65535 Reviews

The Way of the Gun (2000)

Densely packed

[7 February 2001]

I think multiple viewings of this movie will definitely increase your appreciation of it. Although the running time is a tad excessive (could've been a tight 1h45m movie, I'm sure), there are enough moments where you just go "Wow, that was pretty amazing/cool" to more than adequately keep you interested. Also, multiple viewings will allow you to see what's really going on "between the lines." Scenes that seemed forced and awkward on the first viewing make more sense and are totally fitting with the characters once you get to know them. In other words, it's a strange request but don't judge the movie until you've seen it at least twice. Unfortunately this means that people who weren't interested in this movie to begin with will most certainly dismiss it as a little too this or a little too that. I was like that after my first viewing too, but I sat through it one more time as my friend was watching it and was really impressed. I think I screwed myself up the first time by having expectations or, more accurately, assumptions about the movie and my brain just couldn't switch gears to adapt to what was being presented to me onscreen. Maybe you won't have that problem and you'll be able to enjoy it right from the start. Whatver.

The best thing about the movie is the characters. Every single character is fully developed and, most importantly, interesting. Mr. Longbaugh and Mr. Parker are not hip, ironic icons of cool, like a lot of Pulp Fiction knock-offs. And aren't we all tired of those already? Instead they are what I'd expect would happen to these Pulp Fiction knock-off characters if they were put into the real world. They would not be cool. They would not have everything under control. They would not be likable criminals that swagger around getting involved in illegal hijinks. They would be like these guys, hard and tough, desperate and lost. Maybe I just got caught up in the movie too much, but

*** MINOR SPOILER ALERT ***

even the grizzled group of bagmen that James Caan brings along to the climactic showdown was interesting to me. I could just imagine the things they had to do to survive and succeed in the movie's "world," and that's not an easy thing for a movie to do. I would cheer if McQuarrie decided to make a movie JUST about Joe Sarno and Abner. You just know that these two guys have seen and experienced a lot as they survived in the underworld. I'm sure a lot of the credit for how effective these characters were should go to the actors, but I'm also sure that McQuarrie had his own mythology about the characters and communicated that to the actors. But I digress.....

*** End of MINOR SPOILER ALERT ***

A few people disliked the abundance of twists and revelations in the movie (Roger Ebert pointed this out in his review), but I thought all of them were plausible, logical, and subtly foreshadowed. In other words, I never thought the movie cheated just to include an interesting plot twist.

I read somewhere that this was McQuarrie's "f**k you" to people who pigeonholed him as a crime film maker and forced him into making another crime-drama. I have no idea whether it's remotely true or not, but it sort of makes sense because this is the logical end-of-the-road for "those kinds of movies." Y'know, the one's with the type of characters I described above. Snatch was an excellent fun movie, but compare the Dick Tracy characters in that to the realistic fully-realized characters in this movie (I know, apples and oranges. I know, Snatch is supposed to be like that. I'm not knocking it, I'm just trying to make a point). Even the characters in Usual Suspects seem a little flat compared to the ones in WOTG. I certainly hope McQuarrie makes some more crime dramas in the future, after he's had the chance to make other kinds of movies to give himself a break from the same ol' same ol'.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Amazing

[16 December 2000]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is amazing. Even if you've heard about it and are thinking it can't possibly live up to the hype, you will be blown away. During the first fight sequence, I was so giddy with excitement over what I was witnessing on screen that I almost had to stand up and jump up and down in joy. Yeah, I know it sounds stupid, but it's true, and hopefully you'll understand when you watch the movie. Kung fu movies have always been a guilty pleasure of mine, and when you see it done so right that it can't possibly get any better... it's bliss.

-- Begin Rant -- One vent though about some of the things I've been reading; the Matrix did not, repeat, DID NOT influence ANYTHING in this movie. I really liked the Matrix, I thought it was an excellent movie, but when I left the theatre the first time I knew that it would create one huge problem that would annoy the living sh*t out of me. That problem? People will think the Matrix originated the craft of wire fighting. Get it straight people. That's like saying Battlestar Gallactica was a startlingly original and influential sci-fi movie. It's just about right being right, and credit being given correctly. -- End Rant --

Go watch the movie. Believers will rejoice, and non-believers will shut the hell up.

Me, Myself & Irene (2000)

Incomplete

[29 June 2000]

Farrelly brothers movies have always been infantile and gross, but there was always an insistent core of decency. In Kingpin and Mary the situations were extreme, ridiculous, and most importantly hilarious, but the characters somehow felt more "real" than in other comedies. They weren't just there for a gag, to get injured just because it's funny. There was some kind of purpose. A reason for the madness. I don't know how to explain it, but it was always there. Dumb and Dumber was the one Farrelly movie where it drifted more towards the regular comedy style or characters just being funny, and who really cares whether they win or they're happy or whatever. But there still was a hint of that decency. In Irene, you can kiss all that decency and "real"-ness goodbye. There isn't one character in the movie that doesn't feel like a movie character. Y'know, a character in the movie that exists simply to move the movie along. Maybe it was the pace of the movie, that felt totally sped up compared to the relaxed storytelling style of the other 3 movies. It's as if the Farrellys started doubting whether the audience could sit in a theatre for 5 minutes without an obvious joke running by. Too much build up is bad, but not enough build up is JUST AS BAD! I really wish writers and directors would figure that out. A proper build up to a joke makes a joke seem 10 times as funny. And the chicken and the thumb thing were just way too much. On paper the chicken thing would seem like a great idea, but when you actually see it.... it's just not funny. It feels too much like a joke that's obviously meant to shock you. And the gun thing. Why would I think it's funny that the main character of the movie gets hurt? Not just a scrape or a bruise, I mean life-altering hurt. That just did not fit the tone of the entire movie. It came out of the blue, like an afterthought and not like a clever surprise. Renee Zellweger is definitely cute, but they didn't give her much else to do but... look cute. Too bad. Jim Carrey's always funny, but he's always out of control too. Maybe in another movie the Farrellys would've reigned him in a little, but they're out of control in the movie too, so how could they? There are a lot of laughs, so it's worth watching, but I naturally expected more from the movie. The only genuine, unexpected, and satisfying laugh I had was when Whitey was talking about his family. That was a moment of understated, twisted, comic genius. But from the Farrellys I expected more than just one of those. I hope this isn't the beginning of the fall for them.

Time Bandits (1981)

It's a wavelength thing

[3 April 2000]

It IS a wavelength thing. Terry Gilliam's films are ALL Terry Gilliam films. They all have that certain something, some kind of feeling about them that makes them instantly recognizable. The same can be said of the Coen brothers. Unfortunately, movies that are that personal and unique do not work for everybody. For the people that just can't get into Gilliam films, I hope there's another filmmaker that inspires childlike wonderment in you. Because it's a great feeling. Time Bandits is magic. I've seen it many times (over 10) and each time, I find something new about it. It's a fine example of a movie that works for children and adults alike. When I saw it for the first time at age 8, I enjoyed the fantasy, adventure, and basic good vs. evil story. As I got older I started appreciating the social commentary on consumerism, the Python-esque humor, and just how imaginative and skillfully done the movie is. After watching it again yesterday, I'm having trouble deciding which is the better movie; Brazil or Time Bandits.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Welcome to Sprockets, I am your host Dieter!

[8 January 1999]

I s'pose the best thing about TRL is that it's... quite original, and it's willing to not give the audience what it wants. That's brave.... and frustrating. It'd be nice to at least have a narrative line, ANY narrative line, but that's not the director's style, now is it? It'd be nice to have original ideas and unique perspectives on war and human nature, blah blah blah, but the ideas are simple and childlike. I think we all already realize that the simplicity of nature is much nobler than human nature, so why repeat it ad nauseam with voiceovers that come out of nowhere and end up where they started? A tolerable movie if you've braced yourself for a strange, long, pretentious 3 hour crawl. WB is committing suicide by trying to ride SPR's coat tails.