Forrest Gump Review

Do I really have to convince you to see this movie?  Chances are, if you care, you already have.  And then the chances are good that you would also recommend it to people.  For my money, this is flat out one of the best movies ever made.  For its time, the effects were unbelievable, the writing is solid, and the story is gripping and engaging.  The comic relief is well spaced and just funny enough to make you laugh while remaining in the seriousness of the moment.  It's one of those films that can make you laugh out loud and still bawl your eyes out later on.  Finally, the acting is some of the best I've ever seen.  In fact, for all of the movies I have watched over the years, Tom Hanks' performance as Forrest Gump is the most well-deserved Best Actor winner in history.

But it isn't just the solid technical aspects that make Forrest Gump so good.  There are two further reasons why I love this film.  First, I love history.  To be able to see some of the most important events in history through the eyes of a simpleton brings a unique perspective to the study of the past.  Even though Forrest's involvement in these eras and events is purely fictional, it shows how the world is becoming increasingly tumultuous and complex but humanity, at its core, remains fairly simple.  While the world changes, our basic needs and desires stay constant.

Second, using the hyperbole of the most simple of people being thrown into the most extraordinary of situations hammers home an even more philosophical point.  Even though many of us are just trying to live our lives without any grand outcome, the little things we do can have a profound impact on others and the world.  Forrest was just trying to save Bubba in the firefight.  He just felt like dancing while Elvis played guitar.  Bear Bryant told him to run with the football so he did.  And he just felt like going for a jog.  But these and the other events changed lives and history within this film's universe.

The only problem I have with this movie is the part about him running across the country for three plus years.  While all of Forrest's life events are far fetched, the running for that long was just a little too far over the line and seems oddly out of place in the film.  But by the time it gets to that part, it doesn't matter.  You will have already seen one of the greatest movies of all time.

And, because my "thing" is to give a see or don't see recommendation at the end of every review, I guess I have to say it to keep the streak alive: See it.

Ned Kelly Review

I'm a fan of history so I tend to like historical movies especially if they are based on true events.  I had never heard of this one until I got Netflix and I thought I should give it a try.  I grew up in Central Saskatchewan so the story is actually quite familiar to me but with different names.  The story of Ned Kelly is eerily similar to that of Louis Riel.  So is the attitude towards the characters over a century later.  A man in an oppressed minority rises up against the ruling class and is labeled an outlaw.  The troops come in and a series of bloody battles ensue.  To this day, both Kelly and Riel are viewed as either folk heroes or traitors depending on how you view the story.

There are two ways this movie could have gone.  It could have been upbeat and fast moving like Young Guns 2 or it could have been brooding and artistic like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford.  While it is almost a hybrid of the two, it leans more towards the former and that is a good thing.  There are times in this film where they try to delve into the mind of Kelly through Heath Ledger's mannerisms and scenes with no dialogue.  But they do it sparingly and, for the most part, the plot progresses through a well written and acted story.  This does lead to some inconsistent pace which can be a bit distracting to the viewer but it isn't enough to make it poor.  Sadly, I think they may have stuck to the truth a little too much because, overall, the movie lacks any fantastical drama that movies like to have.  It took a good true story and kept the whole thing plausible.

The acting in this film is really what makes it good.  There are no poor performances right from the stars through to the minor characters.  Gregor Jordan was able to get what he needed out of everybody to make it believable.  Heath Ledger gives a fine performance as Ned Kelly and, while it wasn't his absolute best work, it was very solid.  He truly was a very good actor that we lost all too soon.

See it, especially if you like historical movies and those set in the 19th century.  It's an interesting twist on a western-like movie being set in rural Australia.  But is still has the feel of a good old western.

Ironclad Review

There's something about movies in a historical fashion that we all seem to find fascinating.  I think it's the romanticizing of a time where, in some ways life was simpler and in others it was much more complicated and difficult. I particularly like these movies when there is no focus on the fantasy or super natural.  Ironclad is based on the actual siege of Rochester in the 13th Century when King John was trying to reclaim his kingdom after signing the Magna Carta.  And while it has the basic story, it is very inaccurate in a lot of things that they really didn't need to change.  At this time, the Danes were not pagan.  Rochester was a significant city but they portray it as a remote outpost.  They even talk about its strategic importance.  If it was so important, it would have drawn a lot of people to it in search of a better life.  So to make it remote and small just contradicts what they were trying to do in the movie.  Altering a historical story for the big screen can be done well (see Gladiator for a good example).  But to sacrifice story integrity for dramatic effect is a bad mistake.

The battle scenes are realistic.  They are very bloody and graphic to the point of being a little too much.  But ever since Braveheart, the movie going masses have come to expect and demand such things in their war movies.  It's kind of sad because the films tend to rely on the gore rather than leave it to the imagination and interpretation of the audience.  I was surprised to see this in a British production because the British tend to downplay the sensational and let the audience think.  It's one reason why I tend to lean towards British cinema in the first place.

Some of the editing, cinematography, and basic story is a bit sloppy but overall, it's not too bad.  There is a tacked on love story brought in to try and appeal to human nature and it's done so quickly and half assed that it just wasn't necessary.  The writing is inconsistent with the time period though.  Many of Brian Cox's lines don't seem to fit with the rest of the cast but he does deliver them convincingly.  Paul Giamatti also does a good job portraying the sniveling little a-hole of a king.  Normally, a screaming tirade from such a character directed at his enemy comes off as cheesy and hard to watch.  But his hollering at Cox was done very convincingly.  It's not surprising because both of these men are very good actors.

If you like the medieval thing you may want to watch it.  The performances are decent.  And the sets, costumes, and fight choreography seem genuine.  If you are looking for a tight, historic movie with few holes, you may want to give it a pass.  My recommendation is to see it and judge for yourself because it isn't a total waste of time.

Django Unchained Review

There's no denying that Quentin Tarantino has a very unique style of film making.  He has a way of taking some pretty serious subject matter and making it entertaining and humourous without diminishing its seriousness.  He also creates a world that very much resembles our own but everything has a touch of cartoon in it.  And then he wraps it in a cartoonishly violent and foul-mouthed bow.  He did this in Inglorious Basterds and he does it again in Django Unchained.  Over the almost three hours of this movie, you find yourself engrossed in the dialogue and enjoying the film.  However, you also, throughout the whole picture, appreciate the absolute evil of slavery.

Django Unchained falls somewhere between Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds for me on the Tarantino scale.  Pulp Fiction was a groundbreaking film that took "cool" dialogue and anti-heroes to a whole new level.  Basterds tried to capture all of that but was too comical in its delivery both verbal and visual.  Django is more subdued in the visual delivery from the actors but it doesn't take away from the impact of their lines.  The problem is that I always get the sense that, even though it is just his style, Tarantino is always trying to recapture the iconic "tasty burger" and "get medieval" lines from Pulp Fiction with things like "and I want my scalps" from Basterds and "the D is silent" from Django.  Maybe it's just his thing to write these lines and it's a sad side effect that they'll likely never get back to Pulp Fiction's level.  At least I can watch Pulp Fiction over and over.

Jamie Foxx does a brilliant job in transforming Django from an uneducated slave to an almost superhero of the south.  You can really see the development and it is paced very well.  I must say I was a bit disappointed in Christoph Waltz. I know he's an Austrian, playing a German whose second language is English.  But his delivery was over deliberate and over pronounced to the point that it was difficult to listen to.  The rest of the cast is strong (with the exception of some of the one-scene characters including Tarantino himself).  Samuel L Jackson does what he does best: swear a blue streak and talk sass.  Leonardo Di Caprio was good as long as his demeanor was calm.  When the character had to get angry, he became much less convincing.

Overall, this is a very entertaining movie.  I do appreciate suspending reality in movies for the artistic and dramatic effect.  If I want true history, I can read it or watch a documentary.  (Unless you are trying to tell a true story.  Then stay as close as possible.  But Django is never intended to be a true story.)  It isn't Tarantino's best.  But it isn't his worst.  See it.

Lawless Commentary

Watching this movie was an interesting experience.  It starts slow but then seems to pick up after about a half hour.  Then, about halfway through, I realized that there really is no coherent story.  Then, everything goes sideways.  What starts out as being about three vaguely related stories do actually come together to a resolution.  At the end, it still felt like there was something missing even though I did think it was a good movie.  So I decided to give it some time and let it sink in before I would review it.  And I'm glad I did.  Upon further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this is a very good movie.

Yes, the story seems to be a bit vague and not tightly woven together.  But it is based on a true story and doesn't give in to the sensationalism that is often forced into Hollywood movies.  Instead, it relies on a decent true story (even though some of it is probably embellished) that has the comedic and dramatic elements that can make it stand on its own.  This is then magnified by some absolutely terrific acting performances.  Tom Hardy, Shia LaBoeuf, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce are absolutely perfect in their roles.  This is especially true of Hardy.  He plays the enigmatic anti-hero very well.

Being a historical piece set in the Depression era of bootlegers means that it needed to have authenticity in its costumes, sets and language.  And I think it did a very good job of that as well.  At no time did it ever feel like any of that stuff was forced or fake.  I especially like the interior of the gas station/restaurant/Bondurant residence.  Right down to the newspaper "wallpaper", it really seemed like a lower-middle class "do what you need to do to survive" family of bachelors lived there.

I said it seemed to move a bit slow.  But it was done before I knew it.  And once it was done, I didn't feel like I had been in there that long.  I think that's a testament to the superior film making all around.

See it.  It's a great example of a very well made, truth based story.

Centurion Review

As a big fan of ancient Roman history, I had to watch this movie.  However, there are some inaccuracies that I just cannot get past.  First, it starts by saying it is set in 117 AD.  But they show the building of Hadrian's Wall.  Construction on the wall began in 122 AD.  This error is just plain sloppiness and could have been avoided with two different keystrokes on a computer.  Second, the Roman soldiers slash too much with their swords in hand to hand combat.  The gladius sword was short and used to thrust in hand to hand combat.  Sure, there would be some necessary slashing but not as much as this movie depicts.  Third, any general that wore a purple cloak would have been seen as a usurper by the Emperor and likely done away with.  (Maybe this is why the ninth legion was sent to certain death.)

Anyways, enough of the history lesson.  Let's get down to the movie.  I really like the way it was shot.  The scenery is breathtaking and the cinematography is very solid.  I also like that it was brutally graphic.  I believe it accurately portrays how nasty battle was back then.  The plot line and story for Centurion is also quite good.  There is a lot of speculation as to the fate of the Ninth Legion and destruction at the hands of the Picts seems like a plausible explanation.  In this, it's almost a prequel to the Eagle.  It really is the beginning of that story.  The problem is that I had to rely on my own research to find that out.  It should have been explained at the start.  The average movie goer would not know the history behind it.

Speaking of the Eagle, Centurion is better.  It takes the concept of a historical drama and makes it seem very realistic without going Hollywood with the non-convincing pretty boy flavour of the month in the lead role.  It also doesn't have the dumbed down cheesiness of the Eagle in its writing.  I give credit to the fact that it is an English made movie.  When the English make a historical movie, it tends to be more credible and believable than American ones.

On the down side of Centurion, it kind of grinds to a halt in the middle.  The beginning sets you up for what you think is going to be something akin to Gladiator.  But it just doesn't get there.  Then, it gets good again with about twenty minutes left.  The bottom line is that, at the end, I was glad to have watched it.

So, I'd say see it.  But keep in mind that I would likely give that recommendation to anything that deals with ancient Rome.  I am an aficionado.  Be aware that it is very graphic and never gets as philosophical as it tries to.  But it is decent and worth a look if you come across it.