Evan-29 Reviews

Fight Club (1999)

Amazing!

[31 July 2000]

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I hate to say that about something that was just made mere months ago, because it makes me sound shallow, but it's true. Every single frame is just filled to the brim with such startling originality that it's like an ultra-violent, philosophical Being John Malkovich. Not very many films greet you with a man crying into another man's breasts.

All I knew about the film was that it was about a club where men gather to beat each other into a bloody pulp as a way of perging themselves of that nasty taste work leaves in their mouths. That's just as well, as the less you know beforehand, the better. At first I was dissuaded by the opening credits, which are filled with completely gratuitous CG. This would make one think they were about to watch an "MTV style" movie, which I despise...Armageddon and Natural Born Killers are like what Satan would make if given a camera. And then the movie starts, and again I wasn't very excited...another movie that starts at the end, and thinks it's clever. But then it REALLY starts, and I was immediately entranced by its world of social satire and its depiction of materialistic losers. I was a big fan of American Psycho, and I enjoyed these scenes in much the same way, especially the line about how the Narrator would rather look at the IKEA catalog than porn. Than he falls in with the Fight Club. That is all I'll tell you about the plot.

Back to that style thing...I loved it. It seems like it could get gratuitous or overdirected at any minute, but it never quite crosses that boundary. It stays hyperactive enough to keep you interested, but subdued enough to let you enjoy what you're watching. Its 2 hours and 20 minutes seem to flash by in a second, until the ending. It's also VERY violent. The beatings are extremely brutal, especially the accompaniying sound effects, and there are two gun shot wounds so gruesome I'd love to know what they bribed the MPAA with to avoid an NC-17. I wasn't bothered by it, but I'm sure lots of people will be.

And as for the ending, this is where the film faltered. There's a twist, yes, but that's not the problem. It's a good twist, like in American Psycho, where it actually adds to what's been seen before, rather than films like The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, which just tack the endings on to encourage second viewings (they DO both deserve second viewings, but only because they're good movies). The problem is the scenes after the surprise is revealed. Up to this point we've been treated to a film that gives us something we've never seen before in scene after scene, and then it all gets wrapped up with...two normal fights? What happened? There are two battles here, one physical, one psychological, and they're far too normal to be here...they belong in a typical action movie. And come on, a bomb diffusion? With the "which color wire" scene and everything? Puh-leeze. Save it for a Van-Damme flick. This was the only point where I started to get restless.

There's a whole anarchistic philosophy behind the film, which I loved. I didn't buy into it or believe it, mind you, but I loved it...no matter if you believe in something or not, you have to give credit to someone who can think it up in the first place. The script is so jam-packed with great dialogue that this is a film that will be endlessly quotable, like Kevin Smith doing Nietzsche.

Like I said, everything is filled with originality, right up to the final shot that has a subliminal frame of...well, you'll understand once you find out about Tyler's hobbies :) See it. Now.

The Straight Story (1999)

Not Lynch's best, but one of 99's best films

[13 July 2000]

Being a huge David Lynch fan, I couldn't wait to see this. For the most part, I wasn't disappointed.

First off, let me say two things: First of all, I'm 16, which proves not all teenagers demand rapid-fire editing and loud explosions (just most of them). Second of all, everyone thinks it's "weird" for Lynch to direct a film like this, but I don't think so. They always say "Oh, but his films are so mean and cruel, he never pays attention to charcters, blah blah blah...". Um, have you even bothered to see Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks? TP in particular is filled with great characters who evolve and grow and are fleshed out as the series goes on. Plus, he's no stranger to leisurely paces used to build atmosphere. Eraserhead does it beautifully, and one only has to watch the title sequence for Twin Peaks to see this talent in action. He has a real knack for creating a place that seems real.

So with that out of the way, the movie: It's great. Alvin Straight is a 73 year-old man who's brother has a stroke, so he drives out on a riding mower to see him. Period. That's it. There's plenty more to it, of course, but it none of it involves the basic plot...the real treasures are hiding in the corners and the background. The film gets off to a wonderful beginning, with a loooooong tracking shot through a back yard. We finally end up in front of a window, and the shot is held for a while. Then we hear someone inside fall. Perfect. Another little treat that will pass by viewers is that in most road movies there's a shot of the highway, flying past the camera. Here we get the same shot, except it's crawlling by at 5 miles per hour. There's also a shot of a reverend leaving a house in a cemetery (is it a funeral home or what?) that looks like Lynch is going into a dream sequence. But he isn't...it's just finding a surreal beauty in everyday things, something that anyone familiar with his photos can attest to.

The real star of the film, though, is Richard Farnsworth. Denzel Washington was good, Kevin Spacey was good, but Farnsworth acchieves one of the best performances of the decade. Strong words, I know, but I stand by it. There are two important things about what makes a great performance, and they are subtlety and believability. Farnsworth achieves both. To imagine anyone else as the character would be impossible. At first he's just your loveable stubborn Southern coot, but later when you look at his face you always know what he's thinking about. He speaks in a slow drawl that sounds like every word is chosen ahead of time. He is not slow, just very weary, and very very tired. The best scene in the entire movie (besides the ending) is an astounding scene in a bar in which he and another man trade WWII stories. To watch is face while he tells the story leaves you absolutely spellbound. You can almost see the pain inside. This scene alone should have cemented his prize, but to no avail.

I have only two complaints. First of all, I love it when directors take the time to establish a setting and atmosphere...but only to a certain point. This film crosses that line a little. There's only so much corn one can take. The other thing is the scenes where Alvin spouts advice to people he meets, teaching them valuable lessons. It's just much much too blunt for Lynch. It could have been handled more realistically, but instead it comes off as preaching...is this a movie or an episode of Seventh Heaven?

But those are small complaints. The ending is without a doubt one of the best and most perfect I've ever seen, and I've seen a LOT of movies. To watch these two actors sit and you can literally see the weight lifting from their shoulders...it's beautiful. Two lines of dialogue never sounded so right.

See it. Now.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

Well you gotta do SOMETHIN'.

[18 May 2000]

I'm getting really sick of people on here saying "this film is not relevant today, because kids don't face the same problems, blah blah..." when these are ADULTS saying this, who wouldn't know the first thing about the problems kids face today because they aren't one. Well I'm 16 and I can say that this film is every bit as involving and affecting as it was the day it came out. I mean, name one thing in Rebel that isn't a part of teen life now. Drag racing: that's the only thing.

But anyway, the movie. I'm a hard-core film buff and have seem many many many many movies in my 16 years. Only two of them have accurately depicted teen life: Rebel Without a Cause and a beautiful Japanese anime film called Whisper of the Heart. Rebel on a whole is a bit exaggerated, but it's only fitting - a teen exaggerates everything that happens to them. In fact, some of the images and themes - kids and adults seem to be speaking different languages, a group of outcasts living in a secluded house - would be right at home in a Bunuel film. That house of outcasts in particular is very touching...I think all teens would want to live away from the real world once in a awhile.

The three principal characters are all like people I know. Sal Mineo as the troubled kid who wants nothing more than a friend. Natalie Wood as the girl who just goes along with what other people do because she wants to fit in. And of course, the ultra-cool James Dean as the kid who may have a rough-and-tumble exterior, but who is really a big softie at heart. Dean was a bit of a revelation to me. I'd never seen one of his movies before, so I assumed that, like Marilyn Monroe, it was the image that people grieved over and not the talent. Boy was I wrong. The guy could act. When he howls "You're tearing me apart!" at the beginning, you know what you're in store for.

The depiction of the parents also must have been a revelation for 1955 audiences. Juvenile delinquents had been (and are continuing to be) depicted as either overall bad seeds or having abusive parents. This film was the first to acknowledge that something as simple as a lack of communication and an unwillingness to pay attention to your child can do just as much damage.

Nicholas Ray's direction was also excellent. Besides coming up with the idea for Jim's red jacket to "make him stick out more" you have Plato's mismatched socks, and I was also surprised by the frequently-titled camera. I didn't know they did that back then! It certainly added more to the disjointed feeling and wasn't just there for style purposes like todays movies.

The only point at which the film falters is the pat resolution between Jim and his parents at the end. But the ending is great otherwise, with a wonderfully framed shot of the observatory, proving Jim's theory that the world will end at dawn.

The Way of the Dragon (1972)

Awful...until the end

[27 April 2000]

I've never had much of a stomach for Hong Kong humor, and this is no exception. The "humorous" scenes are simply intolerable, and I was itching for the fast-forward button the whole time, though I forced myself to watch them anyway since I hadn't seen the extra scenes before. The various gang members really eat up the scenery (especially the Chinese guy) But the worst thing is how disappointing most of the action sequences are (note that I said MOST). I mean, Fist of Fury (aka The Chinese Connection) was the first film where Bruce really let loose and gave us a taste of what he was capable of. So in a film written, directed, choreographed, and starring Bruce Lee, you'd think the action would be even better, right? Well wrong, unfortunately. First of all, the first 30 minutes have no action at all. But even worse, when we are treated to some action, it's so...boring. It's just not as exciting as his other films. For a man who prides himself on on-screen chaos, it all feels very restrained. Even the nunchukus seem slow! But I can forgive all that, because once the film moves to the climax (starting with the fight with the two karate guys) it picks up like 200%. That fight gives us a much better taste of what Bruce can do, but it's still nothing compared to the infamous Bruce/Chuck Norris battle. Wow...I mean, wow. It continues to amaze me to no end. This mostly lousy film ends with one of the best martial arts sequences ever. It's like John Woo's Hollywood debut, "Hard Target", which is horrible most of the time but ends with one of Woo's best shoot-outs ever. I guess they figured they've suffered their audiences enough, and better give them something to keep them smiling on the way out of the theater.

Bruce's directorial skills were amateurish, to say the least. Thrill to the snail-like pacing. Glee to the endless scenes of sightseeing. Get a headache from all those rapid zooms. There were only two good points of Bruce's direction: the cat's meow starting off the Bruce/Chuck fight was a stroke of genius, and he also manages to make the only movie where Chuck Norris is COOL! :)

The Big Boss (1971)

See the Special Edition, if you can!

[27 April 2000]

I just aquired a copy of the Asian Special Edition DVD of this film, and it rules! Let's put it this way: the version I saw was dubbed, pan and scan, looked like c**p with colors that looked horribly over-exposed, and had a pretty goofy musical score. The Special Edition fixes all of that. See the subbed versions and you'll be wrapped up in the story and characters and actually care what happens. Especially Fist of Fury (aka The Chinese Connection), which I didn't care for in its dubbed incarnation but is now one of my favorite movies! (as well as Bruce's best film) Strangely enough, though, even though they're supposed to be Bruce's original fighting yells, they sound nothing like him! And on top of that when he speaks in the middle of a fighting sequence it sounds like a totally different person! What gives? But anyway, the letterboxing adds a lot to the film, especially in the busier fight scenes. The film is cleaned up a LOT, which also gives it more credibility. It probably looks better than it did on opening day! Like, try watching an old video of the original Star Wars and then watch the Special Edition video - no comaprison, right? Same thing goes here. The new musical score is...interesting. On the one hand I like it more because it isn't as goofy and makes the film more dramatic. But on the other hand it's all really nondescript when comapred with the main theme from the original, and some of it (like the medallion theme) started to get on my nerves. For a really bizarre thing, check out when they play the beginning of Pink Floyd's "Time"! I couldn't believe what I was hearing at first.

And finally, I must admit I was a little shocked at the violence not in the US version.

Akira (1988)

One of the greatest animated films ever made, but SEE IT SUBBED!

[19 April 2000]

I'm really getting sick of this film being tossed off by critics as "visually impressive, but too confusing". Or by people who haven't seen referring to it as "that gory anime sci-fi movie". Nobody regards it as what it is: a modern masterpiece.

The first time I saw it, I had never seen anime before. This was a new experience and I loved it. It was dubbed, and it was edited for television, yet I was still awestruck by the entire film. I watched it 2 or 3 more times in this incarnation, but I couldn't understand a thing that went on, and forgot about it. About a year later I saw it subbed, and it was like a whole new movie: there was much more emotional depth, and the translation was better so I immediately understood the whole movie! I can't believe how badly the dubbed version butchers the experience...not as bad as what we did to "Nausicaa", but pretty close. In the dubbed version Kaneda sounds like a robot, and the Colonel is permanently growling. In the subbed version the Colonel emerges as probably my favorite character in the movie: the only voice of reason in a city run by corrupt politicians. The scene in which he is ordered to relinquish command, but instead orders his men to kill the messenger because "we're all going to die soon anyway" is very moving. I've now seen the film countless times in its subbed incarnation, and every time I am swept up in it, almost hynotized by the beautiful images before me.

My one and only complaint is the beginning, with the gang war: it's just too...generic. I've lent the film to friends who didn't watch past the first part, because they thought it was too much like "typical" anime, and I had to force them to watch the rest (of course they loved it). It just doesn't even hint at the beauty and epic sweep of the rest of the movie.

The film is also remarkable from a filmmaking perpective, and I don't just mean the animation. The use of dissolves followed by quick cuts are very inventive and effective, as are the various perfect transitions. And best of all the music adds to the film on many different levels. Image and sound play off each other to the point where I couldn't imagine the film without it. The flashback scenes all have an extremely washed-out color palette, where everything is brighter, perfectly evoking a more innocent time. And the film is packed with indelible images. My personal favorite is in the aftermath of Tetsuo's first major attack, when it's at dusk and pieces of the SOL are raining down on earth, Tetsuo's body sihouetted against the sky.

I will love this film forever, and though some people say it's a Blade Runner rip-off, I say Akira is better than Blade Runner in every way possible. Katushiro Otomo is one of the best and most innovative directors in the world, let alone animation directors. And he's not a one-movie fluke either...watch a fansub of Memories and be prepared to be wowed all over again. It may take a while, but one of these days people will wake up to Otomo's genious.

Big Daddy (1999)

Suck diddly-ucks

[4 April 2000]

Everyone on here is saying "it was made for kids, judge it like that, etc." Well guess what? I'm 15 years old. And I hated this movie. Not as much as Armageddon (I don't think I hate ANYTHING as much as Armageddon) but it's pretty high up there.

I'll admit, Happy Gilmore was kinda funny, but every other movie Adam Sandler touches is pure comedic poison. Here, I'll sum up every Sandler movie: Adam yells. Adam beats up people for no reason. Adam acts like a total retard. Adam speaks in "funny" (not really) voices. Idiots in movie theaters laugh. Adam rakes in $500 kajillion. Adam continues making crappy movies. Repeat ad infinitum. Why he continues to be so successful I don't know. But hey, in a world where Tom Green is considered funny (pfft, yeah right, about as funny as the holocaust) what more can you expect? I like crude humor as much as the next guy (I loved There's Something About Mary) but only when it's FUNNY.

Every Adam Sandler movie has a premise of sorts. They figure "hey, let's put Adam Sandler in a fun, wacky and zany situation! We'll have 'em lined up around the block!" This time it's "Adam adopts a kid" Ho ho. My sides are splitting already, let me tell you!

Adam is a law school graduate (the funniest thing about the movie. Adam Sandler as a LAWYER???? Bwahahahahaha...) who holds a toll booth job seemingly once a week, and yet can somehow afford to live in a gigantic New York apartment. One day a kid shows up at his door. He decides to adopt him (surprise surprise) and teaches him how to be an antisocial violent sociopathic moron who will probably end up in rehab by the time he's 10. See what a great parent he makes?

We're supposed to laugh at him teaching the kid to throw sticks in front of rollerbladers. We're supposed to laugh at them peeing on the side of a building. We're supposed to laugh at Adam threatening a guy into handing over a ton of candy. Oh, and I forgot the most rip-roaringly funny scene of all: Adam insulting his ex-girlfriend's older lover, commenting on his "old balls". Is that supposed to be funny? Oh, it is? Oh. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Please excuse me while I collect myself after laughing myself silly.

As can be expected, there's a "crisis" when the kid is going to be taken away. We're supposed to be sad about this; I consider it a cause for celebration. We're soon subjected to all sorts of sentimental "awwwwwwww" scenes that give Full House a run for its money. Break out the puke buckets - this one's a doozy.

There is exactly one funny sequence in the entire movie: the little kangaroo dance video. It perfectly sums up all those godawful kids videos out there, and it got some genuine laughs out of me. Then the kid pukes and ruins the whole scene. I also thought Adam getting hit by a car was funny, but only because watching him get hurt is always nice to see. Like he said himself, why couldn't the guy just kill him? But that's better than Billy Madison's 0 funny scenes, when you're forced to stare at the screen mouth agawk, mind burning out at the sheer stupidity of it all and realizing that 90 minutes of blank film would be a laugh riot compared to it.

Oh, and Steve Buscemi's in this movie. Why Steve, why? You make Fargo, Tree's Lounge, Reservoir Dogs, tons of other great movies...then you make Armageddon and three Adam Sandler movies. I guess we've all got bills to pay...

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Great, but not the greatest

[29 March 2000]

In my experience, there are two kinds of movie trailers: Trailers that take a bad movie and make it look good, and trailers that take a good movie and make it look bad. The Sixth Sense is of the latter category. I saw the trailers, thought it looked stupid - not just because of the presence of Bruce Willis, but just because it didn't look interesting. Then it started getting critical raves, and I figured "what the hell, I'll give it a shot". Boy am I glad I did.

I only have one major major problem with the film: The ending. I have an uncanny ability to sniff out twist endings from a mile away ("The Usual Suspects" didn't fool me for a second) and this one's no different. Okay, I'll admit I had the ending spoiled for me ) but even if I hadn't, the "subtle" clues are so blatantly obvious I'm surpised no one else got it...it seems to me like the first time you see Willis and Cole's mom sitting together (like 10 minutes into the film), it should be a simple matter of connecting the dots. And another thing: I wouldn't mind if the twist took up maybe one slightly enigmatic shot. But instead they have to spend like 5 minutes showing us flashbacks, sound bites, etc. etc... Frankly, I thought it was a bit of an insult to my intelligence. But the director (sorry I can't remember his last name) seems like a very smart guy, and I keep having images of him arguing with studio executives, telling him "Oh, you have to add so and so, make it more obvious..." and he finally caves in and does it.

But that doesn't matter, because the rest of the film is fantastic. It had a few really really scary parts (the sick girl comes to mind) but it wasn't "terrifying" like everyone says. Blair Witch kept me up a lot more. But it's a very intelligent film, with a good script, creepy score, and kind of understated direction (which is a good thing). What really pulls it all together are the performances: Bruce Willis is genuinely good. He still tends to be a little monotonous, but he shows a lot more emotion and range than, say, Die Hard. Toni Collette was excellent as well. But little Haley Joel Osment...wow! I am truly in awe of his performance. I still think the Supporting Actor category should've been his by a long shot. It would be an amazing performance by an adult, but to come out of an 11-year old boy...wow! The scene towards the end of him and his mom in the car truly had me choking up. And the creepiest scene in the movie doesn't even involve ghosts: it's simply Haley Joel's monologue in the hospital bed about seeing dead people. The expression on his face, his barely-a-whisper delivery, the faintest hints of tears at the corners of his eyes...it sent shivers up my spine, and trailer clips simply do not do the scene justice.

All in all a great movie. American Beauty was the only best picture nominee that actually deserved to be nominated in the first place. Cider House Rules? Come on...I could make a list of better movies from 1999, but I won't. One of the best of the year, but not in the top 5.

The Matrix (1999)

This has got to stop!

[7 March 2000]

The ridiculous worship of this movie has got to stop! I'm not saying it was "bad", but it wasn't that good, either. Contrary to what everyone thinks, it's not even particularly original. The plot has been used many times before, in everything from The Truman Show, to the TV show The Prisoner, to Jacob's Ladder. The special effects, with the exception of the "bullet time" sequences, have all been done before.

There's nothing this movie can do that another movie can't do better. The kung-fu fights were pitiful when you compare them to Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. The acting - with the notable exception of Laurence Fishburne - is horrendous, especially Keanu Reeves (some of his lines had me laughing out loud). The script manages to weeve an interesting and entertaining storyline, but the dialogue itself was extremely clunky and boring...does anyone really talk like that? And most of all, the gun fights were nothing special. Practically the whole thing was in slow motion, making it about as exciting as watching paint dry. For real action, everyone should see a John Woo film, particularly Hard-Boiled. He uses slow-mo as well, but he does it in such a way that it actually adds to the scene, not detract from it. I'm sure the reason everyone thinks the movie is so fresh and new is because it's new to them. See some of the aforementioned films for true art.

Finally, all of the other comments saying the film is a "spiritual" or "inspirational" film is laughable. It's an action film that doesn't really try for anything more. On the other hand, Terminator 2 manages to rise above its "just an action movie" origins and become genuinely moving.

All in all, it was an entertaining and fun film. But high art? No. The best Sci-Fi film ever? Of course not. (ever seen 2001?) The greatest movie of all time? God no! It's good, but it's nothing more than that.

My score: 6/10

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

The best horror film of the '90s, but not for everyone

[1 November 1999]

First off, this film is NOT for everyone. Do you feel like you need to see something to be scared of it? Do you have no imagination? Then don't even bother. Blair Witch is...I don't want to call it a "thinking man's" horror film, as it doesn't raise any philosophical questions (though it will keep people talking for a while) but it is definitely more for people who have a strong imagination. No gore, no makeup, no boogie monster, and no shocks...just pure unadulterated terror.

I won't even bother with the plot, since everyone already knows it. The 2 merits of the film is in the style: everything is very gritty, with no music and nothing that ever strikes one as fake. For example, take the scene where Heather opens up the bundle of sticks (don't worry, I won't reveal what's inside!). In a typical horror film, she would let out a long scream and you would hear "dun dun dun" on the soundtrack. Here, it all seems so real you can't help but feel the same terror and helplessness as she.

Secondly, the acting is amazing. This is Method acting taken to the extreme...nobody gets "everyone I know is dead but I'm going to investigate that strange noise anyway" scared. No, they get "I'm so terrified I can't even move or stop crying" scared. Like a real person. And they aren't your typical seemingly retarded teenagers who can't seem to walk into a room without tripping, either. You get to know them, and the first half of the film is even very funny, as you get to hear them chatting and quipping away, oblivious to what will happen. I can't wait to see these three in other roles!

All in all, this is a must-see film for everyone, though not everyone will like it. Personally, I love it. I should also mention that it's MUCH scarier in retrospect than in the theater. The final scene STILL hasn't left my mind.