Change Your Image
dc_follies
Reviews
The Power of the Dog (2021)
No original ideas
This is an art house pic without an intriguing story and no original ideas to be found. The acting is very good. The story is slow and uninteresting. This is a movie where you see a difference in opinion between the critics and the masses and it should make you wonder why. The issue of gay man as a cowboy has been told before. It's not interesting enough to carry another movie, such as this. Cinematography is nice, but it doesn't look like Montana (as others have noted). That's all ok, it's just that this isn't interesting or entertaining enough to motivate a 2+ hour movie that's rather boring.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Not a good script, which is a damn shame.
My viewing of Brokeback Mountain admittedly suffered from the hype surrounding the movie. Throw the Golden Globe for Best Drama on top of the other critical acclaim and you have the makings for a tremendous movie, right? Brokeback Mountain, as everyone knows by now, surrounds the relationship of two cowboys from the time they meet forward for twenty years. Ennis Del Mar (Ledger) and Jack Twist (Gyllenhall) meet when they take a ranching job in the mountains of Wyoming. Their relationship develops slowly with neither character saying much to the other. At one point, Del Mar says about three lines of dialog and that is followed by a comment from Twist "that's more than you've said in the past two weeks" to which Del Mar responds "friend, that's more than I've said in a year." Therein lies the problem with Brokeback Mountain. There really isn't anything thrown to the viewer to give you a reason to believe the relationship between the two cowboys. There isn't a shared past or a deep, meaningful conversation about anything or even loneliness. It is really difficult to believe that any of the characters really care about each other. By the time Del Mar and Twist separate after their initial encounter, it is downright impossible to sense any sort of chemistry or feelings between the two. The next time they meet, its as though they were war buddies reunited after 25 years. It just doesn't work.
The main problem with the film is that this is one of the worst scripts in recent memory. The movie jumped in time after short scenes with little dialog or development, sometimes as much as ten years. It is a shame that this was so poorly written because the acting is outstanding, the direction was good and the scenery fantastic. All of that can't save a terribly written and developed story. I don't believe that this movie would have received all of its accolades if this script was about a straight couple - the relationships between all of the characters wasn't good enough to make the movie meaningful. I rarely agree with the Top 1000 voters, but do in this case.
King Kong (2005)
Not a great improvement upon the original
First of all, I believe that the King Kong version from the 30s was an amazing feat for its time, though has significant wiggle room for improvement. I do not see a significant improvement in Peter Jackson's version of the film.
The good? The film is visually spectacular. The jungle and New York backgrounds are wonderful. Although the CGI looks a lot like CGI in the non-Kong shots (i.e. most of the dinosaurs in the movie), the effect is there.
The movie clearly feels like a Peter Jackson movie, complete with sweeping shots of miniatures that you would recognize from his Lord of the Rings direction and other nice wide shots.
The not so good? I was blown away to hear that King Kong was the movie that made Jackson want to make movies. Somehow, the meaning of the first movie is almost completely lost in this remake. The original was very obvious in its setup of Kong becoming peaceful immediately after seeing Darrow. The Arabian proverb that appears at the very beginning of the original movie is not uttered until the middle of the movie and Kong is not "stayed" until well after his first encounter with Ann Darrow.
Also, I did not like the interpretation of Jack Black's character. In the original movie, I felt as though the director had been bitten by the travel/adventure bug and wanted to make a great movie somewhere that no one had ever been. I did not get the sense that he was greedy, dishonest or a bad human being. All of those would be adequate descriptors for the character in the new film.
I was also surprised to hear that the execs at Paramount were against the films length until Jackson showed them a screening and said that the length was OK. Figuring that studio execs would want to make more money with a shorter film, I thought the "fat would be trimmed," however there is at least 30 minutes of this thing that could be left on the cutting room floor. What was PJ thinking when "Alien 5" broke out in the middle of the movie? I liked some of the tips of the cap to the original, but felt that this film lacked the intent and heart of the original film. This, instead, felt like a modernized (a.k.a. computerized) version showing off the technological capabilities of the day, but lacking in the qualities that made the original film real, important and meaningful.
Rope (1948)
Farley Granger?
Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" is a good, but not great movie. The performances of John Dall and Jimmy Stewart are very well done, though I can't understand why Hitchcock kept asking Farley Granger to act in his movies. Granted, his dialog left something to be desired, though his performance didn't do anything to save his character. Granger's acting, alone, is enough to warrant a 6 from me because it kept taking me out of the movie thinking about how ridiculous he was.
The direction is simply outstanding - camera movement and framing were beautiful to watch.
The story is somewhat predictable, although that was not necessarily a bad thing.
Were it not for Farley Granger, this might be my favorite Hitchcock movie.
Walk the Line (2005)
Last year...
this movie was called Ray. Walk the line is your standard biopic about a deceased rock star, complete with all of the expected story lines. In case you haven't seen Ray, here you go: small child loses brother in tragic accident. Boy grows up, gets discovered, has a problem with drugs and alcohol, cheats on his wife, gets arrested for drug possession, gets his life straightened out. The end.
There really isn't anything new to add in Walk the Line, which is truly unfortunate. The performances by Witherspoon and Phoenix are top notch and they both sing their parts extremely well (side note - don't hold it against Jaime Foxx for not singing in Ray because no one sounds like Ray Charles except Ray Charles. Any bass can sing Johnny Cash - his voice isn't that distinctive.) The characters, unfortunately, really don't have that much to say. In the end, Cash appears to be a really moronic spoiled brat - not exactly a glowing tribute to a music star. The movie seemed more like a vehicle to sell Johnny Cash albums to a new generation without having to pay royalties since both he and his wife are now deceased.
I don't know why these same formulaic biopics are still being made. I wouldn't keep watching them if my wife didn't like them. No one's life is so boring that you can fit its entire essence into two hours.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Not much improvement seen
When I first heard that they were going to remake Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I thought that it was an odd movie to remake. Sure, the movie in the 70s was a little campy, but could also be considered a classic children's movie that succeeds very well on its own. I didn't feel that it had the same potential to improve as a movie like Oceans 11 would.
The remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory actually starts out quite strong. There is more background behind the motivation of Wonka to open up his factory and the personalities of the children have been given a face-lift as well. Americans really are pretty annoying. Up until the time where the children reach the Wonka factory, I felt that the movie actually had improved upon the old.
And then comes Johnny Depp as Willie Wonka. Let me preface my next comment by saying that I enjoy Johnny Depp in most everything and dislike Gene Wilder in most everything. The Willie Wonka character came off as someone you wouldn't let your child within ten miles of, much less go into a factory with. The performance of Willie Wonka was one of the worst that I have seen in recent memory. Perhaps some of that feeling was also due to the fact that the chocolate factory had lost much of its charm from the original film. The oompa loompas were forgettable, as was the music, and it seemed like much of the happiness of the original movie was sapped.
The end of the film was also changed from the original version in a way that I didn't care for either. Without being too specific, in the original, Charlie drinks the fizzy soda which was against Mr. Wonka's rules and loses his prize. In the end, though, Charlie realizes that what he did was wrong and decides not to seek vindication against Wonka. In the current movie, Charlie is never posed with any question of vindication, nor does he do anything wrong that would exclude his eligibility from winning a prize.
The film is decent with a nice update on the pre-factory portion of the movie, but much of the magic of the factory is missing from the current film and Wonka's character has a very unsavory feel. This film does not significantly improve upon its predecessor and therefore deserves no more than an average grade.
Diarios de motocicleta (2004)
Success in spite of itself
The motorcycle diaries is about a road trip taken by a pair of young men, one of whom grows up to be an important figure in revolutionary Cuba and elsewhere. "Fuser" Guevara was a young man of 24 who appeared to be confused with the age old question that every young person feels - what does life mean and what am I supposed to do with it. His counterpart also feels this way, though seems less inclined to change his life drastically.
The pair of personalities nicely offset each other with one being shy and the other far more outgoing. The journey across the South American continent is full of encounters with people that wonderfully display the landscape and culture of the people in this part of the world. The end result, without spoiling the particulars, is that there is a greater difference between the two men at the end of the movie than at the beginning. "Let the world change you" is very much what this movie is about. So why does this only feel like a 6? The movie is very subtle in the changes in the character. This is due to the excellent performance by de la Serna - actually, the movie was well-acted from top to bottom. Perhaps the reserved nature of the character didn't seem like much of a change from before the journey and after the journey. The change seemed to be opening a can of worms more than developing something in him that was not there to begin with. If there was one particular epiphany along the journey, then I admit that I missed it. The direction and cinematography of the movie felt very average, but maybe that was because I had to read subtitles. Also, the change in Guevara may have been a little too subtle for it to be effective in my mind. I didn't see the connection between the journey and a change as a result. He did what he felt was the right thing over the course of the entire journey - it wasn't developed on the the road. Lastly, and most subjectively, I didn't find the movie very interesting. It seemed like an updated version of Easy Rider, only Motorcyle Diaries raises questions that will likely be relevant for much longer.
That being said, the questions raised by this movie are, imo, more important than anything in the movie itself. What is a persons place in society? Can you correct injustice? Can one person make a very large difference in the good of the world and society? These questions are an extension of the movie, but not because of its content or dialog. 6 of 10, mainly for the questions that follow the movie rather than the content itself.
Return to Sender (2004)
Almost Imperfect
Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.
Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.
With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from this one.
Sin City (2005)
Good, but overrated
The lighting, direction and effects in this movie were all tremendous. Simply put, there is no way that this movie could have been made 15 years ago because the special effects would not likely have been capable or affordable to manipulate the shots in every single scene. I do not believe that you can hold that against a film, however, unless there is no plot to go along with the mass of effects (i.e. War of the Worlds).
So it has come to this, though. Sin City certainly lives up to its name in telling a story with no real redeeming morality. Duh, it is called SIN city. For about half of the movie, I kept laughing at all of the violence because it was fairly comical. After the initial hour, though, I kept wondering if this is what our society has come to. Does it really require this much violence to keep us entertained? Even if it is not required, why do people keep asking for so much violence? I am not an advocate for any sort of censorship, but I am an advocate for personal responsibility for each individual. It is possible that I started thinking about this because the Clive Owen portion of the story wasn't really all that interesting to me.
Sin City was entertaining, but I didn't fell that it was as interesting as its comic counterpart, Dick Tracy. There is a much more modern feeling to SC than there is in DT, but I don't know if that is a good thing. I found the characters and art direction in DT more interesting, perhaps BECAUSE it didn't rely on special effects. I really don't understand why there is such a mismatch between the two in ratings. Sin City was good, but I wouldn't consider it a great film. It seems to me that a lot of people like this one because it makes them seem sophisticated. Its just one man's opinion.
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
I was never bored...
If you are a fan of the movies, and you probably are since you have come to IMDb and are reading movie reviews, then you will probably not be bored during Million Dollar Baby. The story and the characters are interesting enough to keep your attention and I didn't have any issues with the pace of the movie, but this was a fairly average movie. What was well done? The performances by Clint Eastwood, Hillary Swank and Morgan Freeman were superior and easily the best part of the film. I'm not entirely sure why Morgan Freeman decided to rasp his already deep voice for the film as it was unnecessary. Lighting was used very effectively throughout enhancing the dark nature of the film. Other than those facets, I had a few problems with the movie.
Perhaps I would not be so disappointed had this film not won the award for best picture. I don't understand the fascination with Clint Eastwood in Hollywood. He is an excellent actor, but his directorial skills are pretty average. He doesn't do anything particularly unique to enhance a movie or tell the story in a different way.
It seems to me that he also missed an opportunity in the movie. Since the story centers on loneliness and love and opportunity, he could have used silence effectively. That being said, the entire narration of the movie could be eliminated in favor of silence and the movie may have been a little more powerful. There were also several unrealistic points in the movie, such as certain occurrences in the boxing matches and in his conversations with the priest that just wouldn't happen in normal situations.
This movie was okay. It wasn't great and it wasn't horrible - definitely not best picture worthy.
Ray (2004)
Best Picture candidate?
This movie is essentially about a music superstar's heroine problem. He is mistreated by others and he mistreats them. He is a womanizer who doesn't really seem to care about anything except his music. These traits are not unique in the music industry. I was tremendously disappointed that very little of the movie focused on what made Ray Charles, Ray Charles. This movie could have been about anyone, not just Ray. Both Jamie Foxx's performance and the soundtrack were phenomenal, but the rest of the movie was uninspired. Only the acting gives this flick a 7. Not a good movie.
There is a fair amount of time spent in flashbacks between Ray and his mother, adequately showing the development of this relationship, but doesn't have resounding thunder in developing who he was as a person. It is nice to know that we get second chances in life, but we don't see Ray getting his in the movie other than a couple of lines at the end.
Maybe I didn't care for the movie because it is a biopic and, personally, I find real life far less interesting than a good imagination. How can you tell someone's life story in 2.5 hours? Is life really that boring?
The Singles Ward (2002)
Funny if you are or were from Utah
If you have never lived in Utah, this movie would probably really suck. However, if you do or have lived in Utah, then this is just about as funny as it gets. There are many cameos from local "celebrities" and references to other Mormon-made films (i.e. God's Army) that are very funny if you are aware of the stories behind them. Perhaps there are too many inside jokes here to be funny to those outside of Utah.
There is nothing special about the acting - actually, it isn't very good and the story is pretty canned. Not being LDS, but having several LDS friends, though, the stereotypes that they played on were good for quite a few laughs.
Sideways (2004)
Decent, but very flawed
I finally went to see Sideways after hearing plenty of nice things about this movie for the past several months. Unlike each of the movies nominated for Best Picture '04, I actually hadn't heard anything negative about Sideways. Perhaps it was because of this build up that I was disappointed with the end result. Don't get me wrong, Sideways is a decent movie, but not great. From the get go, there really isn't a genuine chemistry between Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church and that weighs the movie down a bit. The film also kept straddling reality and absurdity and couldn't really make up its mind as to which one it should be. In the end it wanted to be real, but threw away some things spoken about multiple times during the course of the first 1.5 hours that could have been more meaningful.
Okay, but not great. Election was a better movie than this was. The movie doesn't deserve more than 7 because of the things that it lacks. To all of the people who vote - just because a movie is not mainstream does not make it an exceptional film. This is over-hyped because it was not released by Universaldisneytouchstoneparamount, Inc. With that said, it is still worth a look, just don't set your sights as highly as I did.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
So So
I decided to check out Seven Samurai after reading the rave reviews on this site and being exhausted with all of the lack of quality that Hollywood seems to give us from year to year. I can enjoy most styles of movies, with the notable exceptions of the love story/chick flick and slasher movies, so the samurai genre is an available genre for me. The movie was okay, but not great. Three and a half hours is much too long for a relatively simple story without truly deep character development that gets you far into any one of their minds, perhaps because of the large number of "main" characters. The result for me was that I couldn't genuinely care about many, if any, of them. The cinematography, I felt, was average, especially for an "action" movie - this is what separates Citizen Kane by leaps and bounds from Seven Samurai (also check out the first 3.5 minute, no-cut shot in Touch of Evil). I need to go back and watch this film again, but do not have high hopes for the return trip. Again, the film was decent, but definitely not worth the accolades that it has received on IMDb.
1-11-06 Okay, I have seen it again and am not impressed. I don't see anything exceptional about this film and it isn't entertaining either, so you might want to save some of your time and skip this one.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Half of the movie is great
Pulp Fiction is definitely a movie that can be watched over and over so that you can pick up more of the giant metaphor that Tarrantino puts on the screen. I can't give this a perfect score, however, because the more I watch this movie, the longer and longer the Thurman-Travolta story seems to take. The portions of the movie with Samuel L., John Travolta and Bruce Willis are by far the most interesting portions of the story - there is better dialogue and what lies behind the curtain is more substantial. The hour or so with Uma Thurman is simply not very interesting. It bogs the story down, bringing the movie almost to a halt. I like the way Tarrantino directs the film and the screen play is excellent, though there is so much swearing that it is almost difficult to overcome. I don't know anyone that swears nearly as much as these characters do (typical of anything QT has written) - newsflash Quentin, outswearing a Marine doesn't add to a story.
Much better than average, but not exceptional. *** of ****
American Splendor (2003)
Well-made movie about an Average Joe
First, let me admit that I am not familiar with the American Splendor comic series (nor do I plan to become moreso), so consider the following with that in mind.
While sitting through American Splendor, I kept marveling at how well-directed this film was, but wondered why on earth I am watching a movie about Harvey Pekar. The transitions between the actors and their real-life counterparts allowed for one to be impressed with the quality of the acting and provided some seamless transitions between the story and the story as remembered by the people who lived the movie.
The bottom line, though, is that Harvey Pekar's life is an example of an ordinary person. Constantly wondering what I was supposed to learn from hearing this man's story, I gave up a few days after viewing the film, because I didn't/don't see anything there. Pekar had 15 minutes of fame in the 80s and writes about ordinary blue-collar life. Why am I supposed to care? I don't, pretty much for the same reason why I don't watch reality TV - no substance.
This was a well made movie, but a VERY boring story.