Yet you continue to deny that Full Metal Jacket is a true work of art, and slam it for being "boring".

Planet of the Apes (1968)

I've never seen a Planet of the Apes movie but this was good. The makeup/costume's were excellent as was the directing. The movie was good but for some reason during it I felt kinda bored, plus the end shot was ruined for me as I've already seen it countless times before. Still an enjoyable first time experience, however I don't think I'll buy it on DVD

Yet you continue to deny that Full Metal Jacket is a true work of art, and slam it for being "boring". [/b][/quote]I don't like Lawrence of Arabia either. I appreciate it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Oh, I never said you liked it. I just wish you could appreciate Full Metal Jacket.

Oh well... I was mostly just messing around with you anyways.

WHAT?!?!?! Man on Fire was an A+ movie if you ask me, though it did have quite a few cinematography tricks to it, including focus and the wierd ass way of doing subtitles but that was so much better than In the Cut"s constant muddy focus. In Man on Fire at least it got me to focus on a perticular part of the frame but that was not so in In the Cut. In that it was just frustrating I wasn't paying that much attention to the movie itself because of all the focus issues-that didn't happen with Man on Fire

What made you decide against 62% or 64 %? Why not give it D, instead of D-?

Mick [/b][/quote]Well it is mostly rated against the other Bay movies. Then I consider what I liked about it and what I thought was lacking, then I considered if it was in my collection how it would rank if I was in the mood for some bubblegum entertainment.
I didn't give it the lowest score in it's rank because I feel that there are several movies that also fall in that rank that I would watch this over, with 10 degrees in each rank I am able to further rank them in order to each other. I'm sure you have some movies that rank *** that you think are better than some other *** movie, hence the "63"

WHAT?!?!?! Man on Fire was an A+ movie if you ask me, though it did have quite a few cinematography tricks to it, including focus and the wierd ass way of doing subtitles but that was so much better than In the Cut"s constant muddy focus. In Man on Fire at least it got me to focus on a perticular part of the frame but that was not so in In the Cut. In that it was just frustrating I wasn't paying that much attention to the movie itself because of all the focus issues-that didn't happen with Man on Fire [/b][/quote]Man on Fire was horrible to me, and here are my reasons. It's a simple revenge film, that was Hollywoodized from the novel. After all, they couldn't really have the girl die, because as we all know cartels are very understanding people [/sarcasm]. The whole film is done like a music video and destroys the good cinematography it could've had. Denzel takes a shitload of bullets, and brings major revenge out, and in several scenes it's ridiculous. There's one scene where Denzel rocket-launches a car, and then in slow motion (while engulfed by flames!) throws more grenades. The fast-paced editing served as much purpose as the black and white photography in Thirteen Days. And as if it all couldn't get worse, it does. Creasy sacrifices himself for the girl and dies in the car. Now, it could've ended looking at those mountains and at least be decent with the ending, but no. Because the average audience needs to be pacified with some kind of "justice served" scene, we cut to a very out of place scene with "The Voice" being killed off. Which brings me to more of a complaint then a flaw, what was the point of Creasy's birth/death dates considering he isn't real?

Overall it's an over the top action film with an old plot that's very predictable with a horrid direction from Scott, and it's looking like the same for Domino because he's using the epileptic editing again. Now, while the editing was a talented piece of work in it's own right, it was grossly overused for no reason. I can see it used well for one or two scenes, most notably the "Failure to Fire" scene in Creasy's room, but in the end it's only a cinematic version of X-treme marketing.

Was I entertained? Yes, and I can watch it again, but a lot of bad films can easily entertain me.

I can name camera tricks in other films that actually served a purpose. As for In the Cut I haven't seen it, nor do I have an interest to.

The Dukes of Hazzard

Hazzard County Georgia is a place where life just seems to be a little slower…unless your last name is DUKE. Yee-Haw! I’m sorry for that outburst but I’m only an hour or so removed from seeing this movie and it is just that kind of infectious fun. I went into this movie expecting, oddly enough, great things because of the cast and director. Usually this is a bad sign as when I get my expectations up few movies can meet them, and if you can’t tell already this one did. Of course I wasn’t expecting this to be one of the greatest movies ever just a really fun cinematic ride in the General Lee – delivered.
In case you live under a rock or something this movie is a cinematic version of the popular (?) television series of the late seventies and early eighties. The real star of the show is the nigh invulnerable 1969 Dodge Charger that carries the moniker of “The General Lee”. Coming in second is Daisy Duke’s cleavage, (it was her ass in the show but you know creative silence and such) and Jessica Simpson is on hand to provide that as well as an entirely overly accentuated accent. Of course I don’t think the producers cast her for her acting ability we both know she is there to look pretty, which incidentally is her only talent. Taking on the roles of Bo and Luke are Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville respectively and they do a great job, I wouldn’t really call portraying the Duke boys acting but whatever it is they do it well. It is all comedic timing and just going with the material, the actors and director were able to maintain this fantastic cheesy vibe and fun atmosphere. Throw in Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse and Burt Reynolds as a rather calm Boss Hogg and you have your cast.
Boss Hogg was the bad guy from the series and he retains that title here but as I already mentioned he is pretty calm when compared to his television counterpart. The story is kept pretty simple but I seriously doubt that you were expecting a taught tension filled script from this. Basically Boss Hogg is trying to turn the town into a strip mine. It also revolves around this Hazzard County Road Rally; Boss Hogg has brought in a former champ and now professional racer to distract the town so that he can pass an ordinance to mine the town. The Duke boys find about it and by golly they manage to thwart his dastardly plan. Oh, and there are a shitload of car stunts.
The main reason that I really wanted to see this movie was the director Jay Chandrasekhar. He is the director of the Broken Lizard movies (Super Troopers and Club Dread) and that alone was enough to get my money. Actually he brought along the whole troop so if you are looking you can find all of them in this movie. One of the little in-jokes is actually is Erik Stolhanske and him doing a bit of their routine from the opening of Super Troopers. Jay manages to string together these great comedy pieces, driving stunts, in-jokes, and the lighthearted bravado of the series all the while maintaining a great chemistry between not only his main stars but supporting cast as well. That is what I think the main strength of this movie is that nothing (aside from Jessica Simpson’s “acting”) feels odd or out of place, he manages to cull the best parts from the series and interject a little of his own style in it making a superior amalgam.
Well I had fun, and that is all I was looking for – 85(B).

This movie is getting horrible reviews. Although I never was a fan of the tv show, I know it was popular and had its "own" following.


TIS

Hondo - (John Farrow;1953;USA) - ***
A drifting shootist and his dog meet a woman and her son while the Apaches harass the land and want to make her son one of their warriors.
A good, simple western that has a nice lead from the Duke and Geraldine Page as the woman he meets. The best thing in this film is a beautiful cinematography throughout the film. Overall nothing heavily special but a good film.

I just caught the last half of "National Lampoon's Vacation" with Chevy Chase. I liked that movie.


TIS

Cicade de Deus (2002) - ****
Director: Fernando Meirelles
An aspiring photographer grows up on the gang infested streets of Rio de Janeiro.

This was amazing! There wasn't a single thing that could've made this film any better. I just wish, maybe in a few years, perhaps they could dub it into english, as the subtitles often distracted me from the great visuals, or sometimes the visuals would distract me from the subtitles. I plan to give it a second veiwing, so I can focus on just the visuals. I'm still blown away.

The Audrey Hepburn Story

This has got to be the best Jennifer Love Hewitt performance that I've ever seen. The movie is decent at best but I really thought J Love shined in it. Emmy Rossum also put on a good performance as the young Miss Audrey Hepburn.

Wow. I used to love Audrey Hepburn..when does it come on again?

I rented the DVD Meggie

Dukes of Hazzard

I wasn't expecting much from this movie and it wasn't that funny to me but it was surprisingly good. The cast just fit great together and I really like Burt Reyonlds probably the most (of course aside from Jessica Simpson) You could see worst in the theaters right now so if you want a few laughs and you've already seen The Wedding Crashers, give it a shot

Carlito\'s Way - (Brian DePalma;1993;USA) - ***
After five years in prison, an ex-drug dealer tries to stay clean while surrounded by both old criminals, and younger wannabes.
A very good crime/drama that has a solid direction and very good performances from Pacino and Penn. The plot and protagonist are both a lot better then Scarface's, but both the director and lead actor misplace their talent, performing and directing Scarface better.
In Top 30

Sin City
A well-crafted and intriguingly made film, that sticks firmly to it's comic book origins, (hence, don't take it too seriously). Some strong preformances, of particular note Clive Owen as an impulsive gun-toting vigilante and an unrecognizeable (truly a great make-up job) Mickey Rourke as a foul-mouthed boxer trying to hunt down the murderers of his girlfriend. Britanny Murphy also shines in a small supporting role as a strip club waitress.

I'm watching Addam's Family Values on TV right now, and I really didn't remember it being so funny! I'm sleepy, so maybe I'd laugh at anything right now, but regardless.

My first films of August:

L'Argent * (1st time)
1983, Bresson, Fr
The theft of a counterfeit 500 franc note sparks a chain of events dealing with greed, corruption and injustice.
Too austere for its own good; Bresson's style is so diegetic that tedium is never too far away.

I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang **** (1st time)
1932, LeRoy, US
Fresh from service in the war, a factory worker dreams of becoming an engineer, but is wrongly convicted of theft and sentenced to hard labour on a chain line.
A harsh, brutal tale which is delivered at a pacey speed and raises all kinds of questions even today. A gem of a film, with all the necessary hands working together to establish an extraordinarily grim film.

Mick

Ondskan/Evil ** (1st time; big screen)
2003, Håfström, Swe
In the 1950s, an unruly boy is sent to boarding school, where he stands out and is bullied by the older pupils.
Clichés unfold steadily as the narrative progresses and plods through the usual turns; otherwise, it happens to be a very watchable coming-of-age affair, a sort of teenage Gladiator, in which the star pupil must overcome his own tendency for violence and seek academic success in more lawful ways.

Mick

Shane - (George Stevens;1952;USA) - ****
A gunfighter arrives on a family's farmland, and works for them to leave his violent life. However, land-grabbers make that very difficult.
One of the greatest westerns. Alan Ladd is wonderful as the iconic protagonist who becomes a boy's role-model. The film plays out as a simple story that has something very meaningful to say, and has an ending still debated to this day. The cinematography brings a nice, natural beauty to the film as well. A true classic.

The Phantom of the Opera - (Joel Schumacher;2004;USA/UK) - ***
A disfigured musician harasses the opera house he lives in for the benefit of a young singer he loves.
I liked the ending, although somewhat cliche, the musical scenes (minus the ones done by the minor characters), and most of all, the art direction. I thought this would be generally bad considering it's popularity among teenie-boppers at my school, but I was pleasantly surprised. This works very well as a musical. Overall a very good film just shy of being great.

Badlands **** (1st time)
1973, Malick, US
A garbage worker and fifteen-year-old magazine addict fall in love and go on a killing spree across the Dakota plains.
Strangely beautiful tale, haunting in its aesthetics and boasting blistering performances from the two leads. It is a sad reflection of being at odds with society and the loneliness that causes it.

Mick

Elephant - (Gus Van Sant;2003;USA) - ****
An observation of several teens in a high school, two of which are planning a horrible massacre.
An amazing and painfully true film. The somewhat lack of music fits the film perfectly, as well as the cast, mostly non-actors. Explanations aren't really given, but they aren't needed. We can easily draw conclusions just by observing, which is how the film feels. This is definitely the best of 2003, and one of the more important films to come out recently. The only flaw I found is a few of the reactions of students in the climax.
#19

High Plains Drifter - (Clint Eastwood;1973;USA) - ***
After a very ominous stranger appears, a small town hires him to protect them against three criminals, but who is this man, if he's human at all?
Eastwood shows some talent with his second film, which turns out to be a good western, and slightly different from others. It's slow at times and has some awkward moments but it comes together in the end. The eerie music is also very good, as well as the cinematography. The view of the red town is a very poignant image. Recommended to Eastwood fans.

William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (2004)
[ Official Site ]

Director by: Michael Radford (Il Postino (1994), Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984))

Starring: Al Pacino (Shylock), Jeremy Irons (Antonio), Lynn Collings (Portia), Joseph Fiennes (Bassanio)

Plot summary (from IMDb): "Venice, 1596. Melancholy Antonio loves the youthful Bassanio, so when Bassanio asks for 3000 ducats, Antonio says yes before knowing it's to sue for the hand of Portia. His capital tied up in merchant ships at sea, Antonio must go to Shylock, a Jewish moneylender he reviles. Shylock wraps his grudge in kindness, offering a three-month loan at no interest, but if not repaid, Antonio will owe a pound of flesh. The Jew's daughter elopes with a Christian, whetting Shylock's hatred. While Bassanio's away wooing Portia, Antonio's ships founder, and Shylock demands his pound of flesh. With court assembled and a judgment due, Portia swings into action to save Bassanio's friend."

--

I'm really a dummy when it comes to Shakespeare, but I couldn't miss the latest from Al Pacino, especially because Pacino is such an avid Shakespearian stage actor. (Those who've seen his Looking for Richard (1996) understand).

I'll admit, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on (I had never read the story, nor any plot summary beforehand) -- and the dialogue didn't help, but nor was it Old English either. Again, I'm a dummy, but after a while I really started to get into it. I liked Al's performance, but wasn't entirely convinced that he was a 16th Century Jew living in Venice. He had only the slightest hint of an accent; otherwise, he sounded like Al.

What struck me most about this story is how timely it still is today, in this word of extreme prejudice. I had no idea about the 16th Century segregation of Jews in Christian Venice, their being locked up at night in their own ghetto, and the fact that they needed to wear red hats to indentify themselves in town during the day. Sound familiar?

What makes it timely still is that you could replace Jews/Christians with any opposing groups, really. Shylock's famous speech is known to us all -- or at least should be:
If all the hateful people in this world realized this, the world would be a much better place.

I know that quote Geoff, and I have read bits and pieces of the play. I really wanna see the movie, although there's too many films above it on my to-get list. The fact that Pacino and Irons are in a film together makes me wanna see it all the more.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002) - ***1/2
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
A man suffering from his own social problems falls in love as he falls into trouble with a phone-sex line/scam.

This finalizes it. P.T. Anderson is the best young director out there. I've seen all of his feature-length films except Sydney, which I just can't find anywheres. Each of these films have been amazing, and just show his broad range. He did an excellent job at the comical but equally dramatic Boogie Nights, and the 1999 drama Magnolia, which I feel was the best film of the year. Now, he has wowed me again with Punch-Drunk Love. Sandler gives a great performance, the best in his career (even if that's not saying much...). His supporting cast gives equally great performances. I love to see people like Luis Guzman and Phillip Seymour Hoffman return in Anderson films, who I now immediately associate with Paul's movies. I also found myself laughing yet again at Anderson's great comedic relief which was absent from Magnolia, but justly so. However, the fact that it is Adam Sandler loading up on an extensive collection of pudding, or running away with a miniature piano certainly helped produce laughs. While this wasn't AS good as Boogie Nights or Magnolia, you must remember how tough it is for this film to hold its own against these two, which I am confident that at least one of if not both will go down as classics. But I'm still surprised that Anderson, the guy who writes 300 page scripts and has to somehow scrape them down to 150 or 200 pages, managed to tell such a great story in only one and one half hours...


Confesstions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) - ***1/2
Director: George Clooney
Follows the life of television producer Chuck Barris, who claims to have been an assasin for the CIA.

I enjoyed this. Clooney prooves that he can not only act, but direct, and quite tastefully. While his camera tricks may have seemed a bit repeatative at times, it was a great debut as a director. The performances are all great as well, including one of the best roles I have seen Sam Rockwell in so far, next to Matchstick Men. Highly reccomended.

New York Stories

I mainly watched this because Martin Scorsese directed one of the episodes and it just so happened to be the only 1 I liked. The 2nd episode directed by FFC sucked and the 3rd episode by Woody Allen was somewhat funny but weird. I now wish they would have made the Nick Nolte & Rosanna Arquette into just a seperate movie

Memento (first time!)

FINALLY SEEN IT! A fantastic use of narrative device (i.e. showing scenes in reverse), boosted by some great preformances especially by Pearce. An intriguing, sometimes tedious, yet satisfying film that demands repeat viewing.