I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Battlestar Galactica
(2004–2009)
BSG is the best show on television in the past decade...bar none!
22 October 2007
I'm not one given to hyperbole, especially when it comes to television shows, but after three seasons, I have come to respect BATTLESTAR GALACTICA as THE BEST SHOW ON TELEVISION in the past decade. From the writing to the acting to the production, this is top-rate television. I've been passing my DVDs of the first two seasons around my group of friends, and without fail, every one of them tells me how they can't stop watching it. A couple friend of mine even watched the entire first two seasons over the span of one week.
I'm a little confused by those who call it "boring" or complain about "no character development," because this show reflects neither of those comments. It is deep, rich, extremely well-produced and nail-bitingly dramatic.
This is a Peabody Award-winning television show, which is the highest honor in all of media. And it lives up to that honor with each and every episode.
I'm a little confused by those who call it "boring" or complain about "no character development," because this show reflects neither of those comments. It is deep, rich, extremely well-produced and nail-bitingly dramatic.
This is a Peabody Award-winning television show, which is the highest honor in all of media. And it lives up to that honor with each and every episode.
After Life
(1998)
A brilliant film
31 March 2004
Wandafuru raifu is a TRULY BRILLIANT film. It asks us to ask ourselves what one memory we would take with us to the after life if we could only choose one memory. It then tells its story of a group of people choosing their memories and the staff helping them choose. Combining documentary reflections with legit actors works perfectly. The film's tone, style, performances and execution are all simple, yet immensely powerful. It's also a movie that improves with each viewing, as you come to learn more and more about the characters and their individual stories. After watching this movie, I have come to appreciate more the experience of life, taking each event as a memory to treasure. This is a small gem of a movie that's truly unlike anything you'll ever see.
In the Bedroom
(2001)
Interesting idea unfulfilled
5 February 2002
In the Bedroom features a dramatically interesting premise. How do a father and mother, who have not been open to their son's relationship with an older woman (who is not yet divorced and who is raising her young son alone), deal with the grief when that relationship results in their son's death?
As such, In the Bedroom could have been an incredible look at grief and the grieving process that a family goes through when losing someone who was on the verge of becoming a successful young man. But In the Bedroom takes a tangential turn in its third act that, in my opinion, undermines the film's premise. It also leaves some of its characters (including two of its main characters) grossly underwritten and underdeveloped.
Tom Wilkinson is truly great (and the main reason to see the film) as the young man's father who seeks relief for his grief through ways that actually lower him to the level of the man who killed his son. Sissy Spacek is good, although her role is one of the two that lacks any depth whatsoever. We are told by Wilkinson's character (after the fact) that she has been a cold-hearted, selfish woman. Yet we haven't really witnessed anything that would prepare us for that revelation. This is, of course, not Spacek's fault. She tries hard in her role and comes off very well, but the intricacies of her character are absent in the writing.
The same goes for Marisa Tomei, as the young mother whose ex-husband has killed her new boyfriend. She gives it her all in a dramatic and very well-played role. But the role, like Spacek's, is underdeveloped and literally disappears with one quarter of the movie still left to go. And her disappearance leaves a large, gaping hole in the development of not only her character, but also of the Spacek character.
A great deal of praise has been heaped on In The Bedroom, and normally such universal praise would indeed signal a praise-worthy movie. But while In The Bedroom has some fine scenes and excellent performances, it is lacking a great deal when it comes to character development. It also forces its hand with overt dashes of "symbolism," such as the title reference and a final shot that does nothing short of hit you over the head with its meaning, almost as if the filmmakers are screaming, "Do you get it?"
As such, In the Bedroom could have been an incredible look at grief and the grieving process that a family goes through when losing someone who was on the verge of becoming a successful young man. But In the Bedroom takes a tangential turn in its third act that, in my opinion, undermines the film's premise. It also leaves some of its characters (including two of its main characters) grossly underwritten and underdeveloped.
Tom Wilkinson is truly great (and the main reason to see the film) as the young man's father who seeks relief for his grief through ways that actually lower him to the level of the man who killed his son. Sissy Spacek is good, although her role is one of the two that lacks any depth whatsoever. We are told by Wilkinson's character (after the fact) that she has been a cold-hearted, selfish woman. Yet we haven't really witnessed anything that would prepare us for that revelation. This is, of course, not Spacek's fault. She tries hard in her role and comes off very well, but the intricacies of her character are absent in the writing.
The same goes for Marisa Tomei, as the young mother whose ex-husband has killed her new boyfriend. She gives it her all in a dramatic and very well-played role. But the role, like Spacek's, is underdeveloped and literally disappears with one quarter of the movie still left to go. And her disappearance leaves a large, gaping hole in the development of not only her character, but also of the Spacek character.
A great deal of praise has been heaped on In The Bedroom, and normally such universal praise would indeed signal a praise-worthy movie. But while In The Bedroom has some fine scenes and excellent performances, it is lacking a great deal when it comes to character development. It also forces its hand with overt dashes of "symbolism," such as the title reference and a final shot that does nothing short of hit you over the head with its meaning, almost as if the filmmakers are screaming, "Do you get it?"
Memento
(2000)
Memento intrigues, but fails to connect
1 February 2002
On its surface, Christopher Nolan's Memento may look like any other tale of revenge. Loyal husband Leonard Shelby (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert's Guy Pearce) wakes up one night to find an intruder is raping and murdering his wife. When he attempts to intervene, however, Leonard is smashed against a mirror by a second assailant and left for dead.
Leonard's head injury leaves him with a unique malady, short-term memory loss. As Leonard himself puts it, `I can't make new memories.' He knows who he is. He knows everything about his life up until the attack on his wife, but if he talks to you for more than 15 minutes, he'll forget who you are or what you were talking about.
Having no short-term memory is going to make exacting revenge upon the man who killed your wife a little bit difficult. But Leonard is determined to succeed. By using notes to himself (some made permanent as tattoos on his body) and Polaroid pictures, he hopes to piece together enough information to track down and kill the man he knows is responsible.
As I mentioned, on its surface, Memento looks pretty straightforward. But Nolan, who also wrote the movie from brother Jonathan Nolan's short story, has a plan to take away the audience's short-term memory, thus putting them in the same predicament as his hero.
How does he do this? Simple. He tells his movie in reverse. Thus, the audience is constantly having to piece the story together bit by bit, building it in their mind from the end to the beginning. It's a brilliant move, although not unprecedented both Steven Soderbergh and Atom Egoyan have used similar time-bending techniques in their films. And like Memento's Leonard, the audience, being left without a short term memory, is certainly kept on its toes.
But a clever idea doesn't always make for a great movie. By telling his story in reverse, Nolan may have the audience relating to Leonard's problem, but not to Leonard himself. Despite Pearce's bravura performance, it's difficult to make an emotional connection with his character. We are not privy to seeing the progressing frustration that he feels, since his progression is actually working in reverse. He is calmer and more in touch with reality at the end of the movie than at the beginning. Thus, we only see his frustration at the beginning without the foundation as to why he's so distraught.
Along for the ride are Joe Pantoliano and Carrie Moss, two characters who come into Leonard's life. Both are trying to help him in his quest or are they? We soon question both their motives, but it's never really clear, even at the end of the movie, whether our suspicions are warranted or not.
So while one can certainly praise Memento for its clever devices and excellent performance by Pearce, it's difficult to praise it as a movie experience. Its cerebral device obstructs any emotional contact. And while it's wonderful to see a truly intelligent thriller, the thrills are muted by their lack of emotional weight. Is it really too much to ask for an intelligent thriller with characters we can and do care about?
Leonard's head injury leaves him with a unique malady, short-term memory loss. As Leonard himself puts it, `I can't make new memories.' He knows who he is. He knows everything about his life up until the attack on his wife, but if he talks to you for more than 15 minutes, he'll forget who you are or what you were talking about.
Having no short-term memory is going to make exacting revenge upon the man who killed your wife a little bit difficult. But Leonard is determined to succeed. By using notes to himself (some made permanent as tattoos on his body) and Polaroid pictures, he hopes to piece together enough information to track down and kill the man he knows is responsible.
As I mentioned, on its surface, Memento looks pretty straightforward. But Nolan, who also wrote the movie from brother Jonathan Nolan's short story, has a plan to take away the audience's short-term memory, thus putting them in the same predicament as his hero.
How does he do this? Simple. He tells his movie in reverse. Thus, the audience is constantly having to piece the story together bit by bit, building it in their mind from the end to the beginning. It's a brilliant move, although not unprecedented both Steven Soderbergh and Atom Egoyan have used similar time-bending techniques in their films. And like Memento's Leonard, the audience, being left without a short term memory, is certainly kept on its toes.
But a clever idea doesn't always make for a great movie. By telling his story in reverse, Nolan may have the audience relating to Leonard's problem, but not to Leonard himself. Despite Pearce's bravura performance, it's difficult to make an emotional connection with his character. We are not privy to seeing the progressing frustration that he feels, since his progression is actually working in reverse. He is calmer and more in touch with reality at the end of the movie than at the beginning. Thus, we only see his frustration at the beginning without the foundation as to why he's so distraught.
Along for the ride are Joe Pantoliano and Carrie Moss, two characters who come into Leonard's life. Both are trying to help him in his quest or are they? We soon question both their motives, but it's never really clear, even at the end of the movie, whether our suspicions are warranted or not.
So while one can certainly praise Memento for its clever devices and excellent performance by Pearce, it's difficult to praise it as a movie experience. Its cerebral device obstructs any emotional contact. And while it's wonderful to see a truly intelligent thriller, the thrills are muted by their lack of emotional weight. Is it really too much to ask for an intelligent thriller with characters we can and do care about?
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
Post-modern musical dazzles the senses
1 February 2002
In 1915, after a private White House screening of D.W. Griffith's silent Civil War epic Birth of a Nation, President Woodrow Wilson hailed the movie, saying, `It's like writing history with lightning.' If any movie deserves to carry the moniker `written with lightning,' it is Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, a flamboyantly delirious post-modern spin on the creaky old `Let's-put-on-a-show' musical.
From its opening frames, in which an orchestra conductor wildly conducts the 20th Century Fox fanfare, it is clear that Luhrmann is not going to play to expectations. Strains of `The Sound of Music' and `Nature Boy' lead us into Montmartre, the Bohemian corner of Paris, where a young writer named Christian (Ewan McGregor) is penning his latest tome, an ode to the only love he has ever known.
The opening is somber and restrained, despite some truly eye-popping visual effects that take us into Christian's world. We are relaxed, but only for a moment. The second Christian's story propels into flashback, the audience is thrust into a world of sights and sounds that boggle (and almost assault) the mind. We are introduced to a bevy of bizarre characters, including John Leguizamo as a lisping Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Jacek Koman as a narcoleptic Argentinian (don't ask) and Matthew Whittet as famed French composer Erik Satie.
It seems this group of Bohemians are looking for a new poet to provide lyrics for their latest musical offering, Spectacular Spectacular. One sip of absinthe, and Christian has suddenly joined their band of merry men. Of course, it helps that he is able to compose such poetic ditties as, `The hills are alive with the sound of music,' on a moment's notice.
It is here that we realize Luhrmann is going to populate his movie not only with a bizarre cast of characters, but they are going to be singing songs that we all know and love. It's a risky move, but Luhrmann makes it work as an integral convention for his story. Christian is a great and gifted poet. What better way to demonstrate this than by having him write truly memorable poems?
As Christian soon learns, the Bohemians still need the backing of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent, in a role that truly shows his range), owner of the title nightclub. And the star of the show is to be none other than Zidler's `sparkling diamond,' Satine (Nicole Kidman). Zidler, however, has other plans, which include using Satine to secure the financial backing of an evil duke (Richard Roxburgh) to turn his Moulin Rouge from a nightclub into a legitimate theater and courtesan Satine into a legitimate actress. Things get complicated (well, as complicated as this type of music could possibly get) when, through a case of mistaken identity, Satine and Christian wind up together and in love.
That's the setup, and if it sounds like it borrows from countless other stories, well, it does. But Luhrmann knows this. He's not interested in telling a story that's never been told before. He wants to tell a story in a way that's never been done before.
To this end, Luhrmann succeeds. After an opening act that literally never lets up (think the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, only with song and dance), he settles into his story with a comfortable pace. We know pretty much everything that's going to happen for the next two hours, but thanks to Luhrmann's sometimes wacky sense of humor and truly phenomenal performances by his actors, it just doesn't matter.
Of course, Moulin Rouge! is a musical, so the quality of its musical numbers certainly play a large role in the movie's success. And to that end, the big question for those who haven't seen the movie yet is, `Can Nicole and Ewan really sing?' Well, the answer is yes and no. McGregor's voice is the better of the two, strong and confident like a chorus line singer determined to get the agents to sit up an notice. Occasionally, he tries a little too hard (in one of the movie's final songs, he actually spits in Kidman's face), but that's all in keeping with the grand operatic passion that Luhrmann is trying to capture.
Kidman can carry a tune, although she scoops up to some of her notes, and she sometimes seems a little unsure of herself. But her acting more than makes up for it. Her ability to range from light (very light) comedy to chest-thumping tragedy is truly remarkable. In her opening number (`Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend'), she displays a kittenish quality for which none of her previous performances has prepared us. And on top of that, thanks to Donald McAlpine's lush photography, she has simply never been more beautiful. If audiences didn't know better, they could easily mistake her for a movie goddess from the Golden Age.
Broadbent shines in every scene he's in, almost stealing the entire movie away from its leads with his hilarious take on Madonna's `Like a Virgin.' Roxburgh is a fitting, if two-dimensional villain, while Leguizamo is reduced to only a few minor bits, none of which demonstrate the actor's incredible talents or the character's depth.
But minor quibbles aside, Moulin Rouge! is not so much a movie as it is an experience. As Luhrmann has explained in interviews, the Moulin Rouge itself was the ultimate nightclub. The rush that people got from going to Zidler's electrified extravaganza in the 1890s is the same feeling modern audiences get from going to a great club with an awesome DJ. So, to give today's audiences that same feeling, Luhrmann has hired today's hottest remixers (including FatBoy Slim and Missy Elliott) to help fashion his musical statement. And he has cut his movie into quick edits, never once letting his camera sit still.
Some have complained about Moulin Rouge!'s use of previously written songs, but again, this is a cultural statement that Luhrmann is making. Today's musical culture is rapidly becoming more and more dependent on sampling. So Moulin Rouge! is the first `sampled' movie, which could place it on the brink of a new post-modern movement in film. Only time will tell.
From its opening frames, in which an orchestra conductor wildly conducts the 20th Century Fox fanfare, it is clear that Luhrmann is not going to play to expectations. Strains of `The Sound of Music' and `Nature Boy' lead us into Montmartre, the Bohemian corner of Paris, where a young writer named Christian (Ewan McGregor) is penning his latest tome, an ode to the only love he has ever known.
The opening is somber and restrained, despite some truly eye-popping visual effects that take us into Christian's world. We are relaxed, but only for a moment. The second Christian's story propels into flashback, the audience is thrust into a world of sights and sounds that boggle (and almost assault) the mind. We are introduced to a bevy of bizarre characters, including John Leguizamo as a lisping Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Jacek Koman as a narcoleptic Argentinian (don't ask) and Matthew Whittet as famed French composer Erik Satie.
It seems this group of Bohemians are looking for a new poet to provide lyrics for their latest musical offering, Spectacular Spectacular. One sip of absinthe, and Christian has suddenly joined their band of merry men. Of course, it helps that he is able to compose such poetic ditties as, `The hills are alive with the sound of music,' on a moment's notice.
It is here that we realize Luhrmann is going to populate his movie not only with a bizarre cast of characters, but they are going to be singing songs that we all know and love. It's a risky move, but Luhrmann makes it work as an integral convention for his story. Christian is a great and gifted poet. What better way to demonstrate this than by having him write truly memorable poems?
As Christian soon learns, the Bohemians still need the backing of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent, in a role that truly shows his range), owner of the title nightclub. And the star of the show is to be none other than Zidler's `sparkling diamond,' Satine (Nicole Kidman). Zidler, however, has other plans, which include using Satine to secure the financial backing of an evil duke (Richard Roxburgh) to turn his Moulin Rouge from a nightclub into a legitimate theater and courtesan Satine into a legitimate actress. Things get complicated (well, as complicated as this type of music could possibly get) when, through a case of mistaken identity, Satine and Christian wind up together and in love.
That's the setup, and if it sounds like it borrows from countless other stories, well, it does. But Luhrmann knows this. He's not interested in telling a story that's never been told before. He wants to tell a story in a way that's never been done before.
To this end, Luhrmann succeeds. After an opening act that literally never lets up (think the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, only with song and dance), he settles into his story with a comfortable pace. We know pretty much everything that's going to happen for the next two hours, but thanks to Luhrmann's sometimes wacky sense of humor and truly phenomenal performances by his actors, it just doesn't matter.
Of course, Moulin Rouge! is a musical, so the quality of its musical numbers certainly play a large role in the movie's success. And to that end, the big question for those who haven't seen the movie yet is, `Can Nicole and Ewan really sing?' Well, the answer is yes and no. McGregor's voice is the better of the two, strong and confident like a chorus line singer determined to get the agents to sit up an notice. Occasionally, he tries a little too hard (in one of the movie's final songs, he actually spits in Kidman's face), but that's all in keeping with the grand operatic passion that Luhrmann is trying to capture.
Kidman can carry a tune, although she scoops up to some of her notes, and she sometimes seems a little unsure of herself. But her acting more than makes up for it. Her ability to range from light (very light) comedy to chest-thumping tragedy is truly remarkable. In her opening number (`Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend'), she displays a kittenish quality for which none of her previous performances has prepared us. And on top of that, thanks to Donald McAlpine's lush photography, she has simply never been more beautiful. If audiences didn't know better, they could easily mistake her for a movie goddess from the Golden Age.
Broadbent shines in every scene he's in, almost stealing the entire movie away from its leads with his hilarious take on Madonna's `Like a Virgin.' Roxburgh is a fitting, if two-dimensional villain, while Leguizamo is reduced to only a few minor bits, none of which demonstrate the actor's incredible talents or the character's depth.
But minor quibbles aside, Moulin Rouge! is not so much a movie as it is an experience. As Luhrmann has explained in interviews, the Moulin Rouge itself was the ultimate nightclub. The rush that people got from going to Zidler's electrified extravaganza in the 1890s is the same feeling modern audiences get from going to a great club with an awesome DJ. So, to give today's audiences that same feeling, Luhrmann has hired today's hottest remixers (including FatBoy Slim and Missy Elliott) to help fashion his musical statement. And he has cut his movie into quick edits, never once letting his camera sit still.
Some have complained about Moulin Rouge!'s use of previously written songs, but again, this is a cultural statement that Luhrmann is making. Today's musical culture is rapidly becoming more and more dependent on sampling. So Moulin Rouge! is the first `sampled' movie, which could place it on the brink of a new post-modern movement in film. Only time will tell.
Romeo + Juliet
(1996)
Vibrant and energetic...the perfect version for Generation X
22 August 2000
Now before I go any further, let me point out that I am at the older end of Generation X. But I certainly understand the MTV generation mentality and understand that this movie taps into it better than any Shakespeare film ever made.
But aside from that, Baz Lurhmann's vision is phenomenal. Sure, it's loud and overblown, but it's also amazingly affecting. I cry when I watch this movie, not because of the story, but because so much love and energy was put into the filmmaking in an attempt to reach a generation who thinks of Shakespeare as being stuffy.
Obviously many going into this movie expecting traditional Shakespeare are going to be sorely disappointed. This is Shakespeare only in name. The poetry, I'll grant you, is often lost in this movie, but to give Lurhmann credit, much of the poetry has been quoted and requoted to the point of cliche. Now for once, R&J is not a walking cliche.
Also, I have to give kudos for the Oscar-nominated art direction/set design. It is eye candy from the first shot to the last.
And for sheer audacity, this movie has no shame (and I mean that in a good way). Who would ever have thought that Mercutio's Queen Mab speech could actually be about ecstacy (X)?
So for the Generation Xers who have never experienced Romeo & Juliet in any way other than reading it in English class, WATCH this movie. It will open your eyes to the world of Shakespeare. To those not of Generation X, don't begrudge us the opportunity to understand Shakespeare in our own way. It's a door opening on the world of Shakespeare, not a door closing on traditionalism.
But aside from that, Baz Lurhmann's vision is phenomenal. Sure, it's loud and overblown, but it's also amazingly affecting. I cry when I watch this movie, not because of the story, but because so much love and energy was put into the filmmaking in an attempt to reach a generation who thinks of Shakespeare as being stuffy.
Obviously many going into this movie expecting traditional Shakespeare are going to be sorely disappointed. This is Shakespeare only in name. The poetry, I'll grant you, is often lost in this movie, but to give Lurhmann credit, much of the poetry has been quoted and requoted to the point of cliche. Now for once, R&J is not a walking cliche.
Also, I have to give kudos for the Oscar-nominated art direction/set design. It is eye candy from the first shot to the last.
And for sheer audacity, this movie has no shame (and I mean that in a good way). Who would ever have thought that Mercutio's Queen Mab speech could actually be about ecstacy (X)?
So for the Generation Xers who have never experienced Romeo & Juliet in any way other than reading it in English class, WATCH this movie. It will open your eyes to the world of Shakespeare. To those not of Generation X, don't begrudge us the opportunity to understand Shakespeare in our own way. It's a door opening on the world of Shakespeare, not a door closing on traditionalism.
The Talented Mr. Ripley
(1999)
An excellent psychological thriller
8 August 2000
Put simply, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is about how lies catch up with us, no matter how much ahead of them we think we are. Matt Damon stars as Tom Ripley (we have no idea if this is his real name or if he may have killed a real Tom Ripley and taken his place). He has a talent for lying, for imitating, for forging and basically doing anything to make his own life better, no matter who he may step on it to achieve that end.
Many complaints have been stated about the last third of the movie, many people feeling it was superfluous. But the entire point is that Ripley's lies keep catching up with him. As soon as he thinks he's safe, something else turns up to endanger him. Do we like Ripley? As a cold blooded killer, lyer and forger, I certainly don't think so. But we certainly relate to his constant attempts to stay one step ahead of the truth.
The penultimate moment, when Ripley kills the one person who offers him unconditional love, we have to wonder if he is actually satisfied with what has happened or has he finally gotten it through his head that he can't run from the truth forever...unless he's going to kill everyone who has the slightest clue to his real story.
It's a psychologically chilling moment, worthy of a fine thriller. But perhaps in this age of Armageddon-like, quick-cut action, actual thinking is not something modern movie audiences are willing to do anymore.
Many complaints have been stated about the last third of the movie, many people feeling it was superfluous. But the entire point is that Ripley's lies keep catching up with him. As soon as he thinks he's safe, something else turns up to endanger him. Do we like Ripley? As a cold blooded killer, lyer and forger, I certainly don't think so. But we certainly relate to his constant attempts to stay one step ahead of the truth.
The penultimate moment, when Ripley kills the one person who offers him unconditional love, we have to wonder if he is actually satisfied with what has happened or has he finally gotten it through his head that he can't run from the truth forever...unless he's going to kill everyone who has the slightest clue to his real story.
It's a psychologically chilling moment, worthy of a fine thriller. But perhaps in this age of Armageddon-like, quick-cut action, actual thinking is not something modern movie audiences are willing to do anymore.
Seven Samurai
(1954)
Not just Kurosawa's best movie, but the very best film ever made
7 June 2000
No film in the history of world cinema contains more than Kurosawa has packed into this amazing feat, and no film has said more about the human condition than this film. And of course, no film is more technically and artistically well made as THE SEVEN SAMURAI. This simply is the best that can possibly be.
Certainly CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA and other films that have been hailed as the greatest are fine films (possibly even second and third to THE SEVEN SAMURAI), but this film stands as a monument to what the film medium can accomplish: from a simple scene of a farmer picking up spilled rice from the floor, grain by grain, to a normally stoic samurai breaking into a smile after he has been praised by a younger colleague; from an old woman exacting her revenge on a bandit while other villagers look on to the pathos of a low-born man trying to become more than he was born to be.
If you have never seen this film, do not pass from this world until you do. If the three-hour-plus running time worries you, the movie is very conveniently broken into two parts with an intermission, and it in no way hurts the flow of the movie to watch the segments on two separate days. Besides, consider how long you spent watching that dreck TITANIC. SEVEN SAMURAI is only 12 minutes longer, yet the rewards of Kurosawa's epic are infinitely greater.
Mere words cannot praise this cinematic achievement enough. It is, bar none, the greatest film ever made.
Certainly CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA and other films that have been hailed as the greatest are fine films (possibly even second and third to THE SEVEN SAMURAI), but this film stands as a monument to what the film medium can accomplish: from a simple scene of a farmer picking up spilled rice from the floor, grain by grain, to a normally stoic samurai breaking into a smile after he has been praised by a younger colleague; from an old woman exacting her revenge on a bandit while other villagers look on to the pathos of a low-born man trying to become more than he was born to be.
If you have never seen this film, do not pass from this world until you do. If the three-hour-plus running time worries you, the movie is very conveniently broken into two parts with an intermission, and it in no way hurts the flow of the movie to watch the segments on two separate days. Besides, consider how long you spent watching that dreck TITANIC. SEVEN SAMURAI is only 12 minutes longer, yet the rewards of Kurosawa's epic are infinitely greater.
Mere words cannot praise this cinematic achievement enough. It is, bar none, the greatest film ever made.
Shanghai Noon
(2000)
Funny and Fun, but not Jackie's best
16 May 2000
Since coming to these shores (a second time), Jackie Chan's output has been rather typical American action fare, with bits and pieces of Jackie's trademark comedy and martial arts action. Shanghai Noon is no exception, but it is helped by a good performance by Owen Wilson and by gorgeous Calgary scenery. It's worth seeing, especially for Jackie fans, although even they might begin to see that Jackie's getting a little long in the tooth for some of his stuntwork (one stunt is clearly CGI). Still, Jackie is a very engaging personality, and that goes a long way to helping viewers forget the remarkable lack of logic or cohesiveness in the plot of Shanghai Noon. Check your brain at the door and have a good time.
Tell Your Friends