The Majestic (2001)
Director: Frank Darabont
Writer: Michael Sloane
Genre: Drama/Romance
Story
Peter Appleton (Jim Carrey) is an up and coming screenwriter in Hollywood living in the time after WWII that the government was looking for communists (witch hunt) everywhere. Peter is suspected to be a communist because of some ties to communist groups and the studio cancels all of his movies and his girlfriend dumps him. In his grief he drinks too much and then drives and ends up wrecking his car off a bridge. When he awakes from his wreck he doesn’t remember who he is, but the town he finds himself in believes he is Luke Trimble, a war hero who they thought had died in the war. As Peter tries to learn who he really is and the town welcomes him in everyway possible, Harry Trimble (Martin Landau) gets Peter (who he thinks is his son Luke) to help him rebuild the Majestic (a movie theater) and bring the town back together.
Everything Else
The directing of The Majestic is slow and dull at times, but does the job and even brings a decent amount of emotion into play. There were plenty of cheesy lines and scenes to make this one seem overly unbelievable, but the message and emotion still came across. Possibly the most interesting part about this movie was Jim Carrey’s ability to act in it rather than just act crazy. Carrey is funny and has proven that time and time again, but it was not until this performance that he proved he had a true talent for acting. There is not any Jim Carrey humor in The Majestic and that is a good thing.
The story is an interesting one, but upon second viewing it becomes less compelling and you become more focused on how cheesy everything about the movie is. Also, the movie is very slow to start and doesn’t really get going until about 20 minutes from the end. This film suffers from horrible pacing and over dramatization. Aside from those problems however, the acting and story were quite good. I am a little harsh here, but these are things that one needs to know going into it so that they can enjoy the story and acting even more. Expect the worst and hope for the best is always the best way to go into a movie.
The Real Deal
I liked The Majestic a whole lot more the first time around, but it was still good the second time. It had been quite some time since I had seen it so it should have been a good movie to come back to. I think I would have been better off leaving it where it was in my memory though. The whole idea of the movie is interesting and it is always good to see Jim Carrey actually act. This movie and the Truman Show were the first two movies that made me believe in Carrey’s talent. The Majestic is good for watching with a varied audience. There is not much offensive content and there really is nothing but a little language to be considered. The Majestic is a good lighthearted movie with good moral lessons and values, but it is really a movie you should only watch once.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 764,239
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/31/2008
Sharon Movie: The Majestic (2001)
5/30/2008
Sharon Movie: Signs (2002)
Signs (2002)
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Writer: M. Night Shyamalan
Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller/Mstery
Story
When crop circles appear in Rev Graham Hess’s (Mel Gibson) corn field, his brother and two kids get spooked. They try to figure out why this is happening there and all over the world and quickly come to the realization that Aliens are waiting near crop circles to land. Rev. Graham Hess and his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) have to try and protect the two kids Morgan and Bo from the aliens as Rev. Hess continues to battle the tragic loss of his wife who died in a car accident caused by Ray Reddy (M. Night Shyamalan).
Everything Else
The directing of signs follows suit with other M. Night Shyamalan films in that he is great at creating just the right amount of suspense. This movie does not use the crazy twist tactic everyone was surely looking for after seeing The Sixth Sense, but rather Signs tries to build suspense in each situation the family finds themselves caught in. The soundtrack and camera work do wonders in achieving the goal of making the film suspenseful and there was even a couple “jump out of your seat” moments in the film.
The acting was good by Joaquin Phoenix who was just on his way up the Hollywood ladder at this point. Mel Gibson also did his normal good job of acting and made a believable Reverend. Although it seemed odd he was married and had kids, but appeared to be a Catholic priest. Something did not match up with his faith, but the point of the loss and return his of faith still came across quite well. Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin both did well in their roles as the children. Abigail Breslin must have launched her career from this film, but I have not noticed Rory in as many movies since. You have to be rooting for any Culkin though right. Ray Reddy played by M. Night Shyamalan was the worst character and M. Night Shyamalan does not know how to act. Every line he delivers seems so forced it is awful. Unfortunately though, he has every right to be in his own movie. M. Night Shyamalan should stick with the smaller roles in his movies like the doctor that has one line or things like that.
The Real Deal
I liked Signs a lot when it came out and even upon multiple viewings. It has more replay value than The Sixth Sense since there is not really any big twist that once you know it there is not much else left. Signs may not have been as good as The Sixth Sense was the first time, but M. Night Shyamalan continued to create a well made movie which certainly seemed fresh and original like all of his movies have. There is only minor language and violence in Signs and the only true disturbing things are the “jump out of your seat” moments. This could be viewed by a large audience which I am sure is what Shyamalan was going for (in fact it is a Sharon Movie). I would recommend this movie to anyone with an interest in a movie about aliens attacking earth and fans of Shyamalan. The only thing you have to remember is that this is not The Sixth Sense and there is no big twist; if you do not look for it, it makes the movie a whole lot better.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 807,448
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/28/2008
Sharon Movie: Anastasia (1997)
Anastasia (1997)
Director: Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
Writers: Susan Gauthier and Bruce Graham
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Drama/Family/Fantasy
Story
Anastasia (Kirsten Dunst) is a young princess living in the early 20th century with her family when an evil sorcerer named Rasputin (Christopher Lloyd) curses the royal family. The curse is supposed to kill off every member of the royal family including Anastasia, but she gets away with the help of Dimitri (John Cusack), a young servant of the palace. While fleeing from the evil Rasputin, Anastasia falls and loses her memory. Later when she grows up, she is trying to find her family in Paris where her necklace says to go. Dimitri is now looking for a ticket to the good life and holding auditions for people who could be Anastasia so he can get the reward. When the real Anastasia finds Dimitri (neither knows she is the real Anastasia) and they head for Paris to meet the grandmother, Rasputin comes back to try and finish what he started. Although Anastasia has no idea she is a Princess they are ironically trying to prepare her to be the Princess to trick her grandmother into thinking she is really Anastasia. (Sorry this seemed unnecessarily longwinded)
Everything Else
The directing is hard to talk about with most animated films, but the character interactions seemed to work fairly well in Anastasia. There were times in the story that did not seem to line up very well or were just a bit to coincidental, but this is an animated kids movie so what do you expect. Overall the directing was sound and the animation was good enough to keep the excitement up. There were only a few times that the movie lulled into an uneventful moment, but even my two and a half month old daughter enjoyed most of the movie.
The voice acting on all parts was good; although I can’t think of any animated film where the voice acting was not good. It was interesting that the young Anastasia was Kirsten Dunst and the older Anastasia was Meg Ryan. I am not sure there was much need for the two different voices, but it worked well either way. John Cusack was good as the voice of Dimitri and then there was the obvious Angela Lansbury. Christopher Lloyd was the voice of Rasputin and may have had the most challenging voice acting part, but still it seems like voice acting is hard to mess up or at least compared to live action.
The music in Anastasia was good and the songs seemed short and quick which was a good change of pace. It was a musical with all of the song and dance, but each time they really got into it they got it over with quickly. This made the movie seem to flow along much quicker than a lot of the live action musicals I have seen recently.
The Real Deal
I can enjoy a good animated film from time to time, but as an adult I haven’t liked many animated films that weren’t computer generated. Anastasia was good, but the animation almost seemed dry and out dated. It was much like I remember Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast being, but now it looks rough compared to the computer generated animation out there. This was a great movie for the whole family though since I thought it was pretty good and even my baby girl enjoyed it (or at least most of it). The one major complaint I have was the anticlimactic ending. It just didn’t really do anything for me.
Sharon’s Take
I have to apologize to David and to all of the loyal readers out there. I'm sure Sharon Movie May does not appeal to the masses. I was in middle school when Anastasia came out, and I was so excited about seeing it. It didn't disappoint me, and was a wonderful rags to riches to true love over-coming all story with great music. In fact, I purchased the piano music so I can play the songs myself.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 722,981
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/27/2008
Indiana Jones Roundup
As you all may have noticed, I have been reviewing all of the Indiana Jones movies from the Raiders of the Lost Ark to the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. All of them are Sharon Movies and were recommended for review by Sharon so it worked out quite well seeing as how it is Sharon Movie May. I wanted to take a moment and give my thoughts on the series and this seemed like an appropriate for that. If you missed the reviews you can see each by clicking on the title below:
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Indiana Jones series has always been a part of my family’s repeat viewing list along side Star Wars and Back to the Future. I don’t know what it is about trilogies, but it just seems to have worked that way when I was growing up. I always loved the Indiana Jones series and it was always a close second behind Star Wars as far as favorites go. When I found out that a new Indiana Jones was coming out I was kind of skeptical, but I kept an open mind and it turns out that it wasn’t a disappointment at all. I liked all 4, but the Last Crusade is still my favorite and then Raiders of the Lost Ark, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Temple of Doom.
4. Temple of Doom
Temple of Doom was the one that I loved for the mine cart chase in the end and of course the heart removal scene. I always liked the scene where they flew out of the plane and rode a raft down to the river. Short Round was a good addition especially my favorite line, “Indy cover your heart!” Unfortunately after viewing this more recently its terrible flaws were unforgivable which is why it lands at number 4 on the list. The special effects and plot are so bad I had to laugh at them. If you don’t find goodbad movies funny, Temple of Doom could be very disappointing; especially after Raiders of the Lost Ark.
3. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a great movie considering the odds Spielberg was up against when he set out to make this one 19 years after the Last Crusade. Harrison Ford is getting quite old and it is difficult to make movies blend well when either the actors or the special effects have changed so much over the years. This sequel is actually a close third behind Raiders of the Lost Ark. Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones and the addition of Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett as well as the return of Karen Allen kept this movie in check. Spielberg was even able to recreate the cheesy lighthearted feel that was great about the other three. Still this movie has its flaws and really only gets such a high score from me because of its ability to work well with the rest of the series knowing that this could not have been an easy task to achieve.
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
This is where most people probably disagree with me; how can you put Last Crusade over Raiders of the Lost Ark? Well, it is not hard for me because I felt Last Crusade had the classic Indiana Jones feel like Raiders of the Lost Ark, but also had better humor with Sean Connery. Raiders of the Lost Ark is definitely a great movie and I would normally say that since it is the original it wins the prize, but I just liked Last Crusade better. Still, it is hard to beat the giant ball rolling, tons of snakes, and the guy getting chopped up in the propeller. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, so disagree with me if you must, but I am by no means saying Raiders of the Lost Ark is a bad movie.
1. Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the peak of the Indiana Jones series for me. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford could not have acted any better together and Connery is what really put this one over the top. In addition to Connery though, the action without bad special effects was back after Temple of Doom and there was plenty of plot and character development absent from the other two. This was a perfect way to end the trilogy by helping you forget the second film and tying as much back to the first as possible while still offering a great story of its own. When I think about Indiana Jones I always think about Last Crusade first and then about Raiders of the Lost Ark.
5/26/2008
Sharon Movie: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: David Koepp (screenplay) and George Lucas (story)
Genre: Action/Adventure
Story
Indiana Jones is back after 19 years in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. At the beginning of the movie we find Indiana Jones being held captive in order to get him to help the Russians find a certain box they are looking for in a secret Military warehouse. As the story progresses Mutt (according to imdb, but I was almost certain it was Mud) Williams (Shia LaBeouf) comes to Indiana Jones for help. He wants to save his mother (Karen Allen) and Professor Oxley (John Hurt) who Indiana Jones was friends with a long time ago. Professor Oxley went missing when he was searching for the Crystal Skull, which is said to unlock the powers of a golden city lost in the Amazon.
Everything Else
As is true with all of the Indiana Jones movies the story is not one that should really impress anyone. The series is all about the action/adventure and as long as that is what you are looking for then Kingdom of the Crystal Skull should be received well. The directing is solid just like it was in the first and third Jones movies and thankfully the special effects were good enough to not be a distraction like they were in the second film.
George Lucas does not disappoint and gives another wild story, which ends up having plenty of weird character interactions and humorous playful dialogue. This all stays true to the name and therefore makes this film fit right into the series. This is important when trying to make any sequel and especially when it has been 19 years since the last film.
The acting was good in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with two great additions to the cast: Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett. LaBeouf is coming along as an actor proving himself well in supporting roles, but still seems a little above his head in lead roles like Transformers. Nevertheless he did really well here in Indiana Jones and acted well right along side Harrison Ford. Cate Blanchett was a great choice to get a big name and obvious star talent added to the cast. Blanchett never ceases to amaze me with her range of ability. She plays a great villain in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and even puts on a thick accent to round it out.
The Real Deal
I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thoroughly, but I think it could have been better if they had done it 5 years ago and been able to have Sean Connery in it. Shia LaBeouf was a great addition, but Ford and LaBeouf did not jive as well together as Connery and Ford had in Last Crusade. Still with all of the action and plenty of good acting Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was well worth making. I found it to fit into the series just right and would happily buy the Legacy when it comes out on Blu-ray. It is almost strange to be coming back to the series after so many years, but Lucas did it with Star Wars and I can’t help but see some similarities between the Indiana Jones series and the Die Hard series. Steven Spielberg will surely be content with leaving the series the way it is now (or maybe not).
The Short Version
Raw Score: 811,293
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/25/2008
Sharon Movie: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: George Lucas and Menno Meyjes
Genre: Action/Adventure
Story
The film starts off with a quick look at the early years of Indiana Jones and where he picked up some of his fears and motivations for what he does now. The story picks up later with Jones finally regaining the treasure he was trying to get as a kid. When he gets back from reclaiming this treasure and getting it put into the museum, his father turns up missing. His father Professor Henry Jones (Sean Connery) has been captured by the Nazis because he was looking for the Holy Grail which they would love to get their hands on. Indiana Jones has to get his father back, but he and his father cannot resist going after the Holy Grail as well and besides they feel they have to get to it before the Nazis do so the power does not fall into the wrong hands.
Everything Else
The directing by Spielberg on the Last Crusade completely redeems the series after the failure of the second film. The second film was good, but simply did not live up to the first and suffered from terrible special effects and plot (George Lucas). Thankfully Spielberg put some more time and effort into making Last Crusade and added Sean Connery to the mix. Sean Connery absolutely made the Last Crusade. Sean Connery did an excellent job obviously and the way Harrison Ford and Sean Connery acted with each other was perfect. The humor of the series was back and not because the special effects were so bad you couldn’t help but laugh; rather it was because Spielberg had finally made the sequel he should have made with the second film.
The action was non-stop in Last Crusade (maybe not as much so as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and the story was sound. The biggest problem with Temple of Doom was the storyline and the special effects, but both of those things were great in Last Crusade. George Lucas also added the background necessary to develop the characters further by adding an early adventure of Indiana Jones.
The Real Deal
I loved Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Possibly it was just the addition of Sean Connery, but still there are a lot of things I remember from the series when looking back and most of them are from Last Crusade. Spielberg rounded out the trilogy well which is why it was surprising he decided to press his luck with a fourth. I guess if you have tons of money and you are sure to make more by making another film, then why not. Although all of these Indiana Jones movies carry the PG to PG-13 rating they all have gross moments and scenes that could cause little children to be scared and will make adults squirm from time to time, but the language and violence is mild. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a worthy ending to the Indiana Jones trilogy, but I guess a fourth film is never out of the question even a decade or two later.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 858,349
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/22/2008
Sharon Movie: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: George Lucas (story) and William Huyck (screenplay)
Genre: Action/Adventure
Story
Indy is back and getting in more trouble. Jones is trying to get a diamond in exchange for the ancient remains he found, but when the deal goes sour he has to narrowly escape death. Along the way he picks up Wilhelmina ‘Willie” Scott (Kate Capshaw) for the love interest of the film. Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan), Indiana Jones’s young assistant, helps Jones and Scott escape, but the plane they take is sabotaged and they have to bail out. They end up in a small village that is being destroyed by the nearby temple’s evil. The kids of the village have been captured and used as slaves for the benefit of the temple and its quest to find 5 stones which are said to possess magical powers (one of which was stolen form the village). Indiana Jones, Willie, and Short Round set out on the quest to save the village and get the kids and stone back.
Everything Else
Steven Spielberg presents a less impressive sequel to the great Raiders of the Lost Ark, but this one still provides entertainment. Although the action sequences were a little more elaborate than the first film, the effects look much worse. This is one of two major complaints I have for the film. Spielberg should have worked harder to make the blue screening not look blue screened and the explosions more realistic. This is constantly plaguing the screen and even as a child I thought the effects were weird looking. Watching the movie now makes me laugh at how bad it looks, but maybe the technology just wasn’t there to make the scenes look the way Spielberg wanted them to look. Special effects aside the directing was pretty much on par with the first film.
The story is still very George Lucas like as it should be and the dialogue is cheesier than ever in Temple of Doom. The big problem in Temple of Doom seems to be the motivations of the characters. The idea of Indiana Jones going for the stones in the Temple of Doom is fitting for his character, but why does Willie need to come along. Willie has no reason to be with Ford at all really (except for a love interest; after all what kind of film is with out a damsel in distress?). He just decides to protect her by bringing her along on the most dangerous adventure ever (I still don’t get it).
The acting was good in Temple of Doom again, but the dialogue is similar to Star Wars in that it is over the top cheesy at times and this follows suit with the first film so there is no complaint. Ford is more confident as Jones this time, but does not seem to have his edge as Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) steals a little bit of the thunder. Kate Capshaw doesn’t provide the strong female role that Karen Allen provided in the first film which is the main reason this film falls at the bottom of my Indiana Jones list. Amrish Puri was a good bad guy as Mola Ram, but he does not get enough play time on the screen directly with Ford. There is one point where Ram actually leaves Jones and Short Round to save Willie and gives them all the chance in the world to get away unscathed. Most of the problems with Temple of Doom stem from the story (Lucas), but even with the glaring issues the film succeeds in continuing the Indiana Jones Trilogy (Legacy) and providing another wild adventure.
The Real Deal
I liked Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as a kid mostly for the crazy heart stealing and the awesome mine cart chase scene. Those two things were not enough to make up for the bad special effects and the awkward storyline. On this latest viewing I found these things most distracting, but still enjoyed the film. I was laughing a lot more this time around though. There is a lot in this Indiana Jones movie that seems quite gross or gruesome which again seems a bit odd for a movie I always saw as being a family movie. The action was stepped up a notch, but the quality of the effects was sacrificed in the process. I recommend this movie if only to bridge the gap between the other two (three) Indiana Jones films.
Sharon’s Take
Dumb blond, why? Definitely very funny, but not as good as the first. I really enjoyed the mine train chase in Temple of Doom.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 692,493
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/21/2008
Sharon Movie: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: George Lucas and Philip Kaufman
Genre: Action/Adventure
Story
Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is offered money to find the lost Ark of the Covenant. On his adventures to find clues to the ark’s location, he meets up with an old friend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Marion has a special piece to the puzzle, a small circular object used to locate the ark by letting light shine through it in a certain place at a certain time. Jones isn’t the only one after the ark though, and he will find that others are willing to risk anything in to secure the ark’s power.
Everything Else
Steven Spielberg starts off his Indiana Jones Trilogy (or Legacy now) with a great film. The directing is much as we have come to expect from Spielberg over the years and it certainly is a fitting genre for him. This movie has all of the happy, feel good elements you could want. Sure there is danger and excitement, but you just know everything is going to work out or it would not be Indiana Jones (that and there couldn’t be a sequel of course).
Without Spielberg directing, it would have been painfully obvious this was written by George Lucas, although I think it still is quite obvious. Lucas has a way of story telling that is unique and includes enough cheesy situations and dialog to make it hard to miss. Raiders of the Lost Ark flows much like Start Wars which is probably what everyone liked about it at the time. It is 1930s archeology meets galaxies far far away in Raider of the Lost Ark. This formula works like a charm and even includes Harrison Ford as the star that he could have been capable of playing in Star Wars.
Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones does an excellent job. Earlier on in his career between the first and second Star Wars he learned how to act and it shows here in Raiders of the Lost Ark. His mannerisms and facial expressions are what make Indiana Jones who he is. Now it would be impossible to replace him. Karen Allen does a good job here as well as Marion Ravenwood. The Star is still Ford though and he gets the credit he deserves for this one.
The Real Deal
I always loved the Indiana Jones movies when I was a kid and watched them as many times as we watched Star Wars; they were the staples, if you will, of our film entertainment. When Sharon put this one on her list I was excited because not only had I not seen this in a while and wanted to again, but the new one was going to be coming out soon (it comes out tomorrow as of this writing). It was no surprise this was a Sharon movie as it is certainly a happy, lighthearted film with plenty of excitement. Upon viewing this more recently I found it to still be the movie I always loved even with a little bit dated special effects. I was kind of shocked at the amount of blood and gore in it though considering I would still call it a family movie. It never really scared me that much as a kid so I guess if there is an adult around it would not be that bad for kids even.
Sharon’s Take
The first scene is classic Indiana Jones goodness. It is the total package... action, adventure, comedy, and romance. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great movie to watch again and again.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 831,773
Sharon Movie? Yes
Sharon Movie: The Fugitive (1993)
The Fugitive (1993)
Director: Andrew Davis
Writer: Roy Huggins (characters) and David Twohy (story)
Genre: Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller
Story
Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) is accused of murdering his wife. Everything seems to point to him being the murderer as far as evidence goes, but we know Richard is not guilty from the beginning. Dr. Kimble is sentenced to execution by lethal injection after his trial and is then sent on a bus to another facility. The transport of Kimble and other convicts does not go as planned though when one of the convicts makes a scene to allow the others to attack. Dr. Kimble and another convict end up getting away after the wreck and Dr. Kimble is now The Fugitive. He has one more chance to prove his innocence, but he has to stay out of jail to get all of the evidence he needs. Marshall Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) is hot on Kimble’s trail as he attempts to find his wife’s real killer.
Everything Else
The directing of The Fugitive is nothing that stands out as being great, but the text book action sequences combined with the sound direction makes The Fugitive a great film. Most of the action sequences make sense and flow well with the story. The suspense also heightens well with each close call for Kimble. Kimble is almost caught on more than one occasion which makes the movie quite exciting.
The character interactions were good as well. Harrison Ford did well as Dr. Richard Kimble, but Tommy Lee Jones even got an award for best supporting actor in 1993 for this performance here and rightfully so. Jones’s character is constantly just a step behind Kimble and this brings out some of Jones’s best acting talents. Jones has the ability to be confident and yet be very believable as being exhausted from a search for a fugitive. The film also had Julianne Moore in it for a few minutes and Joe Pantoliano was in one of the larger cop roles.
The Real Deal
The Fugitive is a movie I grew up with. In fact, it was one of the first movies I owned on VHS. When I was younger I could watch The Fugitive over and over again and never got sick of it. I had not seen it in such a long time, but when I saw it last week I still loved it. It is a great, well made movie that has just the right amount of suspense, action, and drama. There are a few intense scenes with some blood, but they are not too bad compared to most out there today. The language is really the only other thing that may keep some away. Although, if it is a Sharon Movie then I would argue that just about anyone could handle the intensity of the action and gore. The Fugitive may not be the best movie ever made, but the solid writing, directing, and acting put together make this a movie which is able to age well and is good for repeated viewings.
Sharon’s Take
I know this is a Sharon movie, but it's been so long since I've seen it, I don't feel all that qualified to comment on it. I do remember all the great action, and thinking, "how is he going to escape out of this situation?" Plus it stars Harrison Ford. Has he ever been in a bad movie?
The Short Version
Raw Score: 833,234
Sharon Movie? Yes
5/16/2008
Sharon Movie: Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Director: Tim Burton
Writer: Washington Irving (story) and Kevin Yagher (screen story)
Genre: Fantasy/Mystery/Horror/Thriller
Story
Heads will roll! That was the tag line and certainly it was true. There were plenty of decapitations in this retelling of a classic story about the headless horseman of Sleepy Hollow. We all know the story about Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp) who is sent to investigate the strange murders occurring in Sleepy Hollow and the Hessian Horseman (Christopher Walken) committing the murders. When Crane gets to the village he is immediately drawn into the action with murders happening on a daily basis. As Crane comes closer and closer to discovering the truth the job becomes more and more dangerous for him and the townspeople.
Everything Else
The directing by Tim Burton was certainly not his best work and after watching Sweeney Todd, Sleepy Hollow actually left a little to be desired. Even so, Burton provides another unique version of a classic story and keeps you entertained throughout. The character interactions usually seemed natural, but at times there were things that seemed odd; namely the reactions to murders and the headless horseman. The problem was most often the fact that there was not enough emotion, but this allowed Burton to keep the idea of decapitation lighthearted and even funny at times. With more emotion from the characters it could have been a much darker film which would not have appealed to as wide an audience.
The dark and foggy atmosphere created for the film keeps the mood mysterious and spooky, but often seems a bit over the top. The special effects did the job nicely, but there weren’t any standout, great effects. The story flows well even with the twists and turns as the viewers are slowly shown the truth about the murders in Sleepy Hollow and who the headless horseman is or rather why he is.
The acting on all parts was good with Depp (would it be a Burton film without him) and Christina Ricci as the stars. Christopher Walken does his crazy man performance as Hessian Horseman and the teeth were wild for sure. The supporting roles were not lacking good acting, but the acting did not stand out in Sleepy Hollow much because of its way of muffling the emotion involved. Even when a kid’s father is killed he seems to care very little about it. Overall, Sleepy Hollow is a balanced, well made film about the headless horseman.
The Real Deal
The first viewing of Sleepy Hollow a few years back was a lot of fun. Sharon was there and she of course liked it (or it would not have been a Sharon Movie) even though that may come as a surprise. This may be one of those movies that if seen in the wrong mood could be somewhat disturbing (heads rolling and all), but it was simply hilarious when viewing it in the right mood. This is the real reason it was a Sharon Movie for sure. If she had not seen the humor in it then there would not have been anything “Sharon” about it. It is also interesting that an R rated film is a Sharon Movie as this is often the first deterrent. The blood and gore along with language and decapitation was enough to give this one the R rating, but not enough to keep me from laughing at it. I recommend it to anyone who can find the humor in it and are looking for an entertaining and lighthearted movie.
Sharon’s Take
Sleepy Hollow is a movie that people might not expect to be a Sharon Movie. I really liked this film because it was suspenseful, and yet humorous at the same time.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 785,938
Sharon Movie? Yes
Dave's Movie Reviews is the place to find movie
5/09/2008
Sharon Movie: Singin' In The Rain
Singin’ In The Rain (1952)
Director: Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly
Writer: Adolph Green and Betty Comden
Genre: Comedy/Musical/Romance
Story
This is the story of Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and his rise to the top at the time of talking pictures. Don made it to the top of his game, but the studios were switching from silent pictures to “talkies” and it was a rough transition. Don’s studio had to come up with a way to make their movies “talkies,” but without the annoying voice of Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) who was the current leading lady next to Don Lockwood. Thankfully Lockwood found a young woman named Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds) who could sing, dance, and didn’t have an annoying voice. The only problem was how to get Lamont out of the movie and Seldon into the movie, but Lockwood’s friend Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor) had an idea.
Everything Else
The directing from Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly was quite good in Singin’ In The Rain especially for the time it was made; 1952. Usually I do not like musicals very much, but Singin’ In The Rain was entertaining and had enough story to keep it going. The music of course was good and the dancing to go along with it worked well. The scenes where the singing and dancing came out seemed to make sense which made it better than a lot of musicals which have song and dance coming out of nowhere.
The acting by Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds was good, but Gene Kelly’s character was so smily it was quite scary at times. Donald O’Connor provided a little comic relief often to otherwise dry scenes. Some of the comedy was a little over the top and cheesy, but it worked in a family fun, playful sort of way. Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont did an excellent job at being ridiculously annoying. I still hear her voice in my head (Argh!). Overall the movie had the right ingredients for a well made musical that had a good enough story, music, and acting to make it a great musical.
The Real Deal
No I don’t like musicals unless they are a little different from the norm, but Singin’ In The Rain at least had the song Singin’ In The Rain. I hate to admit it, but I thought Singin’ In The Rain was quite funny at times. It is certainly a classic and could be enjoyed by a wide audience so I have to recommend it to anyone looking for a good musical.
Sharon's Take
It was hard to choose which musical I wanted reviewed for Sharon Movie May. Sing'in in the Rain won over Brigadoon because I thought David would enjoy it more. Gene Kelly might not be the best actor, but he sure can sing and dance. Sing'in in the Rain is light and funny, two qualities that are often found in a Sharon Movie.
The Short Version
Raw Score: 823,292
Sharon Movie? Yes
4/30/2008
What is the Theme in May?
I am sure plenty of you are wondering what the theme for May is going to be since it is just around the corner. Well, it has hit the comments a couple of times over the past two months, but I will tell you anyway if you didn't see it. May is going to be Sharon Movie May.
For those of you who do not know, Sharon is my sister. I started calling movies either Sharon movies or not Sharon movies a few years back when I felt like I had a pretty good idea of whether or not Sharon would like the movie. As you may have noticed at Dave's Movie Reviews, every review has my thought on whether the movie is a Sharon movie or not. Now you will get plenty of examples of Sharon movies as she has picked out 15 or so that I will be reviewing. I hope you all enjoy Sharon Movie May!
4/05/2008
Dave's 100th Movie Review
This opening shot gives me chills every time.The Saint (1997)
Director: Phillip Noyce
Writer: Leslie Charteris (character) Jonathan Hensleigh (Story)
Genre: Action/Romance/Thriller
The Story
Simon Templar (Val Kilmer) or any name of a catholic saint you can come up with is a professional thief looking to score enough jobs to as Templar said “top 50 mil and I’m outta the game.” Now he has to find a way to get enough money to make another 8 million dollars after his last score. As luck would have it his new employer is the last person he ripped off. This time his score is to steal a formula for “cold fusion” from Dr. Emma Russell (Elisabeth Shue) so that Ivan Tretiak (Rade Serbedzija), an oil huge magnate, can control the heating crisis in Russia and come to power in the office. The job is all too easy for Simon Templar, but then he meets Dr. Russell and falls for her. Then things become a bit more complicated.
Everything Else
I now make reference to Phillip Noyce all of the time. I simply say “noyce” when I like something or if something is really nice. I know it is cheesy, but that is what I do. And there is really no other reason besides The Saint I can attribute this to. The directing of The Saint will not leave anyone floored in amazement and is even questionable a couple of times with some goofs, but still The Saint is quite solidly directed and provides a story and enough character development to please most anyone.
The film does not look overly impressive with its late 90s feel and some blue tones, but the actual visual presentation is enough to hold the rest of the great qualities together. By other great qualities I am referring to the soundtrack, acting, and story; the story being the most important to me in this one and then the acting. This is not to discredit the soundtrack which like many great soundtracks was able to make me like songs I would never in a million years liked if I had not heard them in this movie. The soundtrack runs smoothly along and could go unnoticed (one of the signs of a great soundtrack or sometimes a bad one, but in this case it was great).
"I am de thief you tried to cheat!"The acting was important for my entertainment level on this one and the performance by Kilmer was great (we will get to that later). Elisabeth Shue was the person that really stood out in this movie as a perfect actress for the part of Dr. Russell. Shue may not seem capable of coming up with the formula for “cold fusion,” but nevertheless showed such an innocent, reserved, and likable character it would have seemed stupid if Simon Templar did not fall for her. This was great acting on Elisabeth Shue’s part (I have yet to be impressed with any of her other work though). Rade Serbedzija was the protagonist Ivan Tretiak. You can’t stand the guy because everyone is following his lead in the heating crisis and he is such an evil guy at the same time. Tretiak is the guy you really love to hate. A short note on Tommy Flanagan; he is also in my number one movie Braveheart. He did ok in this one, but did not have any speaking parts really; you can recognize him by the scar on his face; hence he is credited as scarface.
Val Kilmer
And here is the reason for the review and one of the biggest reasons I loved this movie. Val Kilmer was excellent in this movie and actually shocked Phillip Noyce with his commitment and enthusiasm when offered the part of Simon Templar. Kilmer is know for attention to detail and completely meticulous character development, but with The Saint Val Kilmer came to the set prepared with characters already developed that Noyce had not even created. This shows that Val Kilmer was excited about this opportunity even more so than his declining the offer to be Batman again. The weird thing I found out was that Kilmer actually received a Razzie Award nomination for Worst Actor in 1998 for his performance in The Saint. I could hardly believe it, but it is true; possibly a joke or someone was jealous. Either way he was beat out by Kevin Costner in The Postman which also managed to scrape up worst picture, worst director, worst screenplay, and worst original song that same year (ouch). The Batman movie he refused to be in won some Razzies that year as well.
Getting back to why Kilmer was great in The Saint; Kilmer developed most of his characters from the ground up even before getting the part. This passion for his work showed in the characters as they were all very unique and had different accents which truly did not even have to been as developed as Kilmer made them. The development was not necessary because truly he was just Simon Templar, a thief who disguised himself as different characters to do what he did best; steal. The interesting characters Val Kilmer presented however were quite impressive and made for a much more entertaining movie. Val Kilmer even wrote his own poetry for his Thomas Moore character; impressive how he has such acting, singing, and even writing talents. Without those characters the movie could have been a lot less memorable. The lines Kilmer’s characters have even are worth every penny.
"Oh, its so early...you guys wanna get some coffee or sumsing"The Saint will always hold the spot as my second favorite movie unless some day I decide it is my favorite. The fact that I quote lines from The Saint almost every day reassures me that I will not forget the movie ever. Any time that I need to test a DVD player or the sound and picture setup of a system, I use The Saint as a test because I know how it should look and sound better than any ot