Change Your Image
Lil' Oz
Reviews
Heist (2001)
One of Mamet's best
I absolutely love this film. As most people know, Mamet is a master of dialog, and such is the case here. But the real gem of the movie is how he plays with the outcome. Who does the girl end up with? Did she switch loyalties is it another aspect of the greater scam. The smile on Gene Hackman's face at the end can have so many different meanings. Does he know something that we don't? Is he smiling because he won in the end? Is he smiling because he's going to retire and all the frivol and froth is over?
It's much like Hamlet in the sense that the key question there is, "is he mad or not?" Here, there are more questions to ponder, but that is the fun of it.
Chicago (2002)
Exceeding Magnificle (yes, this summary line is typed correctly)
Just saw Chicago tonight. What a great flick! It should be pointed out, here, I suppose, that I had never seen the show before and was very unfamiliar with its particulars. I wasn't even familiar with most of the music contained therein. I must go out and get this soundtrack!
I was very intrigued and interested in this movie adaptation of Chicago, but I did have a few doubts. First of all, I wasn't sure about John Reilley. I mean he's that swordfisherman in "The Perfect Storm," right? I was pleasantly surprised. He was just great in this film. He really brought tenderness to his role. Granted, he was a sap, but he played a sap so well.
My other doubt was Catherine Zeta-Jones ... frankly, I have not been impressed her since Zorro. Here, however, I was very impressed with her. She sang and danced very well and conveyed the right attitude for the role of Velma. When I heard that she was first cast, I thought, "umm, ok, ..." Kudos to her for proving me wrong. I must say at this point, I would have liked to see the other Catherine (Catherine Bell) have a shot at the role of Velma, though.
Queen Latifa was great! Her musical number was one of the highlights of the film. I liked the complexity of her character. I was never really sure if she was a mother figure to the women or just an exploiter of their situation. She was probably both, I suppose. I hope she wins the Best Supporting Actress statue come awards night. She really does deserve it!
Richard Gere. Hmm. I have mixed feelings about his performance and role. He did play the essence of the character very well. He does have that right type of "slickness" to capture the essence of Mr. Flynn. His musical numbers were hit and miss. I will say unequivocally, though, that his tap number during the courtroom scene was just amazing.
The real reason, however, to see Chicago is Renee Zellweger's performance as Roxie Hart. I'm still reeling from this. She was just amazing. I wasn't so sure about her lack of singing ability/experience when I first heard that she was cast. This girl NEEDS to do more singing! Wow! Also, she had the right charisma that really let you care for and root for her character even though she is a terribly flawed character.
I know that Chicago has been compared to Moulin Rouge since it opened in theaters. I have to check that one out now, too.
Daredevil (2003)
Abysmal (possible minor spoilers contained)
Out of all the A-grade comic book/superhero movies that have come out in the last 25-30 years (among these, I include, Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spiderman) Daredevil is, by far, the worst. Yes, some of the Superman and Batman sequels are worse than Daredevil's debut, but their franchises started out promising and only fell apart after that.
You don't care at all about Daredevil. Or even Matt Murdock, for that matter! Electra was severely under used, the Kingpin was a joke. The only character worth following was Bullseye.
The fight scenes were uninspired. Too much of that MTV flash editing where you can't follow the action. Believe me, I don't mind fast cuts and edits. It adds a kinetic energy to the scene that is integral in this type of movie, but I feel it's not TOO much to ask that the edits and cuts be united in a comprehensible way. It won't bother most audience members (or, at least, it SHOULDN'T) to take a few long shots so they can actually see what is happening in the action sequence.
I will, however, give the writers credit in that they allowed their hero to allow some of his targets to die. I am thinking specifically of the rapist who got off for raping Murdock's client. Frankly, I think that is a brave and daring choice in this "age of political correctness where you can't even point out that someone's nose points in a different direction." But many of the fights were just too unbelievable. Especially the one with the Kingpin. I like the fact Daredevil was human and susceptible to injury (and severe injury, at that) but to be half dead on the floor of the church and get up to fight Bullseye was just too unbelievable -- even for a comic book. GOOD GRIEF, before Bullseye showed up at the church, Daredevil could barely even breathe on his own! Then to take on the Kingpin after THAT?! Uh-huh...
The other problem was that his identity was known/revealed/discovered by AT LEAST 4 characters! YES, I SAID FOUR BLODDY CHARACTERS! I know neighborhood kids who can keep their identity's more secret at Halloween than this "superhero" can during a night of upholding justice. If the guy can't keep a bloody mask on, why does he even try to continue to work as a masked vigilante? Surely his secret identity would be leaked out to the public. This is just TOO MUCH suspension of disbelief.
I will give the movie one thing, though ... it gets the fact right that comic book superheroes are human. I very much like the fact that Daredevil does get injured and doesn't always win clean and easy fights.
Apart from my last point, however, Daredevil has no redeeming value. My only hope is that once X-Men 2 arrived this summer, that it will surpass my eager expectations enough to blot this travesty of celluloid from my memory.
NOTE: The political correctness quote above comes from the original and supreme Oz, E. G. O.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
A bit of "Leaving Las Vegas: with a "Schindler's List" chaser, all in a "Changing Lanes" atmosphere
Good Lord, man! This movie is like "Leaving Las Vegas" with a "Schindler's List" chaser in an atmosphere of "Changing Lanes"!
Let me explain. First of all, there is no denying that it IS an amazing movie. Darren Aronofsky is a brilliant director. Visually, the movie is unbelievable! Was it nominated for any awards for its directing? It should have been.
The cast was simply amazing. Jennifer Connely was a guilty pleasure as always. Jared Leto keeps impressing me more and more each time I see him. Ellen Burstyn blew my mind. And Marlon Wayans?! Who'd a thunk a Wayans could actually ACT?!
The film should have also won an award for best make up for Ellen Burstyn's character. The difference between her appearance as she envisioned herself on tv and the state that she found herself in at the end of the movie is beyond amazing. I was just as impressed with her range of appearance as I was with King Theoden's pre/post "exorcism" in The Two Towers!
Now, let me explain my comment at the beginning of this post where I compared "Requiem" with "Vegas," "Schindler," and "Lanes." It is like Changing Lanes in that none of the characters are really likeable. Maybe that adds to the reality of it all the more, but it is hard (at least, for me) to watch a movie where you genuinely don't like any of the characters. The aspect which raised it above "Lanes," however, and brought it up to the level of "Vegas" was that while the characters are not likeable in the least, you do genuinely care for them. The scenes where "Maid Marion" goes to the apartment of the guy she has the phone number for are truly heartbreaking. Especially her second visit. Seeing Sarah getting worse and worse on her medication is pitiable in its reality. And Harry's arm and the agony it causes him is too realistic and I found myself longing for the point where he finally has it "treated" at the end of the film.
This all brings me to the final comparison with another film. Requiem is like "Schindler's List" in that it is both very realistic (I would say that both Schindler" and "Requiem" are films that every person should see) AND very depressing. Luckily I also rented "Beneath Loch Ness," a B-grade movie that will hopefully bring me back to a state of emotional equilibrium.
All in all, I 'm glad that I saw it, but I refuse to say that it was a movie that I "enjoyed." Like "Schindler's List," I have seen it once ... and that, to tell the truth, is enough.
Following (1998)
... otnemoM dekil uoy fI
I just saw "Following." It was the first movie that Christopher Nolan (director of Memento) did. It's a black and white British film noir. Only 69 minutes, but VERY good. If you like movies with twists, this is it, folks. Similar to Momento, but not the same. It tells its story out of chronological sequence. It, however, does not tell it backward like Momento. It skips around, flashing forward then falling back. It takes a wee bit to get used to, but it well worth it.
If you're a David Mamet fan, by the end of the movie, you just may just be reminded of one of his films -- "The Spanish Prisoner."
Trust me, go out and rent this!
Oh yes, if you rent the DVD as opposed to the video, a special feature allows you to watch the movie chronologically.
Ring of Bright Water (1969)
Great Movie with a Truly Shocking Ending
I've always loved otters and when I saw the box in the video store I had to rent it. That's been about 7-8 years ago now. The movie is uplifting and sweet and funny. The dialects may be a little hard for some people to get through, though. I highly reccomend this film for anyone that likes animals and truly a sweet, swet story.
SPOILER:
The shocking ending is that the otter gets killed. It occurs off screen, but remains brutal in its impact. My friend and I sat slack-jawed for minutes after this scene. It is not that I wish the scene were not in the movie, it is just that I wish I had known to expect something like it.
Panic Room (2002)
Fincher Delivers Again
What makes a good movie is the story. Panic Room has a simple story, but it certainly darws you in. Also at work is Fincher's vision of this movie. His camerawork and visceral images are at work here like they were in his earlier movies. In lesser hands, Panic Room would have been lost as something simple and uninspired. Proof of this is the scene with the fire. His images tell the story in a way that could have otherwise been blase'. Yes, see Panic Room for the story, but also David Fincher's visceral imagery.
Hollow Man (2000)
What are all the bad reviews about?
I heard how awful this movie was supposed to be but had a lot of fun when I saw it earlier today. I thought the whole movie held up rather nicely. Stories of people descending into madness are alway intriguing to me and Kevin Bacon is simply one of those actors that to be able to tap into his own madness.
The special effects were amazing and added to the fun of the show. This was a great popcorn flick where you could just let your mind go.
Finally, Elizabeth Shue is a vision as always.
Grease 2 (1982)
Not as bad as I had heard
Don't get me wrong, this is not a great movie. And it pales in comparison to the original. I didn't care about the characters as much as I did in the original and the plot was very predictable. Still... By itself, it wasn't a bad flick. Some of the songs were fun and catchy like the original. It was great to see Frenchy again, too. It left me with a gentle smile and the satisfying feeling of being adequately entertained for 2 hours.
Sub Down (1997)
very mindless but fun
I sat back to view this with very little expectation. I am a sucker for anything underwater. It's your typical "the competent people are trapped and need to be rescued from the misfit group" type story. Gabrielle Anwar is the highlight of the movie while Baby Baldwin is its nadir. He proves that the acting gene in his family decreased with the birth of each child.
Still, the movie is fun in a brainless way. The best visuals are of the ice caps from beneath.
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Coming from one who has read the book
In anticipation of the movie, I read the book about 2-3 months ago. In all honesty, I wasn't really sure how W. Peterson was going to pull this off. I must say that despite the fact that the book is ALWAYS better than the movie, the movie really does hold its own.
Granted, the film makers took a few more liberties than Junger did not take in the book, but that is the nature of movie making I suppose. I only have one complaint, though. In the movie, the storm seemed to happen all at once and the rescues seemed to kind of blend into one another after a while. In reality, the whole ordeal was a little more spread out over time. But, I suppose, concessions must be made in order to fit the whole thing into a space of roughly two hours.
Overall, I was very happy with the movie. Just don't cheat yourself by not reading the book as well.