jmcgraw7 Reviews

54 (1998)

a pleasant surprise

[18 January 1999]

Despite negative reviews, I liked this movie. I think the reason I had a problem with movies like "Titanic" and "Forrest Gump" was because of all the hype--when I finally got to see them they just didn't live up to all the praise they received. I was let down. I think the opposite happened here--I wasn't expecting much, a mediocre movie at best--and as a result enjoyed the movie. Not a great movie, by no means--not even as good as "Boogie Nights," which it parallels, and yet entertaining in its own right. Ryan Phillippe has taken more criticism for his "poor" acting than he deserves--I thought he was quite effective as the naive, sensitive and not-too-bright Shane O'Shea who thinks he's made it big until the sh** hits the fan; if you've spent any time around adolescents from northern New Jersey, they do sound just like this. He was very likeable and sympathetic (not to mention very nice to look at). Neve Campbell also did a fine job as Shane's love interest, but I think the romance could have been better developed (the fault of the movie being too short to really develop *any* characters enough). And I definitely agree that the very funny and talented Mike Myers did not have nearly enough to do--his Steve Rubell was humorous and tragic at the same time--and you wanted to see more of him. The soundtrack was good, but the dance-floor scenes were somehow lack-luster, and had the feel of a daytime soap. I think if the movie had been longer, a lot of these problems would have been solved. I think Ryan Phillippe has a lot of potential as a dramatic actor--once you look past the "dumb blond" persona he presents here. Not a great movie by any means, but much better than you've probably heard. Give this movie a chance!

Lost Highway (1997)

something else...

[1 December 1998]

I have already commented (very positively) on this film, but must add something else that not many other people have mentioned--the similarity between this film and 1990's "Jacob's Ladder." While seeing "Lost Highway" I kept being reminded of this other movie and felt I had to see it again. There are many parallels--the non-linear, almost circular plot...haunting images and silences that enhance the suspense...protagonists that are at a total loss as to what is happening to them and why...surrealistic, dreamlike quality in both movies...I could go on. The main differences between these two films is (1) Jacob's Ladder contains a message of hope that is totally lacking in "Lost Highway", and (2) "Jacob's Ladder" is a more mainstream film and will therefore appeal to a wider audience...But if you loved "Lost Highway", as I did, be sure to rent the woefully underrated sleeper "Jacob's Ladder." You'll have a lot to think about.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Akira's right

[1 December 1998]

I couldn't agree more with Akira. A bad, bad movie that glamorizes all the debased things in life and totally lacks depth or integrity. It isn't even good art. A better, more interesting film that also has a non-linear plot (if you like that sort of thing) is "Lost Highway"--it's also about the seamier side of life but unlike "Pulp Fiction," really makes you think. I forced myself to watch "Pulp Fiction" twice thinking perhaps I missed something the first time--my only conclusion is that most people's standard of a "good movie" is pretty low. Sorry if I insulted anyone.

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

brilliant, beautiful and eerie

[1 December 1998]

I don't understand why this film is so underrated. It's a tale that is at once horrifying, sad and ultimately very beautiful with a message of hope. Tim Robbins is a brilliant actor--Jacob is vulnerable, scared sh*tless, and has no idea why all the strange things are happening to him--and Robbins pulls off this difficult role brilliantly. (He is also kinda hunky--so cute you just want to gather him up in your arms and comfort him...but I digress)I saw this movie when it came out 8 years ago...and was reminded of it while watching David Lynch's "Lost Highway," and knew I had to see it again. There are actually quite a few parallels between "Jacob's Ladder" and "Lost Highway"--both are very dreamlike and surreal, nothing is what it seems to be...both have plots that are initially confusing, but gain more coherence on further viewings...neither have linear but rather, almost *circular* plots...both have protagonists that have absolutely no idea what is happening to them or why...both have long silences and strange images that enhance the suspense...I could go on. There are differences however: "Jacob's Ladder" contains a message of hope that is totally lacking in "Lost Highway," and though both are surreal and dreamlike, "Jacob's Ladder" is much more mainstream, and will therefore appeal to a wider audience. Beside's Robbins' poignant performance, Danny Aiello is very strong as the angelic chiropractor. Very haunting movie. It really makes you think. Not a movie you are likely to forget.

Seize the Day (1986)

little known gem

[9/10 · 30 November 1998]

This is an obscure little film that is probably Williams' best dramatic role--at least on par with the troubled psychiatrist in "Good Will Hunting". He plays a man victimized by his life--everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Williams is painful to watch in this role, but proves that his dramatic talent knows no bounds. Absolutely compelling; a film I am not likely to forget. Why this sleeper is so underrated and obscure I will never know. If you can get your hands on it, do so!

Spice World (1997)

eye-candy for little girls

[29 November 1998]

If you're over age 14 or not a Spice fan, don't expect to like this movie. If you're a little girl and a Spice fan, you'll find much to love. The Girls are nice to look at and seem to be having a great time. Lame acting, simple plot, mediocre music, but lots of eye-candy, this is great entertainment for the female pre-teen set. So don't take it too seriously; it's not supposed to be "The English Patient." The only thing I wonder about, if this is supposed to be a children's movie (which it seems primarily to appeal to), then why the off-color jokes, particularly the one referring to their pregnant friend's failure to "keep her legs together" nine months earlier? Hmmm.

Lost Highway (1997)

wow

[29 November 1998]

all I can say is...wow! The best Lynch film since "Eraserhead." If you watch this expecting for it to make any sense on a logical level, forget it. It makes sense the way dreams make sense--the only way to watch it is with your right brain. You can't "think" about it, you have to "feel" it. The closest thing to a dream experience I have ever seen except for "Eraserhead." Extremely eerie, especially the music and the spooky/funny Mystery Man. Just as in a dream, people inexplicably turn into other people, or one person is really two people, shadows and strange angles abound, and the most mundane comments can send chills down your spine. When the mystery man appears to Fred and says to him, "I'm in your house right now. Call me" my heart just stopped. One other thing worth mentioning: to fully appreciate Lynch's genius, this movie must be seen more than once. It makes a lot more "sense" (if you can use that word) the second or third time. A must-see for Lynch fans and those who like psychological horror. A movie that, like a bad dream, is hard to shake off.

Titanic (1997)

how to make Titanic perfect

[27 November 1998]

This is the second time I am writing about this movie, so obviously I liked it very much, despite its many flaws. Why else would I waste my time writing about it? My earlier entry pointed out what I thought was great about Titanic, as well as what was wrong with it. I have given it more thought, and will now suggest ways I believe it could have been the perfect movie, instead of just a very good one. 1. Keep the love triangle in, but reduce the three leads' screen time (they were not *that* interesting). Instead, develop some of the other characters, especially Molly Brown (Kathy Bates), Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber) and perhaps Bruce Ismay and Tommy Ryan (Jack's Irish friend who gets shot) as well. Movie would wind up with several interesting intertwined stories (including a couple of historic ones) and more on those characters who really *were* interesting. 2. The subplot involving the diamond was silly and unecessary--you could get the old Rose in without that unbelievable and contrived situation. She could just be there because she's the oldest surviving passenger, for instance. It would still work. The movie would even work without the "bookends" at all, and be a lot shorter, although I understand it's a convenient way to get the footage of the real wreck in the movie, which is extremely interesting and well done. 3. The Jack and Rose characters should be played by different actors. Winslet, though a good actress, is just a little unrefined and unbelievable as a first-class passenger. Claire Danes or Gwyneth Paltrow would have been better (though I understand Danes was actually considered but declined the role). Dicaprio is too young and frail looking. Since the role is not a difficult one, *any* decent actor could have played Jack. But he should at least have a little meat on his bones! 4. Make the Jack character a bit more interesting a/o complicated. He was too "perfect" and therefore not very compelling. Give him a fault or two. Rose had plenty to spare! 5. Put some of the important events leading to the sinking back into the script, i.e., the Californian ignoring pleas for help, the wireless operator's role in the tragedy. Even if the movie were a *little* longer it would have made a big difference without being *too* long. (I understand that the latter was actually included in the original script but was left on the cutting room floor...why?) 6. Give the wonderful Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews) a LOT more to do. He was by far the most interesting character in the movie, seemed very deep and complex, and left me begging for more. Of all the actors, I think he was the best in the movie. 7. Don't portray *all* the first-class passengers as third-class people. This is just not the way it really happened. First of all, on the real ship, the third-class passengers were *not* locked behind--it simply took them longer to get to where the life-boats were. Also, many first-class passengers performed heroic deeds, i.e., Isador Straus and his wife (seen briefly during the band sequence as they lay on their first-class bed waiting to drown) refused to be saved, giving up their lifejackets and insisting on drowning together... People are people, and in such a tragic situation, you would see the entire range of heroism vs. cowardice in *all* the passengers, whether first, second, or third class. 8. On James Cameron's Titanic, the second class has mysteriously disappeared. Where were they? What were *their* circumstances like? (I presume they would be the middle class, as most of *us* are!) All in all, a very good movie, and perhaps I am nitpicking. But I liked it so much and have seen it so many times, I just cannot resist putting in my 2 cents.

Godspell (1973)

joyful

[27 November 1998]

I remember seeing this film a very long time ago with my father when it was released in theaters. I just recently saw it again on TV and was just as dazzled as I was the first time (although I admit, to fully appreciate this movie, it is best seen on a large screen). The film is gorgeous to look at, and the whole feel is carnival-like. The songs are as fresh as they were in 1973, catchy and light-hearted, and yet touching. The young cast seems to be having a great time--and it's interesting that their characters (except for Jesus, played by Victor Garber) all use their real names.

Titanic fans will be interested in seeing the 23-year old Victor Garber (who played the ship's builder Thomas Andrews) as Jesus, and not only is he gorgeous to look at, he has a beautiful singing voice as well. It mystifies me why Garber never got more leading roles in movies. Far superior to the dreary opera that came out the same year, "Jesus Christ Superstar."

Bean (1997)

you love it or you hate it

[26 November 1998]

Bean is not your usual comedy. You either love it or you hate it. If you are the type of person who likes subtle humor and sophisticated jokes, this mixed bag of sight gags and physical (sometimes tasteless) humor is probably not for you. Despite what some critics have said, it's not Mr. Atkinson's performance that creates problems in the movie--it's the fact that the writers felt it necessary to bring others in, so that Bean's antics are played as a joke *against* him and ultimately the audience is laughing *at* him instead of *with* him. This is a mean thing to do. Rowan Atkinson is a very funny comedian in the Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler/3 Stooges vein, and it's hard to appreciate how funny he really is when the movie is set up as a joke against him instead of the vehicle for his talents it should be. It's at times painful to watch Mr. Atkinson's blundering here (unlike the tv show) because all remember that kid in grade school (or even perhaps were that kid) who got picked on just because others didn't understand and needed to pick on *someone.* So if you laugh at Bean, you feel kinda guilty too. A mean thing to do to the audience.

The Hitcher (1986)

starts out good, falls apart

[26 November 1998]

One wonders if the filmmakers knew what kind of a film they wanted to make. This movie starts out promising, with C. Thomas Howell as a kid driving across the great dusty southwest (beautifully and desolately photographed and eerie in a Stephen King-esque sort of way) on his way to California, only to be inexplicably pursued by a homicidal maniac, played with cold glee by the chilly-eyed Rutger Hauer. There is a promise here of a psychological thriller a la Hitchcock, with Hauer seeming to have a near-supernatural and truly menacing presence. There is something inhuman and demonic about him, though it's hard to put your finger on precisely what. The relationship (yes, one can call it that) that develops between Hauer and Howell is interesting and deeply disturbing. Behind the enmity, they seem to have some truly dysfunctional need for each other, which makes the cat-and-mouse game all the more suspenseful. Unfortunately, somewhere around the middle of the movie, it degenerates into just another shoot-em-up action flick and Hauer's character seems silly rather than demonic, while Howell is just annoying. After about a half hour of this, I just wanted both of them to die. I didn't care anymore. Had the filmmakers known how to write (and direct) a satisfying, appropriate conclusion to the very suspenseful first half, this could have been a great movie. Instead, it falls on its face--and is all the more disappointing because we expected something better.

Lost in America (1985)

great but ending could be better

[26 November 1998]

I have always thought of Albert Brooks as a West Coast Woody Allen. This movie is no exception, and some of the dialogue is priceless. (My favorite: Brooks is looking through a filebox of job listings in a small town and says to the job counselor in all seriousness, "Don't you have a $100,000 box?") The movie pokes fun at Yuppie culture and Yuppies without ever becoming nasty about it. This movie focuses on two yuppies (Brooks, Julie Hagerty) who have tired of their lifestyle and decide to take to the road in a Winnebago a la "Easy Rider." First Hagerty loses all their money at blackjack, which precipitates Brooks' hilarious "nest egg" speech. Misadventure follows misadventure, until the couple are forced to take minimum wage jobs just to survive. I love the part where Brooks tries to get the money back from the casino owner. The only problem I had with this movie was the ending. It happened too fast and seemed somehow tacked-on, as if the screenwriter had to think of something fast that would only take about five minutes. Had the movie taken about fifteen more minutes to explain the couples' motive in why they resolved things as they did, the ending would have worked. As it stands, however, it's unsatisfying and seems more like a sell out. A darn shame.

2010 (1984)

good but can't match 2001

[26 November 1998]

2010 is a very well-made sequel to Kubrick's masterpiece, with excellent special effects, a good plot-line and above-average acting (for a sci-fi movie). Standing on its own, it could have become a classic in itself (in my opinion, it's far superior to the overrated comic-book epic "Star Wars"), however, 2010 was doomed before it was even made because there is no way that any movie can live up to, never mind surpass, the cinematic marvel 2001, especially one that attempts to "answer" the many questions raised in the earlier movie. This is its primary mistake. The ending is disappointing, not because it's a bad ending (it's actually quite good), but because any "answer" posed by mere mortals--no matter how inspired--is still a "human" one and cannot possibly hope to reach the level of the intelligence that opened these questions to man in 2001. The questions are better left unanswered--at least until (and if) humans reach a much higher level of intelligence in the far distant future. This is a good movie and well worth watching, but it's better to forget it's a sequel to 2001 and try to enjoy it in its own right. Those expecting the same surrealistic atmosphere and strangley flat human characters that were present in Kubrick's film will be disappointed, as it is an entirely different style of filmmaking. And that's just it: this is a *movie*, not a cinematic work of art, as Kubrick's was. Standing on its own, an above-average sci-fi film, but unfortunately it stands in the shadow of its predecessor and as a result, fails on that level.

Trading Places (1983)

first half good, falls on its face

[26 November 1998]

What was John Landis thinking? What kind of movie did he want to make? Trading Places starts out good enough, with street tough Eddie Murphy and rich snob Dan Aykroyd trading roles due to a series of hilarious circumstances. This premise works well, and had this theme been continued and developed throughout the length of the movie, it would have been a great comedy of manners--and uproariously funny. Unfortunately, around the time Jamie Lee Curtis shows up (wasted in this role), the movie degenerates into a moronic kiddie show complete with silly costumes and a horny gorilla and a jewel heist. What does all this have to do with Murphy and Aykroyd "trading places?" Who cares? A witty and fresh farce that winds up insulting your intelligence--and your wallet. And all the more unforgivable because of its promising beginning. First half: 9 Second half: 2 Overall: 4-5 Very disappointing.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

i never understood...

[26 November 1998]

Frankly, I really cannot understand why everyone loves this movie so much. The story is corny and really not science fiction at all (it's fantasy--there IS a difference!), the acting is not very good (especially not Mark Hamill, the main character, who is just sort of bland-o), and though the special effects were groundbreaking in 1977, if the movie were released today they would only be so-so. I think the reason for the film's continued popularity is because at the time it was released, the enormous baby boom generation were all teens and twenty-somethings, the right age market for a movie of this type. Now they've all told their kids about how *great* it was, and now *they're* all flocking to see it, just like their parents did, based only on what they've heard. The forty- and fiftysomethings love it because it reminds them of when they were young too. It's nothing more than nostalgia and word of mouth. Why this movie instead of others that were released in the late '70's? Well, perhaps because it *is* the first movie released with the type of overblown special effects we've all gotten used to in "science fiction" movies. Hollywood just doesn't know what makes a good movie anymore. I suppose story, script and acting don't matter. Just lots of eye-candy. And this has always appealed to a young market. Like I said, if this same movie were released today for the first time, it would be quickly forgotten. I find it reprehensible that this type of comic-book action flick is now the definition of "science fiction." It's nothing more than fantasy; true science fiction makes you think. The best example of a *good* science fiction movie is still "2001: A Space Odyssey." A more recent example is the underrated "Contact." No, neither of these movies have laser-gun battles, cutesie-pie aliens, or dark space lords. But those are the creations of Hollywood and really have nothing to do with science. My point is not to ruin anyone's good time--it's a harmless movie and fine for kids to watch and for middle-agers with arrested development still living with their parents, but it should be pointed out that this overrated movie is mediocre Hollywood entertainment, *not* great movie-making. I rest my case.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

hands down, the best sci-fi film ever

[26 November 1998]

Some people have criticized 2001 because of its flat acting and lack of action. But think about it: isn't that the point being made here? Man, rather than being the masters of technology, have become its mere servants. In HAL the computer (and the most emotional "character" in this movie) we see technology gone awry--and controlling Man. The opening sequence, with huge and pristine spaceships slowly "dancing" in space, is beautiful, chilling--and telling. Kubrick's direction is pure genius. His trademark shadowless, white, "frozen" look dominates many scenes, most especially the last sequence after Bowman (strangely emotionless, and as a result, tragic) passes through the wormhole and enters a 16th century French bedroom where he "meets" himself as an old man, on his deathbed, and finally, is reborn into a higher realm. The ending is interpreted differently by different people, and asks more questions than it answers. The sequel "2010" attempts to "answer" the questions posed in 2001, and though it's a very good movie in its own right (far superior to the overrated comic-book epic "Star Wars" though I am sure many disagree), trying to "answer" the profound questions raised is a mistake since mere humans cannot answer questions so profound and universal without the result seeming anti-climactic and disappointing. Still the best science fiction movie ever made--and I do not use that term loosely, since most "science fiction" is mere action-adventure fantasy with overblown SFX. Slow-moving, with long silences and barely any dialogue (especially by the humans), it's not a movie for everyone--but for those who want to think and who appreciate cinema as art rather than just entertainment. A masterpiece that I doubt will ever be matched.

Raising Arizona (1987)

you either love it or hate it

[25 November 1998]

This is a movie you either love or hate. Its cartoonish, off-beat humor will not appeal to those with a more conventional or subtle sense of humor. Like "Airplane," its gags are slapstick and over-the-top, though not as obvious. But it's not a movie for dummies. Nicholas Cage shows that he can be a great comic actor, and despite what Roger Ebert says (he hated this movie), I adored the juxtaposition of his redneck accent with a vocabulary that sounds like a 19th century novel. The strange speech patterns are part of what makes this film so funny. The characterizations are over the top, but basically this is a live-action cartoon, not really a film about real people. The yodeling and banjo music fits right in--and of course, for those with a soft heart, the babies are adorable. I am not sure what the "Biker from the Apocalypse" was about, but it didn't seem important. My opinion is the Biker symbolized Cage's darker side, but I think the viewer can draw his/her own interpretations and the movie would still work. An unusual comedy from the inimitable Coen Brothers. Worth watching again--and again. I loved it!

54 (1998)

Average movie could have been better

[24 November 1998]

This could have been a really good movie, but it's filmed in such a lackluster way it will be quickly forgotten. Mike Meyers is the only really interesting character in this film, and there should have been more of him. Ryan Phillippe is very pretty, with an appropriately pouty mouth, curly blond locks and great pecs, but unfortunately he lacks the screen presence to carry an entire movie as the leading character. His acting is not bad (he cries well), he's just not that interesting. The music is good, the story is predictable but engaging, but 54 tries so hard to be a cross between "Saturday Night Fever" and "Last Days of Disco" that it's hard not to notice its inferiority to both. A shame, really. My grade: C+

Good Will Hunting (1997)

a good movie, but hype unjustified

[24 November 1998]

While I enjoyed this movie, I think all the hype was unjustified. Matt Damon was somehow unconvincing in this role, though he is an extremely talented actor (perhaps this is due to the unbelievable plot). Robin Williams' performance as the troubled psychiatrist was nothing short of brilliant, and to me, was the best (and most underrated) thing about this movie. The movie did not engage my emotions as I believe it should have. I could not help thinking how hard it seemed to try to be a cross between "Forrest Gump" and "Ordinary People," and as a result proved inferior to both. Also features a memorable performance by Skellan (sorry, forgot the last name!) as a mathematics professor but I did not care for the annoying Minnie Driver as Damon's love interest. The ending was also somehow unsatisfying. Did "Will" ever make anything of himself or not? One wonders...

Romeo + Juliet (1996)

daring

[24 November 1998]

When I saw this movie, I felt like I was watching an episode of "Sliders." Set in modern times (in fictional Verona Beach, California), with gun-toting, car-driving characters, the characters speak perfect Shakespearean English, complete with the "thee"'s and "wherefore"'s of the 15th century. Ludicrous? I thought it would be--and yet it works. The acting and cinematography hy is so first-rate it's not hard to suspend disbelief and believe that all this actually happened--and in precisely this way. It was a surrealistic experience, like being caught in some bizarre time warp in another dimension where somehow the 20th century happened--but the English language never evolved. And of course, the story of the star-crossed lovers is timeless...it could happen in any century. Perhaps this is the message the filmmakers were trying to get across. Dicaprio is good here as Romeo, but it's Claire Danes who really shines. She's delicately and ethereally beautiful as Juliet, but with just the right amount of playful innocence to make her accessible. A fresh and original take on a very old story, but the 1968 version is still my favorite adaptation.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

underrated first half is pure Kubrick

[24 November 1998]

One wonders what Kubrick was thinking here. This movie appears to be two totally unrelated films about Vietnam. The first half, starring Vincent D'Onofrio as an overweight misfit in basic training, is pure Kubrick, complete with his trademark "upward-angle" shots of D'Onofrio's face after he's been pushed completely over the edge by the rigors of training and confrontations with a truly nasty drill sergeant. The second half of the movie is a ho-hum depiction of a Vietnam sniper attack, with Matthew Modine as a low-level soldier running around on what is obviously a movie set. Why didn't Kubrick scrap the second half and lengthen the first? The characters were so interesting you wanted to see more of them. If he had done this, this movie would probably have been better than "Platoon" and a possible contender for Best Picture. What was Kubrick thinking by tacking on the totally unrelated second half? It's a shame, because this movie could have ranked up there with 2001, The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange. First half: 10 Second half: 3+ Go figure.

Risky Business (1983)

above average coming of age movie

[24 November 1998]

This movie has often been compared to "The Graduate" and it is easy to see why. In my opinion though, this movie is better, hands down. It's a Porky's with intelligence and wit--and yes, depth too. Rebecca DeMornay as the call girl Cruise befriends (and ultimately becomes business partners with) is sympathetic without becoming a stereotype of the "whore with a heart of gold", and Cruise as the bright but naive Joel Goodson mixes just the right amount of sex appeal with pathos and innocence. Cruise fans will be interested in seeing the star in his first major role (and the one that made him a star). One of the first of the genre of intelligent teen movies (continued by John Hughes with such hits as "Sixteen Candles" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off") that became popular in the mid-1980's. Destined to be a minor classic.

The Shining (1980)

like it or not, this is a classic

[24 November 1998]

I believe the people that really hated this movie are the same people that require their horror movies to be chock-full of blood, gore and slimy aliens. The Shining accomplishes its purpose not with blood and guts, but with an unbearable build-up of suspense, first-rate (if a bit over-the-top) acting by Nicholson, and eerie camera angles. Kubrick is a modern genius. As in his other masterpieces, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and even the underrated Full Metal Jacket, there is a sort of white, shadowless, "frozen" quality present in many of the scenes, and that eerie, "upward-angle" lighting of Nicholson's face during certain pivotal moments that is truly unnerving and nightmarish. The movie is similar to a nightmare in other respects as well: chilling music by Bartok, a desperate sense of isolation, bizarre room angles/lighting, and events that don't seem to make sense logically (such as the elevator pouring blood and the spooky diorama/maze scene early in the picture). For me, the most truly terrifying scene occurred around the middle of the film, when Wendy (Shelley Duvall) is leaning over Jack's typewriter, snooping at what he has been "writing." Without mentioning anyhing else, suffice it to say that it is at this moment that we realize that Jack has descended completely into madness, and from this point on, the movie's mood shifts from uneasiness to sheer terror.

There is something far more frightening about one's loved ones losing any semblance of sanity (although truth be told, Nicholson seems slightly insane even in the beginning of this movie) than any amount of blood, guts and slimy monsters so prevalent in most horror movies today. The sense of isolation here only underscores the terror. This movie terrified me so much I had trouble sleeping for weeks. While it's true that it does not follow King's book precisely, I forgive it that for it is so well-crafted in its own right (also, I read the book *after* seeing the movie). Truly a masterpiece of horror.

Harold and Maude (1971)

still holds up well after 1/4 century

[24 November 1998]

Despite its '60's sensibilities and flower-power overtones, this is an outrageously funny (and touching) movie that still holds its own after nearly 3 decades. When it was first released by Paramount during the Christmas season of 1971, it was met with scathing reviews--and largely ignored. It was quickly discovered by college students though, and continues to be a cult classic--particularly among college students. A surprising number of people (including myself) list this among their favorite movies, if not their *favorite* movie...how many other movies released so long ago can make such a claim? It's certainly different: 20 year old death-obsessed boy meets and falls in love with new-age octogenarian. It's not tasteless though. This film looks beyond the surface and there is great beauty in their doomed relationship. Cort and Gordon here complete each other--each has something the other desperately needs. Many of the lines are priceless--and immensely quotable. This is probably part of the reason it's achieved staying power. The dialogue is still as fresh and witty as it was in 1971--and Cort's fake suicides are truly hilarious. So is Vivian Pickles as his mother. Things wrap up a little too quickly--and the ending is ambiguous--but I think this was intended. Like a great painting, its meaning is open to interpretation, and asks more questions than it answers. A movie that begs to be seen more than once to fully appreciate. The underrated Bud Cort and late Ruth Gordon have an on-screen chemistry that transcends their ages--and just blows you away.

Romeo and Juliet (1968)

the best!

[24 November 1998]

Far superior to the vastly overrated "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet" (1996), and still holds up after 30 years as the best film adaptation of this classic tragedy.