Friday, February 27, 2009

The Honeymooners (2005)


- 2 Eberts

I had heard this was one of Roger's worst reviews. He had given it 3 stars. The IMDB rating on this was 2.5 (out of 10). It was a remake of one of my favorite TV shows of all time. I knew I wasn't going to like it. I felt I had to watch it if I was going to include it in Roger's worst ratings. I wasn't looking forward to it but someone had to do it. I was wrong. I actually ended up thinking it was pretty decent.
It had a certain sweetness to it that the original TV show had. The actors didn't try to imitate Ralph and Norton, but they did try to stay true to the characters. Alice and Ralph fight all the time but you know they still love one another. It ended up being a pretty good homage to the original.
I thought Cedric the Entertainer was good and I really liked John Leguizamo. I can't really recommend this because there are so many movies out there that are better, but this really was much better than I thought it was going to be.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Cop and a Half (1993)


- 1/2 Ebert

I had heard that this was one of Roger's worst ratings so I decided I had to see for myself. I was not disappointed. It was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
Burt Reynolds won a well deserved Razzie for Worst Actor and the young star was nominated for Worst New Star. It also ended Henry Winkler's career as a movie director.
This might be an OK movie for a five year old, but it is rated PG. I really don't think there is any audience at all for this movie.
Roger gave it 3 stars but I am only giving it a half. You can watch Roger and Gene's original review Here. The clips shown are the best scenes from the movie. I'm not kidding - it is that bad.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Appaloosa


- 3 Eberts

This movie could have been called A History of Violence, part 2. It reunites Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen in this Western written and directed by Harris. It has similarities with the aforementioned movie in that there is a streak of violence that lurks beneath the surface of the main character in the movie. In History of Violence that violence was lurking beneath Viggio's character, here it is beneath Ed Harris'. We see hints of that streak in the barroom scene where Virgil beats a man because he is angry about something else.
The movie reminds me in some ways of My Darling Clementine and High Noon. The town people invite the lawmen for hire in, and then wonder if the cure is worse than the illness. The villain, played by Jeremy Irons, is driven out but then of course, must return for the final showdown.
Ultimately, the movie, which is beautiful to look at, will fall short for some because it is more truthful than the two classic Westerns referred to above. In Appaloosa, the villain is killed, but for reasons that are less than noble. Everett kills him to give his friend, Virgil a better chance at happiness in the town with his flawed woman. The killing, which was done for pragmatic reasons, was probably more truthful than the idealistic reasons portrayed in most classic Westerns.
Revisionist Westerns with its flawed characters are probably more honest than the classics, but they are probably also less fun. Movies that have a hero wearing a white hat somehow makes you feel good about yourself, particularly in times when things aren't going so well.
I like Westerns and I think this was an interesting movie. Roger gave it 3 stars and so will I. The more I think about this movie the more I like it.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Changeling


- 3 1/2 Eberts

I thought Changeling was an excellent period piece set in the late 1920's. Even though the story is really depressing, Christine Collins' positive attitude lifted the tone of the movie. Angelina Jolie, playing Christine, was great and deserved to be nominated for an Oscar.
One of the best things in the movie were the expose on police corruption, that pre-dated the fictional world of LA Confidential by about twenty five years. There was also an interesting look at the abuse that took place in asylums.
The pace at times a little slow, and the movie was long but the plot, based on a true story, was fascinating.
Not a happy story or an exciting thriller, Changeling will appeal to people who like period pieces or true crime stories.
Roger gave it 3 1/2 stars and I will too because it was so well made.

Remembering Gene


Roger writes a wonderful Journal Entry about his partner,
Gene Siskel, who died February 20, 1999.

Read it here

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Racism in the Wind

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...


The title card which scrolls down the screen at the beginning of Gone with the Wind foreshadows what the movie in going to present : a genteel, civilized world that was disrupted by the meddling Yankees. The Southern aristocracy is portrayed as kind and benevolent overseers of simple minded slaves. The audience in 1939 America is supposed to come away with the impression that the blacks were better off as slaves than they would be free. In the introduction to his book "The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film", Bruce Chadwick asserts that in order for the country to heal and reunify in the wake of this tragic war, "the Civil War's political and cultural history almost had to be rewritten so that the Southerners would never again be seen as harsh slaveowners or as the people who started and lost the war". It seems that the only way reunification of North and South could succeed was "for the war to be seen in the rearview mirror of history as a war not started by anyone, a conflict that had no winners or losers just a tragic war in which men on both sides fought gallantly".
I must admit that when I was younger I bought into the romantic view of Tara. The cinematography and music helped transport me to a very different, almost magical world that existed long ago.
It has been pointed out that for its day, Gone with the Wind is a fairly balanced portrayal of the Old South. All references to the Klu Klux Klan and language offensive to the black community were removed from the script. There are very few scenes in which the slaves are abused. There is one in which Scarlett slaps Prissy because she is incompetent, but in general the slaves are portrayed as being fairly happy with their lot. Slave children are seen ringing the bell and fanning the napping ladies. Slaves are seen bringing in the livestock and lumber and plowing the fields. A scene in the fields, where the slaves are plowing, shows that slaves controlling their own working conditions.
"Quittin Time""Who says its quitin time?""I says its quitin time.""I'se the foreman. I'se the one says its quitin time at Tara. Quitin Time. Quitin Time."
Later on, in the streets of burning Atlanta, Miss Scarlett meets up with Tara's foreman, Big Sam, and some other slaves from Tara. Big Sam makes in perfectly clear that he is happy to be a slave and that he supports the Southern cause.
"And he (Scarlett's father) had a fit when they took all us field hands to dig a ditch for the white soldiers to hide in. But your Ma says the Confederacy needs us, so we goin' to dig for the South.""Goodbye Miss Scarlett. Don't worry. We stop them Yankees." I know that there is historical data showing that there were slaves and free blacks who voluntarily worked for and fought for the South. However, I think the movie tries to portray this as the rule, instead of as an exception to the rule. The portrayals of Mammy, Big Sam, Prissy and the other slaves were paternalistic and demeaning.
I love the panoramic scenes, colors and music in Gone with the Wind as it presents a romanticized version of the Old South. What I don't love is what I know to be behind the pictures. The knights and ladies were able to drink mint juleps and take naps in the afternoon because they were living off the forced labor of the captured slave population. James McPherson, prominent American historian writing in The New Republic, suggests if the images of the movie "Glory can replace that of moonlight and magnolias in Gone With the Wind as America's cinematic version of the Civil War, it will be a great gain for truth".
The more I think about Gone with the Wind, the more I think it's like the play, Springtime for Hitler, within the movie The Producers. It was a horrible idea to write a play glorifying the Nazi culture. How much better is it to present this "pretty world (where) Gallantry took its last bow"? It has been suggested that the myth that was created to help reunify the country, "of no winners or losers in the Civil War might have paved the way to Jim Crow laws and partially explain why it took until 1954 nearly 90 years after the end of the Civil War for the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, and nearly 100 years for the historic civil rights acts of 1964." If this theory is true than the movie Gone with the Wind may actually have helped in keeping blacks from becoming fully enfranchised in America. The fictional world of Tara was a "pretty world" until you looked under the surface.

Yesterday I wrote to Roger's Journal :
I was really pleased to see a TCM promo for "Gone with the Wind" where they played a segment with Charles S. Dutton, Richard Wesley and Donald Bogle. Mr. Dutton said that "whenever a black person says my favorite movie is Gone with the Wind, they need to sit down and talk to somebody and have their head examined." Mr. Bogle points out we are not being given correct definitions for these characters. Richard Wesley said that he remembered as a child cringing every time it came on TV.Is this really the kind of movie you would like to pollute your otherwise flawless Great Movies Series with? We have to stop sending wrong messages to our youth. This movie was nothing but an apology for the inhuman Southern Plantation system. It was also a message to Northerners in 1939 America that blacks in the South were happy with the way things were. What could have been further from the truth? It's time to start telling the truth about this movie and place it in the category of well made propaganda movies with other similiar films such as "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will". TCM has stepped up and helped educate their audience. You need to step up also Roger.
One clip of the interview can be seen
Here

Roger, as in the past, did not respond to this post about GWTW.
___________________________________
Chadwick, Bruce. The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.
McPherson, James M. "The Glory' story: the 54th Massachusetts and Civil War." The New Republic. Jan. 8, 1990 Vol. 202: 22-27. 3.
Russell, Brian. http://www.helium.com/tm/104438, Considering the 1989 film Glory: Or, How A Previously Untold Story Helps Expose an Epic Myth.

Monday, February 16, 2009

The Reader Revisited


Today Jewish Scholars slammed The Reader as Holocaust revisionism. Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said, " Essentially, it takes a woman who serves in, is responsible for, is complicit in, you pick the words, in the death of 300 Jews and her big secret shame is that she's illiterate."
In my post on February 8th I said, "It was definitely worth seeing because Kate Winslet was tremendous but I just didn't get the story. Hanna is a monster. I never felt any sympathy for her. She had no trouble admitting she sent children who had read to her to their death or that she had kept a door locked as people burned to death but she couldn't admit that she was illiterate! "
I gave it 2 stars and Roger gave it 3 1/2.
____________________________________________
When I wrote to Roger's Journal echoing the above information and asking if he understood our concerns, Roger wrote back,
"Ebert: Yes, certainly. But I persist in thinking that the movie is about the boy and the pitiful man he became, and about the problems some members of postwar generations have in speaking out."

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Lakeview Terrace


- 2 1/2 Eberts

I got this movie at the library and had just finished watching it and thought it was pretty good. Then I went to read Roger's review and was shocked to see that he gave it 4 stars. It was a pretty decent thriller but not much more than that.
It was evident pretty early that Abel was disturbed. I knew that he was going to continue on this path until the movie ended, probably with him dead.
The whole racial thing was was kind of gimmicky to me. Chris and Lisa should have put a for sale sign on their lawn that first week because they lived next store to a nut. The only reason they didn't was because the movie needed them there.
The way I judge a four star movie is when I see one, I know I would like to watch it again right away. I also know that I am going to be watching that movie many more times (hopefully) during my life. I've seen Lakeview Terrace once, and that was probably enough.
Sometimes I think Roger must use a dart board to come up with his ratings.

Gran Torino


- 3 1/2 Eberts

I liked Gran Torino, I liked it a lot. It didn't have a tremendous story but it did have a tremendous Clint Eastwood. Like Roger I give it 3 1/2 stars. In many ways in reminded me of John Wayne's last movie, The Shootist. In The Shootist the John Booker character represented all the of the characters that John Wayne had played through the years and this is how he wanted his character to go out.
What made Gran Torino so powerful to me is we had Clint Eastwood making a statement about a rather troubled personal life. In 2008 he said :

"I'm a much better father now than when I was younger because then I was working all around the world and I was desperate to find the brass ring, so I worked constantly. Now my daughter takes precedence over everything and, even though I've done a lot of work in the past year, I haven't ignored her or have not been involved in her school activities. I go to all the softball games and look ridiculous out there because almost everybody's got a much younger father than me. But it's fun. I think you appreciate everything a lot more when you get to my age. I never started out thinking I would have a big family but now it's very important to me and family relationships take precedence over work".

In Gran Torino Walt becomes a much better father figure than he was a father. The bitter, racist bigot learns that it is never too late to change.
Clint was on the screen for 95% of the movie and has created another iconic character. Clint has also added another impressive movie to his impressive resume of movies as director/actor. Has he entered the realm of being the best ever to do both together?

Junior (1994)


- 1 1/2 Eberts

I had included Junior in my list of Roger's Worst Ratings, so I figured I had better watch it again. Junior started out much better than I remembered. There was very good chemistry between Arnold and Danny DeVito. But like all one note movies it really dragged as it when on. Not unwatchable as I originally described it but definitely not worth seeing (so little time, so many good movies).
Roger, who gave this movie 3 1/2 stars, ended his review with : "Note: In an unexpected way, Junior is a good family movie, for parents and adolescents to see together, and then to discuss in terms of male and female roles and responsibilities." Men having babies may have been a funny topic in 1994 but in 2008 it became a headline. Kids are confused enough. Children should avoid this one too.
Pass on this one (So little time, so many good movies).

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Not a Miracle

- 2 Eberts

Miracle at St. Anna was a really disappointing movie. The story seemed to go off in twenty different directions. There were good Germans, Italians and Americans and bad Germans, Italians and Americans. There was a statue head (why?), a ghost, dancing and a massacre. What all this had to do with the 92nd 'Buffalo' Infantry Division I don't know. It certainly was no where in the league of Glory, which it aspired to be.
In fact a case could be made that Spike's direction of this movie was a disservice to the brave men who served in that division. This is certainly ironic in that it was Spike who said that Malcolm X needed to be directed by a black person when Norman Jewison had been slated to direct it. After it was made I agreed with Spike and Malcolm X became one of my favorite movies. But what happened to that director? Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X are two of the all time greats. But he hasn't made anything in that league in over fifteen years. Has he lost his passion, his desire? Maybe.
Roger didn't like this movie either. He said,"Spike Lee's "Miracle at St. Anna" contains scenes of brilliance, interrupted by scenes that meander. There is too much, too many characters, too many subplots. But there is so much here that is powerful that it should be seen no matter its imperfections. There are scenes that could have been lost to more decisive editing, but I found after a few days that my mind did the editing for me, and I was left with lasting impressions." Translation : if he cut out a lot of the stuff that he left in it could have been much better.
He finishes his review with, "The scenes I object to are not evidence of any special perception I have. They're the kind of scenes many studio chiefs from the dawn of film might have singled out, in the interest of making the film shorter and faster. But they're important to Lee, who must have defended them. And it's important to me that he did. When you see one of his films, you're seeing one of his films. And "Miracle at St. Anna" contains richness, anger, history, sentiment, fantasy, reality, violence and life. Maybe too much. Better than too little." Translation : I admire that fact that Spike left in many scenes that everyone was telling him were no good, because it shows he has integrity, even though everyone else was right.
There is no way Roger gives this movie 3 stars if it didn't have Spike Lee's name under the title. I know that Roger, like me, is praying for the old Spike Lee to show up again.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

W.


- 2 1/2 Eberts

I was really looking forward to this movie but I was disappointed. It seemed like W. would be a fascinating life to look at but I wasn't happy with Oliver Stone's interpretation. I don't know if there was anything in the movie that wasn't true - it was the tone I didn't like. He would show W. doing something and then this goofy music would start and W. would do something stupid. I don't think the movie knew whether it was a biography, a drama and a comedy. The mixture of comedy and drama that worked so well in In Bruges didn't work here for me.
Roger found the movie fascinating and gave it 4 stars. He said "Unlike Stone's JFK and Nixon, this film contains no revisionist history." (Roger, it's a little early to be revisionist about a history that hasn't even been written yet).
I thought that it tried to be too much and ended up being just a shadow of what it could have been.

Monday, February 9, 2009

In Bruges


- 3 1/2 Eberts

In Bruges is a different kind of movie. At IMDB, under Genre, it lists Comedy, Crime, Thriller and Drama for it. It is certainly each of those. The first time I saw it I didn't know what to make of it. I enjoyed it. It was never dull. It had great writing and some great lines. But it was equally funny, sad and dramatic. The second time I saw it I watched it as more of a black comedy but the tragedy still came through. It is an excellent movie. Roger gave it 4 stars and I am looking forward to seeing it again.

Beyond Bad


- 1 1/2 Eberts

I thought I would have to watch Max Max Beyond the Thunderdome (1985) since Roger gave it 4 stars and I remembered it as being so mediocre. So I sat through it again. It didn't get any better.
I've been wrong before so I decided to check online. I found the Top 100 Science Fiction Movies by the Online Film Critics Society. It had Mad Max at 71, but no sign of Thunderdome. I went to IMDB and it got a 5.8 rating, not too good.
I did think Tina Turner, the Thunderdome and the Master-Blaster looked good but the story was poor and the dialogue was horrible.
Roger's quote : "The fight between Mad Max and Master-Blaster is one of the great creative action scenes in the movies. " is one I'll bet he wishes he could take back. It was probably just a typo. He probably meant to say : "The fight between Mad Max and Master-Blaster is one of the action scenes in the movie. "

Roger Picks the Oscars

Best Picture : Slumdog Millionaire
Best Actor : Sean Penn
Best Actress : Kate Winslet
Best Supporting Actor : Heath Ledger
Best Supporting Actress : Viola Davis
Best Director : Danny Boyle
Best Original Screenplay : Milk
Best Documentary : Man on a Wire
Best Animated Film : WALL-E

I like all of Roger's picks but I would go with Mickey Rourke for Best Actor and Penelope Cruz for Best Supporting Actress.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The Reader


- 2 Eberts

Roger really liked this movie, giving it 3 1/2 stars but I can't recommend it. It was definitely worth seeing because Kate Winslet was tremendous but I just didn't get the story. Hanna is a monster. I never felt any sympathy for her. She had no trouble admitting she sent children who had read to her to their death or that she had kept a door locked as people burned to death but she couldn't admit that she was illiterate! She was a monster and Michael was a dope because he couldn't get over her. She molested him, ruined his life and he still feels that need to try to comfort her in her later years. It's hard to like a movie when you can't identify or sympathize with the two main characters.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

HellBoy II


- 3 Eberts

I thought Hellboy II : The Golden Army was very good. The plot, which was pretty similiar to Mummies 3, was only OK but the dialogue and the characters were excellent. No one creates creatures like del Toro and the special effects were great. Roger liked it too, giving it 3 1/2 stars. It's not very often that I like movie endings that lead in to another sequel, but this one I enjoyed.