Do the Right Thing is a Spike Lee baby in every way. Writing, directing and starring himself, there's really no one else to share credit or blame with. From my point of view we're talking blame, but I'm not blind to the reactions and responses it's gotten elsewhere.
I don't mind giving credit for being influential, asking questions about society and bringing attention to race related issues. The problem for me is the movie's many weaknesses as a movie. The acting vary a lot. There's some really good performances, but there's also some performances so painful to watch it should be obvious to Spike he should have chased them off the set. The story tries to build tension from a slow everyday feel of the neighborhood until the climax. The problem is it manages to bore me a lot during the first three quarters. I've lost interest in the story before he brings the story to attention.
The movie is so out of focus, it's ruining momentum rather than building the feel of tension. Add some characters everybody, white, indian, asian or afro-american alike, all should be brushing off as out of their mind, I can't for the better of me excuse the runtime of this supposedly late 80's classic. Whining, bitching, insulting, boring or crazy. Anyway they pitch this, it must be one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Crazy Heart (2009)
Crazy Heart don't reinvent the wheel in any ways. Jeff Bridges do the washed out country singer only a year after Mickey Rourke did his washed out The Wrestler, and before that we've seen other alcoholics or pill poppers or whatever. These are the stories always coming around, but as they are given new faces in life these are also the stories always true to human nature.
The quality differences in these movies are what makes or break them. They need good acting, a focused script, and a good understanding of how high their story need to go on the happy ending scale to work. There's really not much else to ask for. They'll never be original, but done with quality in their three main areas and some heart, and they'll be well worth the attention anyway. Crazy Heart sure is.
Bridges is brilliant in the lead as 'Bad Blake'. A 57 year old washed out drunk country and western singer playing in small establishments, while counting the dollars in his pockets to decide which brand of booze he can afford. He's credible in everything he does throughout the movie, and it wasn't a huge surprise he collected the 'Best Lead Actor' Oscar for his performance.
I've enjoyed Maggie Gyllenhaal's performances for quite a while, and she doesn't let me down here either. Her 'Jean' is an important support character to the story of 'Bad', and her performance is as usual with the right amounts of lovable, flawed, sexy, layered and credible. Also Colin Farrell comes along as the new generation country and western star 'Tommy Sweet', who started his career along and learned from 'Bad'. Along with performances from Robert Duvall, James Keane and a couple of others, they all make sure Crazy Heart nails the acting parts.
The script is focused. They know very well which story they are trying to tell, and they execute with militant precision. They are also well aware of how high they need to go on the happy ending chart. The music is very good. Not for nothing it was were this movie got its second Oscar.
Crazy Heart is actually pretty brilliant. There's not a lot of reasons to deduct points from the overall score. It's a story we've been told before, but as long as the world is filled with stories resembling these they also need to be written down and filmed. This is one of the better ones I've seen. In fact it's so good it's very close to an even better rating from me. I'm quite sure I got to get back to this one again to consider whether or not to actually award it a nine, but for now it's a rock solid country and western eight.
The quality differences in these movies are what makes or break them. They need good acting, a focused script, and a good understanding of how high their story need to go on the happy ending scale to work. There's really not much else to ask for. They'll never be original, but done with quality in their three main areas and some heart, and they'll be well worth the attention anyway. Crazy Heart sure is.
Bridges is brilliant in the lead as 'Bad Blake'. A 57 year old washed out drunk country and western singer playing in small establishments, while counting the dollars in his pockets to decide which brand of booze he can afford. He's credible in everything he does throughout the movie, and it wasn't a huge surprise he collected the 'Best Lead Actor' Oscar for his performance.
I've enjoyed Maggie Gyllenhaal's performances for quite a while, and she doesn't let me down here either. Her 'Jean' is an important support character to the story of 'Bad', and her performance is as usual with the right amounts of lovable, flawed, sexy, layered and credible. Also Colin Farrell comes along as the new generation country and western star 'Tommy Sweet', who started his career along and learned from 'Bad'. Along with performances from Robert Duvall, James Keane and a couple of others, they all make sure Crazy Heart nails the acting parts.
The script is focused. They know very well which story they are trying to tell, and they execute with militant precision. They are also well aware of how high they need to go on the happy ending chart. The music is very good. Not for nothing it was were this movie got its second Oscar.
Crazy Heart is actually pretty brilliant. There's not a lot of reasons to deduct points from the overall score. It's a story we've been told before, but as long as the world is filled with stories resembling these they also need to be written down and filmed. This is one of the better ones I've seen. In fact it's so good it's very close to an even better rating from me. I'm quite sure I got to get back to this one again to consider whether or not to actually award it a nine, but for now it's a rock solid country and western eight.
The Outsiders (1983)
The Outsiders is Francis Ford Coppola's movie based on S.E. Hinton's quite famous novel about 'The Greasers' and 'The Socials'. Looking back at it now there's little doubt they sure picked some rising names as their young cast. All of them might now exactly be known for their talent, but never the less they sure made names for them self.
Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze and C.T. Howell. It's quite a collection of late 80's and early 90's tabloid headliners. Anyhoo. In my opinion the biggest problem this movie has cast-wise is two of their weakest actors are those most on screen. Macchio and Howell haven't exactly turned out superstars compared to the rest of the cast, and it's sure no coincident. Both have severe acting lacks.
The story doesn't live up to the cult fame the title might suggest either. It's really not that good a story. It lacks depth that doesn't feel phony, its outsider amongst the outsiders doesn't come across as credible and then the overall story can't excite. I'll have to admit I haven't read the book, but at least it doesn't work well in the movie.
I give it some cult points for its outstanding supporting cast, as a collectible if not as a collection of talent. Not enough to actually be worth the stride down memory lane, but enough to at least hold some retro significance.
Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze and C.T. Howell. It's quite a collection of late 80's and early 90's tabloid headliners. Anyhoo. In my opinion the biggest problem this movie has cast-wise is two of their weakest actors are those most on screen. Macchio and Howell haven't exactly turned out superstars compared to the rest of the cast, and it's sure no coincident. Both have severe acting lacks.
The story doesn't live up to the cult fame the title might suggest either. It's really not that good a story. It lacks depth that doesn't feel phony, its outsider amongst the outsiders doesn't come across as credible and then the overall story can't excite. I'll have to admit I haven't read the book, but at least it doesn't work well in the movie.
I give it some cult points for its outstanding supporting cast, as a collectible if not as a collection of talent. Not enough to actually be worth the stride down memory lane, but enough to at least hold some retro significance.
Monday, April 26, 2010
War (2007)
War is the wannabe cat and mouse movie about a FBI agent and the assassin 'Rouge' who killed his partner years ago. Intrigued more by Jason Statham and Devon Aoki being in this movie, than Jet Li as he's nowhere close to my favorite despite enjoying martial sequences every so often if done well. I think Statham is quite unappreciated, and he did well in both London, in Guy Ritchie's early works and the Transporter series.
Anyhoo. War isn't a specially enjoyable movie. It's trying to be smart and interesting, but it's rather plain and lacking the nerve it would have needed to succeed.
Anyhoo. War isn't a specially enjoyable movie. It's trying to be smart and interesting, but it's rather plain and lacking the nerve it would have needed to succeed.
Before Sunset (2004)
Before Sunset is the story of 'Jesse' and 'Celine' catching up nine years after their meet portrayed in Before Sunrise, and it's been equally long since the first movie was made. I've never got around to watch Before Sunrise, so this review is entirely based on the Before Sunset on its own legs.
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are 'Jesse' and 'Celine', and both do a great performance bringing life to these roles from the past. Much needed, as them talking and catching up is the movie. The dialogue drives the movie like it drives their feelings, and their feelings drive the dialogue.
Many considers this a great piece of movie history. I'm not as impressed. I've got several problems with the way the dialogue supposedly moves along. I thought the scripting was uneven, and without ever watching the first movie with these characters I find it really hard to buy their interactions at several points of the movie. It's still a good dialogue based movie I fully enjoyed, but it's the kind of movie you need to feel the connection. I didn't, and maybe that's because I never watched the original. Standing on its own I'll settle my rating for now, but I might get back to this one if I ever get to watch Before Sunrise, and then maybe this will grow on me as well.
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy are 'Jesse' and 'Celine', and both do a great performance bringing life to these roles from the past. Much needed, as them talking and catching up is the movie. The dialogue drives the movie like it drives their feelings, and their feelings drive the dialogue.
Many considers this a great piece of movie history. I'm not as impressed. I've got several problems with the way the dialogue supposedly moves along. I thought the scripting was uneven, and without ever watching the first movie with these characters I find it really hard to buy their interactions at several points of the movie. It's still a good dialogue based movie I fully enjoyed, but it's the kind of movie you need to feel the connection. I didn't, and maybe that's because I never watched the original. Standing on its own I'll settle my rating for now, but I might get back to this one if I ever get to watch Before Sunrise, and then maybe this will grow on me as well.
Fast & Furious (2009)
Fast & Furious is back with the main cast after lending out the brand name in the forgettable third segment of the series. Paul Walker is back as 'Brian O'Conner', and he has left the cast of the second segment behind him as well. Once again we revisit the characters of the original, as given life by Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster, and they're all part of the story bringing cars and action crossing the border of Mexico.
It doesn't quite manage to satisfy my entertainment cravings, but it manage to get the franchise back on track after the horrible trip to Tokyo and different characters. It's also kind of nice to meet up with the character almost ten years after the original, and that's a lot of the importance of this fourth installment as the story never catch me as well as the original did and the cool factor isn't as high as in the second installment.
Getting through the first three installments, I wouldn't miss out on the fourth. If you on the other hand had more than enough of the franchise after watching the original, you might as well drop this as it's not really that good on its own.
It doesn't quite manage to satisfy my entertainment cravings, but it manage to get the franchise back on track after the horrible trip to Tokyo and different characters. It's also kind of nice to meet up with the character almost ten years after the original, and that's a lot of the importance of this fourth installment as the story never catch me as well as the original did and the cool factor isn't as high as in the second installment.
Getting through the first three installments, I wouldn't miss out on the fourth. If you on the other hand had more than enough of the franchise after watching the original, you might as well drop this as it's not really that good on its own.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift is the third movie using the Fast and Furious brand name, but this time it's in Tokyo and 'Brian O'Conner' isn't involved. The only thing close to the first two segments is a cameo appearance by Vin Diesel's character.
This time it's a school kid in Tokyo learning drifting while playing around in the Yakuza's backyard. It's not nearly as entertaining as it would have had to be. Easily forgettable.
This time it's a school kid in Tokyo learning drifting while playing around in the Yakuza's backyard. It's not nearly as entertaining as it would have had to be. Easily forgettable.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Only a couple of years after the first installment of this series, the sequel 2 Fast 2 Furious followed. This time Paul Walker as 'Brian O'Conner', is joined by Tyrese Gibson as his side-kick and Eva Mendes, Devon Aoki and Ludacris.
The recipe is still pretty much the same. Undercover, fast cars, pretty people and attitude. It does not work nearly as well as the first time around. The story is thinner and more annoying with its obvious plot twists. There's still some really cool sequences still managing to keep the entertainment at a decent level, and I kind of enjoy Devon Aoki in her support role.
The recipe is still pretty much the same. Undercover, fast cars, pretty people and attitude. It does not work nearly as well as the first time around. The story is thinner and more annoying with its obvious plot twists. There's still some really cool sequences still managing to keep the entertainment at a decent level, and I kind of enjoy Devon Aoki in her support role.
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
Writer: Magazine article "Racer X": Ken Li Screenplay: Gary Scott Thompson, Erik Bergquist, David Ayer Screen Story: Gary Scott Thompson
Cast: Paul Walker, Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster
Genre: Action, Crime, Thriller
Fast cars, Paul Walker, Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster. The recipe is simple, but it worked very well and it still holds its candle to most almost ten years later. The story isn't that important. The street racing and action is what drives the movie. I was entertained, and in these kind of movies the entertainment level is the most important part as they seldom reinvent the wheel.
Children of a Lesser God (1986)
Never heard about Children of a Lesser God until a few days ago, when I came across it mentioned in a list of eighties drama's worth checking out. I love the title. I'm sure I've heard it before somewhere, but it speaks volumes. Checked out the cast and as soon as I read Marlee Matlin I knew I was gonna watch this soon.
I've mention on my TV-blog about The West Wing's first season and quite possibly about watching the entire show more than once. I've always been impressed by Matlin's 'Joey Lucas' there. She's acting with so much attitude it's quite unresistible. Early in this movie we'll see Matlin in her film debut portraying much of the same attitude. And what a debut. She got the Oscar for 'Best Leading Actress' for her 'Sarah Norman', and I've read somewhere she's the youngest ever to achieve that as she was only 21 years old at the time.
It's no doubt a story worth telling and William Hurt and Matlin does well portraying the leads, but I'm still left feeling they didn't manage to reach its potential. It's based on the Broadway production with the same title, screenplay written by Mark Medoff who also produced the Broadway play, and it ran according to IMDB 887 performances. The play won the Tony Award for 'Best Play' in 1980, and maybe the play managed to achieve the balance I feel lacked in the movie. I don't know. I've obviously not seen the play.
What I do know is this. I feel like they didn't manage to tell the story within, even with a Marlee performing at an Oscar winning level. And quite honestly a much deserved one indeed. Still they've got almost two hours runtime, but doesn't manage to capture the essence of the potential presented. It's still a movie worth your time, and after watching you might choose like me to use the movie as a platform to imagine the story on your own. It's sure got plenty of substance to reflect on.
I've mention on my TV-blog about The West Wing's first season and quite possibly about watching the entire show more than once. I've always been impressed by Matlin's 'Joey Lucas' there. She's acting with so much attitude it's quite unresistible. Early in this movie we'll see Matlin in her film debut portraying much of the same attitude. And what a debut. She got the Oscar for 'Best Leading Actress' for her 'Sarah Norman', and I've read somewhere she's the youngest ever to achieve that as she was only 21 years old at the time.
It's no doubt a story worth telling and William Hurt and Matlin does well portraying the leads, but I'm still left feeling they didn't manage to reach its potential. It's based on the Broadway production with the same title, screenplay written by Mark Medoff who also produced the Broadway play, and it ran according to IMDB 887 performances. The play won the Tony Award for 'Best Play' in 1980, and maybe the play managed to achieve the balance I feel lacked in the movie. I don't know. I've obviously not seen the play.
What I do know is this. I feel like they didn't manage to tell the story within, even with a Marlee performing at an Oscar winning level. And quite honestly a much deserved one indeed. Still they've got almost two hours runtime, but doesn't manage to capture the essence of the potential presented. It's still a movie worth your time, and after watching you might choose like me to use the movie as a platform to imagine the story on your own. It's sure got plenty of substance to reflect on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)