Change Your Image
Angelika_New_York
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Titanic (1997)
Titanic (1997) One of my favorite films.
First time I saw it was on New Year's Eve 1997. It had only been out for 12 days at that point. Initially, I was reluctant only because I knew there would be underwater scenes, which I am afraid of, especially on a big movie theater screen. I saw it among a group of people at a Regal Cinemas. This is the first movie I have ever experienced in a stadium seating setting. Titanic is historic for many reasons. Honestly, I wasn't too familiar with the sinking of the Titanic. For me, experiencing this film at that time was, and will always be a game changer for cinema. I grew up watching cable TV, so I have seen many movies, but nothing could prepare me for what I was about to see in Titanic. It was one of the best experiences I've ever had in a movie theater, and although it was mostly packed, the people were into it. I'd say about the last hour and 25 minutes, I was in tears. The scene that did it for me was when Jack says to Rose, "Why did you do that?! Why?!" as they frantically embrace one another while next to the bottom of the staircase after she jumped back onto the ship. From there, I was a blubbering mess. Never seen anything like it. I was glad to see it in 3D when it was rereleased back in 2012. The 3D was so good, I briefly wondered why it hadn't been released that way in the first place, but it was already a gamble for the movie studios to begin with. Fortunately, it all paid off in the end, and then some.
This movie really paved the way for the big-budgeted blockbusters that are out today. If it weren't for the success of Titanic, these movies that are out now would likely have been made eventually, but it probably would have taken a longer period of time. Also, movie studios were allowing more films to have longer running times. I tell you, this movie was trailblazing for what was to come in the industry.
I must point out that I truly believe this is Leonardo DiCaprio's best performance. I know that he has an outstanding career. After all, he is one of the very few actors I can think of that's never been in a franchise. That's impressive to me. But I feel that this is his most nuanced performance. To me, it seems that he's been trying to live down Titanic ever since. He's always been a good actor, but it seems like he takes himself way too seriously. I don't expect, or wouldn't want, him to do romantic comedies, but in almost everything I've seen him in, he is brooding, or he freaks out in some way, therefore it doesn't always seem natural to me. Here, everything about his performance feels natural. I know that there were other actors considered for the role of Jack Dawson, but I can't imagine anyone other than DiCaprio playing the part. I think he should really be proud of this movie.
As much as I love this movie, I think the biggest issue I have with it is how Billy Zane's character is too one-dimensional for me. I think it would have made things more interesting if his character was a nice guy, or had some significant qualities about him, but the decision is made too easy for Rose. I mean the guy is basically a jerk from the beginning to the end. Sure, I believe he loved Rose in his own way, but there just wasn't much depth to him. Also, it was absolutely unforgivable for him to strike Rose later on in the movie. The way he treated her was reprehensible.
With that said, I don't believe this film has a black-and-white view of the lower-class people in contrast to the upper-class people. I think some of the characters on the upper decks are actually quite likable such as Molly Brown (Kathy Bates), Captain Smith (Bernard Hill), and Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber) to name a few.
Watching this film nowadays, I actually prefer the first hour and 37 minutes as opposed to the second hour and 37 minutes. I really was astonished by the sinking in the second half, but it really is sad watching all of those people die. Kind of as if I were watching people die in the World Trade Center. It's so tragic. The first half of the movie moves along pretty fast as the effective relationship develops between Jack and Rose, who, by the way, is so beautiful. Kate Winslet looks absolutely gorgeous and she is so much more than window dressing. I can't imagine anyone else in that role, either. The pacing of the entire thing is truly a wonder. There are movies that are nowhere near as long but can certainly feel that way.
Overall, yes there are some flaws about it, usually when it comes to some of the dialogue, however, in this case, the pros far outweigh the cons. In the case of Titanic, the flaws are a part of its charms. It's like accepting someone's imperfections. After all, there is no such thing as a perfect movie, not even on IMDb's Top 250.
I've thought about it and I just can't give it a rating less than a 10.
Valley Girl (1983)
Nothing special.
It took me a long time getting around to finally seeing this. It was never really on my radar. It somehow passed me by, considering the fact that I practically grew up on cable tv. There's a good reason why I wasn't really interested in it because it isn't really anything great. There isn't much in the way of a storyline. It's strange how this is considered a teen film since none of the characters are ever seen inside a classroom. The ending at the prom is perhaps the only indicator that these are high school kids. The one notable thing about Valley Girl is that it's Nicolas Cage's first starring role in a feature film, therefore he's the highlight. For those interested in checking out his earlier work, this would be a good place to start. The plot is simple. Boy and girl from opposite social spectrums meet and fall in love after the girl breaks up with her former boyfriend for not paying her much attention. Although her girlfriends disapprove, they don't seem to really care. Not much conflict. Nothing was at stake. It's a fine movie. If you've never seen it, check it out, or don't.
8½ (1963)
8 1/2
I finally just watched 8 1/2 and I like it. There is a lot about it that I like. I have seen other Fellini films, mind you, although I still feel that I am a bit of a novice.
I'd say about the first hour and 19 minutes are basically satisfactory. After a while, it becomes quite a chore to sit through. I have rewound and re-watched several scenes, so it took me about a day to get through it. The movie is subdued throughout, so not to make light of it, but it is good for falling asleep to, which doesn't necessarily make it bad -- far from it. There's a lot of space between the spoken dialog and the characters often speak in a relaxed tone, especially the main character.
Speaking of the main character, he is without a doubt the highlight of the film. I would consider him to be the most engaging, played by Marcello Mastroianni. I understand this film and why it's so important. In short, it's about a filmmaker coming to terms with who he is, his creativity, his purpose, the women in his life, and just the overall business of being a filmmaker, however by the second hour, it becomes a bit much with the slow pacing. I think a rating of a 7/10 is fair and I really do like it. I think a 7.5/10 rating on this site would be fair. It just doesn't quite hit the mark for me. Almost, but not quite there.
House of the Dead (2003)
Dreadful.
I actually remember when I saw this movie. It was on Sunday night before what is now Indigenous Peoples Day. Someone whom I went with wanted to see Once Upon a Time in Mexico, however since we went to a Regal theater, somehow there were projection issues before the trailers were even shown. It wasn't going to start so I figured we can get refunded and call it a night. Fortunately, the box office was still open, but as they were about to close since all of the last shows were about to start, we couldn't get refunded. It was suggested that we'd see a different movie. Well, the person I was with really liked horror movies, so I made the suggestion of seeing House of the Dead. Neither of us really knew what it was about, although I remembered it was based on a video game. How bad could it be, I wondered. This movie was excruciating. To think that I, 25 years old at the time, should've known better, would even consider watching this trash. It's incredible.
I haven't seen it since, nor would I ever want to witness it again. I figured I'd leave a review since I just rated it, and never speak of it anymore. I vaguely remember it. A group of youngsters going to a rave (this is 2003 after all, although I personally have never been to one) and encounter zombies.
This is mostly an action movie from what I remember. It isn't even horror. It's not scary at all. One thing I do remember is that whenever a character would be fighting off zombies, they'd stand in the center of the frame holding some automatic weapon and firing at the oncoming zombies, then there would be a Matrix-style effect of a pause, or bullet time, or whatever it was, but it was EMBARRASSING.
Embarrassing to watch, I felt. This movie is mind-numbing. Just a complete atrocity. Of course, there's zero character development, but there isn't even any tension. Nothing worthwhile here. The fact that we even stayed until the end credits... After we exited the theater, we didn't even really talk about it. I don't remember having a conversation about it.
All the Real Girls (2003)
All the Real Girls (2003
I used to really like this movie more than I do now. I saw it in theatres and I was especially affected by the cinematography and Zooey Deschanel's performance. Those are still the pluses for this film. It was filmed in North Carolina and it's a portrayal of small-town life. It's a love story. As dreamy and sleepy as the film looks, I think one of the problems is the male lead who develops a relationship with Zooey's character. He (Paul Schneider) has a reputation around town for loving and leaving them until he's with Noel (Deschanel), but I don't buy it, really. There are many scenes where he seems rather simple, like having low intelligence, which is not a criticism. Because of the way he is, it's hard to believe that he's this confident guy who can get any girl he wants. The conflict is that she is his best friend's sister. I wouldn't say he's miscast considering this is an independent film, so I don't think they were scouting for talent, after all, he could have been friends with the filmmaker.
This is a beautiful and relaxing film to watch. As someone said, it's like it was "...shot through a thin layer of maple syrup" and the feeling of being "... stuck in that eternal autumn", but those are some of the things I like about it. I like how somber it is, but it just isn't a great film like I thought it was. It is an unusual film and that kind of works against it at times. I think some of the dialogue is nonsensical, such as, "I had a dream last night that you were growing a garden on a trampoline and I was so happy that I invented peanut butter."
I suppose it makes sense that my feelings have become tepid towards this film because of knowing what the director (David Gordon Green) has done in the years afterward. The Sitter, which came out almost ten years after this one, is one of the worst I've ever seen. Early in that same year 2011, he came out with Your Highness, which looks totally stupid. So for a while, he certainly seemed like a promising filmmaker, but I think All the Real Girls is about as interesting as his films get. I think it's obvious that he couldn't continue making steady independent films, so he seems to kind of go back-and-forth between indies and some broad comedies, even horror (his most recent films have been the new Halloween movies).
I would say this film is worth seeing for Zooey Deschanel in her first leading role and also for the beautiful landscapes.