everyone at every minute of his life must feel something. Only the dead have no sensations

Watching movies from other peoples' collections (and pretty much at their whim, since I just get a mixed bag of them each week and work my way through) results in a wider variety of stuff to watch. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, though, is a matter for interpretation. It may make me a little more snarly in the negative reviews. However, my positive reviews are probably more 'organic', as there are fewer preconceived notions about these movies in general. Hmm.. As always, comments are encouraged.

The Mask of Zorro (1998) - "A young thief, seeking revenge for the death of his brother, is trained by the once great, but aged Zorro, who also pursues vengeance of his own."
Source: I borrowed the DVD from my parents' collection
I watched it because: I like Anthony Hopkins, and the legend is compelling. I wanted to see why Hopkins would make what is essentially "an action/romance movie."
IMDB: 6.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 82% Audience: 72%
story: 3/5--love and revenge
visuals: 3/5--extraordinarily pretty people looking dashingly pretty
acting: 2.5/5--only Hopkins is worth a damn in this picture
intangibles: 1/5--they are "mining" pressed bars of gold. It is that level of detail that really makes or breaks a film. There are several such elements where a viewer with any level of consciousness will be pulled right out of the story to say, What the Hell?!
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Sound
• Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing
overall: 2.375/5

Dolores Claiborne (1995) - "A big-city reporter travels to the small town where her mother has been arrested for the murder of an elderly woman that she works for as a maid."
Source: I borrowed the DVD from my parents' collection.
I watched it because: I've recently decided to give Stephen King a chance, after years of fear and intimidation. I was watching during the day, so I figured I was out of the nightmare realm - if that was a danger at all. (I am susceptible to them.)
IMDB: 7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 84% Audience: 81%
story: 3.5/5--he's not a brilliant writer ... but he's a brilliant writer. What's the difference? It's not the freshest and most imaginative story I've ever seen committed to film, but there is a degree of lyricism and delicacy in these characters and setting, in the way they interact, that is artistic and simultaneously real.
visuals: 4/5--filmed in Nova Scotia, which looks like a place I'd like to visit
acting: 4/5--standouts: Kathy Bates (Dolores Claiborne) and Christopher Plummer (Det. John Mackey)
intangibles: 3/5--it is a deceptively simple movie that sticks with you. (Having watched this, I feel marginally better about putting away the Stephen King book that I started reading. This is really not the time to get into The Stand....)
overall: 3.625/5

Frantic (1988) - "In a hotel room in Paris, a doctor comes out of the shower and finds that his wife has disappeared. He soon finds himself caught up in a world of intrigue, espionage, gangsters, drugs and murder."
Source: I borrowed the DVD from my parents' collection.
I watched it because: I usually like Harrison Ford, and do not think that I had seen a Roman Polanski movie before.
IMDB: 6.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 76% Audience: 64%
story: 1.5/5--dumb, far-fetched, ridiculous.
visuals: 3/5--it is Paris.
acting: 2/5--ugh.
intangibles: 1/5--there was exactly one scene in this film that was surprising or interesting. It consisted of Ford naked, holding a giant teddy bear in front of his manly attributes, getting kicked in the face by a bad guy. I laughed out loud.
overall: 1.875/5

Bend of the River (1952) - "When a town boss confiscates homesteader's supplies after gold is discovered nearby, a tough cowboy risks his life to try and get it to them."
Source: I borrowed the DVD from my parents' collection.
I watched it because: I like Jimmy Stewart and westerns, and had not seen this one before.
IMDB: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 100% Audience: 78%
story: 3.5/5
visuals: 4/5
acting: 3.5/5--standouts: Julie Adams as good natured, independent Laura Baile, and Rock Hudson as pretty-boy gambler Trey Wilson
intangibles: 2.5/5--a whole lot of seemingly pointless shooting, interspersed by some talented acting based on good writing. It is kind of a hotdish of a movie.
overall: 3.375/5

The Perfect Storm (2000) - "An unusually intense storm pattern catches some commercial fishermen unaware and puts them in mortal danger."
Source: I borrowed the DVD from my parents' collection.
I watched it because: I had heard of it, back in the days when it was just a book club book.
IMDB: 6.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 47% Audience: 64%
story: 4.5/5
visuals: 4/5
acting: 3.5/5--standouts: George Clooney (Billy Tyne) plays down the hype, in a role that could have let him show bigger than the screen. Diane Lane (Christina Cotter) exquisitely captured the emotions of those back at home, both good and bad. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's performance as rival boat captain Linda Greenlaw was Oscar-worthy.
intangibles: 4/5--this is a wild ride. I had not expected to feel so riveted, nor to be so moved. It is a challenge, when filming a movie like this, for anything to be new for the viewer - we do, after all, have reason to know how it all turns out. I think this was very well done.
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Sound
• Best Effects, Visual Effects
overall: 4/5

Meet Joe Black (1998) - "Death, who takes the form of a young man, asks a media mogul to act as a guide to teach him about life on Earth, and in the process, he falls in love with his guide's daughter."
Source: I own it, as part of a boxed set of "heartbreak romance" films
I watched it because: I wanted something kind of mellow, after the last one
IMDB: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 53% Audience: 81%
story: 3/5--I have been sitting here with my computer on my knees, staring at the screen, for a disconcertingly long time, trying to come up with an answer to this prompt.
visuals: 4.5/5--superb visuals
acting: 3/5--standout: Brad Pitt is delightful, evocative and awkward as the title character
intangibles: 2/5--this film has the most distracting, overwrought score I have ever heard. The denouement movement probably lasts 10-15 minutes, and literally drowns out dialog. And really, seriously, for the love of God, could someone please start editing movies for length? This just went on and on forever. It could have been a nice, tight 100-minute film. Instead, it is a 181-minute slog.
overall: 3.125/5--honestly cannot say whether I like it or not.

[the title quotation is by Konstantin Stanislavski, from An Actor Prepares]