mdana Reviews

What a Way to Go! (1964)

I Found It Ironic For A Move About Early Death To Star So Many Actors Who Lived So Long

[26 April 2003]

I Found It Ironic For A Move About Early Death To Star So Many Actors Who Lived So Long

A good movie to watch if you stumble across it on cable or decide to rent it. I had seen it as a kid in the 1970s and it was much better than I remembered it (I am not sure I understood it was a comedy and not a drama). I don't have much to say about the movie itself other than I caught it on AMC in November or December of 1995, and noticed something I found interesting. I was watching the movie and I was thinking to myself isn't it odd that all these actors are all still alive? I found it ironic that I was watching this movie some 30 years after it was released and all the five men she married in the film were still alive (Robert Cummings who played her shrink passed away in 1990 but was in his 80s). All the actors who played characters who came to an untimely end in the movie (except Dean her last husband) made it to at least 77 which is a pretty good life span for men born in the 1910s and 1920s. Since I have seen the movie, three of the actors have died: Dean Martin passed away at 78, Gene Kelly at 83, and Robert Mitchum at 79. As of today, Paul Newman is 78 and Dick Van Dyke is 77. I hope both actors continue to entertain us for many more years.

Possession (2002)

Best movie of the year and best romantic movie of the new decade

[10/10 · 18 September 2002]

I don't really do traditional reviews. I don't like to give anything away and destroy the movie for those that haven't seen it. I mostly like to voice my disdain for the other commenters for their lack of taste and reason. This is a great movie. After I first saw it I thought it was one of the better movies of the year. I saw it again and realized it is the best movie of the year. The whole movie ties together seamlessly. I haven't read the book but most screen adaptations have to change things for time constraints. As a stand-alone movie it works so well on its own. The only movie that was better than the book was the Godfather (and the book wasn't that great to begin with). So disregard the book fetish reviewers, they never could have been satisfied with anything less than a 9-hour movie.

Then there is the Mormon basher. I was raised Mormon and I love bashing them. I find religion to be a joke, but to point it out as a put down of Neil Labute destroys the person's rant against the movie. Another commenter stated she didn't care about the characters because the 19th century poets were fictional. Well most movies are about fictional characters. Go see a documentary if reality is so important to you.

This is a fantastic movie. It is not too intellectual, but still very intelligent. It has romance, comedy, and shows the frailty of life in a very moving way. I can't recommend this any more highly.

Serving Sara (2002)

Take the worst movie you have ever seen, have Pauly Shore act, have Joel Schmacher direct, and you might come close to "SS".

[23 August 2002]

Serving Sara" is now officially the worst movie of the Summer and even the year. I have bumped AOTC into a tie with "The Sweetest Thing". I hope all the SW fans are doing an Ewok dance at their computer monitors in celebration. I will not be seeing "The Country Bears", or "Rollerball" (unless I am kidnapped and held at gunpoint) to bump AOTC up the list. I will not go into the awful details that led me to choose seeing "Serving Sara" over running out to the road and throwing myself onto oncoming traffic. I may have to take the rest of the week-end off, to recover from the travesty this movie was. I mean were they even trying? I swear every actor knew what a piece of sh#t they were doing and wasted as little energy as possible on this film.

I would recommend to anyone out there you should think about avoiding any theaters that are even playing "Serving Sara". I mean I went to "The Family Man" and "Dungeons and Dragons" started. If "Serving Sara" starts by accident, you may not be able to enjoy the movie you intended to see in the first place. After the first fifteen minutes, I thought maybe it will improve when they go on the run. Then it still sucked. At that point, I was just hoping for random luck that the people responsible for the movie could just string together two or three minutes of non-sucking together. That little miracle never happened either. I laughed a couple of times at the beginning(you know nervous laughter, when you start to realize the people responsible for this movie may not even know how to spell good). Then I was just laughing at the people laughing at the movie. My wife and I just kept looking at each other and thinking, "What movie are they watching?. Is Austin Powers being played on a side wall or something?"

Then I had to watch the credits (I always do). My wife was really giving me the evil eye. I was memorizing the credits list and vowing never to see a movie anyone that was involved in this fiasco does again. I am going to print the credits at IMDB and put them in my wallet and match it against the movie posters at the theater, in case I ever decide to see a movie at the spur of the moment. I don't care if the Gaffer of this movie is the Gaffer of Two Towers, I will really have to reconsider my plans on seeing TT (kind of kidding). It is difficult to describe how retched "SS" is, but I will try and take you into the heart of darkness. Take the worst movie you have ever seen, have Pauly Shore act, have Joel Schmacher direct, and you might come close to "SS".

Excalibur (1981)

Best Arthurian Film

[10/10 · 14 June 2002]

Ok. I haven't seen any others so, maybe that is faint praise. However, it is in my top 20 of all-time and I have seen thousands of movies. I would like to comment on some of the other comments I have read here about Excalibur as much as the movie itself. Someone mentioned the music was "ok". It's freakin Wagner!!! It is fabulous for this movie. I don't think a composer alive or at the time of the movie's release (1981) could have created a better original score for the movie. I think Wagner is used better here than in the chopper scene in Apocolypse Now and that is high praise indeed, because that is one of the most magnificent scenes in all of film. You like action? You like fantasy, sex, or blood? Well this is the movie for you. I don't understand what all the fuss is about the sex. It is integral to the plot. Uther's lust destroyed the peace and provided the seed that became Arthur. Arthur' betrayal by Guinevere and Lancelot leads him to be seduced by his half-sister Morgana and impregnate her with Mordred his eventual death sentence. Thankfully, the scenes are erotic and beautifully filmed in stark contrast to the dark and grim life these people lead when not killing. The acting is pretty good as far as I am concerned. I loved Nicol Williamson's Merlin, he is hilarious and eccentric. Helen Mirren's Morgana is sexy and evil. Paul Geoffrey's Perceval ages like 20 years in about 25 minutes and is quite believable. The Boorman family is quite good especially Katrine Boorman as Igrayne (she dances and heaves very well). Her sister Telsche Boorman was the Lady of the Lake and her brother was young Mordred who taunts Perceval. The movie is beautifully lit and has many powerful scenes and images that other better known movies cannot match. I am amazed at the power Boorman was able to capture in many scenes especially the Lady of the Lake, the Last battle, and sunrise boat farewell. Maybe the most amazing thing is how Boorman got so much action and story into so little time (around 2hrs and 15 minutes). He tells the stories of Uther, Merlin, Arthur, Mordred, Morgana, Perceval, Lancelot, and Guenevere, when a single story about any one of them could make up a 90 minute movie. Some in this forum have bitched about the short strokes he makes in characterizations, but he is very deft at telling you enough to push the story along. If you want to know more about a specific character, go read a book about that character. Don't expect to find it all here. Especially a secondary character like Morgana (who is important, but the name of the movie is excalibur, woman will take a backseat in this phallic world, thank you very much). I cry at the end of this movie everytime I see it and part of the reason is because I am sad at the death of Arthur who legend or not was a great man. The other reason is because this is almost perfection in film and it is rarely achieved and it deserves to be appreciated. This is what movies are all about loss, power and redemption, all filmed in breathtaking beauty.

About a Boy (2002)

Best Movie of 2002 (So Far)

[9/10 · 27 May 2002]

I loved this movie. I saw it on Saturday the week-end it came out with my wife and she loved it also. The movie is great. I would rank it with Fever Pitch as the best Nick Hornby film adaptation (High Fidelity was also great and I enjoy it more every time I see it). Hugh Grant gives a great performance and doesn't do many of his tricks such as stuttering and fluttering his eyes that he sometimes has done in the past. The child is amazing and practically perfect. Toni Collete is also terrific. The movie is really funny and at parts very dark and sad, but you leave the theater somehow happy and uplifted. I really like the shallowness of Grant's character and the selfishness of Collette's character. The movie portrayed them how they were and was not judging them to be bad people just a bit mixed up (like real people). The voice-over of the boy's and Grant's characters were hilarious and pitch perfect for their emotional stages. The best scene is when the boy tries to play matchmaker with his mother and Will Freeman and you hear his take on what a great time they are having and Will's less optimistic view. If you liked or loved this film check out Fever Pitch and High Fidelity, you will enjoy them too. I would rank this movie, at least a 9 out of 10, maybe even a 10.

The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Scariest Movie Ever

[27 May 2002]

At least it was when I saw it back in the early 70's. I saw this movie at Indian Springs in the Kansas City, Ks area (the mall and theater aren't even there anymore). I was around five or six years old. I may have seen the movie later than the release date, because movies would run for years around the country, as the distribution deals were much different in the early 1970's. This movie scared me so much that after we left the theater that night, I looked up on a map to see how far Fouke, Arkansas was from KC, Ks. to make sure that the creature wouldn't come and get me (it is approximately 580 miles, for some reason I thought it was 450, must be early Alzheimers). My dad said since it was unlikely the creature had access to a car (or could even drive) I was safe until at least the next morning. I lived in a trailer so the movie really hit home for me. I haven't seen the whole movie since. I was able to catch about 15 minutes on TNT or TBS about a decade ago, late at night before I drifted off to sleep. It was still somewhat creepy, but I am not sure if it was still scary. I loved the movie though when it came out, and was very excited about BWP. BWP disappointed me, but I am not sure if I was more disappointed in not being 5 years old again and being scared of the woods. When LBC came out, if you were 5-10 y.o. an 11 out of 10. If you were an adult, LBC would rate about 6-7 on a scale of 10 (as long as you didn't mind a low-budget film). Now I would rate it a 5, but definitely worth watching if you are interested in Big Foot or mythical creatures.

Manhunter (1986)

Faint Endorsement

[26 May 2002]

I had to comment on this movie. I didn't see it when it originally was in the theaters. I have seen it on video twice. READ THE BOOK!! It is great. The movie takes many liberties with the plot, and I think it is worse for the discrepancies. However, on its own it is a pretty good movie. I don't care for Mann's directing skills. I think he was the biggest problem with the movie. Peterson, Noonan, Allan, and Farina are great. Allen was the closest thing to my visual interpretation of the character in the book to what was put on screen. Cox is actually quite good although much different from the Hopkins' performance (they are completely different roles). Cox get Lector's effiminate/gossipy persona down cold. I love the scene when he is talking to Graham and he curls his feet up like a teenage girl talking to her boyfriend. Noonan and Peterson are really amazing. I think if it had a better director it would have been huge, the plot was basically fool-proof. I think when it came out it would have rated a 8.5-9 rating. However, Silence was much better and the lighting and soundtrack have dated it poorly, so I would give it a 7 for today's viewing climate. Read the book, it is much better than Silence of the Lambs. Hopefully, the new movie will not change much from the book, but I doubt it.

Following (1998)

If You Loved Memento You Will Love This Movie

[9/10 · 15 May 2002]

I saw this movie after I saw Memento. I was very impressed with Memento so when I saw this at the local video store, I decided to check it out. I was equally impressed with this little film. I like black and white films so that was bonus, especially for a noir film. I thought the acting was very good by actors I have never noticed in other films. It is short and makes you think, which you can't state about many films. I loved to guess where a film is going and 90% of the time I know the general outline of the film and where it is going in the first 10 minutes. Nolan's films are never that easy to decipher at first glance. I won't spoil the film other than to state the protagonist of the film is not talking to his shrink after he has taken his stalking too far at the beginning of the film as I originally surmised. This movie is basically a rough draft for some of the ideas and themes Nolan would later explore and exploit in Memento. It works on its own and if Nolan had never done anything afterwards would still be a major talent.