Change Your Image
dabrygo
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Green Mile (1999)
"What happens on The Green Mile, stays on The Green Mile"
My older brother was really into Stephen King books growing up, and I think he even had this one in his collection. I tried a couple (Cujo and Thinner) but didn't actually finish one until The Green Mile. I enjoyed it a lot and have been meaning to try to finish another. Knowing there was a movie might have been my motivation for reading the book. Then again, the book may have been on display in the library.
Don't think I knew much about the story until I started reading. It follows a small group of wardens of a death row cell block (known as The Green Mile for the color of its tiling) in a Depression-era penitentiary in Louisiana. It's not glamorous work, but the tight-knit team "keep the peace" in a professional, dutiful, and even reverent manner. The mood of this area of the prison is placid and laid-back, with inmates generally remorseful when their time for execution arrives, although they have their share of "tough customers." One day, a curious inmate is brought in, the childlike giant John Coffey, who was found at the scene of a murder holding the victims and apparently admitting to the crime. As time goes on the wardens begin to realize there is more to Coffey than meets the eye.
I would rank this film as "moral horror." (Maybe even "Southern horror," with themes of race and supernatural voodoo throughout.) There is violence and also feelings of menace, but hardly any blood or gore. Usually, the worse a character is, the more certain and severe the consequences; the good guys tend to end up better off. An in-between is Percy, a troublemaker among the wardens; while he may not have committed crimes like the condemned men, he has a sadistic streak for the inmates and animals, specifically a mouse named Mr. Jingles that becomes The Green Mile's mascot. (To me, it looked like it may have been a real mouse too, not animated or animatronic.)
I had a bit of a disconnect with the film on Percy's comeuppance. It changed how I felt about John Coffey, so I felt more ambivalent than the wardens about what happens to Coffey. Seems like I also remember feeling better about what happened to Percy in the book, although I think it was because he was a less sympathetic character there. (In general, however, I felt this film was remarkably close to the book, with some sequences being precisely as I had imagined them.)
That would have been the third act though. Until then, and even to the end, the film is highly engaging and flows very naturally. While it is a long film, I don't know what I'd cut, except maybe the "modern day" sequences that bookend the movie. Shots tend to be longish, or at least don't jump around much, which makes the movie very immersive but might be a possible area to trim.
Another immersive quality is the acting. Not a bad performance in here, in fact, spectacular performances all-around! Forgot how many superb actors this film has: Tom Hanks, David Morse, James Cromwell, Bonnie Hunt, Sam Rockwell, Gary Sinise, and many more. Michael Jeter I felt performed Eduard "Del" Delacroix, a Cajun/Creole inmate, particularly convincingly. The camaraderie between the prison staff is also done well.
The story is also philosophically interesting, with thought pieces like the fine line between faith and the problem of evil, doubt and certainty, justice and vengeance, life and death. I recall a fable in which readers were encouraged to be like the bee, which stings once and moves on, instead of a snake, which stores up venom to bite multiple times. The wardens exemplify this bee-like behavior, even though Percy, some inmates, and maybe even some execution spectators do not.
Despite its setting in a prison, the film is usually sober if not upbeat, almost making the film like a feel-good movie in some places. The horror aspect, however, gives it an almost Gothic bittersweet taste, as if someone had narrowly escaped some terror. It's a great story with great acting, perfect for a late (but not too late) night watch!
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
"Madness! Madness!"
I had seen The Bridge on the River Kwai once or twice previously, but I rediscovered it shortly after finishing school when I read the book. I believe I had first read through Planet of the Apes, also by author Pierre Boulle, and was surprised to find he had written this one as well. I was crestfallen, I suppose, when I watched the movie upon completing the book, because I wanted them to be more alike. It's a good movie, but it's different from the book, which is also good. Which leads me to a bizarre conclusion: I recommend the book, and I recommend the movie, but I don't think I recommend doing both around the same time. As strange as it sounds, this odd remark exemplifies to me one of the major themes of both, namely, absurdity.
The story follows a group of soldiers, headed by Colonel Nicholson, who were ordered to surrender by their commanders and are serving time in a prison camp. The camp is led by Colonel Saito, who has been ordered to build a bridge before a certain date. The prisoners of war are thus assigned to help build that bridge. (Seems like the very first time we watched Kwai was after spending the whole day weeding, so we could sympathize a little with the hot, sweaty, "need a machete" work of building the bridge in a tropical Asian jungle.)
On arriving, Colonels Nicholson and Saito butt heads over how the bridge must be built. Colonel Saito wants all available prisoners doing the work; Colonel Nicholson wants his officers to be overseers, following the rules outlined in the Geneva Convention. After punishing Colonel Nicholson for insubordination and having to put up with disorderly and mischievous builders, Colonel Saito eventually comes around to seeing things Colonel Nicholson's way. In exchange, Colonel Nicholson wants to not only build the bridge, but build the best bridge he possibly can. This leads to one of the story's major absurdities, described as "collaborating with the enemy" by building them "a better bridge than they could have built for themselves."
Normally when I think of absurdity I think of "rational/reasonable agent(s) in an irrational/unreasonable world" or the "Am I crazy or is everyone else?" mood, like Catch-22 perhaps. There's a tiny bit of that absurdity in here. The absurdity that dominates the story is more like "We're behaving rationally, yet I cannot understand the conclusions we find ourselves coming to." Maybe to distinguish between the two types I should use another word like "meaninglessness" or borrow Major Clipton's word "madness." Colonel Nicholson building a bridge for the ages for an adversary who doesn't treat him or his men well is only one example.
The story is rife with other examples. There is also a group tasked to destroy the bridge, from the same side as Colonel Nicholson, but without his awareness of it. One of the biggest qualms I had concerning the adaptation from the book was that this team and their plan seems thrown together, sometimes even sloppy but maybe not bumbling. This leads to an absurdity of "It is easier to destroy a masterpiece than to create one" or "Why was the bridge, which had so much planning and hard work put into it, destroyed by a team that had odds so decisively stacked against them?" The book has a different absurdity. Just as much careful planning and attention to detail went into destroying the bridge as building it. So much so that there was a point in the book where I said to myself, "I kind of want both sides to win." (I don't know what that would look like, though, except for maybe blowing up some important bridge that wasn't Colonel Nicholson's.) An important, piercing absurdity in the book but not the movie is when one of the bridge demolitionists exclaims, "We shot the wrong colonel!" In order to assure mission success, the demolition team realize they shouldn't have killed their enemy but their own man and, in some fashion and by an absurd reasoning, not for insubordination but for following orders too well. I can better comment on the accuracy of the movie to the book instead of to real life, but this sort of contorted logic feels to me like something that could happen in a war.
The actor I know best from here is Sir Alec Guinness, who delivers a masterful performance as the straight-laced, "runs a tight ship" Colonel Nicholson. Guinness' "sum total of your life" soliloquy on the bridge near the end is delivered magnificently! The volatile contrast between the law-bound, perfectionist Colonel Nicholson and the duty-bound, hot-tempered Colonel Saito is done very well. Many great performances in this one, although one other that's always stood out to me is James Donald as the medic Major Clipton.
The film is also shot very beautifully. Several places throughout I thought would make great stills. Copy I watched was letterbox, think it would look even better widescreen.
I have little nits here and there. Some things, like how William Holden's character Shears comes across as too much of an action hero or how Colonel Nicholson faints onto the detonator, create a dissonance between the realistic feel of building the bridge to the cinematic feel of blowing it up. I wish a sadder song played at the end rather than a victorious-sounding march. Those minor issues aside, I can definitely see how this one is an Oscar winner. Catch the book too if you can!
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)
"I don't know who you are, I don't want to know. It's taken me my whole life to find out who I am, and I'm tired now."
Of the three Hanks/Ryan movies I know -- other two being "Sleepless in Seattle," which I've seen once or twice, and "You've Got Mail," which I've been meaning to see for a while now -- this is the one I've seen the most. And even have in my personal library. It's very uniquely quirky and upbeat and fun, I feel unsure about calling it a romantic comedy because it's so different. It also has the distinct pleasure of being the first thing I tend to think about when I see orange soda. Although I think Keenan and Kel had something like that too...
The film starts with a defeated Joe Banks (Tom Hanks), who quit his job as a firefighter because he wasn't feeling good and kept not feeling good even though he took up a slower-paced but dismal desk job for several years. Robert Bly, in his book "Iron John," I feel has really neat imagery for this time in a man's life, drawn from world mythology and cultural studies: Banks is doing basement (or dungeon) work, a cinder-biter who feasts on ashes; some men may choose to live this way, the author notes at one point, but Joe Banks is not that kind of man. A wealthy man (Lloyd Bridges), for a business deal, asks Banks to jump into a volcano to satisfy the superstitions of natives of a South Pacific island. What does Banks have to lose? Earlier Joe learned from his doctor that he has only a few months left to live due to a fatal condition known as a "brain cloud." So Banks sets off to the island of Waponi Woo, "little island with a big volcano," in a boat piloted by the tycoon's headstrong daughter, Patricia (Meg Ryan).
Another idiosyncrasy of the film is that Ryan plays all three of the major female roles. Very distinct personalities too, with the others being DeDe the secretary (from Joisey?) at Joe's desk job, as well as the self-described "flibbertigibet" valley girl Angelica, Patricia's sister. The way some roles are played, like DeDe and Angelica, and some of the special effects occasionally harken back to films from yesteryear. Some scenes feel like they could map well into a B&W silent movie, if some of the modern dialogue were changed. I felt there may have been in-film references to technology too: When their boat, the Tweedle Dee, is shipwrecked, Banks pulls out a radio for entertainment. Something about beacons or satellite radio or GPS? The Pacific has places with a lot of water and not much in the way of major land masses, and things like satellite communications could be handy.
I remember seeing this one as a kid and feeling I understood it. And I think I did understand it somewhat, but it's different now that I'm older and have experienced things like it. Not exactly like it, though. Part of the film's charm is how so over-the-top it is. But things like the numinousness the marooned and sun-baked Banks feels as he stares at and reaches for an oversized moon ("I'd forgotten how big..."), I've had moments like that.
Of the soundtrack, I remember most the "16 Tons" song that opens, but the rest is great too. Has quotable lines, like "It stinks! But it's a great town." Lots of famous names attached with this one, both cast (Abe Vigoda and Nathan Lane) and crew (Steven Spielberg and Frank Marshall). The film goes by quick, but it's a pleasant and humorous adventure.
Titanic (1997)
"I don't know about you, but I intend to write a strongly worded letter to the White Star Line about all of this."
Some kids had dinosaurs. Some kids had baseball cards. I had Titanic. (Not the movie for me, though, just the ship.) Then there must have been some time in my life where I watched this a zillion times, right? Nope, this is my second time. Well, based on my previous obsession, do I have any insights or trivia to add to how the movie approached its subject technically? No, not really, no. My Titanic mania happened a long time ago. Furthermore, most of the information I had would have come from video games -- some educational, but also Gex64 -- and children's books. (For instance, I never associated the Titanic with Ireland, but the movie says that's where the ship was built and started from when it sailed to America.) One "grown-up book" exception to this was that, before watching the first time, I borrowed a book based on the movie from the library -- and accidentally tore a page after feeling how glossy they were. You could look through some of my college textbooks before my senior year and not find a new dogear (let alone any other newly placed stray mark) in them, and I firmly believe that this incident played a role in why that is...
My interest in the Titanic was largely based on how "it had everything" or "you wouldn't have to leave if you didn't want to," similar to how I felt when I heard some skyscrapers had their own restaurants, gyms, gardens, etc. The movie makes it sound like the maiden voyage wasn't supposed to be long, but at the same time it does capture the ship's opulence with its many expansive and various rooms -- even the ship's mechanical areas and boiler room seem luxurious and imposing. There are some rough areas, but in other areas the CGI stands up pretty well to today's animation, I thought.
A major draw for me at the time would have been the ship's sinking scenes. (In retrospect, I think the movie I wanted to see then was "The Poseidon Adventure"; the ship sinking plays a prominent role in this movie, but it's not until the third act/hour.) I would have liked that because of being able to see in live-action what I mostly gathered from pictures and descriptions in books. And the movie does a good job of simulating for viewers what it would have been like to be on the sinking Titanic. Not just technically, but also emotionally or viscerally. There's a cold terror to watching the iceberg and freezing water -- sometimes slowly seeping in, sometimes rushing in in furious torrents -- take down this iron giant, with a few souls trapped in the ship's abandoned underbelly while confused masses fight for lifeboat positions on its deck. There's a point when the ship becomes less of an ally against the brutal elements and more of an enemy, with the ship's violent crashing into the ocean and forming a vortex as it sinks.
I was a fan of Alvin, a submersible that explored the ship's wreckage. So the modern-day part of the story is what I remember most, where a salvage crew is using similar technologies to search for an elusive diamond, The Heart of the Ocean, rumored to have gone down with the ship. The exploratory technology struck me as pretty advanced, if only for the time, with the submersible's pilot wearing what looked like virtual reality goggles and being able to control the robot's mechanical arms with his own. It also seemed like there should be some kind of technology -- maybe not x-ray or infrared, but something like it -- for the salvage crew to examine the safe and its contents before bringing them to the surface. I don't know if the movie is completely accurate in its depiction of (deep?) sea exploration. One of my favorite stories of all time is the back-and-forth between director James Cameron and Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson about getting the actual night sky into this movie, so it wouldn't surprise me if some parts of the movie were more accurate than others.
I didn't remember much of the rest of the story, and was worried that that was because I didn't like it. (Now I think it's more because the first/last time I watched this, I was on medication.) The majority of the story takes place when the Titanic set sail in 1912 and follows two lovers who met on the voyage and who, as fate would have it, stay on the ship to the bitter end. Kate Winslet stars as Rose, a young lady who is betrothed to a well-to-do foreman (Billy Zane) and who is not excited about the voyage until she meets the vivacious drifter artist Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), who is onboard because of a lucky poker hand. There are nods to several historical figures, especially Molly Brown, whom I would have known from the musical "The Unsinkable Molly Brown," whose depiction of the Titanic whet my appetite for this movie.
I've always liked the theme song, "My Heart Will Go On." It was on the radio a lot, during a kind of golden age of great movie music, especially Disney fare like Pocahontas and Mulan. Think Mom got me the piano sheet music and I have a memory of her mom playing it on her stereo. It isn't until the credits that you hear Celine sing it though.
The dialog seems a little odd sometimes, but the delivery is always good because the acting is so good. Winslet's fear during the ship sinking scenes especially sounds genuine. There was a scene when she was rescuing Jack where she looked like she was positively freezing. (I hope that was make-up!)
It's a long-ish movie but all of it is very interesting. Think it's got me a little excited about Titanic the ship again too.
Tristan + Isolde (2006)
"Peace can be just as treacherous as war"
Think the last time I saw this was probably the first time too, when I was in high school, about the time it was released to video. Around that time I had the itch to try "the finer things" and was watching all sorts of classical/educational movies. Got to thinking about the movie recently when I pulled out (and almost finished) Knowles' account of King Arthur, which featured Tristan and Isolde. One of the things I appreciate about this film is it hits the sweet spot of authenticity and understandability: The old-timey language of the King Arthur book took a while to figure out, but this film's dialog is a neutral and natural kind of modern. Furthermore, the film "stays in character" by not using any overly anachronistic language (e.g. Slang) or objects, like I've heard some adaptations of classics choose to do, instead creating a charmingly immersive viewing experience.
Very nice selection of actors. Rufus Sewell as Lord Marke, an English ruler trying to unite the other English rulers in order to protect themselves from threats from Donnchadh, king of Ireland. James Franco as Tristan, an orphan whom Lord Marke rescued at a young age who matures into an accomplished fighter. Sophia Myles as Isolde, the Irish princess who falls in love with Tristan when she rescues him after he was thought to be dead and nurses him back to health. Henry Cavill as Melot, Lord Marke's nephew, who lives in the shadow of his adopted cousin Tristan. Mark Strong as Wictred, a power-hungry ruler who conspires to be king of the united kingdoms, instead of Lord Marke.
Think I understood better this time the factors at play (mistaken identities, affairs of state, difficulty of ending 100 years of war, etc.) that give the story its characteristic "Romeo and Juliet"-like lustre. I had that thing I get with "Dirty Dancing" where I really like the two lovers and their relationship starting out, but it lessens for me as the story continues. But with this one, I liked the relationship again at the end. That, and there's swordfighting, which "Dirty Dancing" didn't have much of, as far as I can remember.
It's a nice modern take on a classic love story with great acting in an immersive and believable world based on a bygone era!
Braveheart (1995)
"It is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble"
When we were really young, Mom had a copy of "Nightmare Before Christmas" in the closet with the board games which we were not supposed to watch. So I didn't, because "rules are rules." Something like that happened with "Braveheart" too, except no one said we couldn't watch it and it was kept in another closet that was sometimes used to hide Christmas/birthday gifts. Don't think they were even our tapes ("Braveheart" had two VHS tapes per box, I believe); think we had it on loan from Mom's mom. Long story short, this is only my second time watching the movie. Didn't see when I attempted to watch all Oscar Best Picture winners. The first time I saw it was with friends in college who very likely knew more about this sort of thing (i.e., European history) than I did/do. Must have been 2010, because that's when my copy of James Horner's excellent theme music shows up in my iTunes library.
I liked the first two hours. Story sets up the opposing relationship of William Wallace (Mel Gibson) against Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan) very well. Wallace's other relationships with childhood friend Hamish (Brendan Gleeson) and childhood sweetheart Murron (Catherine McCormack) are compelling. Acting from those four in particular I thought was very good. Action/battle sequences are a little stylized, but riveting nonetheless. Think I remember excitedly telling my friends where I knew McGoohan and Peter Hanly, who played Prince Edward, from -- TV shows "The Prisoner" and "Ballykissangel," respectively -- but I don't think anyone else there had seen those shows.
Thought the last hour was a little theatrical. William Wallace turns into a "killing machine"/"action hero" type, whom all other characters seem to either hate or idolize. The otherwise good quality of acting seemed to go down, and felt a little cheesy or soapy. Still had some good iconic and snappy lines, though, like "Every man dies, not every man really lives."
The film's ending, a climactic depiction of the death of William Wallace, is also a little on the over-dramatized side, but I think it's a powerful scene anyways. It reminds me of philosophy, specifically Foucault's "Discipline and Punish," which vividly tells of a similar gruesome execution. Also reminds me of classical literature; I think it's Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" that has a description of a man condemned to die observing the faces in the crowd that are watching his execution.
It's interesting to compare "Braveheart" to the last movie I watched, "Rob Roy." Most pertinent is that they both portray the antagonists (the English) negatively. While "Rob Roy" humanizes the some antagonists with sympathetic backstories, "Braveheart" does not. (That's a star off for me. I don't like "because they're evil" as an explanation for bad guy behavior.) Both star Brian Cox. In this one Cox plays Argyle. And there's an Argyll in "Rob Roy." But because "Rob Roy" has guns, it takes place several hundred years after "Braveheart" and the two do not represent the same person, as the different spellings suggests. In terms of realism or historical accuracy, I think "Rob Roy" is probably closer than "Braveheart." Although "Braveheart" does start with a narrated disclaimer about where its point-of-view comes from.
"Braveheart" may not be entirely historically accurate, but it's a great movie to excite people into learning more about the life and times of William Wallace!
Waking Ned (1998)
"What a wonderful thing it would be to visit your own funeral. To sit at the front and hear what was said, maybe say a few things yourself."
Found out about this one when the folks were watching it one vacation. Don't think I ever asked how they discovered it. Maybe they just saw it in the rental store and thought about giving it a whirl. It's a really happy and fun movie!
When Jackie and Michael, two close friends in a small tight-knit village, hear that one of their neighbors has won the lottery, they set out to see if they can determine who. But then they find out the lucky winner Ned Devine died from the shock of realizing he had a winning ticket. During the night Jackie has a dream in which Ned tells him that the winnings should go to the whole village. So Jackie gets Michael to "play the part" of Ned Devine and convinces the villagers to go along with it, in order to obtain the 7 million pound jackpot from the lottery officials.
The village is full of interesting and likable characters. Jackie's relationships with his wife Annie, with whom he has been happily married for many years, and his longtime buddy and partner-in-crime Michael are especially fun to watch. The mood is jovial, upbeat, peaceful, and mellow; even the sad parts are presented in a way that doesn't make them feel so sad. The best part of the film is watching Jackie get caught up in his usual escapades and hijinks, dragging Michael in to get mixed up in them with him. And of course, being set in Ireland, the music is as fantastic as the scenery is beautiful.
I think "light-hearted romp" is a fitting description for this one. Fun one to watch with family and friends!
Darby O'Gill and the Little People (1959)
"Wish for happiness then!" "Human beings need bitter with the sweet."
Several movies we saw at Mom's mom's house had a scene that traumatized me as a child. The revealing of Judge Doom in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," a furnace scene in "The Brave Little Toaster," and another furnace scene in "Home Alone." The scene from "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" that took its toll on my impressionable little mind was the one with the Banshee. Even watching it now, the ghostly apparition visual effect and the shrieking are still very spooky. This movie has a distinction that none of the others do: I think that I've only ever watched it the once. At least, I think it's because of the Banshee... it could be because of the accents. Captions are a real lifesaver in this one!
While the accents are sometimes hard to decipher, the story is easy enough to follow. On an errand, down-on-his-luck ne'er-do-well Darby O'Gill encounters Brian Connor, King of the Leprechauns. Having spoiled his chances for three wishes earlier by being greedy, Darby gets a second chance to ask King Brian for three more wishes, which Darby uses more cautiously this time around. Darby's final wish is so well done, it makes the movie feel like an O. Henry story; at other times, it feels more like a folk tale.
A little familiarity with Irish superstitions may help when watching this movie. From the movie alone I felt I had a good sense of what a leprechaun was, but the Banshee and the Death Carriage at the end felt a little rushed, like they needed more explanation.
This movie, like Grandma's other movies, may not be very well described as "sugarcoated," depicting life as a "bowl of cherries." But they do also tend to show that hardships in life are accompanied by joys. Nice, well-rounded feel-good romantic fantasy movie!
The A-Team (2010)
"You can't fly a tank!"
Saw this one with friends Spring semester of 2010. It's a good film but I didn't remember much about it. (I must have been distracted, probably thinking about my studies.) Not very familiar with the TV show myself, but I think I've seen a couple of episodes along the way; my friends may have been fans, though, because a group of them became known as "The A-Team" in one of their shared classes after forming a study group together. My roommate in particular I remember liking Liam Neeson's 'Hannibal.' So I think the way I probably found out about the movie is that they asked me "Wanna go?" and I said "Ok."
It's about a group of Army Rangers who band together as a tight-knit squad of soldiers of fortune. A few of the friends I watched with had servicemembers in their families. I knew less about the military then than I do now. So I think several of the jokes/references flew over my head at the time. I think this time I saw the humor in the older hulking C-130 transport plane trying to defend itself against the newer maneuverable attack UAVs, but I might be wrong.
The movie starts off near the border of Mexico, which would have been a stone's throw away from where we were. (I probably could have swung down there once while I was there, but there were flyers about violence down south, I didn't have anything in particular I wanted to do... and no vehicle. So I think I might be the only one in my family who has not been to Mexico yet.) I wish I'd asked them what they thought about the intro, because much of the movie is over-the-top and the characters are larger-than-life.
Couldn't put my finger on how exactly, but the premise of retrieving the missing dollar-minting plates seemed tongue-in-cheek as well. Some sequences felt serious and reasonably realistic though, like the court-martial scene with its references to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the National Cemetery burial scene. There's a curious scene with a prisoner/hostage in a car where the movie feels like it's fact-checking itself, but I don't know enough to judge if the fact-checking is for real or not.
The plot gets a little elaborate near the end and I didn't feel I understood the bad guy's motivations very well. But that may have been intended, since some of the film's sequences border on cartoonish. I really liked the "get the plates" scene where they interposed the planning sequence with the mission execution sequence. I ended up feeling like Hannibal: I loved it when that plan came together.
I liked how the film had B. A. look into non-violence. Wish they had had B. A. stick with it to the end, although their moral along the lines of "a time for war and a time for peace" seemed to work all right as well. And the heroes outfox and outwit their opponent in the finale rather than outgun him, so I think it all balanced out in the end.
It's a fun film, which lost a little steam for me in the second act but picked it up again for the end. Think it's even more enjoyable the more you know about the show (and its actors), the military/Army, etc. The rapport between the 4-man squad is especially entertaining!
Inception (2010)
Downwards is the only way forwards
I've got kind of a "Mandela Effect" thing going on with this film. I think this is the second time I've watched it all the way through. (Although Nolan is a favorite director of mine, I don't think I've seen any of his films more than a handful of times. I really like the ideas in them, though.) The first time would have been in theaters about a decade ago. This whole time I've been feeling like I had a good grasp on what happens on the film. After this viewing I'm not so sure.
The overall story, what is shown in the trailers, is compelling and easy to follow. There is a group of people who can "hack" into other people's dreams, stealing information from their victim's subconscious mind. They are approached by a wealthy businessman who would like them to find his competition and perform "inception," inserting ideas into the competitor's mind instead of stealing them. This requires several drastic measures to bypass the competitor's subconscious defenses, such as sedatives, multiple dreamers and dream levels, and impersonation. The story has a sci-fi feel like something written by Philip K. Dick.
However, it's a very intricate and nuanced film. About that time there were other examples of multi-layered entertainment that interested the circles I was in. The friends I watched the movie with also liked the shows "Lost" and "Arrested Development," and I also found out about time-travel movie "Primer" from them as well. This film is so involved I'm certain I haven't picked up all there is going on in it from my few viewings. There are probably online forums and wikis to explain in more detail how to interpret the film. One question about interpretation I remember people sounding off on was: Is Cobb dreaming at the end or not? The movie explains the rules of its world largely via dialog and demonstrates them via action. While there are no special effects to inform the user on what is going on, such as title cards saying what dream level the characters are in, this helps to keep the film immersive, not distract from the storytelling, and give kind of a dream-like flicker between sequences. But there may also be graphics or charts like timelines online to clarify the story further. There are a lot of things going on in the film to juggle all at once.
The movie appealed to me a lot at the time because there are a few concepts in computer programming classes, which I would have recently taken, that seem related: recursion, stack traces, and maybe even virtualization or containerization. I guess the multiple dream layers could also be compared to playing a web game in a browser on your computer, a program within a program within a program. There is a very strong technical feel in not just the story, but also the stunts and visual effects sequences as well.
I don't do it so much anymore, but the film takes me back to a time when I could dream lucidly. When I was very little, I would imagine a seated studio audience -- "projections," to use the film's term -- who would discuss, debate, and choose what I would dream for the night. The "hacker" characters of Inception carry totems, small private physical anchors that tether them to reality; if anything about a totem is off, the carrier knows they are in someone else's dream. My method for telling apart dream from reality was more like looking for inconsistencies or impossibilities in the dream.
It's a very unique film with an interesting "what-if" about the mysterious topics of dreams, the human mind and psychology.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
"War is a drug"
While I don't think I've seen a full awards ceremony, I try to follow the Oscars, via almanacs before I used the web. I had heard this one was a winner, but what made me decide to watch it was hearing about it from a class. I was in "Philosophy through Film" with a friend who had a relative serving overseas and the teacher mentioned this one as the semester was closing up. It was a while before I got around to seeing it for the first time, but I liked it.
I don't know a whole lot about the war or modern conflict, but this seems like a pretty realistic film following a squad of bomb-defusing soldiers. It's directed by one of my favorite directors, Kathryn Bigelow. Normally when I watch movies, what I remember best are their ideas or sequence of events, but with some films I remember emotions. A feeling like that in this film is the devil-may-care, aloof sang-froid of the main bomb-disarming soldier Sergeant William James, played by Jeremy Renner. Sgt James is very good at what he does, and although not always a team player he comes through for his squad members when the going gets tough and helps by spreading some of his calm on the situation. Sgt James' ennui on his return to civilian life is another memorable emotion to me; not only is he good at what he does, you get the sense that he lives to do it.
The film portrays how taxing war can be, especially psychologically. The bombs are like high-stakes puzzles that must be solved in a short amount of time. It is not always clear how many threats there are, who is a bystander and who is hostile, and how to respond to a given situation is often a judgment call. Bombs may be hidden, difficult to reach, and even impossible to disarm given certain constraints. In one scene the squad discusses how ordinary the pubicly available pieces for the weapons are and how they could have come from any general electronics store. (Incidentally, the thickness and stiffness of the det wires reminded me of a quick fix Dad came up with when an outlet went out in my room one time.)
It's a gripping war movie with interesting characters performed by a great cast!
Executive Decision (1996)
"These things almost land themselves, don't they?"
Found this movie, as well as a couple others in my personal library, through one of my college roommates. He would sometimes multitask by doing homework while watching a movie on TV. One such movie he said inspired him to pursue the major he was working on, Electrical Engineering. That movie was "Executive Decision," not to be confused with Clancy's "Executive Order," which he was reading through around the same time. (The inspirational scene he pointed out was one in which Cahill, an engineer played by Oliver Platt, helps to defuse a bomb.) Speaking of Clancy, after hearing a rumor in the early 2000s I had high hopes about a Rainbow Six movie, which as far as I know never materialized. (Serves me right for not finishing the book... yet.) This movie, however, is a pretty good substitute for that, I think.
I'm not a particularly good reference to use as a judge of the film's technical accuracy. I've probably physically been on a plane about 5 times in my life. But it does feel like a lot of attention went into making it realistic. There are a few things that go unexplained, like how the terrorists got the bomb and other weapons onto the plane. Others may strain credibility, like the feasibility of boarding an in-flight passenger airplane from a top-secret experimental military jet. (A similar scenario from Rainbow Six had the anti-terrorist group already on-board the flying plane, as I recall.) But between the time the squad boards the plane to the time they land it, what plays out feels like it could be an actual operation.
The acting and character chemistry are done very well. First time watching I was especially "pickled tink" to see David Suchet, from the Poirot TV series, in a movie. Suchet performs as a believable, threatening and intelligent terrorist leader. The movie seems very smart to me, in the sense that when either terrorists, anti-terrorists, or civilians make mistakes, they don't seem to have been made out of carelessness. While the bumpy boarding and landing sequence bring much action, watching the squad surreptitiously do their work like a well-oiled machine is just as exciting.
The technology feels right on target most of the time. There are some things that seem a little unusual to me but it may just have been where the science was at the time. An example: Why can't the squad view their probe feeds on the laptop? (My impression was that they could monitor their microphones from the laptop, but it may have been a headset instead.)
It's a balanced, somewhat-serious film that's smarter than the typical action flick. I would be interested in seeing a film like this with today's technology.
The Remains of the Day (1993)
"I was there to serve him, not to agree or disagree"
I read the book while I was in school. Didn't know much about it, just saw it on a lot of must-read lists online. May have even seen it at the library and thought I should give it a try. It's a great book! I think about it a lot, which is why I rank it as one of my Most Influential Books.
Little hazier on how I found out about the movie. I saw it once with Mom's mom -- maybe not long after the author had won the Nobel prize, because it was a little while after I had read the book and I remember remarking that the film's ending wasn't how I remembered the book's ending.
Reread within the last year, but not all the way through. Must have stopped a little before the part about the Jewish maids. Tension builds up differently in the movie from the book. An example is at the conference held at Darlington Hall and attended by an international "who's who"; I remember being in more suspense about what the Frenchman's final decision would be. Another example is Mr Stevens reuniting with Miss Kenton. Seems like in the book only Miss Kenton sent a letter; they weren't trading letters or in correspondence in any way.
The characters are different than I imagined them. Mr Stevens Sr in the film was more worldly and unrefined. Although that change made the viewer more sympathetic to Miss Kenton's perspective, I thought. Mr Stevens Jr, too, I read as being more rules-bound, almost robotic. The film did keep an idiosyncrasy that stood out to me from the book, where Jr addresses Sr as "Father" in third-person. It struck me as maybe a Japanese (the author's nationality) mannerism, though I don't know much about the culture. A feeling of the similarity between Japanese and English senses of honor, which I got from reading the book, I also got from the movie.
The philosophy is what I like best about the story. The book answers "What is dignity?" in a way similar to how Plato's Republic answers "What is justice?" (Another, more direct comparison might be to "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," in which the philosophy is interleaved with both an autobiography of the protagonist as well as a road trip during which he unwinds his life for the reader to view.) Some of the dignity question shows up in the movie, although there are parts omitted from the book that could make the point more strongly.
What I feel both book and movie do very well is get their audience to think about the phrase "the right side of history." Lord Darlington, driven by a promise made to a German friend while fighting the first World War, seeks to use his influence as a nobleman to preserve the peace. And Mr Stevens, his loyal-to-a-fault butler, finds himself and his master on the unpopular side of a sudden and severe change in the shifting winds of public opinion. I see a case for both sides. I think many are familiar with the anti-Nazi sentiment of WWII. But then: forgiveness and pardon and peace; an end to prejudice and conflict; validation and membership in "That Great Big Brotherhood of Man" -- surely, these things are on the "right side of history" too? Who am I to say who is closer to this utopia than another?
Focusing less on the dignity question takes away for me the hardest blow of the story. Mr Stevens is committed to the idea that excellence in his craft comes not only from the finest attention to detail but also from serving with utmost devotion a household of high moral character. Mr Stevens also manifests an unquestioning, part "Charge of the Light Brigade" and part "I was only following orders," obedience to Lord Darlington's wishes. So in the book when Mr Steven sets aside his relationships with his equally work-centered father and also with his love interest Miss Kenton, and unflinchingly grants Lord Darlington's requests like the one to fire maids because they are Jewish, the cut is especially deep when the Darlington estate falls into disrepute in a public scandal over their dealings to prevent war.
While not as I imagined, the movie is very good. Especially the acting from stars like Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Christopher Reeve, and Hugh Grant. If you enjoy the movie, I highly recommend the book!
Shadowlands (1993)
"Experience is a brutal teacher, but you learn. My God, you learn."
Found out about this film one time when visiting my grandmother. Visits often included trips to the library where we would pick up books, or in this case DVDs. Usually we would pick up whatever interested ourselves personally and maybe talk about them to each other after trying them. I must have picked out "more than I could chew" because I never did get around to seeing this one, even though I was the one who chose it. She saw it though. Don't think we talked about it, but I distinctly remember wondering if it moved her because of how she set it down after watching it. It is a moving film.
I didn't know much about the movie when I found it. I knew (and know) some of C. S. Lewis' writings but not much about the man himself. At that time, I think I'd only read Screwtape Letters; the works referenced here I have either not read yet (Narnia) or haven't finished (The Problem of Pain). I knew Anthony Hopkins -- probably best from Zorro -- but not yet from Remains of the Day, which has some parallels to this film. And I also knew director Richard Attenborough, although I knew him better as an actor. Interestingly, the actor who played Tim from Jurassic Park, which Attenborough starred in, plays another young boy Douglas in this film. Several other actors I recognized were in this film, although a couple I had to look up to place where I knew them from.
The film centers around the relationship between a late-career Lewis, a poet with life experience named Joy, and her son Douglas. The problem of suffering has plagued Lewis for a while, maybe extending as far back as his childhood when his mother died. After much diligent study Lewis has found answers that satisfy him enough, which he presents confidently to friends, colleagues, and the various seminars he's invited to. It's because of this perplexing question that the American poet Joy writes a series of letters to English author Lewis and eventually comes to meet him in person.
The relationship between Joy and Lewis is an unusual one and, before the first hour of the film, felt like it deepened too quickly for me. As the story develops, however, the relationship feels very profound. On what seems like a whim, Lewis agrees to marry Joy, who recently divorced from an alcoholic and abusive husband, to help prolong her stay legally in England while she looks for a publisher. They elope, in a small and private ceremony, with no ring or honeymoon, instead choosing to go their different ways immediately afterward, with the bride taking Lewis' brother to the pub for a drink to celebrate. I'm interested to find out more about what happened in real life, although I get the feeling that no biography, autobiography, or maybe even private conversation between close friends can completely explain what happened and why. At one point Lewis even says "You never can really tell what's going on between people, can you?" Shortly after marriage, Joy becomes seriously ill. One wonders if Joy knew about her condition, and arranged to meet Lewis precisely with the hope of forming a relationship that would be good not just for Lewis and herself but Douglas as well.
There is a second marriage ceremony, more normal in their affection for each other, though still unusual since it is performed in the hospital. One wonders this time if Lewis was motivated once again by legalism, but this time to ensure Douglas was cared for in case something happened to Joy. If so, this movie seems to turn a common Biblical understanding of Law on its head: In studies on Romans in particular, it's not uncommon to hear that Law is like a light or a mirror, illuminating or reflecting back our sinfulness to us, making us aware of our imperfections; here it seems more like Law compels (or provides a reason for) people to do the good things they want to do but withdraw from doing for one reason or another, such as impropriety or pride. The relationships continue to deepen and improve the individuals, but while the film is bittersweet, it is not sugar-coated. As Lewis says, "What a dangerous world we live in."
Somber but also serene, I could see this one becoming a personal favorite. I would like to revisit it after reading more about Lewis and his works.
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
"I wish they'd decide, once and for all, which gang of hooligans constitutes the government of this country"
I associate this film with my grandmother. Don't think she owned it or talked about it much. She did have the sheet music for "Lara's Theme" though. When I heard her play the piano, she usually played rags, but I think I at least remember her humming the theme's melody. We rented this movie once at the beach after visiting her, but I think the Nintendo Entertainment System there must have won the contest in attracting my pre-teen attention. So this was effectively my first viewing.
A little fondness for Russia must run in the family. Our grandmother had visited there at least once. I think Dad took a course in Russian at one point; most of the Russian literature I enjoy so much like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn I was introduced to through his books in our library. Despite this, I actually know very little about the film's setting (Russia/Ukraine), time period (circa WWI?), and general history. Additionally, a difficulty I've noticed with other films based on the Russian literature I have read is that a lot gets lost in translating the books to film. I haven't read the book yet, but I felt this film did a really good job of bringing this period piece's story to life.
The story centers around two star-crossed lovers, both straddling opposite sides of the brewing Bolshevik revolution. Lara is a young dressmaker, pursued by both the shrewd aristocrat Victor and the idealistic proletariat Pasha. One fateful Christmas Eve, she crosses paths with Dr. Zhivago, a renowned poet and general practitioner sympathetic to the cause of the revolutionaries, who married the daughter of the upper-class family who took him in and raised him when his mother died in his youth. These characters weave in and out of each other's lives as the story goes on.
It's the historic backdrop I found especially interesting. The revolution follows closely after fighting in a war. The revolutionaries win and take control, and Dr. Zhivago is treated fairly well to start for acting as a medic for the revolutionaries. But matters quickly degrade as the ruling powers declare war on "the private life." Supplies are rationed and are often unavailable. Tensions rise as the people demand Dr. Zhivago's pre-revolution property as belonging to them. Ruling opinion against Dr. Zhivago's poetry causes his brother, a policeman, to advise him to leave town. Schoolchildren are taught Civic Instruction (CI) arithmetic, laced with anti-Tsar rhetoric. (Odd, because part of the appeal to me of mathematics was how objective it usually is.) The ruling Tsar is overthrown again, and he and his whole family are put to death. Mild-mannered schoolteacher Pasha becomes the merciless tyrant Strelnikov, who shows no qualms about burning down the wrong village so long as his point comes across.
Through most of the ordeal, Omar Sharif's Zhivago maintains a charmingly cheerful and youthful disposition. Other performances of note are Rod Steiger's Victor, who is like Oklahoma's Jud if Zhivago were Curly, and Sir Alec Guinness as Zhivago's policeman brother Yevgraf.
The 3 hour runtime was a little long. The film kept me riveted up until the intermission, but then lost me for a bit until the ending. But it's very pleasing to watch. The camera work and set design are fantastic! It's a beautiful film with interestingly complex character development set in a very interesting time in history.
Small Soldiers (1998)
"Is there a machine I can talk to?"
Have kind of a funny family story to go with this one. One of my first PG-13s. Saw it and Armageddon with my brother while staying with our grandmother one summer. Don't think either of us were teens yet. In retrospect, that was probably her point: Nothing magical about turning 13, or 17, or 18, or 21; the rating is just there to give you an idea of what's in the movie. To "What would our parents think?", she (by Mom's recollection) said "What they don't know won't hurt them." I told anyways because I wasn't big on secrets. Again, in retrospect, if they didn't already know, it wasn't that terrible a secret; it's a fun summer action flick.
Many stars in this one. Didn't notice until the credits said so but the bad guy gang is voiced by The Dirty Dozen and the good guy gang by This Is Spinal Tap. I would have missed many of the cultural references when watching it that last time, especially the ones to all those war movies I watched in high school. Didn't get into Star Trek Voyager until later, but the Robert Picardo cameo was a pleasant surprise. The political references would have flown right over my head, and still kind of do. Not sure I know entirely what the rebels were doing in South America, or what the marines did in Noriega. I could have a better idea of what's going on in the world...
The politics detracts from the film, I think. As an underdog film, as I would've taken it then, it's pretty good: A misfit kid teams up with a motley crew of toy creatures to fight against a vicious band of killer toys. But many of the characters, especially the gang of bad toys and the company who created them, are one-dimensional, and the movie conveys its message somewhat heavy-handedly in my opinion. (Watching this and Armageddon in rapid succession may have been part of the plan, with one balancing out the other.) We were pretty middle-of-the-road when it came to the toys alluded to in here -- G. I. Joes (ours were more like little green army men), Barbies, etc. -- but if you're watching with someone who's a big fan... there may be words.
It's kind of like a comic book movie I guess. Dialog (especially one-liners) and acting are what you'd expect from a teen summer action movie. Film's climax has a neat spin-up on Electromagnetic Pulses to disable the bad toys, which to my relatively untrained ear sounded realistic enough. Although some of the science seems a little off at parts, like AI at the microchip level instead of the software level. Don't know if I picked up on it last time, but kind of an "Indian in the Cupboard" feel here too. Reminded me of "Toy Story" in a couple parts. And maybe "Gremlins," which I've only seen bits and pieces of.
The premise is neat, though. What if toys could actually do the things I saw them doing in ads growing up? Not sure what kids today the same age as I was then would think of this movie. It's a fun action movie.
Crimson Tide (1995)
"These are the keys to the entire submarine"
Our grandmother didn't have a very large movie collection, but "Crimson Tide" was one she had that I always wondered about. Probably would have needed to dig out a VCR by the time I was old enough to watch it. So this is my first time watching it. Kind of wish I'd asked her about it or gotten her take on it, because in some ways it seems like the kind of movie she'd like and in other ways it doesn't. It has a similar action-flick feel to "Armageddon," which she took us to see once.
I picked up traces of other influences too like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "The Caine Mutiny." I would have known Gene Hackman from "Antz," where he plays a high-ranking, ready-to-fight military character not unlike this one. (His character in this movie, however, ends on good terms with the film's protagonist.) There may be a little bit of "Training Day" in here too, where Washington is playing a character like Hawke's and Hackman is playing one like Washington's. Many other familiar faces in here as well, like Viggo Mortensen, James Gandolfini, and Steve Zahn.
The acting's pretty good. Something felt a little off with the story though. I don't know a whole lot about geopolitics, the military, or subsurface warfare. So I had some trouble following along. I think I got the gist of it though: There's civil unrest in Russia, leading to nuclear threats against the US and Japan, so a nuclear submarine is called into action in case things start to go off the rails. The seasoned ship's commander Ramsey calls on star-student Hunter to be his executive officer. While they don't see eye-to-eye on everything, culminating in a mutiny near the film's climax, the film as a whole has a "passing of the baton" feel to it.
At times it doesn't feel like a military film. The discipline seems a little lax. At one point, Hunter breaks up a fistfight among the crew, which started over an argument about comic book characters. There's more of a sports team or fraternity feeling to the ship's crew.
There's an interesting conversation near the beginning about nuclear warfare in which Hunter says "In the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself," which reminds me of something JFK might have said. The film ends with a screen saying how in 1996, the authority of firing a nuclear warhead transitioned from submarine commanders to POTUS. "Crimson Tide" seems to be an explanation for why that might be preferable: It depicts the authorization and verification process to launch warheads, and how a rogue commander might use the chain-of-command to subvert it. As Ramsey says: "We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it." Although recent events in real life might indicate how shifting that power to another single person might not be entirely optimal, with the unsettling "other meaning" of the phrase of how some world leader "could end a war tomorrow."
Think I'd like to check out a review of this movie from someone who's served, and maybe even on a submarine. My guess is that the film might be inaccurate or at least dramatized, but they'd probably enjoy it anyways. It looked like the crew, especially actors, may have had fun filming it. Might be good also for me to finish reading Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" and then rewatch this to compare. It's pretty good for an action movie, although I found it a little hard to follow in places.
Groundhog Day (1993)
"What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today!"
One vacation we came back from our grandmother's with a VHS tape with three movies on it: Groundhog Day, Twister, and The Net. (Don't ask me what the connection is between them, because I don't know. I don't even remember if we recorded the movies or if she did.) And the one I think I saw the most was Groundhog Day. Ironic, because the plot is that the main character, a weatherman named Phil played by Bill Murray, reluctantly lives the same day over and over.
I recently read something that encouraged "living each day like it was your last"; no point in procrastinating if there's no tomorrow, so be sure to put "first things first." There's some of that philosophy throughout this film, especially the beginning, and the film makes some excellent points against it. Like: What if my priorities are all wrong? On learning that "no tomorrow" means "no consequences for what I do today," Phil starts off by living recklessly, impulsively, and hedonistically. Death, an undertone also in that philosophy, is treated touchingly, humorously, and not-too-darkly.
It's the contrast with those morbid undertones that I find so fascinating about "reliving the same day over and over." Some pivotal moment, the worst day of your life like in Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Recurrence, or just a day you would rather not relive like Phil's Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney, PA -- I think I would see different possibilities for a day I'd have to repeat indefinitely than I would for my last day alive: I can practice a repeated day to perfection, making fewer and fewer mistakes; I could see how different choices yield different results, all else held constant; I could in a way "live life to the fullest" by sucking all the marrow out of a single day, learning all there was to know about it and acting on this knowledge appropriately. Phil explores these and other concepts as he creatively decides how to live out his new eternity; "he is stronger than his rock."
I'd like to think that I too would come to the same conclusion that Phil did. That, given infinite and absolute freedom and no lasting repercussions, I would see the hollowness of my self-seeking or self-serving pursuits. When he's had his fill, Phil goes to work on himself, looking for meaning and purpose and a deep-rooted feeling of satisfaction: He reads the finest books; he takes up ice sculpting and piano playing; he takes an interest in the people and world around him, helping them, serving them, looking out for them and caring for them. Phil's growth, going from sarcastic and down-in-the-dumps to an all-around great guy, is a strong point of the film; it ends with Phil not being overly concerned about the consequences (good or bad) of his good actions, and going from a person who dreads tomorrow to being one who looks forward to it.
I might rate this a perfect score later. Thought they were a little hard on Larry, Phil's cameraman, but that's the only thing I wasn't too keen on. I'd forgotten how much I liked this movie! Hearing the lines again, I remember quoting this one a lot. It moves very naturally and is very memorable. Great film!
Speed (1994)
"What, you thought you needed another challenge or something?"
Mom used to say that when Dad's mom lived in Austin, they'd see a movie with fellow Austin resident Sandra Bullock in it when we visited. I was probably too young for most of them because, while I've seen quite a few of her films, the only one I recall seeing in Texas was Miss Congeniality. But that tradition might have been why we had Speed in our VHS collection, when I watched it for the first time with my parents. We had Chinese that night, but my indigestion did not sour me at all toward the movie. (It's one of my favorites actually.) Or L. A. (Which I'm fascinated by... strangely, given that I tend to avoid crowds, traffic, etc.) Or Chinese food, for that matter.
It may have been my first R-rated movie. (That or another Keanu movie, The Matrix.) And it's a good choice for that, I think, with objectionable content being mostly language and action violence. Would watch COPS around that age whenever Mom's folks had it on, and have quite a few cop movies in my personal library now; this one might be my favorite of the bunch, if not another Keanu movie, Point Break. Keanu might actually be the actor who shows up the most in my movie collection. The buddy cop dynamic between Reeves and Daniels is very well done. Characters, especially the bus commuters, are unique, likeable, and human.
Speed also showed up in my Physics I class. The professor used science to prove that the bus jump was impossible. But I, having been raised on the Magic School Bus, already knew which viewpoint to approach with the appropriate amount of skepticism. Seriously, though, having worked a little on defense applications since watching this last, I felt I understood better than I used to the role of science and technology in the film. The hero, Jack, usually has shouty conversations with lots of "WHAT?"s (in order to be heard over the road noise) with everyone else except the villain, with whom he has a direct cell phone connection. Inaccurate maps are less of a problem now with publicly available satellite solutions like Google Maps, especially when paired with technologies like AI, ML, or CV. The always-on TV crews give a little bit of an advantage to the villain, but it's easy enough for the police to convince them to stop rolling their cameras; in today's age with cameras in phones, the cops would probably be better off shutting down the area's electronics forcibly via microwaves or some kind of EMP like in The Matrix or something. The villain is on a shoestring budget, and only has a camera on the bus; even measures like a few additional sensors (on the doors, for example) could have made it harder to be deceived. There are several scenes where drones, robots, or autonomous vehicles might have come in handy to prevent risking people's lives. I'll admit that it's a lot more exciting to watch with people performing daring stunts though.
The bus sequence that makes up the bulk of the movie is mesmerizing, and the elevator rescue and the train sequence that bookend it are hard to look away from as well. I sometimes feel an abrupt jolt at the end of the bus sequence and the start of the train. Didn't notice that this time. The acting felt a little hit-or-miss at times. Like there might be a so-so delivery followed by a really genuine, phenomenal one. I really like the music; Mark Mancina's score, especially the main theme, does a great job at complementing the film's urgency and peril.
You may have to take the film's physics with a grain of salt, but it's a really enthralling and fun action flick!
Mission: Impossible (1996)
"This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds"
Seeing this movie for the first time was the very last thing we did one vacation. It's a good movie to watch in the dark, makes you feel like you're sneaking around like one of the IMF secret agents. And returning the disk to the dropbox outside the video store in the dead of night (mostly to beat the heat on the drive back) kind of felt like a covert "drop" operation. (Can't do THAT after streaming!) I don't think any of us broke out into the Mission: Impossible theme song, but maybe at least one of us should have.
I had a passing familiarity with the franchise. I knew the song. (Who doesn't?) I had seen and heard references to the TV show but wouldn't try it out until later. (I should try again, because I don't remember what I thought about it.) I may have played the N64 game (which I still need to finish) that vacation and was probably psyched enough about the game to have been the one to suggest the rental. I think I remember pointing out they both had a scene where the IMF agents disguise themselves as firefighters.
The film may have been an influence on me, because two favorite actors play computer guys, which is one of my interests too: Emilio Estevez, whom I would have known better as the coach from Mighty Ducks, and Ving Rhames, or Agent Bubbles from Lilo & Stitch. I probably annoyed my siblings to no end with my frequent imitations of Ethan Hunt's "there were two disks" monologue; I couldn't actually do the "now you see it, now you don't" magic trick, but I could dream. I have no explanation for why I fixated on those lines over other just-as-catchy ones, like Emilio's "Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya" or Ving's "I'm gonna miss being disreputable," but it is what it is.
The beginning has some tension but for the most part it's setup for the rest of the movie. The fantastic suspense starts at the "infiltrate Langley" part and continues non-stop to the end. Lots of twists and turns and intrigue.
Strangely enough, even though I like the first film I've only seen bits and pieces of the others after MI3. I should watch the rest of them. This is a very strong start to the series.
The Mummy (1999)
"That happens a lot around here" (after ominous wind blows)
"Sucking eyeballs. Sucking blood. Dead bodies on the floor." So goes our sister's summary of this film from when we described it to her way back when. Our descriptions may have been a little heavy on the visual effects side of things. Don't know if she ever saw it. We may have cajoled her into it at some point. It's really not as gruesome as we may have made it sound.
We had seen The Mummy Returns, the sequel, first with our dad's mom in theaters as I recall. We reasoned if there was a Returns then there must have been an original. I don't remember how we found out she had a copy, but our first time watching The Mummy was as a VHS we borrowed from our mom's mom. I in particular liked both. In my early teens, whenever someone would ask "What's your favorite movie?", my response was this movie. In retrospect, I wonder if my affinity for them had something to do with Mom putting us through that (year-long?) unit study of Ancient Egypt...
I still think it's a great film! Action, adventure, comedy, horror, romance. The film has a little bit of everything. The comedy helps keep the mood light, especially after the grotesque bits that teenage boys evidentally found so fascinating.
From a modern eye, the characters are flawed individuals. As we meet them, they are usually cocky or cowardly, entitled, self-centered, greedy, mildly racist and/or sexist, etc. Despite that, I still liked many of them, laughed at their jokes, and found them easy to sympathize with. Especially as the movie went on. And I think that wasn't so much due to the growth of the characters as much as just getting to know them or getting used to them. There's a lot more to these characters than first impressions might indicate. (They're people too, y'know?)
One thing that struck me this viewing was the film's balance. There's a good complementary mix of real-life and computer-generated special effects, for example. Balance storywise too. Act I. The characters' faults are central in unleashing an evil that was buried long ago for a reason. And now it's loose because they couldn't heed warning. Let sleeping dogs lie. Leave well enough alone. (You know the drill.) Act II. The different vices coalesce: Forbidden love killed the mummy, forbidden gold lured our opportunistic adventurers to his lair, and forbidden knowledge brought the mummy back to life. Competition and lack of coordination also played a role in making this predicament. One group of excavators freed the mummy, the other group uncovered the mystical Book of the Dead of incatations and sorcery. Act III. And so to put the world right again, the characters know what they must do. Set aside our differences. Put our heads together. Come up with a solution, fight our common enemy. (Again, you know the drill.)
It's been a while since I'd last seen it, but I still enjoyed this movie as much as I think I ever have!
Batman (1989)
"Do I look like I'm joking?" - Joker
Once we'd gotten used to the idea of watching PG-13s, one favorite to watch was the 90's-era Batman movies, the series started by this film. It had been a while since I last saw it, but it's very memorably shot and performed, so that it wasn't unusual while watching it this time to feel it "all coming back to me." One thing that came back to me is that Billy Dee Williams, whom I remember most as Lando from Star Wars, plays District Attorney Harvey Dent (pre-Two-Face) in this movie. I remembered that character only being in Batman Forever, the one that had Two-Face in it. Although I think I can picture us wondering why they changed actors for Harvey Dent.
As the first in the series, this film is set early in Batman's crime-fighting career, when he is relatively unknown to the thugs that roam Gotham's streets, the mob leaders who direct them, as well as the police that crack down on them or are bought off.
The main villain this time is -- perhaps unsurprisingly, given the character's notoriety -- the Joker, played masterfully by Jack Nicholson, whose portrayal swings seamlessly between a cartoonishly over-the-top (but not quite campy) villain to a seriously menacing "this could be a real person" mobster. The film features an origin story for Joker, an accident during a heist gone sour involving a chemical called Smylex. Joker's plot is to subject the citizens of Gotham to Smylex through combinations of contaminated cosmetics, which send the victims into fits of hysterical laughter before killing them.
Think I would call myself an average Batman fan: Wasn't till college that I tried the comics or watched the show, but growing up I liked the movies. I'm on a bit of a Batman kick right now, playing through the Arkham series video games. I'd swear a couple of them referenced this film's final showdown between Batman and Joker, which I didn't remember happening in a cathedral/church.
One thing that stood out to me is that love interest Vicki Vale is a photographer/photojournalist in this movie rather than the reporter/journalist she is in the games (and comics?). While the games tend to focus on Batman's alliance with the police -- specifically Commissioner Gordon and his daughter Barbara -- this movie explored Batman's relationship with the press. The press is the channel through which Batman alerts the citizens of Gotham to Joker's devious plot, as well as the one through which Joker "throws down the gauntlet" at Batman during Gotham's 200th anniversary parade. Here, Joker poses one of his trademark mind games, tossing about an exorbitant sum of "free money" to Gotham's citizens in an attempt to make them see Joker as the good guy and Batman as the bad guy. One would hope that Gotham's citizens were neither short-sighted nor corrupt enough to fall for Joker's game. Although I got the feeling that there was another unfortunate dynamic at play, one which we hear about in real-life cities: two Gothams. While I think the film had a good 2-hour run time and excellent pacing, I also think I would have liked to see this plot point explored more. I'd also be interested in seeing Batman's relationship to the press revisited for the Social Media Age, since some of Batman's foes employ widespread psychological tactics. (Is something like that already out there? I've fallen a little behind on Batman movies since after Nolan's films.)
I vaguely remember checking out a library book about special effects and it mentioning the parade scene from this film as a record-breaker. The effects still look great, and I don't think computers were used as much as sets, models, etc. Not a few elements of the movie, like some camera angles or dialogue during the slower scenes, seem to me to hearken back to noir detective flicks. It's still a very fun and action-packed ride!
Zombieland (2009)
"Rule #32: Enjoy the Little Things"
This is a tricky one for me to rate. It's got a dual nature to it. It's light-hearted and dark, sentimental and morose, gross but not grisly. At times it seems like an OK film for kids to watch, like it could/should have been PG-13 or even PG; with less language and less gore it could probably have made those ratings. The gore however is so over-the-top that it's humorous, actually serving more to take the edge off the film rather than put an edge on it.
I think some of my difficulty in rating it might stem from when I watched it or who I watched it with. I found out about the movie from friends at college, who would hang out and unwind by watching movies with each other at a house just off campus. Sometimes the movies were RiffTrax, where you'd sync audio of comedians joking about the movie while it played; whether or not there was synced audio, everyone who watched usually improvised one of their own. It's a good film, but I think it's better with company.
That first time I'd watched it would have been right around the time it made it to DVD, about 2010. The folks I watched it with and I were in the thick of our college education -- maybe halfway through -- and we were in STEM majors at a remote technical institute. So not a few among us must have found the introverted, isolated, and maybe slightly neurotic protagonist Columbus relatable. Columbus himself is at college when a contagion in a hamburger turns the whole world upside-down by transforming everyone he knows into bloodthirsty zombies.
This time I watched it with COVID in recent memory, and so it was like watching the film from another angle. Characters are named by their destination: Columbus has family in Ohio. Heading east, which to the best of Columbus' knowledge is away from the plague, he joins forces with Tallahassee the cowboy, who is also headed east. Later they are joined by sisters Wichita and Little Rock, who are headed west to a theme park called Pacificland, because that's where they think the zombie virus hasn't been yet. (It is sobering to think that a disaster bad enough could reduce even our technologically-advanced age to the dark ages shown in films like The Seventh Seal.)
The way the dynamic between Columbus and Wichita is handled is insightful. When you like someone you don't always realize how different you are from them, even when many around you do.
I've always liked the way Woody Harrelson plays Tallahassee. (I had seen Ghostbusters already, but I don't think I had tried a Twinkie until I saw this movie. Not long after I'd seen Zombieland, there was a rumor/scare that Twinkies were going out, and that's when I had my first one, relishing it every bit as much as I think Tallahassee would have.) Tallahassee and Columbus have kind of a buddy cop dynamic, with him as the loose cannon and Columbus as the by-the-book sidekick. The Bill Murray cameo is also excellent; he could get anyone to laugh.
I still like this film, but maybe not as much as I used to. I've wanted to see the sequel for some time now but haven't yet. I think I got more out of this movie when I saw it with other people, and I figure the sequel's probably the same way. It's a fun, rowdy road trip movie with heart.
Det sjunde inseglet (1957)
"Nothing escapes me. No *one* escapes me." - Death
Battle-hardened, world-weary, and disillusioned a knight and his crass and cynical yet shrewd squire return from fighting in the crusades to a land being ravaged by the Black Plague. As they attempt to outrun the plague and make it to the knight's abode, they meet others, especially a wandering band of actors, that they bring along with them.
I had known about this dramatic film for a while, mostly from references by other films (usually comedies, strangely enough). But I think what gave me the final push I needed to watch it was COVID. I couldn't help but draw parallels between modern responses to infectious diseases and the ones in the film. (We nowadays have it pretty good!) Diseases in that age must have been terrifying, as the film alludes: The title "The Seventh Seal" is taken from a Biblical passage about the end times, read at the start and end of the film, and the characters of the film must have felt immense dread that the prophecy might be coming true in their time. With no knowledge of where the disease came from, how it infects, how it spreads or how to cure it, explanations in the form of rumors or religious spectacles and judgments or superstitions abound.
Death is always in the background, both literally and figuratively. Literally, in the sense that Death as a person is challenged to a formidable game of chess, whose moves happen over the duration of the film, by the strategically-minded knight after Death approaches him. Figuratively in the sense that the people of the land are preoccupied with the lethality of the disease, in their work/art and in their conversation. Consequently, the home the crusaders returned to must have seemed more like the battlefield and less like the home they left.
The film's metaphorical description of Death as a fearsome opponent is masterfully done. Death can cheat, or deceive the knight into giving away his chess strategy. But Death cannot be cheated, by upsetting the chessboard, for example. Death stalks, and most are not aware of him until their time has come or is drawing near. Not everyone challenges Death the way the knight did. One man tries to reason or plead with Death, but it's no use. When the band of travelers makes it to the knight's home, they cannot shut Death out, which is similar to Poe's The Masque of Red Death, although the characters here are not reveling and may harbor no delusions about being able to escape Death by locking him outside. Instead, they lock themselves inside and read from the "Seventh Seal" passage until Death knocks.
The film does a very good job of developing the characters, especially the crusaders. The crusaders are generally more fearless and less given to superstition than others, including local authorities like priests and soldiers. A woman is burned at the stake for being suspected of having made a deal with the devil, causing the disease. This is a horror that even our valiant and stalwart crusaders cannot bear to watch, and even mercifully try to lessen by giving the woman something for the pain. The knight, perhaps from the other horrors he saw while on the battlefield, has a philosophically interesting theology: He pursues knowledge and is angry with God for being so mysterious and making life so mysterious, and he demonstrates a desire to meet the devil, who might help reveal more of who God is.
This is my second time watching and I was surprised to find its runtime was only an hour and a half. It packs so much into so little time. And the acting is superb! I can definitely see why this one is a classic!
First Reformed (2017)
"Who Can Know the Mind of God?"
A pastor of a small historical church intercedes on behalf of a parishioner, helping her spouse cope with despair with environmentalist undertones. The pastor does so while undertaking a season of ascetic reflection wrestling with his own despair. When the husband churchgoer's condition takes a turn for the worst, the pastor must confront his demons -- straddling, and perhaps even defining for himself personally where to draw, the line between political activism and religious fervor.
As the pastor gets to understand his congregant's predicament, he begins to share his concerns about what God must think about man's stewardship of the earth God created, writing on a church marquee the question the congregant posed to him: "Will God forgive us?" It was a still of this moment that, when I saw it on Twitter, stuck in my mind and first made me aware of this film. The film was released in 2017 and it took me a while before I saw it for the first time, and yet it feels like I've known about this film for longer. I had just read some Kierkegaard -- not "The Sickness Unto Death," which is referenced in the movie, but "Fear and Trembling" (which I still need to finish) -- as well as some Nietzsche, and so I feel I caught this film at just the right time for me.
Reverend Toller is journaling an earnest struggle he has with his faith. His family has ministered with a church that has prided itself in its political activism. And it may have been its noble role of hiding slaves during the days of the Underground Railroad that was at the front of Reverend Toller's mind when he encouraged his son to go off to the war where he died, a war Reverend Toller now considers as having no moral justification, leading to a downward spiral that included a divorce. The journaling reminded me a lot of a part in "Fear and Trembling" where Kierkegaard imagines several different scenarios, trying to get inside the mind of Abraham on the road to the mountain where he was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac.
So when the pastor learns about his churchgoer Michael's despair about bringing a child into a world that Michael believes is on the verge of self-annihilation, Reverend Toller sees challenging it as a spiritual calling, like Jacob wrestling with the angel. The pastor shares some thoughts that must have helped him in his own dark times: "Courage is the solution to despair. Reason provides no answers. I can't know what the future will bring. We have to choose despite uncertainty. Wisdom is holding two contradictory truths in our mind, simultaneously: Hope and despair. A life without despair is a life without hope. Holding these two ideas in our head is life itself."
The film is generally stark and bleak and spare. Reverend Toller himself seems to channel more despair than hope, with one character accusing him of always being "in the garden (of Gethsemane, where Christ prayed before his crucifixion)," which I think is a fair assessment. Another of the film's plotlines is that Reverend Toller's church is an offshoot or satellite of a larger church, who wants to celebrate the offshoot's upcoming 200-plus year anniversary in a bash that will include the Who's Who of the town's leaders in politics and industry, including a company Michael was protesting against. I can picture many feelings -- betrayal, survivor's guilt, doubts about one's (past and present) stance of where the Church should stand relative to the State -- at war in Reverend Toller's mind during all this.
Not long after I had reviewed "Falling Down," I saw it in a list of "Movies whose Main Characters Broke Bad." Although I haven't seen a full episode of the show I think the article was referencing ("Breaking Bad"), I could see "First Reformed" as another entry, with the main as a man of the cloth rather than a white collar office worker or a high school chemistry teacher. As in "Falling Down," I view the protagonist as once good but now confused and flawed, although with this character feeling forsaken or misled in a spiritual wilderness rather than lost in a concrete jungle.
The film is a little murky to me from a religious perspective. The environmentalism-based despair goes largely unchecked, with little to no mention of the plan for a New Heaven and a New Earth (or, in other words, that these ones are meant to pass away), or the importance in God's eyes of the human being compared to nature ("His Eye is On the Sparrow" perhaps). As far as I know, scriptures are cited and referenced accurately, but are sometimes grouped together in ways that seemed unusual to me, like quoting gospels and epistles in the same breath as though the verses were in the same passage. Nevertheless, the first part of the film especially paints an irresistible and at times inspirational portrait of a man ardently and sincerely pitting his faith against his life experiences, not unlike Job.
It's a very good thought-piece of a film, with excellent pacing and story structure/progression, and very compelling performances.