

Worth a single watch, but definitely not two.

Mad Max (1979)

Nothing worth watching

[3/10 · 25 June 2007]

Mad Max is a boring and repetitive movie. Most of the movie consists of a bunch of guys shooting each other through car windows while driving on an open field. No real plot to this movie, and even the action is pretty dull. I wouldn't suggest this to anyone.

The dialogue is witless and predictable. There is almost no character development whatsoever-- all we learn about Max is that he's married and that he's a cop.

This movie doesn't fail because of Gibson's acting, which is generally up to par. Rather, the lines and overall story he's provided with are what make this movie awful.