Change Your Image
JNMassie
Reviews
Broken Mirrors (2010)
First-rate film-making on a shoestring
I like to be surprised, and when you can surprise me as well as "Broken Mirrors" does in just a few minutes you're already ahead of the game.
"Broken Mirrors" proves that a well-made story told with excellent direction, solid acting and skilled production values trumps big budget every time. Kudos to Peter DiCicco, TM Scorzafava, Laura Petersen, Hilda Mercado, Russell Eaton and Liesl Davis, and to the cast and crew.
This feels like it's a presentation piece for a longer film (maybe a feature?) I'm rooting for them to get attention (and funding) 'cause I definitely want to see what these guys have in store for a full-length production.
Girl Without a Room (1933)
Amusing, but a bit of a hodge-podge
Mostly for Charlie Ruggles fans; he's far and away the most amusing thing in it. It's supposed to take place in Gay Paree but except for a poilu in the opening sequence there isn't a single French character in the entire piece. Farrell and Ruggles talk their way through their "numbers" which are so badly scored you can barely tell they're even supposed to be musical. After "Love Me Tonight," someone at Paramount must have thought there was a demand for musicals cast with non-singers. Except for one short song each by Marguerite Churchill and Walter Woolf King (billed as Walter Woolf,) no one in this musical actually sings a solo. Churchill is initially rather charming in the title role but her character virtually disappears for the middle third of the story. It looks like they shot this on the Merry Widow set at Paramount. It's worth sticking around for the final line in the movie which is the funniest single gag in it.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
I'm just wild about Harry (more or less ...)
Not exactly *wild* but I really wanted to use that heading...
The good news is that they most certainly haven't screwed it up. The film is faithful to Rowling almost to a fault. Hogwarts looks like Hogwarts, and they've got Quidditch down just right. Only the most rabid Potterites will find fault with what's missing from the book (Peeves, some of the Malfoy scenes, a lot of the Dursley stuff) or what's added (Dudley's birthday and the reptile house sequence from Chamber of Secrets).
The kids are alright. Emma Watson may be the "breakout star" of the trio, she strikes just the right bossy tone, although I agree with the LA Times that she's a bit too cute (remember that Hermione is supposed to have bushy hair and buck teeth). The Malfoy and the Dudley are deliciously evil. Ron is sardonic and loyal, and a fine foil for Hermione. At first, Daniel Radcliffe seemed just a little overwhelmed but he can hardly be blamed for that. The Mirror of Erised scene pulled me in, and from then on the kid seemed to find his stride.
I don't know why at first I couldn't get used to the casting of Robbie Coltrane but now I can't imagine a better Hagrid, far and away the best adult performance. Except in the Mirror scene Richard Harris seemed limp as Dumbledore, I'm disappointed but not surprised 'cause I've never been a fan of his (it's really too bad Ian McKellen was off playing Gandalf). Most of the adult roles are little more than walk-ons so it's a bit unfair to comment on what little I saw of Maggie Smith or Alan Rickman (McGonigall and Snape).
The people who've been saying three hours is too long for a kiddie movie forget how hypnotic all this can be; the kids in the audience ate it all up (10:30 am on Friday, and I wasn't the only one playing hooky!). I'm really fed up with movies that use CGI to cover bad writing, but that's not the case here. Of course you couldn't've made this movie without computer efx, but they should have left the swooping camera shots for just the Quidditch sequence, I started getting nauseous every time they cut to the Great Hall with all the owl POVs.
Congratulations to screenwriter Steve Kloves for getting so much of the book into the movie without its running seven hours. This is Chris Columbus's best movie since Gremlins but that ain't saying much of anything. He's certainly channeling Spielberg as well as ever, but I do not mean that as a compliment. What I really, *really* hate is John Williams reminding me when the Big Moments are arriving. Rowling trusts her readers to find their own moments; Columbus and Williams would do well to learn to do the same (and come to think of it so would Spielberg!)
In short, the best popcorn movie of the year (in a year that frankly hasn't had much of any yet except for Shrek). By all means see it esp. if you're a Potter fan.
Acting: B/B+ (A for Robbie Coltrane) Production: A Music: F Script: A- Directing: B Overall: B+
Trailers: Monsters, Inc.: A+ (a special HP edition, don't miss it!) Jimmy Neutron: C+ The Majestic: C Scooby Doo: B- Star Wars: F
The Muse (1999)
I was amused - - a little
I saw this because:
a) I've never been disappointed in an Albert Brooks film and
b) I've always wanted to see what Sharon Stone could do in an *intentionally* funny film.
I was disappointed, but not too. The first act is hilarious, but when Stone arrives it takes a dip. Not her fault -- the role is uneven and annoying (and God, who did her hair?)
Stone gets better, but things go off in a weird who-cares subplot when Stone gets more interested in muse-ing MacDowell than Brooks. It gets better in time for a predictable but funny twist ending.
This a a *very* inside-Hollywood film, and many references will go over many heads. Two of the cameos are side-splittingly funny and the rest are annoying.
See it if you love Brooks and Hollywood jokes.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Not as bad as you've heard, but worse than I'd hoped
Although I have seen every Star Wars movie the day it opened (I saw the first one in a half-empty theater!), I've never been the kind of totally crazed Star Wars zombie we've been seeing on the news and making fun of. My viewing record is unbroken, but based on this one I might just wait at least a few days when Episode II comes out ...
How was it? Well, nothing could be as bad as some of the reviews (the New Yorker treats it like a threat to Western civilization). But a lot of the negatives you've probably already heard are true. It has no sense of humor, period -- no Han Solo or even distant equivalent -- the "comic relief" is a floppy-eared CGI-generated Cajun-talkin' lizard man whose dialogue is 90% indecipherable, and not worth hearing when you can.
Natalie Portman is disappointing, and the Big Plot Secret is so easily solved that it only confuses an almost non-existent story. Liam Neeson and Ewan MacGregor look and act like they're desperate to be somewhere else. The voice of the head Gungan -- the floppy-eared Cajun-talkin' unfunny lizard men -- is Brian Blessed, a long way from Augustus in "I, Claudius".
Anything good to say? Well, it looks good, and sounds better (The credit card for John Williams the composer of "dum, Dummm, duh-duh-duh DUMMM dummm", got a bigger hand than Lucas). The drag race in the middle of the movie is fun, better-staged than the climax. Only two shots in the entire movie have no computer effects in them.
Should you see it? Draw your own conclusions. If you liked the first three you're unlikely to want to walk out. I remember how hyped I was seeing the first one, and of course I've changed in twenty-two years, but if the original opened today I'd still enjoy it ten times more than this.
Hideous Kinky (1998)
Patience will be rewarded ...
... by which I mean that it takes a LONG time for this film to get started, but the wait is worth it.
Until it kicks into gear the viewer risks getting buried in National Geographic details, and it's hard not to get annoyed at Kate Winslet's seeming disregard for her daughters's best interests or well-being.
The character -- and the film -- are very true to the times, and to the residue of the sixties free-love-do-your-own-thing mentality.
The reward for your patience is yet another great performance from Winslet and from two of the best child actresses I've seen in years.