Data
Title: The Apartment
Year: 1960
Length: 125 minutes
Director: Billy Wilder
Writers: Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay (original), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white), and Best Editing; currently #99 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a suck-up lets his married bosses use his apartment to entertain women
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Good.
Characters: Bad. Even an extremely charismatic cast could do nothing to make me sympathize with these people.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad. Much of the movie is amusing, but I was still pretty bored.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Not a bad movie, but all the awards it got are baffling to me. Maybe it has more depth and craftsmanship than your typical romantic comedy of the time, but best picture? Inherit the Wind, Psycho and Spartacus weren’t even nominated.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

Data
Title: Ladri di biciclette
Year: 1948
Length: 89 minutes
Director: Vittorio De Sica
Writers: Cesare Zavattini, Suso Cecchi d’Amico, Vittorio De Sica, Oreste Biancoli, Adolfo Franci & Gerardo Guerrieri, based on the novel by Luigi Bartolini
Starring: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola
Music: Alessandro Cicognini
Distinctions: honorary Oscar for best foreign language film (1950); currently #106 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a father can’t support his family without a bicycle
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Indifferent. Although, it’s not really fair of me to judge; the DVD subtitles didn’t translate half the dialog. It is the way of Netflix to only have the cheapest, crappiest DVD available of any title.
Pacing: Terrible.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. But not much is called for.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). The kind of film that exists for film students to write essays about it. Thinking about it afterward, it seems like it should be a really great movie. But actually sitting down and watching the thing, I was bored silly.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (Good).

(update of a previous post – original is here)

Data
Title: Star Trek
Year: 2009
Length: 126 minutes
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, based on the TV show by Gene Roddenberry
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban
Music: Michael Giacchino
Distinctions: currently #134 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a time-traveling Romulan has a vendetta against Spock
How I saw it: in the theater, May 2009; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. As a geek, I am required by law to love the whole Time-Travel-Created-Alternate-Universe thing.
Story: Terrible.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Terrible. J.J. “Lens Flare” Abrams does everything he can to take you out of the movie.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great. Michael Giacchino orchestrating a classic sci-fi TV theme song… that’s all anyone can really ask for from a movie.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Fun and fast paced. There’s some nice comic relief, and loads of geek-pleasing moments. The action scenes are a mess. The plot isn’t very interesting, mostly just getting the characters re-introduced – which is fun for a fan, since it’s extremely well cast (especially Karl Urban’s Bones) and the characters and dialog are well-written – but there’s still not much plot. It’s not a science fiction movie, and it’s not a submarine movie like previous good action versions of Star Trek have been. In place of those elements, there’s standard loud, fast-moving-camera, dumb action. They’ve got the characters down right; now they just need to put them in a movie.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

Data
Title: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Year: 1939
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Frank Capra
Writer: Sidney Buchman, story by Lewis R. Foster
Starring: Jean Arthur, James Stewart, Claude Rains
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Story; currently #111 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a boyscout leader appointed to the senate stands up to corruption
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a couple days ago
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. To say that to say that Stewart’s performance carries this movie would be an understatement would be an understatement.
Music: Indifferent. Corny and way over-the-top.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). The ending is very abrupt. And it’s a bit depressing to compare the Washington in the film to modern day politics. (I mean, really, a senator’s career being threatened by it being known that he did something in the interest of a business? Talk about suspension of disbelief…) But this is probably the ultimate Jimmy Stewart movie. He is constantly – every second he’s on screen – giving what’s probably the best performance of his career.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (Very good).

Data
Title: Brazil
Year: 1985
Length: 142 minutes
Director: Terry Gilliam
Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard & Charles McKeown
Starring: Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, Ian Richardson, Peter Vaughan, Kim Greist
Music: Michael Kamen
Distinctions: currently #240 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a man in a bureaucratic dystopia obsesses over a woman from his dreams
How I saw it: on video several times (used to have on DVD), most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). I used to think this movie was great, but I can’t figure out why. Maybe it was just because I loved other Gilliam movies, so I thought I should love it. Or maybe it’s the same reason that every young person who hasn’t read too many books thinks 1984 is the best thing ever. In any case, I was pretty bored watching this yesterday. The visuals are great, but they rarely actually contribute to the storytelling. There are some great scenes, mostly when it’s being silly, and some great acting from Holm and Palin (meanwhile, De Niro is pretty bad), but the story just doesn’t make a lot of sense if you think about it too much.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

Data
Title: The Sting
Year: 1973
Length: 129 minutes
Director: George Roy Hill
Writer: David S. Ward
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw, Charles Durning
Music: Scott Joplin, adapted by Marvin Hamlisch
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Story and Screenplay Based on Factual Material, Best Song Score and/or Adaptation, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, and Best Editing; currently #98 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: con men vs. the mob
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. Enough twists to keep the movie from being tedious. Although, the whole con-man story type doesn’t really work well when it’s an army of professionals with seemingly unlimited resources against more or less one guy.
Characters: Bad. I don’t feel I know anything about the personalities of either of the leads.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. I can’t believe this was only two hours long. It felt more like a mini series than a movie.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. If this is supposed to be the 1930’s, then why do all of these 1930’s buildings look 50 years old?
Acting: Good. Redford and Newman are both kind of dull, especially Redford, but the supporting cast is nice.
Music: Good. I don’t understand why they used distinctly period music for a film set in a different period, but it sets a tone and it’s good music.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It made me restless, and it’s very flawed, but it’s not a bad movie. It has its moments.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

Halloween movie night, part 1 of 2

Data
Title: Monsters, Inc.
Year: 2001
Length: 92 minutes
Directors: Pete Docter, David Silverman & Lee Unkrich
Writers: Andrew Stanton & Daniel Gerson, with Robert L. Baird, Rhett Reese & Jonathan Roberts, story by Pete Docter, Jill Culton, Jeff Pidgeon & Ralph Eggleston
Starring: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn
Music: Randy Newman
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Song (“If I Didn’t Have You”); currently #242 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a human toddler sneaks through her closet into the monster world
How I saw it: in the theater, 2001; on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Okay from the voices, great from the animators.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). It’s remarkable how re-watchable this remains after all these years.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (Very good).

#100!

Data
Title: The Great Escape
Year: 1963
Length: 172 minutes
Director: John Sturges
Writers: James Clavell & W.R. Burnett, based on the book by Paul Brickhill
Starring: Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, James Donald, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn, Hannes Messemer
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Distinctions: currently #100 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: WWII POWs plot a massive escape attempt to distract German resources
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The plot is great, but the details start to seriously fall apart at the end.  I had to look it up online to even see if the plan worked.
Characters: Indifferent. I had no investment in any of these people. Also, after looking online, it seems that the people on which the characters are based were actually pretty interesting. But in the movie we get “I like to ride bikes.”
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Attenborough is great. Most of the other leads are just okay.
Music: Bad. “…this land belongs to you and me!” So. Very. Obnoxious.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Lots of potential, but a pretty boring movie.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

Afgelopen zomer heb ik een maand lang geprobeerd om een lijst te maken met alle films die ik ooit heb gezien. Ja, je leest het goed. Een lijst met alle films die ik ooit op tv, vhs, dvd, blu-ray of in de bioscoop heb gezien. Het is inderdaad monnikenwerk en je moet er een beetje gek voor zijn. Voordeel was dat ik die maand weinig om handen had en dus besloot ik Pages maar eens te openen. Ik hou van films. Heb er veel gezien en er staan nog zo’n 100+ op een kijkbeurt te wachten op de externe harde schijf naast mijn computer. Maar waar begin je in hemelsnaam? Ga je ze domweg zitten intikken op goed geluk of doe je het op alfabet en een geordende manier? Ik koos voor het laatste. Een lijst werd gemaakt met acteurs en actrices, bioscoopkaartjes die ik door de jaren heen heb gespaard en favoriete regisseurs en filmseries. Op die manier zou ik wel een eind komen. Ik kwam inderdaad een heel eind, maar niet zonder mijn wijze raadgever en adviseur als het gaat om de kunst van het bewegende beeld. Natuurlijk heb ik het over de Internet Movie Database. Een schitterende site die er altijd voor je is als je iets over een film of acteur wilt weten. Simpelweg IMDB. De IMDB site heb ik lange tijd als de filmbijbel beschouwd omdat nagenoeg alles te vinden is over welke film of serie dan ook. Je gaat erheen om de laatste foto’s te checken, de leeftijden van je favoriete cast members op te zoeken en je kunt zien in welke films ‘jouw’ acteurs allemaal act de présence hebben gegeven. Je snapt het al, het is een explosie van informatie. Nu is het zo, en daar gaat mijn grote ergernis van dit stukje over, dat er op eerdergenoemde site een Top 250 aanwezig is van de beste films die ooit zijn gemaakt. Filmliefhebbers die regelmatig inloggen kunnen stemmen op films waardoor ze in rang zakken of dalen. Jarenlang heeft ‘The Godfather’ op nummer 1 gestaan. Niet verwonderlijk gezien het feit dat het een meesterwerk is. Nu zul je je misschien afvragen wat ik zo nep vind aan het hele circus dat ik net heb opgesomd. Heel simpel. Slechte films staan hoog in de Top 250 en dat komt omdat het cijfersysteem zo lek is als het vergiet in mijn keukenkastje. Er zijn namelijk ‘filmliefhebbers’ die graag willen dat hun favoriete film zo hoog mogelijk in de ranglijst komt te staan. Daarom geven ze hele lage cijfers aan films die er al heel lang in staan om vervolgens hun favoriete film met het onberispelijke cijfer 10 te belonen. Nu mag je niemand betichten van een slechte smaak of het ontbreken van smaak, maar Stanley Kubrick zou zich omdraaien in zijn graf als hij zag dat Wall-E hoger in de lijst stond dan zijn meesterwerken. Films als Spartacus, Planet of the Apes en de originele King Kong uit 1933 dreigen te verdwijnen uit de eerst zo respectabele lijst. Wat mij betreft heeft het bestuur van IMDB alle geloofwaardigheid verloren door films als ‘Up’, die nog geen 2 maand draait, in de lijst toe te laten. Ik denk dat ik maar een brief stuur met daarin een nieuwe naam voor de site; The Infantile Movie Data Bullshitbase. Ik strijk over mijn hart en kijk naar de filmlijst die ik heb samengesteld in een warme zomermaand. Gelukkig weet ik dat er tussen die 1500 films een betere Top 250 zit.

Marc

Data
Title: The Hangover
Year: 2009
Length: 99 minutes
Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Jon Lucas & Scott Moore
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis
Music: Christophe Beck (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: formerly on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: three guys can’t remember last night, and their best friend is missing
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good. It was already a good concept in Dude Where’s My Car?, and it’s pushed farther here.
Story: Indifferent. It’s not a romantic comedy, but they still manage to rely heavily on romantic comedy cliches.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Indifferent. With the exception of Galifianakis’ character and “Mr. Chow,” it’s never the performance that makes things funny.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Very funny. I don’t think it would be so good a second time. Most of the humor comes from a series of really strange and unexpected things, which might not be funny anymore after you’re expecting them and have an explanation for them.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

Data
Title: Good Will Hunting
Year: 1997
Length: 126 minutes
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writers: Matt Damon & Ben Affleck
Starring: Robin Williams, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Stellan Skarsgård, Minnie Driver
Music: Danny Elfman (mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Screenplay (original) and Best Supporting Actor (Williams); currently #226 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a math genius doesn’t want to do anything
How I saw it: on video a couple times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Indifferent. This script really is over-rated, isn’t it? It’s the Wait Those Guys Wrote A Movie That Doesn’t Suck effect.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Great. Some very funny bits, and the dramatic stuff isn’t too bad either.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). I guess I just don’t care. There are a couple very good scenes, but much of the rest (and even some of the good bits) is hackneyed.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

Data
Title: Låt den rätte komma in
Year: 2008
Length: 115 minutes
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Writer: John Ajvide Lindqvist, based on his novel
Starring: Kåre Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson
Music: Johan Söderqvist (and non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #220 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a 12-year-old boy’s new friend is a vampire
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. I can imagine the pitch for this film sounding like a Saturday morning spin-off of Twilight.
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. And I watched the infamous Bad Subtitles version…
Pacing: Indifferent. Kind of slow. Not quite boring, but long.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Most shots are out-of-focus close ups, which I guess creates a deliberate effect, but whatever.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Not “great for a movie staring a couple of adolescents,” just great.
Music: Indifferent. Although, the sound effects are so good, you don’t need good music.
Subjective Rating:7/10 (Good). Immediately after watching it, I thought I’d give it 6/10. But it’s the kind of movie that sinks into your brain and won’t leave you alone, and I find myself deciding between a 7 or an 8.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (Good).

Data
Title: Zombieland
Year: 2009
Length: 80 minutes
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Writers: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Music: David Sardy (but mostly non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #143 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: everyone’s a zombie: stay alive
How I saw it: in the theater, today
Concept: Indifferent. If it weren’t for the good reviews, it never would have occurred to me that this might be something to deliberately watch.
Story: Indifferent. Yeah, story really is not the point.
Characters: Good. Almost an exercise in how to develop characters for an ADD audience.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great. Bonus points for the paintings in “BM”’s mansion.
Acting: Good. Harrelson is actually really great, which is pretty impressive considering how easy it would be for an actor to just phone in a movie like this.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Non-stop fun, pretty funny, and if you want to see zombie-killin’, I doubt you could do any better.  There’s something to be said for a comedy with a stunt crew almost seven times larger than the credited cast.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (Good).

Data
Title: Changeling
Year: 2008
Length: 141 minutes
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: J. Michael Straczynski
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan
Music: Clint Eastwood
Distinctions: currently #232 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: the LAPD gives the mother of a missing child the wrong kid and insist it’s the right one
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. The one time I’m not against “based on a true story” stories: when it’s so bizarre and unbelievable that you would never buy it as fiction.
Story: Good. Great plot, but only so-so writing.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent. According to the IMDb’s trivia, a number of lines are recycled from Babylon 5 (which was written by the same guy). That sounds about right.
Pacing: Terrible. Easily twice as long as it should be.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Looks nice, but unmemorable.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad. Not bad music (and let’s give some credit to Eastwood – writing a mediocre film score is no small task), but bad for the movie.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Interesting story, and more emotionally resonant than most Eastwood-directed movies, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

Data
Title: My Man Godfrey
Year: 1936
Length: 94 minutes
Director: Gregory La Cava
Writers: Morrie Ryskind & Eric Hatch, based on Hatch’s novel
Starring: William Powell, Carole Lombard
Music: Charles Previn, Rudy Schrager
Distinctions: formerly on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a homeless man becomes the butler for an eccentric family
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. It’s everything it needs to be, and there’s a bit of nice social commentary, but we’re not exactly dealing with compelling drama.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad. The creative work is fine, but the film and sound quality is terrible even by 1930’s standards.
Acting: Good. Most everyone is funny, and Powell is pretty cool. Better acting than I’ve seen from more famous actors of the period.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Amusing.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (Pretty good).

Before going on to the top 100 of IMDb’s Top 250, I’m jumping back down on The List to pick up a few titles that snuck on to the bottom after I’d passed it.

Data
Title: The Red Shoes
Year: 1948
Length: 133 minutes
Directors: Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
Writer: Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, with Keith Winter, based on the fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen
Starring: Marius Goring, Anton Walbrook, Moira Shearer
Music: Brian Easdale
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Score (dramatic or comedy) and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color); formerly on the IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a young dancer and a young composer get their break together with a touring ballet company
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good. A movie about the ballet, with the fairy tale tone of a ballet.  The sort of straight-forward, romantic melodrama I expect from a movie inspired by (“based on” seems too strong) Hans Christian Andersen.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good. They’re simple and one-dimensional, but in a way that works perfectly for what the movie’s doing.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Good. It probably doesn’t need to be so long; the real plot doesn’t get going until an hour and a half into the movie. But I was never bored.  And you’ve got to give them some credit for having the balls to put an entire performance of a ballet smack in the middle of a long movie. Risky move, but it works. Strangely, it reminds me of Rififi.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Good. They put all of their efforts with the visuals into a handful of key scenes, which are amazingly good. But other scenes are just okay. For instance, at one point a cloud of dry ice is supposed to represent a train passing by.
Acting: Great. I’m stretching this category to “performances” with this movie.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). I didn’t love it, but I have to wonder what’s wrong with the world that I’d never even heard of it until a few days ago.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (Very good).

Data
Title: Touch of Evil
Year: 1958
Length: 112 minutes [1998 "director's" cut]
Director: Orson Welles
Writer: Orson Welles, based on a novel by Whit Masterson
Starring: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles
Music: Henry Mancini
Distinctions: currently #101 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a Mexican cop stalked by a crime family gets involved in a US border town’s investigation of a car bombing
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. I don’t care for the plot, personally, although it’s well written and engaging.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Very well made. As classic noir crime thrillers go, it’s certainly one of the best.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (Very good).

I’m trying something new with my “objective rating,” a sort of averaging. An explanatory post will follow.

Data
Title: Sin City
Year: 2005
Length: 124 minutes
Directors: Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, with Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Frank Miller
Starring: Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Carla Gugino, Jaime King, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Bruce Willis, Elijah Wood
Music: John Debney, Graeme Revell, Robert Rodriguez
Distinctions: currently #102 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: several loosely-related crime stories set in a corrupt city
How I saw it: in the theater, 2005; on video several times (used to have on DVD), most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Okay. The individual stories are good, but there’s no good reason to put them together.
Characters: Good. Most are cliches, but in that archetype sort of way that works for noir.
Dialog: Bad. Presumably it’s intentionally bad.
Pacing: Eh. It moves too fast, and is simultaneously too long.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great. The visuals are good enough to make up for all of the movie’s faults, and then some.
Acting: Bad. Intentionally bad, I think. Then again, the few great actors in the movie (Rourke, Owen) aren’t nearly as bad as everyone else, so maybe it’s not intentional. Either way, it’s the sort of bad acting that helps create atmosphere.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). It used to be one of my favorites. After a number of viewings, once the shock of how cool the visuals are wears off, it looses a lot. Still a very interesting movie, though.
Objective Rating: 7/10 (points off for dialog, pacing and acting) 7/10 (Pretty good).

Data
Title: On the Waterfront
Year: 1954
Length: 108 minutes
Director: Elia Kazan
Writer: Budd Schulberg, “suggested by” articles by Malcolm Johnson
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Eva Marie Saint
Music: Leonard Bernstein
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing (story and screenplay), Best Actor (Brando), Best Supporting Actress (Saint), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (black-and-white) and Best Editing; currently #103 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: dock workers are afraid to speak up against their murder-happy union
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Okay. Makes for a solid story, but if Brando hadn’t gotten his hands on that character it wouldn’t have been anything special.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Okay. Never boring, but it does feel too long.
Cinematography: Indifferent. Does everything it needs to, but never more.
Special effects/design: Eh. The location sets are good. The sound is terrible. And my goodness what did the make-up people do to Brando’s face? As my wife says, his eyebrows are magnificent.
Acting: Great. About as good as acting gets.
Music: Okay. It’s good music, but it is not a score.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Underneath all the exceptional writing and acting, at its heart it’s still just a gangster movie.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (points off for cinematography and special effects/design) 8/10 (Good).

Data
Title: Det sjunde inseglet
Year: 1957
Length: 96 minutes
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Writer: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Gunnar Björnstrand, Bengt Ekerot, Nils Poppe, Max von Sydow, Bibi Andersson
Music: Erik Nordgren
Distinctions: currently #104 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a 14th-Century Nihilist/Crusader stalls Death with a game of chess
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. If there’s any subject that’s suited to Bergman, it’s challenging Death with a strong dose of bubonic plague thrown in.
Story: Okay. The concept is good enough to carry the story most of the way, but it doesn’t live up to its potential.
Characters: Good. When they weren’t too busy being Very Nihilist and feeling sorry for themselves about it, they seemed like nice enough characters. Death in particular is quite nice.
Dialog: Indifferent. There are a few excellent exchanges, but a lot of the dialog is just spouting of bad philosophy.
Pacing: Eh.
Cinematography: Good. Great visuals, but it’s kind of hard to see some things through all the shadows.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Maybe worth seeing once due to its cultural contributions.
Objective Rating: 8/10 (points off for dialog and pacing) 7/10 (Pretty good).

I’m playing with my format a little. Not sure if I want to keep the change – let me know what you think.

Data
Title: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Year: 1989
Length: 127 minutes
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Jeffrey Boam; story by George Lucas & Menno Meyjes; characters by Lucas & Philip Kaufman
Starring: Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Denholm Elliott, Alison Doody, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover
Music: John Williams
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Sound Effects Editing; currently #106 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Synopsis: Indiana Jones’ father disappears while searching for the holy grail.
Concept: Good. Old-school adventure story, drawing on elements that made Raiders of the Lost Ark great.
Story: Good. The plot is largely just an excuse for action sequences, but it’s tightly written and delivers everything the audience wants.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Okay. A few scenes have a kind of weird rhythm, but the movie as a whole moves quickly.
Cinematography: Okay.
Special effects/design: Good.  The creature effects at the end are pretty lame, but the movie has a great look to it in general.
Acting: Great.
Music: Okay. There are some bits I like, but Williams doesn’t really take advantage of his classic theme music.
Subjective Rating: 8/10. Always good for an entertaining couple of hours.
Objective Rating: 10/10 8/10 (Good).

Title: The Green Mile
Year: 1999
Director: Frank Darabont
Writer: Frank Darabont, based on the novel by Stephen King
Starring: Tom Hanks, David Morse, Bonnie Hunt, Michael Clarke Duncan, James Cromwell, Michael Jeter, Doug Hutchison, Sam Rockwell
Music: Thomas Newman
Distinctions: currently #105 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 188 minutes
Synopsis: a condemned, “simple-minded” giant has magical wizard powers
How I saw it: in the theater, 1999; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Subjective Rating: 4/10
Objective Rating: 5/10 (gets points for characters, dialog, cinematography, special effects/design and acting)

For about an hour it seems like it’s a reasonably good period prison movie – a little slow and cliched, but generally well made and with a great cast. Then Stephen King says, “Drama is hard. F*** it, I’m just gonna give one of these characters some magical wizard powers. That’d be cool, right?” No, no not really.

Title: Batman Begins
Year: 2005
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer, story by Goyer, based on characters by Bob Kane
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Morgan Freeman
Music: James Newton Howard, Hans Zimmer
Distinctions: currently #107 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 140 minutes
Synopsis: an orphaned millionaire learns to fight crime
How I saw it: in the theater twice, 2005; on video a number of times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Subjective Rating: 10/10
Objective Rating: 7/10 (points off for dialog, cinematography and music)

The ultimate super hero movie. When I went to see it for the first time, I had huge expectations, and it blew them all away. Sure, like any sensible person, I like The Dark Knight better. But this one has become my basis of comparison.

Title: Jaws
Year: 1975
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers: Peter Benchley & Carl Gottlieb, based on the novel by Benchley
Starring: Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss
Music: John Williams
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Score, Best Editing and Best Sound; currently #108 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 124 minutes
Synopsis: Giant man-eating shark.  Boo!
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Subjective Rating: 8/10
Objective Rating: 8/10 (points off for concept and story)

I was quite surprised by this one. Suspenseful, and pretty scary as far as monster movies go. But what really surprised me is that it’s also got strong characters, good dialog, and good acting, expertly filmed. They managed to do without the usually-obligatory waiting around to get to the action part(s) that this sort of story typically has.  Everything in the movie is engaging, regardless of whether the shark is around. And when it is around, it’s pretty crazy fun what they do with it.

Title: Hotel Rwanda
Year: 2004
Director: Terry George
Writers: Keir Pearson & Terry George
Starring: Don Cheadle, Nick Nolte, Sophie Okonedo
Music: Afro Celt Sound System, Rupert Gregson-Williams, Andrea Guerra
Distinctions: currently #109 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 121 minutes
Synopsis: a hotel manager shelters Rwandan refugees
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Subjective Rating: 8/10
Objective Rating: 8/10 (points off for concept and cinematography)

Very powerful movie. Great performances. I expected to hate this movie. I expected it to be the kind of movie (like Schindler’s List) that makes itself immune to criticism because to speak badly of it would seem insensitive of the subject matter. I expected it to be a movie that had Something To Say more than a story to tell. It is decidedly not that kind of movie. There is some finger wagging in places, but it’s an unavoidable byproduct of setting the scene, and I expect that if audiences were expected to know anything about African history/current events, it could have been happily skipped. This isn’t a movie about genocide; it’s a movie about people caught in the middle of it, trying to cope and survive. If it were purely fictional, it wouldn’t be any less effective. It’s suspenseful and exciting. And it’s extremely depressing, which is why I only give it an 8/10; good as it is, I’m never going to love a movie that makes me feel crappy.  I actually had a nightmare last night that people were out to kill me and my family.  Not many movies can get into my head like that.