Review: Robert Benton's "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1979)

Robert Benton shot "Kramer vs. Kramer" after completing "Superman" (1978) just a year before. Robert Benton doesn't have a hugely popular body of work, but in 2 years, he gave the world his best.

The film itself won a handful of awards, including 'Best Picture'. Personally, I think the film falls a little just because it stole awards away from other films that year. Other films released, and snubbed, were "Apocalypse Now" and "Alien". When "Apocalypse Now" comes out and doesn't get the Academy Awards to look their direction, that tells me something is wrong.

I don't want to take away from what Robert Benton did with "Kramer vs Kramer", but it just wasn't the best of 1979, I think it was perhaps third best.

This movie was overall easy to watch. The film asks some questions that should be asked, and confronts some things that should be confronted, but these things are a bit small. I prefer grander questions, and going from watching "Blade Runner" to this just bothers me a little.

Dustin Hoffman gives an interesting performance, but there isn't anything over the top amazing about it. I always associated Hoffman's name with near greatness, but now I wonder how and why that is. He could be the best, most solid, mediocre actor out there. And another supposed legend, at least in terms of the world of actresses, Meryl Streep, is fine, but there are probably a million people on the planet who can create fake tears and look sad for a few minutes. I cannot say I was astounded, amazed, or shaken in any way by the performances in this film. Some of the traits, or moments by these characters can be imagined as real, but not as a whole. I have never seen the world react in a way that Meryl Streep's character does, for any reason.

The film had a good flow, above average performances, decent story, but I can tell it was washed with bleach because everything is a bit faded. Anyone should be able to pop this on their television and enjoy themselves, but they shouldn't be left with anything profound.

"Kramer vs. Kramer"

7 / 10

Review: Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" (1982)

In this world, there are just 2 Fords. There is the great American auto-maker, and there is the great American actor. One is currently a sell-out. The American auto-maker, identifies a country in need, and created thousands of jobs based on supposed kindness on specific cities in which their factories exist. It seems the auto-maker is an icon of truth when they declare such things, because while all the other American manufacturers are moving out of the country, Ford shows no desire to do so. Harrison Ford on the other hand, looks like he would sell himself to whoever, for whatever.

Harrison Ford starts out his career with some fantastic work, putting together a body of work to rival for a "greatest ever" title. At least until the early to mid 90's. Yes he had his flops, but its hard to find people who haven't. But, the problem is that since then, he has delivered virtually all flops.

Makes me wonder how someone who has masked some of the most iconic names in overall storytelling, and go all the way to the gas station bathroom floor. The man has played Indiana Jones and Han Solo for goodness sakes. But hey, he has to do whatever it takes to put 1 million pounds of bacon on the table right?

Before he sold his soul to Hollywood fail films, be was cast to play Rick Deckard in "Blade Runner". In this film, we get a tough and rugged police officer charged with chasing down human clones. In this story, he is confronted with a question. The question posed could be greater than any other question an average Friday night film goer could ever be exposed to.

The film isn't perfect, but being made in 1982, its about as close as what could have been so.

When I think about great monster movies, I can easily get lost in the vastness of monsters. Even more so when I think about the sci-fi genre. But I will say however good Frankenstein is at being a monster, the greatest shark of all time has a bigger bite. Jaws has made itself the superior monster film, and its not because the monster is flawless. Its not even superior because of its story. Its superior because the monster and the story both captured in such a way, that it couldn't be overlooked, it couldn't achieve anything less than greatness. While so many monster films have their lovers and haters, or their debaters, "Jaws" is the champion of monster films.

I want to say the same about "Blade Runner", but to say that without specifying anything more than "sci-fi" wouldn't be fair. I can say however, it appears to be one of the most influential films in general, of all time. I don't want to label the film in some lame way as a "greatest film about the future". At the same time, its hard to wrap your mind around what and how to go about explaining its greatness in terms of putting it in a "greatest" list.

There aren't many science fiction films which have great ideas, great performances, and great direction. Most of the time, even with some of our most beloved science fiction films, we sacrifice or overlook some attributes because they meant or mean so much to us in fantasy. This one however escapes fantasy and enters you into a world which questions your very own ideology. Films like this are those which remain the test of time, those that have grander things to say than say common action sequences pleasing to my current desire. Every year of my life, looking at it in hindsight of watching this film, seems a bit ironic. The world is making similar decisions, which hopefully will result in people asking themselves the very question.

The question. That is what I will refer to it as, and unless you see the film, and appreciate and understand the film, you cannot be in the club.

I can talk about the performances, or the cinematography, or whatever, but there are more intangibles to consider and wouldn't be worth talking about. This is a must see for any sci-fi lover.

"Blade Runner"

8 / 10

Review: Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight" (1996)

I put this film on, not knowing what to expect. I had not seen a trailer, and read maybe half the synopsis. I saw the film was made by Paul Thomas Anderson, and there were a few comments which pointed to potentially good characters in the film. The film does have some good characters. However, with the list of P.T. Anderson's work as of now, he has much better characters in everything else I have seen.

John C. Reilly makes me sad he ever teamed up with Will Ferrell. He appears to be able to hold his own in dramatic fashion. This film, "Magnolia", and so many of his supporting moments in other various films. I would have liked to see his rugged mug go on to conquer greater things. But as of now it seems he is on the road moving paycheck to paycheck, selling out to the next pile of crap.

In this film, John C. Reilly is good, and perhaps that is being generous. There were flaws in the film here and there, but it seemed the leading man in Philip Baker Hall, support from Samuel L. Jackson, and Gweneth Paltrow were all superior.

Each character brings their unique level of interest, and the pace of the film is good, but for some reason I am left with a void. I felt that the story was fine if it was read to me, but seeing how everything happened, I think there was much that could have been done better. This was P.T. Anderson's first major film, so there is a bit of room for failure.

In the end, I think I would have liked to see more twists and turns in this type of drama. Most of everything was a bit transparent with one decent unguessable moment.

There is enough substance in the film to carry you to the end without wishing you hadn't, but then again, I may have only seen the film to put a check in the last box remaining for a P.T. Anderson film, and may not have the same result for someone else.

All in all, the film is empty in greatness, but enough mediocrity to carry you through.

"Hard Eight"

6.5 / 10