nycsean
Joined Jan 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
nycsean's rating
After the latest awards, I was really excited to go rent "Crash", which I had missed in the theater, and having recently become interested in the various films that explore the modern demographic fractal of Los Angeles.
The story tries to follow 8 main characters that interweave through a day in Los Angeles, and there is some excellent acting, with actors playing against type. Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock and Matt Dillon all put in fine performances that deserved more publicity, and Ludicrous makes an impressive acting debut. The lighting is great and a pleasure to watch.
It's just to bad the story and dialogue are so horrid. Every incident is pulled from a "racial dynamics 101" after-school special, with none of the subtlety and tension that underlies the real interplay between race, ethnicity and class in modern America. It comes across as a film about diversity and conflict as written by a white liberal who has never experienced any of these incidents, nor really knows someone who has.
By the middle of the movie, it's lost any sense of surprise, it's an interplay of stereotypes rather than characters, and it leaves no sense of tension. The one surprise for me involved the incident between the Hispanic family and the Persian store owner, and since that was my one surprise, I spoil it for you.
By it's end it was rather tedious, and I can't believe that this film won Best Picture unless the other candidates just stank. It's a real shame that this ones and "A History of Violence" (good - not great), wasn't even nominated.
Watch it for curiosity, but don't expect a good movie. For a movie that explores modern Los Angeles, Collateral was actually a superior film (but I guess thrillers don't get nominated)
The story tries to follow 8 main characters that interweave through a day in Los Angeles, and there is some excellent acting, with actors playing against type. Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock and Matt Dillon all put in fine performances that deserved more publicity, and Ludicrous makes an impressive acting debut. The lighting is great and a pleasure to watch.
It's just to bad the story and dialogue are so horrid. Every incident is pulled from a "racial dynamics 101" after-school special, with none of the subtlety and tension that underlies the real interplay between race, ethnicity and class in modern America. It comes across as a film about diversity and conflict as written by a white liberal who has never experienced any of these incidents, nor really knows someone who has.
By the middle of the movie, it's lost any sense of surprise, it's an interplay of stereotypes rather than characters, and it leaves no sense of tension. The one surprise for me involved the incident between the Hispanic family and the Persian store owner, and since that was my one surprise, I spoil it for you.
By it's end it was rather tedious, and I can't believe that this film won Best Picture unless the other candidates just stank. It's a real shame that this ones and "A History of Violence" (good - not great), wasn't even nominated.
Watch it for curiosity, but don't expect a good movie. For a movie that explores modern Los Angeles, Collateral was actually a superior film (but I guess thrillers don't get nominated)
The Third Man is a classic that just seems to get better and better with each viewing. A classic film-noire, incorporating elements of noir, Graham Greene's jaded spy thrillers, and excellent acting performances.
It's a succinct film that masters how to tell a basic story, while adding a richness and depth through characterization and atmosphere. The unique zither that strums along matches it perfectly.
While some may find it dated, I find it a forward thinking masterpiece and you can see the shots that Scorsese and Spielberg have copied for their black and white work. After watching overblown and obvious films such as Crash (this won an award?), it was a gem to see this again. It's my third time, and it just seems to improve with age.
It's the little moments that count. Cotten's innocent writer (or is he- since he has some hints of a past with the villain), the great sewer chase, and of course, Orson Welles entrance. The film glides perfectly, with nothing out of place of not making sense.
Excellent
It's a succinct film that masters how to tell a basic story, while adding a richness and depth through characterization and atmosphere. The unique zither that strums along matches it perfectly.
While some may find it dated, I find it a forward thinking masterpiece and you can see the shots that Scorsese and Spielberg have copied for their black and white work. After watching overblown and obvious films such as Crash (this won an award?), it was a gem to see this again. It's my third time, and it just seems to improve with age.
It's the little moments that count. Cotten's innocent writer (or is he- since he has some hints of a past with the villain), the great sewer chase, and of course, Orson Welles entrance. The film glides perfectly, with nothing out of place of not making sense.
Excellent
I am a big fan of both historic costume drama films, and the Iliad, so I was curious about Troy as soon as I heard about it. Then came the reviews, followed by the bad word of mouth. So I avoided it in the theaters, and waited until it came out as a rental.
Man I am glad I didn't pay $10 for this turkey. This was awful, not boring, not trite or predictable. It just plain stank. The dialog was wooden, and you could see the actors just giving up and not caring anymore. The balance and wealth of characters in the Illiad was stripped down to cardboard caricatures.
I don't mind a retelling or new interpretation of the tales, Naomi Wolf's Cassandra is a great example of how a new classic can be rebuilt from the old, but I don't understand the choices behind Troy. It's like Shakespeare, you have a ready built screenplay for you. You actually have it easy.
Instead, the makers of this film had to alter it and experiment, but not in any cohesive way. Achilles is played as a cynical glory hound, and Agememnon a political manipulator. Great ideas (not original but hey- it's a movie), but they are executed in such a poor fashion, that it's ludicrous. "Realism"? , as the previous reviewer attests, well, realism if you like cliché filled dialog. Realism stripped of the powerfully emotional personal moments that abound in the Iliad. Strip the gods from the Iliad, and you still have many great moments, some of the best in all literature, but even these were ripped asunder, and made into corny scenes with silly music.
the film's attempt to make any statements, artistic or otherwise, are never sustained. We could have had a story arc with Acilles and Patroclus dying in his own quest for glory. Nope. Hector fighting a rush to barbarity. Nope.
The film has 2 redeeming features- Sean Been as Odysuess, a small king having to play along with the big fish, and the scene where Hector chooses his bond of brotherhood over the rites of combat. But that's it.
If you are in the mood for a sand and sandals epic, save your money and go watch Gladiator again.
Man I am glad I didn't pay $10 for this turkey. This was awful, not boring, not trite or predictable. It just plain stank. The dialog was wooden, and you could see the actors just giving up and not caring anymore. The balance and wealth of characters in the Illiad was stripped down to cardboard caricatures.
I don't mind a retelling or new interpretation of the tales, Naomi Wolf's Cassandra is a great example of how a new classic can be rebuilt from the old, but I don't understand the choices behind Troy. It's like Shakespeare, you have a ready built screenplay for you. You actually have it easy.
Instead, the makers of this film had to alter it and experiment, but not in any cohesive way. Achilles is played as a cynical glory hound, and Agememnon a political manipulator. Great ideas (not original but hey- it's a movie), but they are executed in such a poor fashion, that it's ludicrous. "Realism"? , as the previous reviewer attests, well, realism if you like cliché filled dialog. Realism stripped of the powerfully emotional personal moments that abound in the Iliad. Strip the gods from the Iliad, and you still have many great moments, some of the best in all literature, but even these were ripped asunder, and made into corny scenes with silly music.
the film's attempt to make any statements, artistic or otherwise, are never sustained. We could have had a story arc with Acilles and Patroclus dying in his own quest for glory. Nope. Hector fighting a rush to barbarity. Nope.
The film has 2 redeeming features- Sean Been as Odysuess, a small king having to play along with the big fish, and the scene where Hector chooses his bond of brotherhood over the rites of combat. But that's it.
If you are in the mood for a sand and sandals epic, save your money and go watch Gladiator again.