film geeks 2.0

The End Of film geeks

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:41:00 +0000

Alas, all good things must come to an end. Due to Wendy's lost interest in blogging and both of us being busy these days, film geeks is now officially closed. I'll still post film reviews at my regular blog from time to time when the mood strikes me ... and I'll leave film geeks up so that the old reviews are still here ... but there won't be any new posts here. Thanks to those of you who've read, linked, and/or left comments. It was a blast.

Theatrical Review: Spider-Man 3

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sun, 06 May 2007 23:47:00 +0000

OH, yes, there will be spoilers … but don't worry, the spoilers are in a link below. Nothing you read in this brief review will spoil Spider-Man 3 for you.

The point of a movie review should be to answer the hypothetical question "Should you go see this movie?" It's easy to lose sight of that when a reviewer is writing about a movie based on another artistic source that he or she loves. It's difficult to be objective and keep in mind that not every movie viewer is going to share your love, your dedication, maybe your obsession with the movie's source material.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible and remember that not everyone who reads this review is going to be a 38 year old man who sleeps in Spider-Man pajamas. (That's not a confession on my part or anything … I'm just sayin', that's all.) As a rabid, life-long Spider-Man fan, I'm on one end of the spectrum. On the other end, there are people who see trailers for the new film and say "Spider-Man? Yeah, he's a super powered movie guy, right? I think he's a good guy rather than a villain."

And, with that in mind, I' guess it would be best to subdivide this review:

Should casual movie fans see this film?
Yes, I think you'll get your money's worth. It's a big summer action movie, and it delivers very well on those terms. The special effects are just about the best I've ever seen in any movie, and it provides that ever-popular "roller coaster ride" that summer blockbusters are supposed to deliver. No, it won't change your life … and you'll probably not leave the theater ready to log onto the net and advance order the DVD, but it's an entertaining and fun way to start the summer movie season. There are funny, character driven scenes that elicit genuine laughs … there are great looking superhuman battle sequences … and the action comes with enough frequency and variety to keep you from getting bored. You'll leave the theater satisfied.

Should fans of Spider-Man 2 see this movie?
Well, maybe … just don't get your hopes up too high. Spider-Man 2 was an outstanding film; it worked on all levels. Not only did it excel in all the "summer blockbuster" categories listed above, it also delivered real human drama and told a compelling story that really came to matter over the course of the film. Don't expect anything that good from Spider-Man 3. Oh, it tries to be dramatic … but with three villains and so many trilogy-ending loose ends to tie up, it never really gets into your head and your heart the way the second movie did. As far as special effects and big fun, Spidey 3 comes through … but this movie doesn't have any of the elements that made Spidey 2 so special.

Should fans of the first Spider-Man film see this movie?
Yeah, go ahead. It's as good as the first one, and doesn't suffer from the occasional periods of lag that the first one was hampered by. The special effects are much better in this film than in the first one, and even though there's some serious villain-overkill, at least the villains don't look as silly as the poor Green Goblin (with his awful Goblin Armor) did in the first film. If you enjoyed the first film, you'll enjoy this one, too … and maybe a little more.

Should hardcore comic book fans (and life-long Spider-Man fans) see Spider-Man 3?
I suppose … but with reservations. I'm assuming that other hardcore comic book fans realize, just as I do, that we've been amazingly blessed to have had the chance to see Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2 in the theaters in the last few years. Those are two outstanding movies, and I'd recommend them to anyone, but those of us who have loved comics for so long find them especially thrilling. It's really amazing to watch a movie and realize that it's actually doing a good job of putting everything we love about comics on the screen. Batman Begins did that. Spider-Man 2 did that, as well. Spider-Man 3 doesn't get close to doing that. It's really just one more superhero movie, although it's really a great looking one and it's moves along well and is directed very well. Yes, you will find things in the movie that annoy you, but they're small and relatively inconsequential, and you'll be able to ignore them and just have fun with the film. Just go into the theater expecting an OK (satisfying at best, never thrilling) experience, and you won't leave disappointed.

Now, as far as those spoileriffic complaints I mentioned, hardcore comic fans who've already seen the movie can click here and read them.

No, Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be, but it didn't suck, either. This wasn't some Joel Schumacher pile of garbage. It does suffer from that classic Schumacher bad-guy-overload, but the SM3 villains are better written, better acted and better directed than the clownish bad guys in Schumacher's Batman films, so it's not too bad.

Go ahead and go see it. It's not great, it it's more proof that Marvel movies are almost always better than DC movies, even when they're weak. It won't change your life, but it won't ruin your weekend, either. Things could be worse ... and they might get that way yet.

DVD Review: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:25:00 +0000

"Look for the ridiculous in everything, and you will find it." So wrote Jules Renard, and it's as true a statement about the human condition as has ever been uttered by a French, atheist, socialist playwright. Unfortunately, the maxim followed by many of today's journalists, especially film critics, seems to be "Look for the extremely serious in everything, and manufacture it if you can't find it." That's the only way I can explain some of the preening pontifications produced by America's movie critics in response to Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. This movie is easily the most absurd, profane, irresponsible, flat-out-funny farce released by any major movie studio since my all time favorite comedy, Blazing Saddles. Everything about Borat is ridiculously funny, and yet a great many of the journalists who've reviewed it somehow saw this movie as important social commentary. That may be the movie's last running joke: it managed to get people who weren't even in the movie to make asses of themselves. More on that later.

It's only mid March, but I'm prepared to name Borat the DVD of the year. It had me laughing before I even got it into the DVD player. Once I slipped the DVD case out of the cardboard cover, I saw that the cover art is made to look like a bad bootleg, a copy of a copy of a copy. There isn't a word on the back of the case that's in English, and even the disc itself is funny; it looks like a burned DVD-R copy of the film, complete with the title written in black Sharpie marker, the "r" backward. The DVD-R brand name is Demorez. ("Is Life? No. Demorez.")

I slipped the DVD into our DVD player and found that the menus were funny, the anti-pirating warning from the government of Kazakhstan was funny, and the movie itself … forget about it.

Borat is a mockumentary about the adventures of the title character, a Kazakhstani TV journalist who's touring America. It's one of the most vulgar films I've ever seen, but it is soooo funny. It's doubled-over, tears-streaming, braying-laughter funny. In a decade overflowing with top-notch mockumentaries (Best In Show, Trailer Park Boys, The Office {UK}, The Office {US}), Borat is the funniest.

Now, this movie is not for everyone. I believe that Borat's R rating is another example of the MPAA's incompetence. This film should have been rated NC-17 due to the pervasive, graphic, profane content. This is not a family movie. I can't imagine watching this film with my family. I'd be mortified at the prospect of watching it with the Manson family, for Pete's sake. But get together a few thick-skinned adults and maybe a couple of beers and Borat is an hour and a half of hilarity. The laughs just never stop.

Borat is a character created and portrayed by British comedian and actor Sacha Baron Cohen, and he's one of only two or three people in the film who are in on the jokes. The humor comes from the nonchalance with which Borat says horribly racist, sexist, disgusting things to strangers who can only react with confusion, bewilderment, anger ... and sometimes with delight. After all, the rest of the people in the film… politicians, salesmen, frat boys, etc... aren't in on the joke. They think that Borat is a real person. Imagine a bizarro version of Candid Camera. Imagine Jackass or The Tom Green Show if they were actually funny. Better yet, imagine Andy Kaufman if he'd ever realized his potential.

And if Cohen is willing to make others look silly in his film, it's nothing compared to what he puts himself through. Cohen will do anything for a laugh. He makes Will Farrell look restrained. His own body is his best prop, and he literally strips himself of any possible pride during the course of this movie. One scene, involving a nude and public fistfight, is simultaneously hilarious, awkward, juvenile and appalling. Every detail of Cohen's anatomy is visible, except for that which is hidden by a black bar … and even the specifics of the black bar itself serves as yet another joke. I've no doubt that, had he had a better idea, Cohen would have forgone even that modesty.

Borat is uproariously funny … and after you've finished the film, watched all of the DVD extras, and you think you've laughed at everything associated with the movie, you can check the internet and read reviews that say things like this:

"Borat, the old-world specimen of masculis ignoramus from an underdeveloped half-Muslim nation, stands in for a world we didn't have to think much about before 9/11, and the people Borat talks to become the symbolic heart of America — a place where intolerance is worn, increasingly, with pride." - Entertainment Weekly "Borat is not just blatant but proselytizing ... his target isn't really (Kazakhstan) ... it is rather the domain of the "great warlord Premier Bush," red states in particular." - Village Voice The picture takes the country's temperature at a rather fraught period in our national life... That Borat finds the streak of poison in American life mitigates the potential perception of "Borat" as some Muslim-bashing movie for a self-satisfied Western audience." - SFGate.com

And on and on and on. It's really funny. Even after the movie has been released, Borat was still getting strangers to act like fools. These reviews, of course, say far more about the reviewer than they do about the film. After all, most movie critics are "urban sophisticates," and the only thing that matches their love for themselves is their hatred of middle America, where most of Borat takes place. Nonetheless, gay-pride paraders, New Yorkers and LA street people are prodded and parodied as well. Nobody is safe from Borat.

This movie isn't high-brow comedy. Hell, it isn't low-brow comedy. This is sub-brow comedy. I suppose that only a high-fallutin' film critic would feel the need to justify his or her enjoyment of a movie like this by convincing himself or herself that it's "culturally significant." Of course, Borat himself would probably find these reviews "very inform of politic and customs of society in US and A." As for Cohen, I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank. Andy would be proud.

Borat preview:

DVD Tax On The Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:12:00 +0000

Not that I'm considering buying a movie as crappy as The Lady In The Water... but I'm glad to see that the full-screen version is more expensive at Amazon than the wide-screen version:

I think that all full-screen DVDs should cost more than wide-screen versions. Think of it as a tax on stupid people.

Eeeeek!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:32:00 +0000

So, have you heard about this terrifying new thriller called Office Space?

Bargain Bin Bounty

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:26:00 +0000

It really is worth your time to spend a few minutes digging through those racks of cheap DVDs at Wal-Mart and Target. You know the ones I'm talking about, the displays full of DVDs for $5.50 or less. Sometimes they're in temporary, cardboard shelves … sometimes on the end-caps of aisles. In worst-case scenarios, they can be thrown together in one big 4x4x4 bin. Nonetheless, it's worth your time to look through them. You might be surprised at the number of quality films you'll often find in there, and at prices that are comparable to the rental price at your local Blockbuster store. Why pay a few bucks to rent it when you can pay a few bucks and own it?

I hope to make this a reoccurring feature here at film geeks, a compilation of quick reviews of movies we found on-the-cheap at the Wal-Mart down the road. These are movies that are worth seeing, DVDs that are well worth owning, and as good an entertainment investment of five bucks as you're likely to find anywhere.

The Conversation

A quiet, understated masterpiece from Francis Ford Coppola, this movie somehow slipped between the cracks of his big budget epics, such as the Godfather movies, Apocalypse Now and The Cotton Club. In fact, The Conversation was actually released between The Godfather and The Godfather II, and remains overlooked largely due to the Corleone hype.

The Conversation stars Gene Hackman, acting against type as Harry Caul, a quiet and reserved surveillance expert who's get's caught up in an apparent murder plan when his morals interfere with his work ethic. Caul has always had the attitude that his surveillance work is "just a job," and that he doesn't want to know what becomes of the conversations he records, the pictures he takes, or the information he obtains. It's his job to obtain the information. What his buyer does with it isn't Harry's business.

Harry's a devout Catholic, but as the movie progresses we learn that his religious beliefs are little more than a way of keeping his personal guilt over his line of work from overwhelming him. The recording of the actual conversation at the heart of the film becomes an obsession for Harry when he becomes convinced that it might lead to the murder of at least one of the people he's recorded. Ultimately, though, this specific conversation is really simply the straw that broke the camel's back, and a lifetime of guilt and fear begins to take it's toll.

Hackman's performance is amazing. It's hard to believe that this is the same actor who brought Popeye Doyle and Lex Luthor to the screen. Hackman may have fewer lines of dialogue in this film than in any of his other staring roles, but he develops a completely convincing and compelling character with body language, facial expressions, and small nods. You can't take your eyes off the screen as you watch Harry Caul's life come apart. The movie takes a number of twists and turns, but never relies on gimmicks. And, the closing scene of the film is shocking, believable, and hard to shake.

In 2006, the recording and application of private conversations for surveillance purposes is more a part of the national debate than it has been since Watergate. This film is a profound and effective study of the topic and the way that surveillance effects people on both sides of the tape recorder. It doesn't offer clunky, adamant judgments … instead, The Conversation simply, clearly and concisely focuses on the moral and human elements of this hotly contested political matter.

The DVD features, among other things, a full audio commentary by Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola isn't always a focused or even coherent commentator on his own work, but he's always interesting.

Fire In The Sky

Horror films work best when they focus on the people effected by horrific things or events rather than on the horrors themselves. Fire In The Sky is a nice example of a horror film done well, with nice performances by D.B. Sweeney, Robert Patrick, James Garner and others, and with restrained direction by Robert Lieberman.

Fire In The Sky purports to be the true story of Travis Walton, a logger from Arizona who claims to have been abducted by aliens in 1975. Part of the reason that Fire In The Sky works is that it doesn't set out to tell Walton's story so much as the story of his co-workers, the men who were suspected of his murder after his mysterious disappearance. James Garner, always fun on screen, evokes George C. Scott with his classic tough-guy performance as a federal investigator who doesn't buy UFO stories and is determined to find the murderer. The investigation comes to an abrupt halt when Walton turns up a week later, shaking and naked at a closed gas station in the middle of the night.

The movie's climax, a vivid flashback of Walton's abduction, is among the scariest alien scenes I've seen any any film. It is a tribute to the movie makers that the scene relies more on suspense and claustrophobia than on gore, keeping the movie safely in PG-13 territory. The main reason that the movie works, however, is the chemistry between Sweeney (as Walton) and Robert Patrick (as Mike, Walton's friend who becomes a prime suspect in the murder investigation.) Their relationship is complex and interesting even before things get extra-terrestrial, and the movie keeps us focused on that relationship throughout instead of getting caught up in horror-film convictions. By focusing on the people involved, and developing them enough that we find ourselves actually liking them, the horror is all the more effective. It works, it works well, and you might find yourself thinking about it in the wee hours of the night.

A Simple Plan

Young movie goers probably know Sam Raimi as the director of the Spider-Man movies. Older folks remember his cult-classic Evil Dead horror films. However, in 1998, Raimi released a quiet and surprisingly moving film about family, secrets, lies and greed. A Simple Plan is, arguably, his finest film.

Billy Bob Thornton and Bill Paxton star as Jacob and Hank Mitchell, two brothers who find a cache of money in a crashed single-engine plane in a snow-covered wood. And not just a little money, either. Four million dollars. Money big enough to not only change the way people live, but to actually change who people are. Within minutes of finding the money, a shocking act of violence occurs that places the brothers squarely on a one-way course.

Bridget Fonda does great work here as Sarah, Hank's long-suffering and quietly seething wife. It's a performance on the same level as Sissy Spacek's work in In The Bedroom. Sarah sees the money as an irresistible opportunity, and as a cure for everything that's wrong in her life. If Hank hadn't already wanted to keep the money, Sarah's dominance would have guaranteed his decision.

As good as Fonda is, it's the interactions between Paxton and Thornton that make A Simple Plan so special. Thornton's Jacob is the kind of guy that most people would call "a little slow," and Paxton, as Hank, has spent his life looking out for his brother. But can Jacob be trusted to keep secrets? And does Jacob really trust Hank, or does he see Hank's guidance simply as necessary interference? Thornton's performance in A Simple Plan is among his best, but don't see the movie expecting a retread of Carl Childers. Jacob is slow, but not simple… and certainly not the introverted guardian angel from Sling Blade.

Raimi's direction here is the icing on the cake, mostly because he keeps his camera fairly still and lets his actors tell their story. The jarring edits and strange points of view that mark Raimi's action and horror films is absent, here. Instead, his direction is immediate and intimate, placing the viewer squarely in the middle of the story. We feel the cold, the claustrophobia, the anger and the sadness. The movie's conclusion is unavoidable, and while it is surprising, you may feel (just as I did) that it's the only way that a story like this could have ended. A Simple Plan is a keeper, and it's $5.50 or less at a store near you.
Auto Focus

I reviewed Auto Focus in depth earlier. You can read the review if you like. I paid $4.88 for this DVD at Wal-Mart. Money well spent.

Like I said, I hope to make this a regular film geeks series. There really is treasure to be found in the discount DVD racks at a store near you. It's worth the browsing.

DVD Review: Auto Focus

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:09:00 +0000

I wasn't quite sure what to expect from Paul Schrader's Auto Focus, a film about the double life and gruesome death of Bob Crane. I certainly didn't expect what I got; a linear and bluntly straight-forward film that was alternatingly creepy, compelling and sometimes actually funny. It's not the best film I've ever seen by any stretch, but Auto Focus is not without considerable qualities.

Auto Focus isn't as good as Schrader's finest directorial effort, Affliction, but it's infinitely better than Dominion, the Exorcist prequel that he directed next. And, surprisingly, it shares something in common with those films. All three of them are stories about men caught in self-destructive downward spirals who are equally powerless and unwilling to stop their descent.

The real life Bob Crane is, of course, best known as Colonel Hogan, the hero of the unlikely WWII POW sitcom, Hogan's Heroes. I used to love Hogans Heroes when I was a kid. I looked forward to catching syndicated reruns in the afternoons when I'd finished my homework. I knew, in the early 80's when I watched the show, that Crane was dead, but I didn't know why. As a teenager I remember learning that he'd been violently murdered in an unsolved case, and that one element of his life that came to public light during the investigation was that he'd been an amateur pornographer for years. Crane, it seems, was anything but the squeaky clean Colonel Hogan I'd grown up with.

And yet, Auto Focus argues … somewhat convincingly … that Crane really was squeaky clean in his own way. The movie presents a man with a duel nature, one half of him a devoted Catholic and family man, the other half a sex addict who photographed and videotaped his conquests in sort of a bizarre trophy quest. Crane's sexual addiction isn't glossed over or presented as a palpable thing that simply got out of control. Auto Focus presents Crane's sexual dysfunctions as entirely negative and destructive from the get-go. Early scenes feature Crane sheepishly discussing his habits with his priest, and trying to justify a collection of pornographic magazines that his wife has found. There's no room for doubt that, from the point of view of this film, Bob Crane's sexual appetites were a harmful element in his life.

The primary enabler in Crane's self destruction seems to have been his friend John "Carpie" Carpenter, played here with disturbing effectiveness by the always convincing Willem Dafoe. Nobody gives good creep like Dafoe, and in Auto Focus Dafoe creates a character that might be his must repugnant on-screen construction yet. "Carpie" isn't simply a bad friend to Crane in the "drinkin' buddy" sense. Dafoe's John Carpenter is an obsessive and truly perverse presence who justifies and facilitates Crane's darkest, ugliest cravings. The movie seems to argue that, had Carpenter never bubbled to the surface of Bob Crane's life, the comic actor would likely have managed to keep it together.

Schrader's directorial decisions are shrewd and calculated in this film, and the visuals nicely mirror the changing state of Bob Crane's life. Early shots, before sex became a destructive force in Crane's life, are bright, clean and steady. Later in the film, as Crane drops further down the spiral, the movie's hues darken and become dingier. The camera forces the viewer into Crane's world with him by way of strange perspectives and shorter shots. It's difficult not to panic with Crane as he feels his world slipping out from under him.

The movie was rated R, partly due to "strong sexuality and nudity." It's a credit to Schrader as a director that the nudity and sexuality in the film is never quite "close" to the viewer. It's pervasive, but always in the background, on a TV screen or in a darkened room. Up close, nudity becomes a matter of intimacy. Auto Focus never lets us forget that the sexual addiction that lead to the self destruction of Bob Crane was never a matter of intimacy. Sex, for Bob Crane, may have been about conquest or habit or simply about compulsion… but it was never about the intimacy of real interaction between two people.

Greg Kinnear, as it turns out, was an inspired choice to play Bob Crane. Like Crane, Kinnear's TV persona is somewhat squeaky clean. He looks comfortable in Colonel Hogan's leather jacket and half-cocked cap. He looks just as comfortable, in fact, as Crane himself did. What's effective about Kinnear's performance is that he's just as convincing in the darker scenes. Two scenes in particular stand out. When he first sees himself having sex on video, Kinnear's Crane says two things, both of which he emphatically means and each of which contradict the other: "We've got to destroy this tape. How much does one of these recorders cost?" Crane simultaniously wants to both stop and to indulge his addiction, and Kinnear sells the scene with an understated reality. If you've ever been addicted to anything... even if it's just cigarettes... you might feel a little pang of recognition here.

In another scene Crane hallucinates during a taping of Hogan's Heroes. Images of sexual dalliances, his crumbling family life, and his career teetering on a precipice overwhelm him. This is the make or break point for Crane in this film. It's a darkly unsettling and comical scene, and Kinnear pulls it off with just the right balance of smirk and fear. It's a perfect Bob Crane moment.

The death of Bob Crane remains unsolved to this day, although the film makes it clear who the murderer probably was … and what the motive was. But it isn't the unsolved murder of Bob Crane that makes this movie relevant to today's age. What makes the movie relevant to the modern age is what it has to say about the combination of technology and sex. In the mid sixties, home video technology was brand new and exciting. Like any tool, it could be used for creation or destruction. Crane used it for both, and seemed to enjoy taping his family birthday parties and holidays every bit as much as he enjoyed taping his sexual liaisons. These days home video is yesterday's news. Today, the technology that has the most potential to nurture sexual self destruction is the very media that you're using to read this film review. Like home video in the 60's, the internet can be a powerfully creative tool, or an instrument with which we arrange and nurture our own sexual dysfunctions. It's impossible not to make the connections while watching Auto Focus, although Schrader never forces that connection with overtly analogous dialogue or imagery. It's simply there. It always will be. Technology changes, but sex remains the same. Both have the potential to enhance and strengthen our relationships … or to destroy them. Even if Bob Crane's story is nothing more than a cautionary tale, it's more relevant now than ever.

The DVD features a documentary in two parts about the investigation of the Bob Crane murder. The documentary is nearly an hour long and builds a solid case for the movie's apparent supposition about who killed Bob Crane, and why. I feel that I should warn the viewer, however, that the documentary contains several close photographs of the murder scene, including photographs of Crane's bludgeoned and bloody body. It's upsetting to watch, and while it might be sobering for some, it'll simply seem gratuitous to others.

Auto Focus Trailer:

DVD Review: Bringing Out The Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:22:00 +0000

Describing Martin Scorsese's Bringing Out The Dead as a downbeat film is kinda like describing the Atlantic Ocean as damp. Bringing Out The Dead is tremendously downbeat and quite surreal. It is, in fact, downbeat and surreal enough to make Blue Velvet play like There's Something About Mary.

Yet, reviewers who describe the film as a thriller or an action film aren't really off the mark, either. There is action in the film. There is suspense and there are thrills along the way. It's just that there's a darkness to everything on the screen that nearly suffocates the film. Watching Bringing Out The Dead is often like being smothered.

That is probably intentional. If you're going to tell a story about a man who hates his life, who feels panicked and afraid at every turn, and who's haunted by his every decision, I don't suppose you'd want the story to come across lightly.

Bringing Out The Dead is the story of an NYC graveyard shift EMT named Frank Pierce (Nicholas Cage) who's on the verge of burning out disastrously. Frank hasn't been involved in a call that actually saved a life in months, and he's haunted by the memory of Rose, a young woman who died during his attempt to save her months ago. As the movie begins, Frank responds to a call for a heart attack victim who clearly wants to die. But it's Frank's job to keep him alive, so he does. The patient is transported to a crowded and inefficient hospital, where he's cardio-shocked seventeen times in a desperate attempt to preserve his life. The conflict between those who are unwillingly alive because of Frank's actions ... and those who'd still be enjoying life if only Frank had known what to do ... becomes too much. Something has got to give.

A number of the cards that Scorsese always has up his sleeve end up on the table, here... including flashy camera work, voice-over narration, and a pulsing pop music soundtrack that often actually carries the story rather than simply serving as a distraction. Martin Scorsese is one of our greatest living filmmakers, and even a middling work from him is going to be better than the best work of almost anyone else. Unfortunately for Scorsese fans, Bringing Out The Dead is sometimes little more than a middling Scorsese affair.

One problem is that Cage's performance often drags. Although it's appropriate that his character seem tired all of the time, there are also sequences where it just doesn't seem that he's learned his lines very well. Other scenes are shot and edited in a way that some viewers might find distracting. From the point of view of a midnight shift worker (as I myself am for seven days each month), I think a lot of what Scorsese has done in Bringing Out The Dead was artistically valid. Scenes speed up and slow down at random. Shots never seem to last for more than a minute or two, making it hard to stay focused. There's a dreamlike quality to everything here, with odd lighting and strange sound mixes in even the least surreal scenes. As a shift worker, I thought I understood what Scorsese was doing while I watched the film. If you've ever worked graveyard, you know that it often really seems like things are speeding up, slowing down and randomly distorting in the wee hours of the night. I recognized that, just as I recognized other little nods to the shift worker, such as the aluminum foil taped to Cage's bedroom windows. Other viewers, however, are more likely going to find some of these stylistic choices to be pure distraction.

Strong supporting performances by the rest of the cast help make up the difference. Patricia Arquette, I admit, is merely adequate as the daughter of the heart attack victim (and Frank's love interest). It's the other wacko EMT's and the New York late night street people who provide the action and the thrills along the way. Tom Sizemore plays Tom, a brutally indifferent ambulance driver … and Sizemore never fails to deliver the weirdness in hugely watchable doses. Singer and Actor Marc Anthony is also quite good here (really) as a dreadlocked suicidal headcase named Noel. Best of all, though, is Ving Rames as Marcus, the pseudo-gospel preaching, pimping and profiling playa who spends a kinetic Friday night driving Frank from call to call.

The movie seems to be at a loss with regard to exactly what Frank needs to put his ghosts and regrets behind him. Along the way he tries everything from doing his job well to trying to get fired ... everything from drinks to pills to impromptu IV cocktails ... and everything from reckless driving to meandering conversations. Frank seems to have come to the conclusion that his job is neither to prevent death, nor to hasten it, but simply to witness it. The actions he finally takes to bring closure to the lives and deaths that haunt him seem somewhat contrived and out of character, and the movie resolves everything with a sappy, conventional "hero-gets-the-girl" conclusion. As I said, this is neither Scorsese's best, nor most cohesive motion picture.

Nonetheless, it is still clearly the product of a movie maker who'd been honing his considerable skills for some 40 years by the time he made this picture. Scorsese is no slouch, and even this uneven and often messy movie still packs a great deal of punch. Cage steps up and delivers in certain critical scenes, and he sells Frank's weariness when it matters. Plus, it's simply impossible to take your eyes off this movie. It doesn't always make sense, but it never gets boring. It is, after all, Scorsese.

A Clip From Bringing Out The Dead

Dubbed in Spanish

Which Really Doesn't Make Make Much Difference:

Carnival Of Cinema.

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:02:00 +0000

There's good stuff to read today at Nehring's Carnival of Cinema, including good entries from MCF and Otis.

Five Films By Guillermo del Toro

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:01:00 +0000

Guillermo del Toro is a young Mexican filmmaker with a keen eye and a dramatic sense of style. Del Toro's work is primarily in the horror/fantasy and horror/action genres, and his interesting and watchable movies stand out in a genre that's often dominated by run-of-the-mill garbage. In fact, it might be fair to call him the David Cronenberg of his generation. What separates del Toro from Cronenberg and his peers is the unabashed moralistic stories that his movies present. Del Toro is as interested in concepts like right and wrong and good and evil as he is in horrific imagery and scares. It may be a byproduct of his devoutly Catholic upbringing, or simply a matter of his personal character. Either way, del Toro's films are filled with religious imagery, characters driven by moral choices, and even a distinct sense of reverence toward that which is simply good.

And on top of all that, when you see him interviewed or see him discussing his work on a DVD featurette, he comes off like one heck of a nice guy.

Five of del Toro's films are presented here for your consideration:

Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno)

Scheduled to be released in the US in December of this year, del Toro's latest film seems to be a treasure chest full of the things that make his work distinctive and interesting. Del Toro, like Cronenberg, Tim Burton and David Fincher, brings an uniquely artistic flair to his films, and his thumbprint is all over the teaser preview for Pan's Labyrnith:

The preview at once evokes del Toro's earlier work and classic children's literature, and conjured up memories of Legend, a Ridley Scott film from my youth. I have the highest of hopes for this film.

Hellboy

Artistically, Hellboy was quite remarkable, remaining both true to the original source material (Mike Mignola's Hellboy comic books) and employing del Toro's own sole sensibilities at once. The film isn't flawless, the story bogs down a bit toward the end and there are a number of plot holes, but the film almost succeeds purely in terms of fun and fantasy.

As is always the case with del Toro, even in this comic book romp, there are moral lessons to be considered and character studies that are worthy of classroom analysis. Hellboy himself is demon, raised from hell as an infant by Nazis who hoped to use him as a weapon against the allied forces during World War II. The Nazis failed, however, and the baby demon was adopted and raised by a benevolent scientist who believed that, if given the proper surroundings, Hellboy might become something more than a mere monster. He might, in fact, become good if given the chance. The movie's thesis sentence is "In the absence of light, darkness prevails," and in Hellboy we see a character struggling with his own nature. In classic comic book style, Hellboy takes some of the most essential, philosophically ponderous questions about life and serves them up like an amusement park ride.

Hellboy himself might be seen as a metaphor for all of us, capable of both tremendous good and startling evil. What better image for the human struggle against our own weaknesses than a demon who saws off his horns so he'll "blend in," and who carries a crucifix and a holy water with him at all times? Arguably, Hellboy is del Toro's most overtly Catholic film, with undertones of confession, confirmation and baptism… and with Christian imagery intrinsically built right into the movie's very environment.

Blade II

Sequels usually, suck, and a sequel handed off to a different director than the one behind the original is almost always guaranteed to stink up the theater… so it's a welcome surprise that del Toro's Blade II is not only a fine film, but better than it's predecessor. Here's the climactic scene from the movie, featuring Blade the vampire killer at war with a number of bloodsuckers, including Ron "Hellboy" Pearlman:

Del Toro may have had no choice with regard to some of the stylistic elements of the film. I'm sure that the studio insisted on a number of facets that made the first movie a success, including a pop soundtrack and the visual form of the main character and his enemies. Nonetheless, del Toro's contributions to Blade II are distinct. The primary villains in the film aren't the vampires themselves, but the "reapers," a race of super vampires who feed on other vampires. The reapers are some of the most hideous movie monsters ever seen on the big screen. When they feed, their lower mandible opens like an insect, allowing them to get not just their victim's neck, but most of his or her head, into the reaper's mouth. It's pretty disgusting and makes for an easy queue to root against the reapers.

And, like in Hellboy, the primary character is another nonhuman struggling with his own nature. Blade is the "daywalker," a half-human/half-vampire creature who has sworn to protect humanity from the bloodsuckers. Like Hellboy, Blade was raised by a human protector who saw in him the potential for good. His vampire nature makes him a particularly good vampire hunter, since he's privy to their instincts, needs and desires. It also makes him vulnerable to the same weaknesses that a vampire has to deal with, including a need for blood and an aversion to assorted vampiric iconography. Blade deals with his bloodlust with a kind of antibiotic that he must inject daily.

Blade II excels as an action movie and as pure comic book escapism, but like Hellboy, there's more there to chew on if you want it.

Devil's Backbone (El Espinazo Del Diablo)

Easily del Toro's finest film, this independently financed and released Spanish-language stunner was filmed in Spain after del Toro's negative experience making the big budget Hollywood feature Mimic. Devil's Backbone is the best kind of ghost story in that it's so much more than simply a tale of the supernatural. Like all of del Toro's work, Devil's Backbone is also a story about people, about the choices that they make, and the way that a person's choices ultimately determine both his deeper character and his fate.

Set in 1939 during the Spanish civil war, this film takes place almost entirely in an orphanage beset by a number of problems. There is little or no food for the children, and there are rumors that a considerable quantity of gold has been hidden from the government by rebel fighters on the grounds. As forces both outside and inside the orphanage conspire to find the gold, the grounds themselves seem to be stirred by painful memories of the recent and distant past. Ghosts appear, especially in the form of Santi, a young boy who's death at the orphanage was never solved. Meanwhile, an unexploded bomb sits ominously in the middle of the grounds, awaiting a hoped for removal that might never come. You can watch the trailer in various formats here.

Devil's Backbone weaves it's story with quiet subtlety, pulling you and catching you off guard emotionally. A brilliant performance by Federico Luppi as the orphanage doctor gives the movie an important gravitas that makes even it's most supernatural elements believable and compelling. The first time I watched the movie, as the events in the story unfolded, I found myself as emotionally invested in this story as in any I've ever seen. Devil's Backbone is a remarkable, unforgettable achievement.

Cronos

Del Toro's first film to land him cult status (along with a number of international awards) was Cronos, a story about vampirism, immortality, and the ties that bond us to our families. It's a fanciful and ambitious film, made on a shoestring budget in the early 90's. The young del Toro was so determined to get this movie made, in spite of the complete absence of anyone to help him with the special effects, that he set up his own special effects company and learned how to do the explosions, blood squibs and lighting all by himself. The trailer is available here, if you can get it to play, which is more than I could do.

Cronos is the story of an alchemist from the 17th century who created a device that gives it's user immortality… if he's willing to use it regularly, and if he's willing to consume human blood… and assuming that he actually likes the idea of his family dying off before him while he lives on forever. The movie presents immortality on Earth as a starkly, unimaginably dark concept, and it's clear that, within this story, anyone who'd seek it must be corrupt, deranged and dangerous. When the device accidentally falls into the hands of an antique store owner (once again, a great Federico Luppi), he unknowingly activates it and succumbs to its addictive qualities. Meanwhile, a selfish billionaire has dispatched his brute nephew (again, Ron Pearlman) to retrieve the device by any means necessary. Cronos is del Toro's crudest and most elementary film, but it's quite lucid in terms of morality. The film presents selfishness, violence and blind ambition as clearly evil and family, love, and the acceptance of death as good qualities to strive for. There are no "gray areas" in Cronos.

Guillermo del Toro is neither the best young filmmaker working today, nor the most over-hyped, in spite of what some on the internet might say. His talents and qualities are the match of his ambition, and his films are typically enjoyable, smart and moral. I look forward to a lifetime of quality work from the noteworthy talent.

DVD Review: Network

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:41:00 +0000

On paper, Network should be unwatchable. On paper, this Sidney Lumet-directed, Paddy Chayefsky-penned classic from '76 should be a convoluted, pompous mess of a movie. All of the things that ruin lesser films are present, here: Characters deliver long monologues in the pretense of conversation. The plot goes from stark realism to outrageous fantasy by the middle of the second act. Many of the principle characters themselves are so extreme as to seem cartoonish. It shouldn't work. On paper, Network should be the kind of film that people don't even finish watching.

The reason Network not only succeeds but actually triumphs is that the film is the product of a director, writer and actors all working at the peak of their considerable talents. Thirty years after it's release, Network not only endures, it actually grows in relevance, power and importance. There hasn't been a better film than Network in the past fifty years, and only a handful of movies are it's equal.

The two disc, 2006 special edition of Network is a treasure, and every second of footage on both discs is worth the watching. In a day when the very idea of special editions is devalued by two-disc sets dedicated to films like the Texas Chainsaw remake and Oliver Stone's already bloated Alexander, this set is peerless. You can't send nineteen bucks in a better way than in the purchase of this edition.

Like the best satire, Network presents itself with a straight face and wide eyes. The film never winks at the viewer. In fact, Chayefsky insisted that he hadn't written the script intending satire, but rather as a straight reflection of what he saw in the present and future of America's TV news media. Given thirty years to reflect, Chayefsky seems as much a prophet as a playwrite.

The film tells the story of major network news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch), who's informed by his boss and old friend Max Schumacher (William Holden) that the network is going to fire their anchor due to poor ratings. Beale takes the news badly, and announces on the air that he plans to commit suicide on an upcoming live broadcast. The network's PR people scramble to undo any damage that Beale's rant may have done to the news department's credibility … but then, something strange happens. Network head honcho Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) learns that Beale's suicidal rant has actually boosted the network's ratings. Suddenly, for the first time in ages, the network's news department is drawing a viable market share.

Because of the ratings, credibility takes a back seat to marketability. The news department is placed under the direction of the entertainment department, and the clearly insane Beale is allowed to keep his job and stay on the air. Beale's ranting and raving continue, and continue to draw more and more viewers… and the network begins to build their news department around Beale's insanity.

Implausible? No. Don't dispense with the notion that a major TV network would allow a clearly demented figure to head a major news broadcast in the name of ratings. Consider Dan Rather. Consider Bill O'Reilly.

Watching Network today is almost eerie. As Beale's program gets increasingly weirder, incorporating stained glass windows and psychics, your instincts might be to balk. No network news program would become something so perverse, right? Well, think about it. Beale's deranged program only lacks one thing that today's modern TV network news broadcasts have retained: attempted subtlety. Just like in Network, today's TV network news programs have replaced objective reporting with an odd form of info-tainment that incorporates circus clowns and soothsayers of doom. Today's news anchors are every bit the circus ringleader that Beale is, marketing outrage to a culture that can't get enough of it. Just like Beale's audience, America's primetime news viewers love to get mad, even if they're not sure why their mad, or exactly who the targets of their anger should be. We're not interested in the details. Minutiae is boring. Outrage isn't.

Peter Finch won a well deserved posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of Beale, and his performance is matched by everyone in this steller cast. Holden, the displaced news director, is weary and authentic as a man drawn slowly into a madness that he no longer wants to fight. Duvall, cast against type, is a convincing and hateful villain. Best of all is Faye Dunaway as Diana Christensen, the network's entertainment director. Dunaway is devastating and beautiful, here; perfectly conveying the youngest member of the cast as a product of the first television generation, the first age of people to be turned back into the machine that created them. Christensen is unable to think about anything other than ratings and marketing, even coldly studying her own psychological problems as though they were the elements of a failing sitcom. Dunaway's performance in Network is unforgettable.

Other elements of the film perfectly parody TV's coverage of '70's touchstones such as the Patty Hearst kidnapping and self-styled revolutionary Angela Davis. If you're old enough to remember those people and events, the movie's sly observations will strike home. If not, then the way TV deals with (and creates) news in the film will resonate on it's own.

In Network's best known sequence, Howard Beale encourages his audience to go to their windows and shout to the world that they're "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." The streets in towns and cities across the nation reverberate with the shouts of Beale's sheep, doing his bidding as commanded. But what, exactly, is everyone mad at? Beale's muddled attempt at an explanation for his rage only confounds the situation. Only Diana Christensen recognizes the situation for what it really is: simply one more sign of a ratings triumph. Beale's followers have bought his outrage and they're eating out of the palm of his hand. Thirty years later, Chayefsky dire vision of the American news media... and, more importantly, it's audience... has been realized. In 2006, TV news depends on an audience willing to believe anything the info-tainment department wants to sell us, as long as it's outrageous. Thirty years later, we're still dumb as hell, and we'll take all of it we can buy.

Watch one of Howard Beale's vulgar, nutty and
absolutely honest rants about television...
and how his audience just doesn't get it:

Nehring Blog Carnival

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:47:00 +0000

Nehring The Edge is holding a blog carnival:

We're looking for movie reviews, DVD reviews, screenwriting tips, industry news, opinion pieces...anything relating to cinema. High brow or low brow, Hollywood or otherwise let yourself be heard.

Sounds like fun... We'll see ya there.

DVD Review: The Wicker Man (1973 Version)

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:56:00 +0000

According to the trivia page for the original 1973 production of The Wicker Man at the IMDb, lead actor Edward Woodward was accidentally urinated on by a goat during the filming of the movie's final scene. Apparently, the footage of the goat peeing on the star was cut from the final print of the film. I don't have the slightest idea why. A scene featuring a goat peeing on the main character would have made every bit as much sense as every other scene that was actually left in this garish mess of a film.

I'll warn you now that this review WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS… although I also think it's fair to say that the movie's posters, cover-art and promotional material are all full of spoilers, too. In fact, the very NAME OF THE MOVIE gives away the ending. It's as though The Sixth Sense had been titled Bruce Willis Is A Ghost. There isn't much more to this movie than what appears on the surface, and if you have any interest in watching it, I honestly don't believe that knowing the story will effect your appreciation of the film one way or the other.

A new version of The Wicker Man arrives in theaters this week. I have been curious about the film because it's director, Neil LaBute, has made a few good films. First, though, I wanted to see the original. I've heard it said that the original version of The Wicker Man is one of the scariest horror movies ever made… and as a film buff and a fan of good, scary movies, I've wanted to see it for ages.

Trouble is, it hasn't been available to rent anywhere in these parts. So when Wendy found it available to check out at the library at college, we were both thrilled. Finally, we'd get to see this mysterious so-called "masterpiece" of horror. We couldn’t wait.

Having now seen it, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to say about it. I'll say this much confidently, though. This is not a horror movie. It isn't scary, it doesn't seem to want to be scary, and I can't imagine why anyone would consider it scary. No, horror is not the genre wherein to classify this movie. I suppose it deserves the invention of it's own genre: musical soft-core pagan murder mystery. If I had to describe this film, that's exactly what I'd call it. The Wicker Man is a musical soft-core pagan murder mystery.

Here's a summary of the plot: A detective from the Scottish mainland (played by Edward Woodward who members of my generation might remember as The Equalizer) travels by private plane to a small isle off the coast of Scotland to investigate the case of a missing young girl. Soon after he arrives on the island, the locals begin to behave strangely. First, they tell him that he isn't wanted there. He insists that he has the legal right and jurisdiction as a police officer to be there. The detective begins questioning the locals about the missing girl and ends up going to the local inn to get a room. While he's checking in, the local men gather around and sing a raunchy (I suppose) song about the inn-keeper's daughter, who is played by model Brit Ekland. After he checks into his room, the inn keeper's daughter goes into the bedroom next door and takes off all of her clothing and starts singing an odd folk song while pounding on the walls and then goes to sleep. Really. It's one of the most gratuitous nude scenes I've ever seen in a movie… and although I won't pretend that it offended me, I did find it very odd. More of a Cinemax After Dark kind of thing then something you'd expect to see in a horror movie.

It was at this point that I began to doubt that The Wicker Man was really a horror movie after all.

The next morning, the detective goes around the town asking questions about the missing girl. During his travels he sees a May-Pole dance (with accompanying song) an odd nude fertility dance/ritual (with, of course, it's own song) and he eventually finds a grave marked with the name of the missing girl in the local cemetery. By this time the detective is convinced that the island folk are witches of some sort, and a trip to the local library turns up a book about human sacrifices and blood rituals. Soon after, he meets the island's patriarch, Lord Summerisle, played by the legendary Christopher Lee.

The detective revels himself in his conversations to be a devoutly Christian man, and he's quite taken aback by the pagan practices of seemingly everyone on the island. Lord Summerisle tells the detective that the residents of the island have been pagan for at least a couple of generations, and that their pagan faith is peaceful and honorable and that they'd not have murdered the little girl or anyone else. All the same, the detective insists that he be allowed to exhume the girl's body. Once he and the cemetery grounds keeper dig up the coffin, they find a dead rabbit inside. The detective takes the dead rabbit to Lord Summerisle's home and throws it at his feet, pronouncing that he's now sure that the young girl is still alive and that the locals plan to sacrifice her in a spring ritual the next day. He says that he plans to leave in the morning and come back with a full garrison of police officers, but it turns out the next morning that his plane has been sabotaged.

At this point the locals begin emerging from their homes in odd costumes; dressed as animals and monsters, etc. Christopher Lee then shows up in drag, looking like Cher on a bad water-weight-gain day. The detective mugs the inn-keeper and takes his costume and joins the festival anonymously, where he finds the young girl being brought out of a cave. Presuming that the girl is about to be sacrificed, the detective reveals his identity and runs to the girl, grabs her hand and has her lead him on a right merry chase around the island. Eventually, she leads him back to the gathered townsfolk, who inform him that the real reason he's on the island is because they plan to sacrifice him to their pagan gods. They inform him that they'd faked the girl's kidnapping to lure him to the island, and that they'd wanted him because they'd figured out that sacrificing a deeply religious virginal authority figure would guarantee them a bumper crop. They then take him up the hill to a giant… you guessed it, wicker man, which is made up of many chambers filled with various animals. He's then forced into the main chamber in the torso, where he's peed on by a goat (off camera) and burned alive. The entire time he's screaming various and assorted things at the townsfolk, sometimes cursing them and other times praying to God and other times making threats and sometimes just screaming. As he burns up the townsfolk sing yet one more weird song, swaying their arms in the breeze the whole time like pre-school kids doing a couple of verses of "Bingo Was His Name-O." Then the end credits roll. You can see the film's perplexing final ten minutes here.

I can't think of a single movie that compares to The Wicker Man. Wendy and I turned to each other with expressions of "What the hell?" more times during this film than any other film we've ever watched together.

As far as plot intricacies go, there were about a million holes. How had the islanders known that they'd end up luring a deeply religious virgin to the island to investigate the missing girl? What if the cop that had come had been a hard drinking, hell-raising Scottish equivalent of Popeye Doyle? How would they have dealt with him on the island, roughing up Scottish pagans and asking them if they'd ever been caught picking their feet in Poughkeepsie? Do you think that kind of cop would have sat idly in his room while Brit Ekland sang naked, pounding on the walls in the next room? A cop like that would have gone next door, nailed the inn-keepers daughter, and then spent the rest of the visit drinking ale and punching pagans.

Come to think of it, that might have been a good movie. Watching Gene Hackman beat the tar out of the drag-queen Christopher Lee would have worked much better. I can just hear myself yelling "Yeah! Kick him again!"

And, by the way, why had they tried so hard to get him to leave the island when he first got there if they'd wanted to lure him there to sacrifice him? What if he'd responded to their insistence that he didn't have the right to be on their private property by saying "Oh? Alright, then. Very well, goodbye!" What then?

The movie doesn't really work as an examination of culture clash, either, since it's impossible to take anything on the island seriously. These people weren't believable as pagans. Morons, yes. Oddballs, sure. Potheads, even… but the idea that there was a soul among them capable of actually planting or tending a field or caring for livestock was laughable. There's just no time to get that kind of work done when you spend every waking moment jumping around naked in the cemetery.

Still, I'm giving The Wicker Man a star and a half for pure originality. I've never seen anything like it… and I hope to never see anything like it again. I'll be skipping Neil LaBute's remake. My gut instinct tells me that if he changes the story very much he'll tick off the original's rag-tag band of hard-core fans. And, if he doesn't change the story radically, he'll tick off everyone else. I'm just not willing to invest an hour and a half finding out.

Trailer For The Film:

DVD Review: Tristram Shandy: A Cock And Bull Story

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:00:00 +0000

Existing as sort of a three-way head-on collision between This Is Spinal Tap, American Movie and Adaptation, Michael Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story is an interesting and often enjoyable farce… although it never quite gets off the ground. It does, however, get a few laughs at the expense of the cast, the crew, the audience and the subject matter, and it's moments of flagrant self-congratulation are excusable. This is, after all, a film based on a novel that, by all accounts, can not be adapted to the screen. Even trying something this audacious is laudable, and for a fairly jaded film fan such as myself, there were a few delightful elements that made it all worth watching.

Here's the central contrivance: Laurence Sterne's comic 1759 novel The Life And Opinions Of Tristram Shandy, Gentlemen isn't so much a novel as it is a stream-of-consciousness meditation and series of run-on jokes about the futility of actually trying to write a novel. I've never actually read it, having assumed that it's probably more futile to read a book about little more than it's own futility than it is to write such a thing. I do know from reviews, however, that the novel begins before the birth of it's main character and, after a series of silly tangents, ends mere moments after his birth, having never gotten around to telling us anything about his life or opinions.

Could a device like that work anywhere other than on the page? Well, what the hell. Director Michael Winterbottom and his stars, Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon were willing to give it a go.

It might be useful for American audiences to know that Steve Coogan is the popular star of a hit BBC comedy and it's spin-offs in which he plays Alan Partridge, a television interviewer who's far more interested in himself than in any of the subjects of his interviews. Rob Brydon may be best known for his work on a BBC skit comedy program called Little Britain. During the course of Tristram Shandy: A Cock And Bull Story, Coogan and Brydon constantly try to upstage one and other, both in character and out. Coogan plays a double lead role, both as Tristram Shandy and as his father Walter. Brydon plays Tristram's uncle and insists that he is really the second lead in the film, considering that he's ever present, either as Uncle Toby or as himself. Confusing? Yes, but not as much as it sounds. The movie makes it obvious when we're seeing actors mocking their characters, mocking exaggerated versions of themselves, or flatly mocking each other. It's easier to follow than you might think, and I have a feeling that the movie makers may be disappointed by that.

The movie tips it's hand along the way, revealing each of it's influences and, at times, paling in comparison. The Spinal Tap comparisons are unavoidable. There is, for instance, a giant model of a womb that Coogan finds himself stuck in. It'll be difficult for any movie fan to watch that scene without remembering Harry Schearer's malfunctioning rock-pod from Spinal Tap. An early scene at make-up features a conversation between Coogan and Brydon that plays like a condensed version of the many back-stage Tap scenes. All that was missing was a deli tray with some small slices of rye bread for the actors to struggle with. Even an elaborate and significant model of a battlefield reminded me of nothing so much as Ian Faith's notorious ten-inch Stonehenge.

Tristram Shandy wasn't quite up to Adaptation's standards, either, although that comparison might simply be unfair. When it comes to brave, original, funny scripts that break all the rules, nobody can compare to Adaptation's writer and primary character, Charlie Kaufman. Adaptation is a movie about the futility of trying to write a screenplay , and it's probably closer to the spirit and style of Tristram Shandy's source material than this movie itself quite gets. Not that I can say that for sure, having never read the novel. What I can say for sure is that Charlie Kaufman's invention of a fictional twin brother in Adaptation served as a far better and more seamless way to blur the line between fiction and pseudo-fact than the devices used here. Tristram Shandy blurs that line simply by having the actors come out of character; by having the camera follow them into their real lives. Or, at least, into the version of their real lives that's been contrived for this film.

And while the comparisons to American Movie are obvious, they're really disingenuous. After all, even though American Movie is one of the funniest movies of all time, it is a real documentary about real moviemakers who really are incompetently trying to make a real movie. The painful laughs in American Movie really are painful. The painful laughs in Tristram Shandy are, when you get right down to it, fraudulent.

So, no, it doesn't work flawlessly. There are, in fact, several long, dry periods without a single laugh. I have to admit, though, that the laughs that do come are big and undeniable. As derivative as the scene involving the giant womb was, it was still damned funny. The exchanges between Coogan and Brydon generally work, too… mostly because the two actors seem to have a real screen chemistry. Smaller roles for Stephen Fry, Gilian Anderson and the luminous Naomie Harris were nice, too. I was especially happy to see Fry show up in the movie. With Fry and Laurie and Blackadder on his resume, he's perhaps the best pedigreed Britcom performer in the whole mix.

Is Tristram Shandy: A Cock And Bull Story worth buying on DVD? Nah. There are a great many better movies at better prices out there to pick from. It's worth a rental, though, on one of those nights when you just can't find anything else to watch. It's different enough and funny enough to justify five bucks and an hour and a half of your time… even if it's laughs are blatantly derivative and even if it's differences are vaguely familiar.

Theatrical Review: Strangers With Candy

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:12:00 +0000

How do you solve a problem like Jerri Blank?

As much as I enjoyed Strangers With Candy, as hard as it made me laugh and as thoroughly as it entertained me, I'm not sure who to recommend this film to.

Well, that's not entirely true. Without question, I enthusiastically recommend the film to fans of the television show from which this hideous, hilarious baby was spawned. I'm a fan of the show myself, and I own all three seasons on DVD. I'm a rabid fan, though, and didn't wait to purchase the entire series in one low-priced box set. I bought the first, second and third seasons on DVD as each one was released separately over the course of two years. It's the only television show I own in it's entirety on DVD. During it's brief, unforgettable run on Comedy Central, Strangers With Candy made me laugh harder than any television show ever, except for The Simpsons.

Still, it's hard to know who to recommend the show itself to. It most certainly isn't for everyone. Strangers With Candy is vulgar, aggressive and downright belligerent. It's also one of the smartest, best written and funniest TV programs I've ever seen.

I'm resisting the urge to get all analytical about the show… but it would be easy to do so. Strangers With Candy was, on the surface, a broad and brassy parody of the after-school-specials that members of my generation grew up watching, and a parody of today's selfish, vacuous culture. The proposition of the program might be summed up this way: How might after-school morality plays come off in an age of moral bankruptcy? How could a culture where anything goes preach to children that some things aren't permissible? What might happen if a society drowning in moral relativism tried to moralize? Strangers With Candy took this principle and ran with it like a freight-train, plowing down every sacred cow that today's culture has propped up. Nothing… absolutely nothing was held sacred by the brilliant writers and performers on Strangers With Candy. Political correctness… mandatory attitudes about race, sex, drugs and cultural tolerance… family values (both real and imagined)… all of these were considered fair game on Strangers With Candy. In my opinion, no television show I've ever seen has ever done a better job of putting a spotlight on societal BS. Strangers with Candy was brilliant, brave and absolutely uproarious. It was far too good to last.

The premise of the show was simple and silly: After 30 years of gutter living, rebellion and subsequent prison sentences, former junkie and prostitute Jerri Blank has returned to her home to try to start over and get her life right the second time around. That second try includes moving back in with her randomly paralyzed father and her hateful stepmother and going back to Flat Point High School, the school she dropped out of when she was a teenager. The program centered on Jerri's interactions with shallow classmates, closeted gay teachers, a self-obsessed principal and her bizarre family. No one on the show… not one single character… was likable, heroic or admirable; least of all Jerri herself. Nonetheless, each episode ended with a mockery of a moral lesson, with Jerri having ostensibly learned something from what she'd experienced during the episode. Typically, what Jerri felt she'd learned was the worst of all possible life-lessons, given the repugnant events that usually transpired during a half-hour episode. Oh, it was all so funny.

What separated Strangers With Candy from South Park (the program to which it is most easily compared) was the writing. The program was created and written by the three actors who played the three principle roles. Amy Sedaris (Jerri herself), Paul Dinello (art teacher Geoffrey Jellineck) and Stephen Colbert (everything-else teacher Chuck Noblet) came up with some wonderfully perverse premises for the program, and each episode typically featured some of the smartest, funniest, satirical dialogue I've ever heard on TV.

As a prequel to the series, the Strangers With Candy movie is a fine 97 minute addition to the TV show's three-season canon. Watching the movie as like watching three brand new and extremely funny episodes of the show back to back. It was, for me, an hour and a half of loud, trembling laughter.

The details of the plot, involving a science fair and Jerri's hope to awaken her father from her coma, are entirely incidental. It's the jokes along the way that make the movie work. Sedaris, Dinello and Colbert have come up with a razor sharp hour-and-a-half of material, here… and I'm going to need to watch the film again to get all the jokes. I'm sure there were times when I was laughing so hard because of one joke that I ended up missing the subsequent one.

Another distraction was the seemingly endless stream of big-star cameos. Strangers With Candy had it's dedicated fans in Hollywood itself, so this theatrical prequel served as a chance for Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sir Ian Holm and Matthew Broderick to get in on the jokes. In that way, this film might be viewed as a celebration of the TV program's enduring (if selective) appeal.

The movie slows down for about 15 minutes toward the end of the second act, actually focusing on the principle conflicts of the story. It ends, though, with a closing twenty minute segment that may be among the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a theater. It's almost impossible to describe it in detail, other than to say that it involves a science fair project that includes belly-dancing, caged racial stereotypes, and an explosion triggered by a battery made out of feces. If you find yourself intrigued, maybe Strangers With Candy is the movie for you. If, however, the very idea disgusts you, you're probably better off staying home and renting The Notebook.

My complaints are minor. That slow 15 minutes was a little bit of a bummer. I was also a little bummed that Jerri never uttered any of her trademarked slogans ("I've got something to SAY!" or "Good times!"). I also expected some good jokes involving Jerri's revolving door of pets, such as turtles, chickens, snakes, etc. Those are minor complaints, though... and only a rabid fan of the show (like me) would even notice them.

I want to give proper credit, too, to Greg Hollimon, the unsung hero of this great comedy (both the TV show and the film). As Principal Onyx Blackman, Hollimon is as fearless and hillarious as anyone else in the film. In fact, some of the gags required of his character were arguably the most demanding in the film. Hollimon should win some kind of award for his brave, hillarious performance here... if only for the G-string alone.

Like the program itself, the centerpiece of the Strangers With Candy film is Amy Sedaris as Jerri Blank. I've heard people talk about actors and actresses who disappear into a role, and I can't think of a better way to describe the way that Sedaris transforms into Jerri. If you've seen one of her many interviews on Letterman, or if you've seen her supporting roles in films like Elf and on TV programs like Sex And The City and Law And Order, you might be amazed that she's capable of playing someone as repulsive as Jerri Blank. Sedaris (the brother of writer David Sedaris and an author herself) is very attractive and demure in real life. I'd almost be tempted to believe that it isn't really her under that wig in the role of Jerri Blank… but I've seen her "turn Jerri on" in interviews and I know how easily she can transform into the character just by changing the way she's holding her eyes and mouth. Jerri Blank is hilarious, irredeemable, and absolutely hideous. The way Amy Sedaris throws herself 100% into this role is a wonder to behold. There is absolutely nowhere she won't take Jerri to get a laugh… and Jerri always gets the laughs.

So, if your skin is thick enough and your sensibilities aren't particularly delicate, and if you enjoy piercing, unrestrained satire, then Strangers With Candy is a must see. It might even turn you onto the criminally under-seen TV show. Just don't go to the theater expecting family fare, political correctness, or a set of lines that won't be crossed. Strangers With Candy crosses all the lines… and finds hilarious stuff on the other side.

Coming To A Theater Near You

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:13:00 +0000

It's all downhill from here for Samuel L. Jackson:

Just had some time to kill and wasn't inspired to write. Help yourself to the image if you get a kick out of it. Notice I said "the image," not "the bandwidth."

Theatrical Review: The Descent

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:58:00 +0000

Statistics show that the movie industry cranks out a new horror film every 40.7 seconds. They throw 'em together like Big Macs and serve 'em up to an unthinking, uncaring audience. In our death-obsessed culture, horror films are the artistic equivalent of fast food. All filler, no substance… cheap, processed, unexceptional and bad for you.

And then there are films like The Descent.

Seeing The Descent is like enjoying a gourmet meal at a restaurant that usually serves junk food. This is the kind of film that reminds me why I will not settle for substandard horror movies. This one is good. Very good. It's a keeper, and I can't wait for repeated viewings on DVD.

Now, notice that I said that The Descent is good. I didn't say that it was pleasant. I didn't say that it was nice. It's not. This is that rarest of rarities; a horror film that's actually scary. In fact, The Descent is downright upsetting at times.

And, like the best horror movies, The Descent is a roller coaster. It works best when you don't see the curves coming. That's why I'm going out of my way not to give anything away in this review. I encourage horror fans to go out of their way to learn as little as possible about this movie before you see it. Don't go on line and watch the preview; the preview gives far too much away. Don't read detailed reviews or opinions on the internet. I'm not even including my usual IMDb link in this review because even the basic page there simply gives away too much. See this movie with all of it's scares left intact. They are worth savoring.

All you need to know about the plot is this bare-bones outline: Five adventure-seeking female friends from the UK go to visit an American friend for a caving expedition. Shortly after they enter the cave, a rock slide traps them inside. Fear and confusion lead to panic and paranoia, and maybe to delusions. Soon, the women are as motivated by long held, unspoken grudges (both major and trivial) as they are by the drive to survive. And, just as it seems that things couldn't get any worse, things literally go all to hell.

So what can I tell you about The Descent that might make you want to see it without giving away too much of the plot? I can tell you that The Descent is

The best flat-out scare-fest of a movie I've seen since Signs in 2002.

The most unsettling movie I've seen since Se7en in 1995.

The best written, directed and acted horror film I've seen since 1991's The Silence Of The Lambs.

As smart and observant about human nature as last year's brilliant, dread-tinged The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

The scariest movie I've ever seen in a theater.

I've carefully thought about all of those superlative statements before posting them in this review, and each of them is honest and accurate. I've seen scarier films than The Descent, (such as The Exorcist and Alien) but that's a short list and I never saw any of those films in the theater. I was too young when they were released. Comparing this film to The Exorcism of Emily Rose (my favorite film from last year) is also valid because this movie really is smart and razor-sharp, just like E of ER. It's that good. I'm going to have to rethink my list of my favorite horror films. The Descent belongs on it somewhere.

My recommendation does come with two caveats, though.

For one thing, this is a very gory film. If strong, bloody violence isn't your thing, you might not want to see The Descent. Having said that, let me also say that I've made it clear how I feel about gore porn, and this is not a gore-porn film. This is a movie with a real story, believable and interesting characters, and not one second of gratuity. There is a great deal of gore, but all of it is natural and organic to the story. Had this story been told without gore, it wouldn't have worked.

Beyond that, I have a very specific complaint with the film regarding four exact instances of dialogue. These four instances of dialogue were so bad, so silly, that I'm withholding a star from what I'd otherwise consider a flawless film.

I'm not going to mention three of those instances here in this review because to do so would be to give away intricacies of the plot. I will mention one of them, though: I, for one, would like to call a moratorium on the use of the word "Shyte" in films featuring characters from the UK. Can't movie makers come up with some other contrivance to convey to us that a given character is trendy, hip Euro-trash? The "Shyte" pronunciation of the word "sh*t" has been done to death. It's clichéd, it's a cheap gimmick, and I'm tired of it. So I'm officially putting moviemakers everywhere on notice: cut the shyte.

Now, if you've seen the film and you want to know what my other three complaints were, you can click the link at the end of this paragraph. Let me restate, though, that I can't voice those complaints without giving away significant elements of the plot… so DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM.

No, The Descent is not flawless. However, it is a genre masterpiece, and it's as good as (or better than) any horror movie that's been released in the past fifteen years. If scare-fests are your thing, go see The Descent. Buy your ticket, get your popcorn, and brace yourself for one hell of a white-knuckle drop.

Spidey 3 Set Pics

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:57:00 +0000

I found a few pics from the Spider-Man 3 set on the internet today. As a side-note, I'm amazed at the number of people who just don’t know that Spider-Man is properly spelled with a hyphen! If you're looking for Spider-Man stuff on the net, you have to search with the proper search terms and with the truncated term spiderman.

Knowing the proper spelling of Spider-Man, being snarky about it, and actually admitting it at this blog makes me feel quite a bit like the comic book guy on The Simpsons. In case you don't watch The Simpsons, you should know that what that means is that I feel like a dork. The fact that I pretty much look exactly like the comic book guy (sans ponytail) only complicates matters. Worst self esteem ever.

Anyway, Spider-Man 3 set pics:

Spidey and Topher Grace as Eddie Brock. I have to admit, Grace looks better in the role than I'd originally thought he would.

Topher looking menacing. Kinda. He also kinda looks like Justin Timberlake in this picture, and Justin Timberlake is just not menacing.

Spidey and Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacey. Bryce looks exactly right here, and I think this is the prettiest she's ever looked as well.

Rescuing Gwen. So now Pete's dirty little secret is out. The web isn't really strong enough to support his weight and Gwen's, too. He has to use cables and a crane.

One of the promo posters; you'll be seeing this in the halls at your local multiplex any day now. I like the way this one looks.

Sam Raimi has gone to great expense for special effects this time around. Here we see one of the robotic Spider-Man stand-ins that will be used for a special effects shot.

This poster showed up at the recent Comic-Con. Seeing it on line today made me shiver with delight. We're really in a golden age of comic movies these days. More of them have been good than not, too. My hopes are high for Iron Man. The character is complex and a lot of fun, and if the movie is done well, it ought to be quite enjoyable.

DVD Review: The Tooth Fairy

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:17:00 +0000

When I watch a movie to review at film geeks, I try very hard to be fair. I try to be objective and review the movie for what it is, not for what it was never intended to be. I'll put it this way: If you're going to eat a bologna sandwich, you'd better not expect it to taste like prime rib. The best you can hope for is good bologna… and if you get good bologna, you should acknowledge it for what it is.

So, when I watch a film like The Tooth Fairy, I don't go into it expecting something along the lines of Schindler's List. When you watch a B-horror-movie, the best you can hope for is something at least mildly entertaining. If a B-horror movie is not insultingly stupid, if it has a plot that more-or-less holds together, and if the acting and directing aren't offensively idiotic, I'll be inclined to give the film a decent review.

Examples of B-horror movies I've enjoyed would have to include Re-Animator and Creepshow and Evil Dead 2. Those weren't perfect films, of course…. But they had their own kind of silly, bloody charm. When a B-horror-movie knows it's just a B-horror-movie… when it doesn't take itself too seriously and has fun with it's own conventions… it can be fun.

And then there's stuff like The Tooth Fairy.

The Tooth Fairy is a B-horror-movie with a reach that far exceeds it's grasp. It never gets really scary, it's attempts at humorous moments are simply stupid, the acting is awful, and the story, to the extent that the film involves a story, makes no sense at all.

Here's the premise, such as it is: In the 1940's in the rural South, a horrible witch lived in a rundown house in the woods. She killed many children and took their teeth. The spirits of the children she killed are doomed to walk the earth until they get their teeth back.

No, really. That's the premise.

Now, in the present day, her run-down house has been remodeled and turned into a bed and breakfast. When a young girl and her mother come to stay at the B&B, the child's last baby tooth comes out, which re-awakens the horrible tooth-obsessed witch. She goes on a murderous rampage and only the child and the ghosts of those children killed in the 40's are capable of stopping her.

I've not made any of that up. That's really the premise of the film.

The thing is, sometimes I get offered free promotional copies of DVDs if I'm willing to review them at film geeks. I don't want to turn any of those DVDs down because sometimes they are crap movies like this… but sometimes they're good films, and everybody likes getting good movies for free on DVD, right? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to lie to my readers. This is a crap movie and I won't say it isn't… but I did get the DVD for free and I really want to say something nice about it.

I'm struggling to find good things to say about this film. Here's all I can come up with:

The movie begins with a nice crane shot over a lush, green field. It's the only nice shot in the entire film.

There's a small role in the film for PJ Soles, an actress I remember from childhood favorites like Rock And Roll High School and Stripes. Seeing her again, even in a crap horror movie like this, triggered a bit of nostalgia.

The movie's director is Chuck Bowman, who once wrote an episode of TV's MacGyver. Learning these kinds of trivia factoids make me say "Hmm."

That's it. That's all the good I can say about this film.

Other than that, it's the usual B-horror-movie schlock without any of the self-depreciating humor or creativity that can sometimes make these films entertaining. The Tooth Fairy is 89 minutes of badly done gore, horrible acting, brief but gratuitous nudity, awful special effects, and a flimsy and silly story. The plot has more holes than swiss cheese and the characters are somehow less than one-dimensional. Is it possible for a character to be 0.5 dimensional? If so, that's how to describe these characters.

It's the kind of movie that shows you it's gross-outs coming a mile away. You see a woodchipper and you know what to expect. You see a nailgun and… well… do I gotta spell it out for you?

But I'm feeling pretty charitable… so I'll give the movie one star because, like I said, that opening crane shot was pretty… and I'm glad to know that P.J. Soles is still alive.

Theatrical Review: Lady in the Water

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:20:00 +0000

Dear reader, please forgive me if this review of Lady in the Water trails off and ends abruptly. If reviewing the film is anything like watching the film, there's a very good chance that I'll nod off before I'm done.

Not that I did fall asleep while watching Lady in the Water. I managed to stay awake all the way through it by sheer willpower. I'm sure the caffeine in my Diet Pepsi helped, too. Nonetheless, I left the theater convinced that nobody should be allowed to see Lady in the Water without a prescription. This is one powerful sedative.

Still, I suppose that a sedative is better than a placebo. M. Night Shyamalan's last film, The Village was just that: a placebo. A fake. A scam. A sugar-coated nothing. After seeing The Village, I left the theater feeling disgusted. After Lady in the Water I left the theater feeling… well, nothing at all.

All of this is really quite disappointing when you consider that the three films Shymalan made previous to The Village (1999's The Sixth Sense, 2000's Unbreakable, and 2002's Signs) were all outstanding films. In fact, I'd call them three of the best films of the past ten years. Maybe the problem with making three great movies back to back is that you set yourself up for a terrible height from which to fall.

So, maybe, in a way, Shymalan should be commended for Lady in the Water. It really is an ambitious undertaking for a storyteller. Maybe the most ambitious thing a story-teller can ever try to pull off. With this new film, Shymalan has tried to create his own mythology out of whole-cloth. Essentially, that's what this story is; a new mythology, analogous to nothing and allegorical to nothing. That's a mighty task to take on. With Lady in the Water, Shymalan has tested (and found) the limits of his abilities as a storyteller.

Here's the story in a nutshell… or, if you like, on the half-shell: In ancient times, mankind always lived close to the water and was guided in all things by a powerfully spiritual race of water-dwelling people. Over the years, mankind moved further inland, motivated by selfish conquest. By the modern day, man has lost contact with the water people, although they continue to try to make contact with us and guide us back to our original innocent ways. Bryce Dallas Howard plays one of the sea people who has somehow come to live in the pool of an apartment building managed by Paul Giamatti.

Of course, if you've got supernatural good guys (angels, basically), you're going to need supernatural bad guys. The demons in Lady in the Water are, to be fair, interesting looking monsters. They look like werewolves made out of shrubbery. Half lycanthrope, half leafy-green vegetable. It sounds corny, but they did look neat.

The plot hinges on the people in the apartment building and their attempts to save the sea nymph from the werebush, and to meanwhile learn the big spiritual message that she'd come to teach them in the first place. I hope that by the time the film was over, they did figure out the sea nymph's big spiritual message… because Lord knows I never did.

Here's the thing: If you're telling a story about interactions between real-world people and supernatural beings, it doesn't matter if the interactions are positive (ala Cocoon) or negative (ala Fire in the Sky). What does matter is that the circumstances and the events of the story are meaningful. The events that unfold have to have some kind of resonance with the viewer, and the characters have to be people that we have a reason to care about. That's hard to pull off. When a movie maker does pull it off, the final product is a wonderful film, such as Signs. When the movie maker can't pull it off, he does have the option of covering up his shabby story with a special effects spectacular. When that happens, you end up with hollow-but-fun spectacles like the recent War of the Worlds remake.

There is, of course, a third option: That's when the movie maker comes up with a crappy, lame story but tries like crazy to sell it because he seems convinced that his story simply must be a good story because, after all, it's HIS story. When that happens, you end up with cinematic Ambian, Such as Lady in the Water.

This movie simply never should have happened. The story is flimsy and silly, and it seems like the "mythology" is being made up along the way. The actors don't seem to care about the story any more than I did, even the always reliable Giamatti really phoned it in here. Bryce Dallas Howard in the title role was… well, she was in the movie. That's the only impression she made on me.

Most frustratingly, Shymalan continues to insist on acting in his own movies, and he's just not a particularly inspired or inspiring actor. His on-screen presence in Lady in the Water was less of a distraction here, though, than it was in Signs… mostly because none of the other actors seemed to care enough about the story to act well enough to show him up. Remember that one scene in Signs… that one painfully cringe-inducing scene involving a critical exchange between Shymalan's character and Mel Gibson's character? I remember feeling embarrassed for Shymalan, who didn't seem to realize how downright silly he looked on screen, trying to hold his own with Gibson, a far superior actor. Here's my point: The best thing I can say about Lady in the Water is that the indifference that seemed to afflict all of the other actors was sufficient enough to make Shymalan's performance not seem embarrassing by comparison.

I hate to say it, but I think Shymalan is done. Still, look on the bright side: inside of four years, he made three wonderful films. Plenty of movie makers have thirty year careers and never make even one film that compares to The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, or Signs. There are very few Hitchcocks, Kubricks and Spielbergs. The great majority of directors never make an exceptional film. Shymalan made three of them, back to back, between 1999 and 2002. That is really a worthy achievement. Let's give him a big hand… and let's show him the door.

DVD Review: Akira

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:19:00 +0000

What do I know about anime? Not much. I know it's a word used to describe a distinctly Japanese style of animation (at least according to Wikipedia), and I know that what I've seen of it has been stuff that I don't like.

Now, what I've seen of it consists of the television shows our kids watch. Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z... Oh, and the Teen Titans, which, from what I can tell, is anime as well.

Most of it has always confused and confounded me. For one thing, I don't like the way the animation itself is done. It looks cheap and clumsy. I don't like the stories, either, because they seem to be simultaneously convoluted and silly. And, as far as the characters go, there just seemed to be nothing there. So, from what I could tell, I didn't like anime.

The thing is, I have a friend at work who has told me a thousand times that I just think I don't like anime because I haven't seen any good anime. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but until last night I never bothered to take the time to watch the movie that my friend always said was the anime by which all other anime should be judged. That movie, according to my friend, is Akira. This eighteen year old film is, from what I hear, the masterpiece of Katsuhiro Ôtomo. And, to be fair, my friend at work wasn't the only source of praise I'd heard for the film. Akira it seemed, was the film that I'd have to see before I could really say if I liked Anime or not.

Well, after having watched it last night, I still can't say if I like anime in general, but I can say that I enjoyed Akira quite a bit. It was absolutely unlike anything I'd seen before.

It's not that there aren't any movies I can compare it to. In fact, a number of very good movies crossed my mind as we watched Akira. At times I found myself reminded of Blade Runner, at other times A Clockwork Orange popped into my head. I was also reminded briefly by one sequence of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and another sequence reminded me of one of my all time favorite films, Jacob's Ladder. Yes, there are a number of popular films that I can compare Akira to. The hell of it is, none of these films are animated. In fact, it's fair to say that I've never seen any animation that was quite like this.

Well, maybe the animated sequence of Kill Bill Volume 1 came close… but nothing else is comparable. This was not the cheap, silly animation that I'd seen before and thought was the sum total of "anime." This was really something else; something remarkable.

I am sure of this much, if Akira is the template by which anime should be judged, then the anime that I see when the kids watch Cartoon Network is utter garbage. I've never seen anything on any of those shows that could compare to the animation in this film. The backgrounds were the first thing to strike me as outstanding. The movie is set in a bleak future-vision of Tokyo, and it features cityscapes that are jaw-dropping. Other elements of the film really stood out on a scene by scene basis. Much of the visual design of the movie hinges on the power of hallucinatory elements. One sequence in which toys come alive inside of a hospital room and grow to gargantuan size really had my jaw on the floor. I actually found myself feeling the same tension… the same kind of action-movie anxiety… that I associate with movies like Jaws and The Bourne Identity.

And this was an animated movie! Not only that, but it's an eighteen year old animated movie!

I'm still not sure if anime is my cup of tea or not. I found the plot of Akira to be quite hard to follow, but there came a point where I just happily abandoned my efforts to follow the plot and I just sat back and enjoyed the visuals and the apocalyptic overture that was unfolding in front of me. After all, who needs to really understand what's going on when you've got motorcycles and space-ships and covert government agencies and giant godlike monsters and creepy, ghostly children all fighting for the rule of Earth? Just take it in and let it do it's thing. Because I wasn't able to follow the story, I have no idea how to judge Akira in terms of story. I can say this, though… it is a feast for the eyes.

A brief warning: Don't assume that just because it's animated that it's a family friendly film. This movie is rated R, and with good reason. There is a great deal of harsh language, a few scenes that involved drug use, and some downright-upsetting animated violence, including an attempted rape. This ain't Yu-Gi-Oh!. It ain't for kids. Wait for the kids to hit the sack for the night and save this one for mom and dad's viewing only.

It isn't going to be the kind of movie that everyone will enjoy. The end sequences are pretty extreme and the movie presents a dark and pessimistic view of the future. Nonetheless, it creates it's own world and inhabits it completely. Nothing that I saw in this movie struck me as implausible because I was sucked into it by the fifteen minute mark. Be careful with this movie. You might not enjoy it, you might even find it down-right troubling… but once you start watching it, you won't be able to take your eyes off of Akira.

The 15 Funniest Films Ever

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:52:00 +0000

So Bravo has put together their list of the 100 Funniest Movies Of All Time, and it is, of course, a travesty.

The show was obviously one of those "get a bunch of third-tier celebrities together and broadcast their comments" type of programs that VH1 invented. The actual list of movies was, I'm sure, a secondary consideration. The real point of the program was to get us to send four hours watching Harlan Williams and Fred Willard ramble.

How sure am I that the list itself was a secondary consideration? This sure: The remake of The Nutty Professor made the list, but the original was never even mentioned!!!

The list was a secondary consideration, thrown together without any thought or research. From henceforth, we will regard that as a fact. I found the list of films collected at this bulletin board, but if that message is gone, you can see the list as a jpg here.

Having said all of that, I'd like to present the official and authentic film geeks list of the Fifteen Funniest Movies Of All Time.

Qualifier: While reading this list, you will have to make do without the input of sage scholars such as Kevin Federline and Martha Quinn… but you will be reading a list that has actually been carefully considered and is the authentic, final word on the topic.. So say I. So say all of us.

So here ya go:

#15…Office Space
Before television's The Office, both the Brit and Yank versions, Mike Judge made the funniest manifesto about white-collar life ever. Office Space didn't find an audience in theaters, but on DVD the film's popularity grew like wildfire. If you've ever worked in a cube-farm it is impossible to watch this movie without recognizing it's classic types from your own life. Gary Cole's jerk of a boss… John C. McGinley's corporate axe man… and, best of all, Stephen Root's "that weird guy" character. Office Space is laugh out loud funny, both because of it's moments of reflection and it's plot about a man who, through hypnosis, actually stops caring about the office BS that had been driving him crazy. There are scenes in this movie that are impossible to forget. Once scene, involving an attempt at white-collar crime wherein the hopeful perpetrators refer to Webster's Dictionary to find out what "money laundering" actually is, makes me laugh every time I think about it.

#14…Wag The Dog
Life is marketing. Everything we see, read, hear, taste and touch has been sold to us at one point or another. That goes for our government, too. We get the leadership we elect because we've responded best to their campaign marketing. Therefore, marketing is also the primary factor behind everything from shoes to music to war. Wag The Dog takes this concept and runs with it, and the line where it crosses over from sly satire into broad parody is never clear. The premise is familiar at first: in order to distract the public from the scandal associated with his sexual shenanigans, the president (read: Bill Clinton) sends troops to intercede in the fighting in a mysterious, obscure country (read: Serbia). Of course, the president himself isn't really even aware of the war he's launched... his handlers are managing that. And, the general public doesn't know that it isn't even really a war. It's a pageant; a combination of political spin, Hollywood special effects, and, of course, marketing. Somewhere along the way the movie becomes implausible. Maybe. By the time it's over, you'll find yourself wondering just how much of what you saw was credible and how much of it was silly… and how much of it was maybe even factual.

#13…Swingers
A "coming of age" movie for guys in the '90's, Swingers both bemoans and celebrates the inept, sincere confusion of the American male in his 20's with hilarious results. On a base level, Swingers tells a story that it shares with films such as Clerks and a personal favorite of mine, Beautiful Girls. It's a story about a guy who's on the verge of real adulthood, and might even be ready for it, if only he could break away from the lifestyle, temporary goals, and the set of friends who are holding him back. But how do you make those kinds of huge changes? How do you keep your circle of friends without staying trapped in their endless, circular lifestyle? What sets Swingers a few notches above other films is John Favreau's outstanding script and the intense, hilarious, and engrossing performances of Favreau and Vince Vaughn. You'll root for the Favreau character, and you'll find yourself actually caring about the decisions he makes. Along the way, you'll laugh yourself into a hernia.

#12…About Schmidt
Few movies creep up on you with the subtle power of About Schmidt. For the first fifteen or so minutes of the movie, all I could think was how "Un-Jack-Nicholson" Jack Nicholson's performance in the film is. Nicholson amazingly becomes Warren Schmidt, leaving the classic Nicholson-qualities behind. The swagger, the knowing grin, the glint in his eye… they're all gone. Instead, When watching About Schmidt, you watch a movie about an old man who just happens to look a whole lot like Jack Nicholson. Once you get used to that, the circumstances of the film sneak up on you, and you go from giggling to laughing out loud. Warren Schmidt is a man who's retirement is the first of many dominos that suddenly fall in his life, leaving his orderly and structured existence in disarray. As he tries to put the pieces back together, Schmidt makes a series of mistakes, takes a number of side-trips, and somehow manages to accidentally do the right thing a time or two. There were scenes in this movie that were so funny that Wendy and I had to pause our DVD player so we could quit laughing, regain our composure, and then continue the film. And the last scene, involving an unexpected letter and a child's drawing, will have you laughing and crying all at once. This isn't a DVD to rent. This one is a keeper.

#11…Better Off Dead
Alright, I admit, I'm a child of the 80's and I lack the objectivity to judge 80's teen comedies with total objectivity. If a movie made me laugh when I was 15, chances are it will still make me laugh, if only out of pure nostalgia. Still, I am able to tell the difference between the times I'm laughing because my memories make me happy and the times I'm laughing because the movie is just flat-out funny. Better Off Dead is just flat-out funny. You might expect a comedy about teen suicide to preach and pontificate, but that isn't the case with this movie. Better Off Dead abandons the premise of the main character's desire to die by the end of the first act. Instead, it goes with the story that simply makes possible the maximum amount of funny jokes. And there are some funny, funny jokes here. Between the French exchange student, the psychotic paper-boy, the evil-genius little brother and the sporadic moments of animation, this movie is one funny joke after another. It was funny in the 80's, and when I saw it again a few months ago, it was as funny as I remembered. Nostalgia be damned, this movie is a genuine comic triumph.

#10…Bananas
Woody Allen fans are usually most impressed by the insightful, "poignant" comedies that Allen made in the middle of his career. And those are fine films. There's nothing wrong with Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters. They're smart, they're funny, they're very, very good. But, for my money, if you want to simply laugh yourself silly, the Woody Allen movie to see is Bananas. This is broad, low-brow slapstick at it's best… and every time I see it, I laugh my head off. There's a ton of classic laughs in this movie ... Howard Cosell's out-of-the-blue narration. The jungle scenes that make the Three Stooges seem cerebral. Best of all, the manically demented speech by the dictator Esposito ("…all children under sixteen years of age are now… sixteen years of age!") Oh, it's still so funny. Sooooooo funny.

#9…The Jerk
Alright, it's a love-it-or-hate-it movie… and it might even be fair to call it a guy-film. Nonetheless, if The Jerk doesn't make you laugh at least a few times, you might check your pulse. It might be hard for people who only know Steve Martin through his recent rash of family-friendly films to believe, but there was once a time when he'd do anything for a laugh. There was no premise that was below him. In The Jerk, Martin let's the audience see him sweat in a major way, going for every possible laugh he can get… and he really lands them in a big way. The Jerk is pure nonsense, total buffoonery, and absolutely idiotic behavior, and it all works. Supporting performances by director Carl Reiner and Bernadette Peters are solid, too. Everything just jells in this movie, and Martin has never been funnier.

#8…Kingpin
The Farrelly brothers do the kind of comedy that you either love or hate. They'll go to any extremes for their laughs, and vulgarity is a given. Some of their movies have made me laugh pretty hard. Dumb and Dumber comes to mind, and of course There's Something About Mary is very funny, too. Their masterpiece, however, has got to be Kingpin. This is one of the best collections of gags, gross-out and otherwise, ever assembled into one film. Now, I should warn you, if your sensibilities are delicate, you should avoid this movie like the plague. Between Woody Harrelson's landlady, the cow-milking scene, and all the jokes involving Harrelson's missing hand, this movie doesn't care who it offends. Still, funny is funny… and if a vulgar joke is funny along with being vulgar, I'm not too haughty to laugh at it. Kingpin really is vulgar, but there's no denying that it really is funny. You might laugh in spite of yourself… you might even feel guilty about laughing… but if you're like me, Kingpin will make you laugh a whole lot.

#7…Airplane!
It's just dumb jokes. Dumb, pointless, brainless jokes. And, as dumb, pointless jokes go, Airplane! is as good as it gets. This Abrahams/Zucker classic was, in a way, a landmark. I suppose it's fair to say that Airplane! qualifies as a satire of the disaster movies from the 70's. Yet, to my knowledge, Airplane! was the first movie wherein the jokes worked because the script was purposefully and blatantly obtuse. These were just dumb jokes. One dumb joke after another, and all of them worked. I remember thinking the first time I saw Airplane! that it was probably the stupidest film I'd ever seen, and I remember that I was laughing like crazy. This was beyond simple farce. This was a movie so stupid that it might just be brilliant.

#6…Animal House
OK, so it's a guy film. I don't know a lot of women who like it, and my own wife thinks that it's terrible. Regardless, Animal House is a funny, funny movie. Bravo called it the best comedy ever, and I wouldn’t go that far, but it really is a timeless classic. Besides, it inspired about a billion imitations. Revenge of the Nerds, American Pie, and, of course, PCU all owe something to Animal House. In my opinion, they owe quite a bit to John Landis and this watershed movie. Animal House is the template for pretty much every the-losers-strike-back comedy that ever followed it. None of them get close to Animal House, though, because none of them benefit from that perfect combination of ingredients. Take John Belushi, Tom Hulce and John Vernon, stir in a very young Kevin Bacon and Karen Allen, and top generously with horse-gags, beer-gags, a sabotaged parade and a toga party. Mix well, laugh heartily.

#5…Monty Python's The Life Of Brian
It's easier than you might think to pick one Monty Python movie as their very vest. Sure, The Meaning Of Life and The Holy Grail are both classics, but The Life Of Brian is Python at their funniest, smartest and bravest. It's amazing that this movie works at all, considering that it's humor all depends on theological concepts and the viewer's understanding of the politics of Palestine circa 30 AD. It works, though. It works so well. And, contrary to what the premise might imply, the movie isn't really a lampoon of Christianity or Jesus Christ. It's more a lampoon of the combination of frailty and self-righteousness that many of us Christians often embody. Anyway, I know that I often embody that combination. So when I laugh at The Life Of Brian, I'm usually laughing at myself. But don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this film is all heady stuff. A sequence involving a lisping Roman governor and another featuring a ride on a spaceship provide enough silliness to keep the movie from getting high-brow. By the time the Pythons end the film with a brilliantly warped send-up of the principle paradox of Christianity (a scene involving crucified men who are singing "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life"), it's impossible not to be won over.

#4…Dr Strangelove
Is this Kubrick's only comedy? I guess it is. There were blackly humorous moments in Full Metal Jacket and in A Clockwork Orange, but only Dr. Strangelove really went for the jokes in a broad and obvious way. I mentioned Wag The Dog above, and for it's time, that film really is a smart and insightful political comedy… but Dr. Strangelove is timeless. Everything about the human tendencies toward war, mistrust, insecurity and political manipulation is summed up to my satisfaction in this film. And it's all summed up with delightful, hilarious results. Dr. Strangelove's message might be that power corrupts ... and absolute power corrupts to the point of absolute insanity. It's impossible not to laugh at… and simultaneously be creeped out by… the quirks and delusions that drive the main characters here. From Sterling Hayden's obsession with "precious bodily fluids" to the President's desperately casual phone call to the Russian Premier about a base commander who's gone "a little funny in the head…" I watch this movie, I laugh sooooo hard, and for two hours I can't help but share in Kubrick's gallows humor. Top everything off with Peter Sellers in three classic roles and my favorite George C. Scott performance ever, and it's hard to top Dr. Strangelove.

#3…The Big Lebowski
I guess I didn't know what to expect from The Big Lebowski. I wasn't sure how the Coens could follow the brilliance, poignancy and hilarity of Fargo, so I guess my hopes weren't that high. In retrospect, I think the Coens did the only thing they could have done. Movies as smart, funny and meaningful as Fargo are once-in-a-lifetime achievements. So, for the followup, the Coens decided to forget the artsy-fartsy stuff in favor of pure, unadulterated comedy. The Big Lebowski won me over about two minutes into the film, when the narrator who was setting up the story lost his train of thought and had to stop and try to remember what he was talking about. From there the absurdity never stops, and never stops being funny. The Coens approached this material fearlessly and managed to get fearless performances from their actors. John Goodman in particular has never been funnier. Goodman's Walter is a walking punchline just waiting for a set-up… and those set-ups usually involve cars. Whether he's driving them, jumping out of them, or beating them with baseball bats, whenever this movie puts Goodman in a scene with a car, you can expect to laugh until your sides split. Highly quotable, delightfully screwball, and featuring a stellar cast, The Big Lebowski is spot-on.

#2…This Is Spinal Tap
How many comedies can you think of that are rife with so many jokes that you can still find new ones after watching it fifteen or twenty times? Only one comes to my mind right away. This Is Spinal Tap is beyond classic. It's one of those films that I don't think I'll ever get tired of. Each time I see it I'm either laughing at jokes I've seen over and over… or I'm laughing at some sly joke that had somehow slipped past me during previous viewings. If The Jerk and Bananas and Kingpin work because they go over the top, looking for every possible joke, then This Is Spinal Tap works in almost the exact opposite way. The jokes are small. Slight. Subtle. They're there, but only if you want to watch for them and actually pay attention to the film… and if you do, the jokes are are extremely funny. This is satire at it's finest, with characters who take themselves absolutely seriously, never once stopping to ponder the absurdity of their situation. Even the broad jokes in the film are set up in absolute seriousness. The centerpiece of the film, involving a two-foot Stonehenge monument, is painstakingly set up for ten minutes prior to the punchline. We see it coming a mile away, and the payoff still works because the characters have no idea that their situation is very, very funny. To them, their circumstances are practically life-and-death. In terms of irony, on a scale of one to ten, ...Spinal Tap goes to eleven.

#1…Blazing Saddles
This movie could never have been made today. And, if it were ever made, it would never be released by a major studio. Blazing Saddles is the smartest, funniest, most durable comedy ever made because it was the most fearless comedy ever made. In this day and age, racism rules this nation with an iron grip of fear. Race related topics are avoided at the risk of inflaming someone's sensitivity… and if race is addressed at all, it's in an effort to soothe someone's hurt feelings. Blazing Saddles was and remains a movie unlike any other. No movie before or after has had the guts to look racism dead in the eye and point out how stupid and futile it is. Blazing Saddles did for racism what the C.S. Lewis classic The Screwtape Letters did for evil: It shamed it into submission. Racism, like all forms of evil, can't abide mockery… and Blazing Saddles mocked racism and racists with a broad and honest courage that nobody has ever mustered up since.

Everything mentioned above makes Blazing Saddles the most important comedy ever made. I haven't even began to describe why it's the funniest comedy ever made. And, really, how do you do it justice in a quick paragraph? Mel Brooks's direction… the script by Brooks, Richard Pryor and others… and the pitch-perfect performances of Cleavon Little, Gene Wilder, Slim Pickens, Alex Karras… everything works exactly right in Blazing Saddles. Everything. I have no idea how many times I have seen this movie, but it remains as fresh, funny and important 30 years after the fact as it was the day it was released. Blazing Saddles is the funniest, smartest, most important comedy ever made. We'll never see it's equal.

So there you have it. The fifteen funniest films ever. This list was assembled by Darrell, and Wendy would disagree with an entry here or there, but she agrees with me on the top two. Especially Blazing Saddles.

DVD Review: Kairo (Pulse)

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:04:00 +0000

Kairo (Or, in English, Pulse) is the kind of movie that creeps up on you like late afternoon shadows. It’s darkness is real… it’s threats are always implied, never explicit, but always authentic. As the movie progresses and it’s shadows grow longer, you might find yourself trying to figure out just what it is about the movie that scares you so badly… and if it’s something you’ve actually always been afraid of in the real world as well. This is one smart, scary film.

I intentionally tried to employ shadows as a literary device in that first paragraph because director Kiyoshi Kurosawa employees them with great effect in this film. The scares in Pulse don’t come from things that we really quite see… but they don’t come from things that are entirely hidden from us, either. The unsettling images in Pulse are always things that are half-hidden… such as the woman in the dark corner who is slowly walking closer, further into a light she’ll share with the viewer. Or the silhouette that we think we might have seen out of the corner of our eye, moving from one dark spot to another. Or, in one truly memorable scene, a darkness full of sinister potential just beyond a half-opened door.

Other images from the film were surprisingly moving on an emotional level. The ghosts we see in Pulse aren’t like the ghosts in any other horror film I can think of. Instead, they’re simply shadows, left stained on the walls and floors in the exact spot where some poor soul decided that life wasn’t worth the trouble. One scene involving a suicide by way of leaping from a height literally caused my heart to jump into my throat. Late in the movie there’s a scene involving the crash of an airplane that is at once stark, depressing, and strangely beautiful. Visually, this movie really excels.

This isn’t just a movie that works because of good visual elements, though. Pulse is a movie with smart, worthwhile ideas. The darkness in this film, a darkness that seems to be swallowing people whole, is spread like a computer virus through electronic equipment. Computers and the internet are particularly good conduits, and the darkness that issues from the PCs in the movie is truly imposing. Sometimes it consumes people slowly. Others go willingly in seeming acts of suicide. Either way, the darkness becomes something that everyone who encounters finds irresistible. If you don’t jump in with both feet, you simply sit still and let it enfold you in it’s own time.

Of course, the symbolism is obvious. Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s theme is unavoidable. Our electronic culture is causing us to disengage from each other, to intentionally abandon real, meaningful contact and to simply plug into an imaginary world where we can disappear with ease. On the internet, we’re all who we want to be. Freed of the boundaries imposed by the tangible world, on the internet each of us can move fluidly and change ethereally. Thanks to the internet, each of us has option to stop being a person, to start being a ghost. Sunlight is harsh. Darkness consoles us. It’s a choice that many of us make without even realizing it.

If the ghostly elements of Pulse don’t make the theme clear enough for you, there’s one scene wherein the intent is so obvious that it’s as though Kurosawa is literally spelling it out for you. One of the characters who’s disappeared into the darkness has left behind a computer program of his own design… a computer program wherein dots move across the screen at random. The dots can’t come too close to each other without losing their individuality and disappearing. Yet they can’t go too far away from each other without fading. They crave a contact that they spend their lives trying to avoid. We are the dots. The dots are us. There’s no denying the movie’s message.

My complaints with Pulse don’t outweigh my praise. The movie does drag toward the end. The last 45 minutes or so of the film should probably have been cut down to 20 minutes. I was also frustrated by the way the film changed focus from one seemingly primary character to another on at least two occasions.

There is an American remake of Pulse coming out this month. It’s going to suck, you know that. I encourage you to rent the original Japanese film and avoid the American studio’s attempt to cash in. Like The Ring and The Grudge, the American version of Pulse is just bound to suck.

In some ways, Pulse reminded me of a cross between 28 Days Later and The Matrix, if you can imagine such a thing. Both of those movies share with Pulse themes of alienation and the loss of individuality. All three movies are about fear of a kind of absorption that robs you of real life. Nonetheless, Pulse is sad and thoughtful, where as the other two movies were action-packed and fast-paced. Pulse doesn’t deliver it’s themes with a scream. It’s more like a sad, lonely whisper. It’s surprising how much that whisper resonated with me for days after I’d seen the movie.

Theatrical Review: X-Men: The Last Stand

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:44:00 +0000

Darrell's Review

I saw both of the first two X-Men movies in the theater… and, both times, I left the theater feeling, well, satisfied. I think that's exactly the word I want to use. Both of the first two X-Men movies had entertained me and I was satisfied with that. I'd paid my ticket price, I'd sat in a theater for two hours and watched images flicker on the screen, and I'd found those images entertaining. Seeing X-Men and X2: X-Men United had, for me, been satisfactory exchanges of commerce.

And, yet, in both instances I'd left the theater with a vague feeling that I hadn't gotten what I'd hoped for.

After watching the first two X-Men movies, if someone had asked me what I'd thought of either movie, I'd have simply said "It was good." I'd have said that and I'd have left it at that, with no more enthusiasm than I might use to describe the Big Mac I had for lunch two days ago. That, also, had been a satisfying commercial exchange. I'd paid the price for the item and the item had satisfied me. If a Big Mac fills you up and doesn't taste bad, then it's done it's job. That's what fast-food burgers are for. That's what fast-food movies are for, too. In that regard, X-Men and X2: X-Men United are both perfectly good McMovies.

It wasn't until I saw the third movie in the franchise, X-Men: The Last Stand, that I really realized what had been missing from the first two movies: excitement.

Why had I left the theaters feeling satisfied, but not that I'd really gotten what I'd hoped for? Because neither film had excited me. Neither had delivered the goods the way a story-line in an X-Men comic book does. I realize now, in retrospect, that both of the first two movies had been restrained. Weighed down. I believe that the first two movies had suffered because their director, Bryan Singer, had wanted those two films to mean something. I think Singer was trying to have some sort of profound subtext with both of his X-Men movies, and, for me, there was simply no subtext there. There was nothing meaningful between the lines. The movies failed with regard to thematic subtext, and since they'd been so restrained (actually, suffocated is a better word), they'd failed as escapism. They both looked good enough, and neither ever really slowed down enough to be downright boring… but neither one succeeded at making me think, nor at making me stop thinking.

Brett Ratner, director of the third X-Men movie, seems to have been hell-bent on making a movie that only did one thing: Entertain. Along the way, he also manufactured genuine excitement, almost as an unintentional byproduct. There were times while watching X-Men: The Last Stand when I was literally on the edge of my seat with my jaw literally hung open in a state of wide-eyed joy. Wow! I didn't know what to expect from the third X-Men movie. I had no idea that what I'd be getting was one of the best all-out action movies of the past few years.

As a fan of the X-Men comics, the third movie finally put on the screen the same characters I'd enjoyed on the page for years. Finally, in X-Men: The Last Stand, Wolverine demonstrated that famous berserker rage. It was nice to see him break free of Bryan Singer's needlessly imposed James-Dean-like moping goth mode. And, finally, Storm was really part of the action! For two movies in a row I'd watched Storm do little more than moralize. Oh, and lest I forget, finally Iceman actually ICES.

And, by the way, did you know that some of the X-Men can fly? You did know that if you've read X-Men comics... and Brett Ratner obviously knows it, because some of the mutants in this movie actually fly. It's as though these superheroes have broken free from some sort of tyrant. I'm so glad Bryan Singer jumped ship to go direct his hobbled version of Superman.

Best of all, finally, in X-Men: The Last Stand, the mutants were vulnerable. Vulnerable to each other, to humans, and to the world around them. I was shocked… and, surprisingly, delighted... as major mutant characters were killed off, altered, or rendered powerless along the way. Fights, conflicts and battle sequences in this third film actually meant something because it was clear from early on that this movie would dispose of characters indiscriminately. The conflicts in the third X-Men film mattered because the consequences of those conflicts had immediate, long-reaching, profound impact on the movie's world.

It's the ultimate irony. Bryan Singer wanted to make exciting movies with a deep meaning, and instead made films that merely entertained on a basic, rock-bottom level. Brett Ratner, I'm convinced, wanted to make a movie that simply entertained… and, instead, he made a movie that I found completely exciting and surprisingly meaningful. How's that for mutation?

As Hank "Beast" McCoy, the most significant X-Men to make his big-screen debut here, Kelsey Grammer was in perfect pitch. His performance was exactly what it should have been, and I think that has more to do with Grammer's distinctive delivery and presence than anything else. It's not that Grammer became Hank McCoy. Grammer already is Hank McCoy.

My complaints with …The Last Stand are few, but I guess I'll mention them. For starters, why wasn't Nightcrawler in this film? The storyline, about the nature of mutation and the natural desire to fit in, is perfect content for his character. Nightcrawler is my favorite X-Men mutant, and I missed him. Another classic X-Men character, Angel, was added to the movie with absolutely no meaningful effect at all. He might as well have been excluded. And, as in the first two movies, the spitfire mutant Rogue was reduced to little more than an angst-filled teenage damsel in distress.

Still, when a movie has so much to offer, complaining at all seems ungrateful. Juggernaut, for instance, is a brother of Charles (Professor X) Xavier in the comics. In this film, he was just a big, noisy bad guy. But, ya know what? Even in the comics he's never been much more than a big, noisy bad guy… and his big scene in this movie, involving a chase between him and Shadowcat, was one movie's many action packed jaw-droppers. Other mutants were mere composites of characters from the pages of the comics… but since those composite roles weren't particularly consequential, I suppose I'm indifferent about Ratner's employment of that cinematic device. Over all, if an X-Men comics fan has things to complain about with this movie, it's because he wants to have things to complain about and he's carefully looked for them.

A lot is left up in the air at the end of this movie. Major characters are dead (or are they?) or have lost their powers (or have they?) or have been abandoned (maybe). There are a number of directions this franchise can go in the fourth film. My vote? Don't make a fourth film. Leave it as it is. It's rare that a movie trilogy actually concludes with it's best installment. The only instance that I can think of is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. If they stop here, the X-Men trilogy will be able to make that same claim. The X-Men movies won't equal the Lord of the Rings movies… but, just like Return of the King, Brett Ratner's X-Men: The Last Stand will conclude the trilogy with one hell of a bang.

Wendy's Review

Here's my problem with the X-Men movies. There are so many characters to focus on that they really don't spend much time on any of them. And in each movie they introduce even more characters to not full develop. If you're not going to do anything with a character, then don't waste my time.

That's how I feel about X-Men: The Last Stand. Once again new characters are introduced to only serve as background clutter. We see Angel for the very first time. We learn just about nothing about him (well other than he has cool wings), and then he does just about nothing. Why even bother introducing him? Why not take characters from the previous movies and expand upon them some more.

The one good thing about this movie was that Wolverine was more like Wolverine. He smoked. He looked tougher. He killed. He looked stockier. He wasn't as tall and slender as in the past movies. This really gives me hope for the upcoming Wolverine movie that they've been working on.

The action scenes just bored me. The film just bored me. I never once was on the edge of my seat. It didn't even look that good. And once again, how lame is Storm? Pretty darn lame.

If you feel compelled to go see a comic book movie this summer, then go see Superman Returns because you'll have a lot more fun than with this drivel.

Theatrical Review: Superman Returns

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell) — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:56:00 +0000

"Gods are selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don't share their power with mankind."

That, according to Lex Luthor, is the problem with Superman. I suppose that from Luthor's point of view, that statement might be true. I'd phrase it another way: "The problem with Superman is that he basically IS a god and, therefore, doesn't share humanity with mankind."

In Superman Returns, as in all other Superman stories, the Kryptonian god known as Superman once again proves that he is indestructible. He flies. He's faster than a speeding bullet. He's more powerful than a locomotive. He can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

He's boring.

If you're going to tell a story about a god who comes to Earth to save mankind, I suppose there really is only one way to do it and make it interesting. You can do it allegorically, possibly as a reference to Christianity… or you can do it as a straight-story, allegorical to nothing, irrelevant to the human experience, and ultimately without any real point. I suppose that Bryan Singer was afraid of offending the masses by straying too far away from the traditional Superman mythos, and I'm sure that the idea of religious allegory never crossed his mind. In Superman Returns, Bryan Singer tells us another Superman straight-story about the Man of Steel's efforts to save mankind from itself. Superman loves humans, he empathizes with them and wants to protect them… so if he is a god, he is a good god, and I suppose that his motivation for protecting humanity must be a product of his own innate goodness. I have to make that supposition, however, because Superman Returns is true to every other Superman story in that it offers us no real explanation for what drives the title character. This isn't a superhero who is driven by guilt, revenge, personal fear, deeply held convictions or a lack of self control. Superman is a superhero because, along with being all-powerful, he's just a really nice guy.

Ho. Humm.

There have been a number of good superhero movies over the past ten years, and in all of them we've seen superheroes who share our humanity. The best of the recent superhero movies have been about characters that the average human can relate to because we share their experiences, emotions and motivations. Batman's pathos moves us with regard to our sense of loss and our basic human desire to overcome our fears. Spider-Man moves us because we share his self-doubt, his guilt, and his sense of personal accountability. Even the Hulk is germane to most people who've ever felt thelselves lose control. Today's movie superheroes are better than Superman because they're weaker than Superman. They're imperfect. They can be tempted, they can be scared, and they can make mistakes. They aren't gods. That's what makes them interesting.

Superman returns, to the extent that it's a standard Superman story, ought to appeal to the average Superman fan. If you're entertained and moved by the idea of an all-powerful superhero who can basically do anything, you might enjoy the movie. It does, in it's own way, have a lot to offer. The special effects shots look beautiful. As Superman, Brandon Routh channels the late Christopher Reeve strongly enough to satisfy Generation X'ers who remember the 70's films with nostalgia. He ought to have a nice long career built on milking this role if he has the good sense to stay off of horses.

A lot has been made, in fact, of how much Routh resembles the late Christopher Reeve. Personally, I can think of at least one person with closer physical similarities:

For me, a movie-fan who's never been into Superman, Superman Returns was a failure of a film. I honestly can't understand some of the mistakes that Bryan Singer made with this movie. For instance, he cast Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski, Lex Luthor's moll… and he had her dress like a drag-queen Joan Crawford imitator in her every scene. Why? Other elements of the movie seemed geared to have fun with the presence of Superman in today's modern world. People take his picture with their camera cell-phones. Fax machines and computers are featured prominently in the story. And yet every time I saw Parker Posey I had the distinct feeling that she's accidentally stumbled onto the set from a nearby remake of Mildred Pierce.

And with regard to Parker Posey, the most offensive thing about her role in this film is that she's such a better actress than Kate Bosworth, who plays Lois Lane in the new film. Kate Bosworth is so indistinct and so featureless that every time she'd show up in a scene, I'd need few seconds to remember that she was the actress who played Lois Lane in the film. I'm totally serious. She's just one more totally featureless young actress and I can't for the life of me figure out what it is about her that some people find noteworthy. If you put Kate Bosworth in a line-up with Kate Beckinsale, Kate Hudson and Katie Holmes and Jessica Biel and Keira Knightley, it would be a struggle for me to figure out which one was which.

Singer could have cast Parker Posey as Lois Lane and maybe, just maybe, he'd have made a film featuring at least one performance I cared about. As it was, the most notable thing about the best actor in this movie was her bizarre wardrobe.

Not too long ago, Kevin Spacey was one of the most promising and commendable actors in modern American movies. Remember his remarkable work in the outstanding film Glengarry Glen Ross? Remember The Usual Suspects and American Beauty? In Superman Returns, Spacey didn't even seem to want to be there. I've never seen an actor of his quality deliver such a half-hearted, inanely campy performance as the one Spacey puts across in Superman Returns. Unfortunately, given his most recent pictures, I've come to believe that Spacey is simply finished doing good work in good movies. I suppose he still hasn't been able to scrape Pay It Forward off the bottom of his shoes.

Even the set pieces in the movie were predictable elements. You see the globe atop the Daily Planet building and you just know that you're going to see Superman hold it up in an Atlas position at some point. You see a large, impressive ship and you just start counting the moments until Superman saves people from it's wrecking. At the beginning of the movie, Lois Lane has a son who was born during the sabbatical that Superman has… well, returned from. I suppose we were supposed to spend some time wondering who the boy's father was. I spent most of my time wandering why nobody had taken him for the haircut he so desperately needed.

All said, Superman Returns was a boring movie with a boring premise about a boring hero, featuring boring performances by a few actors who are above this kind of stuff and a few actors who are probably right at home in this kind of fluff. I didn't see the point… but, as I admitted earlier, I have never seen the point in Superman in the first place, so I'm probably not a good source. If you're a Superman fan, go see the movie. If you're a Superman fan, you and I might as well be from different planets, anyway.

They call Superman the Man of Steel. That's fitting, and I think it would also be fitting to call Superman Returns the Movie of Steel. It's bright and shiny… it's clearly expensive and built to last… but it's flat, emotionless, and it's a poor reflector of the human image.