Change Your Image
kdladage
Reviews
300 (2006)
Amazing action/adventure tale!
Thre is a point early in the film when a Persian messenger comes to demand the Spartan King's surrender and Queen Gorgo offers her opinion on the situation. The messenger does his best to ignore her, and instead looks at the Spartan King and asks "Why does this woman think she can speak amongst men?" Queen Gorgo, before her beloved husband can answer, says "Because only Spartan women give birth to real men." At this point, you realize that this film has some good dialog, and some very capable acting taking place. Granted, this is not the Battle of Thermopylae as it happened; this is not the Battle of Thermopylae as it was told by Dilios, the Spartan orator that told the tale after the fact to inspire his countrymen into action; this is not even the Battle of Thermopylae as Hollywood would derive it from Dilios' work.
This is an adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel, which was an adaptation of the earlier Hollywood effort (The 300 Spartans), which was an adaptation of Dilios. This means, if you are familiar with Frank Miller (the Dark Knight series, for example), that you know that you are in for a hell of a ride. The visuals are done to be int eh same style as Frank Miller's artwork. The story is an ancient one, but with a distinct, unique, and very cutting-edge style. the writing is excellent (and by that, I mean that the dialog feels natural and smooth; the actions taken by the characters do not jar against the circumstances; nothing appears out of place). It really is about as good as action/adventure has ever been.
Is the film perfect? No. It has its flaws, but they are small, easily ignorable (or even missed!) If you go to this and do not enjoy yourself -- then I am not sure what sort of action/adventure film could appeal to you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Perfection in Film-making
In my review of the first two installments in this trilogy, I wrote:
-----=====-----
It has been tossed around in Hollywood for a long time. The very idea of making a big-budget feature film of the timeless novels is intoxicating. But how do you create a film that is true to the stories (and thus not going to upset the legions of rabid fans that can practically quote the books from start to finish) and still make a film that will attract the non-rabid fan who has vaguely heard of the existence of these books by some author from World War I?
-----=====-----
Well, for the last time, I do not claim to be a rabid fan (I read the books, I liked the books, and have felt for a long time that they could make a good movie). I also do not claim to be some sort of insider that can give someone the secret to the process that lead to this masterpiece. Just as with the first installment, the cast, crew, writers, producers, and very talented director managed to tell a nearly flawless version of the third book's tale...
...as an adaptation, and as a stand-alone movie, and finally as the capstone on a monumental film-making achievement, this film is a "10/10" if any has ever been.
the film not only has no real shortcomings, it manages to fill in gaps that were left by the previous two films. Although I was disappointed to head that the final Shire scenes of the book were not included -- the point of those scenes were included as Sam dealt with he spider and the other trials and tribulations of the last parts of his journey.
The film is a fantastic piece of work that I highly recommend to anyone and everyone. But: I recommend that you watch the extended cut DVD version, and that you plan to sit down for all three films -- because this is not (technically) a stand-alone film. It is just Act 3 of a 3 Act screenplay.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
One of the Best Films ever Made
In my review of the first installment in this trilogy, I wrote:
-----=====-----
It has been tossed around in Hollywood for a long time. The very idea of making a big-budget feature film of the timeless novels is intoxicating. But how do you create a film that is true to the stories (and thus not going to upset the legions of rabid fans that can practically quote the books from start to finish) and still make a film that will attract the non-rabid fan who has vaguely heard of the existence of these books by some author from World War I?
-----=====-----
Well, once again, I do not claim to be a rabid fan (I read the books, I liked the books, and have felt for a long time that they could make a good movie). I also do not claim to be some sort of insider that can give someone the secret to the process that lead to this masterpiece. Just as with the first installment, the cast, crew, writers, producers, and very talented director managed to tell a very good version of the second book's tale...
...as an adaptation, and as a stand-alone movie, I give this an "8/10" -- but as the bridge between Fellowship and Return... this movie is nearly flawless.
The only faults I found in the movie deal with the story of Faramir. Had the story of Boromir been actually told in the Fellowship, then this butchering of the Faramir tale would not have been needed. Still, it manages to recover in the end from this failing and tell what is an engaging (if not a bit confusing) story of the path that the ring takes...
Despite this one small shortcoming, the film is a fantastic piece of work that I highly recommend to anyone and everyone. But: I recommend that you watch the extended cut DVD version, and that you plan to sit down for all three films -- because this is not (technically) a stand-alone film. It is just Act 2 of a 3 Act screenplay.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Tolkien would be proud...
It has been tossed around in Hollywood for a long time. The very idea of making a big-budget feature film of the timeless novels is intoxicating. But how do you create a film that is true to the stories (and thus not going to upset the legions of rabid fans that can practically quote the books from start to finish) and still make a film that will attract the non-rabid fan who has vaguely heard of the existence of these books by some author from World War I? Well, I do not claim to be a rabid fan (I read the books, I liked the books, and have felt for a long time that they could make a good movie). I also do not claim to be some sort of insider that can give someone the secret tot he process that lead to this masterpiece. But i can say that not since _The Godfather_ have I been this impressed with the overall production values of a movie. The cast, crew, writers, producers, and very talented director managed to tell a very good version of the first book's tale...
...and as an adaptation, I give the movie a "9/10" (perhaps even as high as "9.5/10") -- but as a stand-alone film, it has to drop to "8/10" because the film leaves you hanging (much as the books did) at the end with no resolution to *anything* what-so-ever.
Additionally, there is no telling at all the story of "why" the various people met in the Elfin lands to discuss this powerful ring; and the tale of Boromir (an important one, indeed) is not explained so that his betrayal and fate can be understood. It is one of those points that, without it, cause one to not really understand the actions this poor man takes in the film.
Still, despite these shortcomings, the film is a fantastic piece of work that I highly recommend to anyone and everyone. But: I recommend that you watch the extended cut DVD version, and that you plan to sit down for all three films -- because this is not (technically) a stand-alone film. It is just Act 1 of a 3 Act screenplay.
Bewitched (2005)
What happened? I expected so much more from Nora Ephron.
First, before I begin -- allow me to offer up a theory I have: there are those people that loved Samantha Stevens in "Bewitched," and there are those that loved Jeannie in "I Dream Of..." Sure; there are those oddballs that "liked" them both, or what-have-you. But for the most part, those that loved one, tended to feel the other was encroaching on superior territory.
I loved Samantha Stevens; I loved Bewitched. I feel that Dick York defined the part of Darren Stevens (which is not to slight Dick Sergeant, who was a fine actor) -- it just means I prefer the one over the other.
And here is the kicker: Bewitched was a funny, sometimes "cute," and often "goofy" little comedy. But it never (even in its cutest and goofiest parts) stopped being a tender and (this is important here) _intelligent_ television show. The filmmakers that put this insult to the memory of Elizabeth Montgomery together should not be allowed to touch another beloved piece of television history.
Now, assuming for a moment that this was not Bewitched... assuming that this was a brand new show that was not trouncing on sacred ground -- the film would still get low marks from me thanks to the fact that it is often a confused mess.
Not "confusing" -- I said "confused." In the film, we have a television studio trying to remake Bewitched. Will Farrel plays a nearly has-been actor (Jack Wyatt) that gets the part of Darren and wants to re-tool the show to be focused more on his character (thanks to his idiot of an agent). So they hire an unknown to play the part of Samantha (Isabel Bigelow, played by Kidman) and quickly turn Samantha into a piece of scenery within the show.
Meanwhile, nobody is aware of the fact that this little unknown actress is actually a witch that is trying to give up witchcraft and lead a normal life -- parallels of the show, and the confused script begins to unravel.
There are at least four times in the film where the writer and director seemed to have forgotten what was in the "real world" and what was in the "new retooling of a television classic." Isabel Bigelow is at home brooding over the fact that her co-star is writing her out of the scripts when she gets a visit from Aunt Clara. The problem here? Aunt Clara is a character from the 1964 television classic... so is this Smantha Stevens' Aunt Clara, or is it Isabel Bigelow's Aunt Clara? Well, given the fact that this one acts and has the same problems as Samantha Stevens' Aunt Clara -- I am not even sure the writers know.
Jack Wyatt is home brooding over the fact that he is falling for Isabel and may have lost her forever, when he is visited by Uncle Arthur. The problem here? Again, Uncle Arther is a character from the 1964 classic. So is this Uncle Arther, or is Jack dreaming? The answer -- both... sort of... maybe... You see, Jack wakes from his dream of seeing Uncle Arther in the mirror, only to find that Uncle Arther is in his bedroom with him giving him dating advice... and on at least two occasions admits that he does not exist... then drives Jack tot eh studio to meet Isabel before she goes back home. The whole thing makes no sense what-so-ever.
While trying to get herself familiar with the part of Samantha Stevens, Isabel gets a whole slew of Bewitches merchandise. This includes a doll of Samantha. And it would appear that the doll can cast spells as well, as it interferes in her life a couple of times. It is never made clear if the doll is hexed, possessed, or what. In fact, these scenes are the ones where the script shifted gears from confused to actually being quite confusing... and somewhat insulting.
Lastly, in the end when you get your happily ever after scene... Jack and Isabel move into a house... and across the street they have a couple of nosy neighbors: Gladys and Abner Kravits. It appears, from the context that this is Jack and Isabel we are watching -- not Darren and Samantha. And so we have yet another cross over of "real world" and "television show" that just serves to prove that the writers did a poor job of writing a coherent story.
In fact, the whole script feels like two or three writers were working on two or three different movies and, rather than turning this into a whole, they patch-worked them into a 2-hour mess. This is very disappointing, given that Nora Ephron has given us such great films as "When Harry Met Sally", "Sleepless in Seatle", and "You've Got Mail" (where she proved she can re-make an older work, and do it justice).
Do you want to know the only good scenes in the film? They were scenes of the original television show when Isabel and Jack were watching as they were trying to get into their parts. In other words, the only good scenes in the 2005 movie "Bewitched" were filmed for the television show "Bewitched" between 1964 and 1972.
Batman Begins (2005)
A nearly perfect start to a new BATMAN franchise
After a series of severe letdowns in films like BATMAN AND ROBIN, I was somewhat jaded... I was not really looking forward to seeing this new installment of BATMAN. Then, three things happened: I caught wind of the fact that Christopher Nolan (of such films as MOMENTO and INSOMNIA) would be directing; I heard that Morgan Freeman (the most under-appreciated man in Hollywood, if you ask me) would be in the film; and then I read that this would, in no way what-so-ever be related to the disappointing films of the past.
Add these three things together and what you get is: possibilities.
So... Mr. Nolan decides to back up and start from the beginning. And rather than just waving a hand to the fact that BATMAN, a non-powered super-hero, is one of the toughest S.O.B.s to walk a beat in comicbookville, he gives a glimpse of not only the "why" of the Bat's existence, but the "how" as well. And for the first time, it all makes sense.
BATMAN, you see, is not "just" Bruce Wayne in this film. It is a symbol; a torch-bearer of possible redemption for Gotham City and it just so happens that Bruce Wayne is carrying the torch right now. Because, as you see in this film, BATMAN is really a combination of the efforts and good-will of Bruce Wayne, Alfred (his butler and closest friend), Luscious Fox (Director of Wayne Enterprises R&D department), and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Police Sergeant (and later Lieutenant) Gordon -- who we all know will eventually be Police Commissioner Gordon one day.
These are the people that BATMAN trusts. These are the people that either know who he is, or have some idea of what he is about. And as we see the BATMAN persona develop in this film, there are very few times when your suspension of disbelief is being tested.
BATMAN is a dark, dark film. But it should be. BATMAN is no boyscout. He is the Dark Knight who operates by striking fear into the hearts of those that would prey upon, and bring fear to, the innocents of his city. And make no mistake, Bruce Wayne/BATMAN thinks of Gotham as "his" city. And he will protect it (to borrow a phrase) "by any means necessary." In the end, when you watch this movie, the only flaw it has is this: despite being nearly 2.5 hours long, it ends too quickly. You find yourself being catapulted through the mid-to-late parts of the film. In all honesty, I would have liked to have seen this movie told over 3 to 3.5 hours. To paraphrase James Cameron: "If the film needs to be 3 hours long, then let it be 3 hours long. Do not compromise the story in order to meet an artificial time limit." Overall, I am very happy with this movie. I eagerly await the next installment.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
...and the Bridge is complete...
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH is, perhaps, the best film in the STAR WARS saga (the only possible exception is Episode V). This film does what I thought was impossible -- it ties up every lose end that was introduced in Episodes I, and II (as well as a few that took place in the outstanding Cartoon Network CLONE WARS tales) and ties them in well with where everything was starting in Episode IV... and it does it in a very entertaining way! I mean, let's face it: WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE! The acting in this film is the best of any STAR WARS film. The dialog is about on par with other STAR WARS films, but the delivery of that dialog is second to none. The Emperor feels terrifying and powerful, even as he sits in a chair in his office; the Jedi feel confident and unaware of the plots that are unfolding around them. The pain and betrayal in the characters comes through the film very well. The emotions are running high (something George Lucas is notoriously bad at) and it is very well handled.
In other words: THIS IS THE STAR WARS FILM YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.
But one thing, really, keeps this from being a 9. This film is freaking dark. As I have said in other STAR WARS reviews, STAR WARS is a series designed to be enjoyed by kids ages 10-14. When this film received a PG-13 rating, I know things were not going to be like your typical STAR WARS film. And I was right.
This film includes such dark images as dead youngling Jedi (kids younger than those the film was designed to entertain); and Anakin Skywalker, legless and helpless, burning up in a pool of lava... very, very dark images. Be aware of this before you show this film to younger children.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
The Bridge begins...
STAR WARS: ATTACK OF THE CLONES is a wonderful romp through the STAR WARS universe. Some of the best overall action scenes in the series take place right here. But the film feels like it was cut in half... because it was. This is not a movie in and of itself: it is the first half of a movie that is *not* completed in the next STAR WARS movie (REVENGE OF THE SITH) -- it is completed in the absolutely fantastic Cartoon Network Clone Wars shorts (both the First and Second series).
If you watch the movie, then watch the two cartoon series and think of this as one, very long (approximately 5-hour) epic film, then this probably deserves a rating of 8 (maybe 8.5 overall). But as a stand-alone film, it is just slightly lower -- I gave it a 7.
ATTACK OF THE CLONES continues the saga started in Episode I; and begins the real bridge that needs to form from the prequels (I, II, and III) to the original trilogy (IV, V, and VI). In that role, it serves admirably.
All of the same problems that exist in the other Star Wars films exist here -- but this is the first time Ewan McGregor really shows that he can play the part of Obi-Wan Kenobi. His performance is outstanding; as is the sheer presence of Samuel L. Jackson.
The story line is a bit more evident in this film than it was in THE PHANTOM MENACE. And by the time you see REVENGE OF THE SITH -- if you really examine it, the story line in Episode I becomes more clear. Overall, this is an excellent stepping stone for the STAR WARS saga.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Where it all began?
STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE is an interesting place to start the STAR WARS saga. Although it has taken me a while, I have grown to really like watching this film. It is, in my humble opinion, every bit as good as the original STAR WARS (A NEW HOPE).
The dialog is comparable (meaning that it is god-awful); the acting is about the same (sub-par in most respects) but has some notable exceptions (such as Liam Neeson's performance, which I consider to be as good as Sir Alec Guinness' performance in STAR WARS).
My one complaint in the film? Jake Lloyd.
"What?" you ask... "Not Jar Jar Binks?" No. I have no trouble with Jar Jar Binks what-so-ever. Although, admittedly, I had some trouble with the character after my initial viewing of the film, I have come to realize that Jar Jar is no more annoying than C3P0... in other words, this is a movie designed to be entertaining to kids at the ages of 10-14; and as an adult, I need to re-capture that 10-14 year old kid inside me in order to fully appreciate it. Jar Jar is fun when you look at him in that light.
But Jake Lloyd... it is not his fault really, it is just that George decided to make Anakin too young in this film. Had Anakin been a 14-year old instead, much of the things that he does would have made a lot more sense. Watch the film -- imagine Anakin as a 14-year old and I think you will see what I mean.
And back to my initial comment: once you start putting together the plot that extends from this film to Episode III, you see why this film begins when it does. But let's face it -- the sage of Star Wars actually begins much, much earlier. It would be very interesting to go back a thousand years and tell those tales...
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
The conclusion?
STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI is the final chapter in a six-movie series that, although filmed and produced out of order, serves as a cap-stone on the whole thing.
But does it? Rumors from many years ago suggest that at least 3 more films, and perhaps even six more films were planned at the start -- and with George Lucas' current age, we can pretty much assure ourselves that we will not see them. At least not as he would have produced them. George is, after all, George -- and George does not like other people messing with his universe.
If I have a complaint about RETURN OF THE JEDI it is with Ewoks. I will not get into the things that bug me about those darned little teddy-bears, because most people that watch the film will see the problems for themselves. One can complain, I suppose, but STAR WARS is George Lucas' playground, and that is what he wanted to use. His call.
Does this film do an effective job of ending the saga? For the most part, yes. There is a bit of a feeling of "well, now what?" that you get as the final scenes are putting themselves up on screen; and for those that have read the Extended Universe novels, there are some pretty darned good ideas for what could (should?) happen next. Would I like to see more Star Wars films? Most definitely. These are some of my favorite "guilty-pleasure" films of all time. But I would not hold my breath waiting for them.
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
An epic continuation of the Star Wars saga
The first time I watched STAR WARS, the immortal words "Episode IV: A New Hope" were not there on the screen. I cannot recall when it was that I first saw those words and realized that STAR WARS was but one chapter of a much larger whole.
When STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK came out, my father and I went to the theater and watched in awe as that next chapter unfolded. The plot twists were shocking at times (although in today's world, rather cliché -- but they were not cliché _then_) and at other times, goofy.
The dialog was just as I remembered STAR WARS -- stilted, canned, and corny (witness the dialog between Han Solo and the Princess if you want to know what I mean). But let's face it -- you do not watch STAR WARS because of the dialog. You watch it in the same vein as reading old epic tales of Greek Gods and Heros -- for the things they are doing, not the things they are saying.
Overall, this is either the best, or second best of the six STAR WARS films. Well worth watching.
Star Wars (1977)
Arguably the most important film in Sci-Fi history...
STAR WARS is, without a doubt, one of the most *influincial* films of its time (and perhaps even _ever_). When it was released, people began standing in line for hours in order to watch this movie for the fifteenth time -- something that had never happened before. STAR WARS changed the way we think about movies; it changed the way we market movies; it changed the way we think about sci-fi and fantasy in film; it killed the second STAR TREK series in pre-production at the time; it was important.
Let me say that again: STAR WARS was important. That fact cannot be stressed enough. STAR WARS launched George Lucas into history, and created an industry legacy: ILM, THX, and so on. Suddenly, the idea that special effects needed to be of superior quality, and that the technology of movie making was something that needed to move forward became evident.
STAR WARS was a "great" film in the sense that it was so important. But as a film, taken away from its context historically, it is not such a "great" film. The acting in many cases is sub-par; the dialog is painful to listen to at times; and Luke Skywalker has got to be the whiniest kid that ever lived (asside from, perhaps, his father, as it turns out).
Still, STAR WARS stands alone as a fun, entertaining ride through the stars with an adventure that some fans, these days, can practically quote line-for-line.
George Lucas has made some slight modifications to the film over the years -- the most note-worthy being the Han Solo-Greedo match-up. Although I am not really happy with that particular change, these are George's films and he can do what he wants with them. This makes George Lucas and his films unique in the industry: George really does not care if his films are popular, or if anyone likes them at all. Geroge makes movies for George to enjoy. We are all just along for the ride.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
An admirable follow-up to a blockbuster beginning...
In my review of the third installment of this film trilogy, I wrote:
-----=====-----
For those of us that went to see THE MATRIX: RELOADED in the theater, we saw a film that displayed for us what it would have been like if the first half of THE MATRIX had been expanded to a full-length film. This was alright, however, because we got to have our interlude -- the search for the "McGuffin" of the Key-Maker lead us to the Architect and gave us a list of questions dealing with the nature of the matrix that would keep us talking for months until the next film came out. It was not as good as number one, but it served its purpose. After all, the big payoff was coming in the third installment, right?
-----=====-----
And this is how I still feel. This was a good film with so much potential that it was practically dripping off the screen like the green matrix code the characters are always watching. The ideas and concepts in the film are solid, and the build up is very cool. Some of the special effects are not as effective here (mainly because we have seen it all before). But the story reaches its peak in the last few minutes of the film -- as a good cliff-hanger should.
The problems with this film are reflective of the fact that it is not a complete story -- it it a first half, and so has to be taken with consideration for how it propels us into the third installment. The first film does not suffer from this problem because it is a self-contained whole that can stand alone if need be (and in my opinion, that is exactly how you should look at that film).
The context of this union is very important. And unfortunately, the third installment does not live up to the hype built up by this second installment. So, we are left with questions asked in this film that never get answered in the third film... and thus, it is unsatisfying.
I would recommend skipping this one and its follow-up entirely, and just enjoying the first one as a stand-alone movie.
The Matrix (1999)
A nearly perfect thinking-man's action film
In my review of the third installment of this trilogy, I wrote:
-----=====-----
"For those of us that went to see THE MATRIX in the theater, what we saw was a thinking-man's action-adventure film. The special effects were there to propel the plot and to emphasize the film's underlying questions on the nature of reality, the nature of humanity and the power of the mind over the body. The film was a self-contained story -- beginning, middle and end -- and it told its tale very well, with style grace and power.
The potential in a trilogy based upon this stellar beginning was great. Sort of like those of us that watched STAR WARS about the 10th time and suddenly there was the words "Episode IV" at the beginning subtly telling us that there was a lot more of this great film to come."
-----=====-----
I stand by that conclusion: this is a nearly perfect thinking-man's action adventure film. Note: I say _nearly_ perfect. The film has its flaws (not the least of which is centered in the film's very premise -- man would make an absolutely terrible source of energy.
But in all, the film (when taken as a whole) is a great stand-alone science-fiction adventure, as well as an awesome start to what should have been the greatest sci-fi trilogy in film history... if only the last film could have been made with the same attention and care -- rather than feeling slapped on with duct tape.
In all, I highly recommend this movie -- and I highly recommend ignoring the fact that their are two more that follow it. This one stands alone quite well.
Hudson Hawk (1991)
Not a complete waste of time...
Hudson Hawk (Bruce Willis) is a thief. He is a thief that would like to be rehabilitated. But crooked cops, crooked CIA agents (with candy bar code names) and a comical pair of criminal masterminds do not want the world's greatest cat-burglar to go on the straight a narrow. In other words, this is not a serious film. It is a pure, silly, slapstick-like comedy that never touches on anything serious at all.
Hudson Hawk is blackmailed into stealing three priceless DeVinci artifacts. Two of these are owned by the Vatican, so while he is being pushed by the various crooked individuals forcing his hand, he is being tailed by a Nun (Andie MacDowell) who is a secret agent of a Vatican order charged with protecting such things.
As a comedy, the film is lacking. Although there are some funny moments, most of them are not handled very well. For example, one of the candy-bar agents (Kit Kat) never speaks, and always has a card with whatever he wanted to say written on it -- as though he planned everything that happens around him. This could have been funny had the character managed to have any depth so that that we might actually care what he has to say. But the character is as two dimensional as every other character in the film.
The three bright exceptions to this cardboard character syndrome are Bruce Willis (as our lovable thief "Hudson Hawk"), Andie MacDowell (as the Nun/Agent "Anna Baragli") and Danny Aiello (as the perfectly cast "Tommy Five-Tone"). These three have a definite chemistry and play well off of each other. Had they actually had some decent writing to go with their talents, this film might have been a lot better.
There is some potential in the movie -- and I firmly believe that had the film gone through a re-write or two by a seasoned screen-writer, this could have been an excellent film. The story is solid, but we never really get a feel for the crimes that Hudson is pulling off. They are in and out and over too quickly to appreciate.
Overall, I would like to see this film re-made someday -- perhaps even with some of the original cast (Willins, MacDowell, and Aiello most definitely). I think that, given a second chance, this film could really shine.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Perfect... had it been a few minutes shorter...
It is a rare thing when cinema provides you with as deep a message as A.I. does. It is rarer still when a film can cause you to stop and reflect on such questions as the nature of what it is to be "alive." In most cases when a question of this magnitude comes along, the filmmakers will opt to come at the question from an angle, or mask the complexities of the question with slapstick antics so that the question itself becomes obfuscated within the ever growing so-called plot (consider such films as "Short Circuit" and "Electric Dreams").
A.I. does not come at these (and many other) questions from an angle: it confronts them head-on.
A.I. does not mask the fact that it is delving into such philosophical territory with silly antics and slapstick comedy: it looks the questions in the eye and demands an answer that it knows cannot come in any objective form. In other words, this is not a shy film. It is bold and a real achievement in movie-making and story-telling. I have to say that I really enjoyed the film -- not only as a medium of entertainment, but as a springboard of some very satisfying debate and conversation with my friends and family. But we all agree on one thing: the film ended about 5-10 minutes too late.
The final sequences of David's life were counterproductive to the messages and feel of the film. They felt tacked on, and artificial. The film should really have ended with David under the water, praying (chanting?) to the image he had been seeking for so long. It would have left the film on a poignant and important note. Everything that follows, to be honest, is second rate (and detracts from an otherwise perfect movie).
Secondhand Lions (2003)
Beautiful and wonderfully written
There was a time in the history of film that movies were made to tell stories that were like the old oral traditions -- where the literal truth of the story was not the important thing. The important thing was the truth that was contained within the messages and lessons that were being told at the same time.
This movie is a hail back to the grand old days of true storytelling.
There have been a few of the these films in recent times -- and Osment has managed to be in two of them: Secondhand Lions and AI. And unfortunately, both of these films suffer from the same failing: they managed to keep going about 5-15 minutes after the story should have ended.
In this tale, we have two wonderful old men (Caine and Duval) that simply want to be left alone. These are Walter's (Osment) uncles. He is dumped with them by his tramp of a mother in her pathetic attempt to find out where the old men have hidden all of the money they supposedly have. In the end, Osment turns out to be exactly what the two old guys need, and they turn out to be exactly the sort of people to teach this young man what it is to be cared for, and to be a man -- all while the Uncles tell Walter the extraordinary tale of their trips through Europe and Africa as a part of the French Foreign Legion.
Near the end of the film, there is a scene where Walter (now grown up) is reading the Will that his Uncles left behind. And here is where the film should have ended. There is a level of absoluteness that comes with the ending that, in my opinion, erodes the message of the film.
As Hub (Duval) says "It doesn't matter what's true. Something doesn't have to be true for you to believe in it."
Meet the Parents (2000)
Who watches this crap?
This is one of the most unfunny comedies I have ever seen. Each scene in the film appears tailor made to dig the main character (played by Ben Stiller) into a deeper and deeper hole that anyone with two functioning brain cells can see coming a mile away.
Ben Stiller can act. I have seen it. I have seen him handle very funny roles, and even dramatic ones with skill and flair. He appears to be asleep through most of this film, just saying his lines when it is time to say them, without real emotion or concern for how bad this film really is.
Robert DeNiro can act. Most people have seen that. He is one of the greatest actors ever. But his most recent roles have been... well... less than wonderful. He needs a new agent -- today -- before his legacy is destroyed.
The film has a decent premise -- we have all had that awkward moment when we need to meet the parents of our significant other. And this film had some real potential to shine. But the writing is so formula-based and lack-luster that one has to wonder if any of the main cast members bothered to read the script before they accepted these roles.
Just skip this.
Guess Who (2005)
Not worth the time or the money...
This film, which (from title to premise) is drawing heavily on the original _Guess Who's Coming to Dinner_, had a lot of potential. The story concept, although not new, is one that could be freshened up and put back into the public eye -- it is as relevant today as it was when Sydney Poitier did it the first time.
Unfortunately, the film cannot seem to identify itself. It cannot seem to decide if it wants to be a tender dramatic tale with comedic elements, or a goof-ball comedy with tender elements. This gives the film a disjointed feel that distracts from what little story is actually there.
The film also seems to draw (read: "steal") much of the worst parts of _Meet the Parents_ at the same time. And as if this is not enough to kill this film, the acting is sub-standard; the story does not flow; and at least three story elements are introduced that are never spoken of again, never coming to fruition.
In other words: it is best to avoid this thing. It is really not worth the time or the money.
My Life and Times (1991)
A Wonderful Show -- and killed before it had a chance...
I cannot recall how I first discovered this little gem, I just recall falling in love with it almost immediately. I watched it religiously. I had to hunt for it, since in San Diego it seemed like they moved its time slot every single week... it was on Wednesday at 8pm, then Saturday at 9pm, then I had to locate it at almost 1am... but I found it, and I watched it, and I loved it. Then it was gone.
Why? Was the acting sub-par? Hardly. It was some of the finest performances on television.
Was the writing bad? Not a chance. It was witty, intelligent, tender, and amazing. It was written as a story of a man that was telling his own life story, of what it was to live and learn in the 1980s. And it was told in such a way that, each time you thought you knew him, you learned something else to make you appreciate all that he had gone through.
So what was it? I haven't the faintest. It did, however, begin a trend -- each time I have really begun liking a television show, it gets canceled almost immediately. From "My Life and Times" all the way up to "Firefly" -- I just cannot seem to win.
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
The most beautiful Dickens ever filmed
It is amazing to me, really. My wife and I, this evening, were looking up the 1966 film ALFIE with Michael Caine. I had never seen the film. But while looking it over, and being really amazed at the sheer number of films that the man has done, I clicked on one of my favorites: THE MUPPET Christmas CAROL.
It was then that my jaw dropped. The overall rating is 6.9 -- something I consider close to 3.1 points shy of where this film belongs. There are not many 10s in my book of films. The Godfather, perhaps. Ben Hurr, might be there. And perhaps Patton. But in this list, most definitely, is this little gem.
First of all, I am an old fan of the Muppets. From the old days of watching everyone from Steve Martin to Alice Cooper host THE MUPPET SHOW (nothing like the Muppet version of "Welcome to my Nightmare" I can assure you). The death of Mr. Henson was something that struck me fairly deeply, like a part of my childhood being ripped away.
Brian Henson's word since has been spotty. Some of it has been good, some of it sub-par, but all of it worth seeing and enjoyable. But without a doubt, the peak performance has been with this beautiful rendition of a timeless classic. And lest I not get this across as I write this, let me say it now: there has never been (nor can I imagine in the future there will ever be) a better portrayal of the Charles Dickens's classic.
The songs are perfect. The two best sung by Scrooge, one as a young man losing his first love, one as a grateful old man on Christmas morning telling us that if you wish to measure the worth of a man, you simply count his friends. But the rest are nothing short of spectacular: the ghost of Christmas present and his ditty about living life in the moment and appreciating every little thing; the song of having one more sleep until Christmas... all of them are unforgettable.
The storytelling is superb. With the Great Gonzo playing the part of Charles Dickens himself, telling the story as it unfolds, and the part of Scrooge's old business partner, made into two partners so that the two old hecklers could do it together... perfection.
But none of this really matters. None of it matters if the heart of the tale is gone. You can get all of the right people, all of the right gimmicks and still fail. Examples include that piece of cow dung that Bill Murray put out, SCROOGED. Believe me, this tale has been attempted a hundred times -- plays, movies... but none capture the magic of Dickens like this one. It has a heart as big as the story. And in the end, it captured mine. I watch this movie every year -- I get my family together, and we spend a night sharing stories about one other and remembering how much we mean to each other. And then we watch this simple telling of a perfect Christmas story... Thank you, Brian Henson. Thank you for reminding me what Christmas is.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
One of the worst of the Robin Hood Films
OK... let's forget the fact that Robin Hood seems the only Englishman in the film without an English accent. Lets forget about the fact that Morgan Freeman, despite his excellent acting and strong character, does not belong here... lets get the core of what is wrong with this adaptation of the Robin Hood tale.
Where is Prince John?
Without Prince John, the story simply fails to make any since. The Sheriff cannot ascend to the throne via marriage... he simply is not in line to do that. Anyone who has even the most cursory knowledge of British Royal Titles and lineages would know this. After all, the current Queen of England is married, but this does not mean that her husband is the King of England. From the Royal Family web site:
"...the [Queen's] engagement to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten was announced. The couple, who had known each other for many years, were married in Westminster Abbey on 20 November 1947. Lieutenant Mountbatten, now His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and a great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria."
So we have a plan that leads nowhere; we have the key villain in a great story removed for no good reason resulting in a breakdown of the plot; we have a character that does not belong in the story added in for no great effect; and we have Kevin Costner, whom I know is capable of great acting, delivering a sub-par performance.
This adds up to: bad movie.
Stick with the wonderful 1938 Errol Flynn classic.
The Prophecy 3: The Ascent (2000)
A Great End to a Great Series
First, let me say that I loved the first film in this series. I liked the second one; but after seeing the third, and how it ties things together from all three films and completes the tale, I love them all.
Make no mistake, the second and third film change the direction of the story told in the first one quite dramatically. In fact, many items that were throw-aways from the first film come back to become rather important details once the three films are put together.
In this trilogy we see the fall, redemption, rise and ascent of Gabriel as one of the generals in God's Army. And Mr. Walken is at his best for all three films.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Nothing Revolutionary in Revolutions
For those of us that went to see THE MATRIX in the theater, what we saw was a thinking-man's action-adventure film. The special effects were there to propel the plot and to emphasize the film's underlying questions on the nature of reality, the nature of humanity and the power of the mind over the body. The film was a self-contained story -- beginning, middle and end -- and it told its tale very well, with style grace and power.
The potential in a trilogy based upon this stellar beginning was great. Sort of like those of us that watched STAR WARS about the 10th time and suddenly there was the words "Episode IV" at the beginning subtly telling us that there was a lot more of this great film to come.
For those of us that went to see THE MATRIX: RELOADED in the theater, we saw a film that displayed for us what it would have been like if the first half of THE MATRIX had been expanded to a full-length film. This was alright, however, because we got to have our interlude -- the search for the "McGuffin" of the Key-Maker lead us to the Architect and gave us a list of questions dealing with the nature of the matrix that would keep us talking for months until the next film came out. it was not as good as number one, but it served its purpose. After all, the big payoff was coming in the third installment, right?
For those of us that went to see THE MATRIX: REVOLUTIONS in the theater, we saw a film that reminded us that, in the end, what it all boils down to is this: THE MATRIX is just another series of action-adventure flicks, nothing more. In the end, it leaves us feeling as emotionally detached as a DIRTY HARRY movie.
And this is sad, because the first one gave us so much hope that this trilogy could be so much more than it turned out to be. It asked dozens of deep, philosophical questions and in the third movie, ignored them, talked around them, and managed to answer none of them. The war is over. But is it? After all, the human population will grow in Zion and with the machines still up there, they are bound to but heads again... Neo is dead. But is he? After all, he dies in the first episode too, and he was still around for two sequels. Agent Smith was destroyed. But was he? After all, he, too, was destroyed in the first film, and he, too, returned for two sequels.
All of this leads me to believe that we were given some smoke and mirrors in the first episode. It was great smoke and mirrors, to be sure. But in the end, it was every bit as phony as the world within the Matrix, and had about as much substance.
The Big Kahuna (1999)
An interesting dialog played out by a couple of masters...
The work Kevin Spacey does in this film shows a lot of his roots as a stage actor. Danny DeVito, however, shines like a beacon of truth giving a performance that has to be seen to be believed.
The film is a simple one -- it is portrayed much like the play OUR TOWN in that the set is of little consequence. We know that these are sales, marketing and research reps and that they are in a hospitality suite of a hotel in Kansas. But to be honest, the events of this evening could take place anywhere... this is about the characters, not the places (or even the events, for that matter).
It is a dialog. It is a soul searching that looks at religion (spirituality), honesty, and character and shows that they are all related in many ways, but still very distinct from one another. In fact, the three characters of the film each represent one of these traits -- and in the end, they are all good men.
An excellent film.