Change Your Image
teem
Reviews
The Andromeda Strain (2008)
My suspension of disbelief crashed hard
Okay, I wanted to like this movie, having loved the 1971 version. But I was very badly disappointed. A current-day remake, without the insanely stupid cliché and barely-touched plot points, would have been interesting. Even the recasting and gender/race-mixing of the cast would have been okay, had they all acted like they were supposed to as top scientists involved in a high-security, high-importance program.
But, at the point where, in this ultra-high-security lab, an unmonitored cellphone call goes out, from one of the heads of this program, to a reporter who is threatening to break the story, is where I lost it. (And, hey, what cell service sponsored this movie? Great reception for the middle of nowhere.) Lots of other reviews detail the many failures of this mini-series. For me, the ultimate silliness happens near the end where self-destruct goes off and, for no useful reason, every fraking light in the facility starts blinking at seizure-inducing speeds, because, you know, you might not know that you're all trapped and going to die! My fiancé and I started giggling insanely when that scene started but we were committed to seeing this crippled thing through to the end and had to endure the "thumb" scene, too.
I want to go find the original in my old VHS collection and wash this version out of my brain.
Bruce Almighty (2003)
Funny and dramatic despite Jim Carrey
What a pleasure seeing a summer comedy that didn't gross me out or insult my intelligence. And despite the over-the-top scenes in the trailer and the premise the movie actually follows through on the messages that actions have consequences and that you need to learn what is important in life.
Morgan Freeman was great and was able to swing between the serious and the silly with Carrey. Jennifer Aniston was really good with her somewhat limited character. The rest of the cast were nice in the various character roles. I just think the movie could have been improved by substituting some other comedian for Carrey. His over-the-top style actually slowed the movie down in places--for example, the diner scene or his remote-control payback at the TV studio.
I will admit that his reaction when everything comes crashing down around him was really nice, though. In fact, the climax gave me the welcome surprise of not copping out of the situation that had been set up. It was a better film than I expected.
Rating: matinee with popcorn (7/10)
Men in Black II (2002)
Neuralize me, please
I wanted to like this sequel. I enjoyed Men In Black well enough that I thought the sequel would be a laugh. I expected to see a few new gadgets, a conflict with a new Earth-destroying alien, some good one-liners a bunch of nice effects shots and maybe a corny love story. I went to a noon matinee and some popcorn and hoped for a good time. I didn't get one.
Bad sequel. Bad. No biscuit, Gordon! No biscuit, Sonnenfeld!
Jay (Jones) and Kay (Smith) weren't funny. They were hardly wearing the suits. Boyle? She was phoning it in between cases from Suffolk County. There was no emotion between Serleena (Boyle) and Zed (Torn). Hey, the talking dog was cool, though. Tee (Warburton) was, um, was hardly there.
I had some hope when they dropped in on Jeebs (Shalhoub) that we'd see some of the fun secondary characters from the movie but that was about it. Do we get to see the worms hanging in their apartment very long? No. Do we get to see more of either Jay or Kay's love interests? No. Do we get any cute side plots about other alien infractions? No. Do we get to see conflict over the Noisy Cricket? No. Do we get any funny--I mean, funny--neuralyzer reprogramming? No. Do we get to see any Kill-O-Zap defenses at MiB Headquarters? No. Do we get any nifty surprise cameos? No.
Were there some nice moments? Yeah. Ben (Kehler) and Lara (Dawson) were nice together. And the aliens that we find out worship Kay? Man, I wanted to see more of them. Just a few more shots of their world would have been nice. ("Two for one every Wednesday!") In fact, you might be able to make a nice 30 minute TV show out of clips from the secondary characters.
I didn't even finish my popcorn or stay for the credits. In fact, if you want to see it, don't leave when you think its over. There's a tacked-on epilogue that tries to inject some human emotions that, based on the writing to that point, is just lame. Not even stereotyped "guys trying to be sensitive with guys" lame. Just lame.
Rating: 4
Just Visiting (2001)
Great for munching popcorn and laughing.
Good fish-out-of-water dramas are rare enough; good comedies in this vein are rarer but fortunately "Just Visiting" is one. The plot: A 12th century English royal and his manservant are transported via a botched magical spell to Chicago in the year 2000 and need to get back to prevent the terrible tragedy the spell wasn't supposed to help them prevent.
Jean Reno plays Count Thibault straight and larger than life. He is courageous, romantic and highly motivated to get back home. The slapstick that happens around him doesn't faze him: he is royalty, after all and the only one that really knows what he's doing for most of the movie. (I saw Jean Reno last in "Ronin" and I liked his delivery and style in that movie also.) Christian Clavier plays Andre (a.k.a. "Peasant!") his manservant amusingly over-the-top. Both of them having French accents glosses over the fact that 12th century English wasn't very much like English today.
The movie has some funny scenes of the two visitors encountering 20th century technology. And I was very pleased at the relatively light touches of toilet humor that seem to be a hallmark of "comedies" these days. (At one point, the two are led to a half-bath and told they can clean up here--where do you think they will first find water? In another movie the toilet would have exploded unattractively.)
There are unsympathetic bad guys in both in the 20th and 12th centuries that we want to see brought down. There are some cool effects to look at. Jean Reno knows how to use his sword. There's a cowed blonde who finds her heart and courage for some romantic drama. There is a trashy blonde for some eye candy. There's some fun slapstick. There's a chase scene. There are a few in-jokes about the twentieth century. There are some nice matte shots of a 12th century castle and then real shots of its ruins.
This is not a great movie. The Plot Device needs to have Count Thibault coincidentally find his many-great-granddaughter almost immediately and have her in trouble as well that he can rescue her from it. A better movie could have let the cops be real cops and not low-rent extras from the "Blues Brothers". A better movie could have let a few less comedic consequences of our visitors play out--what about a press conference, for instance? A video crew from "Hard Copy"? A visit from a U.S. Customs official?
But these are quibbles. I saw it at a half-filled matinee with a bag of popcorn, a Coke and a sense of humor. I laughed. I was entertained. I even recommended it to friends.
IMDb rating: 7
Whipped (2000)
Pathetic, humorless and not a single sympathetic character.
I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.
I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.
In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?
[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]
The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!
The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")
What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.
Rating: 3
Bicentennial Man (1999)
A disappointing adaptation that veers between so-so comedy and so-so drama
The core of "Bicentennial Man" we know from "Pinocchio": something made in the shape of a man discovers it desires to become a real man and has many adventures and setbacks along its journey. By following this journey we learn what the storyteller wishes us to know about what it means to be human.
The Isaac Asimov novella (and the later novel with Robert Silverberg) is one story among many that are set in a future history during which the development of humanoid robots results in a number of societal and ethical conflicts. The movie, standing alone, all but ignores the wider issues while being faithful, in part, to the original story. Unfortunately, because it ignores the wider issues, the movie ends up being somewhat shallow.
The movie opens with the arrival of a domestic robot at the home of the Martin family. Christened "Andrew" by the youngest daughter, "Little Miss", the robot quickly becomes janitor, chef and nanny but not without tension in the family. Andrew, played by Robin Williams in a rather nice metal outfit, appears programmed to resort to imitation in learning human pleasantries and tends to hover annoyingly when not doing anything. While subservient, and apologetic, to its owners, one soon wonders why Andrew wasn't programmed to ask questions like "Would Ma'am prefer to serve breakfast herself?" instead of getting in the way.
Nevertheless, the Martins become used to Andrew and soon discover that he seems to be somewhat different from other domestic robots of his type. He displays a surprising self-motivation, artistic talent and appreciation for music, art and literature. The family realizes that he has the desire and capacity to learn beyond his programming and encourage this. As the years go by, Andrew learns the concept and develops a desire for freedom. His request is met with consternation but is granted and Andrew--Andrew Martin--truly begins his journey to becoming a man.
It is at this point that the movie begins to stray from the original story: Andrew begins a journey to find other robots of his kind, seeking the companionship of his own kind; he discovers an eccentric genius, who alters his body to become more human in appearance; and, he meets a descendant of the Martins, to whom Andrew becomes close and with whom he learns more of what it means to be human.
While the changes may have been more cinematic, I felt they failed to take on the challenge of portraying the consequences of Andrew's goal. Instead of exploring the questions of what it means to be human we are given some predictable emotional scenes--strange, when it is not clear Andrew has emotions. When Andrew makes his desires public, there should be some reaction from the population. We are also introduced to Galatea, another robot similar to Andrew, who takes over the comedic role in the latter half of the movie. Galatea was so irritating and even less competent than the early scenes of Andrew that I was rooting for her to be caught and dismantled during one scene.
Because the Asimov story is a favorite of mine, I was apprehensive at a theatrical adaptation. I did like that the world of the future was portrayed with matte shots and few props. More would have distracted us from the story although it would have been nice to see a few other kinds of robots instead of people dressed strangely.
I was annoyed that the movie took the time to (loudly) introduce Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, the immutable programming that all robots are governed by, at the beginning of the movie but have the plot and actions of the robots conveniently ignore them to advance the story. It would have been better not to introduce them at all or have changed the script. It became so flagrant that it took away from my enjoyment of the movie.
On the other hand, I believe Robin Williams was a good choice to play Andrew. While he is in the metal suit, and later out of it, he is talented enough to control is body language and delivery to make him look and sound believable as Andrew Martin. And while it is funny to watch Robin Williams perform some light comedy and slapstick to liven things up, the movie meanders between that and the so-so drama of Andrew's growth and journey that I felt Williams' talent was wasted.
IMDb vote: 5