Change Your Image
comicsagogo
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Bugsy Malone (1976)
Nostalgia
I'll admit right up front that Bugsy Malone gets some leniency from me strictly for nostalgic reasons. The first time I saw this film was when I was about 10 years old and like many films that have a less positive impact on adults, it had the opposite effect on me and mesmerized me as a kid.
The premise is actually very clever ... a prohibition era mobster musical- comedy acted solely be kids. Add in mild slapstick violence and well written songs, Bugsy Malone is a memorable film.
Admittedly, the acting was mostly atrocious, but acting isn't too important to the target audience and I think most tweens and younger will enjoy the characters for their funny lines and goofy antics. There are actually some shining stars. Jodie Foster, who had just come off the frightening Taxi Driver, did a solid job playing the boss's moll, Marvin Lev picked up the mannerisms of a 30's highbrow gangster, and in his tiny debut role, Dexter Fletcher is amusing as Baby Face.
Paul Williams wrote the music for the movie and the soundtrack was a solid piece of work that included his hit "Ordinary Fool," although my favorite is "Do You Want to Be a Boxer?"
The movie ran along at a decent pace in its 93 minute runtime. I have to say that as an adult, I felt the ending was an abrupt let down, but I think the creator knew what he was doing. It seems that many family movies have some sort of moral, and writer-director Alan Parker probably felt that the ending ought to teach an important lesson about tolerance and friendship, and that the movie should end on a feel good note.
In all, Bugsy Malone is one of my favorite musicals. It won't rank up at the very top of the A-list with movies like Sounds of Music or Singin' in the Rain, but it is far better than the forgettable children's musicals that have faded into history.
Project Arbiter (2013)
World War II Sci-Fi
There's so much to do at Comic-Con that some real goodies get lost in the flood. Like small press creators, independent films don't get the visibility they deserve. I almost missed out on Project Arbiter. If it hadn't been for staff handing out promotional material in the main lobby next to a dude wearing a cool costume, I wouldn't have bothered wandering over to the independent film theaters way over in the ballrooms at the end of the Marriott hotel.
So the story goes that top secret technology has been developed during World War II that allows the user to project invisibility. A special services team infiltrates German-held territory with one of its soldiers wearing an invisibility suit. His purpose is to get to a location where secret experiments are being conducted by the Germans. What he discovers there are horrific tests being performed on humans. He also learns that his own life is threatened by the very technology he is wearing.
I love retro-futurism. Like Hellboy and a slew of Steampunk related movies, merging current day (or future) technology with the resources available in times past creates fascinating alternative-reality story lines. These types of films don't have many limitations so long as the baseline historical context (in this case WWII) remains intact. Sure, it requires a deeper suspension of disbelief, but if one achieves that, a good story of this kind can be just as interesting as movies projecting from current day technology into the opposite direction (into the future). You know, like Blade Runner or Star Trek in their time.
I'm assuming the budget for the film was pretty thin, so the special effects impressed me. The only two things I found distracting were the wide shots that took in the countryside and buildings, and the eye holes in the mask. The wide shots came off cheap and empty by comparison to the close-in shots. It's probably because a very limited number of actors were used and the budget didn't allow for background buildings and elements that would have convinced a viewer that they were seeing 1940s Poland. So, I guess that's not a complaint as much as an observation. As for the mask, maybe there was a reason for the small openings, but I have to assume that the soldier could see very little out the tiny peep holes. I think it would have looked better to have some sort of sealed goggles in the mask for peripheral vision.
I was intrigued by the mysteries that the movie partially exposes. The short film promises depth to the storytelling that would be handled in a longer movie. I'm not familiar with the actors but they were convincing in general although a fighting sequence in a field was a bit stilted. From what I heard during the Q&A, the film was shot with a Red One camera. The coloring of the film was fantastic ... a intentional somewhat grainy black and white but with slightly muted coloration. In a lot of ways, the cinematography reminded me of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
I hope this gets picked up and converted into a feature. I'd love to see the whole story.
Man of Steel (2013)
Neck Snapper
Apparently, this isn't a film you watch from the 2nd row in a crowded theater. I got a good view up Superman's cape but it was hard to keep up with the action since I was less than 20 feet away from the screen. Anyway, from what I was able to surmise, Man of Steel as a story is a disappointing addition to the stable of Superman movies. Perhaps it's just the character. I'm a Batman fan and I think the world is subdivided on Superman vs. Batman lines, so maybe I'm being unfair ... but I doubt it. Anyway, from a visual standpoint, it was spectacular. The action and particularly the fighting sequences with Faora-Ul, Tor-An, General Zod and Superman are incredible. How Metropolis is supposed to rebuild itself after the super-being Armageddon should be a documentary unto itself.
I wrote about this elsewhere: You know a movie is in trouble when the film creators have a harder time asking you to suspend your disbelief about the relationships and drama between characters than scientifically unsound principles commonly found in superhero movies. It felt like Lois Lane was shoehorned into parts of the film where she had no reason to participate. I'm sure it was to create some sort of early emotional connection between her and Clark, but it felt awkward and unnecessary. Amy Adams should have been a miscast, but since the Lane character wasn't really working, I suppose it didn't matter that she played the role. That's not a dig at Amy, it's just an unfortunate side effect of a poorly formed role. On the flip side, Michael Shannon as General Zod was brilliant. He's such a malevolent looking character when he furrows his brow and curls his lip. I thought his final pre-fight invective was very well written and played. It took the edge off Zod's evil and exposed him as more of a relentless, unsympathetic warrior.
I thought that the periodic flashbacks to Clark's formative years was a good instrument for building a better understanding of his character. It was formulaic to be sure, but the method of delivery was intriguing. Having said that, the film lost me a few times. It definitely tried to pack in a lot of material even though the film's run time was long. That's something I think is partially unavoidable in superhero movies. With interweaving story lines that span years, it's hard to simplify them into a single film even if the focus is on only one aspect of the character's tale.
In all, I think Man of Steel is worth watching at least once for its sheer summer blockbuster value. If you like big special effects, and wanton destruction, you'll enjoy this film.
Boy Wonder (2010)
Psychological Thriller or Revenge Flick
We're not sure where we ended up. We wanted a simple, cotton candy Punisher-esque movie and ended up with a Donnie Darko Lite meets Lucky Number Sleven, except it wasn't funny at all and because the film was only 93 minutes long, the story and characters were a bit thin. Don't get us wrong. We enjoyed it. Revenge films may be indulgent and it doesn't take much to make them passably satisfying (like most horror films), and Boy Wonder has some strong moments. Still, it wouldn't have hurt to take out a few more criminals along the way. Well, it wouldn't have hurt us anyway. The criminals, yes. But that's the point.
The characters trended towards the typical clichés in these types of movies. Doting mother brutally slaughtered. Young sexy detective with a tough exterior and a heart of gold (that can, amazingly, drink a dude twice her size under the table). A older, world-weary detective that turns a blind eye to vigilante justice. A bumbling cop partner. Etc. That's common in a run-of-the-mill thriller, so we expected that, but we always keep our hopes up that one of these types of movies will surprise us with fantastic characters like the relentless Creasy in Man on Fire or the black hearted but penitent Will Munny in Unforgiven.
Spy (2011)
Just pure hilarity
Spy is insanely funny. Whereas another fantastic spy farce, Archer, is prototypically American (what with the over-the-top gadgetry, lewdness and macho stuff), Spy is equally British (compact, driven by small inflections and absurdities, and politely biting). Spy is rife with the comedic mechanism of interruptive dialogue where characters finish each others sentences or over-speak creating confusion and misdirection -- some intended, some not. It takes careful listening to stay with the dialogue and it's in the subtlety of the delivery that the funniest lines are spoken.
Jude Wright is brilliant as the über-intelligent and resentful son of the main character, Tim. Tim, portrayed with superb comedic timing by Darren Boyd, is an affably charming man of small wit and large misfortune. And for us, the scenes with Robert Lindsay's zany character, MI-5's examiner, are the gems of the show.
For comedic value, Spy is a 10 to us. Flaws abound in any program, but a rare show like Spy makes one not care. As far as we know Spy is not running for any particular comedic championship. It's just an easy going ride through hilarity.