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!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.