response 89 of 323:

Jul 7 05:38 UTC 2004

BEFORE SUNSET--  Saw this earlier this evening.  It is a sequel to a 
movie called "BEFORE SUNRISE" which came out ten years ago, and told 
the story of an american traveler (Ethan Hawke) who meets a french 
woman (Julie Delpy) on a train, and how two complete strangers ended up 
spending a long night walking around Vienna.  That movie ends with them 
leaving and agreeing to meet again in six months in Vienna.  There 
wasn't supposed to be a sequel, we weren't supposed to find out if they 
ever met again.  But "Before Sunrise" became a cult hit on video, and 
now ten years later the movie's stars, Hawke and Delpy, and director 
Richard Linklater, have reunited to continue this story.  And this is 
one of those cases where the sequel is BETTER than the original.

It is now nine years later, and Ethan Hawke's now thirtysomething 
character has become an author and he's written a book about the events 
in the first movie and is doing an autograph signing at a bookstore in 
Paris.  Delpy's character reads about his appearance in the paper and 
she shows up.  The rest of the movie is following them around as they 
walk through the streets of Paris on a late afternoon catching up on 
their lives.  The movie is one long conversation, a two person play 
where we see these people who connected a long time ago try to re-
connect.  They aren't even sure why they connected that time years 
back, but only know that its rare to connect with anyone at all.

The script was co-written by Hawke and Delpy, and it is clear that they 
know their characters quite well and had great command of the dialogue. 
Sometimes they are talking superficially, talking to cover their 
nervousness or to cover the fact that they actually don't know what to 
say or have nothing to say.  With actors also having been the writers, 
the dialogue comes across as quite natural.  The conversation SOUNDS 
real.  You'd actually think these really were two people walking downt 
the street talking.  This is really refreshing when you consider how 
bad the heavily prepared dialogue is in some movies.  Director 
Linklater does really long extended camera shots of them walking 
through Paris, which is intended to make what we are seeing and hearing 
come off as real as possible.  

It is also crucial to see how the passage of years has changed these 
two characters, which is why it is vitally important that the same 
actors play them. You can see the lines in Hawke's face which tell a 
lot more than he does about what his character's probably been through 
in the intervening years.  You can sense the world weariness in Delpy's 
eyes and her mannerisms, and that her character has really changed in 
the intervening years. I also like the fact that neither of these two 
characters are intended to be completely likeable or dislikeable.  You 
start to see in this movie why they connected in the first movie ten 
years ago.  

You even wonder if they might connect yet again.  But it isn't 
important.  This, as was the first film, is an existentialist movie.  
It is the moment that matters, only the moment.  "Before Sunset" takes 
place in real time, literally an hour and twenty minutes in the lives 
of these two memorable characters.  

This is a wonderfully acted and directed movie.  "Before Sunrise" 
and "Before Sunset" are like two halfs of a whole.  The second movie 
completes the first.  Which doesn't mean that it wouldn't be totally 
cool if ten years from now, in 2014, director Linklater finds Hawke and 
Delpy and gets them to revisit the characters yet again.  

I highly recommend "Before Sunset", even if you haven't seen the first 
movie.  Best movie I've seen this year so far.

response 91 of 323:

Jul 7 15:55 UTC 2004

Saw Van Helsing last weekend and while visually great, the story was,
IMO, thin.  This was, basically, an action story.  In some ways it
reminded me of a Bond flick, especially a scene early in the film where
Van is in a "lab" located in the basement of a church, getting his
briefing for his next mission.  There's even a Q-type character who
shows him the newest gizmos he'll use.  Unlike Bond, however, this "Q"
goes on the mission.

If you like action-oriented stories, this one is definitely worth seeing.

response 93 of 323:

Jul 8 06:08 UTC 2004

     That's right, I made a mistake. I meant "Before sunrise".
     
     
     

response 97 of 323:

Jul 9 21:06 UTC 2004

Oh pooh, nothing could be more accurate than "Monty Python and the 
Holy Grail":  "He must be a king, he hasn't got shit all over 'im!"

response 99 of 323:

Jul 11 09:20 UTC 2004

     Has some interesting elements.
     
     I think the special effects were great. The future of exciting 
     movies is in exploring & exploiting that one, however if only the  
     special effects were as competent as the ideas which I can only say
     that it's a matter of incompetence.

     A sentence of the previous film still sounds in my memory when one 
     of the characters even says "just because you can beat someone up,
     doesn't mean you have to". There Raimi added interesting messages.

     


     

response 101 of 323:

Jul 11 16:58 UTC 2004

What is that you were saying about insults VS logical arguments?

response 103 of 323:

Jul 11 17:18 UTC 2004

Anchorman was awful.

response 105 of 323:

Jul 11 21:40 UTC 2004

did anchorman even try to reincarnate network? 

response 107 of 323:

Jul 12 16:05 UTC 2004

I saw "Saved!" and "King Arthur" on vacation.  I liked both, for entirely
different reasons.  (Duh)

"Saved!" just had me busting out.  And somewhat thinking.  And vowing to never
stick my kid in a school like that.  I really enjoyed Eva Amurri in this,
though she was far from the star.  And Macauley Culkin is making me forget
"Home Alone".

"King Arthur" was just a fun ride.  I'm a major fan of Clive Owen, so to see
him doing more "action" was just a blast.  Plus, the guys were hot.  I mean,
seriously hot.  A skosh of Tristan, Gawain and Galahad would do any hetero
girl good.  Oh - and the plot was interesting.  Very much not your
Disney/typical send up, much more dark and gritty.