0rganism Reviews

Over the Hedge (2006)

A fun movie that thoroughly demolished my low expectations

[8/10 · 21 May 2006]

Let me say up front, I had low expectations going into the film. Although I like animation a lot, I wasn't too impressed with previous Dreamworks attempts. I tend to regard cutesy previews with suspicion, and was mostly just going along to have a potentially positive movie-going experience with my family. Things got a little worse when we arrived at the theatre, and both the ticket-tearing guy (if cinemas have a technical name for that role, I don't know what it is) and some poor sap from the commissary tried to pressure-sell the "fresh" soda and popcorn. We had to go out of our way to avoid an extra ad-hoc kiosk the food vendors established smack in the middle of the lobby. I hope that doesn't become standard practice. The twenty-odd minutes of previews were similarly underwhelming, and I was starting to get a little nervous -- is it going to be one of those days I'll want to forget? Then, at long last, Over the Hedge starts. Now I'm not an avid follower of the comic, partly because I don't get to read newspapers very often. The Over the Hedge strip is kind of a latecoming competitor to affections reserved for the beloved Bloom County of my childhood, so I'm not exactly salivating at the potential content. However, I gotta say, I was blown away from the start.

Over the Hedge is a neat movie. Granted, there are points where plot development is pure formula, and some of the dialog seems forced or weakly delivered, but these are minor snits. I was laughing out loud, along with most of the audience, which was well distributed agewise. I won't offer any spoilers, but I have to hand it to the screenwriters for seamlessly integrating action-based slapstick with some very cunning dialog, dialog that flies fast and furious enough that you'd better keep both ears wide open.

Messagewise, there are a few worth noting. I have not seen such a cutting indictment of suburbia since Edward Scissorhands. Some audiences may find the humor cuts a bit too close to home -- literally. Human eating habits are intensely scrutinized, for obvious reasons. Vanity and self-serving hubris are duly repudiated. Plenty of clever asides will appeal to a wholesome sort of cultural nostalgia, without ever seeming derivative or repetitive. There are both heartwarming and chilling references to the importance of family, especially a family under external pressures from a society that they do not understand, a culture that considers them vermin. But the messages aren't overplayed, and mesh well with the rest of this utterly hilarious movie.

There's more, of course, but the bottom line is entertainment, and this movie did not disappoint. Even the extended slapstick, which I seldom enjoy in movies, was so outrageous and excessive that it punched through to my funny bone and had me slapping my knee along with my family. Oh yeah, my family -- they liked the movie too, they liked it a lot. Over the Hedge is one of those solid films to which parents can bring children and everyone has an unreserved good time. That puts it in some pretty esteemed company -- right up there with Toy Story, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, et al. Highly enjoyable, highly recommended, 8/10.

Syriana (2005)

a complex, intricate, tightly-packed movie with an important message

[8/10 · 15 January 2006]

If you like a movie that doesn't talk down to the audience and isn't afraid to push forward with touchy issues, this is going to be your cup of tea. However, viewers beware: the first hour is going to require some careful attention to seemingly unimportant details, and whatever one misses early-on is going to compromise overall comprehension of the plot later in the movie. That is simultaneously the mechanism for Syriana's greatest cinematic achievement and the deepest failing of the film. The earlier one figures out who the players are and what's motivating them, the more engrossing the storyline will be as it unfolds.

Each scene is meticulously presented and follows reasonably from the preceding material, but many of the characters and themes are introduced exactly once. From then on, you're on your own, and if you missed something because you were reaching for the popcorn, well, you're going to be leaving the theater with some unanswered questions. This potential difficulty is exacerbated by the rapid-fire context switches that occur, which can zoom to the opposite side of the planet with a completely different set of characters operating on events in a way which may seem, at most, tangentially connected to the original topic.

To understand the intricacies of the plot, one must be prepared to discard the usual notions of spoon-fed character development through repetition, and accept the job of piecing together, puzzle-like, the backgrounds and motivations from scenes as they occur. The reward for those who successfully undertake this mission is a sense of how people completely separated in social role, geography, ethics, economic standing, and compelling interests may be affected or outright intertwined by shared events and global phenomenon. This interconnectedness occurs whether the characters are aware of it or not, and whether or not they have any control over their circumstances, much as it does in real life. Each person's kindnesses or cruelties can have a far-reaching impact, outside the vision of the initiator, and no film I've seen has been as successful in illustrating this point as Syriana.

All the aforementioned tangents do add together, their vector sum forming a clear direction of plot motion in which seemingly minor events are part of a larger web of causality. In order to establish this web in the finite allotted time, Syriana sacrifices some of the developmental conveniences to which many audience members are accustomed in movies for a detailed, densely-filled, far-reaching script. What one stands to gain from this movie will be proportional to the effort one invests in understanding it. When Syriana becomes available as a DVD, there will be greater potential to mitigate the negative opinions of some who didn't "get it" on the first pass but are open-minded enough to give the film a second viewing at a cheaper price.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Everything occurs as I have foreseen it: sweeping, fast-paced, and flawed

[8/10 · 22 May 2005]

George Lucas brings his series to its natural Wagnerian conclusion, smack in the middle of the storyline. This, the last of Lucas' Star Wars films, is no happy ending; rather it's the ultimate crisis point. If you're looking for a "feel-good" movie, this won't be it.

Indeed, it is within this framework of sorrow and loss that Lucas gets his best overall results since episode V. Many of the actors are giving excellent performances, in spite of some admittedly mediocre dialog. The one with the hardest job, whose performance was subject to the most criticism in AOTC and probably will be in this film too, is Hayden Christenson. IMHO, considering the limitations and requirements of the part, Hayden does an acceptable job; during the film, he develops the requisite amount of killing rage, angst, internal conflict, and dogmatic authoritarian loyalty that would form the basis of the black-hat villain from New Hope.

Unfortunately, just as Mr. Lucas has once again outdone his previous efforts in the areas of visual effects and storyline, the characters are stuck in a morass of weak lines and thin motivations. No matter, we don't go into Star Wars films expecting The Godfather. (Those who idealize the "original series" and disparage the prequels for their wooden acting may have forgotten just how lousy the dialog was in those films, too.) This film delivers and disappoints exactly where expected -- to its credit, and to its shame. Where the words fail to excite, audiences are left with nonverbal acting and large-scale plot events to generate and retain interest in the characters.

And this much is successful, I think. The story is a compelling one, the atmosphere is incredibly immersive, the pacing stops just short of too quick, and the characters advance to their well-known destinies mostly unhindered by extraneous side-plotting or gratuitous comic "relief" from the likes of Jar Jar Binks.

With respect to this film's position in the industry, I will say this much: George Lucas keeps pushing the envelope of ambitious production. The Star Wars films, and this one in particular, show beyond a doubt that our current technology can tackle, convincingly, the most difficult of cinematic challenges -- for a price.

Kaena: The Prophecy (2003)

Final Fantasy meets Fantastic Planet

[7/10 · 11 November 2004]

OK, let's get the bad news out of the way right now. The plot is weak. There are some gaping silly holes in the story, numerous unexplained critter origins, shaky science, and a few threads that don't resolve at all. Automatic scoring deductions, across the board.

So what's good about the movie? First, the graphics. This is the natural evolution of French animation, of which there isn't nearly enough. Rene' Laloux's "Fantastic Planet" is one of the all-time animated psychotropic classics, and there is much in this film that pays homage to it: the visuals of the Axis "forest", the xenomorphic life forms, the conflict between master and slave races, etcetera. At the same time, the animation technique is the sort of hyper-real CGI used in Final Fantasy/Spirits Within, where each hair follicle is individually rendered. Like these two sibling films, Kaena abounds with brilliant bong hit graphics and mind-bending action sequences.

One common pitfall for animated features, particularly those of foreign origin, is the voice acting. To its immense credit, Kaena has a fairly decent dub, and I felt none of the accustomed grumpiness that comes with de-synced speech for any of the characters. The main characters were all well voiced. The IMDb cast list doesn't appear to mention all the voice actors, and I'm pretty sure the little kid was voiced by the same person who plays Shippo on Inuyasha (Jillian Michaels?). Sounds that way, at least.

However, while the voice acting is fine, the same cannot be said for the dialog. Long in exposition and short in character development, I get the feeling that this was an editor's nightmare. The balance between ensuring that people understand events and helping them care about the consequences of those events can be a difficult one to achieve. This has been the bane of science fiction films since the genre's inception. Unfortunately, dialog in Kaena finds a way to fail on both sides of the equation -- albeit at different times.

Without revealing any more details, I will say this much. The story tries to operate on a grand scale, but is undercut by the uneven development, jerky scene transitions, mediocre dialog, and the aforementioned plot-holes.

This is a film to be enjoyed as a raw sensory experience, not as a total cinematic product. It's not going to end up on any top-20-all-time lists and its pretensions to epic film status are undercut by its many weaknesses.

The overall effect, however, is extraordinary; it merits viewing as an exploration of what can now be accomplished with CGI. I enjoyed it immensely from this perspective, to the point where I was quite distracted from the numerous shortcomings.

Hoop Dreams (1994)

A superb supporting "cast" powers this excellent film

[9/10 · 24 August 2004]

"Hoop Dreams" brilliantly follows multiple parallel stories, bringing the viewer into the lives of two families of inner-city kids looking for a chance at the "big time", their ticket out of the ghetto. Although the main focus is on William Gates and Arthur Agee, their "supporting cast" is equally enthralling. From William's jaded brother Curtis, sublimating his own basketball aspirations to the reality of his blue-collar mailroom job, to Arthur's indomitable mom Sheila, doing the impossible every day as she keeps her troubled family together, there are a thousand reasons to cheer, laugh, cry, and rage packed throughout this amazing, inspirational, cautionary documentary.

By examining not only the players but also their families and environments, we are given a clearer view of their aspirations and motivations, what they plan to achieve and what they wish to avoid.

I will not summarize or elaborate further. If you have not seen this movie, put it on the short list. 9/10.

Zardoz (1974)

So awful it achieves accidental greatness

[5/10 · 24 August 2004]

This is a horrible film. And it's a fantastic film. It's laughably bad, and ponderously excellent at the same time.

The overall idea is both ludicrous and compelling. Giant stone heads vomit forth firearms to zealous "enforcers", who terrorize the neo-medieval agrarian countryside on behalf of an elite aristocracy who dwell in what could be described as an ivory tower paradise for self-loathing twits.

The execution is both atrocious and irresistible. Sean Connery parades bare-assed through much of the film, in one of his less-memorable roles. Bond? No, no James Bond niceties here, he's a primitive killer in a loincloth with just enough curiosity to get him deeper into the plot. Overall the acting stinks nicely, and gratuitous death is a welcome release that never fails to generate applause from the viewing audience.

The cinematography and effects are both beautiful and cheesy. Boorman must have given up halfway through the editing process, deemed his film an unworkable mess, yet released it to the distributor anyway after a few last-minute comments. Still, "Zardoz" survives this attempted murder by its creator and enough of the original creative spirit remains to lend it an ambiguous air of authority -- perhaps even a demented sort of genius.

This is not a film to watch sober, unless you happen to be stuck on a satellite with two robotic companions and an evil scientist is attempting to drive you insane with dubious movies. (Ah, MST3K, where are you when we need you?) This movie, for me, is the epitome of the 5 rating, being schizophrenically split hard between its aspirations to high art and its devolution into utter BS. You'll hate this film so much you might just end up liking it. It's a true Classic. It's complete Garbage. It's a 1. It's a 10. Grab your choice of inebriants and enjoy.

The gun is good. The penis is evil. Go forth and kill. 5/10.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

A whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit

[10/10 · 29 June 2004]

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an important film, dealing in detail with the great issues of current American society, with a degree of skepticism that our newsmedia has proven entirely incapable of exhibiting in the last decade. Lone gadfly Michael Moore cannot singlehandedly reverse the effects of a servile corporate media, but he can -- and does -- fling it right back in their faces. Is it any wonder televised interviews with Moore have been less-than-cordial of late?

It doesn't matter. For a film like this, any publicity is beneficial, and Michael Moore has gone out of his way to thank his conservative detractors for their support.

As a movie, it's a whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit at the highest levels of the industrial-political machine, mixed with direct examination of the lives of the "ordinary" people affected by the decisions of the aristocratic few. Much like a roller-coaster ride, it pulls you up the first steep incline with images of the 2000 presidential election followed by the major players in the bush administration getting ready for their performances, and then comes the first plunge: a stomach-wrenching drop into the black screen, with only the sounds of that awful day in September when "everything changed". Fade back in on the people of New York, confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble.

From here on, there is no stopping for breath. We observe the flight of Saudi aristocrats who, but for their political connections, might have been held as material witnesses. Moore depicts vividly the links between the Bush family and their Saudi friends, one of whom (Prince Bandar) "earns" the Bush surname. On it goes, fact after fact after irrefutable and disgusting fact. Many of us entered the theatre thinking we knew the score, but seldom has an overview of each tree led to such a complete vision of the forest.

Along the way, we'll see behavior from members of the bush administration that cannot be described as flattering -- but once again, this isn't up for debate. It's the facts, it's what they themselves said. You can argue context, but the footage speaks for itself. And more than anything else, this is where Michael Moore proves he's grown as a director. No longer are his films chock-full of his narrative, he lets the evildoers hoist themselves on their own petards without as much overdubbed commentary. His statement rests in the overall structure of the film, rather than his usual assortment of shame-defying pecadillos and exposes.

Which is not to say that fans of his spirited antics won't have something to watch, as he drives around the capital building in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot act to the representatives who never bothered to read the legislation they passed, or chases after congressmen trying to get them interested in enlisting their children for a tour of duty in Iraq.

Aaah, Iraq. The second half of the film deals with the buildup to and execution of our current adventure in nation building. Iraq is shown with a brief clip from before and a whole lot of after -- with its people confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble. Our soldiers are also given plenty of time on-screen, time to describe what it's like, time to proclaim the thrills, dangers, and ennui of life as an occupying army. Far from being unsupportive as claimed by its detractors, this film makes every effort to give the front-liners their say. Wounded soldiers are treated with no less compassion than the other victims in this film. And unlike the corporate newsmedia, Moore's cameras dare to follow the injured to the Walter Reed medical center and into their underfunded rehabilitation.

And it follows the heart of a patriotic woman from Moore's hometown of Flint whose soldier son makes the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's folly.

This is, above all, a sympathetic, patriotic and humanistic movie. Even its main star, George W. Bush, is given a measure of understanding. We understand that he is out of his league, unable to push for the appropriate diplomatic solutions with Saudi Arabia, forever beholden to the corporate interests that purchased his throne, barely capable of coherent thought, and not at all comfortable with the responsibilities of the presidency. He would far rather be golfing, or "lookin' for bugs", or hanging at fundraisers with "the haves and the have-mores"; the presidency is a burden he clearly cannot bear. He almost begs to be removed from office.

This movie has a lot more to say than any reviewer's encapsulation can convey. Ignore the naysayers who, in all likelihood, haven't even seen the film. Understand that the facts are the facts, the presentation is Mr. Moore's, and your opinion is your own.

My opinion: 10/10 -- If there's a documentary/editorial piece that could touch this one, I haven't seen it yet.

Super Size Me (2004)

Exposing an epidemic

[8/10 · 21 June 2004]

"Supersize Me" is an original, humorous, disgusting, shocking, and -- overall -- scary film. Spurlock takes us on a whirlwind tour of the downfall of American health through poor nutrition, padding a lot of information with anecdotal footage of his own foray into a McDonald's-only diet.

What amuses me about the negative "reviews" for this film at IMDb is how the majority of the naysayers focus on exactly one thing: Spurlock's 30-day McDonalds binge. Heck, you could pick that much out of the trailer, and write a slanted review based solely on the imperfections of that particular plot device as an overall impact study and call it a day. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that's what's happening, either. Certainly, anyone who's watched the political BS pour in to commentary for Michael Moore's documentaries knows how it's done.

However, if you actually take the time to watch the film, you'll see something quite different emerge: a pattern of childhood indoctrination, poor nutrition, inadequate exercise, and skyrocketing obesity rates, that's sweeping this nation like a plague. Spurlock's self-afflicted experiment is, as I've mentioned, a continuity device that unifies the broad range of the film within a single case study. In the total scope of what's addressed in this film, it's a relatively small part, and many decry it as unrealistic.

But Spurlock never claimed it was entirely realistic! He says as much in the film: he ate as much McDonalds in a month as *nutritionists* recommend one eat in 8 years or more. However, the problem is, a lot of Americans are eating as much fast food in a year as he ate in a month. What is the net effect going to be after five years? After 10? Spurlock further restricts himself to an AVERAGE amount of walking exercise, typical for our national population. The problems he exhibits after 3 weeks on this diet are NOT unique, they are the ones that people around the country are exhibiting in spades: weight gain, fatty liver, depression, inactivity.

It cannot be overemphasized that this condition is widespread. Those arguing "personal responsibility" have to answer the question of how it is that suddenly, over the last 30 years, so many people have "chosen" a life of sickness and self-destructive addiction over one of health and common sense. The effect of mass-media indoctrination is an obvious factor, and the film addresses it well. Spurlock also takes us behind the scenes at school lunchrooms and gymnasiums around the country, where we find out a little bit of what's been happening to the kids of America. Is the "french fry" truly the only vegetable we can afford to serve to school kids, aside from the dubious catsup? How children could be expected to show "personal responsibility" above and beyond that exhibited by their likely-obese parents in such an environment of brand franchising, 2nd-rate meal "programs", and cutbacks in PE/recess time is a matter that I invite all fast-food apologists at IMDb to explore.

For pure entertainment value, I have to deduct points for an uneven pace (especially near the end) and insufficient exposition from some of the people in the film. Still, "Supersize Me" stands as an indictment of the prepackaged food industry, its marketing hype, and its congressional lobbyists. It also serves as a warning to Americans trapped in demanding low-activity jobs which leave little time for lunch or exercise: don't eat the fries!

8/10

Spirited Away (2001)

dazzling, mysterious, and touching

[9/10 · 18 January 2004]

Some movies you just have to see to believe. Spirited Away is one of them. Now I'm something of an anime/manga fan, but my wife is definitely not, and she LOVED this movie. My young son also has become something of a Miyazaki fan, thanks to the DVDs of his movies. (We now give a rousing "Studio Ghibli" cheer at the beginning of this and other Miyazaki films.)

My wife and I saw Spirited Away in a theatre, and unlike some japanimation I've seen, this does belong on a large screen. However, it might be too intense for younger viewers. It translates quite well to DVD, so no complaints there, but the amazing color pallete and generally high artistic quality deserve a vivid presentation.

I've heard and read complaints that some of the themes were too culturally-specific, that it would be impossible for an American unversed in Japanese mythology to understand the film. Well, that suits me just fine; I rather like the sense of strangeness that comes with not quite knowing how all the themes tie together. Perhaps it helped me identify with the main character, Chihiro, who as a young girl used to a technological society certainly isn't in a position to know the details of bathhouses for spirits.

I really enjoyed the notion that if one goes just a little off the beaten track of modern Japan, one finds beautifully anachronistic spirit worlds. Fortunately, we didn't have to go too far afield to find Miyazaki's beautiful flight of fancy. This film succeeds as a morality play on the pitfalls of carelessness and greed, as a comment on the persistence of deep cultural roots despite technological homogenization, and as an inspirational fairy tale of a girl who has to accept her extremely peculiar lot for the sake of her family.

Impressive. 9/10.

Crumb (1994)

sharp focus on surreal details

[9/10 · 17 January 2004]

"Crumb" is a strangely enchanting enigma. The film is essentially an in-depth character study of Robert Crumb, primordial underground cartoon genius of the '60s. As I watched, I felt drawn into his world of frustrated sexuality and tormented sensitivity, pulled along pathways of familial dysfunction I didn't even know existed.

Although he is the center of the movie, Robert is hardly the only compelling character in the film. His family, his friends, his admirers, his former girlfriends, his critics, all come through in very sharp focus. This film could easily have been nothing more than an homage to R. Crumb's 'seminal' works, but instead offers nuanced interpretation from some intelligent people. Even the master himself takes a dim view of his creation at times.

Yet one comes to understand, through R. Crumb's contrasting interactions with his family, what a curious combination of inner strength and minute perception it is that makes his comic art so accessible to others. Simple yet mindblowing things, like how he approaches sketches of photographs from a 19th century sanitarium, or his sourcebook with pages of photos of suburban streetlights and electrical substations, give insight into the mechanisms of his genius.

Highly recommended, 9/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Magnificent, spellbinding, intense, and imperfect

[9/10 · 21 December 2003]

This movie marks a major achievement, not just by Peter Jackson & co (who surely deserve some serious Oscarly consideration), but by the film industry as a whole. Many have tried to do cinematic justice to Tolkien's famous books, and so far this is the only real triumph. Just as in the previous two LotR movies, there is a remarkable attention to detail combined with a vast scope that truly stand out.

Not to say that it is flawless -- one can certainly question the placement or existence of certain scenes as opposed to what was omitted. Nor is it 100% true to the storyline of the books -- it is not. Some of the scenes seem rushed, others drawn out needlessly. Nitpickers and armchair quarterbacks can certainly have their fun.

But they will not be the only people having fun. Overall, this is a thoroughly satisfying theatre experience which ought to be experienced on a big screen. I have seen at least one review where an angst-ridden critic says "skip the movie and get the DVD". Such people do a public disservice, perhaps in hope of shortening the lines at their local multiplex. For this is an epic film that deserves its box-office popularity, and should be taken in with the wide screen and powerful sound system of a quality theatre. Don't let the naysayers fool you, this is the best movie around right now. Those three hours will speed by like a minute to the mind, if not to the buttocks.

The battle at Minas Tirith is particularly intense, as is the climb to Cirith Ungol. You'll ride with the Rohirrim, fly with the Nazgul, and suffer with the ringbearer on the slopes of Mt. Doom. My life is a little more complete for having seen Tolkien's vision expressed by Peter Jackson's films.

Warning: DO NOT BRING BABIES TO THIS MOVIE! 'Nuff said about that.

9/10, with the option to revise upward once the extended edition arrives.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The "extended edition" should have been the primary release

[7/10 · 17 December 2003]

In Tolkien's "The Hobbit", after Bilbo uses the ring to ditch Gollum and get out of the goblin caves, he tells Gandalf, Thorin, and the other dwarves that he escaped without mentioning the ring. Later, while helping them out of another bind, he reveals to the dwarves that he can use the ring to become invisible at will, and the dwarves force him to retell the escape story with the ring included. Like Thorin and company, I feel that Peter Jackson's first telling of the Two Towers left out far too much core material; in the extended, the character modifications make sense, and the events flow together better.

I wrote an earlier review expressing some mixed feelings about a few of the characters and plot elements after seeing the original, and took the opportunity to view the extended edition on screen Monday. It is superior in every way to the first release, moreso than the extended FotR was to the original. However, this is a disturbing trend. I would rather have seen *only* the extended edition rather than fart around with the inferior shortened product, but I suspect New Line is raking in the DVD profits with all these second releases.

What can I say? Many of the gripes I had with the film are fixed in the extended release. It was enjoyable, heart wrenching, humourous, terrifying, and awe-inspiring. Yet somehow, I feel cheated. No doubt the same thing will happen in RotK, and we'll all gladly pony up the cash for an extra DVD purchase and maybe extra movie tickets too.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Like Gollum/Smeagol, the film has a double nature

[7/10 · 13 November 2003]

As a fan of Tolkien's books, I had high hopes for this movie, which were partially realized and partially dashed to pieces. My reaction was torn, I wanted to thank Peter Jackson for his dedication and wack him with a frozen tuna, at the same time. The film contains its own internal metaphor in the split character of Gollum.

In fact, I'll start by praising Andy Serkis and the CGI team's rendition of Gollum. That in itself was worth the price of admission. The supporting actor awards from Saturn, OFCS, and VES were well deserved. Easy as it might be to find flaws with Jackson's renditions of certain characters or plot elements, Gollum is above reproach and interacts with the Hobbits amazingly well.

Also well done are the short battle scenes twixt Gandalf and the balrog. Gandalf's character is generally well played, and most of the scenes with Gandalf are satisfying.

As a sensory spectacle, everything about this movie is breathtaking. The cinematographers, costumers, and set designers should be lauded for impeccable work. The CGI is overdone at points, but perfect in others. I cannot fault the effects. The sound is solid, and unlike the first film in the series, everything that needs to be heard can be heard.

So where is the split? Where does it go wrong? Well, I can't help but feel that Jackson has done a great disservice to Tolkien's original vision, at the same time he does it homage. Where characters were simply omitted from the Fellowship of the Ring (Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow, Barrow Wights, etc.), in The Two Towers they are mutilated beyond recognition.

The worst damage is done to the Ents and Faramir. The Ents are among the oldest creatures in Middle Earth, valuing cautious deliberation and patience above all else. In this movie, they are depicted as hasty. Never would I have thought to see a hasty ent! Not only that, whereas in the books they decide to assist the Rohirrim and depose Saruman through patient deliberation, in this film they are duped into it. Simply unforgivable.

Faramir, likewise, makes a transition to the screen which transforms his formerly wise and cautious character into one of paranoia and bungling. Rather than the stark contrast with sibling Boromir, we get more of the same.

It would have been easy enough to conceive a script in which these characters stay true to Tolkien's inspired vision without extending it unnecessarily -- indeed, the entire scene at Osgiliath is tacked on via Faramir's distorted character. These are the real crimes against J.R.R. Tolkien, as I see it.

The matters of the exodus from Edoras, the elven contingent at Helm's Deep, Arwen's interactions with Elrond and Aragorn, these are all reasonable liberties IMHO. They further character development more-or-less in keeping with the spirit of the original, and may serve in resolving portions of the final film that omissions in the first film complicate (e.g., where will Meriadoc get a blade from the Gondolin Wars, if not from the barrow wight?). It is those added scenes and dialogs which outright destroy perfectly filmable characters that remind me of Melkor's orcish perversion of Iluvatar's elves.

The movie is still enjoyable, and for those who have not read the books or who care little for source integrity, it will likely be excellent. I give it a 7, overall.

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Joins a select few as a movie that has brought me tears

[10/10 · 24 February 2003]

If you've read some of the other reviews, you already know this is a very sad yet simple story, excellently portrayed, and involves the lives of two Japanese children during the firebombing of Tokyo. The movie is powerful, worth seeing, and one you will hesitate to watch a second time. That said, I'll continue to point out some of the details that made it such a poignant film for me. Some of this is spoiler material, so if you like your movies unspoilt, stop reading and go see it now.

S P O I L E R S

Part of the brilliance of this animation lies in how it can select and emphasize peculiar details of the childrens' world, which are just the sort of imagery that I can recall from my childhood. Take the scene where their mother calls Seita and Setsuko in from playing on the beach, and her umbrella blows away, for example. We linger for a moment watching how the umbrella hits the sand, and spins a bit. My childhood memories are like that.

Or the scene where they are bathing, and playing with the washcloth to make a big bubble underwater.

Or the transition between the falling blossoms and the pouring rice.

Or the maggots falling from the bandages, being trampled underfoot as their mother is carried away on a stretcher for cremation.

All these associative moments bring forth the deep subconscious, which is then exposed to the descent into starvation and sickness that comprises the second half of the film. There are so many sad moments, it is hard to isolate one or two. As Seita first starts looting empty homes during air raids to survive, I felt like I shared his despair. But perhaps the saddest moment of all comes when he's at the bank to withdraw money, and finds out that Japan has lost the war and his father is likely dead. Shock, betrayal, shattered illusions of his invincible country, emperor, father... and then the final tragedies commence, as all hope is lost.

Heartbreakingly relevant. If only our leaders would watch this film before sending forth each wave of bombers, our world would, perhaps, be a gentler place. There are five million people in Baghdad, 2.5 million of them under 15, and the use of everything from cruise missiles to nuclear weapons has been proposed "for their benefit." I think we can find another way.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Excellent adaptation of Middle Earth to screen

[8/10 · 13 July 2002]

I saw the film for the second time last night in a second-run pub-theatre, and I will say this: for The Third Hour I could really feel details of the old seat. When you see this movie, a comfortable chair is essential, because it is enchanting and you will not want to move and your buttocks may well get sore before the end.

This film is not above criticism from Tolkien diehards, but it is a remarkable visual experience. The acting was not perfect, yet so complete was my suspension of disbelief that I seldom felt like it was poor acting by anyone other than the *characters* in the story. (Why, Pippen, what a strange thing to say...) Some may complain that this section or that section was omitted, or the film sacrificed one minor character to build up another, or there were too many ring shots, or whatever. IMHO, these are ultimately little more than nitpicks.

Anyone who read the book has to admit that turning it into a screenplay is a tough job. For all that was omitted, IT WAS STILL 3 HOURS LONG. What's a humble script writer going to do, release it as a 6-hour movie to fit in Old Man Willow and Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and Fatty Bolger and the house in Crickhollow and Farmer Maggot and the barrow wights? No, this is about as good a job as one can do with the story as a movie script and still have a movie. Tolkien's books do not jump easily onto the movie screen; many have tried, so far only this one has succeeded.

The level of detail in set and costume design is beyond compare. I have never seen anything like it before, and outside this trilogy I don't expect to see it again. New Zealand provides a wonderful backdrop for the film, it is Middle Earth as far as I can tell. One really feels the age and stagnation of the elvish culture, the ruin of the Numenorean civilization, the pastoral provincialism of the hobbits, the lost glory of the greedy dwarves, and the tension between various races. The elves are not presented as benevolent fairy-godmother types, which is refreshing. Galadriel was a presence that defied description, although the aural effect on her voice made some of her speech difficult to grok. The size differences are expressed rather well, one seldom doubts that Elijah Wood is three feet shorter than Ian McClellan.

Nothing in this film is so poor as to merit serious complaint, and much is done exquisitely. For all her a priori shortcomings as an actress, Liv Tyler does speak elvish passingly well, with subtitles, and Arwen's altered, expanded role is welcome. Her romance with Aragorn is done briefly, as is to be expected when the goal was moving the plot along, but not quite as cursorily as some reviewers here have suggested. It will be interesting to see how the conflicted passion of Eowyn is used by the script in the upcoming sequel.

Oh, yes, that brings me to the trailer for The Two Towers attached to the end of the film. Those who longed for more epic battle scenes will be more than satisfied with the next two movies, I'd wager. It looks every bit as beautiful a film as this one, and will likely omit just as much and be just as long and be nominated for at least as many awards.

I voted this film an 8/10, downgraded only for my own minor nits with a few coarse edits, somewhat undercooked acting, and occasional sloppy dialog. My only moment of disconnect from the fantasy occurs when Hugo Weaving talks, as I keep expecting Agent Smith from The Matrix. "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson."

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Best of the bunch, but how good is that?

[7/10 · 6 July 2002]

There are two ways to look at this film: on its own, or in the context of Lucas' overall project.

Taken separately, this movie has been somewhat underrated by its critics. The sets and effects are excellent, the atmosphere is great, the acting is mediocre, the dialog sort of corny, the plot is...well...let's say the plot is better than the title suggests, and has some very nice twists. Yoda once again steals the show. AOTC gets a hard rap from people who expect a lot more from movies than a rollicking good time, which brings me to the second way to look at the movie.

In the context of Lucas' Star Wars series, this is a great film. Having seen the others, I rate this better than ESB, which was my former pick. Christensen gets knocked for wooden uneven acting, but one has to consider where he's going with the role -- he's been directed to act this way. The romance twixt Anakin and Padme is every bit as good as that of Solo and Leia. For those who shred on this film, I recommend watching SWIV-VI again: the originals aren't as good as you thought they were when you were 10. This movie in every way lives up to the standards set by the series. Everything that was good about the "old school" Star Wars is still good about this one, and maybe better. The problem is not that we are let down by the plot or acting, but rather that we are no longer surprised and dazzled at the visual effects.

Lucas' major downfall is his incredible success. By making films that everyone rushed to emulate, this movie no longer stands out in the crowd. So lower your expectations, and enjoy it while you still can.

Worth mentioning: Coruscant at the height of the Old Republic (and I thought my commute was lousy!), interstellar society falls into imperial fascism through staged uprisings, a much-subdued Jar Jar Binks, *Master* Yoda kicking tail, a groovy solar sail spacecraft, faces that look increasingly familiar