_Movies Seen in 2005

Typo. I'll fix it. Thanks!

Yes, I enjoyed them very much.

I thought I should review the first Godfather before seeing the second one. I've seen the LOTR:ROTK about seven times, but this was my first screening of the extended edition, so I recorded it here. I can usually watch two or three per day, but those movies took up an entire evening each, of course.

I like how it captures the Sixties. I like how it plays with you, because you can't tell if what happens is real or not. Very arty.

I don't know which films are travelling. What I'm seeing is the whole enchilada, on its home turf.

Hey, LBangs!! Long time, no see :).

I'm not sure quite what to think of Wild Strawberries, because I'm not sure I "get" Bergman. It isn't as sad as I expected it to be. It's a beautiful, gentle film, with a subtle character arc, lots of symbolism, and a happy ending. This geezer goes on a road trip with his daughter-in-law (who calls him "uncle"), from Stockholm to Lund, where he is going to receive an honorary award for lifetime achievement. Along the way, they pick up three young hitchhikers and a middle-aged couple. His experiences on the trip, along with nostalgic daydreams and weird nightmares, hold a mirror up to his life and make him reevaluate who he has become. It looks like, in the end, he is on the road to becoming a better person.

Beautiful. I am amazed how Kurosawa was able to tell the exact same story (as Shakespeare's Macbeth), yet in such a purely Japanese way. Great acting. The screenplay was perfect. The cinematography was perfect. Excellent film. It's only drawback, as far as I'm concerned, is that I really don't like the story of Macbeth.

I Walked With a Zombie didn't get to me at all. It could have been the cheesy zombie concept, or the Jane Eyre plot, or the waste of African American acting talent, but I didn't appreciate the atmospherics or story like I should have.

However, Sweet Smell of Success is a hoot. I'd never seen Burt Lancaster be so calculating or creepy before. Tony Curtis is a revelation. I sure was hoping they'd both get it in the end, but meanwhile, I sure enjoyed watching the machinations.

Excellent movie. Authentic dialogue. He captures the banality of (some) married life so accurately.

I think Ingrid Bergman was a breathtakingly gifted and subtle actress. George Sanders does his fair share. Perhaps Rossellini brought out the best in her.

I think it's very accessible, but it requires attention and patience, because of its subtlety. I'm pretty much a lunkhead when it comes to symbolism, but even I got the bits about death and birth. Maybe that's a sign that we were being hit over the head with it, eh?

I think Episode III is pretty good, but the critics are right about the dialog and wooden acting. It's dramatically intense.

The visuals are amazing.

Even though I knew how it would end, it made me very sad.

I knew you would ask! I waited to post that I'd seen it, so that I could form an opinion before having to 'splain. I enjoyed it very much. I took it to be a scathing indictment of the Hollywood value system. A brilliantly subversive movie, and I mean "subversive" in a good way.

I like it very much. It seems like a very American-style movie, which surprised me. I can't say I'm thrilled to see a movie which glorifies the situation in Rio at the same time as it appears to be condemning it.

I really loved it! However, I regret I did not have time to listen to the commentaries. I was in too big a hurry to return it, because I was heading out of town.

As Leonard Maltin says in his 2005 movie guide, it's "unpleasant to watch, at times" but it's very good. Because it's all in the realm of possibility, it's quite disturbing. The psychology of it is realistic. The acting is spot-on.

Who is the non-fan? I just checked. At various times, you gave it 8.5, 4 stars, and 3.5 stars.

I did not like it, but I think I'll give it a 2.5. There were several suspenseful scenes, but both Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery were miscast. I found the psychology specious at best. I didn't understand anyone's motivations, not Marnie's, or Mark's, or Lil's. I didn't like having Mark force himself on Marnie, nor did I like him practicing psychiatry on her. I didn't understand Mark. Is he a guy with a superman complex? First he saves his father's company from ruin, then he saves Marnie from herself. But he's supposed to be a rebel, drawn to Marnie's self-destructive behavior. And Marnie. Why would her mother have rejected her? It's as if her mother is afraid loving her will turn her into a whore? Unbelievable. I understand her mother overreacting and raising Marnie to be afraid of men and be sexually repressed, but the lack of affection between mother and daughter isn't justified sufficiently, nor do I see how that would motivate her compulsive lying and theft, IMHO.

The theatricality of Louise Latham's old-lady makeup disturbed me. She was 42 when she made the film, according to IMDB, just 9 years older than Tippi. All they needed to do was age her about 6 years and she could have passed for Marnie's mother. Not aging her at all would have sufficed, as it would have accentuated how young she was when she conceived. Instead, they put obvious dark lines on her face which the DVD and my HD-TV showed off to bad effect.
I'm erring on the side of caution with these spoiler tags.

It's OK. Not great but not crap. I'm one of the few people who thinks Tom Cruise can act. Dakota Fanning is always a treat to watch. I saw plot holes and broken physical laws all over the place. The ending was totally created by test audiences.

It quickly drifted into the dusty corners of my movie memory.

I loved it!! Great performances.

Excellent film. I can see where Tarantino got his inspiration. Also seems to me that Xena got her moves from the Golden Sparrow.

Yes, I do like to see you beg. I think it's fascinating which movies you feel strongly about.

I did not like Andrei Rublev. I fell asleep twice. I don't understand why the Soviets would suppress it. Please explain what I missed!