Movie Reviews and Rankings
Dog Town and Z-Boys, 6/10, 23rd best of 2001 164th in the 2000's, 525th all time
I've been enjoying a high number of documentaries lately, and this one certainly has plenty to enjoy. It's shot beutifully, flows very nicely, and at least for me the subject mater was pretty interesting. I think this movie might have been ranked more highly had I not already seen Lords of Dogtown, which tells pretty much the same story in a non-documentary foremat. I enjoyed Lords of Dogtown quite a bit more purely based on the fact that its just more fun to watch. If documentaries are your thing I'd say go with this, otherwise just stick with Lords of Dogtown. Unless your a big skating fan, or like me you've got time on your hands, than you might as well watch them both.
The Notebook, 5/10, 59th best of 2004, 258th in the 2000s, 783rd all time
This movie started at a clear disadvantage because it is in the "chick flick" genre of which I am not a massivly big fan. It was further hurt by the fact that I was forced into watching it by my girlfirend, and at that I was forced to watch it late at night when I wanted to go to bed. Also, she fell asleep 10 minutes in to the movie, but I already felt I had to watch the entire thing. That being said, the movie was not entirely unpleasant. I can't really pick out anything that I loved about the movie (although I did feel James Garner gave a very good preformance), I didn't necisarily find anything wrong with the movie either. It's relatively bland, predictable, unoffensive, and vaugly pleasant. In my mind this movie isn't good or bad, its just sort of there.
Magnolia, 7/10, 26th best of 1999, 127th in the 1990s, 364th all time
The primary obstacle for this movie to overcome was the fact that it was over three hours long. That's a very long time to spend watching a movie, especially one with no explosions (I'm kidding {sor of}). But anyway the movie is actually very good. Great characters played by great actors. Interesting interweving stories.
(I'm going to talk about something that might not make sense if you've never seen the movie, but won't really give anything important away, read if you care to)
Form what I read a lot of people hated the bit with the frogs, but I really liked it. The plot of the movie, and especially the movies music, really created the feeling that it was building towards something big for about an hour and a half leading up to the frog scene. And you feel like there has to be all these seperate climaxes where one thing happens to this person, and something else happens to another person, and all these seperate amazing climaxes that some how bring everything together. But that didn't have to happen because of the frogs. These people were connected by the fact that they were all in these intense situations that were strangely and seemingly always positively by the fact that it somehow started raining frogs. Maybe I'm off the mark but I took it to mean that God had somehow found a way to help all these struggeling people with one seemingly random and bizzare act.
Thus, this is one of those movies that is left in a precarious position. I thought there was a ton of great stuff here and I liked it a lot. But for a good chunk of the movie I was pretty bored and kind of wanted it to be over. Thus it ends up with a seven.
The sad thing is, there was so much going on that I kind of want to see it again, but don't really want to sit through it again. Really quite the sticky wicket.
Short Time, 5/10, 23rd best movie of 1990, 332nd of the 1990s, 842nd all time
I had actually really wanted to see this movie for a long time. I had seen a preview for it when I watched some movie in high school and thought it was a good idea for a movie. I was actually going to order it on netflix but nobody ever bothered to put it on DVD. But while I was looking for something to watch at Shannon's the other day I saw it was on show time. It's about a Cop who finds out he has a terminal desiease. He is uneffected now, but will be dead in 3 months. He can collect insurance in the amount of 250,000 dollars for his family, but the thing is, he has to die on the job. Thus he starts taking rediculous chances on the job, but keeps accidently succeding, and getting all these commendations for bravery when all he wants to do is get killed. Now I thought this sounded like a very funny idea for a movie. And while I still feel the premise was very good, the movie isn't really done very well. There is one rediculously funny 10 minute car chase scene which I feel shows exactly how good this movie could have been, and single-handedly bumped this movie up from a low four to a low five. But other than that I think this movie is mostly a lot of lost potential.
Upcoming reviews/rankings:
Capote, 2005
Capturing the Friedmans, 2003
Carnival of Souls, 1962
The Hills Have Eyes, 2006
I've been enjoying a high number of documentaries lately, and this one certainly has plenty to enjoy. It's shot beutifully, flows very nicely, and at least for me the subject mater was pretty interesting. I think this movie might have been ranked more highly had I not already seen Lords of Dogtown, which tells pretty much the same story in a non-documentary foremat. I enjoyed Lords of Dogtown quite a bit more purely based on the fact that its just more fun to watch. If documentaries are your thing I'd say go with this, otherwise just stick with Lords of Dogtown. Unless your a big skating fan, or like me you've got time on your hands, than you might as well watch them both.
The Notebook, 5/10, 59th best of 2004, 258th in the 2000s, 783rd all time
This movie started at a clear disadvantage because it is in the "chick flick" genre of which I am not a massivly big fan. It was further hurt by the fact that I was forced into watching it by my girlfirend, and at that I was forced to watch it late at night when I wanted to go to bed. Also, she fell asleep 10 minutes in to the movie, but I already felt I had to watch the entire thing. That being said, the movie was not entirely unpleasant. I can't really pick out anything that I loved about the movie (although I did feel James Garner gave a very good preformance), I didn't necisarily find anything wrong with the movie either. It's relatively bland, predictable, unoffensive, and vaugly pleasant. In my mind this movie isn't good or bad, its just sort of there.
Magnolia, 7/10, 26th best of 1999, 127th in the 1990s, 364th all time
The primary obstacle for this movie to overcome was the fact that it was over three hours long. That's a very long time to spend watching a movie, especially one with no explosions (I'm kidding {sor of}). But anyway the movie is actually very good. Great characters played by great actors. Interesting interweving stories.
(I'm going to talk about something that might not make sense if you've never seen the movie, but won't really give anything important away, read if you care to)
Form what I read a lot of people hated the bit with the frogs, but I really liked it. The plot of the movie, and especially the movies music, really created the feeling that it was building towards something big for about an hour and a half leading up to the frog scene. And you feel like there has to be all these seperate climaxes where one thing happens to this person, and something else happens to another person, and all these seperate amazing climaxes that some how bring everything together. But that didn't have to happen because of the frogs. These people were connected by the fact that they were all in these intense situations that were strangely and seemingly always positively by the fact that it somehow started raining frogs. Maybe I'm off the mark but I took it to mean that God had somehow found a way to help all these struggeling people with one seemingly random and bizzare act.
Thus, this is one of those movies that is left in a precarious position. I thought there was a ton of great stuff here and I liked it a lot. But for a good chunk of the movie I was pretty bored and kind of wanted it to be over. Thus it ends up with a seven.
The sad thing is, there was so much going on that I kind of want to see it again, but don't really want to sit through it again. Really quite the sticky wicket.
Short Time, 5/10, 23rd best movie of 1990, 332nd of the 1990s, 842nd all time
I had actually really wanted to see this movie for a long time. I had seen a preview for it when I watched some movie in high school and thought it was a good idea for a movie. I was actually going to order it on netflix but nobody ever bothered to put it on DVD. But while I was looking for something to watch at Shannon's the other day I saw it was on show time. It's about a Cop who finds out he has a terminal desiease. He is uneffected now, but will be dead in 3 months. He can collect insurance in the amount of 250,000 dollars for his family, but the thing is, he has to die on the job. Thus he starts taking rediculous chances on the job, but keeps accidently succeding, and getting all these commendations for bravery when all he wants to do is get killed. Now I thought this sounded like a very funny idea for a movie. And while I still feel the premise was very good, the movie isn't really done very well. There is one rediculously funny 10 minute car chase scene which I feel shows exactly how good this movie could have been, and single-handedly bumped this movie up from a low four to a low five. But other than that I think this movie is mostly a lot of lost potential.
Upcoming reviews/rankings:
Capote, 2005
Capturing the Friedmans, 2003
Carnival of Souls, 1962
The Hills Have Eyes, 2006
posted by Blake Stockdale at 3:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home