Change Your Image
Billy_Tallent
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
True Believer (1989)
From a 2006 perspective, this movie has little to offer
I imagine people seeing this movie when it was initially released in 1989 probably have a different perspective on it.
However, I can only review it from today's bias, since I only recently saw it. This may mean I am judging the movie, on its own merits, unfairly.
The fact is, I have seen this plot innumerable times on Law and Order and all those similar cop/lawyer shows. It's just not very interesting. We all know what is going to happen. There's no tension. Of course, ordinary plot can be compensated for by strong characters, but here the characters are also pretty one-dimensional. James Woods as Eddie Dodd over-acts, and I don't buy his character's sudden change from defending scuzzy drug-dealers for cash bonuses, to caring once again about the people he defends. There's just no reason given for it. I think we were supposed to get the idea that he sees his former self in the younger and idealistic Roger Baron (Downey), except we don't see any evidence of this transition, we only know this because it's a standard of any movie featuring the older jaded mentor and the young fresh tyro. Downey has very little to do, everything focuses on Dodd's journey. And Dodd is just not a compelling character.
The Gingerbread Man (1998)
If this was made by a bunch of unknowns, I might have been kinder
Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.
I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.
I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.
Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Great performances-- but next time, Russell, trash the slapstick
The strength of 'I Heart Huckabees' is in Russell's command of the ensemble cast. It may sound a rather underwhelming compliment, but in fact this movie is an excellent example of how to write, direct, and edit an ensemble cast, which is something that fails more often than it works, in my opinion, since there are always characters or situations presented in ensemble movies that I find myself completely disinterested in. In 'Huckabees', however, the pace romps along, no scene is too long, there is little chaff (excepting all the slapstick, 80% of which should have been cut -- I'm talking of everything involving breastfeeding, mud, or hitting people in the face) and most importantly, the characters are interesting people in interesting situations.
I fall short of saying the characters are 'realistic', but neither are they caricatures -- even the character of Brad (Jude Law) I began to have sympathy for, despite loathing that kind of person in real life. A part of this is Russell's very deliberate building of the script around the actors themselves -- the roles of Albert (Schwartzman), Tommy (Wahlberg), and the existential detectives (Hoffman and Tomlin) were written for those actors. Another part of this comes from the excellent performances Russell elicits from the cast, or, often, the cast elicit from themselves. Wahlberg shines in the role of his career -- I have generally found him a very hit or miss actor, but his portrayal of Tommy has layers of intensity and energy on top of a core of vulnerability that show what he can be capable of as an actor. Jude Law, as Brad, is so perfectly good-looking and charismatic, the epitome of a gifted corporate suck -- yet Law, as the movie progresses, brings something deeper to the role, a feeling of cracks in the facade, that make Brad's progression quite believable to me (other actors may not have been able to carry this off.) Some people found Law didn't work for them because his character wasn't, quote, 'funny' -- I guess since I viewed the movie as a drama rather than a comedy, I got something completely different out of Law's performance, it came across to me as a great piece of acting.
Everyone, in fact, turns in a great performance, excepting Schwartzman. I am not saying Schwartzman does badly, I just think he's a little exposed amidst the sheer talent around him, lacks a certain consistency and depth to his performance and did not let me sympathise more fully with his situation the way that a more talented actor would have enabled me to do. For example, I needed to see some genuine passion behind his negative obsession with Brad -- it is apparently uppermost in Albert's mind and also pivotal to the movie, and yet although it's scripted adequately Schwartzman doesn't get it across to me; or rather, he makes it come across as sort of sulky and bland. Schwartzman's better sections are helped by the chemistry Wahlberg exudes in their scenes together -- actually, any scene Wahlberg is in leaps off the screen.
I went into this movie expecting it to be a 5/6-out-of-10 movie -- something to kill a couple of hours. I never saw it in the theatres because the title put me off (and after seeing it I'm even more dumbfounded by the title -- what sense does it make in the context of the movie?) and also because I generally dislike ensemble movies. If I had been expecting anything more interesting than a popcorn movie, I may not have found the movie as good as I did. For me, the movie worked as an off-beat, somewhat satirical look at contemporary society that doesn't take itself too seriously (Existential Detectives anyone?) -- improved immensely by fantastic acting performances but let down when it tries too hard for 'comedy'.
The overall IMDb rating reflects my rating on the movie.
Pay It Forward (2000)
So close to getting it right... yet ultimately so far away.
I knew two things going into this movie.
1) With Helen Hunt, Kevin Spacey, and Haley Joel Osment, the acting would be first-class.
2) Be prepared for the overload of sentimentality.
Thus for most of the movie I was pleasantly surprised - apart from the overproduction of tears by all characters, the lessons being learnt by these characters in the movie were not pounded into the audience with a sledgehammer as is all too frequently common in Hollywood. Instead, we are presented with a reworking of the idea of "'do unto others as you would they do unto you" with an added note "even if your life sucks and things don't always work out the way you'd hoped". This is refreshing.
Thus I was enraged at the ending. How cheap can you get? I would have preferred the typical 'happily ever after' ending to the so-cheap-it's-counterfeit ending they gave us. I won't spoil it, but I can't see how anyone finds this ending a tear-jerker, as so many appear to - I felt manipulated and the rest of the movie was cheapened immensely as a result. What message are we being given? All the way through the movie we are being told - and ably shown - that doing the right thing isn't easy, that making the world a better place means you ought to be prepared for disappointment. That's honest. But I think somewhere towards the end the makers of this movie forgot that, if they're making a movie with a larger point, it's wise to make sure everything adds up and is taken to some sort of logical conclusion. There are a few decent logical conclusions I can think of for this movie, including ones that involve ultimate disappointment for the characters - but what they came up with was just pure crass sensationalism.
This movie was apparently adapted from a book. Perhaps the producers were so unimaginative that they stuck rigidly to the structure and event of the book, rather than coming up with a more thoughtful ending. They ought to go read 'A Simple Plan' by Scott Smith, and then go watch his movie adaptation of his own book. They will see how Scott Smith completely excised the ending he wrote in the book in favour of a less sensational, but more intelligent, ending. 'Pay It Forward' would, in my opinion, have been a greater piece of work and done justice to the excellent acting performances with a similar ambiguous ending. Or just any other ending at all.
Due to my dissatisfaction with the ending, other problems in the movie that I'd ignored became magnified in my mind; for example, it is never explained how Trevor comes up with his idea of 'pay it forward' in the first place. This is a significant concept to come from an 11 year old, thus we ought to see some impetus for it. I then wondered why the one Afro-American character in the movie has to have a gun and end up in jail, like always. I then wondered why I didn't actually believe that the two main adult characters were in love, like the movie was trying to tell me. Etcetera. Ruin the ending of a decent movie, and you ruin the entire movie.
I Am Sam (2001)
Today's mid-day movie is...
Pinch me, but I really thought I was watching the made-for-TV mid-day special here...
I have no problems with the acting - easily the best aspect of the movie, although Sean Penn wasn't doing anything more than anyone else, despite indications you might have received that he was giving an Oscar-worthy performance. Then again, given that they automatically give Oscars to actors who play retarded people, autistic people, AIDs patients, etc, then I guess it's simply the fact that Penn is playing a retarded person that makes his performance so worthy, right? [No, I'm sure not everyone is that dumb] Pfeiffer, IMO, pulls off a better acting performance, given her character is not written to be very likeable.
The trouble with movies like this is that they appear to have a good heart, but Hollywood and Company are so clearly afraid that their audience is stupid that any genuine, original, memorable potential in a movie is sucked out. Particularly when it involves those who are considered 'not normal' (quote from movie). They give you the movie title in little letters 'i am sam', they show how orderly and likeable Sam is with the customers, then there's the heart-wrenching scenes of how Sam is left with the baby, and how, like any father in such a situation, he has no idea what to do. This is just in the first five minutes. Sam's just like you and me, isn't he?
But there's something missing, which makes the premise of the entire movie hollow. The first meaty scenes we're given of how Sam reacts in the real world not only give rise to severe doubts that Sam has a case for raising his child, but make one wonder how Sam could possibly have raised this child without coming to the attention of any authorities for seven whole years. That's a large credibility gap.
There was also a credibility gap with Rita's transformation - Hollywood conventions mean we know right from the start she will have one, but we are only told of it, rather than shown any evidence. Rita, in actions, does not change one bit that I saw. In particular we needed to see far more of her interactions with Willie.
It was a nice touch that the foster mom was played as human rather than as a bitch, which brings to mind another thing I was concerned with. Was it really necessary that every single female character in this shed such copious quantities of tears? I think the social worker was the only one saved from involuntary dehydration.
I was also disappointed that, despite Sam's clear obsession with the original Beatles, most, if not all, of the soundtrack was only cover-versions of Beatles songs.
Overall, a lot of good effort put in by the actors, gone to waste by a forgettable story.
eXistenZ (1999)
Would you pay to play this game?
Seriously. eXistenZ is supposed to be the ultimate virtual reality game, developed by a world-class company, designed by a cult genius (in either guise). So... would you buy a virtual reality game, something that offered you escape from your dull real life, to become - an abattoir worker? a dog washer? perhaps a carpet cleaner?
No, the above is not a spoiler - if you haven't seen the movie, you won't understand me at all, although you'll understand that the premise of the movie is clearly unintelligent. If you have seen this movie, and didn't like it, you'll agree with me. If you actually liked this movie, I wonder how much imagination you possess. Perhaps none at all - or possibly a vast amount, enough to overcome the serious credibility flaws in this movie. Many who like this movie seem to heap scorn on the detractors for being seduced by the CG effects of The Matrix (and lately, Attack of the Clones). Personally, I dislike The Matrix to the same degree I dislike eXistenZ; they were both poorly conceived, although the Matrix obviously fools some people through its glamour and eXistenZ has not the budget to compete on that level. Given that, in eXistenZ at least we might hope for superiority of plot, of character, of theme, of conception, of resolution... but we hope in vain.
As for the actors - a waste of talent. Jude Law, so fine in Gattaca, simply reads the script for much of it. Willem Dafoe's character boxes in this fine actor. Don McKellar is one of the few to have some fun (and usually I'm no fan of his), while Callum Keith Rennie falls back on his reliable geek charm for his tiny part (criminal how some actors are wasted). As for Jennifer Jason Leigh - I think this is a lesson to casting agents; test your actor in an auditorium as well as in your office suite, and you'll see some actors simply don't have the range for some roles. I felt sorry for her. Don't tell me she was acting the role of a non-actor - in that case, she should have been blatantly bad, and so should everyone else (which is another in a score of thematic problems I have with the movie - should these people be so seamlessly integrated into their roles? Does anyone except for the two leads have any free will at all, and if not, why 'play a game' where you have less choice as to how you act than a Pac-Man on a Commodore 64?) No, Jennifer Jason Leigh is just entirely unsuitable for this role.
I saw the whole thing done far better in that Red Dwarf episode many years ago - which one was it now?