Change Your Image
surfmantis33
Reviews
Gangs of New York (2002)
Day-Lewis made this film
Let me start out saying that I am a true Scorsese fan. I have seen all of his films and enjoyed almost all of them, New York, New York and Boxcar Bertha aside. I have the deepest respect for the man, his movies, and his morals. Gangs of New York was a fully realized dream for Scorsese. And I enjoyed it more than any movie in years. However, it wasn't the flawless diamond many have made it out to be. There were a few major problems, namely:
1) DiCaprio. I know that he was one of the main factors in allowing Scorsese the gain the funding and backing to create this film, and this would've been GREAT, if only he had stayed out of the movie itself. DiCaprio, although it looks like his nose has been twisted out of shape with a pair of pliers and his beard looks like the groin of a 14 year old boy, is supposedly some sort of sex symbol. His acting is atrocious. His accent fluctuates from a deep Irish dialect to some sort of Hugh Grant imitation. And he has deeply profound lines such as "The earth turns, but we don't feel it move". His love scenes are horrible. He is a wimp. He looks like a wimp. No matter how tough he tries to be, he will always be a wimp. I realize that some of these problems are due in part to the script, which I will address next.
2) The Script. Many of DiCaprio's lines were ridiculous. Many seemed out of place. I think a lot of this is due to Weinstein's insistence that the movie be cut by an hour, and a bad thing got worse when Scorsese, for whatever reason, refused to add them back in for the DVD. When you write lines for an actor that is not very proficient in his field (with the exception of Gilbert Grape), you have to make sure that those lines are very solid and easy to perform. Unfortunately for those of us who waited so long for this movie, Dicaprio's weren't. A lot of the characters, especially Jenny Everdeane, seemed to have almost no real relevance to the movie at all. It seemed like they threw it in at the last minute just to attract moviegoers, and I suspect it was the doing of Weinstein. This is unfortunate, because without such distractions, I think this movie would've had fared much better. Removing those unnecessary subplots would've freed up enough time for all that Scorsese was required to cut out. How sad. The voice-over narration for Casino and Goodfellas was exemplary to the highest degree. Not so in Gangs. The voice-over narration that DiCaprio provided was nothing short of disgraceful.
3) The Music. I know a lot of you disagree on this point, but I'm gonna say it anyway. The music in some areas of this movie was breathtaking, other times it sounded like a bunch of Confederate soldiers whistling Dixie along with a harmonica. Not even close to comparing to many of Scorsese's previous soundtracks. A little rough around the edges.
4) The Cinematography. I must admit, the scenes at the beginning of the movie (when Dad dies) had me out of my seat cheering along with the rest of the theater. The cinematography wasn't bad. But it wasn't the Scorsese-Ballhaus imagery that we're used to. I applaud them for trying out a few new techniques, but all these new shots utterly failed. Since when has a Scorsese movie relied on newspaper headlines or flashbacks? There were a few scenes that really got to me, such as the water reverberating across the Bible that DiCaprio threw into the river after leaving prison. I would have really enjoyed the scenes where the rioters broke into and looted the houses of the rich, had the horrible tap-tapping of a telegraph machine been removed along with the guy that was pitifully screaming out the meaning of these telegraph wires. Those things aside, the cinematography was great.
All in all, Gangs was extraordinary. This was a movie I wanted so much to love with all my heart, but no matter how hard I tried I still only felt little more than lukewarm about it. My second viewing was better, but the flaws I had noticed before seemed to bother doubly. But, then again, so did the movie's great moments. Such as every scene that Daniel Day-Lewis is in. No matter how this movie fares, Day-Lewis better win the Oscar for Best Actor or I'll eat my hat. Better yet, I'll run over to the Academy and make them eat their's. I can do nothing but laud his performance. His accent was perfect, his demeanor was sharp. All of his lines were carried out with swift enthusiasm and cunning wit. His acting job was the best I have seen in years, maybe even the last ten or fifteen. He saved the movie and made it real. In my opinion, if he had not been cast, this movie would've tanked, both with critics and the public. Certainly with me. No matter what faults and flaws can be found, this movie will still be breathtaking. It is too epic to suffer belittlement and too proud to suffer defeat.
Die Another Day (2002)
Bond movie falls to its death
This film held the high expectations of, not only being the 20th official Bond film to date, but also the last of Brosnan's career. I am sad to say that an extremely implausible plot (even in Bond terms) and bad acting contribute to the film's utter demise. This film was both intriguing and exhilarating for the first 10 minutes of a North Korean sting operation, but every moment after that led to worse and worse things. To start with, major deviations have been made to Bond's character. Bond is captured by North Koreans and held in a prison there for what seems to be a very long period of time, which is typically not very Bond-like for a movie. After he is released into British custody from the prison, you start to expect a new plot twist in the genre - such as Bond becoming the movie's new terrorist - at least that's what I expected after noting Bond's new Ted Kaczynski hairstyle. He is brought to a high-security hospital, where, in another VERY un-Bondlike show of deep thought and profound philosophical views, Bond decides to voice his opinions on just about every controversial issue under the sun. What happened to the old silent protagonistic Bond who never explained his intentions or voiced his disapproval, just took action upon instinct? Obviously he is just as dead as this movie was.
The plot suffered in other spots as well. There has never before been a Bond Girl character that so seems to have been written for a specific actress. However, the Halle Berry individual in this movie parallels no other Bond girl in history. On top of basically sharing the screentime half and half with Bond, in the time she was on camera she wouldn't shut her mouth enough to breathe until she after she had already drowned. Not only that, her "insightful and humorous" quips sound like they were ripped straight from either a Martin Lawrence movie or a Sinbad comedy routine. Berry is physically built like a 12 year old male adolescent that has just reached puberty. And the love scenes that have always enhanced Bond movies to the extreme ended up looking like nothing more than Pierce Brosnan laying on a bed while a small savage creature pounces up and down on him, trying to eat his skull. To my extreme vexation, there is somehow talk about her being the first Bond girl to spin off her character into its own movie. I don't know if that makes me want to laugh or cry. Don't get me wrong, I think Berry is a great, beautiful actress, however she has neither the looks nor the grace to compare to her predecessors. Let me see, I guess that brings us to Madonna's cameo apparance, which was nothing short of absolute disgrace for the series. Madonna has not aged well, and in the five minutes that she spent onscreen I can see that her acting skills have not improved either. This made a bad movie worse. Another scene, taking place in the depths of the Antarctic, contained an ice palace that closely resembled the combinaton of a Star Wars backdrop and that big golf ball shaped thing at Disney's EPCOT.
In any event, Pierce Brosnan's performance as Bond, albeit a bad script, was sill extraordinary and was, along with John Cleese as the new Q, the movie's saving grace. Another technologically astounding movie falls short because of plot holes, script errors, and miscasting. I'm starting to agree with Sean Connery's statement that Quentin Tarantino should take over new direction of the Bond films. Bond films have traditionally been about consistency, charm, and courage. This film had everything but.
The Debtors (1999)
Randy Quaid's Best Movie
One of the best movies ever made. Directed by Randy Quaid's wife and costarring Quaid and Michael Caine (of Austin Powers fame) this film can be described as nothing short of cinematic brilliance. Its few shortcomings are easily overshadowed by its intrigue, beauty, and pure enjoyability. Great Movie.
Top Gun (1986)
The Great Movie of the 80's
Top Gun is, without a doubt, one of the greatest movies to ever grace the screens during the 1980's. There is not one area where this movie falls short of cinematic brilliance. Great acting, although I would've liked to see someone other than Kelly McGillis, great cinematography, good directing by Tony Scott, and an audibly stunning soundtrack led this movie to be considered THE movie of '86. This is one of my personal fave's and really deserves a higher rating than it has. Altogether a fabulous display of motion picture excellence.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Hilarious fresh rendition of the aging spy genre
This movie is without a doubt one of the funniest, most thought-provoking, and humorous comedies to debut since Blazing Saddles hit theatres. This movie can be called a spoof of other spy movies, i.e. James Bond, however it is more of its own movie than just a spoof. Most run-offs don't have much of a plot, instead mainly focus on the comedic aspects of the movie it steals from. Austin Powers has both, and more. It has an entertaining, enjoyable plot, interesting characters, beautiful women, and of course Clint Howard as 'Johnson Ritter'. After plenty of movie flops and no really big picture since Wayne's World, many people considered Mike Myers washed up beyond salvation. But he has proved us all wrong in an absolutely breathtaking rendition of comedic genius.
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Moving, endearing, and ultimately triumphant movie
The Last Temptation of Christ is not an accurate depiction of the life of Jesus, nor does it claim to be. It is, however, an alternate take on how Jesus lived, why he lived that way, and what he really wanted. Detractors of this movie have labeled it as an utterly detestable manifestation of sin. But after watching the movie in its entirety, I can assure you that every scene in the movie is completely plausible, and could really have taken place. Who are we, as humans, to set down a basis on how Jesus lived two thousand years ago and expect ourselves to be infallibly right. I don't know if I have ever been as moved as I was finishing this movie. Here is a film that engaged me on the subject of Christ's double nature, that caused me to think about the mystery of a person who could be both God and man. I cannot think of another film on a religious subject that has challenged me any more fully. The film has offended those whose rigid views about God and man it does not reflect. But then again, so did Jesus.