Change Your Image
Valley_Of_Fire
1. Billy Wilder
2. Woody Allen
3. Martin Scorsese
Top Ten Films:
1. 12 Angry Men
2. Hannah and her Sisters
3. The Apartment
4. Citizen Kane
5. Pulp Fiction
6. Annie Hall
7. Rushmore
8. Rocky
9. Double Indemnity
10. Singin' in the Rain
Least favorite movie:
Police Academy 4.
Reviews
Cinderella Man (2005)
The more you've lived, the more you'll like it.
Cinderella Man starts with a quote saying that the story of Jim Braddock is the most amazing story in all of boxing. By the end of the film, this is self-evident. This is a wonderful film. You would have to be very cynical to not feel empathy towards the characters and feel moved by their struggles.
That being said, there are a few problems with the film. The first is that it provides very little historical context. The film starts when boxer Braddock (a pitch-perfect performance by Russell Crowe, who seems born and bred in New Jersey) is at his peak, never getting knocked down in the ring and earning enough money to live comfortably with his family. It then cuts to four years later, after the depression has hit and he has become a failure, losing matches to the point where he is disbarred. He is now living in a small, drafty apartment. You overhear that he started losing matches and hasn't been able to book a fight, but for a while, it takes some time to get orientated in his new life, four years after his success.
Later on in the film, a crisis involving his friend Mike Wilson and a "Hooverville" shantytown in Central Park also fails to provide context. It is unclear what happened in the park, how involved Wilson was in it, and who Wilson even really was. He goes from almost beating his wife in one scene to supporting Braddock as though nothing ever happened in the next. We understand Braddock's values, but not Wilson's. Was he a communist? Unclear. Did he cause the riot in the park? Was it even a riot? The movie doesn't explain this well, and nothing is done with the subplot, expect to suggest that it's hard to lose loved ones, especially during the depression. But like the starting quote, this is pretty self-evident.
The other major problem with the film is in its depiction of Max Baer. True, in real life he was flamboyant, but was also deeply grieved by the deaths of the men he killed in the ring. In the film he makes sexist and offensive comments to Braddock in the ring and in a restaurant, which turns the final scenes in a way that's false in comparison to what came before them. Braddock fights because he wants to know that they have a say in their life and that he can make things better for his family. The most powerful scenes in the film involve the hits to Braddock's pride (having to go on welfare, begging his friends for money, not being able to provide for his family), not the hits to his face. But when it comes time for Braddock to face Baer in the ring, the way Baer is depicted turns the outcome to our wanting to see this offensive man punished by the moral Braddock. We want to see Baer get eaten when we should want to see Braddock get fed.
In the classic film Rocky, Rocky wants to go the distance to prove he's not a bum, the same way Braddock wants to have control over his life. But in Rocky, it almost doesn't matter if he wins or loses so long as he proves something to himself. In Cinderella Man, it matters who wins, and it shouldn't. The film would be more powerful if Baer, like the electrician who had to do his job and turn off Braddock's electricity so he didn't become unemployed too, was portrayed as a decent, or at least more complex, character. If he didn't want to hurt Braddock, but knew he had to do everything he could to keep getting fights- and more money. Even if this meant hurting a good person like Braddock. The film is moving because it shows people doing things they have to do but don't want to: begging, stealing, turning off someone's power. It is not moving because an obnoxious character is defeated.
These faults do not detract from the film as a whole, though. It is wonderfully acted by the entire cast. It is beautifully shot, with all the period details exact. Director Ron Howard is wise in not forcing the emotions. When Braddock's wife, played by Renée Zellweger, learns that Baer killed two men in the ring, the film simply regards her as she processes this information, begins to fear for her husband, while trying to keep her composure. This is much better than her knowing about Baer from the start, and only deciding to stand by her husband in the end. Also notice the way Crowe plays the scene where he asks for money from his former friends. He's ashamed of what he has to do, but too proud to not do it and send the kids away. Watching him try and keep his dignity is far more powerful than it would be if he broke down and cried over his bad fortune.
Even though the film ends happily, it is draining. It is rare that the movies give us a character that is as completely deserving of a happy ending as Braddock. He struggles through the whole film, and the audience struggles with him. And if you have kids or ever had to take a blow to your pride, it just makes the film that much more powerful.
It's nice to walk out of a movie and not feel guilty about going to see it. I doubt that anyone other than the most cynical would walk out of Cinderella Man and regret going to see it. The only thing I felt guilty about was that I could go home to a house filled with food and warmth, a luxury denied to Jim Braddock. And he never even complained about it.
Old School (2003)
Several funny parts, but Wilson is mis-cast
I wasn't prepared for how vulgar Old School was. Not that I minded, mind you, but some of it was so frank (for lack of a better word) that I was thankful many times that I went to see it with a friend, and not with my parents.
That being said, let me say that there are several big laughs in Old School, along with some that don't work, some that are missed, and some jokes that are drawn out too long.
The best thing about Old School is that the characters don't mature, or learn life lessons in it. It saves time, and allows for more jokes. The plot in a nutshell: A man (Luke Wilson) arrives at his house to find his girlfriend cheating on him (with two guys), so he moves away, near a university (so close he's practically on it). His friends (Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn) decide that it would be a good idea to turn his house into a frat house, and hold wild parties, etc etc etc. But then, the dean, who the guy and his friends had mocked in college decides to try and kick them out.
What I like about the plot is that everyone likes the idea of a frat house, except the dean. Wilson's character, who we would expect to hold out for a while, is among the first in the jelly tub wrestling with nude women. The problem with the film is the casting of Wilson. He is a talented actor, as seen in films written by his brother Owen (Rushmore etc.). He is above the gross out material in this film. He never really makes us believe his character's actions. He does stuff, but we just don't feel his character's heart is into it. The other actors, on the other hand, are perfectly chosen.
Mr. Vaughn shows that he is good in all kinds of comedy, from low-brow humor like this to higher-brow like Swingers. He doesn't have a lot of the best scenes, but he makes what he's given work. His character is always seen with his child, and many jokes are made when he has his child cover his ears ("earmuffs!") so he can swear. I can imagine a guy doing this, so its funny. Far funnier than movies where the kids scream out profanity for laughs.
But Will Ferrell is the major find. Almost everything he does creates a laugh in this film, and even if this movie doesn't make a lot of money, he'll be in demand. He does do some gross stuff, the scene where he streaks, for example, is played out too long, and is too graphic.
I said earlier that there are missed jokes. Some of them are so obvious that they're practically on the tip of the actor's tongues. For example, there's a scene when Ferrell's character is debating how he should dress up his adult blow up doll. A little girl and her mother are standing outside the house, everyone is embarrassed when they hear him. Doesn't take a genius to have the little girl cry out "I wanna play with the dolly!" or something like that.
I'm going too in depth into the film. For the most part, its very funny. There are a few scenes that are unneeded (the previously mentioned streaking scene is funny, but goes too close to full frontal nudity)- the orgy scene at the beginning could do without the showing of hard-core porn. And the scene where topless girls wrestle is sexy, but isn't needed as well. And the class where women are instructed on how to do a certain sexual move wasn't funny. Sometimes its much funnier to imply something than to show it. That's something the filmmakers needs to learn.
If you like low-brow humor, you'll find a lot to find in this film. It will not be up for any awards, it will probably not be remembered in 10 years. But if what I said earlier, about graphic sexual situations and the like, doesn't bother you, then you'll probably like it a lot. But if you don't like sick humor, you won't like it. If you like anyone in the cast you'll probably like it- keeping in mind that this isn't like Wilson's more mature work. I debated between giving it a 6 & a 7. If you laughed at the preview, you'll laugh in the film. Just don't go see it with your parents.
It Came from the Sky (1999)
Don't laugh, they did their best.
Let me put it this way, whenever my family wants a film to compare a movie to, we pick It Came From the Sky. If we watch a poor movie, we'll say, at least it wasn't as bad as the one with the airplane.
It really is a testament to the saying that Hollywood "chews you up and spits you out" when you consider the amount of well known people in this film- Chris Lloyd, John Ritter, Yasmine Bleeth (of Baywatch fame) among others. Mr. Lloyd is a wonderful actor, he has done great work in such films as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest- this film is not in the same ballpark.
The plot is hard to describe, or hard to understand, it starts with a feuding family (at least I think it does, it's been a while since I've seen it), and a mentally retarded boy. One day the boy is playing with a toy airplane and (oddly enough) a plane crashes into their house. (After that scene, the airplane isn't mentioned again) Did the boy perhaps cause the crash? The movie doesn't say, because that would make for a more interesting film. Rather, the film is about how the resisdents of the house become friends with the people in the plane (Llody and Bleeth). I guess there's an interesting idea behind it all, the people bring several things to light about the family (the boy is becoming sexually aware- in a rather gross scene, the father (Ritter) has been rebelling against his wife by eating meat in private and so on). A film could be made out of that idea, but it would be more interesting if they just appeared at their door, rather than crashing into their house.
Maybe the two people are angels, maybe the boy willed them, maybe they're the reason he's obsessed with aliens, airplanes, things that come from the sky. The film doesn't answer these questions, which is admirable, some films are better left unsolved, so the audience can discuss them. This one doesn't fall into that group. It would be better if it wasn't so outragous (we don't need to see the imprint of an erection to know that its there for example), and if it had a better script. The actors are good, but not in this movie. I don't reccomend seeing this film, unless you like the people in the cast, or like this kind of film. I didn't like it, but other posters have. I guess I was too busy wondering about the fact that if the people are angels, they're not very good ones. Sure they might've helped the family, but they left them with a big hole in their roof.
Gangs of New York (2002)
A good film, but not anyone in the cast/ crew's best.
Martin Scorsese is the right director for GANGS OF NEW YORK, but his style is wrong. His trademark style is a quickly moving camera, an over-the-top approach, all set to modern music. While this style is very effective for films set in modern day, RAGING BULL for example, they do not translate well to a story that takes place roughly 150 years ago. Take for example, the brutal opening battle sequence between the "natives" and the "foreign hordes." The battle is cut very rapidly (which works), but electric guitars are used to undercut everything. While their jarring notes makes for an effective scene, in hindsight, it is not very appropriate when you consider that this is, above all things, a period piece. A telling of history. The visuals do enough.
The story is concerned with what happened in New York City from 1846, when two gangs went to war, led the Priest Vallon (Liam Nelson) for the Irish immigrants, and William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis)- dubbed "Bill the Butcher"- for the natives. The film continues on until 1863, the draft riots, which left countless people dead (the film tells us that "we never knew how many New Yorkers lay dead"). Perhaps this is sort of a fault in story telling. I myself did not know much of anything (fine- nothing) of these events, and the film does not give a very good background. Throughout the film, I wasn't very interested in the personal struggle, because I didn't understand the big picture. Maybe if it had started out with some information like Gladiator did, to set the mood and give some background information, I would've been able to focus easier.
The smaller picture is a simple revenge story, the historical aspects of the film are in the background. The main plot is that when the Priest is killed during a battle, his son (played as a grownup by Leonardo DiCaprio) vows revenge on his killer- Bill the butcher (I thought that he was called the butcher because of his brutal fighting style, turns out that he actually is a butcher, and in one scene, shows Leo how to kill a pig). DiCaprio is good in the lighter scenes of the film, such as the playful ones with Cameron Diaz, playing a pick pocket- but he lacks some of the anger needed to make the audience understand his motives. In one scene he saves Bill from an assassin (he is under his wing at this time), because he wants to be the one to kill him I guess. If he had been so bent on revenge that it was clear that nothing would get into his way, even an ally, it would make for a more powerful (and interesting) character.
If I have made the film sound bad, then I have miswritten this review. There are many, many good things in the film- they easily outnumber the bad. Looking at the film is a treat, the sets (all real, none computer generated I'm told) are all perfect, and the photography is beautiful to behold. Howard Shore's score is often fitting, but fellow fans of Lord of the Rings will notice several similar melodies. And the actors give good enough performances that you can easily believe them in their roles (Diaz, while an odd pick for the role, does a good job. And DiCaprio's failures (mentioned above) are few and far between, and not enough to ruin the film's pace.). Daniel Day-Lewis gives such a good performance that he will not doubt be honored come award time, and his performance will earn the honor of being parodied and studied for a long time to come. And I love how there is a flash forward of more than 100 years at the end of the film- and how Scorsese isn't scared to show the World Trade Center in modern New York, indeed, this is one of his themes: the draft riots were a horrible time in NYC's history, but look at what rose out of it. September 11th was another horrible time, imagine what can be created now.
This film has been in Scorsese's head for 20 years... I wonder what aspect of the story appealed to him the most. Probably the historical aspect of it- he, of course, loves New York, this film is a tribute to the city's strength. I'd doubt if he was drawn to the revenge story as much. That part seems unworthy of a film maker such as Scorsese, and the somewhat cliche ending is as well.
The film is long, and the time goes by slowly in some scenes, (though fast in others). The Two Towers is about the same running length as Gangs of New York, but I didn't notice how uncomfortable my seat was until it was over. In this movie, I did.
I'm wondering if I should recomend this film. If you're a fan of Scorsese, or anyone in the cast, you should see it. If you like historical epics, or lavish productions, you will appreciate it. The things that bothered me will probably not bother you. If you think you'll like it, you probably will. But if you don't think you will, you won't. I liked it a lot, but didn't love it. It'll probably be a while before I watch it again. I gave it an 8 out of 10, but that's only because there is no 7.5
Annie Hall (1977)
Without a doubt the GREATEST romantic Comedy EVER MADE!
Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL is my favorite movie of all time. Simply because it manages to keep the perfect pitch throughout it's length. The film is very funny throughout, without repeating jokes, or even going down the road to sick toilet humor. It is hard to say why I and thousands other people like this movie so much, I think its because the more familiar you are with it, the more you like it. Some movies, even great movies get old the more you watch them, but with Annie Hall, you get excited every time you know a great line or great scene is coming up.
The movie is filled with great moments, not surprising considering that the plot not only centers around Woody Allen's character's relationship with Diane Keaton's character (Annie Hall), but with themes of obsession, religious differences, loneliness, and if there's a price to pay for love. Every romantic comedy made since this movie owes it something (especially "When Harry Met Sally"), and if you are familiar with a lot of modern sitcoms, especially the TV show "Friends," you'll notice how much was derived from here. (For six million dollars a week, you'd think they could afford orignal scripts) There are thousands of scenes and lines in the movie worth calling attention to here, but if you haven't seen the movie yet, you deserve to see them without expecting them, so I won't mention them here.
Annie Hall won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director (Woody Allen), Best screenplay written for the screen (Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman) and for Diane Keaton's performance as Annie Hall. Her performance is without a doubt one of the greatest performances ever done by an actress, actually, but anyone, take notice of the scene where Annie tells Alvy Singer(played by Woody Allen) that she misses him. She starts crying, then hits her bed with her fist. She loves him, but is ashamed of being weak. That is such an honest, subtle, and perfect motion that I really start to care for Annie at that point-and so does Alvy, because we start to overlook her flaws (her carelessness, immaturity, and her naivety and so forth), and really start to care about her. Woody Allen also gives a good performance, but unline Ms. Keaton, he knows he's performing (when he breaks the forth wall by talking to the camera), but still gives one of the best monologues I've ever seen. (notice how his hands never stand still, yet never make the same movement twice- every physical comedian should take note of this, from Jim Carrey to Groucho Marx)
I first saw this movie when I was in 7th grade, and laughed uproariously at the animated segment, and all the one-liners and jokes (its amazing how with this amount of jokes, every single one of them works, none miss their mark) when it was over, I rewound it, and started over again. Now that I'm older, and hopefully more mature, the movie is even better, and the last scene never fails to inspire me, and the jokes that used to make me laugh, still do, with the added bonus of my also getting the more subtle ones as well.
Woody Allen is one of the all-time great film-makers, and this is his masterpiece in my opinion, there are no flaws in the script, even though it has flash-forward, flash-backs etc, etc. He makes one movie a year on average, and he writes, directs, and usually stars in them too. If there's one person who I'd want to continue working, it'd be him. If you want to start watching Woody Allen movies but are unsure where to start, Annie Hall is a great place to start, its modern, yet a classic.
If I haven't made the movie sound as good as it is to me, that is my fault, and not the movie's. If you haven't seen this movie yet, I suggest you go out and watch it now, making sure you don't read its IMDB quote page. Best to watch this movie, and be wonderfully surprised. I would be surprised if you don't love this movie. You've have to have a heart of stone to resist it. It is very funny, quite moving at sometimes, inspiring, perfectly acted and written. It deserves it's awards, and it's place on AFI's 100 best movies of all time (I think #32). Movies like this are the reason cinema was invented.
NOTE: If you like ANNIE HALL, here are some other great Woody Allen movie you might enjoy: Manhattan, Love & Death, Stardust Memories, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Crimes and Misdemeanors.