Definitely a memorable Family Guy episode, whether you enjoyed it or not. I liked it because it was so different, a refreshing break from the usual, and you have to take your hat off to whoever thought up all the weird little creepy crawly details of what Brian experiences during his trip. In any case, I don't understand a lot of the hate that this episode has been getting. They went on a ride with it, granted, but that could have turned out far worse.
Reviews
25 Reviews
Disappointing start to a lackluster season
23 June 2016
"Contempt of Court" for me was a disappointment. It was a harbinger of things to come in season 4, in that it became increasingly apparent that Miami Vice had been burning the candle at both ends and was just getting tired of itself.
A large portion of this episode simply deals with tedious courtroom procedural. All the things that had made Miami Vice great and a pop culture and critics darling were merely glimpsed at, and viewers were made to sit through many minutes of courtroom talk that rarely felt this much out of place on the show that was Miami Vice.
It is said that this episode was chosen as the season opener to start the season with a bang, since Crockett is sent to jail for not giving up an informant. Well, that was an intriguing premise the first time around in "Give a little, take a little" in season one, but it says a lot that the best shot they felt they had at drawing in viewers was a recycled season one story line.
Season three was a slight disappointment in that the lighter tone of seasons 1 and 2 was given up in favor of endlessly brooding, nihilistic story lines that spent more time offering social commentary than staying true to Vice's original premise. On the other hand, storytelling wise, it featured some of the greatest moments of TV film noir in the entire series.
But season 4 was when Miami Vice didn't just jump the shark, but as somebody has said, was also doing back flips and singing show tunes while doing it. Very probably, the producers would have just had to continue the winning formula of seasons 1 and 2 and perpetuate and evolve it very carefully, without most of the radical changes that this TV series saw repeatedly during its five-year run. But Instead, season three first of all alienated viewers who had been tuning in for the gorgeous light pastels and the portrayal of easy criminal living in the Sunshine State, and then season four came along and made it worse by sometimes appallingly poor storytelling, and story lines that would have been too daft even for the campest of its TV crime drama contemporaries. Miami Vice by that point had become a self-caricature of its own former glory, a flaky and incoherent pastiche of elements of its former popular success.
My verdict is: Don't watch "Contempt of Court". Don't watch season four at all, or anything that came after it. Watch the first two seasons for their captivating vibe and gripping story lines, and a careful selection of season three episodes to witness the zenith of Miami noir. That will still leave you with a body of some 50 very watchable episodes, without staring into the abyss of burnout and hapless self-reference that was Miami Vice's latter two seasons.
A large portion of this episode simply deals with tedious courtroom procedural. All the things that had made Miami Vice great and a pop culture and critics darling were merely glimpsed at, and viewers were made to sit through many minutes of courtroom talk that rarely felt this much out of place on the show that was Miami Vice.
It is said that this episode was chosen as the season opener to start the season with a bang, since Crockett is sent to jail for not giving up an informant. Well, that was an intriguing premise the first time around in "Give a little, take a little" in season one, but it says a lot that the best shot they felt they had at drawing in viewers was a recycled season one story line.
Season three was a slight disappointment in that the lighter tone of seasons 1 and 2 was given up in favor of endlessly brooding, nihilistic story lines that spent more time offering social commentary than staying true to Vice's original premise. On the other hand, storytelling wise, it featured some of the greatest moments of TV film noir in the entire series.
But season 4 was when Miami Vice didn't just jump the shark, but as somebody has said, was also doing back flips and singing show tunes while doing it. Very probably, the producers would have just had to continue the winning formula of seasons 1 and 2 and perpetuate and evolve it very carefully, without most of the radical changes that this TV series saw repeatedly during its five-year run. But Instead, season three first of all alienated viewers who had been tuning in for the gorgeous light pastels and the portrayal of easy criminal living in the Sunshine State, and then season four came along and made it worse by sometimes appallingly poor storytelling, and story lines that would have been too daft even for the campest of its TV crime drama contemporaries. Miami Vice by that point had become a self-caricature of its own former glory, a flaky and incoherent pastiche of elements of its former popular success.
My verdict is: Don't watch "Contempt of Court". Don't watch season four at all, or anything that came after it. Watch the first two seasons for their captivating vibe and gripping story lines, and a careful selection of season three episodes to witness the zenith of Miami noir. That will still leave you with a body of some 50 very watchable episodes, without staring into the abyss of burnout and hapless self-reference that was Miami Vice's latter two seasons.
Miami Vice
(1984–1989)
A good TV show is of its time. A great TV show defines it.
31 May 2016
Love it or loathe it, ridicule it, or (like me) be a lifelong fan of "Miami Vice"... this is the show which defined the 80s like few other cultural phenomena of its time.
I am currently in the process of, well, binge-watching as they now call it, the five-season complete box set, from beginning to end. And I have to say that "Vice", even if you've seen practically every episode, is still always a time capsule of the good old days that is without comparison. Even after the tenth time that you've watched certain episodes, even if you've memorized most of the dialogues, you can't escape the pull of Miami Vice. It draws you in, into the world of 80s cool and chic, with all the clothes, cars, music, and (on- and off screen) high rollers of the day.
The 80s never looked this sleek, this glitzy and fancy before, and certainly never again. Many crime dramas and other types of TV fiction in the 80s deserve a rightful place in the chapter of pop culture that was the decade. From Magnum P.I. to the A Team, or even Dallas, even Dynasty by some measure. But none of them quite had what "Miami Vice" so groundbreakingly exploded onto TV screens with when it first aired in 1984. I wasn't even a teenager yet at the time, but I remember from watching the first few episodes (on a black and white 12-inch TV in my bedroom, no less) that this show was just in a class of its own. Even on a dinky black and white screen. Stunning scenery, a style of filming that was just unseen and unheard of on television, and actually, pretty terrific storytelling, although that is often considered a weak point of the show.
What's true enough is that the whole package began to come apart at the seams somewhere midway into season 3. Most TV shows have inevitably, and therefore forgivably used up most of their best story lines after the first few seasons and then gradually just stay in it to milk the franchise that has been created. But Miami Vice, once the greatest thing since color TV, really started taking a nosedive from that point. The gradual departure of the show's original personnel, including most unfortunately Michael Mann, was sorely felt. Initially, the darker, grittier feel of season 3 was not such a bad thing. Even in the absence of all the lightheartedness of seasons one and two, some episodes had quite outstanding story lines and were beautifully shot. And that even though a closed-cabin sports coupé like the Ferrari Testarossa never quite felt right as a replacement for a convertible like the Daytona... in tropical southern Florida.
Missing the point that viewers weren't turning away because of the earth tones used in the visuals of season three but by a deteriorating quality of the aforementioned whole package, season four saw a return to pastels, but a departure from everything else that had made the show such a success. Desperately attempting to regain its former splendor, season five wasn't all that bad, but on the bottom line, it was a different show done by different people. The saddest part was perhaps that production values were visibly cut back. From scrimpingly outfitted action scenes to scenes supposedly shot in third world countries but which just screamed Universal Studios back lot, and for which they didn't even, like before, bother sending a camera crew to some two-shed town in rural Florida anymore. A fate which similarly befell shows like Dallas in their latter years, by the way.
Saying that all this was Dick Wolf's fault for running the show into the ground when he took over creative control of Miami Vice would be looking back in anger. What is sad though is that quite likely, Miami Vice would have just had to stick with its self-invented formula from seasons one and two and could have perpetuated that "package" well into the 1990s, after all a decade during which hedonism and conspicuous and often illicit wealth only just began to go full throttle.
The bitter irony is that a show which had clothes fashion, as well as music, car, lifestyle an even gun and power boat fashions so deeply ingrained in its own DNA ultimately proved to be a fashion fad in and of itself.
Still, if you ask anybody what they remember most vividly about 80s culture, or what their image of 80s culture is, somewhere between the mention of (literally) brick sized cell phones, hedonistic yuppies, shoulder pads and hair metal, the words "Miami Vice" will come up as one of the defining moments of 80s pop culture. And that is something that can never be taken away. Not from the creators of the show, not from its actors, and certainly not from the fans who still worship 80s culture.
I am currently in the process of, well, binge-watching as they now call it, the five-season complete box set, from beginning to end. And I have to say that "Vice", even if you've seen practically every episode, is still always a time capsule of the good old days that is without comparison. Even after the tenth time that you've watched certain episodes, even if you've memorized most of the dialogues, you can't escape the pull of Miami Vice. It draws you in, into the world of 80s cool and chic, with all the clothes, cars, music, and (on- and off screen) high rollers of the day.
The 80s never looked this sleek, this glitzy and fancy before, and certainly never again. Many crime dramas and other types of TV fiction in the 80s deserve a rightful place in the chapter of pop culture that was the decade. From Magnum P.I. to the A Team, or even Dallas, even Dynasty by some measure. But none of them quite had what "Miami Vice" so groundbreakingly exploded onto TV screens with when it first aired in 1984. I wasn't even a teenager yet at the time, but I remember from watching the first few episodes (on a black and white 12-inch TV in my bedroom, no less) that this show was just in a class of its own. Even on a dinky black and white screen. Stunning scenery, a style of filming that was just unseen and unheard of on television, and actually, pretty terrific storytelling, although that is often considered a weak point of the show.
What's true enough is that the whole package began to come apart at the seams somewhere midway into season 3. Most TV shows have inevitably, and therefore forgivably used up most of their best story lines after the first few seasons and then gradually just stay in it to milk the franchise that has been created. But Miami Vice, once the greatest thing since color TV, really started taking a nosedive from that point. The gradual departure of the show's original personnel, including most unfortunately Michael Mann, was sorely felt. Initially, the darker, grittier feel of season 3 was not such a bad thing. Even in the absence of all the lightheartedness of seasons one and two, some episodes had quite outstanding story lines and were beautifully shot. And that even though a closed-cabin sports coupé like the Ferrari Testarossa never quite felt right as a replacement for a convertible like the Daytona... in tropical southern Florida.
Missing the point that viewers weren't turning away because of the earth tones used in the visuals of season three but by a deteriorating quality of the aforementioned whole package, season four saw a return to pastels, but a departure from everything else that had made the show such a success. Desperately attempting to regain its former splendor, season five wasn't all that bad, but on the bottom line, it was a different show done by different people. The saddest part was perhaps that production values were visibly cut back. From scrimpingly outfitted action scenes to scenes supposedly shot in third world countries but which just screamed Universal Studios back lot, and for which they didn't even, like before, bother sending a camera crew to some two-shed town in rural Florida anymore. A fate which similarly befell shows like Dallas in their latter years, by the way.
Saying that all this was Dick Wolf's fault for running the show into the ground when he took over creative control of Miami Vice would be looking back in anger. What is sad though is that quite likely, Miami Vice would have just had to stick with its self-invented formula from seasons one and two and could have perpetuated that "package" well into the 1990s, after all a decade during which hedonism and conspicuous and often illicit wealth only just began to go full throttle.
The bitter irony is that a show which had clothes fashion, as well as music, car, lifestyle an even gun and power boat fashions so deeply ingrained in its own DNA ultimately proved to be a fashion fad in and of itself.
Still, if you ask anybody what they remember most vividly about 80s culture, or what their image of 80s culture is, somewhere between the mention of (literally) brick sized cell phones, hedonistic yuppies, shoulder pads and hair metal, the words "Miami Vice" will come up as one of the defining moments of 80s pop culture. And that is something that can never be taken away. Not from the creators of the show, not from its actors, and certainly not from the fans who still worship 80s culture.
Interstellar
(2014)
In what universe is this a good movie??
10 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, I have no idea why other people, and everybody really, has been giving this movie such high ratings and rave reviews. To me, the entire film is poorly thought out, contrived drivel.
It starts with the beginning of the story, where Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) more or less by accident tries to break and enter into government property by applying a bolt cutter to the gate of the secret government complex where the mission is being planned, and is subsequently enlisted as the mission head pilot, of all things. I don't care if we're told that he used to be an Air Force pilot and apparently a notable one at that with old acquaintances in high places; that was a big letdown in storytelling, erm, right out the gate for me. Just too lazy for a film of its (attempted) magnitude.
With all the good reviews in mind, I thought I was at least going to be wowed by the rest of the film's plot and the imagery. Well, with the cheap availability (in film studio terms) of pretty much even the grandest CGI effects these days, there was nothing about the imagery that "Elysium", "Oblivion" and particularly "Gravity" haven't already done in recent times, and better, and the whole plot not only disappointed with half-hearted but self-indulgently attempted forays into philosophy and some semi-spooky abnormal phenomena, but also by its ignorance of some quite basic natural laws. While the idea of time dilation within the gravitational field of a black hole was actually somewhat well explained, you just scratch you head at 500-foot monster waves on the water planet which suddenly rush across a vast expanse of otherwise knee-deep water that looks about as agitated as a reflecting pool (think Tsunamis back here on Earth). Also, there is no such thing as a more gentle black hole which won't spaghettify you as you approach it and therefore kill you dead. The list of errors goes on far beyond this.
And finally, the last 20 minutes or so sucked worse than the black hole whose (imagined) innermost we get to see. It felt like a bad rehash on acid of the scene in the first "Matrix" sequel where Neo meets the Architect. A culmination of all the things that make the plot of this movie so dreadfully banal.
Again, like I said, I just can't understand why people would think that this is a good or even an outstanding movie. Yes, I know that this is a film which would like to get you to think more deeply about the issues it raises, and pick up on its whole philosophical angle. And I generally really like movies like that. But sorry, there are many films which have done a much better job at this, without falling flat on their face in the process.
Long story short, after close to three hours, I felt about as robbed of my time as Cooper when he watched the video transmissions of his ageing kids from back on Earth.
It starts with the beginning of the story, where Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) more or less by accident tries to break and enter into government property by applying a bolt cutter to the gate of the secret government complex where the mission is being planned, and is subsequently enlisted as the mission head pilot, of all things. I don't care if we're told that he used to be an Air Force pilot and apparently a notable one at that with old acquaintances in high places; that was a big letdown in storytelling, erm, right out the gate for me. Just too lazy for a film of its (attempted) magnitude.
With all the good reviews in mind, I thought I was at least going to be wowed by the rest of the film's plot and the imagery. Well, with the cheap availability (in film studio terms) of pretty much even the grandest CGI effects these days, there was nothing about the imagery that "Elysium", "Oblivion" and particularly "Gravity" haven't already done in recent times, and better, and the whole plot not only disappointed with half-hearted but self-indulgently attempted forays into philosophy and some semi-spooky abnormal phenomena, but also by its ignorance of some quite basic natural laws. While the idea of time dilation within the gravitational field of a black hole was actually somewhat well explained, you just scratch you head at 500-foot monster waves on the water planet which suddenly rush across a vast expanse of otherwise knee-deep water that looks about as agitated as a reflecting pool (think Tsunamis back here on Earth). Also, there is no such thing as a more gentle black hole which won't spaghettify you as you approach it and therefore kill you dead. The list of errors goes on far beyond this.
And finally, the last 20 minutes or so sucked worse than the black hole whose (imagined) innermost we get to see. It felt like a bad rehash on acid of the scene in the first "Matrix" sequel where Neo meets the Architect. A culmination of all the things that make the plot of this movie so dreadfully banal.
Again, like I said, I just can't understand why people would think that this is a good or even an outstanding movie. Yes, I know that this is a film which would like to get you to think more deeply about the issues it raises, and pick up on its whole philosophical angle. And I generally really like movies like that. But sorry, there are many films which have done a much better job at this, without falling flat on their face in the process.
Long story short, after close to three hours, I felt about as robbed of my time as Cooper when he watched the video transmissions of his ageing kids from back on Earth.
Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy
(2012–2014)
Disappointingly unfunny.
17 March 2012
Having long been known as a somewhat peculiar character, even among all the other peculiar characters on British telly, Fielding and his entourage of writers and producers spared no cost in treating us to yet another permutation of his off-the-wall and sometimes outright bizarre sense of humour.
That is, if you can call it humour. "Luxury Comedy" never delivers what it promises. It may be luxurious in terms of visuals, and perhaps even the concomitant production values (although looks may be deceiving, in this age of fool-the-eye cgi effects). But the show drops the ball where it really matters, and fails dismally in terms of actual funny-ness. It's almost as if all the creative potential that was expended on bringing this programme to life went into the (admittedly lavish) artwork, and nobody thought to hire writers to come up with things that the odd person who isn't a die-hard Noel Fielding fan might honour with even so much as a chuckle.
If you've seen Noel Fielding as a guest on any comedy panel show, you know that he is actually a pretty funny guy, capable of ingeniously hilarious one-liners and ludicrously bizarre takes on just about any subject. It's a shame that almost none of this comedic potential has surfaced on "Luxury Comedy", and it makes the experience of watching it even more disappointing. Apparently Channel 4 have already commissioned a second season - here's hoping that it will finally live up to its own name.
That is, if you can call it humour. "Luxury Comedy" never delivers what it promises. It may be luxurious in terms of visuals, and perhaps even the concomitant production values (although looks may be deceiving, in this age of fool-the-eye cgi effects). But the show drops the ball where it really matters, and fails dismally in terms of actual funny-ness. It's almost as if all the creative potential that was expended on bringing this programme to life went into the (admittedly lavish) artwork, and nobody thought to hire writers to come up with things that the odd person who isn't a die-hard Noel Fielding fan might honour with even so much as a chuckle.
If you've seen Noel Fielding as a guest on any comedy panel show, you know that he is actually a pretty funny guy, capable of ingeniously hilarious one-liners and ludicrously bizarre takes on just about any subject. It's a shame that almost none of this comedic potential has surfaced on "Luxury Comedy", and it makes the experience of watching it even more disappointing. Apparently Channel 4 have already commissioned a second season - here's hoping that it will finally live up to its own name.
A forgotten gem, lots of potential for a remake
29 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Like some other reviewers here, I first watched this movie when I was young, in, say, about 1987. It fascinated and intrigued me and I found the whole premise to be very unique. There have been meager attempts at knock-offs since, but none of them have come quite close to this one. And then, a while ago, the film was back on television, and once again, I was spellbound.
Meet Peter Proud, a young college teacher who is haunted by visions in his dreams about, as it turns out, a previous life. One by one, he follows leads as to who and where he was then. Finally, he finds out that he lived in a picturesque New England town some 30 years ago. He travels there and manages to track down his "wife" from back then and his "daughter". At first, they have no clue who he is and what he came ("back") for, but his wife, an alcoholic who is still guilt-ridden about secretly murdering him back then, soon gets a pretty good idea when she realizes that Peter's mannerisms and his behavior are a spitting image of her dead husband's. As time goes by, he slips into a romantic relationship with his "daughter", and his visions slowly subside - except for the one in which he is killed by his wife during a night swim in a lake. Irony has it that while Peter goes for a swim in that same lake to get rid of his last and most terrifying vision, his "wife" follows him, cursing him for coming back - and kills him again.
While the movie displays some genuine 70s cheese (and I don't just mean the music) and some mildly wooden acting, it still has that fascinating premise which in my mind still makes it stand out as one of those almost forgotten "twilight-zoneish" B-movie gems of that era. There has been talk about a remake, and I would love to see an updated version. If whoever will produce that movie plays it smart, they will have plenty to work with.
Meet Peter Proud, a young college teacher who is haunted by visions in his dreams about, as it turns out, a previous life. One by one, he follows leads as to who and where he was then. Finally, he finds out that he lived in a picturesque New England town some 30 years ago. He travels there and manages to track down his "wife" from back then and his "daughter". At first, they have no clue who he is and what he came ("back") for, but his wife, an alcoholic who is still guilt-ridden about secretly murdering him back then, soon gets a pretty good idea when she realizes that Peter's mannerisms and his behavior are a spitting image of her dead husband's. As time goes by, he slips into a romantic relationship with his "daughter", and his visions slowly subside - except for the one in which he is killed by his wife during a night swim in a lake. Irony has it that while Peter goes for a swim in that same lake to get rid of his last and most terrifying vision, his "wife" follows him, cursing him for coming back - and kills him again.
While the movie displays some genuine 70s cheese (and I don't just mean the music) and some mildly wooden acting, it still has that fascinating premise which in my mind still makes it stand out as one of those almost forgotten "twilight-zoneish" B-movie gems of that era. There has been talk about a remake, and I would love to see an updated version. If whoever will produce that movie plays it smart, they will have plenty to work with.
Silent Night, Deadly Night
(1984)
delightfully crappy
23 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Now here's a real gem of a second-rate B-movie slasher flick. Very "80s" by the way. Here's the story: Some kid's parents get whacked by an out of control, armed and dangerous Santa - while he is watching. Deeply traumatized, he is sent off to a Catholic orphanage where he becomes even more instilled with guilt and fear. Years later, his boss makes him wear a Santa outfit for Christmas. All hell breaks loose, and the kid goes on a gory killing spree around town. He chops off heads, impales a girl on a deer head's antlers in her living room (now there's a really creative way to kill somebody!), strangles a guy with a power cord.... I lost count somewhere along the way, but he sure kills a decent amount of people. All to get shot in the back at the end while trying to swing his axe at the orphanage's mother superior. Poor boy.
Let's see... cheesy special effects, wooden acting, pretentious storyline that tries to scream "I have a deeper meaning" but eventually falls flat on its face... not much there for you, unless you have a thing for good ol' 80s B-movie horror. Movies like this are a dime a dozen, but still, if you grab yourself a couple of beers, they're not so bad after all. I'll give it a five out of ten, but only if Santa is not coming after me with an axe this Christmas.
Let's see... cheesy special effects, wooden acting, pretentious storyline that tries to scream "I have a deeper meaning" but eventually falls flat on its face... not much there for you, unless you have a thing for good ol' 80s B-movie horror. Movies like this are a dime a dozen, but still, if you grab yourself a couple of beers, they're not so bad after all. I'll give it a five out of ten, but only if Santa is not coming after me with an axe this Christmas.
Beauty Shop
(2005)
Yet another unimaginative chick flick...
26 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What was I thinking when I agreed to watch this movie with my girlfriend? She had read about it in some women's magazine and from then on she was dying to see it.
go figure....
So here's this movie about (black) female empowerment, a perfect world where men are either complete insensitive jerks or just this big hunk of a guy who with all his gratuitously displayed muscle can't even walk straight. No wait, there's more, did I mention the sissified, braided-hair, pro-female-agenda metrosexual who drinks his coffee from a china cup with his pinky spread apart?
To get one thing straight, I am neither misogynistic nor do I have issues with female empowerment, but this movie about a woman trying to get by in a supposedly still male-dominated world is almost insulting to any self-respecting man.
That said, let's move on to the few upsides of this movie. Mena Suvari and Alicia Silverstone, two of the hottest babes under the sun, together in one movie, and Mena Suvari's character getting a boob job... now there's something to enjoy for a guy. It's a shame Alicia Silverstone never really became that big a name. She definitely still has potential and has come a long, long way since the days of being the "Aerosmith chick" or the "Clueless" valley girl. Please please, movie executives, find it in your heart to give her more challenging roles! Mena Suvari is stunning as ever. She, too, has evolved far beyond the goody-goody girl of "American Pie" and "Sugar and Spice" and just looks fabulous. I think we'll be seeing a lot of her in the future.
Maybe it's because I'm a guy and "just don't get it" - but I can't see this movie rating anywhere above three points, despite very entertaining performances by Silverstone and Suvari. My apologies to the girl nation out there... or maybe not.
P.S.: When we were done watching the movie and after my gf sat through the rant I was giving her about how this movie distorts the image of the modern male, she just quipped "...but that's how men really are!" -- You'd better hope the verdict is still out on that.
go figure....
So here's this movie about (black) female empowerment, a perfect world where men are either complete insensitive jerks or just this big hunk of a guy who with all his gratuitously displayed muscle can't even walk straight. No wait, there's more, did I mention the sissified, braided-hair, pro-female-agenda metrosexual who drinks his coffee from a china cup with his pinky spread apart?
To get one thing straight, I am neither misogynistic nor do I have issues with female empowerment, but this movie about a woman trying to get by in a supposedly still male-dominated world is almost insulting to any self-respecting man.
That said, let's move on to the few upsides of this movie. Mena Suvari and Alicia Silverstone, two of the hottest babes under the sun, together in one movie, and Mena Suvari's character getting a boob job... now there's something to enjoy for a guy. It's a shame Alicia Silverstone never really became that big a name. She definitely still has potential and has come a long, long way since the days of being the "Aerosmith chick" or the "Clueless" valley girl. Please please, movie executives, find it in your heart to give her more challenging roles! Mena Suvari is stunning as ever. She, too, has evolved far beyond the goody-goody girl of "American Pie" and "Sugar and Spice" and just looks fabulous. I think we'll be seeing a lot of her in the future.
Maybe it's because I'm a guy and "just don't get it" - but I can't see this movie rating anywhere above three points, despite very entertaining performances by Silverstone and Suvari. My apologies to the girl nation out there... or maybe not.
P.S.: When we were done watching the movie and after my gf sat through the rant I was giving her about how this movie distorts the image of the modern male, she just quipped "...but that's how men really are!" -- You'd better hope the verdict is still out on that.
American Psycho II: All American Girl
(2002 Video)
Absurd.
24 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I rented this DVD, I thought a movie that has Mila Kunis in it can never be bad, and that just seeing her would make up even for the cheesiest, most far-fetched plot. Boy was I wrong. This movie is complete nonsense and so extremely predictable and unexciting, it's painful to watch.
On the upside, it's not really Mila's fault. She's cute as always and doesn't disappoint - after all, she goes to great lengths to stick it out against an absurd script like this and do what she does best- playing the intense, demanding, border-lined, obnoxious next-door-girl type. Think of her as Jackie Burkhart from the 70's show on cocaine. Something is definitely wrong inside this girl's mind. She goes on a killing spree around the campus when she finds out that there are more promising contenders than her for the position of teacher's assistant at her college. That's the story in a nutshell.
The movie attempts some sort of twist at the end, like the classic "Bet you didn't see that one coming" -- but again, too predictable and too cliché. If it weren't for Mila Kunis (and man is she hot), I'd give it a 2.0, but it has my vote for 5 points.
On the upside, it's not really Mila's fault. She's cute as always and doesn't disappoint - after all, she goes to great lengths to stick it out against an absurd script like this and do what she does best- playing the intense, demanding, border-lined, obnoxious next-door-girl type. Think of her as Jackie Burkhart from the 70's show on cocaine. Something is definitely wrong inside this girl's mind. She goes on a killing spree around the campus when she finds out that there are more promising contenders than her for the position of teacher's assistant at her college. That's the story in a nutshell.
The movie attempts some sort of twist at the end, like the classic "Bet you didn't see that one coming" -- but again, too predictable and too cliché. If it weren't for Mila Kunis (and man is she hot), I'd give it a 2.0, but it has my vote for 5 points.
The Ring
(2002)
didn't sleep too well for days after I watched it
15 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Thank God I now sleep tight again. This doesn't really happen to me much after scary movies, but boy did it happen with this one. As far as the scariness factor goes, this movie has it all. Creepy story about a dead girl's ghost seeking revenge, very disturbing special effects that make you want to crawl and hide under your blanket, split-second shock effects that will bring you close to cardiac arrest... and an overall mood that is very dark and eerie.
Never mind the plot holes that some reviewers here have pointed out, this film has already become a modern classic for its unique attempt to leave the beaten path and try something not substantially new, but innovative enough.
At least I'll never look the same again at white noise on a TV screen late at night.. who knows what's gonna come crawling out? ...you'll know what I mean once you've watched it. But be warned - the worst setting in which to enjoy this movie is home alone at night after a couple of beers. And I should know...
Never mind the plot holes that some reviewers here have pointed out, this film has already become a modern classic for its unique attempt to leave the beaten path and try something not substantially new, but innovative enough.
At least I'll never look the same again at white noise on a TV screen late at night.. who knows what's gonna come crawling out? ...you'll know what I mean once you've watched it. But be warned - the worst setting in which to enjoy this movie is home alone at night after a couple of beers. And I should know...
Johnny Got His Gun
(1971)
It's been a long time...
4 June 2006
...since a film has actually moved me quite like this. I had read about half of Dalton Trumbo's original novel before seeing the film. The book is sort of difficult to read, but the movie is one big revelation. It may be because Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay for it and directed his own original brainchild that this film is so incredibly dense and gripping.
Much has been said about the plot and storyline, so I won't get on that here. The bottom line is, this movie is as original and authentic today as in 1971 when it was made (Vietnam war era, no less!), or even as in 1939 (at the eve of WW II!), the year the novel first appeared on bookshelves. A timeless classic if there ever was one, and a glowing testimony to the eternal insanity of war. Oftentimes subtle and subversive, its dialogs fully expose the madness of the whole concept of it. But it doesn't stop there, the film also examines the conflict between religion and war and the absurdity that ensues from justifying bloodshed through creed.
I could go on forever trying to explain here why this movie is such a masterpiece to me, but maybe it's enough to tell whoever will read this to go buy the DVD. Like I said, it's a timeless anti-war classic that's worth every cent.
Much has been said about the plot and storyline, so I won't get on that here. The bottom line is, this movie is as original and authentic today as in 1971 when it was made (Vietnam war era, no less!), or even as in 1939 (at the eve of WW II!), the year the novel first appeared on bookshelves. A timeless classic if there ever was one, and a glowing testimony to the eternal insanity of war. Oftentimes subtle and subversive, its dialogs fully expose the madness of the whole concept of it. But it doesn't stop there, the film also examines the conflict between religion and war and the absurdity that ensues from justifying bloodshed through creed.
I could go on forever trying to explain here why this movie is such a masterpiece to me, but maybe it's enough to tell whoever will read this to go buy the DVD. Like I said, it's a timeless anti-war classic that's worth every cent.
The Island
(2005)
A movie about cloning that is a clone itself... sort of...
25 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Some of the reviewers have come up with the crazy notion that this movie has elements of and references to other movies in it... and boy does it have them!
Let's start with a few basics - the main protagonist realizing that his world is just an illusion and that humans in his world are actually grown, not born (including a shot of humans in "embryo pods") - The Matrix I
Him and some pretty girl escaping from their confined underground world and glaring into the bright sunlight of the real world - Logan's Run
Escapees in bright white overalls running through the desert, chased by (black!!) helicopters - Capricorn One
Futuristic-looking motorized vehicles that are actually fully badged current production models, only with PVC-augmented fenders (and one concept car that, even if briefly this time around, steals the show) - I, Robot
One heck of an urban highway chase with demolition scenes agogo: The Matrix II
The idea of the "real" human and his clone meeting face to face - The 6th Day
And let's not forget THE clone of all clones of scenes in this movie - towards the end, when Lincoln is about to be captured, he is lying on the floor, gradually pushes himself back up, and says "My name is Lincoln!!" ... Keanu Reeves, eat your heart out!
There are probably more "references" or, simply put, knock-offs, but these are the most obvious. Now don't get me wrong, this is still a nice movie as far as action flicks and summer blockbusters go - lots of action, shooting, explosions and mayhem, but if you've watched the movies mentioned above, you can't help feeling a bit strange when you see the corresponding scenes in this one.
Also notable: the barrage of product placements. Sure, a movie like this costs a lot of money to make, but those various well-known brand logos could have been presented a bit more subtly.
I'll give it the 6 points it deserves, and please do rent/buy this movie if these elements I just mentioned are your type of thing - because for what it's worth, it delivers well in these departments... but that's where it ends.
6/10
Let's start with a few basics - the main protagonist realizing that his world is just an illusion and that humans in his world are actually grown, not born (including a shot of humans in "embryo pods") - The Matrix I
Him and some pretty girl escaping from their confined underground world and glaring into the bright sunlight of the real world - Logan's Run
Escapees in bright white overalls running through the desert, chased by (black!!) helicopters - Capricorn One
Futuristic-looking motorized vehicles that are actually fully badged current production models, only with PVC-augmented fenders (and one concept car that, even if briefly this time around, steals the show) - I, Robot
One heck of an urban highway chase with demolition scenes agogo: The Matrix II
The idea of the "real" human and his clone meeting face to face - The 6th Day
And let's not forget THE clone of all clones of scenes in this movie - towards the end, when Lincoln is about to be captured, he is lying on the floor, gradually pushes himself back up, and says "My name is Lincoln!!" ... Keanu Reeves, eat your heart out!
There are probably more "references" or, simply put, knock-offs, but these are the most obvious. Now don't get me wrong, this is still a nice movie as far as action flicks and summer blockbusters go - lots of action, shooting, explosions and mayhem, but if you've watched the movies mentioned above, you can't help feeling a bit strange when you see the corresponding scenes in this one.
Also notable: the barrage of product placements. Sure, a movie like this costs a lot of money to make, but those various well-known brand logos could have been presented a bit more subtly.
I'll give it the 6 points it deserves, and please do rent/buy this movie if these elements I just mentioned are your type of thing - because for what it's worth, it delivers well in these departments... but that's where it ends.
6/10
A History of Violence
(2005)
A Neo-Noir masterpiece all the way!
6 March 2006
Personally, I never made David Cronenberg for somebody who could direct a character-driven, gripping edge-of-your-seat thriller - and least of all a Film Noir epic.
But that's exactly what has been created here - a modern-day suspense thriller that has nearly all the bells and whistles of classic film noir, molded into a contemporary crime drama.
Meet Tom Stall - a respectable, caring family man who owns a diner in some quiet little town in rural Indiana. On the surface, he is just the average John Doe who has never done a bad thing in his life. One day, some gunslinging villains shake up the peace and quiet of his diner; Tom just snaps and kills both of them on the spot in a dramatic self-defense stunt that briefly earns him national television fame. Just days later, a bunch of mobsters from Philadelphia show up, telling him that someone back in Philly wants to settle an old score. Tom's facade begins to crumble as it becomes more and more obvious that he has quite a past - and that he was once an East Coast mob henchman under the name of Joey Cusack...
The storyline bears a striking resemblance to the classic Noir movie "Out of the Past" and may therefore be seen as a mere knock-off by some. But then again, what's wrong with adding a new angle to a once-great story premise? Aside from dramatic high-contrast lighting and a dark, grim and existentialist overall feel and touch, the movie employs classic Noir clichés like a main protagonist haunted by his past who is drawn into a maelstrom of cataclysmic events. The too-good-to-be-true facade of a serene, carefree rural life in Heartland America is shattered in what has often been called the "negation of the American Dream" - another trademark feature of classic Noir movies.
"A History of Violence" was deservedly nominated for two Academy Awards - Film Noir hasn't looked this good in color for a long time.
But that's exactly what has been created here - a modern-day suspense thriller that has nearly all the bells and whistles of classic film noir, molded into a contemporary crime drama.
Meet Tom Stall - a respectable, caring family man who owns a diner in some quiet little town in rural Indiana. On the surface, he is just the average John Doe who has never done a bad thing in his life. One day, some gunslinging villains shake up the peace and quiet of his diner; Tom just snaps and kills both of them on the spot in a dramatic self-defense stunt that briefly earns him national television fame. Just days later, a bunch of mobsters from Philadelphia show up, telling him that someone back in Philly wants to settle an old score. Tom's facade begins to crumble as it becomes more and more obvious that he has quite a past - and that he was once an East Coast mob henchman under the name of Joey Cusack...
The storyline bears a striking resemblance to the classic Noir movie "Out of the Past" and may therefore be seen as a mere knock-off by some. But then again, what's wrong with adding a new angle to a once-great story premise? Aside from dramatic high-contrast lighting and a dark, grim and existentialist overall feel and touch, the movie employs classic Noir clichés like a main protagonist haunted by his past who is drawn into a maelstrom of cataclysmic events. The too-good-to-be-true facade of a serene, carefree rural life in Heartland America is shattered in what has often been called the "negation of the American Dream" - another trademark feature of classic Noir movies.
"A History of Violence" was deservedly nominated for two Academy Awards - Film Noir hasn't looked this good in color for a long time.
Early Neo-Noir masterpiece in the series...
10 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Somewhat surprising for a newly-launched TV drama, this first "regular" episode is one of the best in the entire first season. You could easily call this one a Neo-Noir classic which above all shows Michael Mann's abounding talent in creating a certain look, touch and feel in his works.
This episode is a very, very dark story about an undercover cop (Arthur Larsen, played by none other than Ed O'Neill) who is so far under he doesn't know which way is up, let alone see the fine line between good and bad. He enjoys a high-rolling, fast-lane, glitzy lifestyle up there with all the fat cats of organized crime. It all begins to fall apart when Crockett and Tubbs break the news to him that his closest "business associates" are responsible for the killing of a barely legal aspiring porn starlet. Our two favorite 80s TV cops try to set his head straight and pull him out of this predicament. In the end, the bad guys are booked and Arthur is free to go; however, his guilty conscience gets the better of him and becomes a tremendous burden. Ultimately, he quits the force and hangs himself.
Like I said, it's Neo-Noir at its finest, and in being that, not only a great start for this seminal 80s TV drama, but also a reverent homage to the classic Film Noir era.
This episode is a very, very dark story about an undercover cop (Arthur Larsen, played by none other than Ed O'Neill) who is so far under he doesn't know which way is up, let alone see the fine line between good and bad. He enjoys a high-rolling, fast-lane, glitzy lifestyle up there with all the fat cats of organized crime. It all begins to fall apart when Crockett and Tubbs break the news to him that his closest "business associates" are responsible for the killing of a barely legal aspiring porn starlet. Our two favorite 80s TV cops try to set his head straight and pull him out of this predicament. In the end, the bad guys are booked and Arthur is free to go; however, his guilty conscience gets the better of him and becomes a tremendous burden. Ultimately, he quits the force and hangs himself.
Like I said, it's Neo-Noir at its finest, and in being that, not only a great start for this seminal 80s TV drama, but also a reverent homage to the classic Film Noir era.
Capricorn One
(1977)
The Mars Hoax
2 January 2006
This movie is indeed a noteworthy sci-fi/conspiracy flick, even after all these years.
Unmistakeably based on the real-life "moon hoax" pseudo-conspiracy, it takes the issue one step further and explores just how far your government might go to cover up its own incapacity and silence everyone who gets in its way (Ironically enough for that matter, the moon landings are portrayed in this movie as a non-hoax and really did take place).
When three would-be Mars astronauts are secretly pulled out of their capsule just minutes before liftoff due to a malfunctioning life support system that would have meant certain death, they are quickly transferred to an abandoned air force base out in the desert. Upon arrival, they are told that they'll have to play make-believe using the facility's very own "Mars" sound stage. It's got everything in place to fool the public about an actual Mars landing. Things go somewhat well and although the astronauts really begin to resent the big swindle they were drawn into, nobody really notices. That is, until their real-life landing capsule disintegrates while re-entering the earth's atmosphere. They figure that now that they're all supposed to be dead, the government will have them killed for real....
So much for the plot, the rest is yours to find out about. Definitely worth watching. One thing though, try to watch it in widescreen - somehow they showed the 4:3 full-frame version on TV here, which was a major drawback considering the movie's original 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
8 out of 10!
Unmistakeably based on the real-life "moon hoax" pseudo-conspiracy, it takes the issue one step further and explores just how far your government might go to cover up its own incapacity and silence everyone who gets in its way (Ironically enough for that matter, the moon landings are portrayed in this movie as a non-hoax and really did take place).
When three would-be Mars astronauts are secretly pulled out of their capsule just minutes before liftoff due to a malfunctioning life support system that would have meant certain death, they are quickly transferred to an abandoned air force base out in the desert. Upon arrival, they are told that they'll have to play make-believe using the facility's very own "Mars" sound stage. It's got everything in place to fool the public about an actual Mars landing. Things go somewhat well and although the astronauts really begin to resent the big swindle they were drawn into, nobody really notices. That is, until their real-life landing capsule disintegrates while re-entering the earth's atmosphere. They figure that now that they're all supposed to be dead, the government will have them killed for real....
So much for the plot, the rest is yours to find out about. Definitely worth watching. One thing though, try to watch it in widescreen - somehow they showed the 4:3 full-frame version on TV here, which was a major drawback considering the movie's original 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
8 out of 10!
Just Legal
(2005–2006)
Another promising show gone too soon
2 December 2005
I just returned from the U.S. a few days ago where I was able to witness episode No 2 of this ill-fated new court drama.
Don Johnson really does a great job here. Unlike in his recent Vietnam war drama "Word of Honor", his portrayal of burnt-out defense lawyer Grant Cooper strongly reminded me of Det. Sonny Crockett of Miami Vice fame - gritty, disillusioned, world-weary at times , yet with great passion for his trade. That's a huge plus for a die-hard "Vice" fan like myself, and it made the episode very enjoyable from beginning to end.
As for the show itself, it has been criticized for adding nothing substantially new to the world of court drama - the cases allegedly being too straightforward, no brain teasers, no twists... but then again, "Just Legal" makes up for that with solid old-fashioned storytelling (don't call it run-of-the-mill because it really isn't!), nice California scenery throughout, and good chemistry between the main characters. Everything about the show was a good place to start. The potential was definitely there.
Just a little over twenty years ago, Miami Vice entered its second season. Its first-season ratings had sagged notably after a mostly appreciated pilot, but then soared during the '85 summer reruns and continued on a high level well into season three. But that was 20 years ago, looks like network executives are no longer willing to take any risks. Their loss, but sadly, ours even more.
Don Johnson really does a great job here. Unlike in his recent Vietnam war drama "Word of Honor", his portrayal of burnt-out defense lawyer Grant Cooper strongly reminded me of Det. Sonny Crockett of Miami Vice fame - gritty, disillusioned, world-weary at times , yet with great passion for his trade. That's a huge plus for a die-hard "Vice" fan like myself, and it made the episode very enjoyable from beginning to end.
As for the show itself, it has been criticized for adding nothing substantially new to the world of court drama - the cases allegedly being too straightforward, no brain teasers, no twists... but then again, "Just Legal" makes up for that with solid old-fashioned storytelling (don't call it run-of-the-mill because it really isn't!), nice California scenery throughout, and good chemistry between the main characters. Everything about the show was a good place to start. The potential was definitely there.
Just a little over twenty years ago, Miami Vice entered its second season. Its first-season ratings had sagged notably after a mostly appreciated pilot, but then soared during the '85 summer reruns and continued on a high level well into season three. But that was 20 years ago, looks like network executives are no longer willing to take any risks. Their loss, but sadly, ours even more.
Constantine
(2005)
The Matrix meets End of Days... **yawn**
1 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I really expected more from this movie, what with all the hype it has been getting. Arguably one of Keanu Reeves's biggest mortal sins! It's kind of like a strange mix of key elements of The Matrix part one and the Schwarzenegger epic "End of Days". Also thrown in are some neat but not top-notch visuals (Adobe After Effects and the latest filter plug-ins still seem to go all the way) - and that's "Constantine" for you.
The storyline is paper thin and can be summed up in one or two sentences: Mammon, the son of Lucifer, wants to gain control of the earth and erect a kingdom of horror on the earth's surface. John Constantine, played by Reeves, tries to stop him, ultimately willing to sacrifice his own life. Where have we heard that one before?
Everything else, the numerous sub-plots and unresolved threads of the story (like, whatever happened to the Mexican guy after he carried the Spear of Destiny all the way to L.A. and went for a swim in that pool? Was that even him right there? What really happened to that fat priest? Why exactly did he die on that supermarket floor?) are really beside the point and kind of look like they were just needed to blow up a story into a two-hour movie that could have been told in just under 45 minutes.
Moreover, we all know that talent-wise, Keanu Reeves will never make a second Marlon Brando, but his acting (or lack thereof) in particular was a big disappointment here - just as unimaginative and unemotional as ever! Same with the other actors, maybe except for Peter Stormare with his brief, offbeat portrayal of the Devil himself towards the end of the movie.
The ending scene however still tops it off - first we get a shot of Reeves and "that girl" standing in front of a dark blue sky as if they are about to kiss (think of it as a poor adaption of your typical late 40's Hollywood ending - off color in more ways than one, at any rate). Then we get a real "Matrix moment", where Reeves threatens to come back in a sequel, muttering the words "I've got a lot of cleaning up to do!"
Please, somebody talk some sense to the producers, and make it fast! The last thing we need is a sequel to this trashy pseudo-epic........
4/10
The storyline is paper thin and can be summed up in one or two sentences: Mammon, the son of Lucifer, wants to gain control of the earth and erect a kingdom of horror on the earth's surface. John Constantine, played by Reeves, tries to stop him, ultimately willing to sacrifice his own life. Where have we heard that one before?
Everything else, the numerous sub-plots and unresolved threads of the story (like, whatever happened to the Mexican guy after he carried the Spear of Destiny all the way to L.A. and went for a swim in that pool? Was that even him right there? What really happened to that fat priest? Why exactly did he die on that supermarket floor?) are really beside the point and kind of look like they were just needed to blow up a story into a two-hour movie that could have been told in just under 45 minutes.
Moreover, we all know that talent-wise, Keanu Reeves will never make a second Marlon Brando, but his acting (or lack thereof) in particular was a big disappointment here - just as unimaginative and unemotional as ever! Same with the other actors, maybe except for Peter Stormare with his brief, offbeat portrayal of the Devil himself towards the end of the movie.
The ending scene however still tops it off - first we get a shot of Reeves and "that girl" standing in front of a dark blue sky as if they are about to kiss (think of it as a poor adaption of your typical late 40's Hollywood ending - off color in more ways than one, at any rate). Then we get a real "Matrix moment", where Reeves threatens to come back in a sequel, muttering the words "I've got a lot of cleaning up to do!"
Please, somebody talk some sense to the producers, and make it fast! The last thing we need is a sequel to this trashy pseudo-epic........
4/10
The Butterfly Effect
(2004)
Michael Kelso shows us he's better than that!
26 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Every once in a while I pick up a movie from our neighborhood video store on my way home from work. So one night I really had no idea what I wanted to get and the girl at the store suggested "The Butterfly Effect". I looked at the cover and saw Ashton Kutcher's name on it. I said "...well I never heard of that one before - so is it a comedy?" - "umm...no, uh.. not really, it's more like the Twilight Zone!" she replied.
I took it home and wondered what the heck Ashton Kutcher was doing in a movie like that. I had spent countless hours laughing about his air-headed "Kelso" character on the 70s show, but seeing him do well in a more serious role, in a mystery movie even, wasn't really something I would have had on my list of things to hope for. Simply put, he absolutely kicks butt! Given his resume as an actor so far, it looks like he is a lot more versatile than meets the eye!
The movie itself gives you quite a few brain teasers to chew on. What if you found a way to switch back and forth between parallel universes? What if you had the chance to make whatever you did wrong in your past unhappen? However, what if things still wouldn't work out, and every time you threw yourself into another parallel universe, things would just become even more complicated and new problems would arise? This is pretty much the storyline of the movie. Ashton Kutcher plays a young college kid who has found a way to warp himself into many different parallel universes and even into the past; initially, in doing so he just tries to prevent the suicide death of his junior high crush. He then wakes up in an alternate universe and everything seems to be going great - he is a frat boy, and he is with her, now a sorority girl as opposed to being a greasy spoon waitress in the "original" universe. But things take a turn for the worse, and he has to switch universes again and again - and so it goes on, like he says in that one scene: "Everytime I try to help someone everything just goes to s**t".
This movie is really one of the greatest mystery movies I have seen in a long time, and since I'm a real mystery nut, it might tell you a little something. An interesting premise, wrapped into solid storytelling that still just every now and then keeps viewers guessing - and at the edge of their seats throughout, like any good mystery movie should. A painfully underrated gem of modern mainstream cinema, maybe because the audience and critics had the same doubts about Ashton Kutcher as I did.
Just a few days ago I bought the DVD, and I strongly recommend you do the same. The 2-DVD version features the Director's Cut on the second disc. Do yourself a favor and go for the Director's Cut. Aside from being 25 minutes shorter, the theatrical version has an ending that probably earned the producers a few more dollars at the box office, but then again it's too much like your average "hollywood ending" and therefore the movie's only true disappointment.
Guess what I'm going to do tonight, now that I've finished writing this comment - I've already put the Director's Cut disc in my DVD player :-)
I took it home and wondered what the heck Ashton Kutcher was doing in a movie like that. I had spent countless hours laughing about his air-headed "Kelso" character on the 70s show, but seeing him do well in a more serious role, in a mystery movie even, wasn't really something I would have had on my list of things to hope for. Simply put, he absolutely kicks butt! Given his resume as an actor so far, it looks like he is a lot more versatile than meets the eye!
The movie itself gives you quite a few brain teasers to chew on. What if you found a way to switch back and forth between parallel universes? What if you had the chance to make whatever you did wrong in your past unhappen? However, what if things still wouldn't work out, and every time you threw yourself into another parallel universe, things would just become even more complicated and new problems would arise? This is pretty much the storyline of the movie. Ashton Kutcher plays a young college kid who has found a way to warp himself into many different parallel universes and even into the past; initially, in doing so he just tries to prevent the suicide death of his junior high crush. He then wakes up in an alternate universe and everything seems to be going great - he is a frat boy, and he is with her, now a sorority girl as opposed to being a greasy spoon waitress in the "original" universe. But things take a turn for the worse, and he has to switch universes again and again - and so it goes on, like he says in that one scene: "Everytime I try to help someone everything just goes to s**t".
This movie is really one of the greatest mystery movies I have seen in a long time, and since I'm a real mystery nut, it might tell you a little something. An interesting premise, wrapped into solid storytelling that still just every now and then keeps viewers guessing - and at the edge of their seats throughout, like any good mystery movie should. A painfully underrated gem of modern mainstream cinema, maybe because the audience and critics had the same doubts about Ashton Kutcher as I did.
Just a few days ago I bought the DVD, and I strongly recommend you do the same. The 2-DVD version features the Director's Cut on the second disc. Do yourself a favor and go for the Director's Cut. Aside from being 25 minutes shorter, the theatrical version has an ending that probably earned the producers a few more dollars at the box office, but then again it's too much like your average "hollywood ending" and therefore the movie's only true disappointment.
Guess what I'm going to do tonight, now that I've finished writing this comment - I've already put the Director's Cut disc in my DVD player :-)
Loser
(2000)
kinda nice, but nothing to write home about...
28 May 2005
Well here we go... another teen/young adult college comedy coming your way, spiced up with a little romance, the usual boy-meets-girl-falls-in-love-but-she's-already-with-someone storyline, and that's really all there is to tell, aside from a few notable college pranks that kinda make you wonder what _you_ did with your time back then...
The acting is alright, teen-movie poster child Jason Biggs as the "Loser" delivers well, Greg Kinnear does a great job in his role as the slick, uppity, self-important, boneheaded college professor with a dirty little secret.... an let's not forget the one and only true reason why this movie just might be for you after all: Mena Suvari!! (Yes folks, I gotta admit that I, for one, will never find true happiness until one fine day I'll get to be with somebody like her.) Cute as ever, she gives a standout performance as the sweet, attitude-laden little grunge girl. Really something to see!
As for the rest of the movie, it's more like "same old, same old..." - if you like Mena Suvari, you're bound to love it, but otherwise, not that I'd tell you not to bother, but just don't expect to be too thrilled because it's really all been done before (and some of it actually by none other than Jason Biggs in some of his better-known flicks).
The acting is alright, teen-movie poster child Jason Biggs as the "Loser" delivers well, Greg Kinnear does a great job in his role as the slick, uppity, self-important, boneheaded college professor with a dirty little secret.... an let's not forget the one and only true reason why this movie just might be for you after all: Mena Suvari!! (Yes folks, I gotta admit that I, for one, will never find true happiness until one fine day I'll get to be with somebody like her.) Cute as ever, she gives a standout performance as the sweet, attitude-laden little grunge girl. Really something to see!
As for the rest of the movie, it's more like "same old, same old..." - if you like Mena Suvari, you're bound to love it, but otherwise, not that I'd tell you not to bother, but just don't expect to be too thrilled because it's really all been done before (and some of it actually by none other than Jason Biggs in some of his better-known flicks).
Ocean's Twelve
(2004)
...huh?!
19 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
So here it is, another sequel to a well-done first part. First things first: Can it compete with Ocean's Eleven? No way, not at all.
Danny Ocean and his partners in crime are at it again, they're planning another high-profile heist (two actually, as the movie evolves). This time they really need the money to pay back what they stole from Danny Ocean's arch-rival in the first movie. They have ten days, or they'll be dead. So much for the premise.
While Ocean's Eleven was uniquely done as a sleek, glitzy, somewhat smart and really amusing tall-tale gangster story, Ocean's Twelve is really just your average gangster flick that doesn't even live up to its own promises. Plus, it is really confusing and I, for one, was lost. Too much stuff on the side, side plots that really have little to do with the storyline pop up throughout the movie. There are also many flashbacks and twists, so it skips back and forth and you really wonder what the heck is going on. Ocean's eleven was done in a similar way, but it all sort of worked well and only added to the film's ingenuity.
Plus, during the first half hour of Ocean's 12, there's really nothing much happening. We meet the cast, they find out that the guy they stole the money from in the first movie wants it back... and that's basically it. The movie picks up speed after that just a little bit, but only to become really confusing.
Of course it must have been difficult for the writers to come up with a similarly brilliant heist scene as the vault thing in Ocean's Eleven, but in the end, this time around they downright failed. The actual steal takes maybe thirty seconds, plus this time they do get caught on the spot. The biggest disappointment however is the stupid idea of distracting attention from the "object of desire" during the steal by letting Julia Roberts' Tess character play a real-life Julia Roberts. What were the writers thinking?
So, all in all, Ocean's Twelve is still a stylish movie in its own right, but for the most part, it is definitely more style than substance, plus, the makers of the sequel deeply misjudged the elements of the first movie that made it such a big box office hit. You don't impress audiences just by throwing glitzy, stylish characters at them as well as a nice scenery backdrop, side plots, flashbacks and whatnot. It takes a little more than that to blend those elements and turn them into a comprehensive work of art. Hopefully there won't be an Ocean's 13 as bad as this movie. (what's with that anyway? Who was the 12th guy in Ocean's Twelve?! Did I miss even more than I thought?)
My vote: 5.5 out of 10
Danny Ocean and his partners in crime are at it again, they're planning another high-profile heist (two actually, as the movie evolves). This time they really need the money to pay back what they stole from Danny Ocean's arch-rival in the first movie. They have ten days, or they'll be dead. So much for the premise.
While Ocean's Eleven was uniquely done as a sleek, glitzy, somewhat smart and really amusing tall-tale gangster story, Ocean's Twelve is really just your average gangster flick that doesn't even live up to its own promises. Plus, it is really confusing and I, for one, was lost. Too much stuff on the side, side plots that really have little to do with the storyline pop up throughout the movie. There are also many flashbacks and twists, so it skips back and forth and you really wonder what the heck is going on. Ocean's eleven was done in a similar way, but it all sort of worked well and only added to the film's ingenuity.
Plus, during the first half hour of Ocean's 12, there's really nothing much happening. We meet the cast, they find out that the guy they stole the money from in the first movie wants it back... and that's basically it. The movie picks up speed after that just a little bit, but only to become really confusing.
Of course it must have been difficult for the writers to come up with a similarly brilliant heist scene as the vault thing in Ocean's Eleven, but in the end, this time around they downright failed. The actual steal takes maybe thirty seconds, plus this time they do get caught on the spot. The biggest disappointment however is the stupid idea of distracting attention from the "object of desire" during the steal by letting Julia Roberts' Tess character play a real-life Julia Roberts. What were the writers thinking?
So, all in all, Ocean's Twelve is still a stylish movie in its own right, but for the most part, it is definitely more style than substance, plus, the makers of the sequel deeply misjudged the elements of the first movie that made it such a big box office hit. You don't impress audiences just by throwing glitzy, stylish characters at them as well as a nice scenery backdrop, side plots, flashbacks and whatnot. It takes a little more than that to blend those elements and turn them into a comprehensive work of art. Hopefully there won't be an Ocean's 13 as bad as this movie. (what's with that anyway? Who was the 12th guy in Ocean's Twelve?! Did I miss even more than I thought?)
My vote: 5.5 out of 10
Phone Booth
(2002)
Awesome!!!
13 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I had thought about renting this movie for some time but never got around doing it until now. As some of you may know, Colin Ferrell is scheduled to play no other than Detective James "Sonny" Crockett in an upcoming big-screen adaption of the 80s cult TV show "Miami Vice"-- potential sacrilegy for die-hard "vice" fans like me who would be more than happy to see Don Johnson take up his old role again. So my objective here was to see whether Colin Ferrell is "worthy" at all to begin with - but I got lots more than I had bargained for :-))
**spoilers**
At a first glance, the premise of this film may not look like something you can wrap a good thrilling story around - Stu Shepard (Colin Ferrell), a young, slick, self-absorbed, narcissistic, uppity (insert similar pejorative expressions here) PR agent answers a coincidental phone call in a phone booth, only to find out that there's a sniper on the other end who is pointing his rifle at him from one of the countless windows on 53rd street in NYC. The sniper threatens to kill him if he doesn't do exactly as he says.
But from then on, the movie evolves into an an all-out, edge-of-your-seat, mind-blowing thriller. It turns out the sniper has been watching him for some time. Stu uses the same (bugged) phone booth every day to call his "make-out interest" so his endearing, unsuspecting wife won't find out through his cell phone bills that he is cheating on her. Stu suddenly has to realize that the sniper is for real when he shoots and kills one of the disgruntled bystanders who want to use the phone. Police rush to the scene because everybody thinks Stu did it. The whole thing turns into a real spectacular when news people and bystanders (as well as Stu's wife and his "girlfriend") gather around, and the sniper really gets into the game of pushing Stu's buttons and having his way with him, the whole time threatening to kill him if he doesn't obey him (in Germany, this movie is aptly titled "Don't hang up" for this).
The film really is somewhat innovative in its own right: An entire movie shot from the inside and outside of a downtown telephone booth, creating an air of fear, paranoia and suspense that will keep you glued to your seat until the final minute (and you'll be rewarded with quite a twist at the very end, which really puts the film right up there with some of Hollywood's all-time thriller masterpieces!! If Hitchcock wasn't dead, I'd seriously wonder if he masterminded this movie!).
Much more can be said about the many different aspects of this film (such as the morality play of Stu being forced by the sniper to spill his own sinful guts in front of his two women and rolling cameras)... but that is for you to find out as you go and rent/buy "Phone Booth" - you'll definitely enjoy it! And if you're anything like me, you may even feel a bit uneasy the next time you use a phone booth ;-)
As for Colin Ferrell, now that I've been able to witness his way-above-average acting talent, I'm comfortable knowing that he'll be chasing bad guys through Miami next summer!
My vote: 9 out of 10 phone booths
**spoilers**
At a first glance, the premise of this film may not look like something you can wrap a good thrilling story around - Stu Shepard (Colin Ferrell), a young, slick, self-absorbed, narcissistic, uppity (insert similar pejorative expressions here) PR agent answers a coincidental phone call in a phone booth, only to find out that there's a sniper on the other end who is pointing his rifle at him from one of the countless windows on 53rd street in NYC. The sniper threatens to kill him if he doesn't do exactly as he says.
But from then on, the movie evolves into an an all-out, edge-of-your-seat, mind-blowing thriller. It turns out the sniper has been watching him for some time. Stu uses the same (bugged) phone booth every day to call his "make-out interest" so his endearing, unsuspecting wife won't find out through his cell phone bills that he is cheating on her. Stu suddenly has to realize that the sniper is for real when he shoots and kills one of the disgruntled bystanders who want to use the phone. Police rush to the scene because everybody thinks Stu did it. The whole thing turns into a real spectacular when news people and bystanders (as well as Stu's wife and his "girlfriend") gather around, and the sniper really gets into the game of pushing Stu's buttons and having his way with him, the whole time threatening to kill him if he doesn't obey him (in Germany, this movie is aptly titled "Don't hang up" for this).
The film really is somewhat innovative in its own right: An entire movie shot from the inside and outside of a downtown telephone booth, creating an air of fear, paranoia and suspense that will keep you glued to your seat until the final minute (and you'll be rewarded with quite a twist at the very end, which really puts the film right up there with some of Hollywood's all-time thriller masterpieces!! If Hitchcock wasn't dead, I'd seriously wonder if he masterminded this movie!).
Much more can be said about the many different aspects of this film (such as the morality play of Stu being forced by the sniper to spill his own sinful guts in front of his two women and rolling cameras)... but that is for you to find out as you go and rent/buy "Phone Booth" - you'll definitely enjoy it! And if you're anything like me, you may even feel a bit uneasy the next time you use a phone booth ;-)
As for Colin Ferrell, now that I've been able to witness his way-above-average acting talent, I'm comfortable knowing that he'll be chasing bad guys through Miami next summer!
My vote: 9 out of 10 phone booths
The Transporter
(2002)
Dumbish, no soul
5 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie last night at a friend's birthday get-together, and I had never heard of it before (and hopefully I will forget about it again soon).
**INTERMITTENT SPOILERS AHEAD**
The whole movie is dripping with overused action clichés. So there we have the main character, the "Transporter", basically just a slick, high-profile delivery boy in suit and tie who drives a black 7-series BMW. Whatever shady business you're in, he'll handle the driving part, from bank robberies to smuggling people. He also is a retired Marine with quite a past (dind't we see that one too many times? Even Steven Segal is probably tired of playing a character like this by now). He has a strict set of rules while he is doing business, such as "no names", "no questions", "no plan alterations", blah blah blah....
One day he breaks one of his own rules as he opens a big traveling bag he is supposed to deliver - and in it he finds a gagged and handcuffed young beautiful Asian woman. From then on, mayhem arises, people try to kill him, blow up his house with guided missiles and.... oh yeah, the Asian girl falls in love with him and they make out. He soon gets to the bottom of things as he finds out that the girl's father is smuggling illegal Chinese immigrants into the country by the hundreds.
So much for the story, nothing new here, it's all been done before. With Luc Besson as the executive producer of this movie, your expectations are naturally high, especially after masterpieces such as "The Fifth Element" or the highly acclaimed "Leon". But this time around, Besson is not being his usual ingenious self. Sure, he delivers in putting together a (somewhat sleek) action-rigged spectacular - you'll see explosions, cool weapons, shootouts, martial arts scenes, car chases, flying cars, a dramatic highway chase involving an 18-wheeler and a small airplane etc. But somehow, with this movie, the whole appears to be less than the sum of its parts. Despite their sleekness, many of these parts do look a bit like recycled scenes from your average, cheesy Hollywood action flick, and premise and storyline are ultra-thin.
To get to the point: the movie has lots of (mostly visual) bells and whistles, but it has no soul. If you pick this one up from the video rental, be sure to also get a six pack on the way home.
5.5 out of 10
**INTERMITTENT SPOILERS AHEAD**
The whole movie is dripping with overused action clichés. So there we have the main character, the "Transporter", basically just a slick, high-profile delivery boy in suit and tie who drives a black 7-series BMW. Whatever shady business you're in, he'll handle the driving part, from bank robberies to smuggling people. He also is a retired Marine with quite a past (dind't we see that one too many times? Even Steven Segal is probably tired of playing a character like this by now). He has a strict set of rules while he is doing business, such as "no names", "no questions", "no plan alterations", blah blah blah....
One day he breaks one of his own rules as he opens a big traveling bag he is supposed to deliver - and in it he finds a gagged and handcuffed young beautiful Asian woman. From then on, mayhem arises, people try to kill him, blow up his house with guided missiles and.... oh yeah, the Asian girl falls in love with him and they make out. He soon gets to the bottom of things as he finds out that the girl's father is smuggling illegal Chinese immigrants into the country by the hundreds.
So much for the story, nothing new here, it's all been done before. With Luc Besson as the executive producer of this movie, your expectations are naturally high, especially after masterpieces such as "The Fifth Element" or the highly acclaimed "Leon". But this time around, Besson is not being his usual ingenious self. Sure, he delivers in putting together a (somewhat sleek) action-rigged spectacular - you'll see explosions, cool weapons, shootouts, martial arts scenes, car chases, flying cars, a dramatic highway chase involving an 18-wheeler and a small airplane etc. But somehow, with this movie, the whole appears to be less than the sum of its parts. Despite their sleekness, many of these parts do look a bit like recycled scenes from your average, cheesy Hollywood action flick, and premise and storyline are ultra-thin.
To get to the point: the movie has lots of (mostly visual) bells and whistles, but it has no soul. If you pick this one up from the video rental, be sure to also get a six pack on the way home.
5.5 out of 10
Lammbock
(2001)
not your average stoner comedy ;-) (spoilers)
18 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is by far one of the best Independent-ish ones I have seen in a long time. Very fresh, original look at a genre where you would think that they've just about done it all.
So there are these two potheads who grow their own weed (...and lots of it - all in all a field of well over 250 square feet, well hidden somewhere in the woods). They operate a run-down, back-alley pizza delivery service which really just serves as a cover for selling their weed to customers. You order a "Gourmet" pizza and they will put some weed on it, wrapped in aluminum foil and carefully hidden under a big sausage slice. Business goes well until they're in for some bad luck... one of their newly-acquainted friends turns out to be an undercover cop, and one day while they're at the field, they get caught by a forester. From there on, it's all just hilarious mayhem.
What makes this movie so refreshing are the dialogues, for one thing, and the storytelling in itself. As can be seen in an interview on the DVD with one of the main actors, the idea with the dialogues in the film was to a great extent to improvise rather than clinging to some script word-by-word. Moritz Bleibtreu (Kai) and Lukas Gregorowicz (Stefan) are REALLY good at this in their two lead roles- they are hilarious together and make it look more like real-life buddy talk. And especially Kai talks a lot of nonsense while "under the influence" ;-)
The storytelling with its numerous sub-plots is very well done. Just a bunch of things that most "twentysomethings" can relate to in one way or another. Stefan is almost out of law school and is worried that all the dope will keep him from studying hard enough for his finals. And then his ex-girlfriend walks back into his life and he really wonders if he should leave his current girlfriend for her. Kai on the other hand has trouble dealing with Stefan's little sister who is coming on to him... and so on.
Rent or buy the movie, watch it, watch it over and over, and you will probably never get tired of it!!!
I don't know if this movie will ever be available on the Anglo-Saxon market, but if not, you'll definitely be missing out.
****1/2 out of *****
So there are these two potheads who grow their own weed (...and lots of it - all in all a field of well over 250 square feet, well hidden somewhere in the woods). They operate a run-down, back-alley pizza delivery service which really just serves as a cover for selling their weed to customers. You order a "Gourmet" pizza and they will put some weed on it, wrapped in aluminum foil and carefully hidden under a big sausage slice. Business goes well until they're in for some bad luck... one of their newly-acquainted friends turns out to be an undercover cop, and one day while they're at the field, they get caught by a forester. From there on, it's all just hilarious mayhem.
What makes this movie so refreshing are the dialogues, for one thing, and the storytelling in itself. As can be seen in an interview on the DVD with one of the main actors, the idea with the dialogues in the film was to a great extent to improvise rather than clinging to some script word-by-word. Moritz Bleibtreu (Kai) and Lukas Gregorowicz (Stefan) are REALLY good at this in their two lead roles- they are hilarious together and make it look more like real-life buddy talk. And especially Kai talks a lot of nonsense while "under the influence" ;-)
The storytelling with its numerous sub-plots is very well done. Just a bunch of things that most "twentysomethings" can relate to in one way or another. Stefan is almost out of law school and is worried that all the dope will keep him from studying hard enough for his finals. And then his ex-girlfriend walks back into his life and he really wonders if he should leave his current girlfriend for her. Kai on the other hand has trouble dealing with Stefan's little sister who is coming on to him... and so on.
Rent or buy the movie, watch it, watch it over and over, and you will probably never get tired of it!!!
I don't know if this movie will ever be available on the Anglo-Saxon market, but if not, you'll definitely be missing out.
****1/2 out of *****
High Fidelity
(2000)
One of my all-tine favorites (may contain spoilers)
30 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie sums up a lot about failed relationships... especially about what it's like actually being the one who fails (i.e. gets dumped repeatedly).
John Cusack plays Rob Gordon, an introspective college dropout in his early-to-mid 30s who just barely gets by, running his own record store called "Championship Vinyl". One day his girlfriend leaves him, throwing his whole world in chaos. So he sits back, digs up old, painful memories and starts to wonder why he is "doomed to be left" - why he is always the one that gets dumped. He decides to get in touch with his "top five" ex-girlfriends ("those were the ones that really hurt") to find answers and of course he also tries to get his now-ex girlfriend to go back out with him. Unfortunately, she is already "otherwise involved". So much for most of the story - I won't give away the ending here though, that's for you to find out ;-)
To base a movie on a Nick Hornby novel, like this one, is surely a good place to start, depending of course on how well the novel is adapted to the big screen. In this case, it works quite well, although not-so-minor changes have been made. For one thing, the setting is downtown Chicago, and not London, as it was in the original novel.
The casting is well done. First of all, anyone who appreciates Jack Black's abundant acting talent will LOVE the way he plays his freaked-out, neurotic "Eric" character. John Cusack also does a good job in his lead role, especially in sad moments where you can really feel the pain in his character while he has that sinister, regretful look on his face.
The film really is entertaining and offers a couple of great laughs alongside a somewhat deep and serious storyline. Maybe it lacks some pace every now and then, but instead you are rewarded with a few thought-provoking dialogs on the nature of relationships and why people fail at them. It makes this movie even more worthwhile. In fact, the first time I watched it, it did much to comfort me during a time when MY girlfriend had just left me... **spoiler ahead!!!** in my case, however, I wasn't lucky enough to get a happy ending like John Cusack does at the end of the movie... bummer :-/
All in all: Absolutely recommended... not just for someone who likes to be deep in thoughts about relationships ;-)
8/10
John Cusack plays Rob Gordon, an introspective college dropout in his early-to-mid 30s who just barely gets by, running his own record store called "Championship Vinyl". One day his girlfriend leaves him, throwing his whole world in chaos. So he sits back, digs up old, painful memories and starts to wonder why he is "doomed to be left" - why he is always the one that gets dumped. He decides to get in touch with his "top five" ex-girlfriends ("those were the ones that really hurt") to find answers and of course he also tries to get his now-ex girlfriend to go back out with him. Unfortunately, she is already "otherwise involved". So much for most of the story - I won't give away the ending here though, that's for you to find out ;-)
To base a movie on a Nick Hornby novel, like this one, is surely a good place to start, depending of course on how well the novel is adapted to the big screen. In this case, it works quite well, although not-so-minor changes have been made. For one thing, the setting is downtown Chicago, and not London, as it was in the original novel.
The casting is well done. First of all, anyone who appreciates Jack Black's abundant acting talent will LOVE the way he plays his freaked-out, neurotic "Eric" character. John Cusack also does a good job in his lead role, especially in sad moments where you can really feel the pain in his character while he has that sinister, regretful look on his face.
The film really is entertaining and offers a couple of great laughs alongside a somewhat deep and serious storyline. Maybe it lacks some pace every now and then, but instead you are rewarded with a few thought-provoking dialogs on the nature of relationships and why people fail at them. It makes this movie even more worthwhile. In fact, the first time I watched it, it did much to comfort me during a time when MY girlfriend had just left me... **spoiler ahead!!!** in my case, however, I wasn't lucky enough to get a happy ending like John Cusack does at the end of the movie... bummer :-/
All in all: Absolutely recommended... not just for someone who likes to be deep in thoughts about relationships ;-)
8/10
The Day After
(1983 TV Movie)
Still frightening after all these years (poor DVD features though)
19 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw the movie around 1987 when it was first shown on German TV (while at movie theaters across Germany, the movie had a "12" rating and I was only 10 at the time). And I remember that even then, in 1987, it sparked up quite a discussion the following day at school. I grew up in the Hanover area, which is some 60 miles west of the former East German border and cities like Helmstedt and Wolfsburg (in the movie, they play a vital role in the prelude to the main standoff between the U.S. and Russia). This made the whole scenario especially chilling for us.
"The Day After" is the definitive anti-war movie of the early 1980s. For the first time, the nuclear holocaust was not portrayed as some military think-tank scheme with a focus on rank-and-file leaders and the goings-on at the Oval Office. This film is about people like you and me and their everyday struggle in a world that all of a sudden offers nothing more to live for. Civilization is almost brought back to the stone age, there is death and destruction everywhere, and those who were spared by the nuclear fire are fading away as their health visibly deteriorates **spoiler alert** (perhaps the most disturbing scene is where a church community is gathered for service in a pretty much no longer existing church building and the pastor holds his sermon thanking the lord).
This is truly not a feel-good film to enjoy with a six pack while you are having your buddies over. It is a chilling account of what it could have been like had there really been a full-scale nuclear war between the two superpowers. But even today, with the Cold War long gone, this movie touches you and will send shivers down your spine not only during the scenes where the bombs go off. It does so because the different elements (plot, narration, acting and screenplay) go so well together.
The special effects in the scenes where the nuclear strike takes place, well, that's a different story. Naturally, they are 1983-style, when CGI was little more than three random letters of the alphabet. But this does not take away the film's credibility at all.
I bought the DVD because to me this film is a must-have for any collection of all-time movie classics. Sadly, I bought a shortened version that you can find in stores in Germany (and maybe in the U.S. as well or whatever your whereabouts). It only has 115 minutes (the original one is 126 minutes) with several not-so-unimportant scenes cut out. Not that I would really care for more on that, but the nuclear blast scenes have been edited as well. And then there's the virtually non-existent extra footage that you have really come to expect even for classic movies (am I right?). The DVD only features a few text files, mainly giving you the biographies/filmographies of the main actors.
Sound and image on the DVD are alright considering that we're talking about a 21-year-old made-for-TV film here. It comes with a 4:3 TV-format picture and with mono sound. The picture sometimes lacks contrast and sharpness. It all does have kind of a high-end VHS feel to it. Let us kindly overlook this fact.
So, all in all, the movie is a timeless classic that has not lost any of its authenticity over the past 21 years - if you want to buy/rent the DVD, however, make sure you get the original 126-minute version!
8.0/10
"The Day After" is the definitive anti-war movie of the early 1980s. For the first time, the nuclear holocaust was not portrayed as some military think-tank scheme with a focus on rank-and-file leaders and the goings-on at the Oval Office. This film is about people like you and me and their everyday struggle in a world that all of a sudden offers nothing more to live for. Civilization is almost brought back to the stone age, there is death and destruction everywhere, and those who were spared by the nuclear fire are fading away as their health visibly deteriorates **spoiler alert** (perhaps the most disturbing scene is where a church community is gathered for service in a pretty much no longer existing church building and the pastor holds his sermon thanking the lord).
This is truly not a feel-good film to enjoy with a six pack while you are having your buddies over. It is a chilling account of what it could have been like had there really been a full-scale nuclear war between the two superpowers. But even today, with the Cold War long gone, this movie touches you and will send shivers down your spine not only during the scenes where the bombs go off. It does so because the different elements (plot, narration, acting and screenplay) go so well together.
The special effects in the scenes where the nuclear strike takes place, well, that's a different story. Naturally, they are 1983-style, when CGI was little more than three random letters of the alphabet. But this does not take away the film's credibility at all.
I bought the DVD because to me this film is a must-have for any collection of all-time movie classics. Sadly, I bought a shortened version that you can find in stores in Germany (and maybe in the U.S. as well or whatever your whereabouts). It only has 115 minutes (the original one is 126 minutes) with several not-so-unimportant scenes cut out. Not that I would really care for more on that, but the nuclear blast scenes have been edited as well. And then there's the virtually non-existent extra footage that you have really come to expect even for classic movies (am I right?). The DVD only features a few text files, mainly giving you the biographies/filmographies of the main actors.
Sound and image on the DVD are alright considering that we're talking about a 21-year-old made-for-TV film here. It comes with a 4:3 TV-format picture and with mono sound. The picture sometimes lacks contrast and sharpness. It all does have kind of a high-end VHS feel to it. Let us kindly overlook this fact.
So, all in all, the movie is a timeless classic that has not lost any of its authenticity over the past 21 years - if you want to buy/rent the DVD, however, make sure you get the original 126-minute version!
8.0/10
Tell Your Friends