I personally thought American Beauty was very, very overrated. The Best movie of the year was obviously The Matrix, as we all know, but it wasn't nominated, though it did win 4 technical awards. THe Best film out of the nominees for me was "The Green Mile", but it had the least chances of winning. All things considered this awards show was considerably less entertaining than the one of 1999, when there was real tension between Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love, and when we saw Roberto Benigni, the most spontaneous and outrageous Oscar winner ever, scream and laugh with joy on the stage. Also 1998's one was quite amazing, with Titanic winning almost everything. I like it better that way than when everything is divided between movies, as happened this year (2002), and last year too.
Reviews
189 Reviews
Minority Report
(2002)
good movie but a bit disappointing
19 October 2002
After reading all those positive, nay, ecstatic reviews from top critics all over the world about this movie, being a big Spielberg fan (if not as big a Tom Cruise fan) I had to see what all the fuss was about. OK, although this movie isn't anywhere near bad, it wasn't nearly as original or as brilliant as many critics claimed. At certain times I felt really uneasy and depressed watching this movie, especially during the scenes with Peter Stormare, whose character is neither funny, nor scary, nor cynical, just plain unlikable in every way. Also the scene with the old woman explaining every detail of the plot in the middle of the movie was blatant exposition and it went on forever. The look of the movie is also extremely ugly at times. Why did it all have to look either blue or grey, why couldn't there be some life and color? I hate Spielberg's new cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, the only movies he shot well were Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and A.I. It baffles me how some people praise the shooting style of the film, and it's even more infuriating to realise that desaturating the color actually demanded a special process, and therefore money. With Private Ryan it worked well, but why the hell was it needed in this film? Sometimes I could barely tell what I was seeing.
Now, I'll admit that was one of the few things that bothered me about the movie. The script is at times unpredictable and clever. The performances are all solid. The Cruiser isn't nearly as arrogant and annoying as usual, like he was in Vanilla Sky (awful movie). The effects are quite imaginative at times, although the ugly cinematography never really allows you to appreciate them (completely unlike in A.I.). Some of the direction is inspired, like when the spiders are searching the building, although mostly Spielberg's touch seems absent from the picture. You can tell by the film that there was nothing personal for him in the script; often the direction is flat and obvious. I think the best decision Spielberg could make now is to fire his cinematographer. I can't tell you how irritated I was by the lighting in certain scenes. Just get Dean Cundey back or something! It is truly, extremely ugly at times; it's almost like Kaminski was experimenting on how bad an effects-laden, expensive movie like this could possibly look, and I think he succeeded. I think he tried to do the same with The Lost World, but only with this film he succeeds in making it look ugly all the way through.
Now, of course there is a lot to admire as well about the film. The most enjoyable scenes come near the end when we discover just how everything worked, who the real bad guy is, why Cruise was set up. It's handled with admirable clarity and cleverness. Also, at those rare times when the movie intends to be humorous, it succeeds. And of course, it's a lot of fun to see all those surprisingly realistic future gimmicks on the screen.
All in all, MR is better than 90% of this year's movies and it's Cruise's best performance since Magnolia. The story is original and complex but never incomprehensible. It's just that it doesn't compare to classic sci-fi movies like The Matrix, Terminator 2, or even Star Wars Episode 2 (although that opinion really is a minority report :-)). Some critics are saying it's better than those films, but trust me that's not true. Among Spielberg's movies I would say it ranks about in the same league as A.I. and Saving Private Ryan (both of which were good but not great movies in my opinion).
Now, I'll admit that was one of the few things that bothered me about the movie. The script is at times unpredictable and clever. The performances are all solid. The Cruiser isn't nearly as arrogant and annoying as usual, like he was in Vanilla Sky (awful movie). The effects are quite imaginative at times, although the ugly cinematography never really allows you to appreciate them (completely unlike in A.I.). Some of the direction is inspired, like when the spiders are searching the building, although mostly Spielberg's touch seems absent from the picture. You can tell by the film that there was nothing personal for him in the script; often the direction is flat and obvious. I think the best decision Spielberg could make now is to fire his cinematographer. I can't tell you how irritated I was by the lighting in certain scenes. Just get Dean Cundey back or something! It is truly, extremely ugly at times; it's almost like Kaminski was experimenting on how bad an effects-laden, expensive movie like this could possibly look, and I think he succeeded. I think he tried to do the same with The Lost World, but only with this film he succeeds in making it look ugly all the way through.
Now, of course there is a lot to admire as well about the film. The most enjoyable scenes come near the end when we discover just how everything worked, who the real bad guy is, why Cruise was set up. It's handled with admirable clarity and cleverness. Also, at those rare times when the movie intends to be humorous, it succeeds. And of course, it's a lot of fun to see all those surprisingly realistic future gimmicks on the screen.
All in all, MR is better than 90% of this year's movies and it's Cruise's best performance since Magnolia. The story is original and complex but never incomprehensible. It's just that it doesn't compare to classic sci-fi movies like The Matrix, Terminator 2, or even Star Wars Episode 2 (although that opinion really is a minority report :-)). Some critics are saying it's better than those films, but trust me that's not true. Among Spielberg's movies I would say it ranks about in the same league as A.I. and Saving Private Ryan (both of which were good but not great movies in my opinion).
darn it! It's going down
11 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Contains spoilers
I can tell you this with absolute certainty: Attack of the Clones will be out of this site's top 250 list in a few weeks. It falls about five places back each day, it is inevitable. That's too bad, because it deserves better. It deserves better than to eventually carry the same rating as The Phantom Menace, and better than being considered inferior to Return of the Jedi. I thought this was one of the most exciting, well-crafted, and entertaining space/adventure movies I'd ever seen, and I've seen every Star Wars movie. Certainly this movie has the best action scenes in the series, not only the best special effects, but the most awesome, exhilarating and adrenaline-pumping sequences I've ever seen. I've simply never seen anything as elaborate and ambitious as the chase through the Coruscant skies, the awesome chase through the meteors that makes the one in Empire Strikes Back pale, the very amusing and exciting action sequence at the Geonosis droid factory with 3PO, Anakin and Amidala, and of course the epic final arena battle. I also immensely enjoyed Obi-Wan's investigation in the library, to Yoda while he's teaching the Jedi "younglings" (GREAT idea, mr. Lucas), at his sleazy restaurant owner friend Dex and his visit to the eye-popping clone factory on Kamino. Obi-Wan really seems like another person in this film: in Episode 1 he seemed inexperienced, awkward, and insecure; in this film he's confident, cool, mature, and obviously more experienced. I also liked the development of Amidala: she gets to be more human and spontaneous in this film, she gets to look sexy and kick some ass, and... she gets to giggle and fumble with Anakin's attempts at courting and corny declarations of love. I think the worst scene in the movie is the one at the fireplace: there's times where their romantic tumfoolery scenes work and are touching, but when they get too serious, it absolutely falls apart and it's nowhere more obvious than in that scene. But almost every other scene works, and works really well. There are some really interesting scenes in the movie that connect it with events in the original trilogy, that almost weren't there in Phantom. Take my favorite moment for example, the brief allusion by the arachnid-like Geonosians to the Death Star; or the introduction of the Larses, Luke Skywalker's future foster family; or that great final scene where we see the clones in action, and they look just like the stormtroopers; or another great moment, when Boba Fett sees his dad Jango getting killed by a Jedi and we understand where the character's hatred of Jedi in the originals comes from; the ominous Darth Vader music that comes on whenever Anakin starts getting aggressive. This is really one of those movies where with each viewing you discover new links and connections with the earlier films, and I really believe this is the most plot-centred and complex of all the Star Wars films yet. I really loved this movie, and it's easily one of the three best Star Wars movies ever made. You've probably already seen it, so if you didn't like it I can only feel sorry for you that you're unable to just sit back and enjoy such an amazing ride.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty: Attack of the Clones will be out of this site's top 250 list in a few weeks. It falls about five places back each day, it is inevitable. That's too bad, because it deserves better. It deserves better than to eventually carry the same rating as The Phantom Menace, and better than being considered inferior to Return of the Jedi. I thought this was one of the most exciting, well-crafted, and entertaining space/adventure movies I'd ever seen, and I've seen every Star Wars movie. Certainly this movie has the best action scenes in the series, not only the best special effects, but the most awesome, exhilarating and adrenaline-pumping sequences I've ever seen. I've simply never seen anything as elaborate and ambitious as the chase through the Coruscant skies, the awesome chase through the meteors that makes the one in Empire Strikes Back pale, the very amusing and exciting action sequence at the Geonosis droid factory with 3PO, Anakin and Amidala, and of course the epic final arena battle. I also immensely enjoyed Obi-Wan's investigation in the library, to Yoda while he's teaching the Jedi "younglings" (GREAT idea, mr. Lucas), at his sleazy restaurant owner friend Dex and his visit to the eye-popping clone factory on Kamino. Obi-Wan really seems like another person in this film: in Episode 1 he seemed inexperienced, awkward, and insecure; in this film he's confident, cool, mature, and obviously more experienced. I also liked the development of Amidala: she gets to be more human and spontaneous in this film, she gets to look sexy and kick some ass, and... she gets to giggle and fumble with Anakin's attempts at courting and corny declarations of love. I think the worst scene in the movie is the one at the fireplace: there's times where their romantic tumfoolery scenes work and are touching, but when they get too serious, it absolutely falls apart and it's nowhere more obvious than in that scene. But almost every other scene works, and works really well. There are some really interesting scenes in the movie that connect it with events in the original trilogy, that almost weren't there in Phantom. Take my favorite moment for example, the brief allusion by the arachnid-like Geonosians to the Death Star; or the introduction of the Larses, Luke Skywalker's future foster family; or that great final scene where we see the clones in action, and they look just like the stormtroopers; or another great moment, when Boba Fett sees his dad Jango getting killed by a Jedi and we understand where the character's hatred of Jedi in the originals comes from; the ominous Darth Vader music that comes on whenever Anakin starts getting aggressive. This is really one of those movies where with each viewing you discover new links and connections with the earlier films, and I really believe this is the most plot-centred and complex of all the Star Wars films yet. I really loved this movie, and it's easily one of the three best Star Wars movies ever made. You've probably already seen it, so if you didn't like it I can only feel sorry for you that you're unable to just sit back and enjoy such an amazing ride.
an immense sci-fi epic! Best since THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!
20 May 2002
ATTACK OF THE CLONES is a hugely entertaining sci-fi adventure that's definitely a lot more fun than THE PHANTOM MENACE. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't know what it means to have fun. The movie ain't perfect, the performance from the guy who played Anakin is amateurish and his love scenes with Amidala are something you can only suffer through. All he has is good looks. I really hope he improves his acting before Episode III. But, everything else about this movie is spectatular! The action is amazing, mind-blowing, and so are the effects! It really doesn't show it was shot on digital video. The chase in Coruscant, the clone factory, and the final battle are really the most ambitious and amazing sequences I've ever seen in an action movie. I'm a big STAR WARS fan and I wasn't disappointed, unlike with THE PHANTOM MENACE. Go see it now!!!
Panic Room
(2002)
good until the ending
9 May 2002
good tension and atmosphere buildup from director David Fincher, fine performance from Jodie (with plenty of cleavage) and Forest Whitaker, clever situations (if not without absurdities), but ultimately it doesn't know where to go with the ending. We have a standard Dead Bad Guy Who Always Comes Back situation and a predictable resolution. The last 10 minutes or so are a bit cliche but otherwise the movie is full of nail-biting suspense and fine acting so by all means I do recommend it.
The Time Machine
(2002)
provides just enough goofy entertainment to give you your money's worth
3 May 2002
With adaptations of household-name, classic novels to movies, you can either take it very seriously and adapt it faithfully, perfect examples being the two recent mega-hyped fantasy films released around Christmas last year; or you can treat them like Disney does, with the screenwriters taking absolute liberty with the source and turning it into the latest action-packed special effects extravaganza, like that little action movie remake involving apes from last year. At least THE TIME MACHINE knows it belongs in the latter category and makes it clear from the beginning. The setting is no longer London, but New York; the Time Traveler, played here by Guy Pearce (MEMENTO), is now given a name, professor Alexander Brantdegen; the set-up is completely different from the novel, this one involving the professor's mission to find a way to change the past so he can prevent his fiancé from dying.
THE TIME MACHINE never takes itself seriously, and in its beginning sequences it's a pleasure to drink in the laid-back, predictable storytelling, completely tongue-in-cheek style, and popping your eyes out at the marvelous special effects showing Alexander traveling through time to the year 2030. The time machine itself is a wonderfully-designed prop, and combined with the detailed set design by Oliver Scholl it makes for some really satisfying eye candy. Also, watching disasters happen to the Moon as a result of our excessive nuclear explosions there is a visually exciting moment. Orlando Jones provides some good fun as a compendium of all human knowledge, a hologram guide in the museum of 2030 where Alexander goes to find information, particularly when singing parts of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, or strangely mentioning that a novel called "The Time Machine" was actually written by one H.G. Wells at the same time Alexander built one, and that a movie was made out of it in 1960. This is the moment when THE TIME MACHINE almost lapses into self-parody, and it's not the only moment that will leave you shaking your head.
Things get increasingly ridiculous when Alexander arrives in the year 802701 following an accident with his machine: he discovers that as a result of the Moon splitting up, for some reason we have divided into two separate populations. One are the friendly, suntanned Eloi living above ground, the others the ugly Morlocks living mostly underground and using the Eloi as a food resource. This second part of the movie completely loses the innocence and appeal of the first, turning into a clone of the likes of PLANET OF THE APES and BATTLEFIELD EARTH. And when Jeremy Irons appears near the end as the Über-Morlock, their leader, you know the film has little intention of maintaining the sense of fun it started out with, and simply ending with a typical, preposterous explosion that neatly resolves everything.
Fortunately though, director Simon Wells (H.G.'s great-grandson) still handles this obligatory material with some originality and visual flair, more or less holding our attention even when the cheesy-looking Irons character drones on in exposition, explaining the Morlocks' origins, and giving a big chase scene at the end a dizzying visual treatment. He also knows how to end his movie on the right note, with a final scene that's old-fashionedly appealing and original at the same time. There may not be much of a point to this "re-imagining" of the famous tale, and it can be awfully cheesy and uneven in parts, but the bottom line is that, much like last year's PLANET OF THE APES redux, this TIME MACHINE provides just enough goofy entertainment to give you your money's worth.
Rating 0-10: 6.
THE TIME MACHINE never takes itself seriously, and in its beginning sequences it's a pleasure to drink in the laid-back, predictable storytelling, completely tongue-in-cheek style, and popping your eyes out at the marvelous special effects showing Alexander traveling through time to the year 2030. The time machine itself is a wonderfully-designed prop, and combined with the detailed set design by Oliver Scholl it makes for some really satisfying eye candy. Also, watching disasters happen to the Moon as a result of our excessive nuclear explosions there is a visually exciting moment. Orlando Jones provides some good fun as a compendium of all human knowledge, a hologram guide in the museum of 2030 where Alexander goes to find information, particularly when singing parts of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, or strangely mentioning that a novel called "The Time Machine" was actually written by one H.G. Wells at the same time Alexander built one, and that a movie was made out of it in 1960. This is the moment when THE TIME MACHINE almost lapses into self-parody, and it's not the only moment that will leave you shaking your head.
Things get increasingly ridiculous when Alexander arrives in the year 802701 following an accident with his machine: he discovers that as a result of the Moon splitting up, for some reason we have divided into two separate populations. One are the friendly, suntanned Eloi living above ground, the others the ugly Morlocks living mostly underground and using the Eloi as a food resource. This second part of the movie completely loses the innocence and appeal of the first, turning into a clone of the likes of PLANET OF THE APES and BATTLEFIELD EARTH. And when Jeremy Irons appears near the end as the Über-Morlock, their leader, you know the film has little intention of maintaining the sense of fun it started out with, and simply ending with a typical, preposterous explosion that neatly resolves everything.
Fortunately though, director Simon Wells (H.G.'s great-grandson) still handles this obligatory material with some originality and visual flair, more or less holding our attention even when the cheesy-looking Irons character drones on in exposition, explaining the Morlocks' origins, and giving a big chase scene at the end a dizzying visual treatment. He also knows how to end his movie on the right note, with a final scene that's old-fashionedly appealing and original at the same time. There may not be much of a point to this "re-imagining" of the famous tale, and it can be awfully cheesy and uneven in parts, but the bottom line is that, much like last year's PLANET OF THE APES redux, this TIME MACHINE provides just enough goofy entertainment to give you your money's worth.
Rating 0-10: 6.
The Time Machine
(2002)
good fun
8 April 2002
being a big fan of sci-fi and action movies, I had a reasonably good time at this new TIME MACHINE film. The special effects are really awe-inspiring and Guy Pearce was fine in his role. I also liked the fact that it didn't run on too long. 90 minutes of escapism is just what I needed, and it's what I got from this movie. The movie isn't always completely coherent, in fact there are some logical errors (just read any review by a critic), but don't take it too seriously and you'll have a decent time with it. It's certainly a lot more fun that TOMB RAIDER or some of the recent Hollywood blockbusters.
The 71st Annual Academy Awards
(1999 TV Special)
no summary
30 March 2002
the one big mistake committed by the Academy this year was giving Best Picture to "Shakespeare in Love". "Saving Private Ryan" was by far the more deserving film. I'm happy that Spielberg won the Oscar for Best Director for this film. I was also happy seeing Roberto Benigni win for Best Actor since I'm italian. I think there were some really good movies nominated this year, certainly better than in 2001 and this year, 2002. But I still believe "Shakespeare in Love" is a most overrated movie.
Shallow Hal
(2001)
funny flick
28 March 2002
"Shallow Hal" is a pretty funny movie from the Farrelly brothers. I didn't find it quite as amusing as "There's Something About Mary", their undisputed masterpiece, but it's a heck of a lot better than that mess "Me Myself and Irene" with Jim Carrey. There are many funny moments in "Shallow Hal". Jack Black proves to be a revelation in this role. He's much more confident and amusing than other lead actors working today. Gwyneth Paltrow is charming too in her first pure comedy role. "Shallow Hal" is not the kind of movie you could watch over and over, unlike "Mary", but while you're there and you're in the mood to laugh, "Hal" will deliver the goods.
Jurassic Park III
(2001)
too short
27 March 2002
I think an action movie needs to have a certain length to be truly satisfying. Two hours is perfect, no more, no less. The first two JURASSIC PARK films satisfied in that area. You felt drained, excited, and satisfied after seeing those movies. Unfortunately, JURASSIC PARK III is an unnecessary sequel that's fun while it lasts but leaves one wanting more. It's disappointing, and a bit of a cheat when you pay the same amount of money for this movie and the first two and with this one you only get 3/4 of the running time of the other films. You just don't gte your money's worth. It's not that PARK III doesn't have enough action. It has plenty, and some neat new dinosaurs too. But so did the previous two movies. They had non-stop action as well, but they took half an hour longer to end, so you got much more from those films. This movie takes about 80 minutes to happen. I felt cheated. That's not even the length of a TV-movie. What a letdown.
The Mummy Returns
(2001)
great fun
19 March 2002
THE MUMMY RETURNS, believe me, is Hollywood blockbuster at its best. In my opinion this one worked better than the original because it never let up with the action. It has a super thin plot, and loads of action, special effects, and fun. It is exciting and ceaselessly entertaining from beginning to end. It may be preposterous, but it's hard not to enjoy, and it's ten times better than TOMB RAIDER. Now THAT was a bomb.
Saving Private Ryan
(1998)
very good war film but...
13 March 2002
I saw this movie again last night as a dutch network premiere. I have to say it strengthened my impression after my first viewing some years ago. As war films get, it's one of the best, most realistic and exciting there are. And yet, I don't really understand the big deal that people sometimes make of war films. In my opinion, they shouldn't always by revered as "important" films, or be taken with dead-seriousity. After all, no matter how realistic, they are made for entertainment value and little more. This is a movie that has terrific, bloody action, a realistic setting, superb cinematography and production design, well-developed characters, and some emotional moments. But people, is it really anything more than that? It is certainly not a lesson in history. Did private Ryan or captain Miller ever really exist? No. In Spielberg's SCHINDLER'S LIST, an obviously superior film, many of the characters shown really did exist. But SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is really just a work of fiction, crafted to manipulate and excite the viewer. I'm not saying that there are major historical innacuracies in it, since I'm not a historian, I'm just saying that it is in no way an extraordinary or transcendental movie experience. It is also far from Spielberg's most accomplished work. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, E.T., and JAWS are all clearly on a much higher level, as they all transcend their genres and become something truly extraordinary. PRIVATE RYAN may be a very good war film, but lacks that extra bit of magic to make it truly extraordinary and a masterpiece in ever regard. Like so many war film, it doesn't truly leave an indelible impact on the viewer. And this is a member of the war film genre in every bone of its body. It doesn't surpass films like PLATOON, FULL METAL JACKET, APOCALYPSE NOW, as the Ultimate War Movie. If you want to see a true masterpiece, a film that is truly unforgettable and extraordinary, don't look for it among the war movies, trust me. See 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. See THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. See RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Those are genuinely extraordinary pictures that transcend the limitations of their genres and bury themselves into your subconscious, never leaving your memories. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, as well as every other war film ever made, can't possibly have that resonance.
The 6th Day
(2000)
great movie and surprisingly re-watchable!
27 February 2002
when I first saw this movie it pleasantly surprised me. I actually had fun watching it, which is something rare in today's overhyped-but-empty action movies like Mission: Impossible II. I watched it again recently, and found out it was more than just entertainment. I thought as I first watched it that there would be plenty of holes on a second viewing, but no way. The script for this movie is fantastic, and frequently thought-provoking as well. Sometimes it gets a little complicated, like in the end when there are two Arnolds involved in the action, but that's OK because when you watch it again you discover it's all coherent and logical. I've watched it many times on DVD and I never ever tire of it somehow, the DVD is packed with extras so I highly recommend it to sci-fi fans! It's truly a must buy; I can't imagine anyone (except non-sci-fi fans) not enjoying this movie. Arnold's best since True Lies, can't wait to see Collateral Damage.
Gladiator
(2000)
hmmmm...
17 February 2002
I just wanted to say that I think it's strange that the users of this website give this movie such high votes and then give it such negative reviews. Just click to see the latest user comments and 90% of them will be negative, trust me. So why, then, did this movie get a rating 8.1 on the database and a solid position in the top 250? Personally I think it's a very good movie, it keeps you riveted to your seat from start to finish. Great performances, great action, wonderful music and production design. It was easily the most memorable movie to come out of 2000. CROUCHING TIGER, you say? Boring hokum. TRAFFIC? Well intentioned, but highly unpleasant and tedious. ALMOST FAMOUS? Unwhimsical, repetitious gobbledygook. CAST AWAY? Pretty funny on the island, extremely crappy everywhere else. GLADIATOR was the film to see, and it more than deserved the Oscars it got. I swear I turned off the Oscars when I saw that TRAFFIC WON for best director. All the guy did was shake his camera around and stage dialogue scenes. Ridley Scott is one great director and GLADIATOR is easily his best film ever. People who don't like it should ask themselves if they like movies at all, since GLADIATOR is so obviously what they are all about.
Almost Famous
(2000)
BORING
26 January 2002
what the hell was this?!? A dead zone if you ask me. Just a few funny moments and a crapload of completely dull stuff. That kid really got on my nerves, he was unappealing, bland, and had a horrible squealing voice that drove me nuts. Are any of the characters developed at all? Don't think so. All those rockers looked the same so I couldn't even tell them apart. I don't know why this movie got so much praise from critics. It sucks, people.
I liked this movie a good deal, but here's a list of things that bothered me: ***SPOILERS***
All of this said, I couldn't find anything else bad to say. I enjoyed this movie a lot, and it's already in my top 20 list of favorite movies. It shows that you don't need to have read Tolkien's books to enjoy this movie. I gave this movie a 9.
6 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
- ALL comic relief moments, which were few, were unable to get even the most distant grin out of me or even a giggle out of the audience. C-3PO and R2-D2 were way funnier than Merry and Peppin.
- the fight scenes in Moria went on a bit too long. The firey monster looked way hokey and fake.
- the dwarf Gimli, played by John Rhys-Davies a.k.a. Sallah in INDIANA JONES, and the blonde archer played by Orlando Bloom were completely useless in the film. Barely said or did anything.
- I can't really criticise the movie itself for this, but Gandalf's death felt simply wrong. I know it must've happened in the book too, but I was really upset by this event and it almost made me lose interest. Although I admired that this event almost moved me to tears, which is a sign of good character development, it p***ed me off, simply. In STAR WARS it felt right and logical that Obi-Wan had to die, but here it felt like they'd killed Han Solo right away. He was the most interesting and engaging character and now we'll never see him again. Too bad.
All of this said, I couldn't find anything else bad to say. I enjoyed this movie a lot, and it's already in my top 20 list of favorite movies. It shows that you don't need to have read Tolkien's books to enjoy this movie. I gave this movie a 9.
Finding Forrester
(2000)
looking at my watch throughout was more exciting...
5 January 2002
painfully boring, slow, cliched movie that we've seen a hundred times before. Sean Connery is painfully wasted and is forced to recite the most hackneyed, contrived lines he's ever uttered ("... and you're black!"). Rob Brown is good as the kid, and deserves a better movie for his debut. I don't even want to discuss F. Murray Abraham - he's been desperate to take any part since he won the Oscar in 1984 for Amadeus. This movie is so boring and predictable it hurt -- although it was pretty amusing seeing Busta Rhymes having a scene together with Connery. See this movie at your own risk.
Memento
(2000)
disappointing *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS!*****
28 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
this movie is simply a big cheat. Yes, you heard me. The #10 position in the all-time list is a joke, and it proves that just because a movie has an unusual narrative style, people are always going to give it 10s. There has to be a good story. Not that MEMENTO has a bad story, it's just that it cheats in the end. The entire film, I'm wondering and hoping this character will find his wife's murderer, I'm accepting the storytelling style... and in the end the movie falls flat on its face. What happened to Carrie-Anne Moss? There is no resolution for this character, who is obviously meant to be important for the film. And what was with the "Sammy" subplot? Like much else in the film, it doesn't serve much purpose or lead anywhere. Also the black and white scenes are pointless and confusing as hell. In what space in time do they occur? The present, the past? The future, maybe? But maybe I should just watch the movie again. I still recommend it though, if you wanna see something intriguing.
Amadeus
(1984)
disappointing biography
21 December 2001
I re-watched this film recently after many years, and my opinion of it hasn't changed. This is a terribly flawed, disappointing film that's unjustly considered a classic. It had great potential, a biography of the great Mozart seen through the eyes of a mediocre composer, but the result fails in many areas and leaves one confused and hugely disappointed. Everything about this film is top-notch except for one crucial element: the script. It lacks punch, it lacks heart, it lacks momentum, and it lacks any particularly memorable dialogue. The actors do their best with this below-par script, and so does the director and the entire crew, who deserved their Oscars, but the film really suffers from its by-the-numbers screenplay by Peter Schaffer. It's clear he's a passionate music-lover, but it's also clear he isn't able to construct a compelling narrative too. I've never seen the play, but I've heard it's better than this film. I certainly hope so. Somehow those moments that are intended to generate emotions in the audience never really pay off. We never feel like something horrible has happened, the events onscreen never really involve you, but make you hope the film will get better. Playing loud classical music on the background for dramatic impact may be effective for some, but not for me. However, the film is exceptionally well filmed. The cinematography, sets, and costumes make this a real visual treat, and the actors are all wonderful in their roles. And of course the classical music score makes for wonderful listening. With all these impressive elements, it's a shame that the film's core, the script, is so bland and uninvolving. No matter how good a cast and crew you've got at your disposal, if your script is mediocre, then your movie will be too, and AMADEUS is perfect proof of this.
Batman Returns
(1992)
flawed but fun movie
19 December 2001
Just like the 1st Batman flick this one has an incoherent story that barely makes sense, but just like the previous film it has awesome production design, fun performances & action scenes. It is a bit mean spirited as a story, but I still liked it. The Penguin is a bit less fun a villain than the Joker (who wouldn't enjoy watching Jack Nicholson acting like a nut and having a ball collecting the hugest actor paycheck of all time?). There is almost nothing I can actually say in favor of this film, except that I liked it and enjoyed it. It's just as weird as every other Tim Burton film, so at least you'll know what to expect.
Fantasia
(1940)
my reviews for each segment (rated out of ****):
19 December 2001
1st segment: ties with the final segment as FANTASIA's worst. There is some pretty good music in this bit, but it's represented by meaningless pictures and movements. Still and all, don't fast forward through it, will you, there are some interesting moments. **
2nd segment: uneven. Many exhilarating moments when images and music explode on the screen, several really magical spots with incredibly good animation, like the dancing of the mushrooms and flowers, but the last few minutes of it are uninteresting and drag quite a bit. Far from FANTASIA's worst, though. ***
3rd segment: the best known --and arguably best-- segment of the film. It's the famous segment with Mickey Mouse as a sorcerer's apprentice. Magical animation, excitement, great music, and a classic bit where he's dreaming of shooting around stars and rising waves with his powers. Only complaint: it could've been longer (it's probably the film's shortest sequence). ****
4th segment: stunning representation of Earth in its very prime, this is the one that has haunted by mental projection of our planet in its first millennia. Fantastic music and wonderfully drawn dinosaurs too. Great detail in the volcanoes, lava, and environment. Ties with Mickey Mouse's segment as the best this film has to offer. ****
5th segment: generally considered one of FANTASIA's least compelling sequences; it deserves better. Set in mythological environments, this lengthy chapter has unicorns, centaurs, Zeus launching thunder bolts, rainbows, and lots more. Some really good moments, but lots of boring ones as well. Music is nothing exceptional, but the segment is surely worth seeing. ***
6th segment: another uneven segment, I would put this one in more or less the same league as the previous one. The music is certainly a lot better though. This one has hippos, birds, and crocodiles dancing and elephants breezing away in the wind (don't ask). This could also be the weirdest segment of all, though the animation is stunning. **1/2
7th segment: almost the best saved for last. At least as good segments 3 and 4. Frightening representation of evil, the devil, terrorising a town beneath a mountain at night. The animation is absolutely stunning, as is some of the music, this segment will definitely give children (or even adults) a good jolt of fear. ****
8th segment: vague shadows and lights singing "Ave Maria" after the devil goes to sleep again. Boring and uninteresting; thankfully, this is also FANTASIA's shortest (and, sigh, final) segment. *1/2
Overall rating: **+***+****+****+***+**1/2+****+*1/2= 24 stars.
24 stars divided by 8 segments: 3 stars out of 4. FANTASIA: ***
2nd segment: uneven. Many exhilarating moments when images and music explode on the screen, several really magical spots with incredibly good animation, like the dancing of the mushrooms and flowers, but the last few minutes of it are uninteresting and drag quite a bit. Far from FANTASIA's worst, though. ***
3rd segment: the best known --and arguably best-- segment of the film. It's the famous segment with Mickey Mouse as a sorcerer's apprentice. Magical animation, excitement, great music, and a classic bit where he's dreaming of shooting around stars and rising waves with his powers. Only complaint: it could've been longer (it's probably the film's shortest sequence). ****
4th segment: stunning representation of Earth in its very prime, this is the one that has haunted by mental projection of our planet in its first millennia. Fantastic music and wonderfully drawn dinosaurs too. Great detail in the volcanoes, lava, and environment. Ties with Mickey Mouse's segment as the best this film has to offer. ****
5th segment: generally considered one of FANTASIA's least compelling sequences; it deserves better. Set in mythological environments, this lengthy chapter has unicorns, centaurs, Zeus launching thunder bolts, rainbows, and lots more. Some really good moments, but lots of boring ones as well. Music is nothing exceptional, but the segment is surely worth seeing. ***
6th segment: another uneven segment, I would put this one in more or less the same league as the previous one. The music is certainly a lot better though. This one has hippos, birds, and crocodiles dancing and elephants breezing away in the wind (don't ask). This could also be the weirdest segment of all, though the animation is stunning. **1/2
7th segment: almost the best saved for last. At least as good segments 3 and 4. Frightening representation of evil, the devil, terrorising a town beneath a mountain at night. The animation is absolutely stunning, as is some of the music, this segment will definitely give children (or even adults) a good jolt of fear. ****
8th segment: vague shadows and lights singing "Ave Maria" after the devil goes to sleep again. Boring and uninteresting; thankfully, this is also FANTASIA's shortest (and, sigh, final) segment. *1/2
Overall rating: **+***+****+****+***+**1/2+****+*1/2= 24 stars.
24 stars divided by 8 segments: 3 stars out of 4. FANTASIA: ***
Toy Story 2
(1999)
wow
8 December 2001
I am amazed at the sheer brilliance of this film. It's the kind of smashing, dazzling sequel that makes the original look like a piece of bollox. It ranks right up there with THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Absolutely perfect sequel and perfect film. Every single sight gag and joke works and is hilarious. It truly makes the original pale in comparison. It makes you look at TOY STORY as merely a mediocre effort. Anyone who says TOY STORY 2 doesn't measure up to the original ought to have their IQ measured. I've simply never seen a movie quite as delightful, entertaining, cheerful, and simply perfect! This isn't simply a great animated film: it's one of the greatest films ever made, darn it! If you don't see this now you can't call yourself a movie fan. It's one of the best films made in the 90's!
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
a review by Danilo Pochini:
26 November 2001
Can anyone really be blamed of holding high expectations for a film that joins together two of the most famous, influential, and utterly different filmmakers of the last 40 years? Almost everyone knows the story: A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE was a dream-on-the-shelf project for Stanley Kubrick, who waited many years for the technology to be perfect for his super-ambitious project (some rumors say he ran into the Brian Aldiss short story in the 60's), and planned to finally make the film after 1999's EYES WIDE SHUT. For the first time, though, Kubrick was going to produce and not direct a movie -- Steven Spielberg was going to take that job, since Kubrick thought he wouldn't be able to convey to emotion required by the story, and Spielberg would. Now, two years after Kubrick's death, Spielberg has written, produced, and directed the film that his dead mentor/friend had dreamed of making for decades. Expectations are tremendous for this film. Would Spielberg be able to make a film worthy of Kubrick's mastery? Would it be the film Kubrick would have made?
If little else, A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is the kind of film that has you confused and dazed after you've seen it. It's presented with so many different styles that you almost don't know what to think of it. It opens with a Ben Kingsley narration telling us the story is set in the future, where cities near the sea are partially drowned. We meet one professor Hobby (William Hurt), who's at a meeting discussing the incredible advances in technology that robots have made, now called 'mechas'. The pinnacle in mecha technology is represented by David (played by Haley Joel Osment), a robot who can have life-like emotions, like sadness and love. David's 'emotions' will be tested as he is adopted by a family whose young son's life is in danger and has been cryogenically frozen until a cure can be found for him. The mother (Frances O'Connor) is initially skeptical and reluctant, but eventually she will look at him as her son. And obviously, David becomes very affectionate of her and seems to show the love only a son can have for his mother. Trouble arises when her real son comes back to the family. He manipulates David and makes him do things to make him look bad to mommy. She will then leave him behind in the forest to fend for himself. After this, the movie turns, practically, into another. David is captured by the owner (Brendan Gleeson) of an event called the Flesh Fairs, where robots are destroyed as entertainment. The images are now thrown fast and furiously at the audience. It is here that David will meet the 'love mecha' Gigolo Joe (a strange role for Jude Law) and begin his journey to find his 'mother'. The audience will get to sink their eyes into wonderful sights like Rouge City, a sleazy, light-filled future town which is like Las Vegas ten times worse, and a Manhattan half-drowned in water.
There is a sense of exhilarating discovery in almost every frame of this film. The impact of some of A.I.'s images will remain with me for quite a while; this is the most stunning visualization of the future, I have EVER seen, and thank God the trailers didn't ruin it. This is one of those films that is undeniably great to look at, and it's worth seeing just for that. Not that the film's first, calmer act isn't effective; it's here that Osment really gets to shine in this role, especially in the scene where he's left behind in the woods. He doesn't give his character a typical robotic attitude, but doesn't give in to a kind of little-boy cuteness either; the story's main theme is the mystery of whether robots deserve to be loved and have emotions, and Osment really gives an impression that there's a beating heart of a boy beneath the machine. Law, however, doesn't come off as more than annoying in his character, which is a big mystery in itself. He seems to represent the Jiminy Cricket of the story, which contains several references to the Pinocchio tale (David goes to Rouge City to find the Blue Fairy hoping she will turn him into a real boy), but he seemed like an ineffectual and superfluous character to me.
Not that he is so superfluous as to be annoying or a hindrance to the film; I was enchanted and enthralled through every single scene of it, particularly in the much-discussed epilogue to the story, which I won't reveal, and seems to be a typical Spielberg touch. There will be plenty of people hating that ending, simply because it contains sentimentality, but on further thought that ending is the one plausible or logical one, and it isn't as sugar-coated as it seems first-handedly. There's more than meets the eye there. What really keeps A.I. from being the masterpiece that some may be expecting, is that it's more pretentious and less important than it seems to think it is: it doesn't really give us new insights into the way machines work. Ultimately, it's a pretty straightforward story about a robot and his impossible love for a human, but Spielberg drenches the film with murkiness and pretty pointless mystery once David arrives at Manhattan for the film's ending.
Some of A.I.'s missteps in its denouement, which also goes on too long, still can't diminish the power that this film has to hypnotise and transport the audience into another world. I haven't been so intrigued and engrossed by a film in quite a while, and for that I'm sure it will turn up as one of the year's better films. You might think I'm going to say that all things considered this film is a disappointment, but it isn't because I actually expected to be disappointed by such a highly-anticipated film, and A.I. always surprised me and never bored me. It is an intelligent film, with moments of pure brilliance and moments of slight miscalculation, and asks a series of intriguing questions. It falls short of being a masterpiece for being uncertain what to do with those ideas. But perhaps it is useless to ask for answers when the questions are so purely philosophical; we should just philosophize for ourselves to find our own. (8/10)
If little else, A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is the kind of film that has you confused and dazed after you've seen it. It's presented with so many different styles that you almost don't know what to think of it. It opens with a Ben Kingsley narration telling us the story is set in the future, where cities near the sea are partially drowned. We meet one professor Hobby (William Hurt), who's at a meeting discussing the incredible advances in technology that robots have made, now called 'mechas'. The pinnacle in mecha technology is represented by David (played by Haley Joel Osment), a robot who can have life-like emotions, like sadness and love. David's 'emotions' will be tested as he is adopted by a family whose young son's life is in danger and has been cryogenically frozen until a cure can be found for him. The mother (Frances O'Connor) is initially skeptical and reluctant, but eventually she will look at him as her son. And obviously, David becomes very affectionate of her and seems to show the love only a son can have for his mother. Trouble arises when her real son comes back to the family. He manipulates David and makes him do things to make him look bad to mommy. She will then leave him behind in the forest to fend for himself. After this, the movie turns, practically, into another. David is captured by the owner (Brendan Gleeson) of an event called the Flesh Fairs, where robots are destroyed as entertainment. The images are now thrown fast and furiously at the audience. It is here that David will meet the 'love mecha' Gigolo Joe (a strange role for Jude Law) and begin his journey to find his 'mother'. The audience will get to sink their eyes into wonderful sights like Rouge City, a sleazy, light-filled future town which is like Las Vegas ten times worse, and a Manhattan half-drowned in water.
There is a sense of exhilarating discovery in almost every frame of this film. The impact of some of A.I.'s images will remain with me for quite a while; this is the most stunning visualization of the future, I have EVER seen, and thank God the trailers didn't ruin it. This is one of those films that is undeniably great to look at, and it's worth seeing just for that. Not that the film's first, calmer act isn't effective; it's here that Osment really gets to shine in this role, especially in the scene where he's left behind in the woods. He doesn't give his character a typical robotic attitude, but doesn't give in to a kind of little-boy cuteness either; the story's main theme is the mystery of whether robots deserve to be loved and have emotions, and Osment really gives an impression that there's a beating heart of a boy beneath the machine. Law, however, doesn't come off as more than annoying in his character, which is a big mystery in itself. He seems to represent the Jiminy Cricket of the story, which contains several references to the Pinocchio tale (David goes to Rouge City to find the Blue Fairy hoping she will turn him into a real boy), but he seemed like an ineffectual and superfluous character to me.
Not that he is so superfluous as to be annoying or a hindrance to the film; I was enchanted and enthralled through every single scene of it, particularly in the much-discussed epilogue to the story, which I won't reveal, and seems to be a typical Spielberg touch. There will be plenty of people hating that ending, simply because it contains sentimentality, but on further thought that ending is the one plausible or logical one, and it isn't as sugar-coated as it seems first-handedly. There's more than meets the eye there. What really keeps A.I. from being the masterpiece that some may be expecting, is that it's more pretentious and less important than it seems to think it is: it doesn't really give us new insights into the way machines work. Ultimately, it's a pretty straightforward story about a robot and his impossible love for a human, but Spielberg drenches the film with murkiness and pretty pointless mystery once David arrives at Manhattan for the film's ending.
Some of A.I.'s missteps in its denouement, which also goes on too long, still can't diminish the power that this film has to hypnotise and transport the audience into another world. I haven't been so intrigued and engrossed by a film in quite a while, and for that I'm sure it will turn up as one of the year's better films. You might think I'm going to say that all things considered this film is a disappointment, but it isn't because I actually expected to be disappointed by such a highly-anticipated film, and A.I. always surprised me and never bored me. It is an intelligent film, with moments of pure brilliance and moments of slight miscalculation, and asks a series of intriguing questions. It falls short of being a masterpiece for being uncertain what to do with those ideas. But perhaps it is useless to ask for answers when the questions are so purely philosophical; we should just philosophize for ourselves to find our own. (8/10)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
(1981)
the best film made in the history of motion pictures!
18 November 2001
2001 marks this legendary, innovative adventure yarn's 20th birthday, and since it is also my #1 favorite movie of all time, I decided it was time for me to write a review of it. This is Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford at their absolute best. Practically every action set piece in this film has gone down in movie history, just like the rousing, incredible score by the great John Williams (JAWS, STAR WARS, E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND... he's done 'em all!). By the way, I'm not getting paid to write this review, since no one really needs another. I'm writing it simply to express my immense affection and love for it.
This is the true, great roller coaster ride that STAR WARS simply wasn't for me at the time. Harrison Ford, already a star after playing Han Solo, fares considerably better in this role. In fact, this could be the best-cast part that any actor has ever been in, in any movie. If you could say 'born-to-play-this role' about just one role, it would be Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Thank God for Magnum P.I., otherwise Tom Selleck would have taken the role in all the movies (honestly, I think he would've been okay, but it would now be unthinkable to picture anyone but Ford as Indy). The story of the film doesn't have a lot of developments or twists, it's just a roller coaster ride of a movie that never lets up. It would be hard to say that the first, introductory sequence is the best, since there's so much more that the movie offers, but I think it's the best-known to casual moviegoers. It's the one where we first meet one of the all-time greatest screen heroes that is, of course, Indiana Jones. The year is 1936 and we're somewhere in a South American forest. Indy is looking for a gold statue and although he will find it he will get very near to being killed in the process... only to see it being taken away by his arch-enemy called Rene Belloq, played blandly by Paul Freeman. This is the famous sequence where he escapes from a giant boulder, where he finds a miriad of tarantulas on his back, and where picks up the gold statue from the standard carefully but causes the cavern to collapse. After this sensational opening sequence the film slows down a while to show us that Jones also works as professor in college. He is contacted by his superiors and is sent on a mission to find the Ark of the Covenant, an important artifact where Mozes wrote the ten commandments, before the Nazis do (how someone can work as a teacher and an adventurer is beyond belief, of course, but so are many aspects of this movie). He will travel to Cairo in Egypt, and that's where the majority of the movie takes place. On his way there, he goes to Nepal, where he needs to find another artifact that will help in his mission. It is owned by Marion (Karen Allen), an old girlfriend of his, and she initially refuses to hand it over. Soon later a group of Nazis, led by the very creepy Toht played by Ronald Lacey, break into her bar for that same necklace that Indy came for. Eventually the Nazis will cause a fire, fight with Indy and Marion (she's not your typical damsel in distress, she often helps Indy out and takes care of herself), and die under the fire, although Toht turns up again later in the movie. Once in Egypt, Indy and Marion will be thrown into one big action set piece after another. They will be pursued by swordsmen in the marketplace, thrown together in the snake pit where the Ark lies, destroy some Nazi airplanes with undescribable explosions, be engaged in a massive truck chase sequence, tied together with their eyes closed as God exacts his wrath on the Nazis at the film's effects-laden, spectacular climax.
This is truly one of those films that you enjoy so much that you don't even dare to think about something like plot inconsistencies. This wasn't an especially ambitious movie, it only wanted to thrill you, but it was so well made that it became a true movie classic. Part of what made it special was that it was a true labor of love, a happy collaboration between buddies Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who co-wrote the story and executive produced. The fun they had really shines through: every set-piece is magnificently filmed and thought-up, with a real sense of fun, excitement, and awe that one just doesn't find anymore in contemporary action films. And who could forget that magical scene where we expect Indiana to start fighting a swordsman showing off his skills and he just shoots him? Another truly magical touch is the unforgettable music score. Who hasn't heard of the legendary 'Raiders March' theme? But that's just the half of the magic that Williams produces here. There is a truly awe-ispiring theme going on in the scene where Indy is underground in Egypt in the room that with the sunlights shows him the way to where the Ark is. It's an extremely effective theme that's also heard in the stunning climax.
And of course there is Harrison Ford, who is so confident and simply perfect in his role he should've gotten an Oscar. Unlike many other actors playing heroes, he doesn't hit a single wrong note in his performance. He could never be replaced in that role, while Sean Connery as James Bond, for example, could. It is also clear to me now that a big part of the film's success has to be credited to Ford. And Spielberg was at the absolute top of his form by the time of this film (consider he was nominated for Best Director for this film and the next year for E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL), likewise with Lucas' creativity. John Williams has been Oscarnominated for practically every score he wrote since JAWS. After doing some brilliant work the year before with THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, he went on to write his best music ever for this film. All the best talents in Hollywood at the time collaborated in 1981 to make what I think could be considered the best film of all time. No other film in history has achieved the excitement, sense of wonder, and sheer brilliance of this one. It is the ultimate fun time at the movies, and you have missed out on a part of life if you haven't seen it. [PG]
This is the true, great roller coaster ride that STAR WARS simply wasn't for me at the time. Harrison Ford, already a star after playing Han Solo, fares considerably better in this role. In fact, this could be the best-cast part that any actor has ever been in, in any movie. If you could say 'born-to-play-this role' about just one role, it would be Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Thank God for Magnum P.I., otherwise Tom Selleck would have taken the role in all the movies (honestly, I think he would've been okay, but it would now be unthinkable to picture anyone but Ford as Indy). The story of the film doesn't have a lot of developments or twists, it's just a roller coaster ride of a movie that never lets up. It would be hard to say that the first, introductory sequence is the best, since there's so much more that the movie offers, but I think it's the best-known to casual moviegoers. It's the one where we first meet one of the all-time greatest screen heroes that is, of course, Indiana Jones. The year is 1936 and we're somewhere in a South American forest. Indy is looking for a gold statue and although he will find it he will get very near to being killed in the process... only to see it being taken away by his arch-enemy called Rene Belloq, played blandly by Paul Freeman. This is the famous sequence where he escapes from a giant boulder, where he finds a miriad of tarantulas on his back, and where picks up the gold statue from the standard carefully but causes the cavern to collapse. After this sensational opening sequence the film slows down a while to show us that Jones also works as professor in college. He is contacted by his superiors and is sent on a mission to find the Ark of the Covenant, an important artifact where Mozes wrote the ten commandments, before the Nazis do (how someone can work as a teacher and an adventurer is beyond belief, of course, but so are many aspects of this movie). He will travel to Cairo in Egypt, and that's where the majority of the movie takes place. On his way there, he goes to Nepal, where he needs to find another artifact that will help in his mission. It is owned by Marion (Karen Allen), an old girlfriend of his, and she initially refuses to hand it over. Soon later a group of Nazis, led by the very creepy Toht played by Ronald Lacey, break into her bar for that same necklace that Indy came for. Eventually the Nazis will cause a fire, fight with Indy and Marion (she's not your typical damsel in distress, she often helps Indy out and takes care of herself), and die under the fire, although Toht turns up again later in the movie. Once in Egypt, Indy and Marion will be thrown into one big action set piece after another. They will be pursued by swordsmen in the marketplace, thrown together in the snake pit where the Ark lies, destroy some Nazi airplanes with undescribable explosions, be engaged in a massive truck chase sequence, tied together with their eyes closed as God exacts his wrath on the Nazis at the film's effects-laden, spectacular climax.
This is truly one of those films that you enjoy so much that you don't even dare to think about something like plot inconsistencies. This wasn't an especially ambitious movie, it only wanted to thrill you, but it was so well made that it became a true movie classic. Part of what made it special was that it was a true labor of love, a happy collaboration between buddies Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who co-wrote the story and executive produced. The fun they had really shines through: every set-piece is magnificently filmed and thought-up, with a real sense of fun, excitement, and awe that one just doesn't find anymore in contemporary action films. And who could forget that magical scene where we expect Indiana to start fighting a swordsman showing off his skills and he just shoots him? Another truly magical touch is the unforgettable music score. Who hasn't heard of the legendary 'Raiders March' theme? But that's just the half of the magic that Williams produces here. There is a truly awe-ispiring theme going on in the scene where Indy is underground in Egypt in the room that with the sunlights shows him the way to where the Ark is. It's an extremely effective theme that's also heard in the stunning climax.
And of course there is Harrison Ford, who is so confident and simply perfect in his role he should've gotten an Oscar. Unlike many other actors playing heroes, he doesn't hit a single wrong note in his performance. He could never be replaced in that role, while Sean Connery as James Bond, for example, could. It is also clear to me now that a big part of the film's success has to be credited to Ford. And Spielberg was at the absolute top of his form by the time of this film (consider he was nominated for Best Director for this film and the next year for E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL), likewise with Lucas' creativity. John Williams has been Oscarnominated for practically every score he wrote since JAWS. After doing some brilliant work the year before with THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, he went on to write his best music ever for this film. All the best talents in Hollywood at the time collaborated in 1981 to make what I think could be considered the best film of all time. No other film in history has achieved the excitement, sense of wonder, and sheer brilliance of this one. It is the ultimate fun time at the movies, and you have missed out on a part of life if you haven't seen it. [PG]
Tell Your Friends