Reviews

60 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
A much-needed laugh-a-second pastiche of romcoms
5 July 2014
David Wain and his well-established troupe of actor-comedians -- along with a few new brilliant featured players -- have done it again. This is not only a smartly crafted film that transcends the lazy simplicity of a prototypical parody film (it actually has a forward-moving plot and characters who develop over the course of the narrative, as opposed to just a string of jokes loosely tied together). It is also the first movie I've seen in years that left me laughing out loud at every turn.

This likely has as much to do with the high caliber of its cast as the incisive and hilarious writing that is also true to the prosaic genre it is skewering.

As much as I've enjoyed (surprisingly) some of Wain's more commercial fare of recent years, it was so refreshing to see his reliable team and him back in doing what they do best and have proved to be the unarguable masters of: Pure pastiche. It's one thing to poke fun at romcoms (especially THESE days with such predictable drivel bombarding us wherever we go). But to deftly embrace the genre and play with it WHILE also playing by the strictures of said genre is what makes Wain a true craftsman.

Unfortunately, as with The State and Stella, such comedy isn't as easily accessible and fast-food digestible as the hackneyed, broad comedy most audience members are being fooled into spending their money on today. But, it's nice to know that at least someone is out there working to make funny films for the rest of us.
40 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blue Jasmine (2013)
Woody Allen completely redeems himself at last
27 July 2013
Blue Jasmine is the first Woody Allen movie (aside from possibly Match Point) that I not only didn't hate, but actually loved since Sweet and Lowdown.

Allen went back to school and relearned story structure, character development and pacing. Laugh out loud funny from moment one until the end, with the best ensemble by far (they actually seemed like they were real people and not just du jour stars acting in a Woody Allen movie!).

Cate Blanchett gives the best performance of her career or anyone else's in a long time (with kudos to her obvious rubric, Judy Davis, who she channels marvelously throughout).

And Andrew Dice Clay will make you cry; so glad to see him being used in such a clever way. He deserves this.

This will absolutely sweep all awards, and for the first time in over a decade, the Allen crew will have actually earned it!! No more resting on laurels and skirting by on "Well, yeah it had some problems, but that one part was soooo funny/good ..."

Hope he stays in the U.S. Clearly it does him some much needed good after his prolonged Euro vacation.
63 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I've heard of plot holes, but this movie is stinky Swiss cheese!
10 August 2012
Granted, I found the first Nolan Batman to be overblown, dull, trite, and a bit silly (does Christian Bale really need to talk in the Batman voice like that? Thank goodness they made fun of that on South Park), and the second to be a bit better I suppose, but the third might be the worst of all.

And the fact that there are those claiming it was "perfection" or "flawless" must have either seen a different film than I or are taking their job in the studio's marketing dept. way too seriously (most likely the latter).

Let's forget Bale's awful voice work which has marred the entire Batman legacy throughout these three films (there continues to be one Batman and his name is Michael Keaton; I'd rue the thought of how the latter-day Burton would ruin the series further, but his initial two remain some of the last great masterpieces of commercial/studio film to be consigned to celluloid in the last era).

Why did Bane need to sound the way HE did? I tell you, I'm not expecting cogent story lines or apt character development from a film like this or from Nolan, but as soon as Bane started talking in the first two minutes of the film, my girlfriend and I turned to each other and knew right away we were in trouble.

Forgetting the fact he sounds like an arch-villain from an early 80s action cartoon (or an American Sean Connery, perhaps), whomever did the technical work on his ADR really dropped the ball. You can tell easily that his voice was incorporated into the soundtrack in a way wholly different from everyone else in the film. He sounds like he's talking in voice over the entire time. Yikes. If this movie gets nominated for Best Sound Editing, I'll know the Academy has absolutely no credence at all anymore.

Other technical and editing faults spiral throughout the film. I blame Nolan again for this, as so many of the scenes in which characters are talking to each other are clearly edited poorly. Really took me out of the film. And, again, I'm not looking for artistry in a shoot-em up comic book movie made for acne-face'd teenagers, but one would think the filmmakers would AT LEAST get the spectacle/technical aspects of the thing right. Shame. Lazy work all around.

The acting was, as usual for these films, subpar except for possibly Gary Oldman who for once didn't have a slew of cliché comic book/TV lines to spout ("Gotta get me one of THOSE!" Yich).

Then, of course, there's the many, many, many plot holes that are truly just befuddling. Namely the fact that we have an underground prison that is a central focus of the film and is supposed to be enshrouded in pure darkness, is to be "Hell on Earth," and one of the worst -- if not THEE worst -- places someone can be exiled to... and yet whenever they show the actual place, it's well-lit and the folks who "live" there seem nothing but nice, as though inhabiting a communal little village in which you have doctors and gurus and mentors helping each other out. WHY is this place a Hell on Earth that would spawn "pure evil" like Bane? I couldn't figure that one out.

(And without giving any spoilers, the way out of the place was so obvious -- even to the prisoners themselves -- that it makes one wonder why more of the prisoners don't just up and leave.)

You also have the total unreality of a booming metropolis under complete lockdown for like six months and yet everyone still somehow has electricity, water, heat, food, makeup, clean clothes, etc. and even a relatively chipper attitude throughout? I would've thought Gotham would digress into Lord of the Flies pretty quickly, but apparently everyone just stays traditionally phlegmatic in Nolan's yawningly dull cinemaverse.

(Not to mention a police force stuck underground who seem to be kinda fine with that after months of no light or clean bathroom facilities.)

Sorry, there's suspension of disbelief and then there's just bafflingly lazy writing mixed with lobotomized audience members.

As with the first Batman, I was also so incredibly bored for the first hour or so trying to stay awake for Nolan's signature needlessly convoluted, chaotically discursive, and haplessly disorganized "plot"lines that rather than being fooled like the illiterates who found this movie to somehow be better than Sunset Blvd, The Professional, or Once Upon a Time in the West according to the IMDb score they gave it, I knew -- yet again -- that Nolan is no genius but only a comic book enthusiast who thinks he's making a two-hour TV drama.

And two hours were two hours too long here. Even when the movie finally picked up with some action about halfway through (aside from the loud and obnoxious first few seconds that might as well have been one explosion before moving into the doldrums for the next interminable sixty minutes), I had trouble keeping awake, wondering how much longer this seemingly five-hour marathon would go on for.

Why didn't I leave sooner? Because $20 for an IMAX ticket is too much to step away from in this day and age and I thought MAYBE there would be some kind of pay-off in the end (there really wasn't; it goes pretty much where you think it would go).

So, in conclusion: 1) Fair to poor acting, 2) Awful sound design and voice work, 3) Shoddy/lazy technical logistics, 4) Meandering and hopelessly disorganized script -- surprise -- 5) And, sadly for an action film whose one goal is to entertain popcorn flick style, BORING.
19 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Take Shelter (2011)
Sorry, just wasn't good
24 October 2011
Like so many others, I saw this film for three reasons: 1) I've been a longtime Michael Shannon fan and am excited to see he's finally getting bigger roles for himself ("My Son, My Son..." being one of my favorite recent films), 2) The trailer made the film look astounding, and, of course, 3) The movie has been receiving great plaudits and reviews.

You can imagine my disappointment then when almost right away I realized what a mistake I had made in spending the $10.50 on a film that clearly wouldn't hold muster.

Almost immediately, I realized I was watching some kind of M. Night Shyamalan film at its worst (which is saying a lot). "Take Shelter" indulges in a protracted and achingly dull build tinctured by religious subtext that leads to what is inarguably a hackneyed ending with no substance. The entire film might as well have been one big "nightmare"; the ending was that cliché and obvious.

I've been particularly disappointed lately with similar films that appear to have something going for them in the trailer and concept -- "Source Code," "Inception" -- but on actual viewing, turn out to be TV show fare invoking the garden variety plots and uninteresting twists that anyone who is a reader or film fan has grown tired of being lived out over and over again in recent cinema.

I thought this movie would be calculus, but really it was just algebra... maybe basic arithmetic. And much like other contemporary films like "Donnie Darko" that have been pitched as new or even "cult classics," it's not a matter of "not getting it," it's a matter of simply having seen it too many times before.

These are not vibrant and innovative indie films; these are poorly made movies that because of budget constraints and inexperience of the writer/directors, simply look and seem bad enough to be "indie," when in fact they're no different than the crap spewed by larger studios.

I guarantee after this, we'll see the director trying his hand at a "Spider-Man" movie or "Twilight" or god-knows-what, and that'll be the last you'll see of his more "inventive" independent films...

Ultimately, "Take Shelter" is boring, pointless, and confusing/unrealistic in its character's motivations. The rigidly formulaic script seems like it was written with a chart, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

The acting is probably the only decent part of the movie, but -- again -- as the writer/director chose to marinate the project in soap opera melodrama, that too is not saying much.

If you're a fan of films like "Darko" and just can't get enough of your "Lost" or "24" box sets, maybe you'll dig this film. For everyone else, ignore the hype. This one's another sheep in wolf's clothing.
33 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thank goodness truly provocative cinema still exists
26 September 2011
We recently screened Godard's contentious "Film Socialisme" at a small art-house cinema in Boulder, CO where I live and I couldn't be more delighted by the response. Namely, there were many people who were infuriated about the film, leaving in droves and upset that such a film both exists and/or would be shown at said theater (the only art-house theater in the city, actually).

One patron was even angry enough to leave a note behind for the concessions stand stating that she "speaks French" and was particularly upset about the subtitles of the film. She'd probably be the kind of person to get upset about the "punctuation problems" in ee cummings' poems. And don't get her started on Andy Kaufman!

First and foremost, "Film Socialisme" is without a doubt a beautiful film. The way in which it was shot and edited is visionary, a true patchwork of modern/post-modern society/cinema today. The kind of film that -- as with the majority of Godard's ouevre -- may be ahead of its time but will certainly be enjoyed by sincere cinephiles looking for something new, bold and fresh. Beyond any sense of provocation, there were true moments of visual/audio splendor that simply cannot be seen anywhere else (by sheer merit of the fact that, yes I agree, no one else would be "allowed" to make/distribute such a film; and that in itself is important when considering whether or not you should spend the money/time on seeing it in the theater).

Clearly, the subtitles of the film -- which are minimalist and fractured (clearly intentionally) - - are a play on one of the film's many themes: the breakdown of communication and language (think Gertrude Stein texting you viz. her thoughts on modern society). That people are growing angry about the challenging and innovative way Godard has aptly chosen to play even now with the very subtitles of his film is extremely exciting. Not to mention the fact that, again, aside from the "gimmick," the subtitles become a poetic innovation unto themselves in which Godard combines words into fascinating portmanteaus that invoke clever wordplay a la some of the greater avant-garde/surrealist literature.

He has finally gone that extra distance in deconstructing every aspect of the film (including, at times, a brilliant dalliance with the audio mix that clearly has confounded viewers a la similar experiments by the likes of the Velvet Underground, Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman and La Monte Young; there are moments in which you truly wonder whether or not there is an "actual" breakdown of the film being shown -- especially if you're lucky enough to see this film through digital projection; "Is there something wrong with the disc?! Oh no!!" Very exciting. Audience interaction, indeed!)

Ultimately and as per Godard's typical (?) MO, the film is a firm lashing of the perpetuated bourgeois culture (particularly in America; hence his giving us the finger for not knowing French or the many other languages interspersed throughout the polyglot film; "You don't want to learn another language? Fine. Try figuring THIS out!!")

Like Lenny Bruce and a younger John Waters, with "Film Socialisme" Godard is shaking up audience members -- particularly his "greatest fans" -- by provoking them in ways they may not be comfortable with, in ways that may simply repel them. "You want to be shocked? I'll shock you, but be prepared to be, well c'mon: shocked." We don't go to Godard films to watch a clear narrative or to understand everything that happens. It's poetry, it's visual/audio artistry, it's -- ultimately -- play and experimentation. And Godard has once again succeeded in creating something that will not allow us to remain static in our seats. If you can't handle that, he is saying as always, then feel free to leave and don't forget to ask for a refund on your way out.

The megaplex is right down the street. Or, hey, buy a copy of "Breathless" and watch a nice "really weird and wild!!!!" noir film with a plot. It's all up to you!

In the end, the film defies quotation marks. If you want "challenging," you've got plenty of it on Netflix. If you want challenging, however, see "Film Socialisme." Just don't be too upset if it... challenges you.
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Stocked full of fun, a forgotten Christmas classic!
12 June 2011
This movie is sensational!

Having originally outgrossed Nightmare on Elm Street during its first run before being yanked for being too much for persnickety parents -- take THAT, Freddy! -- Silent Night, Deadly Night is one of the many films I remember seeing posters and VHS boxes for in the ol' video store as a kid -- along with the likes of Slumber Party Massacre and Sleepaway Camp -- that made me both frightened and curious...

Growing up into an avid cinephile, I forgot my youthful memories of the films until recently when a buddy of mine who specializes in the 80s slasher/horror genre got me hooked right into the scene. I've found loads of great films that are simple, pure fun, Silent Night, Deadly Night probably being my favorite for hardcore passion and purity of vision.

No compromises here!

What's great about the film is that you don't just get some off-the-wall outrageous and wild moments of true slasher uniqueness -- images that will be indelible in your mind for the rest of your life, for sure! -- but also some circa 80s magic: everything from hair to clothes to one of the best/worst soundtracks you've ever heard (some of the songs, including one that plays over a hilarious TV-show-esque montage makes you think Trey Parker is singing with his signature sardonic crooner's drawl).

After watching a film like this, it's easy to see why well-known cineaste-filmmakers like Tarantino are so into the genre: again, the purity of vision and outright passion to put something out that is just pure entertainment, going the distance in every way without worrying about anything but constructing a commercial product that will appeal to the most base, primal sensations and overstimulate to the point of nearly being overwhelming makes for something far too rare in the rest of cinema history. Watching a movie like this is like eating a bucket full of chocolate!

This is true exploitation at its very best; it's a film that makes you feel dirty for watching it at points, and -- yes -- that you should be "punished" for watching/enjoying its splatterfest.

Give it a try...!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Unwatchable, not just because of Shia
11 June 2011
This movie was unbelievably awful. Never thought it possible that Oliver Stone could make a film that would be across-the-board bad.

Even the music, aside from a few of the Eno/Byrne songs, was horrible; and the few "good" songs previously mentioned were used inappropriately over dialogue, etc.

Whereas the first film was about morality, truth, the human soul and actual characters, this mess is quite literally about Wall Street and the financial crisis without being humanistic at all. The verbiage is as complicated as the needlessly complex plot (just read the synopsis to get an idea of how foolishly turgid the movie is).

There should have been no sequel at all, but if one had to be made, there were a lot more options available with such an indelible and fascinating character as Gordon Gekko. A real shame. Oliver will hopefully come back strong with his next film.

The fact that Allan Loeb wrote this and Just Go With It and The Switch and still has a number of other projects in the works confirms and exacerbates my fear about the reality of Hollywood today, the choices that creative executives are making.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Toy Story 3 (2010)
9/10
Not just best Toy Story, best movie of 2010
29 April 2011
Finally saw Toy Story 3.

By far the best movie of last year, and in fact that only one I would classify as truly "great." I love the other Toy Story movies, but this was definitely the best. Not only was it laugh-out funny through a majority of it -- even within the first few scenes -- but there were moments of action and intensity unlike anything I'd ever seen in a "cartoon" before, and maybe even live-action.

It was perfect. Flawless.

And it was interesting to watch such a well-made movie... that actually made me feel good for once rather than more depressed or scared or angry!!

One of the tricks of Pixar that the few other studios competing for the same market refuse to learn is this: while talking with one of the writers of Finding Nemo way back when, I explained to him my surprise at how well the screenplay came off in the film, how funny and enjoyable I found the movie to be despite its being "for kids."

He laughed and explained to me that he and the other Pixar folks knew their kids would make them watch the DVD thousands of times... and since said kids would be happy just seeing talking fish, why not write the rest of the movie for adults? Make it something they could enjoy endlessly, too? Good point.

Check out Toy Story 3 if you haven't yet. Pixar wins (again)!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source Code (2011)
2/10
Boring, trite and everything mainstream cinema has been for too long
13 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I had seen Moon and thought there was definitely something there.

As someone who grew up on sci-fi books and Twilight Zone, I was well-prepared for the story and "twist" that -- frankly -- was rather obvious and direct from the get-go. But, I love Sam Rockwell, thought he was the key to the film, and I was ready to see something from the same director. I was particularly interested to see what the kid would do with a bigger cast, more money and a larger platform.

Well, he did exactly what every other small, indie director does once he can "break out": he made a total flop of a film loosely based on ideas and stories we've seen a million times before.

Now, I didn't much care for Inception (and those who did might enjoy this film, because it's very similar, less for story -- which is comparable -- and more for tone: a heady, needlessly complicated film that puts style and pseudo-intellectual malarkey above plot and character development), and I did not see Deja Vu (which sounds very similar, especially the "eight minutes" part, if I recall from trailers).

Regardless, Source Code was no more "original" than any other large-scale movie that has come out in the last 20 years (if you think Sixth Sense -- which I actually thought was a decent film -- was "original" in its "twist" ending, then you really need to read more and/or, again, watch a few episodes of Twilight Zone). Frankly, no studio and no investor (indie or otherwise) can take a chance on a director's sophomore effort and -- essentially -- a first- time writer. Nolan got to do what he did with Inception because of the Batman franchise. Period. It's Show "Business," not a non-profit museum board. These movies have to make money, not art. It's just the way it is nowadays, especially with more and more execs fearing for their jobs.

To be blunt, I fell asleep through most of this film. Granted, it was late and I was a little tipsy from a previous dinner, but the sleep saved me from having to watch endless repetitions of the same series of sequences running with -- again -- far too little actual plot and almost no real character development.

I'm not surprised at all that this film was the writer's first theatrically released project and that his previous endeavors are straight-to-DVD Species sequels. This film was exactly the kind of project that a fellow like that has mulling around in his head -- we've seen it before, has little to no real substance, understands little of traditional plot/character development, shoddy/wooden dialogue with "hollow men" type characters who are all completely 2-D (some rather "intentionally").

And, yes, regardless of what anyone might want to say about quantum physics or whatnot, it will be as clear as day to anyone else who understands both narrative screen writing theory and Hollywood politics that very obviously there was an ending (which was neither "tragic" nor "happy," just a little more "real")... and then the studio brass probably got nervous and had one of their nephews slap on the saccharine "Everything will be fine, folks, go home and tip your waiter on the way out" tag that so many people are complaining about (even though I fell asleep, I awoke for the last 30 minutes or so, and both my friend and I were well aware that "second" ending did not belong).

I'm surprised that David Bowie's son would be involved in a mess like this (another reason I had seen the film), but -- as they say -- "even Karl Marx had to pay for his beer."

Overall, this movie has nothing to offer an educated audience nor one looking for something unique and even remotely interesting. Yes, I felt similar viz. Inception, but look what happened there. So, many I'm totally off-base.

Up to you!
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pandorum (2009)
2/10
Are you kidding?
13 February 2011
There's a good reason this movie performed so poorly at the box office and that the studio itself clearly had no interest in promoting/marketing this film. Normally, I wouldn't give much credence to BO--plenty of great movies never see the light of day--but this time, popularity and quality go hand in hand.

Yikes.

What seemed like a great premise goes nowhere fast and turns into a mishmash of about six other films and far too many genres. You've literally got ninja warriors with alien demons along with tried and true sci-fi tropes that we've seen far too many times before. The end result isn't a psychological thriller or a complicated and taut sci-fi fantasy film, but just solid crap unworthy of even a made-for-TV-movie.

To discover that the director decided to "meld" a script he already had with the one he read by the screenwriter of this pile is not a surprise. The only surprise is that there weren't thirteen or so other scripts that were cut and pasted together to make this one a gruesome and sad reality.

The only reason I continued watching the film to the end was because I thought that maybe- -just maybe--there would be some fantastic twist or last minute revelation, and though there was a feeble attempt at such a plot turn, in the end, there's really nothing worth sitting through in Pandorum.

Don't waste your time the way I have. If you have any sense of taste or any semblance of understanding of film/sci-fi, you'll quickly be able to detect within the first five minutes of this mess that you won't need my advice. Just trust that what's bad never gets better.

Trash.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm Still Here (I) (2010)
5/10
Boring and self-indulgent
19 January 2011
I had been waiting far too long to finally see I'm Still Here. I've been something of a Joaquin Phoenix (and Casey Affleck) fan in the past--loving some of their films, not really caring for others--and was interested to see exactly how they would pull this off. Especially since everyone--it would seem since day one--knew the whole thing was a hoax.

And not just because we were all told as much throughout the process of the filmmaking, but because we live in a society in which we all know nothing is no longer improvised. They can call it "reality TV" all they want, but there always writers, editors, and ultimately, producers who make sure things go according to plan. It's entertainment, not documentary.

Everyone gets nice mileage no matter if that publicity is good or bad when something goes seemingly "awry" whether it's Kanye West shoving aside a country teen idol or Justin Timberlake unlatching a bra. There are simply too many people involved and too much money at stake for anything to happen "by chance" or "on the spot" anymore.

More than anything, I'm Still Here is a firm testament to this sad reality. Nothing can truly go wrong anymore or be as strange as it once could be, because of everything from reasons of technical (five second delays, etc.) to financial (gotta pay that assistant).

With I'm Still Here, you're watching one long-running joke... all the while knowing the punch line. And what's really disappointing, is that we've seen this before, and much better executed by the likes of Andy Kaufman and early Sacha Baron Cohen.

What we end up with then, is a film with no tension or suspense. No cares or responsibilities. You're just watching Joaquin Phoenix jerking off all over the camera (more than once, almost literally) for an hour-and-a-half, and whereas this would make a somewhat funny YouTube video for five minutes, an entire feature-film just is too much.

Whether this kind of masturbatory self-indulgence was part of the Phoenix-Affleck plan doesn't matter as much as the fact that it's just not fun to watch. Almost from the get-go. It's impressive that they went as far with it as they did, but nevertheless, what they made was a film, not a concept. And though the concept might be worth a chuckle, the film is just flat, dull, and repetitive.

I think one way they could have made the film a bit more engaging, to take it to the next level, would be to have dealt more with the "is it a hoax or is it not a hoax" concept, even amongst Phoenix's own entourage. Instead, we end up with a film almost exclusively about Phoenix trying to hunt down Sean Combs all over the country in order to make a record he would never produce.

This was a singular opportunity for two very big stars at the top of their game to really exploit and expose a system they have embraced and in some ways have helped establish on a modern- day level. They could have really gone the distance, but instead decided to fall back on a simple fart joke that just isn't that funny, because we've heard it one time too many already.

It will be interesting to see what the boys do next...
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Am I missing something?
31 December 2010
This movie was tragically bad.

Why anyone would compare this mess to the works of Tarkovsky or Terrence Malick is completely baffling to me and probably will be to you, too.

I loved Russian Ark, but this was simply a poorly made student film with no passion, no zeal, and no interesting qualities whatsoever. Some of the silent and slow moments were rather meditative, but I would've much rather have seen this as a short film.

The story was dull and trite, and frankly I didn't appreciate the message or idea at all. A mother who loved her son that much should let him go into the world and be his own man. That's the definition of true love, not keeping him around to wilt along with she. And if the young man loved his mother, he would "let her go" rather than allow her to suffer and strain in such pain.

Maybe it's a philosophy conflict between myself and this director, but I did not see this movie as a love poem, but rather an example of true selfishness on the part of both characters.

And the cinematography. Oy vey! This is where I was most confused, as already suggested. When I saw the box for the DVD, I was already a bit surprised to see the description of the film (which concentrated almost solely on how beautiful the movie looked). From the pictures, it looked like a made-for-TV movie in some backwater E. European town...

... and indeed, when I put the movie on, that's exactly what it looked like. Such splendid landscapes, to be sure, but sullied completely by ridiculous filters that distorted each view and that put a faded greenish brown tincture to everything. This did not represent a dream or a hallucination or the "act of decay" for me. It just looked bad.

Really bad. And even beyond the silly, obfuscating filters and the like, the compositions were horrendous. There was no semblance of aesthetic responsibility in the creation of the shots. Looked like they just randomly set the actors in various places and blindly left the camera wherever it would stand.

If Lars von Trier were to try yet again to make "the crappiest film ever" as he tends to joke about doing, he couldn't make something that looked this awful. For people to excuse the terrible narrative concept for the cinematography is just strange. Perhaps I need to see it on the big screen?

Thank goodness this one is so short. Ugh. Avoid at all costs!
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Head (1968)
10/10
Not what you'd expect from the Monkees
13 December 2010
For once, the qualifier "____ on acid" works here. This truly is "Hard Day's Night etc. etc.", with not only psychadelica and "grooviness" all the way, but true philosophic discourse and existential wonderment that will make you think as much as it will make you laugh.

Imagine tripping to an episode of the Brady Bunch while pondering the nature of reality vs. illusion.

It's all here in Head, but you must be warned: it is a trip, and as such, comes with as many lows as highs. There are certainly moments of nightmarish quality, but overall, it's worth the ride. It's just surprising that a group like the Monkees would be involved in such an undertaking, and probably a large reason this movie has never been taken more seriously or acknowledged as something truly special.

Best not to learn too much about it before you see it except to know that it stars the Monkees, is co-written by Jack Nicholson (back in the day), and directed by Bob "Five Easy Pieces" Rafelson.

It'll make you laugh, it'll make you rethink your entire perspective of media and the 60's, and might even scare you a few times with a sense of "the Fear" that is mixed wonderfully with beatific music that will also make you rethink the music of the Monkees (and whether or not they actually play or not is moot; it's truly great stuff).

If Oliver Stone (in the 90's) and Quentin Tarantino were to get together and produce their own series of Monty Python episodes, it would end up something like this... as long as it were shot like and used the musical ques of sitcoms from the mid-60's.

Enjoy... But be careful... You will be surprised.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Due Date (2010)
5/10
The Hangover it's not
12 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I was pleasantly surprised when my roommate all but forced me into watching The Hangover with him one Saturday afternoon. I don't remember the last time I laughed so hard during a film. What made the experience so particularly great for me, though, was that The Hangover brings together not only fantastic, side-splitting comedy, but also craftsmanship on every level, be it a tight screenplay that constantly works and keeps you wanting more, pitch- perfect acting, and deft direction and editing.

Due Date... has basically none of these elements. Sure, there are a few laughs here or there-- and I disagree with those who would say the funniest moments are in the trailer, as I didn't find the trailer very funny at all--but overall, this is what I would expect from a Todd Phillips film. The simple, basic, fratastic bilge that could only be funny to a bunch of thick-necked guys (or lanky Star Wars geeks wishing they were the former) who are wasted on flat beer and soggy potato chips. Yawn.

I don't know how he did it, but Phillips even got a bad performance out of Robert Downey Jr.

There were whole sequences that didn't need to be in the film at all, and way too much that we've seen far too many times before, and not just in Trains, Planes, and Automobiles (of course that comparison is going to be made; this is merely a raunchy, sloppy update of the former).

You know there's a problem when a scene in which Zach G.'s character guest stars on an episode of Two and a Half Men is the funniest moment in the film. And, yes, to answer your question, he does play exactly the same character he played in The Hangover; only now he seems self-aware of what he did in the previous and is just trying to do the same, only much worse. A shame, too; he's still probably one of the funniest comedians/actors on the scene. But, we all have to make a buck. As they say, "Even Karl Marx had to pay for his beer."

Frankly, I just didn't get this film. I would actually compare it more to Road Trip than to PT&A, which makes sense considering the filmmaker. PT&A combined its comedy with great acting and heart/sincerity. Due Date doesn't even try in this department. Like Road Trip, It's just a scribbled laundry list of uninteresting, trite nonsense and du jour cameos.

The Hangover was a fluke. A hilarious and well-made fluke. But a fluke.

Oh, well. At least this mess wasn't two-and-a-half hours (Phillips has got something over Apatow there).
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Please stop making movies about j*rks!!
3 October 2010
I wasn't planning on seeing The Social Network. I love Alien 3, was blown away along with everyone else by Fight Club when I was younger and now find it to be nostalgic at best, absolutely hated the "adaptation" of Benjamin Button, and haven't really paid too much attention to Fincher otherwise. I also don't have a Facebook page and haven't good things to say about Eisenberg.

But, everyone else seems to be digging the film, and Aaron Sorkin is one heck of a writer, so I thought I'd give it a go.

The film itself was average in quality. No great highs and no great lows, in my humble opinion.

The biggest issue for me, though, is more of a slippery slope I've been noticing as of late of movies such as this coming out, all about a slew of j**ks (or "a***oles," as the Network itself would claim) who no one would ever care about.

Back in the day, it was all about the underdog, the Brando schmo scratching at himself and wearing a dirty white T-shirt. It seems today, though, the new "underdog" is really just some selfish bozo whose only means of being empathetic, according to the filmmakers, is that he/she might be a computer nerd or short or not so good-looking. As though that's enough to make us care about him/her?

The specific problem for me with The Social Network is that none of the characters deserve any empathy (or even sympathy) at all. The main character--whether the real Mark Z. is or not--is a total narcissistic b***ard who doesn't seem to even want anything or have any real goals aside from pi**ing off his ex-girlfriend with whom he seems to have no real chemistry or intimacy in the first place. Just because he continues stalking her doesn't mean he cares about her; I had trouble even believing that he would care that much about her anyway, considering the inhibited/introverted solipsist the movie made him out to be.

Then we have his best friend (or "ex-best friend") who was probably the only slightly sympathetic character in the film (which in this case is like being Valedictorian in summer school). But, even he seems to be selfish, childish, and immature throughout, using his family's money as a means of making or breaking friendships throughout the movie.

Everyone else in the film seems to be "even bigger" j*rks than the character of Mark Z., going around trying to intimidate their enemies and each other without really accomplishing anything or, again, wanting anything real except for "revenge."

It's difficult watching a movie like this where there's no one to latch on to emotionally. Justin Timberlake was surprisingly charismatic and charming throughout the movie, but as much as I wanted to like at least him--at least one character in the film--his character was also so incredibly despicable and conniving (not to mention somehow very wealthy despite everyone saying he had no money anymore) that it became impossible. I guess he was supposed to be the antagonist? The villain to the other villain(s)?

Another issue with this kind of slipshod writing and filmmaking is that we're not granted any semblance of three-dimensionality or humanity that can lend itself to realism. Jesse Eisenberg might never smile (and he never seems to in movies or interviews alike), but I'm sure Mark Z. does. In fact, whenever I see that fellow in an interview or photo, he seems to be smiling quite bright. Maybe it's just now that he has $25b? But, come on. "Cheer up, Charley! Give us a smile!"

An easy fix to this could have been involving characters from Mark's actual life to show the humane and more complicated side of his persona. His parents, for example. Where were his parents? He was 19 during all of this, a minor. His parents could have been injected into the movie to give a fresh and more complicated perspective of the guy, to have them maybe speak with him and with each other about the scared boy inside the angry robot the movie makes him out to be. Or his real-life girlfriend who was there in those early days, perhaps making a composite of this girl and the one-dimensional "Erica" of the extant film. A girlfriend who stands by him, who caresses him and lets US in on the "real" Mark who SHE sees, as opposed to, again, the robot the movie makes him out to be.

In the end, Mark Z.'s character was just as bad a guy and just as hypocritical as the biggest blonde-haired, Adonis bully fratboy character you might find in an 80's teen movie. Just because he happens to be a "nerd" (?) doesn't make him Louis Skulnick.

Charles Foster Kane wanted the innocence of his youth and craved that time in his life before he became Hearst. And this is exactly what makes him more like "us," more of a character with whom we can empathize, regardless of how venal he becomes over time. Mark Z. just wants to pi*s off an ex-girlfriend who, again, I don't even really believe he gives that much of a d**n about anyway. When there's nothing to care about in a main character, a movie is failing. When there's no characters to care about at all, a movie FAILS.

Hollywood: please take a memo! You can't combine Revenge of the Nerds with Varsity Blues anymore! J*rks will always be j*rks no matter if they're computer nerds, alienated little eight-year-olds, Southern working moms, pregnant teenagers, or fat. Work a little harder to create real, three-dimensional characters we can care about. There's always something there; it's just a matter of finding it.
21 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trash Humpers (2009)
7/10
L'crap pour l'crap?
20 June 2010
I'm one of those fanatical Harmony Korine fans. Like most "fans" of his, I at once love and despise him and his films, though I have to say I still can't really get into KIDS or KEN PARK (though, yes, both are directed by Larry Clark). I normally refer to the "impish little fellow" as HK to friends and family. Who still have no idea who I'm talking about. I wore a shirt with HK on it to the screening of TRASH HUMPERS. To which I brought my girlfriend who until recently had never even seen THE GRADUATE, ANNIE HALL, or HAROLD & MAUDE (this, we've been remedying). Her father is a preacher, and she is from Arkansas. So, I thought, why not bring her along to TRASH HUMPERS?

Soon into the film, my girlfriend grew uncomfortable. She exited with only about twenty minutes left, and when I came out, she was in tears. Though we've been dating for about six months now--a nearly record-breaking amount of time for me--she made it clear that because I had brought her to this movie, it was clear maybe we weren't right for each other. We didn't end up breaking up, but she was so clearly upset by the film--"The only movie I've ever walked out of"--that I couldn't help but smirk and snicker. Everything she said about the film I had heard numerous times before and read in countless reviews of all of HK's other movies. It was really rather humorous to see and hear the emotional resonance the film's viewing had on my girlfriend, and I couldn't help but think--and, let's face facts, KNOW--that this was probably Harmful's intent.

After all, one doesn't listen to Lou Reed's METAL MACHINE MUSIC (or, for that matter, HK's own SSAB SONGS) to bop one's head rhythmically. One listens to this music to see just how far it will go. And, if anything, that's one of my few complaints about TRASH HUMPERS: perhaps it didn't go far... ENOUGH. For those of us not of preacher fathers from Arkansas, at least.

Well, the girlfriend and I ended up calming down, she will stay with me--for now--but is now wary of any movie I might want to show her. I think I could still get her to see GUMMO, but JULIEN is probably out of the question. And she woke up this morning singing "Three Little Devils" (in fact remembering lines I myself couldn't recall) and laughing about certain moments in the film. Again: he succeeded, that HK: he made a film that might have totally disrupted the reality of this young "Southern, Conservative Christian girl" (in her own words), but she can't stop thinking about it, either.

He wins.

HK has perhaps at last made what Lars Von Trier and the rest of the Dogme 95 brethren (HK included with JD-B) attempted a few years back: making the crappiest movie ever. Quite literally. How boring, how annoying, how irritating, how exasperating can a movie be? Perhaps, at last, HK has answered that question with TRASH HUMPERS.

There is certainly a point--more so than the point of that fellow's hat at the Toronto Film Festival--as a moment arises in which HK as Herve (the filmmaker even in the context of the movie itself) gives a speech about the delights and elation of being odd in a far-too-normal world, about embracing the Lumpen, the scatological, the strange, as had the main character of NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND. Of being proud of being an outsider.

The film is indeed a testament to HK's ability--thanks to his family's money and his cause celebre/infant terrible cachet--to literally do whatever he wants. In film and in his life. And even in combining the two as he does in TH (his wife is played by his actual wife, and that baby is probably their own newly born child, Lefty; and, of course, there they are in HK's hometown of Nashville, probably utilizing a lot of the neighborhoods and neighbors in HK's and Rachel's actual lives).

I've always wondered why people like Spielberg and George Lucas don't just release a three-hour long movie of a chair being shot on a digital camera on a tripod. People would see it. People would talk about it. It might revitalize their (artistic) career(s) and would certainly make their money back. But, they don't need to do that. Do they even have careers that need revitalizing?

HK could do it, though. And he would probably be praised up the wazoo, particularly by the Danish, it would seem. (What, are the French just not that cool anymore?) I wonder if he will. Or, if he'll keep making Budweiser and chocolate commercials from now on. Who knows?

But, he certainly made a film that requires viewing for someone who wants to see just how far one can go when there are truly no constraints or rules in one's life, in one's checkbook, or in one's aesthetic freedom. Yes, Warhol and Yoko Ono and Jean Isidore Isou have already done the whole "pure conceptual art film" thing, so Harmony's no pioneer. Certainly not. But, this is no apologia for those who would claim thus there's no need for him to do what he does. Heck, with that logic, we might as well say there's no need for comedies like THE HANGOVER or whatever might be your flavor because, after all, Chaplin and the Marx Bros. have "already done that."

No, HK isn't necessarily a rip-off artist. He's simply working in the IDIOM of the likes of Ono, Warhol, and their ilk, of Duchamp and Man Ray, for goodness sakes. And that's fine. Except for my girlfriend, who'd rather JUST watch THE HANGOVER. But, I guess, that's fine, too. She's got one helluvah great bod.
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hangover (2009)
9/10
Yes, this movie will surprise you
23 February 2010
Admittedly, and perhaps obnoxiously, I'm one of those who would normally never see a movie like this. I haven't really liked any of the other films by the director (those I've bothered to see), and I'm not a big fan of goofy, drunken, frat-fare contemporary American comedies.

Thank goodness my roommate downloaded this one and I could see it for free. Hey, why not: I had a free Sunday morning.

I don't think either of us stopped laughing throughout the film. Ever. Which is especially surprising, as even some of the funnier movies I've seen over the years tend to wane a bit toward the third act. Suddenly, the plot really comes to the fore and the movie goes from being a comedy to being an action-packed extravaganza or a drama or a romantic farce or whatever.

Not this time. You will continue to laugh without stop, even through the credits, thanks to a hilarious photo montage.

I was elated that such a movie could be made, and that it could receive so much praise and commercial success. I have found the Apatow movies to be boring, pointless, long-winded, and annoying at best, and have been confused by their success. Thankfully, there are still movies like The Hangover that show normal guys in fantastic situations and how they cope in a realistic matrix (yes, I just used the word "matrix"--without being capitalized--in an IMDb review of The Hangover).

And I also agree that although all of the actors in the film were top-notch (even the bg guys who will fool you every time: what a terrific casting job all around), Zach Galfianakis (sp.?) is the far-and-away MVP of this film. I remember thinking from Moment One, "Goodness, if he acts like this through the whole film, the movie will already be a winner." He does, and it is (and he's not the only gem of the picture).

Kudos, Todd. You finally made one that's truly hilarious, surprisingly original (there is a lot here you WON'T see in Very Bad Things), thoughtful, well-structured, and--yes, I'll say it--even intelligent. Keep it up, we need more movies like The Hangover. Save us!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sorry, Gilliam fans!
10 January 2010
Now, PARNASSUS isn't necessarily a bad film.

It's certainly visually pleasing, for the most part, and I was surprised that--especially after seeing the trailer at last and only recently--master filmmaker/hellion Gilliam went for more than the stock video-game VFX you see in everything from SPIDERMAN to the SPY KIDS movies. No, I will admit, the effects worked relatively well here.

However, it's clear the problems with Ledger having died during production caused more difficulty in the script realm than you'd think, and that, in the end, the rest of the script itself is rather shoddy and filled with far too many holes to enjoy falling in and simply allowing oneself to give in to the tumbling descent down the rabbit hole.

As with most people who would bother to see the film, I am indeed an adamant Gilliam-ite, and in fact find what everyone can agree to be his finest film, BRAZIL, to indeed be perhaps one of the best American films ever made. 12 MONKEYS, F&L, FISHER KING, etc. all break new grounds in American cinema and are each: watchable, artistic, masterful, and wholly entertaining.

TIDELAND was a bit of a let-down, though the story was simple enough to follow if not somewhat dull and at times melodramatic. I was worried after watching it, and wondered if Gilliam has not fallen the way of the likes of Woody Allen: someone who has been, is, and always will be an American master craftsman... but also someone, frankly, growing old and out-of-touch with his audience (at least as a screenwriter).

PARNASSUS hasn't quite confirmed this fear/suspicion (we certainly need the Gilliam of yesteryear now more than ever, what with the slew of treacle they foist upon us in the theaters these days)--Gilliam is no Tim Burton--but, I will simply conclude by saying: (1) That I really hope DON QUIXOTE is the masterpiece we've all been waiting for; and (2) That you really needn't waste your time on PARNASSUS... unless, of course, you're interested in seeing a semi-nude Lily Cole briefly.

Personally, if I were you, I'd opt for your BRAZIL box set and Redtube instead.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Road (I) (2009)
3/10
Hollywood doing what Hollywood does
30 November 2009
For those of you who have read this marvelous book and are fans of Cormac McCarthy, the answer to your question is YES, Hollywood DID IT AGAIN. They did what they do to great books, they made it completely accessible to the American IDOL crowd who only read books found on the grocery store checkout aisle.

Those who keep talking about this movie as "intellectual" clearly aren't themselves. Plain and simple. The problem here is that this movie wasn't "boring" or "slow" ENOUGH. There's never a real moment of sincere tension fraught with a feeling of hopelessness and the dark void within. Instead, it's just choppy moments and explosions.

With all that manipulative music and distracting melodrama in every moment of cloying acting, this one feels like a soap opera made by Roland Emmerich. Ironic that 2012 has also just come out with a similar story... Frankly, I continually felt Emmerich's hand in this one throughout.

That they would give such an important and beloved novel to a relative novice filmmaker is beyond me and probably will be beyond you too after watching about five minutes of this made-for-TV trash. And no kudos even for the effects and background panoramas that were just as unrealistic as the tepid bond between the two main characters.

What made the book--and most of McCarthy's oeuvre--so astounding and gripping is the very sparse and simple, nearly nihilistic approach the author takes in his prose. This was translated perfectly into NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (an example of what happens when the urtext is put in the hands of professionals). That movie is as deftly stark--even in the moments of great humor--as the book on which it is based. THE ROAD is, again, simply less-than-mediocre prime time television.

The true shame is that a movie as "simple" and as earnest as the book COULD have easily been made and still would have been "accessible" and buzz-worthy even for the Academy Award crazed masses. Look at David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY, for example.

Or, for that matter, if you're truly interested in seeing what would happen if THE ROAD were adapted WELL to the big screen, check out Michael Haneke's epochal and beautifully funereal TIME OF THE WOLF (in fact, while reading THE ROAD originally, all I could think about was this fantastic movie from a true artist).

Again, TIME OF THE WOLF.

Forget wasting your money and time on THE ROAD. Hit the video store or your NetFlix cue tonight for Haneke instead!!
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watchmen (2009)
3/10
Nothing super about Watchmen
10 March 2009
I went into Watchmen with relatively low expectations. I never bothered to see 300, and I was certain this would be yet another in a line of poorly made "style over substance" films in which there would be more effort put into the dissociative CGI/video-game effects than any real character development or plot.

What I didn't expect is to find this film to be so incredibly mundane, tedious, and flat-out dull that it would become yawningly hard to watch altogether.

"Who cares?" and "Why now?" were the two big questions I began asking myself before finally drifting off and wondering to myself why they can't make "good" comic book movies anymore like Tim Burton's Batman or Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop. Heck, even Bryan Singer's X-Men was pretty good (which is interesting, being that one of the many screenwriters of this soporific mess also wrote X-Men).

What I found so fun and truly innovative about Robert Rodriguez's superlative adaptation of Sin City was that he was able to accomplish all three goals of a film of this nature: 1) He kept the adaptation relatively close to the urtext, 2) He made something that was stylish, fun, a little kitschy, and still made something worth watching with a good deal of substance, 3) Most importantly, he made a real, true-blue, well-crafted film that couldn't have been made any better whether it was based on another text or not.

Watchmen failed horribly in all of these regards.

I'm not going to go into too much detail here, because I really stopped paying attention after a while, but we're basically left with absolutely nothing new, not an original moment, line of dialogue, or plot line, and very worst of all, none of the characters seemed to be superheroes at all. They just all seemed to be relatively fast and good at karate, I suppose. One character, played by the absolutely terrific actor Jackie Earle Haley (who, like so many of the other young, brilliant actors along this train wreck such as Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson, seemed to be lost in a lingering soap opera for two hours) literally only had the "power" of having some kind of cloth-mask whose face morphs to different kinds of polygons or something. That's not "super," it's just annoying.

Yawn.

The only character who had any actual discernible powers (even the so-called "smartest person in the world"--the one character whose "superpower" was actually discussed--didn't seem all that "super") was Billy Crudup's absurdly omnipotent Dr. Manhattan who was soooo super that he could do everything and anything--at least in the extremely limited imagination of the writers and director--and thus was rendered equally boring because there was never any sense of risk or tension with this character.

I understand that the movie and the graphic novel are supposed to be about the more existential and "realistic"/psychological realms of the superhero archetype, but even this supposed "postmodern" angle on the superhero trope has been done to death by countless movies and books over the last few years, and much better, too (usually funny, light-hearted fare such as the ambrosial The Incredibles or even the slightly less well-crafted Mystery Men).

Clearly, as is often the case with "movies" of this nature or as with sports and other "soap operas for men" such as professional wrestling, fans have a taste for this kind of thing that blinds them to anything else other than the fact that they're watching crap. As with people who can't get enough of Star Wars, it comes down to the fact that they're watching their dreams come alive on screen, and whether it's good or bad, they could care less...

... kinda like me when I watch drivel like Watchmen. No wonder it's doing so poorly. Hopefully the Hollywood brass will finally take a hint and realize Zack Snyder needs to go where he belongs: making snazzy commercials or maybe a show on Showtime or something.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Smiley Face (2007)
8/10
Best stoner film since HALF BAKED
28 February 2009
Have to be honest here, I just didn't get PINEAPPLE EXPRESS. As with most David Gordon Green fare, I found it dull, unrealistic, melodramatic, and poorly acted. It just didn't make sense to me. I would have left after the first 15 minutes, but I went with a friend who I thought was enjoying it, and I didn't want to ruin it for him... until after the two-and-a-half hours of nonsense and we both found out we felt the same exact way. Not funny, not interesting, nothing new or original. And if I WERE stoned while watching it, I probably would've been even more bored. No wonder Rogen wrote this when he was 19. That's exactly what it seemed like. SUPERBAD was at least moderately interesting and had a fair story, if not a unique one, with some likable and engaging characters.

THAT all said, I was equally baffled by the poor reception to SMILEY FACE. Though the one came out some time after the other, SMILEY FACE impressed the hell out of me. I found it honest, sincere, very funny, and surprisingly well acted. There are some true moments that Araki captures exactly what it is to be stoned, wandering around LA and trying to figure out what's happening. Some of the inner-monologue of Faris is absolute genius: at once funny and truthful, particularly an entire exegesis on whether or not a "Garfield" poster would make sense being put up in the protagonist's house... all this after merely peering at a picture of corn.

The music is great, the editing and directing style are both spot-on (think a more stripped- down TRAINSPOTTING), and even though very little happens overall, I was never bored, because the screenplay continually throws interesting moments into the mix, making even something as simple as Faris trying to drive out of her parking garage or waiting at the dentist VERY engaging and laugh-out-loud funny.

Definitely Gregg Araki's best movie to date, and Faris', as well. Surprisingly creative and one of the few portrayals of stoners I've seen in far too long (hey, they're a culture, like any other!), I'm as confused at how few people saw SMILEY FACE as I am at why so many seemed to have seen PINEAPPLE (sans the Rogen factor, which clearly grew some crowds on its own).

Check out SMILEY FACE... if you can find it. Maybe buy on Amazon. You won't regret it.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Spirit (2008)
2/10
Yeeeee-ikes!
9 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When people leave the theater at a movie screening, it means quite a lot. It perhaps means even more when those people happen to be film critics being paid to see said film in entirety. So, I was therefore not too surprised when I saw that the regiment of perhaps 10 film critics in Portland decided that this film was at best sneeringly laughable and, at worst... enough of a bomb to get the hell outta there.

The funniest movie departure, however, stemmed from an incident that happened before the screening. It seems as though a handlebar mustachioed bear biker-looking critic had a little spat with an older fellow, I think from the local daily about biker dude's predisposition toward bashing the film before it even started. Phrases such as "self-important" and "rude" were sputtered out by the older critic, and some of the others around us were literally standing back as though observing an elementary school fracas. "Ohhhh!" What made this incident particularly apropos here is that it was the older critic who ended up leaving early, the biker waving him mockingly away in the dark.

And why not? There's no question that Frank Miller's re-envisioning of Will Eisner's epochal and highly influential The Spirit is god-awful. That goes without saying. The few critics who ended up sticking around were unquestionably in consensus with this contention. Here again we have proof positive that just because someone might be apt at making fantastic commercials (Michael Bay) or amazing music videos (Michel Gondry) or, in this case, bold and innovative comic books (Miller) does not at all mean a good filmmaker this person makes. By the way, have you seen Madonna's directorial debut?

I haven't (and you probably won't either), but I have seen this execrable machination from the mind of a man who may be able to spill his stylistically chilling visions onto the printed page, but clearly just can't keep it together enough to put it onto the big screen. I tell you, I loved Sin City. It surprised me. It really did. I wasn't expecting much. But, what Robert Rodriguez created with Miller's vision and words was something that was fun and urbane, stylistic and well-crafted.

The Spirit is just junk, plain and simple. All popcorn, no caviar. From the man whose previous film-making exploits include the "script" for Elektra, we're left with a total mess and not a very beautiful one at that. Indeed, even those supposedly stylistic comic book-esquire visuals aren't nearly as stunning as they could be or should be to justify such a lackluster plot with performances that bordered on caricature in a well-worn universe that has already been equally mocked and embraced by supremely superior The Crow.

In the end, The Spirit is a scribbled laundry list of scenes that lead to nowhere. The genre- bending here isn't fun; it's so much "everything all at once," that it leaves one not even in a state of exhaustion, but boredom. In a movie where anything can happen, and where anything pretty much does, you start to disconnect, especially when you can hardly see what's going on through visual filter after filter and trite overuse of blue and green screen computer animated nonsense. Kitschy dialogue such as "With the Octopus, who knows how far his tentacles stretch?" or "Shut up and bleed!", we need to see something that also gives us some semblance of substance: put down the high-ball and let us in on the joke, Frank.

It's as though Miller and team sat around coming up with the most absurd gimmicks at the moment--a tiny foot with a head on it bouncing around a laboratory, a villainous sexpot who grants the last rites to a man she's about to have killed... while she Xeroxes her butt (I s**t you not), a completely out-of-place and baffling sequence involving Nazis from nowhere in particular, and a progressively irritating obsession with eggs on the part of Samuel "M************r!" L. Jackson. And not a one of these digressions goes anywhere, not a one does anything except make one realize that this really is a filmmaker who has no idea what he's doing whatsoever and simply had no one around him willing to say, "No, Frank."

Yes, The Spirit is terrible at every turn. I'm sure the national critics will agree with us on that particular score. And you might, too. But, you'll see it anyway, won't you? And as long as you do, you're sure to see The Spirit sequels one after the other. In the end, as one producer recently told me, "It's not about making good movies. It's about making movies that make money." It's a shame that no one told him, or perhaps Frank Miller, that there's such a thing as movies that can be both.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
At last, a new voice in the American cinematic experience
27 December 2008
Far more refreshing to see the first and perhaps only truly flawless film of 2008 is the fact that Wendy and Lucy may be one of the first pieces of American contemporary art to both attempt to and succeed at encapsulating the entire human experience, particularly during our current universal financial and cultural malaise.

I was particularly impressed to see a female writer/director--an American female, at that--who so deftly crafted a film with no rough edges, an efficient and earnest work that suffered none from any kind of artificial maudlin sentimentality.

From moment one, it is clear that Ms. Reichardt has paid well-deserved attention to the works of Gus Van Sant (and in fact she gives thanks to Van Sant's genius cinematographer, Harris Savides, responsible for the ambrosial Death Trilogy). But too has this vibrant and adept filmmaker paid great notice to the neo-realists of yesteryear, particularly De Sica (the entire film can almost be seen as a contemporized Umberto D.).

It is thus both for the content and form alike that Wendy and Lucy is indeed an imperative film in today's society, one that I hope will have a lasting shelf life and will allow Ms. Reichardt to continue doing what she clearly does best.

Bravo.

(Also, I've decided to add this short digression in here, as I'm saddened--though not surprised--by a great deal of the antipathy being dumped upon this fine American minimalist film. I've seen many reviews castigate Wendy and Lucy for being a film "without enough depth or background," with characters whose plights are far too "simplistic," or for simply being too nihilistic and bleak in its outlook of our current times.

It is because Ms. Reichardt has decided to cast away the prototypical shackles of American films and to give us an earnest story with characters plucked directly from today's quotidian struggles that she, and her entire crew, should be applauded.

Reichardt's unique choice of creating a film of empathy is unique, as, more and more, our American filmmakers choose to make films of sympathy: films that tell you too much, that give you all of the answers, and that break away from any semblance of truth or universality.

Fortunately for those who had difficulty sitting still through a quiet, unassuming film such as Wendy and Lucy, there is more than enough television on the airwaves these days to satisfy. And fortunately, for the rest of us, those who are actually going through the very struggles that Wendy endures or who at least have any kind of awareness of these struggles, there is this brilliant and vital film.)
71 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Milk (I) (2008)
8/10
Merica
1 December 2008
Real-life American hero Harvey Milk had a dilemma around the time he hit his 40s: though he had a fervent passion to help people, he couldn't quite figure out what to do with his life and where he belonged. All of that changed, or so says the valiant dramatization of Milk's tumultuous rise to political icon, when he unfettered the shackles of his longtime corporate job to hit the streets of San Francisco and became the first openly gay man elected to major political office in the history of our country.

We've all heard of the deplorable and nearly obstructive rigmarole Spike Lee had to go through in order to make his highly influential Malcolm X a reality. Milk director Gus Van Sant no doubt had to go through similar travails to tell such a story... only he had a great deal of help, what with a cast including Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, a surprisingly versatile and accomplished James Franco, Alison Pill, Diego Luna, and--of course--Harvey himself: Sean Penn. There's no doubt about it: however he did it, Gus Van Sant got it done, and he did it with his prototypical flair.

It's truly awe-inspiring the way that Van Sant so effortlessly vacillates back and forth between slightly more conventional, if not deftly constructed, fare such as To Die For or Drugstore Cowboy and his far more intimate artistic experimentation of the ilk of Last Days and My Own Private Idaho. He, unlike any other filmmaker I can think of, is truly able to delve deeply into the realm of the Academy Award audience and cable viewership at large, then come back for another round of Gerry or Elephant. I'm just glad to see that there's proof that you indeed can step back and forth between popcorn and caviar.

Milk opens, not too surprisingly, with a gut-punch. This is a movie about a very homosexual man who lived, at least in Van Sant's vision, a very homosexual existence. Within the first five minutes of the film, Milk is already hitting on a far younger James Franco in a subway, they mash faces before knowing the other's name, and seconds later are already naked and rolling all over each other, later sharing some birthday cake in bed. From here, the rest of the film grants us the equally unapologetic vibrancy, tenacity, and vivacity of Harvey Milk's final years, of his near-decade in the public eye as he helped to define and embolden the American homosexual community, particularly in the San Francisco Castro district. Employing techniques utilized by fellow biopic directors Lee and Oliver Stone, much of the film is a beautiful and ethereal tapestry of stock footage and news reels melding with the well-crafted dramatization itself.

And with a perfectly haunting yet subtle score by Danny Elfman--back with Van Sant for the first time since his equally stunning work on To Die For--the movie, as if often the case with Van Sant's corpus, allows you to completely transcend, to lose yourself in the moment, and to become one with the images you're watching on screen (no matter your sexual preference). In fact, the pastel colors of the gay community and mid-late 1970s Frisco environ allows the film to further pull you into its phantasmagorical dream as you drift languidly through time and through some rather heady incidents in our nation's tempestuous contemporary history.

Milk is as much about the history of the Gay Rights Movement, particularly the development of Castro Street and San Francisco as a hardcore gay haven, as it is about Harvey Milk the man. At one point, our protagonist admits to a potential financial backer that he's not a candidate but a movement. It's an apt quote, to be sure, as the real conflict with the film is less about Milk vs. The Machine and more about Milk the political pundit vs. Milk the man, a very seemingly gentle, generous, and loving man who sometimes has difficulties making enough time for his various friends, lovers, and hangers-ons as he does for his political rallies... even after one especially tragic event that befalls one of his most cherished partners.

Still, throughout I kept a bicameral mindset: easily lost in this magical tapestry of volatile history and dreamlike wonder, while forever contemplating Van Sant's singular style. As with Elfman's score, undoubtedly his best to date and finally of a slightly different flavor, Van Sant has reached back into his bag of tricks fine tuned through his ambrosial "Death Trilogy" to come back with something that is both popcorn and caviar, that is both intimate experimentation and accessible commercial fare. Much as with his main character, Van Sant has truly found his knack for combining his personal flair with his public composure.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quite possibly one of the most frightening movies ever made
15 November 2008
I've been a fan of Kaufman's scripts since before most of them were made into halfway decent pop-art by directors who seemed to have some difficulty juggling the writer's magic realism with commercial accessibility.

This, being Kaufman's directorial debut, is truly the first Charlie Kaufman film that I can see- -short of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which seemed to play rather close to the original text--in which I was able to truly lose myself, without the distraction of music by the Strokes or tacky advertorial moments from nowhere.

Though far from perfect, Kaufman's effort here is probably the first movie of the year I've seen, perhaps the first in a few years, where I felt myself drifting off, transcending really, coming to a place where even if I didn't fully understand where I was, it didn't matter. Jon Brion's ethereal score, and the sensational acting on everyone's part was a big help, but I think it had more to do with the fact that Kaufman himself seemed to allow himself the same kind of freedom in the creating of said picture.

Admittedly, there were times where the film fell flat--namely in the beginning--and some scenes dragged-on needlessly (as though Kaufman found himself a cute joke and decided to stretch it as long as it could go, sometimes even after the elastic had snapped), but overall, by the last half of the film, I was able to let go and allow the writer/director to steer the boat, even when he decided to crash it more than once along the way.

Still struggling with whether or not I actually liked the film, I left the theater and stepped into the cinema's corridor to find myself in a state that was mind-boggling and confusing. There were people walking by me saying things I couldn't understand, there were posters up on the walls that were placed there by people I'll never meet. Walking outside the theater, there was construction, more people in mid-conversation milling by, more advertisements placed there before I ever got there, buildings, an entire clockwork world that enmeshed me in some kind of network I couldn't fathom.

It's a shame that it might be considered neotenous of me to say, but I can only liken the effect to the peaking one feels on mushrooms. As with the movie, I don't know if I enjoyed the feeling or not, but I can't deny that the horripilation sensation wouldn't go away and stuck with me while I wandered the downtown area in a strange reverie that became more frightening as time went on. I didn't want to call anyone I know to tell them about the experience--just as one sometimes chooses to remain alienated and isolated whilst on mind-altering drugs--and I couldn't tell if I needed a hug or wanted to read a book.

It was odd, to be sure, and all I could think was that I was glad I saw the movie alone, I was glad I knew nothing about it before seeing it, and I was glad I had seen it all. Is it a good movie? Hard to say. Definitely not without its flaws. But, as with a serious mind trip, probably something you might want to try at least once. Of course, most people probably won't get it, and those who do may very well end up as existentially frightened as I.

Don't worry, I'm better now.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed