dan-172
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews8
dan-172's rating
I am no expert on the genre, but I'd have to say "When Harry met Sally" is, besides the plethora of truly wonderful films made by Woody Allen, the wittiest and most funny romantic comdedy waiting for you out there in video world. I'd only wished I'd seen the film sooner because this seems like that perfect film for discussion with a circle of good friends at Pizzaria Uno. The movie came out in 1989, but for some reason, I think this is one even our kids may like.
Like all good films coming from the genere, this film thrives most on its witty dialgue and cleverness in not "sentimnetalizing" it too much. In other words, there is that perfect equilibrium between scenes of sheer poignancy and scenes of brutal comic relief. The thespians involved, of course, have a lot to do with the film's success and overall appeal. Ryan and Crystal are perfect for the roles assigned, each one of them bringing their charisma and fresh breath of life to the screen. Crystal fits snugly into that character we find all too obnoxious but can't help but loving and Ryan, well, she is as adorable as always.
The issue the film tackles is an important one, I think. It asks us a question of universal importance, namely, can women and men ever be friends?. I'll leave that for you and your friends to talk about at Pizzaria Uno. For now, I'll just say that with heaps of quirky, funny dialogue, a taut script from Nora Ephron, and clean directing form Reiner, "When Harry met Sally" is a highly enjoyable film that unsurprisingly has held strong a decade after its inception.
dan
Like all good films coming from the genere, this film thrives most on its witty dialgue and cleverness in not "sentimnetalizing" it too much. In other words, there is that perfect equilibrium between scenes of sheer poignancy and scenes of brutal comic relief. The thespians involved, of course, have a lot to do with the film's success and overall appeal. Ryan and Crystal are perfect for the roles assigned, each one of them bringing their charisma and fresh breath of life to the screen. Crystal fits snugly into that character we find all too obnoxious but can't help but loving and Ryan, well, she is as adorable as always.
The issue the film tackles is an important one, I think. It asks us a question of universal importance, namely, can women and men ever be friends?. I'll leave that for you and your friends to talk about at Pizzaria Uno. For now, I'll just say that with heaps of quirky, funny dialogue, a taut script from Nora Ephron, and clean directing form Reiner, "When Harry met Sally" is a highly enjoyable film that unsurprisingly has held strong a decade after its inception.
dan
"Glory" is one of those films you keep on thinking about days after you've seen it. Movies like this, most of the time, mean one thing and that is that they are of great importance in one way or another. "Glory" is no exception.
Yes, there are a million war movies out there but only a handful, "Glory" included, that accurately portray what it means to be fighting in war, both physically and mentally speaking. Based on the experiences of the colored 54th Massachusetts Infantry enlisted to help during the Civil War, "Glory" speaks volumes on themes such as honor, duty, and love--things not only directed towards the country being fought for, but also towards the fellow men fighting alongside. "Glory" strongly invests itself in such classical themes of the American cinema and turns out to be one of the greatest and most valuable films of all time.
Performance-wise, this is illustrative of what coalesces when several fine thespians unite for one cause. Denzel is in no uncertain terms unworthy of his oscar award-winning performance, arguably the finest of his career. Broderick is nothing less than brilliant and captivating as Colonel Shaw. The performance required of him--he has to display his inherited abolitionist views on the surface while underneath, harboring a plenitude of humanity his soldiers initially think he lacks--is a hard one and he unexpectedly demonstrates he can do it as easily as he skipped school in the now cult-classic "Ferris Bueller's Day off." Morgan Freeman, as always, is effective as the wise one who knows that brains, not brawn, wins wars. Cary Elwes also deserves recognition for his contribution as Forbes.
The cinematography is without a doubt some of the finest I have ever witnessed. Every scene seems to jump out of itself as if it were a painting sitting in a museum. The score, as many have mentioned, is also an essential facet of the overall experience of "Glory." I guess films like these are the reason for all the hype over state-of the-art- DVD sound.
At the end, all we can ask ourselves is "What did I just see?" and why Shaw, at one time in the movie, tells an onlooker, "remember what you see here." Although the war is lost in physical, concrete terms, there is something truly "great"--call it heroic if you wish--suggested by such a loss. My only hope is that more people see "Glory" because it is one of those rare films that accomplishes, with utter poignancy I might add, in demonstrating both what movies and, ideally, this country is made of. And that everyone who calls him or herself human realizes that, as the movie points unequivocally to at the end, although our music may sound different, we're all in the same boat together.
Yes, there are a million war movies out there but only a handful, "Glory" included, that accurately portray what it means to be fighting in war, both physically and mentally speaking. Based on the experiences of the colored 54th Massachusetts Infantry enlisted to help during the Civil War, "Glory" speaks volumes on themes such as honor, duty, and love--things not only directed towards the country being fought for, but also towards the fellow men fighting alongside. "Glory" strongly invests itself in such classical themes of the American cinema and turns out to be one of the greatest and most valuable films of all time.
Performance-wise, this is illustrative of what coalesces when several fine thespians unite for one cause. Denzel is in no uncertain terms unworthy of his oscar award-winning performance, arguably the finest of his career. Broderick is nothing less than brilliant and captivating as Colonel Shaw. The performance required of him--he has to display his inherited abolitionist views on the surface while underneath, harboring a plenitude of humanity his soldiers initially think he lacks--is a hard one and he unexpectedly demonstrates he can do it as easily as he skipped school in the now cult-classic "Ferris Bueller's Day off." Morgan Freeman, as always, is effective as the wise one who knows that brains, not brawn, wins wars. Cary Elwes also deserves recognition for his contribution as Forbes.
The cinematography is without a doubt some of the finest I have ever witnessed. Every scene seems to jump out of itself as if it were a painting sitting in a museum. The score, as many have mentioned, is also an essential facet of the overall experience of "Glory." I guess films like these are the reason for all the hype over state-of the-art- DVD sound.
At the end, all we can ask ourselves is "What did I just see?" and why Shaw, at one time in the movie, tells an onlooker, "remember what you see here." Although the war is lost in physical, concrete terms, there is something truly "great"--call it heroic if you wish--suggested by such a loss. My only hope is that more people see "Glory" because it is one of those rare films that accomplishes, with utter poignancy I might add, in demonstrating both what movies and, ideally, this country is made of. And that everyone who calls him or herself human realizes that, as the movie points unequivocally to at the end, although our music may sound different, we're all in the same boat together.
Why did I so naively think "Negotiator" would be any different than all those other action movies out there? There is a plethora of "bad" ones waiting for us out there, waiting for us to shell out money so we can sit through two hours of an action movie that fails to deliver, well, action. When will "action" movies once again be action movies, redeem themselves and become pleasures instead of bores? I ask myself such a question when watching a movie like "Negotiator."
Sure, it has some action, but not the same engrossing action films like "Rambo," "Terminator 2," or even "Die Hard" had. Call me cynical, whatever but when I watch a movie, I want to be captivated, I want the film to hold me in the palm of its hands and not let go until the credits roll down. What has happened to the good ol parameters of action films? Have they crumbled? It sure seems like it nowadays.
The only thing saving the "Negotiator" is the acting, not to mention the sudden "L.A. Confidenital" sort of twist at the end. Spacey, as usual, is strong as Sabian, the negotiator talking to a fellow negotiator seeking justice after being framed (Samuel Jackson). Jackson is also good, yet all too often I get that feeling that these two were put together simply to rake in heavy profits. Though, I have to admit, the chemistry between them isn't that bad. Stronger dialogue should have made it more of a pleasurable feed instead of the burnt omelette they gave us.
The film is in dire need of a more economical script; "Negotiator" is like taking the elevator instead of the stairs--it wastes a lot of time it didn't need to. There could have been more to this film is all I'm saying. I swear seeing "Die Hard" for the millionth timne would have given me a more potent fix to satisfy my appetite for action. We go to these types of movies to be entertained, yet as the years go by and heaps of action films are shoveled on us like snow, these same films are losing in large increments in their attempts to sizzle and stir as they are supposed to.
Movies like "Negotiatior" try really hard to awe us but can't. A million shots of police cars simply doesn't do it for the average moviegoer. After all, we can just watch the five o'clock news instead.
Sure, it has some action, but not the same engrossing action films like "Rambo," "Terminator 2," or even "Die Hard" had. Call me cynical, whatever but when I watch a movie, I want to be captivated, I want the film to hold me in the palm of its hands and not let go until the credits roll down. What has happened to the good ol parameters of action films? Have they crumbled? It sure seems like it nowadays.
The only thing saving the "Negotiator" is the acting, not to mention the sudden "L.A. Confidenital" sort of twist at the end. Spacey, as usual, is strong as Sabian, the negotiator talking to a fellow negotiator seeking justice after being framed (Samuel Jackson). Jackson is also good, yet all too often I get that feeling that these two were put together simply to rake in heavy profits. Though, I have to admit, the chemistry between them isn't that bad. Stronger dialogue should have made it more of a pleasurable feed instead of the burnt omelette they gave us.
The film is in dire need of a more economical script; "Negotiator" is like taking the elevator instead of the stairs--it wastes a lot of time it didn't need to. There could have been more to this film is all I'm saying. I swear seeing "Die Hard" for the millionth timne would have given me a more potent fix to satisfy my appetite for action. We go to these types of movies to be entertained, yet as the years go by and heaps of action films are shoveled on us like snow, these same films are losing in large increments in their attempts to sizzle and stir as they are supposed to.
Movies like "Negotiatior" try really hard to awe us but can't. A million shots of police cars simply doesn't do it for the average moviegoer. After all, we can just watch the five o'clock news instead.