awesome people part 2

Here are a few random people who happen to be awesome. I’m just saying.

Stanley Kubrick
Evidence:
- Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 1964 (director/co-writer)
- 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968 (director/co-writer)
- A Clockwork Orange, 1971 (director/writer)

John Ratzenberger
Evidence:
- Cheers, 1982-1993 (Cliff Claven)
- Every single Pixar feature, 1995-? (Hamm/P.T. Flea/The Abominable Snow Man/Fish School/Underminer/Mack/Mustafa/John/Construction Foreman Tom)

James Stewart
Evidence:
- It's a Wonderful Life, 1946 (George Bailey)
- Harvey, 1950 (Elwood P. Dowd)
- Anatomy of a Murder, 1959 (Paul Biegler)

Tim Curry
Evidence:
- The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975 (Dr. Frank-N-Furter)
- Legend, 1985 (Darkness)
- Clue, 1985 (Wadsworth)
- Muppets Treasure Island, 1996 (Long John Silver)

Truman Capote
Evidence:
- Breakfast at Tiffany's, 1961 (original novel)
- In Cold Blood, 1967 (original novel)

The Great Escape

#100!



Data
Title: The Great Escape
Year: 1963
Length: 172 minutes
Director: John Sturges
Writers: James Clavell & W.R. Burnett, based on the book by Paul Brickhill
Starring: Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, James Donald, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn, Hannes Messemer
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Editing; currently #100 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: WWII POWs plot a massive escape attempt to distract German resources
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The plot is great, but the details start to seriously fall apart at the end.  I had to look it up online to even see if the plan worked.
Characters: Indifferent. I had no investment in any of these people. Also, after looking online, it seems that the people on which the characters are based were actually pretty interesting. But in the movie we get "I like to ride bikes."
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Attenborough is great. Most of the other leads are just okay.
Music: Bad. "...this land belongs to you and me!" So. Very. Obnoxious.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Lots of potential, but a pretty boring movie.
Objective Rating: 6/10 2.5/4 (Okay).

Fraggle Rock: Season Two

Data
Title: Fraggle Rock: Season Two
Year: 1984
Network: CBC, HBO & ITV
Episodes: 24, at 25 minutes
Creator: Jim Henson
Directors: George Bloomfield (12 episodes), Eric Till (6), Jim Henson (3), Norman Campbell (2), Terry Maskell (1)
Writers: Jerry Juhl (6 episodes), Jocelyn Stevenson (5), Laura Phillips (3), B.P. Nichol (3), Sugith Varughese (3), David Young (3), Susan Juhl (2), John Pattison (1), Robert Sandler (1)
Starring: Dave Goelz, Jerry Nelson, Steve Whitmire, Kathryn Mullen, Karen Prell, Richard Hunt, Gerard Parkes
Music: Philip Balsam & Dennis Lee

My reaction
Synopsis: fun-loving, cave-dwelling creatures don’t understand their neighboring species
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past few weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Not as good as season one. There are a few bad episodes (the ones that focus on Doozers instead of Fraggles), and not as many that stand out as exceptional.  And there's very little progress made toward the over-arching plot of Everyone Learning to Get Along.  But it's still Fraggle Rock, and Fraggles are the sh**.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (Good) 3.3/4 3.4/4 (Very good).

awesome people part 1

We've been moving to a new apartment, which is why there haven't been a lot of posts lately. All our movies out from Netflix are long, epic things that we're too busy to watch. But here's a post anyway:

People Who Are Awesome.

Here are a few random people who happen to be awesome. I'm just saying.

Henry Fonda
Evidence:
- The Grapes of Wrath, 1940 (Tom Joad)
- The Ox-Bow Incident, 1943 (Gil Carter)
- Once Upon a Time in the West, 1968 (Frank)

Frank Oz
Evidence:
- Sesame Street, 1969-? (Bert/Grover/Cookie Monster)
- The Muppet Show, 1976-1980 (creative consultant/Fozzie/Ms. Piggy/Animal/Sam the Eagle)
- The Muppet Movie, 1979 (Fozzie etc.)
- The Dark Crystal, 1982 (co-director/Aughra/Chamberlain)
- The Muppets Take Manhattan, 1984 (director/co-writer/Fozzie etc.)

Quentin Tarantino
Evidence:
- Pulp Fiction, 1994 (director/writer)
- Kill Bill, 2003-2004 (director/writer)
- Inglorious Basterds, 2009 (director/writer)

Don Hertzfeldt
Evidence:
- "Billy's Balloon," 1998 (director/writer)
- "Rejected," 2000 (director/writer/voices)
- "The Meaning of Life," 2005 (director/writer/voices)
- "Everything Will Be Ok," 2006 (director/writer/Narrator)
- "I Am So Proud of You," 2008 (director/writer/Narrator)

Buster Keaton
Evidence:
- Sherlock Jr., 1924 (director/Sherlock Jr.)
- The General, 1927 (co-director/co-writer/Johnny Gray)

Where the Wild Things Are

Data
Title: Where the Wild Things Are
Year: 2009
Length: 101 minutes
Director: Spike Jonze
Writers: Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers, based on the book by Maurice Sendak
Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose
Music: Karen O., Carter Burwell

My reaction
Synopsis: a boy goes to an island of emotional monsters
How I saw it: in the theater, today
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. I hesitate to take points off here. The story is exactly what it should be. The movie's about characters, not about What's Going to Happen Next, and it does what it does perfectly.  It's interesting that, apparently, the younger you are, the more you'll like it.  Old people turned off by the idea a children's movie that you need to engage with?
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great. I keep reading that it's slow, even from people who like it. I don't know what movie they were watching.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Records gives one of the best performances I've seen in a long time.
Music: Great. Perfect fit for the movie, but the soundtrack also happens to be a future indie rock classic.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). Beautiful and intense. Really f***ing intense.
Objective Rating: 10/10 3.9/4 (Great).

The Hangover

Data
Title: The Hangover
Year: 2009
Length: 99 minutes
Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Jon Lucas & Scott Moore
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis
Music: Christophe Beck (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: formerly on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: three guys can't remember last night, and their best friend is missing
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good. It was already a good concept in Dude Where's My Car?, and it's pushed farther here.
Story: Indifferent. It's not a romantic comedy, but they still manage to rely heavily on romantic comedy cliches.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent. With the exception of Galifianakis' character and "Mr. Chow," it's never the performance that makes things funny.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Very funny. I don't think it would be so good a second time. Most of the humor comes from a series of really strange and unexpected things, which might not be funny anymore after you're expecting them and have an explanation for them.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.7/4 (Good).

Good Will Hunting

Data
Title: Good Will Hunting
Year: 1997
Length: 126 minutes
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writers: Matt Damon & Ben Affleck
Starring: Robin Williams, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Stellan Skarsgård, Minnie Driver
Music: Danny Elfman (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Williams); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Damon), Best Supporting Actress (Driver), Best Score, Best Song ("Miss Misery") and Best Editing; currently #226 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a math genius doesn't want to do anything
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. This script really is over-rated, isn't it? It's the Wait Those Guys Wrote A Movie That Doesn't Suck effect.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Great. Some very funny bits, and the dramatic stuff isn't too bad either.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). I guess I just don't care. There are a couple very good scenes, but much of the rest (and even some of the good bits) is hackneyed.
Objective Rating: 6/10 2.3/4 (Okay).

Let the Right One In

Data
Title: Låt den rätte komma in
Year: 2008
Length: 115 minutes
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Writer: John Ajvide Lindqvist, based on his novel
Starring: Kåre Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson
Music: Johan Söderqvist (and non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #220 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a 12-year-old boy's new friend is a vampire
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. I can imagine the pitch for this film sounding like a Saturday morning spin-off of Twilight.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. And I watched the infamous Bad Subtitles version...
Pacing: Indifferent. Kind of slow. Not quite boring, but long.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Most shots are out-of-focus close ups, which I guess creates a deliberate effect, but whatever.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Not "great for a movie staring a couple of adolescents," just great.
Music: Indifferent. Although, the sound effects are so good, you don't need good music.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Immediately after watching it, I thought I'd give it 6/10. But it's the kind of movie that sinks into your brain and won't leave you alone, and I find myself deciding between a 7 or an 8.
Objective Rating: 8/10 3/4 (Good).

Zombieland

Data
Title: Zombieland
Year: 2009
Length: 80 minutes
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Writers: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Music: David Sardy (but mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #143 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: everyone's a zombie: stay alive
How I saw it: in the theater, today
Concept: Indifferent. If it weren't for the good reviews, it never would have occurred to me that this might be something to deliberately watch.
Story: Indifferent. Yeah, story really is not the point.
Characters: Good. Almost an exercise in how to develop characters for an ADD audience.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great. Bonus points for the paintings in "BM"'s mansion.
Acting: Good. Harrelson is actually really great, which is pretty impressive considering how easy it would be for an actor to just phone in a movie like this.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Non-stop fun, pretty funny, and if you want to see zombie-killin', I doubt you could do any better.  There's something to be said for a comedy with a stunt crew almost seven times larger than the credited cast.
Objective Rating: 8/10 3.1/4 (Very good).

[eta: re-watched, 4/8/2012]

Changeling

Data
Title: Changeling
Year: 2008
Length: 141 minutes
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: J. Michael Straczynski
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan
Music: Clint Eastwood
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Actress (Jolie), Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction; currently #232 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the LAPD gives the mother of a missing child the wrong kid and insist it's the right one
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. The one time I'm not against "based on a true story" stories: when it's so bizarre and unbelievable that you would never buy it as fiction.
Story: Good. Great plot, but only so-so writing.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent. According to the IMDb's trivia, a number of lines are recycled from Babylon 5 (which was written by the same guy). That sounds about right.
Pacing: Terrible. Easily twice as long as it should be.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Looks nice, but unmemorable.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad. Not bad music (and let's give some credit to Eastwood - writing a mediocre film score is no small task), but bad for the movie.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Interesting story, and more emotionally resonant than most Eastwood-directed movies, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay) 2.2/4 (Okay).

My Man Godfrey

Data
Title: My Man Godfrey
Year: 1936
Length: 94 minutes
Director: Gregory La Cava
Writers: Morrie Ryskind & Eric Hatch, based on Hatch's novel
Starring: William Powell, Carole Lombard
Music: Charles Previn, Rudy Schrager
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor (Powell), Best Actress (Lombard), Best Supporting Actress (Alice Brady) and Best Supporting Actor (Mischa Auer); formerly on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a homeless man becomes the butler for an eccentric family
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. It's everything it needs to be, and there's a bit of nice social commentary, but we're not exactly dealing with compelling drama.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad. The creative work is fine, but the film and sound quality is terrible even by 1930's standards.
Acting: Good. Most everyone is funny, and Powell is pretty cool. Better acting than I've seen from more famous actors of the period.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Amusing.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good) 2.6/4 (Good).

The Red Shoes

Before going on to the top 100 of IMDb's Top 250, I'm jumping back down on The List to pick up a few titles that snuck on to the bottom after I'd passed it.



Data
Title: The Red Shoes
Year: 1948
Length: 133 minutes
Directors: Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
Writer: Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, with Keith Winter, based on the fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen
Starring: Marius Goring, Anton Walbrook, Moira Shearer
Music: Brian Easdale
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Score and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Story and Best Editing; formerly on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a young dancer and a young composer get their break together with a touring ballet company
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good. A movie about the ballet, with the fairy tale tone of a ballet.  The sort of straight-forward, romantic melodrama I expect from a movie inspired by ("based on" seems too strong) Hans Christian Andersen.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good. They're simple and one-dimensional, but in a way that works perfectly for what the movie's doing.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good. It probably doesn't need to be so long; the real plot doesn't get going until an hour and a half into the movie. But I was never bored.  And you've got to give them some credit for having the balls to put an entire performance of a ballet smack in the middle of a long movie. Risky move, but it works. Strangely, it reminds me of Rififi.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good. They put all of their efforts with the visuals into a handful of key scenes, which are amazingly good. But other scenes are just okay. For instance, at one point a cloud of dry ice is supposed to represent a train passing by.
Acting: Great. I'm stretching this category to "performances" with this movie.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). I didn't love it, but I have to wonder what's wrong with the world that I'd never even heard of it until a few days ago.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.3/4 (Very good).

housekeeping post: objective ratings

As you probably know if you're reading this, I give every movie I see two scores, a "subjective rating" and an "objective rating." I've never been happy with my system for calculating my "objective ratings," so I'm changing it. This is detailed, and is probably just going to confuse people, but it's what works for me. If you don't care about the details, you can skip to the summary at the end or this post.

The old system was one possible point for each of the following which is particularly good:
(1) concept
(2) story
(3) characters
(4) dialog
(5) pacing
(6) cinematography
(7) special effects/design
(8) acting
(9) music
(10) subjective rating
It was purely binary (either point or no point). This meant that I was giving terrible scores to mediocre movies (because if they were mediocre across all aspects, they got no points), and mediocre scores to some terrible movies (if they had a few token good points, but were terrible in most regards). And it didn't end up meaning much to me.

Now, for the last couple weeks, I've changed my posting format, and have been looking at each of these points a little closer and giving them a sort of rating, from a truncated version of my "subjective rating" scale. The subjective scale is as follows:
10/10 = favorite of my favorites
9/10 = one of my favorites
8/10 = great
7/10 = good
6/10 = okay
5/10 = indifferent
4/10 = eh
3/10 = bad
2/10 = terrible
1/10 = eew get it away!
The "favorites" bits at the top didn't make sense when talking about some specific technical aspect of a film, so I ignored the ends of the scale and just used 2 through 8. Which is just as well, because a ten-point scale seems too fiddly for this purpose, but seven is manageable. In fact, I think I may cut out "eh" and "okay" in future posts, and just have five options: Great, Good, Indifferent, Bad and Terrible. Less fiddly yet, but still plenty of wiggling room.

I figure, as long as I'm giving these aspects individual scores, why not use that to create better objective ratings?

My new system: Each of the ten aspects listed above gets a score on the five-point scale, which is averaged to get the objective rating. But the objective rating is out of 10, and I want to keep it that way (ratings out of ten are just nicer...). So the five-point scale is assigned corresponding numbers on a ten-point scale:
10 = Great
8 = Good
5 = Indifferent
2 = Bad
0 = Terrible
The ten scores are averaged, and rounded to the nearest whole number. Notice that this means a movie with, say, a 7/10 subjective rating ("Good") will be assigned an 8 ("Good") in the "subjective rating" aspect for purposes of calculating the objective rating. Confused yet?

To sum up, The Short Version:

My "Subjective Rating" system is unchanged. It's just how much I enjoyed the movie, using the following scale:
10/10 = Favorite of my favorites
9/10 = One of my favorites
8/10 = Great
7/10 = Good
6/10 = Okay
5/10 = Indifferent
4/10 = Eh
3/10 = Bad
2/10 = Terrible
1/10 = Eew get it away!

Objective ratings are now calculated by averaging a score for the each of the following aspects:
- concept
- story
- characters
- dialog
- pacing
- cinematography
- special effects/design
- acting
- music
- subjective rating
resulting in a rating out of ten on the following scale:
10/10 = Great
9/10 = Very good
8/10 = Good
7/10 = Pretty good
6/10 = Okay
5/10 = Indifferent
4/10 = Eh
3/10 = Pretty bad
2/10 = Bad
1/10 = Very bad
0/10 = Terrible

Touch of Evil

Data
Title: Touch of Evil
Year: 1958
Length: 112 minutes [1998 "director's" cut]
Director: Orson Welles
Writer: Orson Welles, based on a novel by Whit Masterson
Starring: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles
Music: Henry Mancini
Distinctions: currently #101 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a Mexican cop stalked by a crime family gets involved in a US border town's investigation of a car bombing
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. I don't care for the plot, personally, although it's well written and engaging.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Very well made. As classic noir crime thrillers go, it's certainly one of the best.
Objective Rating: 9/10 3.4/4 (Very good).

I'm trying something new with my "objective rating," a sort of averaging. An explanatory post will follow.

Galactica 1980

Data
Title: Galactica 1980
Year: 1980
Network: ABC
Episodes: 10, at c. 48 minutes
Creator: Glen A. Larson
Directors: Sidney Hayers (3 episodes), Sigmund Neufeld Jr. (2), Barry Crane (2), Vince Edwards (1), Daniel Haller (1), Ron Satlof (1)
Writers: Glen A. Larson (9 episodes), Frank Lupo (1), Jeff Freilich (1), Robert McCullough (1)
Starring: Lorne Greene, Kent McCord, Barry Van Dyke, Robyn Douglass
Music: Stu Phillips, John Andrew Tartaglia

My reaction
Synopsis: It's retooled every few episodes, but usually involves two guys from the Battlestar Galactica hanging out on Earth
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), over the past couple weeks
Concept: Eh. Basically, postponing the death of a bad show by making it worse.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Terrible. From the modern professional woman who exists to look after children and do what the men tell her, to the experienced fleet commander who can't think or make a decision without consulting an adolescent boy...
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Eh.
Acting: Eh. To be fair, the actors don't have much to work with.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). It's the kind of bad you can have a few good laughs watching, if you like that kind of thing.
Objective Rating: 0/10 1.2/4 (Bad).

Creature Comforts: Season One

Data
Title: Creature Comforts: Season One
Year: 2003
Network: ITV
Episodes: 13, at 10 minutes
Creator: Nick Park
Director: Richard Goleszowski
Writer: n/a
Starring: "The Great British Public"
Music: Rory McLeod

My reaction
Synopsis: recordings of interviews with ordinary people, animated as animals
How I saw it: on video a few times (have on DVD), most recently over the past couple days
Concept: Great.
Story: n/a
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Forced to not do anything interesting by the nature of the show.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great. The voices aren't acting of course, but the animators are.
Music: Eh.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Hilarious, in a unique, quiet sort of way.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (points off for story, cinematography and music) 3.4/4 (Very good)

Fraggle Rock: Season One

Data
Title: Fraggle Rock: Season One
Year: 1983
Network: CBC, HBO & ITV
Episodes: 24, at 25 minutes
Creator: Jim Henson
Directors: Jim Henson (7 episodes), George Bloomfield (7), Perry Rosemond (5), Norman Campbell (1), Peter Harris (1), Stephen Katz (1), Doug Williams (1), Martin Lavut (1)
Writers: Jerry Juhl (9 episodes), Jocelyn Stevenson (7), David Young (3), Carol Bolt (1), David Brandes (1), B.P. Nichol (1), Susan Juhl (1), Sugith Varughese (1), Laura Phillips (1)
Starring: Dave Goelz, Jerry Nelson, Steve Whitmire, Kathryn Mullen, Karen Prell, Richard Hunt, Gerard Parkes
Music: Philip Balsam & Dennis Lee

My reaction
Synopsis: fun-loving, cave-dwelling creatures don't understand their neighboring species
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past couple weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Eh.
Special effects/design: Okay. Great design, so-so special effects.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). It fills me with joy just to look at a fraggle.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (1 point off for cinematography) 3.4/4 3.5/4 (Very good).

Sin City

Data
Title: Sin City
Year: 2005
Length: 124 minutes
Directors: Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, with Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Frank Miller
Starring: Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Carla Gugino, Jaime King, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood
Music: John Debney, Graeme Revell, Robert Rodriguez
Distinctions: currently #102 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: several loosely-related crime stories set in a corrupt city
How I saw it: in the theater, 2005; on video several times (used to have on DVD), most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Okay. The individual stories are good, but there's no good reason to put them together.
Characters: Good. Most are cliches, but in that archetype sort of way that works for noir.
Dialog: Bad. Presumably it's intentionally bad.
Pacing: Eh. It moves too fast, and is simultaneously too long.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great. The visuals are good enough to make up for all of the movie's faults, and then some.
Acting: Bad. Intentionally bad, I think. Then again, the few great actors in the movie (Rourke, Owen) aren't nearly as bad as everyone else, so maybe it's not intentional. Either way, it's the sort of bad acting that helps create atmosphere.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It used to be one of my favorites. After a number of viewings, once the shock of how cool the visuals are wears off, it looses a lot. Still a very interesting movie, though.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (points off for dialog, pacing and acting) 2.8/4 (Good).