KINGJO4606-1 Reviews

No Time to Die (2021)

It May Not Be The Best Daniel Craig/James Bond Flick, But It Is Very Good

[21 November 2021]

The film paradoxically grabs the attention of the audience immediately, but it is also nevertheless somewhat slow during the first half of the movie.

In the movie, James Bond no longer works for British Intelligence but is still nevertheless enmeshed in circumstances that place him in harm's way. As he finds himself in danger, he is able to put himself on track to meeting "the new bad guy." (It is the second half of the movie that makes this motion picture worthwhile.)

I will say this - once the moviegoer finishes watching this movie, that person will agree with me that this is not a forgettable Bond flick; that person may not like the movie but would nevertheless have to inevitably compare this Bond flick to all other Bond films when assessing the James Bond, film-canon as-a-whole. (Arguably, this particular James Bond picture might actually be a must-see Bond flick, even if it is not the best Bond picture.)

The bottom line - it is the second-best Daniel Craig/James Bond picture, but it is not as good as Skyfall. It nevertheless is an improvement over Spectre and Casino Royale (and arguably Quantum of Solace).

The film also promotes the message that "one should not live by the sword." A thought-provoking message, given the sad state of today's world.

-8/10.

The French Dispatch (2021)

Interesting Wes Anderson Picture

[21 November 2021]

In truth, this Wes Anderson movie only slowly takes the attention of the film-goer's interest. Like many Wes Anderson films, there is a lot of clever dialogue, but there arguably is too much talking as well.

The film has a sort-of Quentin Tarantino-esque quality to it - although it is not told in non-linear order like many Tarantino films, the narrative of the movie is presented in a somewhat choppy, "from-one-story/subplot-to-another" just as Tarantino did in Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill movies.

However, the movie nevertheless has a grip. It is well-acted, it has a good plot and the film gets better as it continues to roll. The film is not necessarily funny, but it is entertaining (much like a lot of Wes Anderson movies).

It may not be one of Wes Anderson's best, but it is memorable and thought-provoking. The movie arguably actually promotes sensationalism as well as the idea that newspapers do good for the world. In a world of accusations of "fake news" from both the Left and the Right, the moral message of the movie, while debatable, admittedly does have much relevance for today's world.

Recommended. 7/10.

Dune (2021)

Good But Not As Good As the 1984 Dune

[20 November 2021]

This film is fast-paced, in my opinion. Although it is two-and-a-half hours long, this movie was surprisingly over before you knew it.

Above all, this motion picture was entertaining. Unlike many other movies that have come out in the last past 10 years, this film has the ability (albeit slowly) to want the movie-viewer to find out what will happen next.

However, I think a slight problem with this movie is that more time should have spent to help the film-viewer to get to know the characters better. The movie had a decent plot obviously, as it was based on Frank Herbert's famous novel. But I just got the sense that David Lynch's 1984 rendition of Dune was a little better at giving the moviegoer a more intuitive understanding of the movie-characters.

Having said that, however, I still think that Hollywood has to imitate the model that was set by this film - in particular, this movie had a more sensitive, riveting and serious tone. Many movies that have been recently released in the past 10-15 years such as Thor: Ragnarok, The Avengers and The Guardians of the Galaxy had too much of a gaudy and showy tone to them. This film learns from the mistakes that many filmmakers have had made in the recent past. In other words, Denis Villeneuve shows how life is difficult and downplays the silliness.

Having said all that, Dune (2021) is one of the must-see movies of the year.

-8/10.

The Man in the Iron Mask (I) (1998)

Perhaps a political commentary

[22 January 2015]

This is one of Randall Wallace's better movies. Although not as good as Braveheart, it is better than Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers. It has a great cast; it is amazing that Jeremy Irons, DiCaprio, John Malkovich and Gerard Deperdieu were able to all star in the same movie. However, I have always been a History fan; and the IMDb profile claims that I like biography, history and war movies above all. Perhaps such a bias causes me to give this film a more generous rating.

One thing the film did is to cause me to question issues of legitimacy. The film is, of course, not historically accurate. It is obviously romanticized. But in real life, there had actually been a man in the Iron Mask in the Bastille prison. In real life, there had been tension between Jesuits and kings. And the movie alludes to events that would later portend the French Revolution (i.e. starving hordes in Paris). In real life, King Louis XIV also declared himself to be in charge of the French Royal Council in 1661; and the film starts off in 1662. The very fact that a 'bad' king is replaced by a 'good' king may be a reference to the latent belief (at least on the part of Alexandre Dumas) that Louis XIV had been corrupt and that so had been his Royal Council. After all, Wikipedia claimed that Louis XIV's reign had actually not been peaceful during the later part of his years.

However, the film was enjoyable. After watching the 1994 Disney version of the Three Musketeers as a kid years ago, it was interesting to see the Three Musketeers again in their older years. And just because they were older obviously did not mean they did not have problems. In fact, the film demonstrates the reality that their lives had gotten more difficult. The film also touches on other important issues that may cause heated debates. The film seemed to argue that the wars fought consumed the resources of the French peasants and urban workers. Rather than competing over scarce resources, the countries engaged in war fought for glory and ideological reasons. This may be true, but I'm not sure to what degree it is also a romanticized notion. Historians will probably duke it out.

I would recommend this film and would even do so for those who are not fans of history.

8/10

Husbands and Wives (1992)

As of now, probably would consider this his best movie

[21 January 2015]

I am not going to recount the plot. All I will say is that this is his best movie out of all the films I have seen of his. Before I watched the movie, I saw that the movie was rated R. Surprisingly, the film was not as shrill as I thought it would be. There is, of course, sexual content and foul language in the movie. There are no sex scenes, but the language in the film is what ultimately gave the film an R rating.

The film works because it has a realistic tone. It may be a drama, but it is not depressing. It is also not as cerebral as many of his other flicks (i.e. Manhattan and Crimes and Misdemeanors). So it obviously is a film that has a less pretentious mood. Combining these three qualities while also balancing the rational and non-rational elements of the relationships in the movie, the film ultimately has a very natural flow to it.

The actors are all good in this movie. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are good. Not surprisingly this is Mia Farrow's last flick; I counted her being in twelve Woody Allen flicks overall. Juliette Lewis is also good and has a role that strikingly seems to match the other types of characters that she portrays in her other films; perhaps she is typecast. Liam Neeson is decent; it is interesting to see him in a Woody Allen movie. After all, it does not seem to be the type of movie he would ordinarily star in. Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis are the actors who steal the show in the final analysis, however. Some/many will disagree, but I hold firm to my humble opinion.

For all I know, my deeming of this to be his best movie may become different. My opinion may change if I see another flick of his such as Blue Jasmine or Broadway Danny Rose. It is interesting to note that the highest rated movie of his that I rated is not a comedy. It is rather unpredictable as to whether or not I will give a thumbs-up to one of his dramas or his comedies after watching one of Woody Allen's movies.

Concluding note - It generally seems to be the case that Woody Allen's movies are getting better as the years go by. Of course, he may have some lulling periods, but that's to be expected of anyone's work. I highly recommend this movie; it teaches the viewer to be careful about who you marry. Entering into a relationship is obviously not to be taken lightly. Secondly, it also causes one to ask the question, "Will this relationship work?" And that, as one who would watch the movie may agree, is not a question that is easy to answer. Problems latent and seemingly easy to solve may blow up in the couple's face; conversely, problems that seem impossible to solve actually turn out to be more fixable than one would think.

8/10

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Slow crescendo upward

[20 January 2015]

Imaginarium is a film by Terry Gilliam for the contemporary age. Admittedly, the first half of the movie is boring. It gets more interesting as the story continues. The film, with its special effects, reminds me of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones. However, this is a better movie. It also stars famous actors such as Andrew Garfield and Verne Troyer.

The message of the movie is also memorable. It teaches the viewer to judge people for who they are rather than who you want them to be. Choice is also a pretty big theme in the movie.

The film is strangely fantastical for one that picks up on Judeo-Christian story elements. Perhaps that is not a bad thing. It might get more people interested in religion in an age that values science and pure reason.

In terms of humor, I would not expect that much. There is one scene that I found amusing. For spoiler reasons, I am not going to divulge it; it does involve policemen and violence, though. Since the film is one by Terry Gilliam, it is of course going to simultaneously have understated and outlandish humor at the same time. Again, the film relies on having an over-the-top presentation. In that vein, the film, out of all Terry's films, reminds me the most of his 'the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.' Both movies, if I am not mistaken, seem to tout Counter-Enlightenment values.

Mild thumbs up. 6/10

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

The best of the Hobbit movie

[27 December 2014]

This is not a bad movie. I am surprised that it received worse reviews than the first two Hobbit films. This sequel most clearly demonstrates the connections which exist between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings franchises. It does not have as many lulling periods as the second movie. It is action-packed and fun, and it has very few dull moments. It is probably the best movie of the year, although that may not be saying that much. James Berardinelli was astute for giving the movie 3.5/4 stars and deeming it the best of the Hobbit movies.

Although the Lord of the Rings franchise is over, the movie nevertheless says much about Peter Jackson's future. Hopefully, he will direct more movies that are action-packed like King Kong. Except for The Frighteners, many of his pre-Lord of the Rings movies were rather campy. Similarly, I was disappointed with the Lovely Bones.

P.S. One perception I've had about his Hobbit movies is that they have more of a stale Harry Potter feel. I do not consider that a bad thing; he probably needed more variety in his franchise. Unlike some others, I was not annoyed by the CGI; perhaps the filmmakers were trying to save money.

9/10

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Modernity calling

[24 December 2014]

This is a helpful movie. It shows the viewer that not all people are honest, despite Leonardo's character being likable. His world-view that most people were selfish encouraged him to trod down the path he had taken before getting arrested. The film also demonstrates how divorce affects people. The scene which sticks in my mind the most happened at the end of the movie; he met his younger half-sister for the first time. But he also discovered his French, biological mother reading a book, happily remarried and unconcerned with the troubles of his own son. The film is a wake-up call to me because it shows you that others often are generally not concerned with your problems. DiCaprio's character redeemed himself at the end of the movie by becoming a man in charge of dealing with check fraud. Overrated movie but highly recommended.

8/10

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

A commentary on patriarchy

[24 December 2014]

*Spoilers* I think that many people would rather argue that the suicides were obviously caused by the fact that the girls were sheltered; there can be no doubt that that was a factor. However, I have a different, idiosyncratic point-of-view. I think that the girls committed suicide because they lived in what they perceived as a man's world. There is evidence to back up my opinion. The first girl committed suicide during a party intended to keep the girls social; she probably noticed that the boys invited to the house were jerks, especially after noticing how they mistreated the kid who was mentally handicapped. During the same party, a teenager shot a dirty, sensual look at the mother (Kathleen Turner) of the five girls. The fact that she was not surprised by this behavior testifies to the mother's awareness that boys and men had been motivated by lust. The film was narrated by the teenage boys, and they even went out of their way to read the diary of the first girl. Throughout the movie, they only showcased their interpretation of why the daughters of Kathleen Turner's character killed themselves. One kid, for instance, even knew the sewer system as a way of getting into girls' houses; on a similar note, the boys collectively used a telescope to peep into the house of Kathleen Turner's family and often caught Kirsten Dunst engaging in sensual/sexual activity with a said, particular boy. Josh Hartnett's character also slept with a teacher's wife and eventually became a mental fixation of Kirsten Dunst's character. The film also displays camaraderie between Josh Hartnett and the girls' father who happened to be a teacher at the school the girls attended; such an encounter was symbolic of the cooperation which existed between men in controlling women. The event, for instance, mirrored the telescope scene. The fact that the girls did things like engage in sex and smoke marijuana testified to the fact that the girls had not been as sheltered and innocent as made out to be; Kathleen Turner, for instance, made Kirsten Dunst destroy her Kiss records. Although the relationships between the daughters and their dates were not completely unrequited, the girls were more discouraged than satisfied with their relationships. It is thus my interpretation that they committed suicide out of despair due to the fact that they could not envision a future in which they could control their destinies.

*Spoilers* Simone De Beauvoir would be proud of the movie. There is no doubt that it causes one to think. It addresses important issues such as innocence, lost innocence, selfishness, cruelty, lust, isolation, desire, relationships and disappointed romance. It is worth watching, but the overarching message can be taken too far. I find it ironic that the film's fictional setting had taken place in a suburb of Detroit during the 1970's. The film bewails the control that men have over women, but the city of Detroit soon experienced urban decay after the couple left the house upon discovering that all their daughters committed suicide.

6/10

The Hours (2002)

Seems to be a commentary on class background

[18 December 2014]

* Contains Spoilers* This may be a strange interpretation; it seems that the more conventional interpretation of this movie is that it demonstrates the unhappiness of women enmeshed in a patriarchal society. But if you take a closer look at the characters, you may get a sense of what I am talking about. Virginia Woolf tries to commit suicide twice in the movie and yet has servants who, at the behest of Virginia, are willing to go far into town to fetch ginger as an ingredient for a meal. Julianne Moore's character, despite having a bread-winning husband who establishes a secure, middle-class standing for her, is nevertheless unsatisfied with her routine life and moves away from her family after having her second child. Meryl Streep's character has to deal with a suicidal man who, despite having AIDS, writes a successful book that has won the acclaim of the world's best book critics. Both Virginia and the suicidal man commit suicide despite having access to the world's best doctors and psychologists. All three characters are well-off and nevertheless unhappy; they are thus all greedy and discontent. And their wealth seems to engender their unhappiness and greediness.

*Contains Spoilers* There are obviously a lot of holes you can poke in my theory. Julianne Moore's character admits that she was happier as a librarian in Canada than as a housewife in the United States. Virginia admits that everyone is responsible for her own happiness and standing in life. The suicidal man's lover admits that he was happier after leaving him, and Meryl Streep's character understands why Julianne Moore's character sought a new life. I guess I am basing my argument on the assumption that the characters were not that much happier after making the decided changes. After all, the whole movie seems morose. If Meryl Streep's character has a hard time understanding what it takes to be happy, then how can she know whether or not Julianne Moore's character was that much happier after deciding to move away from her family? (Important to note that Meryl Streep's character was unhappy despite being surrounded by successful people. The suicidal man kills himself; he does this because he never felt loved by the mother who abandoned him (i.e. Julianne Moore's character.))

Thought-provoking movie. It is not as morose as the critics claim.

7/10

The Love Guru (2008)

Has re-watch-ability value despite not liking it the first time

[10 December 2014]

I saw this movie the first time when I was still a senior in high school. The two male members of the household and I watched this movie because we expected Mike Myers to deliver. I will admit that I was disappointed when I watched this movie for the first time; in fact, it was my sibling who had enthusiastically wanted to watch this movie more than I did.

However, I am a person who gets bored with contemporary culture easily. I do not like modern movies and TV shows that much; I also lost my interest in video games. So I decided to buy this movie because it only sold for $3. To my surprise, I liked this movie a lot upon my second viewing. It made a lot of good philosophical and self-help points that especially seem relevant to the problems that a lot of young people my age tend to face. Despite the fact that the movie featured tasteless humor, I nevertheless did find it funny. The second time I watched it, I had not been grossed out as much because I was obviously more mature. I also like the music and the hockey in the film.

I have the suspicion that many do not like this movie due to the fact that it features dated humor. However, I find Mike Myers' 'dated' humor to be funnier than movies out now such as Horrible Bosses, Pineapple Express and the Hangover Part III. Even though Mike Myers may be making enough money from the Shrek sequels to opt out on acting, writing and directing for now, I still do miss his comedy and would like to see more of it. I, for instance, would like to see him star in a movie with Jim Carrey eventually; maybe they can do something like the Odd Couple.

I will conclude my review by stating how surprised I am that this movie received such low reviews. I, for instance, find this movie to be better than the original SpongeBob Squarepants' movie. I can obviously see how this movie received poor reviews from critics. I am also not surprised by the negative reception the movie got from the general populace, but I am surprised by comments that the movie is bad enough to have killed Mike Myers' career. Even if the movie does feature tasteless humor, I do not think anyone can deny that it manifests glimmers of Mike Myers' former brilliance. Finis.

8/10

Dumb and Dumber To (2014)

Disappointed

[7 December 2014]

The movie was not a chore to watch. However, one would expect more. Out of all of Jim Carrey's movie, none could touch the original Dumb and Dumber (1994) in terms of its qualities; it may be a Generation Y phenomenon for young adults like me to deem such a movie to be funnier than gems such as The Mask, Ace Ventura and Liar Liar. And that, in part, accounted for the latent expectations I had for the sequel; they were probably higher than I thought.

The Rotten Tomatoes website considers this movie to not have humor as tasteless as the first movie. However, I beg to differ. The movie, in my opinion, has more tasteless humor than the original. The correction I would make is that the film is not as clever as the original. Admittedly, the movie is up-to-date in terms of its style and fast tempo. And it would be unbecoming of me to admit that the comedy in the film was not thought-provoking; one could easily feel the influence of filmmakers experienced in the art of comedy (i.e. the Farrelly brothers). However, many of the gags present in the film are rehashes of jokes already made in the original. In fact, the story structure of this movie almost mirrors that of the original. Surprisingly, the movie builds up on many latent plot elements present in the original movie.

I do not watch movies as often as I used to. I went out-of-my-way to watch this one because I really like the first film that much. (I actually have Dumb and Dumberer on my to-watch list; no matter how bad it was, it would not kill me to watch it at least once in my life.) However, I have not given up on the actors in this movie, the filmmakers of this movie or even the movie's franchise. In fact, Hollywood probably needs more older actors to keep its newly-released films classy and original. (For instance, perhaps Mike Myers and Jim Carrey should do something like The Odd Couple. Never hurts to throw out an outlandish suggestion.)

Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)

I am going against the grain, but I do think this movie is underrated

[18 June 2014]

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I saw this movie in theaters with my family as a 7-year-old kid. But I do think that the songs were almost all good (364-5789; John the Revalator; I'm Looking for a Fox; Funky Nassau, etc.) It is also a treat to see all the old band members reprise their old roles and to see them in old age. Dan Ackroyd does a good job acting and even improves upon himself, character-wise and acting-wise, in this sequel as compared to the original. John Goodman plays the part of a kinder person than John Belushi's old character. (In fact, I also would not think it heresy to think that John Belushi's character did not contribute that much to the original in the first place. He just was there to say cheap things like "Fix the cigarette lighter," "Hit it!," "You motorhead!" "No f---ing way!", etc. Elwood was the one who was coming up with ideas on how to keep the Blues Brothers afloat. The viewer of the original movie should not underestimate the degree to which the good music and good screenplay in the original movie is causing him to think "The Blues Brothers" to be a great movie and not a mere good movie.) Buster may be a trouble-maker, but he is a spirited kid in the movie. Just like the original, the film catches the viewer's attention with the change in scenery. The film, to a slight degree, becomes a little corny with the White Supremacy and Russian gangsters bits, but that only remains a minor part of the film. The film was funny; Elwood's 'shaving cream scene' was hysterical. The Louisiana gig scene at the end was also exciting. The ending scene of the movie was admittedly anti-climactic. However, I do not hesitate in giving this movie a thumbs-up. After all, the film does not drag; it is not boring because it is more fast-paced than most motion pictures.

CONCLUDING MESSAGE - No one should feel ashamed to try watching a movie, even if it does have bad reviews. I will personally opine that there is nothing wrong with liking or loving a movie that most people tend to dislike or hate. Film companies, although motivated by profit, generally do not distribute films to the public unless they have a fervent conviction that at least someone will like it.

Shock Treatment (1981)

It showed promise, but I was disappointed in the end

[18 June 2014]

It was a very boring movie. Practically the whole film takes place within the confines of one building despite the emphasis the movie's characters put on the town of Denton. The movie starts off well with the 'Denton USA' song. Admittedly, the song is a very good and addicting one to listen to. However, the only other songs that I can think of which I also enjoyed included 'Bitchin' in the Kitchen' and some other punk rock song towards the end. The viewer would expect to witness the film to take off, as one would witness the turmoils Brad and Janet would experience in suburbia. The film centripetally focuses its attention on Brad Majors, a so-called 'emotional cripple' who unknowingly gets committed to an insane asylum. Janet Weiss, throughout the movie, is torn between her loyalty to Brad Majors and her desire for fame, fortune, respect, a better-looking man who happen to be Brad's twin and an easier, more fun life in general. However, the film butchers this theme over-and-over again. None of the jokes or comments made in this film were funny. In fact, many of the comments made in this 90 minute motion picture were repetitive! The acting was affected and fake. More importantly, the film was not as fun or amusing as 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show,' a movie with better songs, lines and characters. Susan Surandon did not reprise her role, surprisingly.

However, I will admit that some/many will disagree with my opinion of the film. Considering the fact that there still is a potent 'Rocky Horror' cult following, one would film himself having easy access to this film on DVD or internet and for a cheap price. No one can quibble with the reality that the Internet, a modern-day invention, facilitates access to overlooked motion pictures such as this one. And many will find this movie to be underrated, to have good songs, to have a decent screenplay and to be fun overall. However, my appraisal stands. My concluding statement is that I actually did want to have really liked this movie. Perhaps I set my expectations too high.

Jail Bait (1954)

Probably the worst acting you'll see in an Ed Wood, but it's still entertaining

[30 August 2005]

This movie is basically about a son of a famous plastic surgeon who causes trouble by carrying a gun and eventually ends up killing somebody when he was with his partner in crime. Obviously, his family becomes worried about him. Another one of those "rich kid gone bad" stories. Basically, all the acting in this movie is bad except for some detective. Delores Fuller stars as the kid's brother, and she had a pretty bad performance (at least she's good looking, though,) But still, the bad acting adds to the unintentional humor you will find with this. Also, Timothy Farrell stars as partner in crime Vic Brady, and his performance is the funniest especially after he says lines like "let's unwraps the Christmas presents and see the presents inside." (Tim would later star in a terrible movie, The Violent Years, another "rich kid gone bad story") Other lines include "plastic surgery can be strenuous and very, very complicating" and "carrying a gun can be dangerous business, miss." Other humor in this film are included in the scenes themselves. When you see the two thieves robbing a safe, you will see a picture of a gingerbread man on the wall for absolutely no reason. In addition, you'll also see a stupid dance sequence (I saw the director's cut) You should also watch out for this annoying guitar theme that is played throughout the entire movie.

My overall opinion though is that this is an entertaining movie because it was so bad (not to mention the obvious ending) It really didn't bore me as much as other trash flicks. It also should be watched since the director ,Ed Wood, is only known for Plan 9, Glen or Glenda, etc. You should really check this out if you're in the mood for something different.

The Skydivers (1963)

Bad movie

[27 May 2005]

Besides the scenery and some chicks, this movie is pretty bad. It's about a couple who own a skydiving facility, and the all the other love triangles in the movie. No offense, but skydiving and love is a pretty bad mix.

The couple, Beth and Harry, is struggling with their marriage because Harry is cheating on an ugly woman, Suzie. Harry also gets into a fight with Frankie, Suzie's other lover. Later, Harry stops seeing Suzie, add Frankie and Suzie come up with a plan to get revenge on Harry.

By far, the most unbearable part about the movie is the acting. Harry is some wannabe Humphrey Bogart character, and the most laughable character is Frankie (who is this ugly and weak guy who is supposed to be Suzie's buffy boyfriend) Also, corny music is in the background whenever somebody skydives. If you ever stay till the end of the film, make sure you check out this hilarious scene where a Scotsman and a huge Swedish woman dance to bad surf music. However, don't waste your time on the chase sequence at the end of the movie.

This movie was made fun of by MST3K, so you may want to check out that episode.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Good action flick

[5 May 2005]

This film stars Antonio Banderas as a guitar player who is hired by a CIA person (Johnny Depp) to kill a general after he assassinates the president of Mexico. This film is also about revenge since the general had previously killed the guitar player's wife and child.

There are a few interesting things I like about the movie. It has pretty decent action. I also like the ethnic, Mexican guitar music. Director Robert Rodriguez also adds spice to the movie with the flashbacks of the mariachi and his wife. I also like the scenery and the location of the movie. However, there were a few weird scenes in the film. It can get pretty bloody, and there was one grotesque scene that took place in the hospital.

All in all, this is a pretty decent movie.

The Jerk (1979)

It has pretty funny moments

[5 May 2005]

This movie is about a Navin Johnson (Steve Martin) who was raised and adopted in a poor,black Mississippi farm. He later finds success as he leaves the family and when he invents a special type of glasses.

The thing that holds this movie together is Steve Martin's stupidity in the movie. Everything from a false alarm about a fire to an assassination attempt to juggling cats really made me laugh. The thing I don't like about this movie is that it can get pretty weird at times. This movie also shows you that money isn't everything. This film is a decent Steve Martin comedy.

7/10

The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)

Brilliant!

[5 May 2005]

Based on the play, the movie is about two families that go into hiding in Amsterdam during World War II. This movie has Millie Perkins starring as Anne Frank who has an excellent performance and a brilliant narration. Anne Frank also has chemistry with Peter Van Daan, a boy from the other family. The cinematography is great. I especially like how the camera moves up from floor to floor. The film is very suspenseful and keeps your eyes glued to the screen to see what happens next. The final reason why this is great is that it shows spirit and hope in dark times. I'm surprised that no one watches this movie that much today. It seems that it is a forgotten gem.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Good western

[30 April 2005]

This movie is basically a spaghetti western about an anti-hero (Clint Eastwood) who enters a Mexican town, and he is caught in between two bands of smugglers. Unlike most westerns made in America, this western has a grim touch to it, and you really don't get the good vs. evil feeling. However, you can still sense that the villain in the movie is cold and bitter. This movie is also low budget, but Clint holds the movie together with his individualism and his witty one-liners. This movie also has decent action, good scenery, and an excellent ending. A good thing about this movie is that it brought a new type of western to the table. It was also a good start for Sergio Leone who would later do the epic, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.