Movie Talk
20 Most Overrated Movies of All Time
Thursday, November 30th, 2006Apparently, Premiere magazine has published a list. John Scalzi blogged about it on By The Way, and then Jason Bennion added his thoughts no Simple Tricks and Nonsense.
The general agreement that seems to be forming is that Premiere was right on for half the list, and completely out of their mind for the other half (disagreement still exists on which half is which, of course). I’ve re-reproduced the Premiere list here, crossing off the ones I think they were wrong about. Like Jason, I’ll add my own entries below:
20. American Beauty 19. Chicago
18. Clerks17. Fantasia16. Field of Dreams
15. Chariots of Fire14. Good Will Hunting13. Forrest Gump
12. Jules and Jim
11. A Beautiful Mind
10. Monster’s Ball
9. Moonstruck
8. Mystic River
7. Nashville6. The Wizard of Oz
5. An American in Paris
4. Easy Rider
3. The Red Shoes
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
1. Gone with the Wind
First, my strikeouts:
— Chicago brought back the movie musical, and did so in a way that worked extremely well. They did a spectacular job integrating music into the plot, and some of the set design was unbelievably creative, which actually helped achieve the effect. Any movie that has me noticing things like set design & art direction has got to be a great film.
— Fantasia isn’t a favorite of mine, but I don’t think it’s overrated. It was as groundbreaking as everyone says it was, and basically launched the whole concept of “Popular Classical” music. Even Fantasia 2000 followed in those footsteps, using music that was both classical & recognizable (like Pomp & Circumstance and Rhapsody in Blue).
— Field of Dreams is just a great movie. It was on the other day at 1AM, and it kept me up well past two re-watching it. Call me sappy, but any movie that can hold my attention at that hour deserves whatever accolades get thrown at it.
— Good Will Hunting is also a great movie, judging again by the “I’ll-watch-it-if-it’s-on-cable-late-at-night” meter. Affleck & Damon weaved a very complex story together very well, so it never feels the least bit forced at any point. Also, Robin Williams proves yet again that all that uncontrollable zaniness is actually quite controllable.
— Forrest Gump is unbelievable (to Jason’s point), but it is so unbelievable that it stops making a difference. At some point, you stop thinking about how unlikely the plot is, and start to see Forrest as an idea, not a character – the idea that optimism is a good thing, and that thing will eventually work themselves out.
— The Wizard of Oz deserves its accolades for two reasons: First, it did what Chicago did in terms of weaving music into a storyline, so it doesn’t feel like the movie “stops for a song.” Second, the amount of Americana that has come from this film, (“There’s no place like home,” “Somewhere over the Rainbow,” “Lions & Tigers & Bears, oh my!”, etc.) is so immense, that you can’t help but give it it’s props…
I should also note that there are several films on Premiere’s list that I haven’t seen. I left them on the list on the theory that they received so much praise and yet, I have had no desire to see them. Hence, overrated (at least to me).
Now, my additions:
— Sideways: This thing won an award for Best Comedy, and after I finished watching the DVD, I had to check the case to make sure I’d rented the same movie. I honestly don’t even understand how this movie is supposed to be funny. A major downer…
— Anything by Woody Allen: Reveered as a great director, I have yet to see anything he made that has even mildly interested me (and I’m a Jewish guy, born in Brooklyn – so I’m basically his target audience).
— Blazing Saddles: I think some of Mel Brooks’ later works were much better (History of the World, Part I, Spaceballs), but Blazing Saddles is the one that gets all the accolades. Go figure…
— 2001: A Space Oddessey: I know, I know – it’s already on the list. But this movie was so spectacularly bad, IMHO, that I had to mention it again. I’m too young to have seen it in the theaters, but I rented it on DVD twice, and fell asleep both times (the second rental was because it’s so heralded as a great movie, that I couldn’t believe I fell asleep the first time. After the second time, I gave up).
— Spinal Tap: Good film. Very good film, even. Cult classic? Side-splittingly funny? No. I just don’t see it.
I’m sure I’ll think of more & update this entry, but that’s all for now. Watch this space…
Categories: Movie Talk | 5 Comments »
Dumb & Dumber…
Friday, November 24th, 2006
Categories: Movie Talk | 2 Comments »
Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code
Wednesday, June 7th, 2006At this point, everybody basically knows what this movie is about, how it came from a best-selling novel, and all of the associated controversy, etc. So I’ll just get right to the point: I liked it. A lot.
Which is not to say I disagree with the vast majority of reviews out there – it’s very detailed, very hard to follow, and very slow moving at times. I just don’t see why this makes it a bad movie. In fact, having read the book, these are the very things about the book I enjoyed most. So the fact that the same traits exist in the movie doesn’t put me off, it meets my expectations.
At the end of the day, this is not a summer/popcorn movie. It’s a murder mystery wrapped in an Indiana Jones film, served on a bed of James Bond. It makes you think. If you’re the kind of person who has to go back in the book and re-read chapters to understand the backstory, the movie might be frustrating for you. If that’s the case, I suggest seeing it twice (Note to Ron Howard: please send the check to my home address), or renting the DVD when it comes out so you can pause and rewind to your heart’s content.
Ironically, the movie does a very clever job of bypassing some of the most tedious scenes in the book. [Don’t worry, I’ll avoid spoilers here, I promise.] The one that jumps out in my mind is a long scene in the book where the main characters go to a public library to research one of the story’s many riddles, running various queries through the library’s super-computer to eventually discover the answer. In the movie, they borrow a cell phone from a stranger, and use the phone’s web browser to find the answer on the first try.
The other thing about the movie that surprised me was the degree to which the main character, Dr. Randall Langdon (Tom Hanks) disputes the theories that have caused all the controversy in the real-life press. Other characters (most notably Ian McKellan’s Lee Teabing) advance the theories of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus, etc., and Langdon rushes to point out that all of this is unproven theory. Teabing eventually wins the argument, of course, but Langdon is always in the background, shaking his head and rolling his eyes. Even when educating the overwhelmed and naive Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), Langdon couches his explanations in phrases like “Some people claim…” and “The story goes that…” At one point, Neveu asks Langdon, “Do you really believe all of this?” and Langdon responds, “We’ve been sucked into a world where people do believe it . . . enough to resort to murder.” Some of this exists in the book, but it seemed much more prominent on screen. I would call it a nod of respect to the Catholic Church by director Ron Howard, but the Church has been so vocal about the movie before seeing it that I can’t imagine they’d acknowledge it at this point.
If I had to offer any criticism of the movie, it would be the lack of chemistry between the two main characters. These folks go through hell and back together (no pun intended), so one would naturally expect them to grow close to each other, worry for each other’s safety, rejoice in escaping a close call, etc. In the book, there’s even an undercurrent of sexual tension, with Langdon noting his attraction but putting it on hold while the actions swirls around him. In the movie, the two seem to be all business, all the time. At the very end, when the excitement is over, there’s a touching scene, but it comes across as the blossoming of a romantic interest, rather than the satisfying opportunity for the couple to stop, take a breath, and acknowledge their feelings for each other. After reading the book, I assumed the two would begin dating the very next day. After seeing the movie, I think he might wait a few months and then decide to ask her out for a casual cup of coffee. Opportunity lost, if you ask me.
To sum up: if you liked the book, I think you’ll like the movie. If you haven’t read the book, I think you’ll like the movie even more (my wife loved it), but only if you’re willing to put your thinking cap on and pay close attention.
Also, I heard that if you re-arrange the words in the closing credits, they form a quote from the New Testament.
(Just kidding).
Categories: ISBS Reviews, Movie Talk | Comments Off on Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code
Finally, Someone Who Likes the Da Vinci Code
Thursday, May 18th, 2006Back in early April, I predicted the success of The Da Vinci Code movie:
Mark my words: this movie is going to be the next Titanic. It’s going to make a billion dollars. And the irony is, a lot of its business is going to be driven by these paranoid religious folks who seem so desparate to prove to us what we already know – that it’s just a story.
Since it’s debut at the Cannes Film Festival, there’s been a slight hitch in the plan, though: everyone seems to have hated it. As of this writing, 23 of the 29 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are negative, and the average rating is a mere 4.8 out of 10.
This came as a bit of a shock to me for two reasons: 1) I really enjoyed the book, and 2) I just can’t imagine that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, two of the most talented movie guys working today, could come together for such a clunker.
Today, though, Roger Ebert’s review came out. I like Ebert’s reviews because he tends to like the same kinds of movies I like, and also because he usually does a good job of explaining why he likes or doesn’t like a movie. In this case, I think he sheds some light on why the bulk of reviewers panned this film:
The movie works; it’s involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations. After it’s over and we’re back on the street, we wonder why this crucial secret needed to be protected by the equivalent of a brain-twister puzzle crossed with a scavenger hunt. The trail that Robert and Sophie follow is so difficult and convoluted that it seems impossible that anyone, including them, could ever follow it. The secret needs to be protected up to a point; beyond that it is absolutely lost, and the whole point of protecting it is beside the point.
In other words, it’s hard to follow. I guess your average movie reviewer sees this as a bad thing; though I rather expected it from this movie. In fact, having read the book, I can’t imagine how anyone would walk into the film and not expect it to require a lot of thinking. Maybe because it’s in the “Summer Blockbuster” category?
At any rate, I’m still looking forward to seeing it, if for no other reason than to see which of the critics I agree with. And I still stand by my claims that the movie will set box office records (OK, $1 billion might have been pushing it, especially if it doesn’t receive critical acclaim), but heck – Titanic only scored 86% on Rotten Tomatoes (7.7/10) and it hit the mark…
Categories: Movie Talk | Comments Off on Finally, Someone Who Likes the Da Vinci Code
Movie Review: United 93
Sunday, May 7th, 2006Wow.
It’s hard to find words to describe what I just saw. The most apropos concept I can come up with is INTENSE. From beginning to end, it’s intense. And uncategorizable (if that’s a word). It’s not a documentary and it’s not a dramatization. As other reviews have said, it offers no opinion and no sappy backstory. It has no point to make – it’s just telling you what happened, and what may have happened in the places where we can’t know for sure.
At least for me, the emotions began before the film even started. I started to doubt whether I really wanted to see it. Wouldn’t it be easier just to look away? Yes, but as I said earlier, I really didn’t want to do that. So I kept my seat…
As the film began, the first thing I was struck by was how normal everything was. People boarding the plane, going through security checkpoints, flight attendants and pilots talking to each other about their day & their plans for upcoming vacation time, maintenance folks fueling the plane, and so on. It’s normal, and yet ever so stressful to watch.
As the events begin to unfold, you get a stunningly clear view of the confusion, urgency, and best efforts of the people in the control towers, air traffic control headquarters, and military headquarters. This stuff isn’t dramatized. We know exactly what happened in those places, and according to the credits, more than half of the “main characters” on the screen were the actual folks who were actually there that day. In the space of a couple of hours, a normal Tuesday morning turned into their worst nightmare. Yes, some mistakes were made, but they all seem drastically beside the point. These people had no dress rehearsal for this – no advanced warning, no training. They followed their procedures as best they could, they maintained cool heads at all times, and while they didn’t prevent any planes from hitting any buildings, they did manage to land 4,200 aircraft in a matter of hours, shutting down U.S. airspace for the first time in history.
Then the movie focuses exclusively on the events inside the plane. Other reviews have called these folks heroes; the first people to live in a post-9/11 world; the first soldiers in the War on Terror. My impression was a little different – it was more like “They’re obviously going to fly this plane into a building. We have absolutely nothing to lose. So let’s try and do something.” No matter. What’s obvious is that in a situation where they all would have been completely justified crawling up in a fetal position and crying out the last few hours of their lives, they (like the folks on the ground) kept their heads about them, organized, and made an attempt.
Obviously, there are some very poignant moments. The one that caught my eye most was just before they rushed the cockpit: just about everyone on the plane is praying. The hijackers are praying in Arabic, and passengers are praying in Hebrew and English (the Lord’s Prayer). Each of the world’s major religions, all in the exact same situation, all praying to their respective Gods to help them out of it – one way or the other.
As I’ve said, I’ve attempted to learn as much as I could about what happened that day. Unlike a documentary, there is no omniscient narrator here. No one stopping the action to explain what was going on elsewhere at the time, no interviews with participants offering opinion or commentary. So while historical details need to come from other sources, this film gives you a sense of the emotion of the moment that a documentary would not. It offers a glimpse into how it might have felt to have been there. It’s showing you, not teaching you.
No one will ever know for sure exactly what happened on that plane. That said, this movie is so well done that I’m happy to accept it as fact in my own mind. The people on that plane were American heroes. Their last moments, by definition, are undocumented. And while we can’t document them for certain, I think United 93 can serve as a fitting tribute to their legacy.
God Bless Them All. May They Rest in Peace.
Categories: ISBS Reviews, Movie Talk | 4 Comments »
Why Watch United 93?
Thursday, May 4th, 2006Jason Bennion and I have been having a conversation over at Simple Tricks and Nonsense about the United 93 film. Jason asks:
I find it interesting that you feel like seeing this movie is some kind of duty. Given your proximity to the sites of the attacks, I would think you would be less inclined to want to see it. Could you explain why you feel like you have to see it? Is it to help you process something about the event, or to pay tribute to those who died, or something else?
Well, Jason, it’s like this: For about six months after September 11, the nation basically grieved together as one. At some point, though, life began returning to normal, and we began discussing important questions like “What happened?” “Could it have been prevented?” “How to we keep it from happening again?” These discussions yielded some useful results, but they also came with a predictable dose of defensiveness, “gotcha” politics, and sound-bite driven media reports.
Almost immediately, the zeitgeist about what happened that day began to deviate from what actually happened. Today, only 4.5 years later, many people have misperceptions about the event. They believe that no one did anything about the attacks for seven minutes while President Bush read stories to a kindergarten class. They believe that most of the hijackers were Saudi-born. They believe that a Presidential Daily Brief from August, 2001 warned that Bin Laden was going to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They believe that our first reaction to the events was to invade Iraq. And the list goes on and on.
I have two small children. Thankfully, neither of them will remember that day (one was only 15 months old at the time, and the other wasn’t born yet), but I’m 100% sure that they will learn about it in school, and that they will ask me about it when they do. Given the enormity of what happened, I feel a strong responsibility to understand the facts, and be able to tell them the truth about it when that day comes, as opposed to repeating what will, by then, have become universally accepted myths.
More selfishly, studying the details of what happened somehow helps me to deal with it personally. I’m no psychiatrist, but I think it has something to do with giving my Left (logical) Brain something to do, so my reaction is completely Right (emotional) Brain . It also helps to minimize the righteous anger that I would feel (and that many others do feel) when they hear some of the more sensationalized myths described above.
For these reasons, I’ve watched many of the documentary films on television, surfed countless websites, and I’ve read the 9/11 Commission Report from cover to cover (which, by the way, I recommend to everyone. It really is a very well-written, useful document). To me, United 93 falls into the same category. I don’t want to relive the events again, but I want to know as much about what happened as I can – for my sake and for my kids’ sake.
The terms I keep reading in reference to the film are “reminder” and “re-creation.” But do we really need a reminder of what happened? I don’t think anyone has forgotten after only four and a half years. If it’s intended as a historical document, why dramatize it? Why not make an actual historical documentary about the event?
In this case, I think there’s a fine line between drama and documentary. For as much as we know about the events of that day (and, thanks to the work of the 9/11 commission and other scholars, we really do know a lot), we know very little about what happened on that plane. We have cell phone calls from the passengers to their loved ones, and we have the cockpit voice recorder, from which we’ve been able to piece together the basic story.
A true documentary would, by definition, have to leave out large chunks of the story. This movie fills in the gaps in (what I understand to be) a very tasteful, respectful way. Reviews I’ve read stress that there are no heroes here, no sub-plot love interests, no back-story about the passengers to establish them as “real people.” we know as much about the passengers during the film as we would had we been sitting on the plane with them that day. In this sense, I think the film supplements the historical record in an appropriate way. Fifty years from now, it will be as if Schindler’s List was made in 1955, when the people who were involved were still there to participate in the storytelling. That will be useful to my children and my grandchildren.
Categories: Movie Talk | 9 Comments »
Is It Too Soon for TWO Movies?!?
Monday, May 1st, 2006Flipping channels this weekend, I came across a movie on A&E called Flight 93, about the plane that crashed in Shanksville, PA on Sept. 11, 2001. At first, I thought maybe the producers of United 93 had decided to air the movie on television as well as in the theaters, but that sounded economically and logistically impossible, even for a film on this topic.
As it turns out, they really are two different films, made within a few months of each other. What’s amazing to me is all the ink United 93 has been getting of the “is it too soon?” variety, without a single mention of the fact that another (almost identical, it seems) movie is also coming to cable TV at the same time.
Then, there’s this:
The trailer for [United 93], shot documentary-style and featuring a no-name, non-Hollywood cast, was pulled by one theater in New York after 9-11-sensitive audiences complained–and, per one report, cried.
RV, the family-friendly road-trip comedy starring Robin Williams, did not appear to tap such emotions. It did, however, tap wallets. Its $16.4 million take was the best of the weekend, answering the question as to whether it was too soon for audiences to laugh at a movie that seemingly ignored sky-high gas prices.
It’s good to see that the movie critics can maintain a sense of humor (at least, I hope they were kidding…)
Categories: Movie Talk | Comments Off on Is It Too Soon for TWO Movies?!?