The Fly (1986)
I thought I had seen The Fly. I certainly remembered the arm wrestling scene. Yet beyond that scene and knowing the basic plot, it seemed very new to me. Often filed away under the horror label (though clearly sci-fi as well), the film is not so much scary as grotesque. This certainly counts as horrific but isn't in keeping with the sense of peril that is typical of the genre.
Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) has invented a teleportation system and can't help but use it to impress the attractive journalist Veronica (Geena Davis). It is his feelings for her that ultimately push him to recklessly test it on himself and but for the presence of a little fly, it would have worked perfectly. Instead, we watch his decline.
This film could be a cautionary tale about scientific overreach (Jurassic Park is more focused in that respect), it could be a commentary on genetic engineering and the concept of genetic superiority. It even could double as a particularly gruesome commentary on the nature of reproduction and indeed, this is where it comes closes to depth. Still, it manages to be all and none of these, largely sacrificing any thematic coherence simply to revel in genre-film creature effects. As the film turned further in that direction, I became less invested in it. I suppose the film deserves credit for disgusting me, that's just not what I really want out of a film.
The film has that vaguely B-movie vibe in its production quality as well. Aside from the creature effects, the filmmaking here is kind of rickety and surprisingly Goldblum and Davis come off as a bit stilted with the dialogue. It doesn't really come off as a well crafted film but maybe I'm just judging the 80s too harshly as the film very much feels of its time. Still a lot to like for what it is but apparently nothing too memorable for me if I had in fact seen it before.
3/5
I'm guessing by your luck-warm reaction that the ending didn't make up for all the hiccups along the way.
80. Inception - This almost makes my own Top 100. Sure the snowbound action isn't very well done. Now lets look at everything that's good with the film. Another terrific screenplay and Nolan's finest directing with his best blend of cool moments and smarts, both in epic doses. I'm still not convinced of one particular interpretation. So many work and I'd hate to forsake a few.* * * *
People don't like the snow sequence? What's the complaint?
That the bad guys are very video gamey. They're indistinguishable avatar guys with no personal involvement, so the action is snippets of a stunt show with very few cool/interesting moments.
Hmm, can't say as I relate to that at all.
73. Shaun of the Dead - So many of the jokes just land, even on repeat viewings. I love the camerawork that's brash without being overbearing. (The steadicam shot after zombie infestation and the way it reflects on an earlier matching shot is among my absolute favorite of the decade.) I love the buddy dynamic between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and I love just how rich and touching their friendship is written and played. The film would not have worked so well without such deep conviction. The pacing slackens a bit as it rolls along and by the end it plays less like a comedic deconstruction and more like a standard zombie film. The final scene wraps a wonderful bow on things. * * * 1/2
How you gunna go and take a half star off this one? I need to know.
Answer in bold. The last third is nowhere near as inventive as the first hour. It becomes more homage than original inspiration.
Oh I see. I guess I didn't read that as a criticism, just an observation.
72. Rumble in the Bronx - A silly film, but entertaining with a couple of Jackie Chan's greatest action sequences. * * *
I don't think it's possible to dislike this movie when it finishes with such an endearing blooper reel.
Have you seen Rush Hour? The blooper reel is the most endearing moment.
Seen it many times.
Part two also. I own both dvds and have also enjoyed Brett Ratner's dvd commentaries. Solo commentaries by directors are usually SO dry... even directors like Michael Bay. Ratner is a good storyteller, so his commentaries are actually enjoyable.
Would you say it's fair to call To Live and Die in L.A., Lethal Weapon without the humour? Having just watched the movie I can't help but make the comparison. Both steeped in 80's style (music on down to wardrobe), one cop with some serious demons pulling another one off the straight and narrow...
This better not be the last we hear about Lethal Weapon from you.
I'll give it a few words at some point I guess. I didn't like it as much as might've been expected though.
I was curious how you'd feel about this one. You're no stranger to noir, and you picked up on that vibe early. Myself, I try and stay a safe distance away from the genre. However in this case I must concede to its occasional goodness. I think the ending had a lot to do with that. It surprised me... showed me something different. Do you think it was totally successful in what it was trying to get across?
Maybe not totally successful, but successful enough. The turn it takes about 10-15 minutes before the end (anyone who's seen it should know what I mean) was completely unexpected, and I really appreciated that.
I would say the same.
You really covered all the bases. There's not much to add except that I'm glad you had a good time.
Yeah, me too! I lucked out, I think. There are many others I could have picked that I think I would have liked far less.
I think you're probably right. Go with your gut.
Open Range (2003)
I've been accused of reading too far into films before. On the one hand, I like films to be about things and this habit can make films better (even when they don't intend the insights I find) or it can make films worse (when they fail to fully embrace the themes they never aspired to in the first place). At the heart of Open Range is a conflict between free range cattlemen Boss (Robert Duvall) and Charley (Kevin Costner) and the private ranching of Baxter (Michael Gambon). Whether justified or not, I read into this conflict an epic clash of economic ideologies.
The free range ethos that once ruled the West was a rather egalitarian one. The land belonged to no one and everyone and that allowed anyone who could scrape up some cattle to earn a livelihood. They might not make it rich but they'd put together enough that they might enjoy a whiskey in a saloon or an evening in the company of a prostitute on the chance they make it into town. It's not much, but it's a life.
Once the land could be owned, it necessarily played favorites and those were the ones with the money to buy up the land and it concentrated the earnings in those hands. What you've got is a concentration of wealth and power typical of capitalism (and feudalism for that matter) and Baxter is the cold, bottom-line focused type that isn't concerned about those who get ground up in the gears of his machinery, in this case a metaphorical equivalent of the industrial revolution.
One thing about Open Range is that it is a very simple plot yet it is a reasonably long film at 140 minutes. Some of this is valuable, introducing us to the various individuals in the town where Baxter is exerting his force. We see how each is in varying ways kept down or intimidated. The introduction of a romantic sub-plot involving Sue Barlow (Annette Bening) adds stakes to the inevitable showdown. Still, the film does have the tendency to throw in sizable conversations that feel entirely unnecessary, putting into words what is already pretty obvious through the actions.
So is Open Range intentionally a populist, anti-corporate film that creatively uses that most American of genres, the Western, to convey its message? I don't know, but in our present economic times, it certainly strikes a chord. That gives it enough, in spite its flaws, to rise above standard Western fare.
4/5
I'm glad you found an angle that made this one worthwhile.
Tremors (1990)
Being a rewatch, I felt comfortable splitting this into two sittings here and there when I wasn't quite ready for a proper viewing. Still, finishing it up on the day I watched The Fly made for interesting contrast. This creature feature plays much more to standard horror B-movie conventions with our characters in a real state of peril. There is no pretense of deep meaning yet I don't mind in the slightest because I'm having so much fun, even with as dated as everything about the film is. It is amazing how much you can do with tin can alley style effects with a bit of smoke and a thing falling over to indicate position. Or else it's very much like the backlot tour ride at Tremors, everything on a timer, played to dramatic perfection.
Plus, I think the risk of subterranean terror is a perfectly legitimate reason to demand people have the right to a personal arsenal of high powered weaponry.
You're a Burt Gummer at heart.
68. Happy Gilmore - I'm going to take this as one of your personal picks that give your list charm. Not that I don't think it's funny. But Top 100? I'd say it's just as annoying as it is funny and if I'm going to put in a Sandler, might as well go for Billy Madison, which is even more annoying and funnier and as Bradley Whitford. * * 1/2
That's the thing, I can sit through Billy Madison and not crack a smile. But all I have to do is think of Chubbs Peterson, Shooter McGavin, or Ben Stiller as the orderly, and I can start laughing. And the character Happy Gilmore is Sandler at his least annoying (i.e. best). For me this straight forward comedy has more laughs per scene than most, and has held up over more viewings than things like Dumb & Dumber or Wayne's World. Quotable, memorable... and responsible for more injuries at the driving range than any other film.
75. Million Dollar Baby - I got caught up in Million Dollar Baby all over again. This time I even knew the movie was going to put my heart through the f—king wringer. I still gave in. Yeah, some of the performances and supporting character beats could and should have been stronger, but I still hold that this one of the Top 100 of the Decade. * * * 1/2
I saw this again over Christmas. I feel like it hits every note just right.
72. To Live - I didn't get to rewatch this like I hoped. I saw the film in the theater in 1994 and I loved it. * * *1/2
That's awesome
71. Winged Migration - InitSpartan
Val Kilmer plays Bobby Scott, a top notch special agent assigned to rescue a high ranking politicians daughter (played by Kristen Bell) from the sex trade. As he goes through the investigation we see the case take several twists and turns and things are never quite what they seem.
Mamet has a unique style in the thriller genre to me. The movie feels like so many of its genre that are really tightly constructed, but there is a looseness and messiness to the way things unfold. It is kind of jarring in a good way. I wonder in movies like this, or The Spanish Prisoner for example, how much is intentional. I felt pretty confused by some of the missions and who knew what at certain points of this movie, but maybe a little bit of that is on purpose. I cant put my finger on what it is, but everything just seems to stack up oddly and unconventionally.
Overall the movie is a pretty well paced action movie. There are a lot of good small parts (I particularly like Ed O'Neil and William H Macy playing some of the government suits that know more than they let on). Also, when I think Mamet, I often think I am going to get something pretty dialogue heavy, although this movie is actually a little bit sparse in that department. An interesting choice that I think worked pretty well.
ially I confused this with the movie Fly Away Home. I remember liking this. Had to watch the DVD extras because I couldn't believe some of the shots they got. * * *
I did the same thing. I wish I hadn't.
Spartan
Val Kilmer plays Bobby Scott, a top notch special agent assigned to rescue a high ranking politicians daughter (played by Kristen Bell) from the sex trade. As he goes through the investigation we see the case take several twists and turns and things are never quite what they seem.
Mamet has a unique style in the thriller genre to me. The movie feels like so many of its genre that are really tightly constructed, but there is a looseness and messiness to the way things unfold. It is kind of jarring in a good way. I wonder in movies like this, or The Spanish Prisoner for example, how much is intentional. I felt pretty confused by some of the missions and who knew what at certain points of this movie, but maybe a little bit of that is on purpose. I cant put my finger on what it is, but everything just seems to stack up oddly and unconventionally.
Overall the movie is a pretty well paced action movie. There are a lot of good small parts (I particularly like Ed O'Neil and William H Macy playing some of the government suits that know more than they let on). Also, when I think Mamet, I often think I am going to get something pretty dialogue heavy, although this movie is actually a little bit sparse in that department. An interesting choice that I think worked pretty well.
I keeps moving up my list. It's that strange quality you mention. I keeps me coming back. I'm Glad you took the time to see it.