JakeStevens

Under discussion:

Imaginary Heroes  (2004)

Apparently a film not made for everyone, I tend to like films like these suburban-dramedies (others like it are "Running With Scissors", "American Beauty", "Ordinary People"). Apart from the too-wrapped-up-for-my-tastes ending, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, also. The script, mostly berated by the majority of film critics, is dryly funny and starkly melencholy in turns. I agree that many of the crucial "twists" or "reveals" come a tad too late in the film (arguably the most crucial in the last two minutes!). The acting is top-notch all around, and the cast makes the occassionally melodramtic script (almost) work. Sigourney Weaver is the stand out here, and her turn as the smarting matriarch of the family ought to have been noticed by the AMPAS (especially considering 2004's nominees). The verdict: A decent effort by a first time director worth at least one watch.

Under discussion:

An American in Paris  (1951)

I've never really been one for musicals or extended dance sequences, and it seems this film is almost completely just about that, with some scant plot thrown in to connect all of the numbers together. I'd be hard pressed (more like tortured) to say this was deserving of its 1952 Best Picture Oscar, especially when you consider it was contending with "A Place In The Sun", "A Streetcar Named Desire" and the not-even-nominated-for-Best-Picture "The African Queen" (perhaps my favorite mentioned thus far). True, the cinematography is breath-taking, the obvious sets are lavish, and the song and dance sequences captivating...if you're into that sort of thing. As a whole, though, does that constitute it being the best picture of that year? I would say no. No way. I bought this because not only did it win Best Picture, it also found its way onto AFI's 100 Best Films of All Time list, and I would MOST DEFINITELY say that "Singin' In The Rain" is the superior picture, and much more deserving of its status. This is certainly a charming film, but so is "Rain", and charm a best picture does not make.

Under discussion:

Jacob's Ladder  (1990)

Since first seeing this film in 1990, at the urgent goading of one of my uncles, I have raved about this film and I attempt to watch it at least once a year. As such, it hasn't lost any of its impact with multiple viewings, rather, the subtlties of Adrian Lyne's direction and Tim Robbins deft portrayal of Jacob Singer keep elevating it higher and higher on my favorites list. Robbins is perfectly cast as a mad who is seemingly losing his mind while desperately attempting to figure out what is happening to him. Danny Aiello is simply angelic (pun fully intended) as his chiropractor, and Elizabeth Pena is effectively seductive and sexy as his post-failed-marriage concubine Jezebel. If you've never seen this film - PLEASE - watch it soon; I promise...you will not be disappointed. Even if you don't LOVE it, you'll at the very least appreciate it.

Under discussion:

Eastern Promises  (2007)

So I've been watching a lot of Cronenberg's earlier films, and although I enjoy them for what they are (semi-low budget horror/sci-fi films), his recent work is what most interests me. He has crafted here yet another multi-layered masterpiece about violence and codes of ethics with a cast that knows exactly how to handle said material. Someone below mentions the gore and violence, and I don't see how this film could be nearly as effective without it. Cronenberg is one of those directors (in the vein of Scorsese) whose sole purpose, it seems, is to evoke emotion via shock and unexpected surprise. I like it. And I think you will, too.

Under discussion:

Alien vs. Predator  (2004)

Cool concept - flawed execution. Sure, the thing is shot wonderfully, and the effects are top notch, so if that's what you're looking for, you'll be properly satisfied. The story, though, is deeply flawed in keeping with both the Alien and Predator story "facts". For instance, Alien blood is, by now, well known to be highly acidic, and this is shown when one of the Predators uses his wristblades to cut the Alien, and his wristblades melt. Not more than a few minutes later, the same Predator chops the head off of another Alien, and absolutely NOTHING happens to the blade, let alone the fact that not a DROP of acid comes out of the Alien. And that's just ONE example, and believe me, there are tons of inconsistancies in logic, story arc, and "lore" - too many to get into here and now. Sorry, fanboys...I think they could have done better. Fun, but not enough.

Under discussion:

The Devil and Daniel Johnston  (2006)

There's always, at the very least, a hint of naivete and childlike wonder hidden in the hearts and souls of your everyday artist, whether they be musicians, writers, painters, actors, filmmakers...what have you. Every so often, an artist comes along whose entire being is made up of this magical, and yet frustratingly volatile, pixie dust. That person is Daniel Johnston, and what a story he has to tell. Unbelievable things have happened to him in his lifetime, and he's still going strong, perhaps even more strongly than before thanks to the creation of this documentary. Johnston has overcome every roadblock imaginable, from not acutally being able to sing to not actually being able to play guitar, and yet his songs are accessible and catchy, if you can get past his voice that is, but for me personally, that's part of its rough-hewn charm. I was so impressed with this film that as soon as it ended, I started the movie again. I just could not believe the tale I was just told. I don't expect everyone to have the same reaction, but you should AT LEAST give this a watch to experience the life of one of underground pop's most underrated, tragic songwriters.

Under discussion:

Batman  (1989)

Let's look at the facts here: Tim Burton, fresh off the giddy originality of Beetlejuice, helms this big-budget version of Batman with his signature style fully intact. Danny Elfman, whose score for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure thrilled audiences with its fresh new sound and fit Burton's vision to a tee. Michael Keaton, also from Beetlejuice, was Burton's then "it" guy, and of course, you've got Jack Nicholson whose persona goes without saying. Just as much as people were anticipating The Dark Knight a few months ago, that was the fervor surrounding 1989's Batman - around the same time, the old 60's television series was airing on Nick At Nite, so everyone knew how campy Batman could be. Conversely, DC comics released Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns", Jim Starlin's "A Death In The Family", and most importantly to ME, Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke", and they took the series into new, darker territory. Then news came of the film version being dark and "serious", and people flipped. I've probably seen this film 50 times if not more, and it never gets old. Sure, you could argue that the Christopher Nolan Batman is more "realistic", and that Heath Ledger's Joker is more "villainous", but why go there? It's like comparing apples to oranges - there's no point. They're BOTH good and they BOTH come from visionary directors who slathered the films with their signature styles. Heck, for me personally, I might even like this one the best.

Under discussion:

Made for Each Other  (1939)

Found at my local Wal-Greens for a dollar, the version I purchased has three films on it: "Made For Each Other", "Pot O' Gold" and a cartoon. I found the film to be VERY uneven tone-wise, but the film was saved from sinking (and getting a lower rating) by two things: the cinematography. More specifically, shot composition. There are a select few very picturesque scenes in the film that make it quite interesting to watch. Jimmy Stewart. He's just too darned wholesome to completely dislike, even when his acting is wooden, which it is several times here, but he makes up for it in the later, more melodramatic scenes. Everyone else is hamming it up and sobbing, whereas he gets surprisingly angry. I don't think I've ever seen him in another role where he yells so realistically at another character. I would rate this film as "for Jimmy Stewart completists".

Under discussion:

Short Circuit  (1986)

A childhood favorite, it seems to have lost little of its appeal as it passes the 20 year anniversary. Sure it's silly, sure it's far-fetched, sure it stars Steve Guttenberg, but the characters are so off-the-wall and loveable that you'd be hard pressed to walk away from this film and NOT be at least entertained. Particularly affable is "Johnny" Number 5, the naive robot-****-humanoid at the center of the film. It's surprisingly easy to get lost in his world (Wall*E eat your heart out) AND it's fun for the whole family - and I mean everyone.

Under discussion:

Venus  (2006)

Peter O'Toole certainly gave Forest Whitaker a run for his money in 2006, as some might argue that Mr. O'Toole ought have won the Oscar for Best Actor. Me? I'm on the fence - I've seen both films and have decided that I'm glad I did not have to choose between the two, as both are brilliant performances. Acting aside, the whole of this film is wonderfully shot (the cinematography is top-notch, especially for a character-and-dialogue-driven film), expertely paced and raises some interesting questions about morals and ethics, not to mention there are some genuinely touching and funny moments. Actually, there are quite a lot of funny moments, and I found myself a tad surprised to be laughing as often as I did. It might be said that you would have to be "in the field" to appreciate some of the lighter moments, and that may be true; I wouldn't be the one to look to for this question, as I myself am an actor/musician and "in" on many of the jokes (I found "Waiting For Guffman" absolutely hilarious). All in all, I'd say that this film deserved all the praise it received, and perhaps more.

Under discussion:

Endangered Species  (2002)

I don't even know where to begin...well, I guess I'll start with the good. The scenes between the cops had some genuinely funny moments, almost like a low-budget Lethal Weapon. Both Eric Roberts and John Rhys-Davies attempt to get some laughs out of the script, and mostly succeed. And that's it - there's the only good thing about this film. Everything else SUCKS. The cinematography is horrendous, the supporting cast is an absolute joke, the plot line is terrible, the "special" effects could have been done by ME in about two hours (I'm not joking here, they're bad), there's a single scene with a foam rubber dinosaur (yes, a foam rubber dinosaur) that is COMPLETELY pointless...I could keep going on, but why waste anymore time on this stinker. Never, ever see this film.

Under discussion:

The Pope of Greenwich Village  (1984)

I've got to admit...Eric Roberts' performance in this film is so reminiscent of one of my uncles that I could not help but feel instantly endeared to him and filled with a certain pity for his hapless nature. There are definitely moments of suspense (the "elevator" scene and the last five minutes in particular), and other times, the movie tends to drag a little. I've never seen "Mean Streets" (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) but with the many comparisons this film draws to that one, I think it's time to finally break down and rent it. Especially if it's a better film than this one, which, in my opinion, is definitely worth a watch for all of the fantastic acting (allbeit a tad over the top, but not unbelievable) contained within. And I'm talking even the supporting cast (Burt Young, M. Emmet Walsh, Kenneth McMillan, and most of all, Geraldine Page's Oscar-nominated supporting turn) shine in this film. A confirmed cult classic of the 80's riffing in the style of the 70's, check this one out if you're into any of the actors/actresses involved.

Under discussion:

The Skin Game  (1931)

Hitch is still learning his craft here, and one would be hard pressed to be convinced he had a hand in this production were it not for the opening credits acknowledging his involvement. In his defense, "sound" was a new filmic "trick", and in several scenes the distance from the actors to the hidden microphone is quite noticable as their voices are echoey and distant, that is, until they move closer to the mic. The acting is a tad stagey, even for this era, but the story is fairly solid, even though a straight dramatic film is uncharacteristic of Hitchcock's style, which soon hereafter he would begin to hone. There are several moments of the Hitchcock we would all come to know and love, but for the most part, the camera work is staid and typical for this era. Regardless of all this, I enjoyed it more than I had anticipated, perhaps to its noteriety as one of Hitch's least-successful experiments, and I suppose I would spin this DVD on a rainy day at some point in the future.

Under discussion:

The Dead Zone  (1983)

I remember seeing this on television when I was a young, young child. It totally freaked me out. Now that I've grown and viewed this again with a newfound respect for both Christopher Walken AND David Cronenberg, it seems to be the film that gave both of them their start. And what a start it is. Cronenberg finally seems to move a way (a tad) from his low-budget horror roots to something with a bit more...heft - much like some of his recent work (A History Of Violence & Eastern Promises). Walken plays it straight here, unlike some of HIS recent work (Balls Of Fury *barf*). Rarely do King's novels translate well to the big screen, but this is one of the exceptions. Cronenberg has just the right mix of humanity and horror, so as to make an unbelievable horror story into a believable suspense thriller.

Under discussion:

Just Friends  (2005)

Ryan Reynolds. All I can say is: WTF? NOTHING about him is funny. He even manages to make Chris Klein seem funny, and if you know me, you know how much I loathe Chris Klein. Anna Faris and Ryan Reynolds seem to be "acting" the same - over the top, totally unbelievable, annoyingly grating personalities...and yet Anna Faris made me laugh several times. Ryan Reynolds: ZERO. Oops...I take that back. The end credits where he's mouthing the words to All-4-One's "I Swear" right into the camera made me chuckle. A little. Everyone else in this film has great comic timing (Julie Hagerty, Anna Faris (GREAT skewering of recent pop brats, BTW)...even *barf* Chris Klein). You know who doesn't have great comic timing? Take a wild f**king guess. He single-handedly ruined this film for me. He has no timing AT ALL. He's like a deaf drummer with Tourette's Syndrome. Thanks a lot, Ryan Reynolds. Listen, wherever you came from, Ryan Reynolds...go back there. Don't return. Casting agents: Please don't cast him anymore. Movie going public: Please don't encourage this misguided behavior. He is not an actor. He is not a comedian. Go away, Ryan Reynolds.

Under discussion:

Network  (1976)

It's scary to realize that this film was made 32 years ago, and the topics so perfectly satirized in the script are still relevant today. It's genius lies in the script: Paddy Chayefsky had a finger on the pulse of the people then, and apparently, today. Even the title is darkly humorous: Network. How bland can you get? I realized I was watching one of the best films I'd ever see by the time I got to Ned Beatty's monologue - what a showstopper! If you have a strong dislike for today's television programming (as I do), you absolutely have to do yourself a favor and watch this movie - you'll be laughing, you'll be thinking about it long after it is done, and you might even get mad as hell.

Under discussion:

Troy  (2004)

As stated, the one reason I kept watching this film was the fantastically choreographed, filmed and edited fight scenes - the sword clashes resonate with you long after the victor has triumphed. Other than that, I can't say much else for this film. Orlando Bloom is laughable as Paris, the Prince of Troy and Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Brendan Gleeson and Brian Cox (all superb actors in their own right) manage to barely hold their own with the stilted dialogue they had to work with. My interest waned between the fight scenes, and there were just enough of them for me to last through the end credits. I do, however, feel the casting of Diane Kruger (Helen, Queen of Sparta) was just, as she is beautiful enough to be a catalyst for the epic war that takes place, but perhaps, and maybe I'm being a bit too harsh here, her acting chops weren't up to par with such a cast of heavy hitters? A noble attempt at bringing the Legend of Troy to the big screen...but I think it could have been done better (minus the fight scenes, of course).

Under discussion:

The Ugly American  (1963)

While Marlon Brando pulls in a finely restrained performance, as does Eiji Okada, this movie is bogged down with didactic dialogue and somewhat stilted direction. I'd rate this for Brando completists only.