Change Your Image
josebut8
Reviews
Pan (2015)
Peter "Post-Modern" Pan
I am really and truly over these "reimaginings" of beloved children's classics where the filmmakers feel they have to darken the material to the point of turning the proceedings into horror. Call it the video- game effect. Or the Lord of the Rings effect. Just don't call it enjoyable. Here we have Peter Pan given a back-story; but not just any back-story. A "destined savior" back-story with all the hokum and false religiosity that comes with: celestial choirs, resurrected parental holograms, magic keys and all. And that would be fine if the tale was told with a light touch, a little magic and some charm. Instead, we are treated in "Pan" to corrupt nuns who sell boys into lifelong slavery where if they do not comply with their captors they are thrown off of ships to plunge to their deaths. We see this happen to a boy not much older than Peter; in the service of a joke no less. We get to see Peter wake up in Hugh Jackman's bed and then be treated with chocolate as Hugh waxes rhapsodic about the joy of death between his snortings of pixie dust (his drug of choice). There's a sick sub-text running through this entire enterprise that seems more obsessed with corrupting Peter's innocence than celebrating it. And that might be okay too if you were setting out to do a dark, deliberately adult take on Peter Pan. But this Pan purports to be a "family" film. I'm sorry. The second you kill a child on-screen in a movie that's supposedly about the wonder of childhood, why would you expect me to enjoy the remaining 90 minutes? Even if they were any good? But they are not. A barrage of mind- numbing computer visuals and frenetic action scenes that bombard you rather than delight you. If I had to sum this up in one word it would be: execrable.
Lucy (2014)
Scarlett In the Sky With the Kitchen Sink
I went into this with the vaguest idea what it was about, having seen the TV ads etc. I thought it was going to be more of a Carrie White goes super-spy type deal and it sort of was. I went to see it primarily for Ms. Johansson. I love her. I think she is one of the most gifted artists currently "on the scene". She can sing, she can dance, she can do it all. Damn, didn't she win a Tony too? I've found every single one of her screen performances to be flawless. She makes me believe every character she plays whether that be a Long Island Princess or trained assassin who hangs with a Norse God. "Lucy" is no exception. She brings to this performance a depth that it probably doesn't need or deserve; but because she does, the movie is all the more gripping. That being said... This movie requires the suspension of the suspension of disbelief. It is quite frankly ludicrous in its ideas and asinine in its assumptions. It is some kind of ultra-camp. But the execution is sublime. Besson just pulls out the stops with his storyline and somehow miraculously manages to successfully graft a drug heist caper movie onto a sci-fi thriller. Once I just gave in to the movie's preposterousness I was riveted from start to finish. The film excited me in a way that is rare. You know, when you feel you're seeing something fresh when you've seen everything a million times already? I found Lucy to be this kind of experience. Camp, intentional or not, often takes the viewer full circle. From the ridiculous to the sublime and back again. I was also entranced by some of the imagery. One critic said this movie is sort of like "The Tree of Life" if it had been directed by Michael Bay (and I'll add Tarantino as producer) and this is an apt description. But in this case, that's a great thing. "Lucy" I think is the kind of thing you're either gonna love or hate. I loved it. If you're willing not to take Lucy too seriously...or seriously at all...the strange thing is you might actually find it thought provoking.
This Is the End (2013)
Movie Star Masturbation
*May Contain Spoilers*
I am not a twenty something stoner, let me say that right off. However, I do not need to be stoned to find something funny. I love to laugh and I seek out comedy, and thus, I am open to all types of comedy. I want to laugh. I was hoping This Is The End would make me laugh. It did. Twice. Once when the lady in the convenience store said something off screen no less. And again when Jonah Hill reenacts Rosemary's Baby. That's one laugh per hour. That's not good. Here we have what I guess we could call The Brat Pack for the 2000's: "The Frat Pack", let's call them. They partake in yet another "romp" wherein they imbibe drugs and call one another effing dix. They all ready did this in medieval drag. It wasn't very funny then. Now, in apocalyptic drag, it's simply abysmal. We're asked to find the Pack playing themselves hilarious in and of itself. One would think self-satire would ensue. It doesn't. Self congratulation certainly does though. Not only in the tone of the film but literally in the dialog as each "celebrity" attempts to justify their aww shucks, I'm just good folks down to Earth movie star. Well, if these movie celebrities were such good folks, they wouldn't have foisted this dreck on their fans and movie audiences in general in the first place. You can seriously tell that these guys think gracing the world with their "comedy" is to do the world a favor. It's a kind of arrogance that's so delusional and masturbational that it devolves into actual ten minute conversations about the actors masturbation styles. It really would not have surprised me if the actors unveiled their genitals for the cameras and masturbated into the lens. This is not hyperbole: they would have thought it hilarious. It's a toss up as to who comes off the worst in this. It's as though the Pack is competing to see who can be the least charming and most obnoxious. Danny McBride certainly claims this prize. Is he supposed to be today's surly but lovable philistine, a la John Belushi? Probably. John Belushi, however, was funny. Embarrassing cameo? Let's give that one to Channing Tatum. As for what unfolds story-wise we have a premise and nothing else. No creative thought is put into it. The film bogs down for the better part of two hours on one set: five assholes in search of a movie. It reeks of rip-off, this monster improv session with rapidly diminishing returns. Brackish looking, shrill, dark, heavy handed zero fun. Sitting there wondering what the budget went to...paychecks for the Frat Pack, Payola for the movie critics maybe and the rest for marketing. This truly was the Apocalypse.
Now You See Me (2013)
Tricked Out
(May contain SPOILERS) One of the most annoying things about "Now You See Me" is lens flare. Lens flare is the current cinematic trick du jour, if not obsession of many directors looking to slick up their movies with a high gloss. Lens flare, you may recall, is when light enters the lens, refracts and creates a brief mini super-nova across the film frame. The cinematic equivalent of having a flashlight shone in your eyes, which this film does, on numerous occasions. It's an apt visual metaphor for a movie that proclaims itself to be about diverting the gaze in order to trick the viewer. But here, temporary blindness (like fake lens flare), is a cheap gimmick that is much easier to employ than true slight of hand. There's no real sense of magic in this movie that is about magic. The tricks along with the nature of magic itself are constantly being explained along the way draining the film of magic of any kind. The would be "brainy" complications of the plot are not brainy enough...the complicated bank account trick slogs on for what seems an eternity. Capers need to be plotted with air-tight precision that stand up to repeated viewings. The caper needs to be carried out by characters about whom you care enough to be invested in whether or not they get caught. The filmmakers here make the deadly mistake of thinking the tricks are more interesting than the tricksters. And present a series of tricks that are not really all that compelling. Shallow characters carrying out rather pedestrian tricks adds up to a movie that's rather shallow and pedestrian, no matter how much lens flare you throw at the camera. Which is a shame, because it's a fantastic premise which should have been developed for someone up to the task...a cinematic magician if you will. As for the plot, it gets loopier as it goes along, trying to explain itself because it really has no point. You never really know what anyone's motivation is...who is Morgan Freeman again? Why is Michael Caine in this and why is it okay to rob him? Which would be fine, except the movie is at such pains to keep explaining itself (literally) it starts to feel that the movie is explaining itself to itself. The actors were all wasted, trying desperately to impart some kind of character to their character (Harrelson is most successful, but his efforts are for naught. Eisenberg is completely wasted). There is one thrilling scene when the movie comes to life. A fight in a small apartment between one of the magicians and two FBI agents. The magician uses the magic from up his sleeves to fend off the two men. This scene, which approached a kind of magic, was what "Now You See Me" needed more of. But you'll have to settle for lens flare.
The Nanny (1993)
A TV comedy that actually makes you laugh!
I never watched this show during its original run. I just wasn't watching TV at the time. But now it's on Nick at Nite, constantly, and I always end up looking at it. But I'd change the channel. One night I was watching it with my boyfriend and I turned to him and said: "Why don't I like this show more? It's cute, it has sharp writing, and the actors are all really good...so what's the problem?" "It's shrill?" he asked. "Yes! That's it! It's shrill!" And it is shrill, and loud and sometimes crass...but I always end up watching. Now it's completely won me over and I have to get my "Fran-Fix" every night. Taking more than a few cues from Lucille Ball and more than a little inspiration from "I Love Lucy", Drescher is just a delight as Fran Fine (or is that "Fein"? In any event, she's fine!)and the interplay with the actors is wonderful. One of the best ensembles ever; and Drescher, though she's clearly the star, is never reluctant to let others shine too. She doesn't have to be all wacky to make me laugh either, sometimes it's just the way she delivers a line and I'm on the floor. Thank you cast of "The Nanny" for a wonderful show!
The Tale of Despereaux (2008)
Botched near classic
This started out really strong. Interesting story, characters, visuals...but then something happened. It couldn't decide who the story was about. Despereaux? Dustin Hoffman's rat character? The fat girl? And the more the separate stories diverged, the less sense any of it made until the whole thing literally fell apart. The subplots never came back together to influence or enhance the main story. The climactic third act was a total mess that kept interrupting itself with off-putting jump cuts until it so sabotaged itself you didn't really care what happened to any of them. This was where someone needed Disney's storytelling 101 class. Sure, they were trying to tell the story in a clever way, but sometimes, straightforward is best. As for the voice work, everyone was good, except, surprisingly, the Brits. Emma Watson brought nothing to the princess except a kind of bland haughtiness and the usually brilliant Tracey Ullman was completely wasted in a voice performance that you might expect from, well, Emma Watson. As much as I admired her sober narration, I don't need Sigourney Weaver to tell me what to think and how to feel. Actually, I think SAG should ban all big time actors from voice over work. Throw a bone to a bunch of talented unknowns. Those fat cats don't need the money. 6 stars for the beautiful animation! Definite "Sleeping Beauty" (Disney again!) influence. The dragon fight with the "Hero" is right out of that film.
Australia (2008)
Should've backed out of this Outback
This movie is a complete misfire. An absolute waste of time, talent, and money and that includes the cinema-goers. To start, the screenplay is truly awful. A strident mash of "Out of Africa", "Giant", "Gone With the Wind" and maybe a dash of "Lawrence of Arabia", it has all the maturity of a seventh grade class project. Baz Luhrman, the director, applied his singular talents to "Moulin Rouge!" and came up with a perfect melding of style and material. That was truly a delightful, original film. Here,he takes that same style and tries to impose it on the Epic and it simply doesn't work. An epic needs a certain amount of gravity and quiet and grandeur. "Australia" pounds you over the head for three hours with completely unnecessary and extraneous directorial and camera shenanigans that add nothing to the movie except a certain kind of campy self-consciousness that is completely out of place in material like this. The entire first half-hour is played for laughs and reminds one of Spielberg at his most self-indulgent: the most frenetic scenes from his "1941" come to mind. Another problem is the use of blatant in-studio work and CGI. These tools can create miraculous cinema, but trying to integrate them into what should be a "realistic" historical drama is a mistake. They take the movie into the fantasy realm. You can't mix genre techniques like this and ask the audience to take your movie seriously. It doesn't work. I kept expecting Kidman and Jackman to break out in song like the characters did in "Moulin Rouge!" It would've made more sense. No wonder he kept referencing "The Wizard of Oz". Well, if Luhrman wanted to do a remake of that film, why didn't he? Or was "Oz" an in-jokey reference to calling Australia (the country)Oz? The visual style of the film can't hold a candle to the muddled thematic elements. This film asks us to hate racism and then gives us a story where the childlike Aborigines end up being patronized by a protective white couple and it's a good thing. What does that really say about what the filmmakers and Australia think about race relations? The acting is marred by the director's apparent insistence that his characters all behave like cartoons. The villain's are all mustache twirling cardboard cut-outs. Jackman, over the course of three hours, is never given more to do than manhandle horses and throw punches and is asked to bare his body in a ridiculous homage to "Flashdance". The man has yet to be challenged in any film he's been in. Kidman is all wrong for this, doing an impersonation of an "Aristocratic Lady" who has to be the most unlikely swell ever in cinema. She goes to children's movies without having children and makes more societal transgressions than Lady Godiva, Gertrude Stein and George Sands combined. Not to fault Kidman (the character is ridiculously drawn, her delicate sensibilities easily offended one second and driving cattle the next) but she's essayed this persona one times too many and it's wearing thin. And her waxen paleness and overly-lightened hair is rapidly rendering her into a caricature. If she's not careful, she'll end up like Joan "The Mask" Crawford. The only person who really shines here is the little boy. He was graceful, wonderful, and natural despite having to deliver truly insulting dialogue along the lines of "Meum wantum youm to sing-um and I will find-um you". One of the worst films of 2008.
Terrified (1962)
A really creepy villain!
I just saw "Terrified" for the first time on Rhino's "Horrible Horrors" collection. It was really quite good. Sure, it was super low budget and kind of stupid, but the villain gave me the willies. He runs around this ghost town in a suit and cape (I think) and he wears a hood (or is it a ski mask?) that only shows his eyes. The thing about it that truly creeped me out was that he ran in and out of scenes really fast and for some reason this was actually scary...I don't know why that is. Maybe it made him completely unpredictable. He didn't do any of the usual things these guys do when they stalk someone. He kept letting people go and then would recapture them and so on...all with this creepy whisper voice and super disturbing giggle. He was also a real kick-*** fighter! There's this one fight in a cave that looks almost like it's a real fight. You can tell this one actor is really trying to get away (or he's just an excellent actor...kind of a poor man's James Dean). It's sort of a re-working of "Phantom of the Opera" and there's a touching denouement on the part of the guy playing the villain. But I have to say, if I'm ever in a ghost town after sundown, I just may be looking over my shoulder, and I just may be...Terrified!