Reviews

I just finished reading Shoeless Joe for the first time today, and I figured it would be a good time to watch Field of Dreams for the twentieth time. This was my favorite movie as a child, and it really cemented my love for baseball. For many, the book blows the movie away, but my view is that both are unique in their own way. The book is not readily accessible to anybody under the age of 25, in my opinion. It takes a little bit of life experience to truly understand Ray's situation in the novel. The movie, however, is a classic for all ages. I don't think there's a person alive, male or female, that can't appreciate regret for things said to parents, alive or deceased.

On top of the outstanding story, this movie is a who's who of late-80's film. Costner was in his prime at this point, a few years before Waterworld. James Earl James is perfect. Ray Liotta the year before Goodfellas. Burt Lancaster in his last major movie feature. It's a well-cast film, no question.

The only complaint I have is that they changed so much from the book. Why substitute Salinger for Mann except to bring Jones into the mix? Why completely ignore Ray's twin brother and "the oldest living Cub"? Ignoring those two central characters in the novel makes the movie much more shallow than the book.

I'm finishing up my 7th year as a an 8th grade teacher at a typical rural public junior high/high school, and I watch this movie at the end of each school year. It does a few things for me: 1. Helps me realize just how f'd up the people I work with/for really are. 2. Gives me something to laugh about to take the edge off of a long school year. 3. Motivates me to keep teaching year after year even when I've just finished teaching some rough classes.

As for the movie itself, it's up and down. Nolte is his typical mid-80's drunken self. Laura Dern was outstanding as the slutty student, and the rest of the cast fills in the gaps. What I like about the movie is that the teachers, even as stereotypical as they are portrayed, are so real. I can name a fellow faculty member for each role, as most teachers probably could.

Now here's a book that has never really gotten grand movie treatment. Maybe it's the fact that the book has so many elements to it that are hard to portray in movie form, such as heavy characterization and animal thoughts/beliefs, but it just seems that all the movies fall a little short.

This movie version is clearly the best of a mediocre bunch, however. The casting is about as well done as could be expected. Stewart Peterson, in the first and perhaps the best role of his short career, is perfect as Billy. I also liked Jack Ging's portrayal of Billy's father.

On the flip side, Beverly Garland, a heavily experienced actress at the time this movie was filmed, was horrible as Billy's mother. In the book, Billy is a borderline "mama's boy". His mother is written as overly-affectionate, constantly hugging and kissing him, much to his chagrin. In the movie, however, she spends nearly every scene chasing him with mops and threatening to whip him when he wants to finish cutting the tree down! To be honest, I question whether Garland had read the book, because she basically replayed her TV show "cowboy's wife" characters in the movie.

A lot of the gorier sections of the book are cut down. It's hard for kids nowadays to think that a book could be more gruesome than a movie, but that is clearly the case here. The ax scene, in particular, is almost comically chopped down, no pun intended. The ending, however, is nearly as gut-wrenching in the movie as the book. Whenever I teach this book to 7th/8th graders, it's neck-and-neck for which draws more tears.

From an artistic standpoint, some of the 70's film-making peculiarities are interesting, such as the fact that most of Billy's "night-time" scenes take place in broad daylight, even while Billy carries around a lit lantern! Overall, it's a passable movie and does follow the book quite closely. For teachers such as myself, there is no other option. The 90's version is an absolute mess, and this movie has enough nostalgic charm to keep its datedness in check. In other words, you won't feel guilty showing it to students!

For all of you new Romeo and Juliet teachers out there, some "artistic" teacher is going to tell you to show your students the 1996 Leonardo DiCaprio version of the Bard's story. You'd be doing yourself and your students a huge disfavor by doing so. Quite simply, this is the only version of the movie needed. It's flawless. Think about it. Here's a movie that is nearly 50 years old, yet is still imminently watchable by teenagers today.

The main characters are all perfectly cast, with most in the prime of their acting careers. Whiting and Hussey, in particular, are stunning. They act well beyond their years. The dialogue is perfect, the sword-fighting scenes are incredible even by today's standards, and the chemistry between all of the characters is just so easy to pick up on. You really FEEL like Romeo and Juliet love each other.

I've shown this movie for several years after teaching the play, and it never fails to disappoint. Trust me, this will be one of the best purchases a budding literature teacher could make.

First of all, don't go into this one thinking that it's Oscar-worthy, because it's not. Second of all, don't go in thinking that it's the worst movie ever made, because it's not. This movie is a mediocre title that will make you laugh (sometimes when you're not sure why) and groan at times.

Honestly, this movie played out almost exactly like I figured it would based on the actors. Stiller plays the goofy, animated nerd that he always plays. Jack Black plays the funny, arms-waving regular guy that he always plays. Walken plays... well, you just have to understand Walken to get how he acts.

This movie reminded me of a few movies from the past, most notably Tommy Boy/Black Sheep, and a Jack Black favorite of mine, High Fidelity. If you go in expecting that sort of weird comedy, you'll be fine. The ending is great, BTW.

It's funny how life can sometimes turn lemons into lemonade and vice-versa. I've been knocked down by the flu for the last week, cursing my raspy cough and the boredom of bed-rest. AMC has started up their recent Oscar-nominated run this week with the Oscars hitting on Saturday night, and this movie is one they're showing at various times this week. So as I was laying in bed feeling sorry for myself, I turned this movie on just as it was starting, and I was enthralled for the next three hours.

I've seen quite a few Eastwood flicks over the last several years, and I loved Gran Turino, his most recent movie. But this movie tops them all. First of all, Eastwood is outstanding. He was nominated for best actor by the Oscars the year this came out, and it's easy to see why. He's the perfect boxing trainer. He channels a little bit of Mick, but he comes across as a heck of a lot less cartoonish. But the multiple directions that he takes the character, from his estrangement with his daughter to the protecting of Swank's character (maybe he saw her as a replacement for his daughter) were great.

The only person that upstaged Eastwood, however, was Hillary Swank. I hadn't taken Swank seriously as an actress for several years since her Beverly Hills 90210 days. She seemed like she was set for TV from the get-go. But in the last few years, she's acted in two movies that have really changed my opinion of her acting abilities. This movie is the first one, obviously, and the second was Freedom Writers, which she also directed. She was outstanding in both, but this movie set the bar extremely high. The thing is that she's so believable as a boxer, but there are so many other facets to her performance. Anybody that's grown up in a small town and escaped could tell you what it's like to try to reconnect to a family that doesn't understand you anymore, and she portrays that so well on the screen. It's heartbreaking. Swank took an Oscar for best actress from this movie (her second), and there is a lot of dispute as to whether it was earned, as always. Coincidentally, this was also the second time that she beat out Annette Benning for best actress. Personally, I thought her performance was Oscar-worthy.

Morgan Freeman was playing Red again from Shawkshank Redemption, but this time he was nominated and won an Oscar for a supporting role, rather than losing best actor in a leading role as in Shawshank. He was typical Freeman. He's the glue that holds things together.

Overall, the movie was a real eye-opener. The main theme "Always Protect Yourself" is so true in all walks of life, and it's a truth that a lot of us have to discover the hard way, I suppose.