Reviews: Elizabeth / Enron / Jesse James / Yuma
194. Elizabeth (1998)
I decided to check out this movie as I was planning to watch it back-to-back with The Golden Age, but unfortunately, I'm still in queue for that movie so this'll be a stand-alone review.
The above graph sums up my interest in this film: it started pretty high, but somewhere in hour 2, it took a nosedive when the movie became really dreary and the cast got so big that I had a hard time following who was who was who. Or maybe it's just that I've never really been into Old England films.
Ebert proclaims on the DVD cover that this was "One of the Year's Best!" so I decided to check out his review for some insight. Sadly, he doesn't exactly say much, summing up the story over a few paragraphs, then basically going . .
- "Cate Blanchett is great." (I agree, has she ever not been?)
- "Director is great." (I agree too, he uses several memorable shots here)
- "Costumes and sets are great." (Not interested in fashion, but the costumes did seem pretty complex. Sets . . are very grey.)
- "Movie rewrites history, but whatever." (Huh?)
- And that's why it's "One of the Year's Best!" (Huh???)
Oh well, this is probably one of those movies that demand a rewatch in the far-off future, but I'm just not hungry for grey right now. 4 out of 10
195. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)
So here it is: The highest rated film of 2005 -- 97% Tomato meter, 111 liked it, 3 did not. How do you argue with that? Heck, how can anyone argue FOR Enron? You can debate politics, health care, war, but there's really no other side to the Enron scandal. This is probably the most bulletproof documentary in the history of documentaries.
But is it a compelling documentary? At some times, no. My knowledge of the world probably only goes as far as Grade 10, so while I could get Sicko and The Al Gore movie, this one left me a bit confused. I guess most critics have taken Economics 101; me, I don't know anything about stocks. Enron's success and failure were tied to its stock, so some head scratching moments - definitely.
Not that there aren't any compelling moments. I really loved the stuff about Schwarzenegger and Lou Pai (how did that guy get away scotch free??). And of course, there were appearances by George Bush, who gets kicked in the nuts by every documentary I've seen so far. Documentarists sure hate this guy!
The doc makers also seemed to have been inspired by Michael Moore in some ways by using a lot of songs and old movie clips (where do they find this stuff?). I thought it worked.
And even with my "Grade 10" brain, I walked out of it knowing way more about the Enron scandal than I did before (which was zip). Almost makes me feel Grade 11 now. But after watching this, if I ever start a company, I'm pretty sure I won't go public because the push to make more money every year can pull your sanity and soul out of you. 7 out of 10
196. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
( I love how the official website of this movie is simply jessejamesmovie.com )
With a title like that, the "Jesse James Movie" pretty much gives away the ending. However, it doesn't answer how and why it happened, so my curiosity kept the movie engaging as slow as it was.
Still, there was just something in the movie that didn't feel right. Maybe it was the narration . . sometimes it did work and added to the atmosphere. But sometimes it just seemed unneccessary and obvious. Ex. Scene: Ford looks at the gun on the nightstand, thinking of shooting Jesse. Narrator: "Ford looks at the gun on the nightstand, thinking of shooting Jesse." OMG NO WAI!!
But I think the main problem (for me anyway) was that I just always imagined Jesse James to be lankier, less Brad Pitt and more . . Daniel Day Lewis? I actually found Brad distracting -- maybe it's his megastar status that made me hard to suspend my disbelief and buy that he's Jesse James. I remember having the same problem with Tom Hanks in Apollo 13. Does anyone ever have this same problem?? Casey Affleck was a different story, I had never seen or heard of him before, and so I found his performance much more believable and Oscar-worthy.
What is even more Oscar-worthy was the directing. "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" made me go, "Holy crap, the directing is awesome!" but the Jesse James Movie" made me go "Holy shit, the directing is AWESOME!" (There is a difference!) It looked like he spent days planning how he'd direct every single minute of the film. So I'm shocked that not only did he not win, he wasn't even nominated! Am I missing something here? Or . . maybe, I'm confusing him with the cinematographer? I'm still a film newbie, and I'm unsure when the director's role ends and the cinematographer's begins in a scene. In any case, the look of this movie is just incredible and kudos to whomever was responsible for it.
BTW, I just noticed that the movie's title matches the 17-syllables of the movie that, *I think*, has the longest title ever: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116126/ Clearly intentional! 7 out of 10
197. 3:10 to Yuma
I imagine this scenario happens at a bar every so often:
Screenwriter #1: "I'm going to write a [ ] movie and it's going to be great.
Screenwriter #2: "Oh yeah? I'm going to write a [ ] movie too and it's going to be even better!"
"We'll see about that!"
One year it was bugs, another year we had magicians, then there were the spelling bees, 9/11, and last year [ ] was Westerns. I expect the battle of the polygamy movies coming soon to a theatre near you.
I really enjoyed this film up to the point where Ben Wade gets captured. Then the film follows the gang on their pilgrimage to 3:10 to Yuma, which basically follows a pattern of "encounter problem," "one guy gets killed," repeat. Sometimes, it reminded me of a 90s side-scrolling video game. However, the movie more than makes up for it by playing an incredible end game. I can't remember the last time a movie had me this excited. The hero gets thrown into this impossible problem and it was heart-pounding, engrossing and fun to watch him try to solve it. The solution isn't exactly Ocean's 11, but I just still loved watching every minute of it. Very wild west. And while I originally didn't like the quick ending wrap-up, after I thought about it for awhile, I thought it was a great ending and much better than the extended one I was envisioning.
I'm sure the directing was good, but it just seemed kinda bland to me after watching the Jesse James movie a few hours earlier. I loved the score though . . I can't hum any of it off the top of my head, but at the time, I remember thinking how it fit every scene. Kudos to whoever composed it.
I think my main problem in this film was that I wanted to see more of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale interacting. I'm reminded of my beef with American Gangster, where Russell and Denzel Washington act up a storm, yet they only work together for 10 minutes in the film. In Yuma, the two have more screen time, but are also distracted by all these other supporting characters who are not developed and just not as interesting (with the exception of Charlie Prince). I dunno, maybe these characters served more of a purpose in the book, but in the movie, it was just "Sucks that he died. Well, let's move on." The son in particular bugged me. He just couldn't hold a candle to Russell and Christian, and seemed too "modern" for a Western, as if he was plucked out of MySpace and given Old West clothes and a "Faking an Old West Accent for Dummies" book.
So while 3:10 is my winner in the 2007 Western movie shoot-out, I just think it had the potential to be even better. If only it had the look of the Jesse James movie and the character development of No Country and There Will Be Blood, this would've been a masterpiece. 8 out of 10
I decided to check out this movie as I was planning to watch it back-to-back with The Golden Age, but unfortunately, I'm still in queue for that movie so this'll be a stand-alone review.
The above graph sums up my interest in this film: it started pretty high, but somewhere in hour 2, it took a nosedive when the movie became really dreary and the cast got so big that I had a hard time following who was who was who. Or maybe it's just that I've never really been into Old England films.
Ebert proclaims on the DVD cover that this was "One of the Year's Best!" so I decided to check out his review for some insight. Sadly, he doesn't exactly say much, summing up the story over a few paragraphs, then basically going . .
- "Cate Blanchett is great." (I agree, has she ever not been?)
- "Director is great." (I agree too, he uses several memorable shots here)
- "Costumes and sets are great." (Not interested in fashion, but the costumes did seem pretty complex. Sets . . are very grey.)
- "Movie rewrites history, but whatever." (Huh?)
- And that's why it's "One of the Year's Best!" (Huh???)
Oh well, this is probably one of those movies that demand a rewatch in the far-off future, but I'm just not hungry for grey right now. 4 out of 10
195. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)
So here it is: The highest rated film of 2005 -- 97% Tomato meter, 111 liked it, 3 did not. How do you argue with that? Heck, how can anyone argue FOR Enron? You can debate politics, health care, war, but there's really no other side to the Enron scandal. This is probably the most bulletproof documentary in the history of documentaries.
But is it a compelling documentary? At some times, no. My knowledge of the world probably only goes as far as Grade 10, so while I could get Sicko and The Al Gore movie, this one left me a bit confused. I guess most critics have taken Economics 101; me, I don't know anything about stocks. Enron's success and failure were tied to its stock, so some head scratching moments - definitely.
Not that there aren't any compelling moments. I really loved the stuff about Schwarzenegger and Lou Pai (how did that guy get away scotch free??). And of course, there were appearances by George Bush, who gets kicked in the nuts by every documentary I've seen so far. Documentarists sure hate this guy!
The doc makers also seemed to have been inspired by Michael Moore in some ways by using a lot of songs and old movie clips (where do they find this stuff?). I thought it worked.
And even with my "Grade 10" brain, I walked out of it knowing way more about the Enron scandal than I did before (which was zip). Almost makes me feel Grade 11 now. But after watching this, if I ever start a company, I'm pretty sure I won't go public because the push to make more money every year can pull your sanity and soul out of you. 7 out of 10
196. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
( I love how the official website of this movie is simply jessejamesmovie.com )
With a title like that, the "Jesse James Movie" pretty much gives away the ending. However, it doesn't answer how and why it happened, so my curiosity kept the movie engaging as slow as it was.
Still, there was just something in the movie that didn't feel right. Maybe it was the narration . . sometimes it did work and added to the atmosphere. But sometimes it just seemed unneccessary and obvious. Ex. Scene: Ford looks at the gun on the nightstand, thinking of shooting Jesse. Narrator: "Ford looks at the gun on the nightstand, thinking of shooting Jesse." OMG NO WAI!!
But I think the main problem (for me anyway) was that I just always imagined Jesse James to be lankier, less Brad Pitt and more . . Daniel Day Lewis? I actually found Brad distracting -- maybe it's his megastar status that made me hard to suspend my disbelief and buy that he's Jesse James. I remember having the same problem with Tom Hanks in Apollo 13. Does anyone ever have this same problem?? Casey Affleck was a different story, I had never seen or heard of him before, and so I found his performance much more believable and Oscar-worthy.
What is even more Oscar-worthy was the directing. "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" made me go, "Holy crap, the directing is awesome!" but the Jesse James Movie" made me go "Holy shit, the directing is AWESOME!" (There is a difference!) It looked like he spent days planning how he'd direct every single minute of the film. So I'm shocked that not only did he not win, he wasn't even nominated! Am I missing something here? Or . . maybe, I'm confusing him with the cinematographer? I'm still a film newbie, and I'm unsure when the director's role ends and the cinematographer's begins in a scene. In any case, the look of this movie is just incredible and kudos to whomever was responsible for it.
BTW, I just noticed that the movie's title matches the 17-syllables of the movie that, *I think*, has the longest title ever: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116126/ Clearly intentional! 7 out of 10
197. 3:10 to Yuma
I imagine this scenario happens at a bar every so often:
Screenwriter #1: "I'm going to write a [ ] movie and it's going to be great.
Screenwriter #2: "Oh yeah? I'm going to write a [ ] movie too and it's going to be even better!"
"We'll see about that!"
One year it was bugs, another year we had magicians, then there were the spelling bees, 9/11, and last year [ ] was Westerns. I expect the battle of the polygamy movies coming soon to a theatre near you.
I really enjoyed this film up to the point where Ben Wade gets captured. Then the film follows the gang on their pilgrimage to 3:10 to Yuma, which basically follows a pattern of "encounter problem," "one guy gets killed," repeat. Sometimes, it reminded me of a 90s side-scrolling video game. However, the movie more than makes up for it by playing an incredible end game. I can't remember the last time a movie had me this excited. The hero gets thrown into this impossible problem and it was heart-pounding, engrossing and fun to watch him try to solve it. The solution isn't exactly Ocean's 11, but I just still loved watching every minute of it. Very wild west. And while I originally didn't like the quick ending wrap-up, after I thought about it for awhile, I thought it was a great ending and much better than the extended one I was envisioning.
I'm sure the directing was good, but it just seemed kinda bland to me after watching the Jesse James movie a few hours earlier. I loved the score though . . I can't hum any of it off the top of my head, but at the time, I remember thinking how it fit every scene. Kudos to whoever composed it.
I think my main problem in this film was that I wanted to see more of Russell Crowe and Christian Bale interacting. I'm reminded of my beef with American Gangster, where Russell and Denzel Washington act up a storm, yet they only work together for 10 minutes in the film. In Yuma, the two have more screen time, but are also distracted by all these other supporting characters who are not developed and just not as interesting (with the exception of Charlie Prince). I dunno, maybe these characters served more of a purpose in the book, but in the movie, it was just "Sucks that he died. Well, let's move on." The son in particular bugged me. He just couldn't hold a candle to Russell and Christian, and seemed too "modern" for a Western, as if he was plucked out of MySpace and given Old West clothes and a "Faking an Old West Accent for Dummies" book.
So while 3:10 is my winner in the 2007 Western movie shoot-out, I just think it had the potential to be even better. If only it had the look of the Jesse James movie and the character development of No Country and There Will Be Blood, this would've been a masterpiece. 8 out of 10