I'm going to throw out a bold statement. Eyes Wide Shut is the most under rated film of Stanley Kubrick's career. I've heard all of the complaints. You know, the people that say he was catering to the two married, big name stars and that he let his film suffer because of it. I don't by that for one minute. The film isn't two and a half hours of Tom Cruise trying to get laid. That's how most people see this film. It's a morality tale. It's a pro monogamy piece crafted in a way that only Kubrick could conjure up.
The film stars Tom Cruise as Bill Harford, whose very name symbolizes the American everyman. He's a well to do doctor in Manhattan who hob nobs with the well to do and living the American dream with his family on Central Park West. Nicole Kidman plays Bill's wife Alice, a stay at home mom that catches the attention of rich, distinguished men at these parties that Bill has to hob nob at.
The central point that the entire film pivots on is Bill's dated way of looking at his wife's sexuality. He sees every man that talks to her as just wanting to get in her pants and he seems to feel that she falls into the typical chauvinist category of the female wanting a stable, faithful relationship. Bill's ideas of his wife are turned upside down one night after a some joint smoking when she lets him know that those carnal instincts that he feels are men only territory are also a woman's and proceeds to tell him the story of lust she felt for a Navy officer while they were on vacation and the fact she would have given up their life for one night with him. This revelation pushes Bill into a night of debauchery that ends up pushing not only his life, but the lives of his family to the brink.
Now I know that this comparison is going to raise some eyebrows, but the second act of the film is essentially Kubrick's own version of Porky's and American Pie. Bill is own the prowl for sex. He wants sex outside of his marriage and he follows numerous avenues to get it, but is blocked one right after another. It's a night of him teased to the breaking point and having it suddenly taken away. He has no discretion and no respect for how this may effect his families future. All he sees is the image of his wife being ravaged by some guy in a Naval uniform. The adventures of Bill's night go from the scuzzy back alleys of prostitutes to the revelation of a large, sexual fiesta that is akin to a 12 year old boy stumbling onto a Playboy magazine- pure sexual wonder and amazement.
Now I called this a morality tale. It is most certainly one, because after his night is over Kubrick throws at us what I can only describe as The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking (a title taken from a Roger Waters concept album dealing with a man dreaming about infidelity). The third act of the film is basically showing Bill what his consequences were for each act he could have participated in. The chance of jail, disease, or death are presented in the final chapters that it almost feels like Kubrick borrowed somewhat from a slasher movie. It's as if Kubrick's film is telling us that there's a reason to stay faithful. Not only is it the moral thing to do, it's safer.
Kubrick's direction is the same precise, perfected presentation that you would expect from this master of his craft. He is able to make some logical look illogical because not everything in life is black and white. For the people who say he caved in to his stars with this picture, this is definitely a film were Kubrick is in complete control. This is pure Kubrick.
Kubrick has left a legacy of films that you need to watch more than once to entertain their notions and understand what they mean. It's because his films mean more than one thing. Or they don't mean anything. He leaves it for you to decide. For Kubrick, watching a movie isn't about him vomiting out a story and letting you stare blankly at it for two hours or more. His films are like your best meals of your lifetime. He wanted you to sit there and savor every morsel, to come up with your own meaning for this film or that film. His films were there to get your mind going and make you figure out what they're about. What a great chef.
The Terminator is essentially the story of Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and the night that her life was turned upside down by two time travelers. The first to arrive is a hulking, emotionless, beast simply called The Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger). The second is resistance fighter Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Both are literally born into this world, arriving naked and supposedly helpless, but each one uses their own skills to survive and fulfill the first part of their mission- find Sarah Connor.These two men are willing to burn the greater Los Angeles area to do it.
Directed by James Cameron, The Terminator is one of those rare low budget sci-fi masterpieces that not only is very good, it also makes a ton of money. A story that could have been complicated as hell is easily digest through Cameron's story and direction. You plunge into the world of the future head first where machines rule the land, but only when Cameron either wants to give you a break from the present day's hell or needs to elaborate on the story. Some people read the film as a morality tale on mans dependence on machines, but it's really only a very good post apocalyptic tale that takes place before the apocalypse. You hear about it. You see its aftermath, but it's still in the future. The real battle is right now.
Sure, the effects are not great, but this is low budget 1984. It's the story that gets you into the film, not the effects which were very good for such a small time film. Looking at it now I'm amazed that a film like this had as many effects shots as it did. A great feat at stretching a dollar, obviously learned by Cameron from schlock guru Roger Corman.
This was the film that set the footing for Arnie's action packed career. "I'll be back" resonated in every other film he was in and was on par with "Make my day" in the 1980's. Arnold didn't carry the film emotionally, though because his character was emotionless. Hamilton and Biehn have to turn it up a notch to compensate for the machine they play against and they do it beautifully.
The Terminator is one of those legendary sci-fi films that gives you an unbelievable story and sets it in believable situations. The film pushed the envelope with its gore and violence, garnering an R rating in an era where sci-fi tried to stay in line for the kiddies. This is truly a legendary film.
The Matrix is about a future that is basically a computer generated life as we are put to other uses by the machines we created. A small group of humans led by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) fight to take down the system, stumbling onto Neo (Keanu Reeves) who is dubbed the chosen one.
I hate to break this to everyone out there: The Matrix is overrated as hell. Sure, it's a nice little sci-fi action story, but it's not this awe inspiring film that will change your life forever. It's your basic, run of the mill, apocalyptic film that can trace its way back through films such as The Terminator, Planet of the Apes, and THX-1138. The story is interesting, but it's not really anything that we haven't seen before. I'm not the saying the film wasn't entertaining. It was an enjoyable film, but it wasn't as special as I was led to believe. The acting is great in some places (Fishburne and Hugo Weaving) and horrible right were you would expect it (Reeves). I can not stress enough that this wasn't a bad movie. It was an enjoyable ride into the future, but it isn't the New New Testament. I think that a media blitz when this film and subsequent others came out induced people to believe that this film was a lot better than it really is. Overrated.
Do you remember the Death Wish movies? You know, Charles Bronson having a family member killed, raped, etc. and then proceeding on going on a rampage killing every thug on the block. You know that kind of movie that usually starred a Bronson, Seagal, or a hyped up Governator. I thought those kind of films were dead, replaced with this fake revenge tales that are more sappy than anything. Taken is like a cousin to those '80's revenge/action films that exploded onto our movie screens. It's not quite the same and I can't put my finger on it as to why.
The film stars Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills, a father who has retired from his old job to try to make some kind of relationship with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). He reluctantly agrees for her to go on a trip to Europe where she winds up being kidnapped into white slavery. This is when Bryan Mills puts his training into action: he is a former operative for the C.I.A. And he is pissed.
Now when hearing the plot you'll be reminded of that 1985 action masterpiece Commando, starring a certain Austrian politician. But it's not the same film and the reason for that difference is Liam Neeson. Let's be honest, if this film starred Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal it would have been direct to $5 bin fodder that only hardcore action fans would want to see. But Taken stars Liam Neeson, who now proves that he can give credibility to any role he chooses. Neeson could try for an oscar with every role he takes (I'm looking at you Phillip Seymour Hoffman) but he tends to do a popcorn flick in the middle of his high brow work. Come on, the guy was Darkman, Oscar Schindler, Qui Gon Jinn, and soon to be Abraham Lincoln. It's Liam Neeson that makes this film great.
The script starts out very good and tends to go a little overboard the closer we get to the ending with a few cliches coming through. The direction is OK, though we do get some of that C.S.I. crap that we should be getting sick of by now. It's a solid action picture that isn't too long and originally doesn't make you take it too seriously. It's Liam Neeson that makes you do that. It's a great popcorn flick that won't bore you by being too long or pretentious. It's a classic action flick.
We live in an era where what was old is new again. Batman came back from bad pun hell and pulled off two great films. James Bond flourished in his "re-boot", then fell in his second outing. Horror icons are getting new lives, for better or worse. Of course we can't forget about what happened to Star Wars. Hell, there's rumors of Daredevil and Superman underway and they've had films as recently as three years ago. CPR on dead franchise is in. Star Trek is another of one of these "re-boots". Or is it?
The film is basically the first mission of the U.S.S. Enterprise and its original crew. The cadets mission is to assist in apparent attack on Vulcan by a Romulan war ship. It's a basic plot that becomes more interesting because it shows a young, inexperienced crew that is eventually led by James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto).
The first thing that really interested me was the acting. Filling William Shatner's shoes as James T. Kirk is probably the most daunting task in cinema since George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery as James Bond. You would have to choices: try to emulate Shatner or try to make the role your own. Chris Pine chooses the make the role his own and accomplishes the impossible- he scores with it. You still get the smug, risk taking Kirk, but it's different and that difference does not affect the film. Zoe Saldana also reshapes the role of Uhura and succeeds almost more than Pine giving the character more depth than previous incarnations. The remainder of the cast basically mimic their original counterparts, though Quinto does tend to break away from Leonard Nimoy's original portrayal from time to time, a daunting task considering that Nimoy is also in the film. Also Karl Urban is an excellent Dr. McCoy.
J.J. Abrams breathes new life in this dead franchise by going back to basic and re-tooling the original product, fitting in the old school stuff while giving it the edge of the new millennium. The last few Star Trek films were stale incarnations that Abrams rises above and gives us a great space adventure that isn't hokey and delivers an entertaining two hours.
Now I'm not the worlds biggest Star Trek fan. I know most of the basic stuff from the films and am not too attached to the original material. Will there be cries of Trekkie childhoods ruined by this film? Probably, but you have to admit that this film is superior to the Star Trek films from the last fifteen years. Labeling this film as a "re-boot" isn't really fair to the film and what it's all about. This film is more like a bridge between the old series and the new (as much money as this is making there will be a sequel). Instead of starting over and pissing on the original institutions the writers took the liberty to not erase what happened in the first forty years of Trek lore, but still give a fresh spin on an American institution.
Star Trek was a pleasant surprise for me. I expected normal remake/re-boot schlock that fails at all levels except for screaming "LOOK! WE'RE A NEW FRANCHISE REBORN!". It was an entertaining film that had a 2 hour plus running time that didn't feel that long. I actually wished there had been some more to it. Of course, that's what sequels are for.
Based on the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is the account of the life of the title character played by Brad Pitt and centering around the city of New Orleans. He's abandoned on a door step and learns life from his surrogate parents while growing up and even finding his forever sweetheart Daisy (Kate Blanchett) when he's a youth. The curve ball in this film is that Benjamin has an odd way of growing up: he's born and old man and consistently gets younger as time passes.
There are three ways to look at Benjamin Button. The first is that it's the basically the story of Benjamin as he travels through life with this weird occurrence happening to him and how it affects the common scenarios associated with ones life. How does it look for an old man to be hiding under a table with a twelve year old girl in the middle of the night, even though they are both the same age. This reversal is a real struggle throughout the film in just about everything Benjamin does.
The second way to look at the film is that it's Daisy's story. The film is told from her deathbed in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and her life is interwoven with Benjamin's throughout the film, even when they're not together. Benjamin's "ailment" affects her life just as much as his, just in different ways. The main gist of looking at it this way is to decide whether love will conquer over his problem.
The final way to look at it is that it's the story of New Orleans from the end of World War I to the city's "death" after Hurricane Katrina (and if you ask New Orlean-philes they will tell you that the New Orleans they love is no more). Is it any coincidence that Hurricane Katrina has a huge role in the film? The film is bookended by the story of a backward running clock that symbolizes this era in New Orleans and even though director David Fincher doesn't throw New Orleans in your face the city is still a main character throughout the film.
Benjamin Button is a fine film with a fine cast that was shot beautifully. I think that's what stands out the most in this film is the cinematography of it. The film is a bit long and feels like it and some parts tend to be hokey, yet Brad Pitt gives a great performance as the backwards Mr. Button. Overall it's a very good film thats whole equals a lot more than its parts.
The Reader is about a young man in West Germany named Michael Berg (David Kross) who ends up in a sexual relationship with bus attendant Hanna (Kate Winslet). Michael is on his way to becoming a lawyer, but becomes enthralled with this older woman who loves for him to read to her. There paths cross again years down the road as an older Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) observes her war crimes trial. Apparently this cougar he was bathing with was a Nazi prison camp guard. He reconnects with her through his own kind of books on tape.
The Reader is a finely acted film with the standouts being David Kross, Ralph Fiennes, and Kate Winslet with Winslet winning an Oscar for this film. They're all great in this. The problem is that the film is dull as hell and very predictable. I went into this knowing nothing about it and guessed the two key plot points about the mysterious Hanna during the first thirty minutes. This film is your basic erotic, fascist after school special that really was about trying to get awards. A very dull film that bored be to tears. I just don't even want to think about this one anymore.
