Change Your Image
mdinfo1
Reviews
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (2006)
Unfortunately doesn't tell the whole story
This documentary is indispensible because of the rare footage Stanley Nelson was able to find. However, the narrative of this film leaves out quite a bit about Jim Jones and his People's Temple. After viewing the Jim Jones biography on A&E and reading Deborah Layton's excellent book "Seductive Poison" I get the impression Nelson is only telling one part of a larger more complicated story with his 90 minute documentary.
(Possible spoilers ahead) The main problem is Nelson doesn't portay well enough how most of the members of People's Temple were basically fooled by Jim Jones into thinking he was running a church or religious movement. Jones claimed to be a pastor. However, he was deep down a socialist who didn't actually believe in God. And no one could say he behaved like a pastor (multiple sexual partners, drinking/drugging)
He basically ran the People's Temple like a communist government. All of the tactics he employed were influenced by Marx, Lenin and various communist countries. So while people thought they were joining a church they were in fact joining a political organization that wanted America to adopt socialism to solve all its social ills.
While mamy well intentioned members may not have known what they were a part of before Guyana. I think they saw clearly once they moved to Jonestown that they were in fact involved in a movement that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. With Jonestown, Jim Jones had created his own little Soviet Union or Cuba. In fact he secretly planned to move his flock to Russia.
As Deborah Layton explains in her book, the temple had to claim to be a church so they could get tax breaks and avoid being audited. But they were in fact a socialist organization. Nelson makes a big deal on the DVD of showing how "happy" the members of Jonestown looked on that final night before their suicides. And how it was still a vibrant community. The truth is found in Layton's book which I doubt the film makers bothered to read.
She explains that when outsiders visited, Jones instructed his followers to look happy and say they had no desire to leave. And how in fact many residents appeared happy because they were getting a day off work and real food. Also, Layton explains that many members of Jonestown couldn't leave because they'd donated their life savings, SS checks and sold their homes to support the temple. So if they returned to the states they would have to start over with no money. So of course they didn't want to leave. Jones had all their money.
I wish the documentary would have clearly shown what really went down with the People's Temple. How Jones took advantage of poor minorities and rebellious young people and manipulated them for his own personal goals. I don't even think Jones set out to form a cult. However, he did want power, wealth and control. And a harem of adoring, young attractive women around him that he could make to anything.
In the end, Nelson should have done a better job of explaining the external factors that made members want to stay in the People's Temple no matter what. The definitive book on Jonestown has been written (Seductive Poison). However, the definitive documentary has yet to be made. Don't be fooled by the narrow view of the Jonestown tragedy that is presented in this film. Read Layton's book are watch the A&E documentaries. They help tell the full story about what really went on in Jonestown. However, the "why" is what Nelson fails to answer.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Pleasantly surprised
I would give this a 10 but I'd like to see it a few more times to see how it holds up. First off, I wasn't expecting much from Die Hard 4. I thought Bruce Willis was too old and too bald to play an action hero. I didn't think Len Wiseman (whose only done "Underworld" movies) could direct something this huge. I was afraid it would be a "Rocky Balboa" type nostalgic trip. A swan song to a great film series.
I was wrong. This is my favorite Die Hard in the bunch. Even better than "Vengeance." This is the action film they don't make anymore. Non stop thrills and over the top entertainment. Its not supposed to be believable. It's just supposed to be fun. Those blockbuster action films in the 90's weren't about plot or realism. It was about escaping the real world and seeing things you'll never see in real life.
That's why movies like this and "Transformers" succeed. They don't take themselves too seriously. But they also give the audience characters they can care about. Instead of just nonsensical violence that looks cool but has no soul.
Len Wiseman and his editors do an incredible job with the pacing of Die Hard. There's so much camera movement, multi-angle coverage and POV shots it's mind blowing. They say the key to good directing is moving the camera around a lot and Wiseman really takes that to heart. The film looks like a video game. In a good way.
(Possible spoilers ahead) The supporting cast is top notch. Without stealing the show from Bruce Willis. Justin Long is great. Always liked himn in "Dodgeball" and he shows he can play it serious too. TImothy Olyphant is a great villain. He truly is an evil sociopath. No internal conflict or moments of doubt about his twisted scheme. His interactions with McClain's daughter are like a black comedy. Doing double takes about how strong she is.
Maggie Q is fantastically over the top as Mai Linh. A marvel to watch. Only problem is they turned her into a type of Terminatrix. During her battle with McClane I started to wonder if she could actually be killed. Willis' reaction to her footwork is priceless. You can tell he's baffled by how quick she is.
Kevin Smith is the weakest link IMO. He's just not an actor. And he's typecast as Silent Bob. His appearance was sort of an inside joke. I didn't know that was Mary Elizabeth Winstead as McClane's daughter Lucy. I'd heard she was just another Maxim hottie. She was a really good actress. Not just eye candy like Megan Fox in Transformers.
I hate to say it I was sort of hoping Ms. Wisemen (aka Kate Beckinsale) would be in the movie! Maybe make a cameo as one of government agents. Of course if Len did that the critics would say (he can't make a movie without his wife). She could use the career boost after those 2 bombs she made with Adam Sandler and Luke Wilson. And she's proved her mettle in action movies.
In the end, you definitely get the feeling Bruce Willis knows what he's doing with this whole Die Hard franchise. He waited for the right time, script and director. And he was right. Can't wait for Die Hard 5.
Superman Returns (2006)
Should have focused more on Clark/Superman (lots of spoilers)
I was really hoping this movie would be like "Batman Begins" or "Casino Royale" and take the franchise back its roots. They should have structured the story around the character development of Cal-el/Clark Kent/Superman. He's consistently the most interesting part of this whole saga.
(Spoilers below) For me, the best decision the filmmakers made was hiring Brand Routh to play Superman. He does an outstanding job. My favorite scenes in the film are the early ones when he's in Smallville. Ironically, the best scene IMO is one they deleted! When Clark talks to his Mother about how reluctant he is to return to Metropolis because "its hard to live his life there being who he is." I wish the writers would have developed that idea further.
A very interesting if ultimately flawed scene in the film is when Luther and his thugs violently attack Superman on "New Krypton." The scene is very emotional (despite the constant unnecessary cutaways to Kitty) but seems so out of place with the tone of the rest of the film. However, Brandon's acting here is phenomenal. His tortures screams while being kicked and shoved around in the pouring rain are heartbreaking. Too bad his role was so underwritten. If they would have gone more into his internal conflict about being Superman the scene would have made more of an impact.
Unfortunately, other than Brandon Routh, I didn't care much for Superman Returns. It just seemed like a remake of Superman: The Movie with less likable actors in roles that were already cast perfectly in the original films. - I thought Clark's mother was overwritten. She's not that important in the Superman story! - Lex Luthor should have been left out this one. Include a new villain or have a "non-traditional" bad guy. (like Batman Begins). Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey just made me wish I was watching Gene Hackman and Valerie Perrine instead. - The guy that played Perry White was AWFUL. - The miscasting of Lois Lane sank the movie. With the first 2 Superman movies, Richard Donner told screenwriter Tom Mankewitz that the key to the film was making the love story between Lois & Superman work. If the audience didn't feel any emotional attachment to those 2 characters and their romance, the movie would fail.
Sadly, that's exactly what happened with Superman Returns. The romantic chemistry between Brandon & Kate Bosworth just wasn't there. They seemed more like just good friends and Kate's Lois & Brandon's Clark were like disgruntled siblings. The love story just didn't succeed and this will hurt future sequels. I don't think anyone's dying to find out what happens with the Lois/Richard/Superman love triangle.
When watching Kate Bosworth I thought of about a dozen young actresses who could have done that role so much better. Rachel McAdams would have been excellent Not sure why Bosworth got hired (was "Blue Crush" really that good??). Plus she turned Lois Lane into a totally unlikeable character. I read one review which said it was like Lois Lane took "nasty pills." Too true. She cops an attitude with the spokeswoman on the airplane, Perry, her fiancée, Superman and especially to Clark.
So Superman Returns was a dud. I'm not looking forward to future sequels with this cast. Unless they decide to have Lois & Richard get married and move to a different city. Lex stays on that desert island. Perry White gets fired. And the story focuses on Brandon Routhe and a new villains. That I would go see. The Batman writers finally figured out that audiences want to know more about Bruce Wayne/Batman, not a bunch of side characters. Focus on the character who's name in the titles!
May (2002)
Heartbreaking and Frightening
(spoilers ahead) May is the quirky social outcast that everyone makes fun of and ridicules. The person that everyone sees as being pathetic and crazy, but harmless. What is scary about this movie is how May's odd behavior turns into a murderous rampage. She breaks psychologically during the middle of the film and never finds her equilibrium again.
Angela Bettis is incredible as the shy, abandoned, emotionally scarred title character. The role is way underwritten but she consumes the part and simply makes the film.
During the first part of the film I couldn't help but feel sorry for May. Her loneliness and sense of isolation is devastating. Her interactions with her doll ("I met someone special today."), her Doctor ("I have a date Friday night") and Adam are heartbreaking. Both despearate and hopeful. When she tells Adam "don't leave" and "you're perfect aren't you Adam?" May conveys the dephs of her emotional suffering and longing for attachment.
The movie would have worked fine as just a pscychological drama but it then turns into a horror movie. With a flick of her cat, May breaks from reality and decides to kill everyone who has abandoned and used her. I found the climax of the film to be very unsettling. But the story has a great character arc. Very surprising. And the ending makes sense in some twisted, tragic way.
This is definitely a memorable movie. Anyone who's experienced ridicule because of a physical defect or been ostracized by society for being "different" should be able to relate to May's plight.
The Center of the World (2001)
Very sensual and daring
It's hard to find a truly erotic movie made in America. Most mainstream films have little sex/no nudity and a whole lot of violence. And what constitutes "erotic art" in films is made up horribly contrived, unbelievable Cinemax/Playboy movies. That lack any real heat and are amazingly unsexy and boring.
So a film like "Center of the World" is a rare gem. It actually is sensual, erotic and the participants in the sex scenes seem comfortable and actually engaged in what they are doing. The scenes do not come off as awkward or simulated. Which is the challenge for any film director. To make the audience believe what they are seeing is real.
What's special here is that a great actress who one would actually like to see do nudity/sexual material, has the lead female role. There's no body doubles here and Molly seems really comfortable with the nudity and explicit sex scenes. She looks absolutely gorgeous throughout the movie. And is not the traditional, cookie butter starlet that is churned out in a 1,001 Cinemax skin flicks.
Hollywood should make more of these films. Unfortunately, I think during this age of "sexual repression" in the arts, our natural human sexual needs will continue to be hidden from view on both the big and small screens.
Kangaroo Jack (2003)
Jackie Legs is Great
(possible spoilers ahead) This movie is a guilty pleasure. Mindless fun. It could have used a lot more of the Kangaroo though! Considering the film's named after him, "Jackie Legs" is only on screen for about ten minutes. The brief scenes featuring KJ are priceless. The CGI guys really did a good job. And the roo is really funny eating candy and admiring his new red jacket.
Maybe they'll make a sequel and include a lot more of Jackie Legs. He's a riot!
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Jim Carrey's Masterpiece
Ron Howard's version of "The Grinch" is a bloated, over the top Hollywood induldgence and would be utterly forgettable if it weren't for Jim Carrey's amazing performance. Apart from Carrey's screen time as the fascinating Grinch, this movie is more or less typical commerical fare, not particurarly original and quite noisy. However, when Carrey appears, the film changes into something completely different; wild, unpredictable and impossible to ignore. In the DVD collector's edition Carrey explains that he's was basically "buried alive" on a daily basis in the Grinch make up and costume. The results show in his acting, which is manic, possessed and in the end, quite ingenius. I'm not sure what the Academy looks for anymore as far as award winning, but Carrey's turn at the Grinch certaintly deserved at least a best actor nomination. My favorite Grinch moments are when Carrey interacts with Cindy Lou, the obligatory "big budget family film 'cute as a button' child actor." WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD; My favorite dialogue is when Carrey says, "Saving you? Is that what you think I was doing? Wrong-o." And when he finally agrees to become Holiday Cheermister he tells Cindy, "I don't know if its that adorable little twinkle in your eye or that non-conformist streak that reminds of a younger, less hairy me but you've convinced me." Carrey's pulls off some other wonderful zingers throughout the film; with the mistle toe, "Now, pucker up and kiss it Whoville." When he's terrozing the town, "Oh the who-manity!" And also when he rides his sleigh down at a crazy speed, "We're gonna die! I'm gonna throw up and then I'm gonna die." But the classic segment (also featured on the CD), is Carrey reciting the Grinch's schedule, "4:00 wallow in self pity, 4:30: stare into the abyss, 6:30 dinner with me. I can't cancel that again." As far as the non-Grinch scenes, they are well acted but under written. And the actress playing Cindy Lou is sugary sweet and highly annoying. The part where she sings is almost unbearable. In the end though, "The Grinch" succeeds because Jim Carrey loses himself in the role. The original Seuss grinch in the 1960's cartoon was a riot, the ultimate villain you love to hate. Carrey shows that even as we enter the new milennium, Dr. Seuss created one of the coolest, most unforgettable rebels in history.
Tupac Shakur: Before I Wake... (2001)
Moves at a snail's pace but indispensable
Documentaries about Tupac Shakur can be tricky business. On the one hand, he is a fascinating subject, on the other hand, filmmakers can rarely get a hold of his music or interview the important people needed to tell the full story. Tupac's music is controlled by his Mother and she hasn't sanctioned an official documentary thus far. And with it only being 5 years since Tupac's murder, most of the important parties associated with him are reluctant to talk. "Before I Wake" makes a valiant effort but is hindered by the same things I mentioned previously. WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: This film is basically an interview with Tupac's bodyguard that is somehow stretched out into 90 minutes. The film maker's cannot use any of 2Pac's music, his videos or concert fotage, so they rely on still pictures that they repeat over and over again. Credit must be given to the editors though who use a moody instrumental score, creepy sound effects and a dark visual style that makes an impression. Essentially, "Before I Wake," boils down to a brief bio of Tupac followed by a recap of his legal problems. The main focus of the documentary is his murder in 1996. We get a blow by blow, often minute by minute summary of his final day before the shooting. The bodyguard has an interesting story to tell. Unfortunately, his story drags on and on. Which does add some suspense but it gets to be overkill. Like the filmmaker's are teasing the audience with a big revelation that never comes. In a nutshell, the film reveals that Tupac's security detail messed up big time that day in Vegas and that the Las Vegas police did a terrible job of investigating the shooting. No big surprises there. Nonetheless, "Before I Wake" is an indispensable document on Pac's murder and his troubled last years. The film will make you miss him terribly. And wonder just why he seemed destined to die young.
Bully (2001)
Truly original, Truly disturbing
WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS INCLUDED
"Bully" is unlike anything you'll see on the big screen because its filmed in a voyeuristic, documentary style that is very unsettling. The most disturbing aspect of this film is the fact that it could all be true. I am not a teenager, so I have no clue what teen life is like these days. However, I get the feeling from watching "Bully" that I'm catching a rare glimpse into what being young in America is all about circa 2002. I heard a Roger Ebert review of this movie that described the teens involved as being 'incredibly stupid.' I'd prefer to say that they are misguided. The hardest scenes in the movie to watch are the ones involving the parents. The old saying "sickness breeds insanity" is vividly displayed here. The actors who portray the parents are dead on, they have that "we were born all grown up" look about them. The gap between the kids and their parents in this movie is as wide as the grand canyon. So, director Larry Clarke should be applauded for tackling such an unpopular, often ignored subject. Unfortunately, the film comes up short from an artistic standpoint. I would of preferred that Clarke spend more time on the bullying relationship between the two main characters. Their complex entaglement is the most fascinating part of the plot. Clarke should of mixed more of showcasing the character's self destructive habits with main narrative, which is after all, the planning of the murder. The climax of the film does deliver, as we get to see just how crazy and hopeless these teenagers and their parents truly are. The final scene, showing the teens parents staring at their convicted felon children is a shining example of just how messed up parenting in this country has become. I think "Bully" should be watched with an open mind. It covers a subject matter we'd rather avoid and pretend doesn't exist. But the unfortunate fact is we see it all the time in the school shootings and rise in juvenile detention and teens in rehab facilities. "Bully" is a wake up call, and I'm geussing most adults in America are going to choose to hit the snooze button and instead rent "Zoolander."