hpmc6 Reviews

The Hurricane (1999)

Long, boring, biased film contradicted by recent radio interview of the real man

[2/10 · 2 July 2011]

I heard an interesting radio interview of the real man this film was made about, earlier this week. Sounded like a decent guy and an interesting story. I had never heard of this story before.

Hollywood ruined this story with it's heavy handed politically correct agenda. The real man in the radio interview is an interesting, likable man who has valuable introspection and insight. But the Denzel Washington character is just that - a Denzel Washington character. The same one he plays in every film I've ever seen him. The perfect African American man, surrounded by inferior whites, who could be saved by him if only they would overcome their racism. A character and reality that lives nowhere except on a Hollywood script.

Perhaps the greatest insult of this film is toward the man they made the film about, rather than the white audiences, in that they felt he wouldn't be likable or sympathetic if they told the truth, which the real man in radio interviews seems perfectly willing to do.

I've seen my last Denzel Washington film. Whatever his future film might be, I've already seen it.

South of Pico (2007)

Pretty lame copy of 'Crash'

[3/10 · 5 February 2011]

I saw 'Crash' when I couldn't find anything else to rent, and found that it was better than I expected.

So I gave this one a chance, and found it to be a pretty cheap imitation - it really revealed what a break the 'Joan' role in 'Mad Men' was for the actress, if she was doing stuff like this the first year of that TV series.

Basically, you suffer through pointless alternating vignettes of warmed over Hollywood clichés, that build nothing toward the plot until you arrive at the 5 minute so so ending the whole movie was setting up for. There's really nothing more worth saying about this one.

Interstate (2007)

Creative and well executed independent road film

[8/10 · 30 January 2011]

I normally don't round up with my ratings (I would put this at a 7.5 if IMDb had decimal ratings), but I'm giving this an 8 because I think it's gotten a tough break from existing ratings, which I hadn't reviewed before I rented it.

I was attracted to the film because I am familiar with and enjoy the region it is set in.

All of the characters and acting are good. I didn't like the sacrilege of the Jesus burger, but it was creative. The FX section of the DVD really showed interesting use of special effects to create interesting locations out of run down places. The choice of the 1963 (or 1964) Lincoln gave the film a cool look that fit the setting. The film has an enjoyable somewhat psychedelic visual style. The plot unfolded in a way that was plausible, but not predictable, but was not over complicated to the point of being tiring. The scene with the cop was suspenseful and surprising. Veronica was very seductive and entertaining, a well chosen foil for the laid back Edgar (the nice guy who just stumbles deeper and deeper into trouble). Edgar was hilarious when Veronica told him the gum was laced with LSD. Gloria also fit the chemistry well. Chloe played the straight role of the mostly normal girlfriend convincingly. Allen was well played and the film threw an interesting fake at the audience by suggesting that he might be a serial killer with the blue garment that Gloria uses as a pillow in the back seat of the car. It all tied up well at the end.

All in all, the director really did a great job considering the low budget, sometimes a lower budget can make for a superior film, as many of today's film clichés (long boring chases/action sequences etc) are expensive to produce. A smaller budget can force more creativity with what they have. This was a better than average film, produced with a fraction of the average budget, and a refreshing break from the same old Hollywood stuff.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Heavy handed and simplistic

[5/10 · 18 January 2011]

I watched this on cable yesterday, I'd always known of this film but had never seen it. I like 'time capsule' films of the period, so I gave it a try.

The scenery and settings are enjoyable, the soundtrack typical of the period. The acting of Spencer Tracy and Sidney Poitier was very good. So were his parents and Katherine Hepburn. The portrayal of the daughter was somewhat stereotypical of a liberal early-mid 1960s upper class bay area girl.

Tillie (future 'Weezie' of 'The Jeffersons') gave a great performance both as an individual, but also as a member of any group who sees one of their peers move beyond what they were told they were allowed, as well as a genuine protectiveness toward 'Joey'.

The most disturbing question of the film was briefly addressed by Spency Tracy's character - why present this as an all or nothing ultimatum that has to be settled in a day? The answer was given as 'we love each other, why wait?'. But if he really loved her, he would have given both sets of parents a little time to absorb something so important. This would be true even if they were the same race. Why force someone to accept or reject someone for life within the first hour of meeting them? I suppose it had to be done this way for the dramatic effect.

By glossing over this very important question, the rest of the film become an axe grinding message for me. If you are for them right now, you're good, if you question it, you're a 'bigot'. Real life isn't that simple. Were they planning to 'play chicken' with everyone for the rest of their lives after they got married? How would that affect their children, vs choosing the timing of their battles a little more carefully? What a terrible message to send to anyone choosing that path in 1967.

It was also disturbing to see someone who's presented as so perfect (Poitier) display such ingratitude, disrespect and rejection of his own father in such a self righteous manner, without any apparent judgment of Poitier from the filmmaker.

There's not much to say about Tracy's closing, it was easy to see coming a mile away, and a relief to get it over with.

Seconds (1966)

The slippery slope of evil

[7/10 · 27 February 2009]

It's probably an update of Faust. It's in many ways one of the most depressing movies I have ever seen. It's a portrayal of how a weakness can make one prey for evil, sucked in by someone weaker already fallen, and how far they can pull you down.

It was odd how quickly the man was willing to give up his old life without questions, but it may be explained by his 'sponsor's insights about him, and the immediate blackmail that was put in place before the decision.

The 'grapes' scene was a time capsule of mid 1960s 'forced freedom', but it went on way too long.

The scene where he visits his old wife was one of the most depressing movie scenes I have ever seen, both for it's frank, but not unkind portrayal of his old self, and the coldheartedness of his new self to intrude on her after what he'd done to her. It may be a brilliant scene, in that he could come back into his old house and life and have no recognizable soul that would give him away - maybe that was the point.

It was in some ways brilliant how universally cold hearted everyone was once they entered this world - surgeon, businessman, new 'girlfriend', friend, minister. Will Geer as the ringmaster really gave me the creeps.

For the movie buff, it' worth seeing, it's a different idea, the acting/actors/actresses are good. As a horror movie, it is in many ways brilliant, and the most terrifying. What really makes the movie work, is that it's somewhat plausible, and that the central character is participant in his own destruction.

Seeing it a second time, I thought more highly of the movie, it was more tightly crafted than I had given it credit for first time around. Some very nasty foreshadowing, in his entry to the company.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Much less than it could have been

[6/10 · 13 January 2009]

It's still probably worth seeing, I like 20th century American history stuff a lot, so I had a great interest in the topic. I'll give it a 6 because the subject is worthwhile, and it's not pure junk like a lot of movies out there. But it was a really flat one dimensional portrayal of what is in fact, a fascinating subject - a duel between a British interviewer and one of the USA's most fascinating presidents.

The best acting was the Frost character. And the movie dos do a good job of portraying what he put on the line, as well as the 'winner take all' nature of the duel. His underlings were very unlikable characters, although one of them did convey the single minded 'get Nixon' negativity that many people had at the time, and a lot of people were happy to move on from.

The first half of the movie is really pretty boring. It was a completely missed opportunity to better portray who Nixon was, and what he had on the line. Love him, hate him, despise or respect him, he was a fascinating character. A lot of people seeing this movie are too young to remember him, and those older still have things they can learn. Just looking on hulu last night, I found stuff on Nixon I'd never seen before

hulu.com nbc-news-time-capsule-richard-m-nixon-in-his-own-words

does anyone think that some of this material wouldn't have given this movie more depth in the first half, and could have replaced some of the 'fluff'? The whole movie can be pretty much summed up by 'does Frost get Nixon, or not?', which may have been the primary issue in the interviews, but certainly not all of it. Most people, including myself, already thought he was guilty - what difference does it really make whether he admits it or not? The acting of Nixon is mixed - I thought it was very weak in the beginning, but did come together more at the end, as did the movie - the movie does at least, improve and come together at the end.

But there was more to those interviews than 'slipping up and confessing Watergate'. These interviews, like Nixon himself, had more than the one dimension of Watergate. It was a capstone of one of the most significant players (whether he was a good guy, or not) of the Cold War, a potential nuclear conflict that was the biggest threat humanity has ever known This movie completely missed that.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

If you liked 'Forest Gump', you'll probably like it, and if you didn't

[6/10 · 2 January 2009]

you probably won't like this one either. Personally, I didn't - but I'll give this movie a 6 (would have gone 5.5 if half stars were allowed, rounding up) because it isn't pure junk, obviously not low budget. But it's no 'masterpiece' either.

The parallels to Gump are the style of narration by an odd character, the characters he encounters along the way (tug boat captain very close parallel to Gumps' Vietnam Lt.), as well as pointless asides for a set up (lady swimming the channel). Like Gump, the movie plays at the expense of some segments of society. (Gump, being slow people, B Button being old people portrayed as physically unattractive, even scary. B Pitt will most likely age far better in real life than this movie portrayed 'his older self' - most people do. The movie seemed to glorify youth) Like Gump, the movie has some forced emotionalism, at the end, B Button presents some flat statements as something profound.

There's also the positive portrayal of some bad morality, B Button's old girlfriend cheating on her new husband, with seemingly no regret whatsoever.

Beyond the 'Gump' comparisons, what could be an interesting period piece gets bogged down in 2 hours spent not even getting out of the early 1940s. This is a 60 minute idea, played out in over 2 1/2 hours.

And the obvious plausibility flaws about reducing size at both ends of life.

But credit where credit is due, it does have a few redeeming points about life - that a chain of seemingly random events can change someone's life (segment where the woman's dancing career is ended.) And the point where the right people might cross paths at the wrong time (B Button visiting New York).

As far as the acting goes, I think they're pretty much playing out the dictates of the script. I really don't know what more they could have done with it.

I'm rarely aware of editing, or even think about it. But an improved movie could be made by cutting 1/2 hour our of the first half, I think it was poorly edited.

I had never heard of this movie, 1 hour prior to seeing it, it was a last minute invite. The Gump comparisons were made by myself and my group immediately after the show - there was no prior suggestion of it from anyone else. Yet, clearly many people came to the same conclusion.

I said in my review of Forest Gump (on IMDb), that I wouldn't pick the movie, but I wouldn't spend a 'veto' against it with a group of friends who really wanted to see it either. I think that applies here too.

This Is Not a Test (1962)

In historical context, it's worth seeing

[6/10 · 17 May 2008]

This was definitely a lower end 'B' movie, in terms of acting and production values. For a movie with such dramatic, relevant and plausible importance at the time it was made, it was surprisingly boring at times.

But it's worth seeing, because this really did almost happen in the year it was made, 1962. It's a time capsule, even if lower end, of such a drama made at the time, not interpreted decades later.

People who make fun of the paranoia of the cold war should remember this fact. The only thing that's really changed, is the perception. The possibility of nuclear war, is still with us.

Forrest Gump (1994)

Watchable, with the right expectations

[5/10 · 31 March 2008]

What I mean by this is, if a group of friends really wanted to rent it, I wouldn't spend a 'veto' against the film with the group, but I wouldn't pick it either. It's tolerable if you don't expect too much from this 'box of chocolates'.

I saw this when it came out, and I haven't seen it since.

What struck me, was that when it was over, that people exiting the film were completely silent. I don't know why the other people in the theater were silent, but I was because the film really didn't deliver. I felt it took me on a long trip to nowhere. Those in my group felt the same way. But clearly, many other people feel otherwise.

While somewhat watchable and pleasant enough to see unfold, and mildly funny at times, expectations of 'something profound' are instead met with a really shallow parade of clichés and stereotypes in a narcissistic baby-boomer nostalgia orgy, the kind of thing that was already wearing out it's welcome from 'the big chill' film & 'thirty-something' type TV shows.

The viewer seems obligated to sit there and click on pop icons of the baby boomer past, to make them get off the screen and move on to the next. It's a very shallow parade through history.

I'm not politically correct by any means, but it does seem like the worst stereotype was pushed of the Vietnam vet, along with other characters, I'm sure many people found some of these characters degrading. A 'slow person' was kind of made fun of, without any real purpose. Some parts of the movie, such as 'the run' was just spontaneous, stupid and pointless.

If I had no real expectations, I might not have found it as offensive. But the presentation as though this was something culturally profound when it's not left me flat.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

I've always hated this depressing movie

[2/10 · 8 March 2008]

Reading through the comments, 'winner55' pretty much nailed it with 'greed and depravity' review Anyway, i first probably saw this movie as a little kid in the late 60s or early 70s.

It seemed incredibly dated at the time, even though it was probably less than 10 years old. And i love classic moves, from the 1960s in particular But this tired, lame movie seemed like such a parade of clichés (such as 'kick the bucket' HAW HAW HAW), stereotype comic book like characters, that are degrading portrayals of people in general and have no redeeming or sympathetic qualities whatsoever. Each of the better known actors seems like they are trotting out their most tired retread performance schtick to just run out the clock in the movie and get paid. Many of these actors had great moments in other films - but not here, for this film, they're just 'phoning it in'.

If you hate comedies that just aren't funny, you'll hate this movie.

The 9/11 Commission Report (2006)

Pretty Lame

[3/10 · 7 January 2007]

I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.

While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.

The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.

IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.

I wish I had on this one.

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

Disturbing, on many levels

[8/10 · 6 December 2006]

The film is very much worth seeing, it addresses a very important issue, and gives people at least one side, presented very intelligently with a great amount of detail.

Al Gore has a pleasant demeanor, and an appropriate level of humor to keep it interesting - he's a funny guy when he wants to be.

It convinced me that this is an important, issue that needs to be dealt with, regardless of one's politics.

Nonetheless, the implementation of a solution would be very political, and he does have a track record, most notably Vice President of the United States from 1993-2001. (I voted for him 1996). I don't see how you can discuss the implementation of a resolution realistically, without considering the fact that he was Vice President, and what example did he set with his actions then, vs his words now. It's very relevant to this movie and issue. According to the movie, he's been aware of Global Warming since he was in college.

During his administration, Globalism advanced more rapidly than ever. Gore even debated Ross Perot in favor of NAFTA. Why push so much manufacturing outside of our jurisdiction of our regulations (and control) of the United States, if such large change in the way of doing things is needed? A large number of Americans, perhaps the majority did not want NAFTA.

His administration, was also the era of the 'sport utility vehicle', a vehicle exempt from mileage standards. More of them were made in 93-2001 than ever. I recall it as the era where the energy conservation ethic in motor vehicles completely collapsed.

His administration also passed MFN-China, again, enormous amount of manufacturing outside of our jurisdiction and control, and it sure as heck didn't help American workers.

His administration is also the era where the computer industry was pulled out of the hands of the Americans who built it, and sent to India.

The building up of both India and Chinese middle class, without any improvement whatsoever in the carbon footprint of the average middle class person, greatly aggravate the problem, as automobile use in India and China exploded - all the while at the expense of the American worker, as fuel demand increased gas prices as their jobs were lost.

Last but not least, immigration into the United States exploded during 1993-2001. Far more pressure of our polluting infrastructure, again, at the expense of working Americans. How do we begin to communicate compliance of new rules to immigrants who don't speak our language, and in many cases began their life here breaking the rules?

All of the points above, make me very concerned about the possibility of solving this, if he is in fact on the level about the seriousness of this, which I think he is. With the exception of controlling freon, which did help, it seems like everything else his administration did hurt this cause AND was against the will of the American people he's now lecturing to!! How does he expect us to change this and future administrations, when he couldn't control his own from the inside? Something to think about, next time he takes a long drive in his full size Cadillac.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Very Original

[7/10 · 6 November 2006]

The movie has that 'other worldly' feel of Lynch films, which I respect, but am not fanatical about.

It kind of gave me a headache following it, and could be kind of slow at times, it's a long movie. The acting is good, Watts in particular. Her range is remarkable.

It does however, have a payoff that is very original. They definitely put a lot into it, a plot that is very different

I think it's a better film than 'Blue Velvet', I think Mulholland Drive's story has more of a point to it, and comes together better by the end of the movie, than BV did.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

For fans of 1960s style, a fun movie

[8/10 · 6 October 2006]

and if you're not, still a good movie. In a category of movies rated just for being fun and pleasant to watch, this could be a 10.

I didn't like the title track, but I bought the soundtrack, because the rest of the music is great, and really works with the movie, timing and situation. In terms of mid/late 1960s style, they really put it together without getting bogged down in clichés. Music, wardrobe, scenery is about the top for the 1960s. It really does look cool, because it's the best of what was contemporary when the movie was made.

Fay Dunaway was in top form, so was Steve McQueen. Both are usually worth watching in most films. The rest of the acting is good too. Refreshing absence of moralizing - it's entertainment. Some of it seemed implausible, yet there are people like this in our society who have it all, and still risk it all to steal for more than they could ever use, so maybe not so implausible. (An Enron guy went to prison the week I saw this, for instance)

Brick (2005)

Worst movie I've seen in years

[1/10 · 4 October 2006]

I tried stretching to watch this movie with an open mind, some 'arty' movies take a while to build toward a payoff. But the clues that were shown to me in this mystery pointed toward no payoff whatsoever, so I didn't finish it. It sucks. I hadn't heard much about the movie, so I was wondering 'is this an un-funny farce?'. I guess it isn't a farce, it's supposed to be a noir. It's a disaster.

Unbelievably pretentious dialog, and 'hipster' speech. I thought that kind of talk died in the 1970s.

The mindset of the teenagers, trying to put forth this 'world' they supposedly live in, in a high school setting just doesn't fly. It's like a very, very bad high school play, painfully aware that these are just kids trying to be something they're not, never have been, and never will be. Even high school at it's worst was never that bad. Seriously, this film gives you respect for the portrayal of high school in Beverly Hills 90201, which at least had *some* believability to it, even if you didn't like it. In most films, with good or bad acting, I'm generally not aware that they are acting. Not the case here.

Pretension takes an even worse form in the wardrobes. I didn't check the spoilers box, and I'm new at this, so I'll be vague. All I'll say, is that I stopped the film and gave up at the introduction of a character, who was dressed too stupid for me to watch. (those reading this who have seen the film probably can guess who I'm talking about, lets just say he made the film a CAPEr)

You've got to have some respect for the audience This director, clearly doesn't. As for those who say that people who didn't like the film 'didn't get it', ie, modern film noir, compare this to 'Match Point', made the same year. This film is just a very tired rip-off of whatever it was trying to reference.

The saddest thing is, since the film had popularity, there may be outsider kids who try to model some of this style in their own high schools, and it's going to take them down another notch they cant afford