Random Movie Thoughts

Post #2

In response to Billy Richards' question on "masterpieces":

Tonight I watched with a couple friends two films considered to be masterpieces by most critics in the movie industry today: Apocalypse Now and Citizen Kane. I consider both films to be extremely important to the movie industry. In fact, I would say without hesitation that Citizen Kane is the most important movie of last century, and I doubt many would disagree. I would never call either movie a masterpiece, however.

It makes me wonder what makes a movie a "masterpiece." In my review of Casablanca, I said that it was not a masterpiece perhaps due to its simplicity. A movie can be a masterpiece and can still be simple. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest I consider a masterpiece, but it has an extremely simple plot and presentation (although its main character is far from simple).

A masterpiece is a film that is a leading movie in its genre. If this criterion were used alone, then Casablanca is a masterpiece. So this can only be one guideline to masterpiece material.

A masterpiece is an innovation to its genre or to the industry in whole. Citizen Kane definitely meets this criterion as its innovations in style, cinematography, and sound changed the film industry forever.

A masterpiece combines all the necessary elements in quality filmmaking. Apocalypse Now features amazing sound, visuals, acting, and direction. It combines all of these elements and makes an amazing film as a result.

But is this all the criteria required? Is there more that's required to make a movie a masterpiece? Well, the answers to these questions are debatable, but I think the most important criterion for masterpiece material is that below:

A masterpiece is a movie that engulfs the viewer into its world and changes the viewer as a result of it.

A masterpiece, in other words, is up to the choice of the viewer. So when a critic says a movie is a masterpiece, remember, it's just his/her opinion. Just like critique in general.

Movie Review #7

Jackie Brown (1997)
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Based on the novel "Rum Punch" by Elmore Leonard

Rating: 7.50/10.00 or *** (out of 4)

I recently rented two videos from 1997: P.T. Anderson's Boogie Nights and Tarantino's Jackie Brown. These two directors have several similarities: They are at times unconventional, they are fairly ambitious, they have distinctive characteristics in directing style, they use witty dialogue, and they have sound casts. And that's just getting started. I find a weakness with both directors, however. Anderson tends to use too many characters in his films (I say this having not seen Punch Drunk Love, which I believe focuses on one character.); Tarantino tends to be unconventional when he doesn't have to be. I've seen two movies from each director, and after doing so, I cannot put either on the list of favorite directors. Anderson has a very good movie in Magnolia and an uneven one in Boogie Nights. Tarantino has a masterpiece in Pulp Fiction and a fulfilling but still slightly disappointing film in Jackie Brown.

Jackie Brown is another in what seems to be my early movie review theme of 1970s flicks. This one, although not set in the 1970s, has an important feature from the 1970s: Pam Grier. Grier plays the title character in the film, the smartest of all the people in the film. Since she is the smartest, the movie is basically about the downfall of all the others. "All the others" includes Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda), and Louis Gara (Robert De Niro). Also featured in the film are two ATF officers: Ray Nicolette and Mark Dargus (Michael Keaton and Michael Bowen, respectively). Even these two are outsmarted by the engrossing Jackie Brown.

This movie is about crime, about revenge, and about money. Jackie Brown is a flight attendant at a nonrespectable airline earning pennies on the dollar. To make ends meet, she gets money from Mexico and sends it to Ordell, who runs a gun trade. Mixed up in all of this is an employee of Ordell's named Beaumont, who is arrested and will get off jail time if he gives up Ordell. Ordell then bails him and later kills him to keep him quiet. But the jig is already up, and this leads to the major portion of the film: snatching Ordell's retirement money from Mexico by means of Jackie Brown, who faces pressure from all sides.

Jackie faces murder by Ordell if she does not cooperate, love by the bail bondsmen Max, arrest by federal officials Ray and Mark, and greed from Melanie and Louis. Her goal is to outsmart all of them without killing anybody (for she's much smarter than simple murder). The end result is an engrossing but far from amazing motion picture.

For one, this movie has several similarities to Pulp Fiction. Some scenes tend to evoke remembrance to the film, and this proves to be somewhat distracting to me. There is a scene involving Melanie's feet, an obvious reference to Pulp Fiction. Except there is absolutely no point in showing this. This was just distracting and unnecessary.

The movie also features a three-peat of a scene. In other words, we see the same scene from three different perspectives to show three different results of the scene. I would not have an issue with this if this was coupled with other similar examples of style in the film. However, there are no others, so it tends to be somewhat conflicting with the style of the movie (fairly conventional for a Tarantino).

There are many strong points to the movie, however. Pam Grier is excellent as Jackie Brown, and Robert Forster presents Max Cherry with painful desire and ideal professionalism. Bridget Fonda turns in a wonderful performance in her small role as Melanie. Jackson and De Niro are excellent in their performances, as well. Jackson's role as Ordell is similar to that of Jules in Pulp Fiction, but there is an important difference. Ordell is quieter and fiercer in this film than Jules is in Pulp Fiction. Ordell requires more subtlety from Jackson, and he provides it. De Niro as Louis is much underused. De Niro flawlessly portrays Louis as a dumb criminal who acts before he thinks. A late scene with him and Jackson is just fantastic.

On top of this, some of the shots that Tarantino has are perfect. The last scene between Jackson and De Niro is done in one shot without camera movement in a car. Just a perfect way to present the scene. The beginning sequence with Pam Grier (during the opening credits) is excellent. The music choice in this film is appropriate and beneficial to the film. And the dialogue, much like that in Pulp Fiction, is witty and very entertaining.

I thoroughly recommend the movie, but the viewer should be warned. The film is not up to Pulp Fiction's heights. It is much better than most of what is presented in film today, but it has its flaws. Through this, however, one is sure to find some entertainment out of this Tarantino flick.

Movie Review #6

Boogie Nights (1997)
Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Rating: 6.50/10.00 or *** (out of 4)

Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. It's all in this movie, and there is plenty of it. The pornography industry was booming in the late 1970s, as displayed in this ambitious effort from P.T. Anderson. But the industry, and the players in it, were in for some tough times down the road (that being the 1980s). Such underlies the basis of this movie.

It should be made clear right away that this movie is not meant for the weak. There is some extremely graphic sexual and violent content in this movie. And there's no other way it should be. Anderson is sending a message (or actually several messages) about the sex industry, and the message is best sent in the most matter-of-fact, realistic way possible. If one thing is for certain about this movie, it's that Anderson is not afraid to show us what he wants to. All power to him in that regard.

I had a tough time deciding whether I liked the film after I saw it. I decided that I did, but I had a lot of reservations in making the decision. There are several flaws or problems with the film that I cannot get past. The next several paragraphs will discuss some of these problems.

One of my major problems with several films is that they are overloaded with material, characters, dialogue, action, etc. Take, for example, Die Hard with a Vengeance. Unlike the superb action thriller Die Hard, the third installment in the series had little plot and way too much action. Action scene here, action scene there, action scene everywhere. The movie was so loaded with action that we lose sight of why we are watching it. Furthermore, the movie loses focus. The result is a highly disappointing film that had much potential.

Boogie Nights has enormous amounts of potential. The cast is stellar, the director shows immense promise (Magnolia would occur later, although I'm not the biggest fan of the film.), and the topic of the movie is more than interesting. However, there is one extremely irritating problem with the film that I constantly was bombarded with. The movie has too many important characters. In fact, it would be an understatement to say that the movie is overloaded with characters.

With this excess of characters comes a very important problem. The characters are underdeveloped, sometimes immensely. What this tends to cause me to do is start not caring about certain characters, and in this film, I stopped caring about some of the most important characters (for I found them the least interesting). The lasting effect is that the movie appears disorganized. Boogie Nights, disregarding its promise and occasional brilliance, is a mess of a motion picture.

Mark Wahlberg plays Eddie Adams, an employee at a night club. Eddie is noticed by porn industry director Jack Horner (played wonderfully by Burt Reynolds). Jack sees much potential in Eddie, and soon he becomes a major star in the industry. Eddie changes his name to Dirk Diggler (wow), and Diggler, realizing his one special gift, is a hot commodity in the porn business. And business is booming, as many other characters in the film realize. Amber Waves is one of the top female stars in the business, but she faces a rough divorce due to her involvement in the porn industry. Her major fight in life is to have a son and to be a mother. Amber loses custody of her son because of the divorce, so her constant theme through the film is to find someone to call her own. She quickly finds Diggler to be her "baby." Amber is played by the ever-more-convincing Julianne Moore, whose interesting and extremely challenging characters continue to add more respect to her name. Diggler is probably the closest to the center of the film, and even though Wahlberg does a respectable job in portraying him, he is outdone by Reynolds and Moore. The result: I stopped caring about the most important character.

Heather Graham plays Rollergirl and has a wonderful scene with Diggler early in the film. Her fight is that of high school. Don Cheadle plays Buck Swope, who wants to have a family and to own a hi-fi business. Cheadle continues to impress me in his supporting roles. Steven Soderbergh uses Cheadle later in Traffic, and his performance is admirable in it. It was Cheadle's character I was most interested in, and he is cheated from more screen time in this film. Luis Guzman plays Maurice Rodriquez, also quite underused (Guzman would also appear in Traffic alongside Cheadle.). William H. Macy plays Little Bill, who is embarrassed by his wife's open and quite public promiscuity. Macy's character is important, for it serves as the change in mood that occurs halfway through the film. Unfortunately, Macy is also underused, and his character is predictable. Fortunately, Macy is a P.T. Anderson favorite; his later performance in Magnolia is brilliant.

Also making appearances in this film are Philip Baker Hall as Floyd Gondoli (who presents to Jack the "real" future of the industry), Philip Seymour Hoffman as Scotty J. (who has an immense attraction to Dirk), John C. Reilly as Reed Rothchild (the new best friend of Dirk's), and Robert Ridgely as the Colonel James (financial support for Jack). Hall and Hoffman are also Anderson favorites and for good reason. Their small parts are two of the better performances in the film.

It should be readily apparent just how full of characters this film is, and it becomes mind-numbing after a while. The movie lasts for over two hours and thirty minutes, and yet the movie seems rushed. Meanwhile, the movie also seems too long, and it really is. There was a point where I thought the movie ended. That was about thirty minutes before it actually did. Yikes.

There are some strong points to the movie besides the excellent cast and some superb acting. Some of the shots are just amazing. Anderson likes to use the long constantly moving track frequently in this film. By doing this, we are swept into the world he presents in the film. The shooting creates a great sense of atmosphere. Furthermore, the setting itself is so well presented that you almost feel that you're in the 1970s/1980s. Anderson has re-created this era, and he has done so nearly flawlessly.

Another strong point with the film is that its mood changes noticeably and intensely. The first half of the movie is happy, energetic, almost boisterous. Then comes the turning point in a scene involving Little Bill and his wife. The result is that the second half is gloomy, dreadful, and dark. We begin to see the pains of the characters and of the industry they are in. This is shown magnificently in a parallel scene with Jack and Dirk.

But along come the cons to the movie. After the scene mentioned just above, the movie seems to break. It was at this point that I thought the movie could find a short ending. However, the movie lasts for several more minutes and begins to drag. The ending takes too long to present. Furthermore, we see the end results of the characters, but they have developed little in the process (or at least appear so).

The final scene is an interesting choice by Anderson. It's most definitely controversial, but its inclusion in the film to me is quite necessary. After watching the ending, one quickly realizes that the pornography industry, like any other, is a business. And Dirk's gift, what we see at the conclusion of the film, is only a means of doing his job.

Boogie Nights is a graphic, ambitious, but flawed motion picture with three distinct phases. It presents a topic, has some interesting things to say about it, and then ends. In the process, it succeeds in the first, has an excess of the second, and takes too long on the third. And one out of three is not necessarily good.

Movie Review #5

Scotland, Pa. (2001)
Written and Directed by Billy Morrissette
Based on the play "Macbeth" by William Shakespeare

Rating: 5.00/10.00 or ** (out of 4)

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair."

This movie is both fair and foul. This was the first thing I thought of after watching this parody on the most violent of Shakespeare's plays. It should be mentioned right away that I am NOT a fan of Shakespeare. I think his plays are little more than drivel, and I wish more empahsis was placed on substantially better playwrights. However, at least emphasis is put so massively on at least one playwright, so I can't complain too much.

Perhaps this bias is what prevents me from liking any "interpretation" or "modernization" of a Shakespearean play. My "favorite" before seeing this movie was Ethan Hawke's "Hamlet," a somewhat underrated movie that modernized the play quite well.

The difference between that movie and this one is quite obvious from the start of this film. The film is a parody, yes, a parody of the quite unfunny and tragic play "Macbeth." The opening sequence begins with three hippies talking about fair is foul and foul is fair, a fairly good 1970s interpretation of the three witches in the opening scene of Macbeth.

Then the opening credits are introduced by looking at a McCloud sequence. The implementation of this is fairly obvious (and James Berardinelli observes this in his review of the movie -- go to www.reelviews.net for the review.); however, I did not appreciate it as much as Berardinelli did. I found this as a statement of his intentions in the film, something which director Morrissette did not need to do. It was obvious in the first scene, and the McCloud sequence, therefore, didn't seem that humorous, innovative, or necessary to me.

The modernization of this Shakespearean play is fairly straightforward. We are in early 1970s rural Pennsylvania in a small town named Scotland, where virtually no crimes are committed. The owner of a fast-food restaurant is Norm Duncan, a somewhat hateful but devoted individual. James Rebhorn plays the first murder victim of the movie in his ever-resilient manner (Look for Rebhorn in Scent of a Woman, The Game, and as a recurring character in Law & Order.). The McBeth's have the idea of making a drive-thru for the fast food restaurant, which Duncan was going to use for his profit. Quickly, the McBeths (nice McDonald's touch) conspire to murder Duncan by skillet. However, their murder becomes somewhat more gruesome and actually fairly amusing: Duncan's head falls in a fryer. Ouch.

So the story goes along quite similarly to the actual play. More murders take place, an investigator named McDuff (played quietly and airheadedly by the scene-stealer Christopher Walken) begins to take more and more interest in the McBeths, and there is even a "phantom Banco" appearance at a press conference.

So let's start with the good things about the movie. The first good thing about the movie was that it had good acting performances. The best was by Maura Tierney as Lady (Pat) McBeth, who plays the role with power and a tinge of insanity. Tierney is underused in Hollywood today, as evidenced by her solid acting in the television series NewsRadio and ER. Walken is excellent in the role that he plays best, the quiet and rather amusing character. James LeGros is respectable as the eternally manipulated Joe McBeth. Good supporting performances are added by Rebhorn, Kevin Corrigan, and Thomas Guiry.

The movie has interesting manipulations of the play. For example, in the Duncan murder scene, Duncan's head falls into the fryer, spraying grease everywhere. Some of the grease falls onto Pat McBeth's hand. For the rest of the movie, she fights a grease burn that quickly disappears and no longer is apparent. This is much like the blood she constantly tries to remove from her hands (even though there is obviously no blood on them) in the play written by Shakespeare.

Now for the bad things. First, I found the movie much too corny. Corniness works in moderation, but this movie had way too much of it, and it quickly became overbearing and distracting after a period of time. Walken actually made a film less corny, and I thought before this time that this was impossible.

The second major downfall of this film is that it is only sometimes funny. At other times it comes across as bamboozling. No, the movie isn't confusing. I just sometimes wondered through the film why certain scenes were done like they were. They didn't seem artistic, funny, insightful, intelligent, or even interesting. They just seemed to be there, in a corny and a mind-boggling manner.

The third major downfall of this film is that it seems, in the end, pointless. Many times, parodies come with a point (although not always). This parody needed a point because of its extreme corniness. If it provided a point at the end of the film, it did not provide it well. The movie lacked the humor and had too much uniqueness to be pointless. Additionally, the movie is disorganized. And it proved to be too distracting over a period of time.

After reading several reviews and asking others what they thought of the film, I found that my review was the most scathing. It is likely that most people will find some entertainment out of the film, even if you have not read the play. Roger Ebert even goes so far as to say that he believes people who have not read Macbeth will probably find the most enjoyment out of the film. I tend to agree. Don't let not reading the play distract you from watching the movie. You really don't have to.

Yes, I don't like Shakespeare. But I also don't like movies that lack the fundamental qualities that Shakespeare at least had in his plays.

Movie Review #4

Casablanca (1942)
Directed by Michael Curtiz
Written by Julius J. Epstein & Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch
From the play "Everybody Comes to Rick's" by Murray Burnett & Joan Alison

Rating: 8.75/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

"Here's looking at you, kid."

It became obvious ten minutes into the movie that I had a soft spot for the movie. I couldn't explain it to myself. The film lacks the excellence that I was anticipating. The story isn't that creative, innnovative, or inspiring. The visual of the film is good, but it's not stunning. The music is not very distinctive. And the list goes on...

But then I realized about an hour after watching the film why I liked it so much. The movie is so good because of its simplicity. The simple story of a love triangle amidst the dark times of World War II in a place as dreaded as Casablanca is perhaps the most extravagant way of sweeping an audience off its feet. And the simple fact about this movie is that it easily draws its audience in...and sweeps them off their feet.

Who doesn't know the story told in Casablanca? The movie stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine, a "sentimentalist" who ends up in Casablanca because of his past in Paris. Rick had to leave Paris due to the German invasion of the city. It was in Paris that Rick meets his only love, that of Ilsa Lund (played by the shining bright Ingrid Bergman). However, their love is torn apart since there is a third person in this love triangle, Victor Laszlo. Laszlo, played by the often forgotten Peter Henreid, is on the run from the Nazis due to his "underground" work.

The movie begins in Casablanca, shown well on screen as a place of little hope and of much dread. Rick owns a saloon with a somewhat fiery, definitely sarcastic personality. We quickly see that Rick is only artificially strong. He is heartbroken, and we soon learn why. Victor and Ilsa show up unexpectedly one day in Rick's saloon. Ilsa's first appearance on screen is perhaps the most effective introduction I have witnessed on film. When she enters the screen, all light seems to be drawn to her. She is magnificent, and everyone in the saloon is drawn to it.

Then the first meeting between Ilsa and Rick in the film. Another magnificent moment. Rick's shell is broken, and his heartache is well observed. Bogart shows this with such class. His performance in this film is outstanding.

We then are introduced to the love story behind Rick and Ilsa, and we see why the heartache is there. It becomes more evident with time, however, that the heartache is shared between Rick and Ilsa. And then the heartache spreads to the film's audience; well, at least to mine.

On top of this, we learn what Laszlo needs while in Casablanca and what he is looking for. It soon becomes obvious that a very difficult and a very important decision must be made by Rick. This leads to the last part of the film, perhaps one of the most admirable endings in movie history. For instead of the ending the audience wants, we get something much more satisfying. We see heroism in its truest form, in its most painful way. We observe sacrifice.

The last sequence of the film, one of the most famous in all film, is easily one of the best endings to a movie ever made. This scene would make any film of its kind one of the top in its genre. Yet many times we take the more desirable ending over the more satisfying. This is Casablanca's true beauty. It does not provide what we want; it provides what the movie itself needs.

There are many other strengths to the film. Supporting performances are outstanding. Perhaps the most standout supporting performance is given by Claude Rains, who plays Captain Louis Renault. He shares a "beautiful friendship" with Rick, and this performance along with the sacrifice his character makes, is another addition to the admirable accomplishments of this film. Other notable performances are given by Sydney Greenstreet and Conrad Veidt.

The movie is remarkably accessible to today's audience. Its themes remain strong today, and its appearance on screen appears very fresh and new (for a black-and-white, especially). This movie has standed the test of time, and it will for many decades to come.

I don't consider this movie a masterpiece, perhaps because of the lack of anticipated excellence I mentioned before. I also felt that the movie was almost too short, a strange and somewhat picky criticism as noted by several of my friends. This is very probably true, but the fact remains that I wouldn't have minded a few more moments shared between Bogart and Bergman. Whenever they were on the screen, my eyes widened. My attention was completely toward them. They dazzled the screen, and they touched all audience's hearts. Is it wrong to wish more screen time between the two?

Even if I don't think the movie is a masterpiece, I acknowledge readily that it's an American classic. A romance story for the ages. A heroic story that will probably be unmatched. A film that will forever be copied but never be surpassed.

"We'll always have Paris." Thank goodness for that.

Random Movie Thoughts

Post #1

Below is a summary of some of my likes/dislikes in film:

1) My favorite movie is One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
2) My least favorite movie is The Cutting Edge.
3) The best movie I believe ever made was 2001: A Space Odyssey.
4) The worst movie I believe ever made was Battlefield Earth.
5) I am a huge fan of Star Wars.
6) I am not a huge fan of Star Trek.
7) I am a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings.
8) I am not a huge fan of Harry Potter.
9) Notable actors include (but are not limited to): Tom Hanks, Anthony Hopkins, Robert De Niro, Kevin Spacey, Joe Pesci, John Goodman, Jimmy Stewart, Jack Nicholson, and Paul Newman
10) Notable actresses include (but are not limited to): Sissy Spacek, Emma Thompson, Jodie Foster, Ingrid Bergman, Kathy Bates, and Natalie Wood
11) Best acting performance I have seen: Robert De Niro as Jake La Motta in Raging Bull
12) Worst actors/actresses (actually no actresses right now): John Travolta and Kevin Costner
13) Favorite genre of film: drama
14) Least favorite genre of film: horror
15) Favorite directors: Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Sam Mendes, Christopher Nolan, Joel Coen, Alfred Hitchcock
16) Worst acting performance I have seen: Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
17) Best direction in a movie: Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssesy
18) Most underrated actor/actress: John Goodman
19) Most overrated actor/actress: Russell Crowe
20) Most underrated director: Martin Scorsese
21) Most overrated director: Steven Spielberg

Movie Review #3

Raising Arizona (1987)
Directed by Joel Coen
Written by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen

Rating: 7.25/10.00 or *** (out of 4)

Raising Arizona is my third complete Coen brothers' film I have seen. The two previous films, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and The Big Lebowski, I liked tremendously. The Coen brothers always present a unique and very memorable film with something to say. In short, I like this pair, and I hope they continue the trend to which I have seen so far.

This movie has an interesting premise and a very unusual way of displaying it. The basic gist of the film is that a no-good convenient store robber named H.I. and a recently divorced cop named Ed quickly fall in love, get married, and want a family. However, Ed (played by Holly Hunter) is later determined to be barren. The pair watch the news one night and learn that the owner of a major Southwestern chain of furniture stores and his wife soon had a family of their own. The wife gave birth to five youngsters, "more than they could handle," according to the father, Nathan Arizona (portrayed wonderfully by Trey Wilson). So H.I. and Ed decided to kidnap one of the five young Arizonas. The result of this kidnapping is a wild tale of police chases, shootouts, bank robberies, and child mishaps.

The Coen brothers present the premise in an interesting manner. The characters are gross exaggerations of reality. They are displayed almost unrealistically. Roger Ebert sees this as a weakness to the film. I see it as a plus. To me, it makes the film much more humorous (and comedy is the basic genre I would place the film in). For example, Gale (John Goodman) and Evelle (William Forsythe) are tremendous additions to the film, playing a dumb pair of robbers. The characters are "out there" to say the least. However, they steal the screen whenever they are on it. The bank robbery they take part in is probably the best scene of the film. It adds from the fact that the characters are exaggerations of the "dumb criminal."

Then the slimy Glen (Sam McMurray) and the wonderfully boisterous Dot (Frances McDormand) portray the stereotypically annoying relatives H.I. and Ed deal with. Glen becomes aware of the kidnapping, and this is when things turn sour quickly for H.I. and Ed. What transpires after this is a comedic chain of events that made me laugh nearly continuously through much of the rest of the film. The best part of this film is its exaggeration. The film is outrageous, and it makes no bones about it. This is not a weakness; this is a strength.

Take the character Leonard Smalls, played so well by Randall "Tex" Cobb. Smalls is a scary guy on a motorcycle. He kills rabbits with grenades and lights matches on furniture. He is a "man hunter" and decides to search for the child (basically to make money). He is quite simply unrealistic, almost as if he is a dream villain (Funny that that's how the character is first shown.). His appearance invokes fear, but in a humorous way. We don't like the guy, but we like that he's in the film. His presence in the film adds humor, tension, and all-out fun. And that's the point.

Acting is rock solid in this film. H.I., played by Nicolas Cage, is a loser, but he cares for his wife and kidnapped child. We grow a liking for the guy easily. We also feel for Ed (played by the consistent Holly Hunter), who wants nothing more than to be a mother. Trey Wilson, William Forsythe, Sam McMurray, "Tex", and Frances McDormand add a great deal to the movie. And I am convinced that John Goodman is one of the greatest supporting actors in film today. This underrated actor adds so much to every film he is in. He does so again here.

The directing is top-notch. The Coen brothers add a unique atmosphere to their films. I like it. They present a film with class but also with freedom of expression. I wish more directors would do this.

The film loses some points because of some long stretches of non-laughter (which occur in the first half of the film). The kidnapping takes too long, for example. I also thought the introduction was slightly weak, and the voiceover in the beginning took much out of the sequence. However, the film gets better with time and becomes fully enjoyable by the end. I recommend the movie greatly. It's fun, it's entertaining, and *gasp* it actually has something to say.

Movie Review #2

The Remains of the Day (1993)
Directed by James Ivory
Based on the novel "Remains of the Day" written by Kazuo Ishiguro
Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

Rating: 8.25/10.00 or *** 1/2 (out of 4)

Boy, this movie brings back memories.

A somewhat odd first statement for a review of this movie, but if anyone was in Academic Decathlon in 1998-1999, they would understand the statement. After hours and hours of studying the book, the characters, and the story, I grew fond with the book (for I didn't like it when I first read it). After seeing this movie, I want to read the book again. I had forgotten many of the things the book featured. I really consider the book a masterpiece of subtlety, and the film based on the book lives up to this standard. It also features one of the best acting performances of the 1990s. Anthony Hopkins is brilliant in his quiet portrayal of a butler solid on the outside but torn up on the inside.

Hopkins plays butler James Stevens, a man thoroughly devoted to his job. In fact, his job defines himself, which makes the film even more tragic. Stevens deals with his father's death and his love interest (Miss Sally Kenton, played by the wonderful Emma Thompson) by doing his job. His father (William Stevens, played by Robert Vaughan) taught him the philosophy of butlery so well that his job becomes his obsession. James Stevens becomes the best a butler can be, but to the point where it seems as if he loses his humanity.

Except we know he doesn't. Stevens is torn up, and Hopkins portrays this turmoil so well that soon we become tormented. I became strangely angry at Stevens. Why would he not just give in to his temptation? It's quite obvious to the viewer that Stevens' route to happiness is Kenton. Imagine the turmoil Kenton has, also portrayed so well by Thompson. Kenton tries and tries and tries to get Stevens to express his feelings for her, for she shares them. However, this only results in bitter arguments, enormous amounts of tension, and nothing to show for it.

Subtlety is also shown in subplots of the film. Lord Darlington, the owner of the house Stevens and Kenton work for, is a German sympathizer after World War I. Believing that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany, he would go to extreme lengths to keep peace in the world after the first world war. In short, he's an appeaser, and this appeasement ruins his life. James Fox, who plays Lord Darlington, is masterful at showing the change in Darlington. He is at first authoritative, intimidating, yet kindly. He becomes somewhat testy, stressed, and less powerful. He then becomes nothing more than a pawn and a depressed one at that. The Darlington subplot adds a great deal to the film, but it does not take away from the major storyline: the romance-not-to-be.

Darlington's decline also serves as a parallelization with Stevens. Both men are unable to do what they want to do. This double tragedy works wonderfully. In the end, Stevens is no better off than Darlington was, but unlike Darlington, we feel a great deal for Stevens. I refrain from saying nothing more since I think the book should be read before a more thorough discussion of this topic be presented. Aside: The movie follows the book fairly well and really takes nothing away from it. Another added bonus to this film.

Besides the wonderful acting from the three mentioned above, the film features solid performances from Christopher Reeve and Hugh Grant. Both serve a purpose to the film, and both succeed in doing so. There's nothing outstanding about these performances, and there really shouldn't be.

I'm not a big fan of this genre of film. The tragic romance stories just aren't my thing. My favorite up to this point in time was Doctor Zhivago, and this movie rivals with it well. And both work because of the subtlety in acting. Doctor Zhivago had the added benefit of tremendous cinematography. The Remains of the Day has the benefit of overall perfection of character. Anthony Hopkins portrayed a cannibalistic serial killer two years before this film. Yet we don't see Hannibal Lecter in this film at all. We don't see Anthony Hopkins either. We see James Stevens, a butler who can't deal with his emotions the way the viewer thinks he should. Hopkins' performance is, in a word, perfect.

There is a major weakness to the movie, however. The soundtrack is just annoying. I found the music distracting and overbearing. I don't know why, but it just took so much away from the film. Richard Robbins composed the music, and he should be ashamed of his work.

Despite this (perhaps picky but definitely disappointing) weakness, I thoroughly recommend the film. Up-and-coming actors should take notes while watching this film. If you want to be a good actor, Anthony Hopkins' performance in this film is one to watch.

This film does not contain action sequences, swashbuckling entertainment, or slapstick humor. All the better for it. This film contains something better, something far more memorable. It features the great art of quiet tragedy. If you want to watch intelligent and masterful storytelling, this film is not to be missed. Definitely one of the best films of the 90s.

Movie Review #1

Office Space (1999)
Written for the screen and directed by Mike Judge

Rating: 6.00/10.00 or ** 1/2 (out of 4)

Mike Judge wrote and directed this yarn about the horrors of the workplace. Judge, the creator of the all too-overrated comedy series Beavis and Butt-head, uses this premise effectively at times and boringly at others. It is this flaw that makes the film only slightly better than the rest of the comedic trash that is presented in theaters today.

From this first paragraph, it should be obvious that I am not a fan of comedies. I think most of them are unoriginal, forced, often dumbed down, almost never thought-provoking. Why films like Happy Gilmore or "actors" like Adam Sandler are so highly regarded by the young audiences today is beyond me. Most of these films aren't funny, and several of the actors have zero talent.

This is not to say, however, that this film falls in the same category. There are times when I laughed out loud, albeit for brief and isolated periods of time. Take, for instance, the opening sequence, where Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingstone) is stuck on the freeway trying to find the quickest way to work. After he sees that the lane to his left is flowing more quickly, he changes lanes only to find that the left lane is now stopped and the lane he was earlier in is now moving. This is funny. It's funny because we can relate to it. Many of these instances relating to the workplace (or surrounding the job environment) are presented, and many of them are chuckle-worthy. One of the funniest moments of the film (also presented at the beginning of the film) is the fax machine paper jam. I can't even count how many times this has happened to me. The reactions to the fax machine from hell are humorous and are because we can see ourselves in the same situation.

However, this wears thin in about 20 minutes. Things start to get repetitive. Yes, the TPS cover sheet problem was humorous for the first two minutes. Unfortunately, the joke lasted through much of the film. This no longer is funny; it is overbearing (almost as if now we're actually at work).

Stephen Root plays Milton, a guy who just takes what the office gives to him. Milton the Mumbler is basically a useless "employee" to the company, a Y2K upgrade company named Initech. His character finds comfort in protecting his stapler and his cubicle, but I found his character very boring after the first two scenes with him. This character wears thin and becomes nothing more than an addition to the length of the film.

Then there's Jennifer Aniston, who plays Peter's love interest Joanna. Her character is presented, then is just left to dry. Aniston has talent, and this film does nothing with it. Her character added virtually nothing to the film, and it could have added a great deal.

Then there's the plot, which begins well and then becomes out of control. Although I won't go into details here, the plot centers around Peter and two other co-employees' plot of revenge against the company and its manager, the smooth and monotonous Bill Lumbergh (Gary Cole). The idea, although realistic, does not fit in well with the atmosphere the movie presents. This also shunts the possibility of further screen time with Aniston, making her character pointless.

So with all of these complaints, what were the good points of the film? Well, unlike most comedies out there today, this film featured solid acting. Ron Livingstone was good portraying the common white collar employee. Ajay Naidu was delightfully humorous as the wired up friend and employee of Peter's. David Herman plays Michael Bolton (and what a terrible name to have) well as a computer nerd. Gary Cole, with by far the best acting performance of the movie, is perfect as the "Yeah..." manager of Initech. Other noteworthy performances are given by Richard Riehle, John C. McGinley, Paul Willson (former Cheers alum and loser Paul), and Todd Duffey. And although Stephen Root's character becomes annoying with time, he plays the part perfectly.

And yes, the movie has its moments. After all, who doesn't want to destroy that fax machine? Or complain about the loud radios in the nearby cubicle?

But this works only so far. Just because we can relate to moments in a film doesn't mean we can for 90 minutes. Perhaps if this were a television series episode, it would have been riotous. As presented here, it is nothing more than a reminder (only sometimes humorously) about the lives at work we bear.