Change Your Image
johnginn
Reviews
Lost in Space: Return from Outer Space (1965)
Blecch
I'm sorry to disagree with everyone else, but this has to be one of the very worst of the worst shows of the series. Why? Because every human on the show, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, are just astonishingly stupid.
Why? Spoilers Ahead: The Robinsons don't believe Will even though they have a mountain of experiences showing Will to be a highly credible and reliable witness to all things scientific. Penny was missing. He tells them how she was retrieved, and he is greeted with condescending smirks. Penny conveniently has no idea that she has even been missing, but Will, when he eventually returns, has full recollection of his transference. So why not Penny? Because the plot would be over if she does remember. There is no other reason for her to have forgotten.
Similarly, the plot is over if the Robinson's act like scientists and consider Will's claim instead of dismissing it out of hand as boyish whimsy. They even use a claim by known psychotic liar Dr. Smith to bolster their belief that Will is just making things up. Is it possible these are the same people who are on the Jupiter 2 because they are supposed to be some of the smartest, best of the best, people on the planet? Bah!
On Earth: Will lands among some of the stupidest people imaginable. I actually thought he had gone back in time. "No, we're not going to call Alpha Control on one of these new- fangled telephone machines." They live in a time when an intergalactic mission to space has been launched while they still seem mystified by electricity. I mean, sure Will's story might seem wild, but it would be easily verified by one single phone call or even a trip to the library where there would surely be a book about the expedition, but they work extraordinarily hard to avoid doing even one relatively simple thing.
Dr. Smith, good lord, even for him, good lord. He psychotically spends half the show trying to reprogram the Robot even though we know that it is basically impossible for it to lie. Similarly, the Robinsons conveniently never think of the simple step of asking the robot what happened, since the robot also witnessed everything that Will did.
In short, this was an almost maddening example of the idiot plot: Everything falls apart if only ONE PERSON acts with even the tiniest bit of rationality and intelligence. Nothing is more infuriating when supposedly smart people absolutely refuse to do even one smart thing.
On the other hand, I watched the show was when it was originally on, and I was 8 years old. Trying to re-watch the show now, it is kind of strange having to come to the realization that it is not, in fact, the most awesome show every made.
Pride and Prejudice (1940)
Austen it's not
I just caught this on Turner Classic Movies and while it does have a small breezy charm at times, it is a terrible adaptation of Austen's novel. Terrible.
Austen's novel and prose exhibited a great deal of wit, which this version mistakes for a kind of breezy humor, but beneath her wit, Austen was also writing about a time and societal structure in which social standing and the appearance of certain respectability was everything. For the characters involved, even Elizabeth, who tried to appear not to not care at times, the unfolding of the story's events all come with serious consequences attached.
My impression of this version is that it seemed largely unaware of the story's more dire concerns. Mrs. Bennet's desire to see her daughters married is treated here as kind of amusing, but in the book, and in the reality of the time, her fears that her daughters will lose their standing are not without merit. The society they live in really doesn't offer many opportunities for her daughters.
This version seems to be all about love; Austen's novel is really a story of survival. That Jane and Elizabeth both also happen to find their heart's true love while marrying well is really something of a miracle. In Austen's world love and marriage did not always run hand in hand.
Having just seen the 2005 version, the lack of Austen's bite was all the more evident. This version just gets so many things wrong. The actresses playing the Bennet sisters are all way too old for their roles. In the book, Elizabeth is "not yet one and twenty" and Lydia is a young twerp of 15 or 16 when she runs away with Wickham. Lady De Bourgh's actions in the end of this version are just plain ridiculous, the resolution is neat and tidy wrapped up far too quickly and throughly wrong. Other changes in the story are just baffling.
Enjoy this version if you must, but for me it was like watching a Cliff Notes version that was written by someone who hadn't actually read the story himself but had only heard about from a friend.
Love Actually (2003)
Actually, it's not good
Just caught this one on DVD. It's one of the most self-indulgent, overdone movies I've ever seen. A huge, nearly formless, undisciplined mess.
There are scenes in here that, if viewed as short clips, are kind of funny and work fairly well, only to have every shred of their credibility leeched away by director Richard Curtis with some unbelievable and patently false follow-up moment.
The result is that characters move from the realm of real, identifiable people to soulless plot monkeys in the flicker of a few frames and a music cue. This is not the fault of the actors, who struggle valiantly to connect to their characters, but they are all eventually undone by Curtis' desperate preciousness.
How can Curtis be praised for his humanistic touches when he absolutely refuses to allow his characters to exist as real people?
Horrible plot thread example No. 1: Within a five-week period, a writer, (Colin Firth) is betrayed by his girlfriend and brother, goes to France to write a book and falls in love with his Portuguese house keeper with whom he's had only the barest of conversations due to a language barrier; he finishes the book, learns enough Portuguese to ask her to marry him - all while never once seeming to be in any sort of anguish or psychic pain due to the betrayal...
Wrong! False! LIE! This relationship is DOOMED! It's fraught with delusion and warning signs; and yet Curtis insists that its all cute and evidence of the wondrous mystery of love.
Horrible plot thread example No. 2: Within the same five-weeks, Liam Neeson buries his wife, is told to `move on' by a friend, and apparently seems to have done exactly that in meeting a Claudia Schiffer look-alike (played by Claudia Schiffer, how precious) at his son's Christmas pageant. So any of you out there mourning the death of a wife or husband, the message here is that if you haven't paired up again within a few scant weeks, just get over it and move on. It's been a whole month already and you are boring us all with your `grief,' which Curtis would seem to define here as self-indulgent blah-blah-blah. And for you others out there, if a friend or relative is dealing with the death of a partner, you are, by Curtis' logic, probably entitled to start mocking them within a few weeks:
`How's it going, Joe?'
`Not so good. My wife died a few weeks ago. The house seems so empty.'
Then you come back in that high-pitched mimic voice. `The house seems so empty. The house seems so empty! Well cry me a freakin' river!'
I could outline more plot threads just as horrible, but why bother? Suffice it to say that it is a sorry state of movies when I can recognize deeper and truer levels of humanity in Ron Perlman's Hellboy character than I can in any of the people here (barring the Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson story thread; they survive relatively well).
The more I think about `Love Actually,` the angrier I get. It lies and lies and lies about human nature. The fact that it is rated as high as it is on this site depresses me as deeply as the movie itself did.
Luther (2003)
An exciting telling of a pivotal moment in history.
"Luther" is an exciting, well made film about Martin Luther and his struggle to make a break from the all-powerful Roman Catholic church.
It is the early 1500's and the church dominates in almost every aspect of daily life. Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes) begins the movie as a priest who does his best to obey the teachings of the church, but increasingly has trouble reconciling those teachings with the actions he sees the church taking in the world. He sees a church obsessed with collecting money, crushing intellectual inquiry and unresponsive to the needs -- spiritual or physical -- of the people.
Sent to the University at Wittenburg to study theology, Luther begins to preach a less dogmatic form of religious doctrine, questioning several tenets of the faith as dictated by Rome.
Acting and technical aspects are all excellent. Film does a superb job of avoiding a pious, preachy tone by focusing on Luther's conflict with the church and the very real danger he was in.
Luther's battle for the right to merely speak his mind broadens the movie beyond its religious context to secular audiences. His fight for self-expression is something that everyone -- atheist, agnostic or believer -- can identify with.
Film also is honest in dealing with the costs of fighting the status quo. The break with Rome leads to a political struggle that left thousands of peasants dead.
Bottom line: if you are a secular-minded individual, don't let the religious content keep you away. The film first and foremost is a profile in courage story about the importance and consequences of standing up for what you believe in -- a message that is always relevant, yes, even today. Perhaps especially today.
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Slow motion movie
Well, the thing of it is, the director is not nearly as clever or original as he thinks he is. Not nearly. Not at all.
People don't behave as they do in this movie, at least not on planet Earth they don't.
What were we supposed to take from this film? Bad parenting can lead to screwed up kids?
And this is a fresh insight ... how?
Anderson fills his cast with excellent actors, and then refuses to allow them the freedom and latitude to actually go to work and find and express some honest emotional truth in their characters. Only the always dependable Gene Hackman manages to create an identifiable human being, in spite of the trappings they seek to impose on him. For instance the scene where he talks about having his life saved in India by the Tenenbaum's Indian butler -- or whatever he is. Royal had been stabbed by the butler who was seeking a bounty; instead the butler had a change of heart and rushed Royal to a hospital. This is a prime example of cute and ultimately bad writing. It says nothing about humans because it is incident that has never happened ever to a real human being, nor will it ever happen. It is a writer's conceit only. Too clever. The film suffers for it; it is but one of dozens of such transgressions.
Anderson populates his films with human cartoons, then would have us believe he is filling us in on actual human behavior. There is nothing wrong with the human cartoon approach -- Dr. Strangelove leaps to mind -- But that film uses the humans to lampoon human short-sidedness and lack of self-awareness.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what points Anderson is trying to make in this film.
2 out of 10; film is boring, pretentious and tedious.
Production Stills (1970)
The IMDB has everything!
I am surprised to see this film listed, I saw it as a student a long time ago.
The film is an experimental, deconstructionist film of (if I remember right) about eight to 12 minutes in length. The film is exactly what the title suggests -- production stills. The whole thing is production stills, shot in real time as the film progresses.
The movie begins with a close-up of a cork bulletin board. Off camera, voices are heard discussing the setting up of a camera angle. A flashbulb goes off, and a poloroid picture is pinned to the board. More discussion takes place as we watch the picture slowly develop in front of our eyes. Another flash, another picture is pinned, and gradually the whole story of what the voices are discussing unfolds.
The setup is potentially tedious, but Fisher manages to inject some very dry and droll humor into the film.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Enjoy the ride...
For those trying to intellectualize "what it all means," you're looking in the wrong place for answers. Lynch is a poet, his films are poetry, poetry is about feelings and emotion; find the answers there. The truth of the story does not lie in your being able to puzzle it all out. The truth will be found in your reactions to it. Emily Dickinson wrote: There's a certain slant of light/On winter afternoons/That oppresses, like the weight/Of cathedral tunes. Heavenly hurt it gives us/We can find no scar/But internal difference/Where the meanings are. Why does that light oppress us? It makes no objective sense, and yet it does disturb us. Lynch's films are like that slant of light: contemplation of why we find the scenes disturbing, or comical, or heartbreaking is of far more importance than nailing down "what it all means." Just be glad that there is still a film maker out there who is actually willing to engage your emotions -- your GENUINE emotions -- and not just push all the buttons you've been trained to respond to by the marketing machines that studios have become. Good news, everybody! David Lynch is convinced that you still have a soul, one that can evaluate, accept, or reject input according to your own free will. Don't expect simple answers to all life's mysteries. Sometimes you can study and puzzle it out all you want, and after all that work, the best you will be able to come up with is a hushed "Silencio" There's nothing wrong with that.
Fight Club (1999)
Starts Well, Ends Eventually...
I started out enjoying this film immensely. Following the first half hour, however, it has already stated everything that it has to say. For the remainder of the film it merely repeats itself over and over and over and over.
To write more on the film would be to commit the same sin.
Fétiche (1933)
A classic bit of weirdness
I recently down-loaded a short film off the Internet called The Devil's Ball. It would seem to be very old and if it is the same as this film I'm even more impressed that it was made in 1925. A short animated devil emerges from a cast aside bottle of cheap wine and holds a grand party, which is attended by a number of grotesque characters. The animation is done in a stop-motion style and is very smooth and clever work, impressive by any standards. Seeing the film show up on the internet was very strange as I saw this film as a kid 35 years ago, but never since then. I was beginning to wonder if I had actually seen it or just imagined it.