This movie is technically impressive. It has some solid performances. It is not subtle, and it is wildly implausible. I assumed I wasn't getting the whole story from the trailers on how an advanced race capable of intergalactic travel could become refugee camp squatters to a less advanced race. Nope. That's pretty much it. I had a number of "Why?"s floating in my brain afterward, but they were beaten down by the sheer brutality of the film. This is basically a buddy cop film, with as thin a veneer of plot as most of them have. What sets it apart, again, is the technical execution. It looks amazingly real. If only the story and script lived up to it.
Reviews
26 Reviews
John Adams
(2008)
A disappointment
2 August 2008
I'm clearly in the minority on this, but as much as I wanted to like this series, I just couldn't. It turned me off so much, in fact, I couldn't even finish it. The Adams in the HBO series just isn't the Adams I've come to know in McCullough's book, the Adams/Jefferson letters, and John/Abigail letters. Some of it is there, certainly, but Giamatti's performance is uniformly petulant, irritable, and whiny. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's criticism of Katherine Hepburn: "She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B." Adams certainly could be all three, but was clearly so much morea more vital, gravitational personalityand you'll never see itindeed, get even a glimpse of itin HBO's John Adams. While in an obviously frothier vein, Bill Daniels' forceful portrayal of Adams in the film adaptation of the musical 1776 is far truer to the man described in the book and letters. He, at least, could convincingly be the Adams described by his peers and the match for Abigail, which was never the case for me with Giamatti's shrinking whiner. When he is supposed to be forceful, he merely comes off as a brat. At no point during the HBO series could I bring myself to believe that it was Giamatti's Adams that the other characters were talking about. He simply wasn't believable to me, to the extent that I simply couldn't watch him anymore. I had to retrieve the book and letters from my bookshelf to cleanse my palate and revisit the man of his words.
Which is a criticism I have of the writing itself. Such work in a supposedly epic telling, and yet again I find a much more understandable presentation of Adams in the film 1776 than in four hours (so far) of HBO's production. After four episodes I still couldn't perceive a coherent philosophy, and challenge anyone watching it cold to produce one. The production spent far too much time on the minutiae of moments at the expense of a clear depiction of the man himself. Ultimately it was all about emotionsand again, only a couple of themrather than thoughts. But then this is modern Hollywood's obsessionexcessive but ultimately superficial verisimilitudewhich is why its characterizations pale in comparison to the best of the past.
The same problem extends to the production itself. There is a fanatical attention to detail, including superb visual and special effects, but once again at the expense of the story. Rather than simply putting a camera on an actor and letting him act, Adams' director Tom Hooper, like so many of his peers, feels he must "put us in the moment" with hand-held camera work and oblique camera angles, or create an interesting canvas through off-center compositions and muted colors. All he does instead is distract the viewer and draw attention to himself instead of the characters. Oh but for the chance to lock the present generation of directors in a room playing Ford, Huston, Hawks, and Wyler movies non-stop until they finally learn what they clearly never have about storytelling.
I am happy, actually, that so many have enjoyed this series so much, but it's more than disappointingaggravatingthat the John Adams they're given is such a feral dog compared to the force of nature and penetrating mind, vain, stubborn, and obnoxious as it is, that comes through his letters.
Which is a criticism I have of the writing itself. Such work in a supposedly epic telling, and yet again I find a much more understandable presentation of Adams in the film 1776 than in four hours (so far) of HBO's production. After four episodes I still couldn't perceive a coherent philosophy, and challenge anyone watching it cold to produce one. The production spent far too much time on the minutiae of moments at the expense of a clear depiction of the man himself. Ultimately it was all about emotionsand again, only a couple of themrather than thoughts. But then this is modern Hollywood's obsessionexcessive but ultimately superficial verisimilitudewhich is why its characterizations pale in comparison to the best of the past.
The same problem extends to the production itself. There is a fanatical attention to detail, including superb visual and special effects, but once again at the expense of the story. Rather than simply putting a camera on an actor and letting him act, Adams' director Tom Hooper, like so many of his peers, feels he must "put us in the moment" with hand-held camera work and oblique camera angles, or create an interesting canvas through off-center compositions and muted colors. All he does instead is distract the viewer and draw attention to himself instead of the characters. Oh but for the chance to lock the present generation of directors in a room playing Ford, Huston, Hawks, and Wyler movies non-stop until they finally learn what they clearly never have about storytelling.
I am happy, actually, that so many have enjoyed this series so much, but it's more than disappointingaggravatingthat the John Adams they're given is such a feral dog compared to the force of nature and penetrating mind, vain, stubborn, and obnoxious as it is, that comes through his letters.
Rocky Balboa
(2006)
A strong finish
27 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It's possible this is an 8/10 instead of the 7 I'm giving it, on account of the pitiful presentation of it I just experienced, but I think I'm right on the money.
The movie certainly is right about a lot. Stallone's gift as a writer is his ability to invest story lines that on paper sound implausible with enough realism and humanity to make them plausible, at least to some degree. Rocky 5 finally sounded too gimmicky to me and I never got around to seeing it. Rocky 4, which I did see at least once, stretched the familiar storyline almost too much. This new movie, however, gets it just about right. It's almost as good as the first two, and at least as good as the third. The wisdom and mileage that Stallone has gained, the film gains.
(That's the nutshell. Read farther at your own risk.)
Stallone brings Balboa back down to earth in this one, most notably with Adrian having died. I understand this was not what Talia Shire preferred at first, but Stallone couldn't find the emotional meat he wanted with her in it. I happen to think Talia Shire's instincts were better on that score. Stallone and Shire were so touching together in the first couple of films that this one lacked an emotional center and closure that I missed and would have preferred. I realize Stallone was attempting to create and address a similar hole in Rocky's life. I think from the point of view of concluding a saga, though, he could have achieved much the same end by having her die in the film instead of in the back-story, and allowed audiences to connect with that character, and wonderful love storythis time as an older married coupleone more time before saying goodbye. Rocky got that closure in the back-story of the film; the audience never does. Yeah, I would have like that a lot.
But back to the movie as it actually is. It does succeed in almost all respects. It's realistic about the characters and the circumstances surrounding each of them without being overly maudlin, and Stallone treats the nostalgia with a deft touch. The only thing truly jarring about the film, and which directly detracted from it for me and my wife, is the final fight sequence. All of the previous films, as well as I can remember, used montage sequences to flit through the middle of the fights, but they did so in straightforward fashion, showing clearly a punch here, a punch there, and the psychological war going on between the two men. The rapid cycling and color juxtapositions in this final fight are simply too jarring and hard to follow, and took me completely out of it. The fight would have been much better had Stallone lost the MTV stylingwhich was completely out of place with the rest of the film (and, for that matter, the entire series)and focused more clearly on the arcs happening inside both Balboa and Dixon as the fight progresses. You know, like the older, better films did. As it is, it feels rushed and the impact lost. I was very disappointed with the fight.
But the final moments are nice, with Stallone getting back to the proper rhythm and tone, enough so that the disappointment of the fight is mitigated. If I seem overly critical, it's because of what's invested in the film. I grew up with these films and wanted this one to be great. Stallone had a tall task in front of him in this film, and it's a testament to his instincts that he got so much about it right. The film is a nice conclusion to a beloved seriesand era of film-making, franklyand whatever its faults, just like its hangdog, against-all-odds protagonist, it manages to stir the heart a little and make us feel better for having known it. Nowcue that music.
The movie certainly is right about a lot. Stallone's gift as a writer is his ability to invest story lines that on paper sound implausible with enough realism and humanity to make them plausible, at least to some degree. Rocky 5 finally sounded too gimmicky to me and I never got around to seeing it. Rocky 4, which I did see at least once, stretched the familiar storyline almost too much. This new movie, however, gets it just about right. It's almost as good as the first two, and at least as good as the third. The wisdom and mileage that Stallone has gained, the film gains.
(That's the nutshell. Read farther at your own risk.)
Stallone brings Balboa back down to earth in this one, most notably with Adrian having died. I understand this was not what Talia Shire preferred at first, but Stallone couldn't find the emotional meat he wanted with her in it. I happen to think Talia Shire's instincts were better on that score. Stallone and Shire were so touching together in the first couple of films that this one lacked an emotional center and closure that I missed and would have preferred. I realize Stallone was attempting to create and address a similar hole in Rocky's life. I think from the point of view of concluding a saga, though, he could have achieved much the same end by having her die in the film instead of in the back-story, and allowed audiences to connect with that character, and wonderful love storythis time as an older married coupleone more time before saying goodbye. Rocky got that closure in the back-story of the film; the audience never does. Yeah, I would have like that a lot.
But back to the movie as it actually is. It does succeed in almost all respects. It's realistic about the characters and the circumstances surrounding each of them without being overly maudlin, and Stallone treats the nostalgia with a deft touch. The only thing truly jarring about the film, and which directly detracted from it for me and my wife, is the final fight sequence. All of the previous films, as well as I can remember, used montage sequences to flit through the middle of the fights, but they did so in straightforward fashion, showing clearly a punch here, a punch there, and the psychological war going on between the two men. The rapid cycling and color juxtapositions in this final fight are simply too jarring and hard to follow, and took me completely out of it. The fight would have been much better had Stallone lost the MTV stylingwhich was completely out of place with the rest of the film (and, for that matter, the entire series)and focused more clearly on the arcs happening inside both Balboa and Dixon as the fight progresses. You know, like the older, better films did. As it is, it feels rushed and the impact lost. I was very disappointed with the fight.
But the final moments are nice, with Stallone getting back to the proper rhythm and tone, enough so that the disappointment of the fight is mitigated. If I seem overly critical, it's because of what's invested in the film. I grew up with these films and wanted this one to be great. Stallone had a tall task in front of him in this film, and it's a testament to his instincts that he got so much about it right. The film is a nice conclusion to a beloved seriesand era of film-making, franklyand whatever its faults, just like its hangdog, against-all-odds protagonist, it manages to stir the heart a little and make us feel better for having known it. Nowcue that music.
Charlotte's Web
(2006)
The '73 animated version is much better
29 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As with Walden's last adaptation--The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe--this is an okay movie that could have been vastly better. It is a superior adaptation to Wardrobe, in that it follows the source material more faithfully both in story and characterization, but it still fails most in those key areas, and in important ways that the animated version didn't.
The most off-putting and probably most egregious error on director Winick's part is to make Fern such an impertinent, downright snotty little girl. In the book Fern is determined, but not rude. Neither is her father the milquetoast that he's made to be in the film. Ditto Templeton the rat, who is turned from an irascible malcontent into an outright bully. Such characterizations are completely unnecessary and in fact detract from the story. (Which again was the core failure with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Seems to be a Walden thing.) This ties into a problem with the casting in general. Julia Roberts was simply the wrong voice for Charlotte. The '73 version had the good grace and foresight to cast Debbie Reynolds as Charlotte. Reynolds' soothing, melodic voice was perfect for a creature meant to be soothing and enchanting. There is life and wonder and hope in it. Roberts' voice is simply too flat and nasally, and becomes actually grating. The casting on the rest of the animals was fine (though the body humor got old after the second "joke"; I long for the days when body "humor" wasn't considered simply part of kids' movie genre), but of the humans only Beau Bridges stands out. I like the actors who played the various parts, but they too come off as lifeless. The whole affair is simply flat, which is ironic considering the wondrousness of the tale attempting to be told.
And then there's the decision to go with hyperrealistic special effects. I found myself wishing they'd stayed with the neat animation that introduced the movie. Instead we're treated to super-macro shots of a spider worthy of an electron microscope. Director Winick should have had the sense to realize that there's no way to make a spider cuddly in close-up. The animated '73 film was wise enough not to try; it showed Charlotte in just enough detail to give her form and features, and left it that. This one, again like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, wants to show off at the expense of the story.
Some of the non-book material is witty, but for the most part it's not and obviously tacked on to tickle kiddies' funny bones. It does, so in that sense I suppose it works, but it's laziness on the part of the filmmakers to feel it's necessary.
In sum, what should be a magical, uplifting movie comes off as flat and, in fact, a little boring. Maybe one of these days the film industry will discover that special effects and high-caliber casts aren't enough to save a lackluster script. It always comes down to the writing, and it simply isn't very good in this version of Charlotte's Web. It has its heart in the right place, and doesn't stray far from the original book in actual plot, for which I have to commend it at least six stars, but it's more interested in being a comedy made for kids than a drama made for smart people, young and old. This is why the '73 version continues to hold my kids in thrall after half a dozen viewings, but they were so bored on a second watching of this new film that they wanted to leave early.
Maybe for Walden the third time will be the charm.
The most off-putting and probably most egregious error on director Winick's part is to make Fern such an impertinent, downright snotty little girl. In the book Fern is determined, but not rude. Neither is her father the milquetoast that he's made to be in the film. Ditto Templeton the rat, who is turned from an irascible malcontent into an outright bully. Such characterizations are completely unnecessary and in fact detract from the story. (Which again was the core failure with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Seems to be a Walden thing.) This ties into a problem with the casting in general. Julia Roberts was simply the wrong voice for Charlotte. The '73 version had the good grace and foresight to cast Debbie Reynolds as Charlotte. Reynolds' soothing, melodic voice was perfect for a creature meant to be soothing and enchanting. There is life and wonder and hope in it. Roberts' voice is simply too flat and nasally, and becomes actually grating. The casting on the rest of the animals was fine (though the body humor got old after the second "joke"; I long for the days when body "humor" wasn't considered simply part of kids' movie genre), but of the humans only Beau Bridges stands out. I like the actors who played the various parts, but they too come off as lifeless. The whole affair is simply flat, which is ironic considering the wondrousness of the tale attempting to be told.
And then there's the decision to go with hyperrealistic special effects. I found myself wishing they'd stayed with the neat animation that introduced the movie. Instead we're treated to super-macro shots of a spider worthy of an electron microscope. Director Winick should have had the sense to realize that there's no way to make a spider cuddly in close-up. The animated '73 film was wise enough not to try; it showed Charlotte in just enough detail to give her form and features, and left it that. This one, again like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, wants to show off at the expense of the story.
Some of the non-book material is witty, but for the most part it's not and obviously tacked on to tickle kiddies' funny bones. It does, so in that sense I suppose it works, but it's laziness on the part of the filmmakers to feel it's necessary.
In sum, what should be a magical, uplifting movie comes off as flat and, in fact, a little boring. Maybe one of these days the film industry will discover that special effects and high-caliber casts aren't enough to save a lackluster script. It always comes down to the writing, and it simply isn't very good in this version of Charlotte's Web. It has its heart in the right place, and doesn't stray far from the original book in actual plot, for which I have to commend it at least six stars, but it's more interested in being a comedy made for kids than a drama made for smart people, young and old. This is why the '73 version continues to hold my kids in thrall after half a dozen viewings, but they were so bored on a second watching of this new film that they wanted to leave early.
Maybe for Walden the third time will be the charm.
Battlestar Galactica
(2004–2009)
The best poorly written sci-fi show on TV
8 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's an odd place in which my wife and I find ourselves. We're hooked on the show, but why? The characters, all in all, are rather stock and predictable. Ditto the stories and writing, which we've repeatedly predicted as the episodes unfold. This isn't said to pat ourselves on the back, a "Woo-hoo, look how clever we are." No no. It frustrates us, actually. We'd much rather not be able to peg the series as easily as we do, but when the writers consistently take the road most traveled by, stringing clichéd character conflicts and dialogue together to such an excessive degree, it's hard not to be exasperated by it. For all its admittedly excellent production design and decent to good acting, the new incarnation of Battlestar Galactica lacks the originality of the average charm bracelet. It seems the creators expended their creativity on the "reimagining" itself. I'm sure legions of fans are spit-taking their coffee right now, so I'll use the episode we watched tonight, "Flight of the Phoenix," as an example.
Okay--we knew that "Sharon" the Cylon was going to save the day. We knew that Adama would be stern and threaten her and still not trust her in the end. We knew that Tigh (Tighe?) would be blustery and ineffective until suddenly becoming sober and professional after his weekly admonishment from Adama. (Which happens only slightly more frequently than his being manipulated by his irritatingly transparent wife.) We knew that Helo would do something to make the card players who gave him short shrift during the poker game respect him by the end of the episodeand that every card player *would be shown* at the end shaking his hand for it. Everything must be spelled out and tied up neatly for us simple viewer folk. And this is our point: That almost without fail, the writers write to the stereotypes. Yes, Starbuck as created goes against type, but she's a cliché of her own rebellious type. Of course she was going to offer to fly the new fighter that the chief was building, because she's the "hot dog" pilot who's not afraid of anything. But boy, we were sure kept in suspense when Apollo couldn't make radio contact with her. It's this cliché-addled story construction and writing that makes it hard to enjoy the show, because the actors have to react in a realistic way to unrealistically contrived situations. Which explains why the only time in the twenty-three episodes I've watched that I've felt the slightest lump in my throat was in the twenty-second episode when the original theme song began playing.
And yet we are hooked, and we do know why: We want to know what happens. The basic premise of the show, as it was with the original series, is interesting enough that it keeps us turning the pages, as it were. The overall quality of the show, particularly this second season, is good enough that we can return to whet our appetite about where the show is going. But, as with George Lucas' latest Star Wars trilogy, we can't escape the feeling of "Oh, the opportunity lost." The actors on Galactica are better than their material. Well, we think; perhaps they're not and we're glad they have what they do, but at this rate we'll never know. This is badly formulaic television at its best. It's a good thing they've got a great hook.
Okay--we knew that "Sharon" the Cylon was going to save the day. We knew that Adama would be stern and threaten her and still not trust her in the end. We knew that Tigh (Tighe?) would be blustery and ineffective until suddenly becoming sober and professional after his weekly admonishment from Adama. (Which happens only slightly more frequently than his being manipulated by his irritatingly transparent wife.) We knew that Helo would do something to make the card players who gave him short shrift during the poker game respect him by the end of the episodeand that every card player *would be shown* at the end shaking his hand for it. Everything must be spelled out and tied up neatly for us simple viewer folk. And this is our point: That almost without fail, the writers write to the stereotypes. Yes, Starbuck as created goes against type, but she's a cliché of her own rebellious type. Of course she was going to offer to fly the new fighter that the chief was building, because she's the "hot dog" pilot who's not afraid of anything. But boy, we were sure kept in suspense when Apollo couldn't make radio contact with her. It's this cliché-addled story construction and writing that makes it hard to enjoy the show, because the actors have to react in a realistic way to unrealistically contrived situations. Which explains why the only time in the twenty-three episodes I've watched that I've felt the slightest lump in my throat was in the twenty-second episode when the original theme song began playing.
And yet we are hooked, and we do know why: We want to know what happens. The basic premise of the show, as it was with the original series, is interesting enough that it keeps us turning the pages, as it were. The overall quality of the show, particularly this second season, is good enough that we can return to whet our appetite about where the show is going. But, as with George Lucas' latest Star Wars trilogy, we can't escape the feeling of "Oh, the opportunity lost." The actors on Galactica are better than their material. Well, we think; perhaps they're not and we're glad they have what they do, but at this rate we'll never know. This is badly formulaic television at its best. It's a good thing they've got a great hook.
The Family Man
(2000)
Surprisingly good
5 December 2004
I'm astonished this movie doesn't have a higher rating than it does. I'm considered pretty fussy when it comes to giving good ratings, but I'm torn between giving this an 8 or a 9. Perhaps it's got a little to do with my low expectations; I passed on it after its lukewarm reviews and watched it only because of my sister's glowing report. Mostly, though, it's because it's an excellent, affecting film. It could have been played strictly as the contrivance it was, written by the numbers, but the writers did their job. They did what Josh Whedon and David E. Kelly do so well, which is find and mine the real human emotions that would occur in an otherwise outlandish situation. Brett Ratner, for his part, managed to elicit just the right notes out of Cage and Leoni (who's never looked more ravishing; my god), two actors who do well on their own, but their best with the right director. This is definitely Leoni's best performance, and one of Cage's. There are a few moments that don't ring quite true, but they stand out precisely for that reason: They're the exception, not the rule. I love being surprised by a movie. This one did it, and is an instant favorite.
Monster
(2003)
Wow (Very minor implied spoiler)
18 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
As with many people, my main draw to this film was the acclaim for Charlize Theron's performance. Well, that and the physical transformation. Unlike some, at least, though, that transformation didn't distract me from her performance because both are just so superbly well done. Charlize the model is so completely removed in sight and psyche that I ceased to think about it. I simply watched an amazing and, yes, Oscar-worthy performance. This is a tremendous acting achievement from someone who heretofore had precious little to indicate this level of potential. As I say, wow.
I can understand where some might find Theron's performance a little over the top, but personally I didn't think so. Knowing nothing of the real Aileen Wuornos, it struck me as merely the grandiosity of someone whose self has become so stretched beyond the bounds of normal behavior. I also understand but disagree with the opinion of some that the movie dismisses Wuornos' crimes behind so much PC victimology. The unfortunate truth is that whereas many killers are in fact born with an evil bone (and I'll brook no arguments that they aren't), some are indeed bred to it by circumstance. This doesn't excuse their behavior, it merely explains its source, which is what I believe Monster does very well. I think in the scenes where she does feel pity and shows mercy, the movie illustrates that Aileen does indeed know right from wrong, so that later, when she doesn't show that mercy, it's clear she's consciously chosen the wrong, and for the wrong reasons. I just didn't get from the movie the message that she didn't deserve her punishment.
The only minor negative I found in the movie was Christina Ricci's performance. That's not to say it wasn't good, but it struck me as merely that. In retrospect I think she could have occupied the role better. Though in all fairness to her, it may be only that Charlize is so good, Christina by comparison comes off as merely effective.
This is a difficult movie to watch, no doubt about it. It's one of those I'd usually choose to watch on video at home, due to the almost voyeuristic nature of watching something so intensely personal. But I didn't want to wait to check out Charlize's performance. I'd suggest others do the same. The movie is excellent--literally, directorially, musically--but Charlize Theron is outstanding. Go check her out. If you can find her.
I can understand where some might find Theron's performance a little over the top, but personally I didn't think so. Knowing nothing of the real Aileen Wuornos, it struck me as merely the grandiosity of someone whose self has become so stretched beyond the bounds of normal behavior. I also understand but disagree with the opinion of some that the movie dismisses Wuornos' crimes behind so much PC victimology. The unfortunate truth is that whereas many killers are in fact born with an evil bone (and I'll brook no arguments that they aren't), some are indeed bred to it by circumstance. This doesn't excuse their behavior, it merely explains its source, which is what I believe Monster does very well. I think in the scenes where she does feel pity and shows mercy, the movie illustrates that Aileen does indeed know right from wrong, so that later, when she doesn't show that mercy, it's clear she's consciously chosen the wrong, and for the wrong reasons. I just didn't get from the movie the message that she didn't deserve her punishment.
The only minor negative I found in the movie was Christina Ricci's performance. That's not to say it wasn't good, but it struck me as merely that. In retrospect I think she could have occupied the role better. Though in all fairness to her, it may be only that Charlize is so good, Christina by comparison comes off as merely effective.
This is a difficult movie to watch, no doubt about it. It's one of those I'd usually choose to watch on video at home, due to the almost voyeuristic nature of watching something so intensely personal. But I didn't want to wait to check out Charlize's performance. I'd suggest others do the same. The movie is excellent--literally, directorially, musically--but Charlize Theron is outstanding. Go check her out. If you can find her.
Something's Gotta Give
(2003)
Love in the afternoon
7 December 2003
A smart and often very funny movie about love on the back nine of life. It's different than the love of youth, and better, I think: The romance is just as sweet, but richer, with a lifetime of experience swirled around in it.
This is a thoughtful and--not a word I'd usually use, but perfect in this case--delightful movie. Jack is indeed his own type, as the movie makes note, which makes this a role seemingly written for him, playing a legendary Lothario forced to consider what he's missed and missing in such a life. A gutsy role for Nicholson, if you think about it, but because he's Jack, you don't. (Well, until later, obviously.)
Diane Keaton's always been a background actress for me, someone who's always done good to great work, but whose films and roles have never resonated in memory for me. This one I'll remember. For me it's her best. Her candor onscreen is so real at times it's startling; she seems less to be acting than being caught on film.
In the supporting roles, Amanda Peet continues to get better--check out Igby Goes Down for more evidence--and, because I'm a guy, prettier as well. The only false note, not surprisingly, is Keanu Reeves, whose casting is an absolute mystery to me. And as a doctor no less; Joey's Drake Remoray on Friends seems more real. I just don't get how with so many actually good (and more handsome, for that matter) actors available--Ted? The fact that he continues to be cast in roles that require him to emote just further convinces me he's a modern Rasputin.
It's a small price to pay, though. This one's worth evening price. It's as close to genuine as today's Hollywood gets. You'll feel better for it, and actually wish you could be older and in love.
This is a thoughtful and--not a word I'd usually use, but perfect in this case--delightful movie. Jack is indeed his own type, as the movie makes note, which makes this a role seemingly written for him, playing a legendary Lothario forced to consider what he's missed and missing in such a life. A gutsy role for Nicholson, if you think about it, but because he's Jack, you don't. (Well, until later, obviously.)
Diane Keaton's always been a background actress for me, someone who's always done good to great work, but whose films and roles have never resonated in memory for me. This one I'll remember. For me it's her best. Her candor onscreen is so real at times it's startling; she seems less to be acting than being caught on film.
In the supporting roles, Amanda Peet continues to get better--check out Igby Goes Down for more evidence--and, because I'm a guy, prettier as well. The only false note, not surprisingly, is Keanu Reeves, whose casting is an absolute mystery to me. And as a doctor no less; Joey's Drake Remoray on Friends seems more real. I just don't get how with so many actually good (and more handsome, for that matter) actors available--Ted? The fact that he continues to be cast in roles that require him to emote just further convinces me he's a modern Rasputin.
It's a small price to pay, though. This one's worth evening price. It's as close to genuine as today's Hollywood gets. You'll feel better for it, and actually wish you could be older and in love.
Ghosts of the Abyss
(2003)
Good, but could have been great
4 May 2003
Nicely done, but no shock and awe here. I can't give it more than a 7 out of 10 for Paxton's progressively more melodramatic narration and Cameron's too-heavy reliance on the computer gimmickry, but neither hurt it so much as to take away the effect of seeing Titanic up close and personal. My only other complaint was that Cameron somehow managed not to take full advantage of the IMAX-sized screen. I kept waiting for some soaring shots of the various sides and parts of the boat, but it seemed like he always had the camera right up against them where you couldn't get a full measure. I kept thinking, "Dammit, man, back up." And the CG overlays really did start to irritate me a bit. I wanted to see the boat, but often as soon as the CG effects wisped away, it cut to something else. Overall I guess I thought it a little too cluttered technically and not enough lingering over the human touches.
As for the 3D, I thought it did increase the impact some, more than being a mere novelty, but I agree with Roger Ebert that Ghosts would have been a perfect showcase for Maxivision 48. Someday maybe true film fans will unite....
As for the 3D, I thought it did increase the impact some, more than being a mere novelty, but I agree with Roger Ebert that Ghosts would have been a perfect showcase for Maxivision 48. Someday maybe true film fans will unite....
The Man from Snowy River
(1982)
Still my favorite
19 April 2003
Shawshank is superb. Roman Holiday is perfect. Raiders is a blast. But The Man from Snowy River has been, is, and always will be my favorite movie. Some movies just match your personality more than others, trumping any technical deficiencies they may have. No, Snowy River doesn't have the best acting, the best screenplay, the best direction. But in all of them it's great, and the combination of the story, the cast, the scenery, and music (Bruce Rowland deserved an Oscar for his score) is much greater than the sum of its parts. For me, it's everything a movie ought to be: uplifting, heartwarming, optimistic, romantic, adventurous. It swept me away when I was 13 and its magic hasn't dimmed at 34. What a wonderful movie.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
(2003)
Surprisingly good
31 January 2003
That's not to say it's great, but it is to say that not only is it much better than I was expecting -- a friend had to talk me into seeing it -- it's quite good. The clichéd parts are kept to a minimum (although their presence in an otherwise good movie makes them that much more glaring). Both leads perform the rom-com cute/serious balancing act well. Not a classic by any means, but more entertaining than most of the others in the same class, certainly by modern standards.
Fine film, better book
30 November 2002
Read the book. Excerpts are adapted into dialogue for the film with somewhat stunted results; people just don't talk that way. Nonetheless, an extremely advanced film for its time, superior to most war films of any time. The battle sequences are vivid and realistic. (And, I might add, considering practical film effects of the time, probably much more like actual live fire exercises than most of the actors would have liked.) People are being a little lazy in their political commentary on the film, though, extrapolating from a legitimate expose of the grim reality of war and its effect on men and societies to a naive questioning of the occasional necessity of war itself. War is hell, Sherman said, but on to Atlanta he drove anyway. Surely no one thankful for their freedoms and privileges in the U.S. alone can unhypocritically indict war as a last resort for the liberation and preservation of liberty and men's souls. Peace and unity at the expense of human dignity are worthless. Let's not forget that in avoiding the calamity of war, which All Quiet is so effective in portraying, as much as we can.
The Emperor's Club
(2002)
Predictably surprising
24 November 2002
Nothing about Emperor's Club will strike you as new. It's first half especially is an almost perfect retread of Dead Poets Society, et al. But -- Kevin Kline is as effective as always, and the film does introduce flaws into the estimable teacher role that are new, which automatically makes it more interesting than it otherwise would have been. It is a good film in that it's well acted with a better than average script; you've just seen most of it before, and even the new part is rather predictable, if only because the direction is too obvious. A lukewarm recommendation, to be sure, but still a recommendation. It does make me want to watch Dead Poets and Goodbye Mr. Chips again, though.
Seven Samurai
(1954)
A fine film
24 November 2002
I can't rate it as highly as most people here have, though. Innovative, humane, and thoughtful, to be sure, with rich cinematography and some strong acting, all of which make it a film to be much admired. It has its faults, though, partly in the editing--there are places it is needlessly fat, in my opinion--but namely, for me, in the acting of the supporting cast. The overacting which seems to be a common curse of many older films is on display here, with wailing and gnashing of teeth a bit too earnest and plentiful. And it can't be said that that's just a symptom common to all older films, because it's not. Any number of older films--Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, Ninotchka, The Philadelphia Story, to name a paltry few--put the lie to that myth. Not least important, either, is the fact that I wasn't swept up in its story. I was interested in it, to be sure, but I didn't connect with it emotionally like I do with the films I tend to rate better. These are somewhat niggling criticisms, but for me, they are there, and enough so not to place it in the most rarefied air. I can only give a 10 to a flawless film. Samurai has few flaws, but it has some.
Red Dragon
(2002)
Good, but suffers by comparison
20 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Avast ye: Spoilers ahead.
It's not often -- okay, it's never happened -- that I finish a book and see two film adaptations of it the same day. Very interesting -- a little strange, in fact -- experience.
As an adaptation, I think the Ratner and Tally did a good job, but Manhunter shows it could have been vastly better (though Red Dragon's ending was better than Manhunter's). As a stand-alone movie, definitely better than average. I recognize why for time compression certain parts of the book were left out or condensed, but I thought overall the film moved too quickly to achieve its principle goals, mainly (a) expressing the frustration at figuring out Dolarhyde's m.o., and (b) catching Dolarhyde's crucial dichotomy. It achieved the second better than Manhunter, certainly, but it tanked in comparison on the first. Changing Graham's family dynamic was a big mistake, because it helped as much as anything to define Graham's personality and situation. (Plus it just set up even more the significance of Molly's actions at the very end regarding Dolarhyde.)
My biggest beef is with the casting, though. Odd at first blush, I know, because it's obviously a great cast of actors, and ones I really like; I just didn't buy them in these particular roles (or at least with the direction they received from Ratner). Most especially I didn't buy Norton as Graham, as I knew I wouldn't. Norton always does at least a good job, but he wasn't old enough, damaged enough, or bitter enough to be Graham. Graham is an old, tortured, moody soul and Norton is just too young and played him too casually for my taste. William Peterson was just damn near perfect for that role, and I think it would have been a coup to get him back for it. Hopkins scaled down nicely from Hannibal, but he was still too aware that he was playing The Role. Still a little too self-conscious and hammy for me. I do think Ralph Fiennes was a damn good cast for Dolarhyde, and he plays it well, but I think he needed more time to develop than the movie allowed. Plus, almost as important, he wasn't ugly enough. Ultimately it's his facial disfigurement which puts him on his destructive path, and he has ... a bad scar on his lip. I understood from the book that his nose was severely messed up, too, and he'd had failed surgery using sixty-year-old techniques. I mean, there's a reason the other kids called him "c**t face": His face is a hard thing to look at. Fiennes wasn't hard to look at. He just looked too pretty still in the movie for that to be the momentous, singular motivation it was supposed to be.
As for the minor characters, Emily Watson did a good job as Reba, but they made the Reba character weaker than she was in the book or Manhunter (Joan Allen was better), which hurt the story for me because it was largely that attitude that made her relationship with Dolarhyde possible. She had attitude in the book that she lacked in the film. (And a minor quibble: Someone needs to tell actors that blind people don't walk around looking perpetually amazed.) The worst casting choice, though, in my opinion, was Philip Seymour Hoffman for Lounds. I like Hoffman, but I thought he was completely wrong for Lounds not only physically but in demeanor as well. Lounds in the book is an old, gruff, aggressively desperate almost con man, an irritating, insinuating firecracker, not the young, mumbling sloth that Hoffman portrayed him as. I think Scott Glenn made a better Crawford than Keitel, too, but Dennis Farina trumps them both in Manhunter. Keitel's too... big ... for that role. He's not subtle enough, I guess. Crawford's a poker player of men; Keitel's ... well, he's a Bad Lieutenant. Like my friend Jason says, he's a tough guy.)
So overall -- I am mixed. It was a good movie -- I'm giving it 7 out of 10 stars -- but I'm disappointed in the adaptation. It just didn't capture the spirit of the book or the characters nearly as well as it could have, as Manhunter is solid proof. The perfect adaptation would be Manhunter with Red Dragon's Dolarhyde/Reba story, Fiennes and Joan Allen playing the respective parts, with the ending as staged in the book. Both movies change that up to their detriment. Red Dragon is closest on that score, but watch Manhunter if you want to get the best feel for the whole story.
It's not often -- okay, it's never happened -- that I finish a book and see two film adaptations of it the same day. Very interesting -- a little strange, in fact -- experience.
As an adaptation, I think the Ratner and Tally did a good job, but Manhunter shows it could have been vastly better (though Red Dragon's ending was better than Manhunter's). As a stand-alone movie, definitely better than average. I recognize why for time compression certain parts of the book were left out or condensed, but I thought overall the film moved too quickly to achieve its principle goals, mainly (a) expressing the frustration at figuring out Dolarhyde's m.o., and (b) catching Dolarhyde's crucial dichotomy. It achieved the second better than Manhunter, certainly, but it tanked in comparison on the first. Changing Graham's family dynamic was a big mistake, because it helped as much as anything to define Graham's personality and situation. (Plus it just set up even more the significance of Molly's actions at the very end regarding Dolarhyde.)
My biggest beef is with the casting, though. Odd at first blush, I know, because it's obviously a great cast of actors, and ones I really like; I just didn't buy them in these particular roles (or at least with the direction they received from Ratner). Most especially I didn't buy Norton as Graham, as I knew I wouldn't. Norton always does at least a good job, but he wasn't old enough, damaged enough, or bitter enough to be Graham. Graham is an old, tortured, moody soul and Norton is just too young and played him too casually for my taste. William Peterson was just damn near perfect for that role, and I think it would have been a coup to get him back for it. Hopkins scaled down nicely from Hannibal, but he was still too aware that he was playing The Role. Still a little too self-conscious and hammy for me. I do think Ralph Fiennes was a damn good cast for Dolarhyde, and he plays it well, but I think he needed more time to develop than the movie allowed. Plus, almost as important, he wasn't ugly enough. Ultimately it's his facial disfigurement which puts him on his destructive path, and he has ... a bad scar on his lip. I understood from the book that his nose was severely messed up, too, and he'd had failed surgery using sixty-year-old techniques. I mean, there's a reason the other kids called him "c**t face": His face is a hard thing to look at. Fiennes wasn't hard to look at. He just looked too pretty still in the movie for that to be the momentous, singular motivation it was supposed to be.
As for the minor characters, Emily Watson did a good job as Reba, but they made the Reba character weaker than she was in the book or Manhunter (Joan Allen was better), which hurt the story for me because it was largely that attitude that made her relationship with Dolarhyde possible. She had attitude in the book that she lacked in the film. (And a minor quibble: Someone needs to tell actors that blind people don't walk around looking perpetually amazed.) The worst casting choice, though, in my opinion, was Philip Seymour Hoffman for Lounds. I like Hoffman, but I thought he was completely wrong for Lounds not only physically but in demeanor as well. Lounds in the book is an old, gruff, aggressively desperate almost con man, an irritating, insinuating firecracker, not the young, mumbling sloth that Hoffman portrayed him as. I think Scott Glenn made a better Crawford than Keitel, too, but Dennis Farina trumps them both in Manhunter. Keitel's too... big ... for that role. He's not subtle enough, I guess. Crawford's a poker player of men; Keitel's ... well, he's a Bad Lieutenant. Like my friend Jason says, he's a tough guy.)
So overall -- I am mixed. It was a good movie -- I'm giving it 7 out of 10 stars -- but I'm disappointed in the adaptation. It just didn't capture the spirit of the book or the characters nearly as well as it could have, as Manhunter is solid proof. The perfect adaptation would be Manhunter with Red Dragon's Dolarhyde/Reba story, Fiennes and Joan Allen playing the respective parts, with the ending as staged in the book. Both movies change that up to their detriment. Red Dragon is closest on that score, but watch Manhunter if you want to get the best feel for the whole story.
Manhunter
(1986)
Superior in almost every way
20 October 2002
** Massive spoilers ahead **
I had an itch to compare, so I rented Manhunter last night to compare to Red Dragon, which I watched yesterday afternoon. This after just finishing the book yesterday morning.
Manhunter is superb. The most amazing thing about it is how perfectly it follows the book up until the very end, even in the smallest touches. I mean, they even use the same headlines in the Tattler that Harris uses in the book. It starts getting off-track when it first introduces Reba into Dolarhyde's life -- they compress and just change that storyline too much -- but the first three-quarters of the movie are lifted practically straight out of the book, dialogue and all. They kept a lot more of it and followed it precisely when they did. It makes a huge difference. The biggest change Mann made to the storyline is that he chose not to concentrate on Dolarhyde's evolution at all and simply show him as a serial killer. There's no facial scarring at all, so when they do happen to have Reba comment on his speech it makes no sense. It's frustrating because Mann could have dropped a couple of scenes he invented (but which didn't take away from the story at all) to make more time for the Dolarhyde/Reba development, and reimagined the scenes of theirs he already had, and done it just right. In a word, urg. Mann also chose just to change the ending completely, which is rather inexplicable considering his fanatical faithfulness to the rest of the book. He has Graham and Farina go after Dolarhyde in his house. No fire, no Dolarhyde going to Florida after Graham. It's weird.
But his choice in actors was virtually flawless, in my opinion. With the notable exception that Fiennes makes a better Dolarhyde -- but that could merely be because Ratner followed the book more closely in that instance than Manhunter; Tom Noonan probably could have done a good enough job with Fiennes' material -- the actors in every case were better than in the other movies. And -- I know this is heresy -- I think that may even apply to Anthony Hopkins. After watching SOTL again, I think I might actually prefer Brian Cox's take on Lecter better than Hopkins'.
It's a close call. Hopkins has the advantage of being able to portray Lecter in the outside world in the other films, and I think he does a better job of that than Cox would do, but taking strictly the Red Dragon storyline -- I think Cox does a better job. Well -- hm. I don't know. Cox's Hannibal seems more attached to reality, though. Ah, I know what it is: Hopkins is better at portraying Lecter's refined nature, but Cox doesn't overact like Hopkins does in all three of the later films. Hopkins is best in SOTL, but I wish to god he'd played Lecter down in all three of them. For me there would be no question of him as the better Lecter if he'd played Lecter with less glassy, wide eyes and more just as a pleasant, droll connoisseur who happens also to be insane. I'm thinking of his portrayals in Shadowlands or 84 Charing Cross Road, with the serial killer edge. That would have been brilliant. Ah well. I am intensely curious, though, now, to know how well Cox would have done with the SOTL material. I think he could have been damn good.
As for all the other actors, though, no question for me: Manhunter's were better choices. Peterson loses it some when he has to rage a little, but overall he nails Graham. More brooding, more pensive, more defensive, less eager -- angrier -- he's just outstanding, MUCH better than Norton. Jason disagrees with me, but I think Dennis Farina does by far the best Crawford. He likes Scott Glenn in SOTL. Scott's take is fine, but I like Farina's better, though it might just be that he mixes with Peterson better as actors. Joan Allen is closer as Reba, stronger, more direct, even though she never gets the chance to live the character that Emily Cox does in Red Dragon, which is too bad because Joan Allen is a great actress. Stephen Lang is closer as Lounds, Kim Griest as Molly, and even the families chosen to portray the Leeds and Jacobis are better: They're less caricatured; their videos look more like real home videos.
What it comes down to is if you were to take the first three quarters of Manhunter and the last quarter of Red Dragon -- basically use the Dolarhyde/Reba storyline from Red Dragon in Manhunter -- you'd have an outstanding film remarkably true to the book. First and foremost read the book, but after that, watch Manhunter and be amazed.
I had an itch to compare, so I rented Manhunter last night to compare to Red Dragon, which I watched yesterday afternoon. This after just finishing the book yesterday morning.
Manhunter is superb. The most amazing thing about it is how perfectly it follows the book up until the very end, even in the smallest touches. I mean, they even use the same headlines in the Tattler that Harris uses in the book. It starts getting off-track when it first introduces Reba into Dolarhyde's life -- they compress and just change that storyline too much -- but the first three-quarters of the movie are lifted practically straight out of the book, dialogue and all. They kept a lot more of it and followed it precisely when they did. It makes a huge difference. The biggest change Mann made to the storyline is that he chose not to concentrate on Dolarhyde's evolution at all and simply show him as a serial killer. There's no facial scarring at all, so when they do happen to have Reba comment on his speech it makes no sense. It's frustrating because Mann could have dropped a couple of scenes he invented (but which didn't take away from the story at all) to make more time for the Dolarhyde/Reba development, and reimagined the scenes of theirs he already had, and done it just right. In a word, urg. Mann also chose just to change the ending completely, which is rather inexplicable considering his fanatical faithfulness to the rest of the book. He has Graham and Farina go after Dolarhyde in his house. No fire, no Dolarhyde going to Florida after Graham. It's weird.
But his choice in actors was virtually flawless, in my opinion. With the notable exception that Fiennes makes a better Dolarhyde -- but that could merely be because Ratner followed the book more closely in that instance than Manhunter; Tom Noonan probably could have done a good enough job with Fiennes' material -- the actors in every case were better than in the other movies. And -- I know this is heresy -- I think that may even apply to Anthony Hopkins. After watching SOTL again, I think I might actually prefer Brian Cox's take on Lecter better than Hopkins'.
It's a close call. Hopkins has the advantage of being able to portray Lecter in the outside world in the other films, and I think he does a better job of that than Cox would do, but taking strictly the Red Dragon storyline -- I think Cox does a better job. Well -- hm. I don't know. Cox's Hannibal seems more attached to reality, though. Ah, I know what it is: Hopkins is better at portraying Lecter's refined nature, but Cox doesn't overact like Hopkins does in all three of the later films. Hopkins is best in SOTL, but I wish to god he'd played Lecter down in all three of them. For me there would be no question of him as the better Lecter if he'd played Lecter with less glassy, wide eyes and more just as a pleasant, droll connoisseur who happens also to be insane. I'm thinking of his portrayals in Shadowlands or 84 Charing Cross Road, with the serial killer edge. That would have been brilliant. Ah well. I am intensely curious, though, now, to know how well Cox would have done with the SOTL material. I think he could have been damn good.
As for all the other actors, though, no question for me: Manhunter's were better choices. Peterson loses it some when he has to rage a little, but overall he nails Graham. More brooding, more pensive, more defensive, less eager -- angrier -- he's just outstanding, MUCH better than Norton. Jason disagrees with me, but I think Dennis Farina does by far the best Crawford. He likes Scott Glenn in SOTL. Scott's take is fine, but I like Farina's better, though it might just be that he mixes with Peterson better as actors. Joan Allen is closer as Reba, stronger, more direct, even though she never gets the chance to live the character that Emily Cox does in Red Dragon, which is too bad because Joan Allen is a great actress. Stephen Lang is closer as Lounds, Kim Griest as Molly, and even the families chosen to portray the Leeds and Jacobis are better: They're less caricatured; their videos look more like real home videos.
What it comes down to is if you were to take the first three quarters of Manhunter and the last quarter of Red Dragon -- basically use the Dolarhyde/Reba storyline from Red Dragon in Manhunter -- you'd have an outstanding film remarkably true to the book. First and foremost read the book, but after that, watch Manhunter and be amazed.
You Can Count on Me
(2000)
Yes you can
4 July 2001
It's such a rarity and so intensely satisfying to have a movie surpass your high expectations. Instant favorite.
I'm being told I need to use four lines to say what I can in two, so I guess I'll run on a bit. Linney and Ruffalo are true naturals. I'm not used to seeing real people on film. Nor am I used to hearing real dialogue. Kudos to Kenneth Lonergan.
I'm being told I need to use four lines to say what I can in two, so I guess I'll run on a bit. Linney and Ruffalo are true naturals. I'm not used to seeing real people on film. Nor am I used to hearing real dialogue. Kudos to Kenneth Lonergan.
Deep Impact
(1998)
NBC's most expensive made-for-TV movie yet
15 April 2001
When I first saw it, I thought, "That's going to be the worst movie I see for a long time." Then I saw Armageddon, which surprised me by being actually *much* worse than Deep Impact. Having just now watched D.I. for the second time (on television), I have to say it's not as bad this time, maybe because I've seen so many bad movies since then.
But it's still not something that deserves to be on the big screen. It's pure television melodrama, with a huge budget. It has its moments, namely in the script. Tea Leoni does a better job than I gave her credit for the first time. And I give it some credit for having the courage to kill some characters you're urged (and you are urged) to care about.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that it's still woefully contrived, predictable, and downright unrealistic to the point of being annoying. But perhaps the most annoying part is the epic product placement. Forget six degrees of Kevin Bacon; let's see how many connections to NBC we can find in Deep Impact. We have MSNBC practically painted on each frame of the film. (Which only made it more unrealistic. MSNBC as a primary news source? Gimme a break.) We have a former director of "E.R." as director, and Dreamworks (produces E.R.) as the production company. And we have a veritable who's who of current and past actors of NBC programs: Tea Leoni (The Naked Truth), Laura Innes (E.R.), Ron Eldard (E.R.), Richard Schiff (The West Wing), Blair Underwood (L.A. Law.), Bruce Weitz (Hill Street Blues). Am I leaving anyone out? I don't know how much NBC forked over for this two-hour long commercial, but they didn't do themselves any favors with it. It just makes me question their judgment that much more.
Better than I thought originally, upon second viewing, but only because I was watching it on TV, where it belonged in the first place.
But it's still not something that deserves to be on the big screen. It's pure television melodrama, with a huge budget. It has its moments, namely in the script. Tea Leoni does a better job than I gave her credit for the first time. And I give it some credit for having the courage to kill some characters you're urged (and you are urged) to care about.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that it's still woefully contrived, predictable, and downright unrealistic to the point of being annoying. But perhaps the most annoying part is the epic product placement. Forget six degrees of Kevin Bacon; let's see how many connections to NBC we can find in Deep Impact. We have MSNBC practically painted on each frame of the film. (Which only made it more unrealistic. MSNBC as a primary news source? Gimme a break.) We have a former director of "E.R." as director, and Dreamworks (produces E.R.) as the production company. And we have a veritable who's who of current and past actors of NBC programs: Tea Leoni (The Naked Truth), Laura Innes (E.R.), Ron Eldard (E.R.), Richard Schiff (The West Wing), Blair Underwood (L.A. Law.), Bruce Weitz (Hill Street Blues). Am I leaving anyone out? I don't know how much NBC forked over for this two-hour long commercial, but they didn't do themselves any favors with it. It just makes me question their judgment that much more.
Better than I thought originally, upon second viewing, but only because I was watching it on TV, where it belonged in the first place.
Almost Famous
(2000)
Almost perfect
16 September 2000
What a great movie. Nuanced performances and direction from a heartfelt, natural script. And that I can't have Kate Hudson all to myself is a crime against, well, me. Is it perfect? No, but the gripes are too inconsequential to muddy the mood, so I'm not going to bother. Instantly one of my favorites.
The Amityville Horror
(1979)
So much for curiosity
9 September 2000
I've wondered about TAH ever since I was a kid seeing the previews on TV. I remember as a ten-year-old thinking it looked pretty scary. Well, the only thing scary about it is how bad it is, and in that sense it's frightening. Holy smoke this was a bad movie. I've seldom seen worse. Ed Wood movies are even better than this, 'cause at least they're comically bad. This was just.... It's one of those movies where I'm just constantly boggled by how the director could possibly think, "Yeah, that's the take I wanted, right there. Nailed it." I mean, this was high-school Hi-8 quality. Man alive. I'm stunned.
Tumbleweeds
(1999)
Much better than its plot
4 September 2000
The superb acting makes the fairly formulaic story fade into the background, at least for me. The script seems unnecessarily predictable in parts, which was a little disappointing at the moment, but overall, I've seldom seen a more realistic and vibrant portrayal of a mother and daughter who dearly love each other. Watching that, everything else is forgivable. Fine, touching performances all around.
Fight Club
(1999)
Good movie, bad philosophy
22 July 2000
Unfortunately, it seems many people are attracted to the philosophy the film ends up exposing as an empty fallacy. Someone commented that "This film is the voice of disillusionment, of realising that the world we live in places unrealistic hopes and expectations on our lives and goals." Excuse me, no: WE place them. Nobody is responsible for the choices we make in our lives but us. Norton's character--and anybody like him--is trapped only by his inability to make those necessary choices in his life. And the answer isn't anarchy. While the ending is somewhat disappointing and goofy, at least the film has the intelligence to recognize that fact. Fight Club is a very well done movie, with an intoxicating visual style, compelling script, and performances that will blow your hair back. But lest anyone miss it, what Tyler espouses *is* a bad thing, for the individual and society, and that's the real moral of the movie. Unfortunately a lot of folks not only do seem to be missing that, but doing so enthusiastically, which is kind of pathetic, and a little unsettling.
The Perfect Storm
(2000)
Missed the boat
21 July 2000
The book was about a storm. The movie was about a boat. Peterson completely missed the point, and in a big way. I was wary of this one from the minute I read the book. When I heard Peterson was helming it, my fears abated a tad. Maybe, just maybe, the director of Das Boot and In the Line of Fire could pull it off. Unfortunately it was the director of Air Force One that showed up. Stinky, man, stinky. Stunningly cliched dialogue and characterizations, fictional and totally unnecessary additions to the real story (which was more compelling than what was presented), and confused stories. If you read the book, you know about the tanker and the sailboat; in the movie they're mere distractions with no reason for being there.
Once again Hollywood grabs and guts a damn good true story.
Once again Hollywood grabs and guts a damn good true story.
The Blair Witch Project
(1999)
UnbeWitched
30 January 2000
I finally decided it was time to see what all the fuss was about. Now that I know, I'm a little boggled. Am I missing something here? How can I be scared at something so patently unrealistic? If this were truly realistic, the footage would have ended about an hour into the movie, at the point where the three film makers decide their lives are more important than camera equipment, ditch the backpacks, and hike non-stop, day and night, south and/or east until they get to civilization. They have a compass. They have legs. Make use of them. Don't stop every night and invite the evil right up to your doorstep. Maryland's just not that big, and there's plenty of populous all around it. Go towards it, all the time. And take a cell phone while you're at it, just for emergencies. A creative idea, to be sure (though not necessarily as original as previously thought, cf. The Last Broadcast), and the first half-hour or so is promising, but the stunning stupidity of the characters made the last hour of the movie just an irritating joke.
We give a pass to most movies, especially horror movies, when they're unrealistic, because we know they're fictions trying to pass themselves off as reality. But Blair Witch tries to pass itself off as the reality itself, as a documentary, and in so doing sets a higher standard of realism for itself. For me, it failed miserably in meeting it.
We give a pass to most movies, especially horror movies, when they're unrealistic, because we know they're fictions trying to pass themselves off as reality. But Blair Witch tries to pass itself off as the reality itself, as a documentary, and in so doing sets a higher standard of realism for itself. For me, it failed miserably in meeting it.
American Pie
(1999)
This isn't your mother's pie
30 January 2000
There's Something About Mary in high school, also read as, "More things I really don't want to see on a movie screen." I'll really be glad when this current crop of American film-makers grow up. For that matter, I'll be happy when the current generations of the American public grow up. "America: The Teenage Years." What, people are sexual? Stop the presses. Get over it already. I had no desire to see this movie when it was in theaters, but kept hearing such good things about it I decided finally to check it out. I think I'll go watch The Philadelphia Story again to cleanse myself.
Tell Your Friends