johnmichael-2 Reviews

Women Aren't Funny (2014)

The answer is obvious, but not from this documentary

[1/10 · 10 October 2015]

"Are women funny?" Bonnie McFarland asks

The answer is simple: YES. Of course.

Wanda Sykes, Lisa Lampanelli, Whitney Cummings, Natasha Leggiero, Amy Schumer, Marina Franklin, Rachel Feinstein, Nikki Glaser, Sarah Silverman... and that's just standup. Then there's Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy, Jane Lynch, Ellen Degeneres, Mindy Kaling, and a bunch of others that will come to me when I'm not actually writing this off the top of my head. That's not to even mention the greats like Joan Rivers, Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, all the Golden Girls (Bea Arthur, Betty White, Estelle Getty, and Rue McClanahan), and others I'm too young to remember.

I wish this documentary had been about showing us funny women, instead of 80 minutes of existential crises. Even better would have been if this documentary had exposed me to some female comedians who I hadn't known before. Awkwardly enough, a lot of the women I mentioned above actually showed up for one- or two-minute cameos, but not nearly long enough to showcase their incredible talent.

The hardest thing is that, in the end, this expose-of-sorts didn't even bolster its own cause. It was unfocused, unfunny, and her husband Rich Vos was awkwardly omnipresent. There's already too many men in this documentary as it is.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Essential BECAUSE it's such bigoted trash

[3/10 · 5 October 2010]

I resolved to watch "The Birth of a Nation" because of its contribution to cinema, but by the time I finished this three-hour epic, it was the last thing on my mind. I think people should watch this film, but not for that reason. After all, I could say that "Traffic Crossing Leeds Bridge" (1888) is a must-see for its contribution to cinema as the first real moving picture, but nobody's going to watch it.

No, what makes this film imperative is the thing that everyone remembers it for: its vile racism and bigotry. This is not your average Hollywood racism. This is not the black guy being the first to die in the horror movie, or the poor urban boy talking ebonics, or the trigger-happy man who's always armed. This is a blatant sermon against a class of people. This is an indictment of an entire race. This is D.W. Griffith saying: "These people are animals. They are controlled by their base instincts and are incapable of governing themselves or treating others with respect."

His claim: that the "radical negro minority" (a direct quote) is trying to usurp the white man's power and crush him under heel. The last half of the film is dedicated to showing how insidiously the black men try to wrest control from the oh-so-beleaguered white men. They are shifty-eyed and animalistic. The only black people portrayed in a good light are the very few former slaves that stay in league with their masters and refuse to vote for supporters of their own, and they are beaten up for it. But in the end the "glorious" Ku Klux Klan comes in and saves the day. One of the last shots in the movie shows the men in their full klan regalia on horses, lining up in front of the black peoples' houses on election day to discourage them from going to the polls. The black men, seeing this, go back inside and don't vote. And this is supposed to be part of the happy-ending epilogue!

I have never been so furious while watching a movie. I am not black. But I am gay, and the rhetoric leveled against the African Americans in this movie was SO similar to the rhetoric currently leveled against the LGBT community that it was actually scary. They both stir up a fear against the minority with claims that this "radical" and "militant" group of people is trying to take away the rights of the majority. They both present their minority in question as carnal beings devoid of conscience. Hell, "Birth of a Nation" even appeals to the Bible at the beginning. This is bigotry, pure and simple.

And that is why everyone should watch this movie, or at least know exactly what is has to say against black people. It is for this reason I give this movie a 10/10. Were this movie made today, I would give it a 1. As things stand, though, this kind of intolerance against black people in no longer accepted (though racism is far from dead; we still have a long way to go and a lot to answer for). But this kind of the intolerance still exists--against gays, against Muslims, and others. That is why we need to watch "Birth of a Nation"--to see the bold face of this intolerance and feel the brutal injustice of it all.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I finally got it right

[10/10 · 14 January 2010]

This is my third go at reviewing this film. It came after rewatching it, and now I finally get it.

This is a masterpiece. This is Ang Lee's best film, and he has made many good films. This is 2005's best films and one of the best of the decade. It is probably the most socially significant American movie of the decade.

I admit, though, that the first time I saw it, I didn't like it. It wasn't that I was expecting too much from it, but that I was expecting the wrong things. I expected it to be more sensational than it was. At the same time, I didn't understand the characters' positions, sexually and socially, as I am able to now. So I said it seemed "off," and that it was too long and slow.

I take it all back. This film is perfect. It is an intense gay romance, and yet it really holds back in what it shows us. The sex scenes are not graphic, the story is not "pro-gay," and political/social agendas seem to be absent. In fact, the film does not concern itself with the gay agenda at all. It is invested in its characters, who happen to be gay and in love with each other. And this makes the movie a hundred times more of a knockout than it would ever be if it climbed upon a platform and spewed hate messages against homophobes.

The performances are perfect. Everyone deserved their nominations, and Anne Hathaway was robbed when she was the only one of the four main stars left out of the Oscar pool. The story was intense and involving, and the ending is a real tearjerker.

So if you watched this once and didn't like it, please watch it again. Most likely you'll be in the same boat as me, and you'll change your 5- and 6-star votes to 10-stars.

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (2006 Video)

It has a point, but it's poorly executed and rather unnecessary

[2/10 · 10 November 2009]

The point of this documentary: Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims are unfairly portrayed in cinema. Sure. I believe that. But so are most minorities. Everybody knows this.

There are many, many flaws in this documentary. First, it assumes that we are stupid, and that we believe everything Hollywood tells us. Wrong. I am friends with quite a few Muslims, and I don't think they're terrorists. Nor do I watch many movies with Arab stereotypes. In fact, of all the movies cited in the documentary, I've only seen "Aladdin." And when I do see stereotypes, I can differentiate them from real life. This documentary even gives existing examples of positive Arab portrayals in films like "Syriana," "Three Kings," and "Kingdom of Heaven." Gee, how groundbreaking. If Shaheen can find the good Arab roles, then any movie audience can, too. And they can recognize them.

Secondly, this documentary poorly made. "Reel Bad Arabs" is, as another reviewer said, a talking head giving examples. And it's only one talking head. Any work of nonfiction, whether it be a documentary or a news article or a book, cannot survive on one expert opinion alone. And this documentary definitely doesn't. The narrator, Jack Shaheen doesn't even have screen presence. This documentary is just 50 minutes of him whining into a camera in an effort to advertise his book on the same subject.

Thirdly, this movie is unnecessary. Here's the basic point: Some movies stereotype Arabs, but there are also some movies that don't. What Jack Shaheen should have done was just to give us a list of the "bad" movies and a list of the "good" movies and leave it at that. That would have taken two minutes at most, instead of this fifty-minute run-on. We would have been able to figure out what the stereotypes were (once again, we're not stupid), and that the good portrayals were the ones where Arabs acted like actual human beings.

P.S. Did anyone else notice how Shaheen used the original line from "Arabian Nights" (Aladdin)--"Where they cut off your ear/ If they don't like your face"--when nobody sees that version anymore? All video released use the line: "Where it's flat and immense/ And the heat is intense." That controversy was closed off long ago and is now irrelevant. Like the rest of this documentary.

Batman (1966–1968)

Dreadful and with very limited audience appeal

[3/10 · 20 August 2009]

My parents and my little sister have recently started watching this Batman TV series from the 60's. I had seen a few episodes as a youngster, and I sat in on two or three more now.

It is dreadful. Very campy but not in a good way. The jokes are almost funny to get a laugh, but not funny enough, and that is a very dreadful place for a joke to be. I'd almost rather the jokes had fallen flat--actually, quite a few of them did. So I asked my mother how she could enjoy it, and here's how she explained it to me: Apparently, this Batman series appeals to two types of people. Firstly, to young people, mostly below the age of 10, who take it seriously and are excited to witness Batman's adventures. I suppose that's understandable, if unfortunate. There is a lot more they could be watching instead, whether it be "The Wizard of Oz" or classic Disney or any of Pixar's ten top-notch films. The second group that this TV series appeals to are people who were in the below-10 age group when the series was shown on television. So let's do some math. The first episode aired in 1966. Those who were ten years old then are now 53, so nobody above 53-55 probably has much nostalgia for this show. Meanwhile, the last episode aired in 1968. We can assume there were quite a few reruns, but the biggest audience was probably right around that time. So those who were old enough to remember Batman in 1968 are now no younger than 45.

Let's be generous and add 5 years onto either end of this older audience. That puts the appeal of this Batman TV series at 10 years or younger, and 40-60 years old. This older audience will continue to grow older, and the younger audience will likely grow smaller. Meanwhile, everyone from 10-30 and above 60 years has no stake in this TV show. They will see it for what it is: a childish bastardization of what I hear is a good comic (I have never read the Batman comics myself).

Thank God Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan have redeemed Batman's celluloid reputation. In 2005 I didn't want to see "Batman Begins" with my cousin because I was afraid it would be campy and stupid like this TV show. Thankfully, I went anyway and I love it. Now, after "The Dark Knight," whenever I hear the name of Batman, I think of that gloriously intense crime drama I saw in theaters 6 times, and its excellent predecessor. As for this TV series, it is only an impostor. Skip it.

The Hunt for Gollum (2009)

Impressive fan-made film! Definitely worth your time!

[10/10 · 3 May 2009]

I am in awe. "The Hunt for Gollum," made by Lord of the Rings fans for £3000, is a resounding success! It is adapted from material gleaned from the appendices of the world-renowned trilogy, and it covers a short period of time between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn searches for Gollum before Sauron's forces can find him.

At 38 minutes, this moody piece is short enough for non-fans to commit to, yet long enough to really linger in your memory. All areas of the film succeed. The cinematography is bleak and beautiful, exquisitely capturing the Middle Earth that we have come to know and love. The costumes are appropriate and elegant. The special effects are convincing, as is even the digital effects work, despite the limited budget. The fight scenes, while not on the level of the trilogy (that would be nigh impossible), are still better than most fight scenes in normal movies. And even the acting, which is often the scourge of all amateur productions, works wonderfully.

Tolkien himself would be proud. This may seem like hyperbole, but I'm being serious. Tolkien always longed to create the great English mythology that his country never got, and with Middle Earth, he did. But the greatest part of a mythology is that others carry it on. Kudos to everyone on this production for doing just that.

This is a great film. Not just for being an amateur production, but for being a film in general. Nobody can match Peter Jackson, but next to some of the tripe that finds wide release in this country, "The Hunt for Gollum" is magnificent. I hope to see everyone involved with this production (and I mean everyone) break out into the film industry in a big way.

Go to the film's official website and watch it now. Being fanmade, you get to see it for free. And it'll only take 40 minutes of your time. Worth it? Definitely!

Adventureland (2009)

Adequate entertainment from the director of Superbad

[6/10 · 26 March 2009]

I saw an advanced screening of "Adventureland" on my college campus tonight. It chronicles the coming-of-age tale about James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg), who has just graduated from college and is set for a trip to Europe before he goes to grad school at Columbia University. The only problem is that it's the late 1980's, the economy has taken a downslide, and his dad's job got caught up in it--he was transferred to a position that offered less money, and now James's trip to Europe is canceled, as is his monetary support for his continued schooling. This means one unpleasant thing: James must get a summer job. And the only place this comparative lit major can find labor is at a miserable amusement park called Adventureland. But of course he meets and falls in love with a girl (Kristen Stewart), and from there the movie is pretty easy to follow.

I must say, this movie was done quite adequately. There was nothing wrong with it. The acting was good (for the most part). The screenplay rolled along safely with lots of chuckles and a handful of belly laughs. There were pockets of insight sprinkled throughout--especially in dealing with the dead-end of indecision that some lives take after college, and in the economic crisis of the late Reagan era that resonates with what we are going through now.

This is Greg Mottola's next film after his breakout hit "Superbad," and thus audiences are likely to draw comparisons. Already I can tell you the general consensus: "Superbad" this is not. I'll admit that Superbad also had a rather formulaic premise, but something in the execution of that film puts it a few hefty steps ahead of this one. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with "Adventureland." It just doesn't stand out as really all that excellent. It hit all the notes, just not as hard as it could have. The acting, while good, does not have the charisma of the Michael Cera & Jonah Hill duo (though Bill Hader re-teams with Mottola in a consistently funny role as the manager of the park). Nor is the romance completely fresh: despite good actors and realistic portrayals, it seems to fall into some of the old genre favorites--the inevitable fight followed by the inevitable reunion. You know the deal.

But taking it as its own film, "Adventureland" isn't bad at all. It's worth watching, perhaps even in theaters. It's a good date movie, though not one that you'll remember vividly in the years to come. Just have a good time, and this movie will be good for laughs and a bit of the old feel-good familiarity in which we all like to indulge once in a while.

7/10

The Godfather Part III (1990)

I'll stay at the opera!

[3/10 · 22 March 2009]

Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.

That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.

It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.

What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?

And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!

Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.

My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.

P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Trashtastic!

[7/10 · 20 February 2009]

This is a review of left-handed compliments. "Twilight" is a mix of the good and the bad, the amazing and the atrocious. And yet never does it get boring to watch.

I'll start with a compliment: It is faithful to the book, and satisfyingly so. Now for the left-handed aspect: The books are fun, but they are the exact opposite of good literature. They are extremely compelling, but the teenage love plot is so overblown it is ridiculous to read about. It is just as ridiculous to watch.

And yet... somehow, I can't resist it! I certainly know the females can't. Love it or hate it, every female between the ages of 14 and 21 (plus some older women, if I haven't been deceived!) knows about "Twilight." Almost every single one of them has read "Twilight." And something keeps them going to the next book, even if they hated the first. There is something about Bella and Edward's love that is so unconditional that we can't help but be attracted to it. To tell the absolute truth, their relationship seems obsessive. Did I say "seems?" I meant to say "is." It is actually really creepy. Maybe, subconsciously, that's why we find it so compelling. We know we can't have their kind of absolute devotion, yet we want it so much that we immerse ourselves in their story, no matter how fanatical their relationship becomes.

How did Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson pull off the two star-crossed leads? With hits and misses, though with more of the former than the latter. They both look gorgeous (especially Kristen Stewart!), and they both have the moodiness down pat. Occasionally they slip into patches of bad acting, but mostly when the script lets them down.

Here is another negative aspect of the movie. Melissa Rosenberg had 30 days to write the script before the writer's strike started. In consequence, it was weak in many places. She never cleaned up some of the awkward dialogue, and most of the atrociously corny lines remain. I was watching this on my college campus in a packed theater, and the house broke down with laughter at every such line, especially when Edward confesses to Bella, "You're like a drug to me. Like my own personal brand of heroine." As a sentiment of undying love, it ranks right up at the top of the Most Unromantic List along with Anakin's line from Star Wars, Episode II: "And now that I'm with you again... I'm in AGONY." Both lines reduce me to tears of laughter every time I hear them! And that, I admit, is part of the fun! There's something about love stories like these, told in such earnestness and yet bursting with such ridiculousness, that makes them irresistible to watch! See "Twilight" with a group of friends, and I promise you will never be bored, whether you are male or female!

To help it along, Star Wars, Episode II had its great special effects. "Twilight" doesn't have this. Made on a $37 million budget, the special effects look pretty damn cheap. What the movies DOES have is its art direction. I am telling you, this is the one aspect of the movie that is completely and unadulteratedly brilliant! There is no left-handedness in this compliment: the color palette in this movie is TO DIE FOR! I have never seen such lush greens, such sensuous purples and blues, such striking whites! The scene in which Bella confronts Edward about him being a vampire is a laughable one, but when they lay down in the field, her lustrous brown hair spilling around her as she stares into Edward's eyes, both of them lying supine in the rich green grass speckled with tiny blooming flowers... I just melted! I can see why the Academy avoided this movie like the plague, but if there's one award it deserved to win (yes, an actual win, not just a nomination!), it was Art Direction. It casts the mood more than anything else in the movie, and it does it flawlessly! This is likely because Catherine Hardwicke's roots come from Production Design. As a director, she is competent enough. However, she can't make the weak parts of the script any stronger, and in some parts she directs the actors rather poorly. However, she seems to have a passable grasp on teenage life. Not as insightful as her relentless teen flick "Thirteen," but still good in its own way. She builds some cues really well, which balances out the parts where she drops the ball (like with the corny dialogue and one or two of the fight scenes).

I think I've covered most everything. Suffice it to say, Twilight as a book and now as a movie is really its own brand of silliness and awesomeness. In fact, it's so much its own brand that I've invented an entirely new word for it: Trashtastic! Yes, it is junk food for the mind: cheap, bad, and completely unrealistic, but totally satisfying when taken as a break from your normal work (for me, it's college studies: I love you, Martin Luther, Emily Dickinson, and John Milton, but after so much I need a break!). Take a group of friends and have a fun time!

P.S. This movie also holds up under rewatching.

South Park: Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics (1999) Season 3, Episode 15

Stone and Parker are the kings of musicals

[10/10 · 30 November 2008]

In the summer of 1999 Trey Parker and Matt Stone released "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut," which was easily the best musical of the 90's. In Christmas 1999 they solidified their reputations as musical masterminds with this Christmas special.

How else can I put it? The songs are just too good! They're fun, imaginative, and never ever EVER boring. Never ever. Plot? What plot? There's Christmas songs, and the South Park characters are singing them... to musics and lyrics arranged by Matt and Trey! What more could you possibly want? I'm serious, watch this episode, right now! And rewatch it every Christmas. After "The Woodland Critter Christmas" (Season 8), this is South Park's best holiday-themed episode.

Animated Stories from the New Testament: The Good Samaritan (1989) Season 1, Episode 4

Wow, I totally forgot about this!

[8/10 · 9 November 2008]

Well, well, well! Goodness gracious! I think I watched this 12 or 13 years ago! Wow, it's funny that I should run across it now while searching Orson Scott Card's writing credits (he has one on this film).

What can I say about this movie? I watched it forever ago. I don't remember what the movie was like. All I remember, though, was that I really liked it when I watched it because I liked feeling sad for the man who got hurt on the way to Jerusalem. Even back then as a six-year-old I liked the really sad films! Can I recommend this film to you? I have no idea. I seemed to like it as a kid, though I never watched it more than once and I didn't dwell on it. But I have no idea about its cinematic merits. Maybe your kids will like it, maybe they won't. To be honest, I'm writing this review merely because I love myself a trip down memory lane.

South Park: Stanley's Cup (2006) Season 10, Episode 14

Best ending to a sports story EVER!!

[10/10 · 20 September 2008]

Do not listen to anyone who said this episode was a downer! The ending totally made this sports movie satire worth watching! It was a lot better even than "The Losing Edge" from Episode 9, another sports-centered episode.

I will not give away the ending to this episode, but let me just say I was afraid it'd end the opposite of the way it did. Thankfully, it didn't! It ended perfectly! It's not much to say that it ends better than any sports movie you can find out there, because sports movies generally have annoyingly trite and cliché endings, but this episode just pulverizes them all! Great "South Park" episode, and severely underrated!

South Park: Tsst (2006) Season 10, Episode 7

Excellent episode! Rings very true

[10/10 · 14 September 2008]

This is a great South Park episode. In it, Eric Cartman has gotten so out of hand that his mom has resorted to TV show nannies to get him into line. But when those don't work (Cartman turns their own acts against them in some truly mean but truly funny ways), she hires a "dog whisperer" to help her train Eric Cartman into being a good boy.

I love South Park tremendously. I enjoy their crazy episodes, but I most love it when they focus on the wacky characters in their small town and stay away from the huge global action adventures (though, of course, there are rather a lot of episodes that are exceptions). This one not only stays focused in the town of South Park, and more specifically on Cartman and his mom, but also has a lot to say about parenting in general. If I was to show a group of parents one episode of South Park, it'd be this one. It is very funny, but it rings so very true!

P.S. I think what Eric needs most is a dominant father figure. Not that I want this to happen, because then we'd lose the Eric Cartman we all know and love, but if he WERE to reform...!

South Park: The Losing Edge (2005) Season 9, Episode 5

Such a great spoof on all sports films!

[10/10 · 9 September 2008]

Sports films are probably my least favorite films of all (only "Bend It Like Beckham" got a 10 from me), so I was delighted to see this episode spoof all those lame sports films, as well as satirizing the crazy parents that get into fights during little league games.

The basic plot is that the South Park boys are sick of baseball, so they try to lose their playoffs so they can spend their summer doing other things. But, much to their chagrin, all the other teams are thinking the same thing! Meanwhile, Randy Marsh fights a dad from the opposing team every single game.

This episode is very funny. It's nice to finally see a sports piece that doesn't take itself seriously, even if it's merely a 20-minute TV episode. Parker and Stone hit out of the ballpark with this one!

A Piano Tale (2002)

A fascinating little short bursting with talent

[10/10 · 31 August 2008]

I saw this on youtube many months back, and I had no idea it premiered at a film festival until now. But, in reviewing the piece, I'm not surprised. This film is elegant and well-made, and anyone who loves piano or classical music or jazz music will be charmed to their very core.

Let me take the time to say that the only stars in this film are the piano and two sets of hands. You see nothing else, but you don't need to. The two pianists, Katrine Gislenge and Nikolaj Hess have such a well-honed technique that their fingers alone would fascinate you even if the film was twice as long as it already is.

Watch this film now. Go to youtube and look it up. It will only take 8 minutes, unless you keep coming back to it like I do.

Pink Flamingos (1972)

Truly filthy

[10/10 · 7 June 2008]

Though this movie is filled with perversions of all sorts, the first moment of filth comes right after the opening credits. It is when the viewer sees Divine's family for the first time inside their Maryland trailer park. Divine's mother permanently inhabits a crib, for she is mentally challenged (a "challenge", I must point out, she doesn't even try to overcome), and she is obsessed with eggs. Yes, with eggs. All she talks about, in a childish whine, is eggs. The only thing she looks forward to in the egg man's arrival, so she can smear more eggs into her ample breast and voracious mouth. When she whines for more eggs her daughter (Divine) coos at her and promises that she will get those eggs, if she just waits. This grotesque reversal of the parent-child roles sets the mood for the film to come.

This is a story about Divine, who goes by the name of Babs Johnson, and who bears the honorific "The Filthest Person Alive". This is also the story of Connie and Raymond Marble--who kidnap hippies, impregnate them, and sell the babies to lesbian couples--who are deeply offended that they do not bear the honorific that they believe is rightfully theirs. So they start a war with the Johnson family to determine who indeed is "The Filthiest Person Alive".

I need not list the perversion that glut this movie. There are many, and if you want to see this movie, you have already heard of a few of them, I'm sure. They are filthy indeed, but that filth only goes skin deep. What is truly filthy about this film is its attitude. Divine's family is the poster family for Trailer Trash: they are stupid, messy, perverted, and proud to be so. Then there's the Marbles: they are actually offended because they don't bear the title of "The Filthiest Person Alive". Let me raise a question here: What kind of people actually want such a title? Let me raise the answer: Filthy people.

The acting is atrocious, and the voice-over narration is terrible. In some strange, aberrant fashion, it only adds to the movie and the filthiness it's trying to portray. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for the other film-making skills on display.

John Waters set out to make a film that was truly filthy. He has succeeded. I will not say that this is THE filthiest movie I ever seen, because it is foolish to make such statements as they can always be outdone by something new. However, I will say that it transcends mere gross-out spectacles and is truly nasty. If you're into such movies, I highly recommend "Pink Flamingos". If not, well... what are still doing reading my review?

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

Soul crushing--recommended very highly to a very few

[10/10 · 17 February 2008]

I watched this film late one night (after my parents were in bed), and for a while it was merely uncomfortable to sit through. The actors weren't particularly emotional, the sets weren't hugely exciting, and the storyline consisted of four libertines and their accomplices listening to dirty stories and doing dirty things to their child victims.

And yet, halfway through this blasé piece, I began crying. It was, I believe, at a part where the whore was telling one her sick stories while dancing with the libertine, and she begins laughing as if it is the funniest thing in the world. And yet the laugh sounds false--not just false, but hopeless. I cried off and on (though more on than off) the rest of the film, and from now on I cannot think about "Salo" without tearing up; I am trying not to cry even as I write this.

What makes "Salo" the most disturbing film I have ever watched, no competition? It is not the acts depicted--the coprophilia, the torture, the murder, the betrayal. It is that supreme and utter hopelessness behind the whore's laugh. It is the insatiable desires of the libertines, constantly fed and yet never quenched. It is the victims who are willing to sell each other out in order to escape just a little bit more torture before their inevitable death.

The novel described the four libertines as being people who not only did as much evil as they possibly could, but also as people who went out of their way to avoid doing anything virtuous. Pier Paolo Pasolini has extended this bleak outlook to the entire human race. The entire film is soaked with his utter hatred and disgust for humanity--nobody in this film has a redeeming side, not even the victims. Everyone in this film is going to die--even the libertines, sometime after the film comes to its conclusion, are going to be tried for war crimes as part of the Fascist regime. Pasolini paints a portrait of the human race as a race that is wallowing in the lowest depths of misery as it drags itself towards its own demise.

There is no moral to this story. Pasolini figures that the human race will merely ignore the moral if he tries to give one. Neither does he try to spruce up this film with interesting acting or camera-work. The direction is bland and the cinematography is largely static--and therein lies its greatest (or is it its worst?) talent. It is as if Pasolini is looking up at the human race from behind the camera, his face gaunt and hopeless, considering the various ways to spice up the scene before saying: "Why bother? You are worthless; this film will not satisfy your desires, whatever they may be."

Which leads me to one last question: how the heck did I give this 10 stars? And how the heck can I possibly recommend it to any of you? It was upsetting, disturbing, and appalling. And yet it has changed my life--for the better? For the worse? Does is crush my hopes for humanity, or does it give me an understanding of its darkest facets and how best to avoid them? Look, people, I don't rightly know! I'm still figuring it out!

To most of you: stay the heck away from this film. But to a few of you--a very, very few--those few that want to see this movie for more than its shock value, those few that are willing to explore humanity's darkest recesses, those few that are not mainstream moviegoers and are actually willing to think--I recommend, no I BEG you to watch "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom." You will never forget it.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Dreamlike! I Am in Love With This Film

[10/10 · 17 February 2008]

The first thing you must notice is that, in accordance to the title of this review, I LOVE "Eyes Wide Shut"--not "like", not "appreciate", but LOVE. As I write this, I am a 17-year-old male who has watched this film four times already, and I shall watch it many times again.

"But all the negative comments!" you say. "All the people who said this film was Kubrick's worst! That it was unsexy and slow!" Yes, the sex-to-nudity ratio was very low, and yes, it'll take you over half-an-hour longer to watch the movie than it would to read the novella, but if the physical act of sex and quick pacing were all that mattered in a movie, I wouldn't be here right now.

"Eyes Wide Shut" was severely misrepresented by its hype. It is not an erotic thriller; it is a psychosexual drama/mystery. It is about Dr. Bill Hardford and his wife, Alice, and her confession of sexual longing that sends him on a dreamlike odyssey to discover his own sexual desires and where his wife fits into the equation. It is not romantic. It is a serious drama, easily Stanley Kubrick's most sophisticated work (though "A Clockwork Orange" edges over it as my favorite), and not a single word, image, sound, or musical note is wasted. I love every minute of it.

To truly enjoy "Eyes Wide Shut", you cannot pop it into your DVD player for a passive romp in front of the screen. You must immerse yourself in this film--watch the characters interact with each other and with the scenes around them, let the music and the sound sing their symphonies to your pulsing heart, and, above all, be willing to THINK and HAVE PATIENCE, two things that don't come all that easily to the broad masses.

Though Stanley Kubrick is often partial to unknown actors, you will recognize some of the faces, other than Cruise and Kidman. There is Sydney Pollack and Todd Field, but there is also Vinessa Shaw (from "The Hills Have Eyes"; director Alexandre Aja began working with her because of her role in this movie as the whore Domino), Leelee Sobieski ("Never Been Kissed"), and Alan Cumming ("X-Men" and "Spy Kids"), all coming together from movies that range from mediocre to pretty darn good, but they all reach their pinnacle here, in "Eyes Wide Shut." Even the small roles--Rade Serbedzija as Milich, Sobieski as his daughter, Marie Richardson as the woman who declares undying love for Bill Harford over her father's deathbed, and Cumming as a hotel desk clerk--are lavished with detail, encapsulated in not only their dialogue but also in their body language and facial expressions.

Another thing to notice is this: Stanley Kubrick spent 15 months shooting this film (when most directors could have done it in 3 or 4), and it really shows. Never has a film felt so unrushed, nor so comfortable with what it is. This film breathes as if on the zephyrs of a dream. There is not a moment when the actors look as if they're rushing through their lines or going through the motions; Kubrick not only gives them time to prepare for their roles, but he also gives them screen time to let their actions speak instead of their mouths.

"Traumnovelle", translated as "Dream Story", was the basis for this movie; might I add that the movie follows the novel very closely except that it transplants it from 1920s Austria to New York City in the 1990s. And yet it keeps the feel suggested by the original title, for never has a movie been so like a dream! It has both the sweet parts and the nightmarish parts, and then the plain weird parts that make no sense at all. And it is slow--very, very slow and very, very long, like a night in which you cannot get to sleep--but every single time I watch it, I never grow antsy towards the end! "Amadeus", "Fiddler on the Roof", and "The Exorcist" all got me antsy at one point or another, despite the fact that I love all of these movies and have watched them all multiples times. But, with "Eyes Wide Shut", I am perfectly content to watch the movie play out in its own sweet time, and cutting this film down to 120 minutes or less (which any other filmmaker would have and could have easily done) would have ruined the dream that this film is. Have I already mentioned that I am a 17-year-old male, by the way, a product of the sound-byte generation?

I am gushing into my keyboard, but somehow I feel my words are inadequate. Let me sum up by saying that "Eyes Wide Shut" is a film you can never hope to see the likes of again--the same can be said for any Kubrick film, especially since he never made the same kind of film twice--and it would be a travesty to miss it simply because you don't have the patience for it. I say GET the patience. Exert a bit of brainpower and try to sink yourself into this film until you're in over your head. It's not something most of us are used to doing with films, but it is entirely worth it.

Call me a collegiate who tries to squeeze meaning out of void places. Call me a teen who likes to see his nudity. Call me a person who wants to appear smart by giving this film 10 stars. Call me a Kubrick freak. Slice it any way you like, but I love "Eyes Wide Shut", and I think you will, too.

American Psycho (2000)

Better than the book, but that's not saying much

[8/10 · 5 January 2008]

I love books, and I always think you should read a book before you watch the movie; or, if failing that, you should read the book sometime after. But, for the first time and probably the last time, I am telling you: if you want "American Psycho" skip the book ENTIRELY! This is a review of the movie, not the book, so I'll start with what the movie did right as opposed to what the book did wrong. Firstly, I'm glad Mary Harron directed this, because a woman is sometimes better able to satirize the egos and self-posturing of men simply because she isn't one; she has an objective viewpoint. In the first hour especially we see Patrick Bateman's weaknesses as he tries desperately to appear richer than his coworkers. He applies more lotions and creams than a stereotyped gay man, he actually cares whether his business cards looks better than those of his friends, and he is enraged with jealousy when he finds out that Paul Allen's apartment is even richer than his. "I'm trying to fit it!" he snaps at his girlfriend, Evelyn.

Who is this Paul Allen? He is one of the early victims of Patrick Bateman, murdered with an ax. Bateman, see, has a peculiarly strong bloodlust that is even stronger than his lust for music and opulence. He kills people an awful lot and really enjoys it. And he has not a scrap of remorse; the only emotions he can feel are greed and disgust.

The last half-hour, however, reveals the weakness of the source material. The ending in the book was a mishmash mess of epic proportions, and in following it the movie can only make it so much better. It is when the viewer realizes, though not as acutely as while reading the book, that a serial killer is such a stock character that no halfway-decent person can ever hope to portray accurately. Not even Christian Bale's great acting can fully dispel the fact that Bret Easton Ellis had no idea how to make a convincing antihero.

Now that we're on the subject of the book, here's my chance to explain how the film improved it. First of all, the book was just too long. It was endless in its descriptions of the yuppie lifestyle--so endless, in fact, that I felt I would kill myself if I ever saw the words "Argyle socks" or "Ralph Saint-Laurent" again. Thankfully, Mary Harron (and her co-writer Guinevere Turner) have condensed the first 100 pages of the novel into their appropriate 10 minutes. They have let Patrick's love for music show itself through the dialogue and acting rather than spending whole chapters' worth of material describing various bands. They also managed to introduce Detective Donald Kimball within 30 minutes when Ellis took 2/3 of the book to get there. While Ellis' horrid editor saw fit not to excise any of the endless tracks of puffed-up prose, the medium of film required it to be cut, and it was automatically an improvement.

Yet if Mary Harron improved the pacing and the satire, she didn't manage to improve the killing scenes. While Ellis committed the sin of going too far, she committed the sin of not going far enough. Since Ellis's style hinted at an ego bigger than Patrick Bateman, the pornographic scenes of fantastical murder were horrible to read--not at all disturbing, just plain ridiculous. But Mary Harron didn't go far enough; it was as if she was purposely trying to avoid the dreaded NC-17; though of course she got it anyway and had to cut 17 seconds from the threesome. And yet she could have gone a lot farther. She was doing a satire, not a puffed-up fantasy like Ellis, so a great deal of violence would have been a lot more excusable. I am not saying that more gore would have made the movie better; I'm saying that she needn't have handled the scenes so gingerly.

In all, a fair film. I think I would have appreciated it a bit more, however, if I had never read the book, because my hatred for Ellis' pile of crap did leak over a little into my movie experience. Which is why I'm telling you: if you want to experience "American Psycho", skip the book and go directly the movie. That's the first time you've heard me say that, and it'll probably be the last.

Facing the Giants (2006)

It has good intentions, but all it does is a lot of harm!

[1/10 · 25 December 2007]

I watched this film in youth group, where my otherwise intuitive youth leader and his wife squeed over it. Then some adult couple at a church-related Christmas party misled themselves into giving a copy of this movie to every single family in attendance, and now my household is stuck with the film (though it thankfully still remains in its shrinkwrap). I cried bitter tears over these sad events, and here's why: First off: this film has good intentions, especially if you're a Christian like me. This movie is trying to show that you should put your faith in God and that it'll make your life better. Not so bad, right? Eh. It turns out a be a problem--a big one. This movie was made by a church, so of course every single issue has to be dealt with as tastefully for Christians as possible. It is all black-and-white, no gray areas. God's grace and will in this movie is a predictable thing, and it comes instantly to all those who do His bidding.

This is not the God I know. This is not the Christian life I am familiar with. The God I believe in is a powerful and trustworthy God, but He is not one that grants my every wish. I follow Him as best I can, though the going is often hard; yet the football team in this movie finds their humility and self-control a lot easier than anyone should EVER find it. I cannot relate to cardboard cutouts who flip from bad-side to good-side in the course of a few structured movie scenes. And when I DO follow His commandments as laid out in the Bible, I certainly don't find myself showered in blessing as these characters do. The largest of my immediate rewards is knowing that I have done the right thing; everything else comes with long, messy, arduous work.

But take the example this movie sets: Grant Taylor coaches the football team at Shiloh Christian school, which has had 6 losing seasons in a row. He may lose his job over it, and he and his wife are low on money as it is. They want a baby, but the doctor tells him he is sterile. Oh, and his car doesn't work. And the boys on his football team are disrespectful to their parents, whiny after their million losses, and bad at kicking field goals. This is sure one rundown community here.

But wait, Grant Taylor decides he's going to trust in God for everything! And he passes on his faith to his team. So far, so good. Not for long. As they begin to obey, blessing literally POUR in on them. Suddenly the students stop disrespecting their parents; the school has a big "revival"; the team starts winning EVERY game; they even win the grand championship against the hardest team in the league! Coach Taylor's job is reassured; the school gets him a shiny new truck as a present (which, by the way, is the epitome of shallow, fair-weather employers); he gets a raise; his wife (get this) even gets pregnant from his sterile sperm! And that skinny kid manages to kick his first darn field goal right when it really matters!! Wowzers, woot, yay, praise the Lord, etcetera, etcetera!!! ...

Yipe. Just YIPE. Nobody in my church has ever experienced Christ in a such a cut-and-dry manner. Yes, there have been miracles aplenty in my family, as well as gifts and creature comforts, and I attribute them to God's grace and lovingkindness. But God isn't some faucet tap that you turn on and off by being good or bad! He is by and large a mystery; His gifts come unexpectedly, often when you think you don't need them but you really do. It's a long, hard slog to the road of fulfillment, and things NEVER turn out the way you thought they would.

This movie has good intentions. But because of its supreme shallowness and total escapism, it tanks tremendously to a 1/10. The bad acting and sports movie clichés seem to be mere pimples next to the leprous falsehoods that this movie inadvertently pushes.

To all you future churches planning to make a movie: don't be afraid to show REAL life, even you have to add some inconvenient truths into the mix. However much the baser populace is wowed by this cotton candy treat, nobody has learned anything substantial from it. Give us the meat, the bones, the REAL stuff! True life applies to everyone, not just Christians, and that's one aspect "Facing the Giants" didn't manage to grasp.

Ella Enchanted (2004)

Surprisingly rewatchable

[8/10 · 8 December 2007]

I have watched this movie at least a half-dozen times in the past few years. It is not high entertainment, and it's nowhere near my Favorites List, but it is really a charming little gem.

The good things first: Anne Hathaway does wonderful in her role as Ella, and she and Hugh Dancy make a lovely couple, both before they begin to like each other AND after they begin to like each other. The artistry and set pieces do not strive for excellence, but they stick to a bright yet alluring simplicity. It's a fun movie to look at, and the special effects don't clog the screen.

The storyline, too, is good. It's about a girl named Ella (Hathaway) who was been given a "blessing" of obedience, meaning she must do everything she is told to do (this, of course, leads the mind off in naughty direction, but I mustn't go there now). Naturally, she wants to get rid of it, so when she is forced to do something particularly nasty, she plucks up her resolve and goes to find the fairy who gave her the blessing in the first place. Of course, she runs into Prince Char along the way, as well as a colorful cast of characters.

It's all great fun, and there's some tremendously funny lines. Ella's stepsisters, Hattie and Olive, deliver some of the biggest laughs, due Hattie's complete, air-headed nastiness and Olive's complete, air-headed stupidity. I can't bring myself to ruin any of their lines, but there are some fantastic ones.

Now for the bad: The villain, Char's uncle King Edgar is the most stock, most cliché villain in all film history. It's like the writers didn't even try to make his character any good; in fact, it's as if they tried to make it purposely insipid and idiotic. Sure, all his actions were realistic and explainable, but he has to go off on his "boasting-villian" speeches ("The Incredibles" calls it "monologuing", which is the perfect word for it). It is SO STOCK. SO Cliché.

Another bad thing: If you read the book first, you will HATE HATE HATE HATE this film. You will loathe it. You will despise it with all your being. I was lucky enough to read the book after watching the film, and so I was able to see the two as entirely different works of art. Not only does the film think up a completely new plot for the premise of Gael Carson Levine's Newberry Honor novel, but it changes it from an extremely traditional fairy tale to a hip, tongue-in-cheek romp. It's not bad to have a "modernized" fairy tale, but it is jarringly different from the novel. I am lucky in that I have separate the two works in my mind, but if you have read the novel and haven't watched the film, it'll be very painful for you. I do suggest you read the book, however, if you can mentally break all ties it holds to its adaptation.

In all, a fun movie, and very rewatchable, too. Perfect for the kids, and even a nice little guilty pleasure for the adults. There are better films out there, but this is in the upper percentile for modern family films.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Cannibal Holocaust: Extreme cinema proves to be extremely excellent

[10/10 · 21 November 2007]

Riz Ortolani's pacific melody opens up the credits, which are printed against a sweeping shot above the Amazonian jungle, and the only hint we have of the horror to come is the title itself: "Cannibal Holocaust." Then the story starts, in which we learn the infamous documentarist Alan Yates and his film crew has disappeared while shooting a documentary piece in the Green Inferno: an area in the Amazonian jungle, the homeland of savages, from which no white man has returned alive.

With the help of two guides, Professor Harold Munroe ventures into that Green Inferno in hopes of finding the bodies of the filmmakers. When he reaches the natives at last (in an uneasy truce), what he finds instead is significantly more chilling: Alan's unedited film reels, mostly undamaged and fit for viewing.

But are they really fit for viewing? The second half of the movie consists mainly of the professor and his colleagues in New York watching the documentary before they air it on television. I do not want to spoil what comes next, but suffice it to say that it is both shocking and sobering.

The first thing you probably heard about this film was that is was violent. Exceedingly violent. Such a rumor is correct. Ruggero Deodato achieves with $100,000 what our modern torture flick couldn't achieve with $10,000,000: graphic violence that looks and feels real. Sure, there are a few moments where the effects are obviously fake, but most of the time the violence and sexual assaults are hideously powerful--primitive to the core. Fitting that such acts should be associated with the indigenous tribes of the South American jungle, tribes that are reported cannibals.

But then the movie raises this question: who are really the savages? Is it the uneducated, uncivilized culture groups of the jungle, or is it the "civilized" people who invade their lives and take advantage of their naivety? Who are we to consider ourselves superior merely because we have an easier, more fortunate lifestyle? Many people who sit down to watch this film do so in hopes of getting all the gore they've been promised. But what they also get is a great adventure yarn, and on top of that is timeless social commentary that will make this film outlive more than 99% of the horror movies that have ever churned themselves into the theaters. I am not exaggerating here. This film is a timeless classic.

Admittedly, this film will never make its way into a mainstream audience. It is off the deep end of extreme cinema, and very few moviegoers will have the stomachs to stand this film. I recommend that you keep this in mind before you decide to watch this masterpiece. And make sure the little kiddies are tucked into bed. Or if you're like me, wait until your parents and siblings are tucked safely away in midnight slumber.

Other aspects of this film: Satisfying actors. A mockumentary style that isn't at all distracting or annoying. If you didn't mind the shaky cam in the Bourne series, you won't mind it here. A musical score that is unforgettable. The main theme counterpoints the extreme violence and makes for a memorable viewing experience.

Cinephiles: watch this now! Gore hounds: prepare to be satisfied, but also be prepared to think. Everyone else who can possibly stomach this movie: start stomaching! To those who don't fit in this category: I'm very, very sorry. You're really missing out.

Hook (1991)

I never would have guessed that Steven Spielberg could produce such juvenility

[2/10 · 21 November 2007]

I wish this film wasn't directed by Spielberg. I wish the music wasn't done by John Williams. And I wish so many big-name actors (Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, Maggie Smith, Julia Roberts) weren't in these roles. This movie was a real bomb, dissatisfying in every way possible.

First off, the plot was so contrived , I was practically in tears while watching it. It was like a Peter Pan fan fiction written by a particularly stupid group of giggly seventh graders. A father who's too busy to spend time with his family, who suddenly finds himself going through highly fantastical and unrealistic circumstances which eventually lead to a happy family circle? How many times have we seen that before? Too many bleeping times to count. I found it especially annoying at the end when Robin William's character had to go crazy just to show us how "happy" and "changed" he was. Really, I'm spoiling nothing here, because you've seen this kind of tripe in films since you were old enough to stare at the movie screen.

Then there was the overblown, over-budgeted nonsense of the whole thing. The lavish sets and special effects are painfully obvious, but the whole story is so juvenile that nothing good ever comes of them. All it does is make us realize just how much wasted effort went into this mess. Oh, and speaking of the sets, there were some true "what the bleeping bleep?" moments going on in the movie. I'm not talking about the countless clichés involving family breakup and family reunion, etc. I'm talking about Tinkerbell turning big and kissing Peter Pan. I'm talking about those friggin fraggin skateboards. Ideas that make you want to line up the movie crew and execute them for being so stupid.

Okay, I love John Williams with all my heart ("Harry Potter", orchestrations for "Fiddler on the Roof", "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones", etc.). I thought his music for this movie could be moderately good, were it simply separated from the movie entirely and played by itself. HOWEVER, he decided that it was necessary to score each and every moment of this movie. And he went full-out on the pretentious show-off stuff. Sure, those violins racing up and down the scales have become quite an idiosyncrasy for John Williams (who doesn't remember those strings whizzing merrily all over the place as Harry Potter goes to get the mail in the first Harry Potter movie?). But, unlike Harry Potter, these orchestral tricks weren't subtle. They were loud, glaring, and simply EVERYWHERE. Every single scene was dominated by the music, it seemed, as if John Williams had spent the last ten years locked up and in desperate need of an energy outlet. Poor guy--I felt his heart wasn't in it; he seemed to just go through the motions. Why did he waste his talent on this movie? That's the real frustrating part--all the talent wasted. I've already mentioned the names above. But I'll focus on Spielberg's involvement. I love most of his stuff ("Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Minority Report", "Schindler's List", "Munich", to name a few). But "Hook" was like a sweet tooth that's had too much sugar: rotten to the core. How could Spielberg torture his audience with such childlike garbage? I correct myself: not even children should be watching this. They can watch "Wizard of Oz" and "Finding Nemo" and other such fantasies without having their intelligence insulted.

Ah, now we come upon the juvenility of the whole spectacle. It was bad, folks. Ugly, ugly, ugly. It was so bad that all sorts of aberrant desires popped into my head. I longed for Jack to side with Captain Hook and STAY sided with him (instead of inevitably turning back to his dad in the end)--denounce his family and break poor Peter Pan's heart in two. I longed Tinkerbell and Peter Pan to start an illicit affair and do all sorts of nasty acts of infidelity. I longed for Spielberg to dish out some of his "Saving Private Ryan" gore during the (horribly fake) battle scenes. I longed for ANYTHING that could possibly make this movie less purposefully-innocuous than it is. I longed for some deus ex machina to come in and turn the whole movie into some sick joke, seeing as such an intervention could only make it better. Huh, at least then the movie might have been entertaining.

After all this complaint, I don't know why I'm still giving "Hook" a 2/10. Maybe because I see the effort, even if it was wasted. Maybe because this movie can serve as an example of how even the best filmmakers can go wrong. Hey, if that's the case, it's not totally useless after all.

The Piano Lesson (1995 TV Movie)

There's a reason why this is made for TV

[3/10 · 24 October 2007]

This is a TV film based off a play. It should have stayed a play, because it just plain isn't good enough to be a movie. It's a very hokey sort of piece, mostly because of the bad acting and the weak ending.

Hmmm, what else can I say about this film in order to fill up the required minimum? I don't really know. It's a mundane sort of thing that your teacher makes you watch in theater class because (s)he can't show the really good stuff (or because (s)he has really tame tastes in what is considered engaging drama).

I'll admit, this movie is socially significant, and August Wilson did a fine job with the original storyline. But this made-for-TV thing is just verbatim crap.

Final grade: 4/10

Sahara (2005)

Ludicrous and lazy

[3/10 · 14 September 2007]

Two words best describe this film, and I don't know which comes first: ludicrous and lazy.

Let's start with ludicrous. I wasn't expecting this film to be realistic or even that great, but I wasn't prepared for it to be this over-the-top unrealistic. Vast political thrillers of this nature are hard to swallow as it is, but when it's all pushed to the side to allow an unnecessary amount of time for the merely-passable action sequences, it starts the eyes rolling. Searching for some long-lost priceless coin, coupled with an evil dictator, a deadly disease, a world-threatening water problem, and some truly unrealistic sequences (some parts in the motorboat scene and the desert boat battle were impossible for me to swallow)... Gosh, it's all too much! And it's all been done before, though not in such a silly conglomeration.

Now for lazy. This movie felt like a money-making attempt from start to finish. The script was thrown together in a truly reprehensible way. Does anything come of the coin search that kick-started the plot? Nope. Is the dialogue interesting or witty or at least fun to listen to (one of these would have sufficed)? Nope. Did the story manage to be a fast-paced action-adventure instead of a sprawling mess? Nope.

What about the actors? McConaughey and Cruz are talented people, but either they weren't really into this movie or Breck Eisner wasn't directing them properly or SOMETHING. Okay, so Cruz and her WHO companions were the bright spot of this film in terms of acting, but couldn't she and McConaughey at least kicked up some chemistry? I'd rather their romance be cut entirely than be sidelined in the careless way it was. It was more of an obligatory gotta-have-a-romance-in-here sort of thing. As for Steve Zahn... sorry, he sucked. Maybe he wasn't given anything to work with, or maybe (once again) he had no direction, or maybe he was just bad. I think it's a little of all three. He was one of the flattest sidekicks I've ever seen (he'd have to be, seeing as sidekicks are normally flatter than the main characters, and this movie features some of the flattest main characters in mainstream action).

Hey, speaking of action... Once again, ludicrous and lazy. I couldn't swallow the cheap gimmicks in the motorboat scene or the climactic boat-in-the-desert battle or the... darn, I've forgotten most of the action! That's how unmemorable it is. After watching in disgusted disbelief as a 150-year-old ship cannon blows up a helicopter, the rest of the mediocre action melts away with the rest of the movie.

Direction: lazy, bad. Music: I can hardly remember it, which for me means it's bad. If it was good music, I'd remember it and I'd probably sit through the film again to listen to it. Special effects: okay, some of them were pretty cool, which is probably the only reason I'm not giving this movie a 1-star. Of course, the special effects couldn't redeem the bad storyline, the lazy actors, the unskilled director, and the shoddy unification of the whole piece.

Bottomline: 4/10. If you watch nothing but action movies, you're eventually going to have to wind down to this one. So go ahead and watch it, but I warn you that it's bad. You're better off rewatching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for the millionth time. Oh, and go ahead and watch it if you hate realistic movies with good acting and a good storyline. But there's so many better movies to choose from, so I'd recommend to the vast majority of moviegoers just to skip this movie.