The 6-part mini-series that served as the basis of the 2009 Russell Crowe film.  Totally engrossing.

FF=0

I’ve heard purists howl about the alternate history aspect (that’s not a spoiler because it occurs in the opening scenes). I’ve seen all the original episodes but was never a fan, so I’m free to consider the whole script a brilliant reimagining.  And I do.  Plot holes – definitely – but I believe this one bears another look.

FF=0

Kind of fun, if too long.  I love stories about secret societies and, frankly, found myself rooting for the Illuminati throughout the film.  The film spares us the ridiculous event in the book finale of Langdon parachuting from a helicopter by hanging onto some large cloth.

FF=0

Finally watched this with sound. I’d caught glimpses of it on 4 transcontinental flights while touring and typing, and I’m amazed at how little the sound added. This is true visual storytelling. Yes, I missed the “Squirrel!” bit with the dogs, and some verbal humor, but on the whole, the heart of the story was told just fine through the images, nowhere more so than in the backstory of the old man’s marriage.  I highly recommend this film.

FF=0

Some will cry “Sacrilege!” but I watched the 1974 and the 2009 versions of this story back to back (almost) and found I like the 2009 version better.  I had fond memories of 1974, but a rewatch reveals a pretty flat procedural. 2009 isn’t great by any means, but I found it more engaging – I cared a little more about the characters and what was happening.  That said, I don’t see much purpose in remaking the film (or most other remakes, for that matter).

FF=1

Why do I do this to myself? The trailer looked like mindless action and sometimes I need mindless action, but…this has to be the most illogical, ill-conceived, misbegotten piece of crap I’ve seen in an age. I reduced the life-minutes lost by fast forwarding through much of the film, but the end where they detonate the ice cap and everyone underwater flees to avoid the ice chunks SINKING ON THEM!!!!  Is there a term for something that sucks off intelligence? I know I lost half a dozen IQ points watching this thing.

FF=4

I’m a sucker for paranoid/conspiracy thrillers. Theories about the ubiquity of the number 23 are not new.  I first came across the phenomenon when Robert Anton Wilson delved into it back in 1977 (the article is reprinted here: http://tinyurl.com/2m4xy5 and worth reading).  The first half of the film is slow but builds in creepiness as 23 keeps cropping up in the protagonist’s past and present life.  I thought it might take a supernatural turn (after all, 2 divided by 3 is 666…), but it didn’t.  Not a bad way to kill 96 minutes, but 23 wasn’t quite as integral to the plot as it seemed.

FF=1.

What a romp. If you’ve seen the trailer, you have a pretty good idea what the film is about.  The opening sequence in the French farmhouse is expertly wrought suspense.  For the rest, it could have been a grim, brutal film, but Tarantino maintains a slightly cartoonish edge in the more violent scenes.  Christoph Waltz steals the show with his portrayal of an SS colonel.

FF=0

I never would have expected a police procedural from Kurasawa, but then, considering his deliberate style, he was perfect for it. A long film, but I didn’t hit the FF button once.

FF=0

Wow. Double noir. Some Hamlet overtones from Kurasawa and a lot of depth to Mifune’s character – a man out for revenge who isn’t quite cold-blooded enough to pull it off. Tragedy all around. It clocks in at over 2 hours but, again, I never hit the FF button. (Am I losing my edge?)

FF=0