Change Your Image
jazkat
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Tree of Life (2011)
An abstract artistic film that is not for everyone
This film is definitely not for everyone. It is, however, visually stunning, richly complex, accented with billowing subtle, surreal, and vivid graphic scenes backed with a score of classical masterpieces. Words can't do justice to this abstract cinematographic work of art. But, it is as abstract a film as any painting in a modern art museum. Unfortunately, as with an abstract painting, this film leaves a lot to the viewer to interpret; which is not typically what we expect from mainstream films.
Although "The Tree of Life" is beautiful, it is inaccessible to most of the movie-going public, hence all the 1 star reviews. It's cryptic, at best, and has too many holes and interruptions that draw the viewer away from finding continuity in the story. Film is a communication from actors, directors, and writers. Unfortunately, just as with any other form of artistic expression, if the artist(s) don't effectively convey their vision, or provide the audience with a key for interpreting the vision the audience won't understand or relate to the work. And such is the case with "The Tree of Life".
It is a noble attempt to convey intensely personal, complex, and emotional events of life in a way that has rarely been attempted. I appreciated from a purely audio-visual art-work perspective. It was too long and disorienting to be considered a good film. It's beautiful and thought-provoking, but not successful in making a connection with its audience.
Some day this might be thought of as a landmark in cinematic expression. Today, it's an unsuccessful attempt at stretching the conceptual boundaries of conventional film.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Why do people think this is a great film?
How is it possible that this film could be praised for anything? Everything about Mulholland Dr. is amateur. It's barely B-movie quality. 1) The plot is contrived and farcical, except Lynch takes this mess too seriously. All the good stuff must have happened in Lynch's head because it sure didn't make it to the screen. 2)The dialog is stiff, forced, awkward, and stale. 3)The acting is horrendous, amateurish and completely unbelievable. The cast is wooden and uncomfortable in their roles. They are trying too hard, they look like they are acting. 4) As a director, Lynch completely failed his cast--he failed to coax competent roles out of anyone, allowing some very good actors to turn in the worst performances of their careers. They should be ashamed to have been associated with Mulholland Dr. 5) Editing can often save horrible films and elevate them at least to "watchable". Unfortunately Lynch's editors didn't do him any favors. Mulholland Dr. drags on like a bad french film. 6) The audio and score are the final nails in the coffin. Dramatic overtones are used too frequently when there is nothing dramatic or sinister going on. The moody organ music is cheesy and completely out of place.
I get the whole "surprise" ending and the psychotic obsession thing at the end but it doesn't excuse the overall poor quality and amateurish execution of this film. There is no brilliance here, just misguided vision. I cant believe this movie could be nominated for anything, and has so many high reviews.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Why are THEY hyping this dog?
This film went absolutely nowhere! It was confusing with gaping holes in the story and plot that leave the viewer wondering who people are, how they got to where they are, what really happened, and why. It feels like the Coen bros. ran out of ideas, footage, and money, so they slapped together whatever they had on-hand for an ending.
You have to give the Coens credit for artistic style and for building a gripping, gritty experience for the first hour. The film was thoroughly engrossing from the beginning. The acting was excellent. They created a masterful concoction of brutal killer hunting the "little-guy trying to making it big". They get us emotionally invested in the underdog and put us on the edge of your seats routing for the little-guy just to survive. Unfortunately that's about the time things implode. The Coens drop the viewer into a spiral of confusion and reward our emotional investment with nothing. It left me wondering why they released such an unfinished film.
Tommy Lee Jones was sadly under utilized. He is an immense talent and screen presence relegated to an impotent, pseudo-supporting roll. His character is irrelevant to the plot and only leaves us wishing he had a bigger part. His closing scene only serves to further the confusion.
The true offenders in this debacle are the "Film Critics" and Academy brass who have hyped this mess. Just because the Coen brothers' name is on it does not make it genius.
Insomnia (2002)
vanilla ice-cream on white bread
You Have Got To Be Kidding! How could so many intelligent movie lovers be sucked into rating this film so highly. The IMDb staff should be ashamed for falling for the "star-power" and credentials involved in this disaster.
At best, Insomnia is predictable, uninteresting, emotionally flat (except for Pacino's performance - which seemed totally out of place among such boring bland and uninteresting performances). Robin Williams is not the slightest bit convincing as a psychotic author/murderer. Swank's character was every bit as flat and lifeless as the rest. Predictable, boring, and thoroughly forgettable. There was surprisingly little emotion (anger, betrayal, bitterness, sorrow, depression, whatever) conveyed as she witnessed the fall of her hero. The plot is given away so soon that the only tension created in the film is Pacino's insomnia - which makes this film as interesting, gripping, and engaging as actually having insomnia.
This is definitely not a "Thriller". There was no suspense throughout the whole movie. I saw it twice and waited for it - the music told me it was supposed to be there but film I saw was anticlimactic.
I have to give some credit to whoever tried to save this story by throwing in the "good cop makes a mistake"/cover-up type subplot. It was almost interesting enough to watch Pacino's character wrestle with the white nights and a crippling conscience. But then those other cardboard characters would interrupt and turn the plot focus to into vanilla ice-cream on white bread.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love Robin Williams and Hillary Swank. They are extremely talented and I would probably make a point to see any movie they are in. Memento is a landmark film in independent cinema - I loved it! They all deserve the awards they received for those specific films. BUT, the ugly fact is that, despite the talent and "star-power", they made a bad movie together. For what ever reasons they didn't deliver performances worthy of their best work. It happens to the best. My problem is with the reviewers, critics, and educated movie buffs who ate this vanilla ice-cream on white bread and called it gourmet cuisine - just because of the names in the credits and the hardware on their mantles. Shame on you all.
28 Days (2000)
I liked this movie - but it isn't very good
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!
OK, I admit that I liked this movie - like I confess that occasionally I listen to Anne Murray records (I can say that because I'm secure in my masculinity). Well, actually I liked Sandra. I know, she's not on par with Audrey Hepburn, Merrill Streep, Jodie Foster, or Helen Hunt but, there is a certain charming, disarming aura about her that says to me, "this movie is not great cinema, but love me despite my weaknesses". She's cute, funny (sometimes) and doesn't have to take her clothes off to be sexy.
Enough of my confessions, on to the movie. 28 Days was not "the moving analysis of an alcoholic drug abusing life forced into rehab" movie that I thought it would be (though I didn't have really high expectations to begin with). There were very few profound moments that brought insight into the devastation of alcoholism and drug abuse. In fact, it actually made addiction and rehab look fun (except for the puking your guts out while Sandra's character "dried out"). This movie wouldn't be much help to detour viewers from addiction. That's where I have the biggest problem.
There are two reasons why this movie failed to be impactful: FIRST - the cast and dialog were flat, mediocre, and non-provocative. The actors weren't convincing, they didn't stand out and make their characters memorable. They were very plain-vanilla two-dimensional entities. Even Sandra's character, as much as she charms me, was flat and shallow (again, not that I expected Oscar caliber work from her). I really wanted to bond with these people, to get a sense of what they were going through. It didn't happen. The dialogue was weak as well, which pushed this film further into mediocrity (and clearly didn't give the cast much to work with). There were no truly memorable quotes from any of the characters. There were few emotional scenes, and again, they came off rather flat and mundane. SECOND - the treatment of the subject was shallow and glossy. Addiction and abuse of controlled substances is a much more dangerous and destructive life style than depicted. We only see one mild-to-moderate situation with relatively minor consequences. For example: Sandra's character and boyfriend are late for her sister's wedding, having been drinking all night. They show up drunk and continue to drink until her character looses balance and destroys the wedding cake. She then proceeds to steals a limo and crashes it into someone's front porch (killing a ceramic lawn jockey in the process). Her only injuries are embarrassment and a bloody but not serous bonk on the head. This leads to court, which leads to the rehab assignment and the rest of the movie.
There were two pseudo-emotional scenes that carried the impact of a NERF baseball bat. Sandra's character is required to have a family member come to a counseling session to confront her about her past behavior and, her roommate (very young heroin addict) kills herself with an overdose the morning she is to be discharged. I didn't have a `relationship' with these characters enough to be moved by these events, and the dialogue was so uninteresting that it brought these potentially moving scenes down further. Sure, death of a young addict is tragic but in this film it came across as merely unfortunate. I know, I said I liked this film. Mostly for Sandra's charm, yet there were some small insightful anomalies scattered here and there. For example, some fellow rehabbers were not convinced they had problems. They were uncooperative and didn't take the program seriously. We also get a mini insight (though in a down-played non-event sort of way) into the true recovery rate of these programs. We see one character return after his release, having gone back to his addiction.
I liked the pitching lesson and how Sandra's character was instructed to throw with her eyes closed. The moral implied is that you only have control of the pitch until the ball leaves your hand. Do what you can while you are in control - after that there is no sense in worrying about what you can't control (the serenity prayer condensed). While this was a deep thought, its delivery and source were awkward (it came from an alcoholic pro baseball player in rehab. If he is so enlightened why is there in the first place?).
Another scene I liked was during the `confrontation'. I have to give credit to the writers, director and editors, for what seems to be a well-planed and executed surprise. Sandra's character is hearing her sister rip on her about destroying the wedding. She seems to be unaffected until her sister brings up an embarrassing and offensive drunken toast. She is enraged that her sister would make up such a story but quickly realizes that it really happened, she just doesn't remember it. The impact of this scene is enhanced because we think we have seen all the relevant scenes of the wedding then this comes out of nowhere. For a brief instant we make contact with the main character. We feel as stunned and confused as she does. Very good execution of a stunning and effective device that wasn't destroyed by the film's other weaknesses.
In a nutshell, 28 Days is mildly entertaining for Sandra Bullock fans. It isn't profound or particularly moving, and gives the Hollywood gloss-over to addiction and rehab. There are some redeeming qualities but overall the character development and dialogue are flat, not engaging the viewer. I generously give it a 6/10.
Dr. T & the Women (2000)
Despite all its "Star Power", and some very good performances this film stinks - BIG TIME! Contains Spoilers
I believe that the majority of movies, mediocre to bad, began with good ideas. They were executed poorly in one area or another (or in many areas). I also believe that in most cases great writers, directors, and casts could have made those mediocre to bad films good. the Dr. T crew just couldn't pull this one off. Go figure? With a cast of Richard Gere, Farrah Fawcett, Helen Hunt, Tara Reid, Liv Tyler, Kate Hudson, and Shelley Long. And Robert Altman directing .
With that kind of pedigree you'd think this movie would have been an Oscar consideration, at least a top box office draw. Yet, it got all it deserved (actually too much). This film is a great example of how a crappy story , bad editing, and poor dialogue can make great actors look foolish. It also goes to show that great actors make bad decisions. This project leads its cast blindly over a cliff like lemmings. Fortunately most of them are good enough to survive this nightmare freefall.
The Plot: What was the hell was the plot? A gynecologist has a lot of women in his life - ALL THE TIME! They are odd, cranky, drunk, lesbian, hypochondriac, and crazy. BIG DEAL! There was nothing in this movie that helped me bond or even identify with Dr. Travis (and I have 3 girls, a wife, my mother-in-law lives with us, and I'm the only man in an office of six other women). There was no real development of his character (or the story for that matter) because there were so many subplots and situations, unnecessary scenes (like all the useless uninformative waiting room crap) and minor characters to deal with. No director (not even Altman) could fully develop such a confusing convoluted pail of swill.
There was no resolution in this film. Well, that's not fair. the lesbian thing was resolved, but nothing else. We know his wife is still in the hospital - what happened to her? We know that she wanted a divorce - did anything happen with that? The whole alcoholic sister thing was a waste of celluloid (though Laura Dern was great in the role). She had no significance, no bearing on the characters or the plot. Dr. T's buddies came off as neutered dogs worshipping their master (Dr. Travis).
And the ending! What the hell was that? He drives into a tornado, lands near a Mexican family's shack and delivers a baby boy. THE END!
Sorry folks, this one isn't worth the video rental fee, or the 2 hours of wasted life that could be put to better use - like catching up on the latest WWF rivalry.
Winterschläfer (1997)
Great potential not realized - But very good effort
I liked this movie. It's not great but a lot of potential bleeds through. You can see that Tom Tykwer has talent and is searching for the proper execution of his vision. I most enjoyed how the film examined a group of very different individuals, and their unique ways of managing life and its difficult experiences. The cinematography was great and the actors were very convincing. In fact, I think that the acting talent wasn't pushed far enough. Especially the female leads (Mary-Lou Sellm was terrific but, again, she wasn't allowed to fully open up and spill out the "guts" - the raw emotion that Laura's circumstances might have brought on). The characters weren't developed deep enough. I didn't bond or relate on more than a superficial level. The talent to achieve this was waiting to be unleashed, but the script, the director, the editor, or any combination of many other factors, wouldn't allow it to happen.
The film seemed rushed to take on too many deep personal and inter-personal issues. They were passed over briefly but not delved into enough captivate the audience. Then it ended, (I did like the ending - a fine twist of plot and ironic justice. A little Hitchcock-ian ) and I felt empty - not knowing the characters very well left me wondering what I should feel, and for whom should I feel it.
I am very interested to see "Run Lola Run", to see how much this talented director learned from Winterschläfer. I would also like to see more/other work by Marie-Lou Sellm and Floriane Daniel.
Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula (2000)
Very good for a TV/Cable movie
The only problem I had with this movie was the excessive and exaggerated use of the "shaky-cam". This can be an effective took, if used subtly. That was not the case in Dark Prince. I found it very annoying at times and once, it became down-right painful to watch. The good news is that its not always that bad. I enjoyed it and would recommend it for good acting, compelling story line, very good battle scenes, great sets and location shots, and captivating subject matter for those who want intelligent Halloween entertainment.
The Patriot (2000)
Stunning American Civil War Epic
Fantastically stunning American epic. I recommend this movie to anyone who has forgotten why America and its people are so great.
Beautiful sweeping cinematography, great acting by the whole cast, one of Mel Gibson's best, well told story - flows smoothly and easy to follow, keeps your interest all the way through (good editing and writing). If I was to search for a criticism, it would be that the patriotic theme might have been over played, and the "bad-guy attacks from the dead" thing is way over used in action movies (but a legitimate and effective tool none the less).
GO SEE IT!
The 13th Warrior (1999)
Great potential never realized due to poor editing
Its definitely not Braveheart - not even close, but it could have been. The story has great potential, the cast turned in fantastic performances, the dialogue could have been beefed up but it kept the story entertaining, the narration was an essential element used well, the cinematography was captivating, battle scenes were well choreographed and filmed, poor set lighting often obscured characters and action but not a serious flaw, the story was choppy and had holes at times - most likely due to editing.
From a critical view, this film was somewhat disappointing. It could have been an epic adventure but clumsy editing took care of that. I did, however, enjoy it for its sheer action, heroics, and battle field entertainment value. I liked it and would recommend it to action/adventure fans. I would like to see a re-edited - director's cut version.