Red Dwarf

Data
Title: Red Dwarf: Series 1
Year: 1988
Network: BBC
Episodes: 6, at about 30 minutes each
Creators: Rob Grant & Doug Naylor
Director: Ed Bye
Writers: Rob Grant & Doug Naylor
Starring: Chris Barrie, Craig Charles, Danny John-Jules
Music: Howard Goodall

My reaction
Synopsis: The Odd Couple in space
How I saw it: on tv and online several times, most recently yesterday (streaming from Netflix)
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good. There are just barely enough science fiction ideas to keep the sit-com cliches from being overbearing.
Characters: Good. The two leads are crap, but Cat (the wacky neighbor character) is brilliant.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Most of the jokes aren't funny (except for Cat's bits). I like it anyways. I don't know why.
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 (Okay).

A Clockwork Orange

The Top 63 Marathon, part 17



Data
Title: A Clockwork Orange
Year: 1971
Length: 136 minutes
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Stanley Kubrick, based on the novel by Anthony Burgess
Starring: Malcolm McDowell
Music: Wendy Carlos (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing; currently #48 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the government "cures" a violent teenager with conditioning
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently yesterday (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Great.
Story: Good.
Characters: Terrible. Is Alex supposed to be the way he is because... what, because he chooses to be? I realize psychology has come a long way since the sixties, but how horribly misanthropic do you have to be to accept that?
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. Technically, great. Creatively, ridiculous.
Acting: Indifferent. Everyone's so over the top, it's more like they're making public announcements than playing characters.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's not exactly what one might call subtle. Things are so big and cartoonish, it plays like social satire rather than the serious sci-fi analysis of christian morality that it should have been. I used to think it was a great movie, but watching it yesterday (for the first time in about a decade) it just seemed silly and somewhat distasteful - not distasteful because of the violence, mind you, but mostly because of the visual style. I usually love Kubrick's visuals, but it didn't work for me this time. It doesn't fit this material; it glamorizes when it should be dissecting. Or maybe I'm just experiencing Kubrick overload from seeing three of his movies in the span of a week.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

Superman II

Data
Title: Superman II
Year: 1981
Length: 127 minutes
Director: Richard Lester
Writers: Mario Puzo, David Newman & Leslie Newman; story by Puzo; characters by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Starring: Gene Hackman, Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, Jack O'Halloran
Music: Ken Thorne

My reaction
Synopsis: Superman and Lois Lane make kisses while evil Kryptonians conquer Earth
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (have on DVD)
Concept: Bad.  The basic premise of this movie is that Superman is an irresponsible idiot.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Terrible.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Terrible.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Silly camp. It's funny when they're trying to be serious, and dumb when they're trying to be funny.
Objective Rating: 1.1/4 (Bad).

Harvie Krumpet

Data
Title: "Harvie Krumpet"
Year: 2003
Length: 23 minutes
Director: Adam Elliot
Writer: Adam Elliot
Starring: Geoffrey Rush
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Animated Short

My reaction
Synopsis: the life of a strange man
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (Mary and Max DVD bonus feature)
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). On one hand, watching this immediately after Mary and Max (which does similar things but better), it doesn't seem nearly as great as I'd remembered it being. On the other hand, I can't imagine a time when I won't feel like watching it again.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 3.0/4 (Good).

Mary and Max

Data
Title: Mary and Max
Year: 2009
Length: 92 minutes
Director: Adam Elliot
Writer: Adam Elliot
Starring: Toni Collette, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Humphries
Music: Dale Cornelius



My reaction
Synopsis: two social misfits are pen pals
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good. It's not so much that it's a good story, but that the telling of it is great. Elliot has a peculiarly poetic way of writing (peculiar for film, anyway) that defies a grade in this category.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good. Most of the score is great, but there's some other music that's not so good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I love Elliot's stuff, and this is easily his best yet. Sad and funny and beautiful.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).

The Shining

The Top 63 Marathon, part 16



Data
Title: The Shining
Year: 1980
Length: 143 minutes
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick & Diane Johnson, based on the novel by Stephen King
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd
Music: Wendy Carlos & Rachel Elkind (but mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #48 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a family spends the winter in an isolated, haunted hotel
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently two days ago (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great. Although, I kind of wish Kubrick had used more Wendy Carlos; her theme fits the tone of the movie much better than the frantic and busy classical stuff he used.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). The story's dumb, and the movie's never very scary for something that's supposed to be horror. But it's extremely suspenseful, and the imagery is unforgettable.  The movie has a sort of lumbering enormity to it that you can't look away from.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

Toy Story 3

Data
Title: Toy Story 3
Year: 2010
Length: 103 minutes
Director: Lee Unkrich
Writers: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Don Rickles, Michael Keaton, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger
Music: Randy Newman
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Animated Feature and Best Song ("We Belong Together"); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Sound Editing; currently #34 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: old toys are donated to a daycare
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Bad. Oh, a sequel. Sigh.
Story: Good. While the overall plot is kind of dumb, the quality of the writing within that framework is great.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good. I've got to take some points off for the shameless "Lincoln logs" gag.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). I've never seen the appeal of the other Toy Story movies. The first one was a kind of cute idea, but more notable for being Important than for being good. The only reason I ever watched part 2 was because it was on the IMDb's Top 250 list; that one was a good movie, but nothing special. I didn't really care about it. Two or three days ago, it never would have occurred to me to bother seeing the third one. Then the reviews started to show up, and I thought, "You have got to be kidding me. The movie critic community must be on crack. Or maybe I need to see this movie." And holy crap, it is indeed an amazing movie. It's nearly the same caliber of film-making as Up and Wall-E, the same level of emotional impact. If it wasn't a sequel, I probably would have scored this one a 9 or 10 out of 10. Also: "death by monkeys" is one of the best moments in any Pixar film. Oh, and we saw it in "2D," and I can't imagine why anyone would conceivably want it to be 3D.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

Day & Night

Data
Title: "Day & Night"
Year: 2010
Length: 6 minutes
Director: Teddy Newton
Music: Michael Giacchino

My reaction
Synopsis: personifications of day and night meet
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Delightful, touching, and completely novel.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

Paths of Glory

The Top 63 Marathon, part 15



Data
Title: Paths of Glory
Year: 1957
Length: 87 minutes
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick, Calder Willingham & Jim Thompson, based on the novel by Humphrey Cobb
Starring: Kirk Douglas, Ralph Meeker, Adolphe Menjou, George Macready
Music: Gerald Fried
Distinctions: currently #49 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: WWI soldiers are tried for cowardice
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. All Quiet on the Western Front lite. War is bad, people!
Story: Good. It's necessarily preachy by its nature, but otherwise well-written.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good. It's a long hour-and-a-half, but I'm just glad it wasn't the long three hours I expected from a 50's war movie.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Its whole point is that it has Something To Say, and that always annoys me. It's very well made, although (apart from the cinematography) not exceptional. I was able to get into it and enjoy it at times. But mostly it beats you over the head.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good)

The Departed

The Top 63 Marathon, part 14



Data
Title: The Departed
Year: 2006
Length: 151 minutes
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: William Monahan, based on a movie written by Alan Mak & Felix Chong
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone, Vera Farmiga
Music: Howard Shore (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing; Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (Wahlberg); currently #50 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the police and a gang both have moles from each other, and both know it
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. Wonderfully entertaining.
Pacing: Great. If it had moved at Scorsese's typical pace, it might have been five hours long.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Exciting, funny (for a crime thriller), and with a surprisingly cool bad guy from Jack Nicholson. If I didn't know, I never would have guessed from watching it that this was a Scorsese film. Not that I don't like Scorsese (I love some of his movies, dislike others), just that this is totally unlike him.
Objective Rating: 3.9/4 (Great).

The Cosby Show: Season Six

Data
Title: The Cosby Show: Season Six
Year: 1989-1990
Network: NBC
Episodes: 26, at c. 23 minutes each
Creators: Ed. Weinberger, Michael Leeson & Bill Cosby
Directors: Tony Singletary (14 episodes), Jay Sandrich (8), Carl Lauten (2), Neema Barnette (1), Chuck Vinson (1), Malcolm-Jamal Warner (1)
Writers: John Markus (18 episodes), Carmen Finestra (17), Gary Kott (16), Mark St. Germain (4), Lore Kimbrough (2), Jeff Lewis (1), Bill Prady (1), Ehrich Van Lowe (1), Matt Robinson (1)
Starring: Bill Cosby, Phylicia Rashad, Lisa Bonet, Malcolm-Jamal Warner, Tempestt Bledsoe, Keshia Knight Pulliam, Raven-Symoné
Music: Stu Gardner & Bill Cosby (theme)



My reaction
Synopsis: the day to day life of a large family in Brooklyn
How I saw it: any number of times on television; on video (rented from Netflix), over the past week
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. They've just about run out of good ideas by this point.
Characters: Indifferent. The kids often act out of character for the sake of creating (cliche) drama.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). The humor is still great, but it's now usually in the context of crap sitcom stories. And it's a shame that Alvin's only in a few episodes, and Grandpa Huxtable only shows up once all season.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

The Lives of Others

The Top 63 Marathon, part 13 (should have been part 9, but I had an inexplicably hard time renting it - Netflix was being a jerk)



Data
Title: Das Leben der Anderen
Year: 2006
Length: 137 minutes
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Writer: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Starring: Martina Gedeck, Ulrich Mühe, Sebastian Koch
Music: Stéphane Moucha, Gabriel Yared
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film; currently #56 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: an East German surveillance officer gets too involved with his suspect
How I saw it: on video (rented from Blockbuster), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Indifferent. The first hour or so, before the characters finally start kicking in, is pretty dull ("Oh look, horrible injustice. Can I go now?"). And there's a long, unnecessary epilogue as well. The rest of the movie's really good, though.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). The character-driven drama at the heart of the movie is quite good, and everything's beautifully shot. But a lot of the movie is tediously political - some of that's unfortunately necessary to set the scene, and some of it's just annoying to the point where it's almost not worth sitting through to get to the good bits. Communism was a bad thing? You don't say!
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

The Secret of Kells

Data
Title: The Secret of Kells
Year: 2009
Length: 75 minutes
Directors: Tomm Moore & Nora Twomey
Writer: Fabrice Ziolkowski, story by Tomm Moore
Starring: Evan McGuire, Christen Mooney, Brendan Gleeson, Mick Lally
Music: Bruno Coulais
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature

My reaction
Synopsis: a boy raised by medieval monks under threat of Viking attack befriends a fairy and learns to be an artist
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. Sounds a bit muddled, doesn't it?
Story: Good. It is a bit muddled; there's a lot going on here for a 75-minute movie, and things don't always mesh together 100%. I liked it anyway.
Characters: Indifferent. Gleeson's character is pretty tedious and hackneyed, which is a shame since he's the driving force of a lot of the drama.  It probably doesn't help that I recently saw the same Harsh Father Figure Who Means Well device in How to Train Your Dragon.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's like somebody made a feature film version of Samurai Jack. It's notably missing the beautiful simplicity of story that Jack had, but otherwise the resemblance is uncanny.  Which is awesome.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

Superman

Data
Title: Superman
Year: 1978
Length: 143 minutes
Director: Richard Donner
Writers: Mario Puzo, David Newman, Leslie Newman & Robert Benton; story by Puzo; characters by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Starring: Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder
Music: John Williams
Distinctions: Special Academy Award for visual effects; Oscar nominations for Best Score, Best Editing and Best Sound



My reaction
Synopsis: a baby from another galaxy grows up to fight for truth, justice and the American way
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently yesterday (have on DVD)
Concept: Great.
Story: Bad. It starts out so promising... and makes progressively less and less sense as it goes on.
Characters: Indifferent. Superman has frustratingly little personality (although Clark Kent is quite nice), and the villains are all unfunny comedic relief.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Indifferent. I think there are about three movies here, and none of them get enough time to have a fair chance, whilst, and at the same time, the movie is kind of slow.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good. I absolutely love the design, but the special effects get pretty bad.
Acting: Good. They do alright considering what they have to work with.
Music: Indifferent. One of Williams' worst scores.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). There's a lot wrong with it, but it's fun anyway. And dude, it's a superhero movie in which the superhero actually fights crime! And solves problems that he didn't create himself! Why don't they do that anymore?
Objective Rating: 2.4/4 (Okay)

The Pianist

The Top 63 Marathon, part 12



Data
Title: The Pianist
Year: 2002
Length: 150 minutes
Director: Roman Polanski
Writer: Ronald Harwood, based on the book by Wladyslaw Szpilman
Starring: Adrien Brody
Music: Wojciech Kilar (and classical music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor (Brody); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Editing and Best Costume Design; currently #51 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a Jew rides out WWII in Warsaw
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. This movie is a perfect example of why I hate the phrase "based on a true story." It's not exactly the same holocaust movie that gets made every few years - the first hour or so is, but then it takes a slightly different turn. But still, there's no creativity or craft to this story, and no room for it.
Characters: Indifferent. There's really only the one significant character, and he's just a guy trying to survive.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent. That first hour, which has been filmed dozens of times, is extremely dull.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). It's well made, but the script is pretty unexceptional. I was bored a lot, and when I wasn't bored (there is a lot to appreciate), I still would rather have been doing something else.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

To Kill a Mockingbird

The Top 63 Marathon, part 11



Data
Title: To Kill a Mockingbird
Year: 1962
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Robert Mulligan
Writer: Horton Foote, based on the novel by Harper Lee
Starring: Gregory Peck, Mary Badham, Phillip Alford, Brock Peters, James Anderson
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Peck) and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white); Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Badham), Best Cinematography (black-and-white) and Best Score; currently #52 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a single father is the defense attorney for a black man in the south
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good. I would have liked it a lot more if it had focused on the trial, instead of all the business with the kids and Boo Radley. I never really feel like I'm seeing things from the kids' perspective, so they end up feeling like a distraction from the "adult" story.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good. Again, I wanted more grown-up drama and less kiddie shenanigans. After the trial's over and the narrator starts talking about Boo Radley again, it's like we've switched to a different movie.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great. The IMDb's trivia claims that this was not filmed on location; the entire town is a huge set.
Acting: Great. How is it that Brock Peters didn't have a more notable career?
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great).
Objective Rating: 3.5/4 (Very good).

Monty Python's Flying Circus

(update of a previous post - original is here)

Data
Title: Monty Python's Flying Circus
Year: 1969-1970 /1970 / 1972-1973 / 1974
Network: BBC
Episodes: 45; three series of 13 episodes, one of 6
Creators: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin
Directors: Ian MacNaughton (entire series), John Howard Davies (season 1, 5 episodes)
Writers: Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones, Palin
Starring: Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam, Idle, Jones, Palin

My reaction
Synopsis: absurd sketch comedy
How I saw it: on video, TV and online, several times; most recently streaming from Netflix over the past month
Concept: Great.
Story: n/a
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great. Except for the horrible 4th series.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Indifferent. Great performances, but never what you could call acting.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). 9/10 for the first three series, and 3/10 for the fourth series.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 2.9/4 (Good).