Reviews

The 1969 True Grit ranks as one of the most iconic westerns in history. John Wayne's performance as Rooster Cogburn was both moving and memorable. The movie isn't exactly one of the greatest westerns of all time, the film had it's problems-Glen Campbell to name one-but it was John Wayne's legendary performance that made the film a classic. It seemed no one could even attempt to remake it-until the Coen Brothers stepped up to the challenge.

It is of my opinion that remaking True Grit was a mistake. Many of John Wayne's other films could be remade, but not one as iconic as True Grit. Admittedly, I admire the Coen brothers' courage, and, looking at their careers, they seem to be directors more than able to take on the challenge. But let's look at the breakdown:

Direction-The Direction for me was, surprisingly, disappointing. I heard the Coen Brothers were Oscar worthy directors, but I found the direction at times lazy. Scenes were narrated to save time, montages were put in when we should've seen live action, and worst of all was the editing. They cut far too much, the film easily could have been another half an hour longer. Scenes didn't flow together, we were simply thrown right into the middle of one scene and sent right into the middle of another. It was hard to become attached to the characters as character development was limited and simply relied on the ability of the actors. All in all, while the direction was fine at times, it was surprisingly bad for directors who've achieved critical acclaim.

Jeff Bridges-Jeff Bridges had a tough job ahead of him. He had to play Rooster Cogburn, a one eyed fat man that the love of decency did not abide in. He had to play a character that already received an Oscar win when played by John Wayne. But I have to admit, Jeff Bridges did put a lot of effort into the role. Unfortunately, his best effort wasn;t enough. His accent was weak, obviously fake and put on. He simply mumbled and talked with a gruff voice. It wasn't altogether convincing. The character lacked the emotion that John Wayne's character had, additionally you didn't care for his character as much, though that might be due to the direction. Let's face it: Jeff Bridges isn't John Wayne. He's a very good actor, but not necessarily a western actor. John Wayne gave the impression that he was a cowboy, even though he wasn't. John Wayne looked more natural as a cowboy then as a 20th century actor. To be honest, when I heard that he was going to play Rooster Cogburn, I thought that was rather bold talk for an actor like Jeff Bridges. In the end, he wasn't quite John Wayne, he didn't really have True Grit.

Hailee Steinfeld-Hailee Steinfeld played Mattie Ross, the girl who hires Rooster Cogburn to kill Tom Chaney. I'd say her performance was one of the parts of this film that was improved from the original. She gives an emotional portrayal in the film, and her acting is pretty good for a first film debut. Altogether she was one of the pleasant surprises of the film.

Matt Damon-Matt Damon plays Texas Ranger La Boeuf. Damon's good in the film, but altogether he's underused. I never really attach to him in the film. It's sad to see an Oscar winning actor like Damon being wasted in a good role.

Other Supporting cast members-The rest of the supporting cast was disappointing. It seemed that everyone was just trying to impersonate the actors of the first one in looks, accent and intonation. Josh Brolin seemed out of place as Tom Chaney and Barry Pepper was bland as Ned Pepper. It seemed he was simply impersonating Robert Duvall, who brilliantly portrayed Ned Pepper in one of his first films in the original True Grit.

Screenplay-The screenplay was very good, keeping in line with the original film's script. It was in fact one of the better parts of the film.

Story-I thought the story decreased in it's value with the remake. The changes they made caused it to be anti-climatic. You never felt like the characters were in danger. And additionally, the end completely fell flat. I was never really moved, touched or exhilarated in the entire film.

Production-Costumes and sound effects were good, though not spectacular.

Music-Bland and at times out of place.

Final Breakdown- Direction-6 (out of 10) Lead Acting-6.5 (out of 10) Supporting cast-6 (Out of 10) Script-4 (Out of 5) Story-2.5 (Out of 5) Music-2 (Out of 5) Production-3 (Out of 5)

Total score- 6.0 (Out of 10)

Closing Remarks-In the end, I thought it was a mistake to remake True Grit. There will only be one John Wayne. The film had potential, but the potential was wasted due to directorial decisions. I don't exactly see what the critics are seeing when they rate this film so high. Personally I thought it was an average film that couldn't live up to it's predecessor. In the end, I wouldn't recommend this film, I'd recommend the original.

So, come see the original True Grit sometime!

A movie with a biblical story. A movie with biblical proportions. A movie with…well…quite a few biblical inaccuracies. Despite this, Ten Commandments is one of my favorite movies. Now everyone will be in shock when I say this, but it's a fairly modern and deep movie. It's a movie that uses old style, with new methods. Let's take a look line by line.

Direction- Cecil B. Demille is a overdone, theatrical kind of director, and the result is a theatrical overdone kind of movie. But when the Bible is concerned, that's really the way to do it. Overdone gestures, poetic screenplay, massive sets and thousands of extras make this film a giant in Hollywood's history. Demille pulls it off however with his overblown style and flair. There are a few cringe worthy moments of poorly directed extras, but it generally works. It's overdone style was the director's intent.

So I bet you're wondering how could this possibly be modern? Well it's Demille's amazing effects he used, lavish sets and deep story that makes it modern. Most movies at the time would cut away when the dead sea caves in, or show just a facade of a city, or a backdrop. Demille shows it all. Scenes such as the slaughtering of the newborn or the Passover were fairly intense at the time, and most movies would, no pun intended, pass over them. So like I said, Demille does this all in old theatrical style, but the actual content of the film was fairly advanced for the time.

Charlton Heston- Very few can part the dead sea and you'll believe they just did it. Very few can be Moses. Heston gives a great performance of Moses that seems just like how you picture him when you read it in the bible. Search for someone else to play a better Moses, but I bet it'll be in vain.

Yul Brynner- Cast as Ramses the Pharaoh, he steals the show in his outstanding performance. He's pompous, arrogant, but delivers great lines. He's also very deep, as that he's simply a leader who was determined, just for the wrong cause. He loves his son and his wife, despite the fact that the latter never returns any love to him. He delivers such a great performance, that he almost makes you want him to win. In the end, he won't however, no matter how long he may pray before the mighty falcon.

Anne Baxter-Is the film's 'Beautiful enemy'. She's in the center of the love triangle between Ramses and Moses, the latter of who she is madly in love with. She's plays someone who's self centered, manipulative, power hungry and superficial and she plays it with remarkable ability. She fit's the classic 'Queen of Egypt' model movies strive for back then. I personally would have liked to seen her play Cleopatra. Sure, it may have been a semi-repeat role playing another Egyptian, but "She was Egypt".

Sir Cedric Hardwicke- He plays the first Pharaoh seen in the film, father of Ramses. He does a terrific job in that role, playing a wise, understanding but firm leader. He speaks his line in stage like fashion and is all together convincing. He may have one of the deepest characters, as you will see in the film.

John Derek- All films have their weaknesses, and this film's weakness is John Derek's portrayal of Joshua. Overacting, even on Demille's standards, and poor delivery of his lines makes his performance almost laughable. He brings the film down a little and is probably the worst part of the film. I don't see how he was cast, maybe he thought it would be the day his career is born. As it turns out, it's not that day, Joshua.

Edward G. Robinson- Yes, America's favorite gangster was cast as a Hebrew turncoat, Dathan, who is an informant with 'Rat's ears and a ferret's nose'. Despite people's criticism of his performance, I thought he did a rather good job. He had his moments where I thought he'd say 'Step back Moses, or I'll plug ya, that goes for you too Joshua and the rest of you mugs' but he was still pretty good.

Other Supporting characters- The rest of the cast is pretty good, Yvonne DeCarlo is solid and Vincent Price has a scene stealing performance as Baka, the Master Builder.

Special Effects- Phenomenal. Who needs CGI when you can build the city of Pi-Ramses instead? This coupled with the partying of the Red Sea, the Nile turning to blood, the hail turning the fire, the staff turning into a snake along with countless other effects are amazing to watch. Most old movies would avoid those effects by cutting away-not the Ten Commandments. I'd say it has the best pre-1990's special effects of all time.

Costumes- Breathtaking. The bright and ornate costumes really capture the essence of the time.

Set Design- Incredible. Like I said for the special effects, do you really need Digital effects if you can just do this? Very few movies can rival the massive sets of this film. It's as if you are actually in Egypt.

Musical Score- A joy to listen to. The pompous overblown score fits with the rest of the feel of the movie. Who else wouldn't want to enter and exit a room wit the same fanfare that Ramses does?

All in all, the Ten Commandments is a classic. It is a surprisingly deep film, that uses theatrical style with modern methods. The film is among my favorites. With outlandish sets and costumes, over the top music, a poetic screenplay, outstanding effects, and exceptional acting, this is a film that is great in all regards, and will be enjoyed with all generations, a film worthy of 'the gods'.

So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

Watch the movie and you'll understand the title of this review.

Titanic-I watch it several times a year, I own the soundtrack, Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Billy Zane, Victor Garber and Bernard Hill are among my favorite actors, and yet for me, the film is mixed.

Everything in Titanic is uneven. Some performances are great, where as others leave much to be desired, there are some great lines in the film and others that are awful, etc. The primary problem is a lack of realism.

First off with the story. How likely would it be that Jack would fall in love with Rose and risk his life for her if he knew her for only 3 days? I find the romantic scenes mixed, and while they have a few good moments, my favorite parts of the movie are when the ship sinks and with scenes with the crew and Billy Zane. Also the class envy lines get to a point of annoyance. The quarters in steerage on Titanic were some of the best. Rich and poor alike sacrificed their lives to save others as the ship went down. I really couldn't understand why James Cameron hated the rich saying he earned more money off of this film than any of the people on Titanic ever earned.

Then the feminist lines grate on me too. Constantly throughout the film feminist messages are shown such as how women have tougher choices than men, how all the rich men are arrogant fools etc. I just have to wonder how many of the women on Titanic would still want to be treated the same way as men when the order 'women and children first was given'.

Now that we're done with the movie's 'buisness and politics', let's take a look at the acting.

DiCaprio-He's now one of my favorite actors, but I didn't care for him in this. He acting like an American tough guy did't exactly work, he'd been better off as a European artist. Part of it was the lines he was given (Such as 'I'm the king of the world'). He does get better as the film goes on.

Winslet-Amazing in the film, perfectly cast and helps carry the movie.

Billy Zane-If he weren't in it, I might not watch the movie. His portrayal of Cal, Rose's fiancée is outstanding. Maybe because his character is so unrealistically pompous and snobby (Even to the point where he pushes someone out of a life boat saying 'Get out, you'll swamp us!'. His lines are hilarious in the film, everything he says is great, I quote them all the time. My favorites are 'I put my faith in you good sir', 'Not even God could sink it', 'Twice the size of Moratania, and far more luxurious' and countless others. He really helps the movie.

Supporting cast-Bill Paxton is solid, Victor Garber is underused but brilliant as the designer of the ship, Mr. Andrews. I love his line 'She's made of iron sir, and I assure you, she will sink'. Bernard Hill gives a good performance as the ship's Captain, all the crew members are great as well. I didn't care for Rose's mother, who I thought was too unrealistic in her hatred. Cal's henchman was also unrealistic, I mean that he would kill someone just for his boss' love? I don't know.

The Digital effects are outstanding and a joy to watch. The music is amazing and my favorite score of all time. The cinematography, sets, costumes and sound is amazing.

All in all, Titanic is a movie I mixed with. I watch it and I love certain moments, but cringe at others. I just wished they could have made a more balanced film to watch. Would I recommend it? Strongly, but I don't like it so much for the love story, as I do for the other elements of the film. It was the classic that wasn't.