The paranoia and desperation of the dog in this brilliant cartoon are summed up in his quote that is the title of this commentary. The humor is predictable, but it's the frantic quality of the pacing and the superb irony that give this cartoon real legs. A must see.
Reviews
57 Reviews
Kit for Cat
(1948)
Slow buildup and hysterical and intense finish
10 February 2004
Sylvester and this kitten are both trying to get shelter from the freezing storm when they arrive, one at a time, at the doorstep of Elmer Fudd. It's predictable stuff at first. Elmer can't keep both cats, but he's very partial to the kitten. Sylvester does everything he can to make the kitten "lose points" with Elmer, but to no avail, until Sylvester is actually a thread away from getting bounced outside.
The element that makes this a gem is the frenetic ending. It builds mercilessly into a hysterical display of the cats trying to get one up upon the other with the radio blaring and synchronized to their actions. It's very well directed and totally memorable.
The element that makes this a gem is the frenetic ending. It builds mercilessly into a hysterical display of the cats trying to get one up upon the other with the radio blaring and synchronized to their actions. It's very well directed and totally memorable.
The Animatrix
(2003)
Profound and sublime
26 January 2004
I am hardly a Matrix fan. I just enjoy a well told and directed story. I like a story that is presented in its medium to the best possible effect. I had no expectations of this other than it was a supplement to the Matrix story and had animated sequences.
What I saw was extraordinarily directed and crafted animation. The first segment, "The Last Flight of the Osiris", is, as someone brusquely put it, "eye candy". However, it was far better than the wooden garbage of "Final Fantasy" and vastly superior in conveying a chilling feeling of tension. Each segment is likewise a facet of the tale the Wachowski brothers are trying to flesh out. The stories are not spelled out for the audience, and you might have to , Heaven forbid, think about what you have just watched.
Where "The Matrix" explored the philosophical territory of reality and what defines it (and our relationship to it), "The Animatrix" advances that exploration into the vistas of civilization, hubris, human nature, and much more. It merits discussion, like "The Matrix" did. I hardly believe this is just for Matrix fans. It's clearly for people wanting a thought-provoking and originally told mature story. For those who look into the possibilities posed by the background story told in "The Animatrix", the topics are deeply disturbing, sometimes at a visceral level. For those just wanting to watch good animation, watch the styles used in each segment and see how appropriate it is for the tale being told.
Because you have nine short clips to watch, you will find favorites and ones you'd rather forget. Please watch with an open mind, and see why this more than animation. See the directing and the characterization. Think about the clever way this supplements "The Matrix" without being redundant. And if you want to see the details, watch it again. It's really brilliant.
What I saw was extraordinarily directed and crafted animation. The first segment, "The Last Flight of the Osiris", is, as someone brusquely put it, "eye candy". However, it was far better than the wooden garbage of "Final Fantasy" and vastly superior in conveying a chilling feeling of tension. Each segment is likewise a facet of the tale the Wachowski brothers are trying to flesh out. The stories are not spelled out for the audience, and you might have to , Heaven forbid, think about what you have just watched.
Where "The Matrix" explored the philosophical territory of reality and what defines it (and our relationship to it), "The Animatrix" advances that exploration into the vistas of civilization, hubris, human nature, and much more. It merits discussion, like "The Matrix" did. I hardly believe this is just for Matrix fans. It's clearly for people wanting a thought-provoking and originally told mature story. For those who look into the possibilities posed by the background story told in "The Animatrix", the topics are deeply disturbing, sometimes at a visceral level. For those just wanting to watch good animation, watch the styles used in each segment and see how appropriate it is for the tale being told.
Because you have nine short clips to watch, you will find favorites and ones you'd rather forget. Please watch with an open mind, and see why this more than animation. See the directing and the characterization. Think about the clever way this supplements "The Matrix" without being redundant. And if you want to see the details, watch it again. It's really brilliant.
The Lord of the Rings
(1978)
Substandard, and with nothing to do with Peter Jackson
18 December 2003
In reading the numerous comments posted for this 1978 original attempt at adapting Tolkien's masterpiece, several truths become clear. First, many of the people reviewing were not even alive in 1978, and many are excusing Ralph Bakshi without knowing much about this "innovative" animator.
I will do my best not to take the easy road, the theme of comparison and trashing the adaptation.
1) Ralph Bakshi had made a name for himself in the mid-seventies. "Fritz the Cat" was effective because it was animation strictly for adults to enjoy, like a private pleasure, and it was pretty well made. "Wizards" was a good balance of simplicity, animation, and adult story telling. Nevertheless, it was memorable. Think "Heavy Metal" and you will get an idea what a treat it was for "Wizards" to come out. We were getting something no one else would give us: adult themed animation.
Expectations were understandably high in the mid-70's when Bakshi announced that he was helming this project.
2) The adaptation was trying to be as close to the original as possible. Peter S. Beagle was adapting the books, and he loved the LotR. Bakshi had to make this film sell.He couldn't go too full in budget, he didn't have the resources of Disney, and he was trying to crank out this movie in time to take advantage of the resurgence in adult minded sci-fi/fantasy that was sweeping the U.S. then.
He never had a chance.
Bakshi was so out of his league in this undertaking that it simply is not funny. It would have taken real planning to meticulously render the details of the world of Tolkien, but Bakshi's strength was in urbania and economizing animation techniques. He needed a disciplined staff and he needed to be a disciplined director, and that just never happened. You can see evidence that SOME attempt was made to give the story similarity to the book, making the art design so ludicrous and abusing rotoscoping and miscasting voices turned this movie into the grand disappointment of 1978.
And fans were not expecting the film to end so abruptly and implausibly. Bakshi just couldn't get his mitts on the rights to "The Return of the King" so he essentially called it a day.
The film DOES demonstrate Bakshi's limitations. Just watch "Cool World" or "American Pop" to see where his strengths really lie. He's a good animator, but he's not a great one. His imagination was not up to the scope of the LotR story. And it makes this film a laughable part of his CV. I remember having high hopes for Bakshi's film, but I saw a marked devolution in the quality of the story and animation by the middle of this movie. It was like Bakshi said, "Hell, I can't do this any better, so I'm going to just finish this #$*er."
Don't forget that Dungeons and Dragons, fantasy roleplaying, board gaming, and fantasy art were inspired to try harder from this film. So, even as Gollum was bad, he had a part in destroying the Ring. And as lousy as this attempt was, it led to better things for lovers of this genre.
I will do my best not to take the easy road, the theme of comparison and trashing the adaptation.
1) Ralph Bakshi had made a name for himself in the mid-seventies. "Fritz the Cat" was effective because it was animation strictly for adults to enjoy, like a private pleasure, and it was pretty well made. "Wizards" was a good balance of simplicity, animation, and adult story telling. Nevertheless, it was memorable. Think "Heavy Metal" and you will get an idea what a treat it was for "Wizards" to come out. We were getting something no one else would give us: adult themed animation.
Expectations were understandably high in the mid-70's when Bakshi announced that he was helming this project.
2) The adaptation was trying to be as close to the original as possible. Peter S. Beagle was adapting the books, and he loved the LotR. Bakshi had to make this film sell.He couldn't go too full in budget, he didn't have the resources of Disney, and he was trying to crank out this movie in time to take advantage of the resurgence in adult minded sci-fi/fantasy that was sweeping the U.S. then.
He never had a chance.
Bakshi was so out of his league in this undertaking that it simply is not funny. It would have taken real planning to meticulously render the details of the world of Tolkien, but Bakshi's strength was in urbania and economizing animation techniques. He needed a disciplined staff and he needed to be a disciplined director, and that just never happened. You can see evidence that SOME attempt was made to give the story similarity to the book, making the art design so ludicrous and abusing rotoscoping and miscasting voices turned this movie into the grand disappointment of 1978.
And fans were not expecting the film to end so abruptly and implausibly. Bakshi just couldn't get his mitts on the rights to "The Return of the King" so he essentially called it a day.
The film DOES demonstrate Bakshi's limitations. Just watch "Cool World" or "American Pop" to see where his strengths really lie. He's a good animator, but he's not a great one. His imagination was not up to the scope of the LotR story. And it makes this film a laughable part of his CV. I remember having high hopes for Bakshi's film, but I saw a marked devolution in the quality of the story and animation by the middle of this movie. It was like Bakshi said, "Hell, I can't do this any better, so I'm going to just finish this #$*er."
Don't forget that Dungeons and Dragons, fantasy roleplaying, board gaming, and fantasy art were inspired to try harder from this film. So, even as Gollum was bad, he had a part in destroying the Ring. And as lousy as this attempt was, it led to better things for lovers of this genre.
The Truth About Charlie
(2002)
Bloody awful
21 July 2003
Yes it's true. This film reeks for all of the reasons cited by critics in IMDb. It's serious at the start and tries to be light by the end. It tries to be artsy and comes off as miserably nauseating. The actors try to give good performances, but they ultimately come across as being miscast or mismatched. The result is actually a sad mess, both visually and in its storytelling.
Avoid this unless you like pain.
Avoid this unless you like pain.
Gangs of New York
(2002)
Hemmed in by good intentions and bad decisions
17 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Martin Scorcese had his hands full getting this story told. Historical dramas are a hit-or-miss in Hollywood cinema. Sometimes, you get a classic and sometimes you get a forgettable mess. Worse, sometimes, you get a mish-mash that is lukewarm and gets forgotten in the fullness of time (Once Upon a Time in America leaps to mind.)
The casting of this film is right and wrong on so many levels that I feel sorry for the director rather than take issue with him. Cameron Diaz and Leo DiCaprio do not belong in this film. It's not to impugn their acting skills, but this movie was simply the wrong vehicle for them. Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, but he is not a great one, and the role of Amsterdam needed to be carried by a great actor. The same goes for Cameron Diaz. No offense, but Scorcese should have fired the accent coach for these two principal cast members.
Some events in the story were outright and unnecessary falsehoods. SPOILER ALERT: Federal ships firing on the Five Points not only never happened, but it doesn't make any sense! Why randomly destroy property in a part of the city that was not even a focal point of the riots!? Why risk hitting your own troops? That plot hole detracted from a story that took great pains to be accurate and faithful to the spirit of that era.
I give Martin Scorcese an A for effort but a C+ for the result. Sorry, dude. In the years to come, this film will be in the same boat as The Patriot and Once Upon a Time in America.
The casting of this film is right and wrong on so many levels that I feel sorry for the director rather than take issue with him. Cameron Diaz and Leo DiCaprio do not belong in this film. It's not to impugn their acting skills, but this movie was simply the wrong vehicle for them. Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, but he is not a great one, and the role of Amsterdam needed to be carried by a great actor. The same goes for Cameron Diaz. No offense, but Scorcese should have fired the accent coach for these two principal cast members.
Some events in the story were outright and unnecessary falsehoods. SPOILER ALERT: Federal ships firing on the Five Points not only never happened, but it doesn't make any sense! Why randomly destroy property in a part of the city that was not even a focal point of the riots!? Why risk hitting your own troops? That plot hole detracted from a story that took great pains to be accurate and faithful to the spirit of that era.
I give Martin Scorcese an A for effort but a C+ for the result. Sorry, dude. In the years to come, this film will be in the same boat as The Patriot and Once Upon a Time in America.
Obsession
(1981)
Cringe inducing
8 January 2003
I was skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember "Circle of Two" because it was so phenomenally awful.
This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall "The Blue Lagoon" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), "Lipstick", "Little Darlings", "Beau Pere" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.
"Circle of Two" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like "Blue Lagoon". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.
This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall "The Blue Lagoon" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), "Lipstick", "Little Darlings", "Beau Pere" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.
"Circle of Two" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like "Blue Lagoon". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.
The Train
(1964)
Overlooked brilliance
8 January 2003
Burt Lancaster could be in just about anything, and he would lend his film exuberance, energy, or understated gravity, just about anything that was wanted and needed, really. "The Train" is one of his finest understated performances.
After watching this film, after having seen "Black Sunday" and several other Frankenheimer gems, I understood that this director *always* understood the fine art of suspense. My wife and I watched this film on the edge of our sofa, riveted by a plot that had real nasty twists and clever performances. By the movie's end, I hated von Waldheim so thoroughly that I thought no death would be good enough for him. This was the film that had me remembering any and every performance Paul Scofield gave in television or film.
If you stop and consider that Burt Lancaster was 50 doing this movie, and that he did all his own stunts, you will probably add yet one more layer to your appreciation for this overlooked and needlessly forgotten masterpiece.
After watching this film, after having seen "Black Sunday" and several other Frankenheimer gems, I understood that this director *always* understood the fine art of suspense. My wife and I watched this film on the edge of our sofa, riveted by a plot that had real nasty twists and clever performances. By the movie's end, I hated von Waldheim so thoroughly that I thought no death would be good enough for him. This was the film that had me remembering any and every performance Paul Scofield gave in television or film.
If you stop and consider that Burt Lancaster was 50 doing this movie, and that he did all his own stunts, you will probably add yet one more layer to your appreciation for this overlooked and needlessly forgotten masterpiece.
Not for the hard bitten cynics
2 January 2003
Why do people who already have a preconceived notion of what is an acceptable amount of tenderness in a film write reviews for films like "Spirit"? I have one message to anyone with a blindly scathing opinion of this film: if you just don't like children's films, or if you have the rigidness of mind that makes it impossible for you to go back to a time of greater innocence, DO NOT REVIEW THIS FILM! Please.
That said, I can continue that "Spirit" is extraordinary. The animation is technically impressive, from the opening shot to the locomotive scene at the end. The storytelling is straightforward and pure, yet has many totally original moments that combine with the more formulaic, tried and true story elements. Objectively speaking, you can see that a great deal of time and money went into making the movie something that would stand a little taller than its competitors.
Sadly, "Spirit" suffers from its subject matter in a way unfair to the film itself. The film will likely appeal more to the sensitive (read: women, girls and young boys) than a general audience. The story is about a horse, and that means it is NOT likely to have lots of guns, swordplay, singing animals, characters saying, "It's all my fault", or distinct good vs. evil. My word, what happens when someone is courageous enough to make a movie that so deviates from tried and true storytelling devices? The answer: they don't make as much money as the recyclers at the Mouse.
"Spirit" was outshone and outmarketed by "Lilo and Stitch" and did not have nearly as long a run as a result. Guess who lost out because of that? You did, very likely. I saw this in the theater and on home DVD. "Spirit" loses an enormous amount of its power going to the small screen. The opening panoramic, long shot behind the eagle is reduced to a clever camera trick. And the experience of being engulfed in the thunder and masterfully recreated power of the galloping herd of mustangs is reduced to a moment of natural drama and little else. If you missed this movie during the summer of 2002, it is little wonder why you might overlook (or worse, pan) this magnificent milestone in animation.
See "Spirit" with an open mind. Enjoy its fresh take on the Bambi/Kimba/animal adventure tale. If you can, watch it with *children* so you can get a glimpse at the magic that they can easily see in this superior film. When it's over, take a moment and imagine what imagination and heart went into creating this film.
And if you still cannot decide favorably on it at all, watch "Scary Movie" or something that appeals better to your sense of intelligence and taste.
That said, I can continue that "Spirit" is extraordinary. The animation is technically impressive, from the opening shot to the locomotive scene at the end. The storytelling is straightforward and pure, yet has many totally original moments that combine with the more formulaic, tried and true story elements. Objectively speaking, you can see that a great deal of time and money went into making the movie something that would stand a little taller than its competitors.
Sadly, "Spirit" suffers from its subject matter in a way unfair to the film itself. The film will likely appeal more to the sensitive (read: women, girls and young boys) than a general audience. The story is about a horse, and that means it is NOT likely to have lots of guns, swordplay, singing animals, characters saying, "It's all my fault", or distinct good vs. evil. My word, what happens when someone is courageous enough to make a movie that so deviates from tried and true storytelling devices? The answer: they don't make as much money as the recyclers at the Mouse.
"Spirit" was outshone and outmarketed by "Lilo and Stitch" and did not have nearly as long a run as a result. Guess who lost out because of that? You did, very likely. I saw this in the theater and on home DVD. "Spirit" loses an enormous amount of its power going to the small screen. The opening panoramic, long shot behind the eagle is reduced to a clever camera trick. And the experience of being engulfed in the thunder and masterfully recreated power of the galloping herd of mustangs is reduced to a moment of natural drama and little else. If you missed this movie during the summer of 2002, it is little wonder why you might overlook (or worse, pan) this magnificent milestone in animation.
See "Spirit" with an open mind. Enjoy its fresh take on the Bambi/Kimba/animal adventure tale. If you can, watch it with *children* so you can get a glimpse at the magic that they can easily see in this superior film. When it's over, take a moment and imagine what imagination and heart went into creating this film.
And if you still cannot decide favorably on it at all, watch "Scary Movie" or something that appeals better to your sense of intelligence and taste.
Schindler's List
(1993)
Faithful, if imperfect masterpiece
2 January 2003
For anyone to adapt the novel as well as Spielberg has, that person would have to be a genius. The story is long, involved, and makes no bones about the ambivalence and inconsistence of Oskar Schindler. The tale is not nearly as simple as that of rescue. The adaptation and direction are perfect ... with one exception. The ending is rushed, the melodramatic speech by Schindler is terribly out of tone with the movie, and the playing of "Jerusalem of Gold" over the placing of stones on the Schindler grave is ludicrous to anyone who is Jewish and over forty. The last ten minutes of "Schindler's List" are pure and unfortunate Hollywood, plain and simple.
But the film has so much power and masterful storytelling in it that these flaws are tiny by comparison. The performances are heartbreaking, the tension tight and often less predictable than anyone could think, and the touches of color in the black & white film are symbolically exact. What happens in this movie is such a powerful illustration of anti-Semitism and the backdrop of Nazism that it is unquestionably required viewing for anyone who needs to see how insidious and destructive prejudice is, and how the Holocaust changed the world of the 20th Century.
My father and I saw this in the theater. He survived Auschwitz-Bierkinau and Matthausen. When he walked out of the movie, he clucked his tongue and stated flatly, "It was worse than that." I was in tears for hours. The disparity in that moment said much more to me than the movie itself about the story Spielberg had taken upon himself to tell. So be warned that this film is not for the faint of heart. Oddly, the cynics will probably view this movie with inexplicable dispassion. After all, how could anything this horrible have ever taken place within our lifetime?
But the film has so much power and masterful storytelling in it that these flaws are tiny by comparison. The performances are heartbreaking, the tension tight and often less predictable than anyone could think, and the touches of color in the black & white film are symbolically exact. What happens in this movie is such a powerful illustration of anti-Semitism and the backdrop of Nazism that it is unquestionably required viewing for anyone who needs to see how insidious and destructive prejudice is, and how the Holocaust changed the world of the 20th Century.
My father and I saw this in the theater. He survived Auschwitz-Bierkinau and Matthausen. When he walked out of the movie, he clucked his tongue and stated flatly, "It was worse than that." I was in tears for hours. The disparity in that moment said much more to me than the movie itself about the story Spielberg had taken upon himself to tell. So be warned that this film is not for the faint of heart. Oddly, the cynics will probably view this movie with inexplicable dispassion. After all, how could anything this horrible have ever taken place within our lifetime?
Minority Report
(2002)
True science fiction
25 December 2002
True science fiction, the stuff of legend and the golden age, should provoke the mind and imagination. While this movie has Spielberg written all over it, it is truly thought provoking and masterful in its concept, art design, production values, subtle undertones, and overall impact. This is a film that should be seen, because it is not mere storytelling with a futuristic backdrop. No, this is a "what if" story based on some disturbing and very real trends in our culture.
With "A.I.", this movie reaffirms Spielberg's innate understanding of the genre. Anyone can make a sci-fi set film. Spielberg goes the extra step, like the master sci-fi writers of the past, to get you to think about what you just watched.
With "A.I.", this movie reaffirms Spielberg's innate understanding of the genre. Anyone can make a sci-fi set film. Spielberg goes the extra step, like the master sci-fi writers of the past, to get you to think about what you just watched.
Lilo & Stitch
(2002)
Meega na la queesta!
23 December 2002
What do you say first about "Lilo and Stitch"? Do you stand slackjawed to learn the film cost $80 million to make when it looks considerably cheaper? Do you revel in its totally irreverent moments and clever touches? Or do you talk about the overall feel of the film?
Frankly, L+S is just so-so. It has some of the funniest moments in a Disney film ("My friends needs to be punished.") and some of the most disjointed. It does not feel as consistently whacky as "The Emperor's New Groove" or as saccharine as ANYTHING from Disney in the last two years. Some of the characters are priceless, though, and I like Stitch a great deal. To me, though, that's not nearly enough to make it a classic. Let's face it: the studio paid $80 million for THIS? On what?
Compare the storytelling and animation of this movie to "Spirit" that came out within a week of L+S's debut and got clobbered at the box office, and you might understand why I cannot give this movie super-high marks.
Frankly, L+S is just so-so. It has some of the funniest moments in a Disney film ("My friends needs to be punished.") and some of the most disjointed. It does not feel as consistently whacky as "The Emperor's New Groove" or as saccharine as ANYTHING from Disney in the last two years. Some of the characters are priceless, though, and I like Stitch a great deal. To me, though, that's not nearly enough to make it a classic. Let's face it: the studio paid $80 million for THIS? On what?
Compare the storytelling and animation of this movie to "Spirit" that came out within a week of L+S's debut and got clobbered at the box office, and you might understand why I cannot give this movie super-high marks.
Yeah, very good, but ...
19 December 2002
There is no doubt that TTT is amazing. It's epic. It does everything to flesh out its characters. It continues the story with a faithfulness to the spirit if not the storyline of Tolkien.
But is it better than FotR? I think not.
TTT does an amazing job with fleshing out Gollum, for example. He is an accomplishment, but hardly perfect. His subtle facial changes and manic schizoid monologues are worth watching a second time. Serkis voices him with a creepiness that I could only hope for. But he's still CGI, and it's too apparent at times.
Where Gollum is close to perfect, Faramir is a step in the opposite direction. For those who recall, Boromir was a complex character in the movie FotR. Faramir had even more opportunity to be fleshed out, in acts of pity or a look in the face. Instead, Faramir is a bully, little better than his brother. I never got the impression that he was a good guy. And that is not true to the character as Tolkien wrote him.
Aragorn's story is ... eh. A SF Guardian review said that the film is wonderful when it's faithful to the written word of Tolkien. The subplot of Aragorn and Arwen was not in the original story for a good reason, and it shows in this film. Even though it is well acted, it is such a showstopper. Its only moment of excellence is when Elrond really hammers home to Arwen what choosing Aragorn would mean for her. For that reason, I do not trash this part of the film mercilessly. But it could have been handled SO much better.
TTT does NOT have enough Legolas. Period. He is easily one of the most amazing characters to come out of fantasy movies, and he is underutilized. Gimli is wonderful, but little more than comic relief. It's criminal that he has pathos and drama in the extended version of FotR but is really two dimensional in TTT. Ah, but for just one hour more.
Overall, TTT will be remembered many years from now. But better than its preceding film? Not really. It's about the same, which is not faint praise either.
But is it better than FotR? I think not.
TTT does an amazing job with fleshing out Gollum, for example. He is an accomplishment, but hardly perfect. His subtle facial changes and manic schizoid monologues are worth watching a second time. Serkis voices him with a creepiness that I could only hope for. But he's still CGI, and it's too apparent at times.
Where Gollum is close to perfect, Faramir is a step in the opposite direction. For those who recall, Boromir was a complex character in the movie FotR. Faramir had even more opportunity to be fleshed out, in acts of pity or a look in the face. Instead, Faramir is a bully, little better than his brother. I never got the impression that he was a good guy. And that is not true to the character as Tolkien wrote him.
Aragorn's story is ... eh. A SF Guardian review said that the film is wonderful when it's faithful to the written word of Tolkien. The subplot of Aragorn and Arwen was not in the original story for a good reason, and it shows in this film. Even though it is well acted, it is such a showstopper. Its only moment of excellence is when Elrond really hammers home to Arwen what choosing Aragorn would mean for her. For that reason, I do not trash this part of the film mercilessly. But it could have been handled SO much better.
TTT does NOT have enough Legolas. Period. He is easily one of the most amazing characters to come out of fantasy movies, and he is underutilized. Gimli is wonderful, but little more than comic relief. It's criminal that he has pathos and drama in the extended version of FotR but is really two dimensional in TTT. Ah, but for just one hour more.
Overall, TTT will be remembered many years from now. But better than its preceding film? Not really. It's about the same, which is not faint praise either.
Hollow Man
(2000)
More Verhoeven
5 December 2002
After watching this movie, all I could think was that Paul Verhoeven had packaged himself into a predictable product, in the same vein as "Starship Troopers". If you compare "Flesh + Blood" and "Total Recall" and especially "RoboCop" to this thoughtless waste of time, you would see how far down the Hollywood road (paved with uncreative intentions) the director has trod.
Paul Verhoeven films are ridiculously over the top when it comes to sex and violence. What makes his better films memorable is the intelligence behind those moments of ridiculous, overdone effect. Now add to that clever background detail and you get Verhoeven pre-"Starship Troopers". Hey, even "Starship Troopers" had some intelligence in it compared to this excrement.
"Hollow Man" tries so hard to offend and aggravate that it doesn't achieve anything beyond diminishing itself. I guess Paul was trying to be clever again, but what he makes is a story that people can only realistically watch once, if *that* many times. The special effects are truly well done, and the premise is intriguing, which is why I do not vote this one into the MST3K category, but beyond that, the principal actors and string-pullers in this mess should pretend "Hollow Man" never happened.
Paul Verhoeven films are ridiculously over the top when it comes to sex and violence. What makes his better films memorable is the intelligence behind those moments of ridiculous, overdone effect. Now add to that clever background detail and you get Verhoeven pre-"Starship Troopers". Hey, even "Starship Troopers" had some intelligence in it compared to this excrement.
"Hollow Man" tries so hard to offend and aggravate that it doesn't achieve anything beyond diminishing itself. I guess Paul was trying to be clever again, but what he makes is a story that people can only realistically watch once, if *that* many times. The special effects are truly well done, and the premise is intriguing, which is why I do not vote this one into the MST3K category, but beyond that, the principal actors and string-pullers in this mess should pretend "Hollow Man" never happened.
Quintessential Sci-Fi Masterpiece
5 December 2002
In 2002, science fiction can only be described as laden with special effects. Quality stories are few and far between, with a return to the fantasy genre as a last refuge for the scoundrel. The two Star Wars prequels further illustrate this weakness in science fiction. In other words, we are always making comparisons to THIS film, the grandmaster of all modern science fiction films, "The Empire Strikes Back".
ESB stands on its own merits for so many reasons that I can only hope to give a partial list. Having gotten out of the way the troublesome task of introducing us to the Star Wars universe in the 1977 adventure, we can now jump into the frantic struggle of the Rebellion. Anything introduced in "Star Wars" is simply improved upon in ESB, not overproduced and overrefined. The look of ESB is real, gritty, elegant, and sometimes even glowing (as in the Cloud City). The elements of creating mood and atmosphere are so perfect that it is no wonder they are copied in so many other films, often to poor effect. The music alone goes from brooding to anxious to frantic to mysterious to exotic with such balance that it defines perfection for future SW film scores.
The acting is real and hard and makes no apologies. It is neither over-the-top nor sleepwalked through, and each character is at his/her highest note. Yes, the technobabble in some points sounds stupid at times, but it's overpowered by the myriad other positive elements in the storytelling. ESB is the last movie made before the Indiana Jones films forever influenced adventure movies with the relentlessly overlapping and often ridiculous action that hurt "Return of the Jedi" in 1983. ("Raiders of the Lost Ark" would hammer home the formula of serials to the extent that RotJ would be fraught with juvenile moments and caricaturizations of beloved characters, but that's another story.)
Yoda was, at the time of ESB's release, a technological miracle of storytelling. Here was a muppet that audiences just *knew* was real, somewhere in the Universe. His wisdom reached deep into the human soul, sounding ominous, real, and masterful. The power of the character of Yoda is seen in how many adults as well as teenagers and kids in 1980 accepted him as real and respectable.
What more could be said about "The Empire Strikes Back"? It's the masterpiece all others strive to become similar to and never achieve. It ends on a cliffhanger and yet is a self-contained story. It's a classic even if it is seen before it has had the benefit of ILM's special edition rework. It is, in short, perfect storytelling.
ESB stands on its own merits for so many reasons that I can only hope to give a partial list. Having gotten out of the way the troublesome task of introducing us to the Star Wars universe in the 1977 adventure, we can now jump into the frantic struggle of the Rebellion. Anything introduced in "Star Wars" is simply improved upon in ESB, not overproduced and overrefined. The look of ESB is real, gritty, elegant, and sometimes even glowing (as in the Cloud City). The elements of creating mood and atmosphere are so perfect that it is no wonder they are copied in so many other films, often to poor effect. The music alone goes from brooding to anxious to frantic to mysterious to exotic with such balance that it defines perfection for future SW film scores.
The acting is real and hard and makes no apologies. It is neither over-the-top nor sleepwalked through, and each character is at his/her highest note. Yes, the technobabble in some points sounds stupid at times, but it's overpowered by the myriad other positive elements in the storytelling. ESB is the last movie made before the Indiana Jones films forever influenced adventure movies with the relentlessly overlapping and often ridiculous action that hurt "Return of the Jedi" in 1983. ("Raiders of the Lost Ark" would hammer home the formula of serials to the extent that RotJ would be fraught with juvenile moments and caricaturizations of beloved characters, but that's another story.)
Yoda was, at the time of ESB's release, a technological miracle of storytelling. Here was a muppet that audiences just *knew* was real, somewhere in the Universe. His wisdom reached deep into the human soul, sounding ominous, real, and masterful. The power of the character of Yoda is seen in how many adults as well as teenagers and kids in 1980 accepted him as real and respectable.
What more could be said about "The Empire Strikes Back"? It's the masterpiece all others strive to become similar to and never achieve. It ends on a cliffhanger and yet is a self-contained story. It's a classic even if it is seen before it has had the benefit of ILM's special edition rework. It is, in short, perfect storytelling.
Reign of Fire
(2002)
Truly lukewarm
30 November 2002
It speaks volumes about this movie that after my wife and I finished watching it, we just couldn't believe anyone could have made this movie so poorly. We looked blankly at each other and then ran the special features quickly to get some explanation for the cool looking pile of dragon poop we just saw. Believe me, my wife is not half the geek I am, so she was only curious in the morbid way some people are when passing the scene of a fatal car accident. She could not equate the look and the feel of the wreck of "Reign of Fire."
It had the potential to be a terrifying movie, and it looks very dark. Its premise is Mad Max nightmarish. The cast is at least passable, if not full of high calibre potential. (Personally, I think Christian Bale is as underutilized an actor of his generation as you get nowadays.) In short, the film had so much going for it.
The director of this movie freely admitted he was interested in getting audiences to suspend their disbelief and just be scared. Watching him talk about "Reign of Fire", I don't think he cared whether or not he was telling a story that made sense. The plot has more holes than the wings of the bull dragon seen in the second half. The movie looks great but feels totally fake because the *story*, not the special effects, is Velveeta quality cheese. Seeing that the movie at the time of this writing has only a few goofs listed in imdb.com tells me that many people did not want to bother seeing this movie more than once to check continuity, or that they simply did not care enough about it to list its ton of faults. Wait until you don't have to actually pay money to view it if you have to watch it at all.
It had the potential to be a terrifying movie, and it looks very dark. Its premise is Mad Max nightmarish. The cast is at least passable, if not full of high calibre potential. (Personally, I think Christian Bale is as underutilized an actor of his generation as you get nowadays.) In short, the film had so much going for it.
The director of this movie freely admitted he was interested in getting audiences to suspend their disbelief and just be scared. Watching him talk about "Reign of Fire", I don't think he cared whether or not he was telling a story that made sense. The plot has more holes than the wings of the bull dragon seen in the second half. The movie looks great but feels totally fake because the *story*, not the special effects, is Velveeta quality cheese. Seeing that the movie at the time of this writing has only a few goofs listed in imdb.com tells me that many people did not want to bother seeing this movie more than once to check continuity, or that they simply did not care enough about it to list its ton of faults. Wait until you don't have to actually pay money to view it if you have to watch it at all.
Men in Black II
(2002)
Smarter and sharper
30 November 2002
Perhaps my review of this movie is so positive simply because I expected MIIB to suck. The professional reviews were not glowing in mid 2002, and I actually missed seeing this film on its theatrical run because of them. The fact is that MIIB is superb because it is SMART. It is self-satirizing, subtle, sprightly-paced and well performed. Will Smith's seeming biting back of the words that he just said is so delightful, and the film is not smeared with profanity or unnecessary juvenile humor. Tommy Lee is snappy in his delivery, and Rosario Dawson and Lara Flynn Boyle are not merely beautiful but thoroughly smart.
In writing this script, someone decided not to dumb down the story. Still, the first film has some of the most memorable lines, where this movie has some of the most memorable scenes. I admit that I laughed HARD when Frank the dog did his extremely predictable but marvelously delivered jokes. Some of the jokes are just chuckleworthy, but they're ALL fairly funny. And Sonnenfeld did something that respected the audience's intelligence in his direction. You can watch the movie more than once and catch many details without getting bored.
I cannot give MIIB too many points because it loses something for some cheap jokes, but it's a film I recommend you see because it is so much more smarter than its predecessor.
In writing this script, someone decided not to dumb down the story. Still, the first film has some of the most memorable lines, where this movie has some of the most memorable scenes. I admit that I laughed HARD when Frank the dog did his extremely predictable but marvelously delivered jokes. Some of the jokes are just chuckleworthy, but they're ALL fairly funny. And Sonnenfeld did something that respected the audience's intelligence in his direction. You can watch the movie more than once and catch many details without getting bored.
I cannot give MIIB too many points because it loses something for some cheap jokes, but it's a film I recommend you see because it is so much more smarter than its predecessor.
Goodbye, Friends of Hagrid ...
25 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
SOME SPOILERS BUT NOTHING TERRIBLE
Let us start off with a quick summary of this reviewer: I *am* a Harry Potter fan, and I did have several expectations from this film. I loved having the chance to watch it, but I seriously doubt I will go and see it again until it makes its inevitable migration to DVD.
That is not to say I did not admire everyone involved for their extraordinary efforts in bringing the second HP book to life. The casting, production design, acting and subtle background nuances are part of what makes this film grand. I loved seeing the Weasley home and the Ford Anglia, and I thought the movie did not try to adapt *everything* from the book into the finished film. Jason Isaacs was not my first choice for Lucius Malfoy (I thought that honor should have gone to Charles Dance), nor was Gilderoy Lockhart being portrayed by Kenneth Branaugh (Alan Cummings would have been deliciously narcissistic), but these are nitpicks. Overall, the film wins, and so do we. The Quidditch game alone is intense and exciting.
Incidentally, if you found Dobby and Moaning Myrtle annoying, GOOD. That was definitely intentional. If you think every character is supposed to be lovable or despicable, think again. Rowling did not create such two dimensional contrivances. That is one reason her works are so fascinating to so many of *all* ages.
But CoS has problems that make it less than terrific. For one thing, the pacing is a bit too slow. So faithful an adaptation of the book has given us this overlong, plodding cow instead of a tightly focused bit of storytelling. Some purists will say that the first movie was long, so why shouldn't the second one be equally long? Simply because the first movie was introducing the world of Harry Potter to us. In this film, that world is established. Some parts of the book, while wonderful to read, just lengthen the film unnecessarily. I thought some inclusions (like Mrs. Norris the cat getting petrified) were slavishly unnecessary for those who never read the book. (If you have read CoS, you learn Filch was a "mudblood", so the attack on his cat keeps with the entire theme of mudbloods getting attacked.)
Some characterizations were inconsistent for purists of the series. Snape was downright kindly to Lockhart in the Wizard's duel. The Snape of the book looked like he was going to turn Lockhart into a red stain. Fawkes was almost great, but not quite. And Minerva McGonagall was too easily terrified compared to the tough lady from the first film.
Then there's Hagrid. First of all, he barely has any screen time in this movie. To make up for it, he is given this rousing standing ovation at the end of the film that is downright ridiculous. Hagrid's reaction to being imprisoned in Azkaban is that it was inconsequential. In fact, Azkaban is terrifying, but from Hagrid's reaction to being taken there, you would never know it.
I liked CoS, but I could not love it like I did the first film. It get's a mostly positive review, but it's not as great as it could have been.
Let us start off with a quick summary of this reviewer: I *am* a Harry Potter fan, and I did have several expectations from this film. I loved having the chance to watch it, but I seriously doubt I will go and see it again until it makes its inevitable migration to DVD.
That is not to say I did not admire everyone involved for their extraordinary efforts in bringing the second HP book to life. The casting, production design, acting and subtle background nuances are part of what makes this film grand. I loved seeing the Weasley home and the Ford Anglia, and I thought the movie did not try to adapt *everything* from the book into the finished film. Jason Isaacs was not my first choice for Lucius Malfoy (I thought that honor should have gone to Charles Dance), nor was Gilderoy Lockhart being portrayed by Kenneth Branaugh (Alan Cummings would have been deliciously narcissistic), but these are nitpicks. Overall, the film wins, and so do we. The Quidditch game alone is intense and exciting.
Incidentally, if you found Dobby and Moaning Myrtle annoying, GOOD. That was definitely intentional. If you think every character is supposed to be lovable or despicable, think again. Rowling did not create such two dimensional contrivances. That is one reason her works are so fascinating to so many of *all* ages.
But CoS has problems that make it less than terrific. For one thing, the pacing is a bit too slow. So faithful an adaptation of the book has given us this overlong, plodding cow instead of a tightly focused bit of storytelling. Some purists will say that the first movie was long, so why shouldn't the second one be equally long? Simply because the first movie was introducing the world of Harry Potter to us. In this film, that world is established. Some parts of the book, while wonderful to read, just lengthen the film unnecessarily. I thought some inclusions (like Mrs. Norris the cat getting petrified) were slavishly unnecessary for those who never read the book. (If you have read CoS, you learn Filch was a "mudblood", so the attack on his cat keeps with the entire theme of mudbloods getting attacked.)
Some characterizations were inconsistent for purists of the series. Snape was downright kindly to Lockhart in the Wizard's duel. The Snape of the book looked like he was going to turn Lockhart into a red stain. Fawkes was almost great, but not quite. And Minerva McGonagall was too easily terrified compared to the tough lady from the first film.
Then there's Hagrid. First of all, he barely has any screen time in this movie. To make up for it, he is given this rousing standing ovation at the end of the film that is downright ridiculous. Hagrid's reaction to being imprisoned in Azkaban is that it was inconsequential. In fact, Azkaban is terrifying, but from Hagrid's reaction to being taken there, you would never know it.
I liked CoS, but I could not love it like I did the first film. It get's a mostly positive review, but it's not as great as it could have been.
Die Another Day
(2002)
Just die already
25 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
We've come a long way from the masterpiece spy thrillers of the 60's. Now, our films are cynical, action-packed, dark, and the governments of the bad guys and the good are both not to be trusted. Somehow, we call this jaded attitude "sophisticated". And yet, this new James Bond film is the result of catering to our sophistication.
"Die Another Day" is superb eye candy. The locations are new, but not dreary as those in "The World is Not Enough." The women are as delicious as freshly baked cookies and ice cold milk. If Halle Berry doesn't make your mouth water, Rosamund Pike should. The villains have the aspirations all Bond villains seem to need to have: start a big war, take over the world, etc. And the gadgets are often ingenious if not very interesting.
So why isn't this Bond like Daddy used to like? Because like a bad cook, the ingredients are used in the wrong amounts, and consistently bad at that.
Brosnan's Bond has a great character arc, but he gets some of the most heavy handed lines to deliver. I do not care if you can do Shakespeare or a Doublemint gum commercial: nobody can take puerile, inane lines and make them work and still *not* look like Leslie Nielsen in a Naked Gun film. What we have here is a talented cast with a script that deliberately squashes their characters flat into two dimensional cardboard cutouts. Only Cleese and Berry come out relatively unscathed. Apparently, Cleese is so comfortable with his role as Q that he comes across as if he was always meant to have that job. And Berry knows how silly it all is so she plays Jinx as playful. Still, even she cannot combat some of the idiotic moments in the cartoon script.
Next misused ingredient: sex. Watching James Bond having sex kills the gentleman-spy image for me. Yeah, yeah, I always knew what he was doing in his past films, but to have to see it on screen in my face for several minutes was so gratuitous that it hammered home that I was watching a product of someone trying to manipulate my emotions and not watching a story. As for the innuendo, please give me a break. The lines were so flagrant and overemphasized that I felt real pity for the actors saying the lines.
The action sequences are really great in staging and progression, even if the sword fighting is handled with less aplomb. The opening sequence is dynamic, and if the advance press didn't reveal Bond's capture at the end of it, the lead into the credits would have great impact. The high speed chases were quite a hoot to watch, and they did not employ too many special effects until a certain point. The special effects were fine until someone started using CGI. The result in the surfing scenes (among many others) was so distracting that it was laughable. All I could think was that the overall result looked fake and cheap. The producers should hang their heads in shame.
And don't get me started on the decrepit excuse of a theme song that Madonna performs. This song makes Lulu's "Man With the Golden Gun" and Gladys Knight's "License to Kill" sound like Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger," for pity's sake.
But this is just what one can see if you can turn your brain off. May heaven help the fool who watches this movie with even the tiniest ounce of grey matter working. Then, the film moves into the realm of the idiotic.
SPOILERS AHEAD! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
1) What WAS Jinx doing trying to kill Zao? What was in it for the Americans to do that? And what about the doctor at the gene therapy clinic? Is she just a classy looking assassin and nothing more?
2) When did NSA start doing things external to domestic communications and internal security? And what was Zao doing that could involve NSA's interest?
3) How does Bond realistically swim in ice water without at least gloves, let alone facial protection, in water cold enough to paralyze you in a matter of minutes?
4) How do you stabilize a plane that has totally lost cabin pressure, and if you do, why is there no noise as if someone fixed the destroyed glass?
5) Why would MI-6 accuse the American intelligence agencies of not revealing information about Miranda Frost's background when a standard security background check should have revealed that information already?
6) How did James Bond learn how to stop his heart, or is that a trick they teach you in MI-6 basic?
7) Why would a MI-6 contact in Cuba not verify with MI-6 that someone coming out of nowhere using an old secret code might not, in fact, be an infiltrator or rogue agent?
8) Why didn't Zao ever just have the diamonds embedded in his face surgically removed, if he was getting gene therapy to change his appearance anyway?
9) What reason could Miranda have to keep Bond from getting captured? Was she trying to lead Bond away from what he was tracking? Wouldn't it make *anyone* more suspicious?
10) I know what conflict diamonds are. Did the producers or the director think to explain what they were to someone who might not know?
11) Why couldn't the Americans fire a missile that reaches a certain altitude out of line-of-sight of the satellite and then strike the Icarus from the side instead of straight on? Or couldn't you detonate the missle before actually hitting the satellite so the shock wave throws off the satellite's orientation?
12) If you have a handheld laser that can cut through at least half a foot of ice, why use bolt cutters to tear open a chain link fence if you're in a hurry to catch the plane on the other side? Wouldn't the laser be faster and easier to carry?
These were a dozen obvious gaffes I could see right from the top. The list is far longer if you actually think about what didn't make sense in the story. And I'm not even going near continuity errors and such since I will not be wasting my time viewing the movie a second time.
I have just one thing to say to Wilson and Broccoli: let Bond die already. This movie will only give Mike Myers more fodder for his spoofs and reason for audiences to watch "The Bourne Identity."
"Die Another Day" is superb eye candy. The locations are new, but not dreary as those in "The World is Not Enough." The women are as delicious as freshly baked cookies and ice cold milk. If Halle Berry doesn't make your mouth water, Rosamund Pike should. The villains have the aspirations all Bond villains seem to need to have: start a big war, take over the world, etc. And the gadgets are often ingenious if not very interesting.
So why isn't this Bond like Daddy used to like? Because like a bad cook, the ingredients are used in the wrong amounts, and consistently bad at that.
Brosnan's Bond has a great character arc, but he gets some of the most heavy handed lines to deliver. I do not care if you can do Shakespeare or a Doublemint gum commercial: nobody can take puerile, inane lines and make them work and still *not* look like Leslie Nielsen in a Naked Gun film. What we have here is a talented cast with a script that deliberately squashes their characters flat into two dimensional cardboard cutouts. Only Cleese and Berry come out relatively unscathed. Apparently, Cleese is so comfortable with his role as Q that he comes across as if he was always meant to have that job. And Berry knows how silly it all is so she plays Jinx as playful. Still, even she cannot combat some of the idiotic moments in the cartoon script.
Next misused ingredient: sex. Watching James Bond having sex kills the gentleman-spy image for me. Yeah, yeah, I always knew what he was doing in his past films, but to have to see it on screen in my face for several minutes was so gratuitous that it hammered home that I was watching a product of someone trying to manipulate my emotions and not watching a story. As for the innuendo, please give me a break. The lines were so flagrant and overemphasized that I felt real pity for the actors saying the lines.
The action sequences are really great in staging and progression, even if the sword fighting is handled with less aplomb. The opening sequence is dynamic, and if the advance press didn't reveal Bond's capture at the end of it, the lead into the credits would have great impact. The high speed chases were quite a hoot to watch, and they did not employ too many special effects until a certain point. The special effects were fine until someone started using CGI. The result in the surfing scenes (among many others) was so distracting that it was laughable. All I could think was that the overall result looked fake and cheap. The producers should hang their heads in shame.
And don't get me started on the decrepit excuse of a theme song that Madonna performs. This song makes Lulu's "Man With the Golden Gun" and Gladys Knight's "License to Kill" sound like Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger," for pity's sake.
But this is just what one can see if you can turn your brain off. May heaven help the fool who watches this movie with even the tiniest ounce of grey matter working. Then, the film moves into the realm of the idiotic.
SPOILERS AHEAD! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
1) What WAS Jinx doing trying to kill Zao? What was in it for the Americans to do that? And what about the doctor at the gene therapy clinic? Is she just a classy looking assassin and nothing more?
2) When did NSA start doing things external to domestic communications and internal security? And what was Zao doing that could involve NSA's interest?
3) How does Bond realistically swim in ice water without at least gloves, let alone facial protection, in water cold enough to paralyze you in a matter of minutes?
4) How do you stabilize a plane that has totally lost cabin pressure, and if you do, why is there no noise as if someone fixed the destroyed glass?
5) Why would MI-6 accuse the American intelligence agencies of not revealing information about Miranda Frost's background when a standard security background check should have revealed that information already?
6) How did James Bond learn how to stop his heart, or is that a trick they teach you in MI-6 basic?
7) Why would a MI-6 contact in Cuba not verify with MI-6 that someone coming out of nowhere using an old secret code might not, in fact, be an infiltrator or rogue agent?
8) Why didn't Zao ever just have the diamonds embedded in his face surgically removed, if he was getting gene therapy to change his appearance anyway?
9) What reason could Miranda have to keep Bond from getting captured? Was she trying to lead Bond away from what he was tracking? Wouldn't it make *anyone* more suspicious?
10) I know what conflict diamonds are. Did the producers or the director think to explain what they were to someone who might not know?
11) Why couldn't the Americans fire a missile that reaches a certain altitude out of line-of-sight of the satellite and then strike the Icarus from the side instead of straight on? Or couldn't you detonate the missle before actually hitting the satellite so the shock wave throws off the satellite's orientation?
12) If you have a handheld laser that can cut through at least half a foot of ice, why use bolt cutters to tear open a chain link fence if you're in a hurry to catch the plane on the other side? Wouldn't the laser be faster and easier to carry?
These were a dozen obvious gaffes I could see right from the top. The list is far longer if you actually think about what didn't make sense in the story. And I'm not even going near continuity errors and such since I will not be wasting my time viewing the movie a second time.
I have just one thing to say to Wilson and Broccoli: let Bond die already. This movie will only give Mike Myers more fodder for his spoofs and reason for audiences to watch "The Bourne Identity."
Braveheart
(1995)
"Ye must've made quite an imprassion ---"
22 November 2002
Mel Gibson understood something really simple when he successfully directed the 1995 epic, "Braveheart", that subsequent directors of Randall Wallace stories did not, and that is how to capture and really transfer to the audience that visceral feeling of satisfying revenge through physical vengeance. Every time some villain gets his in this film, we feel it. We also feel the pain and the injustice of William Wallace's world. This is why the movie is a powerful story.
To be sure, look at other films with similar ingredients of high quality. Watch movies with poignant ethnic-themed scores. Watch movies with unparalleled action and battle scenes. Watch movies with heartbreaking love stories. Rarely do they get it ALL right. But "Braveheart" does, and it does so gloriously.
The movie also has really BIG flaws, the least of which is that it seems to take a LONG time to get to the point, that being the ending. Historians cringe when they consider "Braveheart" because of all of the liberties it takes with historical fact. And the death scene of Wallace becomes inadvertently corny by the very end. ("The prisoner wishes to say something. Quick bring the megaphone! All right, Mr. I-am-loopier-than-a-bowl-of-Froot-Loops, what have you got to say?" The hero tosses his head back and forth before uttering the "unexpected" cry: "FREEDOM!")
But minor flaws like those cannot diminish the previous two and a half hours of epic score, grim battles, painfully realized love, ironic humor, betrayals, victories and heartbreaks. And most of all, you do not doubt Wallace's words: "All men die. Not every man lives." In many ways, this film is "Spartacus" for the 1990's.
To be sure, look at other films with similar ingredients of high quality. Watch movies with poignant ethnic-themed scores. Watch movies with unparalleled action and battle scenes. Watch movies with heartbreaking love stories. Rarely do they get it ALL right. But "Braveheart" does, and it does so gloriously.
The movie also has really BIG flaws, the least of which is that it seems to take a LONG time to get to the point, that being the ending. Historians cringe when they consider "Braveheart" because of all of the liberties it takes with historical fact. And the death scene of Wallace becomes inadvertently corny by the very end. ("The prisoner wishes to say something. Quick bring the megaphone! All right, Mr. I-am-loopier-than-a-bowl-of-Froot-Loops, what have you got to say?" The hero tosses his head back and forth before uttering the "unexpected" cry: "FREEDOM!")
But minor flaws like those cannot diminish the previous two and a half hours of epic score, grim battles, painfully realized love, ironic humor, betrayals, victories and heartbreaks. And most of all, you do not doubt Wallace's words: "All men die. Not every man lives." In many ways, this film is "Spartacus" for the 1990's.
The Motion Sickness
22 November 2002
In late fall of 1979, I saw this long awaited epic with the intense anxiety of a kindergartner waiting for Christmas. I was so hyped about the possibility of seeing a film that was going to do for the television show, "Star Trek," what "Star Wars" did for the entire genre two years previous. I even got to see it on opening weekend, thrilled to pieces.
The opening credit sequence seemed long. I mean, it seemed REALLY long. I sat there wondering if I needed to go back to the theatre concessionary for more soda or something because the music had been playing since before I sat and the lights dimmed. Oh, the music was magnificent, no mistake, but I hadn't been so perplexed by pretentiously long opening titles since "Superman" the year before.
The sequence with the Klingons was remarkable, and the opening sequence was really exciting. But it rapidly became a film of Roddenberry's greatest hits. Spock on Vulcan wrestling with his human identity, Kirk back on Earth longing for command, Bones ranting about being a doctor and not something else, and so on and so on. And if that was not distracting enough, the cameos were somewhat artificial and interrupting. ("Look! Over there! Isn't that Grace Lee Whitney? Isn't that Koenig?") I can almost hear Robert Wise saying, "Let's let the camera linger on Majel a few seconds longer for the fans."
But who cares about cheese when you're getting to watch the Enterprise on the big screen? Well, after watching scenes that had the sole purpose in life of wasting time and slowing the pacing of the movie, *I* did. Even as a 14 year old, I could tell this film was really missing something. I learned later that it was more what the film was *not* missing that was wrong with it.
When I was older, a fellow geek referred to this film grimly as "Star Drek: The Motion Sickness" and he nailed the film's problems in that epitaph. The five minute trip around the Enterprise (timed to this swelling and poignant score by Goldsmith) and the interminable journey through the Cloud gave me nausea precisely opposite to the way that *fast* rides do. It was so *slow* a ride that I felt really sick by the time Spock was trying to mind-meld with V'Ger. By the end of the film, I was really feeling my popcorn start to rise.
Watch George Takei as he steers the ship through the Cloud. Sulu looks like he's watching a porn film, complete with Orion slave girls and Andorians, up there on the viewing screen. It's really both funny and surreal to realize you, the audience, are watching someone who is watching something and he looks like it's amazing when, after the first five minutes, the suspension of disbelief vanishes and it's just another wait for the "It's a Small World" ride to end.
I did watch the film twice as a teenager (because after all, my girlfriend moved away to Grand Cayman and what else could I do?) and I watched the director's cut recently. It *is* a better film now, in its new incarnation, but not by very much. You cannot make stale food taste better just by reheating it and spicing it up a bit. Without a doubt, this is the least auspicious of the Star Trek films.
The opening credit sequence seemed long. I mean, it seemed REALLY long. I sat there wondering if I needed to go back to the theatre concessionary for more soda or something because the music had been playing since before I sat and the lights dimmed. Oh, the music was magnificent, no mistake, but I hadn't been so perplexed by pretentiously long opening titles since "Superman" the year before.
The sequence with the Klingons was remarkable, and the opening sequence was really exciting. But it rapidly became a film of Roddenberry's greatest hits. Spock on Vulcan wrestling with his human identity, Kirk back on Earth longing for command, Bones ranting about being a doctor and not something else, and so on and so on. And if that was not distracting enough, the cameos were somewhat artificial and interrupting. ("Look! Over there! Isn't that Grace Lee Whitney? Isn't that Koenig?") I can almost hear Robert Wise saying, "Let's let the camera linger on Majel a few seconds longer for the fans."
But who cares about cheese when you're getting to watch the Enterprise on the big screen? Well, after watching scenes that had the sole purpose in life of wasting time and slowing the pacing of the movie, *I* did. Even as a 14 year old, I could tell this film was really missing something. I learned later that it was more what the film was *not* missing that was wrong with it.
When I was older, a fellow geek referred to this film grimly as "Star Drek: The Motion Sickness" and he nailed the film's problems in that epitaph. The five minute trip around the Enterprise (timed to this swelling and poignant score by Goldsmith) and the interminable journey through the Cloud gave me nausea precisely opposite to the way that *fast* rides do. It was so *slow* a ride that I felt really sick by the time Spock was trying to mind-meld with V'Ger. By the end of the film, I was really feeling my popcorn start to rise.
Watch George Takei as he steers the ship through the Cloud. Sulu looks like he's watching a porn film, complete with Orion slave girls and Andorians, up there on the viewing screen. It's really both funny and surreal to realize you, the audience, are watching someone who is watching something and he looks like it's amazing when, after the first five minutes, the suspension of disbelief vanishes and it's just another wait for the "It's a Small World" ride to end.
I did watch the film twice as a teenager (because after all, my girlfriend moved away to Grand Cayman and what else could I do?) and I watched the director's cut recently. It *is* a better film now, in its new incarnation, but not by very much. You cannot make stale food taste better just by reheating it and spicing it up a bit. Without a doubt, this is the least auspicious of the Star Trek films.
And Your Mother Too
(2001)
Staccato uneven and overrated
29 October 2002
I like independent films, and I like it if a movie uses storytelling elements to its advantage, especially unconventional devices. Y tu mamá también is NOT this great film that the critics make it out to be. It's a good movie, and it has good dialogue and believable characters. But the movie tries too hard to show the intersections of life with the interrupting narration and shots of squallor and corruption during the main story. The story itself is written well, and it captures something about the essence of Mexico that is noteworthy. But overall, it doesn't quite get there.
Sorry, but the movie is not quite as great as all that. When it was over, abrupt and bittersweet, I found myself quickly forgetting the characters. That's usually a bad sign to me about the overall power of the film.
Sorry, but the movie is not quite as great as all that. When it was over, abrupt and bittersweet, I found myself quickly forgetting the characters. That's usually a bad sign to me about the overall power of the film.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
Wonderful story, but badly directed
22 October 2002
If you ever want to compare and contrast two movies of similar content for differences in direction, watch "We Were Soldiers" and "Black Hawk Down". Randall Wallace is so out of his depth in trying to convey dimension and depth to both the story and the characters that it's often painful to watch. The cliched and stereotypical scenes in the movie scream of amateurish direction. (Two scenes in particular: the wives' get-together with the "Whites Only" reference to the laundromat, and the "Tell my wife I love her" line so badly delivered that I laughed in spite of myself.)
Keep in mind: I love war movies. I do not love them for their action. I don't even love them for the strategy and intelligence depicted in the arena of conflict. I love them because, when they're done correctly, these films show us the sacrifice and unreasonable commitment soldiers bring to the aforementioned arena. I genuinely feel for the soldiers when I see just what they are subjected to in combat. "Black Hawk Down" left me wanting to know more about the brave rangers. "Patton" left me wanting to learn more about the courage of General Patton's army. "We Were Soldiers" almost didn't do that because of inept directing. Randall Wallace needs to hone his craft before he takes on such projects.
See WWS, but see BHD first.
Keep in mind: I love war movies. I do not love them for their action. I don't even love them for the strategy and intelligence depicted in the arena of conflict. I love them because, when they're done correctly, these films show us the sacrifice and unreasonable commitment soldiers bring to the aforementioned arena. I genuinely feel for the soldiers when I see just what they are subjected to in combat. "Black Hawk Down" left me wanting to know more about the brave rangers. "Patton" left me wanting to learn more about the courage of General Patton's army. "We Were Soldiers" almost didn't do that because of inept directing. Randall Wallace needs to hone his craft before he takes on such projects.
See WWS, but see BHD first.
Fun silliness
27 August 2002
How many times have parents dreaded to watch a children's video for fear of the high saccharine factor? Well, VeggieTales videos are generally not like that at all. This particular video is a favorite because it has several blatantly inside jokes or silly references only adults would get. Some of the songs are just too much, and I am surprised at how easy it is to rewatch this video.
For those out there concerned that Big Idea is just producing Christian themed stories, or for those who flat-out avoid cartoons with a message, I advise you to get over it and watch this video. But be careful. These songs are quite catchy!
For those out there concerned that Big Idea is just producing Christian themed stories, or for those who flat-out avoid cartoons with a message, I advise you to get over it and watch this video. But be careful. These songs are quite catchy!
Highlander: Endgame
(2000)
Let's be fair to the fans first
8 July 2002
I had the pleasure to go out and miss this film on its release to the big screen. Recently, I caught it on cable, and I was shocked and appalled. Here's why you cannot just excuse the terrible story as part of a defunct franchise ...
H:E is an extension of the television series, Highlander, which itself was based loosely on the movie of the same name. One of the reasons the show was such a hit with fans (and grew to have such a huge following) was its continuity and originality. This movie can be seen as a stand-alone episode of the Adrian Paul series made for the fans and for those who just wanted to understand what the fuss over the TV show was all about.
Brian Panzer has no excuses making this stupid, ill conceived linear piece of garbage. He has episodes of the original series under his belt that are so far beyond this Frankenstein's monster that the only reasonable explanation is that he and Adrian Paul wanted to kill the series and give it a cheap funeral.
Is it faithful to the art design of the series? Mostly. Is it fun in places? I guess. Does the plot make any sense? No. Does the acting and menace appear totally contrived and false. Yes. Is Adrian Paul better in this movie than any of his "lesser" co-stars? Actually, he's worse.
Avoid this one as you did the Planet Zeist film. At least that one had Sean Connery.
H:E is an extension of the television series, Highlander, which itself was based loosely on the movie of the same name. One of the reasons the show was such a hit with fans (and grew to have such a huge following) was its continuity and originality. This movie can be seen as a stand-alone episode of the Adrian Paul series made for the fans and for those who just wanted to understand what the fuss over the TV show was all about.
Brian Panzer has no excuses making this stupid, ill conceived linear piece of garbage. He has episodes of the original series under his belt that are so far beyond this Frankenstein's monster that the only reasonable explanation is that he and Adrian Paul wanted to kill the series and give it a cheap funeral.
Is it faithful to the art design of the series? Mostly. Is it fun in places? I guess. Does the plot make any sense? No. Does the acting and menace appear totally contrived and false. Yes. Is Adrian Paul better in this movie than any of his "lesser" co-stars? Actually, he's worse.
Avoid this one as you did the Planet Zeist film. At least that one had Sean Connery.
Tell Your Friends