This movie had nearly as much contrived heroism and maudlin emotion as "Armageddon" and nearly the same goofy-damsel-in-despair as Sandra Bullock's earlier movies but without quite convincing me that it was an acceptable use of my 82 minutes. Thank goodness it wasn't any longer. WTF were the Cuarons trying to do with this? Did they add anything? I couldn't tell. I guess George Clooney added his winning smile and another big name on the marquis. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it had a few sequences decent action. All things considered, though, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone except for 13-year-old girls who are hardcore fans of both "Armageddon" and Sandra Bullock.
Reviews
39 Reviews
The Counselor
(2013)
Two hours of my life, wasted
2 June 2014
Who signed off on releasing this movie? And could that person please get in touch with me to tell me what I was supposed to get out of it? Right now, all I got was "$&|# happens" and "Don't play with fire."
The biggest disappointment of all was the Counselor himself and his lack of character development. Why did he agree to get involved in this drug deal? The movie told us almost nothing about this, either before or after he agreed to do it. It had to do with money, and that's about all we know. Attorneys are famously cautious. When and why exactly did this one stop being cautious? No clue. For that matter, why and how did he end up being appointed to defend Rosie Perez's character? He definitely didn't seem to have the demeanor of a criminal defense lawyer, so that one needed a little explanation.
In summary, it seems like this would've done better as a three-part six- hour miniseries. That would've allowed for more backstory and character development.
The biggest disappointment of all was the Counselor himself and his lack of character development. Why did he agree to get involved in this drug deal? The movie told us almost nothing about this, either before or after he agreed to do it. It had to do with money, and that's about all we know. Attorneys are famously cautious. When and why exactly did this one stop being cautious? No clue. For that matter, why and how did he end up being appointed to defend Rosie Perez's character? He definitely didn't seem to have the demeanor of a criminal defense lawyer, so that one needed a little explanation.
In summary, it seems like this would've done better as a three-part six- hour miniseries. That would've allowed for more backstory and character development.
Overdone
14 May 2014
Decent movie. Glad I saw it. I especially liked the way it was adapted to modern life, with cell phones and internet playing central roles. Great soundtrack. I loved the ending.
But it was still kind of disappointing. It required me to suspend too much disbelief. Some of Walter's adventures were just impossible, especially in the supposed time frame. More importantly, Walter's character transformation just wasn't believable. It came out of nowhere. Maybe it would've been a bit more believable if he had shown us more flashes of adventurousness in the first few minutes.
All of that said, I still recommend the movie regardless of whether you read or liked Thurber's original short story.
But it was still kind of disappointing. It required me to suspend too much disbelief. Some of Walter's adventures were just impossible, especially in the supposed time frame. More importantly, Walter's character transformation just wasn't believable. It came out of nowhere. Maybe it would've been a bit more believable if he had shown us more flashes of adventurousness in the first few minutes.
All of that said, I still recommend the movie regardless of whether you read or liked Thurber's original short story.
Protocols of Zion
(2005)
More a polemic than a documentary
30 November 2013
This was too preachy for me. There were actually several scenes where the filmmaker was on camera preaching to the people he was supposed to be interviewing.
In general, it focused too heavily on pointing out the logical fallacies in "The Protcols of the Elders of Zion." That was unnecessary, in my opinion, because most people watching this movie already understand that "The Protcols" are nonsense.
It would've been more interesting if Levin had included a bit more information about the earlier history of "The Protocols," including their original concoction by the czarists and how they were used before and during the Nazi era, maybe with some documents describing how the Nazis got "The Protocols" into Germans' and other Europeans' hands.
In general, it focused too heavily on pointing out the logical fallacies in "The Protcols of the Elders of Zion." That was unnecessary, in my opinion, because most people watching this movie already understand that "The Protcols" are nonsense.
It would've been more interesting if Levin had included a bit more information about the earlier history of "The Protocols," including their original concoction by the czarists and how they were used before and during the Nazi era, maybe with some documents describing how the Nazis got "The Protocols" into Germans' and other Europeans' hands.
Pay It Forward
(2000)
ABC After-School Special with alcohol
31 October 2012
The basic story was good. But it had about as much subtlety as an ABC After-School Special. I guess it's supposed to be for 12- and 13-year-olds. For me, it was painful to watch - really, really, really painful. Crudely directed, crudely acted. Even Kevin Spacey was pretty bad. And Haley Joel Osment was even more annoying than in "Sixth Sense." Apologies to those of you who liked this movie. Obviously, it's supposed to be a feel-good movie. It just heaped the feelgood on waaaaaaaaayyy too heavily, and the other emotions, too. It might be good as a remake if the director gives it some subtlety. Oh, and maybe about 30 minutes shorter.
The Iron Lady
(2011)
Why focus on her dementia?
4 June 2012
Unlike most of the other reviewers here, I have no problem with the filmmakers' decision to view Thatcher's career through the prism of her senility in old age. But they should've gone all-in. Instead, they tried to do two mini-films: 1) the story of Thatcher's career and 2) a portrait of an old woman puttering around the house, looking back on her career and her marriage. And neither of these two films was very effective.
The senility frame story just didn't make me care. A lot of elderly people become senile. If this particular case was worthy of a movie, then please give me a reason to care about it, or even understand how it happened. Was it Alzheimer's? A blow to the head? Emotional trauma from her husband's death? A lifetime of stubbornness?
Maybe "Iron Lady" could've had several more scenes showing how her senility developed, to link the two mini-films. We got a hint of this in the scene where Thatcher berated her deputy for the grammatical errors in the draft of a policy paper. If indeed she began to lose touch with reality while she was prime minister, it would've been interesting to explore with several additional scenes.
Of course, I can see how difficult it would be to make an American audience care about Margaret Thatcher's senility; most of us just don't know enough about her -- particularly those of us who came of age after she left office.
Then again, I never would've guessed that a movie could make me care about George VI's stutter, and the "Iron Lady"'s shortcoming only heightens my respect for "The King's Speech." But that movie made a choice that perhaps should've been obvious: Its focus wasn't split between 1) the period when George was improving his speech and 2) a comprehensive overview of his reign as king.
The senility frame story just didn't make me care. A lot of elderly people become senile. If this particular case was worthy of a movie, then please give me a reason to care about it, or even understand how it happened. Was it Alzheimer's? A blow to the head? Emotional trauma from her husband's death? A lifetime of stubbornness?
Maybe "Iron Lady" could've had several more scenes showing how her senility developed, to link the two mini-films. We got a hint of this in the scene where Thatcher berated her deputy for the grammatical errors in the draft of a policy paper. If indeed she began to lose touch with reality while she was prime minister, it would've been interesting to explore with several additional scenes.
Of course, I can see how difficult it would be to make an American audience care about Margaret Thatcher's senility; most of us just don't know enough about her -- particularly those of us who came of age after she left office.
Then again, I never would've guessed that a movie could make me care about George VI's stutter, and the "Iron Lady"'s shortcoming only heightens my respect for "The King's Speech." But that movie made a choice that perhaps should've been obvious: Its focus wasn't split between 1) the period when George was improving his speech and 2) a comprehensive overview of his reign as king.
I liked this movie better when it was called "Sunset Boulevard"
27 February 2010
Maudlin acting. Manufactured coincidences. Even the premise was improbable: A woman agrees to live with the sister who maimed her? I don't buy it. The main thing the movie had going for it would have been the general plot line I was prepared to give the movie six or seven stars when I thought it might have been the first with that plot line. But it was at least 12 years too late. "Sunset Boulevard" had a similar plot line, and the differing details in "Baby Jane" weren't interesting enough or even plausible enough to justify another 195 minutes of film about aging Hollywood divas luring innocent dupes into twisted plans to regain fame.
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
More disbelief than I could suspend
22 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The upsides 1) a soundtrack that sounded like Massive Attack and 2) really intense action that often overwhelmed the multiple implausibilities.
The downsides: Too many implausible aspects that distracted from the plot. Why did the U.S. military try to repopulate Britain without making sure the ragers were all dead? Why did it bring only one virologist? Why did the commanders forget that London has a subway system that will allow the ragers to escape from a quarantined district? Why are all of the important doors either unlocked or bolted with a PlaySkool plastic chain? Why is everyone in this movie so careless? How does a Volvo manage to keep out poison gas? How does a t-shirt filter out poison gas? The Americans must have been counting on the same sort of of happy coincidences as this bank robber: www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/11/24/081124sh_shouts_handey.
Science fiction movies should require the viewer to suspend one or two major disbeliefs. To really enjoy this one, you've got the altered science, plus one or two abnormal human behavior in every single scene. That was way too distracting for me.
The downsides: Too many implausible aspects that distracted from the plot. Why did the U.S. military try to repopulate Britain without making sure the ragers were all dead? Why did it bring only one virologist? Why did the commanders forget that London has a subway system that will allow the ragers to escape from a quarantined district? Why are all of the important doors either unlocked or bolted with a PlaySkool plastic chain? Why is everyone in this movie so careless? How does a Volvo manage to keep out poison gas? How does a t-shirt filter out poison gas? The Americans must have been counting on the same sort of of happy coincidences as this bank robber: www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/11/24/081124sh_shouts_handey.
Science fiction movies should require the viewer to suspend one or two major disbeliefs. To really enjoy this one, you've got the altered science, plus one or two abnormal human behavior in every single scene. That was way too distracting for me.
Excellent, objective look at the pro-life movement
3 March 2008
One viewer argued that the filmmakers have a pro-choice bias because they filled 2 percent of the screen time with the black-and-white factoids, including one that represented the medical community's position that abortion and breast cancer are not linked. Another viewer implied that this film is pro-life because it focused almost entirely on pro-lifers.
I think both viewers are wrong and I think trying to figure out whether the filmmakers are biased or trying to manipulate us is a waste of time. Ninety percent of the movie is footage of pro-lifers in action and pro-lifers discussing their work in their own words. That's pretty much exactly what the movie promised at the outset. If the film had teased "a complete, thorough, and balanced look at the abortion debate," then you could accuse the filmmakers of pro-life bias. But it didn't do that.
I think both viewers are wrong and I think trying to figure out whether the filmmakers are biased or trying to manipulate us is a waste of time. Ninety percent of the movie is footage of pro-lifers in action and pro-lifers discussing their work in their own words. That's pretty much exactly what the movie promised at the outset. If the film had teased "a complete, thorough, and balanced look at the abortion debate," then you could accuse the filmmakers of pro-life bias. But it didn't do that.
Elizabethtown
(2005)
More contrived scenes than any movie I've ever seen
2 May 2006
Nearly every single action, reaction and interaction in this movie was contrived. Name me one scene, and I'll give you at least two contrived elements.
Crowe didn't even attempt to develop the romance between the characters. In one scene, she was an annoyance. A couple of scenes later, after a montage of telephonic laughs, they're in love.
What a horrible, horrible disappointment. Friends' comments had led me to believe it was mediocre. But it was Cameron Crowe, and I let myself be swayed by Patty Griffin's "Long Ride Home," which played in the trailers. And then the song wasn't even in the actually movie!
Save yourself the two hours. Skip Elizabethtown. Go back and watch Garden State for a second time instead.
Crowe didn't even attempt to develop the romance between the characters. In one scene, she was an annoyance. A couple of scenes later, after a montage of telephonic laughs, they're in love.
What a horrible, horrible disappointment. Friends' comments had led me to believe it was mediocre. But it was Cameron Crowe, and I let myself be swayed by Patty Griffin's "Long Ride Home," which played in the trailers. And then the song wasn't even in the actually movie!
Save yourself the two hours. Skip Elizabethtown. Go back and watch Garden State for a second time instead.
The Life of David Gale
(2003)
ham hands
20 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What a disappointment. Clever but foreseeable ending, and so many other lines and facial expressions were utterly predictable. Performances by Winslet, Linney and Spacey may be their worst ever.
Anyone who liked the movie must've liked it simply because it dealt with the death penalty, or because it was clearly a polemic against the death penalty.
And even as a polemic, it was unfair. Take, for one, the quote put into the mouth of the governor, who's in favor of the death penalty: "I HATE killin'. That's why my administration is willing to kill to stop it." Can any of you one advocate of capital punishment, since the English Civil War, who has described it with the word "kill"?
The film seems to present Winslet's character as some sort of heroine for broadcasting the part of Dusty's tape that revealed his role in Constance's death, AND for keeping the last few seconds of the tape--in which Gale's role is revealed--hidden from the public. Any reporter who kept parts of the tape secret would be fired and have great difficulty getting hired again. As a newspaper reporter with five years of experience, I find Parker's apparent implication downright insulting.
Anyone who liked the movie must've liked it simply because it dealt with the death penalty, or because it was clearly a polemic against the death penalty.
And even as a polemic, it was unfair. Take, for one, the quote put into the mouth of the governor, who's in favor of the death penalty: "I HATE killin'. That's why my administration is willing to kill to stop it." Can any of you one advocate of capital punishment, since the English Civil War, who has described it with the word "kill"?
The film seems to present Winslet's character as some sort of heroine for broadcasting the part of Dusty's tape that revealed his role in Constance's death, AND for keeping the last few seconds of the tape--in which Gale's role is revealed--hidden from the public. Any reporter who kept parts of the tape secret would be fired and have great difficulty getting hired again. As a newspaper reporter with five years of experience, I find Parker's apparent implication downright insulting.
Flight of the Phoenix
(2004)
The Wrong Stuff
7 August 2005
This is the worst movie I've seen in years. Name the cliché--this movie has it: Rugged yet cynical and washed-up bad boy pilot who inexplicably gains the admiration of his crew and the affection of the pretty girl... People beating forces of nature through optimism and teamwork... Cloaked barbarians who ride over the ridge just as the courageous Westerners are trying to make an escape... Brainy know-it-all whose lack of empathy threatens to destroy the group...
I feel like I've seen this movie before. It's the distillation of everything Hollywood has done wrong in the last 50 years.
It looks like Dennis Quaid has fallen pretty far in the 20 years since The Right Stuff. He's as washed up as the character he portrays. Still, he must be pretty flattered that this entire movie seems to be built around that character, thin personality and all.
I feel like I've seen this movie before. It's the distillation of everything Hollywood has done wrong in the last 50 years.
It looks like Dennis Quaid has fallen pretty far in the 20 years since The Right Stuff. He's as washed up as the character he portrays. Still, he must be pretty flattered that this entire movie seems to be built around that character, thin personality and all.
When the Storm Came
(2004)
Difficulties talking about it
28 June 2005
Well done film. It was pretty shocking, especially, to see how reticent the women were in talking about what happened to them.
(More shocking still that this movie, a Sundance winner, has only eight votes).
Viewers who think that the bigoted terrorists are always Muslims may take pause from this film. When will Americans look at the BJP platform and its support for "Hindutva"? One criticism: the film's implication that soldiers somehow represent all men when they rape villagers was a little over the top. Viewers will be sick at many of the film's scenes, regardless of their gender.
(More shocking still that this movie, a Sundance winner, has only eight votes).
Viewers who think that the bigoted terrorists are always Muslims may take pause from this film. When will Americans look at the BJP platform and its support for "Hindutva"? One criticism: the film's implication that soldiers somehow represent all men when they rape villagers was a little over the top. Viewers will be sick at many of the film's scenes, regardless of their gender.
Voices of Iraq
(2004)
Reality, or at least a sliver of it
27 June 2005
I'm glad I saw this. It was heartening to see dozens Iraqis express such optimism and determination. I'd recommend the movie to pretty much anyone, along with "Control Room," "9/11" and pretty much any other documentary or reportage on America's roles in the post-9/11 world.
Just make sure you have some idea of who made the movie and why, and with whose money.
Given what we know about Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon, is it really so hard to believe that Bush administration or some arm of the US government was involved in shaping the message in "Voices of Iraq"? One IMDb user suggested this and got shouted down with something like "Michael Moore something something something U.N. Oil-For-Food Program something something something anti-Bush liberal media bias." Come on, guys, if you want to talk about bias and undisclosed motivations, you've got to do more than call names. The PR firm pushing the movie did the same thing for the "Army of One" commercials. That may not be damning evidence of a connection, but it does seem interesting enough to check out.
One of the producers, Archie Drury, is a Democrat and a former Marine, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. If you want to read into his motivations, I suppose you could go in either directions with him.
What I found suspicious was several Iraqis repeating the theory that democracy in Iraq would spread throughout the Middle East. That's not a harebrained pipe-dream, and it's possible that dozens or even millions of Iraqis believe it, but it's also strikingly similar to what the Bush administration is saying. It's similar enough at least to make me want to do a little more research.
And what's up with, like, 95% of the people in the film saying that America's so great? Jeez, man, the U.S. gets even better ratings in Iraq than it gets here at home. Sure, it's plausible. Iraqis are right to thank the U.S. military for freeing them from Saddam's regime. The important questions here, though, are whether they ARE actually thanking the U.S. for this, and whether or not they THINK they're better off. Obviously, at least 50 people out of 20 or 30 million say they're better off.
But a lot of them think that Saddam was great and the U.S. sucks. They may be wrong or even delusional, but you've at least got to put their comments in your "Voices of Iraq" film alongside the positive comments if you want to call it a real documentary. A survey conducted by Gallup in April 2004--the same time as the cameras were going around--found that the numbers of Iraqis who said the U.S. presence had improved their lives was about the same as those who said it hadn't. (Unless you're convinced that the Christian Science Monitor is a front for Michael Moore Inc., you may want to brush up on recent history at www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html).
A film that includes those voices but explains why they're wrong is a documentary with a clear point of view. A film that leaves them out in a wildly disproportionate way is propaganda. Including only one or two complaints in a propumentary doesn't reflect reality, guys. Somebody had an agenda here. That's fine--it was Somebody's prerogative. I just wish Somebody had revealed his own identity. "The People of Iraq" starred in this film. They probably did so at some risk to their lives. Bless them. But the producers and editors, presumably the ones who chose what interviews to include, were named "Drury," "Kunert," "Manes," "Robison," "Mark," and "Russell." Iraqis? Give me a friggin' break.
Just make sure you have some idea of who made the movie and why, and with whose money.
Given what we know about Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon, is it really so hard to believe that Bush administration or some arm of the US government was involved in shaping the message in "Voices of Iraq"? One IMDb user suggested this and got shouted down with something like "Michael Moore something something something U.N. Oil-For-Food Program something something something anti-Bush liberal media bias." Come on, guys, if you want to talk about bias and undisclosed motivations, you've got to do more than call names. The PR firm pushing the movie did the same thing for the "Army of One" commercials. That may not be damning evidence of a connection, but it does seem interesting enough to check out.
One of the producers, Archie Drury, is a Democrat and a former Marine, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. If you want to read into his motivations, I suppose you could go in either directions with him.
What I found suspicious was several Iraqis repeating the theory that democracy in Iraq would spread throughout the Middle East. That's not a harebrained pipe-dream, and it's possible that dozens or even millions of Iraqis believe it, but it's also strikingly similar to what the Bush administration is saying. It's similar enough at least to make me want to do a little more research.
And what's up with, like, 95% of the people in the film saying that America's so great? Jeez, man, the U.S. gets even better ratings in Iraq than it gets here at home. Sure, it's plausible. Iraqis are right to thank the U.S. military for freeing them from Saddam's regime. The important questions here, though, are whether they ARE actually thanking the U.S. for this, and whether or not they THINK they're better off. Obviously, at least 50 people out of 20 or 30 million say they're better off.
But a lot of them think that Saddam was great and the U.S. sucks. They may be wrong or even delusional, but you've at least got to put their comments in your "Voices of Iraq" film alongside the positive comments if you want to call it a real documentary. A survey conducted by Gallup in April 2004--the same time as the cameras were going around--found that the numbers of Iraqis who said the U.S. presence had improved their lives was about the same as those who said it hadn't. (Unless you're convinced that the Christian Science Monitor is a front for Michael Moore Inc., you may want to brush up on recent history at www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html).
A film that includes those voices but explains why they're wrong is a documentary with a clear point of view. A film that leaves them out in a wildly disproportionate way is propaganda. Including only one or two complaints in a propumentary doesn't reflect reality, guys. Somebody had an agenda here. That's fine--it was Somebody's prerogative. I just wish Somebody had revealed his own identity. "The People of Iraq" starred in this film. They probably did so at some risk to their lives. Bless them. But the producers and editors, presumably the ones who chose what interviews to include, were named "Drury," "Kunert," "Manes," "Robison," "Mark," and "Russell." Iraqis? Give me a friggin' break.
Buena Vista Social Club
(1999)
less than the sum of its parts
22 May 2005
Great music, interesting musicians and a fascinating project by Ry Cooder.
Hand it to Cooder for getting these guys together. But Wenders should have followed Cooder's search in more detail. And for that matter, he might've shown how these great musicians fell into obscurity. Was it some sort of Maoist "Cultural Revolution" that purged Cuban society of supposed classist vestiges? Was it simply that their musical styles were lost in the more recent currents of Cuban music? Most of the storytelling in the film was about the musicians' early years and how they got into music. That was pretty interesting, though not altogether unique. It seems like lots of great musicians have humble beginnings.
Did Castro's regime control what Wenders was able to film? If so, the project might have worked better as a book with accompanying music CD.
The music is the film's high point. The jam sessions and solo reveries were great, even though virtually all the other music and more is on the CD soundtrack BVSC.
Hand it to Cooder for getting these guys together. But Wenders should have followed Cooder's search in more detail. And for that matter, he might've shown how these great musicians fell into obscurity. Was it some sort of Maoist "Cultural Revolution" that purged Cuban society of supposed classist vestiges? Was it simply that their musical styles were lost in the more recent currents of Cuban music? Most of the storytelling in the film was about the musicians' early years and how they got into music. That was pretty interesting, though not altogether unique. It seems like lots of great musicians have humble beginnings.
Did Castro's regime control what Wenders was able to film? If so, the project might have worked better as a book with accompanying music CD.
The music is the film's high point. The jam sessions and solo reveries were great, even though virtually all the other music and more is on the CD soundtrack BVSC.
Collateral
(2004)
fun action flick, but lacks the depth and intensity of Heat
14 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***
This was a fun and exciting action movie. Unfortunately, Michael Mann's style is so distinctive that it's virtually impossible to avoid comparing the movie to Heat, which was clearly the better of the two.
One of the film's best aspects is Mann's sweeping use of Los Angeles as his canvas, as it was in Heat. And the action is almost as good as the action in the earlier LA thriller.
The acting was pretty good. Cruise, Foxx and Pinkett turned out decent performances, but how can they possibly compare to DeNiro, Pacino and Portman? The film's main weak point were the characters. They simply weren't as intense or as believable as those in Heat. Vincent was a pretty well-conceived character. Max wasn't. Max's sudden transformations from chilled-out playa to fretting bystander to steely stand-in for a hit man just didn't seem believable. That's the fault of the directors or writers, not of Foxx. In any one moment, he seemed more or less in character. But how in the world did he suddenly strap on the cochones during the sit-down with Felix? C'mon! Fanning really could've benefited from a lot more development. Since Max's heroism seemed to come out of nowhere, it would've been nice to see at least one hero-villain dynamic with some more complexity. For all of Fanning's pouting to his police partners, he didn't make any sort of headway with them. And for all his running around, he didn't do much to bring down Vincent. Mann should've either developed Fanning or left him out altogether.
And then there were several small details that irked me. When did Max's sub sandwich suddenly disappear from the front seat so Vincent could sit down there without getting it all over the seat of his pants? And what the heck was going on when Vincent died? I mean... jeez, he's running all over the friggin' place with a bullet in the shoulder, and then he just sits down, utters some cliché and then dies? C'mon!
This was a fun and exciting action movie. Unfortunately, Michael Mann's style is so distinctive that it's virtually impossible to avoid comparing the movie to Heat, which was clearly the better of the two.
One of the film's best aspects is Mann's sweeping use of Los Angeles as his canvas, as it was in Heat. And the action is almost as good as the action in the earlier LA thriller.
The acting was pretty good. Cruise, Foxx and Pinkett turned out decent performances, but how can they possibly compare to DeNiro, Pacino and Portman? The film's main weak point were the characters. They simply weren't as intense or as believable as those in Heat. Vincent was a pretty well-conceived character. Max wasn't. Max's sudden transformations from chilled-out playa to fretting bystander to steely stand-in for a hit man just didn't seem believable. That's the fault of the directors or writers, not of Foxx. In any one moment, he seemed more or less in character. But how in the world did he suddenly strap on the cochones during the sit-down with Felix? C'mon! Fanning really could've benefited from a lot more development. Since Max's heroism seemed to come out of nowhere, it would've been nice to see at least one hero-villain dynamic with some more complexity. For all of Fanning's pouting to his police partners, he didn't make any sort of headway with them. And for all his running around, he didn't do much to bring down Vincent. Mann should've either developed Fanning or left him out altogether.
And then there were several small details that irked me. When did Max's sub sandwich suddenly disappear from the front seat so Vincent could sit down there without getting it all over the seat of his pants? And what the heck was going on when Vincent died? I mean... jeez, he's running all over the friggin' place with a bullet in the shoulder, and then he just sits down, utters some cliché and then dies? C'mon!
Wimbledon
(2004)
Probably the worst romantic drama I've ever seen--EVER
3 January 2005
This movie was advertised as being from the director of Notting Hill, itself a mediocre and formulaic film heavy on stereotype and light on plot twists.
So I knew it was going to suck. I watched it to humor my sister on her birthday. If I'd known exactly how bad it was going to be, I would've pushed harder for a different chick flick.
The movie was noteworthy mainly for its liberal use of cliché. The sappy thumbs ups to the ball boys and other assorted "little people," the black-and-white contrast between Peter and his eventual American opponent, and the jealous and overprotective father coming around late in the game to root for the daughter's beau are merely the first three that come to mind.
Then there's the utter lack of character development. I'm still not sure whether the characters were played by real actors or by construction-paper cutouts.
As a tennis player who almost broke into the USTA top 100 in the state of Georgia, but aged out of my division, I might have at least enjoyed the tennis scenes and the player's comeback attempt. But it was not to be. The tennis was thoroughly uninspiring. Peter's character didn't even appear to have rehearsed his perfunctory lunges for the ball, not to mention his drop shot.
So I knew it was going to suck. I watched it to humor my sister on her birthday. If I'd known exactly how bad it was going to be, I would've pushed harder for a different chick flick.
The movie was noteworthy mainly for its liberal use of cliché. The sappy thumbs ups to the ball boys and other assorted "little people," the black-and-white contrast between Peter and his eventual American opponent, and the jealous and overprotective father coming around late in the game to root for the daughter's beau are merely the first three that come to mind.
Then there's the utter lack of character development. I'm still not sure whether the characters were played by real actors or by construction-paper cutouts.
As a tennis player who almost broke into the USTA top 100 in the state of Georgia, but aged out of my division, I might have at least enjoyed the tennis scenes and the player's comeback attempt. But it was not to be. The tennis was thoroughly uninspiring. Peter's character didn't even appear to have rehearsed his perfunctory lunges for the ball, not to mention his drop shot.
Sam & Janet
(2002)
Refreshing and honest-feeling portrayal of love in Oklahoma
25 December 2004
Movies with dumb stereotypes of America's heartland are all too common, so this one was refreshing. The portrayal of a couple putting off a first sexual encounter was also refreshing. Janet's decision seemed rational, reasonable, honorable and humane without seeming prudish. Most films would've portrayed her decision either as heroic or loony.
The intrigue with the crazy ex-husband was less successful than the love-story line. It came out of nowhere and it wasn't executed very well. For one, the director shouldn't have shown the ring falling to the floorboards. That confused me by mixing Sam's perspective with Steve's perspective. Second, why wasn't Janet surprised to see Sam on her couch? The fries-munching friend and the bartender seemed over the top, moving the film's flavor from indie to amateur.
The intrigue with the crazy ex-husband was less successful than the love-story line. It came out of nowhere and it wasn't executed very well. For one, the director shouldn't have shown the ring falling to the floorboards. That confused me by mixing Sam's perspective with Steve's perspective. Second, why wasn't Janet surprised to see Sam on her couch? The fries-munching friend and the bartender seemed over the top, moving the film's flavor from indie to amateur.
Do the Right Thing
(1989)
Did anyone in this movie do the right thing?
1 December 2004
It doesn't look like any of the characters did the "right thing."
Mookie and Sal were mostly on the right track until the last ten minutes.
For that matter, it's hard to see how anyone could've done the right thing, given the desperate straits they were all in.
I guess that's the point.
But still, it was frustrating to watch Mookie and Sal, the two most reasonable people in the movie, because they were so unbearably stubborn, Sal in his self-righteousness and Mookie in his laziness.
What no character did well was to step back and really try to take a look at the big picture.
Maybe Jade. Maybe Jade was the key.
Mookie and Sal were mostly on the right track until the last ten minutes.
For that matter, it's hard to see how anyone could've done the right thing, given the desperate straits they were all in.
I guess that's the point.
But still, it was frustrating to watch Mookie and Sal, the two most reasonable people in the movie, because they were so unbearably stubborn, Sal in his self-righteousness and Mookie in his laziness.
What no character did well was to step back and really try to take a look at the big picture.
Maybe Jade. Maybe Jade was the key.
Love Actually
(2003)
A good romantic comedy with a few great moments
26 November 2004
This was a funny, heartwarming romantic comedy that made a few sacrifices to mainstream cliché. Some of the interwoven story lines seemed original, or even edgy, like Laura Linney's romance and the budding fondness between the two porn stars. The British Prime Minister, on the other hand, was the same character Grant has played all his other movies, inappropriately plunked onto Downing Street. And his feelings for his aide Natalie seem to come out of absolutely nowhere.
Love Actually was remarkably similar to Magnolia, one of my all-time favorites. But these clichés take away the edge the movie could've had.
I'd love for the director to go back and give it another try. There are plenty of great scenes to start with.
Love Actually was remarkably similar to Magnolia, one of my all-time favorites. But these clichés take away the edge the movie could've had.
I'd love for the director to go back and give it another try. There are plenty of great scenes to start with.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
(2004)
Weird cult masquerading as science
17 November 2004
If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana.
I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.
I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.
The Royal Tenenbaums
(2001)
Great parts, but little whole
13 October 2004
I went into the film expecting to love it. i was disappointed.
Don't get me wrong; there's a lot to like about it. There's great music, especially the Velvet Underground and Dylan's theme from Pat Garrett/Billy the Kid. The acting was very good, as should be expected from such a storied cast. The camera work was great--lots of good use of distortion. And Wes Anderson made all the characters sympathetic even as they failed to relate to each other.
But for all the great aspects of the movie, it didn't pull me in, neither into deep identification with any of the characters, nor into the complex world that they share.
Rating: 7/10.
Don't get me wrong; there's a lot to like about it. There's great music, especially the Velvet Underground and Dylan's theme from Pat Garrett/Billy the Kid. The acting was very good, as should be expected from such a storied cast. The camera work was great--lots of good use of distortion. And Wes Anderson made all the characters sympathetic even as they failed to relate to each other.
But for all the great aspects of the movie, it didn't pull me in, neither into deep identification with any of the characters, nor into the complex world that they share.
Rating: 7/10.
Cold Mountain
(2003)
Typically Hollywood, but pretty good
5 October 2004
Good flick. Interesting story. Good adaption to screenplay.
Somewhat predictable but not overly so. Played on lots of ridiculous stereotypes of southerners. On the upside, it least made an attempt to show good and bad characters on both sides, though this isn't exactly the same thing as accuracy. Southern accents were woefully off, particularly Kidman's.
I rented this movie not fully expecting to like it. Hollywood flicks that try to capitalize on historically events usually suck in lots of ways.
They often play on historical stereotypes. Second, they frequently insert fictional love interests and other stock story lines into the lives of historical figures. This was fictional to begin with, and not being a Civil War history buff, I'm not aware of any distortions. This film's plays on stereotypes weren't among the worst that I've seen.
Somewhat predictable but not overly so. Played on lots of ridiculous stereotypes of southerners. On the upside, it least made an attempt to show good and bad characters on both sides, though this isn't exactly the same thing as accuracy. Southern accents were woefully off, particularly Kidman's.
I rented this movie not fully expecting to like it. Hollywood flicks that try to capitalize on historically events usually suck in lots of ways.
They often play on historical stereotypes. Second, they frequently insert fictional love interests and other stock story lines into the lives of historical figures. This was fictional to begin with, and not being a Civil War history buff, I'm not aware of any distortions. This film's plays on stereotypes weren't among the worst that I've seen.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
Hmmmmm.... What exactly was this movie?
28 June 2004
It seems like Moore let blind hatred for Bush and his cabal get in the way of clear thinking. Was this a film about a stolen election? Racism in Congress? Ineffectual federal bureaucracy? Simple ineptitude on the part of George W. Bush? Collusion between the Bush and bin Laden families? Moore breezes through all of these, but doesn't concentrate on any of them long enough to make it stick. The only theme seems to be that Bush sucks and needs to get booted from office. Moore is hardly the only person making that argument these days, and he doesn't do it any more convincingly than anyone else.
It seems like IMDb voters here aren't rating the movie, but rather John Kerry. I guess it's no surprise that 63 percent of the people who saw this movie gave it a "10." The likelihood that they appreciate the structure of Moore's arguments is less than the likelihood that they just hate Bush and will cheer for anyone who feels the same. Watching the crowd during a showing at Berkeley's packed California Theater was itself quite a spectacle. And I doubt that many among the 22% who gave the movie a "1" even saw it. Surely one can at least give Moore credit for delving a little deeper into Bush's National Guard files or questioning the decision of James Baker's law firm to represent the Saudi government against families of 9/11 victims. Apparently the cousins of die-hard Bushies have clued them into the existance of IMDb.
Kudos to Moore for finding the intrepid minority of soldiers and their families willing to speak out against the Iraq invasion.
Though his arguments are pretty thin, Moore raises enough questions to give pause to America's shrinking political middle: Why exactly did Bush sit around looking confused after an aide whispered that a second plane hit the World Trade Center? Why exactly were the bin Ladens whisked out of the country? Did the family's presence at Osama's son's wedding constitute support for the terrorist leader? How did Bush's cousin at Fox News influence the outcome of the 2000 election? Did five (or seven) Supreme Court justices really ignore questions of law in stopping the Florida recount? Why didn't even one Democratic senator support African-American House members in their protests of the election results? Was the USA Patriot Act really pushed through in 24 hours, as Moore implies? What exactly was the connection between the delay in air raids on Taliban and al-Qaeda bases with the oil line that Halliburton through Afghanistan?
If Moore was trying to prove anything, he failed. But if even a thousand moviegoers felt jolted from their Fox News-flag-waving world long enough to take a critical look at what's been happening, the country will be better off for it.
It seems like IMDb voters here aren't rating the movie, but rather John Kerry. I guess it's no surprise that 63 percent of the people who saw this movie gave it a "10." The likelihood that they appreciate the structure of Moore's arguments is less than the likelihood that they just hate Bush and will cheer for anyone who feels the same. Watching the crowd during a showing at Berkeley's packed California Theater was itself quite a spectacle. And I doubt that many among the 22% who gave the movie a "1" even saw it. Surely one can at least give Moore credit for delving a little deeper into Bush's National Guard files or questioning the decision of James Baker's law firm to represent the Saudi government against families of 9/11 victims. Apparently the cousins of die-hard Bushies have clued them into the existance of IMDb.
Kudos to Moore for finding the intrepid minority of soldiers and their families willing to speak out against the Iraq invasion.
Though his arguments are pretty thin, Moore raises enough questions to give pause to America's shrinking political middle: Why exactly did Bush sit around looking confused after an aide whispered that a second plane hit the World Trade Center? Why exactly were the bin Ladens whisked out of the country? Did the family's presence at Osama's son's wedding constitute support for the terrorist leader? How did Bush's cousin at Fox News influence the outcome of the 2000 election? Did five (or seven) Supreme Court justices really ignore questions of law in stopping the Florida recount? Why didn't even one Democratic senator support African-American House members in their protests of the election results? Was the USA Patriot Act really pushed through in 24 hours, as Moore implies? What exactly was the connection between the delay in air raids on Taliban and al-Qaeda bases with the oil line that Halliburton through Afghanistan?
If Moore was trying to prove anything, he failed. But if even a thousand moviegoers felt jolted from their Fox News-flag-waving world long enough to take a critical look at what's been happening, the country will be better off for it.
8 ½ Women
(1999)
8 1/2 short of a "10"
4 May 2004
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
Tell Your Friends