bmoore-13 Reviews

Godless (2017)

Pretty good revisionist Western

[7/10 · 4 December 2018]

Godless is worth watching, but it is a mixed bag. It starts off well, develops nicely, has some good performances, esp. Jeff Daniels, some intelligent writing, and good-enough production, but it goes a bit off the rails around halfway through and never quite corrects itself. The series shows its contemporaneity with lesbian, tough woman, racial, and animal rights themes, and that's fine, though these on occasion seem a bit forced. Nontheless, the series uses many of the well-traveled Western cliches--there's not a lot new here beyond the 2010s revisionism. I think the series, esp. by about the third episode, needed some snipping and tightening, yet at the same time some characters, plot lines, and ideas are underdeveloped. The final episode--spoiler alert, I guess--with its big shootout, is a big (ahem) misfire. Still, this should be entertaining for any Western fan with half an open mind. If you think John Wayne is the alpha and omega of the Western (The Searchers, in my view, is the greatest of all Western films while Lonesome Dove is the greatest series) you may want to give this a pass. Others should give it a try.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Moore an easy target for the ignorant

[9/10 · 2 October 2009]

Why does IMDb allow a brown-nosing, Ayn-Randian, GOPer to write the featured summary of Moore's film? There is no indication that this person has even *seen* the film, which only came out the day I am writing this. Critics of Moore, of the Democratic Party, of leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Maoists, Stalinists, defenders of civil liberties, intellectuals (all these groups bundled into one ball by the Fox Newsers), and, well, any group that doesn't just LOVE the glories of interplanetary cut-throat capitalism just want to jump down the readers' throats from the get-go, shutting off the discussion that is so crucial to a democracy (like ours, in theory). Why does IMDb allow such a soapbox to someone who is so clearly ignorant of his/her subject matter (i.e., Moore's documentary)? I, by the way, have mixed views on Moore, but I mostly feel positive about him. He is positively NOT "fair and balanced" (to quote the most cynical of slogans heralded by the most cynical of cable "news" outlets). Moore is clearly a propagandist. He by and large preaches to the choir, just as Sean Hannity does. But Moore is much more talented--and funny--than Hannity and his ilk, and he has, deep down, an infinitely stronger sense of humanity than the Fox News crowd. I don't hate capitalism, but it could sure be improved, scaled back and regulated. Unregulated capitalism = piracy, not freedom! I agree with Moore that Reagan did some awful things to this country, most of all his production of policies favoring the rich and hurting the poor and middle class. Sadly, there are many middle class people and even some poor who don't realize that the policies of the Reaganites--pushed even further to the right by Reagan's heirs--do NOT benefit but in fact hurt them. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate, and this shrinkage is not the result of the policies of Carter, Clinton and Obama (though they are not free from a bit of blame) but the policies of Reagan and the Bushes. To inform us all of this curious turn that has occurred over the past 30 years, Moore is very much on target. We should heed his words, even if they are not completely fair. (Who says he HAS to be fair anyway? He doesn't CLAIM to be "fair and balanced.") He tells the truth--not the whole truth, but a crucial part of it that is tragically ignored by the so-called "liberal media." We ignore Moore at our own peril.

The Penultimate Truth About Philip K. Dick (2007 Video)

Not awful but marred by silly pseudo-FBI framing device

[6/10 · 19 September 2009]

Most fans will wish for a more thoughtful bio documentary on the great SF writer Philip K. Dick. This is only one of several bio films on Dick; the only other comparable film I've seen is PKD; A Day in the Afterlife from 1994, and while it's not perfect either, it's considerably better than this film. The worst thing about this film is its silly framing device: a couple of FBI types in a darkened room examine tapes and dossiers on Dick to determine whether the writer experienced psychic episodes. This only serves to cheapen the subject. Take this away, and what's left is not bad, in its way. We receive accounts of Dick from old friends, fellow writers (though no one most viewers will be familiar with) and, most prominently, several of Dick's wives and girlfriends. (He was married six times in his relatively brief life.) We learn of the death of his twin sister at the age of five weeks--a loss that haunted him throughout his life; we learn of his impoverished existence in the fifties in Berkeley (living at times on cat food); we see his developing paranoia, the result of drugs and, likely, heredity; and his psychiatrist appears to give us inside info on private sessions. (Does this violate something, somehow?) The clips of Dick himself are few and far between, but we get a few snippets of his strange, if not disastrous, speech in France in 1977. We learn somewhere between nothing and very little about the fiction he wrote, but we can go elsewhere for that (K.S. Robinson's book, SF Studies articles, etc.). So this is a real mixed bag, worth seeing, but just that.

The Lost Room (2006)

Original, compelling, entertaining--when the series?

[9/10 · 27 January 2007]

TV doesn't get just a whole lot better than this. Some may object to a show built on "contrivances"--in this case seeming everyday objects that do magical (or superhero-like) things--but the strong writing and acting (especially by the lead, Peter Krause) made me buy every minute of it. It broadcast for six hours, with commercials, but it seemed much too short. I wanted much more. I'm not sure how a series would work, if anyone is talking about or actually creating that, but I would sure give it a look.

While watching this great mini-series, a number of other shows came to mind, mostly X-FILES and THE TWILIGHT ZONE, but THE LOST ROOM is by no means a rip-off/retread. Like those two shows, this one covers a lot of territory. It is funny in parts, but it's also a crime drama and, of course, a sci-fi story. And the plot is, as my "summary" states, original and compelling. The conspiratorial part of the show is, to me, much less interesting than what the everyday objects do, and how the various characters make use of them and respond to one another. Let's hope that, if there is a series (forgive my ignorance!), the producers can keep Peter Krause and the other fine writers (and director, who does a solid job as well) responsible for making this such a great viewing experience.

Rome (2005–2007)

Worthwhile, fun history lesson

[8/10 · 21 January 2007]

HBO's Rome is about as faithful an account of the early empire as we have seen on TV or on film. The focus on the two soldiers gives viewers insight into the daily lives of plebeians (on their way up, mostly), and the focus on Julius Caesar, Atia, and Octavian (et al) give us a look at royalty--the uppermost crust of society. I could sit here and nitpick all day at the show's oversights and mistakes--Cicero being too young, Julius not being bald (Suetonius writes that he had a sort of "combover"), and so on--but these are really rather minor inaccuracies, of little consequence. The largest inaccuracy, if it could be called that, is the show's inability to account for the true greatness of Rome. Even JC's triumph seems too small, despite what must have been a huge HBO budget. Some of the war scenes are too small to be effective; Kurosawa this is not. But given the show's strengths, which are considerable, I can overlook these. Much the same (that its world somehow seems too small) could be said of BBC's great I, Claudius. It may, in the end, be impossible to even begin to capture the great scale of Rome.

Having addressed what I think are some of the show's weaknesses, my overall impression of the show is very favorable. The production values are high, and the set designers, costumers, military experts and others shine brightly throughout. We get something of the "feel" of Rome in Caesar's day. The acting is brilliant across the board (we have some good heroes to root for and villains to root against), and the writing is generally strong, often witty (Polus: "She'd better f*ck like Helen with her a** on fire!") and sometimes even moving. The often graphic violence and sex are necessary for realism, but they also have an undeniable sensational appeal. (Just try to turn your head when Atia is disrobed or when a fight leads to a decapitation.) For us in the early twenty-first century it is interesting to see a superpower that is not "Christian" (as much of the current West is, at least in name) yet which shares some of the same ills--political power struggles and corruption, invading forces, etc.)--we face today. Rome's empire stretched across Europe and well into Asia and Africa, but it did not last forever. Now, given this irresistible picture of Rome in a time of crisis, what lessons will we learn, if any?

SCTV (1976–1981)

Best variety comedy--ever

[10/10 · 13 January 2007]

There are not a lot of things about this world I can state with full assurance, but I can say with full confidence that SCTV is, bar none, the funniest show of all time. Younger viewers--those born after, say, 1970--may have a hard time with the allusions to and parodies of pop culture circa 1980, and my guess is this would cause those viewers to meet my claim with skepticism. But think about it: every show by and large depends on its time, including SNL and Monty Python. Nevertheless, there is plenty here for anyone with half a brain and a good sense of humor to enjoy. Some of the sketches involve topical matters, but the sheer chuztpah and intelligence of them makes such topicality secondary.

The acting alone is without comedic peer for a TV show in English. Over the past twenty-five years I have never been able to decide who my favorite SCTV actor is. I love the two (main) women: both Martin and O'Hara are game for anything, and they are loaded with comic nuance. But the same goes for all the rest of the cast. Sometimes I conclude that Eugene Levy edges out the others, but as soon as I say that I think of John Candy as William B. or Curly (etc.) or Rick Moranis as Jerry Todd or Skip Bitman, and I renege on my statement. But thinking about Skip leads me to think of Levy as Bobby Bitman, and the process starts all over. (And this is to say nothing of the very great, very funny work by Dave Thomas and Joe Flaherty.) The movie and TV work of the cast, post-SCTV, has been merely OK overall, but don't let it deceive you: all of this great casts' best work occurred on SCTV. After the show ended, Candy fared the best, but he sadly deprived us of his great presence way too early, god rest his soul. Others have done OK in Christopher Guest films. But, again, these usually only make me yearn for SCTV. Martin Short is probably my least favorite of the regulars, yet he has his moments (Boy from Deliverance, some Ed Grimley bits, etc.).

The writing, too, is consistently excellent. (All the cast wrote bits, but some more than others.) Watching the DVDs--and thank god for those!--I see that there are stretches of "padding," but even this is usually pretty funny. (Even Monty Python has some not-so-great shows.) Some of the guest bits are a little lame, and sometimes I wish they had not bothered with guests, unless they make sense to the story (Zontar was funny). Much has been made of the laugh track; I never liked it either. Still, one can punch holes in about anything, and they do not, in the end, add up to much. And this is why I can proclaim that, for me, SCTV is the very zenith of TV comedy. I urge anyone who is uninitiated to jump in with both feet. Any of the four NBC seasons would be a good starting point. (If you want a single DVD, try the Christmas show.) I hope that someone will now release the Cinemax shows.

How to Draw a Bunny (2002)

Ignore the "artsy fartsy" reviewer

[9/10 · 11 January 2007]

Any reviewer who reviews a movie about an artist and uses the term "artsy fartsy" shouldn't be trusted--except, of course, by those who find such a term enlightening. I am not particularly artistic, but I respect artistic people, those who see things differently-- perhaps idealistically, as engaged with the rest of nature and humanity, through a psychological/sociological/political/etc. prism that uniquely underscores the basis of things. (It is very hard to define what art "does"!) At any rate, Ray Johnson is one such person, and How to Draw a Bunny is one such film. The movie, at least temporarily, lifts the viewer out of the mundane world of tabloidization and banal politics and consumerism, shakes him (or her) up, rearranges him, however slightly, in his view of himself and the world.

In this way, this film, like all good art, works something like magic. The viewer doesn't necessarily feel "better" about the world, but the visual abilities have changed for the better, thus improving one's sense of those things that actually matter in life (as opposed to those that don't, such as points of view that use clichés such as "artsy fartsy.") I'm not sure Johnson is exactly likable. Were he my acquaintance, I might feel more dismayed than friendly toward the guy. But I like the way he sees things and helps me see things. The film, well shot and superbly edited, is actually framed as a sort of mystery: why and how did Johnson die? We don't get a complete answer, but the journey is fascinating. This film would, by the way, make a good companion piece with the Andy Goldsworthy movie. Both are about unconventional nonconformists who do things their way, with fascinating results.

Rosalie Goes Shopping (1989)

Quirky, independent, subversive

[10/10 · 24 October 2006]

I'm giving this film a "10" to improve the unfair "5" voters have given it; it's really around a 7 or 8. There is a real goofiness to this film, even a charm, that I've seen in few other movies. The characters are quirky, alright, but less stupid than just seriously deluded, living in their dreamworlds. Rosalie dances blissfully along throughout the film under the illusion that credit and buying things is the reason for existence. (Of course, this is precisely the design that corporate America has for us assenting, duped citizens.) But Percy Aldon, the director, does not hold contempt for Rosalie; in fact she remains likable to the end of the film, even as (perhaps because) she bilks her creditors repeatedly. (Warning: do not try this at home!) And, up to the end, she appears to get away with it. Is she crazy? No more than most Americans, as loaded down with debt as most of us are. Rosalie's husband, played by the late Brad Davis, is the goofiest of all; what strange brainwaves was he channeling when he acting this role? And Judge Reinhold is fun as Rosalie's befuddled priest. I can't think of too many films that deserve DVD reissue more than this one. One day we may all look back at this neglected film, as small and quirky as it is, and see it as prophetic, a major explication of our nation's debtor woes. But I hope I'm wrong, that we Americans suddenly begin to eschew debt, make it taboo, and wake up to smell the roses. As Wordsworth wrote, "The world is too much with us."

Ravenous (1999)

Icky, camp, worthwhile

[7/10 · 19 October 2006]

No, Ravenous is not a "masterpiece," but it is fun, if you aren't watching it while eating, say, a steak cooked rare. The 19th-century Western setting is a bit of a red herring, but then again it is essential to the movie's plot, which I won't give away here. I can say that this is not your usual horror movie, and it is certainly not your usual Western. The acting is not great in this film, but it doesn't really have to be. Olivier would be out of place here (though he too made some campy, bloody movies). Unlike one of the responders, I like the soundtrack of the film, the bluegrass, rootsy stuff; I can't think of a more appropriate track or instrumentation. To sum up, this is not a great movie, but it has a unique place in the history of Western but especially horror films. For the faint of heart it is not. Nor is it for those who like their horror straight.

Earthsea (2004–2005)

So, so disappointing!

[3/10 · 14 December 2004]

Two-thirds through last night's show--the first half of EARTHSEA--I muttered to my wife, "This is so bad." She said, "So tomorrow you'll be at the computer typing up your gripes to someone." I looked at her indignantly and said something like, "Ah, why waste my time?" Of course, she was right, so here I am. An Earthsea adaptation is long overdue; I'm just so sad that it was done so shabbily, with such an eye (apparently) toward anticipating what the unimaginative masses would like to see, as opposed to the rich, subtle, mystical world that Ursula Le Guin so beautifully created in her great Earthsea novels. I don't have the heart (or time) to break the mini-series down, bit by bit, to show what's wrong with it. Let's just say that the screenwriters, producers, and director insisted on reshaping a great work of popular art into a cookie cutter shape, substituting clichés for subtleties and an "epic" (read Lord of the Rings) war story for what should have been a personal struggle with good/evil. Worst, I suspect that in Part II, tonight, we're all gonna see Ged, whose little cheek scar only adds to his overall "hotness," smooching a princess (the SMALLVILLE babe). This thing is almost as bland as last month's elections. Mr and Ms. Producers, either do Le Guin justice and tell the story right or don't bother!

The Office (2001–2003)

Funny, vis a vis, ergo, de facto humorous stuff

[10/10 · 25 March 2004]

I rented the first season almost at random--I'd only barely heard of the show--and I'm so, so glad I did. Within the first ten seconds Ricky Gervais had me quietly snickering; within twenty I was laughing out loud; eventually a few tears welled up and my stomach began to hurt. And I didn't quit laughing until the show was over. Gervais is possessed of the very rare talent of being funny on several different fronts, simultaneiously; he's like a comedic juggler: he's a teller of conspicuously (but not too conspicuously) bad, often tasteless, jokes; he's a backstabbing hypocrite of Tartuffian quality; and for those who have worked in offices and have had bad (or even mediocre) bosses, he is like a balm for the lost dignity office workers experience through petty politicking. (So the show is rather cathartic.) That little look Gervais gives the camera at times (which seems to state, "You didn't see that, did you?") is precious. I have to be careful to not oversell this show, but right now I would say that, as a character, David Brent (Gervais) is right up there with Reginald Perrin and Basil Fawlty, and that is sacred territory in my book. But while writer-actor Gervais is the brightest spot in the show, the other cast members, namely Tim Freeman, Mackenzie Cook (who some will recognize as the eye-popping pirate in PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN), and Lucy Davis, are great too. This show, I predict, will go down as one of the great TV comedies, up there with with FAWLTY TOWERS and SEINFELD but perhaps just below MONTY PYTHON and SCTV (at their best). A word of warning: if you don't like (i.e., don't understand) irony, this may not be the show for you; stick with Jim Carrey and Martin Lawrence. (Nothing against those actors; THE OFFICE, though laugh-out-loud funny, seldom hits one over the head with its comedy.) I only hope the second season approaches the quality of the first.