To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)

To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)

10/10

Starring

Gregory Peck

Mary Badham

Phillip Alford

Directed by Robert Mulligan

Based on Harper Lee's novel of the same name, To Kill a Mockingbird is ranked the best courtroom drama by the American Film Institute (AFI), and the protagonist Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) is ranked number 1 in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains. Now that said, you will need to see this movie to fully understand how the movie took the book to which it was based and made a masterpiece for us to also enjoy. That said, I have issues with the way the movie downplayed the racism which was very prevalent in the book, and it also removed some characters and over dramatized the courtroom drama.

This drama will both inspire you and teach you. It makes you feel all the warmth you’ve missed over the years of CGI technology. Adding to this movie is the cast of children, whose plain naivety makes the movie a lot better. The acting from the child actors is also one of the good things that made the movie stick to my memory.

Set in a time when being Black was a cause for concern, To Kill a Mockingbird tells the story of a man, Atticus Finch, and his kids during a 3-summer period. The story arc spans over 3 years, about how Atticus’ kids Jem (Philip Alford) and Scout (Mary Badham) go through each summer with heartwarming adventures.

Their story is wrapped around the case in which Atticus is defending a Black man who is being held on a rape charge.

Guilty or not, Atticus defends this man with all that he has in his kitty, even though at that time everyone saw it as him going against the norm. Atticus went all out to make sure that if this man was innocent as he says he is, he will do all that is within his power to get him off.

The movie’s screenplay is something you’ll be able to relate to, making the movie hit home in the first 10 minutes, you are hooked to see how things will end up, especially if you have not read the book. The directing was also top-notch, and it is worth commending.

Another issue with the movie for me is the character Boo, whose role in the book differs from that in the movie.

Philip Alford did not initially want to audition for the part. However, when his mother informed him that he would miss a half day of school, he immediately decided to go after all.

To say not to watch this movie is like telling you to skip breakfast.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

8/10

Starring

Jim Carrey
Liam Aiken
Emily Browning
Timothy Spall
Catherine O'Hara
Billy Connolly
Cedric the Entertainer
Luis Guzman
Jennifer Coolidge
Meryl Streep

Directed by Brad Silberling

Till today, when I see strange events happening I will say, “A series of unfortunate events.” This movie has added a phrase to my vocabulary, not because it is a great movie, nor because the actors were exceptional, nor because of the part played by the ensemble cast of stars. The movie added this phrase because of the wonderful display of evil by Count Olaf (Jim Carrey).

He embodied the character in a way that made me just get engrossed in the movie. I cannot state the number of times me and my sister sat watching this movie, just to see him play this character. The thing that makes me dip my hat for Jim in this movie is the various aliases of Count Olaf, which he had to play and did so well. Now I must warn you, you can see the intent of the character, but I did not feel it was menacing enough in my view.

The story and movie adaptation cover three of Lemony’s books, The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window, which are the first three books in A Series of Unfortunate Events.

The story is of three children whose parents died in a fire and left them with a considerable amount of money. Their uncle Count Olaf, who wants the money for himself, is ready to do anything required to make sure the children are murdered, so that he will be left with the money. His various attempts at trying to get these children killed, is what leads to a tale of unfortunate events.

The three children, Violet (Emily Browning), Klaus (Liam Aiken), and Sunny (Kara and Shelby Hoffman) were also exceptional in the movie, especially Emily Browning.

As much as love seeing this movie, I must say it departs from the books to which it is based, and the plot seems rushed. Like it wanted to get on with the intro and start the plotting of killing these children. Also, the ending did not give me the satisfaction I would have wanted, it was not a good enough ending to a good movie which I had fun seeing.

Here is a trivia for you, due to the risk of working with infants, four scenes involving Sunny Baudelaire required CGI with motion capture technology.

Would I recommend this movie, yes it is fun, I wish there was a sequel to follow up the movie so that the ending would matter or add up to something.

How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

8/10

Starring

Jim Carrey
Taylor Momsen
Jeffrey Tambor
Christine Baranski
Bill Irwin

Directed by Ron Howard

How some people seem not to like this movie is amazing. This movie for me shows Jim Carrey at his best, his acting as the Grinch was flawless, I actually believed that this man hates holidays. The movie didn't play it close to the book it was adapted from, which to me was the high note for this movie.

Based on Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas and to me a better adaptation than the first (and only other adaptation before this) 1956 Christmas TV movie.

The plot goes, after a horrible childhood, we have up in the mountains someone known as the Grinch. The Grinch (Jim Carrey) was mean, cruel and very much unlikable. What he hates most is the holidays. He has a stern dislike for the Christmas season and if possible he would rather torture himself than experience it.

In Whosville, the town he lives in, the people have decided to make this year’s Christmas celebration the best and the most outstanding. He found this out and decided to do all he can to make sure this never happens.

His plan to end this was to find a way to steal from the town and instead of happiness and cheer all around the town on Christmas day, there would be gloom. His plan involved him dressing up as Santa Claus and instead of giving presents away, he planned on taking them all.

Everything he planned on doing would have been perfect and even his heart would have been fine with its present size, but she came around. The she was Cindy Lou Who, a little girl who wanted very much to give back to the Grinch for saving her life in the beginning of the movie.

The movie is the second highest-grossing holiday film of all time with over $345 million, only behind Home Alone. It was directed by Ron Howard who was responsible for Apollo 13 (1995), A Beautiful Mind (2001) and The Da Vinci Code (2006).

It won the Oscars for Best Makeup and was also nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design. Jim Carrey, for his part, won the MTV Movie Awards and Kids' Choice Awards for his performance as the Grinch.

Here is a movie you can see every Christmas, just along with Home Alone. Jim Carrey was in a class of his own in this movie. Although every other cast in this movie was a little lost to me, that doesn't matter and will not matter to you when you do see this movie.

Tootsie (1982)

Tootsie (1982)

7/10

Starring

Dustin Hoffman
Jessica Lange
Teri Garr

Directed by Sydney Pollack

Here is a movie about cross-dressing that I actually liked. This movie makes Martin Lawrence Big Momma look like a high school prank.

Starring Dustin Hoffman and Jessica Lange and directed by Sydney Pollack who also played Hoffman's agent in the movie, it was nominated for 10 Academy Awards but only took home one for best supporting actress. What I liked about the movie is its, writing and dialogue, you will find yourself swept into the love of movie by the witty remarks that make this more than just your average comedy.

Tootsie takes a while getting into, but the moment you do you find yourself smiling all the way to the very end. What takes a while is the intro of the character, and some early scenes that feels a little stretched though as we know we are not to like the character, but they really wanted to hammer it in early on.

The movie plot is about a perfectionist, talented but volatile actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) who was difficult to work with and because of that was finding it hard to get a role. Because of his difficulty, he decided to change a bit, when i say a bit i mean he changed from a man to a woman to land some acting gig so as to raise money to do a stage play. After becoming famous and falling in love with his co star he was now finding it difficult to keep up appearance.

Other things I liked about this movie is the way Hoffman switches between Michael and Dorothy, it is hilarious yet believable, the movie did not over dramatize the switches. And like some of the movies today, we do not have weird situations where we see many of the other actors as fools for not seeing what we see while watching.

Dustin Hoffman’s acting was flawless making the other actors in the movie look like they were struggling to keep up. Jessica Lange, though subtle, was equally solid and gave the film some heart, balancing Hoffman’s over-the-top moments. It is this balance act, that makes you fall into the movie and be carried away by the development of the persons.

I did enjoy this movie a lot and would recommend it if you don’t mind watching cross dressing. It’s not perfect, but it’s clever, funny and still holds up today and it will make you look at all other cross-dressing movies as a waste.

Yes Man (2008)

Yes Man (2008)

5/10

Starring

Jim Carrey

Terence Stamp

Zooey Deschanel

Bradley Cooper

John Michael Higgins

Danny Masterson

Directed by Peyton Reed

Here is a movie about a man who decided to say yes to everything, at the beginning I was actually having fun watching him do it, after a while it became a drag then it was just stupid.

The movie is based on a memoir of the same name by British humourist Danny Wallace. The book tells of the 6-month period in which he committed himself to saying 'Yes' to everything based on a brief conversation with a stranger he met on the bus.

The movie plot tells the story of a bank loan officer Carl Allen (Jim Carrey), Carl has become withdrawn since his divorce from ex-wife Stephanie (Molly Sims). He also routinely ignores his friends Pete (Bradley Cooper) and Rooney (Danny Masterson), with a constant negative outlook on his life.

He got invited to a seminar where he is told to change and be a Yes Man, an advice Carl took literal and started to say yes to everything and everyone that comes his way. At this point is where the movie goes from common sense to stupidity, nobody can go about saying yes to everything uncontrollably, and this is what Carl did.

The movie’s acting and stunts were cool, especially when I found out that Jim Carrey did some of his stunts, even breaking 3 ribs during the process. But even knowing this did not make up for how predictable the story is, and how it runs out of jokes halfway through. The moment you get the idea that he says yes to everything, you kind of know how things will go from any suggestion thrown his way. The excitement would have been how those things will turn out, but many of them did not capture the fancy enough to save the movie from just being, one of those things you see and forget.

Also, concerning the supporting characters like Bradley Cooper’s Pete, they did not get much to do, as the movie leaned too much on Carrey’s antics.

The good here is Jim Carrey’s energy, he is still one of the few actors who can make ridiculous situations work just by committing fully. His chemistry with Zooey Deschanel was also fun to watch, even if it felt rushed.

So, the question is, would I recommend this movie?

Well, if you are on a Jim Carrey marathon, and you can stomach this movie it is just there. But if you are looking for something to watch, skip it.

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)

4/10

Starring

Jim Carrey
Téa Leoni
Alec Baldwin
Richard Jenkins
Gloria Garayua

Directed by Dean Parisot

Although I had some laughs and I did, this movie is not meant to be made at all as it lacks all the needed things to make it something you like to see again or want to ask someone to go see.

The movie is based on Fun with Dick and Jane by Gerald Gaiser.

About Dick who had a high-paying job, he and his wife Jane (Téa Leoni) live in an expensive house in the suburbs with their son Billy and housekeeper, Blanca (Gloria Garayua).

Their life crashes head-on into reality when the firm Dick works for turns out to have been losing money but has been lying to everyone. To make matters worse they made Dick the fall guy for some of their dirty dealings.

Now broke and with no money and losing everything, Dick and Jane start getting involved in anything they can, to make money.

The problem with this movie is the script and then the screenplay. Some events in the movie are too ridiculous to even consider that they were added at all. If you now add that to the acting skills of Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni and Alec Baldwin you have great actors doing a good job acting some really stupid scenes.

Nothing really added up or made much sense in the movie, the whole setting Dick up to be the fall guy, was silly and unrealistic. The whole movie felt rushed. It was like the writers were on steroids and were in a hurry to get the movie done, no good solid foundation or anything, just here is Dick, here is Jane, here is the bad guy and let’s go.

While filming the coffee shop robbery scene, Leoni seriously injured her shoulder while sliding on the counter. During the scene where Carrey jumps into the ceiling and hangs above the bank desk, when he was stepping down, he accidentally fell and smacked his face on the floor. This painful blooper made it into the film.

Fun with Dick and Jane came out after Series of Unfortunate Events. Now series was a wonderful movie while this just fell through the cracks. The movie was directed by Dean Parisot, who also directed the not so good RED 2, so his name is on my, “not so good at this yet” list.

Now this movie actually was a financial success, and I did laugh enough times to enjoy it, but as I said I can’t recommend it.

The Truman show (1998)

The Truman show (1998)

8/10

 

Starring

Jim Carrey
Laura Linney
Ed Harris
Noah Emmerich
Natascha McElhone

Directed by Peter Weir

The movie tells the tale of an insurance salesman, Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey), who lived his entire life, since before birth, in front of cameras for The Truman Show.

Unaware of this fact, Truman's life is filmed through thousands of hidden cameras, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and broadcast live around the world, allowing executive producer Christof (Ed Harris) to capture Truman's real emotion and human behaviour when put in certain situations concocted by the writers. The thrill about Truman’s life is that everything is arranged for him, down to the woman he married and his best friend, things change when an encounter made him realise that his life seems a bit to convenient.

The Truman Show was written by Andrew Niccol, who got the inspiration from an episode of The Twilight Zone called "Special Service".

After the script had gone through some re-writes, Jim Carrey was picked for the role, and I feel he was made for it. Made with a budget of over $60 million, The Truman Show was a financial success and was nominated for three categories at the Academy Awards but did not win any.

The movie cinematography is done in such a way that you get to see mistakes from the show makers and how they arrange things in the back end to make Truman do some particular things, feel a particular way or try to cover up their mess so he does not find out.

The script and the movie lines are fun, especially when the actors had to advertise on the show. There could be a conversation going on, then one of the actors will just drift to talk about an object in such a manner you wonder if they have lost it, only for you to figure out seconds later that it was an advert in the show. That was very creative.

The movie has wonderful actors, fantastic performances all round, but it was too comedic for me. What I mean is, this is actually a dark issue, someone’s entire life is being manipulated for the pleasure of others, but the movie takes a lighter tone on the subject matter. Also, wouldn’t it have been amazing if we too are suckered into the lie just like Truman, instead of being told from the start that this was a show?

Anyway, this movie is fun and I recommend it, you will love the discovery and how he tries to get his life back.

Vertigo (1958)

Vertigo (1958)

6/10

                                 

Starring

James Stewart
Kim Novak
Barbara Bel Geddes

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Vertigo is a mystery film from the late 50s that has a way of luring you in till you become hooked to see how it is all going to turn out.

I love the nice twist in the ending that makes you know that all you are watching is just a setup, a write elaborate setup I must say. Now, that is if you have not read the book prior to watching this.

Although many classics have been made, Vertigo has received many praises which I believe it does not deserve. Viewers may be bored by the lengthy drama, as the movie has pacing issues, but if you are the kind that loves to see how it is going to turn out, then Vertigo is a movie for you.

The film stars James Stewart (It's A Wonderful Life) as former police detective John "Scottie" Ferguson, who had to retire due to disabilities (vertigo and clinical depression) incurred when a police colleague died trying to save him.

Scottie gets a call from an old friend who hires him as a private investigator to follow his wife, Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak), who is behaving strangely.

Scottie begins the job, which led to him falling in love and becoming obsessed with his work.

The screenplay is an adaptation of the French novel The Living and the Dead (D'entre les morts) by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac.

Although Vertigo is fun to watch, I felt some of the camera angles were weird, the use of the zoom to play out the vertigo feeling is to be praised though.

Acting wise, the movie does its best in this regard, it is well cast, and I felt the actors did the best they can, which is why many (not me) rates it high up there. Other issues I had with the movie, were the plot holes: Scottie’s obsession for instance, it is key to the plot, but it happened so fast and feels forced than natural. Also, in the end Scottie was able to overcome his vertigo just at the right time, we see the struggle, but he seems to be able to push through, very highly unlikely.

Well, in the end, this movie is not bad to watch, maybe not a classic as many say, but if you are ready to sit 2 hours for a movie to thrill ya, then Vertigo is it. If not, try something else.

Psycho (1960)

Psycho (1960)

8/10

Starring
Anthony Perkins
Vera Miles
John Gavin
Martin Balsam
John McIntire
Janet Leigh

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

They don't come any crazier than Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). This Psycho thriller was a classic horror movie in the 60s, with a score (soundtrack) that is breathtaking, and you will love how the movie itself manages to pass the scare across without too much effects.

It also had four Academy Award nominations. Psycho is considered one of Hitchcock's best films, and it is ranked among the greatest films of all time.

The movie is based on a novel of the same name by Robert Bloch, which in turn was based loosely on the case of convicted Wisconsin murderer Ed Gein.

The story is about a secretary who embezzled $40,000 from her company to go share with her boyfriend. On her way to their meeting place, she stops over at a motel owned by Norman Bates, who has long been under the control of his mother and is struggling to balance his own life without her influence. As she spends the night at the Bates Motel, we slowly see Norman’s strange behaviour change from polite to unsettling. Then the next day, she is murdered in the now-iconic shower scene, and now the movie’s focus shifts to Norman trying to cover up this crime.

Now, the first half of the movie is gripping and tense, as you sit through trying to get the feel of what is happening, but the moment we get to the death, the movie’s pacing slows as the investigation into the missing secretary begins. You can feel that some scenes are stretched out, especially the police investigation bits.

Acting wise Perkins did well, and the whole cast were excellent in their portrayals, which gave the movie the edge that it had.

The famous shower scene, which was the murder of Janet Leigh's character in the shower, is the film's pivotal scene and one of the best-known scenes in all of cinema history. It spawned numerous myths and legends. It was shot from December 17 to December 23, 1959, and features 77 different camera angles. The scene runs 3 minutes and includes 50 cuts.

Paramount felt the book was "too repulsive" and "impossible for films" and they did not like "anything about it at all" and denied Hitchcock his usual budget. So, Hitchcock financed the film's creation through his own Shamley Productions. The movie was then shot in black and white to keep the budget below $1,000,000.

I do hope you take the time to see this movie.

Psycho (1998)

Psycho (1998)

2/10

Starring

Vince Vaughn

Julianne Moore

Viggo Mortensen

Anne Heche

William H. Macy

Philip Baker Hall

Directed by Gus Van Sant

This movie is just a shot-for-shot replica of the first half of the 1960 classic. The one of the addition to the first half of the classic is the masturbation by Bates during the peephole scene. It was not in the classic but was included here, making this replica more of a drag, there are other differences.

One thing that slightly works is the cleaner cinematography, which give the plot a new life, but that is the only thing that worked for this movie I am afraid when you compare it to the original.

There is nothing to commend in this movie as it was just the same as the first. The director and the screenplay writer need to be wiped for just wasting film. The acting did not add anything for me, I felt Vince Vaughn went too hard on the psycho act.

The famous shower scene, which was terrifying and groundbreaking in the original, feels flat here. It looks more like a staged re-enactment than a moment of real shock or fear.

The plot is the same as the original, a secretary (Anne Heche) steals $400,000 from her boss (in the original it was 40,000). While making her escape she lodges in a motel where she meets Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn). As she spends the night at the Bates Motel, we slowly see Norman’s strange behaviour change from polite to unsettling. Then the next day, she is murdered, and just like the original.

What hurts the most is that while the original felt unsettling and tense, this version feels like it had a list of things it wanted to include, and the director was just checking it off as the movie progressed.

After her disappearance, the movie shifts to the investigation led by her sister Lila (Julianne Moore) and her boyfriend Sam (Viggo Mortensen). Now, the problem with these two was their chemistry, there seems to be none between them, and although I have to say both did a decent acting job for this movie, they felt underused, as the script does them no favours.

Then there was William H. Macy, who plays the private investigator who investigates the missing money and pieces together the clues, he too gave a solid performance but is let down by the lifeless tone of the movie.

The final twist reveal of Bates’ “mother” did not have the same chilling impact as the Hitchcock’s original.

I do not recommend this movie at all, it was a complete waste of time.