The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I don't care what anyone says about how slow this movie is, it will always be one of the best. But, it does have a meandering plot, there is no way to deny that. To be fair, I am reviewing this movie based on the extended edition, which seems extra-meandering, but is apparently what you're getting when you get the Special edition DVD. Who knew?

But once you get past the crawling plot, there's nothing stopping you enjoying everything about this movie. Except for the dubbing over of the Italian actors, which is usually pretty bad. I guess they used the money they saved by filming in Italy to make the rest of the movie so fantastic.

From the first moment you see Clint Eastwood, you know that he is a badass. From the first moment you see Angel Eyes, you know that he is an evil bastard. From the first moment you see Tuco, you know that he is a scoundrel. The three main characters are perfectly cast, and even though Clint manages to become the coolest person in the world just though lighting a cigar, Tuco is probably the best character, and the most perfectly cast. Not to say that he's really all that ugly, but he's the soul of the movie and is such a joy to watch that he makes you forget what a horrible person he is.

Also of note is the is the film's score. Everyone knows the 8 note main theme or motif or whatever and as awesome as it is, the music at the end of the movie is where they really turn on the good stuff.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I watched a DVD that my uncle gave me for Christmas a couple years ago, so this cost me nothing. However, I would pay the cost of rental or the price of admission to see this in an a theater late at night or something like that.

Final notes
Best scene: Clint Eastwood plays with the kitten that he keeps in his hat
Best costuming: the poncho

Master and Commander

This movie is very good. It has fantastic music, engaging characters, beautiful photography of an awesome boat sailing around and a solid story to tie it all together. The most exciting thing for me, being a big old nerd, is that it is basically a Star Trek movie. As a matter of fact this review is an admission of nerd-guilt more than it is a valuable critique, but no one reads this blog so it's no big deal.

It's just like The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country or First Contact. One of the good (even-numbered) movies where the Enterprise goes up against a stronger foe, and has to use their brains to make up for missing brawn, reconciling their dedication to exploration and discovery with their commitment to defend their territory from the invading offenders. In the Star Treks, they're up against the Borg or the Klingons (or Ricardo Montalbon) and they use special sensors they had for documenting gaseous anomalies to let their missiles take out the invisible Klingon ship. Or something like that.

As the Enterprise often does, Russell Crowe's crew must choose between personal and professional loyalties. The Spock to Russell Crowe's Kirk is the ship's doctor. Like Kirk and Spock, these two share a close bond despite their difference in rank. They play delightful cello and violin duets and argue when the doctor wants to play Darwin and Russel Crowe needs to prepare the ship for battle.

The battles are exciting, gritty and carry a certain substance and weight that is missing from the ship battles in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. The good guys defeat their foe through clever tricksy-ness that basically amounts to disguising their warp signature to make the Klingons think that they are something they are not.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Definitely worth the cost of a rental. The sound and photography are so good that I would totally pay to price to see it on the big screen if I ever get the chance. The last little duet they play alone makes it worth while.

Bottle Rocket

Imagine yourself in a time gone past; a time when Bob Saget was the wholesome, forced host of a mail-in blooper show for family videos, back when Ellen Degeneres was straight and The Simpsons did more than ape Family Guy's style. It was the early ninties. Then, all of a sudden, something changed. A bright young screen writer teamed up with his brother and an ambitious filmmaker ready to make his mark on a movie industry intent on churning out indistinguishable action and comedy movies to make the most ground-breaking, convention-shattering movie in the history of American cinema. That movie was Bottle Rocket.

In a post-Bottle Rocket world, movies ceased to concern themselves with explosions and special effects. Instead, they piled quirk on top of Daddy issues, and spiced everything awkwardness and bad hair with soundtrack by David Bowie. It's true that Bottle Rocket feels a bit like "My First Movie" by Wes Anderson and the Wilson Brothers, but the casually paced story offers a lot, especially for those curious about the progenitors of modern Cinema.

Cost/Benefit: I paid nothing to see this movie, but I would have been ok paying rental/budget prices.

Watchmen

Watchmen is a pretty good movie. It is one that I would see again, anyway. Watchmen is based on a genre-defining and defying graphic novel, and as such had been declared "unfilmable." I imagine that it was largely a group of graphic novel apologists saying this, but I'm not sure that anything is actually "unfilmable." Maybe unfilmable as a traditional Hollywood-style/structured film, but when those limitations are removed, I think anything could work on film, even Watchmen.

The movie works pretty well despite a number of flaws, especially when you consider the especially dark and not-so-much fun source material, a director with a pretty dubious track record, and a cast that features Billy Crudup as its biggest star. The film's biggest success is its soundtrack, with its roots set deep in 60's folk rock. The movie is at its best when the action is covered completely by "The Sound of Silence" or "All Along the Watchtower." When these scenes end and the actors start flapping their mouths away, the quality of the film takes a big nose dive.

The acting is all over the place. Some of the characters are perfectly cast and some are so bad that I can't think of a proper metaphor right now to express it. When you cast a movie based on looks alone, that's what you get. Seems like they should have spent less time working on Dr. Manhattan's wiggler.

However, my biggest complaint is that the violence was way over the top. I know that this is a comic book movie and the characters are super heroes, but the whole point of the book is that all but one of the superheroes are(as they say in Us Weekly) regular people, just like us . When The Comedian's head breaks through his marble counter top just to keep on a-fightin', it takes away from that message.

The end of the movie is significantly different from the end of the book, but I thought that the book worked much better. Thematically the two endings are pretty much the same, but it is much less of a wtf moment than it is in the book.

Book vs. Movie: Book

Cost Benefit Analysis: I got into the movie using one of those discount tickets people buy through work, so I only paid $6.50. This was a pretty good price, and the all of the special effects razzle dazzle makes Watchmen worth seeing on the big screen. There were not many awesome moments, though, so it's probably worth seeing for 6 bucks or less.

Changeling

Changeling had me thinking of an episode of This American Life that I've heard a couple times called "The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar." Both stories are about children taken from their parents and then returned, but maybe not to the correct parents and there are other switch-ups and stuff. I guess this stuff was always happening in the thirties.

Clint Eastwood's movies don't seem to have any thematic elements in common, but they all have a lot in common stylistically. Changeling is a long, well paced and sparse movie, just like every other Eastwood movie that I've ever seen. It is also quite good.

For all of the star power concentrated in Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich, I thought that the most compelling character was the mostly anonymous detective guy who finally cracks the case, allowing Malkovich and Jolie and the lawyer that should have been played by Clint to stick it to the jerks in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department. Jolie never struck me as much of an actor, and she doesn't impress here, despite the cute hats she gets to wear. Similarly, Malkovich wears some really comfy sweaters, although I would prefer them in different colors. A big surprise for me was the girl who played (and probably will again play) Holly on the Office as a patient of the nut house the cops throw Jolie into. Girl's got chops. I knew she could crack a dorky joke with the best of them, but I didn't know that she could disappear into a movie like this so well.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I didn't pay anything to see this movie, but it is well worth a rental. I wanted to see it in the theater, and I don't think I would have been unhappy paying full price. I don't think I'd ever buy the DVD, though.

I don't get why Angelina worried so much about her kid. It's not like Kenya is going to run out of kids for her to adopt.

Atonement

Atonement is an older movie. It came out in 2006 and was nominated for a 2007 Best Picture Academy Award. It is a good movie. Before I saw it, I totally thought it was going to be right up the same alley as Nicholas Sparks' crap-fest The Notebook because I thought they were both love stories that were set around World War II, but luckily I was wrong.

I was initially confused by the way the story was told, with certain scenes being told again and again with additional information coming into play each time. For a movie set in the 30's and 40's it was a surprisingly modern choice, but I think that it worked very well.

The movie drags from time to time, and introduces new story elements without introducing them properly. I don't think these sins are worth condemning the movie, but they're great enough that I don't know how it got the Best Picture nod. It's a slow, relaxing movie that probably works best late at night.

Atonement ends with a twist that I won't mention even though I know no one will read this blog. I can imagine this is the kind of twist that some will hate, but I really liked it. Probably because it played to my English major sensibilities. It

Cost/Benefit analysis: I didn't pay anything to see this movie, but it is worth a rent, fo sho.

Unforgiven

This is an old movie that I saw. It is a good movie. I'm a sucker for movies that are stacked with sweet actors, so when I heard about a western movie starring Gene Hackman, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Richard Harris, I knew I had to see it.

Clint Eastwood plays the classic reluctant western movie hero, a retired killer coming back for one last job, but the movie doesn't rely on many of the western archetypes. Clint isn't the sheriff, he's a killer reformed by his late wife that hasn't touched a drop of liquor in ten years and needs a double-barreled shotgun to hit a tin can from 20 feet. The movie never really says who the good guys and bad guys are, and any of the characters could probably fit into either role.

There's a weird subplot with Richard Harris's character that never seems to go anywhere. I guess it's a chance to show the darker aspects of Hackman's character, but that could have been done without going into a dead end. The other thing I'm a little hung up on is the Jackie Chan-Drunken Master turn the movie takes at the very end, where Clint gets back on the wagon (or is it off?) and becomes a super-cowboy again. It was disappointing and is the kind of ending that I was afraid Gran Torino would have.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I downloaded this movie for free, so it didn't cost me anything. It's totally worth a rent for fans of westerns and suckers for big casts .