awesome people part 9

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

Harrison Ford
Evidence:
- Star Wars, 1977 (Han Solo)
- Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981 (Indiana Jones)
- Blade Runner, 1982 (Rick Deckard)

Nino Rota
Evidence:
- La Strada, 1954 (composer)
- 8½, 1963 (composer)
- The Godfather, 1972 (composer)

William H. Macy
Evidence:
- Fargo, 1996 (Jerry Lundegaard)
- Magnolia, 1999 (Donnie Smith)

Nick Park
Evidence:
- "A Grand Day Out with Wallace and Gromit," 1989 (director/writer)
- Chicken Run, 2000 (co-director/co-writer)
- Creature Comforts, 2003-2005 (creator)

Richard Hunt
Evidence:
- Sesame Street, 1972-1992 (Don Music/Forgetful Jones/Gladys/Placido Flamingo/Sully/The Two-Headed Monster/etc)
- The Muppet Show, 1976-1980 (Scooter/Beaker/Sweetums/Statler/Janice/etc)
- Fraggle Rock, 1983-1987 (Junior Gorg/Gunge/etc)

Chinatown

The Top 63 Marathon, part 5



Data
Title: Chinatown
Year: 1974
Length: 131 minutes
Director: Roman Polanski
Writer: Robert Towne
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston
Music: Jerry Goldsmith
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Original Screenplay; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Nicholson), Best Actress (Dunaway), Best Cinematography, Best Score, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Editing and Best Sound; currently #59 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a private detective gets involved in a conspiracy involving L.A.'s water supply
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. It starts out very promising, as an old school noir detective story, with a cute twist that the detective isn't very good at dealing with a real mystery. Then, out of nowhere, Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway start making kisses, which is maybe inevitable since they're opposite-gender leads in a Hollywood film. But from that point on the only thing the movie cares about is their relationship and back stories, and tries very hard to be shocking.
Characters: Indifferent. If it were just a detective story, they would be pretty good characters. But when it tries to be a serious drama about detective story characters, it just seems kind of stupid.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. It probably seemed a lot better back in the 70s when people didn't know that Jack Nicholson looks and sounds exactly the same no matter what role he's playing.
Music: Bad. It got a laugh out of me at least once - probably not intentionally.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Maybe I just didn't understand what they were trying to do? But they go to such great lengths in the first half of the movie to establish a very clear tone and style (that of 1940's Hollywood mystery), only to completely abandon it later, it's not surprising that I didn't get what I expected out of it. In the end it's cynical and bitter beyond the level any classic noir would get anywhere near, and I have to kind of hate that. Why you got to be so grumpy, Polanski? I know you're a bad person and all, but why you got to pretend everyone else sucks as much as you do?
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 (Okay).

Requiem for a Dream

The Top 63 Marathon, part 4



Data
Title: Requiem for a Dream
Year: 2000
Length: 102 minutes
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Hubert Selby Jr. & Darren Aronofsky, based on the book by Selby
Starring: Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans
Music: Clint Mansell
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Actress (Burstyn); currently #60 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: three junkies and one of their mothers have a really bad time
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Terrible. Guess what, kids? Drugs are bad for you!
Story: Bad. It's really unpleasant to watch unfold, but also you pretty much know everything that will happen from the start of the movie.
Characters: Bad. They're pretty well developed/realized, but they're also universally unsympathetic.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. It's frantically paced, and yet it also bored me. Kind of impressive.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). If you like feeling awful, this is the movie to watch. It's exceptionally well made, but unfortunately in this case that means it's all that much more horrible to watch.
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 (Okay).

Kick-Ass

Data
Title: Kick-Ass
Year: 2010
Length: 117 minutes
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn, based on the book by Mark Millar & John Romita Jr.
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong, Chloe Moretz, Nicolas Cage
Music: Marius De Vries, Ilan Eshkeri, Henry Jackman, John Murphy (and non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #121 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: an ordinary high school kid decides to become a super hero
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good. Unfortunately, it ends up missing its own point. "What if people in real life tried to be super heros?" is a nice idea to explore, but this movie is so cartoonish and completely unbelievable - about the level of realism of Iron Man - it ends up just being a typical mass-produced super hero movie.
Story: Bad. For having an original concept, it's remarkable how cliched and predictable it is. And plot holes abound.
Characters: Indifferent. Hit Girl and Big Daddy and nice, but everyone else is crap.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Good. Some of the fights get pretty tedious.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's a very, very flawed movie. But it's fun anyway.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).

Superman/Batman: Public Enemies

Data
Title: Superman/Batman: Public Enemies
Year: 2009 (direct-to-DVD)
Length: 75 minutes
Director: Sam Liu
Writer: Stan Berkowitz, based on the book by Jeph Loeb & Ed McGuinness
Starring: Clancy Brown, Kevin Conroy, Tim Daly
Music: Christopher Drake

My reaction
Synopsis: Lex Luthor becomes president, and Superman doesn't like it
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Bad. Okay, obviously the main characters are good characters - but you wouldn't know it from watching this movie.
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). I've got to learn to stop renting these things. They're just ruining super heroes for me.
Objective Rating: 1.6/4 (Eh).

Coraline

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Coraline
Year: 2009
Length: 100 minutes
Director: Henry Selick
Writer: Henry Selick, based on the book by Neil Gaiman
Starring: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher
Music: Bruno Coulais (and They Might Be Giants)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature




My reaction
Synopsis: a girl is tempted to stay in a magical “other” world
How I saw it: in the theater, February 2009; on video yesterday (have on DVD)
Concept: Great.
Story: Great. Simple but right.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Pixar quality, and the kind of tone and story (creepy horror + traditional fairytale) they would never do.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

The Third Man

The Top 63 Marathon, part 3



Data
Title: The Third Man
Year: 1949 (UK), 1950 (US)
Length: 104 minutes
Director: Carol Reed
Writer: Graham Greene
Starring: Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Orson Welles, Trevor Howard
Music: Anton Karas
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Cinematography (black-and-white) (1951); Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Editing (1951); currently #61 on the IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: an American in post-war Vienna tries to clear the name of his recently deceased friend
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The mystery is fairly interesting despite being predictable (it doesn't help that reading the cast list is a spoiler...).
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good. It gets slow in places and feels longer than it is, but the last scene is too great to take off too many points.
Cinematography: Great. Oh, so that's what a movie's supposed to look like.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad. It has an interesting effect on the movie, but oh my goodness why?
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's a reluctant 8, but I figure the amazing visuals make up for the movie's shortcomings and then some. It's just so nice to look at, everything else could be crap and it would still be a good movie.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

L.A. Confidential

The Top 63 Marathon, part 2



Data
Title: L.A. Confidential
Year: 1997
Length: 138 minutes
Director: Curtis Hanson
Writer: Brian Helgeland & Curtis Hanson, based on the novel by James Ellroy
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, James Cromwell, Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito
Music: Jerry Goldsmith (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Basinger); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Score (dramatic), Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Editing and Best Sound; currently #62 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: three 1950s L.A. cops, solvin' crimes
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. It doesn't hold up to the kinds of movies it emulates, but it works.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. Bad score, good soundtrack.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's entertaining but not memorable. In fact, I had a hard time figuring out if I'd seen it before, even after watching it.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

MythBusters: Collection Five

Data
Title: MythBusters: Collection Five
Year: 2008-2009
Network: Discovery Channel
Episodes: 10 at 43 minutes each, from the sixth and seventh seasons
Creator: Peter Rees
Directors: Tabitha Lentle (9 episodes), Alice Dallow (3)
Starring: Jamie Hyneman, Adam Savage

My reaction
Synopsis: a couple special effects guys and their cohorts test whether various urban legends are possible
How I saw it: streaming from Netflix, over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good).  Some interesting myths to test in this batch - like cabin fever, and turd polishing - but not a lot that's really exciting.  I think the more their budget grows, the less cool it is when they blow up and/or smash stuff.
Objective Rating: 2.5/4 (Okay).

Blowup

Data
Title: Blowup
Year: 1966
Length: 111 minutes
Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
Writer: Michelangelo Antonioni & Tonino Guerra, with Edward Bond; "inspired by" a short story by Julio Cortázar
Starring: David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave
Music: Herbie Hancock (and The Yardbirds)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay

My reaction
Synopsis: a mod London photographer finds something sinister when he blows up his latest shots
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. I get the impression that Antonioni's the kind of guy who would be offended at the suggestion that a movie should have a story, much less a good one. There is the material here to make an interesting plot, but it's deliberately avoided.
Characters: Indifferent. Meh.
Dialog: Indifferent. Some is very good. Elsewhere it's unintentionally funny (at least I think it's unintentional).
Pacing: Good. It's very slow and frustratingly short on narrative, but I wasn't actually bored.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's alright, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. It probably has something to do with sex and nudity in an English-language film in the mid sixties. It was pretty cool to see it in the theater, though; I would have liked it much less if I'd seen it on DVD.
Objective Rating: 2.5/4 (Okay).

Doctor Who #67-68: Dalek War

Data
Title: Doctor Who: Dalek War (“Frontier in Space” / “Planet of the Daleks”)
Year: 1973
Network: BBC
Episodes: 12, at 25 minutes; 2 stories of 6 episodes each, from the middle of season 10
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Paul Bernard / David Maloney
Writers: Malcolm Hulke / Terry Nation
Starring: Jon Pertwee, Katy Manning
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Dudley Simpson



My reaction
Synopsis: there's an evil plot to set two planets at war; then, Daleks learn to become invisible
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) over the past few days
Concept: Bad. The concept for "Frontier in Space" isn't terribly original, but it's still pretty good. "Planet of the Daleks," though, has no plot or ideas or anything along those lines.
Story: Bad. Again, "Frontier" isn't bad - a little clunky in places, but okay - while "Planet" is horrible, horrible horribleness.
Characters: Bad. No one worth mentioning other than the regulars.
Dialog: Bad. [At one point a neutron flow is mentioned, but even though several things have their polarities reversed, the neutron flow is not one of them.]
Pacing: Bad. Both stories are pretty slow. "Frontier" could have been four episodes long, "Planet" could have been one or two.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Terrible.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). 6/10 for "Frontier," 3/10 for "Planet." All pretty bad for 70's Who, but at it's worst it's corny and heckle-able.
Objective Rating: 1.2/4 (Bad).

Reservoir Dogs

The Top 63 Marathon, part 1



Data
Title: Reservoir Dogs
Year: 1992
Length: 99 minutes
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi
Music: non-original music
Distinctions: currently #63 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: a professional robbery goes wrong
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's been something like a decade since the last time I saw this. I was concerned that it wouldn't seem as good to me now as it did to my younger self (as is the case with most "cool" movies that I liked back then), but in fact I like it a lot more now. You have to appreciate that of the million crime/gangster/heist movies, there are only a handful that are anywhere near as well done and entertaining as this. I might even like this better than Pulp Fiction (although it's been equally long since I've seen that one, so it's hard to say).
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Arid Lands

Data
Title: Arid Lands
Year: 2007
Length: 98 minutes
Directors: Grant Aaker & Josh Wallaert
Writer: Josh Wallaert
Music: non-original music (I think?)

My reaction
Synopsis: documentary about the recent ecological and economic history of the Tri-Cities area of Eastern Washington
How I saw it: on video (at a community screening), yesterday
Concept: Terrible. I could not care less about anything in this movie.
Story: Indifferent. The film sort of rambles and doesn't have a clear point or perspective.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. I was bored out of my mind, but that's partly because I don't care.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Terrible.
Acting: n/a
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). If I were originally from the area, the issues the film presents might seem important. But probably not. Incidentally, the Tri-Cities we see in the movie are not the Tri-Cities I've seen. The film presents a dichotomy between lush, green, "reclaimed" land and beautifully scenic scrub steppe. I've only visited the place a couple times, but my impression was more of a giant parking lot.
Objective Rating: 1.4/4 (Bad).

the list

I was going to wait until we got to #50 before I did this, but whatever. What's so special about round numbers?

As you've probably noticed, about half the movies my wife and I watch happen to be on the Internet Movie Database’s list of the Top 250 movies. Some time around March 2008 we started the ginormous project of watching every movie on the Top 250, or at least all of them that are readily available on video (someday, Sleuth, someday...).

As of this writing, we're 246 movies in, with 63 left to watch (yeah, I know, math is hard). I'm declaring those 63 movies (in the order they happen to be in at the moment) to be the first of what will someday be many Very Slow Marathons.

Very Slow Marathon #1 - The IMDb's Top 63
[note: I'll update this post with links as we go, and you'll be able to find it above in the Very Slow Marathons tab]

watched:
- Reservoir Dogs, 1992 (8/10, 3.6/4)
- L.A. Confidential, 1997 (7/10, 3.0/4)
- The Third Man, 1949 (8/10, 3.4/4)
- Requiem for a Dream, 2000 (3/10, 2.3/4)
- Chinatown, 1974 (5/10, 2.3/4)
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 2004 (10/10, 3.9/4)
- Double Indemnity, 1944 (7/10, 2.6/4)
- M, 1931 (7/10, 3.4/4)
- Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi, 2001 (8/10, 3.5/4)
- Aliens, 1986 (9/10, 2.8/4)
- To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962 (8/10, 3.5/4)
- The Pianist, 2002 (4/10, 2.7/4)
- Das Leben der Anderen, 2006 (7/10, 3.2/4)
- The Departed, 2006 (8/10, 3.9/4)
- Paths of Glory, 1957 (6/10, 2.8/4)
- The Shining, 1980 (8/10, 3.1/4)
- A Clockwork Orange, 1971 (6/10, 2.8/4)
- Saving Private Ryan, 1998 (5/10, 2.8/4)
- Wall-E, 2008 (10/10, 4.0/4)
- Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, 2001 (9/10, 3.9/4)
- Alien, 1979 (9/10, 3.2/4)
- Lawrence of Arabia, 1962 (4/10, 2.3/4)
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day, 1991 (4/10, 1.6/4)
- Vertigo, 1958 (7/10, 3.3/4)
- Taxi Driver, 1976 (7/10, 3.6/4)
- American History X, 1998 (7/10, 3.1/4)
- American Beauty, 1999 (8/10, 3.6/4)
- Forrest Gump, 1994 (6/10, 2.5/4)
- Apocalypse Now, 1979 (7/10, 3.2/4)
- Léon, 1994 (7/10, 2.4/4)
- Citizen Kane, 1941 (6/10, 3.0/4)
- North by Northwest, 1959 (7/10, 2.7/4)
- Sunset Boulevard, 1950 (7/10, 3.2/4)
- Dr. Strangelove, 1964 (9/10, 3.6/4)
- It's a Wonderful Life, 1946 (8/10, 2.9/4)
- The Two Towers, 2002 (9/10, 2.6/4)
- Memento, 2001 (7/10, 2.8/4)
- Seven, 1995 (6/10, 2.2/4)
- The Matrix, 1999 (6/10, 2.2/4)
- The Silence of the Lambs, 1991 (8/10, 3.4/4)
- C'era una volta il West, 1968 (7/10, 3.1/4)
- Psycho, 1960 (7/10, 3.2/4)
- The Usual Suspects, 1995 (8/10, 3.0/4)
- Rear Window, 1954 (7/10, 3.3/4)
- Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981 (8/10, 3.1/4)
- The Fellowship of the Ring, 2001 (9/10, 2.7/4)
- Cidade de Deus, 2002 (6/10, 2.7/4)
- Fight Club, 1999 (8/10, 2.9/4)
- Goodfellas, 1990 (4/10, 2.6/4)
- Shichinin no samurai, 1954 (7/10, 3.5/4)
- The Return of the King, 2003 (9/10, 3.0/4)
- Casablanca, 1942 (9/10, 3.7/4)
- Star Wars, 1977 (9/10, 3.2/4)
- The Dark Knight, 2008 (10/10, 3.8/4)
- The Empire Strikes Back, 1980 (9/10, 3.0/4)
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975 (8/10, 3.4/4)
- 12 Angry Men, 1957 (8/10, 3.7/4)
- Schindler's List, 1993 (5/10, 2.6/4)
- Pulp Fiction, 1994 (8/10, 3.6/4)
- Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, 1966 (9/10, 3.6/4)
- The Godfather: Part II, 1974 (6/10, 2.7/4)
- The Godfather, 1972 (9/10, 3.7/4)
- The Shawshank Redemption, 1994 (5/10, 2.2/4)

to watch:
-

Das Boot

Data
Title: Das Boot
Year: 1981 (Germany), 1982 (US)
Length: 209 minutes (director's cut)
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
Writer: Wolfgang Petersen, based on the novel by Lothar G. Buchheim
Starring: Jürgen Prochnow, Herbert Grönemeyer, Klaus Wennemann, Hubertus Bengsch, Martin Semmelrogge, Bernd Tauber, Erwin Leder
Music: Klaus Doldinger
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing (1983); currently #64 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: life on board a U-boat near the end of WWII
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. There's no particular story arc, although it doesn't need one.
Characters: Good. There was a lot of "which guy is that," but after a few hours I could keep enough of them straight that I usually knew who at least one person was in any given scene.  The handful of characters that are distinct enough to follow are quite nice, although this is not a movie to watch if strong character development is what you like.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Terrible.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It had a lot of potential. There are a lot of scenes that seem like they should be suspenseful, but I just didn't feel it. But even if everything were carried off perfectly, it's 3½ hours of pretty much the same thing continuously. Meh.
Objective Rating: 2.2/4 (Okay).

Breakfast at Tiffany's

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Breakfast at Tiffany's
Year: 1961
Length: 115 minutes
Director: Blake Edwards
Writer: George Axelrod, based on the novel by Truman Capote
Starring: Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard
Music: Henry Mancini
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Score and Best Song (“Moon River”); Oscar nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress (Hepburn) and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color)



My reaction
Synopsis: a neurotic girl forces herself into her neighbor’s life
How I saw it: on video a couple times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Why does Mickey Rooney hate Asian people?
Acting: Great. You’ve got a character who’s obnoxious, and a story that only works if every other character (not to mention the audience) loves her; I don’t think anyone other than Audrey Hepburn could have pulled that off.
Music: Great. Speaking of amazing feats of Audrey Hepburn, when she sings “Moon River,” it somehow sounds like a good song. Between that, the piano music over the climax, and the almost postmodern five & dime sequence, I have to love the music in this movie, even though so much of it consists of an incessantly annoying tune.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I typically hate romantic comedies, but I love this movie. Not because it does things differently, or because it has some appeal apart from the romantic story, but just because it does what it does (and what a million and a half crappy chick flicks wish they could do) so damn well. It's not humanly possible to watch that last scene and not feel like a complete sap.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 3.3/4 (Very good).

First Blood

Data
Title: First Blood
Year: 1982
Length: 93 minutes
Director: Ted Kotcheff
Writers: Michael Kozoll, William Sackheim & Sylvester Stallone, based on the novel by David Morrell
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna, Brian Dennehy
Music: Jerry Goldsmith

My reaction
Synopsis: small town cops give a Vietnam vet a hard time, and he fights back
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD); most recently, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good. It would be great, but I figured this is the right place to take points off for the inexplicable changes between night and day.
Acting: Indifferent. Mostly good, but there's enough bad acting here and there to take it down a point.
Music: Good. Great score, but I can't give full points for music when there's such a terrible song over the credits.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). But don't talk to me about the sequels. It's like the people who made those things never even saw this movie.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 3.2/4 (Very good).

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Data
Title: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Year: 1948
Length: 126 minutes
Director: John Huston
Writer: John Huston, based on the novel by B. Traven
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Walter Huston, Tim Holt
Music: Max Steiner
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Huston); Oscar nomination for Best Picture; currently #65 on the IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: three men go prospecting in the Mexican wilderness
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. Bonus points for Bogart's crazy clown wig.
Acting: Indifferent. This is a hard call. Walter Huston, as the original crazy old dancing prospector, is great, as are a few other characters (like the Bandito without any stinking badges). Tim Holt and a key handful of others are kind of bad. Bogart is okay; it's one of his best performances, but he's just not that great of an actor. Normally that would average out to "good," but so much of this movie depended on Bogart's performance, I've got to take it down a notch.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). If a better actor had been in Bogart's part, this could have been one of the greatest movies ever. It's not that anything is wrong with his performance; it's nice for the 1940s, but very much of that Classic Hollywood style. The part called for a lot, and the whole time I was imagining how much better it could have been with a naturalistic actor.
Objective Rating: 3.4/4 (Very good).

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Data
Title: Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Year: 1975
Length: 91 minutes
Directors: Terry Gilliam & Terry Jones
Writers: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones & Michael Palin
Starring: Chapman, Cleese, Idle, Gilliam, Jones, Palin
Music: stock music
Distinctions: currently #66 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: bits of Arthurian legend, kind of, not really
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently yesterday (have on VHS)
Concept: Great.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good. Not exactly well-developed, but memorable.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great. One of my favorite things about this movie is it's not just a Monty Python movie - it's also a Terry Gilliam movie. It actually looks better than serious period films.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Bad. Chapman is absolutely terrible. Everyone else is very good, but man, Chapman is awful.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites).
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 3.4/4 (Very good).

[eta: re-watched 3/2/2012)

City Lights

Data
Title: City Lights
Year: 1931
Length: 83 minutes
Director: Charles Chaplin
Writer: Charles Chaplin
Starring: Charles Chaplin, Virginia Cherrill, Harry Myers
Music: Charles Chaplin
Distinctions: currently #67 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: The Tramp meets a blind girl and an unstable millionaire
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It has a surprisingly strong story for a Charlie Chaplin movie. Unfortunately, the comedy routines aren't as great as in his other movies. It's often very funny, but not brilliant. There aren't any really memorable stunts or anything like that - just solidly performed silliness.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

How to Train Your Dragon

Data
Title: How to Train Your Dragon
Year: 2010
Length: 98 minutes
Director: Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders
Writer: Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders, based on the novel by Cressida Cowell
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera
Music: John Powell
Oscars: nominations for Best Animated Feature and Best Score

My reaction
Synopsis: a young viking who's not good at fighting lives in a village frequently raided by dragons
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. It has its fair share of cliches, but it's engaging and pretty original overall.
Characters: Good. Wait, what?  Good characters in a DreamWorks cartoon?  What's going on here?
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good. Some sequences are amazing, others not so much.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Technically, it's great. Creatively, it's an unfortunate victim of the Every Cartoon Has to Be CG plague. There are some "2D" drawings in the closing credits which are absolutely delightful. I gaped and pointed and said, "I want to see that movie!"
Acting: Indifferent. Good acting from the animators, bad from the voice actors.  And what's with the Scottish accents?
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Don't be fooled by the bad marketing and horrible title (like I was). This is a sincere adventure story, entertaining from beginning to end. There are no pop-culture references. There is no crude humor. The voice actors (while they might not have been the best choices) were clearly chosen for their voices, not box office draw. It almost seems like DreamWorks is coming to their senses and trying to do what Pixar does - tell a good story with strong characters. But, the thing is, this isn't really "a DreamWorks Film" - because, come on, that doesn't even mean anything; they're just a f***ing movie studio. What this movie secretly is is the long-awaited (or would have been long-awaited in a perfect world) second film from the writing/directing team that made Lilo & Stitch. Remember that movie? You know, the best animated feature from the last 30 years that wasn't made by Pixar or Miyazaki? You'd kind of expect that to be a selling point, wouldn't you? Rather than the fact that it was paid for by the same people who paid for Shrek? I guess not. I didn't find out about it until looking at the IMDb just now, but if They had made it known, I might not have assumed this movie was crap.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

Pan's Labyrinth

Data
Title: El laberinto del fauno
Year: 2006
Length: 112 minutes
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writer: Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Ivana Baquero, Sergi López, Maribel Verdú
Music: Javier Navarrete
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction and Best Makeup; Oscar nominations for Best Foreign Language Film, Best Original Screenplay and Best Score; #68 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a girl's step father fights the WWII Spanish resistance while she tries to escape into a fairytale world
How I saw it: on video a couple times (rented from Netflix), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad. I clearly do not understand what makes good cinematography, seeing as this won an Oscar and I thought it looked like crap. (On the other hand, I do understand music, and crap music wins Oscars more often than not, so maybe I should give myself the benefit of the doubt.)
Special effects/design: Bad. Most of it looks great. But the title character is a cartoon. I don't know if it was supposed to look like a cartoon, to emphasize the fact that it's not from the same world as the realistic stuff, but I don't think so. Pretty sure it's just terrible CG. The IMDb's trivia claims there are physical costume components to the character, but I can't see them; I just see a cartoon. It completely takes me out of the movie, and it destroys any hope of the fairytale parts and real world parts of the movie seeming like they belong in the same movie.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. Good orchestration, bad tunes.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). There's the potential for a really great movie. The art direction is amazing (although poorly realized - you just get a glimpse of it here and there). And I can imagine the story being extremely effective. But it's not. Del Toro has a fascinating imagination, but he's a bad director. I have to wonder if my wife and I wouldn't be the only people to realize that if this movie had been his follow-up to Hellboy 2 instead of Hellboy.
Objective Rating: 2.4/4 (Okay).

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Data
Title: The Bridge on the River Kwai
Year: 1957
Length: 161 minutes
Director: David Lean
Writer: Michael Wilson & Carl Foreman, based on the novel by Pierre Boulle
Starring: William Holden, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Sessue Hayakawa
Music: Malcolm Arnold
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Guinness), Best Cinematography, Best Score and Best Editing; Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (Hayakawa); currently #69 on IMDb's Top 250




My reaction
Synopsis: British POW's build a bridge for the Japanese while an American escapes
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. There's more to it than my synopsis, but I don't want to be spoilery.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great. It's almost three hours, and it takes a lot of time to breathe and stretch, but it never feels slow. Kind of perfect.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.  Holden's performance is a bit disappointing, but still good.  Guinness and Hayakawa are great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's a reluctant 8/10; there are a handful of important moments scattered throughout the movie that don't play as well as they should. But it's an unique and exceptionally strong story, and really stands out among all the tedious and recycled Epic Movies of the time. In fact, it's the only movie of its type from this era that I've liked at all so far.
Objective Rating: 3.7/4 (Great).