Am I the only one...

...that can't stand this movie?



It seems inexplicably popular to me. I love a good adventure and fantasy story as much as the next bloke, but this one is just annoying. The thing I hate most about it, is the part when the grandpa is telling the Fred Savage kid the story. Not only is this cheesy and dated (talk about 80s!), it is completely pointless. Why does it have to be a story about a story? Why can't the story about Westly and Butterhead be enough for the film? It devalues the fantasy and makes people cringe.

Also, the quotes. People quote this film to death. And they aren't even good quotes! "As you wiiiiiiiiish", "inconceivable" - inconceivable is a common English word and somehow people think you're referring to this film if you use it... and the worst one: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." Now, in what situation can this quote possibly be of any relevance? That's right, none. It's so specific to the context of the movie that it doesn't even make sense to quote it in real life. But people do. Inconceivable.

I don't think 'The Princess Bride' is a bad film at all, just a reasonable one that's been overrated by people that go on about it. There are other good movies out there you know...

Old People II

Old people often can't tell you if they've seen a film before, until they are 3/4 of the way through it. The name of the film, actors that are in it, or the story's synopsis are not enough to trigger any remembrance.

If they do remember a film, they will usually get the title slightly wrong. For example: my dad referred to 'Being John Malkovich' as "Inside Mr Malkovich". So close but so far!

Nice, slow, entrancing films

Sometimes, if I'm in the right mood, I like to watch slow-moving, visually mesmerising films - a bit like the visual equivalent of a Sigur Ros album.

Examples:

Lost in Translation
Marie Antoinette
(Sofia Coppola)
I do like The Virgin Suicides but it's too depressing for this list

The New World
The Thin Red Line
(Terence Malick)

Heaven (Tom Tykwer)

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

You know, that sort of thing.

Action

The other day I watched The Rock again for the millionth time (but I hadn't seen it for a couple of years). It is one of the best action movies ever and there have been very few decent ones since it came out. The mid eighties to late nineties seemed to be the golden age of action movies. This perception can be partly attributed to my age - I was a teenager in the nineties and teenage boys love action movies, but I think it's still fair to say that the standard of action film making has dropped in the last decade.

Part of the reason why The Rock is so good is the actors. It has a great cast of "proper" actors. Ed Harris plays an excellent morally compromised villain, Sean Connery plays his best character since Indiana Jones' dad, and Nicolas Cage is great as the reluctant hero. A lot of action movies feel the need to use an "action star" in the lead role and this is often to the detriment of the film. Vin Diesel cannot act. The Rock (not the film, the wrestler) cannot and should not be allowed to act. The only reason these people are in films is down to an incorrect assumption that if Arnold Schwarzenegger can do it, then these guys can. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one minute suggesting that Arnold was ever a good actor, but his meat-headedness was used to great effect by the people that casted him in a lot of action films. This idea was poorly replicated by a lot of other action stars like Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme, Wesley Snipes and worst of all - Steven Seagal.
Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford can all act reasonable well, and they've been in some classic action movies - I don't think that's a coincidence.

Here are some must-see action classics:

The Rock
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Predator
True Lies
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon
The Bourne trilogy
Aliens (not as good as Ridley Scott's 'Alien' but it is more of an action film)
Léon
Patriot Games (perhaps more of a thriller but who cares)
Mad Max

The Deer Hunter

I watched this 3 hour classic on the weekend. Didn't start it until 11pm, which was ambitious. Anyway, it's meant to be one of the best films ever made - very highly acclaimed as a cinematic high point, but (and I feel a little bit ashamed as I write this)... I didn't like it. It was an absolute battle getting through to the half-time cup of tea, let alone the end credits. I was surprised that I had such a dry response to it because I can normally find some enjoyment out of just about any movie, and I love 70s American cinema. Myself and the others that watched this were wondering if we'd been oblivious to moments of sheer brilliance. The only thing that kept me watching was the hope that something would happen, but it never gripped me.

To briefly summarise, the movie is about a bunch of working class buddies that go off to 'Nam, have an horrific time there and return to Pennsylvania, forever changed by the torment of what they (barely) endured. That doesn't do it justice - there's a lot more to it than that, and there are some memorable scenes in the movie (several intense Russian Roulette games). But the whole thing is so slow moving it was almost funny... It begins with a Russian Orthodox wedding scene that lasts for 45 minutes! That's like watching a complete stranger's wedding video. I'm sure the reason behind such a loooooong scene was to create some kind of familiarity with the characters involved but that didn't work for me; I couldn't engage with any of the characters and I seriously felt that some drastic editing was required.

At some stage, I plan to watch 'The Deer Hunter' again - give it another chance when I'm feeling more awake. Has anyone seen it? If so, can you explain what I missed?

The Motorcycle Diaries

I watched this for the third time the other day. I actually enjoyed it more than I did the first time. When I first saw it, I went in with the assumption that it was a movie about Che Guevara in his younger days and it would foreshadow what happened with the Cuban revolution. That's not really what it is. When I re-watched it recently, I didn't really think about it historically; I didn't even think about who the character of 'Ernesto' would later become - and I enjoyed it more. It's basically a cool road-trip movie about humanity and the awakening of a social conscience. There are a lot of subtle moments in the movie that are actually quite moving, and I missed these on my first viewing. Oh and it made me pumped to go to South America - the scenery is spectacular and mysterious.

The Godfather part III

I recently watched the much maligned third installment of the Godfather trilogy. It was made some fifteen years after part II and set about 20 years after it. The Godfather part I and II are considered as two of the best films ever made, and they really are awesome, possibly even perfect films. While the first two parts were soaking into our culture, becoming 'classics', the time in which part III was to be made and be well received was slipping away, as was the chance that it would be any good compared to the other films.

I really enjoyed the film. It's not as good as the other two but as far as films go, I think it's a very good one. I really like that the story focuses on the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church - it adds a weird romantic, mysterious edge and gives the corruption a new flavour. The final 3/4 of an hour of this film (the opera scene to the end credits) is one of the most exciting and memorable scenes in the entire trilogy.

Some letdowns:

- Michael Corleone's character. I know he was meant to be older and more reflective, and tormented by his past sins but there was barely any recognisable trace of the Michael from the first two films. Al Pacino acted well in this, but I couldn't help but feel he'd forgotten what Michael was like. He really does seem like a completely different person - literally.

- Sofia Coppola's acting. It was very bad - she actually made her character seem 'special' and I don't think that was the intention.

- The script. It's not as well written as the others. This film is not actually adapted from Mario Puzo's novel - the screenplay was written from scratch by Puzo and Coppola and was perhaps a little rushed. It doesn't have the poetic brilliance of the first Godfather film, where every line spoken seems perfectly natural and tantalisingly profound at the same time.

- Vincent. I didn't think this character had any depth. It was hard to believe that Michael would put him in charge of the family. This film really missed Robert Duvall.


Some let-ups:

- As mentioned earlier, the opera scene was fantastic.

- I liked what they tried to do with Vincent's character. It seemed like he was meant to be the reverse of Michael in part I - going from ruthless villain to respectable family man. I like that idea, it just didn't quite work because of Andy Garcia's acting and the script. Or maybe I'm just seeing things that weren't there.

- I liked the brief flashbacks to all the women that Michael had lost. They gave a lot of strength to the emotional punch of this film.

Not a perfect film but a nice way to end the trilogy, nonetheless.