Movie #78 - Timeline

Title: Timeline

Director: Richard Donner

Release Year: 2003

Plot Summary: Archeologists are sent back in time on a rescue mission. That sums it up.

Thoughts: Of all the books turned movies I've seen (LOTR aside) this I think was very very well done. I can see why people didn't like it though. It followed the book too well, so the beginning feels a little rushed as they try to squeeze like 60 pages of book into 10min of movie. No good there. But otherwise I was very impressed. No exceptional loose ends, nothing exceptionally predictable, and no time-parodoxes. :)

Rating (0-10): 7.5

Recomendations: Worth renting and picking up for maybe $5.99. The book is, of course, worth picking up or borrowing from me.

Movie #77 -- The Aviator

Title: The Aviator

Director: Martin Scorsese

Release Year: 2004

Plot Summary: A well-crafted biopic of mogul Howard Hughes.

Thoughts: An excellent biopic of genius/madman Howard Hughes. Leonardo Dicaprio was nominated for an Oscar for his work here and it's rightfully deserved. Cat Blanchett won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Katherine Hepburn -- it was a shame her character didn't have a bigger role, beceause I really liked her in this film.

As always, Martin Scorsese is at the top of his game -- when the Academy is finally going to recognize him for his work is (unfortunately) beyond me. But Oscar voters do have a boner for Clint Eastwood, so go figure... Anyway...

Alan Alda is quite good as Senator Brewster, but the rest of the supporting cast: John C Reilly, Jude Law, Kate Beckinsale (her accent is HORRID in this) and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Ian Holm seemed to be phoning it on this one -- which dissapointed me a bit.

Still, the cinematography, direction, costuming, and strong performances by Dicaprio and Blanchett make this 2004's best biopic -- far better than Ray, but it's not spectacular -- it's good, but I expected more from this film. For some reason, it just didn't resonate emotionally the way I hoped it would.

Rating (0-10): 7.1

Recomendations: If you're a fan of Scorsese's work (like I am) you'll probably consider it essential. Otherwise, you would have had to have liked this film to pick it up.

Book #1 -- A Prayer for Owen Meany

Title: A Prayer for Owen Meany

Author: John Irving

Plot Summary: Owen Meany believes he is a small instrument of God.

Thoughts: Perhaps the strangest "religious" book that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. It won't convert you, it will only make you question your faith -- or your lack thereof.

Owen Meany is the dwarfish son of a New Hampshire granite quarrier -- a young man who believes that his sole purpose on this world is to one day serve a higher purpose. The story deals with his relationship with his best friend Johnny Wheelright and there misadventures throughout their life both of their relationships with a providential force.

This book deals with "coincidence vs. providence" and how everything happens for a reason: how one small thing that happened when you were a child that could have been viewed as wholy insignificant could change your whole life.

It's touching, it's quirky, and at times a bit hard to follow. But if you can look beyond that, it's a wonderful read.

Rating (0-10): 8.5

Recomendations: One of my favorite books. Pick it up.

Movie #75 -- Big Fish

Title: Big Fish

Director: Tim Burton

Release Year: 2003

Plot Summary: A young man (Billy Crudup) tries to come to grips with the "life" of his father (portrayed by both Albert Finney and Ewan McGregor) who is in his last days.

Thoughts: This is easily director Tim Burton's most accessable film -- not nearly as dark as 'Edward Scissorhands' or 'Batman'. It also seems to be his most personal. The script almost feels like it could have been written by Cameron Crowe -- it's got that type of vibe. But to the technical aspects: it's certainly the kind of direction and visuals that only Burton could have pulled off.

The cast is fantastic: Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Billy Crudup, Helena Bonham Carter, Steve Buscemi, Robert Guillaume, and so on. There's not a foul note there. The music of Danny Elfman is fantastic, as it always is, and the songs used throughout the movie are about as perfectly placed as they could be. Of particular note is the Pearl Jam track "Man of the Hour" which plays over the end credits and really sums up the mood of the film.

This was one of the best movies released in 2003 -- and, unfortunately, seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of the pleothora of fabulous movies that were released that year.

It's heartwarming and touching in the extreme. End of story.

Rating (0-10): 8.4

Recomendations: I'd consider it essential to a DVD collection. If you're not interested in collecting, rent it -- it's something the entire family can watch -- it's a family film without being one, if that makes any sense.

Movie #74 -- Ray

Title: Ray

Director: Taylor Hackford

Release Year: 2004

Plot Summary: A somewhat dark biopic of legendary musician Ray Charles.

Thoughts: Jamie Foxx (yes, that Jamie Foxx) gives one of the truly great screen performances of all time portraying legendary musician Ray Charles. Never for a moment do you doubt Foxx's commitment to the role and you whole-heartedly believe that Foxx is Charles. Flat out.

That being said, the story itself is rather uneven and ends extremely abruptly: how director Taylor Hackford spent two plus hours telling a story and then ends up telling us absolutely nothing is beyond me. To say that Hackford's directing is scattershot and below average is no stretch of the truth at all.

Take away Foxx's performance and you're left with a mediocre film. How it ever got nominated for Best Picture (the likes of 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', 'The Incredibles', and 'Hotel Rwanda' got overlooked for this?!) and Best Director is completely beyond me.

Rating (0-10): Foxx's performance: 10. Rest of the movie: 5.0. Overall: 6.25. One performance does not a great film make.

Recomendations: Worth seeing for Foxx's performance. It's not really a film that bears repeat viewings. I wouldn't/won't buy it.

Movie #73 -- Scent of a Woman

Title: Scent of a Woman

Director: Martin Brest

Release Year: 1992

Plot Summary: A prep school student in hot water (Chris O'Donnell) babysits Lt. Col. Frank Slade (Oscar winner Al Pacino) in New York City. HOO-HAH!

Thoughts: Ther are really two plots in this movie: one is Charlie (O'Donnell) and his situation at school; the other is the relationship between Charlie and Slade. There isn't a great plot here, but the development of the relationship between the two main characters is tantamount to this movie.

Al Pacino won an Oscar for his role in this movie and he owns this movie. I mean he absolutely owns it -- think Val Kilmer in Tombstone owning it. The directing by Martin Brest is above par and O'Donnell is serviceable if nothing more in his role here. This film is also one of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's first screen apearances, for those of you who care.

Nominated for a bevy of Oscars including Best Picture, this film shows you a man who doesn't have much left in the tank and he knows it. Redemption? You'll have to see for yourself.

Rating (0-10): 7.0

Recomendations: Definately worth renting but I wouldn't buy it for more than $7.

Movie #72 -- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Title: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Director: Peter Jackson

Release Year: 2003

Plot Summary: Frodo continues his perilous journey towards Mount Doom to destroy The One Ring.

Thoughts: Winner of 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and a bunch of others -- every single one of them deserved.

Peter Jackson took a masterpiece of a literary work and created a fully realized and believable world. Each character has a purpose, each is integral to the story, each one of them is important. Sure, the writers took a few liberties with the source material, but in no way does it distract from the film.

The acting is fantastic, but the best character (hands down) is Gollum -- he's a marvel of CGI and maybe the most human of anything that appears on screen. It's a true shame that Andy Serkis' performance was not allowed to be nominated for an Oscar (trust me, it's much better than the quite strong performance that Tim Robbins gave in 'Mystic River', but that's neither here nor there).

This movie really is as good as everyone says it is -- and one of very few that so widely appealed to critics and casual fans alike. And once it's over you feel sad that there is nothing left -- no more story of Frodo and Sam, nothing more on the life of Aragorn, no more adventures of Legolas and Gimli...

This is one of only three films to ever make me cry -- and I do so most every time I see it. In my humble opinion, the best film I have ever seen.

Rating (0-10): 10

Recomendations: Best movie ever. Need I say more? I'd recommend seeing 'Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' before seeing this.

Movie #71 -- Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back

Title: Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back

Director: Irvin Kershner

Release Year: 1980

Plot Summary: Luke continues his Jedi training with Yoda, faces Darth Vader for the first time, Han and Leia visit Cloud City... and some other stuff happens to.

Thoughts: Easily the best of all of the Star Wars movies. The dialogue doesn't suck in this one (See, Mr. Lucas -- outsourcing can be good), the special effects are fantastic (given the fact that they are 25 years old), and, oh yeah, this movie has the biggest twist ever.

Lucas took a gamble by introducing a little green guy named Yoda in this one. He could have failed miserably like he did with Jar Jar Binks and the Ewoks, but instead, he created the most likeable character of any of the films.

As I mentioned above, I defy anyone to find a better twist in a movie than the one at the end of 'Empire'. I remember being four years old and seeing this for the first and being absolutely blown away by it. It still freaks me out a bit -- how good this twist is. Imagine the worst possible fear that you have being realized -- that's what it has to be like.

There aren't enough good things that I can say about this movie.

Rating (0-10): 9.75 -- This is about as close to perfect as movies get.

Recomendations: Yeah dude. See this.

Movie #70 - Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Title: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Director: George Lucas

Release Year: 2005

Plot Summary: After three years of fighting in the Clone Wars, Anakin Skywalker begins his journey towards the Dark Side of the Force, putting his friendship with Obi Wan Kenobi and his marriage at risk...

Thoughts: (Very brief, I just wanted to get this up here since I saw it before any of you get to. Nyah. =b)

Easily the best of the prequels, not as good as the originals (which should surprise no-one). Suffered from many of the same problems as the "first" two, i.e. stilted dialogue, cheesy romance, etc., but had a better story to draw attention away from these flaws, which were mostly prevalent in the beginning.

It is definitely dark, too.

All in all, pulled the trilogy together quite well and led nicely into A New Hope.

Rating (0-10): 7.5

Recomendations: Like anyone's not going to see this. C'mon now.

Movie # 69 -- Poolhall Junkies

Title: Poolhall Junkies

Director: Mars Callahan

Release Year: 2002

Plot Summary: Johnny Doyle (writer/director/star Mars Callahan) is an awesome pool player who has a huge debt to pay.

Thoughts: This movie reminds me of, say, "Rounders" meets "The Color of Money". Johnny Doyle gets hustled by Joe (Chazz Palminteri) and through a series of coincindence/providence Johnny gets his vengence.

Sure, the movie is a little cliched and the acting kinda sucks with the exceptions of Christopher Walken and (believe it or not) Rick Schroeder, but it's a pretty good movie. What it lacks in acting and an almost banal storyline, it makes up for in excellent directing, pretty sweet pool shots, and a really high "cool factor". In the end, it almost (almost) makes you want to quit your job right now and get really good at hustling billiards, but it's not quite there.

Rating (0-10): 6.85

Recomendations: Worth renting. I picked it up for $10 at Best Buy but I wouldn't pay more than that.

Movie #68 -- Team America: World Police

Title: Team America: World Police

Director: Trey Parker

Release Year: 2004

Plot Summary: Marionettes sing and dance and fight and swearing their way through the world in a manner that Jerry Bruckheimer would be proud of. Oh, yeah... and puppet sex.

Thoughts: What do you expect from the guys who are behind 'South Park', 'Orgazmo', and 'BASEketball'? If you answered puppets fighting and singing and doing all that other stuff that I mentioned, you'd be right.

But, believe it or not, this is a very cleverly crafted piece of political and social satire, although not particularly shrouded. The marionettes are crude and the special effects are terrible, but it's one of the funniest films of the past few years.

As I've mentioned before, it sends up big Hollywood productions like no other film I have ever seen and if it were done with real, live people, it would have "Jerry Bruckheimer" written all over it.

Oh, yeah... and it's got the song, "America (F*** Yeah!)". I dare you not to start singing it at the end of the movie.

Rating (0-10): 7.6

Recomendations: If you're a fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, you'll probably enjoy this: I don't see you liking this otherwise. I liked it the first time I saw it and it's the kind of movie that will bear repeat viewings in the future.

Movie #67 - Unleashed

Title: Unleashed

Director: Louis Leterrier

Release Year: 2005 (internationally)

Plot Summary: Danny has been raised as a dog; if the collar comes off, anyone who gets in his way is dead, or wishes they were. But when Danny meets a kind-hearted man who takes him in, he's faced with a whole new world he never knew existed...

Thoughts: Eh. It wasn't bad, but it could have been so much more. I really liked the basic idea behind the plot, but I wasn't terribly impressed with its execution. It just seemed like the "making Danny part of the family" bits happened too quickly and unrealistically.

The fights were, of course, pretty spiffy - but even those just left me kinda "blah" in the end. They didn't pack much of an emotional punch. Not to mention the horribly glaring inconstencies in the last fight-scene that left me totally unable to suspend my disbelief.

I think "eh" pretty much sums it up.

Rating (0-10): 5

Recomendations: It certainly wasn't a bad film. It just didn't do anything at all for me. So, I guess just don't go out of your way. ~shrug~

Movie #66 -- The Boondock Saints

Title: The Boondock Saints

Director: Troy Duffy

Release Year: 1999

Plot Summary: Two very Irish brothers receive divine inspiration from God to rid south Boston of evil men.

Thoughts: It cost $5,000,000 to make. It grossed under $30,000. And they're going to make a sequel. Far and away, one of the greatest 'cult' films of all time.

Willem Defoe gives a fantastic performance as FBI Agent Paul Smecker who is tracking the two Irish McMannus brothers (Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Redus). Oh, and this was Troy Duffy's first screenplay and his directorial debut, but it certainly doesn't show. You've got to give it to Duffy, though... he took a cast with a spotty resume (save Defoe) and created a true masterpiece of a film -- one that could be mistaken for something that Tarantino might have done. Oh, and casting Ron Jeremy? Brilliant.

It's funny, it's fun, it's violent, it's quotable: there really isn't a single thing about this movie that I don't like.

Rating (0-10): 9.5

Recomendations: I bought the original region 1 version of the dvd for $20 back in 2001 -- it has no special features, no deleted scenes and no commentary, but it's still probably my best dvd purchase ever. See this movie.

Movie #65 -- The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

Title: The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

Director: Wes Anderson

Release Year: 2004

Plot Summary: Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) had a best friend named Esteban (Seymour Cassel) who was eaten by... something. Steve may or may not have a son named Ned (Owen Wilson). Together, they set out to get revenge on the "jaguar shark".

Thoughts: You will either love this movie or you'll hate it, there's no middle ground. There never is for Wes Anderson movies. That being said, I feel that this is Anderson's strongest work to date. Not only is it his most quirky film (there's a character who's only job is to look out for pirates and perform David Bowie songs on a classical guitar) but I feel it is his most heartwarming and therefore accessable.

And then there's the cast: Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, Owen Wilson, Angelica Huston, Jeff Goldblum, Micahel Gambon, Willem Defoe, and Bud Cort. WOW! Everyone here is top notch -- the strongest ensemble cast of 2004 (yes, better than Sideways and yes, better than Eternal Sunshine...). Bill Murray gives the second strongest performance of his career (behind Lost in Translation) and gave one of the best leading actor performance of all of 2004.

As I mentioned before, you either love Wes Anderson's work of you hate it. You either find his films to be fantastic character studies or boring. This film is no exception to the rule, it almost plays like American Beauty on a boat, but with the aforementioned quirkiness. I will say this though, if you don't feel a little something when the entire cast is in the submarine at the end of the film and Sigur Ros starts playing, there is a good chance that you might not have a soul.

Rating (0-10): 8.25

Recomendations: Any and all of Wes Anderson's work. If you've never seen any of Anderson's films before, rent some before you buy it. You can thank me later for that. I, of course, bought the two disc collector's set.

Movie #64 - Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi

Title: Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

Director:

Release Year: 1983

Plot Summary: The ragtag rebel alliance risks everything to bring The Empire's reign of terror to an end.

Thoughts: This is easily one of the best conclusions to a series of films ever. The legacy left by this movie are difficult to live up to. The chemistry and genuineness amongst the charchters leaves any viewer with a very satisfying feeling afterwards. Not to mention there's ewoks!

Rating (0-10): 9.6

Recomendations: Rent the orginal if you can find it. The special edition I feel botched the ending.

Movie #63 - Road to Perdition

Title: Road to Perdition

Director: Sam Mendes

Release Year: 2002

Plot Summary: Bonds of loyalty are put to the test when a hitman's son witnesses what his father does for a living.

Thoughts: I love this movie for two main reasons - the cinematography and the score. It's hard to believe that this was only Sam Mendes' second film; in Perdition, as in American Beauty, he has a wonderful eye for lighting, tempo, and just plain gorgeous shots and scenes. Without spoiling anything for those who haven't seen it, I'd say the scene in the rain near the end is one of the most powerful I can think of in any recent films.

Thomas Newman has quite a knack for haunting scores, and he seems to complement Mendes' films quite well so far. I think it says quite a bit that I went out and bought both scores (this one and American Beauty) immediately after seeing the films for the first time. ;)

Anyway, the story is also quite good, but not terribly spectacular, I don't think. The actors were all solid, but other than Paul Newman and possibly Jude Law, there weren't any incredible stand-out performances either. But with the technical skills that Mendes obviously has, I think we're going to see great things out of him - hell, we already have, and he's just getting started...

Rating (0-10): 7.5

Recomendations: See it, but don't buy it unless you really end up loving it. It's highly worth watching, but I don't know if I've done so often enough to justify owning it.

Movie #62 -- Cast Away

Title: Cast Away

Director: Robert Zmeckis

Release Year: 2000

Plot Summary: Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) survives a horrific plane crash and is stranded on an island for years.

Thoughts: Everyone kept trying to tell me how wonderful Tom Hanks was in this movie and so I got around to seeing it about a year after everyone else already had. Well, Tom Hanks is quite good in this movie as Chuck Noland (get it... stranded... on a tiny speck of land... on almost NO LAND at all... crafty writers), a FedEx engineer whose life is run by time and by being on time. Ironically, he gets stuck on an island where time doesn't matter, except for the tides which become a major plot element, but I'll leave that alone for now.

Anyway, the most memorable character in this film is Wilson the Volleyball with no lines of dialogue. Strangely enough, his/her/it's mere presence on the screen is powerful enough to convey humor, anger, confusion, and loss. Helen Hunt turns in a par performance as Chuck's love interest.

Aside from a slightly ambiguous ending and it running a bit slow in places, this is a fine film. The plane crash scene is terribly memorable, powerful, frightening, and believeable to say the least. Certainly not Tom Hanks best work, but quite good nonetheless.

Rating (0-10): 7.6

Recomendations: If you liked the original version of 'The Flight of The Phoenix' you'll probably like this. 'Cast Away' is like a better version of 'The Blue Lagoon' sans Brooke Shields. It's worth picking up for $10.

Movie #61 - Crash

Title: Crash

Director: Paul Haggis

Release Year: 2005

Plot Summary: A Brentwood housewife and her DA husband. A Persian store owner. Two police detectives who are also lovers. A black television director and his wife. A Mexican locksmith. Two car-jackers. A rookie cop. A middle-aged Korean couple…

They all live in Los Angeles. And in the next 36 hours, they will all collide…

Thoughts: I'd no idea what Crash was really about after seeing the trailer, so I'd no idea what I was getting into. Prejudice and racism are the major themes - how stupid they are, how harmful they are, but also how we can learn to rise above it, at least a little bit. There's no mushy "everybody loves everybody" moments, not even in the end - it's much more real than that, and this is a good thing.

It's sort of funny that I screened this movie right after watching Love Actually, because it's got sort of a similar structure; that is, a group of stories that seen unconnected, but all intertwine as the movie progresses. The threads don't all tie together at the end, however, but slowly and gradually overlap - there's never a point where all the characters are in the same spot, but almost all of them end up affecting each other in one way or another.

The acting in this movie was fantastic. Everybody did a wonderful job - even people whom I'm normally very shy about praising, like Sandra Bullock, Brendan Fraser, and especially Mat Dillion. These characters were all real people in real situations, with real problems and real prejudices, and I can't think of a single one that wasn't fully believeable.

Rating (0-10): 9.6

Recomendations: Good stuff. Go see it if you're in the mood for something thought-provoking.

Movie #60 - Love Actually

Title: Love Actually

Director: Richard Curtis

Release Year: 2003

Plot Summary: Follows the lives of eight very different couples in dealing with their love lives in various loosely and interrelated tales all set during a frantic month before Christmas in London, England.

Thoughts: Wasn't bad, but I wasn't particularly impressed, either. While generally I tend to enjoy movies that deal with a great number of not-obviously-related storylines that all tie together in the end (see Magnolia, Crash), I didn't really feel like this one tied together at all. And perhaps that wasn't the point, and most likely it wasn't, but it just ended up feeling like a bunch of stories told in random order.

Some of these stories were quite good - Daniel (Neeson) and his stepson; the Prime Minister (Grant) and a member of his household staff; Billy Mack (Nighy) and his pop music comeback; and Colin (Marshall) and his hilarious plan to go to America to get all the ladies. The rest of them were not particularly impressive to me, especially John & Judy, the movie stand-ins, who seemed completely unrelated to the rest of the characters. And I think that's where it breaks down - I only ended up liking about half the movie, and the half that I didn't like was pretty much randomly interspersed into the half I liked.

Rating (0-10): 5.2

Recomendations: Now this one is definitely a chick-flick. ;)

Movie #59 - When Harry Met Sally...

Title: When Harry Met Sally...

Director: Rob Reiner

Release Year: 1989

Plot Summary: Can a man and a woman be friends, without sex getting in the way?

Thoughts: I'm quite happy to have finally sat down and watched this movie. Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan interact quite wonderfully, and it's funny and thoughtful simultaneously, which of course makes for good viewing. And of course, the brutal honesty is a breath of fresh air. =)

It's just too bad that Meg Ryan seems to have fallen into the trap of only ever playing the lead in romantic comedies - she's really quite good in this movie, it just seems like maybe she should try something new.

Rating (0-10): 8.9

Recomendations: Don't let anyone convince you that it's "just another chick flick." Thoroughly enjoyable for both genders.

Movie #58 -- King Arthur

Title: King Arthur

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Release Year: 2004

Plot Summary: A De-mysitified look at King Arthur and his knights of the round table.

Thoughts: If you're planning on sitting down and watching this movie expecting Merlin's magic, Arthur removing Excalibur from a stone (well, you kinda get that sort of in a way a little), dragons, and a love triangle, you will be vastly dissapointed. If you're planning on a sword-and-sandle epic, then you've indeed come to the right place.

The theatrical release was rated pg-13, when it clearly should have been rated R. Then again, it was a Disney release and we all know their position of rated R movies. But trying to depict the brutal nature of this film in a pg-13 context doesn't work, at least not for me and it's desperately obvious to anyone who saw it. However, the "unrated" director's cut (which undoubtedly would have been rated R) does a much better of telling the story and subsequently depicting the violent warfare.

A commercial dissapointment (at least domestically). The direction of Antoine Fuqua is above par, but the lack of stars other than Keira Knightley (who, I will admit, was the only reason that I saw this film in the theaters) certainly didn't help things. I will say that Stellan Sarsgaard who's resume' is spotty at best is quite good in this move as a brooding Cerdic. Clive Owen in the title role and Iaon Gruffudd as Lancelot are serviceable in their performances, but nothing spectacular.

Taken as a "historical" epic, it's pretty good. The problem lies in the fact that I was familiar with the Arturian Legend and was expecting something else.

Rating (0-10): pg-13 theatrical release: 5.5 / "unrated" director's cut: 6.8

Recomendations: As far as sword-and-sandal epics go, you can do alot worse ("Alexander", "Conan the Barbarian") or alot better ("Braveheart", "Gladiator"). Nothing overly memorable about this film, but worth two hours. Unless you are like me and are addicted to Keira Knightley, then you have to have it.