JakeStevens Blog

Under discussion:

Two Mules for Sister Sara  (1970)

While certainly not one of Eastwood's better Westerns, I still mostly enjoyed this film thanks to Shirley MacLaine's not-quite-believeable performance as a nun of questionable habits (no pun intended). She floats by on her indefatigable charm, and Eastwood yet again plays the "man with no name" character to somewhat diminishing effect, but through it all the story barely stays glued together due to their personality conflicts. Not for everybody, but truth be told, I'll give this another spin at some point.

Under discussion:

The Chamber  (1996)

All of the phrases mentioned above were floating through my head as I watched this film. Gene Hackman, as usual, pulls in a fine performance, even with the drivel he is given to work with. Surprisingly, Chris O'Donnell mostly holds his own with Hackman and Dunaway, and has some honest chemistry with Lela Rochon. But therein begins the problems. The racism presented here in the film seems to be a plot device for other topics such as family disfunction and alcoholism. Is this ethically or morally proper for James Foley (whose work I generally enjoy) to subject us to such racism and hate, which the story could have been focused on, for a tawdry and run-of-the-mill story? I don't think so, and as the story came to its conclusion, I felt cheapen and lead-on by this film's exploitative tactics. Sorry folks...this one is for Hackman, Foley or Dunaway completists ONLY.

Under discussion:

A Scanner Darkly  (2006)

Hmmm...now that this style of animation has become somewhat passe (I could only think of GTA and car advertisements while watching this film), I think I enjoyed it less than I could've had I seen it when it first came out. The highlights: Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson's characters. Even in animated form, they seem to elevate the film to a higher level than it would have achieved without their performances. Not only that, but the storyline is fantastic (I appreciate most of Philip K. Dick's work). The lowlights: Keanu Reeves. One of my least favorite actors of all time...how does he continue to get these fantastic roles? I hate to break it to you folks, but he's one of the worst high-paid actors alive today. Well, there's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

Under discussion:

Iron Man  (2008)

As far as the new wave of comic book adaptations go, this is admittedly one of the better ones. But for crying out loud...really? Did we need this movie? Again, I'll admit that Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark is perfectly cast, Jeff Bridges pulls in a fine performance as Obadiah Stane and most surprisingly, Jon Favreau manages to make this otherwise-by-the-numbers film palatable (you've got your very noticible "acts" and your very literal "arch villain"). OK, OK, OK, it is a very entertaining film. But it's a very dim beacon in a sea of recent superhero/comic adaptation movies...and I mean a SEA (in the last 10 years, what do we have? Sin City, 300, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghostrider, Constantine, Monkeybone, Cat Woman, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, Ghost World, Mystery Men, Art School Confidential, Man-Thing, The Punisher, Bulletproof Monk, A History Of Violence,  Road To Perdition, Josie And The Pussycats, ANOTHER Superman, ANOTHER Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, TWO Incredible Hulks, TWO Batmans, TWO Fantastic Fours, V For Vendetta, TWO Hellboys, THREE Spider-mans, THREE X-Mens, FOUR Blades...I'm sure I'm missing some and you and I both know there are plenty more to come). Again, I ask: Did we need this film? Or better yet...did we need some of those other films? It's impact is softened thanks to the plethora of pap it has to contend with. Am I being overly harsh? Perhaps. Aren't most films "adaptations" of novels or biographies or short stories or other such previously released reading material? Yes. I suppose I'll let you be the judge of that...but if you're looking for an entertaining film about a comic book hero's origins expertly-but-typically made, look no further.

Under discussion:

The Freshman  (1990)

As stated below (in the All Movie Guide Review), this film is at times funny, other times sloppy, but Brando and Broderick hold the film together with their fine performances. I can't recall another film where I've seen Bruno Kirby with such a large role, and he's surprisingly good (and funny). Definitely worth a watch, particularly if you're a Brando or Broderick fan.

Under discussion:

Lake Placid  (1999)

I remember seeing this film for the first time, with no expectations (perhaps with even slightly lowered expectations) surrounded by my closest friends...and having the time of my life. We were genuinely freaked out at the somewhat cheap thrills and belly laughing at the witty repartee between the characters. On this umpteenth viewing, it still hasn't lost any of it's charm or, most surprisingly, it's thrills. I would HIGHLY recommend watching this film with good friends (and beers) for a fun filled evening in.

Under discussion:

Marty  (1955)

Ernest Borgnine sort of reminds me of one of my father's relatives, so just in appearance alone I felt a connection to his character, let alone the fact that, for a film from the mid-fifties, Mr. Borgnine's performance has a genuine hint of sadness not seen in films of this kind for another decade or more. To wit, it doesn't seem like he's "acting" like he is miserably lonely, he really looks miserably lonely, and when he meets Clara, he's practically jumping out of his skin with excitement and joy, much like a "real" person would had they felt a strong connection to someone of the opposite sex. It's strongly anchored in the anachronisms of its time, but in a film like this (SET in the mid-fifties), it is easily overlooked, and some might even appreciate that fact, since the story itself is timeless. One of the most attractive traits of this film, for me personally, is the central theme of acceptance and tolerance: It doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, it's what's on the inside that counts. And if other people can't accept that, well that's their problem. My only gripe is it's 50's-television feel in the cinematography department (at one point losing focus very noticably for several seconds before cross-fading into another scene) and the song tacked onto the end is pretty damned cheesy, again, giving it a 50's-sitcom feel. But that's where my criticisms end - many kudos to Mr. Borgnine for such a heartfelt performance, and I believe his Best Actor Oscar win is deserved, even against the likes of James Dean in "East of Eden". Some might argue that fact, but that's for another place, another time...

Under discussion:

There Will Be Blood  (2007)

I don't even know where to start. This is an expertly written film - the dialogue is chock full of subtext, an expertly directed film - the cinematography is breathtaking, an expertly scored film - the music goes places you would never expect, and most importantly, an expertly acted film - Daniel Day-Lewis IS Daniel Plainview. In all regards, you need to see this film, especially if you enjoy Kubrickian mastery of form, and P.T. Anderson has that in spades. My biggest question after seeing this...should this have won the Best Picture Oscar? "No Country For Old Men" was stunning, but so was this. It's a tough call, and I'm glad I'm the one who didn't have to make it, because both of those films are fantastic works of art. Do youself a favor and WATCH THIS MOVIE!