Change Your Image
dmc42c
Reviews
Friday Night Lights (2004)
Adequate Football film, but generic and disappointing.
I have to say first of all that I had high expectations for this movie. I heard it was supposed to be a very realistic film about high school football. Having heard that, I had in mind a high school equivalent of a movie like Any Given Sunday, which I felt was amazing in representing on-field play and (I imagine) very good about off-the-field goings on. I must say that FNL didn't represent High School football the way I remember it. I played for a fairly small school (about 500 students) in a small but supportive town of 6000. I remember we had about 2000 spectators for one game. The kind of football represented in Friday Night Lights is the kind that may be authentic for the large and rabid Texas town in which it is set, but a brand which seems to me closer to college football than the high school football that I and probably most others remember playing.
I think the weakest part of the movie was the character development. By the end, you could tell that certain players were supposed to have been main characters, but yet you're left with a very empty and superficial understanding of who they are. For example, there was one character (who I won't name to avoid any kind of spoiler) who we find out in text at the end went on to a very prestigious profession, and yet we had been left with no particular impression that he was smart or ambitious from the movie to that point. In fact, I felt that I knew almost nothing about the character at all. I did feel a connection to one character, Don Billingsly, although I thought even that was a bit underdone, and to the quarterback Mike Winchell to a lesser extent.
The on-field and other football aspects of the film were alright, although I think a bit generic. They are not particularly inspired though, and don't convey the raw emotion and excitement of being on the field particularly well. I don't know, but I am left to suspect that the director and/or cinematographer may not have experienced high school football themselves.
All that being said, it was still a decent movie. I don't feel I wasted my time in watching it or anything, but it certainly did fall short of expectations, and certainly is not of the same caliber as Any Given Sunday, or even The Program.
Show People (1928)
The very definition of great silent comedy
Prior to seeing Show People, my impression of silent comedy was essentially slapstick, and slapstick only. I could not imagine how screen comedy could be possible without relying heavily on spoken word or numerous pratfalls. But this masterful film proved me wrong. Davies, in my view, was probably the greatest comedic actress to come along prior to Lucille Ball. I mention Lucy primarily because Davies' mannerisms and facial expressions reminded me of her to the point that I wonder if Davies wasn't one of Ball's primary influences. This is coming from a 21 year old who had never before seen silent comedy, and I must say that no matter how much of the period-specific references you actually get (I didn't, apparently), you will not be bored by this movie. You will probably even laugh more than you would at most talkie comedies. This is not only my favorite silent comedy, but easily among my ten favorite comedies of all time.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Bettany, Crowe, and considerable atmosphere ALMOST keep M&C afloat
First of all, you should know where I'm coming from. My favorite genre is historical epic, and I am in general a great admirer of Crowe and his films. In this case, though, the few redeeming qualities of Master and Commander, in which Crowe's performance is included, simply do not add up to an end result that is worthwhile. The only reasons I can imagine to see this movie would be if you were researching for an essay about Russell Crowe, find visual effects to be paramount in a film's overall value, or are unqualified in your interest in all things related to British naval history. Aside from these purposes, I can not imagine how a viewer could leave this film satisfied. While there may actually be a plot, it is certainly hard to discern. At best, it is disjointed and decentralized. All that being said, this film is still a credit to the acting talents of Crowe and Bettany, and to the abilities of those responsible for its technical merits, of which there are many. Sadly, though, these efforts are wasted on a film that is truly worthless otherwise.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Hoping for another Gettysburg, got a nice nap.
I greatly anticipated the release of this movie, as I loved Gettysburg and very much enjoyed the Gods and Generals book on tape, narrated by Stephen Lang. However, I really could not get through this one. The dialog was flat and uninteresting. I know the characters have to speak and behave somewhat like 19th century people would have, but while Gettysburg accomplished this and remained engaging, Gods and Generals made its characters seem so remote. I felt no connection on any level with a single character, even those that I had a prior connection with from Gettysburg. Also, for one reason or another, the cast took a large step back in this one. For one, while Lang's bravado-laced portrayal of General George Pickett was a highlight of Gettysburg, his Stonewall Jackson was melodramatic and, in my opinion, far overdone. Also, while it's interesting to note that Robert Duvall is a direct descendant of General Lee, his portrayal was sadly far inferior to Sheen's, and in total, wholly uninspired. This was a major disappointment. I was disappointed that Sheen would not reprise the role, but as a big Duvall fan, expected him to do a much better job. I believe the concept of this film naturally disadvantaged it to Gettysburg, since by encompassing multiple battles, it made it harder to focus on the dramatic battle scenes, and made it prone to necessary but uninteresting interludes. The greatest thing that sunk this movie, however, was the fact that Maxwell appears to have forgotten how to direct in an engaging manner. The battle scenes in Gettysburg were shot realistically, and with effective cuts. It appears that he attempted to shoot and edit Gods and Generals artistically, with slow motion employed at dramatic moments, leaving a product not so much martial as operatic. The unnatural and forced nature of the typical dialog is quite frankly intolerable. In summary, the difference between Gettysburg and Gods and Generals is simply the difference between an excellent human drama/war film and a second-rate melodrama. I give G&G a D-.