Change Your Image
rafiol-1
Reviews
Ihaka: Blunt Instrument (2000)
Worth a look
Decent enough flick - quite entertaining for a movie of its limited production value and genre. It was interesting to see an Australian / Kiwi version of a "buddy flick". The title and character development led me to believe that it might have been part of a series of movies based upon the main character (or maybe a TV pilot) but sadly, it isn't. It is, however, worth a look if you catch it on cable - but I wouldn't adjust my schedule around seeing it.
12 Angry Men (1997)
Better than "made-forTV" quality**SPOILERS**
I don't recall if I rented this movie or saw it on cable the first time I viewed it. I did not realize after seeing it a few times that it was a made for TV movie nor did I realize that it was a remake. At that time, I would have given it a solid 7 out of 10 (with a bump or two for the performances of a few of the actors). Later (after seeing a few times), I discovered that it was a "made-for-TV" movie. I had to update my impression to a 9 out of 10 because I have seen so few `made-for-TV's' of such caliber.
This evening, I just saw the original (1957) screenplay with Henry Fonda. Without a doubt, it was done quite well and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It also forced me to compare the remake to the original for, yet another, update to my personal rating system. My "pluses" (in favor) of the remake are as follows:
1. The casting was excellent - with the exception of Glengarry Glen Ross (also starring Jack Lemmon), I don't think I could come up with a better line-up. Though most of the cast could be interchangeable between versions, the ones that really shone over the original cast were Ossie Davis, Armin Mueller-Stahl, James Gandolfini, Mykelti Williamson, and Edward James Olmos and, especially George C. Scott.
2. Without steering too far away from the original script, the actors in the remake seemed to portray emotions that were truly more believable.
3. With the exception of a decided lack of female jurors, I think the jury in the remake was more representative of what you would expect to see in a modern day jury (the original could have just as easily been called "Twelve Angry White Men". As one other poster mentioned, seeing a minority accurately portraying the racist and a Latino portraying an Eastern European was quite refreshing.
4. George C. Scott's performance was 100% more believable than Lee J. Cobb's (especially at the end of the flick). He talks and acts very much the same way as my next-door neighbor (a REAL person) - making him all the more realistic. Though I'm sure that L. J. Cobb would have been just as capable of that kind of performance had it not been for the more understated direction of the 1950's.
My "minuses" are:
1. Though the story and dialog fit well in either time period, it seemed like there was a missed opportunity to try something new in the script. With limited exception, the script was almost verbatim to the original. In a nutshell, what was the point of remaking it if you were going to stick that close to the original script and dialog? Granted, it might be a mistake to tamper with such a decent script - but then again, it is a mistake to replicate it as well.
2. Dorian Harewood's recognition and story behind the `stiletto' and its usage were very weak. Jack Klugman handled that transition much better in the original.
3. Tony Danza's lines in the beginning of the flick came off a bit `forced' and heavy-handed. After seeing his first few lines, I thought that he was going to perform like I would have expected of a sitcom actor - but he did prove me wrong as the film went on. Had the script been adjusted, I'm sure that he would have been able to do a better job because he did so well throughout the rest of the flick.
4. Based upon the plotline, I would strongly doubt that any prosecutor would attempt to run with a first-degree murder rap. Even with all of the `overwhelming' evidence, any modern day prosecutor would have gone with second-degree murder (or even aggravated assault / manslaughter rap) to guarantee a guilty verdict. This should have been addressed in the remake by either reducing the charges more accurately or reducing the amount of background history of the kid enough to limit the amount of sympathy he would receive (without eliminating the motive angle it provided).
Overall, looking at the film in the category of a "remake", I would have to adjust my scoring back a notch to an 8 out of 10. Definitely worth seeing more than once. I would have to give the original a 6 out of 10 - not for any shortcomings, mind you, it's just that it didn't seem to stand out from the crowd of drama flicks of the same era. I would like to watch it again
Used Cars (1980)
Timeless
This is one of the funniest movies of all time. I saw it when it hit the theaters in 1980 and I bought it on videotape when I first saw it in the store. After seeing it more than just a few times over the years, I must say that it still keeps me rolling in laughter every time I see it. Until the automobile industry catches up with the electronics industry in making disposable cars (resulting in the inevitable demise of the used car salesman) this movie will maintain its own with its timeless humor. With the possible exception of his roll in "Tombstone", this has to be the best roll that Kurt Russell has ever done.
The Horse Whisperer (1998)
Should've been titled "Flogging a Dead Horse Whisperer"
What was the point of this movie? If you haven't seen it, you may want to save the 170 precious minutes of you life for doing something more entertaining - like picking ticks off of a dead horse's corpse.
Robert Redford's character - Looser (with his finger and thumb in the shape of an `L' on his forehead). Nobody buys the "deep soulful cowboy routine" anymore. Give it a freakin' rest.
Kristin Scott Thomas's Character - Should have been shot and put out of everyone's misery withing the first few scenes. Sam Neill's character should have kicked her to the curb with extreme prejudice.
Sam Neill's character - Pitiful! Use two hands when making the `L'. This is the only character in the movie that was deserving of any degree of sympathy (but don't give it to him because of his double-looser status)
Don't get me wrong - I don't have to have a `likable' character in a film in order to enjoy it. Hell, I hated everyone in `Internal Affairs' (but they were believable, and I felt sorry for some of them as well - even the a**holes). This movie just doesn't provide a single character that is even worth watching (let alone developing any sort of emotion over other than disgust).
I gave it a `1' (but only because `0' wasn't offered). I feel that I have been cheated out of 170 minutes of my life).