I don't fully understand why I had fond memories of this. This is simply an atrocious film. The acting (not to mention dialogue) is just so horrible, I'm constantly aware I'm watching actors. It's like sitting in on a grade 8 drama class, but less funny. Hugh Laurie is actually semi decent, letting out his full accent, and this is a man I generally have no patience for. This film would be getting a 1/10, but honestly the animals are by far the best part. I had real hope for the movie as the scene where the dalmatians see each other for the first time in a slow motion pan, but the movie just couldn't keep that quality up. Honestly, Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson get engaged hours after meeting, and have no chemistry whatsoever. What is this. With lines like, "You may have won the battle, but I'll win the wardrobe," this is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
2/10
Film#27 - eXistenZ, 1999, dir. David Cronenberg
I must say my first impression of this movie was it was like reading a video game manual. You got the game, it looks so cool and you can't wait to get into it, and on the ride home you read the manual. It tells you all sorts of stuff, controls, specific moves, how the gameplay works, the interface, and has a little teaser of story. This movie is the same thing. The spend almost the entire film trying to explain the concept that they live in a future where video games are played on organic game systems that tap directly into your body. The strange part is once they get into the game, they find another game 'pod' and plug into that, going into even stranger alternate realities. This film took a stab at where video games might be going, and I respect that. The problem is they assume that in a world where technology is so advanced that only organically grown tissue similar to the brain can hold all the data, that somehow game characters are all mindless avatars, with linear storylines and incredibly narrow paths of gameplay. Aside from my fury with the video game aspect of the film, it has its charms. Philosophically it says almost too much, and has some interesting quirks (I'm a huge fan of what I call film quirks). Something like Jude Law's character is in a chinese restaurant, and the transition from that game world to the previous one is the table turns into a giant pillow for a split second before he awakes on a bed in the previous world. Some weak acting and implausible storyline elements even for the premise they put forth are balanced out with a cast of capable actors playing bit parts, which somehow made it a decent film in the end.
7.5/10
Film#28 - Wall Street, 1987, dir. Oliver Stone
My last Oliver Stone review got a dismal 5/10, but this film is radically different. Well, maybe not radically. Style wise, Stone tones down his over-the-top-ness and presents a fairly compelling story. I half expected the story to be winding towards a brutal shootout, but instead it chose to stay with the drama of love, money and family. Charlie Sheen is superb, except in his 'weak' moments, which tended to be a little melodramatic and out of character. Michael Douglas is phenomenal as Gordon Gekko, with such a powerful performance he keeps the film going. Highly enjoyable.
8/10
Film#29 - Far From Heaven, 2002, dir. Todd Haynes
Now, we watched this in film to show relations between this and Douglas Sirk's 1955 All That Heaven Allows. Sirk's film is a major pass for me. This however, is incredible. Stylistically, the film is beautiful. The colours just jump out of the screen, going from stunning bucolic scenery to unnaturally oversaturated scenes. The characters are all so unique yet hauntingly familiar to things I think everyone can relate to in some way. The film challenges values and morality in such an obvious way, while at the same time touches on the subtleties of social issues. A very engaging film, drawing you in in such a way that you're unsure of what character to root for.
9/10
Film#30 - North By Northwest, 1959, dir. Alfred Hitchcock
I had been meaning to get around to his for months after my dad gave me a copy. This is my eighth Hitchcock film, and I generally enjoy his style. This was one of his more direct and engaging stories I think, especially for modern audience and the stereotypes concerning our attention spans. However I found this one actually lost me a little by the end. However, the story picks up so quickly and takes so many twists and turns I really had no idea where it was going. I must say, it had been suggested to me that this was more or less the basis for James Bond films, from a Hitchcock style of course, and it definitely swayed how I saw the film. It really does seem like a precursor to the Bond film series, despite being made years after the Bond novels first started circulating. I would even say this is a perfect movie for the time, as I can't imagine how back then this could have been any better. However it just doesn't have the kick to it to make it something that really sticks with me. As a side note, the iconic scene with the cropdusting plan chasing Cary Grant was far too exciting, from the moment I saw the plane in the distance I just couldn't contain myself.
9/10
