A pretty thrilling piece of film noir, Double Indemnity brings a high stakes insurance scam to the big screen. A lowly insurance salesman is seduced by a beautiful but unhappy housewife with murder on her mind. She takes out a lucrative insurance policy on her husband and uses the hapless salesman to help do the deed and claim a highly unlikely double indemnity clause in the policy.
Along their attempts to carry out the plot, its aftermath and ensuing investigation, the film carries you on a pretty tight wire. It gets a little long in places and its pacing may seem slow, given the last few generations demanding action, action, action! But it is a classic and an exciting little thriller that performs well to the final reel.
Did we really need a sequel? Aside from the fact that the first Pirates film raked in an unexpected $300+ million in the US alone, and besides the fact that Johnny Depp plays the least creepy and most commercially acceptable performance of his career and is absolutely hysterical while doing so, and besides the fact that the first Pirates film was a down-right fun movie experience, did we really need a sequel?
The correct answer is “No” but when you get all the above mentioned items to align in a single film, money becomes more important than art. Dead Man’s Chest is a rousing popcorn pleaser, but it can't live up to the success of the original. Even longer than the overlong Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest outstays its welcome, only to inform you at the end that there will be no resolution until you cough up $8 next summer for the third and “final” installment. Trying to force a sequel like this is dangerous. It can work out well, like Star Wars or Back to the Future, or it could blow up in your face, like the second and third Matrix movies.
The story is stretched far too long, and there are too many subplots, but the most disturbing thing for me about Dead Man’s Chest is that the music, which was so iconic and superb in the first film, has little punch or flair whatsoever. A few recycled bits and pieces here and there, but there was never a moment where the music swept you up and carried you through the action as wonderfully as in the original. That let me down a great deal.
The comedy is played up a little too corny and recycled sight gags made me snicker more than laugh. Orlando Bloom hasn’t improved as an actor in five years, but Keira Knightley is smoking hot and Johnny Depp is still largely funny. The only way for Dead Man’s Chest to become an essential in your DVD collection is if the third film, At World’s End is as good as the first. All in all, a fairly decent popcorn adventure flick.
I don’t find Katherine Hepburn attractive, so it’s hard to watch her in films where she is a romantic lead. This is an early romantic comedy, a genre which was quite popular in the early days of film. Light-hearted, goofy tales that would leave an audience perked up a bit was essential during the 30s, as America struggled to get through the Great Depression. While I can acknowledge the wit and humor in The Philadelphia Story, I thought it was on the boring side.
Again, as happens when watching old films, there was a nagging sense that I had seen this sort of thing before. With her wedding day fast approaching, Hepburn is bombarded by other would-be suitors, including her ex-husband (Cary Grant) and a magazine reporter (Jimmy Stewart). Hilarity is supposed to ensue when she starts wondering whether she wants to marry who she’s supposed to and all sorts of wrong perceptions lead us to her ultimate decision.
Perhaps the film is dated, and perhaps it’s just because I’ve seen too much that is similar (in terms of the comedy, not so much the plot). Whatever it is, it kept me from caring too much about The Philadelphia Story. A good “classic” comedy, but not my cup of tea.
This film helped further solidify Robert DeNiro as a Hollywood powerhouse actor. Ironically, while Raging Bull is quite a good movie, it is hardly an enjoyable one. DeNiro plays real-life boxer Jake LaMotta as he rises up the boxing ranks and spirals downward in the ranks as a decent human being.
While at first, LaMotta’s talent and rising fame simply goes to his head. He talks tough and acts tough because he thinks he’s the best. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a chump. His pride in his own abilities as a boxer soon takes its toll on him. He becomes genuinely egomaniacal, thinking that everyone might as well kiss the ground he walks on. Paranoia sets in as his abilities decline. He doesn’t see it, so he assumes that everyone else has a problem but him. He begins to suspect his wife is cheating on him. At one point he accuses his brother of sleeping with her. He becomes violent, abusive and repugnant. He’s one unlikable guy.
The film gets deeper and deeper into LaMotta’s wretchedness, but eventually he loses his wife and kids, and his brother. He apologizes to his brother towards the end, but I wasn’t left feeling convinced that his apologies and attempted turnaround was sincere.
Probably the most infamous aspect of this film is DeNiro’s decision to gain over 60 pounds to resemble LaMotta later in life. It’s truly shocking to see how much different he looks, and it seems like DeNiro never could quite shed that weight back off. Raging Bull is a tough film to watch and certainly won’t leave you in a cheery mood, but its refusal to spare the ugly details makes it very good.
This chick flick happens to be one of my girlfriend’s favorite movies, which made me wary of seeing it because I knew she’d want to know how I rated it. I’m a guy, and guys just don’t dig chick flicks. Sure, there are some really good ones out there, but this isn’t one of them.
Keanu Reeves plays a young man returning from World War II and struggling to get a good job. He’s married and desperately wants to hold a respectable and dignified job. He ends up as a traveling candy salesman. He happens upon a pregnant woman who is afraid to go home to the family vineyard because she is unwed and will be viewed as a disgrace. Reeves decides to help her out and pretend to be her husband until things smooth over with her family. Things predictably come unraveled and the family isn’t so fond of Reeves, but he wins back their trust in the end when he helps them rebuild their vineyard crop after a devastating fire.
The film includes some typical elements of the chick flick genre, so I needn’t list them here. However, the fact that most of the movie takes place under circumstances I consider unethical (helping someone by having an affair with them) and a disastrous fire that defies the laws of science (green plants do not catch fire like dried pine needles) combined to destroy my suspension of disbelief. The fact that the whole affair thing is fixed up neatly by a convenient dues ex machina (Keanu’s wife was cheating on him the whole time) destroyed any chance of the film had of landing a 3 or higher on my scale.
Although it doesn’t give in to too many conventions, A Walk in the Clouds is another run of the mill chick flick that won’t likely be remembered by too many people.
Hard to believe, but before now I had never seen this film. I had heard a lot about it for the longest time, but had never actually seen it. Perhaps this build-up of hype is the reason that I feel mildly disappointed.
Don’t get me wrong, this was a very good film. Just not great. The story is intriguing and suspenseful (and kind of frightening that it’s based off real events) and Anthony Hopkins is delightfully evil as Hannibal Lecter. But, I just don’t dig Jodie Foster. It’s something in her voice- kind of a mush-mouthy, speak-through-the-teeth sound that accentuates the r’s and th’s too much. They’re called jaw muscles sweetheart. Use them.
Also, she wasn’t convincing enough as a hero character to get the bump into my 4-star range. Perhaps a subdued hero is better for an overly evil villain, but I wish there was more even footing in that regard. Perhaps that’s why Lecter was used to help her solve the case. Whatever it was, she just didn’t do it for me, but not at the expense of the movie as a whole.
Taut, gripping drama that relishes in maniacal undertones, Silence of the Lambs will always be remembered as a classic thriller.
Forget Cedric the Entertainer and Bernie Mac, the Marx Brothers are the original kings of comedy. Made during the Great Depression, this film is surprisingly bold in its shameless satire of the political process. A bumbling dunderhead is named as the new Prime Minister of Freedonia and the neighboring nation of Sylvania wants to take it over. The Sylvanians try very hard to anger the new Prime Minister, but he shrugs it all off like a joke. Eventually a war is declared, but no one knows who is on which side and hilarity ensues.
This film is a breezy 69 minutes long and charges ahead with a ceaseless barrage of one-liners and sight gags. Duck Soup is a prime example of slapstick comedy done right and should be enjoyed by anyone with a sense of humor. If you’re politically cynical, you’ll get some extra hardy laughs to boot.
Our culture has been becoming lazier for quite a while now and it is evident in the fact that people would rather sit and watch a movie based on a book rather than read the book itself. With movies, people don’t have to process as much information, or spend as much time getting through the story as they would with the book. As a result, they miss out on all the tiny intricacies that make reading books far superior than watching their movie counterparts. Case in point- The Da Vinci Code.
The most talked about book since Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code is very well written, expertly paced and has lots of neat little tidbits that were simply intriguing to millions (whether they were true or not). The problem with turning such a book into a movie was that the film could either be lacking in the little things that pressed the mind onward, or it could be overfull of them and drag the movie down. The former turns out to be the case.
Without much of the non-verbal elements in the book, character histories are reduced, and the reasons for their actions are left vague because we don’t know what’s motivating them as much as we would had we read the book. It also doesn’t help that they completely changed the ending! Well, not completely, but it’s leaps and bounds different from the book.
And for all the hoopla that the book and ensuing movie caused amongst hard line religious folk, the movie certainly isn’t going to change anyone’s minds about their faith. At least no thinking people will.
Basically, this movie ultimately served two core audiences- those who are too lazy to read the book, and those who want to get up in arms over the story’s content. Evidently, it’s more socially acceptable to go overboard protesting a movie than it is a book. Anyway, for those who read the book, it’s a fairly decent rendition of a very good story, though it won’t be heralded as superior to its source. While a largely forgettable affair, The Da Vinci Code is still pretty good popcorn entertainment but by no means necessary given the quality of the book.
Two down-on-their-luck jazz musicians (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon) accidentally witness the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in an auto garage. The gangsters, wanting no witnesses are hot on their tails. The resourceful musicians find refuge with an all-girl traveling band. The only catch is that they have to cross-dress in order to fit in.
While the movie offers some genuinely funny moments, it felt rather dated to me. While it's hard to believe that this film was, at one time, considered edgy, in the 50s cross-dressing was shocking and Some Like It Hot was one of the few films to feature men dressing as women. Being a comedy probably helped it seem acceptable, but growing up in the 90s with movies like Mrs. Doubtfire, cross-dressing for comedy wasn't big deal for me. The shock value is lost on me and much of the humor that may have originated with this film now seems recycled.
Curtis and Lemmon both end up falling for a girl in the traveling band (Marilyn Monroe) and they end up in all sorts of humorous situations that were more or less lost on me. I was able to acknowledge the fact that this movie was sort of groundbreaking, but I disagree with the American Film Institute, which named Some Like It Hot as the funniest movie ever made. But maybe that’s because I’m not in the geriatric ward of a hospital.
This is a truly astounding piece of science fiction. Right off the bat we’re treated to bizarre occurrences and discoveries (a huge ocean liner in the middle of the desert?). Things keep getting weirder as the main character, played by Richard Dreyfuss, becomes obsessed with making pictures and sculptures of a shape he’s never seen before. Bright lights appear in the sky and people go missing inexplicably. It’s all driving a small group of people to Devil’s Tower in Wyoming, where man’s first contact with extra-terrestrials will be made.
Astounding visual effects combine with brilliant acting and John Williams’ composition to make this film a dazzling adventure filled with a sense of wonder. While some effects may look dated and hokey now, they are for the most part really impressive, giving Close Encounters of the Third Kind a permanent seat at the table of science fiction films. I think most people can enjoy this film, but if you are particularly fond of science fiction, you have to see this movie.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
Did we really need a sequel? Aside from the fact that the first Pirates film raked in an unexpected $300+ million in the US alone, and besides the fact that Johnny Depp plays the least creepy and most commercially acceptable performance of his career and is absolutely hysterical while doing so, and besides the fact that the first Pirates film was a down-right fun movie experience, did we really need a sequel?
I don’t find Katherine Hepburn attractive, so it’s hard to watch her in films where she is a romantic lead. This is an early romantic comedy, a genre which was quite popular in the early days of film. Light-hearted, goofy tales that would leave an audience perked up a bit was essential during the 30s, as America struggled to get through the Great Depression. While I can acknowledge the wit and humor in The Philadelphia Story, I thought it was on the boring side.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
Hard to believe, but before now I had never seen this film. I had heard a lot about it for the longest time, but had never actually seen it. Perhaps this build-up of hype is the reason that I feel mildly disappointed.
Forget Cedric the Entertainer and Bernie Mac, the Marx Brothers are the original kings of comedy. Made during the Great Depression, this film is surprisingly bold in its shameless satire of the political process. A bumbling dunderhead is named as the new Prime Minister of Freedonia and the neighboring nation of Sylvania wants to take it over. The Sylvanians try very hard to anger the new Prime Minister, but he shrugs it all off like a joke. Eventually a war is declared, but no one knows who is on which side and hilarity ensues.
Our culture has been becoming lazier for quite a while now and it is evident in the fact that people would rather sit and watch a movie based on a book rather than read the book itself. With movies, people don’t have to process as much information, or spend as much time getting through the story as they would with the book. As a result, they miss out on all the tiny intricacies that make reading books far superior than watching their movie counterparts. Case in point- The Da Vinci Code.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
