Star Wars is so embedded in pop culture that reviewing it like any other movie would be to undermine its impact. It's a science fiction spectacular in the tradition of old Saturday morning serials, but with amazing special effects that revolutionized film as we know it. It's character list reads like a pop cultural glossary: Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Obi-Wan Kenobi... These aren't just characters, they're institutions. We hear these names and immediately remember the magic that Star Wars brought to an entire generation. It's bigger than creator George Lucas and star Harrison Ford combined; and it has spawned the largest fan base since Elvis or the Beatles. The film's qualities, the wonderfully imaginative people and places, the lightsaber duels, starfights and cryptic "force", all contribute to a movie and a phenomenon so popular that it can never really live up to its own hype, but comes darn close.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Casablanca
(1942)
Play it again... and again, and again
12 March 2001
How do you begin to review a film generally considered to be the best Hollywood picture ever made? Casablanca may be the ultimate movie crowd-pleaser. It has everything you could ever want in a movie; love, war, intrigue, an exotic location, and fantastic performances. It's only after you see this movie for about the fifteenth or sixteenth time that you can truly appreciate its perfection. Take note of its sheer flawlessness.
Bogart and Bergman are undoubtedly the screen's greatest couple. They appeal to anyone who has ever lost love or ideals, and show us how to get them back again. They pull the audience into their world, and indeed, we'll always have Paris too.
And aside from all this, Casablanca is a great entertainment. It's smart, funny, and heart-wrenching. It's one of those rare movies that everyone knows all about, whether they've seen it or not. Casablanca is a timeless classic to be viewed over and over.
Bogart and Bergman are undoubtedly the screen's greatest couple. They appeal to anyone who has ever lost love or ideals, and show us how to get them back again. They pull the audience into their world, and indeed, we'll always have Paris too.
And aside from all this, Casablanca is a great entertainment. It's smart, funny, and heart-wrenching. It's one of those rare movies that everyone knows all about, whether they've seen it or not. Casablanca is a timeless classic to be viewed over and over.
Rear Window
(1954)
Hitchcock's greatest achievement in suspense
11 March 2001
Rear Window may have to battle Psycho, North By Northwest and Vertigo for the title of Hitchcock's best, but if suspense is the category, then Rear Window beats them all. Truly one of the most perfectly staged movies of all time, Rear Window makes voyeurs of us all. We spend the entire film looking through the eyes of Jimmy Stewart, and the result is one of Hitchcock's greatest achievements. We are put so squarely in the action that Stewart's fears become our fears, and that classic scene with Grace Kelly across the courtyard numbs us with suspense. A recent re-mastering for DVD makes Rear Window more enjoyable now than it has been in forty five years. An essential for all Hitchcock fans... For all movie fans.
15 Minutes
(2001)
An ugly movie not worth 15 minutes, let alone two hours
10 March 2001
It's so much easier for me when a movie is just plain bad. 15 Minutes does me the disservice of sticking little bits of originality or thought provoking material in with the excess that makes up the rest of the movie. As a film, it has many flaws. It's choppy, with many useless scenes (watch for the scene towards the end with Ed Burns and Emil in the warehouse-what's the point?). It's characters are generally contrived and silly, but are brought to half-life only by the actors behind them. It is original in some spots (one in particular), but mostly runs on tired cliche. The timing of the humor is very poor, and leads to a general feeling of awkward discomfort in the audience. Everything about this film, right down to costumes and set decoration, is extremely ugly. I don't know if that was intended, but it's just plain hard to look at. The entire film was surrounded by that aura of ugliness- ugliness not only of the sets and costumes, but of the characters and story.
And that story involves a cop named Eddie Flemming (Robert DeNiro), an inferior rehash of Kevin Spacey's Jack Vincennes in L.A. Confidential. Eddie uses the media to make his job easier- and as a result, has become a minor celebrity. Edward Burns plays Jordi Warsaw, a New York Fire Marshall who joins Eddie on the case to find two Eastern European criminals newly in the US to wreak havoc. They have learned from watching television that no one in America is responsible for what they do- and that the media run the show. Murderers become millionaires, and these two know it. They begin to kill and videotape their killings. They plan to kill somebody famous and sell it for millions of dollars. Eddie and Jordi have to stop them.
Now you might ask, why is a fireman on the case- The answer is that there is no answer. They throw in a bit with fire just to bring the Jordi character into it. All writers in Hollywood like to invent different jobs that allow people to be just like cops- without being cops. I guess they figure it makes it more exciting because the cop thing has been done so much. They're wrong. Making the character a fireman is a distraction, leaving the audience wondering what he's doing there. There is no justification for his presence at the crime scenes. Just making him DeNiro's character would have allowed the film to run much smoother.
There are lots of scenes, character developments, and even romances in this film that serve absolutely no purpose. Writer/Director Herzfeld was filling gaps where they didn't need to be filled. It shows that he was looking for something to do, that he only really had one idea, and was strained to make a two hour film out of it.
I mentioned the film's ugliness- It just leaves you with a sick feeling in your stomach. This isn't a sign that the material was effective, just horrible. In a way, the movie is mean spirited, and that is never a good thing. The way the humor was added showed absolutely no skill on the part of the filmmaker. He should have watched his own movie before releasing it, because if he did, he would know how awkward that humour is.
So it all sounds pretty bad, I know. The film's only high points come from generally good performances (DeNiro never fails, even if the script does) and a single point of originality. The film's message, regarding the injustice of the American system, and its preoccupation with fame, publicity, image and the media that creates it all, are points well taken, but not properly executed. The first hour of the movie is deeply unentertaining and choppy, but the second half, at least, becomes somewhat suspenseful and little bit interesting.
Overall, 15 Minutes should be avoided. It was an ugly movie with low points far outnumbering the high ones.
And that story involves a cop named Eddie Flemming (Robert DeNiro), an inferior rehash of Kevin Spacey's Jack Vincennes in L.A. Confidential. Eddie uses the media to make his job easier- and as a result, has become a minor celebrity. Edward Burns plays Jordi Warsaw, a New York Fire Marshall who joins Eddie on the case to find two Eastern European criminals newly in the US to wreak havoc. They have learned from watching television that no one in America is responsible for what they do- and that the media run the show. Murderers become millionaires, and these two know it. They begin to kill and videotape their killings. They plan to kill somebody famous and sell it for millions of dollars. Eddie and Jordi have to stop them.
Now you might ask, why is a fireman on the case- The answer is that there is no answer. They throw in a bit with fire just to bring the Jordi character into it. All writers in Hollywood like to invent different jobs that allow people to be just like cops- without being cops. I guess they figure it makes it more exciting because the cop thing has been done so much. They're wrong. Making the character a fireman is a distraction, leaving the audience wondering what he's doing there. There is no justification for his presence at the crime scenes. Just making him DeNiro's character would have allowed the film to run much smoother.
There are lots of scenes, character developments, and even romances in this film that serve absolutely no purpose. Writer/Director Herzfeld was filling gaps where they didn't need to be filled. It shows that he was looking for something to do, that he only really had one idea, and was strained to make a two hour film out of it.
I mentioned the film's ugliness- It just leaves you with a sick feeling in your stomach. This isn't a sign that the material was effective, just horrible. In a way, the movie is mean spirited, and that is never a good thing. The way the humor was added showed absolutely no skill on the part of the filmmaker. He should have watched his own movie before releasing it, because if he did, he would know how awkward that humour is.
So it all sounds pretty bad, I know. The film's only high points come from generally good performances (DeNiro never fails, even if the script does) and a single point of originality. The film's message, regarding the injustice of the American system, and its preoccupation with fame, publicity, image and the media that creates it all, are points well taken, but not properly executed. The first hour of the movie is deeply unentertaining and choppy, but the second half, at least, becomes somewhat suspenseful and little bit interesting.
Overall, 15 Minutes should be avoided. It was an ugly movie with low points far outnumbering the high ones.
Die Hard 2
(1990)
You can't get too much of a good thing
5 March 2001
For those who argue that Die Hard 2 is a desperate re-hash of the original... So what? I didn't expect a companion piece like The Godfather Part II. Die Hard was about a really cool guy in a really bad situation, and the result was probably the greatest action movie ever made. Die Hard 2 achieves status on its own just by being about the same thing. When so many movies want to be Die Hard but fail, why not just make another Die Hard? Director Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger)realized that because it's a sequel, there had to be more stunts and explosions. So there is. Die Hard 2 (appropriately called Die Harder) ups the ante a bit and has fun with a flurry of furious action scenarios. The fight on the wing of the plane is a classic in its own right, and Die Hard 2 stands alone as one of the best of the genre.
Die Hard
(1988)
Nothing less than the greatest action movie ever made
5 March 2001
If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, then the makers of Die Hard should be in a state of constant blush. No film since Dirty Harry has had so many imitators, some good (Under Siege), some bad (Sudden Death). But its influence reaches beyond movies who pit a hero in an enclosed space, all alone against the bad guys. Die Hard ushered in a new kind of action hero. After years of musclebound supermen like Arnold and Sly dominating the genre, Die Hard gave us John McClane, just your everyday cop. He's alone, tired, and scared.
It was an ingenious move to cast Moonlighting's Bruce Willis as McClane. Known primarily as a comedic actor, Willis proved the perfect choice. Finally, people had an action hero that they could relate to. I speak for myself here, but it's difficult to relate to a 250 pound Austrian Mr. Universe. Though Arnold certainly serves his purpose, it's in Willis's McClane that the masses can really find their hero. Unlike his predecessors who always welcome a challenge, McClane would like nothing more than to get out of his predicament. He's frightened throughout the ordeal, and we sense, does not expect to survive.
Of course, action movies aren't just about heroes. They're just as much about the villain. Die Hard's number one villain is Hans Gruber, the egomaniacal "terrorist" leader who buys all his suits in London and quotes from his classical education. In that, he is the exact opposite of McClane, a working class New Yorker whose smarts, we infer, are more of the street nature. As Gruber, Alan Rickman shines, nearly stealing the show from its star. He has only portrayed one other Hollywood villain since, The Sheriff of Nottingham in the 1990 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Rickman was easily the best thing about that film, and is responsible for any of its memorable scenes.
To better accentuate the everyguy hero against the odds, the script brilliantly brings in the cowboy analogy. When they communicate over the radio, Gruber insists that McClane's unwillingness to surrender is the result of seeing too many American movies growing up. He thinks he's John Wayne or Gary Cooper. This analogy, of course, brings on the now classic line from McClane: "Yipee Kay A, mother...." Well, you probably know the rest.
And to top all this off, Die Hard is simply one of the most exciting action yarns ever put on film. Veteran action director John McTiernan gives us death defying stunt after stunt. Die Hard achieved new levels of suspense and entertainment, and reigns on just about every list of the greatest action movies ever made. Not only was it a great entertainment, but it revolutionized the action movie. And although the technological advancements of the past thirteen years have brought many new special effects, no action film since can stand up to the original.
It was an ingenious move to cast Moonlighting's Bruce Willis as McClane. Known primarily as a comedic actor, Willis proved the perfect choice. Finally, people had an action hero that they could relate to. I speak for myself here, but it's difficult to relate to a 250 pound Austrian Mr. Universe. Though Arnold certainly serves his purpose, it's in Willis's McClane that the masses can really find their hero. Unlike his predecessors who always welcome a challenge, McClane would like nothing more than to get out of his predicament. He's frightened throughout the ordeal, and we sense, does not expect to survive.
Of course, action movies aren't just about heroes. They're just as much about the villain. Die Hard's number one villain is Hans Gruber, the egomaniacal "terrorist" leader who buys all his suits in London and quotes from his classical education. In that, he is the exact opposite of McClane, a working class New Yorker whose smarts, we infer, are more of the street nature. As Gruber, Alan Rickman shines, nearly stealing the show from its star. He has only portrayed one other Hollywood villain since, The Sheriff of Nottingham in the 1990 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Rickman was easily the best thing about that film, and is responsible for any of its memorable scenes.
To better accentuate the everyguy hero against the odds, the script brilliantly brings in the cowboy analogy. When they communicate over the radio, Gruber insists that McClane's unwillingness to surrender is the result of seeing too many American movies growing up. He thinks he's John Wayne or Gary Cooper. This analogy, of course, brings on the now classic line from McClane: "Yipee Kay A, mother...." Well, you probably know the rest.
And to top all this off, Die Hard is simply one of the most exciting action yarns ever put on film. Veteran action director John McTiernan gives us death defying stunt after stunt. Die Hard achieved new levels of suspense and entertainment, and reigns on just about every list of the greatest action movies ever made. Not only was it a great entertainment, but it revolutionized the action movie. And although the technological advancements of the past thirteen years have brought many new special effects, no action film since can stand up to the original.
The Mexican
(2001)
Big stars make this small movie big fun
3 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
The Mexican is one of the most wholly original films that I've ever seen. It mixes quirky, realistic conversational comedy with crooks and guns in a way that you might think rings bells of Pulp Fiction or the more recent Snatch (also with Pitt), but doesn't. It's mostly a relationship movie, focusing on those couples who love hard. Jerry (Brad Pitt) and Sam (Julia Roberts) just can't "get it together", even though they're deeply in love. Should they call it off, or keep trying? The Mexican tries to answer that question. (very mild spoilers ahead) The rest of the film is made up of a very involved story about an antique pistol called the Mexican. Jerry has to get the gun for a gangster that he sort of owes. Sam is infuriated that he has cancelled their Vegas trip, and explodes when he tells her he has to go to Mexico. We follow him there and her to Vegas, where she is kidnapped by a hitman named Leroy (The Sopranos's James Gandolfini). That opens up into an entirely different plot and a character as interesting as the leads, who are incredibly interesting themselves.
And it's a good thing they were willing to take pay cuts to star in this film. If they hadn't, I fear it wouldn't reach an audience, and be filed away into obscurity with four copies at Blockbuster. But because it's backed by the heavyweights (Roberts may be the biggest star in the world), it will be seen, and I think, enjoyed. The two leads are at their very best, and Roberts in particular shows incredible range. Her performance here dwarfs her work on Erin Brockovich. Pitt absolutely proves that he's simply one of the best actors working, with or without the looks (which I, of course, don't notice). He is all about charisma, and it shines through in Jerry, an extremely unique character who lets Pitt's ingenuity run wild. James Gandolfini may play another gangster here, but he's miles away from Tony Soprano. He has a great screen presence and, again, the film showcases his incredible range.
The situations that the characters find themselves in are equal parts horrible and hilarious. The little tidbits of reality that are thrown into the extravagant plot bring it down to earth and leave the audience saying "that doesn't happen in movies". That's why the Mexican is so special. It doesn't care that it's a movie. Wild, funny, crazy, awful stuff keeps happening, and we just keep experiencing it. One scene that I won't spoil involves the meeting of Pitt and Gandolfini, and it startled me, and made me want to thank the filmmakers for developing ALL of its characters, and making an interesting scene out of what a lesser film would have made mundane.
See The Mexican because it's got your favorite stars in great roles; see it because you've probably never seen anything like it before; and see it because it's really, really fun.
And it's a good thing they were willing to take pay cuts to star in this film. If they hadn't, I fear it wouldn't reach an audience, and be filed away into obscurity with four copies at Blockbuster. But because it's backed by the heavyweights (Roberts may be the biggest star in the world), it will be seen, and I think, enjoyed. The two leads are at their very best, and Roberts in particular shows incredible range. Her performance here dwarfs her work on Erin Brockovich. Pitt absolutely proves that he's simply one of the best actors working, with or without the looks (which I, of course, don't notice). He is all about charisma, and it shines through in Jerry, an extremely unique character who lets Pitt's ingenuity run wild. James Gandolfini may play another gangster here, but he's miles away from Tony Soprano. He has a great screen presence and, again, the film showcases his incredible range.
The situations that the characters find themselves in are equal parts horrible and hilarious. The little tidbits of reality that are thrown into the extravagant plot bring it down to earth and leave the audience saying "that doesn't happen in movies". That's why the Mexican is so special. It doesn't care that it's a movie. Wild, funny, crazy, awful stuff keeps happening, and we just keep experiencing it. One scene that I won't spoil involves the meeting of Pitt and Gandolfini, and it startled me, and made me want to thank the filmmakers for developing ALL of its characters, and making an interesting scene out of what a lesser film would have made mundane.
See The Mexican because it's got your favorite stars in great roles; see it because you've probably never seen anything like it before; and see it because it's really, really fun.
Unbreakable
(2000)
Willis and Shyamalan: An Unbreakable Duo
3 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
It's a very difficult thing, trying to be original in Hollywood. Everything has been done and re-done. If you do think of something new, it probably isn't good because... if it was, someone would have done it already. And producers, they like more of the same; they like to be able to predict bottom lines. All these thigns are going against M. Night Shyamalan, Unbreakable's writer-director, but amazingly, he has followed his wholly original The Sixth Sense with another mind boggling supernatural realist movie.. And it's fantastic. He pairs up again with Bruce Willis, and I think that the two have forged one of those old fashioned Hollywood relationships. I hope so, because they work perfectly together. Willis has taken form in Hollywood as an everyman, the kind of actor I suspect Alfred Hitchcock would have cast in his films were he alive and working today.
Willis plays an ordinary man in Unbreakable, who has to face the possibility that he is extraordinary. (very mild spoilers ahead) After being the sole survivor of a train wreck, Willis is approached by a comic book shop owner (Samuel L. Jackson) who has an incredible theory: What if Willis is unbreakable, an indestructible force not unlike Superman, Spiderman and the other inhabitants of Jackson's comic book world. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Watch Shyamalan make you believe in it. Everything is unpolished, and that's the magic technique. It's grainy, it's 100% real, and then it's a superhero movie. Shyamalan's characters are most important, more than anything else. Unbreakable would have been a good movie without the train wreck and the superpowers. It's well acted and heartfelt. Bringing in the supernatural seems so right, though, and if I knew how Shyamalan did that, then I would be writing a script right now instead of a review. His is one of the most fertile minds in Hollywood history, and I urge anyone to see what this craftsman has crafted. Be amazed.
Willis plays an ordinary man in Unbreakable, who has to face the possibility that he is extraordinary. (very mild spoilers ahead) After being the sole survivor of a train wreck, Willis is approached by a comic book shop owner (Samuel L. Jackson) who has an incredible theory: What if Willis is unbreakable, an indestructible force not unlike Superman, Spiderman and the other inhabitants of Jackson's comic book world. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Watch Shyamalan make you believe in it. Everything is unpolished, and that's the magic technique. It's grainy, it's 100% real, and then it's a superhero movie. Shyamalan's characters are most important, more than anything else. Unbreakable would have been a good movie without the train wreck and the superpowers. It's well acted and heartfelt. Bringing in the supernatural seems so right, though, and if I knew how Shyamalan did that, then I would be writing a script right now instead of a review. His is one of the most fertile minds in Hollywood history, and I urge anyone to see what this craftsman has crafted. Be amazed.
Tell Your Friends