Change Your Image
Mojochi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Suburbicon (2017)
Clooney Fouls a Coen Tale
1st off, this film's trailer completely misrepresented what it was going to be, painting it as a suburbanite dad gone rogue against the mob, to protect his family, kind of crazy ride type film. What it really is, is an unpolished Coen dark comedy akin to Fargo, that proved that there's nobody better to do a Coen story then the Coens.
Did Clooney know this was supposed to be a comedy? Clearly he's seen some of their work to know how they do them. In this one's case, it's rather nonsensical, which is not unusual for the Coens. (think The Big Lebowski) So, this movie ought to have had a similar treatment, or one that maybe leans toward Fargo's blend of quirky/funny drama
What we got was a menacing & dull oddball mess that doesn't know what it wants to be, with a B plot about 50s racism that is entirely unrelated & therefore irrelevant to the tale, & villains who are almost literally parodies of The Honeymooners Cramden & Norton, but being portrayed as edgy cutthroats, & it just doesn't fit.
In fact, none of the performances play like they should have in order to give this screenplay the proper treatment, except maybe Oscar Isaac's brief presentation. All in all, I'm not sure I've ever seen a film that more obviously misses the mark. I guess after playing buffoons for the Coens for so long, they felt they owed him a bone from the table, to chew up.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989)
Pitch Perfect Pryor/Wilder saving a lackluster production
In truth, I enjoy this film very much. It is a joyous note upon a very precious pairing. These two men show us 1st hand, time and time again, how fond they are of one another, in a very tangible way, upon the screen. Their personal friendship always manages to shine though in all of their outings together, & in this film's case, it's the saving grace. The quality of their 4 film partnership is debatable, and certainly has its flaws, but it was inescapable that their bond would create fun films for millions, ever since the near miss of failing to cast Pryor in Blazing Saddles.
While none of their films together would receive the success or acclaim which that film garnered, it was clear they had something special to share together, & fortunately for us, share it they did. In fact, one of the pitfalls of their collaboration is that the quality of the productions around them saw a decline over the years. It's fair to point out that their 1st two films, Silver Streak & Stir Crazy delivered a much rawer form of comedy, in a far more audacious presentation, than this film or their last, Another You. The jokes hit harder, & the scenarios stung more wildly.
That said, while the comedy became more subdued as years passed, the focus on their bond actually became more of a highlight. This is the reason I enjoy See No Evil, Hear No Evil. These two comic actors have deeply invested themselves in a heartfelt portrayal of the burgeoning bond of their two characters, and in it, we get a glimpse of their own friendship, two men struggling through life, facing their handicaps, & finding a soul mate with whom they can share aid & comfort.
It's really a beautiful thing, that was actually somewhat more underplayed in their previous films, despite the sharper comedy. The problem with this film, despite a moderately crafty premise, & the two leads carrying it magnificently together, is that everybody else is not. The story and script writing is amusing, but middling, the direction is mediocre, (which in and of itself isn't enough to wreck the picture) but the supporting cast? In short? They're abysmal.
Two bumbling cop schmucks, a personality devoid "Mysterious" sexy villain lady, a completely forgettable sister, an awkward Mr. Big villain, & what might be the absolute worst performance in the nearly otherwise stunning career of Kevin Spacey. (Who could have possibly thought that accent was a good idea?) No sir, our lovable heroes are literally surrounded by a complete disaster of a supporting cast, in my humble opinion...... And yet..... when you get them both away from all of that, And the screen is welcoming them together, every moment is a pure joy. That's a special thing, when everything else fails you, and you still succeed.
Heartbeeps (1981)
An Derailed Journey Into Complete Heterodoxy
I'm not sure what I just saw here, & how I've never even heard of this before. It is easily the most unintentionally bizarre thing ever conceived on film, & though it's a genuine failure on multiple levels (So much so that Kaufman apologized & offered people their money back on a Letterman appearance) it's not without its charms.
It's got some interesting cinematography, makeup effects by the acclaimed master of 80's FX Stan Winston & a wonderfully unprecedented synthesizer & orchestral fused score, composed by none other than the great John Williams, which lends the film some heart...beeps.
Though I'm really surprised that Carol Kane didn't end up as the female lead, Peters & Kaufman bring to the film exactly what you'd expect, as well as they likely could, & there is a root of a story in there with some actual heart.
I streamed it on Amazon. Don't watch it to see a good movie, as it may be 1 of the movie industry's biggest train wrecks. Watch it like a time capsule revealing something historical about a people who lived nearly half a century years ago & their vision of a future. 1981 was a strange time.
I swear, Andy Kaufman had the absolute strangest career in entertainment of anyone who ever breathed. It's like he lived in the cracks between where the entertainment industry reality stopped & fantasy began. If anyone else had made this movie, I'd think they had gone mental, but if you said to me Andy Kaufman made it, I'd be like "Oh... That makes sense".
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Fundamentally Derivative of Goodfellas
Power, drugs, excess, debauchery, criminality, downfall, backstabbing, ruin, and the moral of the story is that when the party's over, you cash in your chips and sell everyone out to keep out of jail, and spend the rest of your days suffering the misfortune of being ordinary, as if that's a worthy punishment for being criminally despicable.
Sound familiar? That's because I just described the same tale told in Scorsese's far superior Goodfellas, over 20 years earlier. At least in that film you have the stigma of the Mafia, a culture which it captures with pinpoint accuracy. In this one you just have one self-aggrandizing twit's personal recounting of his life, slathered with what felt to me like generous amounts of exaggeration and outright bullshit.
Go watch American Hustle instead. The acting, which is the saving grace of this film, is just as good in that one. Marty should know better than to retread the same turf. Just because it's not a mafia movie doesn't mean it's not rehash. I expect better from him than Tarantino.
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
90 Minutes of Meh... 30 Minutes of Not Too Bad
What can I say that hasn't already been said? The truth is, there's morsels in this premise that are promising, which offer a fertile landscape for both a proper script treatment and a proved leading actor to make it something wonderfully reverent to The Wizard of Oz, neither of which did it receive.
Ultimately, the dialog in this script falls as flat as can be, which makes it inescapably necessary to demand exceedingly charismatic performances from its cast, a demand that was not met.
Kunis, Cox, and Braff all gave uninspired performances, and the actor whose shoulders must steadily support this entire endeavor was woefully out of his depth. Franco was one of the poorest choices for this role they could've made. Luckily, Williams and Weisz manage their roles convincingly or there'd have been no one worth anything in this movie. Jack Black would've been a better Oz, seriously.
The final act finally manages to pick up some, once all the painful setup is done, and Raimi can deliver some of his flash, but by then the film is a lost cause, because you don't care about anyone or anything. This thing needed more time to mature in development, and then they might have had something
Les Misérables (2012)
I get what's been done, but I'm not entirely sold
Look, I get it, and I can see what they're going for here, with the gritty realism angle, and its certainly well made in that respect. Without a doubt it's an epic film production, but seriously, the music is almost unrecognizable. Some of these people have no place ever singing in a professional musical, on film or anywhere else. I'm looking at you, Russell Crowe & Helena Bonham Carter. I'm not even sure what accent Sacha Baron Cohen is doing, French, Cockney. He's all over the place.
Frankly, it takes you out of the production. The only time it doesn't is when Hugh Jackman is singing, because he's enormously talented, even in this peculiar setting and at a decided disadvantage for a stage performer
Get Low (2009)
Charming, engaging, touching, wonderfully performed
I hadn't even heard of this film, but basically, anytime I see Robert Duvall show up in a film , I choose to give him a chance, because he's almost certainly got something interesting to deliver. So, for him to surface in something, and then for Bill Murray and the wonderful Sissy Spacek to be attached to it as well, it had to be worth my time. So it was. In reference to my title summary, Murray is that charm the film offers. The story & the ensemble cast was what engaged, Duvall himself managed to give us something touching yet again, & every single cast member gives wonderful performances. As period pieces go, it delivers on many levels. It is what an independent film should aspire to be
Babe (1995)
It is just impossible to dislike this film
There. I said it. If you can't find it within yourself to be entertained and even touched by this film, you have no soul. Is it a corny, silly family film? Absolutely, but not since perhaps the Muppets has anyone been able to own that realm with such charm and grace, a grace which is as skilled as any Oscar winning film throughout film history and a charm that is stunningly unique.
This film really made me take notice of James Cromwell, and how absolutely brilliant he is at choosing roles for himself. This performance is just a treat to behold, and though even the most open minded of us were skeptical at the beginning, of seeing him and these voice actors, in their respective roles, as well as this style as being valid, it's not long into the film that it has complete won over even the most cynical viewer.
You want to hate it for being so simple & childish, but it's just impossible
The Music Man (2003)
A fair production, lacking charm & charisma
I don't really want to harp on this production too much, because this musical in any form is a favorite of mine. However, though I found this outing to be fair, it also seemed rather run-of-the-mill or paint-by-numbers, & suffered greatly from a lack of charisma in its performances.
I'm really trying to not let the influence of the original film color my interpretation here, but there's something missing in the presentation of the two lead characters, as written, that causes a breakdown of the chemistry between them that makes this scenario less believable.
Don't get me wrong. Both Kristin Chenoweth & Matthew Broderick are good performers, & have both displayed that in others presentations, but here they really only manage to be cute together. I didn't get the romance, that's supposed to be happening between them, nor any of the other emotional content that's in this story.
Chenoweth is really good, and it sucks to bring it to this level, but she has a look about her that makes this character a hard sell for her, & though she makes a better go of it than anyone else in the film, it falls a little flat, especially at the end
To be frank, Broderick was a miscast. He gets completely drowned out vocally by Chenoweth, in "Til There Was You" & he just does not have the charm, confidence, & plain masculinity to carry the part of a character whose mere presence turns a simple town on its emotional ear. Nor does he have the depth to present the genuine change of heart that happens to Harold Hill at the end. He seemed kind of spongy or milktoast, & the result was that the production was like an air filled donut where jelly should be.
Hugh Jackman could do it in his sleep, but they ain't getting him for a TV movie. Sadly, I didn't see any performances that really made me feel this story come to life, which I suppose makes the production seem a bit lackluster, literally... lacking in luster
Kissed (1996)
Not as terrible or as brilliant as the extremes profess
This is a purposefully simple and obvious film, but good. Could it have been more complex or developed? Sure. Did it need to be? I think not. The goals were achieved. The mood was executed appropriately, and the performances were given well enough that additional development, while perhaps useful, was not necessary to the objective.
Do we need to know why the little girl is attracted to dead things? Not really, unless you're doing a psyche profile on her. For dramatic purposes, it is simply enough to note that she has a life long relationship to it. In fact, in this case there is even a romanticism & perhaps myth centering around her obsession, such that overly defining how it came about would defeat its allure.
That allure is what the film is embracing, the allure of necrophilia being more than just a sexual fetish, involving perhaps all four of the principal characters, the girl, her boyfriend, her mentor, & even the custodian, all of whom have varied, & uniquely unnatural fascinations with the subject.
The story is direct, & it drives straight to the point without delay, & its characters all have a purpose & design, which conclude fittingly, even including the girl's undertaker mentor, who gets a glimpse into her truth at the end & leaves speechless, knowing all too well what is really happening, just as his custodian knows too well the truth of him.
Anyway, onto the question everybody needs answered. Is this arousing? Well, in any well adjusted sense, of course the notion of making love to the dead is not supposed to be sexually arousing, but the film is, or at least alluring, if not in a fully sexual way. Truth be told, there is something arousing about this film, even if it's only arousing to the subject of necrophilia in a voyeuristic way.
In short, it's not arousing such that it makes you want to go hump a corpse, but it does make you want to watch her do it. As such, the film is a success at pushing the artistic envelop. To understand the level of difficulty in achieving something like this, one need only reflect on how impossible it would be to make an equally enticing story about any other abominable fetish, like fecophilia. Sounds pretty tough doesn't it?
A great deal of the success in making this story alluring was in how it was presented & by whom, & I mean specifically the well played performance given by the celestially beautiful Molly Parker, whose every square inch of freckled majesty I worship, so much so that I too would hang myself, sooner than look away from her glorious visage, or turn away from hearing the hushed tones of her sweet & transcendent voice
I would feel myself bask in her radiance, even if it were a movie wherein she only sat at a bus stop & read from the phone book. I'll watch anything that woman is in, & in this case, I felt I spent my time wisely.
Conviction (2010)
A subtle, well acted, mediocre screenplay of an inspirational story
Ordinarily, a screenplay this dry, plain, dull, and lengthy would turn me off right away. Additionally, the director somehow manages to lose the audience with how disjointed his interpretation is. Many times, films like this I will not even finish watching.
However, that was not the case here. In fact, this film has two things really working for it, a profoundly inspirational story, that manages to reach through its modest screenplay, right past the awkwardness of its director, and deeply touch the viewer regardless, and also some really well crafted performances from it's entire cast, that manage to bring this story to you in a very personal way.
Much credit to all the actors for breathing life into this film, which gave very little to work with, in regard to script & dialog. It never ceases to impress me how Sam Rockwell chooses some of the most challenging parts an actor can play.
In order for this film to work, and for the truth of the story to be realized, he has to portray someone who every person but his sister believes is guilty, and yet still portray a man who would be capable of having a person care for him so much that they'd sacrifice their entire adult life for him.
How do you juxtapose those two qualities into one character? Potential vicious murderer & life long loving family bond of unbreakable proportions. If ever there were two qualities that would seem mutually exclusive, it's those, & yet Rockwell does it
Swank does a dutiful performance in her part as well, everything played pitch perfect. It's not a film that will tear through cinemas like Erin Brochovich, or even compete with other more notable wrongful conviction themed films, but it is a solid presentation nonetheless, most assuredly due to it's performances, & it's heart
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)
You have got to be shitting me
Utter perverted, fetishistic debasement masquerading as avant-garde horror, which I'm certain, in and of itself, has an all too common place in this ever depraved and decaying global society. That being said, it was also rather unwatchable, from poor dramatic and cinematic quality. Weak dialog, absurd story, moronic plot development, awkward and unconvincing acting, and nonsensical characters.
The only thing I can say about this film, which can give it some noteworthiness, is that never before have I seen a film which does not possess one single ounce of worth. Its noteworthiness is that it is 100% completely worthless. I want you to think carefully about that. I'm describing a film which is not even a tenth of a percent worth making. I've seen a lot of terrible movies, but I've literally never seen that before, and that is damnably impressive, if you look at it from a Mel Brooks "Springtime for Hitler" angle.
That's probably why the South Park creators felt it worth bringing to everyone's attention, those jerks LOL
The Magic Flute (2006)
A Wonderful Presentation, If Not Quite A Fitting Portrayal
If The Lord Of The Rings trilogy has showed us anything, it showed that myth and fantasy have a place in modern cinema. I have long & will still firmly believe that my favorite Mozart piece, Die Zauberflöte, can & should receive a properly reverent modern cinematic treatment, while respecting the original Mozart vision, & adding fantasy aspects that could appeal to the modern masses.
This presentation however, is not that treatment I still hope for, primarily due to what I consider to be an unnecessary & unfitting portrayal, in an awkwardly placed period. Plus, The direction tends to be as misplaced as the screen adaptation itself, though still a thoroughly picturesque visage.
In & of itself, it's a very enjoyable film to watch. The English adaptation by Fry is suitable, the performances from the cast are wonderful, the casting itself was splendid, & of course, the music is beyond beautiful.
I can only criticize the film for being something I'd rather it not be, as I don't believe The Magic Flute belongs set in this way. Why wouldn't you just present this piece in a more reverent way, as an entity belonging purely to the fantasy realm, the way one would expect from A Midsummer Night's Dream or the like? I would expect that someone with such respectable Shakespearean credits to his name would be thoroughly capable of rising to that challenge. The intrusion of a WWI theme only steals from the wonder of a would be mythical experience, in my opinion
You get an A+ for effort, an A for execution, & a B- for intention, which would have been lower had you not tried so very well to make the style & period work. Nonetheless, an enjoyable view, that leaves me to still want for the version I desire, & believe we all deserve
Heckler (2007)
A commendable concept with less than fulfilling results
I suspect, as I'm one of the very few people to review this documentary, thus far, there is some likelihood that Jaime Kennedy might actually read it, as was evidenced in the film itself, often being his tendency.
I sincerely hope he does, as nobody can avoid criticism, and those that ignore it completely are destined to eventually loose touch, in some way, with their benefactors. We all face criticism. I work alongside surgeons, who give criticism to those who perform inadequately, the likes of which make the kind of harassment that a comedy heckler gives look like a prepubescent, shooting spitballs, from a straw. Entertainers don't have a corner on the market of pressure stress
I'm 38, live in my own home, and yes, I have opinions on what is or isn't entertaining, which coincidentally, I don't hold alone. I frequently agree on the value or valuelessness of entertainment with others. I'd suggest, that though we're not entertainers, we're still valid in our opinions, especially when they're informed, multitudinous and as it happens, the source of your income. I'd also mention, that I've spent some nights of my own singing dinner theater, and having people talk over it, and yes, it is rude, and ignorant.
Heckling is pointless, but though many critics are completely useless, vindictive attention whores, that doesn't negate the fact that hecklers and critics are wholly different things, simply sharing commonalities, and it doesn't mean that every critic is equally guilty of such. I know that when I've reviewed things, I try avoiding being a total prick, but as I'm occasionally a prick in daily life, some of that may show though. It's called Human nature.
I rarely spend the time to write a poor review, as can be confirmed on my comment history page, which only contains fourteen other reviews, to date, over the past two years, half of which are glowing recommendations. I rarely take pot shots at someone, because there is not much use in it, but I'll admit that when a piece of entertainment fails dismally to entertain, there's a small amount of fun that can be acquired in compensation, by publicly railing on it. Most of us have done it, in some way or another and that doesn't make us all terrible people.
On the point of the film, which I'll keep as separate from personal commentary as possible, in this wholly intertwined situation, I'm in agreement with the majority of the other critical reviews, I've seen here. The film begins interestingly, entertainingly, thought provokingly & humorously. The interviewed participants are some of the most qualified sources to be questioned on the subject of hecklers, and offered a captivating look into the lives touched by this kind of cruelty, that's endured, and the ignorance involved in perpetrating it.
Truthfully, the relevance of the Michael Richards scandal provides a welcome environment, for a film specifically devoted to the topic of those that have heckled comedians throughout Stand-up's history, & how it's been dealt with. However, the discussions in "Heckler" eventually became discussions about critics, never to return, or to find a commonality which could substantiate the digression, and was held as if it was synonymous with the subject of hecklers, which it's most assuredly not.
The film was doing something interesting, when it was handling the issue of the comic or performer, struggling against poor social conduct. That's captivating. Switching over to showing people complain about having to accept that others find their work less than sensational isn't. Brother, if I want to see that, I'll ask one of my crappier co-workers about their last performance evaluation.
It actually sort of disappointed me that this film was derailed, because when I came across the DVD, I had an impressed reaction to the notion that the subject of hecklers be discussed, in detail, via documentary, and in that way, the film's title is false advertising, or at least misleading to the film's true intent.
That's really all there is to say, of consequence, about the film, and the only thing that remains to say about the concept of dealing with criticism, is to offer some advice which I hope is beneficial.
You, as a performer, must have as widely diverse feedback as possible, or you will surely wither on the vine, or worse, be disregarded like yesterday's newspapers. Criticism is one of the ways that happens. Does that mean that every buttmunch claiming themselves a critic should have a direct plumbing line plunged directly into your soul, for the purpose of relieving themselves on you?
Of course not. So watchyagonna do about it, Punk? I'd suggest becoming savvy enough to be able to tell who's who, and just exactly what's valid and what ain't, disregarding the latter. It's not as hard as it might seem. I do it every time I'm on this website. It takes me about three or four sentences to know whether someone's completely full of crap, marginally literate, stupid, or whether they have an intelligent, informed, & worthwhile opinion. Jay & Silent Bob couldn't, so they kicked their asses
Get hip and start making the distinction, plus, be open to taking some lumps occasionally. You're a celebrity, for having become someone who entertains large masses of people. There are benefits that come with that, that the rest of us will never have. You can have a blessed life because of it. There's also consequences to it, and you need to come to grips with them, or get out. That's the nature of the beast. It can derail you if you let it. Ask Kurt Cobain, or Heath Ledger about their stress
People are mean, for no good reason, to each other just as often as they are to you. It just isn't headline news like everything else YOU do. Have some humility, and don't expect that you should be treated like a Faberge Egg.
Across the Universe (2007)
A Telegraphed Mish Mash
I very quickly got the impression that this film had no idea where it was going, other than into some kind of sticky setup for the next Beatles' song.
Granted, the concept was well meaning, & the visuals were creative, though mock retro, rather than actual period presentation. By far the best feature of the film was the arrangement & presentation of the music itself, despite some fairly amateurish performers, & some overtly awkward applications, with the noted performance exceptions of Joe Cocker singing an oddly placed, but inspired rendition of "Come Together", & a Watts riot tie in being put to a Gospel arrangement of "Let It Be" which truly was, quite possibly, the only genuinely touching moment in the film.
Without a doubt, the biggest flaw of this film, besides flying all over the place without direction, is that the entire plot & many of the characters seem wholly developed for the purpose of jamming two or three dozen Beatles song into a movie, whole characters created & named, solely that they can have their respective song sung to them. Between that aspect & the relentless cramming of Beatles' references into the already unremarkable dialogue, the viewer is helpless to notice anything but these sophomoric tendencies, which reduced the film to leaning heavily on the brilliant skill of the very thought provoking original composers of this music, & the powerful intent their songs can carry.
Before now I'd never had a solid example of a movie that was rushing & dragging at the same time. This film drags, & I can only imagine that it was also ripped up by execs before release too. It drags primarily because the connection between characters hangs on threads or less, & what actual plot they try to string together, besides poorly executed spoofs on Joplin & Hendrix & the like, is disjointed, clichéd & insubstantial
However, simultaneously as the film drags, it is also rushed, with no intention other than to quickly segue into the next musical number, & hide the lack of skill in the script writing department. The only notable time where this worked in their favor was in the "I Want You" induction sequence. The rest of the time it only served to prevent the audience from becoming involved with the characters, on a more substantial level than just their stereotype.
Oh yeah... We got lots of stereotypes in this movie, & also downright spoofs on real life persons, & though many might consider it homage, I tend to lean more toward hackneyed writing. though I suppose that in an age where this generation will soon lose touch with the historical noteworthiness of people like Ken Kesey, & Timothy Leary, a film like this may be the only way to link them to Mid-Twentieth Century history.
Such a sad comment that is, & if it truly is the case, then I'd pray that we, somehow, as a culture could come up with a better way to present it than this.
Perhaps I'm being a bit rough on this movie though, in expecting it to be less vapid or simplistic, being that I'm fond of The Beatles' music, & also not necessarily within the film's target demographic. As musicals go, it manages to entertain, in about as substantial a way as Coco Puffs can be considered a breakfast meal. The cast is certainly full of pretty people. The dance numbers are well choreographed, the direction & cinematography are eye catching, & I can see how people who are into this kind of thing would be able to enjoy it, on its own merits, without dissecting it like I have been
Their mistake, in my opinion, was in leading us to believe there was a story to follow beyond overdone clichés, & people who were more than just a two dimensional caricature of a 60's icon, or a Beatles song archetype
But I won't tell you to not watch it, because there is an off chance you may like it, & not care about the things I'm mentioning, but I likely won't watch it again. I can like pointless musicals too, & if I get the hankering to watch one, I'd be far more fulfilled by watching "The Muppet Movie" & that's not Sarcasm. I like "The Muppet Movie"
Reign Over Me (2007)
Sandler Excelling At What Every Comedian/Actor Wishes They Could
There is never any shortage of comedy actors who long to make the transfer into drama, & Adam Sandler can, with complete assurance, now count himself among the very few who can do it with excellence.
Reign Over Me is a story about two men whose lives diverged into two diametrically opposed states of anguish, since they had been college roommates, many years earlier.
Comedians like Jim Carrey wish they had the innate ability, that Sandler expresses, seemingly with ease, in carrying across a character that is meant to be genuinely funny enough to bring the audience to laughter, & yet dramatically heartfelt enough to be able put a lump in their throats, moments later. I believe it to be his finest performance to date, & hope to see more of this kind of talent, in future work from him.
Cheadle, as always, is in top form, & shows again that of all his finer talents, the one that is likely most valued by his peers, is his ability to intelligently pin point where his performance needs to be, in order to heighten the qualities of those around him. He and Sandler have a chemistry that I would have previously thought unlikely, in large part due to his approach.
The story, though simple, is scripted marvelously, & writer/actor/director Mike Binder proves himself a gifted craftsman in the art of cinema. The only noticeable flaw worth mentioning, is that the well played performances, from both Liv Tyler, as the therapist, & Jada Pinkett Smith, as Cheadle's wife, seemed somewhat truncated, possibly due to time constraints, but still manage to convey two exceptionally thoughtful women.
There is not one point in this film where you lose the earnestness from any character, including Donald Sutherland, as the judge & Robert Kline, & Melinda Dillon, as Sandler's in-laws. You truly find yourself able to identify, & even empathize with each character's perspective, & that is a rare quality in a film. As long a Binder can bring that to his work, I'll be willing to watch any movie he makes
Planet Terror (2007)
So Absurd That It's Impossible To Not Love It
Anyone trying to critique this movie by any traditional standard is just plain stupid. There is never a point at which the viewer should expect any kind of realism, or sobriety, so to view it as such is a sure fire way to totally get the wrong idea. Once you can come to grips with that, this movie becomes a very entertaining, over the top romp, with engaging performances from each cast member.
The quick plot overview is that a military biological weapon gets unleashed on a rural town, by a band of soldiers, creating a zombie epidemic. The biochemical scientist (Naveen Andrews) ends up forming a resistance group with one of the local hospital's doctors, (Marley Shelton) The town Sheriff (Michael Biehn) & company, the local barbecue cook, (Jeff Fahey) The mysterious El Wray (Freddie Rodriguez) & his GoGo dancing ex-girlfriend Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan).
Madness ensues as they & their group of surviving extras flea from the clutches of the military, led by Bruce Willis, the ever growing number of mutants, & one very deranged E.R. doctor (Josh Brolin)
The director Robert Rodriquez has been winning me over as of late. I was not initially a fan of his early work. It just didn't appeal to me all that much, but I'm slowly coming around to his style, as it continues to improve. this film, like Sin City, may be campy, but it's still a fun movie to watch. The multitude of actors make the thing very rich in texture, & one of the more amusing films I've seen recently.
Easily the better of the two Grindhouse movies, & though it lacks any verifiable substance, by way of development, it is still a film I'd recommend for anyone who likes lots of action, edge of your seat excitement, offbeat humor, & of course Zombie gore
Death Proof (2007)
An Admirable Attempt At A Gimmick, that trails off into pointless absurdity
Look, I don't mind crash 'em up, muscle car movies, or stalker blood bath flicks, or even throwback knockoffs of 70's exploitation films. Hell, I don't even mind an occasional dialog heavy, self indulgent film, from a director. Everybody deserves the opportunity to have fun with it, & having a large cast of hot chicks, looking slutty, never hurts either. However, Tarantino jumps the shark with this here thing.
The downright exorbitance of "Death Proof" could only ever be justifiable, were it presented for comedic purposes, which if that is the case, for this film, then it's humor was lost on me. The annoyingly ongoing vapid discussions of the characters, in this movie, that comprise the majority of the running time, just wears you down after a while. I'm aware, as a QT fan, that such "Random Moments" dialog is par for the course, but in most examples of this, in his previous films, it is just a seasoning, not the entire recipe.
Add in the fact that there truly is no story to chew on, at all, & you're suddenly strapped into a pointless ride, that actually left me rooting for every character in the film to meet some kind of gruesome end, just to get them to finally shut their insipid pie holes.
The overwhelming banality present here, reminded me that though I really enjoy Pulp Fiction, I was least fond of Uma's Character, for the very same reasons that I can't stand any of the ones in Death Proof. Often, Tarantino can make female characters look pointlessly shallow, with a surface cockiness, that just don't cut the mustard
What's the deal with "Inglorious Bastards"? It better be good, after this. You'll need to give us something worth a damn now Bubba
The Good German (2006)
A Worthwhile Effort That Falls Short
Embracing the look & feel of film noir is always commendable, but not always advisable to attempt, unless everything is as it should be, & certain weak or unfitting elements of "The Good German" left me with a disappointed impression of the film, as a whole.
The list of objections starts with a miscast Tobey Maguire as the needlessly foul mouthed, would be roughneck, young soldier abroad, who's form was as unfit to the rest of this film as his caricatured delivery & pantomime was. It just made for a very unsettled introduction into the film, especially considering the presence of a superfluous sex scene, & did the remainder of the film a disservice, in being so totally out of place.
My second issue is that I detest films with multiple or floating narrative. Having never read the book, the implementation of jumping narrative only heightened the viewer's sense of feeling left out of the character development, adapted from the original text, & leaves you to feel jilted by a truncated character, who was obviously important enough that the story need be told through their own voice.
Of course, the truncated character dilemma spreads itself throughout the whole of the film, actually, as I felt that way about all the characters, short of the female lead, who's own development is the crux of the plot. Even the male lead, played quite well, by George Clooney, was a bit of an empty prop of a character, compared to what his 1940's film noir archetype is. The direction was fair, due mostly to decent cinematography, but it often seemed less like homage, & more like knockoff, in general setup. Soderbergh's visuals did not strike me in any kind of impressive way, & his closeups were largely successful due to having a couple very gifted faces to work with, in Clooney, & Blanchett.
The most positive credit should go to Cate Blanchett for doing what she constantly does, in taking on a role that I never seem to think she fits in, & then turning out a very canny & poignant performance in it, earning her place in the unsuited part, by only moments into her first appearance.
Overall, it's a worthwhile attempt, & not a bad view, for black & white fans, on a bored rainy day, but doesn't impress like some of the more well known war dramas, & certainly doesn't hold a candle to original film noir, or even to some other homages to it, like "The Man Who Wasn't There". The film is just too noticeably a hatchet job on some of the characters, & finally leaves you feeling like you just sat through a slowly developing setup to a punchline.
I'll just be ignorant & blame Paul Attanasio, who's been known for hacking into other such books as Michael Crichton's "Disclosure" & "Sphere", and Tom Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears"
The Number 23 (2007)
A Cumbersome Chore
Walter Sparrow becomes obsessed with an enigmatic number & the details of a book having similarities with his life.
For a movie that was only 98 minutes long, it seemed to drag like trying to get through the last hour of a shift at my job. The actors aren't entirely to blame, however. Carrey is competent, although I do tire of his sad attempts at trying to humanize his characters with the input of sprinklings of his individual brand of goofy ass comedic style. Other than that, he does manage to put the sell on the character well enough, as does his costar.
The problem is that mood & pacing choices by the director have taken a fairly plain story, & tried to bestow cryptic ambiance to it, & fails dismally. Plus, I was less than entertained by the formulated abstractness, like the appearances of the dog, & the novel depictions. I just kept wishing he'd finish reading the damn book, which seemed like a fairly academic read. I'll also add that in hindsight, Carrey just doesn't carry the look of a rough, homicidal character well, either. It always reminds me of when he played the Axl Rose character in the Dirty Harry movie "The Dead Pool"
The ending was weak, but by that time I was just relieved to have it end, regardless. 23 this & 23 that, but what real impact did it have on the people it affected? I just couldn't tell you. Oh well... Welcome back Bob Zmuda.
Oh yeah, & why the Hell isn't Bud Cort credited for his performance as the weird old guy, that did that thing, that seemed important, at the time?
Blahhhh.
Nature Unleashed: Volcano (2005)
Only Slightly Less Unwatchable than Magma: Volcanic Disaster
To Hell with seismological studies, & geothermal surveys. If you're looking for a way to find out about an impending volcanic disaster, then what you need to do is get your recently deceased wife to commune with a supernaturally possessed, mute, Italian teenage girl. That's what our hero, Russell Woods was smart enough to do, & not a minute too soon, as the town's clerics were likely going to burn her at the stake, as a demon infested witch.
Luckily, she paints fairly surrealistic depictions of lunar cycles or some such hogwash, & sets volcano photographer Russell, the sole voice of reason, on the path to saving the entire population of the small Italian village where his late wife was raised.
Soooo... as of late, I've become a veritable connoisseur of crappy "Straight to video" disaster flicks, as I have a friend who works for Blockbuster, & he often gives me stacks of dvds that would otherwise have been destroyed, & turned into packaging materials, or shipped straight to a landfill.
Sadly, I now fear that I was too haste in interfering with this movie's final destiny, of rotting in a vast heap of trash. Now, far be it for me to be completely negative, so I'll offer something on a positive note. It is a small victory that I, a man of much patience, was able to sit through the entire 90 minutes of this film, which is more than I can say for the aforementioned Xander Berkley vehicle "Magma: Volcanic Disaster", which was so bloody dull & awful, I had to shut if off after an hour.
As for this slightly better volcano disaster flick, I'd recommend only watching it, if someone gives you a free copy, & you have 90 minutes to flush down the crapper. The up side is you'll have much more respect for Pierce Brosnan's "Dante's Peak", & Tommy Lee Jones' "Volcano" It'll make you laugh, & try, unsuccessfully, to make you cry, & you'll likely pause it, at least once, & forget you were watching it, & then go back & finish it, & then wonder why you just didn't forget it completely, in lieu of getting on with your life
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Uh... yeah... What? I Don't Think So, & I May Now Hate You
The world of tomorrow is actually the world of yesterday's tomorrow, in this visually extravagant, poorly attempted throw back to the serial sci-fi era of 1930's film, created primarily with the use of CGI.
In an era where science seems capable of limitlessness, & anything German is scary & evil, futuristic fly boy, Sky Captain Joe, (Jude Law) & his seemingly witless journalist ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins, (Gwyneth Paltrow) are hurled into a mind numbing plot, wherein a mysterious evil mastermind, named Totenkopf (Translates to Head of Death, Death Head, or Dead Head) threatens to destroy the world, with his advanced robots & lasers & such.
Only through the help of allies, Dex, the affable young inventor, & Capt. Franky Cook, the industrious, one eyed, commander of an airborne air craft carrier, will Joe & Polly be able to thwart the villain & his minions.
For about 20 minutes, or so, this film's over the top retro feel, weak humor & empty characters are mildly cute, but shortly after Joe & Polly begin their flight to find the villain, this flick takes a nose dive into the ocean, never to resurface again, would it were so that the film's heroes could've drown down there. The presence of the supporting players is not much help either, since Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) is such a weakly developed character, that his only traits seem to be his ability to read a map, do math & invent a thing or two. Franky (Angelina Jolie) is slightly less useless, but not by much. Credit where credit is due, however, as Jolie & Ribisi's performances far out played Law & Paltrow's.
There's no discernible development of any kind. The comedy is painful, The characters are dull. The homage aspect is lame, & the rape of Sir Laurence Olivier's image left the taste of bile in my throat. Though this movie may have some action factor to it, it left me feeling short changed, regarding the phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words". I'm still waiting for my other 999 words
Serenity (2005)
The Perfect Snub To Fox
Universal Pictures' "Serenity" is one of the most entertaining Sci-Fi films in many years, & the irony is that it was one of the more unique TV shows in recent times, as well. Obviously, the Fox network didn't think so, as they canceled it after its first, yet very promising, season. The story of the movie is merely a continuation of the story of the show. For nearly a year, the enigmatic Captain Malcolm Reynolds, & his crew/ dysfunctional family of mercenaries, war comrades, fugitives, & strays has traveled under the radar of the planetary alliance forces, as they conduct not so scrupulous business, with their Firefly model space freighter, The Serenity. Aboard are the Alliance fugitives Dr. Simon Tam & his telepathic sister River, who until her brother's rescue, had been institutionalized, for the purpose of studying & experimenting on her truly heightened mental & physical abilities.
Since then, life & work has become increasingly more difficult, as the hunt for the Tams becomes harder to avoid, within an already intensely ruthless, & dangerous universe. As they evade alliance capture, & vicious murder, from the grossly mutated "Reavers", the crew of the Serenity must face off with the deadliest of Alliance assassins, who's intent on destroying River Tam, to protect the classified secrets she may have gained telepathic access to, during her incarceration. The future of this Post-Earthbound Human civilization rests on River's ability to share her secret, & the Serenity crew's ability to see out this daunting task.
Initially, I did not warm to the TV show, all that much. I think the reasons for this were that the development was a bit slow going, though that's fairly commonplace in TV, and also the homespun comedic campiness tended to drown out the more substantial aspects of the show, though many shows suffer from that problem in their first season. First seasons are almost always about getting a sense of direction & proportion.
Well guess what they did, when they made the movie? That's right. They gave it a better treatment in that very regard. Needless to say, I really liked the movie. That's not to say it was a perfect creation, by any means. It was a bit more simple, & I think that the film could've benefited from another 20 minutes, or so, of run time, so that it wouldn't seem so truncated. Nevertheless, what they did do, was get the recipe proportions right.
The improvement was in the overall feel of the thing, which was much more serious. Sure, the very smartly written, witty comedic exchanges were still there, to a somewhat lesser degree, but it did not detract from the dramatics of the thing, which lent it more credibility, perhaps. I would even render a wild guess, that if they had been doing the show from the beginning, with the kind of dramatic treatment they would use in the film, it might have been the necessary component in getting the backers to take the show more seriously, which could've kept it on the air longer, something which it undoubtedly deserved.
Nevertheless, this movie is a joy to watch for fans, & random viewers alike, as it's adroitly well written enough to give a glossary knowledge of the plot & character history, without impeding the flow of the film. Plus, the dialog & character interaction has some of the most entertaining writing I've seen in a long time. The funny thing is that the cinematic treatment they gave this film was actually the perfect snub to the network that canceled the show, as it demonstrated the full potential of this idea.
Shame on you Fox for being so short sighted
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
A Welcome Addition To The Series
There is the possibility that this film can be under-appreciated. The nay sayers will say nay, as they have throughout this series, but I suspect that they are opposed to taking pleasure in any film that exists solely for the benefit of entertaining audiences, which the Bourne movies do well, including this one.
Bourne Ultimatum sets off head long into the throws of a story that picks up very shortly after the events of the preceding film's conclusion, which left very few characters to be revisited from the ever dwindling principal cast. Facing new opposition, these are the players which Bourne is forced to rely upon, to complete his self assigned mission, of reaching the source of his search, for the answers to the questions, who is Jason Bourne, & where did he come from?
Does this film contain less overall plot development than its predecessors? Yes, but it is nearly unheard of to be able to claim the opposite, when referring to the third installment in any cinematic series. This is the only verifiable fault of this movie, & it's surely nitpicking too damn the film on that basis alone.
In every other way worth noting, this film is a success. It travels in the directions that were virtually unavoidable, & though Bourne's hunters are no more prepared to face him, than their earlier counterparts, the characters are no less viable, nor are the actors' performances. The suspense continues to be taught, & the action is overwhelming.
Matt Damon is true to the character, as it's become, & the supporting cast manages to deliver, in spite of there being less for them to work with. If this is truly the finale of Jason Bourne, then it does sew things up somewhat neatly, if not much else. I can't say that I'd be completely fulfilled were this to be the last film of the series, but then again there is no guaranteeing that it is. Such being the case, I can say no less than this is a welcome addition to the series, & entertaining to watch, & that they keep me wanting more
Zodiac (2007)
Investigative drama done expertly
I must admit that I sat down to watch "Zodiac" with an entirely misconstrued notion of what I'd be seeing. Maybe that was my fault, or the fault of the marketing, or a bit of both. Yet, I should have known better as I've become familiar enough with David Fincher's work to know that he does not tread old turf, & why would he, when he has a movie like Sev7n to contend with? So thankfully, I was happy to see that Zodiac was more a crime drama, than a copycat serial killer movie. I can't say that every minute is packed with excitement, but nonetheless, it's a worthwhile view, with a vast multitude of well played performances from a ridiculously diverse group of actors, some of whom I hadn't seen work in a movie in ages. Really, it's like a endless parade of familiar faces in there.
Prepare yourself for a two & a half hour fact finding mission, spanning more than twenty years, that does keep you interested, & invested in the many characters. Jake Gyllenhaal gives a subdued, but still expressive performance, as the cartoonist who's incapable of letting go of this mystery. Mark Ruffalo does a better job, than I'd expected, playing the increasingly tormented lead detective. There are also quite a few supporting players that are a joy to watch, such as Brian Cox, & the always intriguing Robert Downey Jr.
Fincher is as precise to form & fact as he has ever been, & though I've heard tale of him being an overly meticulous director to work for, it seems it's not without its merit, & who can argue with it, when it works out, in the end? Overall, I recommend this movie, though being in the mood for a lengthy crime drama will be extremely beneficial for the common viewer. People like me always wish a 158 minute movie could've been a bit shorter, but honestly, I don't really see how that could've been possible. Zodiac is not loaded with flash, & the bulk of the terrorizing shows up early on, but regardless of that, you'll likely munch away, & keep watching