It seems as though there's a popular rumor about this film that the titular question is never answered and/slash the movie tells us General Tso is a fictional character invented by Chinese Americans. I don't know how it got started, but know those claims are complete myth. The movie gives a more than satisfying answer to the origins of this super-dish and the man who is its namesake.
While not as artistic, beautiful, or emotional as Searching for Sugar Man, Jiro Dreams of Sushi, or even, to some extent, King Corn—all documentaries from which this one seems to be drawing inspiration—Ian Cheney takes an astoundingly informative and in depth look at the history of Chinese cuisine in the United States. Worth watching for any and all Americans, if only to appreciate how much of a pillar Chinese restaurants stand in our communities, memories, traditions and culture.
Warning: not a movie about Hockey. Watch John Travolta playing Nick Cage pretending to be John Travolta FACE OFF against Cage as Travolta as Cage and then have sex with Travolta's wife. Everyone will lightly touch their own/each others'/their photographs'/their mirror reflections' faces. Slow motion doves in church.
(also in case you were wondering) http://www.moviebodycounts.com/Face_Off.htm
Stalker and Solaris are the only Tarkovsky movies analyzed in The Pervert's Guide. I don't know where you're getting The Sacrifice and Nostalghia from, unless Žižek mentions them in the film by name only and I'm forgetting something.
What it comes down to is that for a movie all about original breakthroughs, Ron Howard is one of the most astoundingly unoriginal filmmakers of our time. He chooses narratives that are highly formalized and largely predictable (everything at Princeton, the Connelly character) and uses some of the most cliché techniques to execute them (uninspired shot composition and movement, cheesy editing choices). His score feels like it was trying too hard to compensate in emotional attachment and, much like most of Howard's filmography, came across as the bad kind of sentimental.
That being said, Crowe's speech at the end is the most touching and worthwhile part of the whole film. (Also, Ed Harris and Paul Bettany are the highlight of the movie; Connelly's entire performance, much like the plot, has a melodramatic blandness to it.)
Most people love this film and I'm not here to argue that away (as if I could). But, if you belong to the small, highly-critical viewership, and you feel like you're probably not going to enjoy a film like this, trust your gut. Don't listen to all the people who have tried to convince you that it's an amazing film and that you're going to get something out of it, because you know your taste and it's honestly not going to happen.
Tabu is saturated with some of the most consistently gorgeous shot compositions I've ever seen. At the same time, the way Part 2 was told entirely in voice over got old very quickly, and was far from the best way the film could have let its story unfold.
The dialogue was horrendous, made several degrees worse by Pacino delivering one of the most bizarre performances I've ever seen from him. It's not forgivable, especially considering the acting he's proven he can do, and that the character he's playing is little more than the well-trodden, workaholic cop with messy home life.
DeNiro was better, although he created a character so completely incapable of chemistry or romance that his relationship with Edie doesn't make a lick of sense throughout the entire film. Honestly, he doesn't even smile at her, they just fire off questions as if they're in some two-way interrogation–no back and forth–and after they've extracted enough information from each other they decide to start making out. What?
Other than the fact that I didn't find either of the main characters worthy of empathy, which is sort of huge, the film tried to go way too big. There are too many supporting characters and side stories, most of which are unnecessary and jarringly spliced in, and because of it few of the scenes flow at all. It would have been okay if the plot was competent enough to keep track of everything it introduces, but the pacing completely misappropriates its time. The result: the few great stories with some promise, which only needed patience to be masterfully developed, were severely truncated. As another commenter previously mentioned, what the hell happened to Val Kilmer? I guess that one scene was supposed to imply him leaving forever, despite the entire movie insisting that his wife meant everything to him?
Apart from a tiny handful of great scenes and shots that were well composed, Heat doesn't earn that much redemption. The score had the tendency to be both out of place and in your face, all the characters seemed to live in confusingly similar houses, and the movie had two obnoxious cases of "just forcibly embrace the rightfully emotional women until they do what you want."
Ultimately, I don't know how a film could drag so severely and still have such attention deficit, but this poorly executed mess manages to pull it off. Worth watching if you don't like DeNiro having emotions, enjoy Pacino speaking as though he's always on cocaine, and get off on watching male characters assert their dominance by randomly breaking shit in bursts of spontaneous and unprovoked anger.
Certainly interesting to see Bogart in a different role than the one he usually plays. It also would not surprise me in the slightest if the Howard character is from where every old prospector stereotype first originated.
Unfortunately, subtlety and not being racist are two qualities this film does not have. The film's big message can be spotted an hour and a half away and is executed with little tact or grace. In addition, the scenes with the "Indians" are absolutely absurd, and are riddled with plot holes of white superiority.
The most entertaining part of this film, other than geeking out over finally seeing the famous "Badges" quote performed, was laughing at how in no way could a script have given a character a more over the top case of paranoia than they did Dobbs.
While yes, it'd be nice to see something in the boxing genre with a little more originality and variation, especially plot-wise, I don't believe this film was simply "mediocre".
As far as camerawork goes, I thought the switches between Dicky's special in the beginning and the "real life" cameras were done subtly and masterfully. I appreciated just how close the camera was willing to go in some of the earlier fights, a lot more than I find normal boxing scenes willing to do, and the way the last fight was shot in a "you're now watching a boxing match on television" style (only going for shots live boxing matches are capable of, even the high-angle reaction shots of O'Keefe and Charlene) was really pretty brilliant in more ways than I'll go into here. Comparing it to Raging Bull, which is generally regarded as the greatest movie of this subgenre, I thought The Fighter had a plot that was a lot more tight and meaningful, and didn't drag where Raging Bull let itself do in parts.
But obviously what really makes the movie is its characters. They're simple yet complex; they can be intelligent when we've already stereotyped them as ignorant. We can hate and pity them, but in the end it's hard to not empathize and see every character, perhaps with the exception of some of the sisters, for what they are: human. The brothers are actually likable, despite their flaws, and we find ourselves caring about them, which is more than I think can be said for the movie previously mentioned. The screenplay didn't fall for the trap that people are ever straight up "good" or "bad", and I was glad to see many of the characters given a shot at redemption. It also probably doesn't hurt that the acting was top notch.
In the end, call it what you will, enjoy it how you did or didn't enjoy it, but I challenge anyone who would go for the quick write-off of "extremely average" to look at this movie a little more critically, and recognize that there are definitely aspects of this piece of cinema that make it special.
Comments 1 - 12 of 12
Movie comment on Da hong denglong gaogao gua
Flicker
Remove this movie from the Romance list immediatelyMovie comment on The Search for General Tso
Flicker
It seems as though there's a popular rumor about this film that the titular question is never answered and/slash the movie tells us General Tso is a fictional character invented by Chinese Americans. I don't know how it got started, but know those claims are complete myth. The movie gives a more than satisfying answer to the origins of this super-dish and the man who is its namesake.While not as artistic, beautiful, or emotional as Searching for Sugar Man, Jiro Dreams of Sushi, or even, to some extent, King Corn—all documentaries from which this one seems to be drawing inspiration—Ian Cheney takes an astoundingly informative and in depth look at the history of Chinese cuisine in the United States. Worth watching for any and all Americans, if only to appreciate how much of a pillar Chinese restaurants stand in our communities, memories, traditions and culture.
Movie comment on Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Flicker
I don't understand why Bruce Wayne couldn't have lent Andrea's father the money he needed.Movie comment on Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Flicker
Yes, butMovie comment on Face/Off
Flicker
Warning: not a movie about Hockey. Watch John Travolta playing Nick Cage pretending to be John Travolta FACE OFF against Cage as Travolta as Cage and then have sex with Travolta's wife. Everyone will lightly touch their own/each others'/their photographs'/their mirror reflections' faces. Slow motion doves in church.(also in case you were wondering) http://www.moviebodycounts.com/Face_Off.htm
Movie comment on 13 Going on 30
Flicker
Mark Ruffalo foreverToplist comment on The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
Flicker
Stalker and Solaris are the only Tarkovsky movies analyzed in The Pervert's Guide. I don't know where you're getting The Sacrifice and Nostalghia from, unless Žižek mentions them in the film by name only and I'm forgetting something.http://www.thepervertsguide.com/filmsfeatured.html
Movie comment on A Beautiful Mind
Flicker
What it comes down to is that for a movie all about original breakthroughs, Ron Howard is one of the most astoundingly unoriginal filmmakers of our time. He chooses narratives that are highly formalized and largely predictable (everything at Princeton, the Connelly character) and uses some of the most cliché techniques to execute them (uninspired shot composition and movement, cheesy editing choices). His score feels like it was trying too hard to compensate in emotional attachment and, much like most of Howard's filmography, came across as the bad kind of sentimental.That being said, Crowe's speech at the end is the most touching and worthwhile part of the whole film. (Also, Ed Harris and Paul Bettany are the highlight of the movie; Connelly's entire performance, much like the plot, has a melodramatic blandness to it.)
Most people love this film and I'm not here to argue that away (as if I could). But, if you belong to the small, highly-critical viewership, and you feel like you're probably not going to enjoy a film like this, trust your gut. Don't listen to all the people who have tried to convince you that it's an amazing film and that you're going to get something out of it, because you know your taste and it's honestly not going to happen.
Movie comment on Tabu
Flicker
Tabu is saturated with some of the most consistently gorgeous shot compositions I've ever seen. At the same time, the way Part 2 was told entirely in voice over got old very quickly, and was far from the best way the film could have let its story unfold.Movie comment on Heat
Flicker
Uh, yeah. Very little of this film worked for me.The dialogue was horrendous, made several degrees worse by Pacino delivering one of the most bizarre performances I've ever seen from him. It's not forgivable, especially considering the acting he's proven he can do, and that the character he's playing is little more than the well-trodden, workaholic cop with messy home life.
DeNiro was better, although he created a character so completely incapable of chemistry or romance that his relationship with Edie doesn't make a lick of sense throughout the entire film. Honestly, he doesn't even smile at her, they just fire off questions as if they're in some two-way interrogation–no back and forth–and after they've extracted enough information from each other they decide to start making out. What?
Other than the fact that I didn't find either of the main characters worthy of empathy, which is sort of huge, the film tried to go way too big. There are too many supporting characters and side stories, most of which are unnecessary and jarringly spliced in, and because of it few of the scenes flow at all. It would have been okay if the plot was competent enough to keep track of everything it introduces, but the pacing completely misappropriates its time. The result: the few great stories with some promise, which only needed patience to be masterfully developed, were severely truncated. As another commenter previously mentioned, what the hell happened to Val Kilmer? I guess that one scene was supposed to imply him leaving forever, despite the entire movie insisting that his wife meant everything to him?
Apart from a tiny handful of great scenes and shots that were well composed, Heat doesn't earn that much redemption. The score had the tendency to be both out of place and in your face, all the characters seemed to live in confusingly similar houses, and the movie had two obnoxious cases of "just forcibly embrace the rightfully emotional women until they do what you want."
Ultimately, I don't know how a film could drag so severely and still have such attention deficit, but this poorly executed mess manages to pull it off. Worth watching if you don't like DeNiro having emotions, enjoy Pacino speaking as though he's always on cocaine, and get off on watching male characters assert their dominance by randomly breaking shit in bursts of spontaneous and unprovoked anger.
Movie comment on The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Flicker
Certainly interesting to see Bogart in a different role than the one he usually plays. It also would not surprise me in the slightest if the Howard character is from where every old prospector stereotype first originated.Unfortunately, subtlety and not being racist are two qualities this film does not have. The film's big message can be spotted an hour and a half away and is executed with little tact or grace. In addition, the scenes with the "Indians" are absolutely absurd, and are riddled with plot holes of white superiority.
The most entertaining part of this film, other than geeking out over finally seeing the famous "Badges" quote performed, was laughing at how in no way could a script have given a character a more over the top case of paranoia than they did Dobbs.
Movie comment on The Fighter
Flicker
While yes, it'd be nice to see something in the boxing genre with a little more originality and variation, especially plot-wise, I don't believe this film was simply "mediocre".As far as camerawork goes, I thought the switches between Dicky's special in the beginning and the "real life" cameras were done subtly and masterfully. I appreciated just how close the camera was willing to go in some of the earlier fights, a lot more than I find normal boxing scenes willing to do, and the way the last fight was shot in a "you're now watching a boxing match on television" style (only going for shots live boxing matches are capable of, even the high-angle reaction shots of O'Keefe and Charlene) was really pretty brilliant in more ways than I'll go into here. Comparing it to Raging Bull, which is generally regarded as the greatest movie of this subgenre, I thought The Fighter had a plot that was a lot more tight and meaningful, and didn't drag where Raging Bull let itself do in parts.
But obviously what really makes the movie is its characters. They're simple yet complex; they can be intelligent when we've already stereotyped them as ignorant. We can hate and pity them, but in the end it's hard to not empathize and see every character, perhaps with the exception of some of the sisters, for what they are: human. The brothers are actually likable, despite their flaws, and we find ourselves caring about them, which is more than I think can be said for the movie previously mentioned. The screenplay didn't fall for the trap that people are ever straight up "good" or "bad", and I was glad to see many of the characters given a shot at redemption. It also probably doesn't hurt that the acting was top notch.
In the end, call it what you will, enjoy it how you did or didn't enjoy it, but I challenge anyone who would go for the quick write-off of "extremely average" to look at this movie a little more critically, and recognize that there are definitely aspects of this piece of cinema that make it special.