Change Your Image
gwood194
Reviews
The Twilight Zone (2019)
What are they thinking?
I wanted to like it too. After all, the original was simply great. But...this one stinks! And I'm sorry but Jordan Peele is not now nor will he ever be anywhere close to Rod Serling. I mean, Frorrest Whitaker did a better job and he was bad too. And it's been renewed for a second season???
Interstellar (2014)
Less that the sum of its parts
After all the hype I finally got a chance to see Interstellar. After its nearly three hours I had to sit in silence for a while as the emotion swept over me and I realized that I was...underwhelmed. The movie is stunning, lavish, and, after all, it deals with the ultimate salvation of mankind. But it left me feeling empty - like when you were a kid and you really, really, really wanted a bicycle for Christmas and you got up on Christmas morning to find, not a bicycle, but something else. Maybe the something else was just as good as (or maybe even better than) a bicycle - but wasn't a bicycle. I guess my point is that it was less than I expected. Maybe, after all the hype, NOTHING could have lived up to my expectations.
But as I said - it was lavish, stunning, and a good story rather well told. What I have to ask myself is what my reaction might have been if I had gone into it cold - with no expectations. Maybe it had doomed itself to failure?
Winter's Tale (2014)
Give it a chance!
I've read the book twice and got much more out of it the second time. I'll read it again and I expect I'll get even more out of it. It is an amazingly complex book. The first section is as good as anything I've ever read - then comes the introduction of all the rest of the characters and, while still good, requires a bit of work to keep up with.
Now...about the movie. Making a movie from a book (or short story) usually involves unweaving its tapestry and reweaving it into something that will work on the screen. Occasionally the screenplay will follow the book to the letter. (Of Mice and Men and To Kill A Mockingbird come immediately to mind.) Usually, though, even a great book requires some effort to get it to work on the screen.
This screenplay gets rid of a lot of characters that appear in the book - and thus makes it much easier to follow. The biggest change is in the ending. I have to confess that the ending of the book left me feeling a bit cheated - but the movie fixes that.
The cast was stellar - I became Peter Lake and fell in love with Beverly. The only complaint I have is Will Smith - his character was totally unnecessary and it gave me the impression that someone owed him a favor.
Whether you like this movie or not is your own judgement call - after all, it's not 1984! I think that having read the book made the movie easier to follow but I think it could stand alone - if you want to pay attention.
The taste of the public is a fickle thing. It's OK if you don't "get it" - you don't have to. I'm just glad that it came out so I could see it.
BloodRayne (2005)
Uwe Boll strikes again.
OK, I'm giving this 5 stars because I'd walk over broken glass for Kristanna Loken! She does a pretty good job considering what she has to work with - but, like I said, just being there is enough. Matthew Davis and Will Sanderson turn in credible performances - again, considering what they have to work with. Michael Madsen acts like he just stopped by to pick up his check and discovered that they wanted him to recite some lines. Ben Kingsley - what can I say. I know he got an Oscar for Ghandi but ever since he's been trying very hard to make us think that was a mistake. Michelle Rodriguez - well she does tough-chick-with-an-attitude-trying-to-be-hot pretty well (it got her through "Lost") - I wonder if she can do anything else?? The plot is reasonable and flows pretty well and the photography is good (although we do seem to have an excess of mountain range scenery). The gore? Well, it's actually pretty funny. It's so over the top that it reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Normally a film like this would prompt me to say "There's an hour and a half I'll never see again!" and give it one star while wishing I could give it zero. But, as I said - it has Kristanna Loken.
Just as an aside - Uwe Boll actually did a movie that I think is pretty good - "The Final Storm".
Prometheus (2012)
Did I see the same movie?
I read all the reviews panning this movie and I have to wonder if I saw the same movie as these folks. "Prometheus" isn't a perfect movie but I found it entertaining. Is it scientifically accurate? Not in the universe I live in right now - we don't have space travel or any of the stuff that's integral to the plot. This is, after all, fiction and the thing about fiction is that it requires a suspension of disbelief (some more than others). That's why we don't cringe when Alice chases after a talking rabbit or Bilbo runs into trolls who turn to stone when sunlight hits them. If all we do is compare movies to the world we live in right now we're bound for disappointment. But...if we just sit back and enjoy the ride it can be great fun.
Man of La Mancha (1972)
Why it doesn't work!
First of all, let me say that I believe firmly that a work of art should be judged on its own merits and not in comparison to its source. If we look at "Man of La Mancha" on its own it isn't bad - perhaps a little flat but not bad. The real problem is that the source (Cervantes' "Don Quixote") is simply too big to be able to confine it to the stage or screen. The subtle nuances that Cervantes gave us work beautifully when read - so that our minds can savor them. Humor is a fragile thing and that which is beautiful when written may all too often become slapstick on the stage or screen.
The difficulty in adapting "Don Quixote" to the screen is obvious - Orson Wells couldn't do it - Terry Gilliam couldn't do it. There is a TV movie with John Litgow and Bob Hoskins which is a credible effort - mostly because it doesn't try too hard.
And maybe that's the problem - maybe "Man of La Mancha" tries too hard.
Never Let Me Go (2010)
It won't let me go...
Once in a while a film comes along that just stays in your mind for a long time. This is one of those and it does so for several reasons - it is a beautifully made film that just doesn't skip a beat - but, more importantly, it explores issues that are uncomfortable for us. Just as "Brokeback Mountain" tenderly explored issues we'd prefer to keep in the back of our minds, so "Never Let Me Go" explores the issue of cloning. More specifically, it explores the issue of creating clones to be used as organ donors. This has been explored before in "The Island" but that didn't touch my heart as this one did. ("Coma" also looked at the organ donation issue - but from a different angle.) The folks who work in bioethics and theology have batted around the issue of "ensoulment" - when does a human get his soul - and, of course they have no answer. Late in this movie, Kathy and Tommy are told that the contests they had in school weren't to see what kind of soul they had but whether they had one (a soul) at all. And therein lies the question - if we determine that clones don't have souls, is it OK to "farm" them in this manner? The thing that's most disturbing about this film is that it could - and probably will - happen. All the flap about stem cell research slowed things down a bit but we may be sure that this sort of thing is being planned even as I write this. If there is a way to make a dollar, big business will have its way.
Don't misunderstand, I'm as interested as anyone in prolonging our lives. But...just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should.
Well, this turned out to be more social commentary than review - but maybe that's what the film is about - and maybe what makes me think it's great.
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
It just works...
The western is an interesting genre. It can work either as plot driven or character driven. If we look at the 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma, we can see an excellent example of a plot driven western - the characters are little more than stick figures moving around within the plot - Ben Wade and Dan Evans never really come to life. While the 2007 film retains and even expands the plot, it is the character development of these two that makes this movie great. Russell Crowe's Ben Wade is as complex a character as we're likely to find and Christian Bale's Dan Evans only slightly less so. Others have complained that it drags - and it is 30 minutes longer - but those parts that "drag" are part of the character development. Of course, individually, we like what we like and those unable to follow what these two actors are doing should look elsewhere.
Just a word about "based on a short story by Elmore Leonard". The Elmore Leonard story is about 15 pages and plants only a seed of plot for the movie. That this movie could arise from that seed is masterful writing. It reminds me of "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" which is based on a 39 page short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Again, Fitzgerald's story only plants a seed for what develops into a great story. (And Fitzgerald's short story isn't even one of his better efforts.) For me, movies fall into three categories - those I can't make it through the first time, those I can watch once and enjoy, and those that I can watch again and again, picking up something new each time. This is one of those in that last category.
Tuck Everlasting (2002)
True to the original?
One of the big questions that always comes up when a book is made into a movie is whether the movie is true to the book. There are, basically, two approaches - one is that the movie must be true to its source and the second is that the book is only an inspiration for the movie. In "Tuck Everlasting" we can see both approaches. The 1981 movie is the book - almost word for word. That might have worked well if the movie had been a bit better done - it suffers from low budget and unknown actors. The 2002 Disney version, however, is merely "based on the book". Does it work? The answer is an unqualified yes. When Disney pulls all the stops, they can do wonderful work and that's what they did here. The casting isn't what we'd expect from reading the book - Angus and Mae Tuck are much leaner and Winnie is a bit older. If you look beyond the book, William Hurt and Sissy Spacek are just right for their roles. And making Winnie a bit older allows a smoldering chemistry between she and Jesse that isn't there in the book. And the music is simply magical.
Sadly, the 1981 version only came out on VHS and is long since out of print. If you can find one it's worth a look but I would find the Disney "adaption" wonderful with or without the book. I've given it a 10 but I'd give it more if I could - it's that good.
Watch it with an open mind and an open heart and you'll see what I mean.