Ignorant Bastard Reviews

Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear (1999 Video Game)

This is the only video game I'll ever comment on because man, is it relevant

[1 October 2001]

The game starts off with an introduction of it being the year 2001 and proceeds to show clips of the spread of terrorism throughout the world. Relevant for obvious reasons and it's no coincidence that the game is the sequel to Tom Clancy's computer company's first game, Rainbow Six. Perhaps the most amazing thing in the game is a mission where a group of Arab terrorists have hostages on board a 747, and you can guess what the objective is... simply incredible. They interviewed Clancy who wrote about such events as those that happened on September 11th in one of his novels... and his "crazy" ideas don't seem that crazy anymore. His messages about terrorism in our world have not only reached the public through his books, but also through computer games. Great game too. Highly recommended.

Cries & Whispers (1972)

Red

[10 September 2001]

The color red holds so many facets of symbolism in this picture. If you've seen Woody Allen's "Manhattan", then you may remember when he called Ingmar Bergman the only person he could truly consider to be a cinematic genius. Like Nathaniel Hawthorne, Bergman digs deep into the human psyche... only he does it cinematically, which is an even greater achievement. This is just one of those rare, important films. *****/*****

Titanic (1997)

If for nothing else than the technical wonders

[5 September 2001]

I agree, this movie has a completely weak plot, weak character development, weak screenwriting, weak direction (when it comes to actors, which is probably the most important aspect, but anyway...) if for nothing else, enjoy this film because of it's technical mastery. Right, by definition this is not a good film, however, you sometimes have to give in and just be, ya know, "blown away" by everything this film does right, even if it misses some of the most important elements. I don't know what a critic like Pauline Kael wrote about this film, but it was either one of two things: praised the craftsmanship, ignored the acting, etc., or, damned the whole film. Well, that's fine because a movie like "Titanic" will always be remembered for it's absolutely glorious special effects and amazing editing/cinematography. See the movie just to sit back and be truly entertained by Hollywood grandeur. 9.5/10 (technical achievement), 4/10 (most of the important stuff [acting and what have you]), 6.7... okay I'll give in! 7/10 (overall)

Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Okay, it was pretty good

[31 August 2001]

Great acting all around, Billy Wilder proves he's one of the master writer/directors... a real treat of a film. Don't expect a fast moving story, but still worth the time. That score is a little overbearing at times, but hey, loud isn't always bad. ****/5

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

No exception in the year of bad movies

[6/10 · 29 August 2001]

I can name five things worse than having to sit through a film like "Requiem for a Dream". What exactly is this director trying to prove? That doing drugs gets you nowhere in life? Well I might have been impacted by that message if I knew what was going on half the time. I managed to put the whole mess together by the end of the picture (unfortunately) and the result was a headache. Why do people believe that if a film has a tremendously high amount of cuts that it's good editing? I don't know, probably because they think that it was difficult to do or something. No. Good editing is not seeing how many cuts you can fit into one picture (watch any Oliver Stone film after the 1980's). Good editing makes a film an interesting experience, a unique format, it does not necessarily have to flow well, but if you want good editing, see a movie like "Barry Lyndon", which probably has a quarter of the amount of cuts than this film, despite being double the length. If this is the future of film making, I don't want to be there to see it.

Ordinary People (1980)

This was extraordinarily awful

[29 August 2001]

Robert Redford, director of such bad films as "The Horse Whisperer" and "A River Runs Through It" makes his directorial debut with this pretentious and technically horrible movie. I rented a newly released DVD version of the film and was very surprised by the poor quality of the sound recording. I once saw a VHS copy of "All Quiet on the Western Front" (from 1930) that had nicer audio than this. The deliberately uncertain Timothy Hutton turns in an overrated and I'm happy to say, boring performance. I was especially turned off by the lack of talent from Mary Tyler Moore, who should have just stuck to her TV work. The Canon in D adaption is played at least five times during the film at unnecessary spots. Has Robert Redford heard any other pieces of classical music? Anyway, in addition to proving how a film can be blown out of proportion by the critics, it also went on to prove how worthless the Oscars are. It won four, and can you believe it? The Academy's board selected it as Best Picture! Yes! They would go on to pick even more rubbish as being "Best Picture"s such as "Out of Africa", "Rain Man" and "Driving Miss Daisy"... and that's just from the 80's! Spare yourself from having to strain to hear what the actors are saying (not that it matters, the same malarkey comes out of they're mouths all the time anyway) and pass this movie up... destroy it if you have the chance.

Blade Runner (1982)

The ending impact is what mattered

[9 August 2001]

First, one of the best and I think now appreciated aspects of this film is the cinematography. Rarely does lighting play such a key and impressive role in a film. There are moments where the film becomes a tad muddled, and also where I lost interest, but it never lasted too long. This is the only film Ridley Scott has directed that I've truly enjoyed. Vangelis' music score is his best.

****½ / 5

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A film that is way ahead of it's time... and ours

[26 July 2001]

Okay, so space travel has not taken humans as far as Jupiter, we have not colonized the moon or made computer's with A.I. equivalent to H.A.L's, BUT, film making has never reached the status achieved by Kubrick in making "2001". Sure, this movie was made 33 years ago, and visual effects have come a long way since then, but the actual thought process used in conceiving an idea like "2001" is still unmatched. There have been a lot of original films over those 33 years, but none have attempted what Kubrick did: consider mankind for what it really may be. And all the little details in "2001" are overlooked in making films nowadays, with the exception of a rare few.

E.T. (1982)

Unashamed to call it great

[25 July 2001]

The film is not perfect, but it certainly is one of the most wonderful and unique cinematic achievements ever made. So many simple plot elements are made into a beautiful and continually watchable experience because of the movie's great director. Spielberg has developed an unfair reputation over the years for making "blatant" and "simple minded" type films. I love a lot of his movies: "Jaws", "Close Encounters", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (the whole trilogy for that matter), "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" are amongst my (and pretty much the critics and everyone else's) favorites. These are great films. It may be even more challenging for a director to turn what would appear to be pretentious and maybe boring ideas into films as exciting as the ones he's made. "E.T.", though not my absolute favorite (that one goes to "Raiders"), is a magical film, magical because of it's use of music with images. Had one or the other been missing, the film would have failed. So, I guess you could say John Williams was just as crucial, if not the most crucial collaborator with Spielberg on the film.

"E.T." deserves it's spot as being one of the best films made. It's an important film. A rare film. One that doesn't hit every mark, but no film I can think of does.

*****/*****

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Fooled a lot of people

[23 July 2001]

There are films that receive so much critical acclaim that it's difficult to express an opinion against the overwhelming majority.



"L.A. Confidential" is not a good movie.



Here's the hard part: supporting my belief with reasons.

Well I do have a lot of them. And people who read this will want to see them. But I won't give them. One might say a review should not be written without details to support an opinion. Fine. Or you can just take my word for it.

Run Lola Run (1998)

It Failed

[20 July 2001]

This radical new style of film making did not work... at least for this picture. It tells the same story three times with different twists each time around. At first, the editing seems impressive, but gradually, it grows repetitive and lazy. The story is the same way. (Spoiler) For instance, the third time we see the story, Lola goes to a casino, and all by coincidence, wins as much money as her boyfriend needs. That's it. The writer couldn't come up with anything better. Unnecessary things like animation just clutter the plot, too. **/5

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Truly, an incredible and innovative movie

[26 June 2001]

Stanley Kubrick's first and only comedic masterpiece is still the finest ever made. I love everything in the movie: the brilliant acting, sensational script, flawless direction, and even those quirky visual effects. Not only was this film hilarious, it was a breakthrough for the entire film industry when first released. In addition to it's amazing satirical basis, the film also played a major role in how films were advertised and marketed... as if Peter Seller's performance wasn't enough! The sets were also very convincing and just plain great! So realistic in fact, that the FBI almost investigated how they got the B-52 Bomber replicated to near perfection!

In the end, 'Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' is the best comedy. It's also another milestone in film making and another reason to be astonished when looking at the work of Stanley Kubrick.

An obvious perfect ***** / *****

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

All worth it for the great finale

[26 June 2001]

This movie turned into a mess halfway through when William Holden's character gets out of the prison camp and in touch with the British army. Not only did it add a lot of unnecessary length to the film, but made it a lot less interesting. Fortunately, Lean builds up that magnificent scene at the end, which makes the rest of the film worth sitting through.

I admired Guinness' performance and not much else. Possibly the most over-hyped war film of our time. If you want to see a film that takes on a more psychological aspect towards war, watch Malick's inconsistent, but very effective 'The Thin Red Line'.

*** / *****