MarshallStax Reviews

The Void (I) (2016)

A tribute to John Carpenter, more or less

[5/10 · 14 August 2017]

If one were to take the scenario from "Prince of Darkness", "The Thing" or "Assault on Precinct 13" (a group of people trapped in a locale that cannot be escaped with danger both surrounding them and inside with them) and combine it with a dash of "Phantasm (an older man and a younger man who are trying to stop some kind of evil), a dollop of thrice-removed Lovecraft by way of "Re-Animator" and the Cthulhu mythos and a hint of "Silent Hill", one might wind up with something like this.

Strangely, the film seems to be set in the 80's (antiquated radio, old cars, no cell phones) but there is no mention of the time period.

The story itself is told in a pretty straightforward way in something near real-time once we arrive at the hospital. Character relationships are revealed primarily through dialogue and there isn't a whole lot of fat hanging off the affair. Creature effects and some VFX seem to be primarily practical; admirable since computer generated imagery wasn't needed to bring about most of what we see.

All in all, it's a solid piece of work, but, being primarily a pastiche and tribute, it's sort of like going to see a tribute band; no matter how good they are, they are dependent on the work of a pioneer in order to have something to recycle.

I'd recommend seeing any of the movies I name-checked at the start of this over "The Void", but it's not a waste of time.

Return to Sender (I) (2015)

Expected this, got that

[6/10 · 23 May 2017]

I will skip the synopsis, since, if you are reading this, you probably already know the setup.

This film has some twists up its sleeve and there's nothing in the tone to telegraph them, yet all the clues have been laid out in advance and all the dots connect. Until the last 15 minutes, I kept wondering where this was going to go; there was a creepy, uncomfortable vibe to the way the relationship between Miranda (Pike) and the convicted-and-released rapist (Shiloh Fernandez) developed.

This is no classic, but it's a decently-crafted piece of entertainment that is by turns disturbing, creepy and satisfying. Everyone involved turns in at the least a workmanlike job and, in the case of Pike, a mildly inspired turn.

Rosamund Pike has an intense, frightening gaze. Her irises are so dark that they merge with her pupils, making for an all black center to her eyes in many shots. It makes her expression hard to read and gives her a menacing, almost-reptilian quality at times. In opposition to actors whose performances lay bare their emotions or whose mannerisms reveal the inner workings of their minds, hers is opaque and difficult to read.

Compared to the entirety of the film and television I have seen in my life, I'd put this in the top 40th percentile. If you think this is a "worst of all time" contender, you clearly haven't seen enough movies.

Becoming Bond (2017)

Amusing re-enactments make this a pleasure

[7/10 · 22 May 2017]

You know the story: Australian male model living in England is selected to play James Bond after Connery quits. After making one movie, Australian himself walks away from Bond, leaving the door open for Connery's return.

What you probably don't know is who this George Lazenby was (and is) and why he turned his back on what could have been a career of a lifetime. Watch this movie and George himself will tell you. Accompanying and illustrating his tale are mostly-comedic reenactments that all in all make the story work.

It's the next best thing to sitting down with the man himself.

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)

Sampling finally makes it way into a visual medium

[2/10 · 23 September 2007]

Transcript of a pitch meeting between Paul W. S. Anderson and Screen Gems studio suits. In the interest of not being sued, all dialog but Anderson's has been removed.

"So here's a pitch for a new movie I want to make. First off, it's set in a post-apocalyptic desert, like "The Road Warrior". Oh yeah, I loved that movie. I gotta use that tractor trailer rig with the fuel tank in it sometime. I always wanted that thing to explode at the end, instead of being filled with sand. I'll fix that in my movie!

Anyway, Sarah Connor, you know, from "T1" and "T2", leads a group of expendables around. Hey, remember when she said, at the end of the first one, "There's a storm coming"? I'll drop that line into my movie, just to show the fan-boys I like the same movies they do.

Hey, did you ever see "The Birds"? I did. Man, was that creepy! I got it! The rag tag fugitives are attacked by birds at some point! I'll figure out why later. Maybe they're robot birds or something…

Let's see… these survivors are looking for a safe refuge. How about some place far away from the desert, someplace isolated, so they're safe from the cyborgs. An island? No, that's too much like the remake of "Dawn of the Dead". And "Damnation Alley" had them going to, like New Jersey or something. Hmmm... how about Alaska? Yeah, that's it! They're going to Alaska.

Hey, did you ever see "Planet of the Apes"? Not the remake, but the original. I did, and that scene with the Statue of Liberty really stuck with me… hey, they're in Vegas! New York New York Casino has a statue like that! I'll do an homage!

So anyway, speaking of "Dawn of the Dead", I like zombie movies. I've done video game movies and horror movies and sequels and stuff, but not a straight up zombie movie. Did you ever see "Day of the Dead"? The one where the scientists are underground, trying to work on the zombies to see if they can cure them or control them? It was cool.

Speaking of movies I saw, did you ever see John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing"? Man, that was one batsh*t scary movie! I love that part where the floorboards are being torn up form underneath as some kind of monster comes after Kurt Russell… I could use that bit. Oh, and the creepy dark lab, where stuff runs past the camera in the foreground? Classic Carpenter bit. I'll borrow that, too.

Hey, did you ever see "Re-Animator" or "From Beyond"? Some good horror creatures in those films. I ought to introduce poor Johnny-come-lately horror fans to the monsters from those movies.

What do you mean, you don't want me to make this movie? Are you nuts? It's a sure fire thing!

"Resident Evil 3"? Yeah, I did the first two, but I'm done with those. I don't want to do that one. I want to make this big budget tribute movie to everything cool I ever saw growing up, the one I just told you about!

Hey, I think we may have a 'You've got your peanut butter in my chocolate' moment here, guys… but can I direct this one?

No? What do you mean, Russell Mulcahy! That guy may have done the original "Highlander", which was actually very cool, but he hasn't directed much of anything of note since then…

Fine, just pay me and I'll have a script for you in two days."

The Departed (2006)

What a wretched pile of f**k.

[2/10 · 26 February 2007]

Over-directed (pointless virtuosic touches that add nothing to what's happening on screen with the plot or characters), over-scored (save me from the freakin' metal Irish jig and the Stones, both heard twice in this thing), over-edited (the movie is awkward: scenes flow neither internally or into each other) and over-acted by Jack Nicholson (so far beyond the point of self-parody that it ceases to be funny), this horrid, horrid film is filled with two dimensional characters (except for Madolyn, the worst psychiatrist who never lived, who lacks even a second dimension) and more profanity and violence than you can shake a stick at.

Really, I've never been a Scorsese fan, but this movie owes any praise it deserves for its twisty, turny plot to whatever was left over from the original "Infernal Affairs". Yes, in case you didn't know, this movie is a remake of a far superior Hong Kong film.

As with "Dreamgirls", another inexplicably over-praised 2006 release, there's just no denying the nudity of this emperor. Tedious where it should be crackling and dull when it should be suspenseful, Marty and crew have made a nasty cinematic mess that really does not deserve the all-too-predictable praise that's been heaped on it. "Instant classic", "best film of the year", etc...

I'm sorry, but the technical competency of the filmmakers is questionable and the emotional impact of the story is zip. By the last few minutes, as blowing a person's brains on the wall is becoming more of a cliché than you would ever think possible, I found myself hoping that some deus ex machina would descend from the sky and just kill everyone so it would just be f**king over already.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Stranger than fiction? Or stranger to reality?

[7/10 · 27 October 2006]

Q: When is a Will Ferrel movie not a Will Ferrel movie? A: When it's "Stranger Than Fiction".

In the wake of movies like Charlie Kaufman's oeuvre ("Eternal Sunshine...", "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation") and "I Heart Huckabees" comes this more-hit-than-miss what-if story about IRS auditor Harold Crick, a borderline obsessive-compulsive who only learns how to live when he discovers he's going to die.

Pretty standard stuff, but it's handled with a zinger: he hears a voice in his head, telling him what's happening to him at that moment. A narrator. It turns out he's a character in a novel-in-progress by a writer who's infamous for tragically killing off her main characters. And Harold doesn't want to die, despite the fact that he really has nothing to live for.

There's little astonishing in this modestly funny movie, but it's so entertaining and intellectually stimulating that its faults are more than outweighed by its pluses. Will Ferrel has to get the lion's share of the praise here; he goes from near-catatonic at the start of the film to being a very lovable and root-for-able everyman stand-in by film's end. He admirably keeps his comic persona almost completely under wraps here, only allowing it to show in very tightly controlled peeks here and there.

The rest of the cast? Emma Thompson is fine (if a bit showy) as the writer trying to figure out how to kill Harold. Queen Latifah is utterly wasted here as the assistant sent by the writer's publisher to help her complete the book; I'm not even sure why her character was included, as she adds nothing to the story except to provide the pressure from the publisher to finish the book which will lead to our hero's demise.

Dustin Hoffman is a hard-edged college professor of literature that Harold turns to for help in understanding how he became a character in a book. While Hoffman could have done this in his sleep, he still throws off a spark or two above the call of duty.

And Maggie Gyllenhaal. as the anarchist baker that Harold unexpectedly falls for during an audit, is adorable. How could anyone resist falling for her? She's so good in this I almost bought the story convenience of her rapid switch from repulsion to attraction for Harold.

Did I mention there are some problems with the plotting? Without getting too heavily into the details, things are just slightly implausible. I don't mean the part where Harold's wristwatch develops a mind and agenda of its own, or how Harold seems to drift in and out of his job without any repercussions, or even the biggie: how a writer can inexplicably begin writing about and thereby determine the destiny of a real person. No, I mean that things just kind of happen because they need to in some cases, not because they actually make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

You can argue that the whole movie is allegory, that the characters are stand-ins for the human condition, and you'd have a strong case. And the sheer interest this movie generates for its characters allows most of these things to be willfully ignored by a person having a good time.

But these niggling details wet down the wings this movie would use to soar to greatness.

"Stranger Than Fiction" is a sweet fairy tale and is enjoyable as such. It even contains meaning beyond its surface in symbolic terms. But it is no "Finnegan's Wake" or "Ulysses", for better and worse. You could do far, far worse than to watch this movie.

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Powerful, epic, personal and affecting

[8/10 · 24 September 2006]

It may seem like an unusual name for a movie about the events surrounding the 1970's rise to power of Ugandan military dictator Idi Amin, but to see is to understand.

The plot, based on a novel that in turn was inspired by actual events, follows a freshly-minted young Scottish doctor named Nicholas Garrigan. In just a few quick scenes, director Kevin Macdonald clearly shows us that this drinking, pot smoking free spirit is terrified by his suffocating future of being a family practitioner in business with his overbearing old man.

Not nearly as sure of what he wants as what he doesn't want, Nick spins a globe and winds up in Uganda just as a coup has taken place. The director again lets us know quickly what this young Scot's about; Nick has a hard time keeping his hands off the ladies, as he jumps right into the sack with a flirtatious fellow bus traveler before he arrives at the village where he is to assist the resident doctor.

A nicely slimmed down and understated Gillian Anderson, sporting a decent British accent, portrays the doctor's beautiful and under-appreciated wife. She picks up Nick from the bus stop and ferries him to his post through an eerie night road scape full of ghostly Ugandans wandering in the truck's headlights.

Nick enjoys some aspects of his new gig: playing soccer with the kids, vaccinating little ones against the diseases that ravage the land, and yes, eyeing the doctor's wife.

His seduction attempt nearly succeeds; Anderson smartly portrays a good woman whose need to be bad is only slightly weaker than her desire to be noble. Still in turmoil, they attend a rally nearby where Idi Amin is addressing his new constituents. Charismatic and rabble-rousing, Forest Whitaker convincingly portrays the first of many facets of Amin that will be revealed throughout the course of this film.

It would be a disservice to the viewer who has not yet seen this thick, affecting film to describe the plot in any more detail, but suffice it to say that a fortuitous encounter with the dictator soon leads to Nick away from his boredom, good works and untasted forbidden fruit of the countryside village to the inner circle of the charming, terrifying and possibly insane bully Amin.

The aimlessness of Nick's life begins to come clear for him as he gets deeper and deeper into the moral quagmire of being chief adviser and personal physician to the man who was ultimately responsible for the 300,000 deaths of those who opposed him within Uganda.

The ending, after a build-up nearly as hallucinatory and overwhelming as "Apocalypse Now", comes down during the Entebbe hijacking and hostage crisis of 1976.

Nick's journey is told without a misstep and an epic, significant air hangs over this grainy, you-are-there photography. And the impact of casual violence and its affect on the value of human life has rarely been portrayed with more vividness than in this film. Nothing done by a Freddy or a Jason can match the atrocities visited upon those on the wrong side of Amin's politics, paranoia or temper.

For the squeamish, this is a harrowing ride.

The soundtrack throbs with African popular music of the time (think Fela Kuti, with less improv and more melody) and the sense of time and place is utterly convincing.

As well made as this film is, it is still the cake that the icing of the actors decorates. Forest Whitaker gives what is without a doubt the performance of his career in Idi Amin. And Oscar nomination, if not an outright win, is a certainty if there is any justice in this world. And James McAvoy's callow Nicholas grows in heft and morality before our eyes. At first, he enjoys the opulence and easy living of being among Amin's inner circle, but, as he continues to dally with the wrong ladies and mock the covert operatives from England that approach him, an actual person with inner strength appears. And though his answer to all this is to run away, the impediments placed in his path teach him a thing or two about being a human being. MacAvoy deserves plentiful praise for bringing this pleasure-seeking young doctor to life, then shepherding him through these changes believably before our eyes.

Ultraviolet (2006)

talk about your self-indulgent messes

[2/10 · 14 September 2006]

SPOILERS BELOW The short version: do not waste your time on this piece of crap called "Ultraviolet". Writer/director Kurt Wimmer is not an untalented fellow, but this is an example of utter self-indulgence gone horribly wrong. All the good will I felt towards him as a result of Equilibrium is now officially dissipated.

The long version: The movie is an utter mess, starting with the opening credit sequence: a series of comic book covers depicting the titular heroine in typical action poses, kicking lots of ass. Sounds good on paper, right? Except that the movie was not adapted from a comic book. So why imply it? To try to catch some of the shine off movies that were translated from comics? That can't be it, since that idea is lame. Huh. And the thing goes on way too long before the movie starts.

But wait, it doesn't really start. Next comes the prologue, the VO from a cracky-voiced Milla Jovovich (according to rumor she is a heavy pot smoker, which may explain both the voice and her choice of career material) explaining the plot set-up. And boy, is it a doozy.

While trying to create super soldiers, some unknown government accidentally creates vampires.

I'll let that sink in for a minute.

Still there? Too bad for you.

These ass kicking vampires are short-lived, though; their bodies burn out in twelve years. Kind of like "Blade Runner"'s replicants, but vampires.

So, here we are like five or six minutes into the movie, and we still have no movie. Wait, the narration has ended and we're watching a pointless action sequence! Yay! Wait, it looks like pooh! Not the fight choreography or the costumes, but the effects. Yes, this looks like another "shot against green screen with minimal sets" thing. For the last time, people, Lucas got away with it because the final result looked amazing. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" failed on its merits as a movie, but not because of its overall look. But "Immortal" and now "Ultraviolet" have both proved that, unless you have a giant megabudget, you really ought to stick to sets for now.

Next, some people walk around and talk about stuff. Oh, it's the bad guy. Nick Chinlund plays him with a little zest as the film goes on, but he and his assistant are given exposition to mouth in their introduction. You know, the kind of dialogue no-one would ever really speak because the characters already know this stuff? Sloppy storytelling has really been the order of the day as we finally meet Violet. She pulls up on a motorcycle and is revealed as a courier to take something from point A to point B. After passing a scan, she walks through a seemingly endless (read: tedious) series of tunnels and corridors and body scans and more tunnels and corridors on her way to pick up the something.

By this time, I was getting angry with the film. Who is this Violet, why does she keep changing colors based on the environment, and why should I care about any of this since I haven't seen a single authentic human reaction or behavior since this thing started? Ridiculous action sequences start from here and continue on almost nonstop until the end of the movie. The fight choreography is nice, Milla Jovovich has an interesting midriff (amply displayed throughout) and... there's one funny line from Nick Chenlund. I'll give it away so that you won't have to watch the movie to hear it. Violet is facing about twenty-two jillion guards all by herself. Nick looks at her as she stands determined and fearless and asks her, "Are you mental?" The real problem with Ultraviolet isn't the tired plot, the uninvolving set-up or the cheesy look of the film. It's the lack of vulnerability of Violet. She kills untold numbers of people in the movie and never gets anything worse than a scratch. It's never explained, but she's even more kick ass than all her own vampire brethren (as she gets rid of a bunch of them with utter ease, too). She is literally invulnerable.

Plus, she's living with a death sentence. She will die at a certain time (remember the twelve year limit?) very soon. This can spur characters on to do things they didn't know they could do, which is good for storytelling, but when the main character can't be harmed and has nothing personally to lose, what the hell's the point? Oh, and Kurt: very droll, that little bit where one character asks another, "Has the third act started yet?" and the other replies, "It's just about to." Yeah, I know how a screenplay is mechanically constructed, too. Good for you. Too bad you didn't read the part where Syd Field tells you about developing people we care about.

Milla: you are stereotyped, Leeloo. Is this and the "Resident Evil" movies really all the work you can get these days? Time for a new agent, sweetie.

"Ultraviolet" makes the live action "Aeon Flux" movie look like a masterpiece.

Immortal (2004)

Uninspired pastiche that's easy on the eyes

[3/10 · 8 August 2006]

To not mince words, "Immortal" is dreadful. Visually, it's a pastiche of "Blade Runner", "The Fifth Element" and that part of the animated "Heavy Metal" movie about the Manhattan cabbie of the future (Harry Canyon, if anyone's wondering).

Anyway, this thing was adapted from at least two French comics and, while watching the film, I kept thinking about how much better and in-depth the comics must have been. So many tertiary characters fall flat and/or have subplots that go nowhere (like Rick Deckard... oops, I mean the partially synthetic detective whose specialty was tracking down replicants... oops, I mean, particularly nasty genetic experiments made by the Tyrell Corporation... oops, I mean, Eugenics).

Our lead character pretty much was Lilu from "Fifth Element" except with blue skin and dressed like she just jacked into The Matrix. Turns out she's an alien but didn't know it because she has been taking memory suppressants given to her by... oh, who cares? I could go on about how weird and pointless it is to have Egyptian gods suddenly show up in a floating pyramid, or how about half the cast of humans is computer animated (sub "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" level) to distracting effect, or how there's this mysterious guy named John (whose character is never explained and adds nothing to the story) who coaches this faux-Lilu, or how there's a poorly-explained "incursion zone" in Central Park that may or may not be a gateway to other worlds...

Enough. I will say it's nice eye candy and leave it at that. Otherwise, a befuddled and irritating waste of time. Should have been four hours long to give proper screen time to all the subplots or they should have cut characters and plot lines down to a manageable level to make a compelling story.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

More of the same. Lots more.

[5/10 · 9 July 2006]

I found the first "Pirates" movie to be an unexpected delight. I had never seen a pirate movie I liked before, so I went in interested but with low hopes. After all, this was a film with a troubled production, whose shoot went significantly over schedule and budget. Reshoots were employed. These are usually bad signs for a movie and bode ill for its ultimate disposition. And really - a movie based on an amusement park ride?

However, from the surprisingly convoluted but still neatly self-connected plot to the top drawer visual effects and of course the performances (including Depp's, an actor I had never previously had much opinion of), "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" turned out to be so much more than I had thought it would be. As one reviewer somewhere said (L.A. Weekly, I think), these are movies for people who do not like pirate movies.

Count me in! I like to have my buckle swashed from time to time, but I do not count myself a pirate movie fan. Yet I LOVED "Curse of the Black Pearl".

So, I was really looking forward to the release of Dead Man's Chest. Bill Nighy was an added bonus; I saw he was to play Davey Jones (he of the locker). I loved his work in the "Underworld" films, "Love Actually" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

The plot sounded promising; Jack Sparrow owes a debt to Davey Jones: his soul! He does everything in his power to get out of repaying it, including enlisting the help of every character from the first movie.

So where did it all go wrong?

The movie is too damned long. There are too many characters. Not enough happens of significance; too much happens for the sake of on screen action. Time is elastic in the plot; people travel to and from ports and islands with amazing rapidity, to the point where the audience is wondering if these people have simply developed the power of teleportation. And really, this feels more like a remake than a sequel. Phantom ship? Check. Supernaturally enhanced crew? Check. Curse? Check. Outrageously staged sword fights? Check. Etc...

The special effects are as amazing as ever, though the kraken both appears too often and yet not enough of it is seen each time.

Sadly, the movie is more an endurance contest than a giddy ride. In fact, it is very much like the "dark tunnel" amusement park ride: sit down and watch everything scroll by without actually caring about or being a part of it. Characters are already established from the first film (a dozen or so) and nobody grows or changes except for maybe, maybe a glimmer out of Jack and Elizabeth.

Special note here about Johnny Depp: Jack Sparrow was very much a one-note performance in the first film, but enjoyable due to the character's unpredictability. As written here, Jack is as predictable as gravity, and about as interesting. He is a dead center in a film that desperately needs a live one, and no amount of fey sashaying or uncoordinated sprinting at the head of a cannibal tribe does anything to change that.

Plotwise, things just happen and happen and happen in this movie to the point of boredom; what should be a rousing three-way swordfight on a rolling mill water wheel is just dull and the kraken attacks (all four of them) are simply variations on a theme.

The creative team here has really used the last ounce of goodwill they generated with "Curse of the Black Pearl" to create this loud, frequently boring, sporadically amusing and overlong mess.

At least the next (and last?) film will tie up all plot threads from this one and hopefully give us a rousing, satisfying end to this stuff.

The Quiet Earth (1985)

Intelligent, minor sci-fi classic

[8/10 · 4 July 2006]

"The Quiet Earth" is a film from New Zealand of mid 1980's vintage. I saw it theatrically when first released, for which I count myself lucky. According to the IMDb, this movie only played in seven US theaters in its initial run. Who'd have thought that Pensacola, Florida, of all places, would be one of them? All I knew about the film was what I saw on the one-sheet: A lone man stands on a beach. Near the horizon, strangely shaped clouds (trees? termite mounds?) partly block the view of a huge ringed planet (Saturn?). I had little idea what I was going to see when my mom and I bought our tickets and settled in; this was in the era before websites that publish shooting scripts during production, before trailers that give away the entire plot.

Imagine my surprise when the plot turned out to involve a "last man on Earth" scenario. Bruno Lawrence deftly plays a fellow in New Zealand who wakes up and realizes nobody else is around. Anywhere. We don't know it yet, but he doesn't know why he woke up that morning... and this provides an interesting twist of sorts later in the film.

He goes to the lab where he had been working and comes to suspect that the project he was working on was responsible for the... whatever happened to everyone. Imagine the guilt of the men who worked on the Manhattan Project when Hiroshima became a famous, unforgettable place name.

He quickly unravels as the loneliness and isolation get to him. And then, he discovers he is not the only person left after all...

Rather than recount the rest of the plot, I'll point out specifics. The writing is great; it is by turns a study of despair, isolation, madness, jealousy, bullheadedness, competition... all while convincingly answering the question, "What would happen if you woke up and were the only person on Earth? And it was your fault." Bruno Lawrence does a great job of letting us inside the skull of a man who is perhaps not the most likable fellow, but with whom the audience can identify as he settles into the idea that he is the only person left on Earth. And then, of course, he realizes he's not the only one...

The other major cast members also create fleshed out, believable people that, while not who you might have chosen to live on the quiet Earth with, have facets that are agreeable.

The production values on this film are top notch. There are few special effects; when you see empty city streets for blocks on end, the remains of a plane crash, a semi truck dropping through the ceiling of an underground lab or said lab exploding in a giant fireball, these are on-set. The only optical effect I can see is the final beach scene, which of course everyone who has seen the poster or video box recognizes.

Best of all, even though this movie has passed the 20 year vintage, it neither looks nor feels dated. It is just as easy and engrossing to watch today as it was the day it was completed. My memory has been kind on the past to older films that have turned out, upon recent re-inspection, to be abominable ("Lifeforce", anyone? "Damnation Alley"? "Superman II"?) Not many movies hold up this well after this much time has passed. It is a testament to all of the key people involved that "The Quiet Earth", that rare sci-fi movie of wit, people and ideas (as opposed to bug-eyed monsters, techno-babble or stifling pretension), is one of the all-time greats. That it has finally been granted a proper DVD release in the USA is a blessing from Anchor Bay; perhaps more people will now see this modest film of such great quality that so impressed way back in 1985 when I sat in a darkened theater with my mom, waiting to be shown something I hadn't seen before. I was. This little gem of a movie deserves to be seen by a wider audience, but even as a cult movie, "The Quiet Earth" will always be a minor classic to me.

Peacemaker (1990)

"Starman" + "The Hidden" = lots of stunts!

[6/10 · 12 June 2006]

God help me, but I enjoyed this movie a great deal. Jewell Shepard is funny and beautiful and irresistible when gratuitously tied up in phone cord (don't ask), Robert Forster does his usual sturdy work, there is an interesting flip-flop in character sympathies part of the way through and yes, there are some great car stunts and some great fight gags.

It was entertaining in spite of its low budget and obviously derivative origins and looked good, too (in terms of lighting and cinematography).

It's nice to see people working in the movie industry that do a good job, a professional job, despite working on what is essentially a piece of junk.

Date Movie (2006)

Unfunniest comedy ever? Maybe.

[1/10 · 31 May 2006]

Be warned: this is just about the worst movie I have ever seen. Really. And I've seen thousands.

Heather brought it home from the video store last night. I had grave misgivings, but I figured, "Hey, Carmen Electra's in it, at least I can enjoy some quality T&A. And Alyson Hannigan is in the plus column, so... what the heck, maybe I'll even like it if I let go of my prejudice." I was so, horribly wrong.

I consider spoof humor the lowest form of comedy; lower even than slapstick and fart jokes. And "Date Movie" is only spoof humor. Well, that's not true; there is some slapstick and a fart joke, too. But really, just because you recognize a scene as being lifted from another film, that does not automatically make it funny. You have to work a spoof a little more than that to get a laugh from me. Spoofing a genre is fine and can be funny; just recreating a scene from another film or quoting a line from a different, better movie is lazy.

Rarely (if ever) have I seen something so uninspired, so by the numbers. Back in the golden age of cinema, they used to call something a "programmer" if it was made to fit a particular genre and niche in the marketplace. At least most of those were made by professional, competent filmmakers. "Date Movie" isn't even that. It's just something to fill up the multiplexes between the last "American Pie" sequel and the next Tom Cruise picture.

"Date Movie" is the worst thing any movie can be: boring. And at only an hour and thirteen minutes, that's no mean feat. Stay away from it. Please.

Oh, and Carmen Electra? She's in the final sixty seconds of the film getting fondled by King Kong. Har. Har. Har.

United 93 (2006)

Just the facts; no drama

[5/10 · 29 April 2006]

Writer/director Paul Grengrass chose to go with a straightforward, home-video style with this film. There is no attempt at finding stories or meaning, no plot to speak of. Things simply happen and then it's over.

By going with a barely-compressed time frame which denies the audience a chance to see into the lives of the people involved before the events play out, we are denied involvement with the emotions of the characters from anything but a superficial, fly-on-the-wall standpoint.

Greengrass chose to focus narrowly in this movie on air traffic controllers and the passengers on United 93, none of whom we ever really get to know.

Frankly, while the finished product is probably exactly what Greengrass was after, a far more remarkable film could have easily been made of this event. But is it still too soon? For a "real" movie, yes. But this thing is respectful to a fault, except perhaps in the implicit condemnation of the US's leadership in a time of crisis. That very carefulness, that presentation of everything in as neutral a light as possible, ultimately leaves an empty hole that will probably bring very few viewers the catharsis they bought a ticket to seek.

If this were a work of fiction, it would be a very minor release. If it had ever been made at all.

A final comment: I for one am sick to death of watching camcorder-style photography in big-buck movies. Focus, steady shots, action that's not rendered an incoherent blur, smooth zooms instead of quick, jerky, "my first video with this new camera" pulls and pushes: is it really too much to ask for?

Airtime (1998)

atmospheric sci-fi without the high-tech

[7/10 · 12 February 2005]

Nope, there are no robots, no lasers and no spaceships in the CGI-free short film. Instead, the final image is what will stick with you and is what I think motivated the writer/director in the first place: a physically beautiful woman bound to a steel cross inside a stainless steel tank open at the top to a stark sky.

In brief, the plot revolves around a near-future society in which executions are broadcast live on TV (not pay-per-view?). Our heroine finds herself as a "supervisor" to an execution by drowning of a man with a Jesus-like appearance. Her decision to spare him results in her taking his place in the final shot.

For a short film, plot is less of a necessity than feel and technique, and we get those here. Aside from the pointless splitting of images on screen, this is a good-looking movie with a little more on its mind than just a totalitarian regime. Note the repeated use of cross symbolism: the death device, the cross above the viewing window of the death tank, the lead female's position when she falls to the snow and the way the lead characters dance back-to-back. I think the director may have been implying a future that is a result of an unchecked fusion of church and state.

Then again, perhaps our lead character is supposed to be like Jesus, dying on a cross so that another may live. And I believe I have heard that many crucified prisoners drowned due to their lungs filling with fluid; drowning is the method of execution here.

None of this is on the nose or in your face, but it's a testament to this impressive little short that it's all there just below the surface, working on a second level.

On the other hand, there just isn't enough time to get to know anyone as anything other than a viewpoint or a symbol, so the story doesn't have the weight it could if it were just a few minutes longer.

Still, within the parameters of the short film, this is an excellently photographed, professional quality piece that ought to be seen by any sci-fi fan who favors thought over gadgets.

Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989)

What the hell ?!?

[5/10 · 11 February 2005]

There's no denying that this black and white, non-linear, experimental film with no plot has some astonishing moments of imagination and horror. There's also no denying, as with David Lynch's "Eraserhead", that it's not a whole lot of fun to sit through.

Allegedly, Darren Aronofsky was influenced by this film. After watching "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream", I can see this. The nightmarish imagery and strange humor of Aaronofsky can be seen in "Tetsuo".

Seems like David Cronenberg did the theme of man vs./as machine better in "Videodrome", but I have to shake my head in respect to the extreme this is explored here by actor/writer/director Shinya Tsukamoto.

I also dug the music and the editing is top-notch.

So why did I only give "Tetsuo" 5 out of 10? Tsukamoto has undeniable vision and talent, but it is in the service of a wisp of story, a vapor of an idea that can be charitably described as incomprehensible. Art it is, but an enduring piece of great narrative cinema, it is not. I prefer Hieronymus Bosch to Jackson Pollock.

The Grudge (2004)

Content with no context

[4/10 · 28 October 2004]

This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.

This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.

Not recommended.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

An ugly bore

[1/10 · 21 January 2004]

My memory was very kind to this godawful film. I had seen it only once before, on its initial theatrical release when I was thirteen years old. Watching it again last night, and after having read the books and seen Peter Jackson's far superior telling, I was mortified by how truly awful the movie is; every element seems calculated for maximum irksomeness.

First, the animation and art direction: Rotoscoping in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it often feels as if we are watching a live-action film intercut with a Saturday morning cartoon. The Balrog is laughable; the battle of Helm's Deep looks like three guys on ramparts getting shot by arrows. The Orcs are simply fat men in dime-store gorilla masks, black riders limp around like second-rate Lon Chaney impersonators... animation frees the filmmaker to show anything at all that can be drawn, so all I can figure is that Bakshi and his crew had very small imaginations.

The script is equally dreadful: The characters are two-dimensional, simply doing things without the context that lets us understand them as people. The pacing lurches along, dropping large chunks of exposition in between flat action sequences. Frodo deciding whether or not to listen to the Ringwraiths at the ford of Rivendell and Orcs running across Rohan are two sequences that go on far too long. Boring dialogue was at least lifted partially from the books, but is undone by the voice actors, who seem to be afraid to truly inhabit their characters and the world they live in.

I could go on, but there's no point; just pretend like this movie was never made and be sure to dash off a thank-you note to Peter Jackson; someone got it right.

Local Boys (2002)

dull, predictable and trite

[3/10 · 15 December 2003]

"Local Boys" gets many of the technical aspects right (the way that surfers flip their boards over, wax-side-down, when they first get into the water in order to cool the side that has heated up on the trip down, for instance) but fails in the important areas: character and story.

This tale uses a movie-version Southern California surfing culture backdrop for an uninspiring, uncompelling family drama that shortchanges all its main characters. Here we have the 40-ish widowed mom who, after her knight (cop) husband is killed in the line of duty, picks the worst possible men to begin seeing. Why is never explained. We also have her angry young teen son trying to be the man of the family by flaring his nostrils constantly, shouting a lot and finally breaking down in the arms of the surf Obi-Wan (a long board riding "soul surfer" father figure) who teaches the young Jedi to trust his feelings.

Thrown in for further pathos is the emotionally disturbed younger brother who, with his anxiety disorder, really ought to be in professional counseling. There is also an attempt at shoehorning a bit of that "Big Wednesday" vibe in by having our boys hang out with a lovable crew of pot smoking losers. If you don't believe that "Big Wednesday" was an influence on this film, check out the Bear Surfboards shirt Mark Harmon wears towards the end of the film.

There is a long-neglected subplot of seeking revenge against a group of locals ("Da Cleanup Crew" who, strangely enough for SoCal, seem to be Hawaiians) that pops up at the beginning and again at the end, resolved by our heroes with some good natured grand theft auto and impersonation of lifeguards.

Just so we know the tasty male blonde lead is not gay, there is an utterly forced romantic subplot thrown in. Why neither of the attractive halves of this couple is single is ever touched on, allowing a movie-convenient love story to develop. Well, develop isn't the right word. Perhaps "spontaneously appear" is a better turn of phrase.

How mom affords the nice house where the splintered family resides is also not apparent. In fact, there are so many questions raised about money and how our main characters come by it that it begins to feel as fake as "Friends" by the end.

This is a real waste of resources, from the awful score to the decent-by-So-Cal-standards-but-not-amazing-by-Hawaii-standards surfing. For the same amount of money and time invested in this dud, a much better story could have been told utilizing the same elements.

There have been several surf movies released in the last few years: some good ("Blue Crush", "Step Into Liquid"), some not ("Billabong Odyssey", "In God's Hands"). "Local Boys" very seriously resides in the latter category.

Johnny English (2003)

Miserable, unfunny waste of time

[2/10 · 23 July 2003]

I'll save you the plot description and get right to the dissection; this movie was written in a lackadaisical fashion, almost as if the writers had thought it up as a straight drama and then tried to shoehorn jokes into it as it was being shot. Just as some of the gag sequences begin to show comedic promise, they end prematurely (especially the conveyor belt sushi bar scene). A lot of the comedic set-ups are telegraphed so far in advance and the payoffs are less than anticipated that watching the movie almost becomes an exercise in waiting to see how lamely the set-ups will pay off. The fecal tunnel gag was just gross and for the life of me, I can't understand why an innocent victim (Pegasus' secretary) being crippled for life by English (the wheelchair when she comes back from her presumed hospital stay) has comedy value. And while the funeral bit was amusing in a ghastly way, an isolated chuckle here and there do not a comedy make.

I personally don't "get" Rowan Atkinson so watching him mug his way through a movie was not amusing in the slightest. As for the rest of the cast, whenever Natalie Imbruglia is onscreen there are sparks of life (and trust me, I'm no fan of that awful "Torn" song she performed a few years back) and, while John Malkovich is slumming here, he puts in a professional performance that shows an intelligence the rest of this enterprise sorely lacks. The production design is passable and the scattered effects shots are fine and dandy. But as a comedy, this movie is as funny as a fart in an elevator; there may be lots of moaning, groaning, eye-rolling and funny faces, but it takes a very "special" sort of person to laugh at it.

Miranda (2002)

Take the good with the bad

[5/10 · 9 July 2003]

"Miranda" has nice performances, well-composed and lighted shots, snappy editing, whimsical and funny moments... so then why does it ultimately fail to make a lasting impression? Perhaps because there is so little connection to the "real world", as evidenced by the way that not a single character in this piece behaves in the manner a real person would. The entire film is an artificial construct, an abstract meditation on human nature that sadly fails to reference anything recognizable in most peoples' lives. The result is a film that bores, but occasionally rewards.

That said, the writing is clever and even rises to the inspired once or twice. Likewise, the visual sophistication of what and how things appear in-frame, the camera movements and the just-right switching between shots and angles points to something far beyond competency. Let's just say that "Miranda" was an artfully realized misfire, a "nice try" for all those involved. Let's hope they all move on to find something that suits their particular muses better.

Dog Soldiers (2002)

A pile of werewolf poo

[2/10 · 31 January 2003]

With dialogue that feels mostly improvised (meaning it goes on too long, has no relevance to what's happening and is laced with more profanity than your Aunt Mathilda when she bangs her thumb with a hammer), numerous scenes that have no bearing to the plot, failed attempts at concealing a miniscule make-up budget with quick monster shots and irritating hand-held "cinematography" and lapses of character logic, "Dog Soldiers" is really a waste of time. Even the "money shot" of werewolf films, the transformation from man to werewolf, is not as convincing as Bill Bixby's "Hulk-outs" from that old 70's TV show. Don't buy the hype that this is a great horror movie. Like "Blair Witch Project", "Dagon", "Below" and "Equilibrium", the fan-boy internet hype on this film is more entertaining than the movie itself.

Dancing at the Blue Iguana (2000)

T&A - get over it

[6/10 · 22 September 2002]

"Dancing at the Blue Iguana" is an interesting film that flies in the face of modern film convention. Instead of flashy editing with hot chicks looking like Motley Crue's "Girls Girls Girls" video, we are given shots in this film that defy the glossy norms of MTV era quick cuts. In particular, one intense scene near the end between Sandra Oh and Kristin Bauer runs what must be an uninterrupted five minutes. This helps create both a feeling of intimacy with the characters and a sense of reality, that we are watching real people. Some plot lines go nowhere or do not resolve. Several characters seem to have no reason to exist in story terms, but not everyone's life out in the real world has a neat, three-act structure. There is involving drama, inspired comedy (Daryl Hannah at the foster parent agency and Jennifer Tilly in a dominatrix session) and a sweetness to some scenes that is refreshing. In the end, the creative folks behind this film apparently wanted to present strippers in a light generally unseen before on film. The filmmakers do not judge, but simply give a window on the worlds of these women. It worked for me; "Dancing at the the Blue Iguana" was a modest artistic success.

Feardotcom (2002)

Wretched, derivative garbage

[1/10 · 30 August 2002]

This awful excuse for a horror film mixes a plot instantly familiar to anyone who has seen "Ringu" (or the American remake, "The Ring") with by-now tired desaturated cinematography (everything is black and blue) and a barely-comprehensible plot where characters behave illogically and nothing works or looks like it does in the real world. Make sure to throw in the old double-standard of "sadism is bad but you can't get enough of looking at it, can you, filmgoer?" and imagery lifted from "Ring" and "The Cell" with a nod to "Se7en" and you have this tedious, unfrightening exercise in "film" making. There is really nothing good to say about it at all and no reason to watch it, even if you are a fan of any of the people involved. Avoid!

Blue Crush (2002)

Off-handed realism and hyper-reality mix

[7/10 · 20 August 2002]

"Blue Crush" has an unfortunate tendency to veer into extreme-sports style montages (freeze frames, sped up action, extensive use of slow-mo). While undeniably fun to watch, this style exists mainly when the film is in the wet. On dry land, the movie shifts gears completely, generally going for off-the-cuff realism underscored by carefully careless hand-held camera work, the look of natural-lighting and the casting of less-than physically perfect actors and actresses. The director and cinematographer seem to have done a lot of shots from a distance and used telephoto during scenes of interaction between the female leads. This more or less works to give us a feeling that we are watching real lives unfold.

Unfortunately, the two styles of imagery clash and as a result might reduce enjoyment of the film. Perhaps a more raw style of surf photography might have made the difference. In general, though, the characters are well-drawn (especially the supporting cast), their dialogue is fairly believable and their motivations seem to come from an honest place.

So... there's nothing wrong with "Blue Crush" (except for a couple of detectable special effects shots and a continuity error or two) and there are numerous small but substantial pluses. Go see it; you won't hate yourself afterwards. And see if your throat doesn't close up in dread the first time we and our heroine Anne-Marie get a good look at the towering juggernaut of water at Pipeline on competition day. Yikes!