In Bruges

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: In Bruges
Year: 2008
Length: 107 minutes
Director: Martin McDonagh
Writer: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clémence Poésy
Music: Carter Burwell (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay; currently #185 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: two hitmen are on a forced vacation in Belgium
How I saw it: on video, twice (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I don’t know what I can say about this movie without being misleading. That synopsis above? No, no good, doesn’t give you any idea what to expect. Just watch it.
Objective Rating: 3.9/4 4.0/4 (Great).

Rebecca

Data
Title: Rebecca
Year: 1940
Length: 130 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Robert E. Sherwood & Joan Harrison, adapted by Philip MacDonald & Michael Hogan from the novel by Daphne Du Maurier
Starring: Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, George Sanders, Judith Anderson
Music: Franz Waxman
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture and Best Cinematography (black-and-white); Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Actress (Fontaine), Best Supporting Actress (Anderson), Best Score, Best Art Direction (black-and-white), Best Special Effects and Best Editing; currently #96 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a newlywed's household appears to be obsessed with her husband's dead wife
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. You can see a number of the major twists and turns coming a mile away, but it's still basically a good story.
Characters: Bad. Grow a f***ing spine, Mrs. de Winter.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It might have been great, but there are a few major faults. One is how frustrating it is to continually see the protagonist not doing anything about her problems. The bit that almost ruined the movie for me is the costume ball scene; it's extremely suspenseful, but for all the wrong reasons (you know exactly what's going to happen, it's horrible and awkward and you don't want it to happen, and you have to sit there just waiting for it...).
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Dumbo

Data
Title: Dumbo
Year: 1941
Length: 64 minutes
Director: Ben Sharpsteen
Writers: Joe Grant, Dick Huemer & Otto Englander, with Bill Peet, Joe Rinaldi, Vernon Stallings & Webb Smith, based on the book by Helen Aberson & Harold Pearl
Starring: Herman Bing, Edward Brophy, Cliff Edwards, Verna Felton, Sterling Holloway
Music: Frank Churchill & Ned Washington (songs); Frank Churchill & Oliver Wallace (score)
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Score (musical); Oscar nomination for Best Song ("Baby Mine")

My reaction
Synopsis: a circus elephant has humorously large ears
How I saw it: on video (have on VHS), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good. The plot could potentially have been very tedious, but this movie is a model of economical storytelling (without ever rushing anything).
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. The voice work isn't always great (although it often is), but the acting from the animators is excellent.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Delightful.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Doctor Who: Season Four

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete Fourth Series
Year: 2007-2008
Network: BBC
Episodes: 14: 9 at 45 minutes, 3 at 50 minutes, 1 at 72 minutes, 1 at 65 minutes
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Graeme Harper (5 episodes), James Strong (2), Douglas Mackinnon (2), Alice Troughton (2), Euros Lyn (2), Colin Teague (1)
Writers: Russell T. Davies (6 episodes), Helen Raynor (2), Steven Moffat (2), James Moran (1), Keith Temple (1), Stephen Greenhorn (1), Gareth Roberts (1); with characters by Robert Holmes, Terry Nation, Bob Baker and Dave Martin
Starring: David Tennant, Catherine Tate
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold

My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious alien travels through space and time with a human woman
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). The best season of Doctor Who, ever. Which is really saying something. Still, I'm expecting next season to be better.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).

Slumdog Millionaire

Data
Title: Slumdog Millionaire
Year: 2008
Length: 120 minutes
Directors: Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan
Writer: Simon Beaufoy, based on a novel by Vikas Swarup
Starring: Dev Patel, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Tanay Chheda, Freida Pinto, Rubina Ali, Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala, Madhur Mittal
Music: A.R. Rahman
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Directing (Boyle), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Score, Best Song ("Jai Ho"), Best Editing and Best Sound; Oscar nominations for Best Song ("Oh Saya") and Best Sound Editing; currently #86 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: an Indian boy from the slums is accused of cheating on a quiz show
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. I don't say it's good largely because I'm annoyed by the film's contradictory morality. The movie spends a lot of time getting us good and appalled over the way the poor are treated in India, the idea that people who have nothing are worthless, but in the end it ends up reinforcing that same philosophy by having fate bend over backwards to give a nice guy fabulous wealth. Basically, the lesson to be learned isn't that the lower classes are people; it's that the protagonist won his money because he's better than the lower classes.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad. I've never had a problem with hand-held cameras before, but this one gave me a headache - probably because it's the kind of movie where you're thinking about the story and not the camera.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Immediately after watching it I was thinking I'd give it either a 7 or 8 out of 10. But the more I think about it, the less I like it.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

Ocean's Eleven

Data
Title: Ocean's Eleven
Year: 2001
Length: 116 minutes
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writer: Ted Griffin, based on a screenplay by Harry Brown & Charles Lederer, story by George Clayton Johnson & Jack Golden Russell
Starring: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia, Julia Roberts
Music: David Holmes

My reaction
Synopsis: professional thieves rob a casino
How I saw it: on video (have on DVD), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. It was a good concept in the original, but they've removed all of the elements that made it interesting, that might have given this movie anything other than the cast to separate it from a million other Mission Impossible knock-offs.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent. Every one of these guys is a great actor. And they have nothing to work with.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Completely pointless exercise in getting as many famous people in the same movie as possible. It's kind of like North in that way, except this is watchable. There's no reason to watch it, but it's watchable.
Objective Rating: 2.0/4 (Indifferent).

Pinocchio

Data
Title: Pinocchio
Year: 1940
Length: 88 minutes
Directors: Hamilton Luske & Ben Sharpsteen
Writers: Ted Sears, Otto Englander, Webb Smith, William Cottrell, Joseph Sabo, Erdman Penner & Aurelius Battaglia; based on the story by Carlo Collodi
Starring: Cliff Edwards, Dickie Jones
Music: Leigh Harline, Ned Washington & Frank Churchill (songs); Paul J. Smith (score)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Score and Best Song ("When You Wish Upon a Star")

My reaction
Synopsis: a puppet comes to life and is given a cricket for a conscience
How I saw it: on video (have on VHS), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Indifferent. I wasn't quite bored, but it felt pretty slow.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Individual elements are great, but it looks like everything was assembled from different movies.  It gives the whole movie a disjointed feeling, as different scenes don't look and feel like they fit into the same story.
Acting: Bad. Edwards' Jimmy Stewart impression is great, but otherwise the acting is pretty much crap.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Not bad as far as Disney movies go. Apart from the music (the score in particular is really great), there's nowhere near the quality of craftsmanship that went into Snow White.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

Groundhog Day

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Groundhog Day
Year: 1993
Length: 101 minutes
Director: Harold Ramis
Writers: Danny Rubin & Harold Ramis, story by Rubin
Starring: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell
Music: George Fenton (and non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #160 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a man is stuck re-living the same day
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently (have on DVD) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good. The leads are pretty lame, but some of the smaller characters are great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Who doesn't love this movie?
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 3.2/4 (Very good).

Whistle

Data
Title: "Whistle"
Year: 2002
Length: 28 minutes
Director: Duncan Jones
Writer: Duncan Jones
Starring: Dominic Mafham
Music: non-original music

My reaction
Synopsis: a high-tech assassin moves his family to the mountains
How I saw it: on video (have on DVD (Moon bonus feature)), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Terrible. It's great music, but does not work in any way as a soundtrack
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible). What the hell. How does the same guy who made Moon make this piece of sh**? This is some of the worst directing I've ever seen.
Objective Rating: 1.1/4 (Bad).

Amadeus

Data
Title: Amadeus
Year: 1984
Length: 160 minutes
Director: Milos Forman
Writer: Peter Shaffer, based on his play
Starring: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge
Music: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; Neville Marriner (supervisor)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Abraham), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Best Sound; Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Hulce), Best Cinematography and Best Editing; currently #83 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a successful composer is mad with jealousy over Mozart
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. It's really hard for me to get past the fact that this comes across like a biopic when it's entirely fictional.
Characters: Good. The two they've got are quite good, but they could have done with a couple more.
Dialog: Bad. I guess it's impressive that Abraham can deliver this Snidely Whiplash stuff and still be taken seriously.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's entertaining, and it looks impressive, but there's not enough depth to sustain a three-hour movie.  And the whole misinforming-people-about-history thing is annoying.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

Moon

(Update of a previous post - original is here.  Underlined bits are new, the rest is copied/pasted)

Data
Title: Moon
Year: 2009
Length: 97 minutes
Director: Duncan Jones [aka Zowie Bowie]
Writer: Nathan Parker, story by Duncan Jones
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Music: Clint Mansell

My reaction
Synopsis: a man is stationed alone on the moon for three years
How I saw it: in the theater, September 2009; on video (have on DVD), yesterday
Concept: Great. My synopsis doesn’t really hint at the concept, but it would be a huge spoiler to say more.
Story: Great. Absolutely amazing writing. Avoids cliches and expectations like nobody’s business.
Characters: Great. HAL 9000 has nothing on “Gerty.”
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.  Strange, I wasn't all that impressed with the music the first time I saw it, but it is a great score.  Yesterday, as soon as the DVD menu came up, the music made me giddy with excitement to watch the movie.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). Besides being an amazing film, it’s also one of only about a dozen “science fiction movies” ever made that’s actually science fiction.  In the few months since I saw it, I'd forgotten just how great this movie is.  I can't figure why I only gave it a 9/10 before.
Objective Rating: 3.9/4 4.0/4 (Great).

The Blues Brothers

Data
Title: The Blues Brothers
Year: 1980
Length: 133 minutes
Director: John Landis
Writers: Dan Aykroyd & John Landis
Starring: John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd
Music: various artists (and non-original music), Ira Newborn (supervisor)

My reaction
Synopsis: ex-con musicians try to save an orphanage
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Indifferent. The plot is stupid, but the way it unfolds is brilliant.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. Some of the funniest dialog ever.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Great. James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, John Lee Hooker, Cab Calloway... and Belushi and Aykroyd still seem like good singers in that company.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I love the way this movie builds. It opens in silence, with several minutes of dirty shots of Joliet prison, starting at night with the light of dawn gradually glowing through the smog. It ends with the complete opposite tone: one of the most absurd, over-the-top, cartoonish car chases ever filmed. And in between, it builds, gradually enough that it feels as if big-budget silliness is just the natural outcome of that indie-film opening.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 3.3/4 (Very good).

Doctor Who: Season Three

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete Third Series
Year: 2006-2007
Network: BBC
Episodes: 12 at 45 minutes, 1 at 52 minutes, 1 at 60 minutes
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Charles Palmer (4 episodes), Richard Clark (2), James Strong (2), Graeme Harper (2), Colin Teague (2), Euros Lyn (1), Hettie MacDonald (1)
Writers: Russell T. Davies (6 episodes), Helen Raynor (2), Paul Cornell (2), Gareth Roberts (1), Stephen Greenhorn (1), Chris Chibnall (1), Steven Moffat (1); with characters by Terry Nation
Starring: David Tennant, Freema Agyeman
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold

My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious alien travels through space and time with a human medical student
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. There's really only one bad episode this whole season.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). I think if I were to make a top ten list of my favorite Doctor Who episodes, probably close to half of them would be from this season. This is where the series gets to the point where you can expect great drama (and humor, and horror) from just about every single episode. The plots don't always work if you think about them too much, and the finale is a mess, but it doesn't really matter while you're watching it.
Objective Rating: 3.5/4 (Very good) 3.6/4 (Great).

The Taming of the Shrew

Data
Title: The Taming of the Shrew
Year: 1967
Length: 122 minutes
Director: Franco Zeffirelli
Writers: Franco Zeffirelli, Suso Cecchi d'Amico & Paul Dehn, based on the play by William Shakespeare
Starring: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton
Music: Nino Rota
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Costume Design

My reaction
Synopsis: an unpleasant woman is forced to marry an unpleasant man
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Terrible. Sorry, Shakespeare, this play sucks.
Story: Terrible. Why does a Shakespeare film have three screenwriters? About half the movie is what they left in of the play; the rest is new stuff, which rarely makes sense and never adds anything.
Characters: Terrible. Again, the play sucks, and the characters are its worst aspect. But a good adaptation could have at least interpreted the characters intelligently.
Dialog: Bad. As far as I can figure, the whole point of the play is to make bawdy puns, which is crap. Here, the puns are sometimes replaced by direct rudeness.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Indifferent. Even Nino Rota lets me down...
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible).
Objective Rating: 1.1/4 (Bad).

A Serious Man

Data
Title: A Serious Man
Year: 2009
Length: 105 minutes
Directors: Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writers: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Aaron Wolff
Music: Carter Burwell (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay

My reaction
Synopsis: a man's life falls apart
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.  It's supposedly based on the book of Job.  I'm gonna go ahead and tell you, though, they don't quite get to the part of the book where God brags about how awesome crocodiles are.
Story: Indifferent. Lots of bad things happen to a nice guy, and that's pretty much the whole movie. It's original and well-written for what it is, but hardly compelling.
Characters: Great. What the heck is up with Richard Kind's character? The movie's worth seeing, if only to be baffled by him.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It could have used more humor. The protagonist is very sympathetic, and he's having a miserable time, so I suspect that kills a lot of the laughs.  I'd probably like it more if I watched it multiple times.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

Up in the Air

Data
Title: Up in the Air
Year: 2009
Length: 109 minutes
Director: Jason Reitman
Writers: Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner, based on the novel by Walter Kirn
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick
Music: Rolfe Kent (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Clooney), Best Supporting Actress (Farmiga) and Best Supporting Actress (Kendrick)

My reaction
Synopsis: a guy who fires people for a living lives out of a suitcase
How I saw it: in the theater, today
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. Several key plot points are frustratingly predictable.
Characters: Good. They felt full and real while I was watching it, but now that I think about it, they're not very believable after all.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Not best-performances-of-the-year great, but great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Well-directed and well-acted. It has a strong emotional weight, which is pretty impressive considering that it's almost impossible to sympathize with these characters.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

The Sign of Four

Data
Title: The Sign of Four
Year: 1987
Network: ITV
Length: 103 minutes
Creator: John Hawkesworth (developer)
Director: Peter Hammond
Writer: John Hawkesworth, based on the novel by Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Jeremy Brett, Edward Hardwicke
Music: Patrick Gowers

My reaction
Synopsis: Sherlock Holmes solves a mystery involving stolen treasure
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a few days ago
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. Very poorly adapted.
Characters: Bad. Apart from Holmes, there aren't really any characters - even Watson is reduced to to just sort of standing around.
Dialog: Terrible. Characters spend so much time telling their stories, you might as well just film someone reading the book.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Dull and poorly made - worse than the worst epidodes from the series that I've seen so far. I only got any enjoyment out of it because I like Brett's Holmes and Gowers' music.
Objective Rating: 2.0/4 (Indifferent).

Doctor Who: Season Two

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete Second Series
Year: 2005-2006
Network: BBC
Episodes: 13 at 45 minutes, 1 at 60 minutes
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Euros Lyn (4 episodes), Graeme Harper (4), James Hawes (3), James Strong (2), Dan Zeff (1)
Writers: Russell T. Davies (6 episodes), Tom MacRae (2), Matt Jones (2), Toby Whithouse (1), Steven Moffat (1), Mark Gatiss (1), Matthew Graham (1); with characters by Bob Baker, Dave Martin, Gerry Davis, Kit Pedler and Terry Nation
Starring: David Tennant, Billie Piper
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold

My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious alien travels through space and time with a human girl
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past couple weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Indifferent. A couple of episodes are great, but most of this season is just okay.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Easily the worst season so far. I have to admit that if I wasn't a fan and saw an episode from season two (other than one of the few great ones), I might wonder what the fuss was about. On the other hand, the first time I saw season two, the awesomeness of David Tennant was more than enough to make me love it.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 3.3/4 (Very good).

Inglourious Basterds

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Inglourious Basterds
Year: 2009
Length: 153 minutes
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, Daniel Brühl, Til Schweiger
Music: non-original music
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (Waltz); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Sound Editing; currently #68 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: "once upon a time in Nazi occupied France"
How I saw it: in the theater, August 2009; on video (have on DVD), a few days ago
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). One hell of a movie. Not my favorite Tarantino movie (I’m a big fan of Kill Bill), but certainly his best. The first time I saw it I said I didn't know what to make of it, except that it kicks ass. Still kicks ass. But it no longer seems to me like a genre-defying extravaganza; it's purely a Western, and a surprisingly subtle one.
Objective Rating: 4.0/4 4.1/4 (Great).

The Road

Data
Title: The Road
Year: 2009
Length: 111 minutes
Director: John Hillcoat
Writer: Joe Penhall, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Kodi Smit-McPhee
Music: Nick Cave & Warren Ellis

My reaction
Synopsis: a man and his son try to survive in a dead world
How I saw it: in the theater, a couple days ago
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The script is disappointing, considering what they were starting with. It's the Harry Potter 1 & 2 approach to adaptation: faithful to the plot points at the expense of just about everything else. It feels like The Road's greatest hits. It would have been much better if they'd taken just six or seven scenes and done them in depth; instead they've got tiny excerpts from what seems like every scene in the book.
Characters: Good. A basic understanding of character motivations are one of the notable aspects that didn't make the adaptation's cut.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.  There's nothing wrong with the acting, but I expected a lot more.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's really hard to tell what I would have thought about this movie if I hadn't read the book, much more so than usual for an adapted novel. It might be a great movie, but I can only see it in comparison with the book, and I does not stand up to the book.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

Rashomon

Data
Title: Rashômon
Year: 1950 (Japan), 1951 (US)
Length: 88 minutes
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Writers: Akira Kurosawa & Shinobu Hashimoto, based on stories by Ryunosuke Akutagawa
Starring: Toshirô Mifune, Machiko Kyô, Masayuki Mori, Takashi Shimura
Music: Fumio Hayasaka
Distinctions: honorary Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (1952); Oscar nomination for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white) (1953); currently #86 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: courtroom witnesses tell conflicting stories
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), today
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It demands to be watched multiple times, if you're the sort of person who wants to figure out What Really Happened (or at least decide what you'd like to think really happened), but I'm not sure I'd like to see it again any time soon. It's very interesting, and it has quite a few entertaining moments (like Mifune jumping around like a monkey), but sometimes it seems more like an academic exercise than a movie (although it's much better than most movies I might say that about).
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

awesome people part 6

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

Ian Holm
Evidence:
- Alien, 1979 (Ash)
- Time Bandits, 1982 (Napoleon)
- The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, 2001 (Bilbo Baggins)

Paul Thomas Anderson
Evidence:
- Magnolia, 1999 (director/writer)
- Punch-Drunk Love, 2002 (director/writer)

Erich Wolfgang Korngold
Evidence:
- Captain Blood, 1935 (composer)
- The Adventures of Robin Hood, 1938 (composer)

H. Jon Benjamin
Evidence:
- Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, 1995-1999 (Ben)
- Home Movies, 1999-2004 (co-writer/Coach John McGuirk/Jason Penopolis/Perry)

Spike Jonze
Evidence:
- Being John Malkovich, 1999 (director)
- Where the Wild Things Are, 2009 (director/co-writer)

Pole to Pole

Data
Title: Pole to Pole with Michael Palin
Year: 1992
Network: BBC
Episodes: 8, at 50 minutes
Directors: Roger Mills, Clem Vallance
Writers: Michael Palin
Starring: Michael Palin
Music: Paddy Kingsland

My reaction
Synopsis: Palin travels from North Pole to South Pole via Russia and Africa, by ground whenever possible
How I saw it: online (streaming from Netflix), over the past few days
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Although, that sort of thing is an insignificant part of the show.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). I had thought it wouldn't be as good as Around the World in 80 Days because he's not trying to beat a challenge. But traveling through the USSR and eastern Africa in 1991 is quite fascinating in a different sort of way: this time he's not racing against the clock - he's just trying to get through at all.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

District 9

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: District 9
Year: 2009
Length: 112 minutes
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Writers: Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell
Starring: Sharlto Copley
Music: Clinton Shorter
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Visual Effects and Best Editing; currently #102 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a million aliens stranded on Earth are kept in a South African slum
How I saw it: in the theater, August 2009; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Terrible. The character development doesn’t make a lot of sense; the main human character does a moral 180 in the space of about five minutes. And they go out of their way to establish just how alien these aliens’ culture is, but then the two alien characters we get to know are not at all alien, but instead have (Western) human cultural mores (and are the only such characters in the movie) and behave like Hollywood protagonists.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. The special effects are better than you might expect for this kind of movie, but I’m prejudiced against CGI (at least, when it looks like CGI).
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Strange - the first time I saw it, I thought it was a great, if flawed, movie. But now, I'm wondering what I saw in it. I had written that it was "lots of fun" and "entertaining throughout." Now, I find it boring; although it moves quickly, there isn't anything to get me invested in it - probably because I know that after the first five minutes, there aren't going to be any more interesting ideas to look forward to. I had also written that it was "very original" and that "you’ve never seen a movie like this before." I guess that's so, but apparently the novelty only stands up to one viewing. I have no doubt that I would like it even less if I were to see it again. And I wrote that "whether or not you think it’s good, it will probably get you thinking and talking about it afterward." This time around, it's got me thinking about how such a great idea for a movie, made without studio interference, manages to fail as spectacularly as it does.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).

Doctor Who: Season One

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete First Series
Year: 2005
Network: BBC
Episodes: 13, at 45 minutes
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Joe Ahearne (5 episodes), Keith Boak (3), Euros Lyn (2), James Hawes (2), Brian Grant (1)
Writers: Russell T. Davies (8 episodes), Steven Moffat (2), Mark Gatiss (1), Robert Shearman (1), Paul Cornell (1); with characters by Robert Holmes and Terry Nation
Starring: Christopher Eccleston, Billie Piper
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold

My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious alien travels through space and time with a human girl
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. There are a couple bad episodes, but most are great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. The special effects are pretty cheesy, but not bad for television.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). Eccleston's Doctor doesn't really compare with David Tennant's, and the individual episodes are rarely as good as the best ones from more recent years, but I love the over-arching story of this first season. They keep trying to top it by making things bigger, but it's never worked as well as the first time. Hopefully the new producers for the next season this spring will finally move on and stop with the constantly revisiting and repeating season one.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 3.4/4 (Very good).

Julie & Julia

Data
Title: Julie & Julia
Year: 2009
Length: 123 minutes
Director: Nora Ephron
Writer: Nora Ephron, based on books by Julie Powell and Julia Child & Alex Prud'homme
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina
Music: Alexandre Desplat (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Actress (Streep)

My reaction
Synopsis: Julia Child writes her cookbook, and decades later someone writes a blog about cooking from it
How I saw it: online (streaming from Amazon (we had a coupon - otherwise I wouldn't see any sense in getting a digital movie from Amazon)), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Terrible. There isn't one. Just a decade in the life of a likable person, interspersed with a year in the life of a very unlikable person.
Characters: Indifferent. The Childs - great. The Powells - terrible.
Dialog: Terrible. Some of the Julia Child stuff is great, but there's far too little of it compared with the overwhelmingly-badly written Julie Powell stuff.
Pacing: Indifferent. It's not that it's slow. It just seems slow because it's so bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Streep's Julia Child is entertaining, but not half as entertaining as the watching real thing. Tucci is also quite good. Adams, on the other hand, does nothing to make her unlikable character watchable (aside from frequently not wearing pants).
Music: Indifferent. Great soundtrack. Terrible score. Desplat seems to be a pretty good chameleon: for Fantastic Mr. Fox he became Morricone, and for this he became Alan Silvestri. So I blame the director, for wanting Alan Silvestri.
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible). I expected the Powell stuff to be mediocre and the Child stuff to be great. Instead, the Child stuff is mediocre (maybe 6/10 territory - nice characters but with no story worth telling), and the Powell stuff is horrendous. What they were thinking when they decided to make a movie out of Julie Powell - a self-centered, emotionally immature, self-declared bitch with no (portrayed) redeeming qualities, that doesn't do anything more interesting than use a popular cookbook - is completely baffling. And on top of that, it's not just a bad character with no story, but it's also some of the worst writing I have ever seen in a film.
Objective Rating: 1.7/4 (Eh).