I have this best friend, see, and he's a writer to. Damn good one at that. I trust his prose and poetry more than my own. He's got a wry wit and his opinion I trust. A few years ago, we decided to do something stupidly fun. We both wrote down our top ten movies.That's like asking a parent to pick which child should live.We elected to go the other route-picking movies that we personally felt connected to, regardless of the quality. That way, we didn't have the usual textbook answers of Citizen Kane and Streetcar Name Desire ad nauseum. The list became more a inkblot, showing the person who did the viewing.I'm not going to go write that list down right now.For there's been a change.I think I have a new movie to add to my list.Sky Captain is our current decade's Indy movie. But without the purely for profit sequels. This is a what going to the big screen is all about. It is a tale that can only exist on a big screen. I mean, giant robots meancing New York City? No HDTV is going to get you with that. You need to see their size, their heat beam eyes as the height they were meant to shown at.In a movie theatre.In this movie, lovingly shot in experimental sephia tones, you have the usual intrepid reporter, seen a thousand times prior, doing the annoying usual storyline. She's investigating missing scientists--another standard--and then has to be rescued by the dashing hero, the mercernary Sky Captain. Seems there's Evil Afoot, trying to Take Over the World.Yes, we've heard it all before. Heck, we felt this way with Raiders et al.But I didn't mind this time. For some reason, it all made sense. It was as if the ultimate B movie was put up there on the screen. Worlds apart are only a short flight/drive away, clothing stays oddly unwrinkled after harrowing experiences.Yeap, only in the movies.I think the reason I don't mind is that it had all the usual greats tied up into a neat bundle. This was a freshman script, so I suppose my expectations couldn't have been that high. But the film collides with a bit of Tim Burton. In others, if it didn't look this good, you would have lost a large segment of the movie. The costumes are smooth; the photography is this side of having scratches movies. There are no sharp edges. All you needed was the occasionaly accidental string hanging from an airplane and you think you would have been in the 30's. I kept waiting for placard to announce "Tune in next week!"So much praise, I'll have to add it to my list. The drawback? The lead, I'm afraid to say. Luckily, hottie Jude Law is not required to do much. But he's too passive for an action hero. He's got the style and excellence of a Royal--and tends to come off as reflective because of it. Him in an action role? He's not angry enough; his decisions seems to be flown in from somewhere else because of it.But this gripe is small. I mean, it's JUDE LAW, for crissakes. He's like an Abercrombie ad envisioned in real time.The other problem? Why release this now, in the limbo prior to Christmas season and Oscar? Did they really not know how the public would react to such a stylish actioner? That's unfortunate, I really think this could have been a summer blockbuster. We had an excellent cinema summer. It could have been part. Still, it's a nice way to know that sometimes good movies come out in the fall.
A very, very well constructed piece of work. I feel back for the newbie creator. If you start at the top of the heap, where will you go next?
And as for my friend? I’m probably going to have see this movie again with him. I think he might have to revise a list or two himself.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Movie Review: Prick Up Your Ears
Oh gee, everyone, look another dead gay man movie. I am beginning to think that the only way gay men die is via violent reaction.
Oh wait, this is from the eighties. I suppose that has something to do with it. You would have thought better...I mean, look at the pedigree--Stephen Frears from Dangerous Laisons, Gary Oldman actually being nice and good-looking (I usually recall him from Dracula, back in 92, a personal fave) and our current Spiderman 2 villian, Doctor Octopus himself, Alfred Molina. You would think they could have ended the movie without violence.
Still, I had heard about the title from some friends and decided to take a look at it.
I have to say, as I watched this movie, even tho the gay guy bites it, I kept thinking--it's not out of spite. It's not because the society at large wants him to die--something modern Hollywood still attests to. In the end of this movie, it's because the act of murder was a natural outpouring of the conflict of the tale. You see, this was a true story of the very bizarre relationship between famed playwright Joe Morton and his frequent collaborator. I dare not say lover, even tho they were. Their relationship was as unique as this drama. They were together, yes, but it was different from monogomous, but apart from swingers. Their relationship was borderline a muse and his artist, but even that would put boundaries on something that defied description.
I began to become impressed with the title as the movie, like so many English flicks, played too long. The uniqueness of their relationship drew me in and kept me wondering what was exactly happening. I already knew one was going to die in the end..but who and why eluded me. Especially that why part.
I applaud the audacity of the movie-it is far from humourous and also distanced by the time period (the 80's) that is was released in. But still, I felt it was expertly constructed and the actor's didn't shy away from their flings and loves. Straight actors tend to come off as being straight playing gay. Here, it was not a factor.
Surely, above average and the reason I have netflix. To see movies with enough polish that they should not be forgotten.
Oh wait, this is from the eighties. I suppose that has something to do with it. You would have thought better...I mean, look at the pedigree--Stephen Frears from Dangerous Laisons, Gary Oldman actually being nice and good-looking (I usually recall him from Dracula, back in 92, a personal fave) and our current Spiderman 2 villian, Doctor Octopus himself, Alfred Molina. You would think they could have ended the movie without violence.
Still, I had heard about the title from some friends and decided to take a look at it.
I have to say, as I watched this movie, even tho the gay guy bites it, I kept thinking--it's not out of spite. It's not because the society at large wants him to die--something modern Hollywood still attests to. In the end of this movie, it's because the act of murder was a natural outpouring of the conflict of the tale. You see, this was a true story of the very bizarre relationship between famed playwright Joe Morton and his frequent collaborator. I dare not say lover, even tho they were. Their relationship was as unique as this drama. They were together, yes, but it was different from monogomous, but apart from swingers. Their relationship was borderline a muse and his artist, but even that would put boundaries on something that defied description.
I began to become impressed with the title as the movie, like so many English flicks, played too long. The uniqueness of their relationship drew me in and kept me wondering what was exactly happening. I already knew one was going to die in the end..but who and why eluded me. Especially that why part.
I applaud the audacity of the movie-it is far from humourous and also distanced by the time period (the 80's) that is was released in. But still, I felt it was expertly constructed and the actor's didn't shy away from their flings and loves. Straight actors tend to come off as being straight playing gay. Here, it was not a factor.
Surely, above average and the reason I have netflix. To see movies with enough polish that they should not be forgotten.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Movie Review: Yossi and Jagger
I have come down on American remakes of overseas titles. They rarely get the images correct, choosing the fast route and quickest money moments to make the picture. Here? I find myself hoping some American takes up a remake for the first time of my life.
This is the love story to two men in the military. Plain and simple. They love and no one knows, for it would be frowned upon.
But there's the thing. THAT'S IT. I have no idea how they met or how they came together. There was no outward antigay sentiment, so where was the threat of being out?
Don't get me wrong, I did like this movie, but my partner hated it, and I could fully see why. There was no build up of their relationship, so when hardship befalls one of them, it's hard to guage the impact. It needed to be explored more in such a short movie.
Hence, could someone remake this? Make it a bit fuller? You might have something, then.
This is the love story to two men in the military. Plain and simple. They love and no one knows, for it would be frowned upon.
But there's the thing. THAT'S IT. I have no idea how they met or how they came together. There was no outward antigay sentiment, so where was the threat of being out?
Don't get me wrong, I did like this movie, but my partner hated it, and I could fully see why. There was no build up of their relationship, so when hardship befalls one of them, it's hard to guage the impact. It needed to be explored more in such a short movie.
Hence, could someone remake this? Make it a bit fuller? You might have something, then.
Movie Review: City of God
I heard about this title at the Oscars and watching a few second snippet there, I was hooked. If a picture is that visually tantalizing, I want to see the rest--besides, it's not everyday that a movie is merely nominated for direction. Something must have happened on that screen.
Since coming to Netflix so many months ago, I have been privledged to see movies from around the world. Many good, many bad, but it has opened my eyes to how different filmmakers and cultures view things. It's been fantastic.
Here is an example. This movie is South American, Brazilian. The storyline is pure American, in that it is non-linear, like Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction. It bounces around, through flashbacks and reviews. It tells the tale about a young photographer growing up in a ghetto is Rio-the title's City of God. And through his history we meet various gang lords who rise and fall about as much as a Dallas family gathering.
It should be titled "Politics of the Gun," because guns proliferate here and there is much violence. But not that happy, action movie, bad guys die kinda way--as in someone has a gun, when is he going to use it--kinda way. It's riveting that something I've seen before being used creatively.
Yes, this movie is highly creative. I found myself at a loss at how it was going to come out, half expecting the protagonist to die several times (I learned from Sunset Blvd, many moons ago, protagonists can die and still narrate their story) and wondered where the story would take me next. The acting is a bit stilted, not creating much for compassion for any of the characters, but otherwise, this is a piece of filmmaking that should have found a much larger audience. It didn't play at any art house I knew of. It's a good movie.
Since coming to Netflix so many months ago, I have been privledged to see movies from around the world. Many good, many bad, but it has opened my eyes to how different filmmakers and cultures view things. It's been fantastic.
Here is an example. This movie is South American, Brazilian. The storyline is pure American, in that it is non-linear, like Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction. It bounces around, through flashbacks and reviews. It tells the tale about a young photographer growing up in a ghetto is Rio-the title's City of God. And through his history we meet various gang lords who rise and fall about as much as a Dallas family gathering.
It should be titled "Politics of the Gun," because guns proliferate here and there is much violence. But not that happy, action movie, bad guys die kinda way--as in someone has a gun, when is he going to use it--kinda way. It's riveting that something I've seen before being used creatively.
Yes, this movie is highly creative. I found myself at a loss at how it was going to come out, half expecting the protagonist to die several times (I learned from Sunset Blvd, many moons ago, protagonists can die and still narrate their story) and wondered where the story would take me next. The acting is a bit stilted, not creating much for compassion for any of the characters, but otherwise, this is a piece of filmmaking that should have found a much larger audience. It didn't play at any art house I knew of. It's a good movie.
Movie Review: To Kill A Mockingbird
I feel I can't write a review for this movie. I know I've seen it multiple times, and, as the cliche goes, it means something different each time. I feel not unlike a journalist trying to explain colors to a blind person. I have the skills, but not the point of reference.
The format of this story has been copied so many times. A young girl (a borderline proto-homo, I noticed this time) lives in the rural south during the depression. Her brother and her are given much of an education by the mere fact of exploration by their single father. They learn about racism and it's horrid impact and about the meaning of caring.
As for the movie, well, it is very, very good. What I have noticed when I watch classics like Gone with the Wind, Streetcar Named Desire and the like, is that time flies when you are watching them. Today's movies, made to keep the MTV generation filling their pockets, are edited to different camera angles every three seconds or so. Here, the camera picks a target and holds it until the words are spoken, the image is taken in. It knows we're smart and doesn't toy with song-and-dance.
The movie rolls along, probably moved faster by previous experience watching it during school and I also see Gregory Peck in the role that defined the rest of his career. I looked back at my review of Streetcar a few weeks ago and realized what these actors had that many today do not.
Confidence. Without the infrindgement of the press, these actors could do what they set out to do. Peck is relaxed on the screen, comfortable in this own skin. He isn't appearing to ACT. Tom in Collateral? He's practically screaming, "look at me, I'm doing something different then my last movie! Thank you, Academy!"
But Peck doesn't have that. And he becomes the moral compass, like a father should, both with his own kids and us in the audience. A very good movie from an excellent book. One of those books you really should read.
The format of this story has been copied so many times. A young girl (a borderline proto-homo, I noticed this time) lives in the rural south during the depression. Her brother and her are given much of an education by the mere fact of exploration by their single father. They learn about racism and it's horrid impact and about the meaning of caring.
As for the movie, well, it is very, very good. What I have noticed when I watch classics like Gone with the Wind, Streetcar Named Desire and the like, is that time flies when you are watching them. Today's movies, made to keep the MTV generation filling their pockets, are edited to different camera angles every three seconds or so. Here, the camera picks a target and holds it until the words are spoken, the image is taken in. It knows we're smart and doesn't toy with song-and-dance.
The movie rolls along, probably moved faster by previous experience watching it during school and I also see Gregory Peck in the role that defined the rest of his career. I looked back at my review of Streetcar a few weeks ago and realized what these actors had that many today do not.
Confidence. Without the infrindgement of the press, these actors could do what they set out to do. Peck is relaxed on the screen, comfortable in this own skin. He isn't appearing to ACT. Tom in Collateral? He's practically screaming, "look at me, I'm doing something different then my last movie! Thank you, Academy!"
But Peck doesn't have that. And he becomes the moral compass, like a father should, both with his own kids and us in the audience. A very good movie from an excellent book. One of those books you really should read.
Movie Review: Hero
Ahh, to return to the world of vices. You should know by now my love for Asian movies-especially the ones with lots of fighting. Yes, I'm admitting bias. Of course, this vice really only nails me out of money--and even then, if I didn't see it, I wouldn't have a myocardic infarction.
Don't you just love that word? In-FARC-tion? It's so,I don't know, given to middle school giggles.
I say that, because, well, there were several giggles during this magnum opus, Hero, Jet Li's new flick. I even saw it on it's opening night, which says volumes. If I'm willing to forego my Friday night nap, well, there's something to be had, I tell you. I knew I wanted to see this movie when I read about it two years ago.
Yes, Miramax was sitting on this movie for two years. I'm sure they had no idea what to do with it--the audience was proof of that. It was filled with young men, filled with testosterone, from the nearby bases. They had no idea. Not one of them had read a word about it.
All they saw were the words, 'Jet Li' and thought this was the place to come.
This movie was not what they expected--hence the middle school giggles. And why Miramax wondered how to market it.
The story concerns a young man (Li) who comes to show the Emperor his loyality by bringing the swords of the 3 assissins who were bent on keeping him from power. Such was the threat that no one has ever come in 100 steps of the emperor--but this young man is invited to do so as he elaborates the tale.
The setup is much like many martial arts movies, with flashback after flashback. Only this time, the same story is elaborated, with different emphasis each time. It's wonderfully complex and visually adept. It's a true movie, a world that only exists on the screen.
And the fighting? Excellent, but that's where the giggles surmounted. You see, many people aren't used to the Hong Kong martial arts forms put onto the movies outside of Jackie Chan and Li. Here, the fights take on a form of higher art-giving the feeling of a ballet or dance ensemble. It asks for the audience to be sophistacted when they normally wouldn't be. There's one escapade, shot beautifully, in a forest during fall. One woman doesn't wish to kill the mistress of her ex, so she uses the falling leaves as cover.
It's an elaborate dance that is breathtakign on the big screen.
It's a giggle fest of screaming women and wind for small minds.
Hence, the giggles from the hundreds of young males.
And people worry about the future.
I, for one, liked the movie. I hate having to compare it to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,( or Rashomon, if you've heard of it) but it's the only film out there audiences might have experienced with the same ascetics. It's slightly less then that movie, going more for the intricaties of politics--always a mood killer. It's why you never see a baby boom in an election year.
So yes, I liked it, but I don't think anyone else will. Which is too bad, because it's a really good entry into Asian cinema as it stands right now.
Don't you just love that word? In-FARC-tion? It's so,I don't know, given to middle school giggles.
I say that, because, well, there were several giggles during this magnum opus, Hero, Jet Li's new flick. I even saw it on it's opening night, which says volumes. If I'm willing to forego my Friday night nap, well, there's something to be had, I tell you. I knew I wanted to see this movie when I read about it two years ago.
Yes, Miramax was sitting on this movie for two years. I'm sure they had no idea what to do with it--the audience was proof of that. It was filled with young men, filled with testosterone, from the nearby bases. They had no idea. Not one of them had read a word about it.
All they saw were the words, 'Jet Li' and thought this was the place to come.
This movie was not what they expected--hence the middle school giggles. And why Miramax wondered how to market it.
The story concerns a young man (Li) who comes to show the Emperor his loyality by bringing the swords of the 3 assissins who were bent on keeping him from power. Such was the threat that no one has ever come in 100 steps of the emperor--but this young man is invited to do so as he elaborates the tale.
The setup is much like many martial arts movies, with flashback after flashback. Only this time, the same story is elaborated, with different emphasis each time. It's wonderfully complex and visually adept. It's a true movie, a world that only exists on the screen.
And the fighting? Excellent, but that's where the giggles surmounted. You see, many people aren't used to the Hong Kong martial arts forms put onto the movies outside of Jackie Chan and Li. Here, the fights take on a form of higher art-giving the feeling of a ballet or dance ensemble. It asks for the audience to be sophistacted when they normally wouldn't be. There's one escapade, shot beautifully, in a forest during fall. One woman doesn't wish to kill the mistress of her ex, so she uses the falling leaves as cover.
It's an elaborate dance that is breathtakign on the big screen.
It's a giggle fest of screaming women and wind for small minds.
Hence, the giggles from the hundreds of young males.
And people worry about the future.
I, for one, liked the movie. I hate having to compare it to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,( or Rashomon, if you've heard of it) but it's the only film out there audiences might have experienced with the same ascetics. It's slightly less then that movie, going more for the intricaties of politics--always a mood killer. It's why you never see a baby boom in an election year.
So yes, I liked it, but I don't think anyone else will. Which is too bad, because it's a really good entry into Asian cinema as it stands right now.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Movie Review: Collateral
Feel free to continue to detest Tom Cruise and yet see this movie.
Ohmygod! I've admitted to hating one of the biggest stars this meager universe has set eyes on! He is, like TOM CRUISE! He's a marquee name!
Yeah, so's the word, 'Exit.'
I really did try to like Tom a long time ago. I saw an inkling of his abilities back in Born on the Fourth of the July and again in Magnolia. I even noticed a tad of ability in the over compensated Minority Report. I have to admit he is a good performer. And he has my respect in that department. I don't have to like him because of that.
But then reality takes over. Yes, he did follow Born with Days of Thunder (which was actually released prior) and Mission: Impossible. I mean, Mission: Impossible was a freegin ensamble television show, with like, twenty characters.
Then Tom moves in as producer. Ooops. Twenty gets reduced down to one.
See what I mean? He may play the press like a fiddle, but his ego is right there, right on his sleeve.
And yes, I admit, the whole thing about being called gay and suing people. Like being called gay is a bad thing. It could hurt him. Hello? Wolverine is playing a gay man on Broadway and doing part three and made Van Helsing.
And his problem is, um, where?
Well, nowhere, depending on this movie. This is an excellent movie. Here I am going on and on about why I hate Tom Cruise--but why I love this movie? That list is going to go far beyond that. Besides, hate takes so much energy.
Michael Mann. To me, he did justice to the book Red Dragon by the slightly superior Manhunter in the late 80's. His Last of the Mohicans was fantastic--a movie that follows the book. Heat? Very warm, thank you. I like the guy. His movies have a certain auteur quality you just don't see in summer blockbusters. The camera continues to move (but not the herky-jerky stuff you see in Baz Luhrmann) and makes something that could come off as a one act play--two men meeting a taxi--into something surprisingly engaging.
Yes, this is the tale of two men meeting in a taxi. It starts off without a rush, a surprisingly honest piece of written dialogue, with Jamie Foxx as a driver. He talks with his charge, the up-and-coming Jada Pinkett Smith (I'm sorry, but the Smith family is about to take over Hollywood, frankly. We might want to prepare by buying tickets NOW), and it's natural, almost improvisational. I had never seen Jamie Foxx in the movies before. All I know is that the entire cast of In Living Color probably should have been canonized--it seems each one of them is worthwhile. He, unlike his costar, is a true natural. He reminded me of Spencer Tracy, swept up in a world that he never wanted but is strong enough of handle. Tom wants the head shots, Jamie just wants to be in the picture.
Ebert mentioned his hesitancy of seeing Jamie do Ray Charles justice in his next bio pic, Ray. No worries. I'm thinking I need to get a ticket for that one too.
That was a tangent, wasn't it? Anyway, Max (Jamie's character) picks up his next customer and gets tucked into a murder spree, with Tom playing a contract killer. I don't want to elaborate, because the film is so unique, further explaination will kill the zing of the tale. But I found the writing to be crisp, and the placement of elements not forced or set up.
In other words, I was surprised, consistently. Several times. Not easy to do.
And I think you will be too.
Ohmygod! I've admitted to hating one of the biggest stars this meager universe has set eyes on! He is, like TOM CRUISE! He's a marquee name!
Yeah, so's the word, 'Exit.'
I really did try to like Tom a long time ago. I saw an inkling of his abilities back in Born on the Fourth of the July and again in Magnolia. I even noticed a tad of ability in the over compensated Minority Report. I have to admit he is a good performer. And he has my respect in that department. I don't have to like him because of that.
But then reality takes over. Yes, he did follow Born with Days of Thunder (which was actually released prior) and Mission: Impossible. I mean, Mission: Impossible was a freegin ensamble television show, with like, twenty characters.
Then Tom moves in as producer. Ooops. Twenty gets reduced down to one.
See what I mean? He may play the press like a fiddle, but his ego is right there, right on his sleeve.
And yes, I admit, the whole thing about being called gay and suing people. Like being called gay is a bad thing. It could hurt him. Hello? Wolverine is playing a gay man on Broadway and doing part three and made Van Helsing.
And his problem is, um, where?
Well, nowhere, depending on this movie. This is an excellent movie. Here I am going on and on about why I hate Tom Cruise--but why I love this movie? That list is going to go far beyond that. Besides, hate takes so much energy.
Michael Mann. To me, he did justice to the book Red Dragon by the slightly superior Manhunter in the late 80's. His Last of the Mohicans was fantastic--a movie that follows the book. Heat? Very warm, thank you. I like the guy. His movies have a certain auteur quality you just don't see in summer blockbusters. The camera continues to move (but not the herky-jerky stuff you see in Baz Luhrmann) and makes something that could come off as a one act play--two men meeting a taxi--into something surprisingly engaging.
Yes, this is the tale of two men meeting in a taxi. It starts off without a rush, a surprisingly honest piece of written dialogue, with Jamie Foxx as a driver. He talks with his charge, the up-and-coming Jada Pinkett Smith (I'm sorry, but the Smith family is about to take over Hollywood, frankly. We might want to prepare by buying tickets NOW), and it's natural, almost improvisational. I had never seen Jamie Foxx in the movies before. All I know is that the entire cast of In Living Color probably should have been canonized--it seems each one of them is worthwhile. He, unlike his costar, is a true natural. He reminded me of Spencer Tracy, swept up in a world that he never wanted but is strong enough of handle. Tom wants the head shots, Jamie just wants to be in the picture.
Ebert mentioned his hesitancy of seeing Jamie do Ray Charles justice in his next bio pic, Ray. No worries. I'm thinking I need to get a ticket for that one too.
That was a tangent, wasn't it? Anyway, Max (Jamie's character) picks up his next customer and gets tucked into a murder spree, with Tom playing a contract killer. I don't want to elaborate, because the film is so unique, further explaination will kill the zing of the tale. But I found the writing to be crisp, and the placement of elements not forced or set up.
In other words, I was surprised, consistently. Several times. Not easy to do.
And I think you will be too.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Movie Review: De-Lovely
I want to thank Moulin Rouge, the post modern musical from four years ago. Or maybe I should blame it. For without it, wouldn't have seen the recent upsurge of Hollywood musicals. The problem? No one is taking the time to see what happened before--like watching a few New York stagefests to see exactly what a musical is made of.
Which brings us to this latest ditty. It was an interesting time to release this picture, amoung the hullaballoo of Spidermen and Aliens vs Predators. I'm thinking that they did it as counterprogramming, figuring not everyone goes to the big budget special effects fests the summer churns out.
So in that manner, it was a nice respite from getting my ears blown off from a loud sound system or being treated like an idiot with a plot that a nine-year-old can grasp. De-Lovely is borderline art house in that respect.
Now I have two reviews for this movie. Mine and the critical one. For myself, I liked this movie. I knew the words for a majority of the songs, having been brought up on the musical theatre and pop standards. This movie is a Cole Porter dream, telling his life story in the form of a Hollywood musical. At certain points throughout the movie, you can see current music talent warbling Mr. Porter's hits in the background (or foreground), adding the needed lift to scenes. I sang right along and went starry eyed at the cameos.
But now the critical stuff. Folks, this is a middle ground movie. It has too many good and bad parts that don't mix. I blame the writing. I always do. The storyline tries to bring a new twist to Cole Porter's life. The problem? Outside of being gay and married to a woman, there's not much interesting going on. He was boring. In today's day and age, being gay isn't nearly enough to be enthralled, or at least, it shouldn't be. His relationship with his wife, played excellently by Ashley Judd, is a very large part of the film and where it does hit it's few high notes. They have a very unique relationship, more like a best-friendship, that gives each strength in ways I did not predict. But it's not enough to stretch a movie over two hours.
Yes, two hours. I felt like I was watching a European movie--they have no concept of editing overseas, it appears. There were sequences that went way too long and some that were not even needed.
Musicals are surreal, plain and simple. They are usually self-effacing and celebratory. They even talk about it during the movie, where Cole, facing death, played by Johnthan Pryce, wonder if the opening number should be a ballad or not. So there is some knowledge there. But then they don't even listen to themselves. There's a huge dance number to end the picture on (yeah, my heart sang!) and then they cut to Cole at the piano with Linda Lee, his wife. How sweet but not needed at all.
What Hollywood needs to do is what they did when talkies were born. Los Angeles producers ran out to New York to grab all the playwrights they could find. Why? To write good dialogue. Boy, those days are gone. Seems like they are combing some elementary schools these days for words on paper. New York is experiencing a certian theatrical comeback since 9/11, trying to woo tourists back to their perspective houses. Why not mine these great showboats, Hollywood? It's an idea. This movie could have benefitted, that's for sure.
It's not to say this movie is so bad, you shouldn't go see it. Kevin Kline's respectful turn as Mr. Porter is Oscar caliber, really. You can see his theatre training in the ways he plays the room in scenes. And I've already mentioned Ashley Judd. It's nice to see her not play a cop in some bad mystery for once. Here's a niche for her, dramatic acting. She's got the skill for it.
This is surely a middle of the road pic. If you like Cole or theatre, go for it. But you aren't into dramatics, well, then maybe the Alien flick next door is the answer.
Which brings us to this latest ditty. It was an interesting time to release this picture, amoung the hullaballoo of Spidermen and Aliens vs Predators. I'm thinking that they did it as counterprogramming, figuring not everyone goes to the big budget special effects fests the summer churns out.
So in that manner, it was a nice respite from getting my ears blown off from a loud sound system or being treated like an idiot with a plot that a nine-year-old can grasp. De-Lovely is borderline art house in that respect.
Now I have two reviews for this movie. Mine and the critical one. For myself, I liked this movie. I knew the words for a majority of the songs, having been brought up on the musical theatre and pop standards. This movie is a Cole Porter dream, telling his life story in the form of a Hollywood musical. At certain points throughout the movie, you can see current music talent warbling Mr. Porter's hits in the background (or foreground), adding the needed lift to scenes. I sang right along and went starry eyed at the cameos.
But now the critical stuff. Folks, this is a middle ground movie. It has too many good and bad parts that don't mix. I blame the writing. I always do. The storyline tries to bring a new twist to Cole Porter's life. The problem? Outside of being gay and married to a woman, there's not much interesting going on. He was boring. In today's day and age, being gay isn't nearly enough to be enthralled, or at least, it shouldn't be. His relationship with his wife, played excellently by Ashley Judd, is a very large part of the film and where it does hit it's few high notes. They have a very unique relationship, more like a best-friendship, that gives each strength in ways I did not predict. But it's not enough to stretch a movie over two hours.
Yes, two hours. I felt like I was watching a European movie--they have no concept of editing overseas, it appears. There were sequences that went way too long and some that were not even needed.
Musicals are surreal, plain and simple. They are usually self-effacing and celebratory. They even talk about it during the movie, where Cole, facing death, played by Johnthan Pryce, wonder if the opening number should be a ballad or not. So there is some knowledge there. But then they don't even listen to themselves. There's a huge dance number to end the picture on (yeah, my heart sang!) and then they cut to Cole at the piano with Linda Lee, his wife. How sweet but not needed at all.
What Hollywood needs to do is what they did when talkies were born. Los Angeles producers ran out to New York to grab all the playwrights they could find. Why? To write good dialogue. Boy, those days are gone. Seems like they are combing some elementary schools these days for words on paper. New York is experiencing a certian theatrical comeback since 9/11, trying to woo tourists back to their perspective houses. Why not mine these great showboats, Hollywood? It's an idea. This movie could have benefitted, that's for sure.
It's not to say this movie is so bad, you shouldn't go see it. Kevin Kline's respectful turn as Mr. Porter is Oscar caliber, really. You can see his theatre training in the ways he plays the room in scenes. And I've already mentioned Ashley Judd. It's nice to see her not play a cop in some bad mystery for once. Here's a niche for her, dramatic acting. She's got the skill for it.
This is surely a middle of the road pic. If you like Cole or theatre, go for it. But you aren't into dramatics, well, then maybe the Alien flick next door is the answer.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Movie Review: A Streetcar Named Desire
What can I say that's new and hasn't already been said about this movie? Not much. What I'm hoping to do is remind people that there are many good movies that are still out there, all one has to do is open their eyes.
I rented this title after I heard Marlon Brando died. I figured it was time to visit it again. I was glad I did.
My partner and I had a discussion during the movie that defined the concept of classic. As we watched Marlon Brandon, delts flaring on the steps outside of his apartment, screaming, "Stellllaaaa!" we wondered, if there was a remake, who could do it?
Now think about this, folks. A Streetcar Named Desire has been remade numerous times. Not on the big screen, but on stage. It was a play and it becomes very apparent. You can look away and the dialogue is so crisp and descriptive, it sounds like a radio show. There was a time when dialogue and acting was all that was needed to propel drama. But I digress from my point. My point is, everytime this play is performed, EVERYONE compares it to this movie. Heck, if you were forced to read this in a lit class, Marlon's shirtless black and white photo is plastered on the cover.
This defines a classic; its wholly it's own, there's no way you can repeat it. Star Wars first three movies are classic; its current add-ons are not. They don't have that spark. Yul Brenner is the only person you can identify as the King in the King and I.
We could not find a decent example of who could play that role other then Marlon Brando. Same goes for Kim Hunter and Vivien Leigh.
They define classic. An excellent movie. Yes, it's long and boring, but if you can appreciate art, you'll do fine.
I rented this title after I heard Marlon Brando died. I figured it was time to visit it again. I was glad I did.
My partner and I had a discussion during the movie that defined the concept of classic. As we watched Marlon Brandon, delts flaring on the steps outside of his apartment, screaming, "Stellllaaaa!" we wondered, if there was a remake, who could do it?
Now think about this, folks. A Streetcar Named Desire has been remade numerous times. Not on the big screen, but on stage. It was a play and it becomes very apparent. You can look away and the dialogue is so crisp and descriptive, it sounds like a radio show. There was a time when dialogue and acting was all that was needed to propel drama. But I digress from my point. My point is, everytime this play is performed, EVERYONE compares it to this movie. Heck, if you were forced to read this in a lit class, Marlon's shirtless black and white photo is plastered on the cover.
This defines a classic; its wholly it's own, there's no way you can repeat it. Star Wars first three movies are classic; its current add-ons are not. They don't have that spark. Yul Brenner is the only person you can identify as the King in the King and I.
We could not find a decent example of who could play that role other then Marlon Brando. Same goes for Kim Hunter and Vivien Leigh.
They define classic. An excellent movie. Yes, it's long and boring, but if you can appreciate art, you'll do fine.
Movie Review: I, Robot
Living here in the shadow of the once mighty "Silcon Mountain," it's easy to remember the birth of the techno age. Fourteen year olds purchasing Audis; old people learning a keyboard and a typewriter are the same thing. Clinton was still doing unmentionables in the White House (actually, there are still unmentionables going on, it's just less exotic these days). But as with all things--when we see the good, we have to see the bad. It was only a matter of time before we saw technology as villian. It only made sense as it took such a large role in our daily extravagances.
The Terminator had already been born and died in the late 80s, early 90s and besides, he had moved onto the governor's mansion. We saw a rash of really crappy titles hit the market trying to ride the wave. Hackers and the Net come to mind. But then the Matrix took evil technology where we wanted to go. We were hooked. We wanted to know the logical outcome to this success.
Robots. The Matrix said that technology's evils would come in the form of robots. From what I understand (from my copy of the hugely underwatched Animatrix, by far better then some of the work in the film's sequels), one robot killed it's master and the civil war between robots and humanity began.
Honestly, I have to thank Star Trek, before I go on. I wouldn't have understood any of this pursuit of humanity theming so imperative in this movie without the input of the character Data on Star Trek:TNG. Without him, I would not have appreciated the movie I, Robot.
You see I, Robot covers the same bases as Matrix and Star Trek. There's really not much new. In this plot, it appears that the creator of 2035's largest robot manufactures has been murdered. And since robots are programmed to not kill humans, this 'future noir' begins. Picture a 1940's gumshoe with huge issues with a given suspect (cliche then as it is now), his mole who is on the inside (cliche then as it is now), the usual suspects (cliche then as it is now) and you have a Dashiell Hamett tale.
And this movie as well. Folks, there's nothing new here. The movie tweaks that famous formula by having one of the robots possibly commiting the crime. Is the robot possibly overriding his programming, ya know, becoming more human?
See what I mean? Thanks Star Trek.
Are the robots actually planning some kind of take over? Thanks Matrix.
Now, here's the part you'll be shocked about.
I did like this movie.
The current edition of Entertainment Weekly talks about the current lack of 'stars' on the big screen. We just aren't seeing the Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks of the 90s being formed. Obviously, they've got their eyes shut, I believe. With Clint Eastwood either mayoring in Carmel or making sappy dreck and Arnold holing up in Sacramento, who's going to lead us in the action department? Tom Cruise is too heady. Have you seen the preview for Collateral? Will Smith. Let's say that again, shall we? Will Smith.
Where have you been all my life? Still buff from Ali and obviously edging up his acting quoteint from the same movie, he's my pick for today's action hero. The dude is funny, dynamic and puts what little dept there is available to him in an action film up there. He's buff and a good guy. I began to think of all the action films, good or bad, he's tried. He's working on it. I see that Entertainment Weekly might have found a new John Wayne, if they want him.
And his activity is so strong willed, I wanted to see what happened to him through the movie.
What also worked? This is a science fiction. And science fiction and movies have always had a very healthy relationship. You have to have a big screen to capture the scope. These kinds of stories need the room to have thousands of robots attacking; they need the budget to create these robots, so visually delicious. And I have to tell you, thank God this movie was made in terms of digital characterization. I thought their only input was going to be JarJar Binx and the Hulk, and that's pretty sorry. Wait until you see the machine known as Sonny in I, Robot. He has a flexible skin YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. It's the very definition of eye candy.
So if you like sci-fi, I'd recommend this movie. If you are a bit jaded by the summer runs of movies, maybe not. Hopefully, I've conveyed this is not a clear GOOD or BAD movie. It's one of those grays that snarls up all movie going traffic.
The Terminator had already been born and died in the late 80s, early 90s and besides, he had moved onto the governor's mansion. We saw a rash of really crappy titles hit the market trying to ride the wave. Hackers and the Net come to mind. But then the Matrix took evil technology where we wanted to go. We were hooked. We wanted to know the logical outcome to this success.
Robots. The Matrix said that technology's evils would come in the form of robots. From what I understand (from my copy of the hugely underwatched Animatrix, by far better then some of the work in the film's sequels), one robot killed it's master and the civil war between robots and humanity began.
Honestly, I have to thank Star Trek, before I go on. I wouldn't have understood any of this pursuit of humanity theming so imperative in this movie without the input of the character Data on Star Trek:TNG. Without him, I would not have appreciated the movie I, Robot.
You see I, Robot covers the same bases as Matrix and Star Trek. There's really not much new. In this plot, it appears that the creator of 2035's largest robot manufactures has been murdered. And since robots are programmed to not kill humans, this 'future noir' begins. Picture a 1940's gumshoe with huge issues with a given suspect (cliche then as it is now), his mole who is on the inside (cliche then as it is now), the usual suspects (cliche then as it is now) and you have a Dashiell Hamett tale.
And this movie as well. Folks, there's nothing new here. The movie tweaks that famous formula by having one of the robots possibly commiting the crime. Is the robot possibly overriding his programming, ya know, becoming more human?
See what I mean? Thanks Star Trek.
Are the robots actually planning some kind of take over? Thanks Matrix.
Now, here's the part you'll be shocked about.
I did like this movie.
The current edition of Entertainment Weekly talks about the current lack of 'stars' on the big screen. We just aren't seeing the Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks of the 90s being formed. Obviously, they've got their eyes shut, I believe. With Clint Eastwood either mayoring in Carmel or making sappy dreck and Arnold holing up in Sacramento, who's going to lead us in the action department? Tom Cruise is too heady. Have you seen the preview for Collateral? Will Smith. Let's say that again, shall we? Will Smith.
Where have you been all my life? Still buff from Ali and obviously edging up his acting quoteint from the same movie, he's my pick for today's action hero. The dude is funny, dynamic and puts what little dept there is available to him in an action film up there. He's buff and a good guy. I began to think of all the action films, good or bad, he's tried. He's working on it. I see that Entertainment Weekly might have found a new John Wayne, if they want him.
And his activity is so strong willed, I wanted to see what happened to him through the movie.
What also worked? This is a science fiction. And science fiction and movies have always had a very healthy relationship. You have to have a big screen to capture the scope. These kinds of stories need the room to have thousands of robots attacking; they need the budget to create these robots, so visually delicious. And I have to tell you, thank God this movie was made in terms of digital characterization. I thought their only input was going to be JarJar Binx and the Hulk, and that's pretty sorry. Wait until you see the machine known as Sonny in I, Robot. He has a flexible skin YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. It's the very definition of eye candy.
So if you like sci-fi, I'd recommend this movie. If you are a bit jaded by the summer runs of movies, maybe not. Hopefully, I've conveyed this is not a clear GOOD or BAD movie. It's one of those grays that snarls up all movie going traffic.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Movie Review: The Bourne Supremacy
It's always the question if art reflects life or if life reflects are. I'm not going to venture a guess, especially these days, where the conservative right loves to point out that all of life's screw up can be found somewhere in the media. I like to think it's more complex then that, that's for sure.
Such is the path that leads me to the Bourne Supremacy. With 9/11 hearings completed, we've seen that the screw-ups are really all over the map. But it's not just one screw up, but several working in tandem for a really big f--- up. I couldn't stop noticing the similarities here.
Here, we have an experimental spy that screwed up due to a faulty wiring and amensia (the Bourne Identity) and the various government agencies trying to act like it's not their fault. Of course, the theme is carried on, to a grander scale, in this very complete sequel, The Bourne Supremacy. Where again, the government is up to no good and not doing what they are supposed to do.
Hmmmm, sound familiar?
I mean, if everyone had done what they were supposed to do, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened as well, right?
Same here, a rogue agent becomes a liability. Not good.
Oh, the parallels between life and art don't end there. How about a large oil company using illegal funds?
Corporations doing bad things? Never heard of that happening.
All of this noticing, I'm not mentioning the good stuff. This is a good movie. It's just like reading a good book. There's plot twists, actions sequences and stellar acting. I supposed the most natural thing to do would be to compare it to Bond spy movies, but really can't. The villains in those movies come off as megalomaniac, not politicians. And the goons that killed in each? I have to credit to Bourne, these bad guys are Bad. Meaning, they don't drive up in hoards to massacred off by the hero. Instead, we have goons that are adept at killing and fight back, using intelligence and guile to attack Jason Bourne. It adds a dimension of fear into fight scenes.
And yes, Jason is a fine specimen, I have to admit. Matt plays him with a certain reflect, as if he doesn't want to be a killer. Fight scenes are fast and furious, but when they are completed, there's a look of regret on his face. He even walks slowly away after killing one henchmen, as if there's no joy in his job. Matt has made the right choice in maintaining this franchise. If the scripts continue to be as good as they appear here and in the original, I look forward to the next title, The Bourne Ultimatum.
Sequels, I'm learning can really be a treat, and I should not have complained about them earlier. I must remember, I love comic books, and what is that but one sequel after another? It's like coffee with old friends. You look forward to see who they are doing and what changes have been made, but the familiarity continues. Here is a good sequel. Right up there with Spiderman 2, the Godfathers, the early Star Wars and yes, Toy Story 2.
I really recommend this movie.
Such is the path that leads me to the Bourne Supremacy. With 9/11 hearings completed, we've seen that the screw-ups are really all over the map. But it's not just one screw up, but several working in tandem for a really big f--- up. I couldn't stop noticing the similarities here.
Here, we have an experimental spy that screwed up due to a faulty wiring and amensia (the Bourne Identity) and the various government agencies trying to act like it's not their fault. Of course, the theme is carried on, to a grander scale, in this very complete sequel, The Bourne Supremacy. Where again, the government is up to no good and not doing what they are supposed to do.
Hmmmm, sound familiar?
I mean, if everyone had done what they were supposed to do, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened as well, right?
Same here, a rogue agent becomes a liability. Not good.
Oh, the parallels between life and art don't end there. How about a large oil company using illegal funds?
Corporations doing bad things? Never heard of that happening.
All of this noticing, I'm not mentioning the good stuff. This is a good movie. It's just like reading a good book. There's plot twists, actions sequences and stellar acting. I supposed the most natural thing to do would be to compare it to Bond spy movies, but really can't. The villains in those movies come off as megalomaniac, not politicians. And the goons that killed in each? I have to credit to Bourne, these bad guys are Bad. Meaning, they don't drive up in hoards to massacred off by the hero. Instead, we have goons that are adept at killing and fight back, using intelligence and guile to attack Jason Bourne. It adds a dimension of fear into fight scenes.
And yes, Jason is a fine specimen, I have to admit. Matt plays him with a certain reflect, as if he doesn't want to be a killer. Fight scenes are fast and furious, but when they are completed, there's a look of regret on his face. He even walks slowly away after killing one henchmen, as if there's no joy in his job. Matt has made the right choice in maintaining this franchise. If the scripts continue to be as good as they appear here and in the original, I look forward to the next title, The Bourne Ultimatum.
Sequels, I'm learning can really be a treat, and I should not have complained about them earlier. I must remember, I love comic books, and what is that but one sequel after another? It's like coffee with old friends. You look forward to see who they are doing and what changes have been made, but the familiarity continues. Here is a good sequel. Right up there with Spiderman 2, the Godfathers, the early Star Wars and yes, Toy Story 2.
I really recommend this movie.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Movie Review: Elephant
It's hard to review this film, due to the personal nature of it's presentation. I was deeply effected by the events of what happened at Columbine High School so many years ago. The wounds go deep. It almost effects me a bit more then the issues related 9/11 and the current fallout. I say this as a precaution for you the reader--my bias I cannot explain for privacy reasons, but it will most certainly be evident in this review, I'm sure.
I saw this movie for a variety of reasons. I like art movies, that much we have established. I like gay and lesbian issues and this had two, a minor plot element and a gay director. And of course, for more personal levels that I choose not to explain. The title is borne of the concept of an elephant being in the room and no one is talking about it.
It's EXACTLY how I felt about the Columbine massacre. Acts of violence are sad, wholly evil entities that devour more than they kill, meaning we might see the immediate piles of blood, but the effect lingers via survivors and onlookers. Looking at that standpoint, the issues at Columbine were an expression of some of this societies' ills personified. Michael Moore, who I do love as a filmmaker emphasized the issue of guns in this nation in the award winning Bowling for Columbine. It's an excellent analysis. Guns are too widely available.
But it isn't the only issue of what happened at Columbine. Like September 11th's committee just announced, it was a series of unfortunate events that worked in tandem to create the short lived hell.
I look at it symbolically.
The boys were in a microcosm of the world outside. Like the striated system of the haves and the have-nots, where everyone is filed into those who are above and those who are below, these boys were told they were to be the bottom. They were teased. They were mocked. And they lashed out.
The problem was, they did have everything, everything that could keep them happy. The confusion had begun. They could not experience the world as they were promised.
Sounds like most of America. We are promised we should dream big. But we will not get part of that pie, people, it's becoming more and evident to me.
*I'm going to go out on a limb and off on a tangent here, for I know of no other place to mention it. The killers' parents denied being part. They said they didn't know what their boys were doing. They just handed them the cash and moved on. I don't buy it one iota. I have too many friends with kids, know too many families. I cannot have kids of my own. A person who doesn't know what their kids are doing should not be having kids. It's part of loving and living in a family. Those parents were part of the issue, and it angers me greatly that they deny it. There, I've said it. Back to the story.
Their families aren't even mentioned in this movie. Instead, we are given glimpses, through a series of flashbacks, of these youngsters' lives. The movie rewinds, and we see them from a different angle. Their dialogue is unrehearsed and difficult to hear, as if real. Their costumes are merely the actor's clothing. And each take goes on and on and on and on, without edit, like life.
So where's the movie part? Instead of dealing with the issues, the filmmaker goes and creates art so severe, he alienates of those who are to benefit from the message. Did I say message? There is no comment as to the reason for the murder spree. It's sad really, that such a touchy subject is given barely the lipservice it deserves. I'm hurt.
Art is created and does not truly live until it is seen. A book is written and has yet to find life until it is read by someone. You hang kids' pictures on the fridge, not really looking for comments, but the art doesn't live until someone looks at it, correct?
Here is a situation where there is too much art. It's as if Gus Van Sant, the director, made it to defy criticism. You can't look at it, you can't be empathetically to this movie. It's that surreal. The art part never comes to life.
And as for the famed homoerotic overtones? What? The killers kiss, out of range of the focus of the camera. So? All it said to me was that they might have been getting out their homosexual urges via massacre. I don't buy it. It wasn't developed at all. It angers me further.
It's sad really. I'm thinking of working on a similar story just to justify this all.
I saw this movie for a variety of reasons. I like art movies, that much we have established. I like gay and lesbian issues and this had two, a minor plot element and a gay director. And of course, for more personal levels that I choose not to explain. The title is borne of the concept of an elephant being in the room and no one is talking about it.
It's EXACTLY how I felt about the Columbine massacre. Acts of violence are sad, wholly evil entities that devour more than they kill, meaning we might see the immediate piles of blood, but the effect lingers via survivors and onlookers. Looking at that standpoint, the issues at Columbine were an expression of some of this societies' ills personified. Michael Moore, who I do love as a filmmaker emphasized the issue of guns in this nation in the award winning Bowling for Columbine. It's an excellent analysis. Guns are too widely available.
But it isn't the only issue of what happened at Columbine. Like September 11th's committee just announced, it was a series of unfortunate events that worked in tandem to create the short lived hell.
I look at it symbolically.
The boys were in a microcosm of the world outside. Like the striated system of the haves and the have-nots, where everyone is filed into those who are above and those who are below, these boys were told they were to be the bottom. They were teased. They were mocked. And they lashed out.
The problem was, they did have everything, everything that could keep them happy. The confusion had begun. They could not experience the world as they were promised.
Sounds like most of America. We are promised we should dream big. But we will not get part of that pie, people, it's becoming more and evident to me.
*I'm going to go out on a limb and off on a tangent here, for I know of no other place to mention it. The killers' parents denied being part. They said they didn't know what their boys were doing. They just handed them the cash and moved on. I don't buy it one iota. I have too many friends with kids, know too many families. I cannot have kids of my own. A person who doesn't know what their kids are doing should not be having kids. It's part of loving and living in a family. Those parents were part of the issue, and it angers me greatly that they deny it. There, I've said it. Back to the story.
Their families aren't even mentioned in this movie. Instead, we are given glimpses, through a series of flashbacks, of these youngsters' lives. The movie rewinds, and we see them from a different angle. Their dialogue is unrehearsed and difficult to hear, as if real. Their costumes are merely the actor's clothing. And each take goes on and on and on and on, without edit, like life.
So where's the movie part? Instead of dealing with the issues, the filmmaker goes and creates art so severe, he alienates of those who are to benefit from the message. Did I say message? There is no comment as to the reason for the murder spree. It's sad really, that such a touchy subject is given barely the lipservice it deserves. I'm hurt.
Art is created and does not truly live until it is seen. A book is written and has yet to find life until it is read by someone. You hang kids' pictures on the fridge, not really looking for comments, but the art doesn't live until someone looks at it, correct?
Here is a situation where there is too much art. It's as if Gus Van Sant, the director, made it to defy criticism. You can't look at it, you can't be empathetically to this movie. It's that surreal. The art part never comes to life.
And as for the famed homoerotic overtones? What? The killers kiss, out of range of the focus of the camera. So? All it said to me was that they might have been getting out their homosexual urges via massacre. I don't buy it. It wasn't developed at all. It angers me further.
It's sad really. I'm thinking of working on a similar story just to justify this all.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Movie Review: Lost in La Macha
I have to tell you a wee secret.
One of my top ten all time movies is Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It was a stinkie piece of work, but I loved it. It had grandeur and a theme I could relate to. I became a vicious watcher of the director's work, Terry Gilliam (he's the only American involved with the ever quotable Monty Python comedy troupe from Britain), and his brand of imagery. I loved Time Bandits and really thought the 12 Monkeys had one of the key performances of Brad Pitt's career.
But each film suffered from a horrible plague if you ever read the trades. Mr. Gilliam tended to excess. My beloved Baron film was 10 million over budget before principal photography had even begun.
He was being despised by Hollywood, sadly, because of the business he was running, not by the quality of his work.
So when I read the story of Lost in LaMacha, I knew I had to pay it a visit.
Call it the summer of documentaries, my friends, because that is what this is becoming.
Yeap, another documentary. And worse?
Another good documentary.
Notice I say 'good,' not great. I think in this MTV generation of rapid editing personal camcorders and boomers' recent discovery of reality television, the documentary format is getting more and more structured and therefore, readable by a large audience.
So there's nothing new here, I'm afraid. Sure, it's great to see a film in true production. This beats the tram tour at Universal Studios anyday. The movie starts strong and shows all the work that goes into preproduction and how making a movie really is hard work. I say this because so many want to be involved with filmmaking without realizing the emotional commitment--this is technically when art and business collide--and the way the process can be very tortured.
In this picture, Terry decides to tackle the tale of Don Quixote. What's interesting is the obvious, but not mentioned, parallel between Quixote's dreaming of a world not there and the movie's director. But the fascination fades as the reality of a faulty production hits. Problem after problem unfolds, as if Murphy's Laws were unleashed by a wrathful God, and the movie tanks and isn't finished.
The problem is, when the ordeals mount and mount, it becomes a bit scary and we begin to feel like the filmmakers, drowning in an unforgiving sea. It's sad, really, because we like everyone involved (check out the giant he hires) but they suffer and no falling action is brough for us to bring us up from the hellish experience. I'm reminded of the dissatification I felt after watching Star Wars Parts One and Two. The pall could not be removed as I realized that the character of Anakin is going to end up evil. I don't want to see that. I don't think many people want to. So they hold back liking the movie.
Same here. So I only rank it as good. See it if you want to see the film process or are Terry fan. Yes, Johnny Depp is in it briefly and yes, he is still strangely profound for his few moments.
One of my top ten all time movies is Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It was a stinkie piece of work, but I loved it. It had grandeur and a theme I could relate to. I became a vicious watcher of the director's work, Terry Gilliam (he's the only American involved with the ever quotable Monty Python comedy troupe from Britain), and his brand of imagery. I loved Time Bandits and really thought the 12 Monkeys had one of the key performances of Brad Pitt's career.
But each film suffered from a horrible plague if you ever read the trades. Mr. Gilliam tended to excess. My beloved Baron film was 10 million over budget before principal photography had even begun.
He was being despised by Hollywood, sadly, because of the business he was running, not by the quality of his work.
So when I read the story of Lost in LaMacha, I knew I had to pay it a visit.
Call it the summer of documentaries, my friends, because that is what this is becoming.
Yeap, another documentary. And worse?
Another good documentary.
Notice I say 'good,' not great. I think in this MTV generation of rapid editing personal camcorders and boomers' recent discovery of reality television, the documentary format is getting more and more structured and therefore, readable by a large audience.
So there's nothing new here, I'm afraid. Sure, it's great to see a film in true production. This beats the tram tour at Universal Studios anyday. The movie starts strong and shows all the work that goes into preproduction and how making a movie really is hard work. I say this because so many want to be involved with filmmaking without realizing the emotional commitment--this is technically when art and business collide--and the way the process can be very tortured.
In this picture, Terry decides to tackle the tale of Don Quixote. What's interesting is the obvious, but not mentioned, parallel between Quixote's dreaming of a world not there and the movie's director. But the fascination fades as the reality of a faulty production hits. Problem after problem unfolds, as if Murphy's Laws were unleashed by a wrathful God, and the movie tanks and isn't finished.
The problem is, when the ordeals mount and mount, it becomes a bit scary and we begin to feel like the filmmakers, drowning in an unforgiving sea. It's sad, really, because we like everyone involved (check out the giant he hires) but they suffer and no falling action is brough for us to bring us up from the hellish experience. I'm reminded of the dissatification I felt after watching Star Wars Parts One and Two. The pall could not be removed as I realized that the character of Anakin is going to end up evil. I don't want to see that. I don't think many people want to. So they hold back liking the movie.
Same here. So I only rank it as good. See it if you want to see the film process or are Terry fan. Yes, Johnny Depp is in it briefly and yes, he is still strangely profound for his few moments.
Movie Review: Stuck on You
I have to admit to I rarely go see comedies in the theatre. For me, they are the provence of stage work, where the laughter helps the performance and enhances the interactions. I've noticed over the years that I rarely attend movies that could be defined as 'comedy.' I'll go see if I'm with a group who insists or it's mixed with another genre, like a musical comedy, but rarely upon it's own.
Okay, yes, I'll go see Disney cartoons...those could be thought of as comedies, I suppose.
So I rent movies, like this one, Stuck on You, by the Farrelly Brothers.
I gotta give it to the Farrelly Brothers. They have an amazing ability to protray people with exceptional circumstances in a manner that is humanizing as it is humorous. I mean it. Really. I noticed it here and in There's Something About Mary. People with special needs are shown as they are, warts and all, but are surrounded by an entourage that truly is the scum of the Earth--making them seem all the more real. Mary's younger brother was obviously a man with a severely limited intellectual capacity, but he was the only normal one, it seemed, in the bunch in that he never was softed to the eyes of the audience.
Same goes for the tale of Walt and Bob (?) Tenor. They are conjoined twins of distinct personalities and woes. But the world around them seems to be the one with the real problems, through it's lack of acceptance or inability to understand.
Now don't get me wrong. There is severe juvenile humor placed throughout the movie and it gives it the R rating it deserves. If you saw There's Something About Mary, you know what kind of bathroom humor I'm talking about.
I give credit also to Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear. They work well as a team and come off as understanding each other. I really am impressed with Matt. He really has outdone himself in avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen his compatriot, Ben Affleck. Instead of trying to become a marquee name, he's done parts that have expanded his repetoire and his ability. Like this movie. It's not bombastic; it wasn't a hit. It was simple and sweet. Bravo for both.
Overall, a decent movie. No complaints.
Okay, yes, I'll go see Disney cartoons...those could be thought of as comedies, I suppose.
So I rent movies, like this one, Stuck on You, by the Farrelly Brothers.
I gotta give it to the Farrelly Brothers. They have an amazing ability to protray people with exceptional circumstances in a manner that is humanizing as it is humorous. I mean it. Really. I noticed it here and in There's Something About Mary. People with special needs are shown as they are, warts and all, but are surrounded by an entourage that truly is the scum of the Earth--making them seem all the more real. Mary's younger brother was obviously a man with a severely limited intellectual capacity, but he was the only normal one, it seemed, in the bunch in that he never was softed to the eyes of the audience.
Same goes for the tale of Walt and Bob (?) Tenor. They are conjoined twins of distinct personalities and woes. But the world around them seems to be the one with the real problems, through it's lack of acceptance or inability to understand.
Now don't get me wrong. There is severe juvenile humor placed throughout the movie and it gives it the R rating it deserves. If you saw There's Something About Mary, you know what kind of bathroom humor I'm talking about.
I give credit also to Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear. They work well as a team and come off as understanding each other. I really am impressed with Matt. He really has outdone himself in avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen his compatriot, Ben Affleck. Instead of trying to become a marquee name, he's done parts that have expanded his repetoire and his ability. Like this movie. It's not bombastic; it wasn't a hit. It was simple and sweet. Bravo for both.
Overall, a decent movie. No complaints.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Movie Review: Chuck and Buck
I love watching these art movies this summer! It's just one nice surprise after the next.
Damn. I spoke too soon.
Then, Chuck and Buck arrived in the queue.
I am still wondering why on Earth this movie is made. I kept thinking of that reason for pop art, Andy Warhol, who, in his own way, said that art is pretty much anything. A can of soup. A movie of a person sleeping all night.
I could only wish this movie had as much reason for existing. I've not a clue what I watched. I rented it on a recommendation from Entertainment Weekly's reviews. I tended to agree with them.
It's good to see I've developed my own mind apart from their critics. There is no amount of acting, writing, directing or spectacle that makes this movie worth watching. It's an interesting premise that might have looked good on paper but the finished product does not do a thing.
It's the tale of two childhood friends that briefly reconnect after years of growing apart. One has matured and grown up (Chuck, looking like a photocopy of Matt Gibson from Dharma and Greg) the other is still stuck in his formative years, those being the best days of his dismal life (Buck). Buck begins to stalk his former friend even after several obvious communications that they are not to be in contact.
But here's the thing, people would have called the police at the amount of involvement Buck invests in his stalking. No one seems to do this, no matter how intelligent they are protrayed. I started to think that perhaps there was some kind of underlying reason, like they felt pity for Buck or something--which would be completely contrary to what's presented, for Buck is a throughly dislikable character. In fact, I hated all these people, I did not care if they lived or died and that's not a good thing.
Really, I'm almost angry at watching the movie, and I don't believe that was their intention. In fact, I doubt they had an intention at all. So why make it? Was it, like Warhol's can of soup, so we can watch art? Screw it, the soup can was more interesting in so many ways.
Not a good movie at all.
Damn. I spoke too soon.
Then, Chuck and Buck arrived in the queue.
I am still wondering why on Earth this movie is made. I kept thinking of that reason for pop art, Andy Warhol, who, in his own way, said that art is pretty much anything. A can of soup. A movie of a person sleeping all night.
I could only wish this movie had as much reason for existing. I've not a clue what I watched. I rented it on a recommendation from Entertainment Weekly's reviews. I tended to agree with them.
It's good to see I've developed my own mind apart from their critics. There is no amount of acting, writing, directing or spectacle that makes this movie worth watching. It's an interesting premise that might have looked good on paper but the finished product does not do a thing.
It's the tale of two childhood friends that briefly reconnect after years of growing apart. One has matured and grown up (Chuck, looking like a photocopy of Matt Gibson from Dharma and Greg) the other is still stuck in his formative years, those being the best days of his dismal life (Buck). Buck begins to stalk his former friend even after several obvious communications that they are not to be in contact.
But here's the thing, people would have called the police at the amount of involvement Buck invests in his stalking. No one seems to do this, no matter how intelligent they are protrayed. I started to think that perhaps there was some kind of underlying reason, like they felt pity for Buck or something--which would be completely contrary to what's presented, for Buck is a throughly dislikable character. In fact, I hated all these people, I did not care if they lived or died and that's not a good thing.
Really, I'm almost angry at watching the movie, and I don't believe that was their intention. In fact, I doubt they had an intention at all. So why make it? Was it, like Warhol's can of soup, so we can watch art? Screw it, the soup can was more interesting in so many ways.
Not a good movie at all.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Movie Review: Taboo
Okay, I give up. I'm moving to Asia, I'm thinking.
Combine these last two movies (Fleeing By Night and this one, Taboo) and what my research suggests, I can think it might be a better place for people of my persuasion.
This latest movie, Taboo, plays directly into that. It is a gbl film that isn't afraid of itself and doesn't reduce itself by having stereotypes or swishes for a less sophisticated audience. In it, a young, handsome man and excellent swordsman joins a local militia in support of the shogunate. He is incredibly beautiful in comparison to his more hardcore brethren in the army. He begins an affair with another soldier and soon the men begin to argue who shall have a date with him. The jealousy runs unabated and becomes a concern for the commanders.
Where the movie works is in that the homosexuality is treated as a part of life. Texts I have read (most notably Male Colours by Gary Leupp, Comrade Loves of the Samurai by Ihara Saikaku, and the Love of the Samurai by Tsuneo Watanbe and Jun'ichi Iwata) show, while not as prevalent as in Greek culture, homosexuality was accepted as a normal part of everyday life. It was even encouraged, (as it is slightly in this movie), for a man may wish to protect his lover moreso then an average compatriot. Even in the book and miniseries Shogun, when the main character becomes stranded in Japan, they offer him women and he refuses, so they offer him a man. He becomes furious and the Japanese look on confused.
It's as if the Japanese had never see homosexuality as a bad thing--not until they came in contact with the gaijin.
Asian movie making, aside from martial arts films, I've noticed have a completely different feel then European and American films. It seems, at least to me, that American films really emphasize plot; European films really emphasize character. For example, in a movie like Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane, the movie toys with the storyline, bouncing about itself in flashbacks and sudden changes in direction. European movies take their time to let an individual grown before our eyes. Life is Beautiful has the narrator gradually understand the sacrifices his father is making, and truly, it becomes a beautiful, character driven work.
Then there are Asian films. I'm beginning to notice a sense of the ascetic. It's as if the image itself is what is important. The main protagonist in this movie, Kano, is always shot in profile to highlight his smoldering looks. The grounds are manicured. It's as if the wind blows on the director's command. There's an inherent beauty and a nice change from the heavy pacing and hurried attitudes we see here in America. This movie is no different.
Now, yes, I'm fully aware of my bias here. You've seen me mention my books above; you should already know my love for martial arts. So it really should be no surprise that I liked this movie. Is there martial arts? A little and it is used very well. Kano is shown as being an incredibly adept fighter. But when asked to fight his lover, his skill falters, and the commanders see. What a way to use fighting as part of a story. The fighting does, however, peter out by the end of the film.
I really do recommend this film, if it is something that remotely interests you. It was a sleeper/surprise and well constructed.
Combine these last two movies (Fleeing By Night and this one, Taboo) and what my research suggests, I can think it might be a better place for people of my persuasion.
This latest movie, Taboo, plays directly into that. It is a gbl film that isn't afraid of itself and doesn't reduce itself by having stereotypes or swishes for a less sophisticated audience. In it, a young, handsome man and excellent swordsman joins a local militia in support of the shogunate. He is incredibly beautiful in comparison to his more hardcore brethren in the army. He begins an affair with another soldier and soon the men begin to argue who shall have a date with him. The jealousy runs unabated and becomes a concern for the commanders.
Where the movie works is in that the homosexuality is treated as a part of life. Texts I have read (most notably Male Colours by Gary Leupp, Comrade Loves of the Samurai by Ihara Saikaku, and the Love of the Samurai by Tsuneo Watanbe and Jun'ichi Iwata) show, while not as prevalent as in Greek culture, homosexuality was accepted as a normal part of everyday life. It was even encouraged, (as it is slightly in this movie), for a man may wish to protect his lover moreso then an average compatriot. Even in the book and miniseries Shogun, when the main character becomes stranded in Japan, they offer him women and he refuses, so they offer him a man. He becomes furious and the Japanese look on confused.
It's as if the Japanese had never see homosexuality as a bad thing--not until they came in contact with the gaijin.
Asian movie making, aside from martial arts films, I've noticed have a completely different feel then European and American films. It seems, at least to me, that American films really emphasize plot; European films really emphasize character. For example, in a movie like Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane, the movie toys with the storyline, bouncing about itself in flashbacks and sudden changes in direction. European movies take their time to let an individual grown before our eyes. Life is Beautiful has the narrator gradually understand the sacrifices his father is making, and truly, it becomes a beautiful, character driven work.
Then there are Asian films. I'm beginning to notice a sense of the ascetic. It's as if the image itself is what is important. The main protagonist in this movie, Kano, is always shot in profile to highlight his smoldering looks. The grounds are manicured. It's as if the wind blows on the director's command. There's an inherent beauty and a nice change from the heavy pacing and hurried attitudes we see here in America. This movie is no different.
Now, yes, I'm fully aware of my bias here. You've seen me mention my books above; you should already know my love for martial arts. So it really should be no surprise that I liked this movie. Is there martial arts? A little and it is used very well. Kano is shown as being an incredibly adept fighter. But when asked to fight his lover, his skill falters, and the commanders see. What a way to use fighting as part of a story. The fighting does, however, peter out by the end of the film.
I really do recommend this film, if it is something that remotely interests you. It was a sleeper/surprise and well constructed.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Meditation: Sleep
I still have problems sleeping. Here I am, enjoying my summer vacation and still, it takes me forever to unwind at night. I'm a night person, I know that. Look at me now. I'm here writing while my beloved is snoozing away. But even after I finish my nightly writing, I still lie there at night and worry.
About work. About what's going to happen with the next elections. What's going on with my friends. Sleep doesn't come quickly.
Even my meditation (not this daily writing, but the actual sitting down and letting go) has been interupted. My mind wanders and cannot focus this summer. Last summer? Not a problem. I sat everyday without incident. This year? Nada.
What am I so worried about? I feel fine, damn good, if you were to ask me. Been exercising everyday and finally doing some creative writing. I have time to cook and clean. Walk the dog. Even lost a few pounds.
I can honestly say I am well.
Then bed time comes. I lie there everynight and stare at the dark, hearing every noise and whatnot. Is such maliase the sign of something bigger going on? Am I attuned to something just beyond human existence? A listlessness that is all pervasive?
I will survive, of this I can be sure. I will eventually sleep. The benefit too, of summer is that I can sleep in, which I do. I even treat myself to naps when my chores are done for the day.
Poe once said, "sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them."
Perhaps I'm merely suffering for my art, the problem with having a creative mind. Anyone else experience this?
So I keep writing. Maybe one day, I'll sleep well. I miss it too. There was a time when i would keep a sleep journal, complete with a dream annotation. Maybe I should try again. Just like Joseph in the Bible. I could interpret dreams.
*I know this is not a movie review, but there's something I've noticed these last few days. I write my movie review and then I'm geared up to write creatively. It's as if I warm-up to writing, so that's why I'm here and back to my Zen meditations and poetry book. Thanks for you time. I think I'm ready now. I'm not, after all, ready for bed.
About work. About what's going to happen with the next elections. What's going on with my friends. Sleep doesn't come quickly.
Even my meditation (not this daily writing, but the actual sitting down and letting go) has been interupted. My mind wanders and cannot focus this summer. Last summer? Not a problem. I sat everyday without incident. This year? Nada.
What am I so worried about? I feel fine, damn good, if you were to ask me. Been exercising everyday and finally doing some creative writing. I have time to cook and clean. Walk the dog. Even lost a few pounds.
I can honestly say I am well.
Then bed time comes. I lie there everynight and stare at the dark, hearing every noise and whatnot. Is such maliase the sign of something bigger going on? Am I attuned to something just beyond human existence? A listlessness that is all pervasive?
I will survive, of this I can be sure. I will eventually sleep. The benefit too, of summer is that I can sleep in, which I do. I even treat myself to naps when my chores are done for the day.
Poe once said, "sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them."
Perhaps I'm merely suffering for my art, the problem with having a creative mind. Anyone else experience this?
So I keep writing. Maybe one day, I'll sleep well. I miss it too. There was a time when i would keep a sleep journal, complete with a dream annotation. Maybe I should try again. Just like Joseph in the Bible. I could interpret dreams.
*I know this is not a movie review, but there's something I've noticed these last few days. I write my movie review and then I'm geared up to write creatively. It's as if I warm-up to writing, so that's why I'm here and back to my Zen meditations and poetry book. Thanks for you time. I think I'm ready now. I'm not, after all, ready for bed.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Movie Review: Fleeing By Night
I have this good friend, someone I have every trust in the world with--except on one topic. We have wholly different tastes in movies. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We still go see movies on occasion together.
Besides, when did Siskel and Ebert agree?
But one thing was for sure, when those two agreed, it most have something pretty good, eh? Something worth buying a ticket for.
So when my colleague suggested this Chinese film, I was figuring it wouldn't be something I liked.
It started simply, a tale about an arranged marriage. A young cellist, living in America, comes back to China to meet his fiance. Through the meeting he sees a performance of an outstanding opera singer and becomes smitten. The fiance recognizes thi growing love between the two men and steps back. The actor, however, is in a liason with a wealthy patron. Rumors fly. The young man returns to America broken hearted and alone, but maintains contact with his once fiance.
The actor continues to feel for the young man and begins his own journey to be with him again.
My friend was right. I loved this movie.
What I loved was that it didn't fall into the American trap of having 1)yelling in a public place, 2)crying and hissy fits 3)all the gays swish, so the audience can find them in a crowd, 4)violence of any sort and 5)love born out of sheer beautiful people.
The young protagonist falls for the actor, because his performance is so full and rich-not because he's a blonde or running around all stunning-like. The girl doesn't storm out because her betrothed doesn't love her, but understands the force of their growing love. And the homosexuality isn't the issue, the availability of that love is.
Wow. That's nice to see and a rare treat, just like this movie. I really recommend it.
And there wasn't a single drag queen or self hating queen in the bunch. America has so much to catch up on.
I will tell you, however, I am going to listen very closely to what my friend recommends from here on out.
Besides, when did Siskel and Ebert agree?
But one thing was for sure, when those two agreed, it most have something pretty good, eh? Something worth buying a ticket for.
So when my colleague suggested this Chinese film, I was figuring it wouldn't be something I liked.
It started simply, a tale about an arranged marriage. A young cellist, living in America, comes back to China to meet his fiance. Through the meeting he sees a performance of an outstanding opera singer and becomes smitten. The fiance recognizes thi growing love between the two men and steps back. The actor, however, is in a liason with a wealthy patron. Rumors fly. The young man returns to America broken hearted and alone, but maintains contact with his once fiance.
The actor continues to feel for the young man and begins his own journey to be with him again.
My friend was right. I loved this movie.
What I loved was that it didn't fall into the American trap of having 1)yelling in a public place, 2)crying and hissy fits 3)all the gays swish, so the audience can find them in a crowd, 4)violence of any sort and 5)love born out of sheer beautiful people.
The young protagonist falls for the actor, because his performance is so full and rich-not because he's a blonde or running around all stunning-like. The girl doesn't storm out because her betrothed doesn't love her, but understands the force of their growing love. And the homosexuality isn't the issue, the availability of that love is.
Wow. That's nice to see and a rare treat, just like this movie. I really recommend it.
And there wasn't a single drag queen or self hating queen in the bunch. America has so much to catch up on.
I will tell you, however, I am going to listen very closely to what my friend recommends from here on out.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Movie Review: Dahmer
Ahhhhh, the beauty that is True Crime. Really, the province of yellow rags and celebrity gossip, I have to admit to this guilty pleasure. It all started with the book, The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule. Couldn't put it down. Proof that truth can really be more exciting than fiction.
And I was a fan.
I found I really did have an affinity for the serial killer. Not to say I wanted to act out their deeds or promote them to some kind of anti-establishment t-shirt. No, I used them for fuel, really, for my own creative writings. There's nothing like scaring the bejabbers out of yourself with such horrific prose, analyzing it in your head for a few days and then spitting it back out as a tale.
It was such a path that lead me to the tale of Dahmer. Trust me, it wasn't like I hadn't already heard about the guy. I even had read two books about him. One, the piece by his father was actually very well written.
Dahmer's story is interesting in that he is a minority, not the mainstream profile for a serial killer. He had some traits common to the serial killer...other than the excessive body count...like hurting small animals and severe social isolation. But he was gay. I can only think of that happening three other times in the brief history of serials. Lee Wournos was a woman; Wayne Williams was black; John Wayne Gacy was also gay.
Secondly, as I had read more and more, Jeffrey was also surprisingly guilt ridden by the killings. Most killers boasted and wanted attention, but Jeffrey wanted to be caught. He looked as his spree like one would look at a disease, something to cure and rid.
Please, understand, I offer no sympathy for the devil. In fact, my readings have proven that these men and women are the reason for capital punishment. Humanity knows of no predators; perhaps this is nature's way of filling that vacuum.
Serial killers are a fascinating subject, pure and simple. The mind it takes to kill, repeatedly, with intelligence and cunning is the stuff suspense is made of.
And good movies. Most recently, Monster, with which the tale of Lee Wournos was elaborated on, contains, most probably, the most complete performance of a woman in modern history. The Oscar could not do justice to the acting in that motion picture. Charlize Theron brings the horrors this woman committed into perspective. She does create sympathy for this creature and a certain pathos.
The reason why I compare this movie to Monster, is because there is something going on I did not expect. I felt sympathy her, for Jeffrey Dahmer. I do not know if that was the intended result of the filmmakers, but it was certainly evident.
Now Dahmer is no Monster, as it were. The scope of the movie is wholly different. This movie comes off as one act play, with one major setting--Jeffery's apartment. But as the film unraveled, I went from expecting to be frightened to a remoted curiosity. There's an inherent fright factor in the stories of serial killers (see: Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs), rarely do you expect a dramatic interpretation of the suffering of a young man that motivates him to commit murder.
Yes, Jeffrey is the protagonist in this story. You don't want to like him, but here is something in his plight that we can, again remote, relate to. He comes off as so lonely (and a tight performance by Jeremy Renner, all the more human) that he kills to maintain a control over a totally un-extravagant life.
It's surprisingly deep and sickeningly rewarding. I felt dirty at my reactions to it, but I cannot deny it's impact.
Now, I have mentioned I knew of Jeffrey long before the movie, and there are many inaccuracies in what what happens within the plot of this movie. What people fail to realize is that filmmaking is a medium. That is, a way of perceiving the world. A book has thousands of pages as an option to explain something. A movie has a camera and two hours. I believe that the audience needs to appreciate the fact that sometimes items are discarded for dramatic effects. It's a sad sacrifice but sometimes necessary.
So if you are interested in what really happened, this isn't the movie to watch. If you want to see a riveting character development piece, then fine. I really found this to be a bit of a sleeper.
And I was a fan.
I found I really did have an affinity for the serial killer. Not to say I wanted to act out their deeds or promote them to some kind of anti-establishment t-shirt. No, I used them for fuel, really, for my own creative writings. There's nothing like scaring the bejabbers out of yourself with such horrific prose, analyzing it in your head for a few days and then spitting it back out as a tale.
It was such a path that lead me to the tale of Dahmer. Trust me, it wasn't like I hadn't already heard about the guy. I even had read two books about him. One, the piece by his father was actually very well written.
Dahmer's story is interesting in that he is a minority, not the mainstream profile for a serial killer. He had some traits common to the serial killer...other than the excessive body count...like hurting small animals and severe social isolation. But he was gay. I can only think of that happening three other times in the brief history of serials. Lee Wournos was a woman; Wayne Williams was black; John Wayne Gacy was also gay.
Secondly, as I had read more and more, Jeffrey was also surprisingly guilt ridden by the killings. Most killers boasted and wanted attention, but Jeffrey wanted to be caught. He looked as his spree like one would look at a disease, something to cure and rid.
Please, understand, I offer no sympathy for the devil. In fact, my readings have proven that these men and women are the reason for capital punishment. Humanity knows of no predators; perhaps this is nature's way of filling that vacuum.
Serial killers are a fascinating subject, pure and simple. The mind it takes to kill, repeatedly, with intelligence and cunning is the stuff suspense is made of.
And good movies. Most recently, Monster, with which the tale of Lee Wournos was elaborated on, contains, most probably, the most complete performance of a woman in modern history. The Oscar could not do justice to the acting in that motion picture. Charlize Theron brings the horrors this woman committed into perspective. She does create sympathy for this creature and a certain pathos.
The reason why I compare this movie to Monster, is because there is something going on I did not expect. I felt sympathy her, for Jeffrey Dahmer. I do not know if that was the intended result of the filmmakers, but it was certainly evident.
Now Dahmer is no Monster, as it were. The scope of the movie is wholly different. This movie comes off as one act play, with one major setting--Jeffery's apartment. But as the film unraveled, I went from expecting to be frightened to a remoted curiosity. There's an inherent fright factor in the stories of serial killers (see: Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs), rarely do you expect a dramatic interpretation of the suffering of a young man that motivates him to commit murder.
Yes, Jeffrey is the protagonist in this story. You don't want to like him, but here is something in his plight that we can, again remote, relate to. He comes off as so lonely (and a tight performance by Jeremy Renner, all the more human) that he kills to maintain a control over a totally un-extravagant life.
It's surprisingly deep and sickeningly rewarding. I felt dirty at my reactions to it, but I cannot deny it's impact.
Now, I have mentioned I knew of Jeffrey long before the movie, and there are many inaccuracies in what what happens within the plot of this movie. What people fail to realize is that filmmaking is a medium. That is, a way of perceiving the world. A book has thousands of pages as an option to explain something. A movie has a camera and two hours. I believe that the audience needs to appreciate the fact that sometimes items are discarded for dramatic effects. It's a sad sacrifice but sometimes necessary.
So if you are interested in what really happened, this isn't the movie to watch. If you want to see a riveting character development piece, then fine. I really found this to be a bit of a sleeper.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Movie Review: My Beautiful Laundrette
Wow. What can I say? For once, a queer movie where the gayness was not a detriment, not a foible. No one ends up dead because they are gay. No one is self-loathing because they like men. In fact, one character improves himself by his own acceptance. There are no drag queens or bars or men who swish into very shot.
And this was made in 1986? Back when Reagan was doing his best to deny that gay people existed? Impressive.
My Beautiful Laundrette is an interesting, rare piece of indie filmmaking. It's the starting point for Stephen Frears, who later create the great Dangerous Laisons and Daniel Day-Lewis prior to his Oscar turn in My Left Foot.
As for Day-Lewis, he's reduced to a secondary role, which is interesting. The dude is so intense with his energy, you watch him instead of the leads. You can see the future. And you can see it in every film since. Maybe it's because he's Irish. They aren't exactly known as a subtle people.
But the film does lack a certain guidance. It introduces it's credits in spin cycle, complete with bubbling noises, hinting it as a comedy, but it's far from it. It's very dramatic, but the depth is not moving, with no deep themes about changing worlds or changing minds. It's best defined as a character study. You have a character and watch what happens. It's not long enough that it becomes boring.
I actually recommend it for anyone into curio movies, but really, you aren't missing much.
And a Laundrette? I guess in the UK, that's what we would call a Laundromat. Those Brits. How they mangle English, no?
That's a joke, people.
And this was made in 1986? Back when Reagan was doing his best to deny that gay people existed? Impressive.
My Beautiful Laundrette is an interesting, rare piece of indie filmmaking. It's the starting point for Stephen Frears, who later create the great Dangerous Laisons and Daniel Day-Lewis prior to his Oscar turn in My Left Foot.
As for Day-Lewis, he's reduced to a secondary role, which is interesting. The dude is so intense with his energy, you watch him instead of the leads. You can see the future. And you can see it in every film since. Maybe it's because he's Irish. They aren't exactly known as a subtle people.
But the film does lack a certain guidance. It introduces it's credits in spin cycle, complete with bubbling noises, hinting it as a comedy, but it's far from it. It's very dramatic, but the depth is not moving, with no deep themes about changing worlds or changing minds. It's best defined as a character study. You have a character and watch what happens. It's not long enough that it becomes boring.
I actually recommend it for anyone into curio movies, but really, you aren't missing much.
And a Laundrette? I guess in the UK, that's what we would call a Laundromat. Those Brits. How they mangle English, no?
That's a joke, people.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Movie Review: Farenheit 9/11
Sheese. Talk about taking the wind out of your sails. I wanted to write some really scathing stuff here about this movie, but it's kinda hard to write scathing stuff about scathing stuff. This movie is very, very sharp.
And I liked it and not because I have issues with our president. I look at it from a movie point of view, this is powerful stuff and fluff. I added the fluff part, because, it seems (according to the Time magazine article I read) some of the information is incorrect.
But lets look the great speakers of the world. They aren't truly great on their message alone, but on the presentation of that message. Martin Luther King's importance was carried farther by his sheer force of personality on the pulpit.
But then again, so was Hitler's. The message was murder, but the presentation must have been mesmerizing.
Michael Moore is no MLK or Hitler. But his message is so different than other filmmakers out there today. I never realized that docs could have humor outside of the Osbornes or America's Funniest Home Videos. But there you have it, right up there on the screen. This filmmaker has an inherent sense of humor in his personlity, and it glows through his image of irony.
There is a message that Mr. Moore has had in the 3 movies I've seen. It's that there are two groups...the haves and the havenots. And I'm beginning to wonder if it's not becoming more and more obvious that something is brewing in his argument. As I watched this movie, I kept waiting for W to turn to the camera and merely state, "let them eat cake," as Marie Antionette did so long ago.
It's sadly apparent that our president is something of a putz. He's not accomplishing much these days outside of defending his decisions. That's not me talking, folks, that's just plain in front of us. But the movie goes one step further and making some very interesting links to some very bad people involved in 9/11. I'm hesistant to go all the way and say that he proves his case, but he makes a damning good argument. If half of what Mr. Moore brings up is true, then there are some legitmate concerns related to conflict of interests. It comes off as thousands have died and many more are dying that very specific individuals are getting quite rich. It is something to be upset about.
What I find amusing, however, is how quick the the right mobilized to downride some segments of the movie. However, they did not make comment on the whole piece. Just parts.
What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that some of this is true?
Yikes.
If you want to know what I thought of the movie as a whole, yes, there is supreme entertainment value here. It does one of the two things I believe movies must do to achieve...either wow us or make us think.
Moore has a great presentation. He reads the Patriot ACt to congress from an ice cream truck driving around the capital building. Good show. Showing a woman who's son perished in the fighting in Iraq who is not comforted by her nation's leader's (or should I say 'leaders' because Bush comes off as a merely a puppet to his colleagues special interests) words. His voice eventually peters out and lets the images take the tale further. A smart move and again, good storytelling.
Out of Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11, Bowling is probably the best so far. The picture is much more complete in it's telling. I couldn't help thinking that this movie was a bit hastaly put together, with no real clear ending. It's like he had to get it out NOW because it's an election year. He might have had an even stronger argument if given more time.
SHould you see it? Yes, if you plan on living in this nation. One of our rights is the freedom of speech and this is the reason why. Of course, Bush, outside of this movie, has proven he doesn't really like the concept of freedom of speech (have you seen what he does to protesters at any of his rallys? You can't...they are moved as far from the press or arrested if possible..that's another movie, I'm guessing)--all the more reason to view.
Yes, it is bias, but what movie isn't? See, and either believe it or find the truth, but do give it a view. I'm curious what others will think.
peace.
And VOTE!!!!!
And I liked it and not because I have issues with our president. I look at it from a movie point of view, this is powerful stuff and fluff. I added the fluff part, because, it seems (according to the Time magazine article I read) some of the information is incorrect.
But lets look the great speakers of the world. They aren't truly great on their message alone, but on the presentation of that message. Martin Luther King's importance was carried farther by his sheer force of personality on the pulpit.
But then again, so was Hitler's. The message was murder, but the presentation must have been mesmerizing.
Michael Moore is no MLK or Hitler. But his message is so different than other filmmakers out there today. I never realized that docs could have humor outside of the Osbornes or America's Funniest Home Videos. But there you have it, right up there on the screen. This filmmaker has an inherent sense of humor in his personlity, and it glows through his image of irony.
There is a message that Mr. Moore has had in the 3 movies I've seen. It's that there are two groups...the haves and the havenots. And I'm beginning to wonder if it's not becoming more and more obvious that something is brewing in his argument. As I watched this movie, I kept waiting for W to turn to the camera and merely state, "let them eat cake," as Marie Antionette did so long ago.
It's sadly apparent that our president is something of a putz. He's not accomplishing much these days outside of defending his decisions. That's not me talking, folks, that's just plain in front of us. But the movie goes one step further and making some very interesting links to some very bad people involved in 9/11. I'm hesistant to go all the way and say that he proves his case, but he makes a damning good argument. If half of what Mr. Moore brings up is true, then there are some legitmate concerns related to conflict of interests. It comes off as thousands have died and many more are dying that very specific individuals are getting quite rich. It is something to be upset about.
What I find amusing, however, is how quick the the right mobilized to downride some segments of the movie. However, they did not make comment on the whole piece. Just parts.
What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that some of this is true?
Yikes.
If you want to know what I thought of the movie as a whole, yes, there is supreme entertainment value here. It does one of the two things I believe movies must do to achieve...either wow us or make us think.
Moore has a great presentation. He reads the Patriot ACt to congress from an ice cream truck driving around the capital building. Good show. Showing a woman who's son perished in the fighting in Iraq who is not comforted by her nation's leader's (or should I say 'leaders' because Bush comes off as a merely a puppet to his colleagues special interests) words. His voice eventually peters out and lets the images take the tale further. A smart move and again, good storytelling.
Out of Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11, Bowling is probably the best so far. The picture is much more complete in it's telling. I couldn't help thinking that this movie was a bit hastaly put together, with no real clear ending. It's like he had to get it out NOW because it's an election year. He might have had an even stronger argument if given more time.
SHould you see it? Yes, if you plan on living in this nation. One of our rights is the freedom of speech and this is the reason why. Of course, Bush, outside of this movie, has proven he doesn't really like the concept of freedom of speech (have you seen what he does to protesters at any of his rallys? You can't...they are moved as far from the press or arrested if possible..that's another movie, I'm guessing)--all the more reason to view.
Yes, it is bias, but what movie isn't? See, and either believe it or find the truth, but do give it a view. I'm curious what others will think.
peace.
And VOTE!!!!!
Movie Review: Cock & Bull Story
I saw your eyes light up on that title, didn't you. Mine did too. I mean, please, I used to exercise regularly with a boxing coach--so when I saw this title on a roster in the Advocate magazine, yeah, my eyebrows went up. A boxing and queer title.
My prayers had been answered. Now I didn't have to be a closet boxing fan anymore.
My mistake.
Lock the closet shut.
The movie hasn't arrive yet.
This movie sucks. I thought the last movie didn't have humor? This, I'm not sure how, has NEGATIVE humor. It's so busy trying to be dramatic, it actually sucks humor from you as you watch it. There is not a single smile, gaffuw or giggle in it's hour and a half.
The story is based on a play, and I have to say, you can tell which parts it was based on...it's the only point in the mess that makes sense for a moments. The rest, as the director/writer tries to fill in the backstory, is well, long and boring. Give us some credit! Let us put the pieces together! Please!
Why was this movie even in the queer cinema bin? It has two male characters who stand very, very close and call each other pejoratives a lot. Sounds like most straight couples, but this is two guys. Okay. And how is that gay?
Jacko, played by Brian Austin Green, is best buddies with Travis an up-and-coming boxer (don't they always seem to be that way? I mean, outside of Raging Bull, did anyone make a movie about someone trying to STAY a boxer?). Jacko is a loathsome facisimle of Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy. Even the same hairstyle. And Travis is so beautiful, he makes wearing the same color clothes for an entire movies something worth staring at. Why are they friends?
Because Travis says so. Repeatedly. It's never explained. Were they lovers? Secretly? It's never elaborated on. In fact, I began to hope Travis would crack the living shit out Jacko midway through the movie for the way he was being treated.
Or at least file for divorce.
But we don't know if they are together.
Ugh.
Brian Austin Green is really trying to get back into some kind of action, that much is evident, after his 90210 days. Heck, he even produced this puppy. It's too bad, because he kinda does stray from the pretty boy he portrayed on television. It's wasted, but it's there.
There is also something about the location. This really is the SouthSide of Chicago. You can smell the urine in the streets and the smoke is omnipresent. That part is good, but hardly a reason to watch this...the worse movie I've seen in some time.
My prayers had been answered. Now I didn't have to be a closet boxing fan anymore.
My mistake.
Lock the closet shut.
The movie hasn't arrive yet.
This movie sucks. I thought the last movie didn't have humor? This, I'm not sure how, has NEGATIVE humor. It's so busy trying to be dramatic, it actually sucks humor from you as you watch it. There is not a single smile, gaffuw or giggle in it's hour and a half.
The story is based on a play, and I have to say, you can tell which parts it was based on...it's the only point in the mess that makes sense for a moments. The rest, as the director/writer tries to fill in the backstory, is well, long and boring. Give us some credit! Let us put the pieces together! Please!
Why was this movie even in the queer cinema bin? It has two male characters who stand very, very close and call each other pejoratives a lot. Sounds like most straight couples, but this is two guys. Okay. And how is that gay?
Jacko, played by Brian Austin Green, is best buddies with Travis an up-and-coming boxer (don't they always seem to be that way? I mean, outside of Raging Bull, did anyone make a movie about someone trying to STAY a boxer?). Jacko is a loathsome facisimle of Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy. Even the same hairstyle. And Travis is so beautiful, he makes wearing the same color clothes for an entire movies something worth staring at. Why are they friends?
Because Travis says so. Repeatedly. It's never explained. Were they lovers? Secretly? It's never elaborated on. In fact, I began to hope Travis would crack the living shit out Jacko midway through the movie for the way he was being treated.
Or at least file for divorce.
But we don't know if they are together.
Ugh.
Brian Austin Green is really trying to get back into some kind of action, that much is evident, after his 90210 days. Heck, he even produced this puppy. It's too bad, because he kinda does stray from the pretty boy he portrayed on television. It's wasted, but it's there.
There is also something about the location. This really is the SouthSide of Chicago. You can smell the urine in the streets and the smoke is omnipresent. That part is good, but hardly a reason to watch this...the worse movie I've seen in some time.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Movie Review: Mambo Italiano
I'm confused, did I spell that right? That says something about how the movie is infused in my memory, doesn't it?
First, a bit of history...I was raised in an ethnic family. We were every bit of Italian, Jewish, Irish and Catholic, and totally New York. We all understood the jokes of Woody Allen; the Nanny was not as offensive to our little collective whole.
When My Big Fat Greek Wedding opened to mixed reviews, I gave it moderate interest. Everyone said it played on unfair stereotypes.
Then the phone calls started. Everyone would ask ME, explicitly, if I had seen it. Apparently, the movie sounded like what I had described at various water coolers. When my best friend, sans a review, merely stated, "I'm taking you to go see it," three days before my own impending nuptials, I had to figure that there was something going on.
I loved it. My partner and I giggled continously at the parallels in my life to the movie's. The mother's hairstyle. A gazillion people over for "a little dinnah." The differences in the two families. The guilt. The concepts of love.
The parallels between My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mambo Italiano are very strong here, that's why I had to bring it up. The criticisms for that movie are the same that I had for this movie. The ethnicity is too strong for reality--in Mambo Italiano, the parents still have strong accents after living stateside for 40 years. The hair is still big; the foil wallpaper still finds itself in the stereotype. The fights are still over and around food. There is still matchmaking being played. It's almost as if you can't make a romantic comedy about the goyum and gentiles of the world. White people make dull love, I suppose.
I have to say, this movie is bad. It starts and stops. Beginning with strong editing that keeps a pretty predictable plot chiming along. But I also have to say, like my Big Fat Greek Wedding, I liked it. Yeah, I can relate. I've spent so much of my life escaping and running away from certain stereotypes, yet here I am, admitting to the comfort this movie gave me seeing them again.
Personally? I really think they could have added a bunch more humor. The jokes, somewhere around middle of the movie, die as the protagonist blurts out his angst. It's obvious the author was dealing with his own demons and this was the scene to smack them around. But having established a sweet smile so earnestly prior, the tone changes and the protagonist appears suddenly unlikeable and vicious. It's really too bad.
I also have to say, this, coupled with a recent conversation with my partner, I can't help thinking something autobiographic needs to be drawn up. It won't be as funny, but it might be a bit more real.
It's an idea.
First, a bit of history...I was raised in an ethnic family. We were every bit of Italian, Jewish, Irish and Catholic, and totally New York. We all understood the jokes of Woody Allen; the Nanny was not as offensive to our little collective whole.
When My Big Fat Greek Wedding opened to mixed reviews, I gave it moderate interest. Everyone said it played on unfair stereotypes.
Then the phone calls started. Everyone would ask ME, explicitly, if I had seen it. Apparently, the movie sounded like what I had described at various water coolers. When my best friend, sans a review, merely stated, "I'm taking you to go see it," three days before my own impending nuptials, I had to figure that there was something going on.
I loved it. My partner and I giggled continously at the parallels in my life to the movie's. The mother's hairstyle. A gazillion people over for "a little dinnah." The differences in the two families. The guilt. The concepts of love.
The parallels between My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mambo Italiano are very strong here, that's why I had to bring it up. The criticisms for that movie are the same that I had for this movie. The ethnicity is too strong for reality--in Mambo Italiano, the parents still have strong accents after living stateside for 40 years. The hair is still big; the foil wallpaper still finds itself in the stereotype. The fights are still over and around food. There is still matchmaking being played. It's almost as if you can't make a romantic comedy about the goyum and gentiles of the world. White people make dull love, I suppose.
I have to say, this movie is bad. It starts and stops. Beginning with strong editing that keeps a pretty predictable plot chiming along. But I also have to say, like my Big Fat Greek Wedding, I liked it. Yeah, I can relate. I've spent so much of my life escaping and running away from certain stereotypes, yet here I am, admitting to the comfort this movie gave me seeing them again.
Personally? I really think they could have added a bunch more humor. The jokes, somewhere around middle of the movie, die as the protagonist blurts out his angst. It's obvious the author was dealing with his own demons and this was the scene to smack them around. But having established a sweet smile so earnestly prior, the tone changes and the protagonist appears suddenly unlikeable and vicious. It's really too bad.
I also have to say, this, coupled with a recent conversation with my partner, I can't help thinking something autobiographic needs to be drawn up. It won't be as funny, but it might be a bit more real.
It's an idea.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Movie Review: Spiderman 2
What can I say? There's a great scene in Scream 2 where the characters get into a debate over when a sequel is better than it's original and how. I remember it well because my friends and I afterwards had the same conversation. Godfather 2. Toy Story 2. Addams Family Values.
And now Spiderman 2.
I've always had a problem with comic books being translated into movies. Being a professed comic book lover, I know the backstory of how the character was created. I know that Bruce Wayne's parents died. I know that Peter Parker got his powers from a spider bite.
But the poor, unenlightened public is clueless. Heck, they put Bush in office, and he doesn't have any power. So the filmmakers have to weed out the details and there goes the storyline. I have to suffer for everyone else's sake as they learn what I already knew.
Is that fair to me?
NO! Still, there is hope in the sequel and here it is.
THis movie doesn't have to worry about the backstory and what happened previously, really. Instead, the movie gets going to what's happening in the here and now of Spidey's world.
And it isn't very good. Every character has a storyline and is fleshed out on the screen. It reminded me alot like XMen in that manner. The film maker let's everyone have equal time, giving the film a feel that is not unlike a soap opera. We become emeshed in the tale and surely one or two characters come into our own view.
Here, the girlfriend, MaryJane is still pineing for Peter, but he never seems to be there, physically or emotionally for some reason. Peter is trying to fit the life of superhero onto his meager budget and it's not working. Harry Osborn is spiralling dangerously into nutcase territory with good reason...his father was murdered and his company is slowly going bankrupt. Even the villian has time to become three-D with his goal of a new power source. He creates fake arms with their own intelligence to help him with his work, but when the control microchip fails, he begins to lose control--and becomes obsessed with his own success. YOu even feel for the guy in the end and don't want Spidey to even hurt him.
Talk about your soap operas!
Good stuff. Probably the best movie I've seen in some time. I think it works not only because it stayed so close to the book it was based--you have Shakespearean actors combined with a horror movie prince (Sam Raimi directed the Evil Dead pictures. Great B movies with decent, gross scares) and you end up with something right down the middle.
Excellence.
I really really liked this movie.
But then again, I am a confessed comic book buff.
And now Spiderman 2.
I've always had a problem with comic books being translated into movies. Being a professed comic book lover, I know the backstory of how the character was created. I know that Bruce Wayne's parents died. I know that Peter Parker got his powers from a spider bite.
But the poor, unenlightened public is clueless. Heck, they put Bush in office, and he doesn't have any power. So the filmmakers have to weed out the details and there goes the storyline. I have to suffer for everyone else's sake as they learn what I already knew.
Is that fair to me?
NO! Still, there is hope in the sequel and here it is.
THis movie doesn't have to worry about the backstory and what happened previously, really. Instead, the movie gets going to what's happening in the here and now of Spidey's world.
And it isn't very good. Every character has a storyline and is fleshed out on the screen. It reminded me alot like XMen in that manner. The film maker let's everyone have equal time, giving the film a feel that is not unlike a soap opera. We become emeshed in the tale and surely one or two characters come into our own view.
Here, the girlfriend, MaryJane is still pineing for Peter, but he never seems to be there, physically or emotionally for some reason. Peter is trying to fit the life of superhero onto his meager budget and it's not working. Harry Osborn is spiralling dangerously into nutcase territory with good reason...his father was murdered and his company is slowly going bankrupt. Even the villian has time to become three-D with his goal of a new power source. He creates fake arms with their own intelligence to help him with his work, but when the control microchip fails, he begins to lose control--and becomes obsessed with his own success. YOu even feel for the guy in the end and don't want Spidey to even hurt him.
Talk about your soap operas!
Good stuff. Probably the best movie I've seen in some time. I think it works not only because it stayed so close to the book it was based--you have Shakespearean actors combined with a horror movie prince (Sam Raimi directed the Evil Dead pictures. Great B movies with decent, gross scares) and you end up with something right down the middle.
Excellence.
I really really liked this movie.
But then again, I am a confessed comic book buff.
Movie Review: Shattered Glass
We all pretty much know that the Star Wars movies, these past two--are pretty much sucky, don't we? I mean, when did politics enter the storyline? What exactly is the purpose of JarJar outside of another cool toy tie-in?
It's because we have to put Lucas' kids through college and Willow flopped at the box office.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the star, Hayden Christensen. He is the star and backbone of this movie.
Hayden turned a sucky series of films into all the more suckiness. He whined alot. I have it on DVD if you want to see it. He looked good on camera, but I can't remember him doing anything more then whining thoughout the entire Attack of the Clones.
He made my head hurt.
I rented this movie because I'm a writer. I loved All the President's Men. Julia. The Front Page. His Gal Friday. It's a subgenre, and it's fun to have it at my beck-n-call. So when I read about his title in Time mag, I wanted to pay it a visit for some time.
And I will tell you, as Stephen Glass, the pseudo protagonist, Hayden had a lot to whine about. So here-it works well. The story is true, based on a youthful author for the New Republic. It seems he fabricates stories and no one has noticed. It wasn't too big a deal until he did a tale on hackers. And an internet magazine, Forbes.com, was furious at not hearing about the detials. So Forbes.com investigated and the ruse becomes exposed.
It leads to several scenes where Hayden can cry, cry and cry some more. I would have been upset, hadn't not actually worked with the story and the persona he has pretty much developed. I don't know what to think of the kid. He needs to do a wee bit more.
I know, I know, I always come down on the script, and the same here. I've not a clue why Mr. Glass fabricated these stories. It's never made clear if there's something Freudian lying underneath or the mere need to be paid attention to. I think the film would have carried more wait. As it is, the viewer becomes angry at Glass for his shengigans and doesn't really understand what happens in the end.
My wondering is who is "Tove Christensen?" The name is listed on the credits {I'm unsure if it's a male or female name...} as a producer. and I can't help thinking they got Hayden the job. Sorta like Bush escaping from Vietnam, only in reverse. Is this the source of Hayden's rise to fame? If so, I'm a bit concerned if we don't see him do something better soon.
All this picking on Hayden, and I'm sorry. I give the film high marks, however, for the rest of the cast. I saw Rosorio Dawson for the first time on Celebrity Poker this weekend on Bravo and thought she was nice, but didn't have much of an opinion about her. Then there was this movie. She had only, like, 10 lines, but still, she was not who I saw at the televised poker game, when acting might come in handy. Good stuff. Steve Zahn always rules and takes on great projects. It's also good to see him not doing horror or indie comedy. Leave it that to Jack Black.
Very good stuff on all levels. A decent read, I should think.
Just someone shut Hayden up.
It's because we have to put Lucas' kids through college and Willow flopped at the box office.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the star, Hayden Christensen. He is the star and backbone of this movie.
Hayden turned a sucky series of films into all the more suckiness. He whined alot. I have it on DVD if you want to see it. He looked good on camera, but I can't remember him doing anything more then whining thoughout the entire Attack of the Clones.
He made my head hurt.
I rented this movie because I'm a writer. I loved All the President's Men. Julia. The Front Page. His Gal Friday. It's a subgenre, and it's fun to have it at my beck-n-call. So when I read about his title in Time mag, I wanted to pay it a visit for some time.
And I will tell you, as Stephen Glass, the pseudo protagonist, Hayden had a lot to whine about. So here-it works well. The story is true, based on a youthful author for the New Republic. It seems he fabricates stories and no one has noticed. It wasn't too big a deal until he did a tale on hackers. And an internet magazine, Forbes.com, was furious at not hearing about the detials. So Forbes.com investigated and the ruse becomes exposed.
It leads to several scenes where Hayden can cry, cry and cry some more. I would have been upset, hadn't not actually worked with the story and the persona he has pretty much developed. I don't know what to think of the kid. He needs to do a wee bit more.
I know, I know, I always come down on the script, and the same here. I've not a clue why Mr. Glass fabricated these stories. It's never made clear if there's something Freudian lying underneath or the mere need to be paid attention to. I think the film would have carried more wait. As it is, the viewer becomes angry at Glass for his shengigans and doesn't really understand what happens in the end.
My wondering is who is "Tove Christensen?" The name is listed on the credits {I'm unsure if it's a male or female name...} as a producer. and I can't help thinking they got Hayden the job. Sorta like Bush escaping from Vietnam, only in reverse. Is this the source of Hayden's rise to fame? If so, I'm a bit concerned if we don't see him do something better soon.
All this picking on Hayden, and I'm sorry. I give the film high marks, however, for the rest of the cast. I saw Rosorio Dawson for the first time on Celebrity Poker this weekend on Bravo and thought she was nice, but didn't have much of an opinion about her. Then there was this movie. She had only, like, 10 lines, but still, she was not who I saw at the televised poker game, when acting might come in handy. Good stuff. Steve Zahn always rules and takes on great projects. It's also good to see him not doing horror or indie comedy. Leave it that to Jack Black.
Very good stuff on all levels. A decent read, I should think.
Just someone shut Hayden up.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Movie Review: Around the World in 80 Days
I already told you that I have a passion for martial arts movies. I've also already taken the time to explain that I have a thing for literature.
Now I'll mention that I've already seen this movie. Better. Elsewhere.
But that is not to say it's a bad movie, per se. Just that, well, I can't help thinking a person can do better elsewhere.
Surely, a parent could enjoy reading the actual Jules Verne novel and then go see it with their kids and then discuss the differences from both, but, well, you know parents these days. At least the ones I work with. That would take, I dunno, energy from whatever else they are doing.
You see, a crazy inventor (aren't they all like that?) gets a French assistant played by Jackie Chan.
There! Did you see it? You just predicted that there would be kung fu, didn't you?
Anywho, they make this wager that they can go around the world in 80 days. Since the setting is the turn of the century and that the technology isn't exactly up to snuff, there are trials and travials, oh, about every 15 minutes.
This being a Disney film, the action is techcally bloodless, the humor is bored/boredline camp and every plot twist is predictable. I mean, Phineas Fogg sees a painting that he really, really likes (since he's do scientific, he's not, you know, into art) and since the painter is a leggy blond--they MUST become an item.
But here is the strange thing, I found myself content at the end. In it's matter of fact tone, straight-laced pacing, and predictable outcomes, there's something comfortable about this movie. It's like a decent pair of wornout shoes or pizza from the same place again and again. So for all it's unoriginality, I can't really complain. Surely, if I had missed it, I would not have cried and probably would have picked up the DVD...for rental.
Now I'll mention that I've already seen this movie. Better. Elsewhere.
But that is not to say it's a bad movie, per se. Just that, well, I can't help thinking a person can do better elsewhere.
Surely, a parent could enjoy reading the actual Jules Verne novel and then go see it with their kids and then discuss the differences from both, but, well, you know parents these days. At least the ones I work with. That would take, I dunno, energy from whatever else they are doing.
You see, a crazy inventor (aren't they all like that?) gets a French assistant played by Jackie Chan.
There! Did you see it? You just predicted that there would be kung fu, didn't you?
Anywho, they make this wager that they can go around the world in 80 days. Since the setting is the turn of the century and that the technology isn't exactly up to snuff, there are trials and travials, oh, about every 15 minutes.
This being a Disney film, the action is techcally bloodless, the humor is bored/boredline camp and every plot twist is predictable. I mean, Phineas Fogg sees a painting that he really, really likes (since he's do scientific, he's not, you know, into art) and since the painter is a leggy blond--they MUST become an item.
But here is the strange thing, I found myself content at the end. In it's matter of fact tone, straight-laced pacing, and predictable outcomes, there's something comfortable about this movie. It's like a decent pair of wornout shoes or pizza from the same place again and again. So for all it's unoriginality, I can't really complain. Surely, if I had missed it, I would not have cried and probably would have picked up the DVD...for rental.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Movie Review: Super Size Me
As I read on Fark.com the other day, Fahrenheit 9/11 was the number one box office draw over the weekend. That says something about the public in two ways. One, that there is something going on about public opinion of documentaries and two-
People are really not liking President Bush right now. And those people who saw the movie are probably nailing their right wing buddies right now with what they saw Saturday night.
documentaries have really taken a huge leap in the entertainment business these days, I'm thinking as a result of so many reality television programs being so popular. Docs weren't always easy to watch. Long before MTV style editing, the docs were really regulated to National Geo and PBS specials, the stuff you feel asleep watching when you felt you needed something smart to watch.
But reality shows, if they have a redeeming quality at all, is that the whole of life has somekind of story. You just need a filmmaker that can some how bring that out.
Mr. Morgan Furlock (I think that's his name) found one such story. He became so involved, he turned the camera on himself. He wanted to explore the detriments of our fast food society and went on a binge. I think, in some minute way, he enjoyed the experience...He was, afterall, living the American Dream in his own sick way.
Hardly scientific, the story gets our attention not so much with facts about the abuses put upon society by big business, but with our growing care for his self-induced plight. We really become worried as he get progressively worse, eating one Big Mac and Filet of fish after another. The experience is very guttural. We've all eaten at any of these places.
I read the book Fast Food Nation last summer and was effected from the information put forth. Apparently, I'm a visual learner, for this movie had a, by far, greater impact on my perception of the message. I'm thinking it's because Furlock gives the audience a central character (himself) for us to experience his criticism together.
He wants us to know McDonald's is a large corporation, and we need to remember that their goal is money. Ours is food. They do not have our welfare in mind. We have to remember that, Furlock's tale reminds us. AOL wants our money. Disney wants our money. Starbuck's wants our money. If we live or die, that is not of their consequence.
It's sad really.
What a tangent I've been on here.
Is the movie good? Yes, very much so. I noticed my attention did not wander at all as I really wanted to find out what happened to the narrator throughout the experience. And my jaw was agape the entire time. Very good movie. It's a good time to see documentaries, apparently.
People are really not liking President Bush right now. And those people who saw the movie are probably nailing their right wing buddies right now with what they saw Saturday night.
documentaries have really taken a huge leap in the entertainment business these days, I'm thinking as a result of so many reality television programs being so popular. Docs weren't always easy to watch. Long before MTV style editing, the docs were really regulated to National Geo and PBS specials, the stuff you feel asleep watching when you felt you needed something smart to watch.
But reality shows, if they have a redeeming quality at all, is that the whole of life has somekind of story. You just need a filmmaker that can some how bring that out.
Mr. Morgan Furlock (I think that's his name) found one such story. He became so involved, he turned the camera on himself. He wanted to explore the detriments of our fast food society and went on a binge. I think, in some minute way, he enjoyed the experience...He was, afterall, living the American Dream in his own sick way.
Hardly scientific, the story gets our attention not so much with facts about the abuses put upon society by big business, but with our growing care for his self-induced plight. We really become worried as he get progressively worse, eating one Big Mac and Filet of fish after another. The experience is very guttural. We've all eaten at any of these places.
I read the book Fast Food Nation last summer and was effected from the information put forth. Apparently, I'm a visual learner, for this movie had a, by far, greater impact on my perception of the message. I'm thinking it's because Furlock gives the audience a central character (himself) for us to experience his criticism together.
He wants us to know McDonald's is a large corporation, and we need to remember that their goal is money. Ours is food. They do not have our welfare in mind. We have to remember that, Furlock's tale reminds us. AOL wants our money. Disney wants our money. Starbuck's wants our money. If we live or die, that is not of their consequence.
It's sad really.
What a tangent I've been on here.
Is the movie good? Yes, very much so. I noticed my attention did not wander at all as I really wanted to find out what happened to the narrator throughout the experience. And my jaw was agape the entire time. Very good movie. It's a good time to see documentaries, apparently.
Movie Review: O Brother, Where For Art Thou?
If you read my last two reviews, you'll see two important items that I feel I need to remit here. First off, I read some good books in college and whatnot--some that effected the way I percieve art. And two, that a great story stays a great story, you really have to bring something novel to it before I'll notice some intelligence.
The reason I bring this up, is because I was forced to read James Joyce's piece-du-resistance, Ulysees. I finally understood the concept of analogy through that work. I also learned that great literature is not always written well, but that's another story. This movie is the tale of Ulysees, complete with Cyclops and Sirens.
I also bring this up is that the original tale, the Odyessue is a great story, so it takes something really well worked before I'll take notice.
I did take notice, and it wasn't because George Clooney is proving himself to be a very good (looking) actor.
I had heard prior to the rental that this was based on Ulysees' tale and noticed that I quickly forgot that and really just watched the action unfold. It is something comedic, but in the oldest form of the term: it's not laugh-out-loud humor, it's more subtle and intellectual.
Three escaped convicts in the rural, depression era South get wound up in a governor's campaign while singing one of the best soundtracks in year's? I never would have thought. It's original, and should be rewarded as such.
The images are shot through a yellow-hued lense and the colors show a world that is borderline black and white. It's like watching a movie by candle light, very effective. There are several unique moments, like the camera riding the view from the top of a tsunami or the long tack the camera takes without edit before the closing credits.
A very good movie. You might even say, "it's bone fide."
The reason I bring this up, is because I was forced to read James Joyce's piece-du-resistance, Ulysees. I finally understood the concept of analogy through that work. I also learned that great literature is not always written well, but that's another story. This movie is the tale of Ulysees, complete with Cyclops and Sirens.
I also bring this up is that the original tale, the Odyessue is a great story, so it takes something really well worked before I'll take notice.
I did take notice, and it wasn't because George Clooney is proving himself to be a very good (looking) actor.
I had heard prior to the rental that this was based on Ulysees' tale and noticed that I quickly forgot that and really just watched the action unfold. It is something comedic, but in the oldest form of the term: it's not laugh-out-loud humor, it's more subtle and intellectual.
Three escaped convicts in the rural, depression era South get wound up in a governor's campaign while singing one of the best soundtracks in year's? I never would have thought. It's original, and should be rewarded as such.
The images are shot through a yellow-hued lense and the colors show a world that is borderline black and white. It's like watching a movie by candle light, very effective. There are several unique moments, like the camera riding the view from the top of a tsunami or the long tack the camera takes without edit before the closing credits.
A very good movie. You might even say, "it's bone fide."
Movie Review: Underworld
I blame Shakespeare, I really do. I mean, you make a damn good story like Romeo and Juliet, die, wait a few gazillion years and poof...Hollywood beats the living shit out of it.
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Movie Review: The Stepford Wives
I have to admit, if hindsight is really 20/20, well, I really did have some good teachers in high school and college. When I go back and realize the stuff they subjected me to, it was, in all actuality--quite good stuff. I mean, I had to read The Catcher in the Rye, and at first, my teenage brain came up with the ever deep response of:
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Movie Review: The Ring
I work with kids, and it's amazing how, in the press, all I hear are organizations screaming about violence and sex in the movies. And they're probably right, I agree. But what's truly amazing? How many of the kids I see get to see these kinds of movies with full knowledge of their parents.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
Movie Review: Shrek 2
I've always loved hating the summer season of movies. Nothing arty at all, mostly sequels.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Movie Review: The Transporter
Ever hear of a guilty pleasure? It's something we patently know is bad for us, yet we indulge for the sheer thrill of it. I mean, hello? Britney Spears? She lipsynchs her concerts people!
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Tao Meditation: Mercy
I really liked today's poem from my Tao book, it spoke of one of the few times to rise above the nature of things. The item was with mercy. I agree. For so long I've wanted to crack the living crap out of some people, but still, they live. A sign of a love that goes well beyond me.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Some Things Are Just Disturbing
I mean, like, why? Why does such crap and drivel like The Human Centipede exist. Well? It's probably like porn. Where everyone tires t...
-
Anderson Cooper: "The Fact Is, I'm Gay." - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast Here I was, writing about Tom...
-
Wow, that does sound kinda dirty, that idiom for a title, doesn't it? I mean, really. If you're not familiar with the idiom, "...
