Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
What movies should be
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Ah, this movie -- came at the end of a long depressing string of the worst of the above. I had gone through the good stuff already and was well into the desperate search for therapeutic diversion. But I kept looking at one awful two-hour stretch of dreck after another. Crank, and Duplicity, and worst of all Surveillance were just making me feel sick or tired or both -- sick and tired. Then I took a chance on one of those movies with a single box on the Blockbuster shelf. It had the usual ivy garland decoration that meant it had at least shown in some festival or other.

I was reluctant to make the effort to view something at the end of a long engineering workday that required me to put my good glasses on and read subtitles and get into the rhythms and melodies of Italian. I'm accustomed to Spanish and French, Japanese, Chinese, but Italian? Did I really want to go there? I am so glad I did.

This movie reminds me of the French relationship movie from the 70s, "Cousin, Cousine." It's an understated but starkly realistic look at two married people rediscovering their meaning to each other after a sudden dramatic change in their circumstance. The man, something of a schlub, has lost his job -- forced out a company he co-founded. He is accustomed to being the boss and being powerful, and now he's nothing.

Even in his family dynamic, with his daughter especially, he tries to remain in control and be tough. His beautiful and brilliant wife has just earned an advanced degree in art history and is involved in a major project of her own devising. But it doesn't pay the bills, and she must forgo this work to take a job at a call center, with a second job at night as secretary in a shipping office while the staff clerk has a baby. She disappears from her friendships out of embarrassment. They move from a house to a dingy flat in a city complex. He takes a series of crummy temp jobs.

How these two adapt is the movie.

Like I say, what movies should be. No guns. No chase. No 'splosions. No car wrecks. No artificial crises involving machines or villains or weapons. But there are intense moments between family members that will make the hair stand up on your neck. There is emotional pain and people reacting in ways that you will recognize -- withdrawal, anger, paralysis, escape. There are touching moments that come from very ordinary actions, like offering a bottle of wine, commenting on the morning brioche, or calling someone and leaving a voicemail message.

The two last sentences of the movie, spoken by the man and woman while lying on a floor looking up at a ceiling, are perfect.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Red!
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Filmed with the new $20,000 Red camera (digital HD), this is Soderbergh's third or fourth use of that technology. He dialed in some yellows and oranges from the 70s here, even using cartoon type faces for chapter headings that look like they belong on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" instead of a documentary about a mid-1990s-era corporate scandal. It came as a shock to most folks who read one morning that Wayne Andreas and his son had been indicted and arrested for price fixing of lysine while chairman and CEO of ADM. The Decatur company seemed like heartland good citizens, HQed in Illinois, dealing in farm products and food ingredients, sponsoring NPR and public television shows, having ads on Meet the Press and the like. Price fixing? Archer Daniels Midland? Turns out one of their highest-placed executives (Matt Damon) was an FBI informant and had been taping off-shore meetings between ADM and Asian competitors for years.

ADM had been soaking food manufacturers illegally and we'd all been footing the bill.

http://tinyurl.com/mz6jam = original NPR interview with Mark Whitacre, the informant. This interview was the basis for the movie idea.

The movie is not to my taste. It's a studio production, and all the action takes place in living rooms and offices. The air is stale. The people are all cartoon cutouts. The thing plays like a sardonic joke, with a Matt Damon voice-over, moon-faced reaction shots, goofy music. It just doesn't live up to the hype -- all due to the fact "it's a Soderbergh!"

A lot of play has been made about the exclamation point, the fact it's a comedy, it's place in Soderbergh's oeuvre and so on. I just don't see much depth or complexity here.

It's like watching a game show.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The International (I) (2009)
8/10
Thoughtful, well-done thriller based on fact
8 September 2010
This movie attempts to deal with the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) scandal of 15 years ago, and does it well, IMHO. Clive Owen again, this time with Naomi Watts, directed by Tom Tykwer ("Lola Rennt!" or "Lola Runs!") Tightly-wound thriller dealing with a corrupt bank spread all over the world, we go to Germany, Milan, New York, Turkey and a few other places along the way as the Interpol and NY state's attorney investigators try to unravel an arms deal and the global power brokers who use world events to accumulate income streams from war debt, killing anyone who gets in their way. The movie uses architecture as a character, implying that IBBC (the International Bank of Business and Credit) is so monstrously huge to defy any attempt to straighten it out.

They go to Volkswagen's Autohaus in Wolfsburg and shoot there for the first time ever. (This is a massive theme park used to sell cars to Europeans, and is a location-rich environment.) Milan contrasts some of the older Mussolini-era fascist architecture with some of the new hyper-modern investment bank buildings. New York is seen as decrepit, old and worn out. Turkey is seen as ancient, predating and surviving all of modern man's follies. The dialogue matches the locations, is smart, understated and elliptical.

Reminds me a bit of "Demon Lover" for its focus on international intrigue, but it's mainstream and taught, avoiding romance and titillation. Also moves like "The Spy Game" (Redford and Pitt), pushing a very complex story through location changes and action. Direction and writing are spare, with much of the story implied or gestured so you have to figure out what's going on.

Acting is very good, and in a couple of scenes just spectacular. I actually watched this movie over and over again to try and untangle exactly what was going on. Even in the fourth viewing, it didn't disappoint. Rich diversity of characters. Many small parts are well acted and directed. Even the de rigeur big shootout at the end is so outrageous it's OK. Yeah, it's Hollywood, but a sudden teaming up of the bad guy and the good guy by necessity plus the bizarre location make it an amusement, kind of like Tykwer is saying, "OK, you and I both know I have to do this here, but I'm going to make it fun." The denouement that follows makes sitting through the action worth the wait.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Surveillance (I) (2008)
4/10
Sickest pup award
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Written and directed by David Lynch's daughter Jennifer, who for some reason was "banned" (her word) by "Hollywood" (her word) for 15 years. After her famous father screened the initial cut, according to Lynch, he called her late at night to say, "You're the sickest bitch I know!" -- a strong statement from him! But he's right, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. This movie reminds me of "Bug." It'll get under your skin and make you ill. And there's a tweaker scene worth remembering.

Two FBI agents investigate a serial killer in western Canada using the taped interrogation of three witnesses, one of them a corrupt cop. Bill Pullman, Julia Ormond and Michael Ironside star in roles jarringly uncommon for them, and painfully open physically and emotionally.

This is a deeply disturbing movie. It makes you want to avoid Jennifer Lynch and those close to her. The DVD extras reveal that the seed for a couple of very discomfiting scenes and one of the most achingly poignant lines you're likely ever to hear spoken by a woman grew out of Jennifer Lynch's personal experience. It makes you want to know more, but then again ... not.

Of course, once again there is a "twist," which once again, experienced movie goers will expect, see and be disappointed by. When will screenwriters realize the reversal device everyone uses these days does nothing but narrow the viewership to a single sitting?
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Duplicity (2009)
4/10
Light as a feather, and with as much substance
8 September 2010
Somebody thought it would be a good idea to put Clive Owen and Julia Roberts together and figure out the plot later, as if they were constructing a modern "Mogambo." Corporate spies working for opposing home products companies, they try to be Clark Gable and Ava Gardner, Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, or Cary Grant and Sophia Loren. They are in fact a trifling pair of buds with embarrassingly low chemistry. They are gifted actors, and make the best of it, and it's not their fault. It's also not worth a first look, much less a second. This movie is boring, lame, predictable and forgettable.

Is there a new McKee/Fields course in L.A. teaching the "twist theory" to storytelling these days? In this case, it was was obvious and evaporated with initial unveiling.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Awful movie, terrible -- laughed my arse off
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If you're a fan of the "Transporter" movies (I am), then you've tried the Jason Stratham series of "Crank" flicks which are a combo of his "Hitman" series and "Speed" and "DOA." Chinese poison in the first movie made him run around searching for the antidote without letting his heart rate fall below 100. Here he must keep his skin electrified so an artificial heart doesn't die before finding the ancient Chinese gangster played by David Carradine who stole his real one. Very stoopid movie; exceptionally dumb story; horribly bad. I laughed my ass off. Pure camp from beginning to end. The L.A. crew took all the out-of-work gang extras and D-list celebs looking for a lark, all Rodriguez's leftover Machete equipment and just had a barrel of laughs. At the end, Statham even flashes the bird directly at the camera while on fire, fade to black. Fun to watch. Not worth a rental or your time, but if a buddy happens to have it playing in his rumpus room, grab some popcorn and call your girlfriend with an excuse for your lateness.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Line (2009)
3/10
Trope-fest! Surprise twist! Complicated and poorly done!
8 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If you can think of two semi-stars less likely to sell a movie than Ray Liotta and Andy Garcia, I don't know who they would be. The pair of writer-producers who put this mess together have an interview in the DVD extras where they pretentiously explain the thesis behind the themes and plot devices in this POS. Amazing that in the world of Hollywood, the jargonized baloney they spew is taken seriously enough for financiers to respond with film stock money.

Danny Trejo said it best in his interview: "What did I like best about making 'The Line'? Firing off that machine gun all morning, man!"

Nothing is this movie is not a cliché, incomplete, or just the wrong thing to do. Centering around a dying Mexican gangster's desire to turn over his business to a gang member not his son (why?), the new guy allows Al Qaeda to use drug transport routes to move weapons (why doesn't the old guy stop it?), and kill his son (again, why not stop it?) There are competing incompetent hit men trying to off the new guy (always failing) so the CIA gets involved. Vastly complicated and totally stoopid movie made with the usual tropes, only badly.

Oh, and by the way -- there is a rampant tendency these days to include a twist. This one bursts in with klaxons.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Poor Ray
8 September 2010
The Roeper blurb on the cover reads something like, "This is a seriously whacked-out movie!" I can't think of a better description. The usual Seth Rogen nonsense, but it takes a left turn at each step. No reaction is expected.

But at the end, you wonder why you wasted the time and don't want to see it again. I'm not a big Rogen fan, but "Knocked Up" had a story and characters you could follow. (But even Heigl dissed Rogen at the end of the pub tour, claiming he's a misogynist.) "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" had something of a heart and a love story. This has nothing but Rogen doing the unexpected. Not much of a draw.

Poor Ray Liotta: descending from Henry Hill and Frank Sinatra to La Linea and second banana in a Rogen vehicle. It's gotta hurt.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inception (2010)
9/10
A Master Has Arrived
8 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Warning – contains spoilers for Inception, Blade Runner, Following and Memento.

Nolan has done what we hope Tarantino will continue to do … evolve. Ten stars is Godfather, Casablanca, Chinatown. Nine is so very close for so young a director.

A Nolan fan since Following and Memento, I saw Inception and was amazed. I went back two more times. Whenever I went, the theater was full.

This movie has disappointments – projectile weapons demonstrating "obstacles" and creating "conflict" (does everyone read McKee and Field?), a score that could become as comical as Scorsese's lurid Shutter Island music, howling plot holes like Cobb telling Ariadne, "It's my subconscious. I have no control over it," which if true would make the movie collapse as quickly as a dreamscape.

If you fall willingly into the maelstrom, it's a good ride, Hollywood at its best. Nothing is on the nose except Ariadne the "student" allowing conceit dumps every ten minutes to keep us briefed on dreaming and the backstory of Mal. But the movie bears close watching and does not bore unless you tire of guns, car chases and ominous music.

It's a white guy's movie. The emotional depth of Mal and Ariadne are limited. Mal is an object of lost symbols and Ariadne learns too quickly to be human. Her gestures are awkward and she doesn't belong. In Following, Memento and Inception, a woman is lost to the protagonist, allowing the director to ignore them in any meaningful way. Ken Watanabe as Saito is a cartoon Japanese magnate, and Dileep Rao as Yusuf runs a stereotypic opium den straight out of McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

But Inception is dense, and I love dense. The sound track has spectacular ADR effects –a man hitting a windshield during an early chase sounds like a large fish dropped from a thousand-story building. Comic relief is delicate and correct. A bit of rivalry between Arthur and Eames is allowed to show.

The question is, "Does Cobb return to the topmost level at the end?" It doesn't matter if his token falls over; that's Mal's tell. His "children's grandfather" (Michael Caine) tells him he "should return to reality." Why do people have symbolic names - Mal, Ariadne, Miles – if they're real? Cobb tells Ariadne she's dreaming because she can't remember traveling to Paris, a clue that persists with every edit. Cobb moves his team around the world without means. "We need to go to Mombasa." Osaka, Paris – a lot of Customs for a murderer. Could be editing, could be a dream. How does Saito buy an airline they only just figured out they needed? Ariadne picks up dream architecture quickly because Cobb learned it in sixty years of limbo. Mal ridicules Cobb's belief that he's "Still stealing secrets from billionaires and being chased around the world by corporate spies." This adds up to the Blade Runner riddle - is Deckard a replicant? Do his eyes glow red in the kitchen? Is Cobb dreaming still when he's reunited with his kids? Yes to both. Otherwise, Inception ends sappy. Nolan ends dark. In Following, the bad guy gets away after beating a woman to death with a hammer. In Memento, Guy Pearce may commit murder to revenge a living wife, or trick himself into killing someone for another reason. Somehow, DiCaprio reunited in suburbia doesn't fit that Weltanschauung.

In the suicide scene, Mal's arranged a disordered hotel room to stage murder by Cobb, giving him no choice but to die with her. If he stays behind, the cops will get him. When Cobb approaches the window, she's on the opposite side of the street. She rents a hotel room, messes everything up, then goes across the street to climb on a window ledge in a different building? When Cobb gestures for her to "come in," he uses an inward motion with both hands, which given her position, encourages her to come into the void between them and down to the street below. His subconscious has made her into a spiteful dangerous betrayer who shoots his partners and stabs Ariadne in the guts with a butcher knife. He is by body language asking her to kill herself.

Near the end of the credits before the Dolby logo scrolls by, Edith Piaf starts singing "Non, je ne regrette rien" to signal a kick. And if that isn't enough to convince you, at the very end, the low bass thrum that signals the kick itself is heard.

In the end, it's an intellectual puzzle with a supposed great love affair, but nothing goes on between Mal and Cobb that qualifies as emotion, much less love. "She was lovely," says Arthur. Then why does Cobb have an elevator full of regrets? All DiCaprio does is talk and fight. If Nolan had shown us Cobb and Mal in a single sloppy embrace with mussed up hair, and if the ice castle sequence hadn't been so deadly dull, I'd have gone a full 10. But it's close, real close. How close? Well, I'm going for number four this weekend.

I'm not going to find a sappy happy ending from level two, but the murderous Nolan universe with evil and victimized women, a universe where Cobb locks his wife's token in her childhood doll house to hide the truth, where he orchestrates her suicide, gestures for her to jump because he wants rid of her – and she sells Cobb out.

This won't be the sunny happy story of a man reclaiming a life with his idyllic children and their grandfather, but of a man who has planted a virus, a worm, a self-replicating lie in his mind and the mind of the viewer … that he is a guiltless victim of tragic circumstances.

But at heart, and by profession, he is a thief – a thief of love, of secrets, of life, of dreams, of time – a criminal.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Revealing historical review of "Christian Soldier" mythology
8 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Constantine's Sword is well worth a look. Couple it with "Doubt" and you have a "troubled Catholicism" double header.

Constantine's Sword was written by Jim Carroll, an award-winning author whose father was a high-ranking Air Force officer, founder of the U.S. Office of Strategic Intelligence (OSI)and first leader of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Heady credentials, those, and a heavy legacy for son Jim, who became a priest, having been raised in a house with two angels -- Catholicism and the Air Force.

But neither was to be his own legacy. Instead, he would become known as a rebel in the Berrigan tradition. An image of the brothers graces one of the still montages dedicated to the watershed Vietnam years that served up young Jim's first divorce from his family heritage when he took the occasion of his father's visit to his church to deliver a sermon against the war.

Later, Carroll heard about a Jewish student's struggles with evangelicals at the Air Force Academy using ham-handed tactics to attempt spiritual imperialism, supported, astonishingly, by the general staff. Given his connections, Carroll investigated and found at the base an anti-Semitism that sent him on a journey for the origin of European hatred that took him all the way to Constantine, 4th-century Roman emperor who altered Christianity permanently by changing its symbols from the lamb and dove, representations of the prince of peace meant to calm mankind's violent proclivities, to the cross and sword, violent images of death and torture meant to do the opposite. Constantine's motivation is revealed in sordid personal peccadilloes that needed religious distraction.

The then-Reverend Ted Haggard turns out to be the prime mover of the Air Force Academy's focus on evangelical Christianity, needing sanctimonious distractions of his own after being fired by his church for involvement with a gay hooker and methamphetamines.

Carroll traces militarization of the Christianity from the time of the ruler who killed his own son and united the cross and the sword, through the Crusades to the 1930s, when Hitler's Cardinal becomes Pope Pius. He documents mythology surrounding the "Christian Soldier" and touches on eschatology driving the "left behind" craze that motivates so many modern-day evangelicals. He travels to the mountain Crusader castles along the Rhine and by examining primary source documents shows them to be anti-Semitic strongholds where Jewish pogroms occurred as well.

Carroll ends with the giant cross outside Auschwitz -- visible to anyone touring the grounds -- and in the context of this historical journey, leaves us with what could be the movie's most haunting image.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Spoiler -- Giant robot fails to take out 20th Century Fox ... pity
8 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Went to see the Keanu Reeves version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which was a big mistake. This has to be the worst movie made in the last ten years, and is simply awful. I'd like to go through the DVD and document the hundred ways it's bad, but why devote time to detailing the many reasons why compost attracts flies? Here are two: In the beginning, a bunch of scientists are talking about how fast the UFO is traveling, and they say, "It's going 20 times 10 to the 6th kilometers per second." What rubbish. Scientists don't speak scientific notation when the numbers are so commonly low. They'd say, "It's going 20 million kilometers per second." Item two -- the robot (hilariously encased in a secure facility built underneath him overnight) is probed with a "diamond drill." In real life a diamond drill is a drill bit with diamond dust glued to the cutting surface. This was a BIG DIAMOND, cut like a ring, spinning in what looked like a jackhammer. Bonus item #3 -- apparently the entire movie is poorly-done CGI, like it was drawn by an art student who couldn't afford all the colors, or a pencil sharpener. The original movie had a great premise -- mankind threatened other civilizations because we are violent and beginning to travel outside Earth's orbit. This movie has a premise that is patently ridiculous -- we threaten Earth with our pollution, so the aliens will kill everything with nanobots, thereby destroying ... Earth. Presumably, evolution will start over. Since it's starting from a different point, who's to say it won't evolve into a Garden of Crud? Only good thing about the new world ... this movie probably won't be in it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Salt (2010)
3/10
Not worth the cost of popcorn - don't even rent it
8 August 2010
I have a category of movies I call "Broken Arrow" -- thriller attempts that contain so many howlers and unintentionally funny moments, plot holes, clichés and boring stretches that the movie as a whole is an unwatchable mess. Keanu Reeves' remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a broken arrow. So is "Salt." Good things about this movie? The film was exposed properly. Digital effects mostly escape notice. The actors knew their lines, and the soundtrack didn't intrude much. Downside -- execrable story, poorly told, laughable premise, tired everything. If you like movies and Angelina Jolie, forget this dreck and don't even rent the DVD.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2003)
5/10
Missed opportunity ignores most of the story
22 April 2007
I don't have the same negative opinion of the way the theme of love between the two women was handled as some others I know, but this was a difficult movie to watch. I had to skip a many scenes and fast-forward through more, unable to stomach all the aimless underclass squalor. Bleagh!

Charlize Theron was wa-a-ay too one-dimensional, having learned a single defiant stance and holding it through the entire film. This made her characterization stultifying and boring. If you've seen interviews with the real Aileen Wournos, she could be quiet and earnest, but always psychotically intense. Given to outbursts of rage, of course, she displayed a dynamic range lacking in this portrayal. Theron is always weaving back and forth or bobbing up and down. Wournos could sit quietly with Manson lamps and scare the drizzle out of you.

Ricci was fabulous in her wonderful performance as Wournos's lover and companion. She played it with just the right balance of understanding, possessive mania and codependency, and appropriately reacted to the well-presented backstory of her parental abuse. Unfortunately, the director chose to focus more on Wournos's crimes than the affair, which puts Monster in the class of average films, not ground breakers. Had the unspeakable violence Wournos gave and got served as the stratum upon which the remarkable lesbian love affair was precariously balanced, the movie would have been truly remarkable. And this may have rescued Theron from her one-dimensional characterization as well.

The deterioration of that affair after the capture of Wournos was not portrayed. The movie effectively ends with her capture. We don't see the betrayal by Ricci or Theron's loyal forgiveness. We see nothing of the court battle and media coverage. Nor do we explore the rare female serial killer mentality. By focusing so heavily on crime and milieu, Monster misses much of the guts of the Wournos story. Compare this film to In Cold Blood or The Boston Strangler, where the police investigation and court trial play a role. Here, they are ignored.

One last thing about Theron. Why the weight gain? There were only a couple of brief scenes where she was nearly nekky, and she certainly could have just used Hollywood technology for those. It wasn't worth the build-up just to see her with cellulite. It did nothing for Stallone in the forgettable Cop Land, and does nothing for Theron here. The real Ricci character was an overweight woman with missing teeth. Why didn't they go for realism with her as well? For one thing, nobody would be interested in watching two frumpy people in a murderous love story. But why keep Ricci attractive, and make Wournos look so god-awful?
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Secret Window (2004)
5/10
Not much to look at
22 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Despite some glaring flaws, not the least of which is the obvious payoff, this movie is worth watching for the performances and artistry. It's a Stephen King vehicle, and much better done than the awful Dream Catchers that's been in rotation on cable.

OK, I'm going to talk about the use of the schizoid dissociation that has been all the rage in movies the last few years. Starting with the Hitchcock classic Psycho, it's been a venerable crime fiction device to lead the reader along on a search for a bad guy doing terrible things until it becomes clear the protagonist is himself doing all the terrible things. Predating the seminal Fight Club, there was a minor British youth caper film with the same theme (whose name escapes me). In this flick, the hero suffers watching his Doppelganger rape his girlfriend, lead him into more and more violent episodes and so on until he suffers the exact same injury as his nemesis and figures out the one-trick this pony knows. That's the problem with movies like Fight Club, Identity and Secret Window -- there isn't much else to hold the viewer after it becomes clear the hero is the bad guy with dissociative personality disorder.

At least we have the delightful Johnny Depp to watch, and he does a fine job. Timothy Hutton plays a good/bad guy with alacrity, but doesn't have much to work with, and one wonders why he took the part. It's small. One problem with most King stories is that they wander all over the place without regard to story -- they're picaresque with little purpose, or the "one damned thing after another" brand of story-telling. Here, at least, the major plot elements do contribute to the story line.

Locations add to the interest here, and the cabin where most of the story takes place is a character in itself. It's a cozy spot, and worth securing the plans for. Unfortunately, it's probably the most richly developed character, because once you figure out Depp is doing all the mayhem, and that should be inside of 20 minutes, there isn't much else to draw your attention except to see how the director handles the elements.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Open Range (2003)
3/10
Self-absorbed hack cliché fest
22 April 2007
Ever since becoming popular with Silverado, Costner has had a fixation on being the brooding, haunted hero. Sometimes, he does a passable job, but more often he appears self-obsessed, humorless and preachy. This film is one of the latter.

There is a significant lack of motivation to the love story contained in this hack western. Why does Annette Bening fall in love with Costner, because he knocks over her furniture and smells bad? Hard to tell.

The dialogue is awful, just awful. Costner mumbles lines like, "We better rustle up some grub," as if there is a bet among the producers that he can't get away with it. He can't. There are a couple dozen of these howlers, delivered with deadpan camp, I hope, or worse, seriousness.

The plot is pure formula, the villain lacking only a handlebar moustache and the deed to Bening's house for the film to devolve into pure melodrama.

There were some good scenes, scenery and acting, but few, and I don't count Duvall's performance among them. He was the Lonesome Dove ranger all over again, and simply a recitation of the patented hand signals and homey suckmouth delivery he's used dozens of times. He was also so fat he wasn't believable even as an old trail hand.

The clichés in this movie were uncountable (doggie, Mexican kid, fat cook, stable hand), as were the direct and indirect steals -- from Shane (cattle war), High Noon (showdown), Unforgiven (haunted hero), Silverado (leg wound, gunfight, corrupt sheriff), Yojimbo (townie helper, dog).

Costner proves once again that he's capable of serious self-absorption.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dead Man (1995)
7/10
An illuminating existential cautionary tale
22 April 2007
First of all, you have to be a Jarmusch fan. If you walk comfortably through that door, you'll find he does a bang-up job with this existential Western. So does Johnny Depp, who plays the lead--a lost unemployed accountant in the old west who happens to be named William Blake. Gary Farmer, the Indian from Ghost Dog and The Score, calls himself Nobody because he doesn't like his given name that means "one who talks much and says nothing." Nobody serves as William Blake's savior, doctor, guide and boatman "across the river." Neil Young wrote and performed the score. Blake's nemesis is played by Lance Henriksen as a terse cannibalistic bounty hunter. Delightful cameos include Robert Mitchum, Crispin Glover, Gabriel Byrne, John Heard and others.

Symbolism abounds--there are shooting stars, down-shots of a hellish factory where Blake wanders looking for a way out, mines and factories of "white-man's metal," plenty of dead animals, including a small doe that Depp lies down with after decorating his face with its blood.

But the movie doesn't fall into the trap of making white men the fall guys for everything wrong with the world in which Blake and Nobody try to make a living. Nobody mistreats Blake's bullet wound and is arguably responsible for his ultimate predicament. Nobody isn't worldly, despite having seen Europe in his youth. He believes the same white people were in every town he visited. The northwest tribe visited at the end were petty people who obviously thought Blake and Nobody were not worth their attention, evidenced by Nobody's imprecations to "walk proud" to the mortally-wounded Blake, and his nervousness at what might happen if he didn't. And of course, there is Nobody's innocent belief that the hapless accountant is the historical poet and artist.

Held together with Young's musical score--mixed a tad loud for my taste--and the deterioration of the finances and health of William Blake, Dead Man is more than a picaresque, but the overall theme is elusive. Motifs are another story, and are liberally sprinkled throughout. Perhaps that's the point, ultimately--in the face of death, nothing else matters, and all the symbols and themes add up to nothing, driving the story from existential to nihilistic. Personal friendship, religion, wealth, work, technology, tribe, humanity, God, love--all mean nothing or are actively detrimental. For a movie named "Dead Man," that's not an unreasonable interpretation.

Depp is an ideal actor to portray the reluctant gunslinger, and his personality does more to hold the film together than any other single factor. The camera loves him, and his ability to portray a variety of responses to his predicaments, from confusion, surprise and anger to amusement, disappointment and ultimately resignation is the heart of this thoroughly enjoyable film.
50 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cabin Fever (2002)
6/10
An amusing hoot -- good solid mindless trash like a grocery store novel
22 April 2007
Front to back, this flick is a hoot. Genuinely scary in parts, and successful overall in its attempt to bring back the good old days of 70s horror. Far better than either of the offerings in the later "Grindhouse" by supposedly better directors, it almost became a cult classic and deserves the status. Despite a few clumsy sequences and hard-to-decipher shots, the film survives and leads the viewer relentlessly into a cesspool of destruction, decay and mayhem.

The finish is an hilariously macabre and deadly twist that won't fail to delight. (I don't mean the homage to Night of the Living Dead, but what follows. You'll never stop at a lemonade stand or purchase bottled water with quite the same confidence.)

The movie is a non-stop quote fest that will send you to IMDb to see if anyone else noticed such gems as "Pancakes! Pancakes!" and "Yeah he's a professor -- of being a dog!" Then you'll need to check out UrbanDictionary.com in search of definitions for neologisms like "Faced!" and "Scratch moded!"

The writers are good at twisting your neck. References to gay bashing and shooting African-Americans turn out funny. Kids are brutally killed by their friends, and you're glad. Sex scenes steam you up and then make you sick. When quirky anecdotal scenes included just for kicks don't fit the storyline, you're happy they weren't cut, because they're so rich and hilarious or just ominously creepy.

Finally, a horror movie where the villain isn't a guy in a mask or a rubber suit. In fact, one can debate at intelligent length just what or who the villain is. And contrary to current cinematic trends, there are no build-ups that don't pay off with a genuine moment of true disgust.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
21 Grams (2003)
3/10
Amores Bathos!
22 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A mediocre story dressed up with non-linearity, fragmented cinematography and extreme close-up faux-intimacy. A thoroughly humorless presentation, this has all the hallmarks of a student film, like some of Robert Rodriguez's poorer presentations.

There are at least three scenes that were so poorly acted, directed and edited that it was embarrassing to view them. Sean Penn tries to pick up Naomi Watts by telling her that "eating alone causes kidney damage." This line is so lame that when she brushes him off, we wonder why she doesn't sneer. When he shows up again, saying he's "still worried about those kidneys," we wonder why she doesn't call the police. When she discovers he has her dead husband's heart, she frantically tries to kick him out of her foyer, screaming, "You make me sick!" but it doesn't project, so she says it again. As Penn leads Benicio del Toro at gunpoint to the supposed place of his execution, he overacts his unfamiliarity with a weapon and thuggery with such ineptitude that he would have failed Beverly Hills High acting class.

As the hapless hangdog stalker Penn shows up time after time in Watts' life, she ignores him, as she should. But suddenly she calls him on his cell phone in the middle of the night, telling him, "I need your company!" or some such rubbish. Say what? They have had zero meaningful interaction, he appears to be a wacko, and now she wants to wash his tonsils? The drug-taking for Watts is totally unmotivated. It's just a thing she does. The images that are motivated -- Del Toro's abusive behavior and Watts' breakdown upon learning of the death of her family -- are very unpleasant to witness. That is the main problem with this film. We are watching unpleasant people do unpleasant things. Watts' hysteria is well-acted and appropriate, but do we really want to see what happens to a wife and mother in a hospital waiting room when she hears her husband and children are dead? I don't. Her reaction -- to become emotionally isolated and deadened, to take drugs, and to sleep with Sean Penn -- are not enjoyable -- or edifying -- either.

At the end, I couldn't care less about any of these people. They can do what they do, but I don't want to see it.

The audience knows within a few minutes the outline of the jigsaw puzzle which will be filled in by the director. It is not a 500-piece puzzle. It is a child's 16-piece puzzle. But Inarritu cuts each of the sixteen big pieces, large to fit a child's small hand, into smaller pieces to give the appearance of complexity to please a supposedly adult audience. Instead, the result is a movie that is 45 minutes too long, pretentious in its inability to stop dwelling on points made an hour previously, and painfully unable to subtly imply the intimate pain the characters are suffering, instead insisting on shoveling bushels of pathos at the viewers, like gallons of hot sand.

This movie should be titled Amores Bathos. I ended up turning to my companion and making comments. When Naomi Watts tells Sean Penn, "I am afraid ..." I said, "... this movie will never end." When he kisses her for the first time, I made sucky noises on the back of my hand. Finally, we both left to breathe free air. Neither of us cared how it ended. We knew. The corner and side pieces had all been put in place, along with the fragments of the final piece that Inarritu dangled repeatedly in front of us. But we didn't allow him to mess with our heads. We walked out on his movie instead.

This film is a disappointment in the career of the director. Amores Perros was a wonderful departure from the nonlinear action films prevalent at the time it was released in 2001. But Inarritu uses the same technique here, and it fails. I was reminded of the Saturday Night Live Mexican soap opera parody where the characters ask for ketchup at the dinner table. The camera zooms in on their nose hairs while their nostrils twitch with extreme emotion. "The ... ketchup!?" Or the FedEx commercial where all the actors are doomed if they don't get the shipment off on time.

It makes me fear a promising director is either a one-trick pony or has fallen for the Hollywood reward syndrome. "You did that real good and it made money. Go do it again with stars in the cast. Here's a wad of cash." Oh, and don't even ask about the accordion music.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Henry V (1989)
9/10
Near perfect interpretation, performance and staging
22 April 2007
There is barely a weak link anywhere in this Shakespearean masterpiece. Branagh is stunning as the English king who fights the Battle of Agincourt against the French. The scene where Henry walks among his men the night before battle to gage their mood is Branagh at his finest.

The St. Crispin's Day speech to rally those same troops the next morning is delivered with the correct pace and vigor. Many interpretations of this pivotal character-revealing speech take a poignant, "We who are about to die gallantly" approach. But Branagh rightly takes a rousing stance, dealing with massive obstacles offhandedly. The most remembered lines in the play are spoken as an aside. That the king stayed up all night speaking to his troops incognito and pondering their fears, then casually dismisses them with a wave of his hand allows the army to share his disdain. It's a ruggedly masculine act of bravado that seems immediate, yet is highly structured, showing the steady prepared courage of a king who doesn't lightly risk his men and takes the political aspect of his role as seriously as the military.

The battle scene is wonderful, just the right blend of chaos, mud, blood and agonized cries of the wounded. There are subtle gestures typical of Branagh - watch for the French liaison's tip of the hat to Henry during their final encounter. Much better than the flawed Hamlet Branagh produced later, this epic piece is just right - good Shakespeare faithful to the book, good cinematography, good acting, and a great lead performance.

Roman Polanski is said to have told Jack Nicholson on the set of Chinatown that in order to execute the shooting script in a reasonable running time, he had to "talk faster." I wonder if Roman was on the set of Henry V, or every filming of Shakespreare for that matter. Why is it that directors almost always confuse high emotion with rapid speech? In real life it leads to confusion, inability to rapidly choose what to say, slowing of intensely charged vocalization. Perhaps Branagh needed to bring Henry in under a time constraint, but the rapid speech and repartee makes one wonder if the characters think about what they're saying. But they don't need to, do they? The words have been on paper for hundreds of years, and we've all learned them in school.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Model for many future war movies -- none better
22 April 2007
A classic WWII air war flick filmed in 1949 starring Gregory Peck as a colonel chosen to rescue a floundering bomber wing after relieving the former commander. He struggles to win the approval of men loyal to their previous commanding officer, a friend whom Peck relieved on orders from a general dissatisfied with poor results. Peck achieves success against the German enemy and deals with the air corps drive for "maximum effort"--partly an experiment to find out how much stress pilots can take before cracking. The venue is an American airfield in England during the early days of U.S. involvement before air superiority was established and while B-17 losses were high.

Outstanding performances by Dean Jagger as the adjutant/ground exec (for which he won a best supporting actor Oscar) and Hugh Marlowe as the deadbeat son and grandson of distinguished generals round out a terrific cast. The movie is unsullied by spurious love interest or pop psychiatry. Peck drives his men with single-minded determination until the limits he seeks to explore confront him. The performances are so nuanced and powerful I never tire of watching this movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blade Runner (1982)
9/10
Brilliantly staged classic
22 April 2007
Just about everyone who has seen this classic 1982 visionary sci-fi flick from Ridley Scott has seen the version with Harrison Ford's voice-over, which was the first production release. The more recent "director's cut" (which isn't, really) omits the narration and includes a few theme-clarifying scenes. A true director's cut would have included scenes omitted by producers for lack of money and time during production. The narrated version has been viewed so extensively that the ambiguity and subtlety intended by the director will never be widely experienced.

That said, the confusing and legendary production hassles associated with this film did little to reduce its impact since the real star of the film is the visual interpretation of a future world full of pollution, advertising and proletarian masses. Superimposed is the story of a hunt for renegade androids, but that is secondary. The poignant and depressing mood, highlighted with moments of nobility and love, presents an antidote for Scott to the criticism of his previous Alien, scorned by some critics as a hunt for a monster in a rubber suit.

Comparison to the movie's handling of the nature of the androids and the hunters to that of Philip Dick, the author of the novel on which it is based, provide thematic intrigue. Are the androids admirable despite their brutality? Are the humans, despite theirs? Has the inhuman environment created a world where nobility is impossible, or can love transcend such degradation?

On first viewing, themes and story elements matter little. You'll revel in the mood and luscious visuals complemented by an achingly sad Vangelis music track. Bilious gas plumes, giant Gaudian advertising blimps, 800-story urban pyramids, skyscrapers with moving billboards on their sides--all at night, with a constant dreary rain--provide enough distraction to make even a movie without substance watchable. But this isn't "2001 - A Space Odyssey," which gets so bogged down in visuals the story explodes. Harrison Ford falls for Sean Young--a replicant like those he hunts. Whether they manage to live happily ever after or if Ford's character is human are two of the unanswered conundrums in the script.

Despite Blade Runner's flaws, it remains an enduring classic far surpassing its original cult status.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fracture (2007)
3/10
Awful movie with great production values
20 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Remember the Fractured Fairy Tales from the Bullwinkle Show? Well, if you do, linger on that thought for a few moments and you'll garner far more pleasure than if you drive to the megaplex and watch the newest incarnation of Hannibal Lecter, aeronautical engineer, taking on one of the new kidz, Ryan Gosling, doing his twitchy Diane Keatonish imitation of Steve McQueen as Bullitt, but without the action.

In fact, the movie is devoid of any action at all that isn't not only predictable, but juvenile. This movie never reaches above the Weekly Reader level in terms of plot, characterization, motivation or devices. Five minutes into the movie, I knew the Big Secret. Ten minutes in, I knew this was going to be a long slow ride with no bumps or fresh air. It's a flaccid copy of Jagged Edge, but without the jagged edges. It's the Postman Rings Once, Then Walks Away. Even the big visual motif of the rolling ball machine is never explored satisfactorily. We see a sidelong image of a ramp, then parts of a wheel, but never get to see the ball do anything worth watching. Kind of like a Goldberg machine constructed by Rube's untalented brother Fredo.

The backstories of Hannibal and Diane are inane and tired at best. Hopkins plays an engineer whose wife is carrying on with a cop in such a manner to facilitate his revenge fantasy. In fact, the very basis of this fantasy is fantastic, and I don't mean that in the good sense. It's beyond belief. So many coincidental states of being are piled into a heap at the beginning of this fifth-grade writing exercise that one more would cause the entire mess to break through to the basement where the nursery school kids are studying Grimm. Example One: the cop is a hostage negotiator assigned to the district where Hopkins lives. Example Two: the wife and cop don't know each other's last names. Example three: the cop leaves his gun lying around when he plays with the wife.

Gosling is conveniently trying to leave the prosecutor's office and join a corporate law firm, which adds bulk to the movie as pulp is added to orange juice. It's supposed to be good for you, but isn't really very pleasant. The loose plot threads this allows to be picked up are so nebulous that the cloth is in danger of ripping through at the slightest pressure like flimsy truck-stop toilet paper, giving the film-goer a nasty case of brownfinger.

Facilitating the plot mangle are such miserable devices as these: when the wife is shot in the face with a Glock .45, she doesn't die; the homicide detective and Gosling happen to use the same model cell phone (which triggers the lamest Eureka moment in the history of cinema); Gosling spills coffee on his suit right after his tux is delivered for the party he's suddenly invited to that happens to be at the Disney Center and this all allows Hopkins to suddenly divine Gosling's "point of fracture," from which the movie takes its name (and makes no sense), like the "tell" scenes in Rounders and Casino Royale; and finally Hopkins, devilishly clever and brutal, happens to need to talk a lot for some reason.

I could go on and on, taking perverse pleasure from dissing this awful movie with great production values, but that would allow it to take up too much of my time, and it's done enough of that already in the mere watching. I thought Grindhouse was a hoot but not worth another attendance, being a concatenation of two lousy movies in an amusing fashion, but I'd rather sit through three hours of that movie a second time than watch this one for the first.

I'll end on this note -- Fracture would be a modest movie of the week on television if this were still the 80s. It could be an episode of Murder, She Wrote. It could star Raymond Burr and be popular among older viewers. But it can't be a good movie in 2007. Why it's being so well reviewed is not really a mystery to me, just a disappointment. Even the Hill Street cameo in Fracture is pointless and unsatisfying. The best part of the experience was watching the trailer for the remake of Hairspray with John Travolta taking Divine's role as Edna Turnblad, and Michelle Pfeiffer as Velma von Tussle. Now that's going to be a movie worth watching.
29 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sensitive and playful paean to Jørgen Leth
1 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Something of an inside exercise to those familiar with Von Trier and the Dogme Vows of Chastity, on reflection and re-viewing, The Five Obstructions appears more of a conversation with an old friend, an attempt to jigger a mentor out of lethargic retreat, exile imposed by feelings of age and irrelevance. What appears as harsh egotism is actually the opposite. In discussions of the Bombay scene, for example, during the assignment portion, Von Trier could have easily seized on Leth's desire to go only to places "with a hotel" by insisting that he film where lodgings were primitive. But he let the moment pass without comment. Afterward, he expressed his displeasure by saying, "I must listen to my own opinion," which sounds like narcissism, but in the context of the discussion is more of an apology. He listens to Leth at length without comment or interruption and doesn't send Leth back to Bombay. During Von Trier's segment, he makes the point that the "attacker" is often more exposed than the "victim," and in this humbles himself. He shows Leth falling to a hotel room floor like "a perfect man" -- Von Trier's way of coming back playfully to his teacher with fame and fortune in his pocket to show the world who taught him a great portion of what he knows.

The 12-frame and cartoon segments are wonderful, the Bombay and free-form segments disappointing, and Von Trier's final disposition quite touching and revealing. This is not a work of genius or a masterpiece, nor is it a shallow and sadistic ego trip. It is a fascinating and exquisite little exercise in six parts -- five "obstructions" and one extended, honest, personal and aesthetic dialog between two highly-skilled filmmakers who are close friends. We are privileged to witness them interact in an artificially-structured fashion, and it's great fun.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic River (2003)
4/10
Tired plot devices enhanced with overwrought acting don't solve this mystery.
21 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The last time I saw Sean Penn's work, he was taking himself far too seriously in the tragically flawed 21 Grams--a depressing and simple story jazzed up by cutting into pieces and presenting them out of order. Mystic River is a depressing and simple story jazzed up by over-acting and music (written by Clint Eastwood) that sounds like a grade-school etude exercise. Why is it that contemporary auteurs believe that lack of a sensible plot, comic relief, and meaningful themes can be overcome through extreme close-ups of actors mimicking emotional turmoil, lingering for eternities as Penn's eyebrow twitches or Robbins pouts. Essentially, Penn thinks his old pal Robbins whacked his daughter, so he whacks Robbins. Oops, made a mistake. That's the story. The backstory involves childhood sexual abuse, and has nothing to do with the plot. It's tacked on to the side with a few pins related to where Robbins really was (whacking a child molester) and why he was such a loser (haunted, of course). Unfortunately, the film does not address in any meaningful fashion the issue of child molestation. It also does not handle the murder mystery very well, since the actual killers of Penn's daughter turn out to be related to Penn in a way that would make a hack writer blush with shame. Mystic River is also riddled with gangster flick clichés most writers discarded decades ago -- the Savage (!) brothers who do all the dirty work, the crusty wife who encourages Penn's criminality like Lady Macbeth, the cop from the old neighborhood (Kevin Bacon) with mixed feelings about the gangsters he investigates, and the (old man) river (running through it) that serves as "silent witness," and so on. This is an altogether mindless, humorless and simple flick all done up with production values and more meaningful looks than a Mexican soap opera.
81 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Scam Alert! This movie is a fraud.
8 October 2004
Remember the chain-smoking channeler exposed on 60 Minutes a few years ago? This is her. Lots of folks reviewed this movie without checking the bona fides of the filmmakers. The producers have been using phony "word of mouth" promotions very successfully without disclosing the financial and philosophical underpinnings for this piece of marketing tripe. If you believe in channeling, reincarnation, new age dreck and day-old baloney, this film is for you. If you want a discussion of quantum physics or reality, look elsewhere. The purpose of this movie is to convince you that Ramtha isn't a wacko, so you'll give her a bunch of your money. If you can tiptoe through the Ramtha website without howling in disbelief, then maybe you'll think the bucks you dropped on this infomercial for insanity was well spent. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN>
110 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed