Lincoln

Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis working together on a film about one of the greatest Americans that ever lived?  Yeah, that sounds like a prestige picture.  Lincoln boasts not only (arguably) the best director and (unarguably) the best actor working in Hollywood right now, but one of the greatest supporting casts ever assembled for a simple (read: not epic) film.  Of the ten top-billed actors on Lincoln's IMDb page, there are a total of 16 Oscar nominations (with 6 wins) and 28 Golden Globe nominations (with 5 wins); only Bruce McGill has not been nominated for an Oscar or Globe.  If you wanted acting credibility, you got it in spades with Lincoln.  But does the movie live up to its pedigree?

Lincoln is a tad deceiving as a title; this isn't so much a biopic as it is a chronicle of President Abraham Lincoln's (Daniel Day-Lewis) struggle to get the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution passed while simultaneously ending the Civil War, the bloodiest war Earth had seen up to that point.  For those of you who are not history buffs (America, I'm looking at you), the 13th Amendment made slavery illegal in the United States.  Sure, Lincoln had freed all the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, but the legal grounds by which he did so were shaky, at best.  Lincoln wanted to ensure that his actions had some sort of long-lasting effect that would not be overturned in a court of appeals.  It's a pretty cool thing to be the guy who freed the slaves, but nobody wants to be the guy who freed the slaves only long enough for them to bleed in battle for him. 

Even a great hat can't distract from that, Mr. President

Unfortunately, his window of opportunity was closing fast.  The Confederacy was weakening.  It was only a matter of time before they were completely defeated.  But once the Confederate states rejoined the Union, the chances of passing an anti-slavery amendment would be nil.  Not only would there be pro-slavery Southerners voting, but much of the support for anti-slavery legislation was garnered from the belief that repealing slavery would end the war faster; with the war over, racism would win the day.  That left Lincoln with one chance.  Assuming everyone in his political party would vote for him (which was a stretch), the 13th Amendment was still a few votes shy of passing --- but there were several men in the opposing party that had lost their elections and were just waiting to be replaced.  If Lincoln's men could convince enough of these lame ducks --- and his own party --- to vote for the amendment, history could be made.  And, as luck would have it, there was one more date available for a Congressional vote before all the peace hits the fan!

"What will it take to get your vote?  A threesome is not off the table."

The acting in Lincoln is, not surprisingly, excellent.  Daniel Day-Lewis is THE thespian stud of our times, and he brought his A-game here.  Day-Lewis went against the traditional interpretation of the character by making him slouch, feel old, and speak with a soft tone, but he also managed to demand all of the attention in every scene he was in.  As luck would have it, that is practically every single scene in the film.  I think some of my favorite moments were the scenes where he relied on nonverbals.  This is a fairly talky character, so having the quiet moments as highlights is just a testament to Day-Lewis' acting prowess.

Example: right here, Lincoln was this close to killing everyone in a 30 foot radius

Leading the exemplary supporting cast was Tommy Lee Jones, who played a perennially cranky character.  Shock!  I love it when Jones gets a role that lends itself to his acerbic delivery, and this is easily one of his best.

Sally Field played Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln, who is known historically for being a bit crazy.  Field managed that well enough, but I didn't think her role was anything special.

Buck up, Sally.  Sulking is not attractive in any time period.

Despite that, Field did a lot with the part and was surprisingly magnetic onscreen.  David Strathairn was good as the eternally exasperated William "I Heart Alaska" Seward.  He didn't really have much room to grow as a character, but served well as a mouthpiece to the logistics Lincoln was facing.  James Spader, John Hawkes, and Tim Blake Nelson played the three men tasked with drumming up support among the opposition; all three are fine actors, but I would have preferred it if Spader wasn't the one doing most of the work here.

Spader, realizing that this role has nothing to do with deviant sex acts

Hal Holbrook was fine as an obstacle for Lincoln to overcome, although I think this role was a little underdeveloped.  Speaking of which, Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a waste of space as Lincoln's eldest son.  One of these days, JGL will play a big role in a big movie --- it's inevitable, given his talent and the people he works with --- but the whiny, over-privileged son of the president is not that role.

"What if I tried pouting more?"

Rounding out the cast, Lee Pace was solid in the strawman role of "that really racist guy."  This is the first time I have seen Pace play an unlikable character, and he did so reasonably well.

Lincoln was the result of director Steven Spielberg teaming up with Tony Kushner, king of the difficult-subject-screenplay.  With regards to the direction, Spielberg nailed all the technical aspects.  Design, costumes, filling the cast with nary a bad actor, etc. --- Spielberg is too big of a director to accept anything but the best in these regards.  While he has never been the strongest director in terms of cinematography, Spielberg still managed to snag several memorable shots of an American icon.

He also handled the actors quite well.  Having a great cast obviously helps with that, but Day-Lewis, Jones, and Field were all deserving of their award nominations, and Spielberg was ultimately responsible for that. 

I think Kushner did a solid job with the plot and the dialogue.  Both Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) had some fantastic lines, and transforming this political issue into an interesting story was an impressive feat.  Lincoln is missing something, though.  I want to say that it is something immaterial, like "heart," but I can do better than that.  This is a smart script, no doubt.  It is just not an emotional one.  American culture has reached a point where racism is justly vilified.  It definitely still exists, but racists are generally acknowledged as assholes, as they should be. 

"Amend that.  It should read 'total fucking assholes'"

This might have been a brave film as late as 1975, but in 2012, the subject matter isn't compelling enough on its own.  This needed an emotional anchor to twist the audience's stomach in knots while we waited for the inevitable, and that was lacking.  There were some attempts.  Thaddeus Stevens' change of policy was intriguing, but underdeveloped.  Abraham and Mary Todd shared a scene where they got to bare their souls, but it wasn't nearly enough to warm an otherwise cold story.

"You act like a little culture will kill you!"

The fault is not Kushner's alone, of course.  Lincoln has been Spielberg's baby for years, and he managed to put out a smart, well-acted and -directed film without that crucial element that makes you cry at the end.

I was expecting a lot from Lincoln, and only got most of what I hoped for.  This is technically a better film that Spielberg's last effort, War Horse, but that movie drew me in, despite my objections.  Lincoln is more cerebral, but leaves emotions at the door, and that turned out to ultimately be a mistake.  Even without something tugging at my heartstrings, it is hard to dismiss Daniel Day-Lewis reinventing an American icon.  With all the good and the not-quite-bad, Lincoln gets

Captain America: The First Avenger

What a difference a couple of decades makes!  When I was growing up in the 80s, the concept of a super-hero movie just didn't make sense to me; I actually refused to see Tim Burton's Batman in the theater because the only Batman I knew was Adam West, and I didn't want to see that on the big screen --- of course, that was long before I discovered the joys of shark repellant.  The 90s didn't help matters much, with Batman and Robin, the Dolph Lungren Punisher, and all the douchebags in my age group that dressed up as The Crow every damn year for Halloween.  Perhaps the least impressive super-hero movie of the time was the never-released-in-American-theaters and filmed-in-Yugoslavia Captain America.

Two words: rubber ears.

So, when it was announced that Captain America would get another chance at a movie as Marvel Studios builds up to The Avengers in 2012, I was a little nervous.  Sure, I liked the last few Marvel Studios movies --- Iron Man 2, Thor, and X-Men: First Class --- but a patriotically-themed super-hero movie could easily get hokey.  Oh, and I wasn't too impressed with director Joe Johnston's last movie, either.  Can Captain America: The First Avenger beat the odds and be yet another fun and successful comic book movie in the summer of 2011?

World War II is in full swing, and every able-bodied American man is joining the armed forces.  Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is not able-bodied --- he's been deemed 4F and is the personification of the old Charles Atlas ads --- but he keeps reapplying for the Army in the hopes that he will allowed to squeak through and risk his life, like all the other men.  After all, if every man he knows, including his buddy Bucky (Sebastian Stan), has the right to go to war, why can't he?  This perseverance catches the attention of Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who selects Rogers for an experiment.  He is allowed to train with some elite soldiers for the right to receive a highly experimental treatment and (possibly) become a new breed of soldier.  Through his positive attitude, bravery, intelligence, and perseverance, Steve Rogers was selected for the experiment, which took a man that looked like this:

...and turned him into a heaping bowl of hunk:

Judging from that scientist's gaze, Rogers grew more than muscles.

While the experiment was a success, Erskine was assassinated by a sneaky Nazi, taking his secret super-soldier formula to the grave.  I wouldn't have thought that a government-funded program would allow one person to keep all the secrets exclusively in his noggin, but origin stories are funny like that, sometimes.  Seeing that he is the only result from a very expensive military program, Rogers is not allowed to fight in the war; instead, he is forced to put on a gaudy costume and promote war bonds as Captain America. 

Captain America: sellout

That can only last so long, of course, since there is a war going on and there are bad guys to fight.  And I'm not talking about your average, run-of-the-mill evil Nazis, either; the bad guys in this movie want to destroy everything and create a new world order.

Is this the future?

Obviously, that can't be allowed to happen.  Despite the strength of the Allied Forces, it is ultimately up to Captain America and his new Army buddies to save the world from destruction at the hands of the nefarious Red Skull (Hugo Weaving).  Why only them?  Apparently, saving the world is a lower priority than you might think.

A lot of people were skeptical when Chris Evans was cast in the iconic (and fairly humorless) lead role of Captain America.  Since nobody has ever seen Sunshine, where he has a dramatic role, the fear was that Evans would be his goofy, sarcastic self, a la Ryan Reynolds.  I am happy to say that Evans did a good job in the lead role.  He was brave, earnest, and loyal; he basically took all the heroic parts in a war movie and rolled them up into one character.  Hugo Weaving was suitably dastardly as Red Skull; I don't know if I would say that he out-eviled the Nazis in this movie, but he came close.  His character's grand scheme didn't make a ton of sense to me, but everyone agreed that he was insane, so I'll let that slide.  I wasn't the biggest fan of his red-faced makeup --- I would have gone for a bumpier, burn victim look --- but I thought they did a good job with the makeup that implied that his Hugo Weaving face was a mask.

Odd...why didn't Weaving have a romantic interest?

The rest of the supporting cast was fine, but those two set the standard.  Hayley Atwell was pretty good as Roger's rough-and-tumble love interest, Peggy Carter, and she was happily never a damsel in distress.  Tommy Lee Jones was very good as the tired, crotchety colonel in charge of the super soldier experiment.  I was surprisingly moved by a look he gave of utter despair toward the end of the film; maybe that's just his sad face, but you rarely see tough guy actors look that vulnerable.  Stanley Tucci did a good job making the selection of Rogers seem rational, which was a bigger hurdle than you might think.  Sebastian Stan was okay as Rogers' buddy, but I thought Dominic Cooper was surprisingly likable as genius industrialist Howard Stark.  There are some other recognizable actors in the movie --- Samuel L. Jackson, Toby Jones, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke, and a few others --- but they played relatively small and generic parts, with the exception of Jones (an evil scientist) and Jackson (reprising his Nick Fury role).

Director Joe Johnston has a tendency of making movies set in the past, oftentimes romanticizing the idea of heroism, which actually makes him a pretty good fit for this film.  The goal of this movie was to make Captain America look cool and give him a grand enough task to make him a legend in this prequel to theMarvel super-hero movies that are set in modern times.

Hmm...that's a good start, but too subtle.

Johnston keeps a good pace throughout the film, wisely choosing to focus on pre-transformation Steve and a few choice, defining battles for Captain America, instead of bogging him down in a number of lesser battles.  I like a lot of choices he made here, especially the chaste romance between Cap and Peggy.

...although, the chaste bit might have been her doing.

Heroes that are squeaky-clean boy scouts can be tough to sympathize with or care about, because they're not terribly realistic.  Johnston chose to portray Captain America as less of a do-gooding patriot, instead focusing a lot of time and effort on Steve Rogers hating bullies.  I thought this movie handled all the typical war scenes well and had several moving this-is-a-war-movie-and-men-don't-cry-but-seriously-OMG-I'm-tearing-up-here moments.  I am generally a sucker for moments like those, but this movie was surprisingly good at them.

As much as I liked a lot of this movie, I had some small complaints.  First of all, this movie has a metric ton of CGI, especially with pre-transformation Steve Rogers.  While I think this was done pretty well, there were some moments where the head of Chris Evans didn't seem to fit the body, or where his height seemed inconsistent.  Not a huge deal, and it was impressive overall, but I still noticed it.  I also wasn't a huge fan of his costume.  It looked better than the 1990 movie version did, but I preferred this getup:

I realize that a super-hero with an established colorful costume needs to wear it at some point, but I just thought the blend of costume and practical clothing was a cool visual.  Perhaps my biggest gripe with Captain America: The First Avenger was its use of minor players.  This movie is filled to the brim with characters that are clearly meant to reference important characters in the comic character's history.  Unfortunately, since they are so many and time is so limited, these characters wind up being largely charmless.  Even Bucky, who plays an important role in the development of our hero, is not particularly likable.  They weren't bad actors or characters, they just never felt important.

But those are minor complaints.  This movie is filled with action that, while not terribly plausible, is very entertaining.  This film had heart and character, and it made Captain America look cool while fighting with a shield.  Oh, and the teaser trailer for The Avengers after the credits was a geeky thrill.

While I was researching pictures for this post, I stumbled across a brilliant blog, titled Hitler Getting Punched.  I like when a title explains everything I need to know about a website.  Check it out.

I also happened across this officially commissioned painted poster that was given to the cast and crew of the movie:

 I love retro movie posters.  The artist maintains his own blog about his comic art, called The Self-Absorbing Man.  Pretty cool stuff.

The Fugitive (1993)

Here is how I imagine The Fugitive came to the big screen.  Tired with the high expectations that come with making high profile sequels and adaptations of best selling novels, and bored with award-winning directors, Harrison Ford wanted to see if he could make a flop in the 90s.  "Get me that guy who actually liked working with Steven Seagal," he probably demanded, "and make sure the story is absolutely ridiculous --- maybe a film adaptation of The Mod Squad?  I was on that show once, you know."  And that's how it definitely (maybe) came to be: Harrison Ford starred in a movie by Andrew Davis (director of Above the Law and Under Siege, and was probably working on a title like Middle of Mayhem), the big screen adaptation of the long-running 1960s show, The Fugitive, where he will spend over two hours chasing a one-armed murderer.  The result was a box office smash and seven Academy Award nominations.  I would not have guessed it, but Harrison Ford didn't make bad movies...well, for another year or two, anyway.

After an evening spent attending a black tie event for the medical community, Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) arrives home to find his wife (Sela Ward) injured and dying on the floor.  She is not alone, though; Kimble struggles with her assailant, but is ultimately unable to detain him.  He learns one thing about the killer, though: he has one prosthetic hand.  Apparently, "It was not me, it was the one-armed man" is not terribly convincing to the Chicago police, although I'm sure the obvious signs of a struggle in the house, the lack of an obvious break-in, and Mrs. Kimble's generous life insurance policy were also factors in Richard's arrest.  Apparently, Kimble has the world's worst expensive lawyer, because he is found guilty of first degree murder and is given a death sentence, all on circumstantial evidence.  At this point, you might think that this will be a film dedicated to the appeals process of convicted felons.  But look at the title; it's not The Convicted, it's The Fugitive, as in "at large."  While taking the bus to death row, some of the other lucky convictees try to escape, which leads to the bus turning over on its side.  Good news, bad news, guys...most of you survived the accident, but the bus is now on a train track with a train heading this way.  Kimble barely escapes, rescuing one of the prison guards in the process, and finds himself a relatively free man.  What does a wrongfully accused man do in this situation?  Well, it's not like he can have anything tacked on to his sentence --- they don't have an extra crispy sentence --- so he goes on the lam, hunting down the one-armed man.  At this point, the US Marshalls show up to hunt down the fleeing fugitive.  Lead by Deputy Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones), they perform some of the most competent police work you will ever see in a movie where the hero is not a cop.

Here are some reasons why this is a ridiculous movie:

• The score.  Rarely do you have such bombastic music dramatizing such subtle things.
• Obviously, the one-armed man thing.  Who hires a hitman with a unique visual characteristic?  What, were all the assassin albinos busy?
• A successful doctor killing his wife to benefit from her life insurance policy.  Really?  How much research would it take for the police (or Kimble's lawyer) to discredit that as a motive?  "Hmm...he must have wanted to get even richer!"  Possible, yes.  Likely, no.
• The circumstantial evidence.  Granted, this was made in 1993, but this sort of "proof" gets discredited within the first ten minutes of an ordinary CSI episode.  How about the lack of Mrs. Kimble blood in any area of the house where the struggle took place?  That took me all of ten seconds to think of.  I would hope his lawyer could come up with more.
• The hair and beard.  Are you really going to tell me that a respected doctor who looks like Han Solo is going to let himself look like this?  Especially a married man?  Unlikely, at best.
  

  

  Laugh it up, fuzzball.  And get off my lawn!

Now, just because a movie is ridiculous doesn't mean that it is bad.  The direction is pretty straight forward and, aside from the scenes at the train tracks and the dam (both of which still stand up today), this isn't a special effects movie.  It's more of a thriller than anything else, and Andrew Davis does a good job allowing the audience and Kimble to unravel the plot together.  The performances are, for the most part, solid.  Harrison Ford is as good as ever, even if his "I'm going to jump" grimace is suspiciously similar to the look an old man makes before shouting at kids to get off his lawn.  Tommy Lee Jones steals the show as the prickly Deputy Gerard, a feat all the more impressive when you consider just how sympathetic Richard Kimble is; you have to be a pretty awesome character to get away with not caring about the main character and still be likable.  The rest of the supporting cast serves its function with several decent to mediocre performances, but nothing embarrassing.  Jeroen Krabbe plays a doctor friend of Kimble well enough, but he reminds me of a European Chris Noth in this film (just an observation, not a critique).  Joe Pantoliano, Julianne Moore, Sela Ward, and Jane Lynch all have noteworthy bit parts and Andreas Katsulas plays the evil one-armed man.  Nobody does a bad job, but nobody really does a good job, either.  I guess that's okay, since it lets you focus on Ford and Jones.

This is a pretty good good movie with a few very memorable action sequences.  Did it deserve a Best Picture nomination?  Personally, I doubt it.  Tommy Lee Jones did deserve his Best Supporting Actor Oscar, even if he did beat out a very deserving pair in Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List) and Leonardo DiCaprio (What's Eating Gilbert Grape?).  I was surprised to find that the aspect of the film that kept me from loving it was not the plethora of mediocre performances --- they served their parts well enough, but were still kind of blah --- but a few lapses in the plot.  This is a convoluted story, but I expected Kimble to make smarter choices to evade the law.  Yes, he dyes his hair to change his appearance, but that dye washed out after one scene; I would have thought that the man would have wanted to keep changing his look, especially after Deputy Gerard catches a glimpse of his beardless face.  And the scene where Kimble cross references a list of one-armed men with people in prison --- how does a wanted fugitive walk into a prison without a back-up plan, in case the random one-armed man he wants to see isn't his wife's murderer?  Still, those are relatively small complaints in an otherwise entertaining movie.  It's too ridiculous (and too serious about being ridiculous) to be great, but it's still a good time.

Rolling Thunder

Oh, so it's a movie about a guy with seven right arms?

While I was not alive during the Vietnam War, it is my understanding that it was a pretty glamorous time to be an American soldier.  From all the movies I've seen, 'Nam was a tropical wonderland with a clearly defined enemy and every drink came with a little bamboo umbrella in it.  Better yet, when soldiers returned home, there was unified and total support for the veterans.  And being a prisoner of war (POW) was even better; that's why Chuck Norris made those Missing in Action comedies in the 80s.

Yes, the life of a Vietnam POW was pretty sweet.  When Major Charles Rane (William Devane), along with his compatriot Sergeant First Class Johnny Vohden (Tommy Lee Jones), returns to his small town in Texas after being tortured daily, he gets a parade.  Well, hot dog!  He is also given a Cadillac and a silver dollar for every day he was away, which amounts to over two thousand dollars.  Sure, he has frequent flashbacks, his wife has left him for a friend, and his son doesn't remember him, but two grand in 1973 dollars is like, forty jillion bucks!  Rane doesn't take to civilian life gracefully; he's socially awkward and has nothing to offer in conversation ("I don't mind the lashings, but waterboarding gets old fast...").  Instead of easing back into his old habits, he maintains his POW regiment of physical training and sparse living arrangements.  It's a good thing that he doesn't immediately go soft, because four armed men show up at his home, looking to rob him of his two thousand dollars.  Rane's a bad ass, so he doesn't tell them a thing and they punish him by sticking his right hand down the garbage disposal.  Gross.  And he still doesn't tell them anything, which is awesome.  But then, his not-really wife and sniveling son come home, the kid gives up the hiding place for the cash, and everybody gets shot.  Wifey and kiddo die, but Rane survives, minus a hand but plus a hook.  The rest of the movie is about a man on a mission to punish those that hurt his family.  And that man has a hook for a hand.

I wonder why he's not wearing short sleeves in the summer?

What can I say about the acting in this movie?  This is a revenge movie, pure and simple, and it was made in 1977.  It's not quite a B-movie, but it's pretty close.  Heck, it even has an actress from Coffy.  William Devane turns in a simple, but effective performance as a man of few words but decisive actions.  He's at his best after his family dies and he doesn't have to convey more emotions than just anger, but he's really good at being a tough jerk.  Tommy Lee Jones plays the traditional TLJ role, a straight-faced, no-nonsense tough guy.  My favorite scenes in the movie belong to Jones.  One scene has him listening to the inane chatter of his relatives with dead eyes and the other has him explaining to an innocent bystander that he's going to try to kill a lot of people.  The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable.  Director John Flynn tells this crime story quickly and without adding nuisances like emotion or character depth.  It is what it is, and that's a revenge flick.

Now, I know what you're thinking...two thousand dollars split four ways is worth a double homicide and attempted murder rap?  Apparently so.  The value of this movie is not found in the script or the plot or the extremely unconvincing romance between Devane and Linda Haynes.  No, this movie is surprisingly entertaining thanks to just how basic it is.  Somebody kills your family?  Don't cry about it, wuss.  Murder the hell out of them.  Here's an actual exchange from the film:

Major Charles Rane: I found them.  The men who killed my son.
Sergeant First Class Johnny Vohden: I'll just get my gear.

That's it.  No questions, no boring arguments about calling the police, or whining about murdering people.  These two have a bromance that is beyond compassion and feelings --- they're in love...with death!  And that's kind of awesome.  This is definitely not for everyone, but if you like low-budget tough-guy movies, this is a fun one.

Love Story

I like to think of myself as a bit of a film buff.  No, really, I do.  But, despite my vast knowledge on the subject, every so often I find an acclaimed movie that I have never seen or heard of.  When I first learned that Love Story earned seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Best Screenplay, I assumed that this was one powerhouse of a movie.  Hell, it was up against M.A.S.H. and Patton in all the major categories that year, so being nominated has to mean this film is good, right?  Right?

From the very first overdubbed line of dialogue, you know what kind of movie Love Story will be: "What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died?"  Hopefully, that her life story was made into a slapstick comedy.  No?  Well, this looks like a downer.

Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O'Neal), a Harvard student, is trying to persuade the female student bouncer at the Radcliffe library to let him borrow a book so he can study.  Why any library has somebody working the door to prevent the entrance of readers is beyond me, but I'm not an Ivy League sort of guy.  The bouncer keeps giving Harvard boy grief, but is simultaneously flirting with him in the bitchiest way possible.  You know what I mean, insulting his intelligence and then saying something along the lines of "If you're so smart, why aren't you asking me out? ...Not that I would say yes."  That sort of crap.  Ladies, trust your Uncle Brian: don't flaunt your crazy bitchiness before you get to know a guy (or girl).  In the interest of fairness between the sexes, fellas, don't flaunt your stupidity early, either.

Well, the bouncer's tactics worked.  The bouncer, Jennifer Cavelleri (Ali MacGraw), and Oliver start dating.  Oliver is richie rich, with one of Harvard's buildings named after his family, but he is uncomfortable with his wealth.  Whenever he gets the chance, Oliver IV: A New Hope tries to defy his father, Oliver III: Revenge of the Sith (Ray Milland), whether by refusing to apply to law school or by dating a girl he knows his father would disapprove of, based solely on social status.  Jennifer comes from a working-class background, and her father (John Marley) is beyond proud of her, although she maintains a first-name relationship with him.  This is a love story, so the two obviously fall for each other and, as the opening lines announce, she dies young.  The end.

How long did that take you to read?  If it was less than ninety-nine minutes, then I just saved you a lot of time you might have wasted on this movie.  If that didn't save you time, then you should really re-enroll in preschool.  I wasn't a big fan of this movie, but it's hard for me to pinpoint why.  I felt that the script was trying too hard to be clever with its dialogue, for starters.  The words "goddamn" and "bullshit" are thrown around like they're party favors, but instead of sounding natural (like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction) or shocking (The Exorcist or Steve  Martin's famous scene in Planes, Trains and Automobiles), they sound forced, like a ten-year-old trying to subtly prove how cool he is.  I really don't think the script gives any reason for these two to get along.  They're always bickering at each other --- I know that can be a form of flirting, but their barbs are the sort that can really dig in and fester.  And the script is stupid, too; well, either it's stupid, or the 70s were...I can believe either.  Oliver gets the news that Jennifer is dying from her doctor.  You would think doctor-patient confidentiality would prevent the doc from telling this terrible news to anyone but Jennifer.  Apparently not.  And when Jennifer finds out, she's not upset.  Well, she's upset about dying, but not about that breach of trust.  Maybe that's just proper perspective.  Whatever.  I don't know, maybe it bothers me that the script expects us to sympathize with a petulant, insufferable hyper-elite heir and his sarcastic (but not funny at all) lover.  I'm not trying to be classist, mind you, but I think the main characters in a love story should be...well, lovable.

I didn't even like the acting or direction in this movie.  I thought Ryan O'Neal did a great wounded puppy imitation, but as far as human emotions went, I wasn't impressed.  I will give him credit, though, that he can make his lower lip quiver, on the verge of tears, quite well.  Ali MacGraw (as you might have inferred) didn't impress me as the sarcastic soon-to-be-dead-girl.  The most astounding aspect of her performance is that she doesn't ever appear to be sick, even a little.  I've seen prom dates that looked worse than her on her death bed.  It's not like she died from an arrow to the head; she had a terminal illness, probably a form of cancer, and it bothers me that the filmmakers felt the need for her to be beautiful up to her last breath.  Because you only love what appears to be pretty, people.  Let that be a lesson.  With such a dislike for the acting in this movie, I of course am not a fan of the direction.  As far as storytelling goes, Arthur Hiller did a pretty good job, but enjoying this movie absolutely hinges on liking the characters, and I couldn't do it.  I will give credit where it's due and say that O'Neal and MacGraw had pretty good chemistry, even if I don't see any reason for their characters to have spoken to each other after the first scene.  On a side note, this is Tommy Lee Jones' first film role, in which he delivers maybe two lines.  So at least something good came out of it.

Love Story is famous for the line "Love means never having to say you're sorry."  It is used twice.  The first time is after Oliver and Jennifer have a big fight; immediately regretting whatever he said or did, Ollie runs around town, trying to find her and eventually finds her on their front stoop.  There, mouth-breathing, tear-stained, and snot-coated, Jennifer tells Oliver the line and everything is better.  Later, Oliver uses it as a brush off with his father.  Classy.  Call me a romantic, but I don't think love has anything to do with apologizing when you do it right.  And shouldn't a movie called "Love Story" do it right?

I cannot believe that this movie was nominated for so many (seven!!!) Oscars.  This is the worst film I have ever seen that was nominated for an Oscar; to be fair, I haven't seen Norbit.  This makes Nicholas Sparks look like a well-balanced writer of action, adventure, comedy and drama by comparison.  I hate Sparks because he manipulates emotions, but this was just inept and artificial in every way.  Ugh.  Just thinking about this movie in detail is testing my gag reflex.  The amazing part (to me, at least) is that this movie only made me angry.  I'm a soft touch, generally, when it comes to movies that pull on the ol' heartstrings.  I have heard this movie called a four- or five-hankie tear-jerker, but all it got out of me was a dead stare, with rage slowly bubbling up underneath.  The only thing keeping this movie from zero stars is the fact that the story was told in a comprehensible fashion.  Love Story, I hate you.