Goodfellas (1990) Review

What movies do you think of when you think of gangster films? Chances are, Goodfellas is one of them. If it isn't, clearly you haven't seen enough gangster films, or at least any good ones, because out of all the gangster films I've seen (which is admittedly not that many), Goodfellas is one of the best. It is a masterpiece, plain and simple, and it is now in my top 10 favourite films of all time. Often considered Scorsese's magnum opus, it's not that hard to see why. It is well-filmed, well-acted, well-told, and well-written on all terms and it features some of the most interesting characters ever put to film. It is also considered one of the greatest Oscar snubs and though I have not seen Dances With Wolves, it's not that hard to guess why.

Goodfellas is about what is essentially the life and times of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), also known as the utterer of the iconic line "as far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a gangster". Hill supplies most of the narration, though occasionally it switches to his girlfriend-cum-fiance-cum-wife. The film begins with Hill as a teenager, making friends with Paulie Cicero (Paul Sorvino) and doing odd jobs for the neighbourhood gangsters. It is also in his youth when Hill meets Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci in an unforgettable role), the other two main characters. However, this only makes up the first twenty or so minutes of the film. The rest of it is focused on Hill as an adult, and it essentially tells the story of about twenty years of Hill's life.

One of the funniest scenes in the film, which is actually very darkly comedic in a way

By this time, Hill is high up in the ranks of the Lucchese crime family and he can enjoy the perks of gangster life, which was one of the main reasons why he had wanted to be a gangster in the first place. Not exactly for the crime, but for the money and the luxury. During this time, he meets and marries a Jewish woman named Karen (Lorraine Bracco), with whom he has two daughters, he commits several heists alongside Conway and DeVito, including the Air France heist (which establishes Hill as a high-standing New York gangster) and the Lufthansa Heist, which drives the film's last act. Not in a sense of actually performing the heist, but it drives Hill's actions in the film's last act, and it is the reason why a lot of blood is shed in the film.

The film also charts Hill's downfall, all culminating in the single take (or at least, what appears to be a single take) known as the worst day of Henry's life, which happens to be one of the greatest scenes ever put to film. In fact, a lot of scenes from Goodfellas could be considered some of the greatest scenes ever put to film. The film is also quite violent, as are many of Scorsese's films, but the violence on display here is put to very good use, giving the film a certain amount of visceral power and shock value. The violence has kind of lost its power over time, as all violence has (mainly due to the type of society we live in) but that doesn't stop the film from being good, especially considering it has several of the best gangster deaths in movie history (mostly at the hands of Pesci, but ones I won't spoil just in case some of you haven't seen it yet).

Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro. Also co-starring Ray Liotta's pouty face..

The film covers a great deal of time, but what is most interesting about it (besides the downfall of Hill) is the interaction between the characters, and the close-knit almost family of the gangsters. This family dynamic is most evident in the wedding scene, where the narration skips to Karen and she's talking about meeting all of Henry's colleagues and their sons and nephews, all of whom are named Peter or Paul and their wives, all of whom are named Marie. It is also prevalent in another scene with Karen's narration, where she is with all the gossiping mob wives (all of whom seem to be stereotypically Jewish). This family dynamic can switch on a dime though, because you could be chummy with a guy one day and the next day he might want to kill you. It's this mentality that makes Goodfellas so interesting and it is what gives the ending the punch it has, making it one of my favourite endings in all of film.

The story is just one facet of the brilliant script by Martin Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi. Together, they have also managed to write some of the most interesting and memorable characters ever written. Henry Hill is our protagonist and narrator, and we see the film's progression through his eyes. I'm not sure if we're supposed to sympathize with him, but if we're supposed to, I found it kind of difficult, especially at the film's ending (which I won't spoil). Still, the part of the movie from when he was a kid humanize what could have easily become a complete monster, and he is still an enjoyable character to watch, thanks, in no small part, to Ray Liotta's fantastic performance. Our other two male main characters are Jimmy (Robert De Niro) a coolly violent gangster, and Tommy (Joe Pesci), who is the exact opposite. De Niro is relegated to a supporting role this time around, but I'm sure Scorsese would have gotten him to play Hill if there were no Liotta, but he fits well in his role here, and his character takes on a sort of colleague/mentor role with regards to Hill. However, De Niro's character grows more threatening in the last act (whereas before he had merely been a thug), giving De Niro a chance to shine and prove his status as one of the greatest actors of our time.

We get it Scorsese, you love The Great Train Robbery

However, the performance that received the most acclaim (rightfully so) and the performance that made the film most memorable was that of Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito. DeVito is a total loose cannon, willing to kill a man who just looks at him funny and especially willing to kill a man who pokes fun at his past as a shoe-shine boy. In fact, when he is (SPOILERS)"taken out"(END OF SPOILERS), some of his ruthlessness and hot-bloodedness transfers into the rather level-headed Jimmy. This was the role that got Joe Pesci an Oscar, where he gave one of the most notoriously short and modest acceptance speeches in Oscar history (which really speaks to his character because Goodfellas was his major film role and apparently, Pesci is quite a nice guy in real life). It was also the role that got him typecast for life, playing a relatively similar role in 1995's Casino. Typecasting aside, Pesci's performance is extraordinary, the greatest one in the film in fact, and he is definitely part of why the film is so memorable.

The film is also very good-looking too, and I'm not just talking about Ray Liotta (hehe). With the three films I have seen of his, I can say this for sure. Scorsese definitely knows how to open and close a film in all aspects. The opening and closing of Goodfellas are both extraordinarily memorable, and definitely some of the best in all of film. The cinematography is amazing as well, whether it be some of the more basic stuff or whether it's when the film gets a bit more stylized. The film also has a damn awesome soundtrack, as per any Scorsese film (so I hear). The editing is also amazing, and the film is just very high-quality in general.

"You think I'm a clown? Like my purpose is to fuckin' amuse you"

The film is so high quality that even though I just watched it a week ago, it has already earned a place in my top 10 (possibly even top 5) favourite films of all time, and it is currently my favourite of the three Scorsese films I have seen. Goodfellas is simply a perfect film, no questions asked, and certainly one of the best films of the nineties. It is extremely well-written, extremely well-acted, and extremely well-filmed. This is a film that anyone and everyone should see, and any fans of Scorsese should see it now if they haven't seen it already (but I highly doubt that because Goodfellas is one of his definitive works). I, for one, can't wait to see it again and I can't wait for my love for the film to grow.


10/10-  Instant Classic, See it now

Damn straight.

My Review of Pulp Fiction

Pulp Fiction (1994)

The 90's brought us many great films, and 1994 was arguably the crowning year of that decade. It brought us The Lion King, Shawshank Redemption, Ed Wood, Forrest Gump, and most importantly, it brought us Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction is inarguably Quentin Tarantino's most popular and well-liked film and judging by what I've read, it is arguably his best. I haven't seen any other Tarantino movies besides this, so I can't say if it is his best, but what I can say is that Pulp Fiction is pretty damn good. But Pulp Fiction is also a damned tricky movie to review because everything great that could possibly be said about it has likely already been said, so this review will likely be a re-iteration of what pretty much all of you know. However, I can still say that Pulp Fiction is well-acted, extremely well-written, well-directed and just plain awesome through and through.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Pulp Fiction has the task of telling three stories, as well as a prologue/epilogue, all intertwined and sharing several characters in common, over the course of one really fucked up day in LA. The first involves two hitmen named Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta) who visit the residence of several unassuming men who have some business dealings with a man named Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). It turns out they have stolen a briefcase containing something very valuable. This briefcase pops up several times during the movie, and its contents are a popular talking point amongst fans of the film. Some say it contains the stash of diamonds from Reservoir Dogs, some say it merely contains gold, Tarantino says that it's "whatever the audience wants it to be", but many (myself included) say that the briefcase contains Marcellus Wallace's soul. This scene also contains several of the most memorable quotes ever put on film, like Ezekiel 25:17 and several conversations about sexy foot massages (pointing out Tarantino's very obvious and self-admitted foot fetish)
and how a Quarter Pounder is called a Royale with Cheese in Amsterdam.

Vincent has been told by his boss, the same Marcellus who owns the mysterious briefcase, to entertain Mrs. Wallace for the evening, since Marsellus has some money tied up in a boxing match (as is shown by the prologue to that scene where Marcellus is talking to Bruce Willis' character about throwing the fight. Willis' character will be expanded upon in the second story, but we'll get to that later. Vince goes to the house of his drug dealer Lance (Eric Stoltz) to buy some heroin, and then he arrives It is here where we are introduced to the character of Mia, Marcellus' wife played iconically by Uma Thurman. She and Vincent go out for dinner at a 50's throwback restaurant called Jackrabbit Slim's and talk about various things from the TV pilot that Mia was in (where it was clear that Tarantino and Thurman had started thinking up their idea for The Bride, who would come seven years later) to $5 milkshakes to the fact that Marcellus threw someone out a window for allegedly giving Mia a foot massage. After Mia and Vincent win the twist contest, they go back to her house and while Vincent is in the bathroom, Mia finds the heroin in Vincent's coat pocket and mistaking it for coke, she snorts it and starts to OD. 

Knowing that his ass is grass if Marcellus finds out that Mia overdosed or worse, if she died in his care, Vincent takes her to the home of Lance and Jody, where he and Lance argue about who is going to give Mia the adrenaline shot. Before Mia and Vincent part ways, they agree not to tell Marcellus about the whole incident, because Mia would be in as much trouble as Vincent. This puts an end to the first story and transitions us into the second story, entitled "The Gold Watch". The story starts out with a flashback, where a military man played by a scene-stealing Christopher Walken goes to give a gold watch to the son of his fallen military buddy. Even those who haven't seen the movie have probably heard the line "I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass two years", and this scene is where that infamous line came from and this is where Christopher Walken steals the show until it is brought back into the present.

We learn that the little boy grew up into Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), who we first saw accepting money from Marcellus in the empty cocktail lounge in exchange for him throwing the fight. It is now that we learn that the exact opposite. Not only did Butch win the fight, he killed his opponent. Knowing that his ass is grass if he is caught by Marcellus, Butch goes back to the motel where he and his girlfriend Fabienne are staying and he makes plans to leave the next morning. These plans seem to go off without a hitch until Butch finds out that Fabienne forgot to pack his father's watch. Butch goes back to his apartment to get the watch and runs into Vincent. I won't tell you what happens, but Butch then runs across Marcellus and circumstances lead them both into what I can only describe as a hilbilly S&M dungeon. After the infamous gay rape scene (I won't say more for those who haven't seen the movie), Marcellus and Butch declare themselves even on the whole fight thing, so long as Butch leaves town.

The third story takes us back to Vincent and Jules. After the whole shooting and bible-passage scene, Jules and Vincent are shot at by another guy hiding in the bathroom. Jules sees the fact that they are not dead as a sign of divine intervention, and makes the decision to retire from the hitman business. They drive off with one of the surviving associates and a gun accident results in said associate being shot in the face. Having just shot a man in a car in broad daylight, Jules and Vincent are in serious shit. They go to the house of one of Jules' friends, a guy named Jimmy (Quentin Tarantino himself) , but there is a problem. Jimmy's wife is about to come home from the graveyard shift at the hospital and Jimmy is anxious she should not encounter the scene.

To prevent Bonnie from finding the dead body and the gangsters, Jules contacts Winston Wolfe (Harvey Keitel) to help clean up the scene. Harvey Keitel, like Christopher Walken in the story before him, proceeds to totally steal the show while instructing Jules, Jimmy, and Vincent how to clean up the scene. They clean up the car, dispose of their bloody suits, and after getting rid of the car, they decide to go for breakfast, which brings back the subject of Jules' retirement. Inside the same restaurant are the two criminals/lovers from the prologue (played by Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer, whose characters are known as Pumpkin and Honeybunny) who were talking about how robberies are more difficult to commit in gas stations and convenience stores because they are all family businesses and those families are always too prepared, and how robbing a restaurant would be much easier because they are not expecting to be robbed. Pumpkin and Honeybunny rob the restaurant, but Jules kind of intervenes in the chronological climax of the film. As opposed to just killing them like he would have before his epiphany, he talks down the robbers and as his first act of redemption allows them to take the money and leave.

Before Quentin Tarantino got into directing, he got into writing, and it definitely shows here. Tarantino has managed to establish himself as a good director, but he is a writer first and foremost, and with Pulp Fiction, he has created one of the best scripts of all time. Why I found the story somewhat difficult to describe was that most of the movie is made up of conversations. To any standard viewer, that would sound boring as shit, but with Tarantino it is different. Pulp Fiction is oftentimes hilarious and a masterpiece of dark comedy (amongst many other things). The film has also produced some of the most memorable scenes ever put onto film. But as opposed to repeating myself saying how great the script is, I'll say how iconic the lines have become by listing a few you all should know (abridged of course, most of these lines come with full monologues).

"I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass two years"
"Does he look like a bitch? DOES. HE. LOOK. LIKE. A. BITCH"
"What, never been to that country before, do they speak English in what?"
"Say what again, I dare you, I double dog dare you motherfucker"
"And you will know my name as the lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee"

All of you, even those of you who haven't seen the movie, have heard of those lines some way or another, unless you have been living under a rock. This is definitely due to the spread of the internet, which has helped make the film one of the most quoted movies of all time. This film won Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars (the only Oscar it won, which has pissed off countless a film buff) and the award was definitely deserved, as like I said, I consider this one of the best scripts of all time.

One of the things I like about it is that, though the events that happen over the course of the film are far from ordinary, the conversations all centre around the mundane. There are conversations about Europe, how a Quarter Pounter is called a Royale with Cheese in Europe, sexy foot massages, how people have become too prepared for robberies, awkward silences, and how pigs are filthy animals (which is why Jules doesn't eat pork). So much of the film focuses on the mundane, which makes it unique in a way that film has yet to duplicate, at least to my knowledge and which Tarantino hasn't seemed to duplicate yet (or so I have read and so you guys say, as I haven't seen any of his other movies yet).

Besides having one of the best scripts of all time, Pulp Fiction also manages to produce some of the finest and most memorable performances as well. First, there are the Oscar-nominated performances from Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, and John Travolta. This film skyrocketed the three of them into the A-list, cementing Jackson's status as a superstar and an expert at playing badasses as well as his working relationship with Quentin Tarantino. It also cemented Thurman's working relationship with Tarantino, as well as her status as his muse, and it gave John Travolta's career a boom twenty years after Grease and Saturday Night Fever. All three give great performances, Travolta and Jackson arguably the best. In essence, Jules and Vincent are the main characters, and they are the characters that have the deepest characterization.

That is where a tiny bit of flaw can be spotted in Pulp Fiction. The characters, while certainly memorable, are not particularly deep outside Jules and Vincent, and are mostly used as a device to tell story and have conversations. Not that it's at all a bad thing, but it shows that Quentin Tarantino, not unlike Christopher Nolan, is more of a story and dialogue man as opposed to a character man. However, Jules and Vincent are excellently characterized. We see over the course of the movie that Vincent is generally incompetent without Jules, mostly because he is a drug addict and spends so much time on the crapper that every time he comes back from the bathroom, shit goes down (not that way, but if you see the movie you'll understand). That reminds me, those who have yet to see the movie should keep an eye out for bathrooms, because every time a character comes back from the bathroom, an important event in the movie happens. We also sees that Jules is a more efficient hitman before his epiphany because he lives a generally clean life unlike Vincent, who is close to being a doddering incompetent load without Jules.

The rest of the performances are excellent, some fine examples being Ving Rhames as Marcellus, who is chillingly badass, even after the hilbilly S&M dungeon scene, Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer as Pumpkin and Honeybunny the robbers, and Christopher Walken/Harvey Keitel in their one scene each. Tarantino himself doesn't do that bad a job either, although it is kind of weird hearing the n-word come out of the mouth of a dweeby white guy. I didn't really talk about Thurman as Mia Wallace (who looks much prettier and definitely more striking as a brunette in my opinion), and I'd say that she definitely deserved her Oscar nomination, but despite her dominating the promotional materials of the film, she's actually in it very little outside the one story about her and Vincent. She gives a great performance though, worthy of the fine ensemble cast this film has.

Sprawling, lengthy, and very wordy (just like this review), Pulp Fiction is definitely a cinematic landmark and one of the most influential films of the 1990's. It was definitely snubbed at the Oscars (although not snubbed entirely, it did win the Palme D'Or, much to the surprise of many). It is a film that warrants multiple viewings and I am very glad that I own it so I can watch it many times. This is on the list of movies that any respectable film buff has to see to be considered a film buff, and by seeing this film, I am one step closer to being a true film buff. Anybody who hasn't seen this needs to put it at the top of their priority lists and see it as soon as possible. I don't even think I can sum it all up in just one viewing, so I'll definitely have to watch it again. I just can't run out of good things to say about this movie, but I'm going to close now by saying that I only have to see Shawshank Redemption to complete my viewing of the true essence of 1994.

 

10/10- Must-See, Instant Classic

My Review of Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park (1993)

Jurassic Park is certainly an interesting movie. I have heard many great things about it from many different people, but I have also heard awful things about it from the person I ended up watching it with. But you may wonder, what do I think of the movie myself? Well, I think that Jurassic Park is an undeniable technical achievement and a landmark in CGI, and at times, it has some genuinely scary moments. However, it has definite scriptural flaws, especially having to do with the characters, and some problems with logic that somewhat hinder the story. However, in terms of pure spectacle and entertainment, Jurassic Park is certainly one of the best of its kind.

Jurassic Park is about Dr. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), who has created an amusement park populated with real dinosaurs cloned from DNA preserved in mosquitos. The safety of the park is being questioned by the investors after a worker is attacked by one of the dinosaurs. They send their lawyer to the park, and three scientists are invited (a mathematician, a paleontologist, and a paleobotanist). These three are Dr. Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Satler (Laura Dern), and Dr. Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum, easily my favourite actor in the movie). Joining them on the island are Hammond's grandchildren (who appear to have no parents of which to speak) Lex and Tim.

The scientists are skeptical of the idea of dinosaur cloning, but the group sets off on a guided tour of the park. This tour takes a weird turn when Satler sees a sick triceratops and goes out to take care of it (which doesn't make sense, she's a paleobotanist, not a doctor). In the meantime, it turns out that one of the computer programmers (Newman himself, Wayne Knight) is in the employ of one of the company's rivals, and is trying to steal dinosaur embryos. During the theft, the security systems are shut down, which includes the electric fences, allowing the dinosaurs to run rampant through the park. These dinosaurs don't know what century they are in, and they know to defend themselves against predators, which these humans appear as. I can't see how this could possibly go wrong.

The system shutdown also means that the group is stranded in their tour cars, leading to one of the iconic scenes involving the two kids and a T-Rex. I'll take this time to talk about the kid actors and how they are one of the most notorious parts of the movie. A lot of people don't like the kid actors in this movie because they think the kid actors are annoying. In the beginning, I agreed with them because before the dinos, they were annoying as all hell. However, when they are in the car during the T-Rex scene, I sympathize with them because if I were in that situation, I would be terrified too. In fact, I probably would have hyperventilated severely, as that is what I tend to do when I'm nervous. The actors themselves are not quite as awful as many kid actors nowadays, but I do see the annoying aspects of them.

The rest of the movie entails the doctors running away from the dinosaurs and trying to reboot the park's security system to get the dinosaurs back in their place. They also discover that the dinosaurs are breeding on their own, reinforcing (through some genetobabble) what Dr. Malcolm says earlier in the movie with regards to controlled breeding, "life will find a way". The whole ethical question of cloning is one of the main aspects of the book (so says the person I watched the movie with), and it is kind of dumbed down to appeal to broader audiences. I will have to read the book someday, as I also hear it is more detailed in the scientific stuff as well as the character relationships. However, it is kind of unfair to compare a book to a movie, so we'll just look at the movie by itself.

First of all, let's talk about what is easily the best and most talked-about part of the movie. The special effects in this movie are absolutely amazing, and they were absolutely state-of-the-art at the time this movie was released. This was the first time that realistic dinosaurs had been portrayed on film, which is why this film is considered a landmark in CGI work as well as just special effects in general. This is funny because anyone who watches the TV show Terra Nova (executive-produced by Steven Spielberg) knows that the show draws a lot of parallels from Jurassic Park, including the animation for the dinosaurs. However, the dinosaur animation actually looks much crappier on the show than it does in Jurassic Park. One would think that with the technological innovations that have happened between 1993 and 2011, the dinosaur animation would look better now right? You'd be mistaken. Quality in other media notwithstanding, the effects, as well as the set design and scenery, look amazing, making for a visually splendid movie. The soundtrack is also amazing, with some of the best themes that John Williams has ever composed outside Star Wars. It is extremely obvious what emotions they are supposed to encite (the first theme being used during epic moments, like when Neill and Dern see the dinos for the first time, and the second being used for tender moments) but that doesn't stop them from being any less epic and any less brilliantly composed.

The film also has some extremely viscerally thrilling and oftentimes terrifying moments. This brings me back to the iconic scene where we first see the T-Rex. I'm sure if I saw that in theatres, it would have utterly terrified me. Seeing it on a small screen definitely lessened that, but I can't deny the effect that it must have had on some audiences, likely really young kids that wanted to see the cool dinosaurs. However, kids like being scared more than we give them credit for, because it keeps them interested in the story. I would have no problem showing Jurassic Park to my kids (were I to have any) if they were older and really wanted to watch it, because even though there is some scary stuff, it adds to the overall quality of the film. The way Hollywood is going nowadays, I can see Jurassic Park getting a 3D rerelease, which I'm sure would upset some people, but I would be interested to see it on the big screen, mostly because it came out three years before I was born, but also to capture the thrill on a large screen.

However, there are definite flaws in logic that might seem like nitpicking, but they just really bugged me throughout. The first big one is the mind-boggling lack of security on the park. I mean, there is some mention of nondisclosure forms and one security system that keeps watch of the entire park, but on a top-secret project such as this, you'd think Hammond would arrange for it to be a bit more safe. If security in the park were realistic, anyone entering or exiting would likely be searched, there would be multiple backup systems and ways of manually operating everything on that island. There would also be better door locks and more than just electric fences to contain the dinosaurs. But if everything in the park was more logically designed, we wouldn't have a story. Secondly, if Lex and Tim (Hammond's grandkids) had responsible parents (or any parents at all for that matter), they would not be going to the island by themselves. If Hammond's son or daughter is a responsible parent, he will be in deep shit for putting their children (and his grandchildren) in danger. However, they are not mentioned, so they might not have any parents and Hammond could be their guardian.

Story problems and gaping flaws in logic aside, there are also some problems with characters. Sam Neill and Laura Dern give agreeable performances, but their characters are both kind of bland. My personal favourite of the performances was by far Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Malcolm. Goldblum is one of my favourite actors by far, and he is charismatic enough to cover the awkward moments with Neill and Dern, as well as the forced cutesy moments with Neill and the kids. Richard Attenborough is excellently nutty as Hammond, and you can somewhat feel for him when all he has worked for comes crashing down around him. There are other small roles in the movie, like B.D. Wong playing a geneticist and a pre-Pulp Fiction Samuel L. Jackson as the park's chief engineer, and not to mention Wayne Knight as the computer programmer who's fault it is that the dinosaurs escape. They are all decent in their performances, and Knight is deliciously villainous, making it all the more hilarious the way he is (SPOILER) dispatched (END OF SPOILER). Needless to say, decent performances all around.

For all the flaws I have pointed out, I do like Jurassic Park, and I would definitely watch it again. It is one of the definitive 90's movies and definitely for a reason. It is a landmark in special effects and it still holds up to this day as an utter classic. It isn't perfect, in fact it's far from perfect, but I do suggest those who haven't seen it to give it a look-see. I know I scored it rather low, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good movie, and that doesn't mean that it isn't worth watching. I also watched the sequels today as well (which I have no intention of reviewing) and while they certainly aren't awful, they are nowhere near as good as this, which is probably in my top 5 favourite Spielberg movies. So in short, see Jurassic Park. Flaws notwithstanding, you likely won't be disappointed.

8.1/10

Don't kill Jeff Goldblum, he's the best actor in this movie

The Talented Mr Ripley Review

The Talented Mr Ripley (1999)

Anthony Minghella's follow-up project after The English Patient, The Talented Mr Ripley seems to have slipped under the radar compared with that film. It's certainly not perfect, having issues with a weaker second half and a weird yet oddly heartbreaking ending, as well as being a bit too long, but it is a well-acted, well-written, and well-filmed movie that is definitely worth a view and probably should have gotten a bit more attention. Matt Damon gives a great leading performance, one of my favourites of his actually, and he is accompanied by one of my favourite ensemble casts, making for an entertaining and fairly unsettling movie that is well worth watching.

Have you ever wanted to be somebody else? Chances are, you have at some point in your life. Well, so does Tom Ripley (Matt Damon), a young man who works as a washroom attendant and sometimes piano player to make a living in 1950's New York. He borrows a Princeton jacket for a concert and is approached by the wealthy Herbert Greenleaf (James Rebhorn), who thinks that Tom actually went to Princeton and thus knows his son, Dickie (Jude Law). Greenleaf pays Tom a hefty sum to go to Italy to try and convince Dickie to come home. Dickie has been living off of his trust in Italy for years with his girlfriend Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow), shirking his responsibilities in the family business for a life of no responsibility and just being a spoiled rich brat.

Tom goes to Italy and is welcomed by Dickie and Marge, who have no idea why he is there until he tells them. Dickie is still accommodating to Tom and we get the slight sense that Tom may feel something more than just friendship for Dickie (although it is pretty much certainly one-sided). It is these homoerotic undertones that make the film's first half very interesting, seeing Tom become a very unsettling character by leeching off of Dickie and seeing his sexual attraction towards someone who doesn't love him back. In fact, there is a rather creepy scene where Dickie walks in to his room to see Tom trying on his clothes, although it's mostly made creepy by the music. The undertones are made /clear when Tom and Dickie share a bath (Dickie thinks that they are doing this like brothers do as children, Tom thinks otherwise). This can also serve as a reason why they really upped the sex appeal and charisma of Jude Law's character. Not that I'm saying Jude Law isn't already sexy, but it is amplified 100% in this movie. Don't believe me, look at the picture at the bottom of the page.

SPOILER WARNING

It is at this point in the film where we see that Tom not only is in love with Dickie, he wants to be Dickie. He notices that Dickie is beginning to tire of his constant presence and dependency, and an unfortunate altercation on a boat ends with Tom striking Dickie with an oar, eventually killing him. After being mistaken for Dickie by a hotel concierge, Tom gets the bright idea to assume Dickie's identity. However, he looks nothing like Jude Law and Dickie has people that would miss him and question his absence, so we know that Tom's disguise cannot last forever. Marge begins to suspect of Tom's behaviour, as does Freddie Miles (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Freddie is a character briefly featured in the first half, who treats Tom with obvious contempt (possibly because Miles wants Dickie for himself). Miles confronts Tom at "Dickie"'s Rome apartment and knowing Miles would expose Dickie's murder, Tom kills him too.

END OF SPOILERS

I don't want to reveal anything more, but there are two characters that I did not talk about in the synopsis that serve a purpose in the story. The first is Peter Smith-Kingsley (Jack Davenport), Marge's friend who becomes Tom's new lover by the end of the film. The second is Meredith Logue (Cate Blanchett), the daughter of a textile mogul who meets Tom at a luggage pickup in Italy. She does not know him as Tom Ripley because he introduces himself as Dickie. The last incident of the movie involves Smith-Kingsley and Logue, but I don't want to give away the ending for you as it is one of the most confusing and fascinating endings of all time. However, both of the characters are interesting in their own right and they are well-acted by Davenport and Blanchett (although they are not the best performers in the movie).

Matt Damon embodies the character of Tom Ripley perfectly, turning in one of his best and most underrated performances. A lot of people who saw this movie find Tom to be sympathetic, and I don't think he is. I think he is a deeply disturbed man with some identity and self-esteem issues who idolizes Dickie both sexually and as a person (not that Dickie is a model human being either, but we'll talk about him later). He also idolizes the glamour surrounding Dickie, and he says in the movie that "I'd rather be a fake somebody than a real nobody". This is how Tom sees himself, and he'd rather be Dickie, who is a real somebody, than his little insignificant self. Mr. Damon's performance was excellent, at times being slightly disturbing, and definitely worthy of a Best Actor nomination, which he did not get (granted, he still would have lost to Kevin Spacey, but a nomination would have been nice nonetheless).

The second performance that I really loved was that of Jude Law as Dickie, who got an Academy Award nomination for his work (losing to Michael Caine for The Cider House Rules). I find Dickie a tad bit more interesting just in terms of the glamour surrounding him and how Ripley comes to idolize him. Dickie is a free spirit, who leaves New York to be out from his father's thumb, free to spend his trust and dick around (pun definitely intended) however he likes, being ruled by nothing but his daily whims. That's why nobody would really be surprised if Dickie disappeared, because Dickie is flighty and it would totally be within his nature to disappear. There is a magic and like I said, glamour, surrounding this lifestyle, which is what attracts Tom to Dickie in the first place (that and the fact that he is absolutely smouldering). Roger Ebert's review said that Law makes his character almost deserving of his fate, but I don't really think that's true. Dickie definitely exhibited some sociopathic tendencies, but what I said in this paragraph aside, Dickie was basically a spoiled brat who lashed out at the wrong person. Jude Law's performance was absolutely brilliant, and was the most acclaimed performance in the movie for a good reason. He embodies the sexiness, charm, and nuance of Dickie perfectly, making for another grey-shaded character (one of many in this movie).

Gwyneth Paltrow gives a very good performance in this movie (that's saying something, considering that I am hardly her #1 fan), as does Philip Seymour Hoffman and they are just two of many great supporting characters that complement (but don't overshadow) Damon and Law. The film got an Oscar nomination for art direction (losing to Sleepy Hollow) and it was definitely deserved, as the Italian scenery is very well-utilized (getting some decent cinematography out of the settings as well). The movie is well-filmed on all levels, but a definite issue that I have with the movie is that it is about twenty minutes too long. Some may also dislike the ending, as it is one of the most interesting and depressing endings of any of the movies that I have seen.

Flaws aside, The Talented Mr Ripley is one of the more underrated films of the 90's, and one definitely worth watching. It is extremely well-acted on all counts (especially from Matt Damon and Jude Law), has some finely shaded characters, and solid production design (as well as an awesomely creepy soundtrack, which definitely adds to the unsettling nature of the film). I would give this film a very strong recommendation, especially for those of Minghella's critically acclaimed The English Patient (which I haven't seen, but would like to see). In short, it's not perfect, but it is an interesting and oddly thought-provoking movie that is well worth a watch.

8.3/10

I mean come on, no wonder all the men in the movie want him

My Review of Interview With The Vampire

Interview With The Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

Well, October is well underway and I haven't reviewed a single horror film all month, as I have been too busy reviewing Disney. However, I came across the book upon which this is based, and I enjoyed it so much that I had to check out the cinematic adaptation. Despite my saying that I enjoyed the book, there were some things that held it back, as Anne Rice is notorious for writing flowery romantic stuff and the flowery romantic stuff sometimes made it a hard read, and I have some issues with the main character that I will discuss in this review. However, it is entirely worth a read and I recommend the book for anyone who comes across it. But we aren't here to talk about the book, we're here to talk about the movie. Interview With The Vampire is an entertaining movie and one of my personal favourite vampire movies. However, I haven't seen many vampire movies so that title is rather insignificant. It doesn't quite live up to the book (but books are different from movies, so it is unfair to compare them), but this movie has an excellent story, excellent characters, and above all, excellent visuals (which actually won the Oscar back when this movie came out). Like the critics consensus said, it lacks some of the book's subtler shadings and suffers from some clumsy casting, but it benefits from atmospheric direction and a surfeit of gothic thrills.

Interview With The Vampire starts in New Orleans in the 1980's, where a young man named Malloy (Christian Slater) prepares to interview a man named Louis (Brad Pitt) who claims to be a vampire. It turns out that Louis is telling the truth, and he agrees to tell Malloy his life story. It begins in the 1700's in New Orleans, where we learn that Louis was a wealthy plantation owner that lost his wife in childbirth, which robbed him of his will to live. It is at this point in his life where he encounters Lestat (Tom Cruise). Lestat is a vampire, and he turns Louis and makes him into his companion. Louis and Lestat tolerate one another throughout the years but Lestat grows frustrated with Louis' reluctancy to feed on anything but rats.

One day, when Louis is walking alone, he comes across a young girl crying for her mother, who has died from the plague. This little girl plays a big part in the story, as she is taken to safety by Louis and Lestat and made into a vampire. Problem is, Claudia (the little girl, played by Kirsten Dunst) is five years old, and being a vampire, she cannot grow older. Louis and Lestat parent Claudia, Lestat being more of the father and Louis being more of the mother (at least in those times, Lestat being tougher and Louis being more nurturing). When Claudia finds out that she cannot grow up, and when she tries to cut her hair and it mysteriously grows back, she gets really pissed and a plan enters her head.

SPOILER WARNING

Claudia formulates a plan to kill Lestat, and this plan is successful, at least temporarily. She kills two boys and tricks Lestat into drinking their blood with full knowledge that drinking the blood of the dead will seriously weaken a vampire. She then slits his throat and throws him in the swamp. However, Louis and Claudia see a ghostly, scarred Lestat that is very much alive, albeit just barely (what with his skeleton-like visage and such). When he attacks, Louis and Claudia run away and catch the ship to Europe, where they had been planning to travel to, to see if there were any more vampires. This brings us to the part of the film set in Paris, where another vampire named Armand (Antonio Banderas) comes into the picture.

END OF SPOILERS

Armand is the leader of a troop of vampires who live at the Theatre des Vampires, where there are shows mosy every night (one which included stripping a female victim fully nude before killing her). Armand and his coven know about...what I mentioned in the spoiler warning... and Armand says that Claudia is in danger and she and Louis should part. It could be interpreted that Armand just wants Louis for himself, or he knows that his vampire coven is unpredictable and he knows that the one crime of the vampire (punishable by death) is to kill their own kind. Claudia thinks that Louis is going to leave her for Armand, so she plays the same trick that Lestat played on Louis by getting a woman for Louis to turn who would take care of her.

However, they are kidnapped by Armand's coven. Louis is sealed in a coffin and Claudia and Madeleine (the woman) are trapped in a prison cell with an open roof. I promised not to give away any more spoilers, so we'll leave it at that because I can't really say anything more without giving away the ending. However, you all know by the beginning that Louis survives the whole affair. Needless to say, Interview With The Vampire has a great story at its heart, and it's based off excellent source material. It is a very detailed book, so naturally it couldn't all be transferred to screen. The movie is what I would call a distilled adaptation, as the writers just cherry-picked what was important to the story and put it in the script. Things move fast in this movie, much faster than in the book, and while it sometimes doesn't work in the film's favour, it can't be helped.

One of the most notorious things about this movie is the casting, because the two main stars of this movie were the big Hollywood heartthrobs at the time, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, who were chosen for pretty much their marketability, as it appears to the naked eye. They both look utterly ridiculous as vampires, Cruise as Lestat more than Pitt as Louis, but I was actually surprised as performance-wise, they were both pretty good. However, the huge surprise for me was Tom Cruise, and this is from someone who is hardly his #1 fan. Tom Cruise gave a great performance as Lestat, and even though I could imagine many other actors in the great role (actors such as Jeremy Irons and Rutger Hauer were considered for the role, and Stuart Townsend played the role in Queen of the Damned), I was thoroughly entertained by his performance and found it to be the second-best in the movie.

Brad Pitt was slightly less ridiculous looking in his role as Louis, but my enjoyment of his performance was hampered by the fact that I don't much care for the character. Louis and his whining got a bit tiring after a while (although he is much whinier in the book), and his whole self-pity due to the fact that he has to kill to live starts to get old fast. Don't get me wrong, Brad Pitt was good as Louis, I just don't care for the character so I liked his performance less than that of Cruise and Dunst. Speaking of which, I really enjoyed the performance of Kirsten Dunst as Claudia, who got a Golden Globe nomination for her performance. This was her big debut as a child actress and it was a damn good one. The character of Claudia is, for the most part, an adult in the body of a child, and Dunst embodies that, being very articulate for her age and being able to hold her own against Pitt and Cruise. Needless to say, her performance was probably the best in the movie, and that's something to say for a child actor.

The rest of the performers include Antonio Banderas as an entirely believable Armand (albeit also slightly ridiculous looking), Stephen Rea as a villainous vampire named Santiago, who is a large part in the climax of the film, and Christian Slater as the Interviewer (a last-minute replacement for River Phoenix). They all give pretty good performances, nothing Oscar-worthy but nothing terrible. Out of the three performances mentioned, I would say Banderas was the best. The only problem that I really see is that Banderas wasn't in the movie enough, as Armand was in the book much more. Slater wasn't bad, and Rea wasn't bad either, but Banderas was the best.

The acclaimed elements of the film, however, lie in the visuals. This film got Oscar nominations for art direction and costume design, and rightfully so, because both elements of the film are spectacular. The use of visual effects is also well-done except for one aspect. In my opinion, they messed up the vampire teeth, and it was part of what made Cruise and Pitt look ridiculous. They looked okay on Dunst, but still weird. Another thing, fair warning to those who are squeamish. If you are squeamish around blood, then some parts of this movie will be awkward for you, because there are a lot of gory deaths, some more than others. However, for those comfortable around gore, this should be an entertaining watch.

Don't get discouraged by the unfortunate glut of vampire movies coming out, Interview With The Vampire is a worthwhile watch, especially around this time of year. It may be flawed, but the film has a lot of things going for it. It has splendid performances, spectacular visuals, and despite lacking some of the subtlety that the book had to offer, an excellent story. I also recommend giving the book a read, but like I said, this movie is a distilled adaptation, so you don't need to read the book before watching the movie to understand it as the basic plot elements are still there. It may not be straight-up horror so much as romantic vampire fiction, but it's better than Twilight. It's much better than Twilight. You have to give it that. So in short, I recommend Interview With The Vampire, especially to doubters of vampire movies.



8.1/10

My Review of Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Beauty and the Beast is yet another historically significant film for Disney, being the first animated feature film to get a Best Picture nomination (something really special, seeing as the Best Animated Feature category did not exist and all animated films could get nominated for were music), and it was essentially what cemented the Disney Renaissance, perfecting what had been established by The Little Mermaid. The Little Mermaid had established the Disney formula of belligerent sexual tension, consistently great musical numbers (in the age of Menken, which still exists to this day), and memorable characters. Plus, there's just a sweetness to this movie that is near impossible to resist. Watching Beauty and the Beast for the first time in so many years also brought back a wave of nostalgia for me, as my school did this musical in my grade nine year. I would be lying if I said I didn't adore this movie, but I do have a few problems with it. However, the positives far outweigh the negatives in this timeless classic, and we'll talk about them now. Like I have said in my reviews of the other Disney movies, most everyone has heard this story one way or another so a spoiler warning would be pointless.

Beauty and the Beast starts with a stained-glass prologue about a vain and cruel young prince, who encounters an old woman who offers him a rose in exchange for shelter from the cold. He scoffs at her and she reveals herself to be a beautiful enchantress. The prince tries to apologize, now that he's aware that she's hot, but the witch instead turns him into a hideous beast and says that he will stay that way if he does not learn to love and be loved in return by his twenty-first birthday. The enchanted rose serves as a timer of sorts, as when the last petal falls, it will signify that he will be a beast forever. The witch also places a curse on all inhabitants of the castle, turning them into house objects like a candelabra or a clock. The beast lives in exile, horrified by his appearance, and has fallen into a deep depression.

This brings us to one of the best introductory musical numbers in all of Disney-dom, where we meet an intelligent young woman named Belle. We learn that she is looked upon as 'weird' by the townspeople, because even though she's good-looking, she's smart and she likes to read (seen as unusual because she's female and the town seems to abhor reading, which leads to a question I have that I will mention later). She is also being chased after by the brutish town hero Gaston, who wants to claim her for his wife. Belle lives with her father Maurice, an eccentric adventure who heads off for an inventing fair and gets lost in the woods, which is where the two stories intertwine.

We are introduced then to Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip, the main sentient houseware characters and easily the most fun in the movie. They delight at having a guest in the castle, but the Beast is not so happy about it, and he imprisons Maurice in the tower. After rejecting Gaston's proposal, Belle realizes something's up after her father's horse comes back without her father and she rides to the castle. In an encounter with the Beast, she agrees to take her father's place and stay in the castle forever. The housewares are delighted to have a guest in the castle, and when Belle comes down to get some food (priorly refusing to eat dinner with the Beast), they lavish her with a full extravagant meal (and one of the most recognizable songs of the last twenty years).

The game-changer in the relationship between Belle and the Beast happens when Belle wanders into the west wing of the castle (the one place the Beast told her not to go), and discovers the enchanted rose. The beast frightens her into running away and she promptly gets chased by wolves. The Beast chases off the wolves, and Belle finally stands up to the Beast about his temper issues. What follows is the gradual softening of the beast, and the realization that there may be "something there that wasn't there before" (to quote a song from the movie). This leads to an interesting parallel between the Beast and Gaston (we'll talk about that later though). The romantic climax of the movie is the ballroom scene (the signature scene of the movie, and one of the best staged scenes in the company's entire animated oeuvre). After the ballroom scene, Belle uses the magic mirror to see her father, and she finds out that he is sick. The beast willingly lets her go, and he sinks into a deep depression knowing that he will remain a beast forever and not have his one true love.

Meanwhile, Gaston has been formulating a plan, simply because he won't take no for an answer. He plans to get Belle's father thrown in the nuthouse for his yammering about the beast, and only offers to clear it up if Belle marries him. When Belle corroberates her father's stories, Gaston denounces her as crazy and when shown the grim image of the Beast, Gaston gathers the townspeople, who seem to hang on his every word, to lay siege to the castle and kill the Beast. The objects successfully fight off the villagers, but the Beast is far too depressed to fight Gaston. However, when he sees that Belle has come back, and she tells him to fight, the Beast gains enough strength to fight Gaston, but does not kill him. However, this gives Gaston an opportunity to stab the beast before falling to his demise.

The Beast is on the brink of death and Belle finally admits her love for him (whereas he had admitted it after she left). The Beast is resurrected by the Power of Love, and he is also turned back into his normal human self. Cue the objects turning into their human selves and Belle and the Prince living happily ever after. I enjoy the love story in this movie, and this is coming from someone who doesn't really like romance-based movies (spare for a few). Some think that this has a bad message, in that a guy may start out an asshole but it's your love that changes him, and if he doesn't change, then you're not working hard enough. I disagree, because the Beast only starts to come around when Belle stands up to him and Belle only starts coming around when the Beast calms his temper and doesn't act like an asshole to her.

The calming of the Beast leads to an interesting parallel between him and Gaston. The Beast starts out angry and violent, whereas Gaston starts out as a jerk. However, as the Beast grows nicer and more loving, Gaston grows more and more crazy, culminating in the fight between him and the Beast where he plummets to his death. This is what I think makes Gaston one of the more interesting Disney villains, the fact that he's not inherently evil, and he doesn't have supernatural powers or legions of minions. He has one minion, a beaten-down little schmoe named LeFou, but he just starts out as a jackass who is used to getting what he wants, and he goes crazy when he can't get it. Therefore, in my opinion, Gaston is one of the best Disney villains.

Moving on to the romantic leads, we have Belle and the Beast (another Disney Prince without a name). Belle is a decent enough character, and one of the better characters Disney had produced in that time. She was intelligent, but looked upon as an outcast because she loved reading and she didn't think her father was crazy. The one thing that really annoys me about her character though is her typical "I Want" Disney Princess motivation. By that, I mean Belle expresses that she wants something, but that want is annoyingly vague and never really accomplished. Her song just says that she wants "more", but the perameters of more are never defined. It's not really a big deal, the vagueness of Belle's desires just kind of bugs me.

Next, we have The Beast, easily the most nuanced character in the movie. We see three shades of him: the angry and violent side that was the result of his grotesque appearance and his priorly 'beastly' personality before that whole incident with the witch, the kinder and softer beast that is the result of Belle standing up to him, and the depressed beast that lies at the bottom of angry beast and becomes more visible when Belle leaves. All three shades are portrayed excellently and the Beast is one of the most well-rounded characters that Disney has ever produced. The last characters that I want to talk about are the Objects, easily the most fun characters. The interplay between Lumiere and Cogsworth is fantastic, and they themselves are excellent and hilarious characters on their own. Never mind that only Lumiere has a French accent, they're all just awesome characters. I have one question about Mrs Potts though. Why would she let anyone drink out of Chip. I mean, he is a teacup, but he's still her kid. But all in all, this film has some of the most memorable characters of all time, and some of my personal favourites as well.

The film also has some of the best songs that Disney has ever written, and some of the most recognizable songs of the last two decades. There's nary anyone who hasn't heard the song "Be Our Guest" and even the titular "Beauty and the Beast" (especially considering that one has been redone so many times by so many different pop artists that it's impossible not to come across in some form). Both of those songs are impeccably staged, and easily the most lavishly staged out of all the songs, but they aren't my favourites of the bunch. My favourite is the opening number, titled "Belle". I like how it is staged, I like the multi-layered approach to the song, I just love everything about it. The mob song is my second favourite of the bunch, also an excellently staged affair. Needless to say, the songs are fantastic and deserve to be listened to and remembered for years to come.

Another thing this movie has going in its favour is the lush animation. This has some of the best scenery in any Disney movie, and it shows in the lush castles, beautiful landscapes, and excellent character design. You can tell that Disney was starting to experiment with CGI with this movie, especially in the ballroom scene (with an obvious CG chandelier) but it's mostly hand-drawn, and the details of the castle are just amazing. I know I have lavished undying praise on this movie without giving it a perfect score, so I figure I should explain myself. There are several holes in the story that don't entirely detract, but are certainly noticeable. First of all, the terms of the curse affecting all living things in the castle must have applied to every flea, rat, and dust mite on the premises due to all the talking housewares. I guess this because no way would a spoiled brat like the Prince let all of those people live in his castle. Secondly, why would a town that abhors reading have a reasonably successful bookstore. Belle's patronage can't be enough, I mean, where would she get the money to pay for the books, she doesn't have a job. Those plot holes really aren't that big, but they are noticeable and detract from the movie a little.

All in all, there is one word to describe Beauty and the Beast, and that word is timeless. This is an absolutely timeless movie, and it should be shown to all future generations. Anybody who has not seen this movie should see it now and anyone who hasn't in a long while should see it again. Minor flaws aside, this is an excellent movie and deserves its place as the cementer of the Disney Renaissance and one of the best Disney films of all time. I didn't remember loving this movie as much as I do, as it had been years since I had last viewed it. Lush visuals, excellent characters (including a complex villain), a compelling romance, and an all-around sweetness that doesn't take away from the film like it could. Other than what I have said, there really isn't much more to say, so I guess we'll end the review on this awkward ending.

P.S. I'm really enjoying this Disney marathon, kind of contradicting to the horror theme that this month has. To keep the balance between old and new age Disney, I have to watch one more film in the renaissance before I can watch any more of the old ones.




9.5/10

Mystery Men Review

Mystery Men (1999)

I absolutely adore this movie. I adore this movie almost as much as I adore Zoolander, my other favourite Ben Stiller comedy. I know it's silly, but the concept of a renegade gang of superheroes with no powers is silly. By extension, the concept of Batman is silly. I love Batman, and I love the fact that Burton and Nolan took their Batman movies seriously, but a guy who dresses up like a bad and fights crime is inherently a silly concept. However, we aren't talking about Batman, we're talking about Mystery Men. There are many things I adore about this movie. I love the acting, I love Geoffrey Rush as the villain, I love the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously until things do get serious at the end, and I love the disco-themed villain sidekicks.

POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING

Mystery Men is about a crime-fighting team that starts out as a trio. Roy, Eddie, and Jeff (Ben Stiller, William H. Macy, and Hank Azaria) are a well-meaning crime fighting trio, but they aren't exactly great at their jobs and they are overshadowed frequently by the city's top superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear). Captain Amazing has basically rid the city of crime and it's put him out of a job. He gets the not-so-bright idea of getting a notorious villain by the name of Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) out of the city's insane asylum so he'll have someone to fight then. It's too bad that Casanova Frankenstein is much smarter than him and Amazing ends up tied to a machine that Casanova will use to kill him and wreak havoc upon the city.

The movie isn't about Captain Amazing though, it's about the Mystery Men (although they are never addressed as this at any time during the movie). The trio decides to expand and they recruit four new members. As well as the original three (who have the alter egos Mr Furious, The Shoveler, and The Blue Rajah, who's powers I will get into later), there is the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell) who can only be invisible when nobody is looking at him, there's The Spleen, who's powers ignite with one pull of the finger, The Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) who has a superpowered bowling ball with the skull of her dead father in it, and the Sphinx (Wes Studi), a walking metaphor-spewer who can cut guns in half with his mind. Mr Furious' power comes from his boundless rage (which mostly fails throughout the movie, causing Roy to have a crisis), the Shoveler has...well...a shovel, and the Blue Rajah is, in his own words, "a limey fork flinger" (although Azaria only speaks in an English accent as the Rajah, he talks in his actual voice when Jeff is talking to his mother). His costume also doesn't have a speck of blue on it.

With Captain Amazing out of the picture, Casanova intends to use one of his machines to wreak havoc upon the city, and it's up to the gang to stop them. The climax takes place in Casanova's mansion during a dinner party with all of his associate gangs. My favourite of all of these is the Disco Boys, Casanova's personal gang, lead by Tony P. (Eddie Izzard in a deliciously hammy performance) and Tony C (who doesn't really talk much). There's also a lady gang (not unlike the Fembots in the first Austin Powers movie), a rapping gang (featuring Cee Lo Green), a frat boy gang (with a covert cameo from Michael Bay), and a gang of businessmen. The gang defeats them in all sorts of hilarious ways and we also see Roy's true furious side come out when Casanova threatens his girlfriend (Claire Forlani, who plays a waitress that he attempts to flirt with throughout). Besides Roy getting a girlfriend, other details of the personal lives of the original trio, like Eddie's wife being worried about his crime-fighting, and the fact that Jeff lives with his mother and has to steal her forks for missions.

Now that we've got the story out of the way, I shall talk about how much I love this premise. Never before has a genre been killed so spectacularly as the spoof, what with the Seltzerberg works such as Date Movie, Epic Movie, or Scary Movie (and its many sequels). However, Mystery Men remains as one of the greatest spoofs ever made. It's not as good as the spoofs I have seen in the Mel Brooks collection, but Mystery Men is a damn fine one, affectionately poking at the superhero genre, and essentially doing what Kick-Ass did twelve years before, only Kick-Ass was considerably more violent and this one is more geared towards comedy than action. They make fun of the fact that the only thing that distinguished Captain Amazing from his secret identity, billionaire Lance Hunt is that Lance Hunt wears glasses (a clever reference to Superman).

The script is very well-written, but instead of yammering on and on about how great it is, I will present you with some of the best lines from it and let you see for yourself:

"What about.....Death Man"
"Death Man is dead"

"I... am the Waffler. With my griddle of justice, I BASH the enemy in the head, or I burn them like so! I also have some truth syrup, which is low in fat." (Dane Cook in a great cameo)

"It must have been hard for you Tony, all these years. All the people saying that disco is dead."
"Disco is NOT dead. Disco is LIFE!!"

(when trying to make Roy angry)
"Your penmanship is atrocious"
"You dress in the manner of a male prostitute"

Sound funny? That's only the tip of the iceberg. This is an incredibly hilarious movie and there are a lot of sight gags to go along with the great lines. The characters are fun, and I like that none of them have traditional powers. Well, technically speaking none of them have any powers, but the powers they give themselves are unique, like having the skull of your dead father in a superpowered bowling ball, or flinging forks. The dialogue would only be decent, however, if it weren't for the performances of its excellent cast. Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria, and William H. Macy are the original trio, and they all give affable and fun performances. The rest of the gang is great as well, my favourite out of the new additions being Janeane Garofalo followed by Paul Reubens (the man may be a perv, but he is funny). Greg Kinnear plays Captain Amazing as a total jackass, and that's what he's best as playing, so I guess he did well. My favourite performances out of all of them would have to be Geoffrey Rush as Casanova Frankenstein (hamming it up with the best of them) and Eddie Izzard as Tony (an equally excellent performance). I'd say that the film is watchable for them alone.

The action scenes are very cool, especially the one at the beginning and the awesome climax. Aside from that, there really isn't too much more to say, as I have said everything that I love about this movie. It may not be perfect, but Mystery Men is an extremely funny and extremely entertaining movie and it is definitely worth watching. I give it an extremely high recommendation for fans of superhero movies, silly comedies, and fans of any of the film's formidable actors. In fact, I would recommend it to anyone, especially those who probably wouldn't think much of it upon first glance. It has a great story, great jokes, and great performances from its excellent cast, making Mystery Men one of my favourite comedies of all time, and it's tied with Zoolander for my favourite comedy featuring Ben Stiller. I even find this to be a bit underrated, because most won't think much of this movie and just dismiss it as a stupid comedy, whereas it is so much more than that.

(I have decided to forgo the star system which I used in my other reviews in exchange for something a little different)

My Score:  8.3/10

Forrest Gump Review

Forrest Gump (1994)

Most of what I hear about this movie amongst my friends on this website is general negative sentiment about this stealing the Oscar from Shawshank Redemption/Pulp Fiction, take your pick. I have not seen Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction, so I cannot be a fair judge with regards to whether or not Forrest Gump "stole" the Oscar, but I can be a fair judge to the movie itself, and I must say that I liked Forrest Gump a lot. It may be sentimental, and I can see how that would be off-putting to some, and it was indeed off-putting to me at times as well. However, Forrest Gump has great performances, great special effects (minus the CGI feather at the beginning and the end), and a great story.

PLOT DETAILS SHOWN

The entire film takes place in flashback, as Forrest (Tom Hanks) is telling his story to various people at the bus stop. It essentially starts from the beginning, when Forrest was a little boy living in Alabama with his mother (Sally Field). This part of the movie chronicles Forrest's young life in school and it takes us to his first encounter with Jenny Curran (Hannah Hill, later Robyn Wright) the film's female lead. Forrest and Jenny become best friends and Forrest finds out (although he misassumes what is actually happening) that Jenny's father abuses her, and Jenny eventually goes to live with her grandmother. There's also some stuff with the visitors that stayed at their house, including one young man with a guitar that Forrest taught to do a certain pelvic thrust who ended up making it big.

The next part of the film is Forrest in late high school and college, where he becomes a football star. He becomes one after running onto a football field to escape some bullies. That's one of the instances in this movie which coined the popular term "run Forrest run". He's a football star, and after he graduates from college, he is approached by a general and enlists in the Army. There, he meets his other friend Bubba (Mykelti Williams) and Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise in an Oscar-nominated role) and in the film's crowning moment of glory, Ferris saves Lieutenant Dan's life as well as the lives of several soldiers when they are in Vietnam, but he is unable to save Bubba's.

In response to a promise he made to Bubba, Forrest starts the Bubba-Gump shrimp company, where he becomes a shrimp boat captain with Lieutenant Dan as his first mate. There's one other thing with Lieutenant Dan. Forrest may have saved Lieutenant Dan's life, but it was at the expense of his legs and one of the major special-effects marvels of this movie that was rewarded was being able to digitally erase Gary Sinise's legs from the knees down. When a hurricane hits while Dan and Forrest are on their boat, it would appear that Lieutenant Dan makes his peace with his condition and his raving depression. Next time we see Dan, he is engaged to be married and walking on new titanium legs.

After his adventures in shrimping, Forrest moves back to Greenbow Alabama, where his life intersects with Jenny's once again. You see, while Forrest was off in Vietnam and becoming a shrimp boat captain, Jenny was being a hippie, dating many abusive men, doing a ton of drugs, and experimenting in generally self-destructive behaviours. After she pops in and out of his life once again, Forrest just feels the need one day to start running. He starts running and he just doesn't stop. He runs for three years, gains a national following and reputation and then he finally returns to Greenbow, where he meets up with Jenny (that's what he was waiting for the bus for).

SPOILER ALERT

Forrest and Jenny stick together this time and they eventually marry. Even though Jenny has sorted herself out and became a nurse, we learn that she is sick with some unknown virus (it was the eighties though, what do you think it was?) and she eventually dies an untimely death. The last scene we see in the movie is Forrest seeing his son (played by a very young Haley Joel Osment) go on the school bus. The message of the movie is kind of problematic, because it is that things will just fall into your lap no matter how hard you work to pursue them. However, there is a good message in that you shouldn't let being disabled (either physically or mentally) prevent you from living a full life. and that is certainly a message to be followed.

SPOILERS OVER

For a movie that covers as much ground as this movie has to, it covers said ground extremely well. The movie goes through a lot of events in American history, from the rock-and-roll age of the fifties to the Vietnam war to the Black Panthers to the Hippie Movement. The film spans about forty years and shows Forrest's life through those years. The music also has a big part of that, the soundtrack being composed of hits from those individual eras. The writing is decent, with a few memorable quotes from it, like "Run Forrest Run", "My mama says life is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get" and "My name's Forrest, Forrest Gump". The rest of the dialogue is decently written and occasionally quite sweet, and it won Best Adapted Screenplay that year (I haven't seen any of the other nominees so I can't say whether or not it deserved it). I haven't read the book, but the story is well-thought out alongside the script itself.

If there is one Oscar that deserved to be won from Forrest Gump, it is Tom Hanks' award for Best Actor (which he had won the year before). Tom Hanks is one of the best actors of all time and he gives an absolutely amazing performance as the titular character of this movie. The title of the movie is Forrest Gump, so naturally, the performance of Tom Hanks (or any of the other choices they had for Forrest) would make or break the movie. Thankfully, Tom Hanks is a great actor so his performance made the movie. His performance as Forrest is one of the best I have seen in any movie and this might be Hanks' most famous role, outside Cast Away, Toy Story, and maybe Saving Private Ryan. Regardless, he has been immortalized in the character and this performance will be remembered for years to come.

The film also has a good supporting cast, with Gary Sinise taking the award for second-best performance as Lieutentant Dan, which got him an Oscar nomination. Having only seen Sinise on CSI: New York prior to this, I was pleasantly surprised by his performance, which is one of considerable depth and grace. Robyn Wright plays Jenny and she starts out okay, but Wright's performance improved as Jenny's problems got worse. A terrible thing to say, but it is okay. Sally Field was great as Mrs. Gump, but the only performance I had an issue with was Mykelti Williams as Bubba. He wasn't bad, but he was kind of annoying and he was the weakest performer. Needless to say, the film had strong actors and used them well (for the most part).

The special effects were very good, incorporating Tom Hanks into the archival footage and magically erasing Gary Sinise's legs, and the cinematography is good as well. All in all, Forrest Gump may not be a perfect movie, and it has its moments of oversentimentality and a problematic message, but it is generally a good movie. I would encourage anybody who has not yet seen this movie to see it. Forrest Gump is probably one of the best movies of the last twenty years. Maybe after watching Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption, my opinion will change, but for now, Forrest Gump is a modern classic and a movie everybody should see.



The Lion King Review

The Lion King (1994)



Regrettably, I did not see this in 3D. However, I understand that this is going for another week, so I might still have a chance. Regarding the 3D rerelease (and the rumoured 3D rerelease of Beauty and the Beast), I am entirely cool with it, and I would love to see sort of a Disney Classics rerelease collection in whatever dimension, especially a rerelease of Aladdin. Whatever dimension or whatever size screen I watch it on doesn't matter though, because The Lion King is a perfect movie and an animated classic. There is not a single thing wrong with it in my opinion, and even though it is not my personal favourite of the Disney Renaissance (my personal favourite being the film that came out two years prior to this one, which I hope to re-review soon), I think it represents the Disney Animation Studios at their highest point of glory.

Before I get into the meat of the story, I would like to talk about the introduction. The introduction to this movie is one of the best introductions in any movie, not just in the world of animation. In the first five minutes, there is not a word of dialogue, but it is emotionally powerful and visually sweeping. The moment where the baboon holds up newborn Simba and all the animals bow to him is one of the most iconic images in all of Disney lore, as well as one of the most iconic images of all time. If you haven't seen the movie, shame on you. But seriously, if you haven't seen the movie, there might be some spoilers, but I'm sure most of you have, so moving on.

The baby being revealed is Simba, the son of Mufasa, and Simba is essentially being handed the kingdom (after Mufasa's death of course, but handed the kingdom nonetheless). The first part of the film shows Simba as a cub, and he is introduced as a cocky arrogant little boy, who thinks being brave involves searching for trouble. He deliberately disobeys his father, going into the elephant graveyard where he meets the hyenas (who will come into play later) at the behest of the film's villain, Simba's uncle Scar. Mufasa steps in just in time, which gives Scar a brilliant idea to gain the power he so desires, any slight possibility being taken from him when Simba was born.

You see, even though Mufasa says that everything the light touches is their kingdom, and that Simba will have the kingdom one day, there is always a saboteur. The saboteur in this case is Scar, who covets the kingdom and figures the only way that he can be king is if he kills Simba and Mufasa. This brings me to one of the things that The Lion King has done differently than the other Disney Renaissance pictures is that it actually had the balls to kill off a main character and have him stay dead. Even if you haven't seen The Lion King, you probably know about the big death at the hands of a storm of wildebeests. I knew when it was coming, but I didn't remember how I reacted to it, because I haven't seen this film since I was a kid. I didn't shed a single tear, but I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, and when it actually happened, it was an emotionally wrenching moment.

Another thing that this film did differently from its predecessors was that it had the villain be successful (albeit temporarily). Scar killed Mufasa and he successfully convinced Simba to exile himself by placing the guilt on his young nephew. He also gets to inherit the throne, but we'll talk about Scar's character later, let's get back to the story. Simba exiles himself and he encounters everyone's favourite prairie dog/warthog duo. That's right, I'm talking about Timon and Pumba, two of the most awesome comic relief characters that Disney has ever created. Over the course of the song "Hakuna Matata", we see Simba age from a small cub to a fully grown lion, and a dead ringer for his daddy.

Nala stops by and so leads to the romantic climax of the film. It would appear I have forgotten to mention the romantic interest prior to now, so I will elaborate a bit further. Nala and Simba are childhood friends who are betrothed to marry. They meet in their adult years and this leads to the aforementioned romantic climax. There is not a word of dialogue spoken, aside from "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" being sang in the background. A tiff between lovers regarding why Simba will not return to Pride Rock results in yet another extremely powerful moment between Simba and the spirit of his father, as well as the baboon that held him up at the beginning.

The film's climax shows the desolate wasteland that Pride Rock has become under Scar's rule, which was previously only contained to the elephant graveyard. He has given the hyenas rule of the land, resulting in famine and thirst amongst the people. However, Scar is entirely oblivious to this. Simba finally goes to confront his uncle and confront his past, letting go of the guilt that has plagued him about his father's murder when Scar casually confesses to the whole act. Scar is dethroned and Simba takes his own rightful place on the throne, the film ending with the reveal of Simba's own cub. This brings us to the thematic importance of the song "Circle of Life". The film starts and ends with the reveal of a child, and it ends with Simba becoming king, and the similar design between adult Simba and Mufasa makes the song all the more relevant.

The character of Scar is one of the most sinister villains in all of Disney-dom, and he is voiced brilliantly by Jeremy Irons in full slime-mode. What is interesting about Scar is that he is incredibly menacing when he is exercising his plan to obtain power, yet he is so stunningly inept once he gets it. This is one of my favourite Disney villains, if not my favourite. I could not picture any other actor voicing Scar but Jeremy Irons. He never really scared me as a child, nor did the hyenas, but I can see how they could scare the shit out of some kids. The hyenas make perfect stooges for Scar, and one of my favourite parts of the film was during the song "Be Prepared" when the hyenas are marching like the Third Reich. Needless to say, a great villain voiced to perfection by a great actor.

The story, so I've been told, is basically Hamlet with talking animals. I have not read Hamlet, and I don't really know the story, so I can't say that it was Hamlet, but it is definitely a great story. It is creative, it's funny, and at times, it is emotionally wrenching. In fact, few animated films get as emotionally wrenching as The Lion King. There is comedy, mostly with the hyenas and the Timon/Pumba duo. Out of the two comic relief groups, I enjoyed the latter more, mostly because of the excellent voicework and writing of Nathan Lane as Timon. The dialogue is interesting and well-written, and it gets done what it needs to get done, although the songs are much better than the dialogue for reasons that I shall explain later.

The characters are interesting and memorable. I've already talked about the villain and the comic relief, so let's talk about the hero. Simba is the plucky hero, and he is a very interesting character and an all-around good protagonist. We want to see him defeat Scar and assume his rightful place as king of the Pridelands. We also see what guilt he felt due to the fact that Scar made him think that his father, whom he idolised, died by Simba's carelessness. He's voiced decently by Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick. Nothing great, but nothing terrible in terms of voice performances. Nala is a decent character as well, a strong female character that's not just the love interest. She was decently voiced as well.

Let's get on to the last character I want to discuss, and that character is Mufasa. Mufasa has the second best voice actor of the whole movie, as he is voiced by James Earl Jones (who apparently likes playing iconic fathers). He is firsted only by Jeremy Irons in my opinion, but he is still extremely awesome. Mufasa is a great character and an excellent father figure. He's absolutely badass but caring towards his young son, and it was Scar tricking him into thinking that Simba was in danger that was his eventual downfall. I respect what they did with Mufasa and I think Simba's conversation with his spirit is one of the most powerful moments ever put onto film.

Moving on, this time to the visuals. I think this is better than Mulan, but I tend to lump them in the same category, because they are Disney's two best movies of the Disney Renaissance in terms of sweeping visuals. The Lion King has the best animation out of all the Renaissance films in my opinion, and that's saying a lot, because the animation quality of Disney films in the Renaissance was fantastic. The hand-drawn landscapes of Africa are absolutely gorgeous, and the animation of the animals are absolutely brilliant. The magnificent quality of the animation allows for a lot of the priorly mentioned powerful moments I had mentioned. The herd of wildebeests is charging across the desert, the burning of Pride Rock, and the contrast between the warm colour scheme of the Pridelands and the desolate wasteland that the Pridelands become are all animated gorgeously, as is the rest of the film.

The movie also contains some of the most memorable songs of the last twenty years, and I have one simple explanation as to why. Four words (or five, if you could hyphenated words as two): co-written by Elton John. Elton John was at the height of his popularity in the 1990's, and he cowrote such famous songs like "Circle of Life", "Hakuna Matata", and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" with Tim Rice. My personal favourite of the songs is "Be Prepared", which is Scar's villain song and one of my favourite Disney villain songs next to Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame. Can You Feel the Love Tonight won the Oscar for Best Original song. Hanz Zimmer's score is absolutely excellent, and it suited the majestic nature of the film perfectly. Needless to say, this has one of the greatest musical scores of all time and some of the best songs of the Classic Disney Canon.

Cynics may say that the rerelease of The Lion King is Disney exploiting nostalgia to make money, but they could promptly be shut up by the simple fact that it's The Lion King. I would have loved to see this in theatres as it came out before I was born, but seeing it again after all of these years was excellent, no matter the size of the screen or the number of dimensions. If you haven't seen this movie, you have truly missed out on something great and I encourage you to see this as soon as possible. Although this is not my favourite Disney, this film represents the animation company at its prime of excellence and it remains their most successful film to date. This is a perfect movie, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and everybody should see it. Male, female, young, old, it doesn't matter. I think I'll explore Disney a bit longer, this film has made me want to. If there's a 3D rerelease of any other Disney Renaissance classics, I will be glad to see them in theatres, 3D gimmick aside.