alexarag
Joined Jan 2016
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.
Ratings265
alexarag's rating
Reviews19
alexarag's rating
Michael Cimino is one of the most frustrating directors for me because I am actually a fan of his, in a weird way. On almost all of his projects, I can see exactly what he wants to achieve and what he's going for, and I buy into what he's doing and often it overlaps with exactly what I like.
Save for The Deer Hunter, he is rarely successfully in delivering what he sets out to do.
Like Heaven's Gate, this movie is a film that is brilliant in many parts, but falls short of becoming "complete" in the sense of a good movie.
Again, like Heaven's gate, with Year of the Dragon we are treated with Cimino's best tendencies. Visual compositions and settings that make scenes believable. A tone over the movie that sets the right mood for the viewer. An intent to have pacing that doesn't rush, but carefully wades through the story.
But again, like Heaven's gate, the movie gets bogged down with problems of weird dialogue, bad acting at some points, and the failure to build proper human dynamics that make the love interest of the story something we invest in and care for. The conclusion of the movie is also a little lacklustre and silly compared to the tension it builds up. I almost feel that Mickey Rourke's character doesn't arc, but rather in a meta way, makes fun of himself at the end.
At the end of the day, I always go into Cimino's films excited, and leave slightly disappointed. Like watching a great sprinter leading the pack, and stumbling before the finish line.
As usual, with him, I would recommend this film for sure. When you watch it, I'm sure you'll know the exact parts I thought of that could be fixed and tightened that probably would make this a great movie.
Save for The Deer Hunter, he is rarely successfully in delivering what he sets out to do.
Like Heaven's Gate, this movie is a film that is brilliant in many parts, but falls short of becoming "complete" in the sense of a good movie.
Again, like Heaven's gate, with Year of the Dragon we are treated with Cimino's best tendencies. Visual compositions and settings that make scenes believable. A tone over the movie that sets the right mood for the viewer. An intent to have pacing that doesn't rush, but carefully wades through the story.
But again, like Heaven's gate, the movie gets bogged down with problems of weird dialogue, bad acting at some points, and the failure to build proper human dynamics that make the love interest of the story something we invest in and care for. The conclusion of the movie is also a little lacklustre and silly compared to the tension it builds up. I almost feel that Mickey Rourke's character doesn't arc, but rather in a meta way, makes fun of himself at the end.
At the end of the day, I always go into Cimino's films excited, and leave slightly disappointed. Like watching a great sprinter leading the pack, and stumbling before the finish line.
As usual, with him, I would recommend this film for sure. When you watch it, I'm sure you'll know the exact parts I thought of that could be fixed and tightened that probably would make this a great movie.
Possibly one of the most infamous films is what Heaven's Gate is to most people.
And this is very unfortunate.
Not only was this film severely and unfairly destroyed by a mainstream opinion frenzy that biased almost all viewers upon release (in my opinion), it is also severely underrated by many afterwards.
People seem to judge this film on EVERYTHING except what it is. And what it is is PRETTY GOOD, but not great.
The music and cinematography provide an excellent feeling for a film that set out to take a realistic look at not only The West, but a variety of other themes including the rise of corporate control over independent business, fear of immigration, racism, and the contrast between what two classes view the American dream to be.
The only reason I don't award the film an 8 is that at one place in the film, only one, I feel a bit of it's length - the rest goes by without a hitch.
If you're in the mood for the feeling of epic filmmaking meets a bit of art house, then you won't be disappointed in checking this film out.
And this is very unfortunate.
Not only was this film severely and unfairly destroyed by a mainstream opinion frenzy that biased almost all viewers upon release (in my opinion), it is also severely underrated by many afterwards.
People seem to judge this film on EVERYTHING except what it is. And what it is is PRETTY GOOD, but not great.
The music and cinematography provide an excellent feeling for a film that set out to take a realistic look at not only The West, but a variety of other themes including the rise of corporate control over independent business, fear of immigration, racism, and the contrast between what two classes view the American dream to be.
The only reason I don't award the film an 8 is that at one place in the film, only one, I feel a bit of it's length - the rest goes by without a hitch.
If you're in the mood for the feeling of epic filmmaking meets a bit of art house, then you won't be disappointed in checking this film out.
Bottom line:
As a movie *out of context from what really happened*, it is a well put together movie.
Here's the problem though:
The Glass Castle book is about a woman's traumatic life under the thumb of two psychologically damaged parents pass on psychological trauma and abuse to their children.
We see parents lie to their children for their own selfish needs, put false hope in their heads only to let them down, and, of course, they also expose their children to other kinds of terrible behaviour.
Unfortunately, the movie is a classic Hollywood portrayal of such a subject. We go through a few key points that occurred in the book, only to have that counterpointed with points in the screenplay as to why the parents are actually sympathetic people, and why (at the end of the day) they truly cared about the children deep down.
The movie actually leaves audiences with the feeling and idea that the main character feels "lucky" to have the *terrible and abusive experience* she did in childhood.
Absolutely no *true* responsibility is assigned to the parents that abused their children in this movie-just the idea that they are sympathetic screw ups that tried their best.
Child abuse is a serious subject, and of course, we can leave it to Hollywood to take a memoir about that dark subject and turn it into a classic bitter-sweet tale of a dysfunctional (but of course all-American!) family simply getting through their lives as best as they can while deep down caring about their children.
As a movie *out of context from what really happened*, it is a well put together movie.
Here's the problem though:
The Glass Castle book is about a woman's traumatic life under the thumb of two psychologically damaged parents pass on psychological trauma and abuse to their children.
We see parents lie to their children for their own selfish needs, put false hope in their heads only to let them down, and, of course, they also expose their children to other kinds of terrible behaviour.
Unfortunately, the movie is a classic Hollywood portrayal of such a subject. We go through a few key points that occurred in the book, only to have that counterpointed with points in the screenplay as to why the parents are actually sympathetic people, and why (at the end of the day) they truly cared about the children deep down.
The movie actually leaves audiences with the feeling and idea that the main character feels "lucky" to have the *terrible and abusive experience* she did in childhood.
Absolutely no *true* responsibility is assigned to the parents that abused their children in this movie-just the idea that they are sympathetic screw ups that tried their best.
Child abuse is a serious subject, and of course, we can leave it to Hollywood to take a memoir about that dark subject and turn it into a classic bitter-sweet tale of a dysfunctional (but of course all-American!) family simply getting through their lives as best as they can while deep down caring about their children.
