Change Your Image
stuart_mcmillen
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/aneurysm1985/
Reviews
Future by Design (2006)
Futuristic guru, or futuristic fakir? The director does not question.
Director William Gazecki presents a 89 minute documentary on inventor/designer/futurist Jacque Fresco, who was in his late 80s/early 90s when the film was shot.
I have deep problems with both the subject of the film, and the choices of the director in framing this story. Let's explore both.
First to Fresco himself. He comes off as a 'poor man's Buckminster Fuller'. Both men seemingly dedicated their lives to technology, design, philosophy and ethics which would improve humanity. Both seemed to dream of a human future away from competitive world of scarcity, to a cooperative world of abundance.
The difference between Fresco and Fuller (as far as I can tell from the film), is that Bucky Fuller seemed determined to prove his concepts by constructing real-life 'artefacts' to prove his ideas were viable. He built geodesic domes, the Dymaxion Car, the Dymaxion Map, all as physical proof of his theories. By contrast, Fresco seems to live in miniature land, spending his time building models of "what the future will look like". One's mind spins at the immense challenge of taking these models from theory to reality.
Fresco talks like a guru, making 'definitive'-sounding statements about how the future will be. He says things like "jets will be propelled with ionized beams", or "robots will do all the dirty, repetitive and boring work". So what? I can make broad statements too. For example: "in the future, everyone will be happy and healthy." Easy, huh? However, just because someone says something, doesn't mean it is actually true or useful.
This is where William Gazecki fails as director. The film feels like a promotional film for Jacque Fresco Industries, Inc. Complete with over-use of 3D modelling and a cheesy MIDI-like music soundtrack.
How did Fresco amass a fortune which allows him to spent 365 days a year creating models? Gazecki's film does not reveal. As far as we know, his only commercial commission is a set of surgical instruments - a far cry from the buildings and transportation which he claims authority to speak on. Not being a Fresco expert, this is a failure of the director, who offers little insight into Fresco's body of work beyond the model collection within The Venus Project circa-2006.
Gazecki allows one voice to dominate the film: that of Fresco himself. As such, the film feels like a sermon from Fresco, with the only alternative voice being that of his Venus Project assistant - hardly a person who is likely to dissent or challenge. No outsiders are interviewed throughout the documentary, and the film degrades into a one-sided 'Fresco on Fresco', set to increasingly bad music. It's no wonder he was so interested in submerged cities - it is clear that Fresco could talk underwater.
These directorial failings could be excused for a film about a subject of trivial importance. Say, a documentary about a football player. But by failing to hold Jacque Fresco to scrutiny, William Gazecki opens a potentially dangerous situation where viewers could be charmed by the soothing tune of the pied piper. The guru could well turn out to be a fakir, who leads us disastrously off track. Specifically, no question is raised of the huge environmental impacts of mining and refining the metals needed for Fresco's grand structures, as well as their energy requirements in a post-Peak Oil world.
The good points of the film? Well, the picture seemed to be in focus most of the time, and the audio and video were in sync. Also, I did not detect any spelling errors in the credits.
If you are looking for a well-made alternative to Future By Design - one which actually offers insight into the documentary's subject, watch Sketches of Frank Gehry by director Sydney Pollack.
Office Space (1999)
Cult favourite
I have no idea how much time Mike Judge spent writing Office Space, but I consider it a perfect film. Every line has so much thought put into it, meaning the comedy works on many levels. Some jokes hit you immediately ("Peter, whaaaat's happeninggg?", the jump-to-conclusions mat), others will not reveal themselves to you until future viewings ("back up in your ass with the resurrection...", "the ratio of people to cake is too big...") Sure, elements of the plot (such as the hypnotherapist part) are a little unlikely, but they work as a device to take our three characters on their journey to escape from the 'cube farm' work environment of Initech.
Like "This is Spinal Tap", Office Space is one of those cult movies that you just HAVE to see.
Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise (2001)
Timothy Spall steals the show
This very different story about salesmen selling vacuum cleaners is dominated by the impressive talents of Timothy Spall as the character Tommy Rag. Spall is absolutely hilarious at the start of the movie as the loud, repulsive Tommy who shows rookie salesman Pete (Michael Begley) the ins and outs of the art of selling people things they don't need or want. Tommy's extreme behaviour (perhaps best displayed in his erratic, abusive driving) is a real treat to watch, almost as if the part was written for Timothy Spall's acting.
Unfortunately, the entertainment value of the film lulled a bit during the middle and end, as the film's characters' circumstances changed and a darker tone was taken. This in itself isn't a bad thing in a movie, but I just found the final two-thirds of the movie didn't match the very funny and entertaining first third.
3 stars/5
Batman Returns (1992)
Good acting, bad plot
Following the success of 1989's 'Batman', Tim Burton and Michael Keaton released a second movie in the franchise: Batman Returns. Gotham City retains the Gothic look of the first film, only this time the city is in the midst of an icy winter punctuated by the arrival of two new villains on the scene: Catwoman and the Penguin.
As a kid I loved this movie and the original Tim Burton 'Batman' movie, however after re-watching it over a decade later it doesn't quite hold up as well as I wished it would have. Part of this reason is the fact that Batman seems almost external to this plot which revolves around Penguin (Danny DeVito), Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Gotham businessman Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). Batman (Michael Keaton) seems to only step in momentarily to throw a few punches before exiting back to Wayne Manor.
All four lead actors, especially Danny DeVito, deliver great performances in this movie, but it is a real shame that the scriptwriters chose to not continue the analysis into the Bruce Wayne/Batman psyche. Instead, we are left with a fairly routine 'bad guy trying to overthrow the city' story; the Penguin character was well developed, but the action scenes in the movie are nothing memorable. Another complaint is the lack of resolution that is given to the Penguin's attempts to turn Gotham city against Batman. Surely the mislead public would be angry at Batman for the crimes that they believe him to have committed, however the Bat-signal at the end of the film gives the impression that this is not the case.
On the positive side though, the movie has a great feel to it; from the visual appearance of the winter Gotham, through to Danny Elfman's musical score. You can't help but feel some of the special effects - computer and real-life - are a little outdated 13 years down the track though.
Overall, this childhood favourite of mine is worth a look and a film that I will revisit in the future, but upon reflection should have been better. I'm glad that the newly released 'Batman Begins' dives head first into the exploration of the Bruce Wayne/Batman characters that this film avoids.
2.5 stars / 5
Batman Begins (2005)
Dark Batman serves the franchise well
Ever since I heard they were try to resurrect the severely damaged Batman franchise from the damage the two Joel Schumacher I have been interested in seeing Batman Begins. The way I think Batman should be represented is not through the bloated, laughing-stock films 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin' (although the camp 1966 movie is a classic). I'm interested in the Gothic Gotham city in the Tim Burton films...and this film promised an ultra-dark take on the Batman franchise.
Despite my eagerness to see a dark Batman movie, I was actually a little unprepared for what Batman Begins had to offer. I was shocked by the murder scene of Bruce Wayne's parents, and the ninja training scenes where Bruce honed his fighting skills. I thought that Bruce Wayne's desire for revenge was too extreme for how the films should portray him. But when viewed as a whole film it all makes sense.
Viewed as a total film, the viewer is drawn into Bruce Wayne's world. We are there with him as he witnesses his parents' murder, as Gotham turns into a city crawling with corruption, and as Wayne Industries is taken out of his control. The team behind this movie have truly put a lot of thought into Wayne's reasons for becoming Batman, and the subsequent transformation was a very enjoyable piece of cinema.
In a sprawling city seething corruption, Wayne/Batman (who are portrayed as distinct identities) pick their allies wisely, and these give the viewer signs of 'hope' from the mess the city has become. All the actors from Gus Lewis (Bruce Wayne as a child) to more experienced actors like Michael Caine (Alfred) and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) do a good acting job in this movie. Although I had doubts about Katie Holmes' role in the movie, she actually did a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne's long-time friend, Rachel Dawes; someone who Wayne must present a 'playboy' image to in order to keep his 'Batman' identity a secret.
I feel the film has some weaknesses; the Batmobile chase sequence seemed to be an unnecessary excuse to have a car chase, and it detracted from the movie as a whole. Also, some of the fight scenes were shot in a very confusing way so the viewer can not accurately understand what is happening in the action. Whilst this is trying to put the viewer in the 'middle of it all', Christopher Nolan should have been a little more selective with his use of this technique. At times I missed the 'comic book' streak that the Tim Burton movies had in them, but realise that Batman Begins had to be a 'boots & all' effort to make its mark as a distinctly-dark resurrection of the Batman franchise.
As a whole though, Batman Begins is a very good movie; one that all Hollywood directors should watch and take lessons from. The film succeeds because of the way the film cleverly transports the viewer into the dark world of Gotham City, and more specifically into the mind of Bruce Wayne. This is definitely not a Batman movie to take the kids to see, and I'm glad! 4.5 stars/5
Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)
Beavis & Butt-Head on the big TV
This is a hard one for me to rate because I'm a fan of the Beavis & Butt-Head TV show, but this adaptation is pretty different. Whilst the TV show episodes only went for 10 minutes, in B&BDA the guys are off on a feature length journey around America. Of course the plot line is going to be pretty far-fetched to get Beavis & Butt-Head to leave Highland (let alone their couch), and the humour of Beavis & Butt-Head will wear thin for most people after half an hour, but I have to say I'm a fan of these guys, and the movie is pretty damn entertaining.
Still, I think the movie lacks some of the 'social commentary' aspects of the TV show. Yes, the TV show had lots of toilet humour and Beavis & Butt-Head doing stupid things, but I actually think the show had more depth to it than most people gave it credit for, especially with the stereotypical characters it dealt with. The support cast of the TV show is absent here; no Coach Buzzcut, no Daria, no Stewart, no Todd, and McVicker (my favourite; the principal driven to a nervous wreck by Beavis & Butt-Head) plays only a minimal role. I guess this is something that had to be done to get Beavis & Butt-Head out on the road to make it more of a 'cinematic' experience, but it is a shame that people watching only the movie will miss out on some of the funny stereotypical characters the show featured.
Beavis & Butt-Head Do America is definitely not for everyone; there is nothing 'offensive' about it, but most people will find the humour dumb and repetitive. These people don't get what Beavis & Butt-Head is about: the extreme stupidity of teenagers raised on too much TV! Whilst I prefer the TV series to this, it definitely is 80 minutes of good turn-your-brain off entertainment! 3/5 stars
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Script lets the movie down
When this movie first came out I was in Year 12 of school and went to see it in the first week of release. I left the movie theatre being very impressed by the movie, after some impressive special effects scenes. However, once I thought about the movie more and talked it over with my friends I realised that the movie was missing a lot of substance. Now three years later, I have just finished watching the movie on TV, and agree totally with my past criticisms of the movie: the script is pretty damn bad.
If you took away the shroud of computer graphics that dominate every scene in this movie, the dialogue would be left naked on its own to embarrassingly be ridiculed. Even with the special effects there are plenty of laugh-out-loud unintentionally funny moments, especially the love story between Anakin and Padme. There has been plenty of criticism of the acting in this movie, especially Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor. Whilst I did find their stiff Jedi performances pretty bad, they were really doing the best that they could with the script. Conversely, whilst the 'serious' parts of the movie actually were unintentionally funny, the one-liner jokes were pretty cringe-worthy; especially those by C3PO. The film also resorts to using nudge nudge-type jokes about things that happen in later movies such as Obi-Wan's "Why do I get the feeling that some day you will be the death of me?" to Anakin; something I really hate about movies set in the past.
Whilst the special effects are very impressive, especially on the big screen, George Lucas really doesn't know when enough is enough. Whilst the Lord of the Rings films showed that you can successfully pull off having realistic-looking special effects used on a massive scale, many of the images in the film do look pretty fake, especially the scenes with the human actors fighting against CG enemies. Still, there are some good scenes, especially at the end of the film with the Colosseum-type fight scene and the battle that follows. I understand that Lucas is being bold in his use of CGI graphics, which is very good, but I'm not sure how well the visuals in this film will age in the future, as there are a few scenes that are a little too ambitious that you can clearly tell the actors are standing in front of a green screen. With the LotR films, I got swept up by the action, but in these new star wars films I'm always conscious that computer wizardry is behind what I'm seeing.
Overall, the film is fairly good to watch as a popcorn-type film, but whilst there are some great special effects-driven scenes, the whole film is let down by a script that is of rough draft quality.
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
A very hard movie to rate
I Heart Huckabees is a film that is very hard to give a numerical score out of ten to summarise how much I enjoyed this film; in fact I really don't know how I feel after viewing it! It was a very interesting film with some nice performances by the cast members (good on them for signing onto the movie too, because the script would have been strange to read!), but a lot of the film I didn't really know how the story line was progressing - it seemed like a lot of things adding up over time.
I certainly didn't dislike this movie, but as I said I don't know how exactly to score it, so I'm giving it 3/5 stars. Anything less would imply I didn't like the movie (which certainly wasn't the case), and anything more would suggest I loved the movie, which also is untrue. Anyhow, I'd recommend people watch this movie as it is one for people to make their own mind up about, and has more substance to it than most movies that are released.
Team America: World Police (2004)
Great moments do not make a great movie
After the terrorism events of the early 2000s comes 'Team America: World Police' by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the team behind South Park. I'm a pretty big fan of South Park and 'That's My Bush!', but have found the other movies that they've been involved with in the past (Orgasmo and BASEketball) to be pretty sub-par.
Firstly, I'll just say that the puppets and the puppeteering work in this movie is very impressive; it certainly would have taken a long time to build all the sets and choreograph the numerous puppets that are on screen at each time.
As to the MOVIE itself, there were some fantastic moments in this film (eg: 'montage', the early marriage proposal, 'there are three kinds of people'), but however these weren't enough to hold up the whole film, as many of the scenes were pretty boring, with no jokes (or worse, repetition of jokes that have already been used). Also, unlike similar shows/movies like South Park, you just didn't CARE about what happened to the Team America members; they were just there to facilitate the story line.
As I said earlier, even though there are some great jokes here, that is not enough to make the MOVIE as a whole great. Team America is good for a watch, but don't expect a classic comedy movie. 5/10
Saw (2004)
Holy freak!
OK, I just finished watching movie and it was very intense! It was a scary movie that actually had a great plot. The movie begins with two characters waking up to discover they are locked inside an old bathroom, each chained to the plumbing on either side of the room, with a dead body in the middle. They soon discover that it is all part of a sadistic man's 'game', which involves them finding how to escape the room alive.
Like I said, I found this to be very intense, but also very fascinating to discover how the plot unfolds with its flashbacks and multiple perspectives. One scene in particular was actually quite disturbing, and I think most people will know what I mean when they see the movie.
All in all, it's well worth watching if you're not too squeamish...rest assured that there are a few 'breathing space' scenes, so it's not horrific the whole way through.
An aside for Australians: whilst I wasn't too surprised seeing Leigh Whannell acting in this movie, it blew my mind to see him appear as the writer in the credits! For people not familiar with him, he used to be the co-host for the ABC (Australia) alternative youth music show 'Recovery' from 1996-1998...being quite a funny co-host. Good on him for going ahead and making this film!