The story of 1917 was simple, about two WWI British soldiers with a mission to carry a message to another front to stop an attack that wind up to a trap costing over 1,000 lives. Bears in mind, this took place in 1917. We are used to the instant communication. They did not have that luxury. The soldiers had to go through dangerous and hostile territory to get the message delivered. The visual, the setting, and the way it was shot was so incredibly realistic that I was totally immersed into the situation like I was with these two soldiers. Like the soldiers, we don't know what is ahead.The movie was very intense, and the two hours went by quickly. The two actors were wonderful in their portrayal. Through their conversation, I got to know the kind of people they are. Another strong point was that musical score, which intensified the suspense. My really only major criticism was that there were few scenes seemed to over reached a bit for their plausibility, but it was relatively not as a big deal as compared to rest of the movie. Because of the great cinematography and setting, if you plan to see it, don't wait for it coming to video. See it on the big screen. Seeing in a small screen will missed out the incredible detail this movie offered. Powerful experience that most of us fortunate enough not to have to experience in real life.
Reviews
26 Reviews
Enjoyable movie despite its flaws
1 January 2020
I didn't see it in 3D and I went in with very low expectation. Turned out I liked it more than I expected. Not at first though. When the prologue text rolled and seeing the phrase "Supreme Leader Kylo Ren", I chuckled. The first 2 sequel trilogy movies are not where one would like to learn about leadership, the least of all Kylo Ren. I do realize that J.J.Abrams had a huge challenge in patching up the debacle that Rian Johnson left hims, nothing more symbolic than the Kylo Ren's smashed helmet which was patched together yet with the apparent red cracks. This movie was like that helmet.
In The Last Jedi, many of the characters were demeaned or were rendered futile in meaningless mission. We basically learnt not much about the new characters from the first two movies. This movie at least redeem much of their dignity, and some respect of the legacy characters. We finally got some back story of Poe, with his Bounty Hunter girlfriend. The interesting Stormtrooper background of Finn finally brought up. We got to see more depth in Rey and Kylo Ren.
The problem was, the movie tried to fixed so much that everything moved very fast, felt like squeezing into one movie with many, including the Episode 8 that could have been. The editing was overly done, and gotten confusing at time because of switching to the next scene before settled into one. People could be lost in what is going on in the fast pacing. The development of the characters thus was compromised by the short burst of scenes.
Another problem was that J.J.Abram basically rehashed Return of the Jedi. In fact this trilogy was a rehash. Yes, many said Rian Johnson tried a new direction, but I called that a mean spirited sabotage. In Abrams' rehash, Rey was the new Luke Skywalker, Kylo Ren was the new Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker was the new Obi-wan Kenobi, and Snook was the new Palpatine before Rian Johnson snuffed him out inexplicably.
Now in order to bring in menacing villain to take over Snook, this movie brought back the Palpatine, which didn't make sense following what happened to Return of the Jedi. Lots of this movie, particularly the latter part of the movie didn't make sense. However, they were not annoying and frustrating like the ridiculous action took place in Episode 8. There were also plenty of humor in this movie that flowed with the scene. So like the Kylo Ren helmet, there were cracks but still wearable. I did enjoy the movie as overall.
Just a shame that Disney did not plan well from the start that we got a messy trilogy. As movies on their own, of the 5 Disney Star Wars movies, The Last Jedi was the only one I did not like. Even if Abrams directed Episode 8, we probably would get a rehashing of Empire Strikes Back. Seemed like Disney did not have a vision. One would imagine what the trilogy would have been if they planned the trilogy well or if George Lucas was involved.
In The Last Jedi, many of the characters were demeaned or were rendered futile in meaningless mission. We basically learnt not much about the new characters from the first two movies. This movie at least redeem much of their dignity, and some respect of the legacy characters. We finally got some back story of Poe, with his Bounty Hunter girlfriend. The interesting Stormtrooper background of Finn finally brought up. We got to see more depth in Rey and Kylo Ren.
The problem was, the movie tried to fixed so much that everything moved very fast, felt like squeezing into one movie with many, including the Episode 8 that could have been. The editing was overly done, and gotten confusing at time because of switching to the next scene before settled into one. People could be lost in what is going on in the fast pacing. The development of the characters thus was compromised by the short burst of scenes.
Another problem was that J.J.Abram basically rehashed Return of the Jedi. In fact this trilogy was a rehash. Yes, many said Rian Johnson tried a new direction, but I called that a mean spirited sabotage. In Abrams' rehash, Rey was the new Luke Skywalker, Kylo Ren was the new Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker was the new Obi-wan Kenobi, and Snook was the new Palpatine before Rian Johnson snuffed him out inexplicably.
Now in order to bring in menacing villain to take over Snook, this movie brought back the Palpatine, which didn't make sense following what happened to Return of the Jedi. Lots of this movie, particularly the latter part of the movie didn't make sense. However, they were not annoying and frustrating like the ridiculous action took place in Episode 8. There were also plenty of humor in this movie that flowed with the scene. So like the Kylo Ren helmet, there were cracks but still wearable. I did enjoy the movie as overall.
Just a shame that Disney did not plan well from the start that we got a messy trilogy. As movies on their own, of the 5 Disney Star Wars movies, The Last Jedi was the only one I did not like. Even if Abrams directed Episode 8, we probably would get a rehashing of Empire Strikes Back. Seemed like Disney did not have a vision. One would imagine what the trilogy would have been if they planned the trilogy well or if George Lucas was involved.
Joker
(I) (2019)
Powerful film on social commentary using a comic book villian
29 December 2019
I can understand why some people would not like it. The pace was slow. There were moments that would make the audience saying "What?", kinds of like playing games. However, the movie on the whole was a powerful one. We were basically in his head most of the movie. We saw what he sees, and this guy was a walking time bomb. He had many sign of trouble, lack of confidence, self insecure, and loneliness. Because the problem was not treated, he went spiraled down. He could be a metaphor for many brewing problems, like he could be Hong Kong since the Tiananmen Square massacre when the city got traumatized for those who know the history of the city. Despite the slow pace, I thought it fitted perfectly his inner struggle and his mental breakdown. The setting was outstanding, and needless to say the performance. Hard to say if I still like it on another viewing, but at this moment it is one of the best movies I have seen from 2019.
Xi xiang ji
(1927)
Interesting silent adaptation of a classic Chinese literature
19 July 2009
This early Chinese silent was based on a classic Chinese literature. What I understand is those Chinese classic novels are usually extremely long, so I was curious about if the running time of approximately 45 minutes will encompass the whole story. After seeing it and did some reading on the web, I realized that the movie did amazingly told a bare bone of the entire story.
The setup was about a scholar, in ancient China, on his way to the Imperial city to take his exam and took a stop at a temple. There he found a beautiful girl also visiting and staying there with her mother and her maid. Of course, he and the girl felt in love. However, there was a gang leader who also wanted the girl. So the story was if the scholar was able to get the girl and how.
The story seemed simple, but I thought the presentation was effective. The acting was very theatrical which was necessary for the silence. The only problem was the battle scene was just flashing and swiping of blade among of groups people in fast motion, which was nothing epic about that. I guess it was okay since this wasn't an action film. Overall, the movie was a worthy primer to this classic literature.
The setup was about a scholar, in ancient China, on his way to the Imperial city to take his exam and took a stop at a temple. There he found a beautiful girl also visiting and staying there with her mother and her maid. Of course, he and the girl felt in love. However, there was a gang leader who also wanted the girl. So the story was if the scholar was able to get the girl and how.
The story seemed simple, but I thought the presentation was effective. The acting was very theatrical which was necessary for the silence. The only problem was the battle scene was just flashing and swiping of blade among of groups people in fast motion, which was nothing epic about that. I guess it was okay since this wasn't an action film. Overall, the movie was a worthy primer to this classic literature.
Return to Oz
(1985)
Similar setup as that earlier classic story. No classic, but still good.
19 July 2009
Return to Oz was Fairuza Balk's movie debut playing Dorothy when she was a 10 or 11 years old little girl. Her appearance as Dorothy was more fitting to the Dorothy of the book than Judy Garland was as a teenager, yet we know Judy Garland's role was a classic role.
This fantasy was based on two of the Frank L. Baum books follow-up to the Wizard of Oz that resulted in the 1939 classics. The setting of Return to Oz was 6 months after Dorothy returned from Land of Oz, but her mind still obsessed with the place despite she was told it was a dream. She found a key felt out of the sky, and she felt there was trouble in the Land of Oz. Because of her obsession, she was placed in a Psych ward. Eventually, she found a way get to the Land of Oz, and found all the beauty of the was gone and everyone turned to stones.
This time, instead of Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion, we have a Pumpkinhead, a talking chicken, and a talking computer. Instead of Wicked Witch of the West, we have an evil lady named Mombi. Instead of flying monkeys, we have people with hands and feet with wheels. Instead of the Oz, we have The Nome King. So as you see, there was some similar structure to Wizard of Oz.
Despite this is a children movie, the are scenes with Mombi that I think would scare the hell out of children. She collected women heads and change her heads like changing clothes. Although the quality of this movie was far from that of the 1939 classics since it looked more like a TV movie. The adventure of Dorothy preserving the Land of Oz was however fascinating enough to keep me interested.
This fantasy was based on two of the Frank L. Baum books follow-up to the Wizard of Oz that resulted in the 1939 classics. The setting of Return to Oz was 6 months after Dorothy returned from Land of Oz, but her mind still obsessed with the place despite she was told it was a dream. She found a key felt out of the sky, and she felt there was trouble in the Land of Oz. Because of her obsession, she was placed in a Psych ward. Eventually, she found a way get to the Land of Oz, and found all the beauty of the was gone and everyone turned to stones.
This time, instead of Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion, we have a Pumpkinhead, a talking chicken, and a talking computer. Instead of Wicked Witch of the West, we have an evil lady named Mombi. Instead of flying monkeys, we have people with hands and feet with wheels. Instead of the Oz, we have The Nome King. So as you see, there was some similar structure to Wizard of Oz.
Despite this is a children movie, the are scenes with Mombi that I think would scare the hell out of children. She collected women heads and change her heads like changing clothes. Although the quality of this movie was far from that of the 1939 classics since it looked more like a TV movie. The adventure of Dorothy preserving the Land of Oz was however fascinating enough to keep me interested.
Videodrome
(1983)
Something dark and dangerous and intelligent from Croneberg
19 July 2009
My feeling for early Cronenberg films are not fond. I was expecting another gruesome, perverted, weird, and senseless movie, like The Fly & Crash. It was gruesome; it was perverted; it was weird; but it was far from senseless. The movie was a social commentary about what we see on the TV screen. The lead character played by James Woods played a TV producer of an extreme TV station that provides porn and other forbidden materials on regular TV. He came across, through a spying satellite by a friend, a type of show called Videodrome which is fake snuff films. After he saw one of those film, we saw, in satirical style, how he was affected. I was very fixated to the story. Debbie Harry of the Blondie played his girlfriend. She was well casted as a mischievously twisted woman.
Serendipity
(2001)
Sweet pairing of John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale
18 July 2009
A man and a woman, played by John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, met in an department store and found interest in each other. The problem is that both already had a significant others. So they played a game of fate to see if they will wind up with each other.
This is one of the most corniest movie, but IT WORKS! Thanks mostly to the performances of John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale and the anticipation that was build up along the story and the screwy supporting cast of Eugene Levy, Molly Shannon, and Jeremy Piven. Kate Beckinsale was rightly casted as herself a British instead making her an American as in many of her other movies. There were problems with the story though, like how their respective significant others were handled in the story. Since this is a fantasy, the focus is on them both and only them both. It is far from being a great movie. Personally, I enjoyed it and the sweet moments were very nicely done.
This is one of the most corniest movie, but IT WORKS! Thanks mostly to the performances of John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale and the anticipation that was build up along the story and the screwy supporting cast of Eugene Levy, Molly Shannon, and Jeremy Piven. Kate Beckinsale was rightly casted as herself a British instead making her an American as in many of her other movies. There were problems with the story though, like how their respective significant others were handled in the story. Since this is a fantasy, the focus is on them both and only them both. It is far from being a great movie. Personally, I enjoyed it and the sweet moments were very nicely done.
Proof
(2005)
Life is the sum of the relationships with other people
18 July 2009
Despite what the title said, the movie is not about math, but about people. Though, the story was surrounded by mathematical characters. One such was Robert played by Anthony Hopkins, a once mathematical genius who became mentally ill at his old age. His younger daughter Catherine, played beautifully by Gwyneth Paltrow, put on hold of her life to take care of him.
The movie flipped back and forth between before and after the passing of Robert as we see the toll it took on Catherine. Two other main characters who were close to Catherine after the passing of Robert were Hal, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who was a student of Robert and Catherine's sister Claire played by Hope Davis. Catherine is basically the center of story, as we see her relation with each of the other three characters revealed. As the story develops, we may question ourselves whether the sacrifice of Catherine made her crazy, or whether the sacrifice worth it.
I had no doubt before seeing the movie that the writing is great since the play, wrote by David Auburn who also co-written the film, won Pulitzer Prize. It was the acting of the four main characters, particularly those moments between Anthony Hopkins and Gwenyth Paltrow, made the movie worked powerfully.
The movie flipped back and forth between before and after the passing of Robert as we see the toll it took on Catherine. Two other main characters who were close to Catherine after the passing of Robert were Hal, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who was a student of Robert and Catherine's sister Claire played by Hope Davis. Catherine is basically the center of story, as we see her relation with each of the other three characters revealed. As the story develops, we may question ourselves whether the sacrifice of Catherine made her crazy, or whether the sacrifice worth it.
I had no doubt before seeing the movie that the writing is great since the play, wrote by David Auburn who also co-written the film, won Pulitzer Prize. It was the acting of the four main characters, particularly those moments between Anthony Hopkins and Gwenyth Paltrow, made the movie worked powerfully.
102 Minutes That Changed America
(2008 TV Movie)
Reliving 9/11 as distant observers
16 July 2009
There have been many documentary about 9/11 since the attack. This one took the idea of the TV show "24" and showed the events from seconds after the 1st plane hit up to about 100 min thereafter in real time. The footage used were mostly from personal camcorders, and some from TV. The audios were either directly from the camcorders, from the media coverage or phone conversations sound bites at the moment. What was interesting about the documentary is that the point of view is not at the Twin Towers, but away from the Twin Towers. You see people in Time Square watched it on the outdoor large screen. You see students watching the event from Stevens Institute across the river in Hoboken, NJ. You see how people reacted in their apartments far away from the Twin Tower. In a way, the documentary is not just about 9/11, but an anthropological view of the people's reaction upon crisis. The editing job of putting all these material together was superb.
Some Kind of Wonderful
(1987)
A wonderful movie about teens!
10 July 2009
The 80s had so many teen comedies, and I say "Some Kind of Wonderful" was among one of the best along with "Fast Time at Ridgemont High", "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", and "Say Anything..." Not that it was a great comedy, per se, but it was a very in depth look of teenager trying to understand themselves.
Eric Stolze played an ordinary teenager, Keith of a middle class family who wanted to go after one of the most beautiful girl, played by Lea Thompson, in school. The problem was that she has an abusive boyfriend who was not happy about his pursuit, so the boyfriend was setting up a situation to humiliate him. Through the experience, the teenagers learned about themselves.
Kudos to the writing of John Hughes. Great performance by Eric Stolze. Also especially great is the performance of Mary Stuart Masterson who played Keith's Tomboy sidekick who is helping him getting the girl while at the same time we know her crush on Keith without him knowing it.
Eric Stolze played an ordinary teenager, Keith of a middle class family who wanted to go after one of the most beautiful girl, played by Lea Thompson, in school. The problem was that she has an abusive boyfriend who was not happy about his pursuit, so the boyfriend was setting up a situation to humiliate him. Through the experience, the teenagers learned about themselves.
Kudos to the writing of John Hughes. Great performance by Eric Stolze. Also especially great is the performance of Mary Stuart Masterson who played Keith's Tomboy sidekick who is helping him getting the girl while at the same time we know her crush on Keith without him knowing it.
Shame
(1968)
External effect on an individual and on a relationship
10 July 2009
Bergman's regular Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann starred as a village couple, Jan and Eva Rosenberg. The story began with an ordinary couple who fights and make up. Jan was a sensitive person, but an escapist who isolated himself from the world. Eva is a practical woman who is getting fed up with her husband's lack of ambition. Because Jan procrastinating in fixing their radio, the are oblivious of the impending war. Of course the war arrived, and the movie was a fascinating study of their transformation of each other and to each other through the invasion as they were mistreated by the enemy and by their own government.
There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie.
There were no musical score to the movie, but the soundtrack was the war noise. In one scene the pulsating background gun shot, the explosion, and sound of the fly by planes was incredible. Now and then, Bergman zoomed into the facial expression as different event took places. When something violent happened, he zoomed out to let the audience sensed the violence rather than seeing up close. Very well done movie.
Alexander Nevsky
(1938)
Nevsky to the rescue
2 July 2009
I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like "Lord of the Ring: Return of the King", but without the special effect but as good and better drama.
We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.
Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as "how many enemy we will be killing", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.
Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.
We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.
Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as "how many enemy we will be killing", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.
Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.
Far from the Madding Crowd
(1967)
Interesting story, wonderful performances, beautiful movie
2 July 2009
This is an adaptation of Thomas Hardy novel of the same name. Although many people found the adaptation of his movie "boring", I usually find his movies translated well on screen. This one is no exception. The movie starred Julie Christie as Bathsheba Everdene, a teaser of a woman who inherited her uncle's farm. Also starring Alan Bates as Gabriel Oak who own his farm and sheep. Gabriel was rejected by early on by Bathsheba a marriage proposal. Later with some tragic event, he lost his farm and wound up working in Bathsheda's farm. Conflict between them through out the movie, as two other men showed up, the farm owner next door William Boldwood played wonderfully by Peter Finch and a soldier played by Terence Stamp.
Despite the melodrama and a length of nearly 3 hours, I didn't find a moment of boredom because of all the interesting dialogue. I also thought John Schlesinger handled the movie very well in displaying the scenes which rarely monotonous. The scenery was beautiful despite the quality of the DVD I watched from. I should be grateful the region 1 DVD finally available. Nevertheless, it was a beautiful and worthwhile movie to watch.
Despite the melodrama and a length of nearly 3 hours, I didn't find a moment of boredom because of all the interesting dialogue. I also thought John Schlesinger handled the movie very well in displaying the scenes which rarely monotonous. The scenery was beautiful despite the quality of the DVD I watched from. I should be grateful the region 1 DVD finally available. Nevertheless, it was a beautiful and worthwhile movie to watch.
Hobson's Choice
(1954)
Watching this wonderful movie was a good choice!
2 July 2009
A boot store widow Henry Hobson, played by Charles Laughton, with three daughters. I thought this going to be a comedy about a father marrying off his daughters. Was I wrong! The movie was a fantastic comedy about his confrontation with his older daughter Maggie Hobson, played by Brenda De Banzie, who married someone honest, talented, but an uneducated lower class man Willie Mossop played exceptionally well by John Mills.
I don't think "charming" and "sweet" would be the proper description, though there were "charming" and "sweet" moments. Overall, I would say "satisfying" would be the description. The moments between Maggie Hobson take Willie Mossop's hand and help him climb were great. The performance of the three leads Charles Laughton, John Mills, and Brenda De Banzie were treats. Finally, kudos to the direction of David Lean. You can feel the strength of his direction from the very get-go as the camera panned the boot store.
I don't think "charming" and "sweet" would be the proper description, though there were "charming" and "sweet" moments. Overall, I would say "satisfying" would be the description. The moments between Maggie Hobson take Willie Mossop's hand and help him climb were great. The performance of the three leads Charles Laughton, John Mills, and Brenda De Banzie were treats. Finally, kudos to the direction of David Lean. You can feel the strength of his direction from the very get-go as the camera panned the boot store.
Titanic
(1997)
A journey with more than the eyes can see, and an experience one won't soon forget
20 June 2009
The movie was about appreciating and treasuring the past, learn the lesson and be grateful of the kindness of those who crossed the path. We have two intersecting story, the Titanic and Rose. Titanic sunk by arrogant. Rose, the leading lady, revived through her spirit with the help of Jack, the leading man. The movie started in the present with the explorer digging the Titanic wreckage for treasure. We met the old Rose as she visited the explorers to help identify a drawing. she helped us worked our way into the past with the back story romance between her and Jack.
The young Rose who was unhappy with her routine life was an engaged socialite. Her engagement was forced upon by her mother. Jack was a poor wanderer who won his way onto Titanic. They met at the Titanic bow one a night when Rose was considering suicide.
Jack and young Rose took up much of the movie. Their story not only serve as the back story, but our tour guide of Titanic, to get our feel for Titanic before its fateful tragedy. Jack and Rose are two very uplifting people. I found their behavior interesting to watch. Jack is kind of representation of an everyday man, the many immigrants who landed in America in the early 1900s. He had a speech during a dinner, which he was invited to first class, covered it all.
Rose was tied down by tradition. Titanic, that is the people who own Titanic, was overwhelmed with arrogance. There was a struggle between the two extremes. She was saved by meeting half way with a sacrificial help of Jack. No drastic changes without some kind of sacrifice. The future of shipping is saved by the sinking of Titanic with the sacrifice of the victims.
As the story unfolded, the explorer understood that the Titanic is more than a gold mine. The audience understand the value of Titanic. The back story helped us understand the importance of Titanic to her and the symbolism of Titanic for the explorer. Basically, the movie took us to a meeting with the haunting ghost of the past.
The movie had many powerful lines about life, particularly from Old Rose and Jack. Old Rose has quotes about the past. Jack has quotes about living a life. The sinking scenes of Titanic was haunting. It was Jack and Rose take us to the moment for those got stranded waiting for the boat to return. After watching the movie, I felt I have gone through the experience of Jack and Rose and many other victims. I can't say that about the other Titanic movies.
Of course, even with great idea, the story won't work without the acting, the setting, the cinematography, and the music, which were all superb. Watching this movie was like I was on the Titanic maiden voyage.
It was a sad movie in one sense because of the disaster, but it was also a hopeful movie because of what a person can struggle through despite of a traumatic event in the past.
James Cameron had triumphantly raised the Titanic for everyone. He brought stardom to Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet who played Jack and Rose respectively. He also revived the classic age actress Gloria Stuart who played the Old Rose. With the success of this movie, he was able to spent time in the next 10+ years doing research in revolutionizing digital 3D. Hopefully in not distant future, he will be able to re-release this epic in glorious digital 3D.
The young Rose who was unhappy with her routine life was an engaged socialite. Her engagement was forced upon by her mother. Jack was a poor wanderer who won his way onto Titanic. They met at the Titanic bow one a night when Rose was considering suicide.
Jack and young Rose took up much of the movie. Their story not only serve as the back story, but our tour guide of Titanic, to get our feel for Titanic before its fateful tragedy. Jack and Rose are two very uplifting people. I found their behavior interesting to watch. Jack is kind of representation of an everyday man, the many immigrants who landed in America in the early 1900s. He had a speech during a dinner, which he was invited to first class, covered it all.
Rose was tied down by tradition. Titanic, that is the people who own Titanic, was overwhelmed with arrogance. There was a struggle between the two extremes. She was saved by meeting half way with a sacrificial help of Jack. No drastic changes without some kind of sacrifice. The future of shipping is saved by the sinking of Titanic with the sacrifice of the victims.
As the story unfolded, the explorer understood that the Titanic is more than a gold mine. The audience understand the value of Titanic. The back story helped us understand the importance of Titanic to her and the symbolism of Titanic for the explorer. Basically, the movie took us to a meeting with the haunting ghost of the past.
The movie had many powerful lines about life, particularly from Old Rose and Jack. Old Rose has quotes about the past. Jack has quotes about living a life. The sinking scenes of Titanic was haunting. It was Jack and Rose take us to the moment for those got stranded waiting for the boat to return. After watching the movie, I felt I have gone through the experience of Jack and Rose and many other victims. I can't say that about the other Titanic movies.
Of course, even with great idea, the story won't work without the acting, the setting, the cinematography, and the music, which were all superb. Watching this movie was like I was on the Titanic maiden voyage.
It was a sad movie in one sense because of the disaster, but it was also a hopeful movie because of what a person can struggle through despite of a traumatic event in the past.
James Cameron had triumphantly raised the Titanic for everyone. He brought stardom to Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet who played Jack and Rose respectively. He also revived the classic age actress Gloria Stuart who played the Old Rose. With the success of this movie, he was able to spent time in the next 10+ years doing research in revolutionizing digital 3D. Hopefully in not distant future, he will be able to re-release this epic in glorious digital 3D.
The Omen
(2006)
Don't believe that this is like the original. Not even close!
11 May 2009
Although it tried to be faithful to the story of the original (which not necessarily a good thing), the remake sorely missed the Gothic score of the original. The original had very creepy moments, even in repeat viewing, could not be achieved in the remake. The casting was much weaker. The 2 leads I thought was miscast. Liev Schreiber was no Gregory Peck. I like Julia Stiles, but she was not credible in her role. Not that the original was a top-notch movie, but the remake made that seemed so. That said, those who never saw the original will enjoy it as a mediocre thriller. Unfortunately, they will miss out the spooky atmosphere of the original, a thriller and a horror.
Awake
(2007)
Good idea, but very messy movie
11 May 2009
I am too much of a sucker to these out-of-body experience supernatural movies, but people just can't get them right. There were 3 in recent years. It got worse each time: Just Like Heaven (good), The Invisible (mediocre), and now Awake (awful). I should have known when the leads were Hayden Christensen & Jessica Alba, the filmmakers were not aiming for high art. Granted it did have a thrilling story and interesting setup, and they were so poorly executed with low credibility that it could made you feel betrayed by the nice suspenseful thrill and the queasy gruesome scenes. There were an inexplicably changes in the tone of the characters as if you wonder whether the audience were supposed to be a third person or supposed to be the lead character's point of view. What kind of hospital was that that the operation take place near a lounge where people can walk in and out of the operating room at will. Supernatural is one thing. The resolution was over the top.
The Towering Inferno
(1974)
'The Babel Tower' and 'A Cautionary Tale', a thrilling disaster film that worked so well!
25 June 2008
I saw the movie many times and still got me at the edge of the seat each time watching it. Not only it is entertaining, but also it provides a warning about hi-rises about 25 years before 9/11. I had not paid much attention to the casts and crews before until I became heavy movie watching. No wonder the subplots of this, also Poseidon Adventure, worked so well, the screenplay is written by the same person who wrote In the Heat of the Night, Stirling Silliphant. John Williams score was fantastic, and it was before he became a household name with Jaws and Star Wars. Two things that made me appreciated the film even more now are 1) the careful use of color, which got Fred J. Koenekamp and Joseph F. Biroc the Cinematography Oscar, and 2) the handling of all the egos of the superstars, particularly the two leads Steve McQueen & Paul Newman. This is one movie that I can watch over and over again, and may at the same time find something new each time. Bravo to Irwin Allen and John Guillermin!
The End of the Affair
(1999)
Superior and a beautifully touching remake with a fine leading cast
5 October 2007
This is one of those incidences in which the remake is so much better than the original. Although I like both movies, the 1999 version is a much better treatment of the Graham Greene book than the 1955 version. I thought both Julianne Moore and Deborah Kerr were great as Sarah Miles, but Ralph Fiennes was more effective than Van Johnson as Maurice Bendrix. Regarding the story telling, the message of the spiritual awakening was very touching in this 1999 version. The revelation of each layer of Sarah Miles' secret was handled very well, which makes you feel very sorry for Bendrix. Ralph Fiennes hit a bull's eye in the expression of his sorrow. In addition, I love the music, the visual, and the strong religious overtone presented in the movie.
Ace in the Hole
(1951)
Tremendous Billy Wilder satire reflecting the darkest side of a human being
6 September 2007
I have to say this is one hell of a satire, much more close to Sunset Blvd than Billy Wilder's comedies. The story is engrossing. No scene where did I find it boring. The satire reflects a frightening darkest side of human being. In this case, a reporter (played by Kirk Douglas) who would manipulate for his personal gain a person (played by Richard Benedict) trapped in a mining disaster.
I thought the cast performance was exceptional starting with Kirk Douglas. Kirk Douglas is quite an expert in playing a selfish and manipulative person, much like his film producer role in The Bad and the Beautiful. I am wondering if his these kinds of roles have great influence on his son Michael Douglas' Oscar winning role in Wall Street. The wife of the trapped person was played by Jan Sterling. She was fantastic, especially those tension moments in the scenes between her Kirk Douglas. That slapping scene was top notch in the change of facial expression from admiration to shock.
I say the utmost credit has to go to the screen writing. Billy Wilder really can write slick quotes. When the role Jan Sterling was about to abandon her miserable life instead of taking advantage of her husband's disaster, Kirk Douglas' role said something like "When they bleached your hair, they must have bleached your brain too" It is amazing that a great movie like this one never appeared in any video medium until the Criterion DVD release. I highly recommend this movie.
I thought the cast performance was exceptional starting with Kirk Douglas. Kirk Douglas is quite an expert in playing a selfish and manipulative person, much like his film producer role in The Bad and the Beautiful. I am wondering if his these kinds of roles have great influence on his son Michael Douglas' Oscar winning role in Wall Street. The wife of the trapped person was played by Jan Sterling. She was fantastic, especially those tension moments in the scenes between her Kirk Douglas. That slapping scene was top notch in the change of facial expression from admiration to shock.
I say the utmost credit has to go to the screen writing. Billy Wilder really can write slick quotes. When the role Jan Sterling was about to abandon her miserable life instead of taking advantage of her husband's disaster, Kirk Douglas' role said something like "When they bleached your hair, they must have bleached your brain too" It is amazing that a great movie like this one never appeared in any video medium until the Criterion DVD release. I highly recommend this movie.
The Passion of Joan of Arc
(1928)
Beautifully shot work in the art of facial expression
30 August 2007
This movie is definitely worthy of appreciation in terms of the novelty of its movie making technique of its time. I would say it is a difficult movie to make since there is really not much to a story, so Dreyer had to refer to camera angles and closed up shots to evoke emotion.
Facial expression of the actors were essential to make it work. Maria Falconetti did a fantastic job in that regard. Even nowadays, I don't think many movies use the camera technique used in this movie. Because of the effectiveness, much of the movie is quite self-explanatory.
Although I do appreciate of its artistic quality and like it very much, it is still not one of my top favorite since I am more driven by the literary side of a movie than the photographic side.
I saw it only once at this time and much effort were exerted doing so because I wanted to pay close attention to the detail, especially for a silent film in the form of expressiveness instead of storytelling. I'm sure there is strong literary side to it as well. I can feel there are a lot more to this movie than I saw and that requires a multiple viewing, except that I am not ready for a second viewing yet. Still, a must see for at least once.
Facial expression of the actors were essential to make it work. Maria Falconetti did a fantastic job in that regard. Even nowadays, I don't think many movies use the camera technique used in this movie. Because of the effectiveness, much of the movie is quite self-explanatory.
Although I do appreciate of its artistic quality and like it very much, it is still not one of my top favorite since I am more driven by the literary side of a movie than the photographic side.
I saw it only once at this time and much effort were exerted doing so because I wanted to pay close attention to the detail, especially for a silent film in the form of expressiveness instead of storytelling. I'm sure there is strong literary side to it as well. I can feel there are a lot more to this movie than I saw and that requires a multiple viewing, except that I am not ready for a second viewing yet. Still, a must see for at least once.
Amadeus
(1984)
Celebration of art at the highest level
30 August 2007
Those Salier's description of Mozarts' music, it was a blissful moment for me as I was glad I saw this movie in the cinema. I had mild interest in classical music until this movie showed me the great appreciation. I hated Opera until this movie came along. What about the setting? So beautiful. Each scene is like a painting itself. One very haunting and sad yet beautiful scene at the same time I thought was a transition from Leopold crumbling of the letter to the scrambling frighten deers.
Abraham & Hulce gave those two musicians forceful identities. Abraham's performance is so passionate. Though I haven't seen the play, I doubt anyone can imitate Hulce's laugh so wickedly. Wonderful direction was done by Milos Forman. Peter Schaffer's writing is purely great theater, mixed with comedy and great imagination. Who cares if much of it is fiction. Also kudos needs to be given to the stage choreography Twyla Tharp who is known in the Broadway world.
The only drawback was that I was so spoiled by the near perfection of the theatrical version, I became so nitpick on the editing in the director's cut. I felt a bliss just thinking about the movie. I know it had a great influence on many people. It was a shame that AFI dropped it off the recently revamped top 100 movies list. Nevertheless, Amadeus is a celebration of art in film at the highest level.
Abraham & Hulce gave those two musicians forceful identities. Abraham's performance is so passionate. Though I haven't seen the play, I doubt anyone can imitate Hulce's laugh so wickedly. Wonderful direction was done by Milos Forman. Peter Schaffer's writing is purely great theater, mixed with comedy and great imagination. Who cares if much of it is fiction. Also kudos needs to be given to the stage choreography Twyla Tharp who is known in the Broadway world.
The only drawback was that I was so spoiled by the near perfection of the theatrical version, I became so nitpick on the editing in the director's cut. I felt a bliss just thinking about the movie. I know it had a great influence on many people. It was a shame that AFI dropped it off the recently revamped top 100 movies list. Nevertheless, Amadeus is a celebration of art in film at the highest level.
Spider-Man 3
(2007)
Disappointed and deceived by the trailer. Still worth seeing for the action
16 May 2007
Overall I did enjoy it, but quite a big let down after the fantastic Spider-man 2. From the trailer, I thought spidey fighting his dark self was the main theme of the sequel, which would have been terrific. It turned out that self-conflict portion wasn't that a big part of the story afterall. The goo falling out of the sky was very interesting. I would have like to know more about it, where it comes from, and the way that it bring the darkside of someone. Well, maybe in SM4. I felt that actor was not a good choice to play Venom. I can't find hatred in that face, or just bad acting. Another problem I find is that this one has more lame dialogues than the previous 2 movies, some of the lamest. Nevertheless, it does have some of the best action sequences that I'd seen, awesome actions.
The Double Life of Véronique
(1991)
Deep subtle but perplexing movie that lacks the punch
20 March 2007
Like the other Kieslowski films, the film do not offer much entertainment value but philosophical value. After listening to the audio commentary, I realize this is even more complicated film than I thought.
I wasn't bored by it, but rather, perplexed. Knowing that it is Kieslowski film, instead tried to grab on to find its concept, I let the scenes express themselves as they are. I did have a haunting feeling through out the film, especially through the "green or red" dim mood coloring. It was intimate, yet mysterious surreal. Annette Insdorf's audio commentary of the Criterion Collection DVD did point out many connecting details and thoughts that did not revealed to me in my first viewing.
After some more thoughts, I started to think that this movie really did fail to hold the audience in 2 ways:
1) Krzysztof Kieslowski: Although this movie is deeper than the eyes can see, it is even less entertaining movie than his others that I'd watched. The intrigue went as far as the movie title. After that all the clues are so obscured that without a guide, it is a total "perplex". He had put so much effort into placing clues that he neglected to keep his audience. Granted, his meticulousness I do appreciate. Appreciating is different from enjoying. Green mix red is not an appealing color either, unlike the captivating colors in the three color trilogy.
2) Irene Jacob: She is truly one of the most beautiful actress in the last few decades. The movie showed the full array of her beauty and the glory of her curves, not to mention the full blown of her eroticism. However, I can't find her performance inspiring. This is an expressive movie, and it is essential that the leading character express convincingly, i.e. Irene Jacob alone by herself, which I did not find her successfully do although I have to say quite a load for her to carry playing 2 characters. A movie I think I can compare with is Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood of Love". That movie would have been totally dull if Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung did not have their a great performance which I thought they had. I did not think Irene Jacob was tremendous either in Red though much better performance that this one. I thought Krzysztof Kieslowski did made Red interesting. Maybe I found that Irene Jacob is an overrated actress (was she ever considered as a good actress?), or perhaps Kieslowski is not the right director for her.
It doesn't take away my appreciation of the grandeur spiritual message that I found in this movie, nor will it stops me from further watching Kieslowski's other movies, not at all. This is not a movie I would recommend to everyone, but a movie worth the while to be studied.
I wasn't bored by it, but rather, perplexed. Knowing that it is Kieslowski film, instead tried to grab on to find its concept, I let the scenes express themselves as they are. I did have a haunting feeling through out the film, especially through the "green or red" dim mood coloring. It was intimate, yet mysterious surreal. Annette Insdorf's audio commentary of the Criterion Collection DVD did point out many connecting details and thoughts that did not revealed to me in my first viewing.
After some more thoughts, I started to think that this movie really did fail to hold the audience in 2 ways:
1) Krzysztof Kieslowski: Although this movie is deeper than the eyes can see, it is even less entertaining movie than his others that I'd watched. The intrigue went as far as the movie title. After that all the clues are so obscured that without a guide, it is a total "perplex". He had put so much effort into placing clues that he neglected to keep his audience. Granted, his meticulousness I do appreciate. Appreciating is different from enjoying. Green mix red is not an appealing color either, unlike the captivating colors in the three color trilogy.
2) Irene Jacob: She is truly one of the most beautiful actress in the last few decades. The movie showed the full array of her beauty and the glory of her curves, not to mention the full blown of her eroticism. However, I can't find her performance inspiring. This is an expressive movie, and it is essential that the leading character express convincingly, i.e. Irene Jacob alone by herself, which I did not find her successfully do although I have to say quite a load for her to carry playing 2 characters. A movie I think I can compare with is Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood of Love". That movie would have been totally dull if Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung did not have their a great performance which I thought they had. I did not think Irene Jacob was tremendous either in Red though much better performance that this one. I thought Krzysztof Kieslowski did made Red interesting. Maybe I found that Irene Jacob is an overrated actress (was she ever considered as a good actress?), or perhaps Kieslowski is not the right director for her.
It doesn't take away my appreciation of the grandeur spiritual message that I found in this movie, nor will it stops me from further watching Kieslowski's other movies, not at all. This is not a movie I would recommend to everyone, but a movie worth the while to be studied.
Somewhere in Time
(1980)
Enchanting fantasy love story with a nice cast
18 March 2007
This is an enchanting love story with a science fiction touch of time traveling. The John Barry music was lovely. Jane Seymore was beautiful as usual. I thought Superman Christopher Reeves was well casted. I am glad to see Teresa Wright in her late years got a role, a small role as it is. The time traveling idea in this movie is so fantastic that I believe I would enjoy reading the book "Bid Time Return" that the book is based on. The downsides were that it was kind of short that their encounter did not get elaborated enough to my satisfaction in the explanation and that the pace was a bit slow. Though the cast was appropriate, don't expect great performances from the leading roles. Overall, this movie is worth a view for people into love stories, especially tearjerkers.
Tell Your Friends