Change Your Image
jer33_3
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Pearl Harbor wasn't the only thing bombed in this movie
What can I say about Pearl Harbor? When Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer set out to make this movie they wanted to make a powerful epic war film. They clearly missed the mark on this one. First of all who in their right mind would hire Michael Bay to direct a war film? I'll tell you who, Jerry Bruckheimer. The two together make a great team when making blow up action films, but dramatic movies are definitely not their forte. Michael Bay is no more capable of directing a war movie than David Lynch is capable of directing a movie that makes sense.
However I can't completely blame Michael Bay for this awful movie, or Jerry Bruckheimer for that matter. Clearly one of the biggest problems with this movie was casting the whiny Ben Affleck in the lead role. He is the worst cast war hero in the history of war films. I would have been ok with it if the character was supposed to be a whiny wimp, in fact I can't think of anyone better to play that kind of character than Affleck, but they tried to make his character this heroic, cool, pilot. His performance was nothing short of pathetic. There were parts of the movie I enjoyed, but coincidentally all those parts were when Affleck was supposedly dead (to bad he wasn't). Every moment Affleck was on the screen I wanted to throw the remote control at the t.v. You might as well have cast his dorky brother Casey for this part, that would have been a heck of a lot better.
The script definitely didn't help this movie much, but as a huge Randall Wallace fan I can't hold him responsible. He wrote the script that Bay and Bruckheimer wanted. Randall Wallace is a very corny dialogue writer and it usually works, in fact it's downright brilliant in movies like Braveheart and We Were Soldiers, but for some reason in this movie it just didn't work. Why is this? The answer is that he was just writing what they wanted, and who wouldn't write some sappy cornball movie when you're getting paid a truckload of cash.
The acting overall was wretched. Even Tom Sizemore disappointed in this one, mostly because he was playing the same character he always does. But I can't write this review without giving credit to Josh Hartnett and William Lee Scott. They turned in great performances considering what they had to work with.
All in all this movie was a sad excuse for a war film and an insult to the Pearl Harbor tragedy. Most of the time this movie looked like a pepsi commercial masquerading as a legitimate WWII movie. This movie was an insult to me as a fan of war movies and for that reason I can't recommend it. However if you like to torture yourself by watching garbage then by all means give it a whirl.
1 out of 10 (would be lower but the scale doesn't go down to minus 347)
Thirteen Days (2000)
Powerful, brink of war drama
This movie is what every movie should be. Incredible acting, great directing, brilliant screenplay. I was impressed by how accurate it was to the real story. David Self must have done his homework on the Cuban Missile Crisis when he wrote this script.
The casting was practically flawless. The only small set back was Bruce Greenwood as JFK. Not because anything in his performance was lacking, but just because he didn't seem to put a great deal of effort into the Boston accent. Most of the time it was quite obvious that he was a Canadian trying to fake a Boston accent, but this is so trivial that it has no effect on the movie. Even down to the small supporting performances this movie was very well acted. The only performance I didn't care for was a guy with only two lines and who really cares about that. The highlight of this movie was Steven Culp as Bobby Kennedy. His performance was subtle, but brilliant. I firmly believe that he deserved the Academy awards for best supporting actor. Him not even getting a nomination is the biggest robbery since Citizen Kane lost Best Picture. Dylan Baker as Robert McNamara was another highlight. I had no clue who the heck he was the first time I saw this movie, but I walked away praising his performance. Kevin Costner gave a great performance, but it's overshadowed by the supporting performances.
Just like Tora! Tora! Tora! Thirteen Days proves that you can have a completely historically accurate film, without any dramatization or Hollywood-ization, and still make it entertaining and brilliant.
A 10 out of 10.
Rose Hill (1997)
Extremely corny, but entertaining
I watched this movie against my own better judgement. When some friends wanted to watch it, they explained the plot to me. I thought it sounded so incredibly lame. How interesting does a movie about a bunch of homeless teenage cowboys finding and raising a child sound? I was forced to watch it against my will, but I didn't think it was that awful, in fact I found it rather entertaining. Parts of it are ridiculous. The girl at points can be annoying, especially when her brother is dying and she's hitting on the guy who shot him. However despite it's many drawbacks I did manage to enjoy it.
I definitely wouldn't recommend this movie to a guy who can't stand to watch chick flicks, but to guys who can tolerate them, the movie isn't completely insufferable. For a woman who likes sap movies, like the ones who made me watch this movie, this is a must see.
When explaining the movie it sounds like it's about a bunch of gay cowboy's raising a child, I was surprised.
Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
Most accurate Jesus movie yet
I am a very dedicated christian and I can honestly say that this is the most accurate Jesus movie ever made. My oppinion on Jesus movies is, if you can't make it accurate don't make it at all. Many Jesus movies I've seen (i.e. Jesus Christ Superstar) are borderline blasphemous, but this one hits it right on the mark. There are a few inaccuracies, like the fact that it is insinuated that Judas was almost tricked into betraying Jesus. I also thought it was kind of dumb that the young Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes, but otherwise the movie is fine.
The performance of Robert Powell puts even Max Von Sydow's performance as Jesus in the Greatest Story Ever Told, to shame. Jesus is often portrayed in movies as a soft spoken quiet guy, but do you really think it would be possible to preach to thousands of people without a microphone when you're so quiet? I think not. When Jesus clears the temple, do you think he could drive the people out when he's soft spoken? This movie portrays Jesus as a powerful speaker with an intimidating prescence.
The performance of Olivia Hussey as Mary was impressive, but it is kind of ridiculous that she barely ages over 30 years and Joeseph looks ancient, but I'm not going to complain about that.
I really liked the way Pontius Pilate was portrayed. Lots of movies make him seem like a total villain, but this one really shows that he didn't see any reason to convict Jesus and didn't want to sentence him. He was just a man who was pushed into doing something he didn't want to do all because of pride.
This movie is a definite for anyone who enjoys Biblical movies, and for anyone who is disgusted by the many inaccurate Jesus movies. I truly enjoyed this movie and have very little to complain about. I gave this movie a ten out of ten.
Antony and Cleopatra (1972)
Snooze
I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.
The African Queen (1951)
This does the impossible
Who would have ever thought that a movie that only focuses on two people for the whole time, could be this entertaining? Humphrey Bogart gives a brilliant, award worthy performance as the alcoholic boat captain. I first got this movie, because it took place during World War 1 and I was disappointed when I found out that it really wasn't a war movie. Once I got past the disappointment, I started to notice how great this movie was. Between the exciting action sequences, the top notch performances and brilliant dialouge and direction, this movie is entertaining from beginning to end. If you're debating over whether to see this movie or not, take my advice and rent it, you will not be disappointed.