CHendri887 Reviews

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Some amusing moments, but overall a flawed piece of work

[25 December 2001]

After watching Amenabar's "Abre Los Ojos," I can see why an American director would be interested in playing with the ideas in that film. However, my overall impression of Crowe's "Vanilla Sky" is that it is--while somewhat entertaining--in the end not completely satisfying. First off, I had problems with the way this Spanish film played in an American setting. At its heart, I believe "Abre Los Ojos/Vanilla Sky" is a deeply sexist film. It is about the "femme fatal", the "evil woman" coming back to reek havoc and revenge in the life of a man who slighted her. It is about men having power over women and women being victims. Fine. I can deal with that. However, with the actors chosen and in the less machismo-oriented (than Spain) American setting, I feel like all of the characters are too self-assured, self-responsible and strong for any of this to happen. For example, I never really believe that Cameron Diaz is needy enough to go to such lengths to hurt Tom Cruise's character. Likewise, I never really see Tom Cruise as a "selfish jerk" (a key premise for the film to work); he just seems like a nice guy victimized by one bad choice. In "Abre Los Ojos", the whole "femme fetal" premise works better for me. In addition, I found other actor choices in "Vanilla Sky" to be miscast or perhaps not written well enough. For example, Kurt Russell as the psychiatrist was just terrible, in my opinion. I mean, at the end of the film, we're led to believe he was some kind of "missing father figure" to Cruise, but all the while he is dealing with Cruise, he can't stop bringing the focus of the conversation onto him, his own "issues." This is the "perfect father?" a psychiatrist? I don't get it. And what is up with movie portrayals of psychiatrists anyway? There is still a terrible stereotyping that does a great disservice to modern mental health providers. Likewise, Jason Lee just did not work for me as Tom Cruise's "buddy." I didn't feel the connection between them...and I can't stop seeing Jason Lee as a skater dude or one of Kevin Smith's sidekicks. Penelope Cruz was better, less annoyingly "girlish" than she was in "Abre Los Ojos", but it was still hard for me to understand why Cruise's character was so attracted to her initially. And, as I already mentioned with Diaz, her self-assurance made it hard for me to see her as the "slighted woman." Finally, I felt like, as with many of Crowe's films, there was an underlying arrogance and that the film was really about Crowe himself, not about the characters portrayed. This first comes across in Crowe's very self-conscious use of "cool" electronica-oriented and indy rock favorites such as Radiohead and Jeff Buckley. Yes, Crowe has "cool" musical taste and he wants you to know it. In addition, lines like "My favorite Beatle used to be Paul, then it was John." "I always liked George myself." seemed odd to me coming out of Russell and Cruise's mouths. In fact, all of the lines about music and art that came out of Cruise's mouth just sounded like they were coming from Crowe's mouth to me. One more incident: The flashback to the Dylan album cover also seemed to be more about Crowe than Cruise's character to me. I mean, Cruise's character is only supposed to be 33 and he would not have even been born when that album came out. And, I don't know how intentional this was, but Cruise does look a lot like the pudgy Crowe with that "mask" on his face. Coincidence? Perhaps not. Anyway, I thought "Vanilla Sky" was more interesting and well-done than "Abre Los Ojos", but it is still an ultimately flawed film. Not a complete waste, but could have been better.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

I want my money back, Soderbergh

[25 December 2001]

What was Steven Soderbergh thinking by making this film? It is just plain awful. In my opinion, Soderbergh has always been an uneven filmmaker at best--someone who shows great creativity and promise in some ways, but in others just makes really mediocre movies. This remake of the original "Ocean's 11" is definitely one of his more mediocre outings, perhaps his most. I can't figure out why Soderbergh would be interested in remaking a film such as "Ocean's 11" in the first place, but I guess he has a soft spot in his director's genes for crime genre-type flicks ("The Underneath", "Out of Sight"). What doesn't work for me in this film is everything. It's all so very flat and pointless. The plot is rushed, boring, and has several holes; the acting is not very engaging; the underlying sexism in the Julia Roberts' character ("O find me a man, a rich man or a gambling criminal or just any man!")is disturbing (especially considering how fond Soderbergh usually is of more self-assured female characters); and the soundtrack, devoid of longtime co-worker Cliff Martinez's usually engaging ambient musical genius, is more like that of a 70s porn film than anything else. This film is also devoid, for the most part, of two of Soderbergh's most powerful stylistic features: flashbacks and those visual time distortion things he is so fond of, where characters are having dialogue at one point in time, but the visuals are moving forwards and backwards in time. I always hope for the best when I watch a movie by Steven Soderbergh, but I usually come away with a mixed and unsatisfied reaction to what I experience. "Ocean's 11" was definitely a Soderbergh low point for me.

Open Your Eyes (1997)

Disappointing--a movie more about sexism and patriarchy than anything else

[25 December 2001]

I went out and rented this film after watching Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky" last week. Man, what a disappointment. OK, true, the sciece-fiction aspect of "Abre Los Ojos" is very interesting. I have no qualm with that. However, in my opinion, "Abre Los Ojos" is nothing more than a hollow "femme fatal" movie, a film in which all of the women are referred to as "girls", a film in which all of the "girls" make screechy noises, a film in which all of the "girls" are merely sexual objects to men and nothing else. However, even though I found the film offensive in its sexism, the patriarchy and sexism so evident in "Abre Los Ojos" are what make the "femme fatal" premise of the film work better than it does in Crowe's "Vanilla Sky." For example, in "Abre Los Ojos", the character of Cesar seems more like a selfish spolied brat of a patriarch than does Cruise's character in "Vanilla Sky." And the character of Nuria really does seem to be the "unstable jilted woman" here, unlike Cameron Diaz's self-assured Jenna in "Vanilla Sky." Likewise, Antonio seems more the self-pitying buddy than Jason's Lee's character in "Vanilla Sky." In essence, the sexist premise of this film works better for me in the more machismo-oriented Spanish setting than it does in the less so American one. But, I don't necessarily view that as a compliment for the film maker or screen writer. At any rate, besides the offensive sexism, the whole film just played really flat for me. I was not very involved; I did not care much about the characters; and I found myself wanting to turn it off after about thirty minutes. Perhaps it's because I saw "Vanilla Sky" first (which is filled with flaws of its own), but I just did not find "Abre Los Ojos" worth watching.

King of the Hill (1993)

Interesting film, but ultimately unsatisfying for me

[25 December 2001]

Steven Soderbergh is an interesting filmmaker and in some ways and "King of the Hill" exemplifies his stylistic creativity. For instance, the 1930s Depression-era setting of this film is done very self-consciously, very modernly, very cleanly, so that it is plainly apparent that this is a "staged production", not an attempt to recreate flawlessly the appearance of 1930s Missouri. In addition, all of actors, especially the young teen actors, come across in a very self-assured and clean manner. There is an on-stage or theatrical feel to the quality of their acting that makes the whole thing seem more theater than real life. Cliff Martinez has his hands in the soundtrack of "King of the Hill" and I have always been fond of his ambient musical genius. And Soderbergh flirts with flashback techniques which make some of his later films, like "The Limey", so interesting. But like so many of Soderbergh's films, I came away from "King of the Hill" with an unsatisfied feeling. I just didn't know what to make of it: It's sort of like an on-stage production, but it also flirts with "real life"-type conflicts. It's like two different styles of film that don't belong together. And if it was supposed to be a more "real life"-type film, then the self-assuredness, theatricality, and cleanness of most of the characters behavior and appearance did not work for me. "King of the Hill" is interesting, but again, for me, ultimately unsatisfying.

Tape (2001)

I wanted to like this film, but something is off about the acting, the dialogue

[1 December 2001]

I feel like "Tape"--this play made into a film--had potential, but something is off about the whole thing. If I had to put my finger on what didn't work for me, it was that the entire film came across as too clean and unbelievable. For example, the characters. Ethan Hawke's character is supposed to be an "inarticulate drug dealer," but comes across as very articulate (and he keeps lapsing into this southern accent. What was up with that?). Robert Sean Leonard is supposed to have committed a rape, but comes across as never having done so. And Uma Thurman is supposed to be an "Assistant DA" in Lansing, Michigan, but speaks--to my mind, at least--like she is a high school student in southern California. ("Like, oh my god, Vincent.") In addition, I never felt convinced that any of these characters were or had been connected in any way. Hawke, Sean Leonard and Thurman's acting just didn't bring the connectedness out, in my opinion. The ending was a little surprising and disturbing to me. The point, I guess, about Thurman's character, about patriarchal assumptions? not controlling her view of reality is made, but...is it supposed to be a joke? funny? That part bothered me. Overall, though disappointed by the acting/believability of the characters, I still enjoyed the banter among them and it made for an interesting 90 minutes.

Rush Hour 2 (2001)

Ethnicity reduced to the most mindless of stereotypes; extreme violence presented with few consequences

[18 August 2001]

I have mixed feelings when viewing a film like Rush Hour 2. On the one hand, I can reluctantly go along with the premise that the violence, destruction, and rampant ethnic stereotyping in Rush Hour 2 are all presented in a light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek manner. I certainly found some of Tucker and Chan's exchanges humorous in this film. That being said, I also find the reduction of Asian, Anglo, Hispanic and African-American identity to the most mindless and degrading of stereotypes offensive. Is this really humor--reducing ethnicity, culture, sexual-orientation, gender, human relationships, and life in general to such incredibly simplistic stereotypes? What's worse to me is that Chan and Tucker's characters are written in such a way that they degrade their own ethnicities. There was a mixed ethnicity audience the day I saw this film and they were laughing at most of Tucker and Chan's "ethnic jokes", so I guess few people were as bothered as I was. There were also a lot of young kids in the theater the day I saw this film. I look back at my own experience of seeing this type of media imagery as a kid and I now think that it was not really beneficial to me. What value is there in maintaining the stereotypes that all Asians "look alike" (as Tucker's character remarks several times in the film), that all Asians know martial arts, that Chinese women are either submissive prostitutes or martial artists, that there's a "white man behind everything bad in the world," that women are sexual objects to be won with money and violence, and that the world is filled with "good guys" and "bad guys"? I actually believed some of this stuff was true as a kid due to seeing movies, tv shows, etc. with such imagery. And the funny thing is, I saw this film with someone from Korea and someone from Taiwan and they loved it. Yet I felt it was degrading to them. Very difficult and complicated. They also, in my experience, seem to believe that images in films like Rush Hour 2 present some type of accurate mirror of American culture. Consequently, they have difficulty interacting and relating to Americans. It is experiences like this that make me think the type of imagery presented in Rush Hour 2 serves no useful purpose.

Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)

In an odd way like a really bad episode of the 1960s Batman television series meets Jesus Christ Superstar

[9 August 2001]

This is the last of the early 1970s Planet of the Apes sequels. I rewatched them all after seeing Burton's piece of junk a couple of weeks ago. Like all the early 1970s Apes sequels, Battle has so much potential, but its low-budget feel and scope just destroys that potential completely. Again, the acting of the apes--Roddy McDowall, Claude Akins, and even the annoying Paul Williams--is OK in my opinion. The humans don't really have much of a role in this flick, but their acting is not terrible either. The problem is that everything in the plot is again too rushed and the sets have that $100-to-contruct feel to them. We know this film will be rushed from the beginning as we see a rehashing of clips from the last two films. (Did Thompson have to show that "dummy" of Cornelius dropping again?) Then, the characters proceed to explain everything to us, as in the first schoolroom scene with "Teacher Abe" and the initial scenes with Caesar and MacDonald. The trip back to the Forbidden City had lots of potential, but the scenes with the "mutant humans" are just too low budget. In addition, I find myself thinking of the 1960s television series Batman when watching the scenes with the "mutant humans." Something about their costumes and the stereotyping of the "bad guys" with French and German accents just brought that out. Likewise, the battle scene between the mutant humans just doesn't hold up for me. They keep showing the same building being blown up and that scene where Caesar tells them to "fight like apes" is just a joke. Likewise, the ending is too rushed; it's like everyone's all happy, but they shouldn't be (Caesar's son just died, ape has killed ape twice, etc.). And then we're back to the lawgiver guy and it's just like, whatever, what a waste. Another thing: The "humans" in Battle look like they stepped off the set from the 1970s movie version of Jesus Christ Superstar. I guess some would say, "So what?" but something about their costuming and behavior just does not work for me in this flick. Such a pity. Battle, Escape, and Burton are on the bottom of the Apes hierachy for me. The original, Conquest, and Beneath are the better versions of this series.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)

Interesting, but marred by low budget, unintentional parody of Shakespeare during last ten minutes

[8 August 2001]

Like most of the Apes films, this one had a lot of potential, but unfortunately, it just doesn't realize it. The black-white racial themes are brought out in a thoughtful manner and the acting is not all that bad. Roddy McDowall is great as Caesar and Ricardo Monteblan calmed himself down from Escape to reprise his role as the keeper of Zira and Cornelius' son. But the problem with Conquest is that it has that rushed, incredibly low budget feel that detracts from all of the Apes films (except the first). For example, the set on Conquest is basically a downtown plaza, which must have saved a lot of money as it was probably free to film there. There are also a few other rooms that characters move in and out of. How much did this cost? Like $50? And because the set is so cheap, it feels like the characters never really move anywhere. It's a bit disconcerting. Also, the plot rushes forward so quickly that we are always having characters "explain" everything to the us, as Monteblan's character does to at the beginning of the film (filling in the gaps from Escape). A shame the makers of these films didn't have more money so they could do more "showing" and less "telling." In addition, the last ten minutes of this film are just awful. It's really, really bad Shakespeare. What's with the Caesar's speech? And what's with that weird exchange between Caesar and MacDonald? It's sooooo bad, so overexplained. I really love all the themes that these films bring out, the political/social satire, but it is all so brought down by the way these films were made. In my opinion, this film is more interesting than Escape from Planet of the Apes, maybe the second best in the series. And I find Conquest to be more interesting than Burton's waste. Worth a watch.

Ernesto Che Guevara, the Bolivian Diary (1994)

Interesting, but slow-moving, perhaps unintentionally "revolution glorifying"

[6/10 · 7 August 2001]

This is a documentary that retraces the steps of Ernesto Che Chuevara's 1967 attempt to "liberate" Boliva. The documentary is based on his diary, which apparently was published right before this came out. Not knowing much about Chevara, I found this documentary interesting, but slow moving. It basically goes over the exact movements Che and his soldiers made during their time in Boliva. There are various interviews with people from the Bolivian countryside who claim to have had contact with Che along the way. A male narrator reads from Che's diary as we walk in Che's steps. A female narrator provides other necessary information. Che's prose is interesting: It's very careful, diliberate, and, to me, almost Walt Whitmanesque. Perhaps it was just the way the male narrator (whose slow ennunciation of every word began to annoy me) read the diary, but I find Che's prose sometimes makes the concept of "revolution" seem a lot safer, cleaner, and easier than I'm sure it was. Camping in the Bolivian countryside for a year cannot have been all that pleasant. And, Che's whole idea of traveling to Boliva to take this action is somewhat odd to me. It's like, "Gee, let's pick an "oppressed" country and go have fun stirring up a revolution there." It romanticizes revolution in a way that I am not so sure is healthy. But who I am to say? Perhaps if it was 1967 and I was in Che's shoes, I would have taken the same actions as him.

Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971)

Very, very bad

[5 August 2001]

The first Planet of the Apes was never a great film, but it blended cheesiness and speculation about earth's future effectively. It's baffling to me that so many inventive things could have been done in these sequels, but what we get is like low-budget trash film. This film is a wreck. Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter are great as Cornelius and Zira, but that's it here. No real plot, hammy acting, 70s porn soundtrack music, and the lowest of low budget settings make Escape from the Planet of the Apes a real snoozer. There are a few nice converational exchanges between characters, but that is it. And making the bad guy in this film a stereotypical "evil German"--did anyone realize how utterly cheesy that was when they did it? And what's with Ricardo Monteblan? It's like he's on very powerful amphetamines that make him want to have sex with our simian friends. Damn, Ricardo, chill out, baby. And the ending? What's with that "mama" tape loop? Dude, please tell me this film cost like $4000 to make. And, grudgingly, I guess I can admit that Tim Burton's 2001 Apes is at least an improvement on this one. But not by much.

Before Night Falls (2000)

Nice cinematography and music, but the disjointed surrealistic plot doesn't work for me

[4 August 2001]

It seems to me like Julian Schnabel is trying to make two different types of movie in "Before Night Falls." On the one hand, he attempts to create a conventional Hollywood drama--all simpletonish in its approach to history, human relationships, and life in general. On the other hand, he has cut the film up in some unconventional ways, inserting many surrealistic scenes into the mix. To top it off, there is a lot of documentary footage included (which I found kind of interesting) shot about the time of the Cuban Revolution. Somehow, all of this just doesn't work for me. Although I enjoyed looking at the images in "Before Night Falls" due to the cinematography and great background music, I had a difficult time following the plot or developing any real interest in the characters. In fact, in a few cases it was hard to figure out who some of the characters were. But again, this is not to say the film was too complicated either. It was just confusing. The film seemed well-acted to me, though not being up on my Cuban history I question whether everyone in Cuba spoke with a lispy Spain-ish accent circa 1965. And, though I feel sympathetic to the torture Arenas must have gone through in his life, I was not too moved by the prose of his that was read in this film. The last quote, the one that started with "I am the child who..." I just did not get.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)

Much wasted potential in this film

[4 August 2001]

I am rewatching all of the late 1960s/early 1970s Apes films after seeing Tim Burton's wasted mess last week. All I can say about Beneath the Planet of the Apes is that it had so much potential, but most of that potential is wasted. It starts off good, rehashing the ending of the 1968 Planet of the Apes. And it's a shame that Heston didn't want to make another Apes film (even though he appears in about 1/4th of this one anyway--strange) because that is where an interesting sequel could have gone. A creative scriptwriter could have come up with a lot more interesting "surprises" had they shown he-man Heston exploring what 40th century earth had become. Funny, this film immediately starts to remind me of Burton's 2001 Planet of the Apes when we first flash to the James Franciscus "spaceship crashed on earth" scene. It's like, "Oh no, it's going to be another film of rushed plot elements hokily referring to the first." Basically, that is what you get in Beneath the Planet of the Apes. We see he-man Heston and she-woman Nova in flashbacks confronting mysteriously bad-looking Ten Commandment-like psychic illusions in the Forbidden Zone. We see he-man Heston falling into one of the psychic illusions in the Forbidden Zone and she-woman Nova's ever-cheesy, ever-tortured expression. (However, there is another great soliloque by Heston in a Nova flashback before he disappears--the one where he contemplates starting a colony with Nova. Man, you've got to love those cheesy Heston soliloques in the Apes flicks.) Sorry to say, Franciscus is just no match for Heston in terms screen presence in the Apes films. Heston simply is THE MAN in Planet of the Apes. We go back to the ape city for part of Beneath the Planet of the Apes, but that part of the film seems rushed, more like Burton's approach (the Cliff Notes approach) to me. Kim Hunter's Dr. Zira is still good, as is Maurice Evans Dr. Zaius and David Watson's Cornelius (I didn't even realize it wasn't Roddy McDowell until the end). Though cheesy, I still enjoy the late 1960s/early 1970s political satire in this film--the protesting young chimps in the streets, the LBJ-like Dr. Zaius exclaiming, "Move along, young people, move along!" and the Vietnam-era general-types in the gorillas. It's the cheese/effective stuff like this that Burton's film has none of (which it could have, being that Burton seems like a fine film maker, and that is why his film is so puzzling). Anyway, the human underground city that Francisus and Nova discover is interesting in this film, but again, the whole thing is too rushed to work effectively. We meet the underground people, who have psychic powers, but there are so many gaps in logic in what they are and aren't psychic about that it is not even worth commenting on. The underground people's religious service to the atomic bomb is interesting, but beyond that their presence does not have much power. Heston and Franciscus's meeting is laughable; it makes no sense and again makes me wonder: If Heston was going to be in this film for the last twenty minutes, why didn't he just agree to do the whole thing? So odd. And the ending is a joke--senseless and rushed. But it's still on OK B movie in my opinion. I like it better than Burton's. One final comment: I can't believe these films are rated "G". There's some violent, scary stuff in them and though low budget-looking by today's standards, I think they at least merit a PG rating. Beneath is not great, but it's worth a watch anyway.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Planet of the Offensive Stereotypes

[1 August 2001]

What a confused and pointless piece of junk. OK, so the costumes were well-done. And Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Roth do adequate jobs representing the oversilly, stereotyped liberal ape-fascist ape dualism. But this rushed, ridiculously overviolent mess looks like it was churned out in about one month a/la last year's sci-fi classics "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet." And, here's my question to the makers of this flick: Why is every "ape" in Planet of the Apes 2001 stereotyped in the most offensive colonial worldview way? Examples: The violent, military apes are all like African "savages." The sly, merchant ape is like a Jewish Shylock from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. The wise, senator ape is like a royal European Anglo (above the dominant military savage apes). The metaphysical/religious apes in the street are like turn-of-the-century W.D. Griffith stereotyped morphine-smoking Chinese-Americans with fu-manchu beards and long straight hair. And, in an annoying modern twist, the adolescent apes are like miniature Fred Dursts, backwards hats and all anti-"adult" attitude. Oh, and let's not forget the human stereotypes: Mark "I always play the same part" Wahlberg as macho space "captain," Estella Warren as the full-lipped Barbie Doll sex object, and faceless adolescent boy playing the "I want to prove I am a man by fighting in a war" part so steretypically. Hey, if this is the way the book was written, fine. But you know what? I don't think anyone should consider this type of overly simplistic stereotyped character manipulation as "entertainment" anymore. Hollywood, William Broyles Jr., and Tim Burton: Have you no clue that these stereotypes are an ugly waste of everyone's time? But, I know, this is just "entertainment." As long as it's "entertainment", that's OK. What else? This movie has absolutely no plot or character development whatsoever. It is like a series of quick scene ideas spliced together very haphazardly. There is little chance to get to know or empathize with anyone in the film. Most of the human characters are so character-less that their actions seem unbelievable. And what of the setting? Very, very strange. Yes, it's got that dark, Burton touch, but it almost doesn't make sense in this film. There's something too small, almost stagelike about the setting of this film that goes against the expansiveness of its theme. This is supposed to be about someone traveling millions of miles from earth and it feels like they've gone about twenty feet. And there's no real sense of an "ape world" on this planet; it's like they all live in a little box (and there's only like one hundred of them there). And what was with that scene when the humans were escaping and they kept running through all of the apes' houses? It was like something out of The Three Stooges or Abbot and Costello. Finally, in relationship to this last "funny" scene, there's the inconsistency in the approach to this film. Is it supposed to be campy or is it supposed to be serious? It just doesn't know. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater (which was quite full) when I saw this and the apes muttered "funny" lines such as, "Get your damn dirty hands off me you stinking human" and "Can't we all just get along?" Uh, what? I'm sorry, Tim Roth, but I simply don't get this film. I think it stinks in every way possible.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Cheesy sci-fi classic that looks like genius next to Burton's version

[30 July 2001]

I just saw Tim Burton's remake of Planet of the Apes this weekend and was thoroughly disappointed so I had to go out and rewatch the original to compare the two. While the 1968 Planet of the Apes has its flaws, it is simply a far superior film to Burton's. (This is sad too because I feel there was so much that Burton could have improved upon in this film, which he didn't.) Although the 1968 version looks somewhat dated and silly in retrospect, it also comes across as more powerful and poignant, somehow effectively bridging the line between utter cheesiness and utter eerieness. How does it do this? First, there's the great atonal symphonic soundtrack. This soundtrack is used effectively throughout the film to build tension and suspense in almost every scene. Next, there is the awkward, but somehow effective camera technique of zooming from a distant shot to close-up shot in certain dramatic moments during the Planet of the Apes. Examples of this include the final scene where Taylor finally meets his "destiny", the famous "Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape!" line, and the first space scene where the three spacemen make a horrifying discovery about their female crew member. Like much of the film, I find this zoom lens technique brings out both the eerieness and the cheesiness of the film. Also, the pacing and revealing of information in the 1968 Planet of the Apes is much more subtle and "real feeling." Though the film is short, there is at least some sense of getting to know everyone and the construction of the "ape world" gradually. Burton's version comes across more like a rushed Cliff Notes summary. Next, there is arch-conservative he-man Charleton Heston's portrayal of Taylor. Though annoying, incredibly silly, and sexist in his character, Heston's Taylor somehow seems perfect for this film. He bridges the cheese-serious gap completely with his absurdly cocky sililoquies. Example: While looking at she-woman object Nova: "Yes, there were lots of women and love-making on earth, but not lots of love. I wonder if you love me...." You've also got Kim Hunter's Zira and Roddy McDowall's Cornelius, which, while not genius have more personality and character development than most of Burton's faceless apes. In addition to all of this, the evolution versus religion theme is brought out much more ironically and powerfully in the 1968 Planet of the Apes. Somehow, even watching this film in 2001, I felt questions arising to my mind as I watched this such as, "Wow, there really are a lot of people who accept religious dogma out of fear of change" and "What was prehistory really like?" I did not have these questions arise inside of me while watching Burton's film, though it was supposed to be treading the same thematic territory. And perhaps all of this had something to do with the temper of the times in the United States. 1968 was definitely a year for questioning "traditional values" in American culture. Perhaps it was simply easier to make a more believable Planet of the Apes at that time.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

An incredibly corny, war-glamorizing, anti-historical film that I found surprisingly entertaining

[6/10 · 25 July 2001]

I did not want to like this film. Much of the dialogue is corny and sappy in a bad 1930s Broadway musical kind of way. The plot is barely focused on the historical details of the Pearl Harbor bombing, even though that is the title of the film. There is a sort of light-hearted jovial attitude to this whole war business, as if everyone is just out to have a good time. Whenever Alex Baldwin's character spoke, it made me feel like laughing. (I kept picturing him in that SNL skit about ten years ago where he played the boy scout leader.) And yet, I found myself enjoying this whole film and wanting to see what came next for almost the entire three hours. I did not ever get bored. I laughed (sometimes when other people were crying, but hey, that's why you get when you write lines so sappy that they get stuck in the audience's hair) and I cried (mostly during the battle scene). And that battle scene, wow, what a tremendous piece of work. Just non-stop gripping action for an hour. I guess my main comment on a film such as this is that I feel guilty for liking it because I believe that some of its images are so NOT the way life (or history) is. Everything is just too easy in this flick. But I guess if one accepts it as entertainment, then, eh, whatever.

The Insider (1999)

Pretentious, over-serious, over-acted

[6/10 · 24 July 2001]

In The Insider Michael Mann exposes the big bad evil of corporate America. Not that anyone would have realized that the tobacco industry was just trying to make people addicted to nicotine in order to sell more of their product without watching this hard-hitting docudrama expose. And in case you don't get this message in the first fifteen minutes of the film, Mann goes to great detail to drum it into you in every other scene. For example, we are shown--over and over and over-- the scene where Jeff Wigand (played so constipatedly by Russell Crowe) is being interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes while a camera softly pans the other characters' faces again and again as they poignantly watch the interview. I guess this is supposed to be like, a collective realization for all of us that yes, corporate America is evil and we, innocent the American citizens and liberal media have been duped by this evil force. Yes, Michael, I understand. Big tobacco = bad. Liberal media and American citizens = good victims. Deep. Very, very deep, Michael Mann. And I really dug the way Mann used the handheld camera for 3/4ths of the film, making some scenes so jumpy that I was wondering if the characters had nervous ticks or were jumping up and down for the camera. It was just like, so realistic and raw. And I really enjoyed the post-1960s Baby Boomer guilt of Al Pacino's character, Lowell Bergman. It's like, "Yes, I am a Yuppie who has a mulimillion dollar job, house, and life in New York city, but I relieve my 1960s liberal guilt by saying Herbert Marcuse was my mentor and proclaiming myself a 'liberal journalist.'" Wow. I guess that makes everything OK. And then there was Al Pacino's screaming like 50% of his lines in the film. That really brought out the "meaningfulness" of the whole "liberal media fighting evil corporate America" theme. And I just liked the way most of the characters were really unempathic to one another's nurturing needs, especially during the moments when they needed to cry or be held. It's always great to see Hollywood churn out another damaging image-fest where there's lots of yelling, advice giving, and abandonment when characters need to listen to one another. It really excites me when these images are held up for the whole world to see (especially when the images proclaim themselves to be examples of "real life" behavior, as in this flick) so kids and adults alike can imitate them and unconsciously internalize the oligarchical/patriarchal power structures which they represent. There were a few nice moments in the soundtrack--the opera piece stands out for me here--but overall, that ended up coming across as pretentious as well. I am definitely not in tune with the "Academy." I can't believe this film was nominated for 9 awards.

You Can Count on Me (2000)

Whenever I watch films, I realize how little I'm missing...

[6/10 · 21 July 2001]

Eh, whatever. This film was nominated for 2 Academy Awards? This is independent cinema? I guess I just don't care. There are a few nice relational exchanges in here between Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo's (who plays a big meany) characters. And, there is a great Baroque (Bach) musical piece that gives some of the film (with its lush green visuals) a beautiful melancholic quality. Because of the Bach (and the film's rural/suburban east coast setting), it sort of reminded me of Judy Berlin. But overall, I just thought the movie wasn't that good. And Mark Ruffalo's Uncle Terry hurt my feelings (I'm serious). Sheesh, Uncle Terry, nice job triangulating with little Rory Culkin. And I guess we're all wimps if we don't hold the hammer on the long end and "buckle up" at eight years old to jarringly face the trauma of our father who abandoned us at birth. All in all, I would have rather taken a bike ride or a swim in the ocean than watched this film.

Proof of Life (2000)

Domination culture = good guys, bad guys, death and pain for all

[6/10 · 6 July 2001]

Our "entertainment" reflects our consciousness. What is "Proof of Life" about? It's about how a culture based on the value of "domination" results in nothing buy needless pain and death. Domination creates rich and poor, "good" and "bad." Domination uses violence and fear as its main means of wielding power. It shuns partnership and nurturing. Domination also creates the image of "man as warrior" and "woman as sensitive crier." It creates these gender roles and then makes people believe they are in-born, biological. In "Proof of Life", we get another Hollywood gem supporting this whole damaging domination paradigm. Russell Crowe is the "good guy cowboy warrior man" and Meg Ryan is the "sensitive crying girly-voiced woman." The anti-government rebels and rich oil men are the "bad guys." The European Anglos and those who work with them are the "good guys." Violence and pain are used to accomplish everything. Violence and pain fuel the plot foward, just like they fuel "real life" forward in our world which is still based on these patriarchal values. "Proof is Life" is proof that domination culture is still very much of a part of our consciousness. If we can go beyond that paradigm films like this will just disappear into the wind.

The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)

Sexual acting out posing as sexual freedom

[6/10 · 28 June 2001]

We sometimes have trouble in our patri(matri)archal political and social structures thinking outside of dualisms. For example, if a person is shamed and repressed by the archy, it often seems like the only way to freedom is through rebellion. Thus, in movies like "The People Versus Larry Flynt" and "Quills" we get sexual acting out, sexual excess and sexual abuse presented as sexual freedom. The archy loves this: It needs an "enemy" to continue thriving. The archy creates the conditions for rebellion to thrive. The archy also secretly likes to glorify this "rebellion." So, in movies like "The People" and "Quills", we also get stories glorifying pornography in such a way that strips it of its true ugliness and tragedy. These movies make pornography seem "cool." "The People" operates on the premise (even if it is supposed to be done with humor) that Larry Flynt, our flawed "hero," is standing up to sexually repressive American Christian Fundamentalists such as Jerry Fallwell. Flynt does this by exploiting and victimzing young women who are victims of the very system he is supposedly trying to "liberate" everyone from. I am all for more openness and less shame in the handling of sexual matters on a mass cultural level, but I do not see pornography and the exploitation of women's bodies as the best means of doing this. On the contrary, pornography is merely the flip side of sexual repression: It is sex seen as "dirty", tainted with the stink of patri(matri)archal shame. Hopefully, in time, we can all move beyond such dualistic ways of thinking and realize that true freedom lies in respecting everyone's needs and values from the time they are brought into this world and not getting lost in this eternal game of repress-rebel that has been responsible for so many of our world's ills over the last two thousand years. Long live empathy and compassion!

Yi Yi (2000)

A few nice moments, but Yang tries too hard to be "poignant" and "symbolic"

[6/10 · 25 June 2001]

Although I was touched by a few scenes in this film, I felt mostly like Edward Yang was trying too hard to be "poignant" and "symbolic." Almost every scene is riddled with overly symbolic material that just made me roll my eyes or yell at my television. Examples of this include the scene where Yang Yang is watching the movie on lightening with its obvious sexual allusions and then sees the underpants of the girl who he secretly has a crush on. Another example was the whole cutting back and forth scene from Sherry and NJ in Tokyo back to NJ's children who are living out parts of NJ's childhood. I was like, "Oooo, deep, Mr. Yang. Deep." In addition, there is much annoying screaming in this movie. This is not something I usually notice in films, but I think there must have been a good ten to fifteen minutes of women (a few men) making annoying screaming noises. Another thing that bugged me about this film on video (no fault of Yang's) was that the subtitles were almost impossible to read for much of the film. Didn't the film company check this out when they were editing the film with subtitles? And finally, though this wasn't always the case, I guess I felt annoyed by the way the characters were all unconscious victims of the Confucion patriarchy/matriarchy and this fact was never brought to light by Yang. Though there are moments of sympathy in this film, I often feel this when I watch films with a Chinese focus. Hey, the archy hurts everyone, baby. Empathy is healing. Make sure you bust out a magnifying glass for the subtitles and some eye drops for eye rolling if you rent this film.

Little Buddha (1993)

Makes me hate Buddhism

[5/10 · 23 June 2001]

This movie is pompous and painful to watch. To appreciate its badness fully, one must go inside the mind of the people who were involved in making the film.

Keanu "Buddha Dude" Reeves: Whoa, dude, the role of Siddhartha. Heavy. This role is kinda counter-cultural, you know, Bernardo? 'Cause Siddhartha was like an original hippie with all that exploration and meditation stuff. Oh yeah, and he also let his hair grow really long. And I'm kinda like a hippie too, you know, living out of a hotel room and everything. And I had hippie parents too, you know, my name and all. So, yeah, I'll take the part.

Bridget "I'm too cool" Fonda: Well, I just finished making Cameron Crowe's film 'Singles' which sort of epitomized coolness for the 90s. Yeah, that film was like my dad's film 'Easy Rider' was to the 60s generation. I have no idea how truly pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious Singles was, so that's why I'm interested in your new project. Oh, you say it's taking place in Seattle? Wow. Seattle in the late 1980s/early 1990s is like San Franciso around 1965-1966. At least that's what my dad tells me. You know, I just want to be cool and maintain my coolness with baby boomers and GenXers. And you say you're film is about Buddhism in Seattle? Wow, how cool. It's like hippie and GenX combined. Yeah, Bernardo, I'm in.

Chris "I did a bad bad thing" Issak: You know what? I can't act to save my life. Really. But Buddhism is hip, Bridget Fonda is hip, Keanu Reeves is hip, Seattle is hip, Bernardo is hip, Tibet is hip, and I am hip, so I am making this film.

Bernardo "I am overly symbolic" Bertolucci: OK, I want to make a really really deeeeep film about Buddhism. I mean, I'm talking really really meaningful. This film is going to be so meaningful that people are going to be saying "whoa" for five years after they see this film. I mean, listen to this: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it really make a sound? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Do you know that I am the reincarnation of Llama Dorje? Whoa. Isn't that deeeeeep? And the Siddhartha story, whoa, that story is so profound. He meditates, he discovers truth by pulling a computer-generated image of himself out of puddle of water. Whoa. These thoughts are just too intense for me so I'd better stop before I have a nervous breakdown.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

What a mess

[1/10 · 17 June 2001]

Can you say "technicolor vomit?" The idea for this film actually has a lot of potential: Take a mish-mash of modern pop songs and blend them together in a creative way to create a romantic musical. But what do we get here? An annoying nightmare of sound and sight that almost drove me from the theater. This film is more chopped up than the vegetables in a Beni Hanna stir fry. Luhrmann never focuses on one scene for more than a few seconds and when he does, the computer enhanced colors make the screen incredibly difficult to look at. The music has moments of creativity, as when "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is blended together with "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend", but all of the scenes come across as little more than videos, not pieces creating a coherent whole. With respect to the choice of songs: Gosh, can you get more random, Boz Luhrmann? I mean, I actually feel like Luhrman put a couple hundred song titles in a hat and just chose them at random. Very strange. And I enjoyed Ewen McGregor's singing for about an hour (I found myself singing "Your Song" with him at the beginning of the film), but then it started to get annoying. And Nicole Kidman...what can one say except, "Yuck." Ever since I saw her in that Battman movie, she just bugs, bugs, bugs. And I was listening to a PJ Harvey tape in my car on the way home from the theater thinking that Harvey would have been a great choice for the part of Seline. But she probably wouldn't have been interested in such an artless film. Finally, why o why does every big budget movie that is set in France have people speaking with British accents? Is this some kind of unconscious Hollywood rule? Or couldn't Luhrmann find anyone with French accents to play in this film? Man, the French must have torn this thing up at Cannes. "I hope you don't mind, I hope you don't mind that put down in words how terrible this film is while it's in this world."

Quills (2000)

This film sucks bad...

[5/10 · 29 May 2001]

Once a paradigm is set up where certain pleasurable acts are seen as "evil", someone like the Marquis De Sade is bound to emerge in any culture. The thing is, the approach/argument/view/whatever the Marquis embraces is not really "liberation", but more so "revenge." And my problem with this film lies not with its terrible acting, lame script, and British accents dominating a supposedly French setting, but with the way it presents the Marquis as some sort of "liberator from censorship." This, to me, is pure nonsense. How about the reality of this type of "domination culture"? Most people (even the very rich) were probably quite unhappy in aristocratic France because all of their acts and thoughts were tinged with guilt, shame, and fear--if not from the Church than from the Emperor. Even people like the Marquis, who no doubt tried to "liberate" people from the absurdity of this good-evil/high-low paradigm, were also probably terribly unhappy (much more so than the jovial Geoffrey Rush portrays). And I guess the whole thing seems so tragic and ugly to me that I feel it is not worth incorrectly glamorizing on the movie screen. The one redeeming thing I was thinking while I was watching this film was: Why didn't Kaufman just making this into a musical with everyone singing and dancing, even during the most violent scenes? If he had done that, I think I would have enjoyed the film a lot more.

With a Friend Like Harry... (2000)

Vive Le Flying Monkeys!

[7/10 · 20 May 2001]

I enjoyed this film. Having read a couple of reviews before I went to see it, I'll have to agree with the critics who said Harry is dominated by a Hitchcock-like atmosphere. Like Hitchcock's films, there is comedy mingled with darkness. Also like Hitchcock's films, there is sort of melodramatic classical soundtrack. In addition, the mood throughout is suspenseful, as if something is always going to happen when Harry is around. The director maintained this suspese for the whole movie. I thought the dialgoue and acting were strong. All of the characters seemed very realistic and easy to empathize with. The only scene I found really implausible was the one with Plum and Michael in the bathroom near the end of the film. Michael's behavior in that scene just seemed inconsistent with everything else he had done so far. My favorite scenes in this film were the ones where Harry and various other characters are discussing Michael's old poems and short stories. I guess I can empathize since I was an English Literature major in college and dabbled a bit in writing. Long live The Flying Monkeys!

Ride with the Devil (I) (1999)

When will we tire of glorifying violence that is so ugly?

[6/10 · 20 May 2001]

Let's see. This movie, for me, had some positive, but many negative points. On the positive side, much of my father's family comes from the St. Joseph, Missouri area and, I think (from looking at my family tree) were living in that area at the time of all this pre-Civil War craziness. So, the movie motivated me to do a little research and trace the geography of me papi's family. This was positive. As for the negative: It must have been very ugly to live in this part of Missouri in the 1850s and 1860s. Uglier than the cleanness of film can ever dramatize. Read: lots of deep psychological pain, alcohlism, gambling, lack of respect for human life, and pointless violence. So, although I am sure Ang Lee is trying to portray this time in American history very fairly and very "realistically", there is simply no way to avoid a sort of "clean-entertaining" version of what went on during this time period. And, I know, film is supposed to be entertaining. But why make an entertaining film about something so ugly, so painful, so not entertaining? As for the acting, I think this is Toby McGuire's best role, but it still seems to me like he always plays the same character in every movie he has been in. Jewel did better than I thought, but I still find her incredibly annoying. On a positive note, I thought the characters did a great job with the dialect from that era. I am no linguistic expert, but I think they done a right fine job of makin friends with "illiterate speak." And, perhaps I am wrong about this, but I think someone (Ang Lee? a writer? a producer?)must have asked themselves: "Well, how can we fit a scene in where Jewel teases us with one of her breasts?" And then they put that breast-feeding scene in at the end. You can't tell me that one of these people didn't do this.