MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91 > Replies
ebertfan91's Replies
One reason why My Blue Heaven hasn’t remained plugged into the collective cultural memory bank is, although it’s not a complete failure, it also doesn’t do anything especially well. As a satire of suburban banality, it’s lukewarm and not especially incisive. As a buddy film, it lacks backbone. As a romance (between Moranis and Joan Cusack), it lacks chemistry. And as a fish-out-of-water comedy, it feels lazy and overfamiliar. No one involved in the film needs to be embarrassed for participating but neither is this something they’ll bring up in a career retrospective.
OP's head would explode if he found out about ParaNorman.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0u0F_Y2EU[/url]
You know, Stephen King wrote an entire novel about people like you.
[quote]In recent years, The Up Series has experienced criticism in some circles because of its lack of diversity – of the original fourteen participants, only one was a man of color and only four were women. The other nine where white men. When one considers the era in which the series started, however, there was nothing untoward about this kind of a gender/racial mix and subsequent changes obviously couldn’t be made. Apted’s focus from the beginning was on class differences and, to that extent, the participants represent a reasonable cross-section of Britain’s social structure. (Both the U.K. and the U.S. attempted new versions of Seven Up to explore more diverse interview bases. Apted was involved with the U.S. production, which started in 1991 and made it to Age 21 before ending. The U.K. edition started in 2000 and has had follow-ups in 2007 and 2014. It remains to be seen whether there will be a fourth installment next year. Apted has no involvement in this.)
63 Up doesn’t add much that’s concrete to the existing mix. There are two exceptions: Lynn’s death and a revelation that Nick is terminally ill with cancer (and, in all likelihood, would no longer be alive if there is a 70 Up). For the other ten participants, this represents an incremental opportunity to see what their lives are like seven years beyond 56 Up. In the overall fabric of The Up Series, however, this is as important a chapter as any of the others, extending the social and anthropological aspects of what has become an important study. Watching 63 Up as a stand-alone endeavor may not seem remarkable. In fact, it may even be a little boring. But watching it as part of the larger picture imbues it with immediacy and power. It provokes self-reflection in a way that few other movies can. It is destined to be remembered long after those who have made it and appeared in it are no longer around.[/quote]
[quote]Even considering how the advances of technology give the filmmakers complete control over the use of animals, making a movie about an anthropomorphized dog who doesn’t talk is a tall order. Even though it seems an unlikely candidate for the big screen, London’s book has been adapted a number of times – first as a silent film in 1923, then in 1935 with Clark Gable and 1972 with Charlton Heston, and most recently in 1997 with Rutger Hauer. None of these films were entirely successful (the 1997 one is the best of the talkies) and Sanders’ new interpretation enters the roster as another swing-and-a-miss. It’s not an awful project – Ford and the cinematography are highlights but when a viewer is spending too much time meditating about the remarkable technology that has brought Buck to life, something is amiss. A stronger focus on story and tone and less reliance on the marvels of CGI might have made this latest version of The Call of the Wild a more fruitful experience.[/quote]
[quote]Perhaps this is what we have come to for movies like this. Birds of Prey needs to be experienced in the biggest theater with the most impressive sound system available. The sensory assault provided in those surroundings will amplify the film’s strengths and neuter its weaknesses. Spectacle movies rely on the dominance of the technical aspects and the awe created by top-notch sound design to pin the viewer to his/her seat for the duration. The John Wick-style fights (choreographed in part by John Wick director Chad Stahleski, who was brought in to consult), Michael Bay-friendly pyrotechnics, and fiery, colorful palette of Harley Quinn and her sidekicks are tailor made for theatrical viewing; this movie will fall apart in even a moderately sophisticated home setting. Birds of Prey is a glorious, hyperkinetic mess and, although it never quite takes flight, it at least holds the attention.[/quote]
[quote]If one was to look at director Barry Levinson’s filmography, one might assume that Rain Man was his career high-point. After all, he won his only Best Director Oscar for it. Reflected through the prism of decades, it’s one of his lesser films – certainly trailing the likes of The Natural, Avalon, Good Morning, Vietnam, Wag the Dog, and And Justice for All (which he co-wrote but didn’t direct).
It’s easy to assail Rain Man as one of the least-deserving recipients of the Best Picture Oscar for the simple reason that it is one of the least-deserving recipients of the Best Picture Oscar, rounding out a decade that was replete with such examples (others include Ordinary People, Out of Africa, and Terms of Endearment). The film’s greatest asset – that it warmed the hearts of those watching as two brothers overcame barriers to form a deep bond – seems false and saccharine in the way it is approached. The only aspect of the relationship that survives is the chemistry between Hoffman and Cruise. That continues to shine even though most of the rest of Rain Man has dried up.[/quote]
[quote]Although the concept of converting a popular board game into a workable motion picture narrative died a quick death as a result of the filmmakers’ inability to make it work for Clue, the movie opened the door to the potential of cross-media enterprises – movies with toy or video game linkages and, a little farther down the road, films with amusement park tie-ins. Although Clue was a failure from an entertainment perspective, it was an important way-post in the evolution of films as merchandising arms. In this instance, however, it became clear that people would rather play the game than watch someone else’s vision of it unfold on screen.[/quote]
[quote]I don’t think anyone expects Bad Boys for Life to scale the same box office heights as Bad Boys II but the lower production costs will allow a smaller gross to result in profitability (and the greenlighting of Bad Boys 4). There’s nothing here to justify the film’s existence or reward the looooooong wait of those fans who have been expecting this movie for more than a decade. It’s more of the same: Violence-saturated eye candy used to buff Smith’s ego and inflate his bank account. It serves its purpose: an attempt to re-start a dormant franchise to give Sony another bankable series. The reek of desperation is so strong that it permeates every frame and would be hard to miss by even the most distracted of viewers.[/quote]
Try watching The Farewell.
*mic drop*
Cool it on the R-word, buddy.
#1 best movie of the year.
[url]www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]Made by a movie-lover for movie-lovers. And even those who don’t qualify may still enjoy the hell out of it. This is Tarantino’s least bloody effort to-date and, although it’s not his best work, it’s the most complete film the year had to offer. Tarantino is among a select group of filmmakers (alongside Scorsese, Nolan, and perhaps a few others) whose every release is awaited with some degree of anticipation because they make movies instead of pop cultural addenda.[/quote]
#2 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]This is perhaps the first time I find myself arguing that a movie is better when viewed at home than in a theater. Length has a great deal to do with that – Scorsese’s vast canvas sprawls out over nearly 3 ½ hours, which is arguably too long to sit in a theater (without an intermission!). At home, however, the film can be parsed to suit personal preference, allowing for breaks to refresh and reload…if The Irishman’s relentless momentum allows the viewer to pull away. The director’s most ambitious work in years and as worthy of Oscar consideration as anything he has previously crafted.[/quote]
#3 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]War films are difficult sells because even when they offer inspiration, there’s often something pyrrhic about the experience. By keeping 1917’s scope small and focusing on two characters and a single mission, director Sam Mendes is able to target the viewer’s attention and hone the narrative. The “single take” approach is no mere gimmick – it’s integral to the film’s momentum and perspective. One of those movies whose impact is greatly increased by being seen on the big screen, which is not necessarily true of every release. Take, for example…[/quote]
#4 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]Although it may be difficult to “like” this film in a conventional sense, it offers a powerful and unforgettable experience that few will find easy to shake. The darkest movie of 2019? Perhaps. The most controversial? Maybe. But this atypical anti-hero character study shows that Hollywood has only begun to explore the less conventional fringes of the comic book arena. Phoenix’s performance asks the question of whether two actors can win Oscars for playing the same role.[/quote]
#5 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]Dramatic films, even those with a strongly comedic flavor, have fallen so far out of favor (no strong international sales potential) that when one like this comes along, it demands to be noticed. With the semi-autobiographical The Farewell, Lulu Wang has crafted something that is both appealing and emotionally resonant in the ways it addresses cultural differences related to life, death, and community. A career-defining performance by Awkwafina is the cherry on the top.[/quote]
#6 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]With every passing day, the Oscar love for this offbeat and compelling South Korean import increases. And why not? Parasite is a wholly original, engrossing movie that crosses genres more frequently than a flock of chickens crosses the road. It defies expectations and delights in doing so. [/quote]
#7 on his best movie of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]Rian Johnson has rebounded from his Star Wars tangent to craft one of the year’s best all-around opportunities for pure entertainment. I might have considered it a comedy if it wasn’t such a good whodunnit? Johnson's affection for Agatha Christie's playground is evident in the way he structures the story, resulting in one of the best original motion picture murder mysteries in recent years.[/quote]
#8 on his best movies of the year.
[url]http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts/reelthought_1577637046[/url]
[quote]Adam Sandler’s coming-out party as a serious actor, Uncut Gems is a seething thriller that delights in keeping viewers in a state of discomfort. Sandler is better than he has ever been in a role unlike anything he has previously attempted. Edgy material with more than a few shocks.[/quote]