lot49 Reviews

A Prairie Home Companion (2006)

Reminiscent of Presbyterian Church

[8/10 · 11 June 2006]

I bought my ticket ten minutes before show time because I knew that most people were headed for the other 19 theaters in my local cineplex. I guessed correctly because the tiny auditorium showing PHC was two-thirds empty. The median age of the audience appeared to be 55--a couple years older than I am. I was surprised to see a handful of children and some thirty-something couples.

The movie pays tribute to Garrison Keillor and his decades of radio broadcasts, but it's trying not to be too nostalgic or too sentimental. It's reminding us that life goes on--even when other lives end.

It did not bother me that there are actors playing characters normally played by Garrison Keillor and his radio company. Kevin Kline makes a convincing Guy Noir who is investigating a Dangerous Woman played by Virginia Madsen. (She seems to be wearing Daryl Hannah's hand-me-down coat from "Kill Bill").

Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly provide comic relief as Dusty and Lefty, but we don't see them in an installment of "Lives of the Cowboys." Instead, we listen to them perform an encapsulated musical segment from the PHC annual joke show. Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin and Lindsay Lohan are believable as the Johnsons who represent many of the bluegrass/C&W singers who perform on the show. It's good to see Maya Rudolph outside SNL and showing us that she's probably overdue for a separate career. Tommy Lee Jones and LQ Jones appear very briefly, but they play key characters. Marylouise Burke gives a character performance as good or better than her work in "Sideways."

We also see regular players from the real radio show like Sue Scott, Tom Keith, Tim Russell, Rich Dworsky and Robin & Linda Williams. Without them, the show would not sound authentic. (It's also nice to actually see them.) We hear some of the familiar radio jingles for the show's fictitious sponsors, but this surreal radio show is not the PHC we hear every Saturday. That's probably why we don't hear the News From Lake Wobegon. Instead, GK chooses to immortalize his controversial penguin joke--which proves both enigmatic and deadly.

The real star of the show is the Fitzgerald Theatre--much like the rustic little town was the star of Altman's "McCabe and Mrs Miller" (to which there's an obscure reference). The camera takes us in-and-out, up-and-down, backstage, upstage and downstage. We see the lobby, the stage door, the dressing rooms, the corridors and the VIP booth as if they are different aspects of the theatre's personality.

It may take a while for some of us to appreciate this film. It doesn't have the blunt impact of "M*A*S*H" or the sharp satire of "Nashville." It doesn't go for the jugular like "the Player." People may not find it poignant until Altman and Keillor are gone.

Fat Man and Little Boy (1989)

Lieutenant Barclay's Holodeck Addiction

[4/10 · 23 June 2002]

It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)

Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.

The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1972)

So it goes

[8/10 · 29 December 2001]

Kurt Vonnegut was more than worthy of the National Book Award that he received for the novel Slaughterhouse Five, but his humor and literary expertise are often lost in screenplays.

This flawed movie was a cult classic since its release because legions of Vonnegut fans were so fond of the novel that they could overlook the film's flaws. This is probably the only Vonnegut novel to make the transition to the screen as a movie that more than a handful of people are willing to watch. And they watch it again and again. I am reminded of Voltaire lovers who enjoy Leonard Bernstein's Candide. This seems to be the best of all possible Vonnegut movies.

There is a wealth of trivia associated with the cast. Michael Sacks disappeared into obscurity. Sharon Gans joined a community theater company that seemed more like a cult. Holly Near became a feminist folksinger. Valerie Perrine would later give a great performance as Honey Bruce in Bob Fosse's Lenny. Perry King and Ron Liebman became minor stars.

The story is largely allegorical. It is not science-fiction. Vonnegut is coping with the trauma of World War II, particularly the horrors he witnessed during the firebombing of Dresden. Billy Pilgrim's emotional numbness and alientation are characteristic of combat fatigue or post traumatic stress. Despite the lack of a chronological plot, Billy Pilgrim's arc is linear.

To the uninitiated, being "unstuck in time" can be confusing. It's sort of like one's first encounter with hypertext. Perhaps, that's why the movie is better on the second or third viewing. The key to enjoying Slaughterhouse Five is to focus on the best scenes and performances -- much like Billy Pilgrim's advice on living.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Good but not great: Chris Columbus isn't pushing the envelope

[7/10 · 20 November 2001]

Readers seem pleased that the movie seldom strays from the book. Steven Kloves' screenplay seems to be a transcription of J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter novel. Unfortunately, this means that some adult viewers might be glancing at their watches as the movie slowly resolves the plot. I noticed that the film's length posed no problem for older children in the theater when I saw it. (The kids seemed to know the story, so there probably weren't many surprises for them.) I must commend the screenwriter for doing his best with Rowling's major plot twist -- which I had found a bit awkward when I read the novel.

I believe the story is character-driven rather than plot-driven, so the mystery is less important to me than the characters' arcs. I also believe that the story's wizardry is a MacGuffin. It's more important for us to see Harry, Ron and Hermione discover the value of friendship and loyalty than learn spells and potions.

In his earlier movies, Chris Columbus demonstrates a knack for working with children, so I'm not surprised that Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint give excellent performances. (BTW, I am NEVER forgiving toward bad child actors.) Harry, Ron and Hermione must be likable and believable, and they are. Without the convincing work by this trio, the great performances by the stellar British cast would not have been enough to carry the movie.

If the rest of films in this series are of this caliber, they should be popular for years to come.

Magnolia (1999)

Better than "the Blair Witch Project"

[8/10 · 19 October 2001]

"Magnolia" has plenty of great actors giving good performances, and it has more than a few memorable scenes. Unfortunately, after 100 minutes have passed, we're waiting for the movie to end. When the end finally comes, we're wondering why it took so long.

As others have said, Robert Altman did a better job telling a similar story in "Short Cuts" (1993). Altman's protege Alan Rudolph even did a better job in the flawed "Welcome to L.A." back in 1977.

P.T. Anderson tries to impress us with details, but minutiae are no substitute for good writing. At least two of the three examples of odd coincidences in the prologue are urban legends that have been debunked on the Internet (The dead scuba diver in the tree and the suicidal jumper who was shot by one of his parents). Perhaps the prologue warns us that the movie is going to waste our time much like these tall tales did.

The Shooting (1966)

Waiting for Gashade?

[5/10 · 23 June 2001]

This cryptic movie is a Samuel Beckett play set in the southwest. It's "Waiting for Godot" with Stetsons instead of bowlers. Unfortunately, the dialogue is often unintelligible. Watch it at home with the TV's sound off and some suitable music playing on your stereo.

Will Hutchins is Sugarfoot on acid. A young Warren Oates manages to display a glimmer of his talent. Millie Perkins makes me wish that the Nazis would take her away. (She played Anne Frank in George Stevens' 1959 movie.)

As for Smilin' Jack... Had he continued to make movies like this one, Jack Nicholson would be an anonymous Lakers fan sitting in the cheap seats 50 yards from center court.

In some respects, "The Shooting" is "Easy Rider" without motorcycles, sex, drugs or rock 'n roll.

Friends (1994–2004)

Looks like you're always stuck in second gear

[24 February 2001]

Half a dozen aging Gen Xers share their neurotic quirks with us every week. We've grown to know and love them. Their circumstances (and hair styles) have changed over the years, but their personalities have not.

The early marketing hype for "Friends" almost prevented me from watching it. The ads implied that this show captured the essence of an entire generation in a way that had not been done before. I wanted to remind them -- and the public -- that another NBC show had already claimed to have done this thirty years earlier. It was "The Monkees." It wasn't true then, and it wasn't true in 1994. Fortunately, both shows were better than their hype.

The ensemble cast has been around long enough to outgrow the ridiculous image invented for them. The actors are all much older than the characters they play. The world they inhabit has no violent crime, no drugs, no poverty, no ethnic minorities and no sky-high Manhattan rents. (This isn't a criticism. It's a sitcom. I don't want reality!) It will be interesting to see how the show will look if it's still on the air in 2004.

Frasier (1993–2004)

I'm sorry, but your time is up...

[24 February 2001]

When I first learned that the Frasier Crane character from "Cheers" would be spun-off in a sitcom after "Cheers" ended its run, I expected to be disappointed. (I recalled "The Tortellis.") After a couple seasons, I decided that "Frasier" was as good or better than "Cheers."

Unfortunately, the past two seasons have been uneven. We see too little of Frasier in the radio station. The stories and situation have become stale and predictable. Frasier's mid-life crisis is the embarrassing focal point of his life. He chases every woman in sight with a desperation that is more pathetic than it is amusing. I suppose this proves that Frasier is not Sam Malone. In the end, "Cheers" was more consistent.

Those of us who want to see a good episode of "Frasier" must view the syndicated reruns.

Viewers probably wanted Niles and Daphne to live happily ever after, but this development should have been saved for the series finale.

U-571 (2000)

We all live in a yellow submarine...

[6/10 · 23 April 2000]

This movie has more in common with the "Guns of Navarone" than it does with "Das Boot," "the Bedford Incident" or "the Enemy Below." Technical and historical accuracy are sacrificed in the name of entertainment... so is any pretense of military discipline. It's an old-fashioned war movie in which the usual eclectic handful of Americans manage to beat the Axis villains (who have them out-gunned and outnumbered). If you're hungry for a mindless action-adventure movie, this is the fast-food "meal" to satisfy that need. If you want something substantial to digest, look elsewhere.

Matthew McConaughey's performance is decent, and Harvey Keitel manages to look good even though he's playing a cinematic cliche -- as are most of the enlisted men. Jon Bon Jovi appears too briefly for me to say whether he deserves that cameo on "the Sopranos" that he so desperately craves.

If you're expecting an interesting story about the Enigma code machine, wait for someone to adapt Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon for the screen. Of course that's about as likely to happen as "Gravity's Rainbow: the Movie."

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Being Stanley Kubrick

[10/10 · 29 December 1999]

I first saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the fall of 1968. I was fifteen years-old. This was only months after the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. There had been a police riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Richard Nixon was about to be elected President of the United States. The Vietnam war seemed to be getting worse -- the year had opened with the infamous Tet Offensive.

I needed an escape from the grim headlines. (The only good news seemed to be the NASA Apollo mission that would orbit the moon in December.) Oddly enough, the director of Dr. Strangelove would provide that escape in the form of 2001. (Thanks to my viewing of Dr. Strangelove four years earlier, I believed that I would eventually be incinerated in a nuclear war.)

I had read about Kubrick's meticulous attention to detail, but I still wondered why it had taken half a decade to produce this new movie. Entering the theater, I had great expectations, but I would not be disappointed by what I experienced that night.

I got to see 2001 in the old Cinerama format which used three synchronized projectors to display the movie on a wide curved screen. The effect was less impressive than today's IMAX, but it DID make things larger than life. The special effects were impressive without detracting attention from the story. The idea of humans achieving a higher plane of existence intrigued me. I would ponder the philosophical and theological implications of that alien-assisted evolution for years to come.

I emerged from the theater feeling profoundly optimistic even though I wasn't quite sure what I had experienced. It was as if I had seen and touched the black monolith.

It may have been 1968, but, for the record, I was clean & sober. Whatever I felt was the effect of the film, not any foreign substances. In retrospect, I can say that I was happier than someone who had been John Malkovich for 15 minutes.

A few months later, I read Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel" because I was interested in the story that inspired the movie. Then, I borrowed a classmate's copy of Clarke's novelization. I preferred the original short story. From that experience, I learned to avoid novels based upon screenplays.

I've seen 2001 dozens of times since 1968. Three decades later, I can see the flaws in the ape suits. I can understand younger viewers' impatience with Kubrick's slow-but-deliberate pacing. I also admit that I do not always enjoy the film's score. I wish the DVD version could have offered Alex North's original score as an alternative. (I suspect there are legal issues preventing this.) However, I still believe that this is Kubrick's masterpiece.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Malkovich Club?

[10/10 · 30 October 1999]

The first rule about "Being John Malkovich" is: See "Being John Malkovich." The second rule about "Being John Malkovich" is: See "Being John Malkovich." This is the most original movie I've seen in a few years. (There are no huge explosions, and the lone chase scene doesn't involve cars, planes or space ships.) Unlike many "art house" movies, I didn't need to struggle to understand or enjoy it. It's a film about human identity, a story in which a number of characters struggle to express themselves, to find fulfillment and to pursue happiness -- in ways that are rather bizarre. They live in a skewed version of reality (either that, or New York City has gotten worse since my last visit). We have passed through the looking glass, and some things are not what they appear to be. The characters are interesting and well-developed. The humor is dark and incisive. John Cusack and Cameron Diaz are deep in character and barely recognizable. Catherine Keener is the ultimate femme fatale. Orson Bean is hilarious. John Malkovich is brilliant -- and very convincing -- as himself.

The West Wing (1999–2006)

The West Wing may be the left-wing, but I don't care!

[9 October 1999]

Aaron Sorkin is known for his dialogue, but this show's visual elements are cinematic (ie., the tracking shots of John Spencer in the pilot). I am compelled to watch the screen more closely than I do during "Sports Night" (which looks more like a stage play). Like Sports Night, the West Wing is a show about life in the workplace. I'm glad that the show's workplace isn't a police station, a hospital or a law office. We have seen too many of those on TV! Sometimes the plot elements tug at our emotions in ways that are a bit obvious, but I can forgive those manipulative devices because the writing is good. I am grateful for the lack of gunfire, car chases and explosions that dominate most movies and television dramas.

Dark Skies (1996–1997)

More Style Than Substance

[9 October 1999]

This show seemed driven by its art direction -- which, unfortunately, was flawed by too many anachronisms. The sets, props and costumes were a post modern hodge-podge of items from different decades. As someone who lived through the era depicted in Dark Skies, the art director's errors detracted from the story. I suspect that the show's "look" was fabricated by a Gen-Xer who only possessed a superficial sense of how people dressed and lived in the early 1960s. The dialogue contained too many 1990s idioms, so I could not forget that I was watching young actors pretending to be characters from another era. It was distracting to hear a pop song from 1967 ("For What It's Worth") played during a scene set in 1963. If the plots had been less predictable and better-developed, I would have been more forgiving. Sci-Fi requires suspension of disbelief. If I have to work too hard to believe what I'm seeing, I won't enjoy what's on the screen.

84C MoPic (1989)

Better than the Blair Witch Project

[8/10 · 14 August 1999]

This 1989 mockumentary employs a simple premise: a combat photographer known as "Mopic" (Byron Thames) accompanies an infantry squad on a patrol during the Vietnam War. We see the story through Mopic's lens. (Except for the POV, it's similar to the second half of "Full Metal Jacket.") The soldiers are often scared, frustrated and fatigued. They are trying to reach a village where a helicopter can take them out of the jungle, but they are delayed by the Viet Cong. The enemy is an unseen, menacing presence in the jungle -- until a Viet Cong soldier is captured. The actors were unknown in 1989, but Richard Brooks would later play Assistant District Attorney Paul Robinette in "Law and Order."

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

The Web site is more entertaining than the movie

[1/10 · 7 August 1999]

After weeks of reading the hype about this independent film that supposedly impressed audiences at the Sundance Film Festival, I finally found time to see it in Colma, California a town in which the dead "residents" outnumber the living. After seeing this movie, I envied those dead people buried in the nearby cemeteries. They did not have to sit through 87 minutes of shaky handheld footage.

Rather than a ghost story, the Blair Witch Project is largely a pseudo-documentary about three often-obnoxious Gen-Xers lost in the woods. We grasp their plight early in the film, so it's difficult to endure their bickering and histrionics after that point is made. By the time we arrive at the film's climax, most of us are glad to know that these tiresome filmmakers will be bound, tortured and disemboweled.

The Blair Witch Project Web site actually contains more information than we see presented in the film. Web surfers are allowed to read the "back-story" of the Blair witch and her lingering hold on the Burkitsville community. I was hoping to see some standard "talking head" footage of the law enforcement officers and the private investigator who eventually located the personal effects of the missing filmmakers. I also expected interviews with the trio's grieving friends and relatives. While I normally dislike such cinematic cliches, in this instance, it would have been a relief.

This film could easily be edited down to about twenty minutes of footage that could be presented as film clips within another documentary film about the filmmakers' disappearance (the film I expected to see).