Land of the Dead 2005 SPOILERS

4/5

I FINALLY hauled my ass out to see this movie, and am I glad I did! While I couldn't say it's the best of the three simply because "Day" will always be my favorite, it is a worthy and proud addition to the zombie genre and Romero's films in general.

See, I was afraid that when Hollywood money is thrown at Romero he comes out with crap (i.e. Knightriders). You take big money away, and a gem like "Dawn of the Dead" 1978 is the result. To my relief, this one is far better than I had expected. The only part I didn't care for is that the lead actors end up fighting over money, which made no sense at all--money is worthless in this "universe", as shown in "Dawn's" bank shots. I could see fighting over the specialized truck-tank "Dead Reckoning" or the safety of the exclusive "Fiddler's Green", but not the cash.

Other than that it's got an excellent story, good acting (except for Dennis Hopper, of all people!), outstanding effects and locations, and one hell of an eerie feel to it. The jump moments are unexpected most of the time, although there are a few that are telegraphed. However, he does fake you out enough times that you are surprised when it really does happen. I'm pretty savvy about seeing stuff coming and I jumped a good 5-6 times in this film (although to be fair, I love jump moments in movies so even if I see them coming, I still jump.).

Tom Savini has an AWESOME cameo ("Dawn" fans will recognize his outfit) and I missed Shaun and Ed from "Shaun of the Dead", though I later realized who they were.

I was also wondering how the "smart" zombies would work. I didn't care for the fast zombies in the "Dawn" remake, but I have to admit that the thinking zombies didn't put me off as much as I thought they might. Dude who played the main zombie was very good, as was his baseball-bat-wielding sidekick. The bit with the gun is a LOL moment and one of the best in the entire film, and the jackhammer moment is a classic as well.

The makeup on the lead zombie is a bit careless as you can see a seam over his nose during the entire movie, but that was the only makeup gaff I saw. There's plenty of gore-filled bites and rips and tears and intestines and heads exploding and bodies blowing up and so on and so on, with a couple neat new bits including a hand ripped in half down the middle (shudder!) and a zombie with his head on backwards. If you're a gore, zombie, or Romero fan, you don't want to miss this one.

An American Werewolf in London 1981

5/5

I didn't get to see this film until it first came out on video, which as I recall was some time after the theatrical release. I desperately wanted to see it since I had heard about it and was already a fan of Landis, but had two toddlers at the time and wasn't able to make it to the theater before its run ended. When I did get to see it, I was totally taken with it from the moment the credits began to roll and remember thinking that it was worth the wait. It's been one of my top ten favorite movies ever since. Tonight I watched it on DVD with my 22-year-old son, who had never seen it but had seen the not-bad but far inferior "American Werewolf in Paris". I was gratified to see that this movie hasn't lost its touch--he jumped, he grimaced and winced, he laughed (roared at the "Remember the Alamo" joke in the pub, in fact) and at the end we were both a bit teary-eyed. While discussing the technical aspects, we both agreed at how absolutely awesome ALL the effects are, from the carefully timed and choreographed Piccadilly Circus mayhem to the still-amazing werewolf transformation scene. Think of how many man-hours, backbreaking labor, rehearsals, and just plain hard work and planning went into those versus now, where a few people sit down at a computer and plot it out, the actors do their job against a yellow or blue screen and are added in, the director plays with it a bit, and it's rendered. I've found myself disliking CGI stunts more and more as more movies use it, and this film showed me why. You simply cannot fake what ingenuity and hard work can do. Yes, this movie has lost none of its wonder or magic in 25 years, and will always remain close to my heart--I've never believed in happily-ever-after, but I do believe in a good, satisfying ending to a well-made movie. And this is it.

The Notebook 2004

4/5

If you're interested in seeing this movie, you probably won't be disappointed. It can be a bit slow and predictable in parts (I had most of it figured out well in advance) but watching it unfold is so well worth the time it takes. Garner and Rowlands still have it, and the younger actors are darn near as good. The supporting cast is outstanding as well; I had never seen Joan Allen as anything but a good character and she clearly loves her somewhat different role here. The music is a special treat and, as a matter of fact, I didn't get teary-eyed until the credits when I began listening to it and then I just completely broke down. My husband clearly enjoyed the movie as well and I promise never to tell if I saw a tear in his eye at the end.

The Omega Man 1971

2/5

I really wanted to like this, but it was mostly the music that turned me off, besides a few "what the heck are they doing?" moments. When I began to heckle less than half an hour in, I knew this movie wasn't going to work for me. I love old movies and bad movies but this one just misses on many counts--the music is particularly dreadful, both not matching the action on screen and setting the wrong tone for what is happening. The best parts had no music at all. The acting was uniformly good (I esp. liked Rosalind Cash, though I didn't buy her sudden and unexpected attraction to Chuck when she'd been holding a gun on him half an hour earlier) but the plot and most of the dialog were just too unbelievable. Continuity would have been nice as well. I much prefer the original version, "The Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price--see that one first.

House of D 2004

4/5

This film was nowhere as predictable as I had thought it might be, and was pleasantly surprised at how it all turned out. Everything you've heard about the outstanding performances is absolutely true, and despite a couple of small plot holes the story and script were very well done. My only small gripe is to Duchovny: Lose the goatee, it looks awful! Other than that, a fine and touching film that I look forward to seeing again.

Tommy 1975

4/5

This last time I saw this movie was thirty-one years ago, when I was an impressionable lass of about 14. I saw it many times before it finished its theater run and to this day own the original Who rock opera CD, but hadn't seen the movie since 1975 or so--until tonight. It's amazing the new things you see as an adult when watching a movie you haven't seen since you were a child. I was surprised and tickled to find that not only did I remember much of it, I think I like it now almost as much as I did then. I found some parts boring, some sadly dated, others outright silly, but most of it was quite well done and visually stunning. I was outright impressed by how well Daltry did in his part once he was no longer deaf dumb and blind, and can see why Ann-Margaret was nominated for an Oscar for her part as his mother. Oliver Reed is clearly having a ball in his good guy/bad guy role, but I wish that someone had at least given Clapton a few pointers before letting him do his wooden act before the camera. Tina Turner is magnificent as the Acid Queen, Elton John is happily goofy, and I almost fell off the couch when I saw Jack Nicholson singing. I had forgotten he was in it! It was a bit sad to see what a great job Keith Moon did as Uncle Ernie; I think he'd have had a career in movies had he lived. Trust me, you don't watch this movie for the story, you watch it for the stunning visuals and engaging music. All through the movie I found myself wondering who the art director, cinematographer, and costumer were, everything was so original and unusual. If you're interested in this movie or just wondering what in the heck it's about, I'd say give it a shot. If you think it looks dumb and dated, don't waste your time. If you saw and enjoyed the original in 1975 and not since, treat yourself and sit down with this--despite its flaws, it's more than likely you'll be glad to see it again.

Brokeback Mountain 2005

5/5

I've been waiting to see "Brokeback Mountain" for a while, because my MIL and I agreed to see it together but had not been able to work out going to the theater and I didn't want to see it without her. Then she had an operation and is on bed rest for several weeks, so we seized the opportunity. First let me say that as long as you're not homophobic and enjoy a good love story that is not predictable, I would highly recommend this one. For those worried about how graphic it may be, worry no more--trust me, the gay couple in "Six Feet Under" was a lot more explicit. In this one, the most you see is kissing and cuddling and one naked scene. What gay sex there is, takes place in the dark--just enough so the audience knows that these guys did more than cuddle up for warmth.  I had no problem watching this with my MIL and adult son, I don't think any of us felt any more uncomfortable than we would have with a hetero love story. KUDOS and my heartfelt admiration to the entire cast and crew of this absolutely stunning movie. It should have won every award it was up for, bar none. It really is a story about love, no matter who or what you are, and how its power over you can't be denied. My only gripe with this film is the pace, but it won't lose as much as a quarter of a star for that. I can see that it was intended to be slow and thoughtful, but it really does begin to drag in the middle and near the end. But other than the pacing, this is one of the most powerful, moving, and thought-provoking movies I have ever seen; I've done nothing but think about it since the credits began to roll. Truly an experience I don't recommend missing if the subject matter doesn't turn you off. You won't regret it. 

An American in Paris 1951

5/5

Although there are problems with the transfer of the film onto DVD, the movie is so magical that it's barely noticed. No question why this film won 7 Oscars; everything about it is absolutely stellar. It's clear to see the Kelly's perfectionism was well worth the work. I highly recommend this for anyone who likes old movies of any kind; it's a classic that should not be missed.

Racing Stripes 2005

3/5

I just had to rent this movie despite knowing how outright stupid parts of it were... and I'm glad I did!

I won't go into all that's wrong with the movie; you don't even have to see more than the preview to know there's more suspension of belief than there is realism. But if you can turn off the parts of your brain that tell you that there's no way a zebra would be allowed to race with Thoroughbreds or that a horse running around free at a racetrack would not be ignored, you may enjoy this movie.

And I'd like to talk about what was good about it rather than bad. First and foremost, the voice talent. With Whoopi Goldberg, Dustin Hoffman, Snoop Dogg (who had a very small part but was still hysterical in his brief bits), and David Spade among others, you can't go wrong. Next, the music. It was really outstanding, both the soundtrack and the songs by Bryan Adams and Sting which play both during the movie (the bridge song by Adams is particularly enjoyable) and during the credits. Last but never least, the CGI. Yes, the CGI. Turn off that part of your brain that tells you that animals don't have the apparatus to speak English and just enjoy how they made the animals talk; there's also a very interesting special feature on how it was done which I found informative. The animals themselves are worth watching alone, despite the fact that they not only used a minimum of five adult zebras with very different striping patterns but some really bad animatronics in one part as well, not to mention the faraway racing shots of a horse painted as a zebra...

There's a few well-snuck-in references to other movies such as Chicken Run (2), Seabiscuit, Troy, and probably more.

Parents, I would highly recommend this movie to children old enough to understand it. You may have to explain a few things that could never happen (like the Blue Moonlight races where a bunch of horses get to together to race with no people around, heaven help me) but I think kids would not only enjoy this movie, they'll get a good example out of it as well.

Overall? I very much enjoyed it, though I suspect that most adults of sound mind would probably think I'd seen a different movie than they. But I liked it despite--yes, I say this yet again--the complete and utter suspension of belief that you must entertain to watch it without going completely nuts.

You might want to rent it just to hear Whoopi (as the goat) and Dustin (as the Shetland pony) together. Trust me, it's worth it just for them.

For Me and My Gal 1942

5/5

Although choppy in parts, mostly in the beginning, this film is SO worth seeing for the chemistry between Garland and Kelly. Every moment they're on the screen you just can't take your eyes off of them. The emotional scenes are truly touching without any artifice and there are several scenes where I got choked up despite myself. This isn't a perfect movie, but it is one that won't waste two hours of your time.