Movie-ManDan Reviews

Judgment Night (1993)

Entertaining All Around.

[10/10 · 18 May 2021]

I was 13 when I first saw this film and it was the experience of a lifetime. More than a decade later, I no longer think of this film as high as before, but the 13-year-old in me still loves this.

"Judgement Night" is directed by Stephen Hopkins and stars Emilio Estevez, Cuba Gooding Jr, Stephen Dorff, Denis Leary and Jeremy Piven. It was a surprise to see them pull off good performances in such a gritty film. I didn't know Jeremy Piven at the time and I was not disappointed in his performance.

Family man Frank Wyatt (Estevez) and his younger brother John (Dorff) head to a boxing match in Chicago's city with their pals Mike (Gooding Jr) and Ray (Piven), in Ray's rented RV. Stuck in heavy traffic, Ray takes a short cut and they wind up in the ghetto. When they witness murderer, Fallon (Leary), kill a henchman, the four friends evade Fallon and his goons and fight back when things get tough. This general story remains one of my favourites ever.

In a thirteen-year-old's eyes, "Judgement Night" is outstanding. In an older person's eyes, it is much easier to see the flaws that make you realize this is not a great film. It literally all came down to the writing. If this was remade, it may be better. But this movie is very 90s, so that vibe raises the quality a good amount.

But as it said, the teenager in me still adores this. Four stars for the teenager, three for actuality.

3.5/4.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Wasn't Expecting Something So Great!

[9/10 · 15 May 2021]

Sam Mendes is still one of the biggest directors in the world. Tom Hanks is still huge. Daniel Craig is still Bond. And Paul Newman's legacy is still held in high regard. Mendes assembles these actors in what appears to be just a traditional mafia/revenge film we have all seen before. It isn't. This has its very own identity.

Usually contemporary films set decades ago have a very vibrant look to them. Great amount of detail is placed into really selling the time period. If you look at something like "LA Confidential," it is extremely flashy. "Road To Perdition" is much more murky and somber. I may not like movies like this, but the dark look here did not bother me in the slightest. When we do see brightness and sunlight, it feels great.

Set in 1931, Mike Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is the top hitman for mob boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman). John loves Mike more than his own son, Connor (Daniel Craig). At the end of his career before his death, Paul Newman was a scene-stealer in everything he did. This is no different. Well, Hanks really puts up a good fight.

Mike is married and has two sons. He loves them more than anything else in the world. His wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) may not like the business, but the love for her husband is unconditional. Mike's older son, Mike Jr., has a vague idea of what his father does and, one night, sneaks into his car to peek in on a job. When Mike Sr. Sees his son trying to flee, he swears his son to secrecy. Connor hates Mike and wants his son gone so he can't ever talk, so one night after another job, Connor murders Mike's wife and younger son, narrowly missing Mike Jr. So Mike takes his son on the road to his sister-in-law's house in Perdition. On the road, Mike steals and tries to get mob bosses to delete Connor and family. Meanwhile, Connor hires an outside hitman (Jude Law) to take out Mike.

Tom Hanks is a two-time Oscar winner with "Road To Perdition" being one of his five best. He gave the best performance in the film that I wish was remembered during the Oscars that year. His layered and subdued performance is top-notch.

"Road To Perdition" features great themes that have hardly ever been explored as well as here. John is Mike's father figure, but he loves his wife and sons more. And the theme of the cycle of violence is also expertly displayed. We all know the immortal quote "those that live by the sword shall die by the sword." Mike is a killer seeking revenge on killers. When will this all end? This leads to a shattering ending that fits perfectly. A happier ending would have ruined it all.

3.5/4.

Lone Star (1996)

Has It All!

[10/10 · 14 May 2021]

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert praised this 1996 contemporary western. As someone who loves going back and seeing movies from decades past, I was not disappointed in watching "Lone Star." This is just about perfect and an easy recommendation.

The more a movie has going for it, the easier it is to review. "Lone Star" consists of several genres all juggled surprisingly well: western, mystery, romance, and drama. It also juggles its many themes well too: legacy, father & son, and race relations. Quite often, the more that try to get undertaken, the harder they fall. The genres and themes are done well here.

Chris Cooper is an underrated actor. He won an Oscar for the 2002 film, "Adaptation" but still remains enigmatic. He plays Sam Deeds, the sheriff in a small Texas town. His father was a well-respected lawman (Matthew McConaughey) who Sam did not along with growing up and eventually moved away when he was old enough. He eventually moves back as a middle-aged man where he is elected sheriff, mainly because he is still living in his father's shadow. When a skeleton is found in the desert, Sam suspects it is Charlie Wade--the sheriff when his dad was young. Evidence may agree with his suspicions. As he investigates, Sam digs up secrets that will change him forever.

There is a subplot involving Sam's old girlfriend, Pilar (Elizabeth Peña) who is now a high school social studies teacher. It is also where most of the race stuff is placed. With romance as the subplot, I was surprised at how well this worked. There is also an army subplot that was also interesting, but not needed. So what? It was still very enjoyable and mirrored the main story with Sam and his father. Ron Canada and Joe Morton play the father and son in a rewarding storyline.

Kris Kristofferson plays Charlie Wade. He is a brutal racist who is above the law. Sam thinks it was his father who killed Wade since he had a very good reason to. Kristofferson is the antagonist, but he is much-too interesting to turn away from or to be appalled by. Perfect casting.

"Lone Star" was made by John Sayles. Never heard of him? Me either. That's really too bad because this should have been his breakout film. The directing of this is almost as amazing as the casting. Would this have been better if handled by Robert Altman? Sure, as he handled multiple stories and characters like nobody else. But what we get is still a wonderful experience. I adore this film and do think this is the best contemporary western.

4/4.

Toni Erdmann (2016)

Delightful At Most Turns.

[9/10 · 12 May 2021]

"Toni Erdmann" is a film that I have always liked and always recommended. Beloved during and since its release, I was never in full agreement with the rest of the viewpoints. Sure it is good and original, but the movie itself is lifeless and overly long. It isn't alive like "Baby Driver" and that is okay, but being drawn out beyond its appropriate pace just amplifies this flaw of slowness. "Toni Erdmann" is an excellent example of length hurting a film.

The best thing "Toni Erdmann" has going for it is its originality. With something fresh that you've never seen before, this is a film easy to get into at first look. The heart of this is a father-daughter story about a middle school music teacher named Winfried Conradi who has a bizarre sense of humour trying to reconnect with his successful daughter, Ines, who is a stressed business woman. How he inserts himself into her life is what the movie is about.

The other thing that the movie is about is globalization. Everything with Ines and her work is boring and could have been cut out. I think having a completely different movie that focuses on the business stuff would have been better. "Toni Erdmann" would have been shorter in length and both stories would have been written better with more dedicated writing. I guess Ines' business stuff is mildly interesting.

Ines lives in Bucharest and is a success. She is also up to her elbows in work and doesn't have much time to write or talk to her father. Winfied decides to pay a visit to Bucharest to spend time with his daughter around her birthday. He doesn't fit in at all, but that doesn't stop him from reconnecting with his daughter. He dons an alter ego named Toni Erdmann, wearing fake teeth, and a long brown wig that does not match his grey, wrinkly face. What kind of person WOULDN'T be humiliated by such an ugly personality hanging around them. Luckily, this bizarre character is the key to making Ines more empathetic.

"Toni Erdmann" is a memorable movie. Legendary director Howard Hawkes once said "to make a good film, all you need are three good scenes and no bad ones." This 2016 film mostly falls in that category (no bad scenes, just a few boring ones). The first and my favourite features Toni playing the Whitney Houston song "The Greatest Love of All" in piano while Ines sings it. The song is beautiful and we can feel the emotions pouring in when she sings it. Despite Ines showing outward emotions, she sings off key! So despite feeling in this dramatic scene, we also laugh hard. The other two scenes are not worth writing about here; one it too complicated and the other is a sex scene that's too inappropriate.

At well over two-and-a-half hours, there is no way that every minute is earned. Simple scenes and subplots could have been cut altogether. That would have made the movie much better. And as a quite and calm film, most people wouldn't be able to handle all this at such a length. The only reason so many of these recent slow-burners have been such successes is because they know roughly how long the average person can handle it before being bored.

I am not bashing "Toni Erdmann," I just think a masterpiece was buried deep in something that could have been great, but was just good.

3/4.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

"Peace Is Our Profession"

[10/10 · 10 May 2021]

"Dr. Strangelove" (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb) is my personal favourite film by the unbeatable legendary filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick. Ironically, it is also one of his films that was noticeably easier to make. Most of his big films such as "Spartacus" and "A Clockwork Orange" had enormous production designs. His 1964 black comedy and satire does not rely heavily on visuals, but mostly on the spoken word. Not saying that making this was simplistic, just that this is a dialogue-driven film.

The year is 1964-the height of the Cold War. Stanley Kubrick goes to adapt a novel called "Red Alert" about a nuclear apocalypse. The more Kubrick and his writing partners were working on the script, the more they couldn't help but laugh. This led to them purposely adding more comedic elements while still keeping the promise of the word ending. That's right, this movie is a comedy about the end of the world at a time were people thought it was entirely possible.

Peter Sellers is at the centre of the film playing three vastly different characters. How he did not win the Oscar but Rex Harrison did for an ordinary performance is beyond me. Sellers shows his widest range as the president of the United States, a nervous captain, and as the mechanical titular character. Barely recognizable, Sellers is a real winner here.

Commander Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) has grown paranoid during this time of the Cold War. Afraid of communists and Russia, he orders an attack on the US planes circling over the Arctic to bomb the Soviet at their respective targets. He notifies fellow commander Buck Turgidson (played marvellously by George C. Scott, who should have won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor) about the plans and codes before severing all communications. Buck goes to the War Room in the Pentagon where all important US political figures have gathered to talk about what has happened. Buck is just as crazy as Ripper and thinks what Ripper has done is a good idea. The president will have nothing of it and tries to warn the Russian prime minister of impending attacks.

Meanwhile, one of the men right under Ripper is captain Lionel Mandrake (Sellers in his second role) also gets notified and is locked in Ripper's office. He tries to get the code to reverse the orders, but only Ripper knows it and refuses to say anything. Ripper is a pretty big guy and very ruthless, and when violence reaches Ripper's office, Mandrake must man-up and get the codes and tell the president before it is too late.

It turns out that the Russians have built a doomsday machine the once activated, cannot be inactivated. Former Nazi-turned White House scientific adviser, Dr. Stranglelove (Sellers, yet again) tells about the machine and what it is capable of. He even mentions a massive bunker that can withhold the attack.

It is really tough to say who the best character is. It seems as through Sellers tried to outdo himself with the three men he plays. But it may well be the wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove that I find the most interesting. A crippled man he suffers from "alien hand syndrome" which means he sometimes can't control what his hand does. But what makes him probably the most compelling is that the movie is named after him but he isn't a major character. Numerous sources say it is because of his knowledge and that he personifies the technological upgrades, so I'm not totally lost with why the movie is named after him. Those are decent explanations.

Is this movie as relevant now as it was upon its release in 1964? No. The beauty of it upon its release was people were laughing one minute and in shock the next because of its realism at the time. Nowadays, we know there is no doomsday machine that can end the world. Also, social media picks up on the littlest things. However, the very idea of a surprise attack on a foreign country is always a possibility. That keeps its relevance alive. If you don't buy that it could happen today, then let the movie take you into its own world. You will definitely feel for it then.

In one of the best comedies ever made, see Stanley Kubrick's black comedy and have a ball.

4/4.

Staying Alive (1983)

Not Great, But Really Not As Bad As People Say.

[6/10 · 9 May 2021]

"Saturday Night Fever" launched John Travolta into superstardom in 1977. Its sequel, "Staying Alive" killed his career for the next decade. With a 0% score on Rotten Tomatoes and generally touted as being one of the worst sequels ever, there can't be much debate that this isn't a good movie. Is it bad as a whole? Certainly not, especially if you are a fan of the predecessor.

I have always been on the fence with the iconic "Saturday Night Fever," but usually give is positive feedback out of respect to doing such a great job in capturing an entire decade. But with an aimless and unlikeable centre character, his bad friends, cliched Italian family, and utter lack of a story, I was never able to praise it.

"Staying Alive" actually does some good things that "Saturday Night Fever" didn't. First, Tony is trying his darnedest to better himself. He moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan in hopes of making it as a Broadway dancer. Secondly, there is an actual story here. Okay the story sucks, but I give it minor props for actually making an effort. Thirdly, the dancing is better. Way more intense and complicated. Lastly, (I know I am in the minority when I say this), the rapid camera movements and cuts were well-done. Director Sylvester Stallone took a risk by making the camera move faster and cut more often with more close-ups. It could have been a disaster, but I think he did well. With all of these positive notes, I don't get why this caught such a bad rap.

Without question, the worst aspect of this is the love triangle. Tony Manero (Travolta) is dating fellow dancer, Jackie (Cynthia Rhodes) but he decides to also pursue talented British dancer, Laura (Finola Hughes). At least in the previous film, we kinda see why Tony is such a jerk. A few years later and seemingly better as a person, and he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. As he constantly switches between Jackie and Laura, their charms and good looks prevent any hasty feelings that would arise if we had other people in these roles.

I can see people having problems with this. What I cannot see are lovers of the first film that pan this. Sure the music is different, but it's still good, and I named a bunch of other good things this has. Plus I named my gripes with the previous film that prove it is decent but nothing great.

People say this was the film that killed John Travolta's career until Quentin Tarantino brought him back to the limelight in 1994. I must disagree. He did another film in 1983 called "Two Of A Kind" that also his Olivia Newton-John. THAT was his dud of 1983 and what should be considered his career killer in the 1980s. (I get "Staying Alive" was the bigger 1983 movie, but "Two Of A Kind" was a lot worse.)

Because the dopey love triangle bogs this down, I am also on the fence with this. Because this didn't really define an era like the previous film did, my respect isn't as high and must give it a marginal and respectable thumbs down.

2.5/4.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Bravo To All!

[9/10 · 7 May 2021]

This epic western may never reach the highest of heights or the greatest of wonders, but it is still one absolutely necessary to see. There have been lots of films that depict the outlaw, but this is one of the best: a revisionist film that tries to push the boundaries of what the genre can do. The only thing it doesn't succeed in is making it long. I am picky with slow-burners and about forty minutes could have been shaved off of this and the result would have been better. Oh well, too late.

We never got anything about the young man that killed Jesse James, whose name was Robert "Bob" Ford. This is the chance to get more of a perspective of who the outlaw was from more than one point of view. And Casey Affleck nails it as Ford. It was a good call that Ben Affleck's younger brother could deliver a great performance too and a precursor to Casey's mammoth portrayal in "Manchester By The Sea" nine years later.

Bob Ford was a young man who grew up reading about Jesse James and the James gang. Irresponsibly portrayed in texts as a fun, Robin Hood-esque adventure-seeker, Ford is thrilled when he finally meets his idol in the flesh. Not even twenty-years of age, Ford is able to talk his way into joining the James gang. After spending some time with him, both personally and during missions, Ford's opinion on the outlaw changes. He soon sees Jesse as a no-good killer undeserving of the fame he receives. Ford even sells out to authorities.

Brad Pitt almost always shines in his roles and tackling Jesse James was no different. He is sympathetic while still maintaining the psychotic nature that the real James had.

But the real star of the film is Casey Affleck. More nuanced and layered than his enemy, it felt that he had the harder job and that more paid off for him at the end. I already said this was a good nudge into his extremely powerful 2016 drama, but I just want to reinforce how underrated Ben Affleck's younger brother actually is. Brad Pitt may be the star and get top billing, but this is Casey's show.

With some great filming and great music, perhaps nothing could save the film's slow pace that lags at times. There is about twenty minutes in the first hour that were dull, only saved by the return of Jesse James himself scuffling Ford's cousin. Prepared to forgive this section, the movie makes an even bigger mistake by having about twenty-five minutes after Ford kills James. The focal point is gone and the star changes even more at a faster pace. Instead of making the post-Jesse stuff twenty-five minutes, they should have cut it down to about five or ten minutes and had white text written on a black screen that explains what happened after. It would have been much more powerful that way.

If pacing issues were fixed, this movie indeed would have been at the very top.

3.5/4.

Stuart Little (1999)

Cute and Enjoyable For The Whole Family.

[7/10 · 5 May 2021]

Sadly, I have never read the original book by EB White that "Stuart Little" is based upon. But it isn't that hard to see that the movie falls inferior. But I disagree when people trash this movie. That sort of criticism is too harsh.

Frederick and Eleanor Little head off to the New York orphanage to adopt a new child. Their biological son, George (Jonathan Lipniki from "Jerry Maguire"), is so excited to be getting a younger brother. They meet a three-inch-tall humanoid mouse named Stuart (voiced by Michael J. Fox) and they really hit it off. The adoption is finalized with Stuart becoming a Little. But George can't see past his new brother's height. But that doesn't last very long and they start to bond like young brothers do.

The Littles love Stuart and consider him to be an actual family member. These tender and fuzzy moments of the family loving Stuart and George eventually loving his new brother are quite good.

The only one that hates Stuart and does not seem to develop any soft spot towards him is the Littles' cat, Snowbell (voiced by Nathan Lane). He is so jealous that this tiny mouse is getting a humane treatment while he gets treated like a regular cat. But he is even more scared about his cat friends in the neighborhood finding out and embarrassing him. When the other cats find out, they decide to help Snowbell destroy his arch rival.

This is the aspect with the villains and the problems that must be resolved. Again, it's nice.

Not a fan of everything presented? Well the one thing that everyone can agree on is the innovative special effects. Stuart himself is obviously non-existent (I will be surprised if there were scenes where he was animatronic) but he looks so real and adorable. Snowbell the cat and all his cat friends talking so look real too. Animatronics must have been used for the cats and they look superb.

"Stuart Little" is not a masterful film like "Babe." It fails at giving a supremely powerful vision of what it means to be family. The flaws here and there aren't bad, the whole thing simply wasn't strong. But I really don't want to downgrade everything. Just because it isn't powerful, doesn't mean it is not good. This IS good! Just because it isn't a masterpiece, doesn't mean this isn't something to skip. See this.

3/4.

Heat (1995)

Tales Of Flawed Humanity.

[10/10 · 2 May 2021]

"Heat" is a star-studded film directed by the impeccable Michael Mann. It is also the first time Al Pacino and Robert De Niro starred opposite one another. They have done two more movies together since this, but this is still perhaps the best thing they have done one screen together. (I know they did the second "Godfather" film, but they were in two parallel, contrasting stories.)

Before becoming geriatrics, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro were juggernauts; the top actors in the world who could be as picky and choosy as they wanted. Now that they are much older, parts are more limited. But in the 1990s when they were middle-aged, no one could stop them. So placing them as enemies on opposite sides of the law was something bound to happen. Despite Al Pacino playing the honest cop and and Robert De Niro playing the career thief, their performances under Michael Mann's direction made the feud as divided as, say, Hulk Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior.

At the surface, "Heat" has a very simple concept: cops & robbers. Pacino is the cop and De Niro is the robber. Pacino's team consists of such guys as Wes Studi and Mykelti Williamson, while De Niro has such men as Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore. When De Niro recruits a man named Waingro who has fun killing, things get turned upside down and he tries to sell out De Niro and his crew.

When Pacino and his crew draw closer to De Niro, there is an unforgettable scene where he pulls him over on the freeway and they have a cup of coffee and discuss their lives. The first time they have appeared onscreen together, the scene in great. Not only is it a cop and robber talking like regular guys, it could also be looked at like two arch rivals in acting.

Some time after this scene, there is a robbery that leads to a street war between these two factions. The robbery itself is short and sweet, but the massive gunplay is nothing short of astonishing. There are some gunfights sporadic in the film, but this is where it explodes into an all-out war. Michael Mann used more of echo sounds in the shootings to make it more real. He succeeds in that and it leads to a major jolt in the viewer. Without the innovative sound, the scene still would have been great, but not a mind-blow. You can't talk about "Heat" without talking about this action scene.

"Heat" features lots of characters and several subplots. Each are developed to the max, making them relatable and sympathetic including the bad guys. Mann tries to make it Shakespearean by giving the fullest backstories possible to almost everyone that run in similar fashion. That is where the movie gains a flaw that may turn some people off: it is too long. The Los Angeles jungle is an excellent setting and the characters are all captivating, but they just drag on a little too long. At almost three hours, thirty minutes could easily be shipped and the movie would have been better.

But that is just a minor flaw in an otherwise great film. The movie being too long is not bad enough where I don't give it a perfect score. Some of the best films ever made have noticeable flaws. This is one of them.

4/4.

Problem Child 2 (1991)

Not A Truly Good Movie, But Better Than The First And Still Oddly Likeable.

[7/10 · 30 April 2021]

"Problem Child" from 1990 is a film I loved as a child but don't like as an adult. It's sequel a year later is one that still remains in the pile of films I still like that I know are not truly good. Don't we all have those?

Let's recap the first film: Ben Healy (John Ritter) and his wife adopt troublemaker, Junior (Michael Olivier) and Ben is the only one to show the kid the love and affection that he had been longing for. With unlikeable characters (except for the caring John Ritter) and just a couple of funny scenes, the movie was a miss.

One year later, Ben, now a single parent, moves with Junior across the country to start a new life together. The place Ben decides to move to is Mortville-the divorce capital of the world. When they arrive, Ben tries to start his own business and get married. But Junior would much rather it be just him and his dad alone, especially when a broke Big Ben moves in.

Ben's answer to a wife seems to be cruel millionaire, Lawanda. Having been married six times prior, she is immediately taken into Ben's looks and charm. Junior hates her for good reason. He still pulls pranks for fun every now and again, but he must be his bad self to keep this bad woman away.

Junior crosses paths with little girl named Trixie who is younger, smaller, but way more vicious than Junior ever was. She's hilarious. He doesn't know that Trixie is the daughter of the timid school nurse. Amy Yasbeck also plays the nurse named Annie who is much better suited for Ben than Lawanda.

The pranks that Junior plays are funnier. The rivalry between Junior and Trixie is great, and there are simply more things in this to like in general. Let's not forget Gilbert Gottfried, who returns as Junior's principal. He is even funnier in this than he was in the first.

With some things being unclear and some of the humour being too silly and lowbrow, this will never be put at the same level of "City Slickers" and "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" which were the top comedies of 1991, but this still isn't that bad. There is enough charm and hilarity for most to like...only if you grew up with this.

Note: I will not be reviewing "Problem Child 3" because that would mean for me to rewatch it and that is something I vow never to do.

3/4.

Problem Child (1990)

Loved This As A Kid. Not Now.

[5/10 · 29 April 2021]

Ever have those stash of movies or bands that you loved in your childhood but grew out of? Well to me, "Problem Child" is at the very top of that list.

One thing I will say is that it is pretty funny. But underneath all that lies genuine cruelty and hatred that is not pleasant in the slightest. The only truly likeable character is the always loveable John Ritter. Everyone else is just there to pick on the titular child, which isn't nice to see.

Ben Healy (John Ritter) is a loving husband to Flo (Amy Yasbeck) and son Big Ben (Jack Warden). Ben Sr. Is a sporting-goods businessman who is always power-hungry and even wants to go into politics. He even rejects passing the store down to his son. Flo is a mean and spoiled housewife who loves her pets more than her husband. Jack Warden is a living legend and is the only one to forgive between him and Flo.

Ben and Flo are trying for a baby, but positive test results reveal she never will. They decide to adopt and are talked into getting a seven-year-old boy named Junior (Michael Oliver).

Let's talk more about Junior-the titular character. The movie opens up with Junior being left on a doorstep, followed by a montage on him being left on various doorsteps before finally ending up at an orphanage. Nobody gave this kid a chance. He never learned what love is. At an orphanage filled with nuns, we all know how that will turn out.

When Junior ends up with the Healys, he does act out and stuff as that is what he is used to doing. From the get go, Big Ben hates him. Flo grows to hate him soon too. After a few days of Ben trying to be the best father he can and Junior meeting disrespectful people all around him, Ben's patience is greatly tested. And with all these people that wrong Junior, he had every right to enact revenge. I'm not saying he needed to raise hell, that's just presented here for laughs. But I don't blame him one bit for the pranks he pulled on those brats.

There's a subplot where Junior sees a killer named Martin, aka The Bowtie Killer (Michael Richards) on tv and feels for him. Richards is best known for playing the weird Kramer on "Seinfeld" and he starts off pretty good here. After he escapes from prison and is ready to go on a crime spree with Junior, the cruelty and meanness this movie already has is just amplified.

There is nothing wrong with having mean characters. That is so common in comedy. But make them fleshed out and make the jokes funnier. Don't make everything and everyone so tasteless and repugnant!

I am in the minority when I say it's first sequel was better. But I am definitely with everybody when I say "Problem Child 3" was awful.

2/4.

Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

"Sweet" Is Right!

[10/10 · 22 April 2021]

This post-film noir flick is nothing short of awesome. Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster are electrifying as an employer and employee in a tale of greed and blackmail. In the backdrop is a glamorous setting of yesteryear. There is no beating this type of elegance from the 50s.

Tony Curtis gives his best performance (other than "Some Like It Hot") as press agent, Sidney Falco. Living in the Big Apple and working for the New York Globe, blackmail, exploitation, and empty promises are just some of his tactics in how he makes his living. His latest mission is to break up his boss' (Burt Lancaster) sister's relationship with a jazz guitarist. Initially, Sidney is fine with it. He figures a simple job to brown nose his boss would help his career. Problem is, they are madly in love and Sidney can't do much to stop it. He is torn between doing a favour for his boss and meddling in a private affair.

Burt Lancaster is one of America's top villains: JJ Hundacker. Great sympathy is gained towards this bad guy-a sign of great writing. He loves his sister but it is a little unclear as to why he is so dead-set on breaking her up with the guitarist. Whatever, that's a minor flaw.

JJ's sister is Susan. She just wants to do right by all. The opposite of her brother, this caring woman really wants to marry the guitarist (whose name is Steve Dallas).

We are introduced to a variety of characters that are interesting. Most are memorable; victims of Sidney and JJ's sleaze.

Sidney reluctantly helping JJ break up Susan and Steve is exciting and unpredictable. This plot is highly original and executed in clever ways.

Here is a truly great movie.

4/4.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Comes So Close To Being So Perfect. Maybe I'm Just Harsh.

[9/10 · 17 April 2021]

Jake Gylenhaal was one of the hottest young actors in the late 90s and early 00s. I may not be a big fan of him (I do like him, just don't love him), but his little streak of films from 1999-2005 (October Sky, Moonlight Mile, etc) were lovely. The biggest in that era of Jake's career was the sleeper hit "Donnie Darko," a modest and original thriller that is very easily to love.

The thing I don't like about Jake Gylenhaal is his very serious and powerful performances are forced and never feel natural. His portrayal of the complex Donnie Darko is an exception. Donnie is a disturbed teenager whose medications and psychotherapy do not seem to be helping. Being a bad kid sounds like an easy and fun role, but Donnie is a complex boy.

One day, Donnie summoned to leave his house where part of an airplane falls on his house, right where He would have been sleeping. His escape from death soon had him being followed by a man dressed up in a scary bunny costume that talks to him. The bunny's name is Frank and he tells Donnie to pull off crimes. This bit of schizophrenia is very well-played and beyond exciting.

We are introduced to an array of characters in Donnie's small town. They include Donnie's new girlfriend (Jenna Malone), his young teacher (Drew Barrymore), and a phony motivational speaker (Patrick Swayze). While Donnie is the main character, the movie never sways to just him. By fully developing the others, it just makes the cinematic experience that much richer.

Something Frank tells Donnie is that the world will end in twenty-eight days. Donnie then becomes obsessed with time travel. Sure that concept has been done better in other films before and since, but the way it is done in "Donnie Darko" is admirable. I wouldn't call it a flaw.

"Donnie Darko" is a very complex movie that sucks the viewer into an unforgettable experience. I would call the only flaw in this that I was not able to fully get the end. It seems as though it was more of an exercise than something to fully serve the story itself. What do I mean by this? The final night, we see Frank in his actual form and not as Donnie's imagination. We also see the airplane part that destroys the Darko's house. How on earth did all this happen weeks before? Because I could never figure this out, I feel like being a little harsher on this and not give a perfect score. But whatever, it is still a modern-day classic white-knuckler.

3.5/4.

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

It Has Grown On Me.

[9/10 · 11 April 2021]

The Beatles is arguably the best band ever. How many other bands can rival them? Led Zeppelin? Rolling Stones? Pink Floyd? Not very many. They were the biggest band of the 1960s, with the Beach Boys and the Monkees being their arch-rivals. When they released their first album in 1962, it was evident that they were destined for greatness. By 1964, they were on top of the world. They did a memorable performance on The Ed Sullivan Show and a movie was made to capture this band at the height of the their fame.

Believe it or not, there were lots of people back then that didn't like the Fab Four. But when "A Hard Day's Night" came out, even its biggest haters were shocked at the wit and brains this movie had. Decades later, it is still being studied by film and music scholars.

I absolutely love the Beatles. Every time music is played in this, greatness erupts. But in order for the movie to resonate with everyone, it can't be just the music that is great. Take the opening scene when they are being chased through the streets by fans. That remains one of the best and most iconic openings in film history.

There was a time where I didn't like this, and for good reason. The movie is about shenanigans that the guys face while on tour. There isn't much of a story, other than Paul's grandfather disrupting things and Ringo having an inferiority complex. But really looking at the film, each character is fully developed and alive. Each scene, no matter how trivial, is enjoyable. There was just a time when I was expecting a story so original and so life-changing. A masterpiece isn't presented here, but it's still fine.

Not sure how true this is to reality, but each man has memorable traits. George is an intellect, John is a jokester, Paul is caring and Ringo has low self esteem. As mentioned, the major of the film deals with Ringo and Paul's grandfather. They tangle through a couple of days on tour where they must deal with their own problems.

If you are a fan of the Fab Four, go see this. If you aren't, go see this anyway. This wasn't the best film of the 60s, but it was the most influential in terms of styling and trendiness.

3.5/4.

Saturday Night Fever (1977)

Defined A Decade. But Still Not For Everyone.

[6/10 · 11 April 2021]

John Travolta broke away from tv and into film by playing a young dancer from Brooklyn. Following "Saturday Night Fever," Travolta became one of Hollywood's biggest stars, even during his dry patch in the 80s.

Travolta play Tony Manero. Not even twenty-years-old, Tony always looks forward to hanging out with his friends and going to the "2001 Odyssey"--the hottest disco joint in town. Tony works at a paint store, which he doesn't mind, but he always tries to dodge his low-class family. Tony is aimless and doesn't really have an outlook on life except to dance in the disco whenever he gets the chance.

The family and romance stuff is where the movie makes an effort to become more than just a dance flick. Tony's father has been unemployed for months, and his seemingly perfect older brother just quit the priesthood. The whole Italian family from New York has been done and it is passable here, but nothing huge.

Tony meets a serious dancer named Stephanie (Karen Lynn Gorney). The romance isn't too bad, but Tony is very selfish and immature, so it's hard to fully invest time in it. There isn't as much chemistry as you would hope for. She's serious, he isn't, and it just stays that way.

"Saturday Night Fever" will forever be best remembered for its musical element. The legendary opening features John Travolta walking through the streets of Brooklyn while 'Stayin' Alive' by the Bee Gees are playing. Countless other disco songs play while they are at the nightclub and the dancing becomes alive. I am no dancer, but the scenes at the club are extraordinarily made. The lights and the cameras are all very impressive. And as a non-dancer, I can assure you the dancing is good too.

To me, "Saturday Night Fever" will never be a great film. Everything gets stuck in arrested development which is a huge blow. Also, the movie simply feels much longer that it actually is. The movie is two hours, but it feels more like four hours of non-compelling stuff. I love long movies, only if I am fully sucked into their world and am having a great time. Because "Saturday Night Fever" has so many flaws to begin with, the length that feels stretched doesn't feel fine.

Disco is a dead musical genre. The hottest in the 70s, but that's it. But literally no other movie captures this genre better. This is a times capsule of an entire decade. The music, the style, and the star of a generation.

3/4.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A Worthy Final Chapter In The Career Of Arguably The Best Director Ever.

[8/10 · 3 April 2021]

While Stanley Kubrick has not dabbled in every film genre, he has covered most. Nearly all of them are raved as being some of the best and most innovative films ever made. "Eyes Wide Shut" was in development hell for thirty years and took well over a year to shoot, but was worth the wait. Sure it could have been better, but Mr. Kubrick's talents as a director make this better and more interesting than it could have been.

Bill (Tom Cruise) is a well-respected physician in the Big Apple with his loving wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman) and a beautiful daughter. Kidman gives her first great performance as Cruise's seemingly loving wife. They were married in real life at the time, making their chemistry top-notch. Cruise gives one of his best performances in what was really his year. The year was 1999 and Cruise starred in Stanley Kubrick's last film and Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia." He was excellent in both. I think people forget just how talented he is and don't remember his juicy acting chops.

During a supremely fancy party, Bill encounters an old friend from medical school named Nicholas who is now and concert pianist. Nick recommends Bill check out his next gig to which Bill absolutely agrees.

The next night, Bill and Alice are making love and getting high. But Alice is spoiling for a fight where she admits to fantasizing about having sex with another man. Bill is devastated because he would never even think about cheating on his wife.

That night, Bill gets called to duty but stays out since he can't get the sensual images out of his head. He is about to make it with a hooker but is unable to. He then goes to see Nick perform where he is immediately drawn in to go to Nick's next gig that night: he will be playing piano at a masquerade orgy outside the city. Bill doesn't know what to expect and is shocked to see what it entails.

So far the film is great. Great look, great acting, great filming, and mysterious. But everything after Bill's night time odyssey does not measure up to what happened before. There's another hour of one forgettable thing happening after another.

One other weak thing is the message seems unclear. This certainly wants to tell us something, but what? It definitely deals with marriage and infidelity, but what exactly? Kubrick loved making ambiguous films, but this is a normal drama. Why baffle viewers? If the second half was not as long and more insight was dealt on trying to say what the movie tries to convey, everything would have been better.

If another director made this, it likely would not had been as good. Kubrick makes the film look great and the camera's fluidity in it movement are all admirable. Also, any major director's final film that is truly good is usually always remembered. Kubrick happened to incorporate controversial elements which helps be remembered, but trust me when I say this would have been as remembered if it did not receive so much controversy.

Does this reach the heights of "Spartacus" or "The Shining"? No and far from it. That is why people usually describe this as a "worthy" final chapter, not a "perfect" finale. At least Stanley Kubrick went out in a blaze and not in a blunder.

3/4.

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

Cinema's Finest Erotic Film.

[10/10 · 3 April 2021]

Fresh off the groundbreaking success of "The Godfather," Marlon Brando was catapulted back to the spotlight. His next film was the controversial (even by today's standards) erotic film directed by Bernardo Bertallucci. Brando turns in what is arguably his very best performance in one of his finest films.

Brando plays middle-aged American hotel owner living in Paris named Paul. His wife, Rose, recently committed suicide, leaving Paul in a melancholy state. We never know why Rose took her life, which is actually a good move on the writing. There are no easy answers in real life.

Maria Schneider plays Jeanne, a young woman soon-to-be-engaged to a film director, who stumbles into a blank hotel room and meets Paul. She finds him interesting and is ready to have a fling with nearly anyone.

The hotel room they have their relationship in is not the same one in the loft that Paul owns. This room is drab and blank. Despite having no colour or furniture or decorations, we are immediately sucked into this world where our leads have no names and begin a physical affair. While Jeanne is sprouting as a woman, Paul desperately wants to shut out everything in the world. But it can't last for long as Paul must deal with funeral expenses.

The thing about Brando that makes him top of the line is not only his believability and sheer conviction, but how deep he makes his characters. Paul feels betrayed at his wife's suicide and wants to live in his own little world where he doesn't have to feel so much pain. This is just a little bit of a deep character.

I don't know Maria Schneider, but she did a great job too. Her nuances are surprising and she does hold her own in what is a basically two-person character study.

One thing I will say is that this has not aged well. Jeanne is like 20, Paul is 45, and they have sex within seconds of meeting. In reality, she would have been calling out rape. How this woman less than half this man's age agrees to a sexual relationship with him is beyond me. I guess it was the time. And at the end when the characters change, it seems a little sudden and out of the blue.

These flaws are only visible if you aren't completely sucked into this world. Most people would be fully immersed and feel every little thing that happens. A movie is great if it is able to do that.

4/4.

The Blob (1988)

Better In Some Respects, But Also Inferior.

[5/10 · 31 March 2021]

How on earth can you make a movie about a giant piece of jello that swallows people that people can take seriously? Simple, you can't. A shapeless slime from outer space is beyond cheesy and in 1958, that theory was proven. Luckily, top-notch acting and characters made up for the silly monster. Thirty years later with massive upgrades in technology, it seemed like the perfect time to remake the Steve McQueen classic into something actually scary. 95% or the effects are really good (the remaining five percent are from typical computer effects in the decade), but all the cool effects don't seem to really matter.

Steve McQueen was the perfect lead in the original. In this remake, Kevin Dillon plays a leather-wearing loner who we cannot care about. The lead girl is played by Shawnee Smith, who is also not worth it. They try to warn and save the people in their small town, but we do not care as much as we should. This is because the characters are boring and unoriginal.

Now let's talk about the actual blob. In the original, it looked like a giant piece of jello. This new one looks more like a burning translucent thingy. But when it kills and consumes people, look out! As mentioned, the majority of the effects are practical and VERY well done. Whether it eats someone or melts them, they are impressive and pretty scary. The CGI may be dated, but we come to forgive it.

Horror can't be just blood and kills, there has to be a good hero and a good villain. Otherwise, the kills mean nothing and the movie just becomes a dumb freakshow. "The Blob" from 1958 succeeded in making characters to root for, while "The Blob" from 1988 tried but was unable to make compelling characters. If you happen to like them, that's great.

The whole idea of slime that grows and eats people may never seem actually scary. Studios can only do their best. This one has better effects but worse characters. The old one has better characters, but inferior effects. I wish we get another "Blob" remake that's the best of both worlds.

I liked the first "Blob" in a weird way because I was so invested in the characters and the slime itself was a hoot. The remake? I didn't like the characters but I loved the effects. So this is split.

2/4.

Ladybugs (1992)

(Almost) Dead On Arrival.

[6/10 · 24 March 2021]

How do you make a sports movie? Have a team that can't win, a reluctant coach with an ace up their sleeve, and arch-rivals that the underdogs seemingly stand no chance against. That's "Ladybugs" for you!

The main thing that this movie has going for it is the legendary Rodney Dangerfield. He may not have had much luck in feature films, so I guess "Ladybugs" shouldn't have been a surprise. He is very likeable and respectable (pun intended) in this.

The other thing this movie has going for it is the late Jonathan Brandis. He has enough charm to carry his character, almost all the way.

Dangerfield plays Chester who is desperate for a promotion so that he can finally have a good wedding ceremony. His boss rejects him, but In a bid to suck up, Chester says he will coach his boss' daughter's soccer team: The Ladybugs. Dragging along his assistant to coach along with him, Chester is in shock to see the team consists of rookies with no natural talent. That has been done soooooo many times before. Just by reading this, how many other sports films did you just think about?

Chester's soon-to-be stepson is Matthew (Brandis), a slacker with a knack for sports whose bad habits have gotten him kicked off the teams. Chester's bad idea to get the team winning and for Matthew to play sports again is to disguise him as a girl named Martha. When the gender-bender aspect gets thrown in, it is a move the viewer will either hate or find a good change. I can assure you that the only reason I wasn't appalled was because of Dangerfield and Brandis.

The film this is most like is the modern Shakespeare adaptation of "Twelfth Night" called "She's The Man" with Amanda Bynes. Both are gender-bending sports films about soccer, but the Amanda movie was actually decent. I really can't recommend "Ladybugs" unless you love soccer or Rodney Dangerfield. I happen to be a fan of the late comic, so I did not hate this like I probably should have.

2.5/4

The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

The Best Disney Film In Decades!

[10/10 · 24 March 2021]

That's right! This 1986 Disney film was the best in over forty years--beating out such legends as "Lady & The Tramp," "Cinderella," "Peter Pan" and "Sleeping Beauty." Not since 1941's "Dumbo" was there a Disney flick of this sophistication and heart. In the 60s, the studio hit a snag where it seemed like they stopped trying to produce quality films for the whole family. To make matters worse, they were very sporadic in years of releases. This underrated 1986 masterstroke was the first film in such a long time that was beautifully drawn, expertly written, fully developed, thrilling, joyful and had brains!

In the mouse-equivalent to Sherlock Holmes, a girl's toymaker father is kidnapped by the evil Ratigan's (Vincent Price) sidekick: a deranged bat, Fidget. She enlists the help of Basil of Baker Street. Right away, the movie is a thriller even adults will be fully invested in. And Basil? Talk about a fun character!

When the girl describes what happened, Basil knows right away that it is some conspiracy by Ratigan. For the rest of the film, Basil, the girl, and Basil's friend, Dawson, must seek Ratigan's whereabouts before it's too late. In this time, so many smart moves come about that do not pander to kids. This movie knows they are smart.

Ratigan kidnapped the toymaker so that he could create a life-size robotic queen to let him assume the throne. Even Ratigan's conspiracy is original!

When Basil's entourage finally do encounter Basil and his henchmen, it is amazing. The double-climax keep building and building to near-death situations that, ironically, are not as scary as you might think. By keeping the highest point of interest building and grow without overdoing it, the more positive emotions from the audience will go.

The problem with so many cartoons and family pictures is that the creators talk down to the audience. They pander to the kids, thinking they are much dumber that they actually are. "The Great Mouse Detective" may be targeted towards children closer to ten, but anybody as little as age one can see this and have a good time with it. This missing wide-target is great, but how they were able to come up with something so smart is beyond me.

Why don't people remember this? I get that it was released during Disney's dark ages, but this was a gem in those darkened times. Plus, this is a mystery! How many big Disney films since this have been mysteries? Now it all seems to be just action, romance, music, comedy and tearjerkers. Bring back another great genre!

In 1986, another big mouse movie was released (non-Disney) named "An American Tail." That's not a bad film, but THIS is the mouse film to see.

4/4

Moonlight Mile (2002)

Moving And Thoughtful.

[8/10 · 21 March 2021]

Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon take Jake Gyllenhaal under their wing in this emotional powerhouse loosely based on a real thing. It deals with truth, self-image, love, family, and moving on, all of which are expertly handled.

Hoffman and Sarandon play Ben and Jojo Floss whose daughter, Diana, has been murdered in a diner. Ready for the killer to be put behind bars forever with the help of their prosecutor (Holly Hunter), both have different ways of dealing with the tragedy. Jojo wallows in pity while Ben tries to keep extra busy with his real estate business. Ben would love nothing more than for his would-have-been son-in-law, Joe (Jake Gyllenhaal) to thrive as his protege.

Jake Gyllenhaal is a big hit-and-miss for me, but he nails his performances as Joe Nast. Joe wants to be the perfect son, and since he doesn't know what he wants to do for a living, he figures he might as well go into business with Ben. On the other hand, Joe doesn't care about real estate and he has a deep, dark secret about him and his fiancee that will change the way the loving Ben and Jojo see him. He is torn between how society wants him to be and how he wants himself to be.

Joe eventually meets Bertie (Ellen Pompeo) who works at the post office and at a local bar. She has a similar story to Joe and a friendship blossoms between them. She helps Joe realize who he is and gives him the courage to be honest about his relationship with Diana, but a possible romance could spell disrespect at a time of mourning. However, Joe and Bertie grow so much as people, they would be able to figure a good deal in advance if things aren't working about between them and break up like civilized people.

There is no surprising that Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon give Oscar-worthy performances as the grieving parents. The surprise would be Mr. Gyllenhaal who gives one of his finest and most layered performances as the protagonist in a fabulous acting decathalon. The problem with Gyllenhaal is most of his films is he is forceful whenever things get turned up. That's what I was expecting in such a sad movie, but the character of Joe Nast really inhabited him.

This movie is not without reservations. Most of the comic relief (which is at the beginning) sucks. And I thought that the climactic courtroom scene till the end could have been thicker in its delivery. That part is good, but not as good as nearly everything beforehand.

The four leads are perfect in an original and heartbreaking premise. This is one film I highly recommend.

3.5/4.

Nashville (1975)

You Don't Need To Love Country Music To Love This Movie.

[10/10 · 11 March 2021]

Quite often, if you don't like the music prominently featured in a film, you won't like the film itself. If you like the film but not the music, that is better. If you don't like the music but actually like everything presented, then you know the film is great. I hate country music, but the music presented here is actually really good. If Taylor Swift was played in this movie, that would have diminished everything.

Robert Altman started the new wave of American cinema in the 70s (an era which saw the surge of young American directors such as Hal Ashby and Brian DePalma) with his anti-war comedy "M*A*S*H." People often regard his 1975 ensemble epic "Nashville" as his magnum opus. I personally prefer a couple of other films if his (ie, Short Cuts, The Player), but I am not discrediting this wonderful modern epic of Americana.

A common thing that Altman did was not use protagonists with his ensemble casts. With about two dozen overlapping characters, very few people are less important than others. One example of a minor character is Shelley Duvall playing a young groupie whose uncle owns a bed & breakfast. Although not fleshed out like the Lily Tomlin or Henry Gibson characters, she is still memorable and in-place.

That is one thing about Robert Altman that's so great with his ensemble pieces: his characters are placed perfectly and not there to take up space in the camera. It is very common for films and tv shows with as many different storylines as this to lose focus and to get confused as to who's who. Even in the beloved "Games of Thrones," keeping track of the characters and stories can be quite the challenge. Altman never has the problem and "Nashville" is no exception.

What is this 1975 epic about? In simplest form, a group of people and celebrities cross paths over the course of five days for a major country music festival. But it actually has a whole bunch of stories, each with their own identity. One story could have its own film but having a bunch of great stories that intersect is clever ways is breathtaking. (Some say they are all about America, but it goes much farther than one country). They are so poignant and well-told. So many films have troubles with just one story; look at what Robert Altman does! And this wasn't his first time using an ensemble with multiple stories!

In the 70s, hippie music was still huge, but there was also the emergence of heavy metal and punk rock. Country really seemed to be at the back of the popular music genres. But this was when country was listenable. The songs presented here are well-written with great lyrics that make for a mighty fine soundtrack.

4/4

Lost in Translation (2003)

Overrated, But Still A Good Movie.

[7/10 · 11 March 2021]

I totally understand the appeal this movie gets. What I don't get is people calling this one of the year's best and one of the best ever. In no way does this movie push the envelope for what cinema can do and in no way does this elicit extremely strong effects on the viewer. The effects on the viewer are normal, but nothing huge.

Francis Ford Coppola's daughter, Sofia, already made a name for herself as a director with the highly impressive "The Virgin Suicides" in 1999. Four years later, she makes her most decorated film-a movie that isn't really about anything, other than exploring loneliness.

Bill Murray shines in arguably his best performance (this is his most serious) as famous actor, Bob Harris. Tired and bored, Bob spends a few weeks in Tokyo doing a commercial. We get to know Bob pretty well.

Bob soon meets young Charlotte, played by Scarlett Johansson. A recent college grad, she is in Tokyo with her husband (Giovanni Ribisi) who is a photographer for a band touring the area. He is always with his clients, leaving her lonely too.

Bob and Charlotte's relationship is completely platonic. A blossoming romance would have been too awkward since they are really far apart in age. But a normal friendship is a good change of pace between a man and a woman.

Bob and Charlotte doing various activities together that are mildly interesting. Alone, what they do is also mildly interesting. (There is a scene with Bob and some Japanese woman pretending to be raped by him that is one of the most random scenes in film history).

One thing that this movie really has going for it is the lovely Tokyo setting. It is almost as if Coppola tries to make this avant-garde, making the setting a character that reflects Bob and Charlotte. If that's what she tried to do, she didn't do that good of a job. The bright lights are nice to look at, but that's it.

While we get to know Bob and Charlotte well, the movie goes nowhere. It is just a series of random events that make these two lost souls feel less lonely. That actually sounds nice, but the way Coppola conveys it is decent but not amazing.

Truth is, there is nothing amazing about this. The two leads are impressive, the look is nice, and that's it. Everything else is much too mild to spew over.

3/4

Jumanji (1995)

No Masterpiece, But It's Still Good.

[8/10 · 10 March 2021]

Are you a child from the 1990's? Then there is a good chance you watched this 1995 family-fantasy many times and loved it. This has never been an amazing spectacle, but there are still several good points that make this a lasting film.

At the time, people thought it was really only Robin Williams that caused this movie to get made. Sure he is the crown jewel like most of his films, but anybody else as the protagonist and the movie still would have been good. Not as good as having the late comic, but okay.

In 1969, Branford, New Hampshire was a small, lovely town. The Parrish family was the most wealthy, owning the shoe factory. When Mr. Parrish says that he plans to send his son, Alan, to boarding school, Alan is angry and plans to run away. His friend, Sarah Wittell, arrives and they play an odd board game Alan found earlier in the day. Alan gets sucked in and does not get released until 1995 when his house's new residents (Kirsten Dunst, Bradley Pearce) pick up where Alan and Sarah left off.

After Alan gets sucked into the board game and comes out, we get to know very well what happened in the 26-year gap. And old wives tale says Mr. Parrish killed Alan. In reality, Mr. and Mrs. Parrish thought Alan ran away. Mr. Parrish did all he could to find his son. All his time and money spent eventually led to his factory folding and the rest of the town losing business. This subplot is what I have always loved about this. Mr. Parrish barely shows his love to his son, but devoting everything he had into finding him is heartbreaking. When adult Alan (Williams) meets the new tenants whose parents died, more sadness is added. Unlike most Robin Williams films around this time, what "Jumanji" has is completely earned.

This movie is not without flaws. "Jumanji" is a board game that just requires you to roll two dice. Dunst even points out that there is no skill involved. It would be better if there was more things to happen in the game. I get that mythical things get unleashed and the players try to stay clear, but that's not really IN the game. That brings me to my next point: half o the things the are unleashed from the game look beyond fake. CGI was not this bad in 1995!

There are lots of movies that you loved as a kid but hate as an adult. "Jumanji" is not one of those.

3/4

There Will Be Blood (2007)

The Devil In The Flesh

[10/10 · 28 February 2021]

There was a time when Daniel Day-Lewis was a struggling Irish actor. He had a bit part in "Gandhi," achieved fame with "A Room With A View," and won his first Oscar playing a real life artist in "My Left Foot." That was just the beginning.

There was a time when Paul Thomas Anderson was young man who inspired to be a major film director. Severely discouraged in school, Anderson carved his own path with highly energetic and entertaining films with big stars. His first film "Hard Eight" showed he had talent. His next film, "Boogie Nights" showed he destined to be an all-time great. In 2002, Anderson made his most daring film to date: "Punch-Drunk Love," a mellow film starring Adam Sandler way out of his comfort zone. This film was a major success.

Combine the already established actor and young director and greatness was guaranteed. It received acclaim across the board when it first came out and has only grown ever since.

"There Will Be Blood" is a carefully detailed gothic-western with lots to say beneath the surface but is just as great at the surface.

The film opens up in a silent overture with Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) beginning his journey digging for oil. You know how everyone says the first ten minutes of "Up" could be its own short film? Same thing here. Images only stirring up the start of a great film.

"There Will Be Blood" is about Plainview who tries to achieve the most success in the world as an oil tycoon. When he crosses paths with the shady pastor Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano who is due for an Oscar in the future), a strange rivalry in formed. Both leads are extremely deep and exceedingly well acted.

Day-Lewis won his second as the evil Plainview. Just look at him and you can see how cold a person he is. He is not completely evil, well, not as first. But he is deeper than all of Day-Lewis' other characters. So deep, you may need to watch this a few times in order to fully digest who this man really is.

Anderson's directing is first rate. Like the greatest, his shots look good and also have great meaning behind them. This can be done through angles and shadows. The most obvious is Plainview seemingly digging his own path to hell. Genius.

With a bunch of important underlying themes that take a long time to dissect, the best thing to do is watch this more than once. Paul Dano is great, Daniel Day-Lewis is at his very best and the filming is very impressive. Don't miss this important flick.

4/4