I just saw this movie again on cable and it didn't disappoint. Many people talk about the implausibility of Nicholas just happening to find the 'sweet spot' to jump from and other similar occurrences. I would guess that these are the same folks who grouse about the benign landing of the spacecraft from Krypton - right after they watch a movie about a man flying around in tights and a cape. It's the utter implausibility of it all that makes the story. Actually this movie is like the butterfly effect - with thousands of possible variations, every one of Nicholas' actions, if not perfectly taken at the exact moment necessary, would ruin the outcome. It boggles the mind but makes for great cinema. I think the movie is really about Nicholas, a solitary man who believes he is in total control of a life scarred by his father's death and the responsibility he shoulders as a result. The Game continually undermines that control until, at the end, he surrenders, emotionally and physically. Compare Nicholas' body language from early in the movie to when he is led off the giant airbag - Michael Douglas pulls it off beautifully. I wonder if he got into the cab with Christine...
Reviews
4 Reviews
Hollywoodland
(2006)
Clark Kent Returns!
13 September 2006
I walked into the theater reliving memories of Monday nights during the mid-fifties and The Adventures of Superman on our Philco TV. I was too young then to fully realize the impact of the death of George Reeves. This movie does a pretty good job of dramatizing the event, but falls short of telling the whole story. I believe that if you are going to make a movie about an historical event or person, then stick to the history. Like so many other films portraying a famous personality, this one mixes fact and fiction too liberally for me. Can't the studios see that most often the real story is fascinating enough on its own? There was so much more to tell that was sacrificed for the sake of the fictional story line. So, as it seems to happen more and more, I left the theater wanting more...
Tombstone
(1993)
We're not cross, are we?
20 July 2004
First of all, I love the movie. Now some may say, "What a moron..." and others will undoubtedly agree with me. But I think it's great. When I first saw the film as it debuted in theaters eleven or so years back, I came away thinking, Men doing a man's job. Sounds a little chauvinist, I'll admit, but there you are. The movie is a tribute to men being men, living their lives on their own terms. The fact that the story is about the Earp saga is almost secondary to the film. To enjoy this movie, I don't think that it's so important for it to have historical accuracy to the letter or even have rain falling consistently through the shots. I would only advise viewers to let this Remington-painting-come-to-life wash over them and just go along for the ride. As long as we remember that this is Hollywood, all is well.
Then there's reality. As real aficionados of Tombstone history will see, the movie sacrifices or distorts some of the facts and compresses time. In the end it's a shame, really, because the film never realizes its full potential. I'm convinced that if this movie was true to history, it could only have been better. Previous reviews talk about and compare with Costner's Wyatt Earp. I think elements of both films combined would have made a great movie. For instance, I would have lifted much of WE's script from when Wyatt arrives in town (the story, not the dialog) and used it in Tombstone. And then get the rest of the facts straight. The true story is compelling on its own, and would still be entertaining.
The special edition DVD includes deleted scenes, that for the life of me, I can't figure out why they were deleted in the first place. But the scene when Wyatt and Josie rest after their spirited ride still has the payoff of the scene cut out - Josie and Wyatt getting it on. I get tired of directors thinking that the audience is sophisticated so we'll just let them figure it out on their own. Come on George, some of us didn't know that Wyatt was cheating on Mattie.
Finally, I've got to say that the movie was cast well. And the costumes were true to life - men liked to be colorful and unique in that time and place. The guns were accurate, as were the holsters (low slung and quick draw is a Hollywood invention). As for the scenery, I lived in Arizona for a while, and I do miss the big sky.
If you want to be entertained, this is the movie for you. If you want a history lesson, better hit the library...
Then there's reality. As real aficionados of Tombstone history will see, the movie sacrifices or distorts some of the facts and compresses time. In the end it's a shame, really, because the film never realizes its full potential. I'm convinced that if this movie was true to history, it could only have been better. Previous reviews talk about and compare with Costner's Wyatt Earp. I think elements of both films combined would have made a great movie. For instance, I would have lifted much of WE's script from when Wyatt arrives in town (the story, not the dialog) and used it in Tombstone. And then get the rest of the facts straight. The true story is compelling on its own, and would still be entertaining.
The special edition DVD includes deleted scenes, that for the life of me, I can't figure out why they were deleted in the first place. But the scene when Wyatt and Josie rest after their spirited ride still has the payoff of the scene cut out - Josie and Wyatt getting it on. I get tired of directors thinking that the audience is sophisticated so we'll just let them figure it out on their own. Come on George, some of us didn't know that Wyatt was cheating on Mattie.
Finally, I've got to say that the movie was cast well. And the costumes were true to life - men liked to be colorful and unique in that time and place. The guns were accurate, as were the holsters (low slung and quick draw is a Hollywood invention). As for the scenery, I lived in Arizona for a while, and I do miss the big sky.
If you want to be entertained, this is the movie for you. If you want a history lesson, better hit the library...
Shrek 2
(2004)
May Contain Spoilers!! A Great Sequel...
1 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!!
All movies depend on a phenomenon called "Suspension of Disbelief" that lulls the viewer into forgetting they're watching actors reciting dialog or that the special effects aren't real. Shrek 2 comes closer to achieving that state than any other animated feature I've seen. The movie draws you in with what are nearly three-dimensional characters and you find yourself believing in ogres making home movies of their honeymoon and donkeys that talk. In addition, the improvements in computer graphics are amazing. At times I had to remind myself that I was watching animation. I've read other reviewers commenting that Pixar's animation is superior, but Shrek 2 has warmth and subtle colors and textures that I've yet to see in other animated films.
The story is charming (no pun intended, Prince) and timeless. Shrek and Fiona journey home, with Donkey in tow, summoned by Mom and Dad, the king and queen of Far, Far Away, to attend a ball in their honor and to give Fiona's parents an opportunity to meet her prince charming. When the king discovers that Fiona's spell hasn't been broken and her husband is an ogre, he plots to set things aright and have his daughter marry her fairy godmother's son, the real Prince Charming. The king hires a hit man, Puss N'Boots, to do his dirty work and rid him of his new son-in-law. But Shrek has plans of his own and steals a magic potion that will let him and Fiona live Happily Ever After. Not to be outdone, the king acquires his own potion, intending to make his daughter fall in love with Charming. It all culminates at the ball, complete with a race to break a spell before midnight. And I loved the ending.
This is one of the few animated films where I couldn't find one character that was miscast. Mike Meyers, Cameron Diaz, and Eddie Murphy reprise their roles as the madly-in-love couple and always optimistic donkey. Antonio Bandares as the swashbuckling cat Puss is just how I always imagined he would be exotic and a Don Juan to boot. John Cleese and Julie Andrews as the king and queen play their roles with a stiff upper lip and clipped British accents; they are perfectly aloof royals. The fairy godmother is spoken/sung by Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett is the voice of Prince Charming. Both of them give great performances.
The movie doesn't try to be funny all the time, but there are plenty of laughs throughout. The comic pacing is instead relaxed, with a mixture of jokes, puns, sight gags and send-ups of other movies. One of the high points is dinner with the folks, where it seems the king will only accept Shrek when pigs can fly.
Visually, there is so much to see in the film, that at times I was overwhelmed trying to keep track of it all. The outdoor scenes are lush with color and detail and the interior scenes are bathed in light and shadow. The costumes were wonderful too, full of shading and texture. There are many more characters that are human in this sequel, and the attention paid to little things like chin stubble on the prince, and freckles or moles on the king and fairy godmother, adds to a sense of surreal realism. It did seem to me, though, that the non-human characters won the facial expression contest. Maybe it was because the filmmakers didn't want to have the humans appear cartoonish. I'm going to see the movie again, just to catch up on what I missed.
All in all a great movie with something for everyone of any age. Go see it.
All movies depend on a phenomenon called "Suspension of Disbelief" that lulls the viewer into forgetting they're watching actors reciting dialog or that the special effects aren't real. Shrek 2 comes closer to achieving that state than any other animated feature I've seen. The movie draws you in with what are nearly three-dimensional characters and you find yourself believing in ogres making home movies of their honeymoon and donkeys that talk. In addition, the improvements in computer graphics are amazing. At times I had to remind myself that I was watching animation. I've read other reviewers commenting that Pixar's animation is superior, but Shrek 2 has warmth and subtle colors and textures that I've yet to see in other animated films.
The story is charming (no pun intended, Prince) and timeless. Shrek and Fiona journey home, with Donkey in tow, summoned by Mom and Dad, the king and queen of Far, Far Away, to attend a ball in their honor and to give Fiona's parents an opportunity to meet her prince charming. When the king discovers that Fiona's spell hasn't been broken and her husband is an ogre, he plots to set things aright and have his daughter marry her fairy godmother's son, the real Prince Charming. The king hires a hit man, Puss N'Boots, to do his dirty work and rid him of his new son-in-law. But Shrek has plans of his own and steals a magic potion that will let him and Fiona live Happily Ever After. Not to be outdone, the king acquires his own potion, intending to make his daughter fall in love with Charming. It all culminates at the ball, complete with a race to break a spell before midnight. And I loved the ending.
This is one of the few animated films where I couldn't find one character that was miscast. Mike Meyers, Cameron Diaz, and Eddie Murphy reprise their roles as the madly-in-love couple and always optimistic donkey. Antonio Bandares as the swashbuckling cat Puss is just how I always imagined he would be exotic and a Don Juan to boot. John Cleese and Julie Andrews as the king and queen play their roles with a stiff upper lip and clipped British accents; they are perfectly aloof royals. The fairy godmother is spoken/sung by Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett is the voice of Prince Charming. Both of them give great performances.
The movie doesn't try to be funny all the time, but there are plenty of laughs throughout. The comic pacing is instead relaxed, with a mixture of jokes, puns, sight gags and send-ups of other movies. One of the high points is dinner with the folks, where it seems the king will only accept Shrek when pigs can fly.
Visually, there is so much to see in the film, that at times I was overwhelmed trying to keep track of it all. The outdoor scenes are lush with color and detail and the interior scenes are bathed in light and shadow. The costumes were wonderful too, full of shading and texture. There are many more characters that are human in this sequel, and the attention paid to little things like chin stubble on the prince, and freckles or moles on the king and fairy godmother, adds to a sense of surreal realism. It did seem to me, though, that the non-human characters won the facial expression contest. Maybe it was because the filmmakers didn't want to have the humans appear cartoonish. I'm going to see the movie again, just to catch up on what I missed.
All in all a great movie with something for everyone of any age. Go see it.
Tell Your Friends