Change Your Image
jbenante-1
Reviews
Miracle Mile (1988)
Very Effective Thriller
I always get a kick out of the people who feel compelled to say in their comments/reviews about various movies, "I want the XX minutes I wasted back." Lame, cliché, and stupid. I have some excellent suggestions regarding what such people can do to reclaim their XX minutes, but I'll refrain from getting into it here. Let them use their imaginations, such as they may have.
Miracle Mile is a child of its times. It was made before the fall of the USSR. The "Cold War" was still a reality when the movie was made. People who saw this movie in its own time had little or no doubt that the "unspecified country" that the US had proceeded to bomb with nuclear weapons "pre-emptively" was the USSR. The movie worked on a few levels back then. It still works now. Back then, it was actually one of the movie's *weaknesses" that it suggested that our noble country would attack another country "pre-emptively." The idea strained credulity. And yet, here it is, 2006, and not only has the US attacked another nation "pre-emptively," albeit without using nuclear weapons (so far), but all signs point to another pre-emptive strike against Iran. This reality makes the plot of Miracle Mile seem almost quaint.
Is it among the top 500 films of all time? Perhaps not. But I think some compelling arguments can be made to place it among the top 1000, and given the tens of thousands of movies that currently exist, that's not an insult at all.
The strengths of the movie outweigh its flaws. The "silly" romantic angle that took up the first 15 minutes or so was not wasted. It made all that followed that much more horrific.
The special effects weren't great - the overall production has "low budget" written all over it. But that doesn't make for a bad movie. Anyone who thinks it does should check out "Testament," a movie that shares a real kinship with "Miracle Mile." Neither movie is "big budget," but each is moving and effective in its own way. Each one is provocative in the best meanings of the word.
I first say this movie shortly after it came out, but on cable TV. Even after all these years, I still remember one of the movie's most chilling and prophetic lines, as said by Anthony Edwards' character: "I think it's the insects' turn."
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Beautiful to the Eyes, Painful to the Senses
Okay, I will admit that I saw this film only once, about 30 years ago. I had totally loved "A Clockwork Orange," and couldn't wait to see Kubrick's latest. I was an English teacher at the time, and I recall one of my students telling me that her dad had seen the movie, and thought it was just about the most beautiful movie he'd ever seen. That really whet my appetite to see it even more.
As it turns out, her dad wasn't wrong, exactly. "Barry Lyndon" as seen on the big screen is sumptuous. Scenes could be frozen and committed to canvas as works of art. The cinematography was grand.
The story, less so. The plot was so forgettable, at least as presented in this movie, that I can scarcely remember any of it. I do recall one long, long protracted scene of Ryan O'Neal and Marissa Berenson (I think) riding in a carriage. He was smoking a pipe, or cigar, or whatever. They sat silently while riding, as he smoked and she periodically waved away his smoke with an annoyed, gloved hand (that's how I remember it anyway). The scene seemed to go on for a good 5 minutes, although it was probably just a minute or so that FELT like 5. I wanted to jump out of my skin. Honestly, I have a vague memory of having left the theater at intermission. I'm not completely sure that I did, it was so long ago. But if I did, it was the first and last time. I can tolerate boring movies. I am very, very difficult to offend. I can tolerate stupid, pointless movies. But "Barry Lyndon" seemed to be in another category altogether. I couldn't relate to anyone in the movie, least of all Ryan O'Neal's portrayal. At that time, he seemed to me to be, as an actor, completely without substance. Maybe Kubrick chose him exactly for that quality. I don't know.
To be fair, maybe if I watched this movie again in the present, I would like it and appreciate it. But I doubt it.
I give the movie a 3 out of 10 because of the beautiful cinematography, nothing more.
Freaked (1993)
Really Stupid - But Okay for 70 Minutes of Chuckles
This is one of those movies that define the term "cheesy." To its credit, it is utterly unpretentious, committed to going for the gags, not taking itself at all seriously. Morgan Fairchild, Mr. T - Brooke Shields, a smörgåsbord of has-beens populates the cast.
It's not a terrible movie - it's just not very good - or even good. It's the sort of thing that you might have seen on USA network's "Up All Night" a dozen or so years ago, usually with a title like "Sorority House Masacre" or "Deformed Deviant Divas." It's campy, occasionally a little funny, and has you wondering - "Did this thing ever actually appear in movie theaters? And if so, who actually paid to see it?"
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
The Sadness of Coming of Age
This fourth Harry Potter movie may be the best so far. Yes, there are far too many characters, probably more so than in the first three films, and of necessity most of them, especially those introduced here for the first time, have little or no dialog and are not fleshed out. Also, Hermione and Ron are more relegated to supporting characters than before. Still, the movie works on a number of levels, as pure adventure, suspense, and with a couple generous dollops of horror.
But the most horrific parts of the film come less from the very good special effects and more from what the movie evokes from the heart and experiences of those viewers who have lived beyond their teen years.
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD! Nothing involving Voldemort, snakes, or spells was more disturbing to me than Harry's reaction when he returned from the maze with the corpse of his slain friend and fellow student. This was the first time, in my recollection, that Harry out and out wept - and his sobs were gut-wrenching. Those 30 or so seconds brought a spirit to this series that I'd never seen before. In Harry's weeping, I got the feeling that suddenly this wizard business wasn't much fun for him anymore, that the tournament, past trophies and triumphs, his own fame, none of it mattered much anymore, because now everything was tainted. Sometimes, people aren't just temporarily frozen or turned into ferrets until the proper magical antidote is conjured. Sometimes, they actually die, and their deaths aren't especially pretty or glamorous, just as was shown in the scene preceding this one. Harry's world has been tainted with the very close and personal experience of mortality and loss, and as his own sobs mingled with the wailing of the slain boy's father, the scene became, for me, almost too unbearable to watch in its horror and sadness. As Hermione tearfully acknowledged in the final scene, everything is going to change. It's going to change because these kids have come of age, and just as in the muggle world we inhabit, prior innocence can be remembered, but never recaptured.
During the drive home from the movie, our two teenagers chimed in with their thoughts. My son found it disappointing that Dumbledore didn't seem to have the air of calm, majesty, and invulnerability about him that he had in the previous films. It occurred to me then that, probably, Dumbldore hadn't necessarily changed; maybe it was Harry & company's perceptions of him that had changed, again because they are growing up. Most of us when we were very young perceived our parents and teachers as emotionally and morally infallible, until suddenly they're not anymore. In most cases, they never really changed; we did.
I don't remember the last time any movie inspired in me such contemplation over what it felt like to grow up and start seeing things that really hurt, and you begin to change. Not because you want to, but because you have to, because for most of us, NOT growing up isn't an option.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Lighten Up, People!
It's a movie, GOSH! I don't think the filmmaker(s) set out to create a classic, and no, this movie is not a classic. But I found it to be sweet at its core. I didn't see any of the "post modern cynicism/disdain for humanity" and on and on that a number of other posts complained about. Though the pacing was rather slow, neither did I feel inclined to fall asleep. I watched ND with my kids, 14 and 12, and Napoleon's speech patterns definitely reminded me somewhat of theirs. We were all able to enjoy the movie, and we all chuckled almost throughout the entire thing. Perhaps the key to enjoying this movie is watching it with others. Perhaps I wouldn't have chuckled nearly as much as I did if I'd watched alone. I can't say for sure.
I agree with those who state that the plot is weak or almost not there at all. The music has a sort of cheesy, cheap quality - but for this movie, it all works. Almost all of the humor is in the characters, and not so much in the situations.
There is an abundance of true crap out there - mindless violence, formulaic chase scenes, laughs that appeal to potty humor. ND is a small movie with a good heart. All of the invective folks seem to be dumping on it on this message board seems way over the top. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. I could name many dozens of movies, some of which were huge commercial hits, that are much more deserving of the sort of harsh criticism ND has received from many people here.