The_Stuff_of_Dreams Reviews

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

How could you call this boring?

[10/10 · 3 May 2010]

The one thing I do not like about A Clockwork Orange is how it reminds me how desensitized I am to violence. I should be horrified by what happens on the screen, I should turn away in disgust, but I do not. So, by principle, I will not allow this film to be called "boring." Do not misinterpret me; I legitimately enjoyed this movie. It is visually and audibly thrilling. Its surreality gives it a unique element rather than a weird flavor that leaves the viewer feeling confused and unsatisfied. Stanley Kubrick is a master at emotionally manipulating the viewer, and Malcolm McDowell knows how to bring Alex DeLarge to life on the screen and in the audience's world. Expect the unexpected with this film; I thought, for instance, that there would be know plot (which there was) and I thought the violence would be unbearable (which, with spiritual misfortune, is not), and I thought that I would hate Alex for what he does (I feel the opposite). Perhaps it is easier to understand if the viewer knows what was going on in England at the time the film was made (a near state of anarchy). Perhaps it is just one of those films that has to be seen. Do not read the reviews or the synopses or articles; just watch it, and see what happens. There is little else that can be effectively done with A Clockwork Orange.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

A bad case of Titanic copycat syndrome

[5/10 · 6 April 2010]

There are some differing qualities to Pearl Harbor but pieces of the film are direct copies of Titanic. The plot is the same: a whirlwind love triangle, set against catastrophe, has star-bursts of comedy but ultimately ends in tragedy. The flying scene between Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale, as breathtaking as it is, is an obvious theft from the "flying" scene between Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in Titanic. "There You'll Be," the love song for Pearl Harbor in the end credits... think "My Heart Will Go On." A ;ove song written for the film in the end credits is not unique to Titanic, but still, come on, in the case of Pearl Harbor, it's obvious where the idea came from, as fine a song as "There You'll Be" is. Also, and you can't disagree with me on this, Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay made a two-hour movie into a three-hour movie. Why? Because Titanic was three hours long. Now, here's the key difference: every bit of Titanic is necessary. Every bit of Pearl Harbor... not so much. It's bad when a film feels like three hours. There was no need for the revenge sequence, and definitely no need for the prologue. That was ridiculous. Aside from its lack of creativity, Pearl Harbor also has lacks in several other crucial film-making fields. First of all, Michael Bay as a director... no. Second of all, Jerry Bruckheimer as a producer... yes, if it's a popcorn flick, not an attempt at a masterpiece. Third, Cuba Gooding Jr, as competent as he was in this movie... no. Fourth, Ben Affleck... definitely not. Who wrote the script? I hope it was his or her first and his or her last, so that the trash is limited to only one piece. No, Pearl Harbor is pretty bad. I don't think I'd ever recommend it to anyone. But I have a soft spot for it. Have you ever seen a movie that you know is bad but you watch it anyway? That's how it is with me and Pearl Harbor. Maybe it's because my mom liked it, maybe it's because my grandma likes it, both cases giving me a sense of childhood nostalgia, I don't know. All I know is: don't watch Pearl Harbor. Watch Titanic instead. Just because I watch both of them doesn't mean you should.

Schindler's List (1993)

This is Schindler's List: the Great and Terrible

[10/10 · 14 February 2010]

Schindler's List is a dual film. I have seen it twice. The first time, I thought it was grossly overrated and won its awards only because it was a Holocaust film. This was because my grandmother and cousin were talking the whole time. I saw it the second time because my friend wanted to see it and I figured if there were ever an opportunity to give it a second chance, then was as good as any. Good thing my friend is quiet. I watched the film without distraction and now admit my initial feelings for it openly and ashamedly, and I both regret and rejoice in my decision to watch it again. Schindler's List is a masterpiece, a brutally honest portrait of the darkest and most despicable chapter of human history that seizes the heart with a black hand and shatters it as each crack of gunfire cuts off the life of another innocent man, woman, or child. I cannot ever watch it again, unless I am showing it to someone who has never seen it. It is the tale of one man who saved hundreds from the undeserved wrath of the Nazis. Oskar Schindler was and forever will be a hero, and this testament to his courage captures every aspect of it, great and terrible. I hate to cliché such a work of art, but out of ten, I give Schindler's List eleven.

Titanic (1997)

A rich and immortal tapestry. Bravo

[10/10 · 8 October 2009]

Say what you will about the gooey love story, but do not contest the film being a masterpiece. Never has a film inspired such emotion in me, such a feeling of belonging to the thrills and struggles of the characters on the screen. The music, a rich blend of instrumental and vocal, is far from archaic. It inspires emotional power that would have otherwise been lost. The story is obviously well-researched, the images are heartbreaking and breathtaking, and, unlike many epics, Titanic is not arrogant, and it does not drag on. In fact, despite its being one of the longest movies I have ever seen, it felt rushed. It was over too soon. It was that good. I did not even think that the love story was that distracting from the grandeur. It was just another human aspect masterfully explored by the film: greed, hate, panic, and, above all, love, a love so profound, so passionate, that it should inspire viewers with envy, not laughter. No, Titanic is as close to flawless as anything can get. With characters that should rightfully be hated and loved, characters to whom we can all relate, a recapture of the world of the past and the ship itself synonymous to a time machine, and a story replete with comedy, tragedy, and thrill, Titanic is a classic that time can never erode, and that shall always inspire laughter and tears.

Fatal Attraction (1987)

A simple yet complex psychological thriller

[10/10 · 24 July 2009]

This film is not as simple as it sounds. "A guy has an affair and the woman is a total psycho" is not apt in describing it. Michael Douglas had the affair because of a burst of uncontrollable hormones. Anne Archer, his wife, was adequate emotionally and sexually, so she did not drive him away. Their marriage was a happy one, and it made it all the more tragic as Glenn Close, the obsessive, psychopathic woman who Michael Douglas had an affair with, assaulted it. But that is only one complex detail added to the mix. As the movie progresses, and Glenn Close loses her sexy exterior, she is either emotionally vulnerable or monstrously violent, but always insane. In between, she plays sinister mind games, and they sometimes turn deadly or destructive. These games of hers are the beauty of the thrills of this film: they build up unbearable suspense, and it all unravels explosively in the satisfying climax and haunting denouement. Her psychosis is explained vaguely, making her all the more mysterious and all the more unpredictable. She falls in love with Michael Douglas after only one weekend together for reasons we can understand and for reasons we can never understand, grounding her in reality while, at the same time, she wallows in her dark, confused thoughts. And as she does this, she takes the film to sometimes disturbing, always thrilling levels, and the film itself is an exciting "what if" tale in which a family is put through a test no other can speak of. All because of a mistake no man can deny of considering to make. All because she won't be ignored...

Psycho (1960)

Through ugliness, beauty is achieved

[10/10 · 16 July 2009]

One would expect little from a film like this. In it, a psychopath murders people. It's pretty much as simple as that. There's back-story, of course, and the characters are three-dimensional, but otherwise, this is the typical thriller. However, it sets the standards for all thrillers to come after it. The exaggerated murder scenes and the music are two of the most copied horror techniques I have ever seen, and they originated in this film, and only in this film are they artistic. What sets this film apart from others in its genre is the fact that it is not all massacre. There's more suspense than anything else; impending doom. The murderer is not even the central character. A series of strokes of bad judgment from Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), the character who really stokes the fires, sparks a sinister chain of events. The people this chain of events involves are performed in such a way that they are real people thrust into a frightening situation, all strung together by the dark, confused thoughts of the title character, of the psycho. Interesting and masterful. Ten out of ten.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Magnificent

[10/10 · 16 July 2009]

Dances With Wolves is three hours long, but that is not long enough, it is so wonderful. It is set in the Civil War-era prairie, and it captures the encounter between a white man and a Sioux tribe. However, it is timeless. It is romantic, adventurous, active, comical, tragic, and educational. It demonstrates the color of one race and the cruelty of another. It forces us to view our own culture with a different eye. It features redemption, nay, salvation. The camera captures the prairie beautifully, the bluest of blue skies and the whitest and puffiest of white clouds, the most colorful of colorful ground, the roundest of rolling hills, and the largest of buffalo herds. This movie was a risky project. The story and the symbolism is simple, but it was filmed and performed masterfully. It deserved the seven Academy Awards it received and then some. A must-see masterpiece. Ten out of ten does no justice. See for yourself.

Psycho (1998)

Terrible

[1/10 · 16 July 2009]

Hitchcock's Psycho is a masterpiece. This isn't. Hitchcock's Psycho is timeless. This defines its era: unnecessary remakes. While I'm on the subject, a remake is made to tell a good story, perhaps even to try to make it better, but stand on its own. The 1998 Psycho failed miserably at this. It is a scene-by-scene remake, the most ridiculous concept I've ever heard. The script is the same, the music is the same, the sets are the same, the camera films at the same angles, and the actors of 1998 try to mimic the actors of 1960. So pretty much this is the exact same as Hitchcock's classic, but bad. The acting is bad and the cinematography is bad, because nobody can repeat Alfred Hitchcock. They should have just colorized 1960's Psycho. I guess the cast and crew of 1998's Psycho achieved one thing: they made something that was so good so bad. At least this film did not tarnish the original.

The Sopranos (1999–2007)

Do not watch the censored version!

[10/10 · 16 July 2009]

I saw the whole of The Sopranos series for the first time on A&E. It was laughable and hard to follow because it was butchered so badly, not only for the sake of audiences, but for commercial breaks. I did not understand the wild popularity. Then I watched the show on DVD, and I understood then. Not only that, I became a fan myself. The Sopranos is compelling in every way. It has comic relief, exciting moments, drama, and suspenseful tension. Its characters are realistic and lovable despite their lives of crime. They have conscience and personal melodramas. The episodes are divided between their personal lives and their "business" lives, and sometimes how they collide. It is also educational. It is not too gimmick-heavy (a mob boss sees a psychiatrist), and it is original, sure to be an adored classic for many years to come.

The Burning Bed (1984 TV Movie)

Powerful and emotional

[10/10 · 7 July 2009]

Tears welled in my eyes as I watched this movie. The cruelty of the husband, the terror of the children, and the strength of a victimized woman are captured flawlessly through the acting and the production. The movie draws viewers in and doesn't let go or loosen its grip. One truly is under the illusion that he or she is in Farrah Fawcett's character's shoes as he or she watches this movie. I completely forgot that Fawcett died so recently because her character was so alive. The movie is a well-executed and powerful whirlwind of emotions. A must-see masterpiece, not for the faint of heart, and not just because of the violent beatings.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Overrated

[5/10 · 7 July 2009]

Okay, let me get one thing straight because this bothers me so much: Robert Downey Jr's performance was not as brilliant as everybody makes it out to be. He wasn't Razzie-worthy, but he wasn't Oscar-worthy, either. Okay, now that it's off of my chest, let me unmask this movie. It is unnecessarily gory. It was humorous but disgusting at the same time, and the latter outweighed the former. The humor was derivative, and the plot was like a slice of Swiss cheese. The verbal vulgarity made my ears bleed. Sometimes there was a scene of humor that was either so disgusting or so stupid and unfunny that I just thought "Hurry it up already". There were a few moments that were just plain surreal, something to which a text-crazy individual might cry: "WTF?!" I had high hopes for Tropic Thunder (I heard it was hilarious, and, of course, Robert Downey Jr. was nominated for Best Supporting Actor), but it let me down. Definitely not a "must-see". Five out of ten, for the number of mere chuckles it fished out of me in its one hundred seven minutes :)

Chicago (2002)

Dazzling, or, more appropriately, "razzle-dazzling"

[10/10 · 7 July 2009]

I hate musicals. To me, they are annoying and unrealistic. It surprises my friends and myself that I love Chicago so much I can watch it over and over without tiring of it and constantly talk about it and sing its songs (I am also not a big music person in general). The big difference between Chicago and other musicals is the fact that the songs are either legitimate performances (like on a stage at a night club) or the protagonist's (Roxie Hart, played superbly by Renee Zellwegger) interpretation of events. The songs are not repetitive, they capture the time period (the 1920s), along with the dialog and costumes and sets and props, and they will stay in your head, but you will want them to stay in your head. The dances are mesmerizing and so well-done I sometimes wonder whether the actors are doing the dancing or if robots or computer graphics are doing the dancing for them. The story is compelling and darkly hilarious. The characters are real and performed excellently. The movie-making is inspired and inspiring. Encore.

Frasier (1993–2004)

The most wit I have ever seen in a TV show

[10/10 · 2 July 2009]

It wasn't until New Year's Eve of 2008 that I saw an episode of Frasier (RDWRER) and understood it :) Since then, I was hooked. If I haven't seen them all yet, I have seen most of them. What eludes me about this show is that it has been on for eleven years, yet each and every episode between 1993 and 2004 is so witty I doubt any other show can mimic it. The episodes include small details at the beginning or at the beginning of a situation, then something catastrophic happens involving said details, and the chaos that ensues is so hilarious many of the episodes are worth saving on the DVR. Some jokes are tossed in every now and again (and the jokes are no less witty than the plot) and they are always funny and always keep things interesting. Whether you are a certified genius or the average person, Frasier entertains. Do not watch this show unless you intend to pay attention to it throughout (and don't worry, it's worth it). I love this show because it's funny, witty, sophisticated, realistic (despite the wealth and lifestyles of many of the characters), and because my friends and family say I'm just like Frasier and his brother, Niles :)

The Dark Knight (2008)

An unexpected masterpiece

[10/10 · 2 July 2009]

I saw The Dark Knight shortly after it was released to theaters. I hadn't seen Batman Begins, the movie to which this is a sequel. I wasn't the biggest fan of comic book movies; I liked movies that were compelling as well as intelligent and at least marginally high-class. I expected little, though some of my friends described the film as "life-changing" and it was the Number One rated in IMDb at the time. It was spectacular. The film went above and beyond my expectations. It did not have the feel of a comic book movie at all, but rather that of an epic. One did not need to see Batman Begins to understand it. The acting, especially that of Heath Ledger, was outstanding. There were no plot holes that I could find, and the plot itself was replete with surprises. The action rivaled that of any thriller, making the picture seem much shorter than it really was (two and a half hours), and the characters lived their lives and suffered through their experiences genuinely. I was astounded. I have seen it so many times that I have lost track to this day and love it no less. I still jump at some parts. Contrary to popular belief, it was not gory, though there were some disturbing images. Bravo. Ten, and beyond, out of ten.