Doomster Reviews

Death to Smoochy (2002)

A comedy based around an indictment of today's children's shows on TV.

[6/10 · 19 June 2003]

Danny DeVito's track record as a director isn't all that great, with results like `Throw Mama From the Train' marking his performance. However, this movie is one of DeVito's better works, not necessarily due to his directing but because of actors who play the three main characters (Ed Norton, Robin Williams, Catherine Keener).

The movie revolves around a children's show on a network named KidNet. `Rainbow Randolph' (Robin Williams) plays the main character on the TV show and is the adulated star.until he gets caught accepting bribes from parents who want to ensure better placement of their child/actors on the stage.

Randolph is quickly fired and Frank Stokes (Jon Stewart), the producer of the show, is directed by the corporate heads to find a replacement whose ethics is beyond reproach. He decides on a relatively unknown bit character called Smoochy, who is played by Sheldon Mopes (Ed Norton) and orders his assistant Nora (Catherine Keener) to sign him. Nora, barely hiding her jadedness, gets Sheldon to agree to star in KidNets children's show, with him playing Smoochy, a creature of Sheldon's creation that looks like miscegenation between a rhino and Barney. Sheldon, being a naïve, politically correct altruist, doesn't seem to realize what he's getting into - he expects the show to be a platform for him to promote worthwhile values to his viewers, the children. Norton plays the naiveté part well, much like his performance as the stuttering murderer with multiple personalities in `Primal Fear'. He portrays a look of innocence with his eyes and body language, as someone who is gullible and innocent, yet good of heart. Sheldon does not expect to encounter the crass commercialization of children's TV nor of the various unseemly characters who want to profit from the TV show thru kickbacks and graft. He is shocked at what really goes on behind the scenes at a children's show.

Meanwhile, Randolph, who is now destitute after being fired by KidNet, goes off the deep end. Upon learning of Smoochy replacing `Rainbow Randolph', Randolph's jealousy of this usurper transforms him into a raving maniac fixated on destroying Smoochy's career and getting his old job back on the children's show. With his strong and sometimes contorted facial expressions, his verbal rapidity, and his demented wit, Williams does a very good job portraying the unbalanced, obsessive psychotic bent on getting back at Smoochy.

Catherine Keener also adds to this movie as Nora, the cynical and jaded assistant producer. This role is perfect for Keener's trademark, a personality of sarcasm and surliness that gives her character an edge. She fights Sheldon's attempts to de-commercialize the children's show, at one point locking him out of a meeting room so he cannot complain about the show pushing new `Smoochy' products to the kids. Sheldon describes her jadedness by accusing her of viewing children as `dollar signs with pony tails'.

Nora clashes with Sheldon about the direction of the show throughout most of the movie. Sheldon wants to redefine the purpose of the show to be one that educates children and espouses values like sharing while Nora and the rest of the staff are cynical enough to realize that the show's main purpose (and main source of revenue) is to promote Smoochy-related products that KidNet sells. This becomes an indictment of today's children shows on TV. Nora doesn't believe in Sheldon's good heart - she's too cynical to believe that Sheldon is really that naïve and altruistic; she's seen too many character stars who had professed to care about the welfare of children only to sell out when the price was high enough.

Other stars, like Danny DeVito, play peripheral parts; DeVito plays a slimy agent named Burke Bennett, who is in cahoots with others interested in using the TV show for profit by unethical means. He plays that part well - when was the last time DeVito didn't play a shady and distrustful character? Another question: why wasn't he in `Lord of the Rings' playing the role of one of the trolls?

Harvey Fierstein also plays a minor part as the head of a syndicate that uses a charity as a dummy front to make money. He is in cahoots with Bennett and Burke in a plan to make some money by associating his charity with Smoochy's show. It's obvious Fierstein took this part in this movie to break out of his typecast, which is that of an effeminate, gay male with a husky voice. He does a good job acting as the head gangster in the beginning, using his deep voice to convey a sense of threat. But as the movie goes on, his character talks more and more and his effort to hide his effeminate mannerisms become less effective - by the end of the movie, the change in the pitch of his speech give him away as a gay male and that detracts from his effort to portray a cold, ruthless leader of organized crime.

There is also a female head of an Irish gang named Tommy (Pam Ferris) who intimidates Sheldon into giving a role for her cousin Spinner Dunn (Michael Rispoli), a once-famous boxer who took too many blows to the head and is suffering the consequences. She plays a part in the outcome of the story.

You can see the direction this movie will take and the 2nd half of it is anticlimactic. The bad guys' plot fails, the good guys win, Randolph's rivalry with Sheldon is resolved, Nora's cold heart is reignited by Sheldon's real and virtuous behavior, and Sheldon is able to keep his principles in the midst of crass commercialization so prevalent in today's children's shows. A sappy ending, quite predictable, but still a funny movie nonetheless, especially due to Robin Williams' performance.

Sliding Doors (1998)

The life of Helen, in two alternate worlds

[6/10 · 26 February 2003]

What would happen if you had a really crappy day, getting fired from your job, and then going home to find your boyfriend/girlfriend in bed with someone else? And how would your life have turned out differently if you arrived later in the day and didn't find your significant other cheating on you? This `alternate history' story is shown with both story tracks interspliced with the other throughout the movie.

The story begins with Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow), an employee of a PR firm, getting fired because she `borrowed' some liquor from her office, causing her firm to be out of beverages for clients that day. She doesn't help matters by trying to brush off the unfortunate incident with a cynical remark about the true purpose of PR firms. She leaves the office and tries to call her boyfriend Gerry (John Lynch) but Gerry put the phone off the hook while engaging in his tryst with his ex-girlfriend Lydia (Jeanne Tripplehorn). While leaving her office for the last time, she encounters James (John Hannah) in the elevator when he picks up an earring that she dropped.

Helen goes to the subway station to catch the train back home. In one version of the movie, she catches the train and gets back home early and unexpectedly catches Gerry in bed with Lydia. In the other version, she misses the train, finds out that the route is stalled because of an accident, tries to catch a cab but is mugged, goes to the hospital, and finally arrives back home later, after Lydia had left.

As the movie splices scenes from both versions of the story, it's up to the viewer to infer what version is being shown. In the version where Helen catches Gerry cheating on her, she meets James again while on the subway. They chat when James breaks the ice with humor but Helen is in no mood to laugh as she discloses that she just got canned. After she catches her boyfriend in the act of infidelity, she leaves and later bumps into James at her favorite restaurant. James approaches her and a budding romance between James and Helen begins.

Cut to the other version, the one where Helen doesn't catch Gerry. She gets home while Gerry is in the shower, surprised that she's home early. He realizes that only a few minutes was the difference between his infidelity revealed and concealed. Gerry, scared at almost being caught, is nervous when Helen arrives home but tries to mask his guilt by being pliant and indulgent to her. John Lynch does a good performance of acting like a man who just avoided trouble by sheer luck. To divert attention, he takes Helen out and fetes her. Unfortunately for Gerry, Lydia wants to get back with him and thus wants Gerry to end his relationship with Helen. Using the cunning of a scorned woman, she schemes to disclose her involvement with Gerry to Helen as the catharsis.

Helen by now cannot find another job at a PR firm so she's reduced to holding two part-time jobs. Gerry doesn't work - he's a writer still working on his `novel' so Helen supports them both. One of Helen's jobs is to deliver sandwiches in the mornings to various offices and one day she delivers them to the Lydia's office. She berates her for delivering sandwiches that were spoiled and which made her employees sick. She then reveals to Gerry what she's done, which makes Gerry very nervous as he realizes that he's trapped by Lydia's threat of blackmail.

Cut back to the version where Helen breaks up with Gerry and romances James instead. Things look so perfect for Helen in this version of her life. Helen cuts her hair short and dyes it blonde to give her a new identity. James encourages her to start her own PR firm and thru his contacts, she gets her first clients for her fledgling firm. This version seems like the ideal version but there's some clouds on the horizon. The movie implies that James has not been totally forthcoming about his relationship status and reveals that he has a wife.

So which version of Helen's life is better? In the version where Gerry is trying to hide his previous acts of infidelity while Lydia is trying to break Helen and him up by subtle means, all of which causes much anguish to Gerry. What to do for Gerry? He thinks he finds a solution but there is a conclusion at the end of this version that isn't so fortuitous for Gerry.

That must mean that the other version of Helen's life is better since she found out the true nature of Gerry's behavior and that allowed her to make several significant changes to her life. She's met James and she started her own business. But what about James' wife? Well there's a story behind that too - I won't spoil the movie by giving it away.

There is a twist to this movie and you might be a bit surprised by which version is the real happy ending. I hope this isn't enough of a spoiler. I found this movie enjoyable; Gwyneth Paltrow does a passable job playing an English woman by skillfully using an British accent but her vocabulary usage sometimes gives her away as a non-Britisher. But the best acting is done by John Lynch as he plays a cheating boyfriend burdened at first by his guilt, then by fear as Lydia contrives to disclose their secret. He makes best use of his facial expression, especially his eyes, to convey a sense of worry, nervousness, guilt, and of being trapped when he's trying to assuage Helen's rising level of guilt while at the same time trying to prevent Lydia from revealing their affair.

Not the greatest film but it's amusing and entertaining.

The Caveman's Valentine (2001)

The movie that showcases a bravura performance by Samuel Jackson

[6/10 · 23 February 2003]

This movie showcases Samuel Jackson's acting talent far better than any movie he has been in. Watching him in this movie makes you realize how talented he really is, that he can do a role greater than his usual fare, that of being a hard-boiled, smart-ass black guy in either a comedy or action movie: `Pulp Fiction', `Die Hard With a Vengeance', `The Long Kiss Goodnight', et. al., all movies in which Jackson played his semi-typecast role. In this movie, Jackson branches out as he portrays an insane yet extremely intelligent man who is not malicious but rather marches to a radically different drummer than the rest of the world. His diction & facial tics convey the behavior of a jumpy, paranoid person and his humor is not of the vulgar but of the witty.

Jackson plays Romulus Ledbetter, a paranoid schizophrenic who lives in a cave in Central Park. He's no ordinary homeless person – he's a rather brilliant person who suffers from delusions. We find out that he was once a talented and aspiring pianist studying at the famous Julliard but now limits himself to composing music in his head. Romulus (Rom) now thinks that an omnipotent evil that he calls Stuyvesant is out to destroy him by emitting yellow `Y-rays'. These Y-rays can read, poison, and control a person's mind and to Rom, almost everybody else in the world is under Stuyvesant's evil influence without knowing it. Worse, Stuyvesant has a new green `Z-ray', more potent than the `Y-rays'.

The central mystery of the movie starts when Rom finds a dead, frozen body outside of his cave one morning. He calls his daughter, Lulu (Anjaunue Ellis), who is a police officer. The cops arrive and Rom tries to convince to the disbelieving investigators that the death was the dirty work of Stuyvesant. The victim is identified as Scotty Gates (Sean MacMahon), a model/employee for a famous photographer named David Leppenraub (Colm Feore), who specializes in shooting dark, sinister photographs, and the police classify his death as due to the victim freezing to death while sleeping outside. Soon afterwards, Rom finds Matthew (Rodney Eastman), friend of the deceased Scotty, and Matthew reveals to Rom his suspicion that Leppenraub killed him. He further reveals that Leppenraub sexually abused Scotty & made a videotape of the sexual encounter so he would have a video for his viewing pleasure.

Romulus decides to find out how Scotty really died and who was the perpetrator. No one believes his suspicion that it was Leppenraub so Romulus starts investigating at Leppenraub's private farm in the countryside. This is where the movie gets weak. The movie is based upon a mystery novel by George Dawes Green and the complexities and subtleties are lost as it is transposed into film. While the novel might show the plot as logical (I haven't read the book so I don't know), the plot as shown by the film is convoluted. It's as if the movie is saying that the who-dunnit plot is so vermicular that only an irrational person like Romulus could figure it out.

The movie also does not really reveal how Romulus went from a budding pianist to a person living in a cave; there are hints that he was afraid of performing onstage but no clear answers. I don't know – maybe this part is more fully explained in the book and edited out in the film for pacing. But showing this facet of Romulus would have added to his character.

There is a good performance in the supporting role by Anthony Michael Hall, (Brian Johnson in `The Breakfast Club'), who plays Bob, a bankruptcy lawyer who gets to know Romulus by loaning him a pen so he could compose some music. At first, Bob seems to be a sympathetic character not quite sure if Rom is completely off the deep end or just a hustler. In the end though, even he is amazed by the talent Romulus has with the piano.

In summary, it's a movie to watch if you really want to see the range of Samuel Jackson's thespian talents. But don't expect the plot to be remarkable.

The Four Feathers (2002)

Kipling-esque movie but it's missing something

[5/10 · 21 February 2003]

Heath Ledger (Patrick Verona of `10 Things I Hate About You') is cast in the lead role as Harry Faversham, product of the Victorian-era English upper class and son of a military general. Somehow, he just comes up short acting the part. His Australian accent helps but he just carried over the accent of Gabriel Martin from `The Patriot' to this role and it doesn't work as he's trying to act the part of a cultured, genteel British military officer.

Harry is an officer in the Royal Cumbrian Regiment, which is commanded by his father. His friends are his regimental comrades, and he is about to marry Ethne, played by Kate Hudson (and like Ledger, not played convincingly). The regiment is about to be shipped out to Sudan to quell the Mahdi uprising but just before the regiment is to board the troopships, Harry has a sweaty nightmare that fills him with dread and he resigns from the regiment. His comrades are shocked and three of them mail white feathers, a symbol of cowardice, to Harry. The one exception is Jack (Wes Bently, Ricky Fitts of `American Beauty'), Harry's best friend. Harry's action causes him to be ostracized by his fiancée and his family. Later, Harry has second thoughts and decides to go to the Sudan on his own and join his regiment to remove the stain of cowardice and in doing so, has an adventure of his life.

During his trip to the Sudan, Harry is rescued and befriended by Abu Fatma (Djimon Hounsou, Cinque in `Amistad') when Harry is stranded in the desert. He finally reaches his regiment but instead of revealing himself to his comrades, he acts similar to what Joseph does in the Biblical story and assumes the identity of a native working as a porter for the British army. In this way, Harry is able to follow his former comrades and watch over them.

You can see where this is leading as Harry's new identity puts him in a position to save the lives of his former comrades from his regiment. He saves the life of Jack, who is blinded during battle, but upon saving his life, Harry discovers that Jack & Ethne, his former fiancée, have developed a relationship. Harry realizes that he cannot return home, even after discrediting his cowardice by valor in battle and decides to enter the Omdurman prison in search of a comrade who was captured.

Here is where the movie draws on when it should end. The director, Shekhar Kapur, made the story longer than it was required to tell the story. The movie is based on the novel by AEW Mason so perhaps Kapur was trying to tell the novel's story in its totality but this last part of the movie, when Harry tries to rescue his friend, seems superfluous. The plot meanders after this point and you lose the purpose of Harry's adventure.

I won't spoil the movie by filling the rest but I have to say that the movie could have been better. There were some aspects of the movie that should have been developed more. For example, the reasons behind Harry's decision to resign and face the consequences of being viewed a coward are not fully revealed. All we have is that he had a bad nightmare. But was it a premonition of his death? Or of his friends? We are not told and it detracts from the movie. And although the movie strived to show the customs, world-view, and beliefs of the British in Victorian England, the two main actors, Ledger & Hudson, do not do a convincing job in their roles. They just do not seem to be upper-crust English patricians; even their accent isn't right on.

All in all, an above-average movie but not one that people will nominate for an award.

Man of the Century (1999)

A 20's movie shown in modern context....or vice versa

[6/10 · 7 February 2003]

If you want to get a feel of some of the differences between today and the 1920s, this film is for you. The level of detail is good, so much so that you wonder if this film isn't just an exercise to show how much research was done on the '20s by Adam Abraham, writer and director. His details are sometimes amazing, sometimes amusing - he points out differences in phone numbers, auto ownership (most people in the '20s didn't own cars), dress, slang (what we now label "pigs" was called a "flatfoot" back in the 20's), vocabulary, mannerisms, and the role of the subservient Negro, which transformed from a wise but reserved councillor for the main white male protagonist to an expressive sidekick for the main white female character.

But the depictions and details of the '20s life loses steam about halfway thru the movie and then relies on cultural stereotypes we have of the '20's. The actor playing the main character, Johnny Twennies, really went thru extraordinary effort to mimic the vocabulary, slangs, diction, and body language depicted in films from the 20's but it gets tiresome, as if the script "over-does" his part.

The best part of the movie is how Adam shows the inception of modern cinematic techniques by executing them in the 20's style. It's somewhat of a homage to film history but it looks like Abraham tried to show ALL the cinematic techniques, slowing the pace down.

If you try to watch this movie as another regular movie, you won't like it. The plot is a crude caricature of a standard drama movie of the '20's and thus, it feels very simplistic to most of today's cinema audience. Instead, the amusing part of it is noticing the difference in slang, in customs, in social behaviors, and other subtle facets of life between the 1920's and the current time. And again, Abraham does a good job of covering almost every difference, from society's attitudes towards smoking, society's dominant view on homosexuality, the gender roles in the game of seduction, and even how it was much easier to hail a cab in New York in the 20's than it is today.

Romper Stomper (1992)

Skinhead must choose between his love or his comrade

[7/10 · 9 September 2002]

Romper Stomper is a view into Australia's skinhead culture. Hando (Russell Crowe) is the leader of a group of skinheads trying to defend their neighborhood from the "gooks", Asian immigrants. He meets Gabrielle (Jacqueline McKenzie) and have a brief love affair. Their relationship brings Gabrielle into the circle of skinheads, where another member, Dave (Daniel Pollock), falls in love with her. Dave, unfortunately, is Hando's best friend, his most trusted ally.

Things don't work out for the skinheads and while on the run, Dave ends up having to make a decision between his loyalty to Hando and his love for Gabrielle.

A pretty violent movie but a good one nonetheless. Crowe actually did a very good job of acting in this movie. He had the same menacing look as he did later in Virtuosity.

Ali (2001)

Will Smith made Ali boring

[3/10 · 10 August 2002]

Considering how hyped this movie was, it was one of the worst. The writers of the script couldn't decide on the direction of the movie. Was it about Ali's history of his bouts with opponents like Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, or George Foreman? Or was it about Ali's political views? Or was it about Ali's battle with the US government regarding his objection to the military draft?

The plot cuts between these 3 veins without a clear direction. You don't know what the movie is about. It certainly doesn't look like a biography of Ali.

To make things worse, Will Smith was seriously miscast as Ali. Smith tries to match Ali's dialect and mannerisms but without the excitement and energy that Ali had. Muhammad Ali was a controversial sports figure at the time, representing black Muslims, someone who would speak his mind before thinking. Smith tried to match that but instead his performance comes off flat. It's not all his fault - the script makes Smith pensive in far too many scenes.

All in all, a movie to avoid. A better movie for Ali fans is the documentary "When We Were Kings".

Kaaterskill Falls (2001)

The most surprising plot twist...

[8/10 · 3 March 2002]

I won't comment on the surprise because it will ruin the watching of the film. The movie starts out a bit slow but in hindsight, it was good that the movie paced itself and then picked up tempo for the surprising finale.

Watch the film. It was the best movie I saw at the 2002 San Jose Cinequest Film Festival.

Prank (2000)

One of the best I've seen in 2001

[8/10 · 5 September 2001]

The movie is Beavis and Butthead mixed w/ Natural Born Killers. Low-budget, black and white, yet the movie is much more innovative and fresh than most of the movies released by the mainstream studios.

One criticism I would have is that because the two main actors do not have as much experience as others, their acting sometimes comes off as novices. But at times that adds to the movie - the movie really looks like a home video that they filmed.

The ending had a surprise - I won't spoil it and detail the plots.

Saw this at San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival in 2001.

Bunny (2000)

Strange film - sad

[5/10 · 26 February 2001]

Saw this at the San Jose 2001 Cinequest film festival. A little bizarre and maybe too subtle. Petra Tikalova as Luda does a good job showing the sense of weariness of her life. But the whole "bunny" thing didn't make sense.