Change Your Image
captainblackadder
Reviews
Peter Pan (2003)
Better than Lord of the Rings and Star Wars
One of the best fantasy films ever made. Perhaps the best because it stands alone and is not part of a series. Ranks with the Harry Potter movies in its ability to evoke powerful emotions while being visually wondrous, funny, and wildly entertaining. A must-see for children and adults alike.
The cast is superb - particularly Olivia Williams, who is likely to be overlooked as someone who is only involved in "real world" action. And Jason Isaacs performance as Mr. Darling makes me yearn to see him in more dramatic and more heroic roles even as his superb Captain Hook makes me hope to see more of him in the "Christopher Lee-grandiose villain mold" more as well. (Just hope he isn't too typecast since this film shows his range well.)
The Man in the Moon (1991)
One of the best movies I have ever seen
Perfect movies are rare. Even my favorite films tend to have flaws - Rear Window looks a little stagey at times, Chris Elliot's character in Groundhog Day doesn't work, the music score in Best Years of Our Lives is too cheesy, the beginning of Nights of Cabiria is a little too slow - but this film is perfectly executed from start to finish.
The script is brilliant, the acting is superb all around (although Reese Witherspoon and Sam Waterston are amazing, the whole cast shines), the directing and the photography are inspired, and the music score is touching without being intrusive (like some Miramax scores that are too manipulative). Every sad moment is truly moving, every light moment makes me smile. This truly is one of the best films I have ever seen and I wish there were more films like it.
I am glad that Reese Witherspoon has gone on to stardom after this film, but I am sorry to see that her recent movies are so much more escapist and silly than this serious film which is about real people, real feelings and real problems. Brilliant! A must-see.
The Sopranos (1999)
This Show is Waaay too Popular
HBO has brought us some really wonderful television shows and made-for-tv movies, most notably Band of Brothers, which is the best war film (series or movie) ever made, and Wit, which is a poignant condemnation of the current American health system. I find that The Sopranos and Sex and the City have shaken up television, bringing some interesting and provocative entertainment to the small screen - rescuing it from banal sitcoms, cop shows, quiz shows, and reality shows. However, the enthusiasm for the show has reached religious (or at least Star Trek-cult proportions) and it has gotten a little absurd.
I understand that New Yorkers love seeing people who speak like themselves on tv. I understand that men like watching tv shows and movies that star guns. (Anything about guns will automatically rank high on a male tv or movie critic's list.) I also understand that, for some reason, most Italians actually like seeing themselves stereotyped on film as gangsters, although I find it offensive myself, as an Italian-American. I also understand that great movies that take place in the past or outside of New York are widely ignored by Americans as being boring or not close enough to modern day society to be interesting. Hence, Amadeus and Before Sunrise and Open Range are not as popular as they should be - because neither movie is about New York gangsters or Vietnam. But not everything that is about Vietnam is great. Not everything about gangsters is instantly a classic. Relax.
I do love The Usual Suspects. I love Pulp Fiction. I love Bonnie and Clyde. I love the French Connection I and II. Crime movies rule. But I've had enough. Especially of evil Italians. Lets move on and see some tv shows about something other than cops and robbers ... and women in tight pants. Sick to death of both. There can indeed be too much of a good thing. And in the case of Sopranos, not only is it one gangster show too many ... it isn't even as good as the gangster stuff it is ripping off. Godfather, as overrated as it is, is far, far, far superior to The Sopranos. No comparison. Donnie Brasco is great but underrated - and stomps Sopranos flat. A Bronx Tale is superb despite some dodgy acting - and is way better than Sopranos. Sopranos is not great. It is dull, the acting is terrible, and its attempt to be intellectual by being a post-modern gangster film (like Scream is a post-modern horror film and Matrix is a post-modern sci-fi film) is a total failure. Sometimes, stories about gangsters do indeed stink. And sometimes, just sometimes, romances and dramas and period pieces and science fiction films are great ... even if there are no gangsters in them.
Gojira (1954)
Ranks with The Bicycle Thief, Nights of Cabiria, and other Classics
The first Godzilla/Gojira film stands head-and-shoulders above the others because it is such a serious motion picture both in its stark depiction of the devastation caused by Godzilla (which evokes the effects of the Hiroshima blast) and in the morally complex performances by a brilliant ensemble cast. And, oddly enough, the oldest Godzilla film has the best visuals, thanks to a fortuitous combination of inventive photography, moody lighting, wondrous miniature sets, and one of the best-looking Godzilla costumes ever. Therefore, I feel quite strongly that the first film, Gojira, is not only the best Godzilla film ever, but one of the best movies ever made. Period. (And it is not out on Region 1 DVD in its original format!!!!!)
The other Godzilla films, in comparison, are all just fun action movies (not that there's anything wrong with that). Still, the best sequels make some attempt to continue the first film's tradition of making important social and political statements with the human storyline. For example, GMK (2001) has a fascinating perspective on contemporary Japan's view of WWII, while Godzilla versus King Ghidora (1991) is a wonderfully wicked skewering of 1990s America (which hated and feared Japan's economic power).
The American version of Gojira (1954) currently out on DVD has been dubbed into English and features new footage of Raymond Burr inserted into the original. While this English-language version helped make the film accessible to me as a child, and helped open me up to the joys of foreign-make films, I do think that the original, subtitled version should be made available to the general public on DVD. After all, the dubbing is characterized by often inept translating and acting, and Raymond Burr - while offering a fine performance as far as it goes - is not operating on the same level as the original cast. And, even though I have a childhood affection for Raymond Burr's character, I must be forced to admit that, from the perspective of a modern-day film buff, the American reworking of the original is a terrible violation of a Japanese classic and should not be the only version of the movie out on DVD. A nice 3-disc DVD set with both versions of the film and commentaries on the alterations (a la the Criterion Collection Brazil set) is in order.
The Unforgiven (1960)
A hidden gem, better than The Searchers
I can't figure it out. Why does everyone love The Searchers? John Wayne's young sidekick in that film, and his absurd romance, sink the film like a stone. This film, which deals with a number of the same issues - racism, kidnapping, mass slaughter, etc. - treats them with greater seriousness and to better effect.
There's wonderful moral ambiguity to The Unforgiven, an ambiguity which was obviously built into the story from the beginning ... so we need not pat ourselves on the back by rooting for the Indians in this one and thinking of ourselves as so much wiser than the filmmakers. When a lot of Kiowa get killed during the course of the film it is unsettling, partly because one thinks in real life that their fighting tactics would be better, but mostly because it is upsetting to see so much bloodshed.
There are better westerns than this film - Open Range, Valdez is Coming, Destry Rides Again, The Long Riders, The Cowboys - but that doesn't stop The Unforgiven from being a first-rate movie filled with suspense and fascinating characters.
Hulk (2003)
A VERY good movie: smart, faithful, and daring.
Because the hero of the Hulk is an emotionally detached young man it took me a while to learn to care enough about him as a character to become invested in his fate and - by extension - to get into this movie. But once the plot of the film began to unfold, and the major father figures played by Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte got into the action, the movie really started to rock.
The action sequences are tremendous and the acting is very strong. Ang Lee's directing is intriguing as well ... and I particularly love the way he evokes comic-book-panel imagery in his shots. The film has a very inventive visual style that is as impressive, or more so, than the Hulk himself. And I did find the Hulk creature great fun to watch, whether he is having a touching moment with Betty or he's fighting tanks or he's part of a horrific dream sequence. Good stuff. Actually, it has been a while since there has been a cool, "misunderstood" monster film, and I felt an appreciation for this movie even as I was reminded of classic films like King Kong and Frankenstein.
While faithful to the comic book, this film is actually superior to its source material in that the characters are more realistic and more complex - especially Bruce Banner's father, who has a truly fascinating background and motivation. And it is harder than it looks doing a good job bringing a comic book to life on screen. Just look at the Batman films, which are all seriously flawed. Certainly the movie critic I respect most, Roger Ebert, has yet to really be wowed by any super hero film since Superman 2, and I can understand why ... they sometimes seem bi-polar when they shift from live-action actor to CGI when Eric turns into HULK and Tobey turns into SPIDEY. And a lot of these movies do recycle origin stories and villains like nobody's business. (ie: the endless Joker rehashes.)
You know... it is a very difficult thing trying to come up with an objective way of judging the quality of the super hero movies that have been coming out the past few years, because everyone has a different level of expectation about how realistic the film should be, how fun it should be, how literate the script should be, how faithful it should be to its source comic or tv show, how many punk-rock characters should be included, and how many nuclear countdowns and car chases should be involved. And I bet it is even more difficult for the directors and producers and scriptwriters to decide how they will balance dramatic considerations ... and to do justice to the acting talents of the A-list casts that are being assembled for what was once considered B-movie material ... with the requisite number of action scenes meant to please audiences hoping to be wowed by the latest advances in CGI technology.
Although this balancing act is hard to pull off successfully, I was delighted with the Spider-Man film because I feel that the movie managed to strike the balance quite nicely. In that film, the comic character that I love best was realized wonderfully by Tobey when in his civilian mode ... and he had great fight scenes with the Goblin when he was in costume. I didn't like X2 because I felt that the characters got left behind by one glitzy special effect after another, so I found it to be a very boring and numbing film ... while the more character-driven X-Men (1.5) was a more exciting movie to me because the characters were more real and the actors were given the chance to emote before the camera cut away to the next effects sequence. On the other hand, I thought Daredevil had too many slow character scenes and not enough action. But Hulk, like Spider-Man, gets the mix right. After an admittedly slow first twenty minutes you get great acting AND great action. Intelligence AND spectacle. Very good stuff.
Hulk (2003)
A VERY good movie: smart, faithful, and daring.
Because the hero of the Hulk is an emotionally detached young man it took me a while to learn to care enough about him as a character to become invested in his fate and - by extension - to get into this movie. But once the plot of the film began to unfold, and the major father figures played by Sam Elliott and Nick Nolte got into the action, the movie really started to rock.
The action sequences are tremendous and the acting is very strong. Ang Lee's directing is intriguing as well ... and I particularly love the way he evokes comic-book-panel imagery in his shots. The film has a very inventive visual style that is as impressive, or more so, than the Hulk himself. And I did find the Hulk creature great fun to watch, whether he is having a touching moment with Betty or he's fighting tanks or he's part of a horrific dream sequence. Good stuff. Actually, it has been a while since there has been a cool, "misunderstood" monster film, and I felt an appreciation for this movie even as I was reminded of classic films like King Kong and Frankenstein.
While faithful to the comic book, this film is actually superior to its source material in that the characters are more realistic and more complex - especially Bruce Banner's father, who has a truly fascinating background and motivation. And it is harder than it looks doing a good job bringing a comic book to life on screen. Just look at the Batman films, which are all seriously flawed. Certainly the movie critic I respect most, Roger Ebert, has yet to really be wowed by any super hero film since Superman 2, and I can understand why ... they sometimes seem bi-polar when they shift from live-action actor to CGI when Eric turns into HULK and Tobey turns into SPIDEY. And a lot of these movies do recycle origin stories and villains like nobody's business. (ie: the endless Joker rehashes.)
You know... it is a very difficult thing trying to come up with an objective way of judging the quality of the super hero movies that have been coming out the past few years, because everyone has a different level of expectation about how realistic the film should be, how fun it should be, how literate the script should be, how faithful it should be to its source comic or tv show, how many punk-rock characters should be included, and how many nuclear countdowns and car chases should be involved. And I bet it is even more difficult for the directors and producers and scriptwriters to decide how they will balance dramatic considerations ... and to do justice to the acting talents of the A-list casts that are being assembled for what was once considered B-movie material ... with the requisite number of action scenes meant to please audiences hoping to be wowed by the latest advances in CGI technology.
Although this balancing act is hard to pull off successfully, I was delighted with the Spider-Man film because I feel that the movie managed to strike the balance quite nicely. In that film, the comic character that I love best was realized wonderfully by Tobey when in his civilian mode ... and he had great fight scenes with the Goblin when he was in costume. I didn't like X2 because I felt that the characters got left behind by one glitzy special effect after another, so I found it to be a very boring and numbing film ... while the more character-driven X-Men (1.5) was a more exciting movie to me because the characters were more real and the actors were given the chance to emote before the camera cut away to the next effects sequence. On the other hand, I thought Daredevil had too many slow character scenes and not enough action. But Hulk, like Spider-Man, gets the mix right. After an admittedly slow first twenty minutes you get great acting AND great action. Intelligence AND spectacle. Very good stuff.
Under Suspicion (2000)
One of the best movies of the past ten years
Gene Hackman has been in a number of really superb films, many of which are regarded as classics. Probably the best movie he was featured in was Bonnie and Clyde, but his incredible filmography includes The French Connection, Superman, The Quick and the Dead, and dozens of other highly entertaining films. While he has earned a lot of recognition in recent years for The Royal Tennenbaums and Unforgiven, I would actually argue that his two greatest acting performances, and his two greatest star vehicles, are in movies that are laregly unknown or underrated. The first of these films is French Connection II (which, thanks to the Cold Turkey segment, and the wonderful fish-out-of-water storyline, I would consider superior to the original) and this film, Under Suspicion.
Like 12 Angry Men, Under Suspicion is largely confined to one location - an interrogation room - and, because of the confined setting, it could arguably be called a "filmed play" rather than a movie. And yet, the film has a lot of flashback segments and bridge segments that take the action out of the interrogation room, so it is actually a less claustrophobic film than 12 Angry Men, if not *quite* as good a film. (12 Angry Men is probably one of the top 5 movies I've ever seen.)
While the subject matter is very, very unpleasant (Hackman is accused of raping and murdering young girls on the cusp of adolescence), the film is gripping, and one finds oneself really involved trying to determine Hackman's guilt or innocence. Since there are so few characters interacting in a confined space, we get to know a lot about the personalities and histories of the interrogators and the witnesses, and Hackman and Freeman do some of their best acting work. Monica Bellucci is gorgeous and compelling, and I am glad she is at long last catipulting to fame thanks to the Matrix films. Thomas Jane gives a solid performance that works as an audition for his upcoming role as the Punisher.
Without offering any spoilers, I must complain about the other reviews posted on imdb and amazon.com about this movie. Despite the stellar cast, I almost did not rent the film because a number of reviewers called the ending confusing, inappropriate, or just plain bad. Not only are these reviews false ... they are VERY false. The ending is shocking and marvelous, and really challenged me to re-examine my view of the criminal justice system. It is a tremendous ending, if you take the time to think it through.
I'm glad that this film has started popping up in $9 bins at Best Buy. I'm hoping that this means that the film will get greater exposure and garner some of the attention it so richly deserves. And I hope that the same thing happens for The Edge, which I also spotted in the $9 bin at Best Buy last week, too.
Raising Victor Vargas (2002)
One of the best coming-of-age stories ever.
This movie works because it feels so genuine. The story is simple and realistic, perfectly capturing the joys and anxieties of adolescent love and sexuality that most/all of us experienced during our teen years.
The actors are as natural as figures in a documentary but are as convincing and as charismatic as seasoned performers. The dialogue is fresh and honest... and thankfully not filled to the brim with cutesy pop culture references. Also, the cinematography is at once gritty and beautiful, bringing the Lower East Side setting to life in a very tangible way.
On an artistic level, I love this movie because it reminds me of great Italian neo-realism films like The Bicycle Thief and La Strada. Movies rarely feel as "real" as this does ... or as Bicycle Thief did. And the only other movie I've seen that treats teen sexuality with the same level of seriousness is Elia Kazan's Splendor in the Grass. Writer/director Peter Sollett deserves tremendous praise. This film is quite an achievement.
On a personal level, I am always glad to see a movie that treats members of ethnic America with love and respect. As an Italian-American, I hate the way my own people come off in the cinema (as racist, womanizing, criminal geniuses in irritatingly popular epics), and my aggravation on this count makes me acutely sensitive to other groups and their awful silver screen representations. Hispanics and Asians in particular seem cursed to playing villains in Westerns and action movies. (Good thing Gong Li didn't try to become famous in America!)
Of course, thanks largely to the rise of indie pictures, and the influence of Miramax, we are seeing a few more pictures about ethnic characters here and there ... but Raising Victor Vargas is easily one of the best. While I do really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is a refreshing change that Raising Victor Vargas is played straight (with less exaggerated and broadly-drawn characters) while still being very funny in its own right. Finally! Latino characters worthy of note. I have a feeling that this is a film that will be remembered.
Of course, now that he has made this wonderful picture about a family from the Dominican Republic, I hope Peter Sollett gets around to making a movie about Italians soon! :) - Marc DiPaolo