Apocalypse Now

The Top 63 Marathon, part 29



Data
Title: Apocalypse Now
Year: 1979
Length: 153 minutes (original version)
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: John Milius & Francis Ford Coppola, with Michael Herr, loosely based on a novel by Joseph Conrad
Starring: Marlon Brando, Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, Frederic Forrest, Sam Bottoms, Laurence Fishburne, Albert Hall
Music: Carmine Coppola, Francis Ford Coppola (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Cinematography and Best Sound; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Duvall), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Editing; currently #38 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a soldier is sent into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to assassinate a mad colonel.
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good. "The horror..." Seriously?  The voice-over narration is great, though, and turned what might have been an unbearably slow movie into a quasi-noir thriller.
Pacing: Good. I really was not expecting a 2½-hour Vietnam movie to hold my interest, but it totally did.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Most of it is great. But then there's Brando, taking a crap all over this movie. Dude just didn't care anymore.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Most of the movie is a solid 8/10. The ending sort of falls apart, though. [spoilers ahead] The movie builds and builds an increasing level of horror, all the time promising us the Mad Genius yet to come. But all we get is a sad, mumbling man and a crowd with spears. And a very annoying Dennis Hopper.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

The Adventures of Prince Achmed

Data
Title: Die Abenteuer des Prinzen Achmed
Year: 1926
Length: 66 minutes
Director: Lotte Reiniger
Writer: Lotte Reiniger [based on Arabian Nights]
Music: Wolfgang Zeller



My reaction
Synopsis: a prince kidnaps a demon woman, then has to rescue her from further kidnappers
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. The first ever animated feature film.
Story: Good.
Characters: Indifferent. Fairytale archetypes.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent. It moves way too quickly. If you blink you'll miss something.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's no Snow White, but it's pretty awesome. Coming from someone who has been so far generally underwhelmed by silent films, this is by far the best one I've seen.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

Brief Encounter

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Brief Encounter
Year: 1945 (UK), 1946 (US)
Length: 86 minutes
Director: David Lean
Writers: Anthony Havelock-Allan, David Lean & Ronald Neame, based on a play by Noel Coward
Starring: Celia Johnson, Trevor Howard
Music: Sergei Rachmaninoff’s 2nd piano concerto
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actress (Johnson) (1947); currently #216 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: an ordinary mother/housewife imagines telling her husband about a man she fell in love with
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently yesterday (have on DVD)
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great. The depth and realism of the characters in this movie is remarkable. Take the scene where she lies to her husband – something you see on just about every episode of every bad sitcom, not to mention almost every “romantic” movie ever made; this movie is probably the only time it feels as gut-wrenching as it should.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great. I don’t care for Rachmaninoff, but it's a lot better than your typical film score. And they use the music cleverly: what’s on the radio while she’s “telling” the story is the flashback’s score.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). One of the best things a movie can do is to give you a look inside someone, and I don't know of any movie that does that more convincingly than this.
Objective Rating: 3.7/4 3.8/4 (Great).

Forrest Gump

The Top 63 Marathon, part 28



Data
Title: Forrest Gump
Year: 1994
Length: 142 minutes
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Writer: Eric Roth, based on the novel by Winston Groom
Starring: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson, Sally Field
Music: Alan Silvestri (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (Hanks), Best Editing and Best Visual Effects; Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actor (Sinise), Best Score, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Makeup, Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing; currently #37 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the young life of an idiot who can run fast
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently two days ago (rented from Netflix)
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's mostly entertaining, but it's so very dumb. If the movie had just been about Forrest, it could have been pretty good. Instead it's a sort of aimless nostalgia-fest for baby boomers, bathed in disgustingly bad philosophy.
Objective Rating: 2.5/4 (Okay).

American Beauty

The Top 63 Marathon, part 27



Data
Title: American Beauty
Year: 1999
Length: 122 minutes
Director: Sam Mendes
Writer: Alan Ball
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, Mena Suvari, Chris Cooper
Music: Thomas Newman (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor (Spacey) and Best Cinematography; Oscar nominations for Best Actress (Bening), Best Score and Best Editing; currently #39 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a middle-aged loser turns his life upside down
How I saw it: in the theater, c. 1999; on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Bening is great. The actors playing teenagers are mediocre.
Music: Good. Great score, cheesy soundtrack.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It's interesting that this, Fight Club and Office Space all came out in the same year. What's with people in 1999 hating their jobs/lives? Back then Lester Burnham seemed like the ultimate middle-class hero, but now he seems like an irresponsible shmuck (but a lovable irresponsible shmuck who's fun to watch).
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Doctor Who #108: The Horns of Nimon

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Horns of Nimon"
Year: 1979-1980
Network: BBC
Episodes: 4, at 25 minutes each; the fifth story (of five or six) from season seventeen
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Kenny McBain
Writer: Anthony Read
Starring: Tom Baker, Lalla Ward
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Dudley Simpson

My reaction
Synopsis: a would-be war-like planet makes sacrifices to a minotaur-ish alien in exchange for technology
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). There are a lot of nice silly bits (this is from Douglas Adams' season as script editor, and it shows), but otherwise it's crap.
Objective Rating: 1.7/4 (Eh).

Winter's Bone

Data
Title: Winter's Bone
Year: 2010
Length: 100 minutes
Director: Debra Granik
Writers: Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini, based on the novel by Daniel Woodrell
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes
Music: Dickon Hinchliffe (and others whose credits I can't find online)
Oscars: nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress (Lawrence) and Best Supporting Actor (Hawkes)

My reaction
Synopsis: a teenager needs to hunt down her bail-jumping father
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good. It feels longer than it is, but it wouldn't work nearly as well if it moved faster.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.  Unless this year's movies pick up a lot, Lawrence is pretty much guaranteed an Oscar nomination, if only because it's such a great role.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Intense, without ever giving you the unpleasant feeling that an intensely bleak movie usually gives. It has the detached, matter-of-fact tone and delivery of an old Appalachian murder ballad - which is an impressive feat for a movie to pull off, absolutely perfect for these characters, and kind of awesome to watch.  Reminds me of Cormac McCarthy, except with a plot.
Objective Rating: 3.8/4 (Great).

Doctor Who #96: Underworld

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "Underworld"
Year: 1978
Network: BBC
Episodes: 4, at 25 minutes each; the fifth story (of six) from season fifteen
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Norman Stewart
Writers: Bob Baker & Dave Martin
Starring: Tom Baker, Louise Jameson
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Dudley Simpson

My reaction
Synopsis: an ancient spaceship crew has been pursuing another ship for 100,000 years
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Indifferent. The first episode is great, but eventually it devolves into the old Rebellion of Oppressed People crap.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Terrible.
Special effects/design: Terrible. A lot of the story uses a blue screen, but the way it looks, they might as well have used rear projection.
Acting: Indifferent. A lot of it's good by classic Who standards, but the villains are pretty bad.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). A pretty shoddy episode, but with some interesting science fiction behind it.
Objective Rating: 1.8/4 (Eh).

American History X

The Top 63 Marathon, part 26



Data
Title: American History X
Year: 1998
Length: 119 minutes
Director: Tony Kaye
Writer: David McKenna
Starring: Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, Beverly D'Angelo, Avery Brooks
Music: Anne Dudley
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Actor (Norton); currently #40 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a teenager is following in his ex-con, skinhead brother's footsteps
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. Skinheads? Seriously? Why do I want to watch a movie about skinheads?
Story: Good. But much of it is painfully predictable.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Great as a character study. Bad on the "we'd like you to know that violent hatred is a bad thing" front, because, uh, yeah, no kidding.  Unless you happen to be a crazy-as-f*** seething racist, it's not exactly going to be a life-effecting film.  And I don't like it when movies have A Point at the best of times.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

Doctor Who #64: The Time Monster

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Time Monster"
Year: 1972
Network: BBC
Episodes: 6, at 25 minutes each; the last story (of five) from season nine
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Paul Bernard
Writers: Robert Sloman & Barry Letts
Starring: Jon Pertwee, Nicholas Courtney, Katy Manning
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Dudley Simpson

My reaction
Synopsis: the Master manipulates time to summon an ancient, powerful creature
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), over the past couple days
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Terrible.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). There's not anything especially wrong with it, except for the general lack of anything good about it. It's fairly dull and unimaginative (except for episode four, where two TARDISes are each one inside the other, which I think is kind of brilliant), but it's watchable.
Objective Rating: 1.4/4 (Bad).

Taxi Driver

The Top 63 Marathon, part 25



Data
Title: Taxi Driver
Year: 1976
Length: 113 minutes
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Paul Schrader
Starring: Robert De Niro, Jodie Foster, Cybill Shepherd, Harvey Keitel
Music: Bernard Herrmann
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor (De Niro), Best Supporting Actress (Foster) and Best Score; currently #41 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a NY cabbie is creepy
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great. A character study of a twisted, scary person - sounds fun to me.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. The more De Niro movies I see, the less impressed I am.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Emotionally distant, but fascinating. After having seen it a few times, the fascination is wearing off, though.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Doctor Who #16: The Chase

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Chase"
Year: 1965
Network: BBC
Episodes: 6, at 25 minutes each; the eight story (of nine) from season two
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Richard Martin
Writer: Terry Nation
Starring: William Hartnell, William Russell, Jacqueline Hill, Maureen O'Brien
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Dudley Simpson



My reaction
Synopsis: chased by Daleks through time and space
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.  Much of the story centers around gags that aren't funny.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Just plain dumb. Every now and then they have to bring in Terry Nation to write a story, to make the rest of the show look good by comparison.  It could have been a lot worse (and some 1980s stuff is a lot worse), but I can't think of any significant redeeming value.
Objective Rating: 1.6/4 (Eh).

Vertigo

The Top 63 Marathon, part 24



Data
Title: Vertigo
Year: 1958
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Alec Coppel & Samuel A. Taylor, based on a novel by Pierre Boileau & Thomas Narcejac
Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes
Music: Bernard Herrmann
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Sound; currently #42 on the IMDb's top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a retired cop is hired to follow a woman whose husband claims she's possessed
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. (but see below)
Characters: Good. Bonus points for Midge.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good. The design is great. The special effects are pretty sad.
Acting: Good. Jimmy's got a hard character to sell, and I'm not sold.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's kind of two different movies, one after the other. About two thirds of the way through the film, the first story comes to a climax, things twist around, and a new story starts in a different direction. I guess this is kind of the point, and I would be okay with that if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that the second story isn't as interesting as the first one.  The first part is great - suspenseful, fairly unique, and unmistakably 1958.  The second part is still good, but once the suspense breaks, it never comes back at full Hitchcock force.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

Inception

Data
Title: Inception
Year: 2010
Length: 148 minutes
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe
Music: Hans Zimmer
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Score and Best Art Direction; currently #83 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a team of criminals commits industrial espionage in peoples' subconscious minds
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. If the concept is the basic idea of the plot, it's pretty bad. If the concept is "Christopher Nolan makes a movie about whatever nonsense he wants because he's Christopher f***ing Nolan," then it's great.
Story: Indifferent. I was pretty disappointed by the story. It isn't convoluted like a game of Chess (like The Prestige). The actual narrative is actually pretty straight forward. Instead it's convoluted in its execution. Nolan's created a world with a lot of arbitrary (and unreasonably specific) rules, so that when it comes to following the details of the story it's pretty much impossible to know for sure whether you're looking at plot holes or not. One thing I'm sure of (and it's probably not intentional): what the characters keep referring to as "dreaming" has almost no resemblance to real dreams.
Characters: Bad. DiCaprio is sad because he's away from his family. And that is pretty much all there is to characters. It's not a characters kind of movie.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good. Some of the action scenes are relatively dull.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. The casting is kind of distracting.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's a fun ride, but kind of frustrating. There's really only one scene where they take advantage of the possibilities of setting a story in a dream and put the amazing special effects to work on something cool. That scene is worth the price of admission, but it's early in the movie, and everything that follows it is annoyingly uncreative.  (There's some significant build-up to a mind-bending labyrinth which we never even get to see).  And I don't want to think about trying to figure out the plot to the degree where I could say whether or not it actually makes sense. I don't think there'd be any reward for the effort. None-the-less, I find myself constantly trying to figure it out, and I would like to stop.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

Doctor Who #15: The Space Museum

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Space Museum"
Year: 1965
Network: BBC
Episodes: 4, at 25 minutes each; the seventh story (of nine) from season two
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Mervyn Pinfield
Writer: Glyn Jones
Starring: William Hartnell, William Russell, Jacqueline Hill, Maureen O'Brien
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); stock music



My reaction
Synopsis: aliens want to turn The Doctor & company into museum displays
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good. Some nice funny bits.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Terrible. They have the hardest time getting things to stay in focus.
Special effects/design: Bad. It's good to know that Chuck Taylors are popular on distant alien planets.
Acting: Indifferent. Much of it's bad, but The Doctor and Vicki are both pretty delightful in this one.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). It's a silly episode, and I found it very entertaining. Unfortunately the Doctor disappears from the narrative for about an episode and a half, which is a real shame as he's written and played better than usual for the era in this story.
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 (Okay).

Fantasia

Data
Title: Fantasia
Year: 1940
Length: 120 minutes
Directors: Samuel Armstrong, James Algar, Ford Beebe, Jim Handley, Hamilton Luske, Bill Roberts, Paul Satterfield, Norman Ferguson, T. Hee, Wilfred Jackson
Writers: Joe Grant, Dick Huemer, and about 23 other people
Starring: Leopold Stokowski, Deems Taylor
Music: classical music arranged and conducted by Leopold Stokowski
Distinctions: 2 honorary Academy Awards for "the advancement of the use of sound" and "the creation of a new form of visualized music" (1942)

My reaction
Synopsis: various pointless animated sequences
How I saw it: on video a couple times (have on VHS), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good. If they had given any of the segments other than "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" a story of some sort, it could have been a great movie. Instead we've got two hours of Characterless Things dancing around.
Story: Terrible. Nope.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: Bad.
Pacing: Terrible.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good. I would say great, if it weren't for the gaudiness of the My Little Ponies segment.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Great. They're famously mediocre performances/orchestrations, and the selection of which pieces to use is sometimes baffling. So, for a collection of classical music, it's pretty bad. But for a film score, it's great.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Oh my God it's so boring.
Objective Rating: 1.8/4 (Eh).

Shake, Mr. Shakespeare

Data
Title: "Shake, Mr. Shakespeare"
Year: 1936
Length: 20 minutes
Director: Roy Mack
Writer: Cyrus Wood

My reaction
Synopsis: Shakespearean characters sing and dance
How I saw it: on video (A Midsummer Night's Dream bonus feature), two days ago
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Indifferent. It takes ten minutes or so before it starts getting good.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). You see that still up there? That's a Dancing Hamlet. He's Hamlet, and he's dancing. And those people behind him? Also Hamlet. And also dancing. Dancing Hamlets.
Objective Rating: 1.6/4 (Eh).

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Data
Title: A Midsummer Night's Dream
Year: 1935
Length: 142 minutes
Directors: William Dieterle & Max Reinhardt
Writer: William Shakespeare, adapted by Charles Kenyon & Mary C. McCall Jr.
Starring: Dick Powell, Ross Alexander, Olivia de Havilland, Jean Muir, James Cagney, Joe E. Brown, Victor Jory, Anita Louise, Mickey Rooney
Music: Felix Mendelssohn, adapted by Erich Wolfgang Korngold
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Cinematography and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Assistant Director

My reaction
Synopsis: fairies mess with human lovers
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), two days ago
Concept: Indifferent. The trouble with a 1935 adaptation of Shakespeare is that half the fun I usually get from 1930s movies is from their time-capsule quality. There's something about movies from that era, collectively, that just fascinates on a level completely separate from how the movie works artistically. The fact that it's Shakespeare, and therefor has a screenplay that's about as timeless as they come, pretty much negates that factor. And since I'm not a fan of this play to begin with (although it does offer some reasonable opportunities for humor), there's not much for me here.
Story: Bad. Sorry, Bill, your story is stupid.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good. They actually cut some of the best lines - presumably based on the relative fame of the actors speaking them.
Pacing: Bad.  Very slow.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good. I would say great, if it weren't for Bottom's ass-head mask.
Acting: Terrible. Most of the cast is good, and a handful are awful. Whatever good acting there is doesn't really matter, though, because Mickey Rooney's performance is so obnoxious that the movie is almost unwatchable.
Music: Good. Great score, but I have to take a point off for Unnecessary Singing.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). There are some nice visuals here and there, and a couple small laughs from Joe E. Brown, but otherwise there's not really anything worth seeing.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).

The Neverending Story

Data
Title: The Neverending Story
Year: 1984
Length: 94 minutes
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
Writers: Wolfgang Petersen & Herman Weigel, with Robert Easton, based on the book by Michael Ende
Starring: Barret Oliver, Noah Hathaway, Alan Oppenheimer
Music: Klaus Doldinger & Giorgio Moroder



My reaction
Synopsis: a boy reads a fantasy book about a quest
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Indifferent. The leads are pretty bad, but most of the secondary characters are great.
Dialog: Indifferent. Very inconsistent. Some bits are great, some are terrible.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Good. This is a hard call. The design is pretty good. The special effects are bad, but with a lot of character. And look at those stills - if the puppets never moved, they would look f***ing amazing.  Still gives me chills when Morla's head emerges.
Acting: Bad.
Music: Terrible.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I don't know if it's nostalgia that makes me love this movie, or if it's just because I put such a higher priority on writing than on anything else in movies. It's probably the former, but I don't want to admit it. I mean, come on, this movie's awesome, right?
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 2.4/4 (Okay).

Despicable Me

Data
Title: Despicable Me
Year: 2010
Length: 95 minutes
Directors: Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud
Writers: Ken Daurio & Cinco Paul, story by Sergio Pablos
Starring: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher
Music: Heitor Pereira (score), Pharrell Williams (songs), and non-original music

My reaction
Synopsis: an evil mastermind adopts three little girls as part of his villainous scheme
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. Predictable, but it could have been a lot worse.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good. A handful of shots of weirdly intense expressions on the "minions" are enough to make up for the mediocre voice acting.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Disposable entertainment. It's very funny, pretty much guaranteed to get some hysterical laughter at some point. It's otherwise unremarkable and forgettable.
Objective Rating: 2.4/4 (Okay).

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

The Top 63 Marathon, part 23



Data
Title: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Year: 1991
Length: 152 minutes
Director: James Cameron
Writers: James Cameron & William Wisher Jr.
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, Robert Patrick
Music: Brad Fiedel
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Sound; Oscar nominations for Best Cinematography and Best Editing; currently #41 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: an unstoppable, time-traveling robot tries to kill a bratty kid
How I saw it: on video many times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent. Sarah Connor's kind of awesome in this movie. Every other character is crap.
Dialog: Terrible.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. It gets the job done, but I don't think there's a single special effect shot in this movie that isn't shouting, "Check out these awesome special effects!"
Acting: Good. But nowhere near good enough to pull off the horrendous dialog.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). A corny, boring mess. The first hour or so is stupid fun, with some good bad-assery. Then they go into the desert to get in touch with their feelings (which they don't really have, since one of them is a robot and the other is a James Cameron character). The action in the third act is okay, but not good enough to wake me up.  I just don't get what people see in this - it's by far the worst of the three Terminator movies I've seen.
Objective Rating: 1.6/4 (Eh).

Lawrence of Arabia

The Top 63 Marathon, part 22



Data
Title: Lawrence of Arabia
Year: 1962
Length: 227 minutes!
Director: David Lean
Writers: Robert Bolt & Michael Wilson, based on writings of T.E. Lawrence
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Omar Sharif
Music: Maurice Jarre
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Score, Best Cinematography (color), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color), Best Editing and Best Sound; Oscar nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor (O'Toole) and Best Supporting Actor (Sharif); currently #43 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a conceited British man-child leads Arab armies
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. It starts out great, but for the last hour or so it just sort of wanders off into the desert to die.
Characters: Indifferent.  Lawrence is an ass.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Terrible. So very terrible.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good. But why film on location in freaking Jordan if you're going to use locations that look like Doctor Who quarries half the time?
Acting: Good. I'm underwhelmed. And Alec Guinness in brownface is some of the most horrible casting ever.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). At least it's not as bad as Doctor Zhivago. I wonder if in 1962 a movie's being 4 hours long was considered a good thing. Maybe it made it more of an event, that people felt obliged to take part in? Or maybe it's the idea that if a movie's harder to watch, it must be high art - because why else would they do it?
Objective Rating: 2.3/4 (Okay).

Alien

The Top 63 Marathon, part 21



Data
Title: Alien
Year: 1979
Length: 117 minutes
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Dan O'Bannon; story by O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Yaphet Kotto
Music: Jerry Goldsmith
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Visual Effects; Oscar nomination for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; currently #44 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: deadly alien on a spaceship
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. I would say it's bad, but I happen to like this particular Ridiculously Unoriginal Idea.
Story: Good.
Characters: Indifferent. Yeah, I guess they're pretty much just there because somebody has to get eaten by the space monster. Who needs first names?
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great. A good contender for Best Art Direction of All Time.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent. Most of the score is fine, but what's with the random inappropriate credits music?
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Not nearly as intense or scary as the sequel, but it's a much better movie. Very pretty to look at. Exceptionally geeky for a mainstream horror film and/or a post-Star Wars sci-fi film.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 3.3/4 (Very good).

Amélie

The Top 63 Marathon, part 20



Data
Title: Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain
Year: 2001
Length: 122 minutes
Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Writers: Guillaume Laurant & Jean-Pierre Jeunet; dialog by Laurant
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz
Music: Yann Tiersen (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Foreign Language Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Sound; currently #45 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a shy woman helps people anonymously, and falls in love
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.  I have to reluctantly take off here, although the design is great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). I think it might be impossible to not be in a good mood after watching this movie.
Objective Rating: 3.9/4 4.0/4 (Great).

Wall-E

The Top 63 Marathon, part 19

(update of a pervious post - original is here)



Data
Title: Wall-E
Year: 2008
Length: 98 minutes
Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon; story by Stanton & Pete Docter
Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin
Music: Thomas Newman (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Animated Feature; Oscar nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Score, Best Song ("Down to Earth"), Best Sound and Best Sound Editing; currently #47 on the IMDb's Top 250



My reaction
Synopsis: a trash-compacting robot falls in love
How I saw it: in the theater, June 2008; on video several times (have on DVD)
Concept: Great. It is a bit strange that I seem to be the target audience; someone making a movie that is exactly the movie I want to see is pretty much the last thing I would have expected to ever happen.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.  Who needs actors when you've got a sound designer and an assistant producer?
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). Amazing. Probably the perfect movie.
Objective Rating: 4.0/4 4.1/4 (Great).

Presto

Data
Title: "Presto"
Year: 2008
Length: 5 minutes
Director: Doug Sweetland
Writer: Doug Sweetland; story by Ted Mathot, Valerie LaPointe & Justin Wright
Music: Scot Blackwell Stafford
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short

My reaction
Synopsis: a stage magician vs. his rabbit
How I saw it: in the theater, June 2008; on video several times (have on DVD - Wall-E bonus feature)
Concept: Good. Old school Looney Tunes style hi-jinks.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. But why? It's just gags. As long as the timing's there, they could be stick figures.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good).
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

Saving Private Ryan

The Top 63 Marathon, part 18



Data
Title: Saving Private Ryan
Year: 1998
Length: 169 minutes
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Robert Rodat
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Matt Damon
Music: John Williams (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing; Oscar Nominations for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor (Hanks), Best Score (dramatic), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration and Best Makeup; currently #46 on the IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: following D-Day, a group of soldiers searches France for one guy to send home
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. Characters in a war movie that are walking metaphors? No thanks.
Story: Great.
Characters: Good. They're mostly just cliches, but are salvaged through good performances.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent. The opening battle scene is great. Three hours later, during the closing battle scene, it took a pretty strong effort to keep paying attention.
Cinematography: Good. Tries a little too hard.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good. I assume it's not entirely Williams' fault, but the sappiness of the score is a bit overwhelming at times. Bonus points for Edith Piaf.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). If just a few key scenes had been trimmed or pulled back a bit, I might have really enjoyed it. Spielberg's apparent inability to use subtlety in making his points means that the movie pushes dangerously into propaganda territory.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).