Change Your Image
AEBarschall
Reviews
Twenty Feet from Stardom (2013)
Beautiful, fascinating, presents civil rights issues
What I learn from this movie is that much of the most prominent pop and rock music that I have heard in recent years owes its sound to a fairly small group of black women who have never been credited, who earn substantially less than the white men who hire them, and who live in obscurity, just as this movie lives in obscurity.
There are some male and white singers in this group, but they are mostly black women, who learned to sing in church and who typically improvise the harmonies they sing.
The most musically moving moment was when Lisa, who I think they said has been the lead female vocalist in the Rolling Stones since 1989, improvised some harmony with four copies of herself singing. It was the most beautiful, ethereal sound that I can imagine. I wish they would do an album, or at least a single, just of that.
They had some big name performers, like Stevie Wonder, Sting, and Mick Jagger, speaking and praising these women -- still you can be sure that the women weren't making anything like the money that those performers are making.
They bring up the point of personality and its influence in the roles that people play in music. They say that some people prefer to sing harmony, while others prefer to be soloists. I would say of all these women that, perhaps, they lack a certain X-factor in how they present themselves, but they have lovely personalities -- definitely the kind of person who you would want to bring home with you.
I am reminded of the words of Marian Wright Edelman. "There is no end to the good we can accomplish if we let someone else take the credit." Still I wish these women got more credit
Oblivion (2013)
Fun, clever, not too deep
This was a fun movie, with a bit of cleverness in the plot
Now, if you did not previously know that Tom Cruise loves airplanes and motorcycles, this movie would surely tell you that. A very large part of the movie is devoted to filming Tom on aircraft and motorcycles.
Andrea Riseborough achieves the odd effect of looking as if she is CG when she is real. I was absolutely persuaded that she was CG at one point, but now I don't think so.
Tom also prefers younger women. You see that in this movie. The love interests are much younger than he.
I think there is a danger when the performer has this much control over a movie for the thing to be too narrowly focused on what he personally enjoys.
Nevertheless, it was a fun, peppy movie -- a lot of action, good photography, good special effects, all that stuff we expect from a contemporary Hollywood movie. It's not Shakespeare or anything, but that's not what it's for, not to be intellectual or overly thoughtful, just a diversion.
I saw it in 2D. I'm not sure 3D was available, but that would be a good idea, given the number of scenes of aircraft going through complex spaces at high speed.
The Company You Keep (2012)
Totally awesome
I loved this movie.
The acting was superb.
The action was enthralling.
I loved the closeups of the older actors' faces focusing in on all their characteristic wrinkles and blotches. Their faces have such character!
Little Jackie Evancho did extremely well also. She was actually the one who got me to see this movie, because I am a fan of hers and I saw some interviews of her discussing it. Ironically, given that she (age 12) was my reason for going, I ended up most loving the fact that older actors were showcased and that, given their enormous experience, they were brilliant. As an older person myself, I like seeing movies were older people are featured.
The young reporter was perhaps a bit less convincing than the seasoned actors, and that was partly due to the plot.
I found very weird that this movie was rated R. Apparently there was one scene, which I did not even notice, where the "f" word was used several times, resulting in the "R". Otherwise there was no nudity and no significant violence -- just suspenseful chase scenes
This Is It (2009)
loved it!
I bought the DVD. I just keep watching it over and over. I love the music. I love the dancing. I find MJ riveting. I never was a fan of his before he died, but now I'm hooked.
This was the concert that was going to redefine what the word "concert" means. The special effects planned, the costumes and the various dance performances are nothing short of astounding. The music is hypnotic, perfect.
The eccentric, first truly multimedia composer, greatest fine arts genius since Mozart -- at work, surrounded by the world's greatest dancers. What a privilege to be able to see this! How frustrating that the concert never took place! I still cry frequently over the loss of this wonder of our times.
I hope we can all get together to make his song, "Heal the World," the official international anthem of the United Nations. The world might actually be healed if we could unite behind a single song.
Farinelli (1994)
beautiful and frustrating
This was a fascinating story. I find myself very drawn to the kinky drama of the castrato singer -- and longing to hear what his voice really sounded like. I've been listening to recordings of Mozart's "Queen of the Night" aria recorded by women and boys nowadays and frustrated that everyone who sings it sounds strained and harsh -- wondering what Farinelli, the greatest singer in opera history, would have sounded like singing it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the voice or the body in this movie were accurate.
A castrato singer would have the lightness of a boy's voice. Sometimes the synthesized voice in this movie captured that, but generally it was too heavy. I sort of imagine a castrato soprano sounding more like Michael Jackson in "Little Susie," only probably higher.
Also, this actor had a prominent Adam's apple, heavy bony structure around the eyes and jaw, and rippling muscles all over his body. A castrato, a person who had lacked testosterone since childhood, would lack all these things. He would have an angelic face, with childlike eyes -- more like the boy actor used for Farinelli before castration. The castrato would also have few visible muscles -- and certainly no visible Adam's apple. He might have enjoyed sex, but would have been unlikely to be so aggressive as this character was. Also, the idea that castrati could not achieve climax, as indicated in this movie was likely wrong. Moreover, not having gone through puberty, the castrato would likely have had a more gentle, childlike personality than this character, also endearing him to women.
Women reportedly fainted when listening to the castrati sing. No one would have really fainted for the character in this movie. He just did not have the kind of eyes or the kind of voice to make a woman faint. It's as if the people who did the movie just were clueless.
At the high point of the castrati, they were castrating 4,000 boys a year in Italy, supposedly. Presumably they were drawn to all that barbarism because the voices were really extraordinary, not merely high but of a quality to be drug-like in their beauty.
I hope someone will try again -- and do better on the casting and synthesized singing this time. I want to be drawn into the vocal experience that was so amazing that they would castrate little boys to achieve it.
Lakposhtha parvaz mikonand (2004)
disturbing
I actually did not see this movie, but heard about it from several sources after my kids saw it in, of all places, a retreat sponsored by my religious group.
I would caution others that there are scenes of despicable depravity and horrifying despair in this movie. This movie may be about children, but is not *for* children.
I really question the rating here. Disturbing material is shown in an abstracted or dream sequence fashion. This apparently results in the PG-13 rating. This standard makes no sense at all. My kids have a good imagination. They know perfectly well what was abstracted out. My 17 year old son, who could not stand to sit through the whole movie, and wishes he had never seen any of it, insists that R or NC-17 would be a more appropriate rating.
Both of my kids (ages 14 and 17) shut themselves up for hours in the bathroom playing with computer games after seeing this movie to try to numb their minds from being upset.
I don't want to mention the specific upsetting scenes, because I don't want to be accused of putting in a spoiler, but some of them are openly referred to in the discussion.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
people who make themselves miserable
Acting: great photography: great sex scenes: great believability of story: pretty good overall: very sad
However, why was this movie so sad? Was it so sad because these men couldn't cohabit publicly in a committed relationship? I don't think so. If they had been able to have the ranch that Jack dreamed of, it wouldn't have been all cuddling and swimming naked in mountain streams. They would have had to work hard and would have started bickering over personal habits, chores, and bills, just like the all the rest of us do with significantly others; and eventually they probably would have broken up, just like all the rest of us do.
What was sad was that they couldn't feel happy and grateful over having the cool relationship that they did have. I walked out going, "Gee, I don't think I've ever had any relationship that was as passionate, intense, and meaningful-seeming as theirs." That's probably because I live in the real world, not in a movie. And real guys get passionate for a while, but then they get bored and distracted by something else. You only get passion like that in forbidden affairs.
All of these people, whether gay or straight, who are drowning in self-pity because somehow their relationship doesn't measure up to what they see in the movies, need to realize that movie relationships are no more real than Harry Potter is. Gay people need to realize that an awful lot of, if not most, straight people feel disappointed in their relationships and fantasize about better people or more intriguing sex acts. And those straight people also go out and have affairs and consort with prostitutes as well. This is not reserved for gay people.
Also, most real gay couples don't look like these two actors, either. When I was done watching the movie, I stood up and looked around and saw a real life gay couple. They were both pudgy and bald, with matching shirts.
So, instead of feeling grateful that he and Ennis have these great, passionate vacations together, Jack Twist tortures himself the rest of the year, because he imagines that it would be possible for him to be on vacation like that all the time. A lot of people do that.
Make gratitude lists. Count your blessings. Avoid wallowing in self-pity. Live clean. Eat healthily. Get plenty of sleep and exercise. Work hard. Pray and/or meditate a lot. Then you will be happy. Having the relationship you are dreaming of is not a long term solution for finding happiness.
Batman Begins (2005)
A lot of racing around
I mostly wanted to see this movie because I wanted to see Katie Holmes, since I've never seen her before. She was very beautiful and pretty convincing in her role, though not enormously so. I don't think she's one of our top actresses, but she isn't terrible either.
I thought the guy who played Batman wasn't very good looking. He has this peculiar, overly narrow nose & flattish face. Why him? His acting was pretty good, though.
There was an awful lot of racing around in the movie, particularly in the bat-mobile. I found watching this a bit fatiguing.
There were some positive parts of the movie. I particularly liked the guy who played the only executive at Wayne's company who is actually loyal to him. I also liked the Ninja training scenes.
Overall it wasn't abysmal, but I don't know if it was the best way to spend a couple of hours of my time.
War of the Worlds (2005)
loved it
I just loved this movie. It managed to be a high action movie, which nevertheless showed sophisticated character development.
The attitude of the ex-wife, as she invades her ex's apartment and criticizes everything there, is just so perfect. Being in the middle of a divorce myself I can appreciate the subtle way they tell the story behind the divorce, without any actual narrative. The way the kids react to Cruise's character also fits precisely their ages and situation. The acting is superb. We can see that Cruise & probably also Spielberg know from divorce and custody battles.
The many other actors were simply extraordinary, especially the crazed fight for the sole working car, the scenes of masses of despairing refugees and the distraught faces of extras caught by aliens. I particularly liked the way people of different races were mixed together in suffering.
As a dedicated Cruise fan, I have been complaining a great deal that Cruise insists on making guy flicks, rather than chick flicks, even though the vast majority of his most loyal fans are women. Curiously here, despite this clearly being a guy flick, i.e. LOTS of explosions, there are some distinctly chick flick aspects in the interactions of the characters. I was also glad to see Cruise acting with kids. He does well with that.
My biggest admiration for Tom relates to his kinetic genius. Therefore the scenes of him running were a treat. Tom runs so very beautifully. There was even one scene which showed that he can still do that super-fast run that he showed us in "Risky Business," when his character there was late for school -- over 20 years ago. It's amazing that Tom is still able to run like that. This man dances as much as he acts -- with every muscle in his body.
The special effects were especially well done. The CG characters were not plagued by the kind of blurry, jerky motion that one often sees.
If you dissect this movie into 2 parts, the guy flick part and the chick flick part -- you see that the guy flick part has a solid ending, but the chick flick part is a cliff hanger. I do wonder what is going to happen to Ray.
Sahara (2005)
McConaughey is gorgeous
A guy once told me that you can tell a guy flick, because there has to be at least one explosion, which is very Freudian if you think about it. This one has MANY explosions. Moreover, except for Cruz, there are no female characters, other than extras -- definitely a guy flick.
The plot is a bit hokey, especially the science fictiony parts. That doesn't prevent it from being a fun movie, though. There are lots of great shots of McConaughey's perfectly sculptured body; and of course of Cruz's as well.
McConaughey plays a typical Hollywood action hero. He regularly overwhelms large groups of armed men alone with his bare hands, or with just one other guy. He has no trouble outfighting guys bigger than he is. Hundreds of bad guys armed with machine guns can spray bullets in his vicinity, but he won't get hurt. On the other hand, if he fires a pistol a few times, all the bad guys die. He wanders on and on in the Sahara and doesn't seem to get thirsty, etc.
One troubling thing is that all the guys McConaughey hits are black. Now the movie is quick to be politically correct. There are good and bad black guys. There are good and bad white guys. Still there is the implication that only a white guy can go save the damsel in distress, and the depiction of what Africans are like is not too uplifting.
This movie is also incredibly violent.
The theatre wasn't very full, perhaps because it was a week night. When I got out, one of few other audience members, another woman, remarked to me "Penelope Cruz could have whatever man she wanted and she sure knew what she was doing." I smiled broadly. Yes, obviously perfect looks are important to her.
I think Cruz does a very good job of acting, by the way. I find her very believable, in addition to being stunning. Can't necessarily say the same for some of the guys.
All-in-all, though, it was a fun watch, not very high brow, but fun.
We Don't Live Here Anymore (2004)
Very explicit
The first thing that struck me about this movie was wondering why it was rated R. I thought it ought to be NC-17. The woman next to me muttered "You have to be 40 to see this movie." It seemed almost like non-stop sex scenes.
The frustrating part about these sex scenes was that no one seemed to be having any fun. The participants looked miserable. Perhaps this is even more a reason why it should have been NC-17. An impressionable young person seeing this movie might decide that the best course of action would be to go join a convent or monastery and never get married or have children.
Another frustrating thing about the sex scenes was that the participants, except for Naomi Watts, just didn't seem all that attractive. Granted they were physically fit, but they weren't exactly titillating to watch.
This movie has been touted as having excellent acting. OK, maybe so. And certainly there were some insights about why a marriage might get into trouble. BUT what ever happened to entertainment? This thing was dismal, dismal, dismal.
A bizarre thing about the movie was that there were a number of scenes that had a terrible sense of foreboding about them. I kept thinking some disaster would happen, like the kids getting killed, but no catastrophe manifested. I kept getting terrified over nothing.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Go see this movie
Wow! Someone who actually thinks less of George W. Bush than I do! Amazing!
I was expecting this movie to be sort of depressing, since it was about George W. Bush getting us into the war in Iraq, which I have always heartily disapproved of. Instead, to my surprise, there were many funny moments. I laughed more in this movie even than in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." It was as much satire as documentary.
If the information revealed here is accurate, it is definitely a film that everyone should see, really pointing out new levels of corruption within our government that even I had not expected.
Now there were a few unfair techniques, where shots of Bush looking fairly goofy were juxtaposed with serious or tragic shots. But of course, Dean opponents did no less to him when they broadcast his shouts at a rally in Iowa, without including the background noise that he was shouting over. Still, most of the film was presented in a more straightforward way, revealing a great deal of truly inspired investigative reporting.
This movie really shows how foolish people have allowed this fiend of a president to hoodwink them. I just hope that the people who really need to see it actually do, and that it's not just died in the wool Bush-bashers, like me, who go and see it.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Excellent
This movie was much less faithful to the book than the earlier movies. Many details were left out and others were changed. The changes were well done, though, as they made the movie flow smoothly and be much more dramatic. On the whole, this was the best of the three.
The actors playing Harry, Ron & Hermione are really coming into their own. They do a great job together.
The new actor playing Dumbledore is better than the earlier one. Of course, it's sad that the first one died, but it's nice that we've got this actor now.
Unfortunately, if you haven't read the book, you're not going to understand some of what happened, because critical linking facts were left out. But, well, you should read the book.
One thing that was interesting was that the book was much sunnier than the movie. The movie is dark, suspenseful, and frightening, while the book was still in the more cheerful mode of the earlier two. Perhaps the director realized, from reading the fifth book, that the series as a whole was going to get darker, and figured it would be better to foreshadow that, rather than making the change of mood so abrupt as it actually is in the books.
Another interesting thing is that the marketing people are clearly positioning this as a teenage movie rather than a kids movie. All the previews at the beginning were for teenage type movies.
I also noticed, by the way, that there was much more than the usual amount of advertizing before the movie started. They must have realized in advance that they had a great captive audience.
I am a bit concerned about what they're going to do for the fourth book. They had to leave out so much to make this movie. The fourth book is almost twice as long as this one. What massacre of the story will be involved, do you suppose? Perhaps they'll have the foresight to make the fourth book into 2 movies. I've often thought that Rowling herself ought to be dividing up these later books into more than one volume.
Shrek 2 (2004)
Fabulous
This was a great movie, better than the first one. It was very amusing the way it turned all the fairy tale stereotypes backwards.
There was an incredible amount packed into the film. This might be one you would want to see several times in order to make sure not to miss anything. Also, if you don't know your fairly tales and your Mother Goose, the whole thing is going to go over your head, as you won't recognize what those characters are or why they're there. I wonder whether our modern kids really know all those old stories, or whether you have to be an older person to understand the thing. My kids did like it, though, and better than the first one -- mostly, I think, because there was less romance and more conflict and suspense in this one. Kids don't usually like to see a lot of romance.
The character development was decent, not particularly cartoonish at all. The main characters are genuinely noble in their self-sacrifice and their trueness. They come off better than your typical cartoon characters.
I found out later that I made a mistake by leaving before the end of the credits as apparently something happens afterwards that I missed, so beware.
Stitch! The Movie (2003)
Not as good as the original
I really adored the original. This one was not as good -- just a pale echo. It was not as creative. The character development was missing. The music wasn't as moving. I also don't think you can understand it if you haven't seen the first one.
Vague spoiler:
The ending of the thing just turned into a Pokemon rip off, which was very disappointing for something that started out as such an original movie the first time around.
Warning to parents of video game addicts: the DVD has a trial version of the video game. The video game, by the way, appears to be the sort that would appeal to the pre-school set.
I was surprised by this. I thought the original movie was sophisticated enough to appeal to a broad range of ages. My 13 year old loves it -- granted he loved this movie, too, even though I thought it was pretty flat.
The Princess Bride (1987)
Light, amusing -- a cross between action and stand up comedy
I rented this video to watch with my 2 sons, who are 10 and 13. All of us enjoyed the movie, though none of us absolutely adored it.
I liked the way they interrupted the movie at exactly those points where my boys were becoming uncomfortable to show the little boy who was listening to the story -- as told by his grandfather -- and also becoming uncomfortable. It was uncanny that at the very moment where one of my sons might walk out of the room, the little boy appeared saying he did not like the story. This helped my kids sit through the movie.
This also helped prevent the suspense from getting too high for the kids.
The suspense was also kept low, because the characters kept pausing to make humourous remarks. There was a kind of odd tension between the movie trying to be an action movie and also trying to be stand up comedy.
A lot of the lines were quite funny, though none of us was rolling on the floor.
The two leads were incredibly good-looking. I'm surprised they haven't become more famous since then.
One thing I didn't like was that the lead woman was depicted as so helpless. At one point the hero was battling giant rodents and the lady just watched. She picked up a large stick but didn't even bonk the creature who was attacking the man she supposedly loved. That was a sexist depiction. I can't imagine any real woman doing the same.
This is not a movie that should be watched for its great acting or profound message. It's light and fluffy for a low stress, unintellectual experience. It is very suitable for elementary school age children -- and even my middle schooler seemed ok with it.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Where you are affects how you see a movie
Possible spoilers -- ending discussed in vague, general terms
This movie is a moralistic one with a lot of important messages, but, dominantly, that it is important to learn to take satisfaction in a life that may not seem as glamorous or as exciting as the lives that others lead.
In this movie, George Bailey (James Stewart)learns that lesson. He isn't as wealthy as some. He's never gotten to travel, BUT he has done a lot of good. He has a home. He has a family. He has lots of friends. And he has helped many, many people to live better lives. He comes to appreciate himself and appreciate what he has.
This was not a fun movie for me. My husband is in the process of suing me for divorce and breaking up our family, precisely because he has failed to learn the lesson that this movie shows George Bailey learning, the lesson that life is not perfect, but it is still a blessing, and you can learn to take joy in something that is not everything you dreamed of. I don't think this movie is going to shake him out of his dogged determination to break up our family, either. As a result, the movie seemed pretty empty to me. There is no angel coming down here to set things right. There aren't hundreds of eager friends rushing in and trying to help.
Moreover, it's a little hard to imagine a real person who has had as much positive effect on the world as George Bailey did. I mean his character is a real angel. How many people saved the lives of two others when they were just children? This just isn't very realistic.
On another topic, my son, who is 10, had a really hard time with the part of the movie where George Bailey is shown how horrible his hometown would be without him. My son found this part too upsetting and demanded that we fast forward through it to get to the happy ending. People had told me that this was a suitable movie for children, but I don't agree, based on my son's reactions. This movie lacks sex (the bedroom scenes are filmed in PJs) and has very little violence, but that doesn't mean that it is suitable for children. It's really an adult movie. It shows real, adult suffering. The period of suspense is too long for a child.
Moreover, the kinds of social interactions that are shown are much too sophisticated for a child to understand. My son just couldn't follow it without a lot of questions answered -- and that was a problem because the sound quality on the video we rented was really lousy, so we couldn't hear even with the volume turned up on max, especially when my son asked questions.
Now for some trivia
I can't help noticing in these old movies that people talk with an odd lilt. The only person who seems to talk normally is James Stewart. Does anyone know, do the other actors talk the way they do because American English has changed with time? Or do they speak the way some Hollywood acting coach taught them to speak to meet studio expectations?
Another thing that I notice about this film is that they have Jimmy Stewart playing George Bailey from high school up through middle age -- and also Donna Reed playing the same range of ages. They just don't do the very young ages convincingly.
Another thing I notice about these older films is that there are a lot more roles for older actors. More modern films don't seem to show very many people with grey hair.
Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)
A still life
I never previously considered what it would mean to make a painting into a movie, one frame into thousands; but here someone has done it and very well. You find yourself transported into the Dutch Renaissance and somehow it looks just like all those old paintings.
The characters seem all to live in a perpetual still life. There are long, slow views of motionless faces. Everything seems to happen in slow motion. The main character is mostly mute and expressionless, or perhaps she is just mostly frightened. We stare constantly at her face, as if at a portrait in an art gallery.
The way the girl lives is horrifying. She has only one dress, which she never is able to remove or wash, since she has no other, though she spends her time washing the clothing of her employers. Fortunately, because this a movie and not live, we cannot smell her. Her hands and arms are covered with sores, because she spends all her time washing with harsh lye soap. She sleeps in a space which makes Harry Potter's room under the stairs look luxurious. Her father has some disgusting condition which has caused him to lose all his fingers and his vision and covers his face with sores.
It is hard for me to figure out why all the men fall for this girl (the butcher, the artist, the decadent art patron) or why the children try to destroy her but then there would be no movie otherwise.
The actress does not really look like the girl in the painting, being older and having different features, but you get the illusion, because the headdress is the same. You come to appreciate how much of our impression of a person's appearance comes from their hair or hat.
The whole thing is mesmerizing, despite the slowness of it but don't go see it if you love action, because there is not much of that.
The music is lovely.
This is the quintessential art movie. No doubt one could write intellectual treatises about it forever.
Chicago (2002)
Whatever happened to musicals that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?
The dancing, singing, acting, and costumes were all fabulous. Nevertheless this was not a fun movie. There were five main characters and of them only one could be considered a reasonably good person. The other four were just bad through and through. The one good person was stupid and epitomized the `good guys finish last' mentality. There was nothing uplifting here at all.
Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger, Richard Gere and Queen Latifah are all incredibly charismatic and creative performers. I find Renee Zellweger particularly intriguing. She has that funny, puffy look to her face, which makes her atypical of Hollywood actresses. She isn't classically beautiful like Catherine Zeta-Jones, but she's riveting and looks very vulnerable, which makes you sympathetic to her character, despite the fact that her character is a terrible person who doesn't deserve any sympathy.
An odd point about this movie was that the one good guy was ugly and the four bad people were very attractive. The bad people had especially beautiful costumes and great song and dance numbers, so that you just get all wrapped up in them and you just want the good guy to disappear. He's so embarrassing. It's sort of like those nineteenth century stories where Satan is depicted as the most attractive character, who is always seducing everyone.
I basically wished I could fast forward through a lot of the most distressing parts of this movie. Unfortunately, I was watching this in DVD and didn't know how to make my DVD player do that. What ever happened to the days when musicals showed attractive, good people and the good people triumphed and you felt all warm and happy when you were finished watching them?
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
An incredible amount of fighting
There will be at least one spoiler in this review.
The movie is mostly about battle scenes and armies massing. After a while, I just held my hands up into the air to block my view of the endless fighting.
Still, I guess it was good. I really got that sense of terror that soldiers must feel in battle, especially when the greatly outnumbered forces of the good guys faced the armies of the bad; and also you had to respect what kind of bravery it must take to ride into a huge crowd of armed hostiles. Never having actually been a military person, I can't say as I've ever had the opportunity to feel this much empathy for armed forces in battle before.
Nevertheless, I kept thinking that in a real war, we don't face orcs, trolls, oliphaunts, and Nazgul, we face other human beings and killing them is not glorious like this. The kind of courage that the men in this movie aspire to is seductive, but a false lure to violence for the viewer. You find yourself wanting to should "Death" with the riders of Rohan and charge into battle, no matter whether there is one available or not. I found particularly offensive the way the elf and troll keep counting how many they have killed as part of their competition. I suppose this really is in the book, but the glorification of violence is just disgusting.
It was intriguing that many of the battle scenes were so chaotic that it was impossible to guess what was happening until it was over and one saw who was lying dead on the field. I suppose that real battle scenes must be that way too
The special effects were extremely well done, mostly. I found the oliphaunts and Nazgul particularly believable. The trolls and ENTS were not quite so.
The sets were absolutely magnificent -- especially the city of Minas Tirith -- just WOW!!
I do take a bit of issue with the photography, though. Some of the sweeps and pans made me queasy, because of motion discomfort. We were just flying around *too* much. This could have been handled better.
The scenes in Mordor were almost exactly the way I had imagined them from the book. It was amazing to me that Peter Jackson saw them just as I had done.
I can't say as I've ever understood the selection of the actors and actresses for the elves. These people are supposed to be just unbelievably beautiful/handsome. The actresses chosen for Arwen and Galadriel, while not ugly, just don't rise to the occasion. Moreover, Elrond is simply butt ugly. Legolas is good-looking, but not beautiful. The only guy in the whole movie who really should have been an elf was Karl Urban. He was the only one with the looks. That actor should have changed places with the guy playing Legolas.
Now I would like to discuss the spoilers -- and the total outrage of this movie, namely the omission of the battle for the Shire. The trilogy of The Lord of the Rings is focused on issues such as struggling with temptation, personal growth, and finding strength within oneself. The battle of the Shire really shows the transformation of the hobbit characters and how strong they have become. Moreover, the missing battle shows what happened to Sauron. A teenage friend whom I brought to the movie wondered where Sauron had gone. Well, duh, they left that out.
NO PETER JACKSON YOU CAN'T LEAVE THAT OUT. IT'S AT THE VERY HEART OF THE STORY! AUGGH!
Similarly, the death of the witch king was poorly handled. The book makes clear that his death is what routs the opposing forces in the battle for Minas Tirith, while that is not at all clear from the movie. You really don't understand his significance or the greatness of the feat of killing him by watching this.
Anyway, it is a great spectacle despite its flaws.
The Last Samurai (2003)
Magnificent
This was the first film I ever saw that was rated R for violence alone. There was absolutely no sex and the most nudity we saw was Tom's chest with some scars added, his legs, and the female lead's shoulder. I was a bit disappointed with this lack of titillation, but also surprised that I enjoyed watching the movie without it. Normally, I hate violent movies. For instance, I detested the violent scenes in Mission Impossible II, also a Cruise movie, where violence was really glorified and seemed to be presented for entertainment value alone. I think the difference here was that violence was not glorified. Cruise's character is haunted by the violence he has committed. He fights because he knows no other life, because he can see no way out. This view of violence is one that I can tolerate to watch, despite the almost non-stop fountains of blood erupting from the unfortunate departed. I suppose those fountains are what made the thing R. It's really curious how those rating people think.
You could tell it was a really good movie, because there were a number of us riveted to our seats during the credits, watching the names of very minor participants roll by against a black screen in the vain hope that maybe some picture would reappear.
The photography, costumes, scenery, and music were all just magnificent.
The people who say that this is some kind of knock off of "Dancing With Wolves" are just harping on a superficial similarity. Anything can remind you of anything else if you think hard enough.
There were a couple of weak points. For instance, there seemed to be only one female character, other than extras, that is. That one was the woman who takes care of the hero after he is wounded. She is very beautiful and acted very well, but, gee, Tom, don't you know that a lot of your fans are women? I mean you could have managed to put a few more of us in the movie.
The other weak point was at the beginning. Tom, at that point, is supposed to be playing a moldering, defeated alcoholic. Somehow Tom doesn't ever manage to look defeated. He just has too much strength and vibrancy. It always comes through. Maybe it's supposed to, but somehow I think not. He does manage to look really sick when he is wounded and recovering in the Samurai village, though. Maybe, it's because we get to see his bare legs then. There's something about Tom's legs and feet. They're just so small next to his enormously muscular torso. They really make him look vulnerable.
Still, most of the movie showcases what Tom is best at: movement, energy, piercing looks of deep concern, anger, and tears when appropriate. This is what keeps me coming back to his movies, just being glued to those amazing images of him. I hope he keeps going strong for a long time.
Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
Really funny, but also intellectual
I went to this movie with my husband and 2 kids. The kids are 10 and 13. We all enjoyed it. I doubt that little kids would understand even half of what goes on in this thing. It's pretty complex in terms of layers of references to other movies and cartoons and self-satire. Still even little kids would probably like what they would understand, because of the colorful cartoon characters and obvious slapstick.
The movie completely does not take itself seriously. It pokes fun at itself and its own plot.
The movie brings back most (if not all) of the familiar Looney Tunes characters, exactly the way they always were, and works in human characters. The human characters are at once cartoonish and subtle, at some points being superficial and at other times almost standing aside to look at themselves. The cartoon characters have remarkable abilities, particularly entering into 2D pictures, which works very well. It's also fun to see the big, muscular human hero battling big muscular cartoon bad guys, even though a lot of the time he's clearly faking it. Perhaps the fact that he's clearly faking it in some ways just makes the movie more fun.
There are many obscure references to other cartoons and movies. You would have to have seen a lot of shows to understand it all. I know I missed some things.
The scenes and gags sometime moves bafflingly quickly. It would probably make sense to watch this several times to catch everything.
The movie remains a bit sexist, with women only barely creeping out of traditional roles, but this is perhaps consistent with the traditional atmosphere of the movie.
I am not sure why Steve Martin is always standing in a peculiar bent backwards posture. Perhaps this makes reference to some cartoon character whom I don't remember. Trivia nuts should be able to figure out this type of puzzle.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Good art, but way too violent
The special effects are great; the scenery, camera work, sets and costumes are magnificent; & I find no fault with the acting.
I can't say that I enjoyed it though. It would be hard to imagine more violence. The battle scene just goes on forever and ever. I just dread the battle scene in the next one, which is supposed to be even bigger and longer.
In his original works, Tokien manages to create some wonderful lyrical interludes. The scenes in the forest with the Ents were just delightful in the book, but they are cut short here, much to the movie's detriment, while the battle for Helm's Deep is stretched out. This was the wrong choice.
Of course, there are some other bizarre changes in the plot, as noted by some of the other reviewers.
The orcs are just hideous, which they should be, of course. You do see the courage it takes to fight them. It does make me a bit sad, though, that they look so much like burn victims. I think burn victims are stigmatized enough, without being seen as looking like orcs.
I saw this one on DVD. There was a whole extra disc with documentaries about the movie, trailers, and even a short directed by Sean Astin (Samwise), showing some of the people whose faces you don't get to see in the main movie, particularly the woman who doubles for the short scenes and the man who doubles for the tall scenes. It was cool that Sean had the idea of letting us see their faces, while mostly we see their backs.
In the features, somehow Dominic Monaghan (Merry) and Billy Boyd (Pippin) seem more like Hobbits off screen than on. This is due to the directorial decisions to focus on the violent parts, rather than the interludes. It's a pity. These two are absolutely fabulous, natural Hobbits who could have given this film some very welcome comic relief.
Still, I guess I'll see the third one. I suppose it's too late to plead with the director to shorten up that final battle. Shiver. It's bound to be horrible.
Days of Thunder (1990)
Very nice love scene
I had heard that this was a lousy movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. The acting was great. The story worked nicely. It was a nice, light movie, definitely entertaining.
I was particularly taken with the chemistry between Tom & Nicole. This is the best love scene I've seen with Tom Cruise so far. It really made me wistful about their breakup. She looks fabulous with a bit more fat on her legs than she has now. She's gotten almost emaciated recently. Tom was really at his peak in this movie: just stunning.
The only bad thing about the movie is that the race scenes are too long and very boring. On the one hand they are sort of necessary to the plot, but, on the other hand, they are intolerable, especially the incessant roaring. The great thing about video tape is that you can fast forward through parts of them. If you like to see people wrecking cars, you might like to watch these parts, though. I wonder, do people really intentionally bang into each other in these races like this? Is that allowed? It seems a bit like the old Roman gladiators who killed each other for the entertainment of the crowd. You have to wonder why this stuff is legal, if it really happens this way.
Finding Nemo (2003)
Good for slightly sensitive kids
The good news is that the kids liked this movie. My boys are 9 and 12. They aren't particularly macho and they're easily upset by movies. In this way, I suppose they're not very typical. Anyway, they found the level of suspense here very tolerable and they liked the happy ending and positive messages. Curiously, my husband seemed to like it, too.
The bad news, was that I had a hard time with it. Berthold Brecht supposedly once said that the essence of enjoying theater was to suspend one's disbelief so that one could enter into the show. Sigh. I just couldn't do this.
I mean fish eyes face to the side, not forward. They don't have facial expressions. Sharks can't take a vow to stop eating fish. Sharks have to eat other fish to live. And, moreover, fish of one species don't hang out with fish of another species. And, yet, all these belief-streching cute things appear in this movie ... and that's just the start.
OK. I know I need to get past this sort of thing when I watch a cartoon. It's only a cartoon. I guess I'm getting uduly rigid in my old age.
Plus it all seemed kind of trite.
Oh, well. At least my husband and the kids liked it.