Jeff M.-3's Reviews

United 93 (2006)

10/10

1 May 2006

Roger Ebert said in his review that this "is not a film that knows any time has passed since (Sept. 11)." That gives the movie more gravity because it doesn't know what will happen next, and makes the situation that much more immediate.

"Powerful" is a good way to describe this movie. There are a lot of emotions involved, and little character development, but we don't need to know the backgrounds of the people on the plane. They found themselves in a horrible situation and did their best to find a way through it.

The camera work adds to the realism of the movie, but can be distracting at times.

For those who say it is too soon, that may be just the reason this movie is needed - so we don't forget. If/Since the networks don't want to show Sept. 11 anymore, someone else has to step up and make us remember. Director Paul Greengrass and the cast of this movie do that.

7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Breakfast Club (1985)

3/10

Uh, so where's the "great movie"?

16 January 2005

Warning: Spoilers

If a spoiler is defined as how the characters make out in the end, there is probably one or two here.

Now, I was flipping between a few things when I saw this on TV so I didn't see every minute of it, but I can describe my reaction in two words: Thoroughly unimpressed.

I just didn't like the direction the story was going, almost from the get-go. Why, at 17 minutes in, would any of them have any reason to cover for the guy who took the screw out of the door? It went more or less downhill from there, and just when I thought it was about to redeem itself and become this "great" movie everyone who was a teen in the '80s says it is, it didn't.

Bender is the type of student that would torture me in high school, if such a stereotype had actually existed, and to that degree. My high school self would have wanted to alternately try to beat him up (and fail spectacularly) or go tell the supervisor what was going on. He comes falling through the ceiling? Yeah, sure, like I'm going to cover for that.

The movie revisits, or perhaps imposes for the first time, the "values" that supposedly everyone has in high school, meaning none. Look down on virginity, smoke pot, and swear enough to turn March air in Illinois even bluer. Oh, and you can find a guy/girl by getting a total makeover and/or being one of the chicks who dig bad boys.

Anthony Michael Hall's character was alternately overexploited (is that redundant?) and underused. OK, so maybe a flare gun was all he had access to, not an unreasonable position for 20 years ago. But the revelation of that during the conversation pretty much ruined whatever the movie had going for it at that point. Then he willingly writes "the essay" for the group? Mm-hm. And on top of that, they expect me to believe that the nerd can dance. If you think about it, his situation is one of the most dated parts of the movie, since today he would probably have been shuttled off to a psychiatrist, put on Prozac, reported to the police, or all of the above. (The 'underused' part comes from the gymnastics one must do in the script to get a nerd in detention in the first place, which is where the flare gun came in, and then there's the problem of what to do with him after that.)

I'm not dismissing the possibility that I just don't "get it" for generational reasons, as high school came 15 years later for me. I'm also not dismissing the possibility that I don't "get it" because perhaps my experience and angst aren't like most people's experiences and angsts, or because being in a small high school doesn't lend itself to as deep divisions in the student body. (And Saturday detentions aren't part of the discipline.)

If anything, this movie has confirmed two things: I am most emphatically not a member of Generation X, and I should've know I probably wouldn't like this movie given my loathing of that other alleged symbol of teen angst, "Catcher in the Rye."

15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Garfield: The Movie (2004)

7/10

Decline, and maybe even fall, of the Garfield empire

13 June 2004

After engaging in an effort to find a good review - much harder than I ever imagined it would be - and finding the movie listed at the bottom of the barrel, I felt almost an obligation to go see this on opening day - either to prove the critics wrong, or to get fodder for a scathing letter to Jim Davis. I ended up with neither.

The problem, admittedly, is what some critics have said: Garfield is old and busted. A walk in the theater revealed the new hotness: Harry Potter. The movie is, sadly, 10 years overdue. Just look at the long listing of Garfield TV specials, most of which are 1982-1992, and "Garfield and Friends" began in 1988. It was delayed, I read, because Jim Davis believed the technology wasn't there. It was; it's called regular animation. Garfield is a 2-D medium, either on the comics page or on animated cels. But, I guess, since no one does that anymore, 2004 couldn't have a 2-D Garfield.

The problem is not necessarily with the CGI Garfield and his actions, although some of the characteristics displayed are not those I associate with the cat. The problem is with the supporting cast who look, by and large, not like their animated counterparts. Who made Odie a wiener dog with talent? Why is Nermal Siamese and not the "world's cutest kitty-cat"? Shouldn't Arlene be a lot nicer to Garfield? (By the way, since Odie has no speaking lines in either the strip or show, the movie's similar lack is accurate.)

The set design, in bright hues, can't decide whether it's in the real world or in a real-life comic strip. Breckin Meyer ("Inside Schwartz") is just not the right fit for Jon. He's too likable to be our comic-strip loser. While I can accept the whole high-school-crush of Jon and Liz on each other (something definitely not in the comic strip), the payoff would have been better had the tension not vanished prematurely.

The plot arc is not necessarily departed from all of Garfield. It fits more in the mid-1980s, when the strip actually did have week-plus-long plots. In one series, for example, Odie DID leave home, and Garfield DID follow him, and they ended up running away from the circus together. Those citing ripoffs from "Toy Story" and other similar movies should note the 1982 TV special "Here Comes Garfield" shares many elements of both movies and so this movie doesn't take from Pixar, but rather from itself 20 years ago.

The comments that the strip has declined are not off-base. It's times like this that remind me where I got my sense of humor. It came from the politically neutral wit and social commentary of the late 1980s - Garfield (both newspaper and television), Calvin and Hobbes, even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That's why I can't disagree with this line from the Chicago Tribune: "He's been declawed; the swiping humor and Monty Python meanness of his early years have been surgically removed for a PG audience, and with it, most of his appeal." And that hurts.

Today, Garfield is trapped in a one-day-only three-panel set of running gags that still make me laugh, but don't capture the same attitude of years past. However, I still prefer it to the overtly political commentary that you see today, found in strips like "Boondocks" and others. The Garfield calendar on my desk still gives me laughs.

As for the product placements, yes, they were a bit much, but at least part of the time they were well integrated. To those smacking the "dated" references, it was a relief compared to "Shrek 2" to see them come naturally instead of chock-full and fast-pitched.

Had a full-length movie been released around 1994, done by the same animation team that did "Garfield and Friends," with Lorenzo Music doing the voice, it might have been wonderful. Live action does not suit the characters; the departure from 25 years of what we have known is too much. The animated half-hour shows of the 1980s work so much better that they might have been able to make more money simply by scrapping the film and putting out DVDs. I hear "Garfield and Friends" is going to be out on DVD, a TV show that captured the essence of the strip at its peak so much better than this movie did. Those that liked the show should buy that, and only rent this movie.

I wish that the networks would put "A Garfield Christmas" and some of his other specials back on the air; it would build more interest in him. I still love the character. The movie doesn't deserve to be ranked as low as it is by the critics. At the same time, though, it reminds you of how good it might have been. As Garfield has attempted to extend its "brand" by licensing to Cub Scouts and 4-H, you can't help but think it's grasping for an audience that never became fans like the previous generation did.

6/10, because I can't bring myself to demolish a character that still makes me laugh, even if his best work was from when I was young enough to be in the target audience. And even that rating is being nice compared to those who want this cat and its empire put to sleep.

58 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Garfield: The Movie (2004)

7/10

Not as bad as the critics say, but not the best idea

11 June 2004

After engaging in an effort to find a good review - much harder than I ever imagined it would be - and finding the movie listed at the bottom of the barrel, I felt almost an obligation to go see this on opening day - either to prove the critics wrong, or to get fodder for a scathing letter to Jim Davis. I ended up with neither.

The problem, admittedly, is what some critics have said: Garfield is old and busted. A walk in the theater reveals the new hotness: Harry Potter. The movie is, sadly, 10 years overdue. Just look at the long listing of Garfield TV specials, most of which are 1982-1992, and "Garfield and Friends" began in 1988. It was delayed, I read, because Jim Davis believed the technology wasn't there. It was; it's called regular animation. Garfield is a 2-D medium, either on the comics page or on animated cels. But, I guess, since no one does that anymore, 2004 couldn't have a 2-D Garfield.

The problem is not with Garfield, although some of the characteristics displayed are not those I associate with the cat. The problem is with the supporting cast who look, by and large, not like their animated counterparts. Who made Odie a wiener dog with talent? Why is Nermal Siamese? Shouldn't Arlene be a lot nicer to Garfield? The set design, in bright hues, can't decide whether it's in the real world or in a real-life comic strip. Breckin "Inside Schwartz" Meyer is just not the right fit for Jon. While I can accept the whole high-school- crush of Jon and Liz on each other (something definitely not in the comic strip), the payoff might have been better had they not kissed after the dog show.

The plot arc is not necessarily departed from all of Garfield. It fits more in the mid-1980s, when the strip actually did have week-plus-long plots. In one series, for example, Odie DID leave home, and Garfield DID follow him, and they ended up running away from the circus together. The comments that the strip has declined are not off-base.

It's times like this that remind me where I got my sense of humor. It came from the politically neutral wit and social commentary of the late 1980s - Garfield (both newspaper and television), Calvin and Hobbes, even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That's why I can't disagree with this line from the Chicago Tribune: "He's been declawed; the swiping humor and Monty Python meanness of his early years have been surgically removed for a PG audience, and with it, most of his appeal." And that hurts.

Today, Garfield is trapped in a one-day-only three-panel set of running gags that still make me laugh, but don't capture the same attitude of years past. However, I still prefer it to the overtly political ultra-liberal commentary found in strips like "Boondocks" or some others.

Had a full-length movie been released around 1994, done by the same animation team that did "Garfield and Friends," with Lorenzo Music doing the voice, it might have been wonderful. Live action does not suit the character; the departure from 25 years of what we have known is too much. The animated half-hour shows of the 1980s work so much better that they might have been able to make more money simply by scrapping the film and putting out DVDs. I hear "Garfield and Friends: The Complete First Season" is coming out, a TV show that captured the essence of the strip at its peak so much better than this movie did.

I wish that the networks would put "A Garfield Christmas" and some of his other specials back on the air. I still love the character. The movie doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is by the critics. At the same time, though, it reminds you of how good it might have been.

7/10, because I can't bring myself to demolish a character that still makes me laugh, even if his best work was from when I was young enough to be in the target audience.

23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shrek 2 (2004)

7/10

Throw up the spoofs and hope they stick

24 May 2004

"Shrek 2" often tries to follow the pattern of movie spoofs designed as spoofs, and this doesn't necessarily mean following its own predecessor. There aren't many scenes without a foreground or background reference to either movies or pop culture. Be assured that even if you're trying to look while following the movie, you won't get them all.

At times I think the DreamWorks crew looked at a scene and thought "What can we add in here to spoof and/or skewer something else?" Thus a couple of blatant references to Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" (two of the elves get changed into a clock and a candelabra, a shot even more pointed than the dancing furniture) and somewhat gentler pokes at everything else from Garfield to "Lord of the Rings" to Love Potion Number Nine.

This spoof-shoehorning can be overwhelming at times, and sometimes it seemed the movie would have flowed better if we could just sit back and watch the main characters do what the plot wants them to do. The songs are more forced in this one too as DreamWorks tried to walk the line between the old Disney formula and Shrek's spoof-o-matic. (Disney itself has not followed the formula for about a decade, ever since the villain stopped getting his own song, but I digress.) The one song that did work was "Hero" near the end, which I enjoyed despite the slightly formulaic nature of the sequence (hero defeats obstacles, meets villain, final confrontation).

As for the other aspects of the movie, there are reasons this film got a PG in relation to the target audience of children. Edgier, however, does not necessarily mean "hipper" or "more entertaining".

I give "Shrek 2" a 7.5, in part against the overwhelming advertising but more because a 9 would have come without the overwhelming satire attempts. I did enjoy Puss, who stole the few scenes he was in. I wish Julie Andrews' character had more, but then we'd miss the payoff of the king's botched deal with the Fairy Godmother. Besides, how many other times can you get John Cleese and Eddie Murphy in the same movie? (That makes me wonder how such a spoof-laden medieval movie with John Cleese can get away without a single obvious reference to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", but the table was most likely already full.)

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Joe Somebody (2001)

8/10

A shining example of life imitating school

28 July 2003

Boy likes girl. Girl shoots boy down. Boy weeps inside.

Boy gets beat up by bigger boy. Boy's dignity is destroyed.

Everyone else cheers for boy to beat up bigger boy.

Sound familiar? It only happens in schools everywhere across the

nation, and it happens in "Joe Somebody" too.

Perhaps the most striking thing I saw in this is that no matter how

old you are, life is going to be like what you went through at school.

For example: *The repeated snipes at "the A/V guy" by Greg Germann. The use

of that phrase was a nice way (in a manner of speaking) to show

how nerds get no respect. *Becoming popular by being willing to beat up someone who

everyone else wants beat up. At the same time, even before the

fight, it was about building self-confidence by those expecting you

to do something. It's what would happen after you do or don't do it

that is left unanswered. *Crowding around the schoolyard to watch the fight. As with "the

A/V guy" comment, the symbolism is something to consider.

Coming from the ranks of nerds as I do, this movie had a lot for

me. It occasionally came too close to home, but there was

enough humor to keep it at a safe distance. Overall, it was a

decent movie, of course with a happy ending, which is more than

can be said for many people in real life. (I think that may be the

most unbelievable part of all, but this is Hollywood here.)

On the other hand, it can be seen as very pessimistic commentary

on life: If you're a loser, a nerd, stuck where you never expected to

be, you really don't have a way out unless something bad

happens. Bullies may be punished, but the authorities can't

restore your dignity. And even when good things begin to happen,

you must watch for ulterior motives. Joe didn't get promoted for his

work, he got promoted so he wouldn't sue. (Although suing may

be the 'civilized' thing to do, with the only fighting done by lawyers,

that just seems stupid at times.) And that is a lesson pessimists

like myself will find in this movie.

And be sure to catch the side effects of those drugs you're taking.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Finding Nemo (2003)

Not Pixar's best

22 June 2003

For once I find myself in a minority. For once, I was expecting

more. For once, I am undecided about getting the DVD of a Pixar

film.

Description of characters and plot points are plentiful in other

reviews, so I'll cut to the chase:

The general idea was good, execution was decent, but too much

went wrong. Dory and her lack of short-term memory (how does

she remember she has that problem?) were more annoying than

endearing. Jar-Jar Binks provided more comic relief. I had more

fun with the tank residents speaking dentistry-ese with the pelican.

I never quite "got" Nemo's disability (if indeed there was

something to "get"). The only purpose I saw in it was to give Marlin

an extra excuse for being overprotective - what, having your wife

and all your other children killed isn't enough? - and to give Nemo

a kinship with Gill. I am not acquainted with Albert Brooks enough

to compare his fish character with humans he played. But to be the

character that Marlin is, given that they are very small fish and there

are very big things out there with very pointy teeth I can't blame him

too much. (Then again, overprotective parents have been around

forever as movie devices.) Willem Dafoe did an excellent job as

Gill.

I expected to see more of the sharks, especially given the line a

shark says in the trailer that he doesn't in the movie. I wanted to

see more of the sharks, lots more. But I did like that whole chase

sequence sparked by the whiff of blood.

And after all those scenes with the turtles, sounding like they were

straight out of the late '80s/early '90s, I was extremely disappointed

to not hear a "Cowabunga!" or even a slight "Teenage Mutant Ninja

Turtles" reference. (Four young turtles could've had eyes in the

four TMNT colors, for example.) Pixar never seems to miss a shot

at a movie reference, this one fell in their lap, and the pun was

ignored. The other movie references that were included,

especially "Psycho" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" were

great, and I did get a kick out of the shark being named "Bruce" (cf.

"Jaws").

Finally, the seagulls were absolutely hilarious. I wish there had

been a way to give them more screen time, because those scenes

were of the Pixar we know and love.

The animation and supporting characters carry this movie more

than the plot, and I'm disappointed that Pixar spent so much time

on the former while seeming to have problems with the latter.

6/10: It's not necessarily "Swim away! Swim away!" but not "I've got

to find Nemo!" either.

PS: I recently read a newspaper article that was half-devoted to

pointing out that "Nemo" was the name of the captain in "20,000

Leagues Under the Sea." If this needs to be pointedly discussed,

something's not quite right with the world.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Duct Tape Forever (2002)

You should at least find it handy

11 January 2003

Warning: Spoilers

The US premiere of "Duct Tape Forever" was on Iowa Public

Television Jan. 11, in tribute to the contributions Iowans give to

PBS. This is how I got to see the movie. The idea of Possum

Lodge enthused about shooting for third place in a duct tape

competition is exactly what you would expect the cast of "The Red

Green Show" to do.

I was a bit disappointed that the regulars of the show didn't get

much action in the movie - Red and Harold are the stars. Harold

learns a little about himself and - well, to say what he gets at the

end would be a spoiler. I wondered about the idea of a full movie

without little self-contained clips interspersed throughout the show

the show itself is structured kind of like "Sesame Street" used to

be - but it worked pretty well.

Although I'm disappointed that the supporting cast didn't get to

shine as much as I would like, this movie does what it promises,

which isn't much. If you don't know about the show, you might

have a problem with it, but then again, you just may learn why it's

so endearing.

7/10, and keep your stick on the ice.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I'll Be Home for Christmas (1998)

5/10

Insulting the Great Flyover

22 December 2002

Jonathan Taylor Thomas quit "Home Improvement" to do stuff like

this? Bad move.

The plot in and of itself might have had a chance of working. It's

obviously been done before. However, the events along the way

this time seem not only too contrived even for a movie. Not only

that, it manages to play to stereotypes of 'The Great Flyover' along

the way. I am speaking mostly of the "largest Bavarian village in

Iowa," an attempted amalgamation of some of Iowa's ethnic

heritage and attractions like the Amana Colonies. It seemed less

of a reflection of history than an attempt to make fun of the rubes in

the middle of nowhere (as various locations were referred to in the

movie).

The whole act to get JTT to this community in the first place was no

less ludicrous. Who will be carrying a donor liver in a bus? And

would Edelbruck (or however they spelled it) have a hospital to do

such transplants?

In addition, someone needs to take geography lessons. How did

they err? Let me count the ways: -Interstate 15 was marked "East" with a non-interstate marker _on

a two-lane road_. -The Colorado deputy said they were doing "79 in a 65" although

Colorado in 1997/98 had already raised the interstate speed limit

past 65. -Why in the world would anyone going to New York from Iowa go

through _Wisconsin_?? -There were quite a few hills in the scenery on the trip from Iowa to

Wisconsin, but that is (slightly) realistic. However, the scenery

also shows them using two-lane roads a lot, which would be very

unlikely if you're trying to get to New York as fast as possible. (But

if you're going to NY through Wisconsin you're not trying.)

Jennifer Biel was about the only redeeming factor in the movie, but

I say "about" because her conflict between the two boys didn't

seem like a conflict at all. Had she slugged him after he kissed

her, then that's something. But she was apparently beginning to

"like" Eddie, who didn't do anything along the trip to merit any

change in her opinion of him from when they started out.

But all films must come to an end, and so JTT comes back, gets

the girl back, and as the cliche goes, "learns the true meaning of

Christmas." Mm-hm. This, after he started the misadventure in

the first place after promising to help athletes cheat on a test.

Six minus one for insulting Iowa gives it 5/10, and that's because

I'm in the Christmas spirit of giving.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spider-Man (2002)

9/10

Exciting, well-put-together story almost cheese-free

3 May 2002

I haven't had any contact with Spider-Man since the newspaper canceled the comic strip in 1993, so I went into this without many if any preconceived notions.

The credits at the beginning are a little long, but when it starts into the story it starts right away. The first thing that happens is the trip to the lab.

As Spider-Man first develops his senses, he seems to get a handle on them a bit faster than you might expect, leaping from roof to roof the next day. Perhaps it's a little too effortless, but you get the idea that he is trying out his new powers (and it takes him a bit to master the web thing).

His costume in the wrestling ring is hilarious, although you later wonder just how it goes from sweatpants to Spandex. The filmmakers tie the wrestling story nicely in with Uncle Ben's death, as the robber Peter lets go past him at the arena kills Ben in a carjacking.

After Osborn becomes the Green Goblin, the internal conflicts of personality are portrayed very well.

Spider-Man's fight to become a hero is attacked by the editor of the Bugle and others in the city, and the headlines certainly help show that. Peter Parker does a great job of taking pictures of Spider- Man, if you know what I mean.

The city scene at the end with Spider-Man swinging between the taxis to the skyscrapers seems like a bit of SFX ego-building, but it also helps show that Spider-Man is here to stay. If you watch fast enough, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are still in the background. (Note: A mention of "the bombing" in an earlier scene is NOT a reference to Sept. 11, but to the Green Goblin's first attack on Quest Aerospace.)

The character of Peter Parker himself is a wonderful Everyman, full of human emotions, and Tobey Maguire is cast well. Kirsten Dunst is a good MJ, and that first kiss is one to linger over. In a slight twist at the end, MJ is confessing to Peter her feelings, and he sort of brushes her off, because it's part of his curse that those he loves are in danger. But the comic books tell us how that turns out. Willem Dafoe is at his best when holding dialogue with himself, in the Jeckyll/Hyde good/evil scenes 'with' the Green Goblin.

It's alternately a movie to sit back and think, and sit back and enjoy the action. With great power comes great responsibility; use your power to enjoy this movie wisely. 8 1/2, maybe 9/10.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Left Behind: The Movie (2000)

6/10

In a movie about faith, faith to the book is thrown aside

13 June 2001

This is not a discussion from either side about ulterior motives or anything else. This is a criticism of how the movie does not make itself faithful to the book in many, many aspects. It truly is a great series to read, but you wouldn't know it from the movie.

In the movie, events are abbreviated so much it is hard to tell where it came from. It severely abbreviated Hattie's obtaining a position at the UN and Carpathia's rise to power. Yes, Williams is still a journalist, but making him a TV reporter instead of a newspaper writer throws the plot for a loop. The death of the President, as reported on the O'Hare TV, directly contradicts the book and compromises any hope for a sequel as he plays a major role in it. At least they kept the Steeles in Chicago. Plus, there are errors in the general filming, not to mention credits that need a proofreader.

As a movie in and of itself, it might get 8/10, but as a Christian movie in a secular market, it drops. As a movie based on a book, it gets 6/10, and only that because the books are so good they overshadow the movie.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle (2000)

10/10

IMDb users declare Moose and Squirrel Season; Counter-Vote!

13 June 2001

As I write this, the weighted rating is 4.4. Ouch. That said, my reasons for the counter-vote:

Although the original show was past my time, the CBS affiliate used to carry it at 6:30 AM, and I would get up specifically to watch it. So I have seen the show. I think that the movie does a good job in being faithful to itself and its "brand" of humor. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.

The movie is supposed to be irreverent! It's supposed to make fun of everything! Generals Store, Foods, and Admission are exactly the gags the original had in mind. If it (as some say) lost the "road trip" part of the movie, there wouldn't be much to have fun with now, would there? It's not exactly biting social commentary, but the idea of television turning people to zombies, well, it's not a new concept, but R&B takes it to a different level. The only part that I thought was a bit of a stretch was how Bullwinkle got to New York, but it was still funny.

I especially enjoyed the self-referential bit in the courtroom, which I think does its part in quelling (some of) the critics. It's the rules of pulling cartoon characters into real life, only in this case, the movie makes its own rules.

It may not be the best movie ever, and it may make De Niro a mockery of himself, but 4.4? Come on, people. It's not THAT low. Maybe those who liked it in their comments didn't vote, I don't know. Ordinarily, I'd give it my standard 7, but it's just screaming for me to help in any way that I can.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Titanic (1997)

10/10

One of the Best Ever

11 April 2001

Warning: Spoilers

**Standard covering spoiler warning, just in case.** Like many other films I have seen and then read the IMDb comments for, many seem to either love it or hate it, although in this film the extremes are not as vivid. I happen to, for this movie, fit in the former category. I saw it five times in theaters, most with excellent theater sound and picture quality, but if you want to really see it, you have to have seen it in all its glory on an IMAX screen with the surround sound (Branson, MO, Aug. 1998). THAT was a cinematic experience.

I have been interested in the Titanic story since 1994, and I never tire of learning or talking about it. I more or less fell over myself (and my parents) to get to it in its first ten days. On December 27, 1997, I was not disappointed.

The CG work with the ship is spectacular, especially the flyby with the water and the smoke. That takes a lot of work, and it was pulled off nicely. Not to be outdone by that, the CG work in the sinking phase of the movie was great too. Give the hand to Digital Domain. Especially that guy that hits the propeller. Another big hand goes to the art and set departments. Can other historical movies claim to order the same carpet and lifeboat davits as those of the original? Lots of little things add up, although there were as many equally little things that were missed. This movie certainly has the biggest goofs page I've seen, but more on that later.

As a male, I certainly am not one of those who went to see it for Leo and/or any part of a love story. However, it does provide an effective vehicle (however flawed you wish to claim it) for connecting the present to the past and showing all aspects of the ship. The love story is not the central issue. The story of the ship and the hope, glory, and tragedy in it is what you're looking for. The story serves to get you from first class to third, from the forepeak (although passengers didn't go there) to the stern, and the boiler rooms to the bridge. As far as DiCaprio and Winslet themselves, well, I don't have enough acting 'experience' to be declarative on that.

The interplay with the historical figures is done well, for the most part. Some of us more than others may know exactly who is being discussed or referred to with their historical context, e.g. Colonel Gracie with the women he was helping when Rose and Jack come out of the Second Class stairs. Getting to know Mr. Andrews was a good thing to put in. Of course, you have to realize that the cast of characters during the dinner scene, although all real people except for Rose, Ruth, Jack, and Cal, would most likely never have dined together. However, it does serve the purpose of putting the fictional characters in with history.

This film is not without its errors. I mean, check out the goofs page. Many are your run-of-the-mill continuity errors, but others are legitimate factual errors that, despite the best efforts of Cameron and crew, happen. A film based on a true story with photographic and witness records, not to mention a couple volumes of Senate testimony, will do that. Those who are not at least moderate scholars won't catch most of them.

Goofs particularly grating to this buff are Astor at the Grand Staircase at 2:15 (he was crushed by the funnel), Molly Brown being called Molly before the sinking, the inordinate amount of women on Collapsible A (there was one, Rosa Abbott), and the Brown/Hitchens standoff, which Brown actually won and did get the women to row. On a side note to that, though, you will notice in Boat 6 both Frederick Fleet and only one first-class man, who was ordered into it because he was a yachtsman and they only had one seaman on board. That's a historical detail not lost on me.

The soundtrack is worth every note played on it. I think the movie as a whole earned every Oscar it got, and/but was rightfully denied the ones it did not. The fifteen minutes that begin when the band finishes playing are, in my opinion, one of the (if not THE) best fifteen-minute sequences in movie history. (But some may not say that doesn't mean much because there are a lot better five-minute sequences out there. To each his or her own.) Anyone wondering why this movie didn't hit the AFI 100, by the way, it's because voting was cut off at movies made in 1996 and earlier. Obviously a December 1997 release doesn't make the cut.

If you want to see some of the more-known deleted scenes and some of the not-known deleted scenes, and would like to know more about the ship in general, I recommend James Cameron's Titanic Explorer CD. If you are interested in the ship's story as a whole, this is a valuable addition, and movie clips interspersed throughout make it that much more real.

Looking at the rankings, you can see that it's tops (10-35%), it's great or good (8/9-25%), or it's not worth the 3:10 of celluloid it's printed on (1-11%). AS I said earlier, to each his own. I loved it, and it earns its ten. For the naysayers, well, I also love The Matrix, and according to some of the reviews I read I'm a mindless hack for that too.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cast Away (2000)

7/10

I don't get it (the wings, I mean)

18 March 2001

Warning: Spoilers

Spoiler alert, just in case.

I think I may have missed something in the way of symbolism for the ending, but then again, I see a lot of other people who liked it wonder about the ending too.

Misc. Thoughts: First, we start out with about a two-minute commercial for FedEx. Not bad in and of itself, since apparently it eventually has something to do with the plot. And I may have missed it (Dad said it was there), but I would have appreciated a line with when we were supposed to be - for example, "December 18, 1995" or along those lines. You only realize that the beginning isn't the present day when you see the older CNN logo and the dead crewman's 'gravestone' end with 1995. Seeing Chuck and Kelly at the end sparked more emotion than I've had for a movie in a long time. Also, Silvestri is great (he did Back to the Future, after all), but how does music in a small fraction of a 2:15 movie amount to an Oscar nomination? I'm confused. Finally: That 2:15 did fly by. I could not get myself to leave the theater.

What I did not understand was the whole wings thing. So this lady in Texas makes a LOT of sculptures with this design. Point? When Chuck first picked up the package, I thought the wings meant "rush delivery" or "overnight air" or something, a FedEx mark of some sort. When he didn't open it, I wondered "What is significant about this package?" He had no qualms about a "Dissolution of Marriage" paper. Holding on to that package, to me, made absolutely no sense. Why did this have to be delivered? What was so sacred? What about it made him paint that design on his sail? _Why did it save his life???_ I'm sure I'm missing something, but I certainly am unsure of what.

7.5/10 because the ending, specifically the last five minutes, sucked, and I'd like an explanation about the wings. Too many unanswered questions and ambiguities. I don't get it. I just don't get it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jeff M.-3

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed