crossluke21 Reviews

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Time has been kind to this movie

[7/10 · 30 May 2023]

This film's legacy is that it was a gigantic misfire that was trashed by critics and hated by the fans it was trying to impress. I think a lot of people hate this movie because they think they are supposed to hate it. If you look at this movie for what it is, not what people wish it was, you will find that is one of the most expertly constructed monster movies ever made. Roland Emmerich is a master action filmmaker. The action scenes in this movie are clear, coherent, breathlessly suspenseful and exciting. Comparing Godzilla to the action films of today makes you realize the extent to which the filmmaking craft has deteriorated. So many action scenes now are a dull, sludgy CGI mess, with quick cuts and sloppy editing that render the action incoherent and weightless. This movie feels so grandly cinematic and epic in a way that movies just don't feel anymore. The lines between film and television have been blurred now, and that cinematic language has been lost.

The main criticism of this movie is that this Godzilla does not have the characteristics of his Japanese counterpart, which is true and valid. This Godzilla is not impervious to traditional weaponry, he runs and hides and uses stealth attacks instead of being a slow, lumbering wall of destruction, and his mighty atomic breath beam attack has been reduced to more of an oral flamethrower. But it is important to realize that a Godzilla movie had not been theatrically released in America for 14 years, the only way most Americans knew of Godzilla was through TV reruns and VHS tapes. He was simply not a major cultural force in America at that time. What was a major cultural force was Jurassic Park, so it makes sense that in order to create the largest draw possible, the filmmakers would reference Jurassic Park more than traditional Japanese monster movies, because that's what most audiences would be familiar with. Indeed, Godzilla and his offspring are more akin to a mutated T. Rex and raptors than to the big G himself. Also, the conception of giant movie monsters is fundamentally different in America vs Japan. In America, giant monsters are mutated animals on the loose, that cause a lot of violence before they are inevitably destroyed by military might or scientific ingenuity. In Japan, giant monsters (called kaiju) are immortal, indestructible, god-like beings. Japanese monster films operate much more in the realm of fantasy than their American counterparts. If Godzilla 1998 had gone for more of a traditional Japanese approach, wide audiences might not have understood it in the same way as they would a giant T. Rex run amok in NYC.

Forget expectations and cultural baggage. Watch this movie for what it is, and you will have a good time.

The Departed (2006)

Not even close to one of Scorsese's best

[6/10 · 6 May 2023]

I hate to use the word overrated, but that is a pretty good word for this movie. This is Scorsese on autopilot working with potboiler material, but for some reason filmgoers and the film establishment decided to heap this movie with tons of accolades that Scorsese's other, lesser known work is much more worthy of. It feels like a slightly elevated version of dozens of other crime and cop action movies. There are great actors and great performances in this movie, but the plot did not keep me engaged enough to follow its many twists and turns. The ending is so over the top and ridiculous that it borders on parody.

Beau Is Afraid (2023)

I Would Be Afraid Too

[9/10 · 3 May 2023]

Ari Aster makes movies for a specific type of mind. If you are of that mind, as I am, you will find this to be one of the most riveting, jaw dropping moviegoing experiences of your life. If not, you will likely find this to be a rambling, incoherent mess. I loved this movie but I would be very careful who I recommend it to. The low and high IMDB scores are equally understandable.

Beau is Afraid is ineffable. It transcends its medium and becomes a pure, immersive, direct out of body experience. So many movies are built upon cliches and retreaded plot points, but this movie seems to arise whole cloth out of an unfamiliar, undiscovered landscape. Each new scene and storytelling turn is a shocking, disturbing revelation. There is a scene in the middle of this movie that is a painfully beautiful testament to the limits and possibilities of the cinematic art form. I do feel that I need to give a warning. This movie left me with a darkness over my soul. I left the theater feeling shaken and uneasy. It is the polar opposite of a feel good movie. Ari Aster has created a masterpiece, but he has painted it with the dark colors of trauma, loneliness, cruelty, and extreme neurosis.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Somewhat of a turning point for Tarantino

[8/10 · 8 April 2023]

There's a scene in Inglorious Basterds where the Nazi's are cheering on a film depiction of one of their most highly praised war heroes, a sniper who killed over 300 Allies. As they cheer for "our" onscreen deaths, we as an audience wait in eager anticipation for theirs, for the cathartic fulfillment of a revenge fantasy. The Nazi deaths, when they come, are not cathartic, but sickening and appalling in their unflinching brutality. The film throws the audience's lust for violence back in its face. The impulse toward violence is not exclusive to Nazi's, but a common human trait.

The promotional material for this movie gives the viewer the false impression that it is a Dirty Dozen homage about a ragtag group of Nazi hunters who beat, shoot, and scalp their way across Germany. In reality the Basterds are but one of several intertwining plot threads. The film is more interested in emotionally charged conversations, hidden identities, and subtle expressions of body language than in a stock plot about Nazi killers.

Inglorious Basterds is often overwhelmingly suspenseful and engrossing, but I could never completely lose myself in the world of this film. It somewhat feels more like a well rehearsed and intricately constructed stage play than an immersive movie experience. Tarantino indulges in stylistic choices - occasional narration, cutaways, a character title card, frequent cinematic references - that are fun to watch but leave the impression that this is a movie that knows it's a movie, and wants the audience to know that too. The real historical characters in this movie - Goebbels, Hitler, Churchill - are seemingly based more on cinematic caricatures of those people than on the people themselves. Brad Pitt's character is a welcome injection of humor and warmth, but his character feels like it has been transplanted from a 1960's war movie. The Basterds are rarely given any depth beyond one or two characteristics. The best moments of the movie are when Tarantino released the reins and simply let's the story unfold itself, as in the opening scene with the hidden Jews and the conversation in the Nazi tavern.

There is a self awareness, a sense of tight, mannered control here that was not present to this extent in Tarantino's earlier films. Although I prefer movies that are more immersive, less self consciously stylized, I still must recommend this movie as a singular feat of filmmaking craft.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Digital Era Survival Movie

[7/10 · 6 April 2023]

A movie like this needs something to elevate it above the base materials of its text. It could be an acting performance or interesting dialogue, it could be an arresting visual style or a haunting music score, or a combination of these things. This movie has none of that. It is well acted and solidly constructed, but it is unrelentingly cold, drab, gray and brutal for two and a half hours, and it is an exhausting experience.

Compare this to another mountain man wilderness survival movie, 1972's Jeremiah Johnson. The colors in that film are natural and vibrant, the scenery is beautifully authentic, and the entire movie feels real and immediate, like someone brought a camera out in the wildness and just started rolling. The Revenant's visuals are droll and depressing in comparison. Movies now seem to be coated in a digital sheen that is meant to intensify the mood and color palette of a film, but instead gives an impression of muddy, dull artificiality. Filmmakers have forgotten the simple power of going to a beautiful, exotic location and simply pointing a camera at it. Now everything is digitally "enhanced" and the effects are numbing and subtly off putting. The movie continues the current Hollywood trend of bloated runtimes. Filmmakers seem to have forgotten their editors. The movie could have easily had a half hour trimmed off of it.

Compare this again to another movie, The Edge. The bear attack in that scene felt real, visceral, horrifying, almost disgusting in its unflinching violence, filmed with steady shots and with a real bear. In this movie, the bear is a digitized CGI creation and the camera is constantly shaky and disorienting. It's a decent scene but you never quite know what's happening and the CGI bear never seems to occupy the same space as the actor. Maybe I just hate modern movies.

End of the Line (1987)

Last of the Steam Powered Trains

[6/10 · 3 April 2023]

I am a huge fan of The Band, so I watched this for Levon Helm.

The movie gets off to a strong start. It's one of those movies from the pre-digital era of filmmaking that you just don't see anymore, where the locations look like real places you could see if you walk down the street in any small town in America, and the actors are so convincing that it's hard to believe they're not real people. Movies are so airbrushed and polished and over produced now, and it makes me miss the grit and authenticity that films like this used to have.

If it had stayed grounded and allowed the comedy and drama to arise naturally from the characters and their predicament this could have been a very good and very different movie, but unfortunately it turns cartoonish and silly in the third act.

It has a surprisingly great cast, including two actors, Holly Hunter and Kevin Bacon, who would go on to become stars. I've noticed that some of the promotional material gives Bacon top billing, but this is misleading. This is Wilford Brimley and Levon Helm's movie. Wilford Brimley does a great job being Wilford Brimley, and Levon as always has a convincing, endearing, and charismatic screen presence as a naive but loveable railroad man. Bob Balaban and Clint Howard also make appearances as the chairman of the board of the railroad company and his assistant. They're great character actors and it's always good to see them. Balaban's character has a strange accent that I can't quite place.

It's worth watching not for the quality of the writing but for the performances, and for the way that it highlights a specific, bygone time and place and way of life in America.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

Godfather 3

[7/10 · 28 March 2023]

Al Pacino plays an older, wiser Michael Corleone, with a softer heart, haunted with regret. Al Pacino naturally inhabits this role again, and he is the best part of this movie by far. The soul of the Godfather films lives on through him. If the film had stayed in the insular world and mind of Michael, it could have been great. But it strays other, unfortunate directions.

The Diane Keaton scenes are forced. She speaks in expository dialogue that is meant to stir memories and feelings from the previous Godfather films. She never sounds like a real human in a real situation.

Sofia Coppola's acting is adequate in some scenes, but stilted and lifeless in others. It is some of the worst acting I've seen in an expensive motion picture from a major film studio. It reminded of the acting in Godzilla films, when the voices are unconvincingly dubbed in English. Worse still, she was cast alongside Al Pacino, so her acting is being compared against one of the greatest actors in the history of film.

Andy Garcia's character is arrogant and hotheaded and unsympathetic, he is never believable as a member of the Corleone family, and his storyline involving a romantic relationship with his first cousin is creepy, inappropriate and pointless.

The helicopter scene is impressive and exciting shockingly violent, but it feels like it belongs in an 80's action film, not a Godfather movie.

The cinematography and directing is cinematic and beautiful in some scenes, and in others looks like a TV movie.

Michael's confession is the best scene in the movie.

Lost Highway (1997)

A dry run for a much better movie

[4/10 · 5 February 2023]

The first half of this movie, before Bill Pullman's character (Fred) undergoes the change, is a masterfully atmospheric expression of unsettling sounds, images, and suspenseful foreboding. After Fred goes into the jail cell and transforms into Pete, the movie goes off the rails. I couldn't follow the plot when I was watching it, I can't remember most of it now and I don't care enough about it to bother with trying to understand it.

The movie follows Pete, as he commits crimes, fixes cars, runs from police and has a lot of graphic sex with Patricia Arquette. There are several long, slow scenes set to a Rammstein song. No reason is given as to why we should care about this character or his exploits. I found him unsympathetic, unlikeable, and irritating.

It feels like David Lynch lost his way somewhere in the middle of making this movie, as if his ideas led him to a dead end, so he goes into autopilot. Lynch's weirdness usually helps to express the underlying ideas of his films in bold and striking ways, but here it makes the film feel disjointed and random.

One of ways to interpret this movie is that it is about a man who escapes into a new life and identity in his mind because he cannot handle the ruin that his real life has become. Lynch would go on to explore this idea beautifully and effectively in Mulholland Drive, arguably his greatest film.

Nice Dreams (1981)

(N)ice (D)reams

[5/10 · 8 January 2023]

The best parts of this movie are the early scenes, featuring a stoned-out Cheech & Chong wandering through rows of cannabis plants, playing music, burning tortillas, and spewing mindless pot head banter. These scenes have an easygoing, relaxing vibe. And then our heroes start meandering through one harebrained scenario after another, from doing coke under a table in a Chinese restaurant, to a naked Cheech being locked outside of a hotel, to a brief trippy appearance from Timothy Leary in an insane asylum.

If this movie had kept the momentum of its first scenes, it could have been a great hangout stoner comedy. When the boys start getting into "funny" situations it feels like a series of half baked comedy sketches loosely strung together. The worst moment by far is scene where Cheech has sex with a passed out woman, played as a joke, that is an unfortunate product of many movies of its time.

The rambling, half baked, inconsequential, and dumbly funny feel of this movie certainly gives the impression that it was created under a cloud of marijuana smoke. It feels like this movie was mainly an excuse for Cheech & Chong to hang out, get high, and flesh out some comedic ideas. It will not be an outright funny movie for most people, but it is funny in the way that life itself seems funny when you are stoned.

Invaders from Mars (1986)

5 Stars For Special Effects Alone

[5/10 · 4 October 2022]

I'm not sure what to make of Tobe Hooper. He can direct all time classics like Poltergeist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but he also creates odd misfires like this movie.

Invaders From Mars is almost totally ruined by hammy, awkward acting. This is partially due to incompetence, especially on the part of the young lead actor, but it feels likely that the actors were actually directed to perform this way, in order to emulate the corny, over the top acting style of 1950's horror and sci fi films. Indeed the entire movie is an homage to this era of filmmaking. Instead of taking the premise of a 50's monster movie and updating it with modern special effects and filmmaking methods, it feels like Tobe was trying to make the exact kind of film that would have been made in that period, including corny dialogue and rubbery monsters.

On one hand this movie is trying to be straight up horror, and on the other it's trying to be a 1950's pastiche, and those two tones clash. The young lead seems plucked from one of those old boys adventure stories. The movie needs him to have genuine emotional reactions in order for the horror to be fully effective. We need to see him be afraid and shocked and sad as any boy would be in this situation, but instead he is always plucky and courageous and never seems to be too fazed by the surreal and terrible things happening around him. The lead actress is there only to scream and look scared and to move the plot forward.

The Martian monsters created by John Dykstra and Stan Winston are generally great, especially in their first on screen appearance, but they seem more and more creaky and rubbery as the film progresses, which might have been intentional in order to maintain the 50's homage style. The flying spaceship shots are excellent.

I think this could have been an 80's horror cult classic if it had dropped the hammy acting and committed fully to its horror premise. Because the performances are wooden and cliched, nothing in the movie feels consequential. The movie is fun for the special effects alone, but it mostly feels like an awkward missed opportunity.

Nope (2022)

Nope

[7/10 · 9 August 2022]

It's hard to know what to think about this movie. It is a triumph of atmosphere, sound design and special effects, but it suffers from a problem that is common to a lot of movies today: it has tremendous cinematography and production but fails at the level of basic storytelling. The two lead characters try to photograph a UFO creature that has recently taken residence on their ranch in order to make money selling the photo. And that's basically the entire plot. And that plot didn't even begin until about halfway into the movie.

Because there is very little narrative propulsion to drive the movie, it often feels flat and stale. This feeling is compounded by Daniel Kaluuya's lead performance. He is always stone-faced and he mumbles all of his lines. This is contrasted heavily by Keke Palmer, who is a bolt of warmth and energy that the movie badly needs.

Despite these flaws, it's hard to give this movie a low rating. It is an often haunting, dream-like experience. There are images in it that stayed in my mind long after the credits rolled. There is a scene that takes place during a rodeo show that is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a movie. The way the movie rambles and changes tone, though potentially frustrating from a narrative perspective, adds to the dreamy atmosphere.

I think Jordan Peele started to believe his own hype after the success of Get Out. Get Out was a tight, succinct, highly effective horror movie, but his two subsequent movies, especially Us, feel bloated with too many half baked messages and ideas. He needs to focus less on being an Important Filmmaker With A Message, and focus more on telling an engaging, coherent story. Nope doesn't feel like a step forward or back for Peele, but a step sideways. It feels like he made it for himself alone.

History of the Eagles (2013)

Eagles

[7/10 · 8 February 2022]

The first half of this documentary, documenting the beginning of the band up to their breakup after the recording of The Long Run, is great: one of the best, most engaging and unflinching rock documentaries on an iconic band. But it unfortunately continues for another hour and a half into their victory lap years.

The band has every right to celebrate their enduring success, but the ultra professional, corporate, and cynical way they ran the band in these years begins to wear on the viewer. At one point Glen Frey compares the band to a football team: we all need each other, but not everyone gets to touch the ball (this is how he justifies kicking out Don Felder after he refused to agree to a revised contract). Bands have every right to play their songs as long as people want to hear them, but there is something a little mortifying about seeing the same people play the same songs in the exact same way for decades. This is music as pure product. It's sad to see the Eagles go from young, hungry, vibrant stars to musical businessmen.

Woodlands Dark and Days Bewitched: A History of Folk Horror (2021)

Recommend

[7/10 · 9 January 2022]

The analysis tends to be a little too political and academic for my taste, and some of the subject matter transitions are a little rushed and confusing, but the overall film becomes more than the sum of its parts and takes on a life and a magic of its own. It's an often mesmerizing documentary and I was sad when it ended despite its 3+ hour runtime. It would be difficult to find a more thorough overview of the subject.

Hook (1991)

Sadly over-criticized gem.

[9/10 · 24 June 2021]

I don't know what people expect from this movie. I can't understand the low reviews. Spielberg has a way of making movies that bypass your mental faculties and go straight to your heart. When I watch this movie I experience it completely on an emotional level. It fills me with childlike awe and wonder. It is a movie to be experienced, not analyzed.

One common critique is that the sets look fake but I just don't see it. The little bit of artificiality they portray gives the movie a quaint, charming quality. And they don't even look that fake. It is a massive step up over the cartoony CGI green screen back drops we are subjected to today.

Another common complaint is Julia Roberts' performance as Tinkerbell, but she did fine. Maybe not the strongest part of the movie but I like that they have Tink some emotional depth beyond a little hug that flies around.

This is a beautiful, awe-filled movie, made by Spielberg at the top of his game, showcasing all the hallmarks of the filmmaker at his best and most creatively uninhibited.

Masked and Anonymous (2003)

Waxed and Synonymous

[4/10 · 15 June 2021]

It could be said that you have to be a diehard Dylan fan to enjoy this movie, but it doesn't even offer very much for Dylan fans besides the music (which is the best part of the movie) and a few subtle references. So who is this movie for and what is it's purpose? It's hard to say. It's too nonlinear and surreal to have mainstream appeal, and it's too empty to satisfy art film fans. The whole thing feels like an inside joke made for no one in particular.

It is a string of loosely connected scenes, with dialogue made up completely of pontificating non sequiturs. It is full of great A list actors that probably all signed on simply for a chance to work with Bob Dylan. I imagine they all would have stayed far away if not for his involvement.

The roving, rolling camera work, the flat lighting, the fact that most of the scenes take place on sound stages and cramped little rooms, and the episodic, anecdotal nature of the script makes the entire movie feel like a long TV episode instead of a real movie.

The traits that make Dylan so charismatic and compelling in real life - his aloofness, his unaffected attitude - make for a flat and sheepish screen presence. It is a stretch to call what Dylan does here acting. He stands in the right places and says his lines, but that's about as far as it goes.

Being a huge Dylan fan I was hoping to like this a lot more than I did. The best thing I can say about it is that if you like Dylan you will enjoy the musical performances, and that it's possible that the movie might reward repeat viewings, but I'm not interested enough to find out.

Mad Men (2007–2015)

Inconsistent Show With A Few Outstanding Episodes

[8/10 · 24 March 2021]

Mad Men contains some of the best single episodes of television you will ever see, but between these episodes are long stretches of nothing. It is a terribly inconsistent show. It would have benefited from a central conflict, but instead the writers are obsessed with the minutiae of each characters daily squabbles, petty conflicts and endless strings of romantic flings. It is a soap opera with great acting and top notch production value. Don Draper's true identity would have been a good central conflict to run through the show. It was a great source of dramatic tension in the first season (which is, in my opinion, the most consistently good season) but this storyline becomes basically irrelevant about halfway through the show in favor of business meeting disagreements and romantic trysts that are repeated to the point of boredom.

Apparently there is a lot of subtext to this show. The biggest fans will tell you that most of the drama is happening below the surface. Well if you want to watch it on that level, fine. If you want to dig through every ho-hum office chat for subtext then have at it. If you like shows with a strong story where things actually happen on screen, maybe find something else. Most of the characters are interesting but nearly all of them are unlikeable and hard to relate to. It is a pleasant show. Watch it for the excellent production value. But don't expect it to live up to the hype.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Truer to the Spirit of the Original King Kong Than Any Other Movie Featuring the Giant Ape

[9/10 · 4 February 2021]

The original 1933 King Kong is remembered as one of the all time great movies because it had revolutionary special effects, it introduced one of the most iconic fictional characters ever conceived, and it came out of the golden age of American cinema. But at its heart King Kong is a popcorn movie. The characters are two dimensional at best, only existing to move the plot forward, the dialogue is corny and the movie is nonstop monster action once the big monkey comes tearing out of the jungle. In that vein Kong: Skull Island is the true successor to the 1933 original.

Dino De Laurentiis's 1976 remake was a drab and cynical attempt to recreate the original with modern themes of corporate greed, Peter Jackson's version was a mythologized, larger than life fantasy film, and the Japanese Kong movies are so far from Merian C. Cooper's original vision that they occupy their own unique space in giant monster history. Kong: Skull Island works in the same way that the original works. It has a fast paced plot that serves to get us to the monster action as quickly as possible, it has simple but functional (and well acted) characters that serve the same purpose, and once Kong is introduced it is a nonstop action thrill ride featuring, like the original, many violent and creative ways to kill off nameless human characters.

It has a truly striking visual style that looks like a graphic novel come to life, and it borrows its warm orange and green color palette from Apocalypse Now. Kong: Skull Island is probably the best movie to come out of the Legendary Monster Universe. I bumped up my rating to a 9 after watching the Blu Ray version, which somehow looks even better than I remember it looking in the theater.

Echo in the Canyon (2018)

Good Documentary, But I Wish It Had Gone Deeper

[7/10 · 18 June 2020]

This documentary will remind you why the music from this time and place was so great, so in that regard it is a success, but I wish it had been less of a broad retrospective and more of a deep dive. I think it spends a little too much time on The Beatles and The Beach Boys. We all know that Sgt. Pepper and Pet Sounds were great. We knows influential they were. Yet a significant portion of the run time is spent talking about these albums. Which is fine, but instead of this I wish we had heard more about what it was actually like to be a musician in this time and this place, what the day to day lived experience was like, how the relationships were between the musicians. The documentary comes the most alive when Roger McGuinn, David Crosby and the other musicians interviewed are telling their stories. The concert and the musician chat around the table was a nice framing device, but I felt the conversations to be a little stiff and underutilized. Especially the brilliant Regina Spektor, who never gets enough recognition. She says the most insightful thing in the whole documentary, that the Laurel Canyon era marked a shift in music from an expression of the conscious mind to one of the subconscious mind, of dreams. Regina performances are fantastic, she always seems to bring 100%. Jakob Dylan is his usual reserved, detached self, but Beck seems asleep through most of documentary. Jade Castrinos, who I must admit I might have been slightly biased against because of her involvement in the supremely irritating Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, absolutely crushes her performance of "Go Where You Wanna Go". Fiona Apple gives some of the best performances of the concert. The documentary focuses mainly on the late 60's Laurel Canyon scene, and sadly ignores most of the 70's. The Doors and The Eagles are never mentioned, and Joni Mitchell is strangely absent. It needed more Neil Young.

New York, New York (1977)

Scorsese's Worst By A Long Shot

[2/10 · 3 January 2020]

Robert De Niro's character is creepy, aggressive and irritating from the very first scene, and he never lets up. Liza Minnelli's character seems like a saint just for putting up with him. Liza and De Niro have zero chemistry. The movie gives you no reason as to why these two people would be in love or even want to spend time with each other. Every scene goes on too long and falls flat, as if in every shot Scorsese keeps the camera running because he's waiting for something to happen. Both De Niro and Minnelli feel like they are in the wrong movie, and the backlot on which the entire movie was filmed gives it a lifeless, artificial aura. It is a seedy, mean spirited film that is trying to be upbeat and cheerful, like an angry and unstable ex-con that is trying to put on a good face for a social gathering. The entire movie feels muted, drab and dull. It rambles from one scene to another with no point or purpose. It is an enormous misfire on every level, and to top it all off it is almost THREE HOURS long. It is almost inconceivable how Scorsese, arguably the greatest American filmmaker, and at the height of his creative powers, could produce such a disaster.