Change Your Image
darrell-garrison
Reviews
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Stylistic but anti-climactic
(5 out of 10) I really enjoyed Vol. 1, and was looking forward to Vol. 2, figuring it couldn't miss. It did...
Tarantino once said he likes to make three movies at once. He's certainly done that with Kill Bill(s), but he could have done so with a single two and-a-half hour movie. He could have combined his spaghetti western/chopsockey/blood-spattered Revenge of the Bride, and STILL gotten in all the style and different pacing. Remember the scene with Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper in his home in 'True Romance'? That movie slowed down for great dialogue in a great scene, then got going again. And in Kill Bill Vol. 1, it was very much slow/fast/slow/fast, which was fine. But in Vol. 2 it's slow down, slow some more, and in the climax, go extra slow (especially as compared to Vol. 1).
Kudos to Tarantino for getting his vanity project done in such a unique way, and for his overall flair and style. There are some great scenes and great directing! There is great cinematography and choice of music. He has put his childhood memories on the big screen as seen through a kaleidoscope (pot-haze induced?).
Uma Thurman is outstanding!! David Carradine was surprisingly good! Unfortunately, Tarantino obviously loves Carradine TOO much. He has so much camera time talking away and trying to look cool that it becomes annoying.
I was really bugged by multiple continuation problems (blood appearing/disappearing, etc.).
The biggest blow to the film is its climax. After almost 5 hours of movies, the final showdown was truly disappointing!!! I wasn't alone. The fairly full theater didn't seem satisfied as they left.
Tarantino apparently does as he pleases, but in this case, with no one reining him in, he has made a frustrating film instead of the near-classic it could have been.
Ella Enchanted (2004)
Great for girls!
(7 out of 10) I took my 11 year-old daughter today. She loved it, and I liked it VERY much (I'm a 42 year-old Dad). I felt like I was watching a live-action 'Shrek' that revolved around the Cinderella plot. There were anachronisms galore. Anne Hathaway is adorable, and with experience and the right vehicle she'll be a big star (I thought she was better in 'The Princess Diaries'). The soundtrack was cute pop. Everyone in the film looked like they were having a good time. I was amazed at how far we've come with special effects. There had to have been a reasonable budget on this, and yet the computer animation was at times AMAZING! There are so many horrible PG-13 films out there, that it's nice to have a great PG family film (I'm dreading my daughter pestering me to see 'Mean Girls'). Feel free to have young ones watch this. I agree with another review posted here: There are many good scenes, that when added together, somehow fail to make the movie flow as well as it could have. My guess is Garry Marshall didn't care-- he just wanted a fun film. During some scenes I felt like the movie was perfect, and other times it was stumbling and lost. But that was okay in an 11 year-old girl's eyes!
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
It gave me nightmares!
(7 out of 10) I was a 16 when the original came out. I sat with my buddies in a theater full of rambunctious teens just for the sheer fun of it. For 2004's 'Dawn', I decided to sit in a theater full of noisy teens again on a Saturday night, just for the nostalgia. The original was funnier, and easier to make fun of the zombies and the situation. The new 'Dawn' is darker, scarier, and only has a few scenes of intentional comedy. I really liked the film, and kudos to the director, who pays homage to the original while creating his own style. The young folks reading this won't realize how many people from the original appear in this version. I had to double-check the credits, and thanks to imdb for letting me cross-reference! This feels weird to write this, but I expected more on-screen flesh-eating! The 1978 film was MORE graphic in this regard, much to my surprise. Because the tension was so high, the directing so stylistic and fast, and because the zombies move at proper human speed, I had nightmares last night, so I had to write this! I was shocked to see Entertainment Weekly give this an 'A'. I give it a 7, because, let's face it, it isn't highbrow stuff, it's a zombie movie!
For those who like horror films, I HIGHLY recommend this, and will definitely get it on DVD in 6 months! You MUST sit through the entire credits!!!
Bringing Down the House (2003)
It brought me down, all right!
(3 out of 10) 'Bringing Down the House' is disappointing on so many levels. The most important, of course, is that this comedy isn't funny enough. The laughs are few and far between. But that's only part of it. If there had been other elements clicking, it could have been okay.
Steve Martin is not a great actor. But he's at his best when surrounded by good or great actors. There is only one in this film-- Joan Plowright. Queen Latifah isn't a great actress, Academy-Award nomination or not (hey, Sylvester Stallone was nominated for Best Actor, remember?). Eugene Levy is a TV comedian, and the rest, ehhhh...
So the acting overall isn't great, the directing boring, and the script, well... where do we start? From what I've read, there were many, many re-writes. Are we politically incorrect, are we racist, etc. ? I'm not sure what happened, but what they ended up with did nothing to dispel racism, and in many ways reinforced stereotypes. The movie is predictable and racist.
Poor Joan Plowright. She gets cast as a stereoptypical rich old white lady, conservative and stuffy. Well, what has to happen? She has to get down, of course, by smoking pot in an all-black club, dancing on a table. Predictable as hell.
Before I really bring down this house, let me say that Eugene Levy has the best role. It is non-stereotypical, funny, and daring. He had great delivery, and great lines.
Okay, here we go... Why is it that in order to be funny, the white guy has to want to let his inner black come out? Why is it in mainstream 'comedies' that blacks don't want to be like whites, but whites want to be black? The knee-jerk reaction is, 'Cuz it's cool.' But that's oversimplifying. In this film, here's what we see black people do: Shoot each other, commit armed robbery, lie about their criminality, invade a house, gamble, smoke pot, teach a kid about porn, sabotage food, and beat up white people. Here's what we see white people do: Fight back, say racist comments, and act stuffy and scared. Come on!
As far as the fight goes, it was the lowlight of the film. The white chick says racist comments, so the Queen has to track her down and challenge her on it. In this 'comedic' scene, the fight was brutal and ugly, and not funny. It reinforced all the wrong stereotypes. While the white chick was wrong, the Queen went out of her way, ready, willing and able to commit violence. The attitude of 'If you dis me, I can beat you to a pulp', is as wrong as 'If you're black, and it's the 1920's, we can beat you up if you look at us wrong.' It's ALL wrong, folks!!!
This is the most popular movie in America for the third week in a row. Young black people and young white people are buying most of the tickets, I'm sure. What they're not realizing is, is that pulling white people down constantly in the movies doesn't fix any problems. While the majority of people may say, "Okay, I get it, it's just a comedy", I wonder how many leave thinking, "Black people are always cool, and we should always be like that, and white people are always bad, and they deserve whatever happens to them."?
Here's a movie that got it right: Trading Places. It was funny, had the stereotypes in there, but everybody learned something. It wasn't 'black and white', if you know what I mean.
The movie gets three stars from me because of Eugene Levy, and the sometimes funny and touching moments between Martin and The Queen. But it sure left a bad taste in my mouth overall. I'm looking forward to the new Chris Rock movie, where he gets to run for President. I'm hoping they get the black/white thing right, and let stereotypes be shown for what they are: wrong!
The Pianist (2002)
Brutal, but hard to turn away.
(7 out of 10) Of all the movies nominated for top Oscars, this one I put off the longest. I KNEW it would be tough to watch. I've seen what I consider to be the epitome of World War II films, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Schindler's List', and I've had enough. The movies today pull no punches. Blood, death, war, cruelty. It's why war is hell. Today's filmmakers can be as graphic and real as they wish. And I suppose that's the problem I have. It's all so real, it hurts. One-third of the way through, I considered getting up and leaving. But like a rubbernecker, I stayed to see the rest of the carnage, and hopefully a glimmer of humanity.
I'm glad I stayed. After behaving fairly 'normally' in the beginning, Adrien Brody as Szpilman gets to act his way to his Oscar nomination. The camera is rarely off him; the movie must live or die with Brody's ability to move us. By the end, you see the work that went into the part, the gauntness, the hunger, the pain. After seeing the other films nominated with the 'Best Actor' category, I believe Brody deserves the Oscar. It will probably be the role of his life.
What I liked best was the 'tunnelvision'. We could often only see what Szpilman saw, like out of a small window, as if the rest of the world were this vast unknown. All we knew what was in front of us-- death and more death. All we knew was what Szpilman appeared to feel-- "Stay alive". He does, by luck and opportunities taken.
Szpilman is not a hero, nor is he portrayed as one. His is but one story of the very few that survived the Warsaw Ghetto and the Holocaust. There are others, but what sets Szpilman's apart is his fame and notoriety as a pianist, and the amazing 'good fortune' that allowed him to live past the war.
Although I have seen enough movies involving the Holocaust, I felt more informed as to what the Warsaw Ghetto must have been like, day after day; its oppressiveness, its shrinking, its decay.
I gave this movie a 7 out of 10 only because of the plethora of scenes of Nazi and wartime cruelty. Yes, I know that's how it was, and they were only being accurate. It's merely a reaction on my part to having seen ENOUGH of this horror. Otherwise it would have been 8 out of 10.
Kudos to Roman Polanski for bringing his vision to the film. His childhood wartime memories obviously helped to shape 'The Pianist'. It is powerfully directed, and the best work Polanski has done in many years. Although he has tough competition, I can totally see him winning the Best Director Oscar (although not being there to receive it, of course).
I will probably never watch this movie again, but I'm glad I saw it. And I'll be rooting for Brody March 30th.
The Music Man (2003)
What a disappointment!
(5 out of 10) I was really looking forward to this re-make of one of my favorite musicals. Unfortunately, Matthew Broderick (an actor I really like) is the blessing and curse of the production. Broderick has charm and talent, but can't carry Robert Preston's baton. His singing is good, his dancing is good, his acting is good. Notice I said good? Preston was GREAT, larger than life! Sir Anthony Hopkins said he became a better movie actor when he learned to stand still. Well, the opposite is true for television. Notice how TV actors are more expressive? It's because the screen is smaller! Broderick plays a 'large' role too 'small'. Virtually every other actor is more expressive, as befits a bright, outlandish musical/comedy/romance.
The other actors and singers are all competent, but nobody stands out, which is too bad.
Most of the production is quite good, and well-directed. There is a problem, however, with the sound. Quite often the lyrics are either too muddied in the music to understand, or the overall effect is too muted.
When ABC/Disney remade 'Annie' (with Victor Gerber as Daddy, instead of the mayor in 'Music Man'), I thought they did a pretty good job. The story was clear, precise and true. The music production was well thought-out. It also seemed like it was 'time' for a re-make. But ABC/Disney has not convinced me that this three-hour production was worth it. Definitely watch the original instead!
The Hours (2002)
Woman power?
(7 out of 10) Sorry, but if I were a woman, I'm sure I'd give this at least a 9. This movie screams 'chick flick', and I did my best to relate, but I just can't like a woman can.
'The Hours', as stated by Ed Harris' AIDS-ridden character, refers to the hours we face looking at life, and contemplating death. The hours, days and years pass by; how will we live with them? What choices do we make? Do we attack life with gusto, or give up, and wait for death?
Not being familiar with the book, I was confused at first with where 'The Hours' was going. It finally clicked in after about 15 minutes. The connection between three generations is Virgina Woolf and her novel, 'Mrs. Dalloway'. So there really are four layers if you include the heroine of Woolf's book. These layers are fascinating in their sameness and too, how they differ. Meryl Streep holding onto life/death through Ed Harris; Julieanne Moore holding onto a so-called life as she fights the urge to accept death; Virgina Woolf holding onto life and sanity, with death seemingly a constant temptress.
I love Julianne Moore's acting, and her movie choices. Here she plays a sliver of her 'Far From Heaven' character. In 'Heaven' she was totally accepting of the role of 1950's stereotypical housewife. In 'The Hours' this same role claws at her, suffocating her, driving her mad.
Meryl Streep gives yet another strong performance, and is perfect in her role as modern woman facing mid-life crisis. Good for Clair Danes getting to play her daughter; this will help her career!
But the standout is, of course, Nicole Kidman. Look at her early work side-by-side with Streep's. Streep has ALWAYS been great. It's taken Kidman many many years to become a true actress and to then be able to snag these juicy parts ('Moulin Rouge', 'The Others'). Her hard work has paid off with what is easily her best acting performance yet; that of the complicated, intelligent, morose and genius Virgina Woolf.
I was completely blown away by Kidman's look. The acting combined with the fantastic make-up made me believe.
Unfortunately, as stated above, I simply cannot feel some things the way a woman can. Men (stereotyping here...sorry) see things in more black-and-white terms, just like the men in the film. We see a problem, think about how to fix it, and plow ahead, confident in our cleverness. All of these women are complex, moody and difficult to understand. Which is why I was so surprised to find out it was written by a man! He is certainly better in tune with both sexes than I am.
Beautifully written and acted (Ed Harris is great). Wonderful to see such great parts for great actresses. Fascinating storyline (especially the feel of Woolf's world of 60-80 years ago). Clever and difficult concept that really does work in the end (Julieanne Moore again!). I won't see this film again anytime soon, though. Once was enough. Maybe I'M afraid of Virgina Woolf!
About Schmidt (2002)
Grandly depressing!
(8 out of 10) Jack Nicholson continues to get better with age. His acting, that is. His hair, wrinkles and fat accurately reflect the age of his character, Warren Scmidt, 66. Jack (oh, EVERYONE calls him Jack, and you just know who they're talking about) doesn't use any of his devil-grin and devil-eyebrows in this film. No tricks, just great life experience to bring pathos and hilarity to a difficult role.
You know what great acting is? It's when you CAN'T SEE they're acting! I LOVED Jack in "As Good As It Gets", and thought he totally deserved his third Oscar. But it was obvious he was ACTING, and we thanked him for it. In 'About Schmidt' he truly seems the 'Everyman', facing the twilight of his life, and reflecting on what he's done with all those years. He will certainly be nominated for another Oscar, and off the top of my head I can't think of a better performance this past year.
Kathy Bates is delightful as always, playing yet another eccentric woman. The audience howled when she got in the hot tub with Schmidt! She's the only cast member who holds her own against Jack.
The rest of the cast is fine, with a special nod to Dermot Mulroney, playing a loser who doesn't know he's a loser.
The problems I had with the movie are that it sometimes didn't ring true, and it missed the mark with some scenes. The funny bits maybe were forced, and not naturally funny enough. The drama wasn't always moving enough. However, if you get into the movie, I DEFY you to not have a tear in your eye at the final scene (the end scene may push Jack over the top for his Academy Award).
The writing is very good, but not excellent. The directing is fine. The film properly catches the feelings of growing old, death, and regret. But so what? It's been done before, and so this film sometimes merely winds up depressing.
So the only thing to save this movie, and really, the only thing it needs, is Jack. He carries it all, is in virtually every scene, and we watch him like a comfortable old friend. The only Oscar this film may win is Best Actor, and that's just fine with me.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
Weird fun!
(7 out of 10) "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" is difficult to pin down, since we are left on our own to sort out truth from fiction. Certainly Chuck Barris was NOT a CIA agent, but as Jim Lange points out in the movie, Chuck would disappear for a week or two at a time; where WAS he??
So since we don't know what is true, we can then only be entertained at face value. And 'Confessions' IS entertaining. This should be Sam Rockwell's breakout role. He fills Barris' shoes as well as Jim Carrey did Andy Kaufman's. Sam Rockwell is one of those actors who's willing to take risks and a variety of roles.
Julia Roberts is MUCH better here in a small role than in 'Ocean's 11'. In 'Oceans' she was sleep-walking the performance, and just having fun. In 'Confessions' she takes a better bite in a juicy part.
Drew Barrymore continues to surprise me. I sometimes think she's a bit lightweight, but then she steals a scene with great acting, like when she catches Barris fooling around. She's adorable and a good casting choice in this.
George Clooney...where to start? Well, he has a pivotal part as a CIA guy, but because it's so one-dimensional, many folks could have done it. So he's fine, I suppose.
But what the movie comes down to is writing and directing. George looks as if he had Steven Soderberg peeking over his shoulder the whole time. It's an excellent first-time directing job, but the problem is... where does Clooney go from here? He's pulled out so many camera, color and directing tricks, that one would hope he calms down with his next picture. And I get the feeling he really likes directing. So George, good job, but don't repeat yourself!
Charlie Kaufman has written a great script, as usual. Not as audacious as 'Being John Malkovich', and not as personal and excellent as 'Adaptation'. We have typical Kaufman flashbacks and flashforwards. But considering the source-- a 20 year-old Chuck Barris fantasy, for Gawd's sake!, Kaufman pulls it off with aplomb, keeping us interested in these strange folks from start to finish.
The movie is truly laugh-out-loud funny in parts. The Dating Game bachelors killed me!
It was fun to see the old game show folks. I haven't seen Jaye P. Morgan or Gene Gene the Dancing Machine in years.
This is somewhat of a vanity project for Clooney, but he's made it worthwhile, and everybody really tried to make a top-notch film. Unfortunately, because we never care ENOUGH about Chuck (we like him a lot, though), the movie will not stay with us like great films do.
Adaptation. (2002)
Brilliant!
(8 out of 10) I was watching a TV reviewer, who said 'Adaptation' is even harder to follow than 'Being John Malkovich'. Not true! 'Being John Malkovich' went way out on a limb to the furthest reaches of the bizarre. As strange as 'Adaptation' might be, it could all have possibly happened!
Remember how after Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' came out, there were numerous copycats? Well, 'Adaptation' is so audacious, I could totally picture future screenplays inserting the writer into the film, and other similar rip-offs. This is a true original, but it would be easy to do a knock-off of it.
Charlie Kaufman, who did the brilliant 'Being John Malkovich', surpasses himself here. Why? Because with 'Malkovich', it probably became easier as the script went along to keep throwing weird stuff in. But with 'Adaptation', you had so many disparate elements that seemed farout, and yet came together at the end to somehow make sense. This couldn't have been easy, and from what I've read, it wasn't for Kaufman. Instead of watching a film-within-a-film, we're watching a psyche-within-a-film-within-a-film. As Steven Spielberg said upon accepting his Oscar, it's all about the writing. This movie proves it. Certainly Charlie and 'Donald' Kaufman will be up for screenwriting Oscars. If Charlie wins, he'll have a very clever reason for why his 'brother' doesn't show up to accept with him; just see the film!
Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep are outstanding, and this is easily Cooper's best-ever performance. Nicolas Cage gives his second-best ever performance, after 'Leaving Las Vegas'.
Kudos to Susan Orlean, who had no idea her bestseller, 'The Orchid Thief', would turn into something so strange, but is okay with the finished product.
But the man of the hour is Charlie Kaufman, who is in real life a shy, nervous, brilliant writer. He put himself on the page, which was very brave. Hopefully he never repeats himself, and no one copies him.
A movie not for everyone, but a must-see for those who love challenging films, and appreciate all that goes into writing them.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
2002's Greatest film!!!
Until 'The Two Towers' came out, I thought 'Road to Perdition' was the best movie I had seen for the year. 'The Two Towers' blows everything else away!
Peter Jackson has outdone himself. When I saw trailers for 'Towers' I had the feeling it would be more of the same. Not so! The plot and character development are complex and fascinating. Woe to those who haven't seen the first film, and know nothing about Middle Earth!
The battle at Helm's Deep is simply the greatest battle scene in movie history! 'Star Wars II' and its massive clone armies is sterile compared to this, and all other older movies with huge battle scenes now seem out of date.
The buildup to this battle is tremendous, with fights and flights, hatred and wizardy, and moments of love and humor. Many new characters are introduced (wait until you see Gollum!).
The cinematography in beautiful New Zealand is outstanding. Helm's Deep looks as real as it possibly could.
The special effects are perfect! This movie could not have been made as well even five years ago. Gollum is the pinnacle of CGI!
All credit must go to Peter Jackson, who has driven himself and his cast and crew to the breaking point, and come out the other side intact with a classic trilogy in hand (there is no way that 'Return of the King' can be stinker, so I feel confident using the word 'classic').
Remember when you saw the gee-whiz sheen and excitement of 'Star Wars' and then when you saw 'The Empire Strikes Back' you were taken deeper, got more involved, and realized you were witnessing epic history? Same here, and on a grander, more mythical scale.
If 'Fellowship of the Ring' didn't win any major Oscars, then unfortunately 'Towers' won't either. But it will be a shame if Peter Jackson is overlooked. This trilogy will most certainly be the pinnacle of his career, and he deserves recognition for his awe-inspiring direction commitment.
This is grand filmmaking at its finest, and why we go to movies. Make sure you see this on the big screen-- twice at least!
Men in Black II (2002)
Major disappointment
(My vote: 1 out of 10) I was looking at the votes for this film, and there were 380 that voted 10 out of 10! Incredible! I then went back to see if I could re-cast my 1 out of 10 vote, and apparently I can. So either (a) kids are re-casting their 10's or (b) people associated with the film are re-casting their 10's or (c) there are a lot of gullible movie-goers, or (d) all of the above.
I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 not because it was THAT awful, but because of how insulted I felt after watching it. For THIS it took five years to make?! I LOVED the original so much, that even if they had made a halfway decent sequel I would have been fine with it. But this bomb is patronizing, money-guzzling and worst of all, a bore. In some scenes in the original, Tommy Lee Jones comes across as so laid-back he's cool. In this one, he's so laid-back he seems DEAD! Will Smith's smirks wear thin immediately. Barry Sonnenfeld seems to be having fun, but at our expense. He's the guy behind the two Addams Family movies, remember? 'Addams Family Values' was a sequel that advanced the characters and plot, and still had fun.
What's the deal with the special effects here? They're good, but not state-of-the-art, as they should have been. Serleena's effects were annoyingly bad.
This movie takes forever to get going, and when it does, it feels like more of the same, just regurgitated.
When I'm done here, I'm going to go put a review down for the original, which I've seen many times, and will give an 8 out of 10 to.
It's a shame that at 88 minutes (!), Men in Black II seems too long. And I can't BELIEVE this movie made around $200 million in the U.S.! Hollywood, Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones and Barry Sonnenfeld are laughing all the way to the bank. We poor suckers...
Men in Black (1997)
Fresh and cool!
(8 out of 10) 'Men in Black' is a too-cool-for-you science fiction epic! Based upon a cult comic book, it presents aliens as real (as real as Tony Robbins!), and the government as secretive as some of our paranoid citizens think they are.
The movie keeps pulling surprises out of its bag of tricks, from regrowing alien heads to a giant cockroach alien! And it does so with a good plot with a funny twist end!
Smith and Jones are a great team. Most movie buddy movies where they pit opposite types against each other fail because it's so obvious. This works because Smith and Jones are so damn cool! They seem to be trying to outdo each other with their coolness, and we get to benefit. Best of all, we CARE about these two lead characters, how they got where they are, and what happens to them. In science fiction films, often the effects overwhelm the characters, but not here.
I absolutely LOVE Vincent D'Onofrio in this! When I watch him on Law and Order, sometimes he says things a bit like the alien in this movie!
The special effects are great, the storyline is fascinating, the jokes are great, and the cast is perfect! A fun film to watch over and over!
Forrest Gump (1994)
My all-time fave!!!
(10 out of 10) When I was 15, I saw 'Star Wars' on the big screen for the first time. I saw it many times that summer, and as a 15 year-old boy, it had a tremendous influence on me. No movie came close to supplanting Star Wars as my all-time favorite movie until 'Forrest Gump.'
I saw 'Forrest Gump' on the big-screen six times, and many times on video since then. It is the most life-affirming movie I've ever seen.
I don't give 10's to movies very often. A great movie should get a 9. The difference between a 9 and a 10 is feeling. How does the movie make you feel after you've seen it? How long do the images stick with you?
There is not a single scene in 'Forrest Gump' that is without thought and feeling. The movie is hilarious and tragic. It is soulful and charming. It is incredibly sad and emotionally uplifting. A true rollercoaster of genuine feelings. Set against the backdrop of the 50's through 80's, it has that nostalgic and true ring to it. It has to, since what happens to Forrest, Forrest Gump, is incredible.
The movie is audacious to say the least. Any other film that puts its no-name central character with people ranging from Elvis to Nixon will seem like a copycat of this one.
Hanks is absolutely superb. The previous year he won an Oscar for his most sincere work, 'Philadelphia'. He won THIS Oscar for his most seminal work. It will probably be the movie he will most be remembered by, even though he has decades of movies ahead of him.
The team that put this together, most notably Robert Zemeckis, did a great job with everything from characters to celebrity appearances to classic music setting the mood (listen to "Camelot" playing in the background as Forrest is in the JFK White House).
The weakest parts of the film are Robin Wright Penn, who is a good actress, but not great, and the running scenes. But since Robin is not in the film that much, it's okay. And the running towards the end actually give a bit of a breather, I feel, so I'm not bothered by it.
With all of the ups and downs in the film, how can I say this is the most life-affirming movie I've ever seen? Because at the end of the day, Forrest Gump is a man who has been to hell and back, who has lost loved ones, who has struggled with his place in the world, and managed to come through it all with sweetness and love. The world changed, and in some ways Forrest changed with it, but he is not jaded by it, as you and I are. If we could be as simple as Forrest, mightn't we be happier?
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
What a team!
Steven Spielberg has brought Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio together in what could have been a small film, but becomes great entertainment in the hands of these masters! One of my favorite things about this movie is something I didn't even notice until towards the end-- Spielberg adds his unique touches ('Spielbergian') without overwhelming the film. His restraint and professionalism truly shine here. Hanks is excellent as always, and DiCaprio continues to show his growth as a fine actor. It's only a matter of time before he wins his Oscar in the right vehicle (this isn't it). I saw 'Gangs of New York' and 'Catch Me If You Can' within a week of each other. I would easily pay to see this film again, but not the other (even though 'Gangs' is quite good. And by the way, this film is much more re-watchable than Spielberg's other film this year, 'Minority Report'). This movie has a great 60's sheen to it. I hope it gets an Oscar nomination for Best Costume! The audience I was with enjoyed this bad-boy-on-the-run caper, rooting for him vociferously. And what makes it so special is that it's based on a true story. This film makes me want to read more about Abagnale. I recently saw an interview with him, and he stated that the movie correctly captured the essence of what his life was like then; that's as high a compliment as is needed. I had a feeling that the real Abagnale had a cameo somewhere, and I was right. In reading the credits he shows up as a French police officer! For the films that were released in 2002, there are only two that I can universally recommend to ANYONE. 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding', and this movie. 'Greek Wedding' would get a slightly more vigorous nod because of a bad swear word said by Hanks in this that might offend some; but it was the FUNNIEST line of the movie! This may win no Oscars, but it's GREAT entertainment! ***1/2
The Quick and the Dead (1995)
It is to laugh!
I had to laugh reading some of these other user's comments. It's obvious that today, just as in 1995, people don't get this movie. They expect it to be a 'good western', or 'art', or a 'Sam Raimi film'. They are looking for things that simply aren't there. It's understandable, since this movie was promoted as a straight-forward western upon its release. But that's the studio suits' fault; not Sam Raimi's. I'm sure he would say 'Just enjoy!' This movie is not so-easily pigeonholed as some would have you believe. This movie is an homage to spaghetti westerns. It's a revenge flick. It's good vs. evil. It's a live-action cartoon. There is talent at work here, and it's obvious to me that everyone involved in this movie had fun filming it. This is a true guilty pleasure. Did you pay to see 'Charlie's Angels' or 'The Mummy' on the big screen expecting 'Citizen Kane'? Westerns these days don't do as well as they used to in today's MTV generation. This movie is 'Silverado' meets 'Unforgiven' (an overrated western, certainly not deserving of Best-Picture Oscar status that year) in the Twilight Zone! Gene Hackman, Sharon Stone and Russell Crowe all give enjoyable performances. I didn't know Stone paid DiCaprio's salary; I learned that on imdb.com just now. But he and the other supporting actors are just as invaluable here as Batman's archvillains. They fill out this live-action cartoon perfectly. Watch this more than once, and it will become a guilty pleasure for you, too!
Next of Kin (1989)
Truly laughable!
This is one of the worst films made by many of the cast! Oscar nominee Liam Neeson as a hillbilly brother of Patrick Swayze! Hah! Bill Paxton and Oscar winner Helen Hunt went on to much greater success in 'Twister', but seem to just be paying their dues here. Ben Stiller looks miserable. Unfortunately, Patrick Swayze has made too many films like this one; he actually seems to belong here. Truly laughable from start to finish!