EdExtract Reviews

The Departed (2006)

Right award, wrong movie!

[3/10 · 27 March 2007]

No film buffs or Scorsese fans are going to take my word for it, but here goes a warning I need to get off my chest: THE DEPARTED is a wretched way to slowly waste 2.5 hours of your life.

We get Marty's little auteur flourishes, all of which we've seen repeatedly since GOODFELLAS, sprinkled heavily over the blandest spaghetti bowl of a plot.

The actors don't lack for talent, but here they seem to have been directed to give flashy soliloquies and never actually interact with each other. The film is like a whole series of audition readings, where each actor is reading his part alone on a stage. There can't be much chemistry if each chemical is kept in its own test tube!

Jack reprises his Joker role, except here he was encouraged to ham it up a little more. That said, he's the only aspect of this train wreck that kept me from giving the film one star instead of three. (Sorry, Mr. Nicholson; it wasn't your fault.) Sure, sneer at me because Marty won the BD Oscar. I can only conclude that 2006 was a year weak enough to console him for being robbed when he made GOODFELLAS, a great film that he has been remaking over and over. But this version stinks, and its success at the Academy Awards just means we will get loads of copycats who think this is what they should be chasing.

OK, now go ahead and waste your time watching it.

Paparazzi (2004)

Critics' responses most interesting aspect?

[7/10 · 6 March 2007]

This time, the critics have opened their trench coats to expose their hypocrisies! When a film this good—that is, better than average—gets panned so badly by so many Hollywood critics, you have to wonder what made the critics sulk. Critics, like paparazzi, are parasites: few of them have ever created anything; instead, they live off the inspiration of others. But, as sophisticated readers and movie lovers know, the relationship between critics and artists is extremely complex: the artists need critics to expose their work and, sometimes, even interpret it.

But in this case, perhaps understandably (because murder is involved), the real critics working for US media (see Rotten Tomatoes) have responded to having the spotlight shone on their own profession by trying to bury this movie under piles of negative rhetoric.

Celebrity photographers and the tabloids they supply are our visual age's personality critics. Using photo essays and headlines, they can either tear down or glorify a star, just as print critics can alter our perceptions of written, painted, or performed art.

The Hollywood critics and the paparazzi walk, philosophically, hand and hand, so perhaps they feel protective of each other. And here, in PAPARAZZI, is some evidence of a mutual-protection society in action: a film that is competently acted, written, and directed, is demonized. Suddenly, in this age of senselessly violent movies that get called "artistic," "bold," etc., a movie in which parasitic photographers get a little more than what's coming to them is persecuted for violating a point of the old Hays Code (i.e. "Revenge (by murder) in modern times shall not be justified.")

This movie is sharply satiric, exciting, and satisfying, and there is very little graphic violence. How could it fairly be given 1 or even 0 stars unless the issuing critic is angry about the spotlight being swung in his or her direction? There have been plenty of gory films and revenge movies. When the "victims" of the "hero/vigilante" are sexually twisted stalkers or evil government agents, do critics get so high-minded about the "message" violence in cinema sends to the audience?

(Maybe a better question is: how dare a Hollywood insider, such as Mr. Gibson, laughingly throw a little hot sand in the out of control publicity machine?)

By trashing this generally entertaining film, the community of critics have made it a must-see for the controversial questions they and the film raise.

(Note: key elements of this movie's plot and themes can also be seen in the 1969 film, THEATER OF BLOOD, starring Vincent Price. I wonder how that was received by critics of its time.)

Along Came Polly (2004)

Poor Ben Stiller

[5 June 2004]

We get lots of movies here in Kunming. We pay about 72 cents for a DVD. Many times we buy movies that we'd pass up in the States for one reason or another.

Ben Stiller movies have become so darn predictable that only the desperation of boredom known only to expats in Kunming prompted me to buy it. Choices made due to desperation rarely pan out.

Poor Ben Stiller. He reminds me of a character in a TWILIGHT ZONE episode, a man who must keep reliving the same day over and over again. What circle of Dante's Hell would you say Ben Stiller is trapped in? MEET THE PARENTS and SOMETHING ABOUT MARY are two examples of movies nearly identical to ALONG CAME POLLY in plot and feel, but not in quality. ALONG CAME POLLY has the same dizzy type of girl looking for a sincere dimwit, a cute animal deserving a bit of kicking around, and a zoned out Ben Stiller character stumbling along until luck brings him into the arms of the dizzy girl.

The setup of the gags in ALONG CAME POLLY are pathetically and aggravatingly elaborate...And then the punchline, which was easy to visualize during the setup, becomes a disappointing scene I feel like I've already seen. It's as if the director says to the audience, "We are getting ready to make you laugh. Get ready...ready...LAUGH!"

And then there is Jennifer Aniston. If any TV actress perfectly exemplifies the charismatic inferiority of a sitcom princess to a true silver screen star, it is Ms. Aniston. Compare her to a great like Drew Barrymore or a lesser star such as Cameron Diaz, and it is easy to see she simply doesn't have the stuff to keep an audience interested and charmed for nearly two hours. She can barely do it in the 20 minutes or so she has on FRIENDS. In this movie her acting skill is as limp as her hair.

My advice to those thinking of watching this movie: if you can view it for 72 cents or less, and if you have some friends to keep you awake with conversation between the dull gags, avoid it anyway.

And now back to the monsoon...

Runaway Jury (2003)

Runaway plot!

[5 June 2004]

Could anybody follow the plot? Why would anybody try?

Whew! Remember the big disaster movies of the '70's with stars that were clearly past the twilight of their careers? Well, this is a disaster of a movie with stars who still have some juice left, but have traded their reputation for some quick bucks.

It would be interesting to know how long it took to decide to make Gene Hackman the lawyer in the black hat and Dustin Hoffman the one in the white hat. The producers didn't even have the imagination to try a little off type casting. Here's old Gene doing the same evil genius shtick that was cute when he played Lex Luthor in SUPERMAN, coasting through the role with his gritty giggle. And here's Dustin playing the weary, righteous lawyer looking for one more big win.

Ok. Nothing horrendous so far. Just some good actors in comfortable roles, right? But then comes the runaway plot, a plot which could be summed up by extracting the lamest parts from ENEMY OF THE STATE and MY COUSIN VINNY and stringing them together.

To discuss even a few details of the plot would risk "spoiling" it, because the "surprise" is revealed way too early in the movie, after which the playing out just gets more and more ridiculous and tiresome.

As cynical as our times are, I find it hard to believe any viewer will accept the film's premise that the utter collapse of our legal system happened without anybody noticing. But, hey, I've never been sued.

Dear Hollywood, The next time John Grisham makes a motion to make a motion picture, DENY IT!

The 300 Spartans (1962)

Fine for history buffs

[13 May 2004]

I don't have any fond childhood memories of 300 SPARTANS because I saw it for the first time yesterday, so perhaps my comments will seem a bit cruel to some who count this as one of their all time favorites. (I was born the year the movie was made, so some films from the late sixties do seem a part of the fabric of my own life. I do understand how fans can get very passionate about a particular film, even a bad one. For me, reading Leonard Maltin's negative review of CAMELOT felt like a slap in the face; as a six year old child I loved that musical and saw none of the flaws.) I'm not poking fun at anybody who loved this movie; I'm just giving my honest opinion about what I watched.

I do want to point out one great fight scene before I start trashing, and that is the one near the beginning in Xerxe's tent where the former king of Sparta duels with Xerxe's best swordsman. Great sword play. Also, the scenes developing the story of how the 300 Spartans ended up in their legendary predicament are well written.

All in all, however, this film, viewed objectively, might offer something to history buffs, but mostly deserves the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment. As noted by other reviewers, there are major blunders galore. In particular, the fight scenes are full of playground scuffling and some editing embarrassments. My favorite editing gaffe happens at 1:26:42-44 (on my DVD), when an extra gets his finger stubbed by one of those spears with the wiggly rubber points. Watch it a few times in slow motion for a belly laugh. And also notice how many of the lamely thrown Spartan spears start going butt-end towards the Persians.

Remember the scene where a Spartan patrol raids the Persian camp? They come up from the beach dressed in full armor, but when the patrol was organized, Leonides asked for `good swimmers.' Even Mark Spitz, the famous US swimming gold medallist, couldn't have swum two yards wearing bronze torso armor, helmets, and swords and carrying spears and shields! Leonides should have asked for his best waders. And for a sneak attack they were all decked out in bright scarlet robes, and even scarlet bristles on their helmets!

Am I missing the realism here?

Enough about the action bloopers. Acting is a significant element even in action epics. We have Sir Ralph Richardson giving a fine Shakespearean performance as the leader of Athens, and early on it does add a touch of class. Soon though, his performance makes all the other sub-par acting look just horrible. As for the few romantic scenes, they are done so woodenly that we can clearly see that here is where George Lucas got his inspiration for directing the love scenes in STAR WARS II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

It's a shame that so little was presented of the life and customs of Sparta, which would have been far more interesting than the celluloid wasting romantic sub-plot.

I didn't catch any specific political allegory, as some other IMDB reviewers did, but the notion of Greeks as freedom fighters opposed to the Persian slavers was played up. The fact that Greeks also used slaves wasn't mentioned, that I remember. One scene seemed to be particularly vicious demonizing for 1962: Xerxes ordered his army's women slaughtered so that his soldiers would be more motivated to capture the Greek women. This may have been historical, but for such an old movie this seemed especially blood curdling.

Wasn't ancient Persia mostly what we now call Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? Hmmm.Maybe this would be a good time to remake the film.

25th Hour (2002)

Top notch American cinema

[22 January 2004]

Thank goodness that 25TH HOUR was not, as I thought from a brief preview and the DVD cover, another clone of LOCK, STOCK, AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS! This is a serious film made great by excellent acting, writing, and directing.

The slice-of-life plot is very simple, but revealed in a flashing-back, jumpy way that might be disorienting for viewers who are not up on the language of the past decade's crime-genre storytelling--and I don't mean just the dialogue. Key elements are suggested, rather than developed explicitly, leaving the viewer to make predictions that, refreshingly, end up being just a bit off target. (I watched this with a Kunming friend who speaks excellent English, but couldn't quite follow the narrative without some pauses and explanations.) Be patient and see this through.

This movie is American filmmaking at its best. Thanks, Spike Lee and all the cast!

The Badge (2002)

Sleazy Sleuthing--Cajun Style

[2 June 2003]

This film is a solid bit of detective fiction with a Cajun noir flavor to it. Lots of shady characters trying to manipulate folks in order to keep sleazy secrets hidden get in the way of a sometimes earnest but morally mixed-up Louisiana sheriff.

If you like Raymond Chandler's stories, this should prove pleasing. Yes, the film is paced slowly, but as the sheriff in hot water finally realizes the only way to regain his honor (and perhaps his job) is by solving the case, the action picks up. Billy Bob Thornton gives another perfect performance, and Patricia Arquette is stronger than ever. Very nice directorial touches balance storytelling and artistry very well.

A good evening's entertainment.

Spider (2002)

Sleep inducing

[12 March 2003]

A slow motion cinematic study of a madman. Lots of muttering, realistic tics...Few film fans I know would find this interesting for more than a few minutes. The fast forward feature of the DVD is helpful; there's almost no dialog to miss.

Interesting for psychology students, but only the most fanatic.

Just because a skilled film maker can make a film doesn't mean he should. This was a mistake...or something to use for teaching technique, not for a general audience.

In short, the most finely crafted piece of irrelevance you are likely to ever see. Or sleep through. My suggestion: give it a pass. Spend the time studying a second language or trying some new recipes! Or even watching infomercials!

Ticker (2001)

They switched discs on me. Really!

[12 March 2003]

Real movie fans love bad movies, right? Talk about a STINK BOMB!

Amazing how many of us are actually taking the time to write a review!

First, I swear that I rented this by mistake. Really. The package was for MADE with Vince Vaughn. Wrong DVD inside. Jeesh.

From the first, this is full of ridiculous errors. Like when guys are ready to step out of a helicopter to rappel down a rope, but the guys are holding their M-16s with both hands directly in front of their chest. How the heck to they grab the rope?

And why was a helicopter rappel-assault necessary to attack a basement???

What a mess of bad editing and sorry looking explosions.

Hopper's moll is beautiful, but she doesn't get enough face time...

All these good actors...how'd they get duped?

The Mosquito Coast (1986)

Inverted Swiss Family Robinson

[12 March 2003]

Slight spoilers, sort of.

This story is an inverted version of THE SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON. Here the patriarch intentionally places his family in harm's way.

The film makes its point early that the father, though charismatic, is extremely obsessive, manic, and paranoid. It also makes the point that the mother just follows along. We never get anything in the way of insight that helps us understand why the mother is so pliable, or why she exhibits so little concern about the health and safety of her children. She is as seemingly carefree throughout most of the film as her nine year old twin girls, who do little more than giggle.

The film continues to hammer away for two hours at the two points just mentioned, much the way the Harrison Ford character loves to hammer away while building things. Too much beating away at the same theme, in my opinion.

Something I find especially implausible is the continuing good health of the characters. Maybe they are simply taking medicine and vitamins off screen. Late in the film one of the sons is told he seems smaller, but other than that, despite the hardships, the family is amazingly healthy, happily avoiding the typical mishaps a jungle setting is so ready to spring.

Sure, Mr. Ford's performance is good, but it hammers out the same little tune for two hours. The actor found a groove and stayed right in it. Perhaps the character's monomania allowed little range of emotion?

An annoying central character does not have to result in an annoying film, but here, because of the shallow treatment given to him and all the characters around him, we have a very annoying movie.

Press Run (2000)

For those who love to laugh at B-A-D movies!

[28 January 2003]

Somewhere in this mess was a good idea and an aspiration to make a serious made-for-TV thriller. The producers of MATLOCK and DIAGNOSIS MURDER don't have to worry about competition here.

Why do people watch movies like this? Well, you could say that they are film buffs who love to spot the goofs. (Check out the accent on the "French" girl in this movie!) Or you could say they are insomniacs who have seen every other film showing on the dish. Or, in my case, you could say he lives in China, has already gone through every other DVD on the shelves in Kunming, is desperate to hear some English, and is missing somebody he loves very, very much!

If you do not fit into one of the categories of pitiful viewers mentioned above, read a book. Any book. Or organize your closet.

Tokyo Babylon 1999 (1993)

Must be Tokyo Babylon 1

[28 January 2003]

Apparently there are several different mangas as part of the Tokyo Babylon series, connected only by the names of the investigative government agencies.

The one I saw was about a psychic who looks, dresses, and talks like Michael Jackson. Two series of murders occur: one in a high-rise construction site, the other in the subway. The psychic's powers are never clearly revealed, and his involvement in criminal investigations is more as a catalyst than a hero (though he is brave). Part two is much more interesting than part one, as it has a couple of very solid characters (the mother and daughter psychics).

Like most mangas, very little happens, and it happens slowly. The English translation and voices are quite good. The art is ok, and the actual plots are better than most. At least there's no mecha, and a minimum of psycho-protoplasmic tentacles.

If you're looking for titillation, it ain't here.

I wonder if anybody will ever read this. I wonder if anybody else will ever comment on this film. I wonder if I will get a life soon...

Cherry Falls (1999)

In the mood for a fun, jumpy teen slasher flick?

[28 January 2003]

CHERRY FALLS is a way above average teen slasher flick. The targets of the slasher, as revealed on the DVD box, are virgins. What a dilemma the students, the faculty, and the parents face! A memorable scene occurs when the parents first learn the victim profile.

Surprisingly the high school of Cherry Falls has an abundant supply of targets. This of course provides plenty of room for black humor and sly satire regarding teen sexuality, and a very powerful...ahem...climax!

If the dialog was not written so skillfully, this film could have easily dissolved into flat one-liners, chasing, and slashing. Fortunately the writing is, for this genre, superb, with a fine ear for turn of the millennium teen speech, as well as parental angst.

Add to the fine writing an amazingly strong cast, from the veterans to the new comers, and you've got an entertaining mixture of fright and humor. Definitely worth a watch if you like this kind of film.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

If you like animated, but not Disney, this is for you!

[26 January 2003]

Thank goodness Disney is making some animated features with punch! This is one. None of that eye-rolling cuteness that you usually put up with because you are with toddlers!

This film is fun, fun, fun! The characterizations are fine, the science fiction framework better than most live action films of the genre, and the art just gritty enough to be cool.

The action is fast--almost too fast! But the film covers a lot of ground (and water), so things have to move quickly. I'd like to see the sequel.

Disney's producers should take a very proud bow for making an exciting story with excellent characters. And the actors who do the voices deserve strong applause for giving the characters true depth. (The doctor was my favorite!)

More like this!

Gangs of New York (2002)

Scorsese Lite

[26 January 2003]

A film that, despite the magnificent sets, never quite seems plausible. Leonardo DiCaprio has the presence and mien for this story, but somehow the direction given this actor with great charisma (and hints at great depth) seems off. Also, the use of Mr. DiCaprio as narrator, though contextually logical, prods the audience to keep comparing him to other Scorsese narrators, such as Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci. The comparisons distract, but are hard to avoid.

Much of the fine work Mr. DiCaprio does is gravely undermined by the scenes with Cameron Diaz. When they are together the movie suddenly gets a Disney feel--and I don't mean a Disney movie feel, but a Disney World Theme Park feel. Ms. Diaz seems like a costumed park employee daintily skipping her way through realistic settings. When Mr. DiCaprio is with her in a scene, he too seems to be merely wearing a costume, rather than professionally acting. It would be interesting to know what led Scorsese to the casting decisions.

There is much worth seeing in this film full of interesting visuals, but fans (like myself) of Scorsese have been spoiled by films that are electrifying, not just entertaining.

The Eagle Has Landed (1976)

Take it as an action comedy, relax, and enjoy

[26 January 2003]

The following contains a very minor spoiler.

For years I got this movie's title mixed up with the deadly serious, and deadly dull, WHERE EAGLES DARE. I was happy, when I read the back of the DVD box in my local video store, to see that this was an entirely different movie. I suspected that with the combination of Michael Caine, Robert Duvall, Donald Sutherland, and Larry Hagman that the movie might be a bit tongue in cheek.

Was it intended to be an action comedy? Certainly their are moments of intentional comic relief. Was it meant to be a sly version of THE RUSSIANS HAVE LANDED, THE RUSSIANS HAVE LANDED? You'll have to judge for yourself, but in my opinion, the whole film is a comment on the absurdities inherent in war, and not a straightforward action film.

The spoiler I referred to is a murder that draws absolutely no comment from those who discover the corpse, yet who should be most alarmed--especially considering where they find it! The murder may have been intended, in the book, to give us a sense of the depth of love felt by the perpetrator, but in the movie it is completely pointless, and the one bad key on the piano.

If you are a serious fan of any of the stars in this movie, it is worth a watch. Anyway, for a hash of action and comedy with some really fun performances, this is a satisfying waste of time. It's not worth watching if it will make you late to dinner with your girlfriend, but if you have nothing better to do than surf the Web or see an old kung fu movie, this is a nice alternative. I feel less guilty watching stuff like this if the weather is bad.

Citizen X (1995 TV Movie)

Excellent police procedural and shot at bureaucracy

[6 December 2002]

The stakes are obviously high in a hunt for a serial killer, but that doesn't stop the career bureaucrats from doing their best to avoid innovation, and here the point is keenly and entertainingly dramatized.

Having worked for county government for 15 years, and lived in China for going on three years, I really enjoyed the many shots at bureaucracy this film fires off so accurately. Bureaucracy can get out of control in any country, as anybody who has had to deal with it in the USA knows.

The acting is excellent throughout. Stephen Rhea does a great job of manifesting anguished frustration with the system and himself. His chemistry with Donald Sutherland is delightful.

One note to other commentators: many movie fans do feel that accents help create an atmosphere appropriate to the country in which a film is set. In CITIZEN X, Rhea does a good Russian accent, while Donald Sutherland's is very subtle. I noticed that several of the supporting actors had Hungarian names; maybe here it would have been hard for the Hungarian actors to hide their accents to match the British and American actors. Imagine if one cop had an American accent, one British, and the rest something that sounds more Slavic. Accent is basically a theatrical convention, like costume and make up, and this is not the first or last film to use it!

It seems hard to believe that somebody who enjoys movies would stop watching just because accents are used--and then write a review about watching ten minutes of a movie!

In addition to being a reminder of how dangerous bureaucracies can be, this film is one of the best police procedurals I've ever seen, and I've likely seen as many as anybody reading this opinion. I give CITIZEN X a 9 out of 10. Enjoy.

Signs (2002)

CLICHÉS would have been a more descriptive title

[3/10 · 2 December 2002]

Sometimes the really bad movies inspire me to write in.

I saw SIGNS before reading NYT or WASHINGTON POST reviews, so I think I was unbiased. As a science fiction fan I have learned to suffer through a lot of eye-rolling silliness; generally I'm fairly forgiving. Also, when I saw SIGNS, I didn't know the movie was made by the director of SIXTH SENSE, so I wasn't looking to compare this film to that top notch ghost thriller. I just wanted to be entertained by a good movie, one I had heard did fantastic at the box office.

Sadly I was bored and disappointed by this movie, and I was relieved to see critics from some of the USA's biggest papers had the same feelings. The aliens were laughable (in fact they should never have been shown), and little of what I saw seemed fresh after so many episodes of X-FILES covered the exact same ground with better production, acting, and a necessary dose of eye-twinkling satire.

I couldn't help comparing this dull movie to Kevin Costner's little sparkler, DRAGONFLY, which got so many withering, spiteful reviews. Similar themes, that were explored fairly well in Costner's film, are laughably diced and served cold in SIGNS. Somehow, maybe because of his huge budget films that bombed, Costner has become something of a Hollywood embarrassment, so his films, reviewed by critics who like to feel hip and in with the elite, now seem doomed in the press well before a cast is chosen, whatever the film's true merit. Many of the reviews of DRAGONFLY are filled with barely concealed attacks on Costner's character. No, DRAGONFLY wasn't a film that we'd rate as one of the 100 best of all times, but unless hatred for Costner colors one's judgment, by any standards it was entertaining and moving.

But because SIGNS did so well at the box office, its bland hash of mawkishness, contrived, clichéd weirdness with dogs and water, and goblin-like body snatchers from another world will earn the director, who really should hang his head in shame, a pat on the back.

DRAGONFLY was a solid film that explored the edges of sanity that grieving widowers risk plunging over. Costner's character was believably neurotic in efforts to retain some of what he lost when his wife died. But in SIGNS, Gibson's performance seems contrived, a goofy attempt at somber homage to a lost American stoicism. In his performance he seems too self-conscious to be credible; I had the sense throughout he was overacting by under-acting. The result is Gibson never becomes his character, he just goes through motions that make him seem to be an amateur actor. Based on Gibson's countless fine performances, I'm sure this is the fault of the director who was trying for the foggy stiffness that succeeded well in SIXTH SENSE.

This is just about as bad as WATERWORLD or even THE POSTMAN, but in a smaller, more stifling way, and with more clichés packed into less time. The science in this science fiction film is hideously tortured, as if the makers of the film are sneering at America's abysmal math and science education, as if they thought, "Oh, the movie audience is so dumb, let's use the most banal substance we can think of to be the aliens' Achilles' heel.

Truly, upon reflection, the movie is so blandly bad that it isn't worth making fun of its many blunders.

If you have any respect for the genre of science fiction, any hope that movies can be better; if you wish producers would assume that intelligent life exists in the audience, give this one a pass.

Frailty (2001)

A parable for our terroristic times

[11 August 2002]

FRAILTY realistically and chillingly shows how a religious fanatic can destroy the lives of others, especially those closest to him. This movie is frighteningly topical in today's world of Islamist suicide bombers, murderers who have been brainwashed into believing they are doing God's work.

I think many people who don't like it are disturbed or angered by the film's clear and valid indictment of interpretations of religion that justify butchery.

Despite the obvious allegory, the movie is exciting and entertaining. The writing is superb, the acting, especially by Paxton and the boys, as good as it gets.

This film should be a must see for all survivors of September 11. It should be shoved in the face of radical Islamists and fanatic fundamentalist Christians, and any other religious types that claim God is cheering slaughter.

Men in Black II (2002)

Too much of what they think we liked from the first...

[4/10 · 28 June 2002]

I'm not going to summarize the movie, just give my reactions.

MIIB delivers exactly what the producers believe the audience wants. It brings back many of the same characters and effects, and most of the same sets, over and over. The makers found incredible success in the first film, so they took the safe--and bland--approach to the sequel.

Hey, McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken have done the same thing and made billions.

But in MIIB, the jokes are flat and the plot is stale.

One example of more of the same: the funny looking alien in the pawn shop who can grow a new head. We get to see his head blown off and grow back twice. With only 90 minutes to fill, we get way too much of the same gags from the first film. (When you see the film, you can count 'em for yourself.)

Think about sequels that have offered a new dimension to a great idea: TEMPLE OF DOOM, ALIENS… The new version of MEN IN BLACK offers nothing new, and in fact undermines what was so wonderful in the first movie, the humor, chemistry, and clever satire of government agencies, New Yorkers' apathy, and X-FILES.

The producers gave us more of what they thought we liked in the first one…and nothing else.

Domestic Disturbance (2001)

Sigh. Why so many tidy endings and idiot-plot devices in "thrillers"?

[5/10 · 14 May 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** First let me say John Travolta is excellent in this film, as is Vince Vaughn and the boy, James Lashley. Steve Buscemi's understated, realistic acting is also noteworthy, but his role is sadly skimpy.

Some of the dialogue is sharp, but that's where the writing in this story has its only worth. The plot has so many ridiculous contrivances, mostly by using characters that are sleepwalking morons, that the "Oh, come on already" frustrations clouded my enjoyment of the fine performances.

The worst of the sleepwalkers is Travolta's ex-wife. Has she no intuition? She certainly has no character development. She is just the "ex-wife," the "new wife," and the "clueless mother." She is permitted little intelligence (until the last moment of course) and no charm. A vapid screen mannequin who, when her string is pulled, utters little domestic-psychology lines about her ex not liking the new husband because the ex "feel[s] threatened." And if she is so in tune with Psych 101 terms, why doesn't she at least send her son to a counselor after he accuses his stepfather, in convincing detail, of being a ruthless murderer?

About as incredibly hollow is the police detective. He is not permitted to have any intelligence at all, because if he had considered the boy's story even for a moment he would have done some detective work and spoiled all the opportunities for melodrama. Just think: the police go to the brick factory within a few hours of the murder and body disposal. Don't they think it's just a little interesting that the kiln is still warm in the middle of the night? With an odd-sized pile of ashes? Don't they think it's a bit unusual that the boy could have consistently related and retold so many details about the movements of Vince Vaughn, and the operation of the kiln? Weren't these details enough to at least ask Vaughn for a story about where he was that night? And the boy did get a look at Buscemi's unusual face. Even if the boy didn't get a name, wouldn't the description of Buscemi make Travolta realize it was the uninvited wedding guest, and immediately start asking--in front of the detectives--all kinds of questions about Buscemi's whereabouts? So the kid had a reputation for truancy.but his story rings true enough, with what Travolta could have added about Buscemi, for any detective to be put on alert and at least ask Vaughn a FEW questions. This is a typical "Oh, come on already" idiot-plot contrivance found in film after film.

As is the perfect stabbing with the ice-pick. What a skillful bloodless thrust--through the back and directly into the heart so that the victim can't even utter a scream or thrash around in pain. Remember all those movies from before the 1960's where getting shot or stabbed results in a peaceful, painless, death that looks like a pleasant attack of narcolepsy? Hollywood deaths can be so realistic. What happened here? Of course if the victim did squirm around after getting stabbed in the back, at least one drop of blood would have gotten on the upholstery, and again, no chance for further melodrama. And if the death hadn't silenced the victim so suddenly, he would have completed his sentence about who was in the backseat. "Oh, come on already."

Another sleepwalker is Travolta's incredibly unpleasant, eye-rolling, waste of a new girlfriend. Not only is she allowed no intelligence, but no class or empathy. He sure finds hollow women in this film! Thank goodness the new girlfriend abandons him early so she is literally out of the picture. Her brief function, apparently, was to underscore Travolta's resolve to "go it alone" and fight for his son's safety, or perhaps to show that only fathers truly understand there sons.

Another major contrivance, again used just to set up the melodramatic final showdown between Vaughn and Travolta, is seen when the son brains Vaughn with a baseball bat. Here he thinks Vaughn just burned his father to death, knows Vaughn will quickly try to kill him and his mother, but doesn't, enraged as he is, take a second swing to put Vaughn out of commission permanently. All along this kid has been smart and tough, but at this moment, when he could have finished things, the boy becomes stupid and scared. He sure ain't modeled on today's 12 year old American boys!

***Spoiler Warning***

This is the epitome of tidy endings. As promised, at the moment Vaughn first hurts the boy, Travolta shows up. Vaughn gets electrocuted like he deserves. Father and son perform the ultimate act of male-bonding by killing a man together. The police show up dutifully too late and with all questions about all homicides answered. And the mother/ex-wife/widow loses her demon-seed child, as blatantly foreshadowed 20 minutes earlier. Wasn't it convenient that she and Travolta knew she lost the baby even before she is put in the ambulance? Just so that nagging little question isn't left in our minds? "Oh, Come on already!"

As a movie fanatic, I don't expect to see something new and completely different in every movie coming out of Hollywood. But I wonder when Hollywood will tire of using the same worn-out devices and ridiculously tidy endings that make a "thriller" seem a waste of time, instead of an attempt at entertaining artwork.

Leila (I) (1997)

Wake me up when baby is ready

[3/10 · 15 April 2002]

Ok, I just managed to stay awake through this film, hoping for some emotional jolt at the end to make up for over two hours of tedium.

Oh, yeah--late 80's to mid 90's films are considered more sophisticated if left without a meaningful resolution, "Cause that's like life."

Strong willed witch of a mother-in-law, spineless son, sweet wife with too little self-esteem. Three people I wouldn't want to know in person, or spend another minute watching.

Was it just my DVD or were all the scenes in Leila's home supposed to have the same red lighting as submarines in emergencies?

Avid feminists might enjoy this. Avid film-lovers...beware.

Barabbas (1961)

Imaginative plot, great acting, fine action scenes

[8/10 · 15 April 2002]

If you have any appreciation for big-budget epics set during the days of the Roman Empire, you won't be disappointed by this film. The gladiator training outdoes SPARTACUS, and Anthony Quinn gives one of his finer performances. The writing--or Quinn's improvisation--gives him plenty of good, understated lines as he goes through his torturous odyssey.

Jack Palance is a special treat.

This film offers an even-handed, sober treatment of budding Christianity--it is not out to appease or make converts, just tell a story about the man the mob preferred over Jesus.

Suitable for most of the family except maybe the youngest members who might get shaken by some of the violence. A stoning scene is quite disturbing.

Rent, zap a bag of popcorn, and enjoy.

Audition (1999)

Listen to instincts, unless it's pain your after!

[8 April 2002]

AUDITION is a movie that can be seen as projecting men's fear of women who understand the treacherous politics of seduction and who won't stand for one more swindling; or as an allegory exploring the explosive fury of women released from years of socially endorsed abuse and manipulation by males (the age of "consent" in Japan is thirteen years old, I believe); or as an inverse SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

When I saw this movie I was living in China and involved deeply with three woman, and flirting with two others. The day before my solitary viewing of AUDITION I broke up with two after deciding which of the three serious contenders seemed best suited for the long run; both of the two I dumped reacted badly--one, in fact, smashing a blue glass apple she had given me nearly two months before with the caveat that it represented her heart…

Now the readers of "viewer's comment" have a little context for understanding the emotional state of mind I was in when I saw AUDITION: I was primed with guilt to be horrified by this flick! Imagine, after toying for months with the hearts of Oriental women, then dumping two who subsequently vowed to harm themselves, sitting through a cinematic blood-fest of vengeance while hoping the phone doesn't ring with news of the other shoe (ouch!) being dropped (or another glass apple being smashed).

Yes, I heartily recommend this superbly directed film to all men who have dallied, and to all women who have felt slighted by such men. Let the viewer beware…the simple plot which is enacted with a scalpel sharp simplicity of intensity will flay you alive with fear and guilt.

The Secret Life of Algernon (1998)

Wonderful little surprise of a movie; good plot, great acting!

[3 April 2000]

THE SECRET LIFE OF ALGERNON is a surprise gem. It is a well acted, understated, and suspenseful black comedy reminiscent of Ambrose Bierce’s best stories. Algernon is an eccentric recluse, the great grandson of a famous Egyptologist. His lonely life is interrupted by the sudden appearance of two mysterious characters, one a friend from youth, the other a beautiful woman who claims to be an Egyptologist. Bizarre happenings begin, and Algernon deals with problems in very interesting ways.

Is Algernon crazy or "attuned"? See the movie and decide. The movie has action, and enough twists and puzzles to satisfy fans of mystery and suspense movies. I'd rate this 7 out of 10 stars.