bmcdannell Reviews

Watchman (2019)

Home Alone Meets Patriot Games Meets Lassie!

[9/10 · 17 August 2020]

We accidentally stumbled across this movie when I was searching for the highly acclaimed Watchmen series - and we're delighted we did. We haven't posted a review in ages but with the fairly miserable ratings this has been getting we decided we just had to chip in. whether or not it was intended to be a comedy we laughed all the way through it! First of all, the entire concept of having a Golden Retriever as a watchdog is such a hoot - we have a Golden and the only threat he'll ever pose to anyone is that he might knock you down so he can snuggle up in your lap and give you a tongue bath. We have a sign on our front door: Warning! This home is protected by an overly affectionate Golden Retriever. And they're all like that - really! But our canine hero is alert and dedicated...and wise enough to make Lassie green with envy. Our human hero is a clumsy, well-meaning schmuck who takes way too long to realize that the dog, Bruno, is way smarter than he is. The bad guys are menacing, but wind up doing more harm to themselves than to anyone else. The situations are hilariously absurd and good ol' Bruno comes through every time. I swear, if one of the characters had said, "Bruno, go down to the corner deli - the one on 4th Street, not the one on Maple Avenue, and bring me back a pastrami on rye with extra mayo!" Bruno would have paused, fetched a piece of paper, and used his paw to scrawl, "U want fries w that?"

It was truly the funniest movie we've seen in a long, long time and we'd give it a full ten stars if it were not for one major flaw near the end - and here comes the spoiler, so if you want to avoid it, stop reading now:

The inviolable rule of a dog as hero movie is that you don't kill off the hero. It just isn't done! We will choose to believe that Bruno was seriously injured near the end but was rushed to a kindly, skilled vet who was able to restore him to health so he would live to wag another day. If the director had simply chosen to include a couple of seconds at the end showing Bruno still in his bandages but as eager to please as ever we'd give it ten stars without batting an eye. Since he didn't all we can say is - thanks for a delightful movie...but shame on you!

Lady Be Good (1941)

When Star-Studded Musicals Go Bad

[3/10 · 29 March 2020]

How can you lose? Eleanor Powell, Ann Sothern, Robert Young, Lionel Barrymore, Red Skelton, Virginia O'Brien, Phil Silvers, The Berry Brothers; songs by George and Ira Gershwin and Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II; production numbers by Busby Berkeley...what can possibly go wrong? As it turns out - a lot. Watching this movie is, in my experience, sort of like digging into your favorite steak dinner only to get the growing sense that there is definitely something off about the steak - and you know what the result of that is going to be. Or to offer another example, it reminds me of the story of a little boy waking up on Christmas morning to discover that Santa has left him a huge pile of manure. Nevertheless, he digs enthusiastically through the steaming pile, reasoning that there has to be a pony in there somewhere.

Yes, there are a couple of ponies in here - but you really have to wonder whether it's worth digging through all that manure to get to them. Let's talk about the ponies first:

If you manage to make it through the entire movie you'll find two outstanding numbers by Eleanor Powell, Ann Sothern's beautiful rendition of The Last Time I Saw Paris made particularly poignant by what was going on in Paris at the time this movie was made, and one of Busby Berkeley's more stunning productions near the end showcasing Powell's dancing and the wonderful Fascinating Rhythm by the Gershwin brothers. I gotta admit - that's a lot of ponies...and there's even more - a Powell dance routine accompanied by Buttons the dog who is said to have been trained for the number by Powell herself and the incredible athletics of the Berry Brothers.

But oh! the manure!

The story mounded over these gems absolutely reeks. Ann Sothern plays Dixie Donegan - a lyricist who seems to believe that the way to a man's heart is through serial divorces. Robert Young is Eddie Crane, a songwriter so enamored with his sudden success that he treats his on-again/off-again wife like a scullery maid while simultaneously mouthing his undying devotion. Never once do they even begin to address the conflicts that stand in the center of the story line in an attempt to resolve them. And their musical collaboration is portrayed as such a falling-off-a-log easy endeavor that Kern, Hammerstein and the Gershwins should all have sued for defamation.

Red Skelton's contribution consists primarily of a couple of trademark pratfalls and that's it - an utter waste of his talent. Virginia O'Brien, whose unique and peculiar talent we dearly love is showcased on one song that is about as suited to her style as a warthog is to a tuxedo (Ms. O'Brien being the tuxedo in this analogy - not the warthog). And don't even get me started on the Berry Brothers - their amazing athletics are set to music so completely inappropriate that it's like trying to watch Miley Cyrus twerk to Chopin. I could go on. The title tune is a good song but it is so overused that if you loved it when you sat down to watch this movie you will despise it by the time it's over. The repetition of this song, rendered in just about every style you can think of except perhaps as a Hawaiian war chant - turns it into a grating ear worm - and you know what that is like. And the body of music is itself jarring - you have the classics The Last Time I Saw Paris, Fascinating Rhythm and (the nearly Incinerated) Lady Be Good clashing in utter discord with clunkers like You'll Never Know (not the torch song you're probably familiar with) and Your Words and My Music.

We love the musicals of Hollywood's Golden Era. We cherish the body of performances by every star present in this movie. The talents of Kern, Hammerstein and the Gershwins are beyond compare. But it's all buried in such complete drek here that it's depressingly difficult to recommend the movie. And what's most depressing I think is that there are so very few really great Hollywood musicals from the era and this has every single pedigree you could wish for to be one of them. But it isn't. Yes, there are definitely ponies here. But only you can judge whether it's worth the agony of what you have to go through to get to them. Good luck.

Sing and Like It (1934)

Every once in a while you find a little gem - like this!

[10/10 · 7 April 2017]

This came up on TCM the other night and was a movie neither my wife nor myself had ever encountered. Now that alone gives us pause, because we're both real fans of old movies - so if we've never heard of it chances are pretty good that it's going to be a real stinker. But it had Zasu Pitts and Edward Everett Horton and Ned Sparks and... I figured that with such a load of wonderful actors - even if it was bad - it would at least be interesting. So we recorded it and watched it last night. What a find! We laughed ourselves silly all the way through. If you're in to old movies you're going to see so many familiar faces playing the same characters they played in so many other movies and, as a result, doing it to perfection. The little things Zasu Pitts does with her hands are hilarious; and Ned Sparks interpreting Nat Pendleton's Brooklynese is wonderful. My favorite line from the movie, in all its euphemized glory, was, "How come there are so many more horses necks than there are horses?" I laughed my, um, neck off - and you can bet I'll be borrowing it and using it myself (in the non-euphemized version) often in the future. If it comes up in the listings again be sure to record it because - if you really like old movies - you're going to love this one - and you'll want to see it again.

The Jungle Book (2016)

A truly worthwhile movie experience

[10/10 · 14 April 2016]

One of the primary reasons I go to a movie is to have the opportunity to suspend my sense of disbelief - to enter into an alternate world and be able to accept what I'm experiencing as reality. The Jungle Book is I think the best I have yet seen in allowing this to happen. It's not so much a matter of thinking "This is what the world is like" as it is thinking "Wouldn't it be nice if the world I live in was more like the one I'm experiencing right now?". We've seen many 3D movies in the past several years and I think the director here has taken a fresh - and highly effective - approach to using 3D. Until now, most use of 3D has been a continuation of the 50s colored lens fad that threw things at the audience to try to bring the movie out of the screen and into the world of the viewer. The Jungle Book, however, uses the screen as a huge picture window (graphically yet subtly evidenced at times by water or mud splashing onto the "window") in order to draw the viewer into the movie rather than force the movie out to the viewer. It worked extremely well and we were truly drawn into this wonderful, beautiful and sometimes dangerous world. And before I go any further I should say a word about the dangerous part. I can sadly not recommend this movie for children under about ten years old because when it goes to the dark side it goes very dark and could easily be the stuff of nightmares for young kids. But I think those about ten or older should be able to handle it.

That said, I don't think there's anything I'd change about the movie. The CGI characters were beyond superb, the voice characterizations were perfectly suited to the characters, there was an entertaining mix of humor, adventure and suspense, the scenery was breathtaking, and I cannot imagine a more well done portrayal of Mowgli. My wife spent a good part of the movie misty-eyed because he was nearly a dead ringer for our youngest son at that age.

There are many special notes I could make about the film, but a few stand-outs were: *Christopher Walken voicing Louie and singing "I Want to Be Like You" nearly stole the entire show. During the end credits Dr. John does a version of "The Bare Necessities" and it occurred to me he may have made even a better Louie than Walken, but (sadly) he wouldn't be as big of a draw. *Although we've never been big fans of Bill Murray, he did an excellent job of weaving his unique persona into the Baloo character. *It was wonderful that they didn't clean Mowgli up - throughout the movie he was dirty, crusty, scratched up, bruised, scarred...pretty much how a ten year old would actually be trying to survive in the jungle. *A total and very refreshing absence of bathroom humor - how did they resist the temptation? I don't know - but thank you. *It was interesting to see the elephants completely re-purposed in this version. It added another little dimension to the movie and we though it was a great idea. *It was also interesting to have Kaa reworked from primarily comic relief in the 1967 film to pure silky malevolence in this version. But I guess that's what you get when you take a character voiced by Sterling Holloway and entrust it to the vocal talents of Scarlett Johannson.

When the first trailers came out both my wife and I were highly skeptical of the project; there were so many ways they could have completely destroyed a cherished story from our childhood. We were delighted to discover that the film does beautiful justice to the story - and we both suspect that we were actually the target audience for this movie - baby boomers who are now grandparents who can recommend this film to their children and (older) grandchildren. Whether that's the case or not, we're doing exactly that - and also recommending you see it in IMAX 3D...and stay through the credits!

P.S. It would be nice if someone at IMDb would remove the early "review" of the movie that someone posted merely to launch an anti-Semitic rant.

Big Hero 6 (2014)

What a Relief!

[9/10 · 6 November 2014]

After a long period of major disappointment with animated movies such as How to Train Your Dragon 2 (watch the first one twice instead) and Frozen (Disney's most over-hyped - er, excuse me - popular movie ever...seriously?), we had hopes that this would not be another loser. We were far more than pleased, as it turned out to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience from beginning to end. It was packed with humor (very little of it of the bodily function variety for a change), heart and important life lessons for the younger audience. While I was stunned by the visuals of San Fransokyo and the attention to detail, my wife was equally impressed at how much expression and emotion could be extracted from Baymax - considering he has no mouth and not much in the way of eyes to register expression. There are some interesting - and I do not think for one second unintentional - parallels to the old Scooby Doo cartoons in terms of both plot and looks and behavior of a couple of the characters, but that's forgivable and I think will make the movie that much more accessible to those 40 and under. I won't go in to plot details; I'll just note that this should be a fun ride for any age - nothing to scare the little ones (one 2 second shot of a menacing dark figure in a Kabuki mask is the worst). We also think it was well worth it to see the film on the big screen. If you're into 3D have at it, but I doubt that it would add much to this film - and might actually detract from the beauty of the scenic backgrounds. Having endured the overlong train wreck that was Gone Girl (see our review) earlier this week, Big Hero 6 was a welcome and tremendously entertaining relief.

Gone Girl (2014)

Astonishingly bad plot

[1/10 · 3 November 2014]

If this had been written and played as a straight-out dark comedy - and if it had been at least half an hour shorter - perhaps it would have passed as a run of the mill movie. But since it has been presented as a serious mystery, it has committed the cardinal sin of filmmaking - that of disrespecting the intelligence and/or perspicacity of the audience. For us, the film represents a significant achievement in that it contains more and larger plot holes than any other movie we have ever seen - and we've seen many! This was even worse than Babel! That said - and a warning that reading further will take you deep into spoiler territory - the following is by no means a comprehensive list of the major holes in the plot. So ladies and gentlemen, start your engines and drive your semis straight through an impressive array of plot stupidity: 1. Amy buys a car listed on Craigslist for cash so there's no record of the purchase. How about title and license? Where does she keep the car until she needs it? How does she get to it when she needs it without being seen? 2. Amy buys lots of tech toys and crams her sister-in-law's shed with them. How does she get into and out of the shed without her sister-in-law (who doesn't like her) noticing? 3. The shed is where her husband sometimes has liaisons with another woman. They don't notice the accumulating gadgets? 4. The gadgets are bought online. Who is signing for them? 5. When the gadgets are investigated, whose fingerprints will be all over them - if there are any? 6. Desi is supposed to have broken into the house, beat her bloody and kidnapped her. There's blood all over the kitchen, but none where she would have been dragged out of the house? 7. As he supposedly leaves the house with an at best barely conscious Amy, Desi picks up her diary, takes it to her father-in-law's place and attempts to burn it in the furnace. Why? 8. How does Desi know where Amy's father-in-law lives? 9. Several days elapse from the time of the supposed kidnapping until Amy winds up at Desi's lake house. Can nobody attest to Desi's being at home during the time he was supposed to be kidnapping Amy? 10. What will be made of the video cameras at the lake house not showing anyone there for the first several days? 11. Desi was supposed to be holding her prisoner. Did nobody at the casino notice them there - including the man who thought she looked familiar? 12. Where does Amy's car wind up? 13. Phone records I: Amy makes the anonymous phone call tipping the police off to the contents of the shed. No record of that? 14. Amy scores a hole in one at miniature golf and jumps up and down for joy - which causes her money belt to fall off. This apparently was an Acme money belt on loan from Wile E. Coyote. 15. A couple robs Amy of all her money. Being the psycho she is, are we to believe that she is going to let them get away with it? 16. Phone records II. What is going to be made of Amy's phone call to Desi? Sure it was from a pay phone, but isn't it going to raise any flags? 17. Amy self-inflicts wounds - supposedly in the bathroom out of sight of cameras - to make it seem as though she has been bound and raped. Yet wouldn't the cameras show her entering the bathroom without wounds and emerging with wounds? 18. Amy winds up in the hospital upon her return. They put wristbands on her and one guesses they examine her - but they don't bother to wash the blood off of her. 19. Do they also fail to notice that there is no evidence of the injuries that would have occurred had she lost copious amounts of blood at the initial kidnapping? 20. Nick knows that Amy tried to set him up for her murder, thus opening him up to a possible death sentence. He also knows that when her plan blows up, she elects to murder someone who has never wronged her (other than being male) in order to cover up her actions which, until that point, may have been criminal - but not capital - offenses. Why does Nick elect to live in the same county as this woman, let alone in the same house? I could go on, but I realized before the movie was halfway over that I had already wasted too much of my life on it.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Colorful, Entertaining, Enjoyable - with a few flaws

[7/10 · 8 March 2013]

My wife and I went to see this on opening night and were not at all disappointed. Overall the story line held our interest, the effects were generally excellent and we felt it was worth seeing in the theater in 3D.

While initially I was tempted to agree with so many of the reviews here that the characters of Oz and Theodora were poorly acted, after some reflection I think it was more that they were poorly written. A central character needs to have some redeeming qualities - some reason for the audience to like or sympathize with the character. Oz is supposed to be - to use some quaint sounding words - a rogue or a rascal, both of these words, I think, conveying a flawed character that still possesses an element of charm or whimsy. The writers missed the mark here and wound up (for at least the first three quarters of the movie) with a shallow, amoral, totally self-absorbed character essentially devoid of likability. In other words, they had a character that needed to be given depth but they failed to portray him in more than one dimension until it became absolutely necessary to afford him some redeeming qualities in order to make the story work. Conversely, in the case of Theodora they had a situation where the character came with built-in multiple, conflicting dimensions but they simply didn't quite know what to do with her.

People who are making 3D movies need to sit down and actually watch some of them. The magic in 3D is almost always either in the overall scene or in the small, close-up effects. Scenes in this movie where small bits of debris slowly float out over the audience are quite magical. They missed an opportunity with the river faeries, who could have been quite breathtaking had they flitted forward in the frame to charm the audience. The more common tool used in this and other movies, however, is the frantic 'throw stuff at the audience' cliché - and it just. does. not. work. well. It distracts rather than impresses. I'm serious, movie makers. Watch some of this stuff - you'll see what I mean.

For those of you concerned, the movie is unfortunately a bit intense in places for those under about 9 years old. There was a family sitting right behind us with a little girl about 7. During one of the flying Baboon scenes we heard a plaintive, "I'm scared!" from her - and I'm sure she was. And I'm sure she was equally frightened by several other scenes.

Starting with a ten and taking one point off for some lackluster writing, one for too many uses of overwrought 'made ya flinch' 3D and one for some scenes a bit too frightening for some little ones, I wind up with a 7 - and a reassurance that despite the flaws, this is a very entertaining movie that we believe most people will truly enjoy.

Avatar (2009)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 10 January 2010]

With over 1,500 reviews already posted I feel like this is on the order of a drop in the ocean, but here goes:

Back in the summer of 1977 we were driving around one evening and happened to see a marquee for a movie called Star Wars. Prior to seeing that marquee we had not heard a single thing about the film, but having nothing better to do that night, we decided what the heck - we'd give it a shot. When we left the theater that evening I knew I had just seen a very special film - the special effects represented a quantum leap ahead from anything previously brought to the screen and I felt certain that we had just turned a page in movie making.

Tonight I had the same feeling leaving Avatar. The crafting of the film is simply outstanding and I think it will become a milestone similar to Star Wars. We will return to see it again in 3D, as tonight's viewing was a 2D showing.

Given that high praise, why did we not rate it higher? In one word: plot. It is beyond sad that a film with such superb special effects and with so much thought and imagination being poured into the creation of an alien world and all the fanciful and fantastic critters inhabiting that world we couldn't have been offered some sort of plot that hasn't already been flogged to death by a gazillion other films. Yes, I will admit that the cautionary tale represented here (our universal human tendency to justify atrocity towards others by convincing ourselves that they are less than human) cannot be told often enough, but is it too much to hope that a movie so groundbreaking in so many ways might at least try to surprise us with a groundbreaking plot line? I guess it is.

Even so, the beauty and imagination (other than plot) here is overwhelming - and more than enough to recommend the film. I'm sort of looking forward to seeing the books on the biology, zoology and geography of Pandora. If they're not out yet I'm sure they will be soon.

One last note: even if we were tempted to rate this film a ten, it would have lost at least a point for two particularly irritating things: (1) Unobtainium. This is something straight out of The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (remember Upsidaisium?) In a cartoon series that's all about satire, bad puns and silliness it's a laugh. In a movie that wants you to take anything it has to say even the least bit seriously, it's an insult. The use of it here hints that the scriptwriter may not hold his audience in very high regard. (2) The impossibly buff, impossibly slender design of the Navi, which we think could only derive from the unhealthy and unattainable obsessions of contemporary American culture. We'll toss a quarter of a point back in as a thank you for at least not equipping the Navi females with humongous breasts.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 29 May 2009]

We were pleased to find the new Night at the Museum doubled billed with the new Star Trek at the drive-in, so we drove out yesterday evening to see two films we wanted to catch on the (really) big screen. To our dismay, when we arrived we found that Star Trek was paired with the new Terminator movie on one screen while Night at the Museum was paired with another movie we didn't care to watch on the other. No major problem. We simply pulled into the lot showing the Terminator movie, turned the car around and tuned in the FM channel for Night at the Museum, which was the first feature on the opposite screen, and watched the movie over the fence. When the movie was over we turned the car around again and caught Star Trek.

There are already a gazillion reviews of Star Trek so we won't write one for it - though we were very pleased with it. But there aren't so many for Night at the Museum, so we thought we'd offer our observations in the hope that they will be helpful to others.

We've read a number of the comments that preceded ours and think we understand where those who didn't like the movie have based their opinions. It all revolves around the concept of suspending disbelief.

A suspension of disbelief is required for nearly any movie to work well. The audience must be willing to accept certain premises that may be in one way or another absurd or contrary to the way time, space, society, etc. work in order to fully dwell within the story. If you are not willing to suspend your disbelief you will find most any movie unsatisfactory at some level.

But Night at The Museum requires - we think - a different sort of suspension of disbelief. In order to appreciate it fully, we think it is necessary to recall how the world seems to work from the perspective of a 7 or 8 year old. If you can manage that - regardless of your age - we think you'll really enjoy this film.

The point where we realized this was during the various escapades outside of the museum itself in the movie. The characters were running around the center of Washington, D.C. in the middle of the night...and of course there was not another soul around. Amelia takes off from the streets of Washington and lands on the (naturally) deserted streets of another major city with nary a thought. And we suddenly thought, "Of course! This is how the world works for an 8 year old." After bedtime, the world is deserted until a child wakes again the next morning and everything reappears.

Adopting the perspective of an 8 year old allows you to accept figures from various points in history being able to exhibit knowledge of people, languages and events well out of their own time frame. It allows you to be unconcerned about major structural damage being done to various important buildings. It allows you to work with a silent, empty capitol city at one o'clock in the morning.

Indeed, the entire movie is geared to that age and place of wonder and adventure inhabited by the very young. The answer to the central puzzle is one of the mysterious elements of mathematics; the magic that is time and space is explored by characters from every adventure genre; the amazing feats of science surround all.

In addition, there is a fierce, loud battle in which nobody really gets hurt - unless you count a few bad guys turning to dust. And isn't that what should happen to bad guys - they just go away in a poof of dust? If you can approach Night at the Museum from this perspective we think you'll find it wonderfully enjoyable - at least as good as the first. If you are unable to put yourself in that place, well, you'll probably get caught up in criticizing the details - because there will be tons of details to deal with. But that would be sad, because we think this movie has the potential to spark the imagination of many children in the areas of math, science, history, and museums in general. At the same time, it was quite entertaining for geezers such as ourselves. We predict that if the bobble-head Einsteins were tucked in a little nook in the Air and Space Museum before this movie opened, they're probably in a place of prominence today. And well they should be!

The Visitor (I) (2007)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 8 January 2009]

Alright, I'm gonna get up on my soapbox here because I have a major bone to pick with a great many reviewers and critics out there. As an example, I will quote Time magazine's Richard Corliss as he deems this movie and indie film that "didn't work": "It's a slow, amiable film boasting fine performances, but if you can't predict every plot twist, you're just not paying attention." It's the same criticism I've read in many posts here as well as in reviews of Australia and a number of other recent movies. I want to know when the edict was passed that decreed in order for a movie to "work" or to be considered worth watching, the primary criterion was established that it is not permitted to be predictable? Please let me know - I missed it.

If predictability is going to be our primary measure of a quality film then we're going to have to throw out pretty much everything made before 1960 - and most of what has been made since. Unpredictability, in my estimation, can be an entertaining gimmick. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some films employ the gimmick, some don't. But please, don't mangle the whole world of film by declaring that in order to get good reviews a film is required to contain X percentage of unpredictability. In the same vein, Corliss refers to "every plot twist". Does every plot have to be twisted? Can't a story simply be a good story? I will agree with Corliss. The Visitor is an amiable film. It boasts fine performances. I'll go on to say that it is quite moving. Funny at times. Maddeningly frustrating at others. Then I'll conclude by disagreeing with Corliss. The Visitor works. Very well.

Yes, there are many fine films out there that feature unpredictable plots. I won't insult you by listing them. But please, please, let us not forget that there are many absolutely classic films out there that are thoroughly predictable through every inch of cellophane. If unpredictability becomes a critical requirement rather than an optional component, we will wind up depriving ourselves of a tremendous wealth of very, very good stories.

He Was a Quiet Man (2007)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[7/10 · 8 January 2009]

Warning! Major, Major spoilers ahead! I've read a number of the other reviews here and it seems only a handful of people actually figured this movie out. Of course, I may be completely off base as well, but the reviews that make a comparison to Incident at Owl Creek are, I believe, on the right track. Basically, this is a psychotic version of Incident at Owl Creek. Let me try to outline it here - either spoiling it terribly if you haven't seen it or possibly helping you appreciate it a bit more if you have:

The first 25 minutes introduce us to Bob(Christian Slater), an office worker who is working up the courage to do the disgruntled postal worker routine. The rest of the movie happens in Bob's imagination in the instant before he does the actual deed. It is important to remember - both during the first 25 minutes and throughout the rest of the movie - that we are seeing Bob's coworkers through his eyes...and Bob is psychotic. I say it's important to remember this because all the people around Bob are the Office Workers from Hell. They are so cartoonish and over the top that if you don't catch on that this is how Bob sees them and not the actual people they probably are, you may be prone to eject this DVD and not give it the chance it deserves. There is the thoroughly nasty immediate supervisor, the mindless and boorish fellow cubicle workers, the office slut, the sleazy boss and the unattainable beauty of a secretary.

In the real world, these would all be fairly normal denizens of a fairly normal office. They may have all at one time or another committed some small personal slight or evidenced some character trait that caused terrible damage to Bob's psyche. But remember, Bob is gonzo - and since we're seeing everything from Bob's perspective, their flaws are exponentially magnified and we can't blame him for wanting to exterminate this herd of troglodytes.

When Bob's moment of decision comes, we suddenly find ourselves (as we learn later) in an extended fantasy where instead of being the homicidal maniac, Bob becomes the hero as he thwarts another psycho partway through stealing Bob's thunder with a massacre of his own. The rest of the movie relentlessly unveils the self-destructive nature of Bob's twisted mind. Bob warps his virginal heroine into someone neither so virginal nor so heroic as she ought to be, and even though Bob does everything right (of course he does - it's his fantasy after all!) a relationship with her becomes impossible. His imagined promotion to Vice President of Creative Thinking only reveals how pathetic his creative thinking is. His fantasy of the big boss is even worse than he had previously thought. Heroic Bob imagines himself with every advantage he can think of, yet cannot imagine any of it turning out good for him or for anyone else. By the end of the movie we find him back at his moment of decision, gun in hand, about to begin his rampage. It is at this moment he has his one instant of clarity: When he is unable to distinguish whether the woman at the water cooler is his unattainable beauty or the office slut, he finally and mercifully comes to the realization that the only person in the room who is damaged goods is the one holding the pistol. And in his one moment of lucidity, he culls the herd.

Now, how do I know this? It all becomes clear - or should - in the last few moments of the movie, when his home is cordoned off and everything in it is as it was at the beginning of the movie; when the TV interviews are only the boilerplate, "He was a quiet man" quotes and say nothing about the Hero Who Turns Homicidal Maniac that would be splashed all over the news had the previous hour been factual rather than fantasy.

I would have rated the movie much lower if I hadn't figured out what was going on, but once understood it becomes an interesting study of a psychotic mind. And I would have rated it even higher if they would have added about a 5 to 10 minute epilogue depicting the people around Bob as they actually were, rather than as the monsters Bob showed us they were. I don't think it would have hurt the twist at all - in fact, I think the stark contrast could really have added a jolt for the audience at the end as people tried to figure out how all these rotten characters suddenly became so, well, normal.

Australia (2008)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 27 December 2008]

I guess we approach this more from a movie goer's perspective than a movie critic's perspective, but when the audience applauds at the end of the movie (such a rarity anymore) and nearly every woman regardless of age is clutching a well-used tissue and smiling as they leave, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that those who have panned this movie are jaded to the point of opacity.

Yes, it's old-fashioned. Yes, it's predictable. Yes, there are flaws. But so what? This is a wonderful movie with some superb performances, meaningful themes and terrific scenery. What more could you want? First, let me cover the flaws: (1) At the very beginning I was afraid that Nullah's narration would quickly become an annoying cuteness, but it didn't turn out that way. (2) A considerable part of the first twenty minutes or so was devoted to a fairly hurried exposition to bring the audience up to speed. (3) It was obvious that not enough of the budget was devoted to CGI, because even my wife - who is not usually observant of such things - commented on the sloppy quality of significant sections of the animation. (4) There were a couple of holes in the logic that I imagine were the result of editing to fit an acceptable time frame (for instance, how DID they get through the Never Never?) (5) And finally, the love scene used a body double for Ms. Kidman - there was no way she could fit thighs with that much meat on them into the dresses she was wearing! But these all wind up being minor distractions in an overall moving, highly entertaining film. Thank heavens Russell Crowe turned this down; he could not possibly have done as well as Mr. Jackman. All the principal characters were played very well, but special mention must be made of Brandon Walters. This young boy is almost impossibly beautiful, and his participation in the film should not be referred to as "acting" so much as simply "being"...a thoroughly natural presence that was hands-down the highlight - the heart and soul - of the film. I don't know whether he has a future as an actor, but this performance immortalizes him: decades from now new generations will see this film for the first time and have their breath taken away by this child's beauty.

I'm so glad we caught this on the big screen, which does justice to the scenery and the scope of an epic. It was also refreshing in this season to catch at least one movie where the action scenes weren't hyperspeed, overstimulated paeans to Crouching Tiger. We'll watch this one again - and hope the studios will produce more like it in the future.

Atonement (2007)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 19 August 2008]

This was one of those movies that we were sorely tempted to eject 30 minutes into the viewing - and are very glad we didn't. It turned out to be the rare film that made you think and seriously analyze what you have seen; so much so that my wife is now reading the book to see how faithful the movie was to the novel.

It was certainly not without flaws, so let's get the major of those out of the way right up front: 1. The setting that was chosen (England prior to and during WWII) to construct the central transgression and link the dual message was just too easy and convenient, and the screenwriters even played with the time frame a bit to make it just that much easier. We felt this was a bit lazy.

2. The inconsistency in the methods used to shift back and forth in time was disconcerting and smacked of self-satisfied gimmickry. Some time shifts were labeled as such, some were not, some reran a just viewed scene from a different perspective, most did not. It just became too clever and ultimately annoying.

Now down to the stuff that raised the movie above its flaws: The film asks - and answers - dual but closely related questions: (a) Can the artist atone for his/her transgressions through his/her artistry? and (b) Can society atone for the atrocity and horror of war by writing history to reflect on war's heroes and victories? The answer in both cases is clearly No, and the film does a very good job of illustrating why.

Briony destroys at least five lives (hers, her sister's, her cousin's, Robbie's, and his mother's) with a petulant, adolescent false witness - and spends most of the rest of her life trying to find a way to atone for her transgression. Her narcissism prevents her from summoning the wherewithal to face and attempt to undo the wrong directly, and time and dreadful circumstance quickly rob her of any opportunity to do so. By the end of the movie we find that she has written a novel in which the people she destroyed are blessed with a happy-ever-after fictional existence - and she has even been able to come out of herself far enough to expose the fiction and face her responsibility.

As the events of the central characters' lives unfold, we see a reflection of the primary conflict in the circumstances of the war raging around them. We are shown the foul atrocity that is the reality of war, then at war's end we are presented not with the images of the dead, the maimed, the maddened or even the ravaged earth, but instead offered the weary but smiling, victorious heroes arriving home. This is the atonement for war. But it doesn't work for us, because we have been there with Robbie and we know what he was subject to was so horrible as to preclude atonement.

And so it is also for Briony. Her rewriting of her own history cannot atone for what she has done. We can also realize that her entire life has been an incarnation of Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy, wherein the only thing that has enabled her to continue living has been her fear - given her horrible transgression - of what may lay beyond.

Very special mention must be made of Vanessa Redgrave's short but incredible performance. While doing her brief monologue as the now aged Briony, she says with her eyes more than all the other characters in the film combined. While she calmly and quietly lays out the basis of her last novel - and the fact that it does not reflect reality - her eyes plead with us for forgiveness. She is facing death. She is afraid. She wants more than anything in the world to hear someone say, "We forgive you." But the desperation in her eyes lets us know that she is fully aware that the only people who could rightfully say that to her are long dead. It is an extremely powerful moment.

Despite its flaws and the fact that the movie's central questions have all too obvious answers, there is enough artistry and power in this film that we would highly recommend it.

Babel (I) (2006)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Down

[1/10 · 17 August 2008]

Babel won tons of awards and tremendous critical acclaim. This tells us that coherent plotting and sensible storytelling are no longer requirements for cinematic accolades. Let's briefly outline some of the irredeemably absurd elements of the story: Morroccan authorities, without benefit of weapon, interviews or any other physical evidence whatsoever are able to track down the previous two owners of a rifle as well as the current owner - a desert goatherder - and locate his family. While they are doing this, with SUVs crawling all over the desert, neither they nor anyone else is able to get an ambulance, a helicopter or even so much as a golf cart to the person who has been wounded. A goatherder hands a high-powered rifle over to his two pre-teen sons with neither instruction nor apparent concern about their safety or anyone else's. Those sons - who are possessed of enough maturity and responsibility to tend the family's herds, give no thought to the possible consequences of using a moving tour bus for target practice. An illegal alien who has cared for two children since birth (a) waits until the day of her son's wedding to make plans to attend, and (b) decides to cross the border back into the U.S. with the two children she cherishes in the middle of both the night and the desert...with her drunken nephew at the wheel.

That's just for starters. The entire movie was rife with this sort of inanity, which made it impossible for us to lend credence to anything the movie had to say. And while what it had to say was ostensibly something about our inability to communicate both interpersonally and across cultures, I'm afraid that we are in agreement that all that actually came out of this mess was an intense xenophobia and the conclusion that we are all - without fail or exception - cosmically stupid.

We are used to suspending our disbelief for the sake of film, but we do expect that if we are asked to do this, the filmmaker provides the courtesy of a storyline and plot that will assist that effort. Babel, however, not only does not provide this, but gives us scenario after scenario that is so overwhelmingly implausible as to thwart one's best efforts to go along with it all.

In the end, the only segment of the movie that possessed any heart or believability was the Japanese story line - and by the end of the movie we still only had about one-fifth of what may have been an interesting story there. Too bad. If they had given us that complete story it couldn't have been anywhere near as awful as what we wound up sitting through.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs (sadly) down

[3/10 · 2 August 2008]

Since we saw Mummy III and Hellboy II as a drive-in double bill we're doing sort of a twofer - reviewing both movies simultaneously and posting under both titles - because we discovered that we were actually watching the same movie twice. It was a fascinating way to see these films; giving us the opportunity to directly compare and contrast them and analyze why one succeeded and the other failed.

Synopsis: Ancient Relic must be returned to Undead Villain so that Villain might be reanimated in order to summon his Demon Army and destroy the World. Hero's task is to thwart this process. In the course of attempting to prevent Armageddon, Hero is nearly killed but is saved at the last minute by Love. Hero's power is not great enough to stop Villain, so secondary characters must make the Ultimate Sacrifice in order to dispatch Villain and Save the World. The End. If it all sounds familiar it's because it's also the plot of nearly every superhero or fantasy movie made over the last umpteen years. Note to Hollywood: It's time to come up with a new plot line, OK? Please?

We were expecting to enjoy Mummy III. First, there was Brendan Fraser and most of the cast of the previous Mummy films. Then there was the rich potential of the setting - the Terra Cotta Warriors, the mystery and lore of China...even a trip to Shangri-La and Yetis. The table was set for a feast of mystery, wonder and enchantment. How could they not produce an entertaining film out of all this?

One word: Writing. We're always amazed when megabuck films apparently cap the writing budget at a buck ninety-seven. Early on, didn't anyone involved in this say, "Hey, the script we're working from really stinks!"? The rich mythology available to them was utterly wasted by the writers. Shangri-La was a cheesy set that served only as a platform for one of the progressive plot elements. The Yeti, though well done, performed their little shtick and left the scene. One appearance by the shape-shifting villain as a three-headed dragon and so much for the fascinating potential of Chinese dragon lore. The hero's skeletal army could have offered another little tribute to Ray Harryhausen (as was done so well in the first Mummy), but no, why bother? And the dialogue was uniformly clumsy, blunt and contributed nothing to either character development or plot movement.

The writers in Mummy III were obviously in video game mode. Video games need progressive plot tasks. So the Relic is returned to the Villain. But wait - now the Villain must carry a jewel to the mountains that will reveal the location of Shangri-La. But wait - now the Villain must enter the waters of Shangri-La to be fully restored. But wait - now the Villain must return to his tomb and summon his Terra Cotta Army. But wait - now the Army must make it over the Great Wall in order to achieve immortality. And so it goes. Played out like the levels of a video game, and with even less explanation of the rationale than you'd get in a video game. These are game levels rather than story elements, and since the audience's need to be informed isn't fulfilled, it winds up not understanding - and consequently not caring about - what's going on.

In Hellboy II director/writer del Toro had the more difficult task. Without a wealth of Chinese mythology to squander, he had to invent his own...but he does it so very well (to see what we mean, watch Pan's Labyrinth - please!). Del Toro is an imaginative story teller and myth maker and proves it in Hellboy II. He also appreciates something the writers of Mummy III don't - the wonder of small magic. The single moment in Mummy III that made my wife "Ooooh!" was the transformation of the egg-thing that awakened the emperor. Beautifully done - but the only thing of its kind in the movie. Everything else was bigger than life, overblown. In contrast, del Toro is full of small magic. From tooth fairies to troll markets to wheels within wheels, he understands that an audience can be just as enchanted by the small wonder as by the huge spectacle. It's the difference between stage and close-up magic. Make an airliner disappear and I will only wonder about the mechanics of how you did it. Make a coin float in mid-air before my eyes and I will be mystified.

A hallmark of both the Mummy and the Hellboy franchises is the effective use of humor. Mummy fell flat at every attempt. thanks to inept writing. Hellboy pulled it off very well - two love stricken, clueless guys getting plastered to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You" was delightful. We also have to mention del Toro's mastery of lighting, set design and mood. His movies are consistently visually evocative, which makes a good movie even better.

The movies shared one flaw with several other recent movies: climactic action scenes that go into visual and auditory overload, causing the eyes to glaze over and reducing the ability to comprehend what's going on. When we lose the ability to take in what you're showing us this is a bad thing. Please don't toss everything at us at once just because you can - let us absorb your work so we can fully appreciate it. Had the intense action not drenched us a few times in Hellboy II it would have another star.

In summary, both movies had capable casts and premises with wonderful potential. Mummy III failed, sadly, to capitalize while Hellboy II succeeded very well. The difference was the quality of the writing and the talent of the directing. We only wish the Mummy III crew could take a mulligan, sit down and take a few lessons from del Toro and try again. It's a shame that can't happen.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

[8/10 · 2 August 2008]

Since we saw Mummy III and Hellboy II as a drive-in double bill we're doing sort of a twofer - reviewing both movies simultaneously and posting under both titles - because we discovered that we were actually watching the same movie twice. It was a fascinating way to see these films; giving us the opportunity to directly compare and contrast them and analyze why one succeeded and the other failed.

Synopsis: Ancient Relic must be returned to Undead Villain so that Villain might be reanimated in order to summon his Demon Army and destroy the World. Hero's task is to thwart this process. In the course of attempting to prevent Armageddon, Hero is nearly killed but is saved at the last minute by Love. Hero's power is not great enough to stop Villain, so secondary characters must make the Ultimate Sacrifice in order to dispatch Villain and Save the World. The End. If it all sounds familiar it's because it's also the plot of nearly every superhero or fantasy movie made over the last umpteen years. Note to Hollywood: It's time to come up with a new plot line, OK? Please?

We were expecting to enjoy Mummy III. First, there was Brendan Fraser and most of the cast of the previous Mummy films. Then there was the rich potential of the setting - the Terra Cotta Warriors, the mystery and lore of China...even a trip to Shangri-La and Yetis. The table was set for a feast of mystery, wonder and enchantment. How could they not produce an entertaining film out of all this?

One word: Writing. We're always amazed when megabuck films apparently cap the writing budget at a buck ninety-seven. Early on, didn't anyone involved in this say, "Hey, the script we're working from really stinks!"? The rich mythology available to them was utterly wasted by the writers. Shangri-La was a cheesy set that served only as a platform for one of the progressive plot elements. The Yeti, though well done, performed their little shtick and left the scene. One appearance by the shape-shifting villain as a three-headed dragon and so much for the fascinating potential of Chinese dragon lore. The hero's skeletal army could have offered another little tribute to Ray Harryhausen (as was done so well in the first Mummy), but no, why bother? And the dialogue was uniformly clumsy, blunt and contributed nothing to either character development or plot movement.

The writers in Mummy III were obviously in video game mode. Video games need progressive plot tasks. So the Relic is returned to the Villain. But wait - now the Villain must carry a jewel to the mountains that will reveal the location of Shangri-La. But wait - now the Villain must enter the waters of Shangri-La to be fully restored. But wait - now the Villain must return to his tomb and summon his Terra Cotta Army. But wait - now the Army must make it over the Great Wall in order to achieve immortality. And so it goes. Played out like the levels of a video game, and with even less explanation of the rationale than you'd get in a video game. These are game levels rather than story elements, and since the audience's need to be informed isn't fulfilled, it winds up not understanding - and consequently not caring about - what's going on.

In Hellboy II director/writer del Toro had the more difficult task. Without a wealth of Chinese mythology to squander, he had to invent his own...but he does it so very well (to see what we mean, watch Pan's Labyrinth - please!). Del Toro is an imaginative story teller and myth maker and proves it in Hellboy II. He also appreciates something the writers of Mummy III don't - the wonder of small magic. The single moment in Mummy III that made my wife "Ooooh!" was the transformation of the egg-thing that awakened the emperor. Beautifully done - but the only thing of its kind in the movie. Everything else was bigger than life, overblown. In contrast, del Toro is full of small magic. From tooth fairies to troll markets to wheels within wheels, he understands that an audience can be just as enchanted by the small wonder as by the huge spectacle. It's the difference between stage and close-up magic. Make an airliner disappear and I will only wonder about the mechanics of how you did it. Make a coin float in mid-air before my eyes and I will be mystified.

A hallmark of both the Mummy and the Hellboy franchises is the effective use of humor. Mummy fell flat at every attempt. thanks to inept writing. Hellboy pulled it off very well - two love stricken, clueless guys getting plastered to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You" was delightful. We also have to mention del Toro's mastery of lighting, set design and mood. His movies are consistently visually evocative, which makes a good movie even better.

The movies shared one flaw with several other recent movies: climactic action scenes that go into visual and auditory overload, causing the eyes to glaze over and reducing the ability to comprehend what's going on. When we lose the ability to take in what you're showing us this is a bad thing. Please don't toss everything at us at once just because you can - let us absorb your work so we can fully appreciate it. Had the intense action not drenched us a few times in Hellboy II it would have another star.

In summary, both movies had capable casts and premises with wonderful potential. Mummy III failed, sadly, to capitalize while Hellboy II succeeded very well. The difference was the quality of the writing and the talent of the directing. We only wish the Mummy III crew could take a mulligan, sit down and take a few lessons from del Toro and try again. It's a shame that can't happen.

Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

From a 50-plus perspective: Thumbs Up

[7/10 · 17 July 2008]

My wife and I are way over our first run summer movie quota this year, having played host to our granddaughter for much of the season. But I wanted to see JTTCOTE on the big screen and in 3D so my wife indulged me and we took in an afternoon show.

The original Journey has been one of my all-time favorite films since I first saw it in the theater when it was brand new and I was a pre-teen - and whenever it pops up on TCM or elsewhere I'll be sure to watch it. I can't say exactly why. It has something to do with imagination, whimsical charm, and period costuming and mannerisms I guess...and nothing to do with Pat Boone's singing. At any rate I've been enormously disappointed by all the subsequent movie and TV remakes of Verne's classic - until now.

Don't get me wrong; this movie cannot compare with the original, but at the same time it turns out to be delightful in completely different ways. Both of us enjoyed it immensely and that's really saying something considering that my wife's taste in movies runs heavily toward Jane Austen and anything about the English queens. But both of us enjoyed Brendan Fraser in films like The Mummy and George of the Jungle and I think that if you liked him in those you'll like him in this.

My first thought part way through the movie was that it was too bad our granddaughter had already returned home - she would have loved this. The caves and crystals, the luminescent birds, the dinosaurs, the very light romance...it's all right up her alley. But by the time the movie was over I also realized that this is the most refreshing movie from a parent's (or grandparent's in our case) perspective I've seen in a long, long time. No objectionable language whatsoever. Nearly free of bodily function humor (not counting three spit-takes - one by Fraser, one by Hutcherson and one by dinosaur) and also very light on the sexual innuendo. And it is totally free of the insult/nasty sort of humor that has all but redefined what is supposed to be funny - nobody finds humor in this movie at the expense of someone else's pain or humiliation. It's all action, adventure and wonder - with nobody getting hurt and people learning, growing and coming closer together along the way. True, it all requires a major, major willful suspension of disbelief, but hey, what are movies for anyway? We've managed to see nearly every summer flick this year (Kung Fu Panda, Ironman, Wall-E, Get Smart) and from the point of view of taking kids to a movie we would readily recommend every one of them except Wall-E. But of them all, JTTCOTE is the one that we believe both children and adults will enjoy equally - and it's the only one we'd readily watch again. Yes, with the availability of 3D the film makers go out of their way to make you jump out of your seat on a regular basis, but I don't think this is a movie that will frighten children: every BOO! moment is immediately followed up with comic relief or other silliness clearly designed to ameliorate the effect of the scare.

I'm sure the movie will be far less entertaining without the 3D, so try to catch it in 3D if you can. But in sum, it's an enjoyable, imaginative romp that both children and adults should find to be a thoroughly good time - and what more could you ask of a summer movie?

WALL·E (2008)

Just Plain Not Good

[1/10 · 16 July 2008]

I have to give Pixar credit for being faithful to their green theme - by applying the concept of recycling and conservation to their own movie. I can think of not one original idea offered in Wall-E - but could trot out a laundry list of earlier movies it has borrowed from, paid homage to...or just plain ripped off. The hero himself is nothing more than an amalgam of ET, Short Circuit, Silent Running and a few other robotic movie characters, and what voice he has is that nasal/adolescent whine that movie makers seem to have en masse declared to embody the essence of innocent or cute. Actually, it's just a nasal/adolescent whine.

I'm not going to echo those who bash the movie for its preachy environmental theme. After all, name a kid's movie or animated feature that isn't preachy. That's nothing more or less than I expected. But I will give Pixar a tarnished star for its cynicism. The film's Buy N Large mega-corporation is the villain as it entertains humanity into oblivion, while Pixar itself rakes in billions not only from the movie but from every tie-in, placement, and merchandising deal it can get its hands on...while doing its level best to become the mega-corporation of its cautionary tale and entertain humanity into oblivion.

We went to the movie because our ten year old granddaughter is spending a chunk of the summer with us, so we caught it at a drive-in (yes, we still have some - thank heavens!) where it was double billed with Get Smart. All of us enjoyed Get Smart much more than Wall-E. Knowing that our granddaughter was coming, we loaded up on rented kid's movies, most of them animated. We've seen much better than this in the past few weeks. As a matter of fact, just a few days after the drive-in, Robots arrived - and we felt it was far superior to Wall-E. It's preachiness was more direct and more easily absorbed by a ten year old - "You Can Shine No Matter What you're Made Of" - and "Find a Need and Fill It". And it displayed far more imagination, character development and humor than Wall-E. I realize that Pixar took a big gamble in choosing to do much of this movie without dialogue, but there is just so much you can accomplish by repeating "Wall-E!" and "Eve!" with different inflections. In other words, the gamble didn't pay off - at least for the audience.

If you're looking for state of the art CGI you probably won't find anything better...yet. But if you're looking for humor there are tons of better choices and if you're looking for something heart-warming you can also do much, much better. Actually, the funniest part of the movie happened when my wife and our granddaughter took a restroom break. They returned to report that the feet of the woman in the stall beside them looked exactly like the feet of the Axiom's passengers. Sad - but still funny.

Get Smart (2008)

A Pleasant Surprise

[8/10 · 6 July 2008]

We wouldn't have gone to see this in the theater - the recycling of 60s and 70s pop culture has produced some really dismal results - but it was the last half of a drive-in double feature with Wall-E and our granddaughter has been staying with us this summer and wanted to see Wall-E, so off we went with a carload of pizza, popcorn, drinks, pillows, blankets and all the other drive-in necessities.

Not only did we find Get Smart very entertaining, but we all - including our granddaughter - enjoyed it much more than we did Wall-E. True, it had its quota of pre-adolescent body function humor (is Hollywood ever going to get tired of that?) but the very brief barf sight gag was the only one that was irredeemably offensive. There were plenty of genuine laughs for both adults and children.

There were also some very interesting aspects to the movie. We thought both Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway did an excellent job with their parts. They didn't so much try to imitate Don Adams and Barbara Feldon as they did interpret their characters - and their interpretations were extremely well done. I confess that I'm ancient enough to be one of the millions of teenage boys hopelessly in love with Barbara Feldon when Get Smart ran on TV, and especially in the dance sequence Hathaway captured her essence charmingly.

Perhaps the most interesting point was how the movie differed from the TV series. In the series, Maxwell Smart was portrayed as a total idiot upon whom the gods of fate consistently smiled. Each episode revolved around him bumbling haplessly into terrible trouble and then somehow bumbling his way right back out of it. But in the movie Smart is portrayed as a genuinely intelligent analyst with a burning desire to become an agent. He isn't lucky - he's right - and that was a refreshing change.

It's all lightweight stuff to be sure, but it's nice to once in a while be pleasantly surprised by a movie from which you didn't expect much. We were pleasantly surprised by Get Smart.

Year of the Dog (I) (2007)

sick, Sick. SICK.

[1/10 · 20 April 2008]

Too bad there's a length limit on comments, because I could write volumes about how incredibly awful this movie is. To those who saw this as some sort of commercial for PETA, I'd suggest you go back and watch it again (but I wouldn't suggest anyone watch this garbage even once, let alone twice). Did you not notice that the two characters who cared anything about animals were severely damaged goods? Far from being a pro-PETA piece, this movie strongly implies that the only reason anyone cares deeply about animals is because they are incapable - for one reason or another - of functioning in human society. To those who thought this movie was "warm" or "funny" - if your idea of warm or funny is to watch a slightly introverted but otherwise competent woman sink inexorably into a downward spiral of psychotic madness replete with larceny, child abuse, animal abuse, vandalism, betrayal, and attempted murder - then this movie may be just your cup of tea. And to those who identified with the main character - I implore you to get professional help as soon as possible.

I've read many of the other comments and want to correct a few points that I believe are misperceptions: 1. Peggy was not a sociopath at the beginning of the movie - she was a fairly introverted but otherwise normal person. The fact that she could deal competently with an obviously paranoid boss, maintain a normal, healthy friendship with a coworker, remain friends with a thoroughly unlikeable brother and sister-in-law and engender the affection of her spoiled niece all indicated that her initial problems ran no deeper than being a rather homely wallflower who had compensated for her lack of an intimate human relationship by being closely - but not pathologically - attached to her dog.

2. Newt was not gay. If you paid attention to what he said, you discovered that he was abused terribly in childhood - and the most probable reason that he was unable to have an intimate relationship with either a woman or a man was a not-too-subtle suggestion that this abuse produced a physiological rather than psychological incapacity (mutilation? castration?).

3. Peggy is not headed toward some sort of happy ending at the end of the movie, but rather has retreated fully into psychosis. The crimes to which her delusions have led her are not crimes she will be able to walk away from - and her fully psychotic state will only lead her to commit more in her deranged desire to protect animals.

4. Many commenters claimed that the people around Peggy didn't care about her loss of Pencil. On the contrary, each character she came into contact with expressed their sympathy and at least tried in some way to comfort her. That some of their methods were crass or counter-productive does not diminish their underlying empathy.

The movie's primary detestable assumptions are that a) anyone who has a close bond to animals only comes to that bond because they are incapable - for one reason or another - of forming healthy bonds with other people, and b) that people so bonded to animals are hopelessly blind to reason. About midway through, the movie abandoned any pretext of being an exploration of feelings and emotions and became nothing more than a sick, twisted attack on animal lovers. One of the principle evidences of this transformation was when, discovering that the German Shepherd had killed the disabled dog, Peggy rushes to the pound to try to save the German Shepherd. PETA or not, no animal lover in possession of their senses would contend that a dog that attacks and kills another pet (let alone a person) should not immediately be put down. And no animal pound in existence would entrust another fifteen dogs to the care of such a person, no matter what credentials they claimed.

I suggest that the writer of this awful, awful piece of work has some deep issues with animals - and is completely incapable of understanding that love and empathy are not the sole province of human-to-human relationships, but rightfully - and healthily - should extend to a genuine care for all creatures - great and small.

I could list many, many other ways in which this movie's portrayal of people who care about animals was screamingly unrealistic. And yes, I "get" dark comedy...but there was nothing comic about this. It was nothing more than a myopic, mean-spirited portrayal of dementia - and I'm afraid I can find nothing either entertaining or funny in that.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

A Visual Cliff's Notes

[8/10 · 22 May 2006]

I took the time to read a sampling of other reviews here, spanning the entire range, before writing mine. While none of them changed my opinion, many reinforced what I had already guessed I would find, which was: (a) Most (not all) of those who pan the movie had not read the book. I can understand this. My wife (read it 3 times so far) and I (read it once) agreed that if you had not read the book you might have a difficult time following or even wanting to follow the movie.

(b) Many of the bad reviews mention long periods of exposition. However, this is not only necessary in order to competently bring the book's plot to screen, but it is also faithful to the book, which contains much lengthy exposition.

(c) Many of the bad reviews - those from people who did read the book - complain about so much being left out or abridged in the movie. People, there is simply no way to cram a complete novel into a 2.5 hour movie. Deal with it.

(d) Other reviews, both good and bad, focus on the controversy or the plausibility of the plot, and certainly the media have gone bonkers over the religious implications and have gone to great lengths to dig up various spokespeople who are more than willing to froth at the mouth in front of a camera over this sacrilege or that blasphemy. Can we all please remember that the book is a work of fiction, does not pretend to be anything other than a work of fiction and, as a work of fiction, is an enjoyable and provocative romp? In case you're wondering, my own perspective here is that of a former clergy member (as is my wife). Ease up, folks.

As to our actual review, we both thought the movie was extremely well done, tremendously faithful to the novel, and we had a difficult time imagining that it could have been done any better while remaining true to its source. Given the time constraints of a movie, pretty much everything you could have expected to be there was there. We could think of three instances where there were noticeable plot alterations and in each instance the alteration served the purpose of condensing plot elements in order to suit the movie time frame. In our view, this is perfectly acceptable.

In our opinion (seemingly supported by many of the reviews here) you won't really appreciate this movie unless you've read the book first. You also won't particularly enjoy it (or the book, for that matter) if you insist that all plot elements must be plausible. My title for this review may seem like a bit of a dig, but it really isn't. About halfway through the movie, my wife remarked that she was a bit perturbed by the fact that, while so much of what she was seeing was what she had imagined in her mind's eye as she read the book, many of the characters had different faces than what she had envisioned. We both quickly realized that this was actually a tremendous compliment to the filmmakers, and was how we both perceived the movie. It was as if Mr. Howard et al had shared our personal visions, from actions to ambiance, and had succeeded in bringing this to the screen. Small quibble, then, that some of the faces didn't quite match our own imaginations.

If you've read the book and can be realistic in your expectations of how a novel can be translated to screen, we highly recommend this film. If you haven't read the book, we highly recommend you do so before you see the film. If you insist on taking any of it seriously, you might as well take a pass on both - and try lightening up a bit.

Saint Ralph (2004)

Rent This Movie!!!

[10/10 · 11 March 2006]

OK - somewhere out there is someone with a list of "Movies you never heard of but really should see." Saint Ralph is one of the movies on that list. Please, please send us the list on a regular basis. I believe we heard about this movie on Netflix as one of Roger Ebert's picks for best movie of 2005. While we tend to view any critic's recommendations with a jaundiced eye, Ebert is reasonably reliable, so I thought I'd give it a try. When it arrived, my wife read the blurb on the DVD and said, "Why on earth did you order this?" I gotta admit, whoever wrote the blurb really made it sound sappy and had I picked it up at the local rental store I probably would have put it right back down again. What a mistake that would have been. (Note to producers and distributors - next time you release a film, get someone who understands the movie to write the blurb).

Saint Ralph is truly outstanding. From the story to the acting to the photography and on, it is a rare movie, bringing many laughs and as many tears. From the trappings of 1950s parochial school guilt, repression and just plain goofiness blossoms a truly and deeply spiritual quest. I am accustomed to being embarrassed to be a person of faith by the way it is perceived and represented by most of the media available today. Saint Ralph reminds me that there are those out there who still embrace faith as I do, and I am deeply grateful to the writer, director and everyone involved in this film.

The thing that keeps this movie from being a corny, "feel good movie of the week" is the natural juxtaposition of authentic, uncontrived humor and uninflated drama - and the intelligence with which the story is constructed and executed.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. If you've ever wondered what faith is really all about, see this movie. If you've ever wanted to know how one very ordinary individual - just like yourself - can inspire and change an entire community for the better, see this movie. There is truth here.

Miss Congeniality 2: Armed & Fabulous (2005)

A lesson in why sequels are not always a good idea

[2/10 · 25 December 2005]

If you want to try an interesting exercise, get this movie and it's predecessor and watch them back to back. Depending on how you want to come away from the experience, I'd recommend viewing them in reverse order - the only drawback being that after you manage to sit through this drek you may not have the stomach to complete the project and watch the first film.

Miss Congeniality was charming, silly, diverting, cute, clever, imaginative and quite entertaining. Not high art, but not intended to be - just a bit of pleasant bubblegum for the eyes. Miss Congeniality 2 is not a single one of those things. I have seen many sequels that missed, but I have seldom seen one that missed so badly.

I think the single most shocking discovery about this film was that it was written by the same trio who wrote the first one. I had become convinced by the end of the movie that they had employed different writers for the second movie - writers who lacked any talent whatsoever and spent their time going over the first film, scene by scene, line by line, and asking each other how they could outdo the previous effort. Since they lacked even an ounce of skill at their craft, every single attempt to top the first film resulted only in a moronic, tasteless parody of a parody. I was completely shocked, then, when I found that Marc Lawrence, Katie Ford and Caryn Lewis are responsible (culpable in the second case) for the writing of both films. I can only conclude that sometime in the interim between the two projects they all have succumbed to some sort of horrible disease - or perhaps it was a tragic accident - that deprived them of every writing skill they once possessed. I wish them a speedy and complete recovery, and urge those in charge of their convalescence not to let them near another script until they have regained their faculties.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Who is Roman Osin and why is he doing this???

[8/10 · 25 December 2005]

First of all, the movie as a whole was extremely well acted, well scripted and faithful. It was a relief to see that the humor was not missed and was also not overplayed. I would easily have rated it 9 out of 10 - possibly even 10 out of 10, except...

About a quarter of the way into the movie my wife leaned over and whispered to me, "I'm feeling a bit dizzy - I may have to leave." Within less than a minute we both realized why she was feeling dizzy. It was the movie's cinematography! By the time the movie was over, we had come to the firm conclusion that cinematographer Roman Olin had devoted the first half of the film to a concerted effort to instill vertigo in the audience. In my wife's case, he succeeded.

We understand full well that there are all sorts of devices available in the film world to influence the audience's perception - from sound to color to lighting to framing and on and on. Skillful use of these devices creates a mood or underscores a message without the audience being consciously aware of the device's presence, let alone its impact. But what one filmmaker employs as a surgical tool, another may use as a blunt instrument to bludgeon unsuspecting victims, er, viewers.

Mr. Olin uses spinning, swooping, off-balance shots in such a heavy-handed surfeit during the film's first half that he risks inducing nausea. And while the movie was so very well done overall, we unfortunately left the theater with only one burning question - WHY? If this was to convey a message, what was it? I'm afraid we missed it, and given that the device was so overused as to become a gimmick, it must have been an awfully important message Mr. Olin was trying to drive home - drive as in sledgehammer, not as in Ferrari. Are we that dense, that we did not get the point? Or did we miss it because our faces were being shoved in it? Perhaps Mr. Olin meant to convey Elizabeth's confusion and misapprehensions. If so, then we can certainly observe that subtlety is not a word in his vocabulary. If not, then, well, what the heck was he doing? Thankfully, whatever his intent (perhaps mission would be a better word), he suddenly abandoned it about halfway through the film, which was a true blessing. But it is sad that, for us, this one manic gimmick threw a bit of a wet blanket over an otherwise splendid and thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience. Dramamine, anyone?

Closer (I) (2004)

Bad. Really, really bad. Awesomely bad. Monumentally bad.

[1/10 · 16 April 2005]

The wife and I seldom give up on a movie. Dr. T and the Women was an exception. Without a Paddle was another, but we didn't feel so bad, as it was the back end of a double feature. Closer makes three. Maybe it's unfair for me to review it, because it only polluted our DVD player for about twenty minutes before the poor thing gagged, retched and and spat it out. I've read others who comment on the intelligent dialogue. Maybe they were listening to an SAP channel or something. Pretentious/cutesy and so achingly full of itself that it was embarrassing would be our take on it. I don't care how misogynistic you may be, there is no way you are going to convince me that even marginally intelligent, educated and/or sophisticated people talk like this or relate to each other like this. I know. I'm a people. And I would laugh myself to tears if I ever encountered a poser like any of these characters. I think the internet chat scene was the breaking point for us. Had the cast consisted of eleven year olds it may have been believable, but even then one wonders why anyone would think it worthwhile to commit such drek to film. We did hang on into the aquarium scene, hoping against hope that since the film seemed to garner a number of decent ratings perhaps the first part was just a mistake of some sort and something worth watching might actually happen. It didn't. Eject. If you're a poser yourself, maybe you'll find something of interest in this film (I'm not going to even speculate on what that might actually be). If you're an authentic human being living within several light years of the planet I inhabit, I can't think of one single reason why you should subject yourself to this mess.