J.D. Hansel

1990s Movie Reviews

Ed Wood Review

by

(MINOR SPOILERS)

There are a couple of downsides to doing movies about real people and events.  The first is that it can often limit one visually; the filmmaker almost always must portray a world that is believable to the audience, which typically means no animation, no theatrical lighting/color, no surreal sets or props, etc.  Secondly, some liberties have to be taken with the characters since they are based on real people, meaning that names must be changed to avoid lawsuits, or the people must be fictionalized to seem likable and interesting.  There’s also the simple, obvious problem that the series of events that take place in real life are seldom as interesting as what is commonly found in fiction.  Did Tim Burton’s Ed Wood successfully avoid, or at least properly handle, all of these potential dangers?

On the whole, yes, the movie manages to have very interesting visuals, characters, and story flow.   Mostly. To be fair, there were a lot of times when I was a little bored by the movie because it can be kind of tedious. With a slightly faster pace, I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but I did still enjoy it.  It was really the characters that got me through it, because I did enjoy the majority of the cast.

This may not be my favorite Tim Burton film that I’ve seen thus far, but it is my favorite Johnny Depp performance.  Yes, he’s playing the type of character that he tends to play too often, but heck, I’ll take this over his Willy Wonka any day. Ed Wood is a very likable character and relatable character, in spite of the fact that he’s kind of an idiot.  I just can’t help but admire his passion and enthusiasm for making movies the way he believes they should be made.  Also, Martin Landau is fantastic as Bela Lugosi, and Bill Murray is Bill Murray at being Bill Murray all throughout the Bill Murray. Bill Murray.

There are a lot of great scenes in the film that work for a variety of different reasons.  The scene in which Bela is about to commit suicide is the most Burton-ly shot scene in the film, and is thus my favorite visually.   My favorite in terms of character and story, which is probably more important, is the exchange between Ed Wood and Orson Welles.  That’s the scene that makes the whole movie worth watching.  The scene in which Bela appears on television (with no idea how to improvise) is really a painful scene to watch, but not because it’s a bad scene.  Rather, it’s because it hurts to see him struggle in such a difficult, awkward situation.

The big problem with this film is not historical inaccuracy, a cinema sin that is also present, but is actually the simple fact that this guy’s life was difficult to focus into one cohesive story that clearly moves in a particular direction.  It’s always a little difficult for me to watch a movie if I get no sense that each scene is a part of getting the story to its climax, and Ed Wooddoes kind of drag for that reason.  Still, I would recommend that everyone go into the movie prepared to be a little patient, and then enjoy getting to meet this delightful character called Ed Wood.  Plus Bill Murray.

48 Ed Wood

Pulp Fiction Review

by

So,there are some movies I’d recommend that people see without any knowledge of what the film is about, what’s going to happen, or who’s in the film.  The Truman Show is a good example, as is Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  Then there’s a movie like Pulp Fiction.  I think I was only able to like it because I knew all about it going into it.

I knew the type of storytelling and approach.  I knew it was a weird Tarantino film that would jump around, and I knew he had carefully structured everything so that he was ahead of the audience, and no one could ever predict where the story would go next.  I knew he would use everything that the movies have trained us to expect to happen in a story against the audience to trick them.  I knew to expect that I would never know what to expect, and most importantly, I knew better than to play The Movie Game.

The Movie Game is my term for when the audience member tries to figure out where the plot is going, and what will resolve everything, with the understanding that the movie has to set up its twists and turns ahead of time, and the story will follow the standard structure.  This is partially based on a great quote from screenwriter Terry Rossio: “You know that the audience will try to guess where you’re going with the story.  It’s a given.  It’s fun.  After all, they’re sitting there virtually motionless in the dark for two hours, with nothing better to do but second-guess you.”  When The Movie Game is too easy, it’s a boring game, so it’s a bad movie.  I played a great game with The LEGO Movie, and the movie won.  I beat Frozen, but it was still a good game, and therefore a good film.

Naturally, when I get most upset by a movie is when I feel cheated, particularly because the movie doesn’t follow any normal structure, so I don’t get to play my favorite game.  The way to avoid feeling cheated is simply to know what game the movie is playing before going in, rather than assuming it’s playing the same game as I am.  What game is Pulp Fiction playing?  I have no flippin’ clue, but it’s not quite as fun as The Movie Game.

It’s nice, every once in a while, to see a movie that does storytelling really differently.  However, because of how different the storytelling is from what I’d ever seen in a movie before, and because I didn’t get to play the game, it didn’t feel like a real movie to me. It felt like a crazy Tarantino art project.  I happened to find out that Tarantino felt the same way about it when it first came out. I respect it since so much in the film is impressive, but it didn’t feel quite like I was watching a movie, nor was it quite as entertaining as a more ordinary film.  The entertainment value is lost to some extent when the movie doesn’t build in any normal sense, so some scenes are essentially pointless.  Again, they may be impressivescenes, but they serve no purpose other than displaying themselves because the director feels like showing these scenes to the audience because they mean something to him, even though they mean nothing, in some cases, to an overarching story.

I don’t identify with the characters, so they are not my favorites, but they are strong. The dialogue is perhaps more profane than it needs to be, which I generally view as a Cinema Sin of sorts because that generally means the writer is either going for shock value, or simply can’t think of anything meaningful or interesting to write.  However, the writing is very, very impressive – Tarantino is pretty darn good at dialogue.  The way he interwove the three main stories was clever.  The soundtrack is nice overall, and the visuals, while sometimes more bloody than I like, were overall very well done as well.

So, in the end, I really like this movie for what it is, but I don’t know that I like it much as a movie.  When I don’t get to play The Movie Game, I feel a little like I’ve been invited over to a friend’s house to play a game with him, but he’s just playing it by himself and encouraging me to watch him; I don’t feel included, and that’s just boring.  I think I’ve certainly learned a lot about film, storytelling, and myself from watching it, which means it has good reason to be considered a classic.  So, I like it.  It’s good.  But give up on The Game before it begins, because he just isn’t playing along.

47 Pulp Fiction

The Naked Gun 33 1/3 Review

by

*Sigh of mild disappointment, but understanding why it is what it is.*

It has its moments.  It was fun seeing their take on the Academy Awards, even though I missed a few of the references.  (The girl in the traditional Native American attire was a clever throwback that got me laughing.)  The 24-hour Johnny Mathis station was brilliant.  Aside from that, the movie is rather weak.  However, this is the type of sequel that is enjoyable not because it is on par with the original, but because it is an opportunity to spend more time with the characters we love and miss.  Those are important too.

46 The Naked Gun 3

Sleepless in Seattle Review

by

I find this movie to be simply pleasant.  There isn’t much about it that is spectacular, but nothing about it is necessarily bad.  It has a very nice soundtrack, and not a bad plot, but both of these are shamelessly borrowed from other movies.  Still, it makes it sentimental in a way that I think is okay.

The characters are likable enough, and they’re written pretty well.  Their motives and desires are pretty understandable and relatable.  The one thing that bugs me is that the movie talks enough about destiny, magic, and fate to make the audience accept that these are all working in favor of the protagonist, and we are supposed to like that.  This gives the writers “permission” to fill the sucker with Dius ex machina, while also showing faith in destiny to be a very positive thing, with which I personally disagree.  This kind of comes across as lazy writing, especially since it’s the writer’s job to make it seem like nothing can possibly work out for the protagonist, and this movie seems to proclaim from the beginning that destiny’s going to ensure that everything works out.

For that reason, and the fact that the plot doesn’t strike me as anything absolutely outstanding, I think the movie is a little weak.  However, in its simplicity it manages to be remarkably pleasant, and I see why it’s a classic.

44 Sleepless in Seattle

 

Back to the Future Part III Review

by

I love the Back to the Future series, and I recognize that this is the finale that brings everything to completion, but I think it is probably the weakest of the three.  Still, it’s a chance to see Doc and Marty on the screen again, and they are still as enjoyable as ever, so I love it.  It’s fun, funny, and, as usual with the BttF franchise, keeps the audience in suspense and wonder.  (Honestly, the only reason it doesn’t get an extra half a star is that I wish it were as good as the first movie in the series, which may be a little too much to ask of a sequel that a studio demanded.)  It unfortunately does not have as many beautiful shots as the first two, but it still has a neat look and feel.  I like getting to see the ancestors of the characters, and the things and people that shaped the town.  The writing is absolutely brilliant, as one would expect, but it does leave me with one question: how could the future not be influenced at all by the passengers on the train not making it to their destination?

42 Back to the Future Part III

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) Review

by

I must say, I there’s a lot that I like about this movie.  I don’t find the main characters very interesting or relatable, but the April O’Neil in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is instantly more likable than Megan Fox’s take on the character.  Really, the animatronics are not perfect, but I still think they look good enough for the job, and are far cooler to look at than CGI turtles.  Splinter looks really great, and I often felt like he was a living creature, partly due to the performance given by Kevin Clash.  I think that having the guy who performsand voices Splinter being the same person helps make him seem especially real.  So, if you’re looking for great characters, the movie is alright, but from a technical standpoint, it’s really awesome.

The fighting looks very real, and some scenes are genuinely scary because of the ninjas that the turtles face and what they do.  There were many occasions in which I thought that the shots/cinematography looked fantastic, and the same goes for the musical score.  I really admired the way the story was structured as well.  Overall, this movie’s a little slow, but it’s good if you’re looking for the right things.  There’s a reason why this is considered to be a classic!  (But don’t show it to young children – that would be a mistake.)

19 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)