The Karate Kid

Data
Title: The Karate Kid
Year: 1984
Length: 126 minutes
Director: John G. Avildsen
Writer: Robert Mark Kamen
Starring: Ralph Macchio, Pat Morita, Elisabeth Shue
Music: Bill Conti (but mostly popular music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (Morita)

My reaction
Synopsis: a kid learns karate to defend himself against his new school's gang of tall, blonde guys
How I saw it: on video (have on DVD), two days ago; a bunch of times as a kid
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Terrible.  Morita manages to make Mr. Miyagi seem pretty awesome, but don't be fooled, he's just an Asian stereotype with a muddled back story.
Dialog: Indifferent. Some of the Miyagi scenes are pretty good, but otherwise these people say some pretty absurd things.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good. The leads manage to make this dialog feel almost natural, so that's something.
Music: Terrible.  One of the worst soundtracks ever.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's very lame, and I laugh at it just as much as I enjoy it the way it was meant to be enjoyed. But still, it's a lot of fun. Plus there's the added bonus that about half of the significant characters get their asses kicked at some point.
Objective Rating: 2.0/4 (Indifferent).

Rocky

(update of a previous post - the original is here)



Data
Title: Rocky
Year: 1976
Length: 119 minutes
Director: John G. Avildsen
Writer: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers, Burgess Meredith
Music: Bill Conti
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor (Stallone), Best Actress (Shire), Best Supporting Actor (Young), Best Supporting Actor (Meredith), Best Song (“Gonna Fly Now”) and Best Sound; currently #208 on IMDb’s Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: the heavyweight champion gives a local Philadelphia boxer a chance to fight him
How I saw it: on video twice, most recently (have on DVD) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Damn good movie. It's not about boxing; that’s more like the setting. Rocky and Adrian, especially Adrian, are the kind of characters that you hardly ever see movies about, at least not in a romantic story, which is a shame because it's so pleasant to watch them.
Objective Rating: 3.7/4 3.8/4 (Great).

Raging Bull

Data
Title: Raging Bull
Year: 1980
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writers: Paul Schrader & Mardik Martin, with Joseph Carter & Peter Savage; based on the book by Jake LaMotta
Starring: Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty, Joe Pesci
Music: non-original music (I guess? I had thought there was a score, but there's no credit on the IMDb)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Actor (De Niro) and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Moriarty), Best Supporting Actor (Pesci), Best Cinematography and Best Sound [wait, seriously, Best Sound?]; currently #72 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: a boxer is an abusive jackass
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. I don't see any aspect of this story that could potentially make a watchable movie. Still, if you don't know any details of the "plot" and just read the synopsis, it sounds promising.
Story: Terrible. He's a jackass, then he does some boxing, then he's a jackass some more, wash, rinse, repeat. Oh, except that in the second half of the movie there's no more boxing.
Characters: Terrible. I have no idea why this guy is the jackass he is; he just starts that way and keeps going without change or break though the whole movie. I have even less idea why Scorsese thinks we should care about his life.
Dialog: Good. I could do without the improvisational techniques (aka repeating short phrases, with slightly different inflection).
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Bad. The design is good. The make-up is great (although it ends up being very distracting, since De Niro is unmistakably De Niro no matter what his face looks like). But I've got to take points off for some of the most horrendously awful sound mixing I've ever heard (or perhaps I should say didn't hear).
Acting: Good. It's a reluctant "good." I just don't get the whole Robert De Niro thing. It feels like all his characters since Taxi Driver are played by Travis Bickle on downers.
Music: Indifferent. There's some great music in there, but its lost in the audio chaos.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). It has some redeeming values, a handful of nice scenes. 90% of the movie is just tedious, though.
Objective Rating: 1.6/4 (Eh).

The Crazies

Data
Title: The Crazies
Year: 2010
Length: 101 minutes
Director: Breck Eisner
Writers: Scott Kosar & Ray Wright; based on the film by George A. Romero
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson
Music: Mark Isham (and non-original music)

My reaction
Synopsis: residents of a small town turn into psychotic killers/pseudo-zombies
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. Lots of plot holes, and generally bad writing. I don't give it a "terrible" just because this kind of movie doesn't need a good story.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Good. The second half of the movie slows down a lot, but it's never boring.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). The first act is actually pretty good. It's purely a horror movie at that point, and although I haven't seen enough serious horror movies to have a good basis of comparison, my wife and I thought it was pretty scary. And it gets its scares though suspense, not cringe-inducing violence (which would have been an easy way to go with the scenario). But then it turns into an action movie, and everything kind of falls apart. It becomes predictable, and although it's still directed as if it's a horror movie (lots of sudden loud noises and people jumping out of corners), it's not and it's just not scary anymore. The protagonists have suddenly become action heroes, with all the understood invulnerability that comes with that. The really good thing about this movie is when it gets bad, it gets really bad, and you can get some laughs at its expense. Luckily we happened to be the only two in the theater, so we could heckle all we liked - otherwise, it might have been pretty painful to sit through.
Objective Rating: 1.2/4 (Bad).

no movie tonight

I feel the need to complain about this.

We happened to be in the nearest city big enough to have shopping centers today, and I thought, "Hey, why don't we check out the big shiny multiplex and see a bad movie."  I knew there wasn't anything good playing, but I figured it might be fun to see one of the million lame action movies that always seem to be playing but I never pay attention to, or something like that.

The theater has ten screens.  One screen is Alice in Wonderland in 3D.  Okay, seeing a bad movie is one thing, but paying extra to have it stab me in the eyeballs is a bit much.  Three screens are 2nd-run movies at full price (Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel, The Blindside and Avatar).  Two screens are chick-flick romances (Remember Me and Valentines Day).  Two screens are How to Train Your Dragon (no thanks, just watching the previews makes me feel a little embarrassed for Dreamworks).  Then there's Percy Jackson and the Long Title and Diary of a Wimpy Kid.  Okay, that last one might be an okay movie, but I was too annoyed to really consider it.  I mean, what the hell kind of multiplex doesn't have a single movie (except for one that's been out for three months) that an adult male would possibly want to see?  What the hell?  What the hell is going on here?

The Powerpuff Girls: Season Three

Data
Title: The Powerpuff Girls: Season Three
Year: 2000-2001
Network: Cartoon Network
Episodes: 13, at c. 22 minutes each
Creator: Craig McCracken
Directors: Craig McCracken (13 episodes), John McIntyre (9), Randy Myers (6), Genndy Tartakovsky (4), Robert Alvarez (4)
Writers: Chris Reccardi (3 episodes), Kevin Kaliher (3), Cindy Morrow (3), Chris Savino (3), Lauren Faust (3), Dave Smith (2), Lynne Naylor (2), Don Shank (2), Clay Morrow (2), Charlie Bean (1), Paul Rudish (1), Steve Fonti (1), Mike Stern (1), Genndy Tartakovsky (1), Craig McCracken (1)
Starring: Cathy Cavadini, Tara Strong, Elizabeth Daily, Tom Kenny, Tom Kane
Music: James L. Venable (theme song)

My reaction
Synopsis: three little girls are superheros
How I saw it: on TV, years ago; on video (rented from Netflix), over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). There are a couple episodes that are bad, but most are great and a couple are among the best of the series. The production values are still low, but they're trying harder; the show's timing and design are leaning in a much more Samurai Jack-ish direction than I remember from the first two seasons.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

awesome people part 8

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

Marlon Brando
Evidence:
- A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951 (Stanley Kowalski)
- On the Waterfront, 1954 (Terry Malloy)
- The Godfather, 1972 (Vito Corleone)

Sterling Holloway
Evidence:
- Dubmo, 1941 (Mr. Stork)
- Alice in Wonderland, 1951 (Cheshire Cat)
- The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, 1977 (Winnie the Pooh)

David S. Goyer
Evidence:
- Dark City, 1998 (co-writer)
- Batman Begins, 2005 (co-writer)

Jim Henson
Evidence:
- Jim F***ing Henson

Sylvester Stallone
Evidence:
- Rocky, 1976 (writer, Rocky Balboa)
- Rocky II, 1979 (director, writer, Rocky Balboa)
- First Blood, 1982 (co-writer, John Rambo)

The Prestige

Data
Title: The Prestige
Year: 2006
Length: 130 minutes
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan; based on the novel by Christopher Priest
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie
Music: David Julyan
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction; currently #73 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a stage magician rivalry ends in murder
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Completely engrossing - even more so after you know the ending.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

2001: A Space Odyssey

#75!



Data
Title: 2001: A Space Odyssey
Year: 1968
Length: 141 minutes
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke
Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain
Music: classical music
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Visual Effects; Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; currently #75 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: there are mysterious space rectangles, being all mysterious
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great. I am a sucker for classic sci-fi.
Story: Bad. It should be a sign, when they interrupt the main story with an hour-long Completely Different Story and the audience couldn't care less, that maybe the story is lacking something. It doesn't help that absolutely nothing (of the main story) is resolved or explained at any point. The HAL part is great, though.
Characters: Good. HAL is the only real character in the movie, but he's good enough to make up for everyone else.
Dialog: Good. What's there is great. And, in general, the long absences of dialog are great, too. But not having any dialog during Mind-F*** Theater (aka the last 20 minutes of the movie) is extremely frustrating.
Pacing: Bad. I can totally get behind how slow this movie is. It's a beautiful kind of slowness. For about 20 minutes. Then I start wanting to throw things at the screen.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's very flawed, but what's good is too good to say it's anything less than a great movie.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

Die Hard 2

Data
Title: Die Hard 2
Year: 1990
Length: 124 minutes
Director: Renny Harlin
Writers: Steven E. de Souza & Doug Richardson; based on a novel by Walter Wager
Starring: Bruce Willis, William Sadler, Dennis Franz
Music: Michael Kamen

My reaction
Synopsis: terrorists take control of airport traffic, and no one will listen to John McClane
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Terrible. A contender for Worst Dialog Ever.
Pacing: Terrible. It's not that it moves slowly - it's just that it's such crap that I was bored silly.
Cinematography: Terrible. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever actually given a "terrible" for cinematography before. I also didn't know that it was possible for lighting to be bad enough to get a laugh.
Special effects/design: Terrible. It's a freakin' action movie, people - this is really the only thing you needed to get right. Come on!
Acting: Bad.
Music: Indifferent. Most of the score is good, but the Christmas songs take it down a notch.
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible). You can have a few laughs at its expense, but that's about all it's good for. I watched two movies last night: this, and A Queen Is Crowned - two hours of tedious ceremony, parading, and PBS fund drives. A Queen was by far the more entertaining.
Objective Rating: 0.4/4 (Terrible).

A Queen Is Crowned

Data
Title: A Queen Is Crowned
Year: 1953
Length: 79 minutes
Writer: Christopher Fry
Starring: Laurence Olivier
Music: Guy Warrack; Malcolm Sargent (advisor)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature

My reaction
Synopsis: the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, with a patriotic voice-over
How I saw it: on TV, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: n/a
Characters: n/a
Dialog: Bad. The narration is corny and frustratingly uninformative. A 21st-century American is very much not the intended audience.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: n/a
Acting: Bad.  Olivier likes to shout, to let you know he really means it.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). It's a fascinating historical document, but not much of a movie.
Objective Rating: 1.7/4 (Eh).

Anchorman

Data
Title: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Year: 2004
Length: 98 minutes
Director: Adam McKay
Writers: Will Ferrell & Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, David Koechner
Music: Alex Wurman (mostly non-original music)

My reaction
Synopsis: a woman joins a 1970s local news team
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently (have on DVD) yesterday
Concept: Terrible.
Story: Terrible. But they don't pretend it isn't.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Hilarious. On a lot of levels, it's a terrible movie. It's the sort of thing you either love or hate.
Objective Rating: 2.0/4 (Indifferent).

Singin' in the Rain

Data
Title: Singin' in the Rain
Year: 1952
Length: 103 minutes
Directors: Gene Kelly & Stanley Donen
Writers: Adolph Green & Betty Comden
Starring: Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, Debbie Reynolds, Jean Hagen
Music: Nacio Herb Brown & Arthur Freed (most of the songs); Lennie Hayton (musical director)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Hagen) and Best Score (musical); currently #76 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: a pair of silent movie stars make the transition to talkies
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. The old musical about people making a musical shtick.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. It looks like they just filmed on whatever MGM sets didn't happen to be in use on that day. [edit: Also, make-up fail.]
Acting: Good. Well, the acting is pretty mediocre, but the performances are otherwise great.
Music: Great. The arrangements are way too heavy, but it's still great music.  Wikipedia tells me it's a sort of showcase of the best songs from Brown's and Freed's careers.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). My wife and I had been dreading watching this movie. Turns out it's one of the best movies from the 1950s that we've seen. They don't take it for granted that singing and dancing is entertaining in itself. It's funny, and the dancing is delightful and impressive, incorporating a lot of Vaudeville-style gags. All that's missing is the Muppets. I guess I should give Hollywood musicals a chance, and stop judging them based on stage musicals and bad Disney movies.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).




[edit: re-watched, 7/31/2012]

Life Is Beautiful

Data
Title: La vita è bella
Year: 1997 (Italy), 1998 (US)
Length: 116 minutes
Director: Roberto Benigni
Writers: Vincenzo Cerami & Roberto Benigni
Starring: Roberto Benigni, Nicoletta Braschi, Giorgio Cantarini
Music: Nicola Piovani (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film, Best Actor (Benigni) and Best Score (dramatic) (1999); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Editing (1999); currently #77 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a boy's father convinces him that a Nazi concentration camp is an elaborate game
How I saw it: in the theater, 1999; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great. It's chock full of sappy tropes, but the story's good enough to make up for them. Even the first half of the movie, which in context is basically just character introductions, is good enough that it could have made a great movie on its own.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. You would never mistake it for a big budget Hollywood film, but it does what it needs to.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). I had forgotten how good this movie is; if you haven't seen it since the 90s like I hadn't, do yourself a favor and remind yourself. Apparently a comedy about the holocaust can be funny after all.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

Rocky V

Data
Title: Rocky V
Year: 1990
Length: 104 minutes
Director: John G. Avildsen
Writer: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Burt Young, Sage Stallone, Burgess Meredith, Tommy Morrison
Music: Bill Conti (and popular music)

My reaction
Synopsis: Rocky retires and becomes a trainer
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). Dumb and boring. It's bad enough that, around the time of this movie, everything Stallone touched turned to sh**, but to see him take Rocky down with him is kind of upsetting.
Objective Rating: 1.4/4 (Bad).

Back to the Future

Data
Title: Back to the Future
Year: 1985
Length: 116 minutes
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Writers: Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale
Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd's bulging eyeballs, Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover, Thomas F. Wilson
Music: Alan Silvestri (and Huey Lewis and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Sound Effects Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Song ("The Power of Love") and Best Sound; currently #78 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: A teenager goes back in time to when his parents were his age
How I saw it: on video a million times or so, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great. Anyone with even the most basic grasp of logic can see that none of this makes any sense whatsoever. And yet, you don't care. How'd they do that?
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great. You would think it would start to lose interest after seeing it so many times, but it still feels like it's about 80 minutes long.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. Great design, and bad special effects. There's a lot more design involved than special effects, so it tips over to the good side of things.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. I really want to say it's terrible, but as crap as this music is, I have to admit it's right for the movie. And the band at the dance is good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good).
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Dexter: Season Two

Data
Title: Dexter: Season Two
Year: 2007
Network: Showtime
Episodes: 12, at c. 53 minutes each
Creator: James Manos Jr. (developer), from a novel by Jeff Lindsay
Directors: Marcos Siega (3 episodes), Tony Goldwyn (2), Nick Gomez (2), Keith Gordon (2), Steve Shill (2), Jeremy Podeswa (1)
Writers: Daniel Cerone (3 episodes), Melissa Rosenberg (3), Scott Buck (3), Tim Schlattmann (2), Clyde Phillips (1), Lauren Gussis (1), Scott Reynolds (1)
Starring: Michael C. Hall, Julie Benz, Jennifer Carpenter, Erik King
Music: Rolfe Kent (theme), Daniel Licht

My reaction
Synopsis: the serial killer who kills other killers goes to Narcotics Anonymous
How I saw it: online (streaming from Netflix), over the past couple days
Concept: Indifferent. After season one I wondered how much show you can make about a serial killer without him ever getting caught. About one season, I'd say.
Story: Bad. While I was watching it I was completely engaged and eager to find out How They'll Get Out of This One. Turns out, the writers had no idea how they'd get out of it either. The ending is full of plot holes, and, more importantly, is completely unsatisfying.
Characters: Bad. There are a couple new characters this season. One is a cliche, and the other is stolen. On top of that, they manage to turn Dexter into a bumbling jackass - pretty much the opposite of who he was in season one (except he still kills people for fun, so what's not to like?). The returning supporting characters are still good, though.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Improved from last season, but still mediocre.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good. No more spontaneous mambos this season - one of the show's few significant improvements.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Pretty much the whole point of season one is that you're rooting for a "bad guy." This time around, I not only wasn't rooting for him, but I kind of hated him and would have been much more satisfied with the show if Sgt. Doakes snapped and killed him around episode six or seven. Of course, it's an ongoing series, so it's no spoiler to say that doesn't happen. I spent most of the last few episodes thinking, "If this is where they're going with this show, why would I want to watch season three?" If they're never going to catch the bastard, what's the point? But I have to admit, if they put season three online, I'll probably feel compelled to find out exactly how pointless it is.  Part of me is even holding out hope that they'll get around to plugging some of season two's plot holes.
Objective Rating: 2.6/4 (Good).

Modern Times

Data
Title: Modern Times
Year: 1936
Length: 87 minutes
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writer: Charles Chaplin
Starring: Charles Chaplin, Paulette Goddard
Music: Charles Chaplin
Distinctions: currently #79 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: the Tramp works in a factory, goes to prison, and some other stuff vaguely connected by the theme of The Great Depression Sucks
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. I would say "terrible," but the comedic timing is great so I have to give the pacing some credit. But the movie feels about an hour longer than it is.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good. Chaplin is great, everyone else is mediocre.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's funny, and that's all I'm really looking for in a Charlie Chaplin movie. The lack of a story hurts it a lot, though.
Objective Rating: 2.2/4 (Okay).

Downfall

Data
Title: Der Untergang
Year: 2004 (Germany), 2005 (US)
Length: 156 minutes
Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Writer: Bernd Eichinger, based on books by Joachim Fest and Traudl Junge & Melissa Müller
Starring: Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Corinna Harfouch, Ulrich Matthes, Juliane Köhler
Music: Stephan Zacharias (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film; currently #80 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: Hitler's last days, from the perspective of his secretary
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. I'm giving it a "good" just because it's extremely well written, although the story's kind of strange.  There's not quite a traditional story arc, which means I have no sense of where anything is going.  But at the same time, the outcome of the movie is of course completely predictable.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good. It's never slow. I could have done without a lot of the bits about minor characters, though; if you're not a history buff, you probably won't know who half these people are or why we're supposed to care about them.
Cinematography: Good. It's shot effectively, although rarely prettily. I think every scene has an out-of-focus elbow in the foreground at some point.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Ganz' Hitler is one of the most memorable performances you'll ever see.
Music: Indifferent. The sound mixing is kind of strange: you can often only just barely tell there's an underscore there at all.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). A highly-recommended 7. It's hard to put my finger on why I don't feel it deserves an 8, but I think it has something to do with the cast being unreasonably ginormous.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

Instead of Abracadabra

Data
Title: "Istället för abrakadabra"
Year: 2008
Length: 22 minutes
Director: Patrik Eklund
Writer: Patrik Eklund
Starring: Simon J. Berger, Göran Forsmark, Saga Gärde, Anki Larsson, Jacob Nordenson
Music: Marten Tromm (but mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Short (live action) (2010)

My reaction
Synopsis: a crappy magician lives with his parents
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). I didn't think much of it at the time, although it did make me laugh. It's more like a pilot for a sitcom than a short film. But it's actually stuck with me and my wife since watching it ("Chimay" has now become part of our vocabulary), while the other four live action nominees, even the really good ones, are well on their way to being forgotten.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

French Roast

Data
Title: "French Roast"
Year: 2008
Length: 8 minutes
Director: Fabrice Joubert
Writer: Fabrice Joubert
Music: Olivier Liboutry
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short (2010)

My reaction
Synopsis: a snobbish coffee shop patron realizes he forgot his wallet
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. I don't remember it.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). A cute little story, well animated. It's worth seeing, but not remarkable or especially memorable.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

The Lady and the Reaper

Data
Title: "La dama y la muerte"
Year: 2009
Length: 8 minutes
Director: Javier Recio Gracia
Writer: Javier Recio Gracia
Music: Sergio De La Puente
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short

My reaction
Synopsis: Death and a doctor fight over an old lady
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. It's not the kind of cartoon to have a strong story.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Indifferent. I zoned out a little at one point.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Silly fun on the level of a classic Looney Tunes cartoon. It never actually made me laugh, but it's cute.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

The Door

Data
Title: "The Door"
Year: 2008
Length: 17 minutes
Director: Juanita Wilson
Everyone else: Don't know - can't find info online
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Short (live action) (2010)

My reaction
Synopsis: victims of Chernobyl are sad
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago
Concept: Bad.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Indifferent. Sparse but pretentious.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Great. Filmed on location, they really couldn't go wrong.
Acting: Good. I guess, more or less.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). Boring. There's zero emotional impact, which is really impressive considering the subject matter.
Objective Rating: 1.5/4 (Eh).

Where the Wild Things Are

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

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, October 2009; on video (have on DVD), yesterday
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. When I went to take the still of Max below, I expected to find its scene 3 or 4 minutes from the end of the movie.  Nope, more like 15 minutes.
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, and 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: 3.9/4 4.0/4 (Great).

A Matter of Loaf and Death

Data
Title: "Wallace and Gromit in 'A Matter of Loaf and Death'"
Year: 2008
Network: BBC
Length: 30 minutes
Director: Nick Park
Writers: Nick Park & Bob Baker
Starring: Peter Sallis, Sally Lindsay
Music: Julian Nott
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short (2010). I don't know how or why a 2008 TV program is eligible for a 2010 Oscar... I think they make their rules deliberately unintuitive.

My reaction
Synopsis: Wallace's new girlfriend is planning to murder him
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago
Concept: Good. It's Wallace and Gromit - that's enough to get it at least a "good" for concept.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's entertaining, but there's nowhere near the level of delightfulness that I expect from Aardman Animations. And it's not actually funny, unless you're one of those people who thinks references to classic movies are inherently funny.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

The Kinematograph

Data
Title: "The Kinematograph"
Year: 2009
Length: not sure (c. 10 minutes)
Director: Tomek Baginski
Everyone else: don't know - can't find any info online

My reaction
Synopsis: an man obsesses over perfecting his invention while his wife is dying
How I saw it: in the theater, a few days ago (a bonus short in the 2010 Oscar Nominated Animated Shorts showcase)
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Indifferent.  It's very hard to judge, as the acting is so very terrible.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good. For the most part the visuals are great, but the character design is terrible.
Acting: Terrible. The version I saw was dubbed, and they didn't seem to bother finding actors to do the dubbing.
Music: Indifferent. I don't remember it.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Kind of pretty to look at, but the story is just a string of cliches - the sort of string of cliches that wants you to know it's trying really hard to be profound.
Objective Rating: 1.5/4 (Eh).

Miracle Fish

Data
Title: "Miracle Fish"
Year: 2009
Length: 17 minutes
Director: Luke Doolan
Writer: Luke Doolan
Starring: Karl Beattie
Music: Frank Tetaz
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Short (live action)

My reaction
Synopsis: a boy is having a crappy day, when everyone in his school disappears
How I saw it: in the theater, a couple days ago
Concept: Great.
Story: Bad. Poor storytelling. You have no idea what sort of movie you're watching until it's over; it sets up expectations without seeming to be aware of it, then just goes somewhere else entirely. The way it unfolds, I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't be disappointed at at least one of the apparent turns the story takes.
Characters: Indifferent. There's one great character who shows up at the end, but by that point I've already been convinced that this is a few different sorts of movies, all of which are somewhere where that character doesn't belong.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. I don't remember it.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It has its moments, but it's just not a very likable film.
Objective Rating: 2.6/4 (Good).

Runaway

Data
Title: "Runaway"
Year: 2009
Length: 9 minutes
Director: Cordell Barker
Writer: Cordell Barker
Music: Benoît Charest

My reaction
Synopsis: a passenger train hits a cow and loses control
How I saw it: in the theater, a couple days ago (a bonus short in the 2010 Oscar Nominated Animated Shorts showcase)
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Silly fun - not as funny as it tries to be, but amusing.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

Logorama

Data
Title: "Logorama"
Year: 2009
Length: 16 minutes
Directors: François Alaux, Herve de Crecy & Ludovic Houplain
Writers: François Alaux, Herve de Crecy & Ludovic Houplain
Starring: Bob Stephenson, Sherman Augustus, Aja Evans, Joel Michaely
Music: non-original music
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Animated Short

My reaction
Synopsis: a police chase in a world made of corporate logos
How I saw it: in the theater, a couple days ago
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.  Ronald is pretty amusing, though.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent. I don't know what reason it has to keep going for more than a minute or two.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent. Good voice-acting, bad animated acting.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). Not half as clever as it wants you to think it is. After watching the Animated Short nominees, none of them really stood out as deserving to win, but this one clearly stood out as not deserving to be nominated. Go figure.
Objective Rating: 2.0/4 (Indifferent).

Kavi

Easily the best of the live-action shorts (but not my favorite):

Data
Title: "Kavi"
Year: 2009
Length: 19 minutes
Director: Gregg Helvey
Writer: Gregg Helvey
Starring: Sagar Salunke
Music: Patrick Kirst, Paul Z. Livingstone
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Short (live action)

My reaction
Synopsis: a boy and his parents are slaves working in a kiln
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good.
Characters: Indifferent. The scenario is too extreme to really allow for any subtlety in a twenty-minute film.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Strong tension, very engaging. It's the only of the live-action nominees that really seems to succeed at what it's trying to do, without any notable faults. I'm not personally crazy about it, but it's the sort of movie where you watch it and think, this director is going to be a great filmmaker.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

The New Tenants

My favorite of the live-action shorts (although, for the record, "Kavi" deserves to win the Oscar):

Data
Title: "The New Tenants"
Year: 2009
Length: 20 minutes
Director: Joachim Back
Writer: Anders Thomas Jensen; adapted (whatever that means) by David Rakoff
Starring: Kevin Corrigan, Vincent D'Onofrio, Jamie Harrold, David Rakoff
Music: Laurent Parisi
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Short (live action)

My reaction
Synopsis: a couple has a series of escalatingly bizarre visitors to their new apartment
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. It has no ending.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. So-so design, good special effects.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. I don't remember it (this will likely be a recurring theme - twelve films in one day is a lot to remember).
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Continuously entertaining. While I was watching it, I was thinking it was great, but then the ending comes and it completely falls apart.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

Granny O'Grimm's Sleepying Beauty

Yesterday we went to a showing of the Oscar-nominated shorts, both animated and live-action (plus a few bonus animated shorts).  Don't worry, I won't make all twelve posts today, just two or three a day.  Today I'll post my personal favorites in each category.  It's surprisingly easy to pick favorites; most of them are of a reasonbly good quality, but only a couple are what I'd expect from Oscar-nominated films.  It was a pretty fun experience to see them (and adds another level of interest to watching the Oscars today), although it was also kind of crappy since the theater played a DVD instead of film - not some sort of "hi-def" digital projection, but an actual DVD.  Pretty much an unforgivably horrible thing to do on a big screen.

Surprisingly, for animated short I won't be rooting for Wallace and Grommit.

Data
Title: "Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
Year: 2008
Length: 6 minutes
Director: Nicky Phelan
Writer: Kathleen O'Rourke
Starring: Kathleen O'Rourke
Music: Gregory Magee
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short (2010)

My reaction
Synopsis: a creepy old lady gets carried away with her granddaughter's bedtime story
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.  A reasonably clever combination of 3D and 2D.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good. I don't remember the score at all, but Granny's lullaby is great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Hilarious. It's the only film in either of the categories that I loved. It's also the only animated short that made me laugh (and they're all supposed to be funny).
Objective Rating: 3.5/4 (Very good) 3.6/4 (Great).

Some Like It Hot

Data
Title: Some Like It Hot
Year: 1959
Length: 122 minutes
Director: Billy Wilder
Writers: Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond; story by Robert Thoeren & Michael Logan
Starring: Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon
Music: Adolph Deutsch, and popular songs
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Costume Design (black-and-white); Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Lemmon), Best Cinematography (black-and-white) and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white); currently #81 on IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: two guys join an all-girl band to hide from the mob
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), today
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent. Jack Lemmon and Joe E. Brown are great. Tony Curtis is okay. Most of everyone else are bad.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Only Billy Wilder could take such a dumb farce idea and make a completely enjoyable movie. It's still just a dumb farce, but worth watching. The ending is good enough to bump it up from a 6/10 to a 7.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

imaginary Oscars

Everyone seems to be doing this sort of thing, and I always like reading these sorts of posts, so what the hell, it seems fun.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the first annual Pantsies. If I picked the nominees and winners for the Oscars (and, really, wouldn't the world be a better place if everything was run through me first?), this is what they would be:

Best Score
- Nominees (assuming Where the Wild Things Are isn't eligible): Alexandre Desplat (Fantastic Mr. Fox); Michael Giacchino (Up); Marvin Hamlisch (The Informant!); Abel Korzeniowski (A Single Man); Clint Mansell (Moon)
- The winner: Marvin Hamlisch
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 60%
- Real Oscar nominee that I haven't seen yet: Sherlock Holmes

Best Supporting Actor
- Nominees: Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen); Alfred Molina (An Education); Daryl Sabara (World's Greatest Dad); Karl Urban (Star Trek); Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
- The winner: Christoph Waltz
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 80%
- Real Oscar nominees that I haven't seen yet: Invictus, The Last Station, The Lovely Bones and The Messenger

Best Supporting Actress
- Nominees: Mariah Carey (Precious); Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart); Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air); Mélanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds); Mo’Nique (Precious).
- The winner: Mo'Nique (but I almost picked Gyllenhaal)
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 40%
- Real Oscar nominee that I haven't seen yet: Nine

Best Lead Actor
- Nominees: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart); Colin Firth (A Single Man); Max Records (Where the Wild Things Are); Sam Rockwell (Moon); Robin Williams (World's Greatest Dad)
- The winner: Sam Rockwell
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 60%
- Real Oscar nominee that I haven't seen yet: Invictus

Best Lead Actress
- Nominees: Carey Mulligan (An Education); Gabourey Sidibe (Precious); Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia). That's all I've got (and I would have put Streep in the supporting category if the real Academy didn't have her as a lead). It's not as if I haven't seen a lot of movies, but there are only, like, seven or eight movies I've seen from 2009 that have a female lead.  What the hell?
- The winner: Carey Mulligan
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 0%, or 40%, depending on how you count
- Real Oscar nominees that I haven't seen yet: The Blind Side and The Last Station

Best Directing
- Nominees: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker); Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds); Tom Ford (A Single Man); Pete Docter & Bob Peterson (Up); Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are)
- The winner: Quentin Tarantino
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 60%

Best Adapted Screenplay
- Nominees: Nick Hornby (An Education); Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci & Tony Roche (In the Loop); Scott Z. Burns (The Informant!); Geoffrey Fletcher (Precious); Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers (Where the Wild Things Are)
- The winner: Scott Z. Burns
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 40%

Best Original Screenplay
- Nominees: Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber ((500) Days of Summer); Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida (Away We Go); Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds); Nathan Parker (Moon); Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (A Serious Man)
- The winner: Nathan Parker
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 60%
- Real Oscar nominee that I haven't seen yet: The Messenger

Best Picture [note - these are not  my ten most favorite movies from last year; they're the ones I think most deserve awards]
- Nominees: Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Hurt Locker, The Informant!, Inglourious Basterds, Moon, Precious, A Serious Man, A Single Man, Up, Where the Wild Things Are
- The winner: Inglourious Basterds
- My personal favorite: Where the Wild Things Are
- Difference between my picks and the Academy's: 50%
- Real Oscar nominee that I haven't seen yet: The Blind Side

The Return of Sherlock Holmes: Season Two

Data
Title: The Return of Sherlock Holmes: Season Two [or, season four of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with a new title]
Year: 1988
Network: ITV
Episodes: 4, at c. 52 minutes each
Creator: John Hawkesworth (developer)
Directors: Ken Hannam (1 episode), Brian Mills (1), Peter Hammond (1), John Gorrie (1)
Writers: John Hawkesworth (2 episodes), Gary Hopkins (1), Jeremy Paul (1); based on stories by Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Jeremy Brett, Edward Hardwicke
Music: Patrick Gowers

My reaction
Synopsis: a private investigator solves mysteries
How I saw it: online (streaming from Netflix), over the past couple days
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. A reluctant "good." Nothing's really memorable in these episodes.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent. "Sit down, I'm going to tell you my life story."
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.  At times it seems like they're improving.  But then there's the episode where the director (Hammond, I think) is inexplicably obsessed with shooting things through mirrors.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Brett's as great as ever, but a couple of the guest stars are bad enough to pull this down to just "good."
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's still a good show, but there's nothing here that wasn't done better in an earlier season.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very Good).

King Kong

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: King Kong
Year: 1933
Length: 104 minutes
Directors: Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack
Writers: James Ashmore Creelman & Ruth Rose; story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace
Starring: Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, Frank Reicher
Music: Max Steiner
Distinctions: currently #198 on IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: uh, yeah… giant monkey
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently (have on DVD) yesterday
Concept: Great. Off-the-wall fantasy adventure-serial-type iconic kitsch fun.
Story: Good.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. If you compare the special effects to something like Jurassic Park or a 60’s Japanese monster movie, it looks pretty good – which is a nice way of saying it looks like cartoons and puppets.
Acting: Good. I can't believe I'm actually giving this movie points for acting. Most of the cast ranges somewhere between mediocre and complete sh**. But Fay Wray makes up for them. You know how in every monster movie ever made, there's a woman who screams for minutes on end, and it's about the most annoying thing anyone could think to put on film? Fay Wray in King Kong is the reason all those misguided filmmakers were convinced it was a good idea.
Music: Great. A major film score milestone.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great).
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).