Raoul-16 Reviews

The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)

Unredeemable Turd

[1/10 · 16 September 2007]

Don't listen to the apologists--with all due respect to Stan Winston's special effects (which were very good but wasted in this film), this was excruciatingly awful. The people who construct defenses of this film by referring to the message and admittedly interesting premise seem to forget that you don't need to watch this film to get either, since there are two other film versions and (whoa!) a classic novel as well. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever for this waste of celluloid to have been released on an unsuspecting public...or even for it to have been made in the first place.

"OK, wise-guy--what's so bad about it, then?" Everything except the costumes. This was Brando's return to the full-blown inmates-running-the-asylum lunacy of Apocalypse Now, except there's precious little talent involved (save Brando's own long-squandered acting chops) or anything resembling an artistic vision to guide the horrible mess. What we get instead is a morbidly fascinating ego pile-up fueled by drugs and chaos--and did I mention that it's ineptly edited as well? You could start a whole new drinking game based on the inexplicable lingering blank looks, awkward pauses, and perplexing continuity gaps. Every time something happens that makes no cinematic sense whatsoever, shout "WTF?!?" and down another shot. At least that way, you'll pass out halfway through the movie and spare yourself "the horror" of watching the rest.

"OK, wise-guy--how about some examples?" Fine. What's with Kilmer doing his freaky Brando impersonation when his character temporarily takes over the island? It would almost make sense except that it's Brando's Godfather character that he's doing(!). Why didn't anyone on-set have the cajones to tell Brando to quit f***ing around and take the g-ddam champagne bucket off of his head during the "stupid hat" scene? Why do the occasional chase scenes lack any suspense or excitement and just sort of end? Why do all the actors seem like they're completely blitzed on quaaludes and heroin? The inevitable impression one takes away from this movie is that no one was in charge, and the resulting film feels like watching a grown-up kindergarten populated by furry things who are all amped up on superhuman quantities of narcotics...and did I mention that the teacher's called in sick? Spare yourself. If I could give it a zero, I would--there are lots of movies on the IMDb "100 Worst" list that I'd much rather watch than this thing. Ugh. Poor Frankenheimer...

We Jam Econo: The Story of the Minutemen (2005)

Beautiful, touching, inspiring

[9/10 · 15 September 2006]

Perhaps the best thing about this documentary is that it manages to present a deep and rounded enough picture of a great subject that it will have substantial appeal both to the most devoted long-time Minutemen fan and to those who've never heard of them or experienced their music. For those who've been enjoying the music of D. Boon, Mike Watt, and George Hurley for years, some of the content will be familiar by now, but the story takes on fresh vitality and power when told by the band members themselves--both from archival interviews and in fresh footage of the surviving members.

I wish dearly that this film or something like it had been around 20 years ago since the Minutemen, for all of their magic and considerable virtues, are not only an acquired taste but a somewhat difficult one to acquire. As becomes the focus of many of the testimonials from their contemporaries, they stubbornly stuck out as unique and eccentric even in the (rapidly-calcifying) LA punk scene. In this world of misfits who tended to rush to cookie-cutter formula for some semblance of security or solidarity, the Minutemen insisted on following their own muse, creating not only their own style of music but their own ways of working, their own lingo, and--most of all--their own deeply personal (and yet highly political) way of looking at the world. Because of this rejection of the quick, easy 3-chord punk format and all of its attendant accessories (simple anti-authority anger and lyrics, ripped clothes, tough snarling image), the Minutemen never gave their audience any easy footholds to get into the music. Instead, it took careful, sensitive, and repeated listenings to see the very human spirit(s) behind the music, to appreciate the revolutionary fervor and self-deprecating humor of their outlook. It's easy to forget after 20 years of fanhood just how hard it was and how long it took to really appreciate them, but this film will make the chore much less painful for prospective new converts, since the guys themselves and their most sympathetic fans and friends get to tell the story and set the record straight. As Watt himself muses at one point, so much of what they did was wildly misunderstood at the time, which is why there was and is a burning need for a film like this--it allows us to finally get the clearest look yet at the inner workings of a truly unique, intelligent, and heartfelt band.

This brings us to another reason why it's so wonderful even for those who don't know the Minutemen, or even those who can't or won't enjoy the music--there's a great, great story at the heart of this film, the tale of a rare and wondrous creative friendship sundered by a senseless loss that is tempered by the brave and inspiring way in which Watt in particular has continued to wave the banner of honesty, homespun truth, and DIY. D. Boon's untimely demise is also made meaningful by the obvious reverence and respect shown by so many of his contemporaries, by the clear spiritual influence he has had on so many other musicians. Though gone, his music and spirit lives on, never more perfectly captured than in this loving documentary.

The Song Remains the Same (1976)

Gigantic doddering turd of a film

[2/10 · 29 June 2005]

Upon reading of Bonham's 15-minute drum solo on "Moby Dick," I'm only glad that my viewing of this cinematic nightmare was interrupted by a bit of dust on the DVD, 'cause I know I would've sat through the whole thing and hated myself afterward if some serendipitous intervention hadn't saved me.

So what can you say about a movie like this? I guess it'd be fun if you were completely wasted while watching it, but otherwise it's of value only for the musical performances, which I will admit have their moments...though even those can be few and far between. I can see why the extended fantasy sequences were thrown in--many of these songs go on for so long and have such long stretches of direction less noodling that watching the musicians on stage would have been thunderously boring. On the other hand, watching Robert Plant single-handedly take over a castle is so absurd that one marvels at the remarkable self-delusion of the entire band. It speaks volumes about how deeply they bought their own ridiculous mythology that this film was ever allowed to see the light of day...just embarrassing to see grown men prancing about in full "lord of the manor" costume, and a tribute to the appalling lack of taste and good judgment of the whole Zeppelin corporate enterprise.

I'm also not sure what we're supposed to make of an extended sequence of Zep's tour manager berating and brow-beating Madison Square Garden staff for allowing a bootleg concessionaire into the building...it makes an amusing and chilling foreshadowing of Metallica's latter-day battles with Napster, which have been equally dunder-headed and pointless.

So maybe it's best to talk about the music, since that's ostensibly the point here. The performance is a pretty representative display of the 'eavy boys, I'll say that. It's kinda sloppy sometimes, but that's part of the Zeppelin mash, and I'd say it's offset by the moments of inspired improv. The more galling side of it is the remarkable self-indulgence, as songs go on for waaaaaay too long and tend to not really go anywhere. Plant is irritating as always, and Jones is virtually absent on screen though his musical contributions hold everything together. Page is just silly with his showboating--I give him points for some really creative playing in spots, but as often as not he's just throwing a lot of needless notes in there to fill up the sound, completely inexpressive. Bonham, too, has moments but is sloppier than I'd've expected...good to see him having fun back there, but this performance doesn't cement his reputation as a drum god.

As a time capsule of the pomposity and excess of 70s rock, this is perfect, and I guess we can thank it for inspiring Spinal Tap, but otherwise you can skip it without missing much. If you wanna see a concert movie, check Stop Making Sense or The Last Waltz instead. You'll thank me.

Bad Santa (2003)

Another Zwigoff tale of battered outsiders surviving

[8/10 · 14 December 2003]

Minor Spoilers In direct contradiction to the comment of one writer here (that the film "has no moral center"), I thought Bad Santa was intensely moral, though in an admittedly irreverent and politically incorrect way. I also found the comments of another writer (that Willy's transformation by the end seems abrupt and unearned) to be off-base--plenty of hints are dropped throughout the film as Willy stumbles into his change of heart. I also disagree with the various comments made here that the movie is sloppy, chaotic, has no point, or makes no sense, but you'll want to know why. OK...

On the most obvious level I think Bad Santa is essentially a bawdy condemnation of the cruelty of America and the hypocritical piety it has always used to try to cover up that meanness of spirit. Underlying this country's much-trumpeted prosperity has always been the grittier reality of those--most of us to some degree--who are trampled underfoot by the greed and pressure to succeed that are so prevalent in our culture, and who find themselves wrestling at this time of year with an unspoken loathing of Christmas--because it has become a shameless orgy of materialism, yes, but (more importantly) because the pressure for everything to be happy and perfect throws into horrible relief everything about one's life that is flawed or disappointing. Enter Bad Santa, which takes relish in crassly demolishing the saccharine American myth of Christmas and liberating us all from our guilt over not being perfect little suburban robot-cartoons. That's the heart of the film as a satire, but there's a human story here, too.

Willy is a bitter wash-out, but he's not so horrible that we can't sympathize with him. He's a self-destructive, foul-mouthed drunk, but as he begins (despite himself) to care for Thurman he proves himself worthy of our interest and concern. His motivation is simple and is the center on which the plot turns--as is the case with most victims of childhood abuse, he can't bear to see another child destroyed and ruined as he was. Notice that his worst episodes of drinking come after each time he is berated and cut down by Marcus, and that he comes most alive when Thurman puts himself down or is picked on by the skater kids. Willy's initially hesitant attempts to reach out to Thurman end up becoming, predictably, the seeds of his own redemption, until by the end he is forced to recognize his life as a sham and he risks it for the sake of one symbolic act of generosity.

Thurman is also not so confusing as commenters here have made him out to be. He's not retarded--just an unexceptional kid who's been through some hard knocks (dead Mom, Dad in jail) and who has been left stunned by the trauma, rendered passive and confused but still sweet-hearted and needing a parent (figure).

BTW, the shot toward the end of Willy lying on Thurman's front step in full Santa regalia, gunned down by the police and riddled with bullets, reaching out to leave the stuffed elephant for Thurman, is an absolutely brilliant image--pure genius. I'm almost disappointed that they didn't stop the movie there and leave off the happier ending, but that's me.

Now--for all that, the movie does have its flaws. The scenes with John Ritter and Bernie Mac seem strangely scattered and amateurish. As my g/f hypothesized, Ritter may have died during filming--maybe they had to use rehearsal tapes or something to finish the film. One can argue that Willy is too simple, that his motivations are too one-dimensional. The script could have been tighter, as could some of the editing, and the movie on the whole is not quite as funny as we're led to believe by the trailers...though it does have a good handful of solid laughs and one outright hysterical scene. All of this being said, I liked Bad Santa and still say that the dirty language doesn't hide its basic heart of gold. This is the Christmas movie George Carlin might make if he could, the Christmas movie America deserves. 8/10

One Day in September (1999)

Are you kidding me?

[3/10 · 20 February 2003]

I just watched this movie last night and frankly think it's terrible. I can't believe this won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 1999. Is the director the nephew of someone at the Academy? If the subject itself weren't so interesting (and he has picked a great subject, make no mistake), this movie would be unwatchable. OK, before I get carried away with invective, let me back up my dismay with some actual observations...

For starters, from a directorial point of view, this is one of the most ineptly put together films I've seen in a long time. McDonald pads his film constantly with highly stylized filler, throwing in Godfrey Reggio-inspired time-lapse photography of traffic (just as one example) in places where it does absolutely nothing to advance the story or give us more info. It's as though he doesn't trust the subject itself to be interesting enough, like he feels he needs to hold our attention with cinematographic tricks. Hey, Kevin--it's distracting and annoying. You've got a great subject here--just let it speak to us. There are points, too, where he lets grainy footage of certain tense moments roll on for much too long, in ways that get a little dull and also don't advance the story. Could've been tightened up a bit...

He also clearly thinks the sun shines out of Errol Morris's anus. He may even be right, but copying that style doesn't help his film, either. He isn't creating a character study of oddballs and social outcasts who will end up telling us unexpectedly profound things about life (Morris), nor is he making some grand visionary statement about the world (Reggio)--he's ostensibly documenting a real historical event, and I think he would've done a much better job by just presenting the facts and letting the audience take it all in. He seems to trust neither our patience nor our intelligence. Blah...

On top of all that, he uses music that is so wholly inappropriate for the scenes over which it is laid that the juxtaposition ends up being laughable. The use of music in this film is in such poor taste that it can't help but be further distracting. It's even music that I really like, but used in such completely terrible ways that I couldn't let this review go by without commenting on it. Just awful...

Finally, and most importantly, McDonald just doesn't seem to have put together his film in a way that says anything. He flirts with making some sort of political statement but either pulls his punches or just botches it so terribly that I'm not sure what he's trying to say. The human drama he tries to portray is somehow not nearly as affecting as it could've (and should've) been, in large part because the elements commented on earlier keep inserting themselves loudly and obnoxiously in between the viewer and the subject. He does virtually no job at all of putting these events into any sort of historical context--if you come to this film without an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then everything that happens seems random and meaningless. Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, the film just seems awfully unfulfilling. As it ends one has the sense that one has just watched an incredibly important historical event presented in a way that makes it seem confusing and boring. It seemed I should perhaps feel angry about something or sad about something but all I could do is marvel at what a horrible job was done with this movie.

OK, to balance things a little I'll say this. There are some interesting factual revelations in the film--in particular the much-commented-on West German cover-up of their horrible mismanagement of the whole affair and their conspiracy to release the three surviving extremists. In general, in fact, I'd say this movie is a decent (though by no means good) presentation of the facts in the case. If you don't know anything about the kidnapping, this is an OK enough place to start in terms of understanding the progression of events.

On the other hand, where it fails miserably is in terms of giving those facts any weight or dimension. You will not walk away from this movie with any depth of understanding of the events, and that is the greatest crime a historical documentary can commit. Too often Kevin McDonald tries too hard to make slick, entertaining Hollywood-style drama out of this incredibly sad story and commits the "Hey, Ma--look at me! I'm making a movie!" error of drawing attention to himself and his film, interfering with the film's capacity to reach out to the audience. Sad and bungled, though more or less well-intentioned...

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

in fine--if different--form again

[9/10 · 2 January 2001]

the most astonishing thing to me, as i read over the comments on this film, is the incredible range of opinion it has elicited. people seem to react with polar opposite feelings about the same aspects of this movie, which is enough to make me wonder sometimes if we all saw the same one, but without dwelling on complex matters of interpretation, i'll just stick to the film.

for whatever reason, i find myself drawn to films which drastically divide audiences in their reactions, and this one is no exception--i loved it and thought it was a nice comeback from the (to me) good-but-uneven "The Big Lebowski." things that are pretty safe to assert about "O Brother": 1) it is the Coens' warmest, most sentimental film since "The Hudsucker Proxy." 2) it continues certain recurring themes/obsessions in the brothers' milieu, most particularly in that the plot revolves around crime (often rebelliously championing the "little man" against the power of big money) and that the film as a whole focuses very specifically on a particular time and place. i have thought at times that the coens are doing a region-by-region survey of the greatness and lunacy of the united states, but maybe i am reading way too much into their work.

be that as it may, here is what i loved about "O Brother" as i saw it: it did a beautiful job re-creating the look and feel of a certain era that is long gone and forever lost to us now--the depression. there is much that is terribly romantic about the 30's (and never more so than here), in particular the fact that hobos and bank robbers and even convicts were not widely looked upon as dangerous elements of society but rather sympathized with, sometimes even admired and immortalized in song and story as folk heroes. hard luck times then had the effect of making people depend upon each other and trust each other more, while reviling big money and banks. by setting this film in that time and place and by making the heroes escaped convicts, the coens are being at least gently subversive toward our current "gilded age" of vast wealth for the privileged few of the technocracy and bread and circuses for the rest of us. any doubt about this fact is erased by the use of harry mcclintock's "big rock candy mountain" over the opening credits, arguably the quintessential outlaw folk anthem of the time. that being said, the film becomes a generous and hearty parable about the triumph of the flawed but noble common man over the devious, manipulative, and corrupt forces that seek to exploit and control him. if that is not your cup of tea, then this film may be deeply unsatisfying to you. for me, though, it was occasion to stand up and cheer. viva la coens!

Starship Troopers (1997)

an unmitigated pile of crap

[1/10 · 31 May 2000]

As soon as I remember who it was that told me this movie wasn't actually as bad as it looked in the trailers, I'm going to wring his or her neck. I wasted nearly an hour of my life watching the 2nd half of this film last night, and I'm still retching. This was truly putrid filmmaking at its worst. The "big payoff," as has been more than adequately noted in these reviews, is the fact that this movie is actually a satire and that humans can be the bad guys. Fine, but so what? I need the director of "Showgirls" to tell me that? Hey, folks--here's a little observation: the category of "satire" does not raise a work of art above criticism. Just because it's not supposed to be "good" in any straight/conventional sense doesn't mean it is absolved of the responsibility of being a good satire. A brief overview of any of the spate of horrible Zucker Brothers-clone movies churned out over the last decade (or even some of their own later films, for that matter) should prove conclusively that is is very possible to make a bad satire, and this is an awful one. It is neither funny nor profound, and I would even argue that this is that worst of possible satires--a completely insincere one which pretends to mock the subject matter it in fact sensationalistically exploits for sales and cheap shock. I will admit that I liked "Robocop" and even "Total Recall," but Verhoeven's direction is getting lazier, sloppier, and more contemptful of his audience with every film, to the point where he now clearly no longer cares at all whether he is insulting that audience's intelligence or not. This film is utterly pointless, thin, devious, corrupt, banal, and cynical--in the worst sense. If I could have given it a zero, I would have, but a one will have to do as an expression of my loathing for this movie.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

check this out!

[28 December 1999]

I just saw part of this movie again recently and for the first time I picked up on a very sly little inside joke John Landis plants for us in the first segment. If you listen carefully (during the very short bit where the Vic Morrow character is transported to Viet Nam and he is being fired on by American troops), you will hear one of the confused and frightened (and leaderless) soldiers lay into the others with the following statement: "I TOLD you guys we shouldn't have shot Colonel Neidermeyer!"

P.S.: If this doesn't ring big bells for you, go back and watch Landis' "Animal House" again (with special attention to the ending) and then go to the head of the class...

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

Another Perspective

[8/10 · 9 December 1999]

It seems important to at least state for the record that I ran across a very different approach to this film in an article in New York magazine some time back, wherein the writer challenged the notion central to virtually all criticism of "Deconstructing Harry"--namely, that the film is autobiographical. I forget who wrote the piece now, but he made a very persuasive case for the notion that "Harry" is not Woody Allen at all, but rather is a stand-in for Jewish novelist Philip Roth. The tendency to assume that Woody is playing himself--again--is natural, as he seems to have done so time and time again over the years...but what if he's not here? It would certainly deflect the focus of nearly every comment about this movie and cast it in a whole new light. This approach would certainly also explain the shocking differences between Harry and Woody's other characters. To be sure, there are certainly similarities, but the much-commented-on vulgarity is hardly a familiar Allen trait. Observe, also, Harry's acerbic anti-Semitism and proclivity for abusing drugs. Allen has always embraced and tapped the proud history of Jewish humor, and is certainly not known as a pill-popper, so there is at least some credence to be given to the interpretation that Harry is not Woody at all, and that perhaps we are all premature in rushing to assume that he is. By the same token, maybe we have been premature in assuming that Woody has EVER played himself onscreen. Perhaps, in the vein of Andy Kaufman, Allen has been playing US all along--toying with our tendency to confuse the actor with the character he portrays, and deliberately blurring that line until, just when we feel we know the man behind the mask, we suddenly are shocked into the realization that we don't know him at all. Thoughts to weigh, certainly...

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

"It's A Wonderful Life" for the Viet Nam generation

[10/10 · 30 August 1999]

What can I say? This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and it'll level you if you really take it all in. The summary above is how a friend described it once, and in an off-hand way it nearly does the film justice. I saw this in the theater when it first came out, not really knowing what to expect. It was such a powerful experience that my legs were literally physically weak by the end, and I almost couldn't walk back to my dorm. It is intense in a way that nothing else I've seen is--in a deeply spiritual way. Given a chance, this movie will reach deep into your heart and your soul. The themes from Dante and Eckhart that run through the script are not squandered in the least. In a lesser movie, they would be pretentious decoration, but not here. This is the story of a man shaken in his faith in almost everything--a modern-day Job--a man who goes through such torment and horror that, finally, simply allowing him to die is the most merciful way to end the film, and it is a truly beautiful ending. The terror at work here is not at all of the usual variety--it is a sort of mystical terror, and this is the kind of movie that has the potential to leave you a different person after watching it. (It seems perhaps relevant to mention at this point that I am not a particularly Christian person, and you don't have to be to appreciate the imagery and themes here. The film employs Christian ideas and thought, but from the perspective of the mystic, not in an orthodox manner.) The multiple comments to the effect that this movie will require repeated viewings are certainly deserved, as it is complexly structured and may seem very ambiguous or even chaotic at first. Who truly appreciates "Citizen Kane" upon a first viewing, though? Who really comprehends "Hamlet" the first time he reads it? This is certainly also a work which needs to be seen a few times to really sink in, but if you give it a chance you will almost certainly want to.

Wings of Desire (1987)

Astounding, touching, beautiful

[10/10 · 30 August 1999]

One of my all-time favorite movies, and possibly Wenders' masterpiece. The one weak spot, which has come to grate on me more with repeated viewings, is the supposed climax, which is pretty poorly done. We, I assume, should be moved by this scene, and instead we are given the classic bane of foreign films--enormous, screen-filling talking heads spouting non sequitur nonsense. This shortcoming aside, the film is nothing short of magical. Lovingly shot in black and white, the tone of this film is one of truly inspiring love and sympathy for humanity in all of its beautiful sadness, futility, and quirkiness. A story I read once recounted part of an interview with R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe, who, after seeing this film in the theater with some friends, rushed out of the theater afterward to dance in the rain with them. I tend to believe this story, because "Wings of Desire" has filled my heart with that kind of joy every time I have watched it, and I'm not done yet. Peter Falk as himself radiates such charm that his performance in this film is irresistible and unforgettable. Do watch this movie the next time you're feeling isolated, angry, or cynical, and every time thereafter--it's the perfect antidote. Also keep an eye out for the performance near the end by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds--great! What more could you ask for?

Annie Hall (1977)

Inexhaustibly funny and bittersweet

[10/10 · 30 August 1999]

I don't know anymore how many times I've watched "Annie Hall," and I'd still be happy to see it again any time. The dialogue is so eminently quotable, so sharp and snappy and hysterically funny, that you almost don't feel it reaching somewhere deeper at first, but pretty soon you might notice a tear or two rolling down your cheeks that's not just from laughing so hard. Unquestionably Allen's masterpiece, it does such a great job of capturing the awkwardness, humor, pathos, insanity, futility, and hopeless beauty of romantic relationships that it's almost the only film you need to see on the subject. There are so many classic scenes in this film that I've almost begun to imagine "Annie Hall" was really two or three movies--all of those great bits couldn't really be from the same film, could they? The opening and closing monologues are great examples of and tributes to a great and very old tradition of Jewish humor, and they set just the right tone for this wonderfully sad and hilarious story. A true must-see.

I Like It Like That (1994)

A VERY good movie

[9/10 · 19 July 1999]

I'm frankly surprised at the generally low opinion of this film. I saw it and liked it a lot. I thought it did an excellent job of hitting a very realistic tone--no Hollywood glitz or schmaltz here. Instead, we have well-scripted characters with real-life problems, and all of the pathos and humour that comes with them. This movie is alternately touching and hilarious in very effective and "true" ways, and I admire the guts it took to not give this movie a fairy-tale ending. We have no miraculous resolution, but instead a hard-fought and bittersweet partial reconciliation. The acting and writing here carry a good film to a satisfying conclusion. I'm tempted to vote higher than I really feel to boost this movie's overall rating, which I feel is undeserved.