Moviestar-6

I am a huge fan of both Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro, so I have wanted to watch this film for quite some time. De Niro's and Walken's performances are outstanding, and Walken most definitely deserved his Oscar for it. My issue is with the director.

I noticed the slow pacing within the first five to ten minutes. I have nothing inherently against slow pacing (I also am a fan of M. Night Shyamalan), so I am not completely a victim of the MTV, attention deficit crowd, but surely there must be a line. However, I continued watching. I watched as the characters prepared for a wedding. I watched as they had the wedding. I watched the wedding reception. All of these events, taking place, I assume, over the course of a week or two, seemed, in my mind, to unfold in real time.

There then came a scene with the characters hunting deer. When Robert De Niro's character raised his rifle at a deer, and the deer ran away, and he lowered his rifle, I became convinced that the director was determined to capture a deer hunting expedition with such realism and accuracy that I myself wanted to fall asleep behind a deer blind. Or else perhaps take the role of the deer itself, who seemed to have the most exciting part, and was put out of its misery before the boredom became intolerable.

When the film finally got around to showing Vietnam, I was overjoyed, thinking that perhaps something would happen other than people sitting around, smoking, drinking, and talking over one another. I never was a fan of King of the Hill, and I certainly don't want to watch the movie version. And relatively speaking, the Vietnam scenes WERE more exciting. Although, disillusioned from the first hour, I nearly had the overwhelming urge to play Russian Roulette myself. But still, the moments of action in the Vietnam portion of the film were sparse, and liberally cushioned by long moments of silence, the likes of which would make Samuel Beckett hit "Stop." After two hours, I became distinctly aware of the rising coldness in my stomach that indicated it would not be getting better. Already I had almost completely taken my attention from the movie to more action-packed distractions like reading a book, or clipping my toenails.

I had not heard of the director, Michael Cimino, before The Deer Hunter, and having seen it, I'm not sure I will be rushing to the video store any time soon to watch any of his other work. Although I am not a professional filmmaker, and he is, I can give this much advice: it's OK to cut things out of your movie. I know, you are quite convinced that everything you left in was absolutely essential to the artistic success of the film, but you don't NECESSARILY have to show a hunter preparing to shoot a deer, only to find the deer run away. This is not something vital to the integrity of the picture. It's OK to remove that. It's not entirely necessary to show every dance that the wedding guests go through. You can cut a couple of them out.

I have nothing against movies with slow pacing. It's not the pacing that I have a problem with. I don't need constant action, just substance. There is a difference between lack of action and lack of substance. You can have a perfectly substantial scene with zero action, and there is an alarming number of examples of movies that have plenty of action, but zero substance. This film had a lot of dead air, a lot of parts that had no action and no substance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've thought about the film too much, and I need to take a nap.

I see a lot of comments on here that say how Janeane Garofalo is actually more attractive in this movie than Uma Thurman. The way I see it, this is deliberate (which should be evident by the fact that this is the only movie where Uma is not what I would call attractive, and her attractiveness in this movie is a big deal). By making the "ugly girl" beautiful, and the "hot chick" unattractive, it creates an irony which forces the audience to look at how they view women in the real world. Because in the real world, women who look like Janeane Garofalo ARE considered less attractive than tall, skinny blondes. Or maybe it's just because you're not allowed to be a movie star if you're ugly, so they couldn't find anyone else. Either way, this is one of my favorite romantic comedies, if not my all-time favorite. 10/10

XXX was stupid and ridiculous, full of mediocre acting, gratuitous sex and violence, an explosion every scene. Here's the thing though. Two things actually, number one: it's intended as pure escapism, nothing more, nothing less, and on that it succeeds. Number two: it's James Bond. Bond is also ridiculous escapism, full of mediocre acting, gratuitous sex and violence, and an explosion every scene. Xander Cage is an american James Bond. I know, James Bond is sophisticated and stylish, but that's why I say Cage is an AMERICAN James Bond...british are sophisticated and stylish. Americans are brash, loud, and crude. James Bond represents the british stereotype, Xander Cage represents the american stereotype. How can there be any doubt of this, when one of the most famous Bond scenes (Bond parachuting with a british flag parachute) is almost identically recreated in XXX with Xander Cage parasailing with an american flag parachute? The story could be substituted with James bond at any point and it would be exactly the same. You can't judge a movie like this on the merits of "high art"...the criteria for its success is really a criterion: is it fun? Yes...yes it is. It's pointless, ridiculous, and absolutely sensationalistic, but it's fun. Based on the merits of its criterion, it achieves its goal perfectly. 10/10