E
earlsmoviepicks
Guest
You got me interested in seeing this one, particularly watching DW in a non-slick role
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Welcome to my Chuck Norris double feature!
Breaker! Breaker! (1977, Don Hulette)
This is one of Chuck Norris' cinematic debuts in a staring role. I say cinematic, not knowing if this thing was ever in the movie theater. Did they have direct-to-video back in 1977? Norris pre-bread and pre-mustache is a truck driver, who must rescue his younger brother from a band of California yokels who have managed to set up their own community. What follows is Chuck Norris versus the entire town and plenty of cheesy action and stereotypes are abound. Now this film was release during that late/early 1970s and 80's truck driver/cb craze. You know films like Smokey and the Bandit and Convoy. Of course Breaker! Breaker! is not the masterpiece that those two films are. That's OK though. We get a Shakespeare quoting, doll infatuated judge played by George Murdock, the retard, and Chuck Norris fighting on for hours after being gut-shot.
Grade: D-
Silent Rage (1982, Michael Miller)
What we get with this gem is Walker Texas Ranger against a bio-altered super psycho killer! come back from the dead. Playing Walker is Norris who does sport a mustache but no beard and the psycho is played by Brian Libby (The Shawshank Redemption). Ron Silver shows up, as he does in so many of these films, and appears to be in the wrong movie as he attempts to give the credit material by playing it straight. Poor guy, a great actor who never found his flick. I blame Al Pacino (who Silver mildly resembles) and of course he conservativism. For a sci-fi/horror/martial arts film I guess this is one of the tops, of course the sub-genre doesn't exactly run deep. I did enjoy the hilarity of the doctor trying to justify reanimating dead flesh and Brian Libby hamming it up as the walking dead. Is this a good film? No, but it is a success! It succeeded for me because I wanted to know how Chuck Norris was going to dispose of Libby and I was entertained until the end. Even by that lame romantic subplot. I should also pay note to the inept deputy and a nice little bar fight.
Grade: D+
Breaker! Breaker! (1977, Don Hulette)
This is one of Chuck Norris' cinematic debuts in a staring role. I say cinematic, not knowing if this thing was ever in the movie theater. Did they have direct-to-video back in 1977? Norris pre-bread and pre-mustache is a truck driver, who must rescue his younger brother from a band of California yokels who have managed to set up their own community. What follows is Chuck Norris versus the entire town and plenty of cheesy action and stereotypes are abound. Now this film was release during that late/early 1970s and 80's truck driver/cb craze. You know films like Smokey and the Bandit and Convoy. Of course Breaker! Breaker! is not the masterpiece that those two films are. That's OK though. We get a Shakespeare quoting, doll infatuated judge played by George Murdock, the retard, and Chuck Norris fighting on for hours after being gut-shot.
Grade: D-
Silent Rage (1982, Michael Miller)
What we get with this gem is Walker Texas Ranger against a bio-altered super psycho killer! come back from the dead. Playing Walker is Norris who does sport a mustache but no beard and the psycho is played by Brian Libby (The Shawshank Redemption). Ron Silver shows up, as he does in so many of these films, and appears to be in the wrong movie as he attempts to give the credit material by playing it straight. Poor guy, a great actor who never found his flick. I blame Al Pacino (who Silver mildly resembles) and of course he conservativism. For a sci-fi/horror/martial arts film I guess this is one of the tops, of course the sub-genre doesn't exactly run deep. I did enjoy the hilarity of the doctor trying to justify reanimating dead flesh and Brian Libby hamming it up as the walking dead. Is this a good film? No, but it is a success! It succeeded for me because I wanted to know how Chuck Norris was going to dispose of Libby and I was entertained until the end. Even by that lame romantic subplot. I should also pay note to the inept deputy and a nice little bar fight.
Grade: D+
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The Octagon (1980, Eric Karson)
This is a quaint and hilarious pre-granite beard Chuck Norris effort. While I have no use for "Walker Texas Ranger" or his infomercials late at night, something about these early Chuck Norris 70's and 80's films comes off as entirely endearing. In this film, largely considered a highlight in his filmography - not saying much I know - Norris plays a man of mysterious past who must confront his evil adoptive brother before an all out Ninja uprising threatens the peaceful status quo!
If the above summary didn't get you, the reader, excited enough to take a drive to your nearest rental store, then perhaps this will. Imagine a film where you hear Chuck Norris' inner thoughts and conflicts in a whispery and echoey voiceover... voiceover... voiceover... Imagine a film where Ninjas wearing black can hide effectively in green leafy trees against a backdrop of blue sky. Imagine a film where Norris effectively dispatches almost a hundred Ninjas and then fights the ultimate ninja with Katanas, Sais, roundhouse kicks, and flying stars! Yes, this is certainly one of the stellar Norris outings and if you have a taste for crap... candy flavored crap... well this might be the film for you! Oh and I almost forgot... Lee Van Cleef!
Grade: C
This is a quaint and hilarious pre-granite beard Chuck Norris effort. While I have no use for "Walker Texas Ranger" or his infomercials late at night, something about these early Chuck Norris 70's and 80's films comes off as entirely endearing. In this film, largely considered a highlight in his filmography - not saying much I know - Norris plays a man of mysterious past who must confront his evil adoptive brother before an all out Ninja uprising threatens the peaceful status quo!
If the above summary didn't get you, the reader, excited enough to take a drive to your nearest rental store, then perhaps this will. Imagine a film where you hear Chuck Norris' inner thoughts and conflicts in a whispery and echoey voiceover... voiceover... voiceover... Imagine a film where Ninjas wearing black can hide effectively in green leafy trees against a backdrop of blue sky. Imagine a film where Norris effectively dispatches almost a hundred Ninjas and then fights the ultimate ninja with Katanas, Sais, roundhouse kicks, and flying stars! Yes, this is certainly one of the stellar Norris outings and if you have a taste for crap... candy flavored crap... well this might be the film for you! Oh and I almost forgot... Lee Van Cleef!
Grade: C
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Roxanne (1987, Fred Schepisi)
I enjoyed this film, even though I shrugged a bit too often and questioned the changing tone of the film. Roxanne is based upon a play, "Cyrano de Bergerac," which I've never read. Maybe someday. Steve Martin plays a smooth talking fire chief in a small Pacific Northwest town. As the fire chief, Martin appears like a wise and straight man Andy Griffith type to the rest of the fire department's Barney Fifes. This attempt at slapstick in the film seems to go awry and doesn't work. This is clearly not a Charlie Chaplin film, and some of the material feels like it belongs in another film.
Roxanne does shine however when Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah share the frame. This is a surprise as the two seem oddly matched, but maybe that's the point as the story shows Martin falling in love with Hannah who is everything, but responsive. Rather Hannah's character treats the lovestruck Martin as more of a close confidant and friend. The man she sets her eyes on is the tall, well built, and handsome - even if generically so, Rich Rossovich. While he's every woman's dream in the looks department, he lacks charm and confidence. Again, this is needed for the material, but it comes off as a bit of a stretch. Why is a guy supposedly this good looking this bad with women? Well he gets nervous... OK.
I do appreciate the film's take on relationships and the view on how much looks do matter. However the film has little bite and the charm can't make up for it. The characters act like they're in junior high, and I'm sure most women would not be offended if a 1980's Rossovich came up to her and complimented her on her assets. Daryl Hannah being offended, just rings false and is not played well. Even though there's quite a bit to nitpick at, I still enjoy the film and recommend giving it a watch for people who enjoy romantic comedies.
Grade: C+
I enjoyed this film, even though I shrugged a bit too often and questioned the changing tone of the film. Roxanne is based upon a play, "Cyrano de Bergerac," which I've never read. Maybe someday. Steve Martin plays a smooth talking fire chief in a small Pacific Northwest town. As the fire chief, Martin appears like a wise and straight man Andy Griffith type to the rest of the fire department's Barney Fifes. This attempt at slapstick in the film seems to go awry and doesn't work. This is clearly not a Charlie Chaplin film, and some of the material feels like it belongs in another film.
Roxanne does shine however when Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah share the frame. This is a surprise as the two seem oddly matched, but maybe that's the point as the story shows Martin falling in love with Hannah who is everything, but responsive. Rather Hannah's character treats the lovestruck Martin as more of a close confidant and friend. The man she sets her eyes on is the tall, well built, and handsome - even if generically so, Rich Rossovich. While he's every woman's dream in the looks department, he lacks charm and confidence. Again, this is needed for the material, but it comes off as a bit of a stretch. Why is a guy supposedly this good looking this bad with women? Well he gets nervous... OK.
I do appreciate the film's take on relationships and the view on how much looks do matter. However the film has little bite and the charm can't make up for it. The characters act like they're in junior high, and I'm sure most women would not be offended if a 1980's Rossovich came up to her and complimented her on her assets. Daryl Hannah being offended, just rings false and is not played well. Even though there's quite a bit to nitpick at, I still enjoy the film and recommend giving it a watch for people who enjoy romantic comedies.
Grade: C+
N
nebbit
Guest
Thanks Viddy for the review
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Posse (1975, Kirk Douglas)
It's been several years since I've given this cult western gem a view, and I was surprised at how little the shine has vanished. Posse's uniqueness glares at the audience in story and character, if not in filmmaking technique. The film is beautifully shot by Fred J. Koenekamp, but otherwise is a very straight forward bit of storytelling. Kirk Douglas plays a villain masked as the hero, who is a U.S. Marshall tracking down Bruce Dern's train robber. The reference of the title remains ambiguous at the closing credits. Does it refer to the posse of lawmen helmed by Douglas or the posse of outlaws being led by Dern?
One of the best things about the film is the misanthropic take on the so-called "good guys." Douglas is only interested in doing good so long as it can benefit him. His sworn posse is interested only in dollars and their own personal gains. In fact, during one of the film's most morbid moments, Bo Hopkins along with a couple of others in Douglas' posse elect to bed down a couple of teenage tarts in favor of listening to their boss' campaign speech. This brutal take on how selfish and corrupt human nature can be, fits right in with other 1970's revisionist westerns. I don't hesitate to rank Posse alongside the decade's other classics; The Outlaw Josey Wales, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and The Hired Hand.
The ending is especially brilliant, and is one of my favorite conclusions of any film I've seen. Bruce Dern has perhaps his best role and creates something so singular that only he could pull it off the way he does. As the viewer, we both love and hate Dern's character. Of course by the time the credits roll, there is no victor here as both sides are bankrupt of human generosity. Or is that last term an oxymoron? This film may seem to think so.
Grade: A-
It's been several years since I've given this cult western gem a view, and I was surprised at how little the shine has vanished. Posse's uniqueness glares at the audience in story and character, if not in filmmaking technique. The film is beautifully shot by Fred J. Koenekamp, but otherwise is a very straight forward bit of storytelling. Kirk Douglas plays a villain masked as the hero, who is a U.S. Marshall tracking down Bruce Dern's train robber. The reference of the title remains ambiguous at the closing credits. Does it refer to the posse of lawmen helmed by Douglas or the posse of outlaws being led by Dern?
One of the best things about the film is the misanthropic take on the so-called "good guys." Douglas is only interested in doing good so long as it can benefit him. His sworn posse is interested only in dollars and their own personal gains. In fact, during one of the film's most morbid moments, Bo Hopkins along with a couple of others in Douglas' posse elect to bed down a couple of teenage tarts in favor of listening to their boss' campaign speech. This brutal take on how selfish and corrupt human nature can be, fits right in with other 1970's revisionist westerns. I don't hesitate to rank Posse alongside the decade's other classics; The Outlaw Josey Wales, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and The Hired Hand.
The ending is especially brilliant, and is one of my favorite conclusions of any film I've seen. Bruce Dern has perhaps his best role and creates something so singular that only he could pull it off the way he does. As the viewer, we both love and hate Dern's character. Of course by the time the credits roll, there is no victor here as both sides are bankrupt of human generosity. Or is that last term an oxymoron? This film may seem to think so.
Grade: A-
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003, Robert Rodriguez)
I very much enjoy the work of Robert Rodriguez. I was introduced to his films when Desperado played on the big screen and I remember being absolutely floored by the hyperbolic and frenzied gunplay. Unfortunately Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the follow up to that film and El Mariache, is not nearly the showcase that the first two films were in this loose trilogy.
First of all, this film is too big for its own good and just watching it feels like a lot has been cut out in order to keep the fast pace going. The plot seems convoluted at first, but reflecting upon it, there isn't a whole lot of story. Just a lot of characters, various loyalties and sides, and so on. The story features character revels, double-crosses and so forth. It all seems a bit too much. Go with something more simple. For a 103 minute length, the film tries to do too much, and sacrifices any character development or interest. "El" as played by Antonio Banderas is dissolved into a lack luster cinder of the raging flame he was in Desperado. Something the performance is lacking and Banderas almost seems bored. Mickey Rourke is enjoyable, but is in the film far too little with an underwritten character. I get the feeling that some of his scenes must have been cut. Salma Hayek dones the poster of the film, but gets minimal screen time, and is only seen in flashback. Willem Dafoe pops up as one of the main villains... lord knows why. He has nothing to do. Johnny Depp, thankfully, is another story as he delievers one of those memorable and quirky performances that come from another galaxy, but is stuck in a mess of a film, ala Val Kilmer in Tombstone. Certainly the best thing about the film.
Even the action is a bit too stylized. Sure there's gore, blood, and guts, not as much as Desperado, but oh well. The problem is there's really no sense of danger for the characters here. Never did I really care. When "El" jumps off motorcycles and cars, it seems a bit too preposterous like it belongs in a film with the name Bay over the title instead of Rodriguez. Oh well. That's OK. Rodriguez went on to follow this film with a little diamond called Sin City, so I can forgive this piece of coal.
Grade: C-
I very much enjoy the work of Robert Rodriguez. I was introduced to his films when Desperado played on the big screen and I remember being absolutely floored by the hyperbolic and frenzied gunplay. Unfortunately Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the follow up to that film and El Mariache, is not nearly the showcase that the first two films were in this loose trilogy.
First of all, this film is too big for its own good and just watching it feels like a lot has been cut out in order to keep the fast pace going. The plot seems convoluted at first, but reflecting upon it, there isn't a whole lot of story. Just a lot of characters, various loyalties and sides, and so on. The story features character revels, double-crosses and so forth. It all seems a bit too much. Go with something more simple. For a 103 minute length, the film tries to do too much, and sacrifices any character development or interest. "El" as played by Antonio Banderas is dissolved into a lack luster cinder of the raging flame he was in Desperado. Something the performance is lacking and Banderas almost seems bored. Mickey Rourke is enjoyable, but is in the film far too little with an underwritten character. I get the feeling that some of his scenes must have been cut. Salma Hayek dones the poster of the film, but gets minimal screen time, and is only seen in flashback. Willem Dafoe pops up as one of the main villains... lord knows why. He has nothing to do. Johnny Depp, thankfully, is another story as he delievers one of those memorable and quirky performances that come from another galaxy, but is stuck in a mess of a film, ala Val Kilmer in Tombstone. Certainly the best thing about the film.
Even the action is a bit too stylized. Sure there's gore, blood, and guts, not as much as Desperado, but oh well. The problem is there's really no sense of danger for the characters here. Never did I really care. When "El" jumps off motorcycles and cars, it seems a bit too preposterous like it belongs in a film with the name Bay over the title instead of Rodriguez. Oh well. That's OK. Rodriguez went on to follow this film with a little diamond called Sin City, so I can forgive this piece of coal.
Grade: C-
N
nebbit
Guest
The Fake blood looked sooooo fake
M
mark f
Guest
My comments weren't meant to be logical, but they did get an emotional reaction from somebody who claims a superhero movie "insults my intelligence". You knew just about what you were going to give it before you saw it, so don't act like the movie fooled you by somehow promising something serious it didn't deliver. You, yourself, even say that "it's difficult to take seriously... when you have Will Smith in the lead".
B
Brodinski
Guest
Spoiler much?
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Go Tigers! (2001, Kenneth A. Carlson)
This is a documentary that follows an entire season, 1999, of a high school football team in Massillon, Ohio. The town of 30,000 is obsessed with the school's football program, and essentially it is the focal point of the entire community. Parents, grandparents, friends, and so on head out to the gridiron on Friday nights in the fall to support their beefed up football squad. The documentary is quite involving as it tells the progression of the entire season and follows the head coach, several players, parents, strength trainer, and administration of the school.
The documentary succeeds in showing how the football team's record corresponds towards a property tax levy on the upcoming ballot. The school is in financial trouble and the idea is that if the football team wins, the community will vote for property tax increase, but if they lose... well, no dice. The photography is excellent and gets right in middle of the football's action. The director captures the zeal of the town to the point of insanity and how the players get away with things most students wouldn't.
Essentially the town's obsession can be seen as pathetic and an example of the priorities of athletics over academics, especially in these rural communities. The director hints at this by interviewing an English teacher who comments on how the school holds back players so they can be older. Also interview are a couple of outcast kids because they aren't good at sports. This is nothing new of course, but I would have liked to have seen the film go further into this aspect of the town. Surely not everyone in the town lives, breathes, and sleeps Tigers. As I work at a high school in a somewhat similar demographic, I can relate to this film slightly. I enjoyed watching the documentary, but it doesn't go far enough into the obsession and fandom of the blue collars community's obsession and appears more interested in telling the play-by-play of the team's season. It would be nice to see how many of these star football players are successful and how many are stuck in the town which made them heroes.
Grade: B
This is a documentary that follows an entire season, 1999, of a high school football team in Massillon, Ohio. The town of 30,000 is obsessed with the school's football program, and essentially it is the focal point of the entire community. Parents, grandparents, friends, and so on head out to the gridiron on Friday nights in the fall to support their beefed up football squad. The documentary is quite involving as it tells the progression of the entire season and follows the head coach, several players, parents, strength trainer, and administration of the school.
The documentary succeeds in showing how the football team's record corresponds towards a property tax levy on the upcoming ballot. The school is in financial trouble and the idea is that if the football team wins, the community will vote for property tax increase, but if they lose... well, no dice. The photography is excellent and gets right in middle of the football's action. The director captures the zeal of the town to the point of insanity and how the players get away with things most students wouldn't.
Essentially the town's obsession can be seen as pathetic and an example of the priorities of athletics over academics, especially in these rural communities. The director hints at this by interviewing an English teacher who comments on how the school holds back players so they can be older. Also interview are a couple of outcast kids because they aren't good at sports. This is nothing new of course, but I would have liked to have seen the film go further into this aspect of the town. Surely not everyone in the town lives, breathes, and sleeps Tigers. As I work at a high school in a somewhat similar demographic, I can relate to this film slightly. I enjoyed watching the documentary, but it doesn't go far enough into the obsession and fandom of the blue collars community's obsession and appears more interested in telling the play-by-play of the team's season. It would be nice to see how many of these star football players are successful and how many are stuck in the town which made them heroes.
Grade: B
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
If comments aren't meant to be logical, why do we comment? All comments are also emotional, but not all comments are based solely on emotion. Your claim that I decide whether I like a film before I even see it does seem based on emotion. Of course people go into a film with a certain bit of knowledge and will have biases. Doesn't that make us human?
If you read my review you'll see my reasons for disliking the film, none of which were decided before I watched it. My comment on Will Smith refers to him being cast in a part that seems to necessitate a more gritty actor. Thus it is difficult for me to take the material seriously.
But this idea was done earlier and much better in The Incredibles, which I have voiced my love for. Why not focus on what we agree on instead of disagreeing on? And disagreeing on a film is not a personal attack on you mark.
If you read my review you'll see my reasons for disliking the film, none of which were decided before I watched it. My comment on Will Smith refers to him being cast in a part that seems to necessitate a more gritty actor. Thus it is difficult for me to take the material seriously.
But this idea was done earlier and much better in The Incredibles, which I have voiced my love for. Why not focus on what we agree on instead of disagreeing on? And disagreeing on a film is not a personal attack on you mark.
N
nebbit
Guest
Thanks Viddy nice review sounds interesting
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984, Leonard Nemoy)
I've always wondered why so many of the Star Trek movies are directed by the cast members. Did the studio save money on hiring both actor and director in one bundle? I should probably listen to the commentary.
This third entry in the series brings Spock back to life, sort of, after his demise at the end of the second film. Of course it would be impossible to think of the original crew without the legendary Vulcan. I think of this film as tightly paced, and very entertaining. It features Kingons as the main villains and introduces the Bird of Prey, in it's intense look and green coloration. The story is interesting as Spock merges himself with Doc McCoy before his sacrifice. The look of the film is good while on board the starships, but the sets lack appeal when the film is taking place on Genesis. Christopher Lloyd is serviceable as the main heavy, who desperately seeks Genesis as a weapon. It also features members of the Enterprise go rogue. As Star Trek films go this is a great follow up to The Wrath of Khan, even if it isn't remembered by fans as one of the best film entries.
Grade: B-
I've always wondered why so many of the Star Trek movies are directed by the cast members. Did the studio save money on hiring both actor and director in one bundle? I should probably listen to the commentary.
This third entry in the series brings Spock back to life, sort of, after his demise at the end of the second film. Of course it would be impossible to think of the original crew without the legendary Vulcan. I think of this film as tightly paced, and very entertaining. It features Kingons as the main villains and introduces the Bird of Prey, in it's intense look and green coloration. The story is interesting as Spock merges himself with Doc McCoy before his sacrifice. The look of the film is good while on board the starships, but the sets lack appeal when the film is taking place on Genesis. Christopher Lloyd is serviceable as the main heavy, who desperately seeks Genesis as a weapon. It also features members of the Enterprise go rogue. As Star Trek films go this is a great follow up to The Wrath of Khan, even if it isn't remembered by fans as one of the best film entries.
Grade: B-
M
Michael_10
Guest
edit:
N
nebbit
Guest
Thanks Viddy I am a Star Trek tragic
M
mark f
Guest
I don't mean to say that you make up your mind in advance about every film. I just thought that Hancock was a weird film for you to watch, let alone go out of your way to watch. Yes, we love The Incredibles, so that's cool. I'm not trying to make any personal attacks, but it's kinda fun to interract again after so long, so forgive me if it seems like I'm being an ass instead of making interesting or pertinent comments. I'm pretty sure you do want comments though, don't you?
How's the weather in Iowa? I'm serious. How's the job?
How's the weather in Iowa? I'm serious. How's the job?
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Forrest Gump (1994, Robert Zemeckis)
Of course this film is a modern classic. Is has a star, stellar pacing, instantly quotable. I regard Forrest Gump as an entertaining romp through the 60's greatest hits, but of course I wasn't alive back then so I'm sure the film failed to resonate with me on a nostalgic level as it has done with many others. I don't really need to bother with the story. Yes, it's the ultimate "tard-card" Oscar bait picture. I don't think the story is as political as some might make it out to be. Naturally no one human, especially a mentally challenged human would accomplish what Forrest did given his circumstances. I don't read the film as an after school special claiming that if a retard can do this, imagine what a normal person can do! Rather I see the plot device of having the main character as retarded serve to explemplify his innocence and naiveity to the harsh world around him whether it be the Civil Rights movement, AIDS, of the Vietnam War.
Yes the film works, but I would say it's shallow and slightly gimmicky. The film follows the same structure as an infinitely better film, Little Big Man. Whereas that film has heart and a point, Forrest Gump's message gets muffled and by taking the viewer through the 60's greatest hits, the viewer tends to forget how little story there really is. The best parts of the film are clearly the scenes in Vietnam and those involving Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinese). It seems to me that the TV show "The Wonder Years" did the same thing with the nostalgic voice over narration vibe, but to much better effect and "The Wonder Years" had characters I cared for. So does Forrest Gump, ala the title character, Lt. Dan, and to a lesser degree Jenny. The rest were basically props.
Grade: B-
Of course this film is a modern classic. Is has a star, stellar pacing, instantly quotable. I regard Forrest Gump as an entertaining romp through the 60's greatest hits, but of course I wasn't alive back then so I'm sure the film failed to resonate with me on a nostalgic level as it has done with many others. I don't really need to bother with the story. Yes, it's the ultimate "tard-card" Oscar bait picture. I don't think the story is as political as some might make it out to be. Naturally no one human, especially a mentally challenged human would accomplish what Forrest did given his circumstances. I don't read the film as an after school special claiming that if a retard can do this, imagine what a normal person can do! Rather I see the plot device of having the main character as retarded serve to explemplify his innocence and naiveity to the harsh world around him whether it be the Civil Rights movement, AIDS, of the Vietnam War.
Yes the film works, but I would say it's shallow and slightly gimmicky. The film follows the same structure as an infinitely better film, Little Big Man. Whereas that film has heart and a point, Forrest Gump's message gets muffled and by taking the viewer through the 60's greatest hits, the viewer tends to forget how little story there really is. The best parts of the film are clearly the scenes in Vietnam and those involving Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinese). It seems to me that the TV show "The Wonder Years" did the same thing with the nostalgic voice over narration vibe, but to much better effect and "The Wonder Years" had characters I cared for. So does Forrest Gump, ala the title character, Lt. Dan, and to a lesser degree Jenny. The rest were basically props.
Grade: B-
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The weather was nice, but it seems like we skipped fall. It went from 70's to the 40's in just a week with not much between. So summer and then winter. We already had our first snow.
The job is going well, though busy since I'm coaching debate and speech now and I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing with both.
Hancock is not a movie I'd normally go out of my way to watch, but with Netflix streaming over my 360 it makes it very easy. And I try to watch all kinds of films, indie, classic, or mainstream.
One film I love which may come as a surprise is Step Brothers.
The job is going well, though busy since I'm coaching debate and speech now and I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing with both.
Hancock is not a movie I'd normally go out of my way to watch, but with Netflix streaming over my 360 it makes it very easy. And I try to watch all kinds of films, indie, classic, or mainstream.
One film I love which may come as a surprise is Step Brothers.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Watchmen (2009, Zach Snyder)
"From the director of 300" doesn't mean much to me, as I thought 300 was a boring testosterone-fest which holds little appeal for people over 16, but it did have some nice Sin City emulating style and flair. If they label Snyder's next flick as from the director of Watchmen, I would be even less impressed.
There's several things wrong with this movie. The first is starting off with Bob Dylan's "The Times, They Are a Changin." It adds a bit of seriousness to a comic book film, which is hard to take serious and lacks any fun. When comic book films try to be overly dramatic and meaningful, they generally fail with a few exceptions of course. (Dark City) And the running time of the film is far too long. This may be to stay faithful to the source material, but written works (even comic books) are not films and do not always transition well. Pacing is very important and Watchmen tries to do too much. It is an ensemble film, as no one character is the main focus, but it tells the story poorly. Instead of having several minute long scenes going back and forth between characters such as an Altman or P.T. Anderson ensemble, Watchmen will focus 30 minutes on a character and then drop them to focus 30 mintues on the next character. This makes the film incoherent and difficult to get into. Sure the special effects are nice. I enjoyed some of the gore and blood-letting. Ending is OK, but I don't understand the point of moving back to NYC if it is destroyed. I did enjoy the human elements of all the characters. I thought the alternative reality with Nixon as president was clever and a tad fascinating, but not enough to keep me distracted from the horrible pacing.
Grade: C-
"From the director of 300" doesn't mean much to me, as I thought 300 was a boring testosterone-fest which holds little appeal for people over 16, but it did have some nice Sin City emulating style and flair. If they label Snyder's next flick as from the director of Watchmen, I would be even less impressed.
There's several things wrong with this movie. The first is starting off with Bob Dylan's "The Times, They Are a Changin." It adds a bit of seriousness to a comic book film, which is hard to take serious and lacks any fun. When comic book films try to be overly dramatic and meaningful, they generally fail with a few exceptions of course. (Dark City) And the running time of the film is far too long. This may be to stay faithful to the source material, but written works (even comic books) are not films and do not always transition well. Pacing is very important and Watchmen tries to do too much. It is an ensemble film, as no one character is the main focus, but it tells the story poorly. Instead of having several minute long scenes going back and forth between characters such as an Altman or P.T. Anderson ensemble, Watchmen will focus 30 minutes on a character and then drop them to focus 30 mintues on the next character. This makes the film incoherent and difficult to get into. Sure the special effects are nice. I enjoyed some of the gore and blood-letting. Ending is OK, but I don't understand the point of moving back to NYC if it is destroyed. I did enjoy the human elements of all the characters. I thought the alternative reality with Nixon as president was clever and a tad fascinating, but not enough to keep me distracted from the horrible pacing.
Grade: C-