Reviews

Batteries Not Included (BNI); The Little Mermaid (TLM); Planet of the Apes (PotA):

Adorable Space-Age Robots? (BNI) - Check!

Mindless humans powerless to escape their predicament? (BNI, PotA) - Check!

A home in ruin after spending too much time in outer space? (PotA) - Check!

A precious snowflake seeking a congruent soul... up where they walk, talk and play all day in the sun? (TLM) - Check!

WALL-E is the best parts of each of those movies; the cute robots, the lovesick child and the epic tale of terrestrial dismay. Unfortunately, WALL-E may or may not be as good as one or two of those movies depending on what you're looking for.

The global pollution theme is too big a pill to force down the throats of movie goers, especially the younger audience this movie is designed for, so it gets dished out in small easily palatable doses. Sci-Fi nerds are going to be left wanting more, but then, aren't we always?

The cute factor of the robots is right up Pixar's alley. Is the plot slowing? Insert a little slapstick or a cute emote involving some cute robots. "Awwwwww," goes the crowd. Who doesn't like cute? Even the Grinch couldn't resist the mystical powers of cuteness.

That leaves us with the main theme. Ariel... err, I mean WALL-E lives in his treasure trove where he's collected all the wonderful artifacts from a people he wishes were his friends. He sees a fair prince.. oh, uhh.. EVE (not a prince) and abandons his lesser friend (a Twinkie devouring cockroach... perhaps named 'Flounder') to commit himself to following this 'prince' into her own territory (Axiom). A stranger in a strange land he nearly brings everything to ruin before breaking through and sacrificing for the sake of his 'prince'. The prince broods and the mermaid (WALL-E) has a happy fairytale ending with her prince.

No seriously, this was The Little Mermaid, set in the distant future... except possibly less memorable being that it isn't a musical. Not bad, Pixar, considering what you had to work with... but not a home run either.

Like several other reviewers.. I feel completely ripped off. From the back cover of the DVD: "In this mesmerizing film, acclaimed director Werner Herzog explores the live and death of amateur grizzly bear expert and wildlife preservationist Timothy Treadwell, who lived unarmed among grizzlies for 13 summers."

The first sore point for me, is the use of the word "preservationist". While the word is technically correct.. its use is deceiving. While Mr Treadwell certainly 'pleaded' for the the preservation of Grizzlies, he 'did' nothing but harm them. There are even a number of dense reviewers here at IMDb that think that Treadwell was some sort of environmentalist, a protector of nature. Nothing could be further from the truth and it angers me that a documentary director can't convey this sincerely to the audience.

You don't need bias to understand that Treadwell is a manic-depressive (aka Bipolar disorder) who was in need of his medication (which, we find out, he quit taking). Herzog doesn't explore this beyond the ex-girlfriend's confession that Treadwell 'wanted' the extreme highs and the lows. It's frustrating to see her say that she 'respected his decision to' do this or that, but that she can't understand just how sick his mind is off the medication. How can you respect the decisions made by someone who is suffering from a mental disorder?

Why didn't Herzog interview any of Treadwell's indirect relationships? By only interviewing those closest to him, Herzog ignores objectivity. We get people who only knew 'of' him to criticize him. Nobody who knew him was willing to criticize him? I find this very hard to believe. Where's the objective review of the tapes (post mortem) by a qualified psychologist? Where's the interview with the Park Service personnel that explained the reasoning behind the park's rules. Why did Herzog leave the audience to decide uninformed, and for themselves, whether or not the rules that Treadwell was breaking were for good reason?

Why did Herzog resort to all the fake stuff? All the interviews were painful to watch thanks to the underwhelming acting by the interviewees. One of the the interviewees actually is an actor, so that's understandable, but the rest were just prepared. The utter lack of candor turns what would be a respectful documentary into a sideshow act. Why stage events in the documentary? (the removal of the wristwatch from evidence)

The reason I feel most ripped off is because Werner Herzog only hinted at what needed to be said. He was willing to point out where he felt Treadwell was wrong, but not willing to explore anything beyond the surface, nor willing to actually say what needed to be said: Treadwell was a very normal sufferer of Bipolar disorder who suffered massive delusions of grandeur and died on record, as a result of them.

This is a sad, pathetic documentary of a sick man and his sad, pathetic friends.

This film could have been a much more reasonable 2 hours in duration, if only they had made the decision to sum up the boring first 30 minutes into a 2 minute narrative.

Until Zellweger appeared, I was ready to gouge my eyes out. The first clue that this was going to be a rough 154 minutes was when our main characters opened their mouths for the first time. Wow, you'd think that if you're going to shoot your film in Eastern Europe, throwing an Australian and an Englishman into your lead roles is pushing it too far. Those were, hands down, the worst attempts at southern accents I've ever heard. I really like Law and Kidman, but they just couldn't pull off 19th century Southern if they were sitting on a front porch fanning themselves while eating pecan pie and listening to a conversation about the rising costs of negros.

Zellweger's characterizations were great. She was a little to impolite to be a southerner, but the overall spirit she got right.

Hoffman's brief stint in the film was wonderful and I was ready to rate this film a 9, until he was killed off. It's too bad Hoffman doesn't weigh 40lbs less, he would make a fabulous Inman.

Portman provided an impeccable performance, but again, for too short a period.

At one point Inman mentions that it's a long way to the Blue Ridge.. unfortunately for him, he wasn't actually going to the Blue Ridge since Cold Mountain is mentioned to be in Haywood County. During the Civil War, Haywood County was much larger than present day Haywood County, but still didn't encompass any of the Blue Ridge. Of course, this may explain why the movie was so long.. Jude never stopped to ask for directions.

In the end, this movie just gave me a very hollow feeling. Hollow actors in the lead roles, hollow story with holes at the edges, and a hollow love story that ended in horribly done movie-kisses that looked like two large goldfish trying to swim around in too small a tank.

I'd give it a 9 or 10 if only they had cut it down to just the secondary characters, which were exceedingly watchable.

**spoilers** The way the camera flows throughout the film, never a hard film cut, a metaphor for the flow of time, is hard to deal with. Having just watched this film yesterday after successfully battling a New Years Eve party's hangover all morning, the spinning revolving camerawork was making me feel as though a relapse had come on. Then again, had my vision of "The Rectum" been entirely lucid, I believe I actually would have been sick.

I flinched each time the fire extinguisher made contact with the man's face yet stared in awe at the graphical effects, the raw realism of the violence, between each blow. I was impressed and disgusted at the same time, much as the onlookers in the film were. Had this film been shot 10 years ago, I would have surely just laughed, neither impressed or disgusted, as a rubber head exploded and gushed red glycerin all over the soundstage. This scene worked as intended, and if you were just shocked by the violence, and not moved by the sudden ferocity of the killer, than you obviously spent more time being mad at the director for being graphic than you did reading the subtitles and engaging yourself in the story.

The rape scene was incredibly hard to watch.. and seemed much too long.. but wasn't that the point? I felt it.. I felt raped.. I cried. As one reviewer put it, "The rape just made me angry, but that was because I couldnt do anything about the rape... ". Indeed.. is that not what rape is? To be taken by force. It's hard to reccomend this film to anyone simply because I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone.. yet I'm glad I watched it.

Now, we've covered the bulk of the unnerving graphical violence, lets get down to what this movie was about:

This movie's theme is doled to the audience in the very first scene.. 'Time destroy's everything'. There is no greater truth than this. Next we see men being led away by the police.. one physically broken and bound to a stretcher, and one emotionally broken and confined to the paddy wagon. Two men, destroyed. As we back up in time the dialog becomes more human,.. love flows slowly back into the picture and the swirling camerawork subsides. The first scenes are marked heavily with rage and hate.. emotions that breed destruction.

The dialog is being overlooked by most of the reviewers who hated this film. I wish I knew French so that I wouldn't have to trust the subtitles, but considering the language used, I'm sure the translator knows both languages very intimately, because the words and images were so full of signifigance. I can't think of much dialog that was wasted... nearly all of it tied in with the story quite cleverly.

Alex, in a hopeful manner, talks about the book she is reading that says everything is already decided.. that fate exists, that it rules. Well, the audience, having already seen the events that follow that comment, can't help but agree.. or at least snicker at the irony. In the end, we see her reading this book, her life is beautiful, and as she contemplates her fate, she sees beauty.. the essence of hope. Another of her comments, on the subway, is that when the man she is having sex with really lets go and concentrates on pleasuring himself, she derives more pleasure from his than when he concerns himself with her pleasure. The irony is thick enough and dark enough to choke on.

Pierre, as we discover, is full of physical life, while Marcus is full of abstract, philosophical life, this doesn't change from beginning to end... even in destruction. It is Pierre who holds his broken arm, while Marcus is burdened with a broken will.

I see Pierre and Marcus, not as two separate people, but as two traights in every man. Maybe I speak only for myself, but I have Pierre's primal instincts and Marcus's civil insightfullness fighting within myself at all times, much as those two fight throughout the film. Imagine these two characters as one and you just might see yourself in the story.. and you thought it was disturbing enough already...

This is a story, a message, that could only have been portrayed in brutally graphic film. Imagine this story in a book... most people who read books could never work up this kind of imagery, and the sense of reversed time is something best accomplished with film. That's pretty significant for a movie in this day and age where most movies we see started out as far superior books.

Of note: The "Star Baby" of Dave Bowman on the 2001: A Space Odyssey poster, and the final strobing images of a swirling universe can probably only be truly appreciated if you've already taken the time to understand 2001. I'm glad I've both loved the book and movie before viewing Irreversible.

Yet another action based vampire movie. Yet again, enjoyable to watch but very shallow in execution. Yet again, a new director who shows promise in being able to pull a professional film together but who's ability to direct is obviously immature.

I just read Roger Ebert's review and he very accurately likened Underworld to a porno. While there is no sex to speak of.. and hardly an ounce of eroticism (save the 'gothic requisite' abundance of tight fitting leather), the movie flows like a porno in many respects. Ebert left the analogy at the opening and closing of doors, but I believe much more was implied. The dialog is minimal and purposeful.. like a porno's. The action is abundant and full of cliche.. like a porno's. The scenes between action are merely showcases for the characters to posture themselves as objects that we should feel drawn towards.. you guessed it.. just like those of a porno. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but unfortunately for this film, an otherwise half decent story is drown out by too much action, a tad too much posturing, and way too little characterization.

Ebert managed to get a key element of the plot completely wrong (did he walk out halfway into the film? seems like it) so I'll try not to harp on his other criticisms. If he'd paid attention he might have awarded this flick another half star.

The use of CGI in Underworld seemed constrained to advancing the story line by showing us the internal transformations of creatures into and out of their human forms, and moves such as impossible jumps and creatures running on walls. Many of the scenes could have been made more cheaply with loads of CGI instead of live action costumes and I applaud the move by the director/producers to keep as much live action in front of the camera.

If poor acting was this flick's worst bramble, Shane Brolly (Kraven) was it's biggest thorn. I kept expecting to see some inner conflict that might round out his character and allow the audience to second guess his next move.. but from the very first word out of his mouth, to the last, we know he's the antagonist Kate Beckinsale (Selene) will need to keep her eye on. A good villain is someone the audience can mutually feel at odds with and understand... we never understand Kraven. We get a hint at his motives, but they're too briefly bothered with for us to give him any consideration.

The short of it is: were they to make a special edition of this film.. cut out some of the gratuitous action (yes, there was too much for even an action flick) and insert some well acted dialog and character development.. they might have a cult classic on their hands. As it is.. it's merely a shallow summer movie wearing goth clothes. Speaking of.. Selene's character is enough to make even a preppy dude like myself wish he had been lost in the goth crowd (maybe some of the posturing worked it's magic on me).

The attempts at making suspenseful, horror film-like scares were disappointing.. or maybe I'm just jaded.. several did incite some laughter from me though. Seemed like whenever things got quiet you could count to 5 (not unlike the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch) and something with fangs would hop into view accompanied by a very loud noise. I couldn't make a scary movie if my life depended on it.. so I digress.

I give it 6.5 stars out of 10 for the excellent costumes, makeup (including the very sexy teeth), set design, use of both a Maserati and Bentley (hard driven, too), lots of eye and ear candy and intriguing storyline. It loses massive points for the overdone action scenes (mostly the finale), poor acting and lack of character development.

I've been reading a few user reviews and keep seeing Matrix comparisons. That's funny, because the Matrix's best scenes were copied from a vampire action film. You'd think the Matrix was the only movie many of these folks had ever seen. If the Matrix had never been made, I believe this movie would have ended up very much the same.

**spoilers**

An interesting bit of trivia actually. The name Selene is from a Greek word meaning 'moon'. This brings about an interesting fateful dynamic when you consider Scott Speedman(Michael Corvin)'s ability to be 'struck' by her as quickly as the full moon itself.

With the realization that the Lycan were once slaves/daytime-guardians to the vampires, did anyone else find it a little over the top when the silver studded bullwhips (wielded by a lithe white vampire) were used on none other than a muscular black man (errr.. werewolf)? I had flashbacks to Kunta Kinte learning his name.

Plot hole...? UV light bothers/kills the Vampires and not the Lycan.. why on earth didn't the Lycan use a few readily available gro-lites here and there in their "den"? I can't think of a better security system against vampires.

Ohh.. Has anyone yet mentioned how good Kate Beckinsale looks in this film?