review: A Serious Man

... Okay ...
Don't really know what to say about this movie. It is beyond my understanding. I read a little about it after watching it, and I was glad to see that it was somewhat based on the book of Job. I was even more glad that I could see the connection.
However, I think this is just one of those movies that I am not going to like. I respect it, but it certainly is hell to sit through.
Why did I watch it in the first place? It certainly was not because I adore other Coen films - in fact, I only know 2 for sure, and I only like one of those. I watched it because of Ari Hoptman. He plays Arlen in the film and he is one of the actors that comes up to the do shows at the Playhouse. He's an amazing guy, and I was really excited to see him on film, and he was good. Small part, but a good role. I'd watch it again to watch him.
Other than that, there is not much I would re-watch this for. Except maybe with someone who understood it more than I did. That would be helpful.
I guess the only reason I really didn't like it is the characters. Most of them were assholes. And all the humor was because of that - and I guess that is just not my thing. I don't like watching movies that have characters of the lowest possible factors. It seems like everyone was mean, lazy, and self-centered. I'm not a violent person, but I wanted to bootkick his wife out of the house and onto her ass. I wanted to bitchslap the daughter, and I wanted the bully have a crackshot at the son. And I feel completely justified in saying that.
I do commend the lead actor - he was wonderful, and I guess everyone else did a great job because I did dislike them so much.
So - the only reason I suggest that people watch this is because of Ari. I will say that it does a good job of portraying the incredible detachment of the sterotypical suburban 60s.
2 out of 5 stars

Review: Pulp Fiction

I'm not even going to go into the all the accomplishments or the significance of this film, because, let's be honest - if you don't know at least a little something about this film, then you have been living under a rock. The movie was such a phenomenon when it reached the screens. That's putting it lightly.
I've been very hesitant to watch this because it is not my usual cup of tea. Mostly it was the drugs and the violence. But its on the top 100 - and you have to respect something that can make it onto such a culturally significant list.
What did I think? Well, apprently, I am a traitor to my generation. I get it, and I really don't. There were a lot of aspects of the film that I enjoyed. Some of the humor was pretty good. Dark, but good. Dialouge structure and content was phenomenal. Storytelling techinique was quite unusual for a film, at least in its day. Good acting. Realistic.
I understand the significance. I see the brilliance and some of the morals. I am fascinated by what the hell was in the briefcase.
But I just didn't care for it.
You can't look at this film and expect to see a complete story. Because there really isn't one ... well, actually, I can't say that. Maybe there is. I just didn't see it. It was three inter-related stories that connect, and yet, have nothing to do with one another. (I know that doesn't really make sense, but that is what I am left with after the end of the film)
I know this is incredibly harsh, and you would think that I would be more open-minded, considering that I do work in theatre, in the arts, in the entertainment industry - but at the end of it, I didn't know why I watched it in the first place. What did I get out of watching this? A couple hours of something to do, yes; I wouldn't go so far as to say "entertainment" because it took me about 3 tries to get through the movie.
Like I said, I think, in the last bit, there was a bit of a moral, there was a sense of a story, the start of a conclusion that wasn't really there. But that wasn't enough for me.
Someone has to explain this movie to me. It's not that I don't get it. It's just that I don't get anything from it.
Actually, no, that is not true. I did learn a couple things: Royale with Cheese and don't do drugs.
I feel like I should apologize for not liking this film. I respect it, but I just don't like it. The only reason I would ever recommend this to someone is because it is a classic, it was a milestone, it was innovative and provoking. I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this movie. Like I said, I do respect it despite everything.
But respect is not enough to make me like this film.
2 out of 5 stars

review: Platoon

Another horrid Vietnam war film. I don't mean that the movie is bad, just the war and the story. It makes me so mad, so you know it has to be somewhat good. It horrifies me to think that this is based on the director's (Oliver Stone's) experiences in the war. Well, that is reality I guess. But I don't have to like it.
The movie is good, the acting is good, the feeling is just terrible. I'm sorry, I don't want to review this movie. I am so sick of Vietnam films.
Again, I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I respect the films, the filmmakers, and the people who lived through such times, but I just don't want to see any more films about it. I don't want to think about it any more than I have to, and I certainly don't want to write about it.
Sorry. Again, I apologize.
I will say this about the movie: it is very highly respected. It was nominated for 8 Oscars, winning 4, including Best Picture and Best Director. And it is honored by AFI on both Top 100 Movies lists as well as on the 100 Thrills list.
2 out of 5 stars

review: The French Connection

I just don't get this one. I mean, the story is clear, I get what it is about, I understand that it is well enough acted, but I don't see the significance. I guess it could be considered a film about our time. But if this is what our time is about, than I am sure we're in a sorry state of life. Someone will have to point it out to me. I just don't get it.
Not to mention, it seems like it was all for naught by the end of the film.
But it was nominated for a slug of Oscars and won 5 of them too - including Best Actor for Gene Hackman and Best Director, Fim Editing, Best Writing, and believe it or not, Best Picture. And it is on the 10th Ann edition of AFI's Top 100.
Seriously, someone is going to have to sit down and watch this movie with me and talk me through its amazingness. I want to re-establish that I think everyone does an okay job in this picture. Acting, direction, artistic, it's all okay. But just okay. And, by the by, this movie makes me never want to go to New York - and that is saying something.
Again, I just don't get it. 2 out of 5 stars

Review: Blade Runner

Well. It's on AFI's Top 100, so it has to be good, right?
I don't know if it is. Apparently it bombed when it was initially came out. And then it became a cult classic. Me? I wasn't thrilled. The bottom line of this movie for me was: a few moments of brilliant don't make up for an hour or so of "...ok"
Basic Plot: Humans have gotten a kind of God complex and we've started creating robots that are incredibly human-like (except that they don't have human emotions) We made them to do the dirty work in our off-world colonies. They have been banned on earth because they revolted against us. Blade Runners are the special cops that take care of these resky Replicants. Harrison Ford plays a semi-retired Runner who is pulled back into the job. I'm not going into it too much more.
The whole idea presented is what makes us different from them? Apparently the emotional response, but that is evidently wrong, because they develope these feelings, which is why they are limited to a 4 year lifespan. The message is clear: we shouldn't have made them in the first place, they are also people. The film also presents questions: What is it to be human? Where do we come from? How long do we have? That side is brilliant. It's a wonderful way to make people think of these things.
However, there are certain things you lack in the film to make it really effect you. Feeling for one. Strangely enough, you don't get a lot of feeling from anyone in this film, except for the head Replicant (Roy) in the very end. Right next to him in feeling and above him in sympathy is the JF Sebastian character who is a very human person who has the same problem as the Replicants (a minimal lifespan). The rest of the characters you just don't feel anything from - not even the humans or the new-and-improved Replicant with Emotions and Memories.
Design wise, its interesting. It's futuristic, but it is also very 1940s. Which is a common theme in design of similar films (why is that??) But it is also a product of its time (the 80s) One look at Rachel's shoulderpads will tell you that. And why is the future always so dirty and junky?
The film is an interesting neo-noir type. It has the typical voiceovers, the femme fatale, the detective character, the underground world, the dark places, etc. So, in type it is very interesting.
Overall, I just didn't like it much. Like a said, there are a few moments of brilliant, but not enough.
2 out of 5 stars

Reviews: Detour, The House on 92nd Street

Detour: The ultimate story of a guy caught in the bad. Pianist is hitchhiking to California to see his girlfriend. He gets picked up by this guy - and it is all downhill from there. Again, not your typical film noir, but it does have one thing that modern audiences most associate with the genre (although it is only in some of the film noirs): the voice over, the narration of what a person did, was doing, or was going to do or what he was and is thinking. The lead lady was a pretty good actress. She played a manipulative, scheming woman with a bad drunk side. You certainly hate her alright. It was okay to watch once, but I wouldn't care to see it again.
2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

The House on 92nd Street: Not your typical film noir. This movie is basically a glory story for the FBI. It tells the story of how the FBI managed to keep the secret of the atomic bomb out of Germany's hands through "The Christopher case" Interesting enough, although nothing about it was phenomenal. I do know a lot more about the FBI now. This one didn't impress me at all, but I do think the FBI deserves a great big thank you.

2 out of 5 stars

Review: White Heat, The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, The Asphalt Jungle, and the Posieden Adventures

The Poseiden Adventure: Wow. That's mostly what I got: wow! Basic Plot: A boat in the middle of the ocean gets hit by a huge tidal wave, which appropriately tips it over. This is the story of the survivors. A stellar cast with so many names in it that I can't really begin. Everyone - the names, the no-names are all wonderful! I can't even begin to imagine how this was shot - and my appreciation goes to every single person in this cast and crew.
Strangely enough, I love disaster films. They all follow a basic plot line (unless based on true events) and most of the time, everything comes out in the end. You've got the mix of people, the tension of disaster, the fight for survival, and of course, danger, adventure, and above all, hope. One thing this film has taught me is that if you are going to survive a disaster film, you have to have sporatic to no use. Think about it as you watch it. Once a person has served their purpose, they are more than likely going to die. It is inevitable. And I don't say that to be mean, it is just how it is. I cried, no I bawled at a couple of the death scenes. It's not so much the actual death as it is the effect the death has on those left behind - now THERE is where most of the drama lies. My only problem with this film is that it ends so abruptly. They're out, the end. Wait! I want to know what happens to them - are they going to be all right? What will come of this event? How (other than the obvious) has it changed their lives?
Stellar movie - 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!
The Asphalt Jungle: A pretty good heist film - except that nobody gets away with anything, and I'm pretty sure that is the message it wanted to send. Kind of like if Ocean's Eleven were to happen in real life. It's a pretty gritty world - trust no one and keep your nose clean or you'll regret it. This is a pretty typical look at 1950s crime films. It's entertaining enough. Doesn't blow you away, but it keeps you interested. Acting is pretty fair - including a role for a young Marilyn Monroe playing the girl toy of a "rich" lawyer. Sad, that she usually never leaves that persona. Even typical is the speech at the end - you know, the hard city filled with crime bit by the commissioner - pretty sure this is the epitome of that. Interesting enough, you don't really care for the commissioner or the coppers - you're routing for the criminals - except for those who double cross the team. They don't want to kill anyone, so they're completely sympathetic. One man just wants to support the family, one dreams of returning home, one is an old man looking for funds to "retire" in Mexico, and one is a crooked back man who owns a diner and is always there for his friends. A very likeable lot. It makes you wonder why people make films like this. Why do we like to like criminals??
An average 3 out of 5 stars.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit: I should have liked this film. I love Gregory Peck, I love when things work out in the ending, and I love good stories, but I did not like this film. I don't exactly know why. Acting was not brilliant, but it was good. Peck as the father figure (which is what almost all of his roles are - whether he is playing a father or not.) Jones (as his wife) did a good job - and even the children (who were little snots) played their roles well. I will say that the set decorator did a marvelous job on the first house. It was so plain - it perfectly fit a family like theirs, so Cudos!

What I think really drove me away from this picture is the overall depressing feeling it gives. Like I said, it is a story that ends happily, but from the get-go there is a feeling of let-down, of trouble, of inability and marred circumstances. And it pervades the whole picture. You're sympathetic to almost everyone in the picture, but its too much. You never get over feeling sorry for this man. It's a terrible view of the post-war, corporate world. Working business man oppression. Having to watch everything you do so the Big Boss will approve. And materialism. The kids drove me crazy - it wasn't that they were bad so to speak, but they ignored their father. They shut almost everything out - and no one but that darn nanny would disapline them for it. And most everything got worse and worse as the film went on. By the time things were straightened out (somewhat) you were too exhausted with the weariness of it all that you didn't care if it turned out okay.

I'm sorry, but 2 out of 5 stars.

White Heat: "Made it Ma! Top of the World!" James Cagney at his very best. I don't know why this movie isn't more acclaimed than it is - and it is somewhat acclaimed within its own genre.

Basic Plot: Somewhat psychotic gangster (Cagney) who has a mother fascination admits himself into the Illinois State Pen. for a false crime to get away with a bigger crime. While inside the shit hits the fan so to speak, and Cagney goes crazy. To tell you more would be to ruin it, so I will stop.
Cagney is BRILLIANT. He plays his character so well. He really seems insane. The moment he gets some bad news in the prison, he goes crazy. And it's terrible to watch, but its so pawerful! You feel for him, even though he is a cold-blooded character. Not to long after you see him shoot up a guy in the trunk of a car and laugh about it. His performance is so strong, so intense. You know, I take it back, he is not completely cold-blooded because you can see it when he finds out he has been tricked by a guy he trusted. He laughs, but you can hear the disbelief in his voice as well as maybe a tear or two.

Cagney kind of outshines everyone else in the picture, but if nothing else, they hold their own. Mayo as his wife is so perfect - and Hutchinson (as the mother) is pretty great. The man playing Hank is also very well ept to his role (both of them!)

It's a great film noir/gangster picture with an ending that will blow you away!

4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!