Reviews

I have, intentionally not read anyone else' comments about this film. I'm writing as I see it, with an acknowledgement that this film's not terribly well received. It should also be noted that I have not read the books. I come to this film with few preconceived notions.

That is, to my mind, a shame. The art design alone recommends this film as worthy of a viewing though that is with the agreement that it seems to owe a lot of its feel to the Gory/Burton school of aesthetics. Still it's lovely and about as lush as one can get outside of A Little Princess or Babe.

The story is sweet without drifting into the land of cloying. Of particular note is Billy Connolly's turn as the greatest uncle in fiction. The themes of family and home are no strangers to American cinema but they're not overplayed here.

Speaking of actors, that seems to be a strong problem with the film. American audiences, for all their love of the cult of personality do enjoy hating successful people and while I can't always argue with that, it seems that the casting of Jim Carey in this film was probably the single biggest mistake the producers made. While Carey is talented enough to do this, each appearance in his various guises reminds the viewer that Jim Carey is on the screen and he kind of overpowers the film. Were this done by an early career Carey, say around the time he did The Mask, this would have probably been a career maker. As it is, audiences seem to have grown weary of his rubber face and by and large gave this movie a pass due to him. Shame. He wasn't bad at all, just sort of uninspiring. A lesser known actor, perhaps someone like Bruce Campbell would have done this without so much falderal and it wouldn't have turned audiences away so easily.

On the positive side of casting, the Baudelaire children are played magnificently by Emily Browning and Liam Aiken, two terribly beautiful young actors who should have tremendously successful careers as adults. The orphans are played with a calm certitude that contrasts perfectly with Carey's manic...Careyness and really sell the film admirably.

All in all, this is a gorgeous movie and with the convincing performances given by the two leads (the kids...) it's a shame a sequel isn't in the offing to use them before they grow too old for the roles. As it is, I imagine the three years it has been place all of the children and especially the toddler, outside the proper range to play the Baudelaires again.

Please give this film a try. It's excellent, gorgeous and intelligent and in everything it does it has so much heart. Truly terrific.

Documentaries detailing the histories of superheroes, particularly Superman or Batman pop up every few years examining the character, its impact on pop culture and the paths of comic books as a genre. This title doesn't really break a ton of new ground in that way but it does perform a well-crafted update of this chapter in Superman's story culminating with the 2006 release of Bryan Singer's excellent "Superman Returns".

Featuring interviews with the comic book's writers, artists and editors as well as some famous fans, we get some good insight into what makes Superman compelling. Lots of attention is given to the film productions featuring of course touching pieces on the late Christopher Reeve and his doomed 50's TV counterpart, George Reeves. Personal note: I thought it was especially nice that both Noel Neill and Jack Larson (Tv's Lois and Jimmy) were interviewed side by side as I have become accustomed to seeing them. (Singer also used both actors in "Superman Returns". Way to go, Bry.) Aside from the film productions, changes in the comic book and the attempts at radio and of course the classic TV versions including Smallville are covered featuring interviews with virtually every living contributor they could track down including the elusive Jackie Cooper, Ilya Salkind, Richard Donner, Margot Kidder and of course, Neill and Larson. Other perspectives are given by comic book smartypants Mark Waid, Tongue jockey Gene Simmons, Luke Skywalker, Sci-fi grandfather Forrest Ackerman and Superman's current golden girl Annette O'Toole. The entire thing is ably narrated by a virtual unknown named Kevin Spacey who gets to refer to himself in the third person right towards the end.

This is a lot of good stuff. It's a rather in-depth retrospective on the iconic superhero and for my money the producers did an excellent job.

Giving this film a 3 may have been an act of generosity. I feel compelled to start with the positive. I was rooked into seeing this film on Showtime out of idle curiosity that seemed to be paying off quickly. The first scene was a well-shot hospital scene that turned out to feature a completely unrecognizable Phyllis Diller turning in a performance that I found to be really intriguing. I thought I had stumbled onto a gorgeous indie film.

It's as though a good cinematographer's nephew wrote a screenplay and the cinematographer had no choice but to help him make it. I feel compelled to write here everything wrong with this film. The bad decisions are myriad. It's well photographed and that's IT. The story is one of the most hackneyed pieces of boy meets doomed girl tripe ever filmed. The lack of self-awareness in this film is embarrassing.

I have tried writing all of the horrible decisions made here and I am overwhelmed. I've erased them all and tried to restart a dozen times. I'm simply forcing myself to stop trying to justify how bad this film is. I WOULD recommend showing this thing to film school students. I might even buy a copy. It's a genius example of how film making can have all the correct components but be torn apart by the lack of ability of the film maker. This is indulgent wish fulfillment gone to monstrous excess. Scene after scene, this turkey rewrites the book on bad directing. Ed Wood never knew HOW to make a movie. Director Slocom read the book on how to make a film and then gleefully threw it aside.

Taking a page from the Blair Witch manual, film makers Chris Kentis & Estelle Lau create a simplistic but high concept thriller using digital video and unknown actors out in the wild.

The results are a bit mixed. The early establishing shots of the young couple in civilization are pretty amateurish and show a limited ability on the part of the principal actors. Once the main action begins however the more visceral nature of the situation allows the actors a more natural expression of the circumstance and they both respond better as I judge such things.

The story is based upon the real-life story of a couple left behind by a dive boat while scuba diving off the coast of Australia. This movie places its couple in the Bahamas and fills in the story of what happens to them after the boat leaves. It's a tense drama and features some really authentic moments between the two stranded divers.

Ultimately, like Blair Witch, the movie isn't all that deep or intriguing. Blair Witch does not stand up to repeated viewings and I doubt this film will either. Also like Blair Witch, viewers seem heavily divided. There are many people who feel that Open Water is a failure and leaves too much untold, but my feeling is that the film makers told their story and completed all the thoughts they intended to present. If you allow the story to take you and don't place demands upon it, it's tense and a bit frightening and worth viewing.

To do this with personal funds and virtually no crew is quite a bit of work and I'd be pretty proud of it if I were involved. It's not a terrific or great movie, but should be seen by anyone interested in successful off-the-radar guerrilla film making.

So, it's a big budget action film and all. It's not Gosford Park but then it's closer to that than other sci-fi treasures-become-film like Battlefield Earth.

I don't think it's fair to review this movie without making note of the outrage expressed by the sci-fi fan base over the plot of this film. Apparently the film is pretty substantially different from the book. Having a beloved book taken from you and turned into a different movie is disappointing and usually a disaster.

Now, to one who doesn't know the book: This is a good movie. It takes a number of ideas such as reliance on technology, racial prejudice, survivor's guilt and the nature of the soul and frames them in a high-tech big budget actioner. That's a good thing.

There were a couple of scenes that I think show the problem of making this kind of movie in Hollywood. The big robots-jumping-on-the-Audi scene that made all the trailers and advertisements didn't need to be done so lavishly. It reminded me of the Death Star battle in Jedi where swarms of ships appear on screen at once. It was too much for me to appreciate visually. It may be though that without the combination of forces at work this wouldn't have been as good as it turned out to be. Not terrific. I'm not saying that, but it's a good film.

Of note: Will Smith's acting in this is pretty damn good. His character's tend to be extensions of Fresh Prince. They're highly exuberant and cocky. This time, he's subdued and a bit more cynical. It's a nice change. Let's see... There's the presence of James Cromwell, which helps any film. And here's something: I noticed that many of the characters in the film are black. I appreciated seeing this since these characters are not by necessity black characters, they're just people and these are black. That kind of racial mix made sense to me and I feel it needs to be done a lot more often.

Anyway, it's not dull, it's not silly and it's got something to say. I think you might give it a try.

Pixar has already shown a propensity to place story and humor over digital gimmickry, but this time they've managed to find a tremendous balance between the two with The Incredibles.

Brad Bird's story about a family rediscovering itself is well executed if not unpredictable, but the humanity of the characters is unmistakable. Perhaps more scene-stealing however is the subtlety of movement in the character's acting. Clearly the animators have been doing lots of people watching because these people move and gesture in such small and true ways its almost thrilling to watch.

Digital movie making is pretty hit and miss. Basically Pixar hits and everyone else misses but this time they've really done themselves proud. Brad Bird's collaboration with Pixar produces a document of film-making excellence. Would that other animators could find the soul and depth of a Pixar movie, never mind the comedy. Finding Nemo and now this.

Digital acting took a colossal step forward with Andy Serkis' performance in the Lord of the Rings. In that one, the animators took Serkis out and left his intent on screen. This time, the propeller-heads have actually created actors where there were none to begin with and they did a better job than half of Hollywood's a-list. I want more!

Big stuff, The Illiad. Trying to sandwich all that into three movies would have been quite a job, and it would have probably muddled the idea before it was through. Selecting a heavy important slice of what the Illiad is about and building a film -around- that idea worked pretty darn well.

In the age of Digital crowd scenes and computerized destruction, we have come to simply expect huge, big, large and enormous. And Troy has all of these. Extra heapings of each, actually. And yeah, it's lost its surprise but if you hadn't seen half a zillion spear wielding farmers advancing on the walls of Troy there's no doubt you'd miss it. O.K. so visually the story has lots of armies and fighting. Got it.

What else? Well, if you ask Jerry Bruckheimer, there's not much else needed except good looking people being given excuses for kissing each other. The final product of this here film however is why Bruckheimer's head should be placed on a a pike on Sunset blvd. as a warning to Roland Emmerich. The relationships shown between the various characters here are proof that action films can indeed have substance and story and humanity.

Eric Bana is particularly terrific as the level-headed hero, Hector. Brad Pitt IS a god as Achilles. Rose Byrne's Briseis was particularly engaging. Brian Cox's Agamemnon is a highly watchable king S.O.B. but without being a caricature. Orlando Bloom on the other hand is a trifle ham-fisted. His face is pretty expressionless. Bummer there, Legolas.

Don't let the big budget prejudice you. This is a good movie and it's very well done. Filling in the slots between the battles with these character's relationships was not only necessary it was executed with aplomb. Seriously happy I saw this.

Now to see about that pike on Sunset Boulevard...

So, yeah. Don't bother seeing this if you need lots of help getting through a script. And really you should have a pretty thorough knowledge of Hamlet to appreciate all that it offers. If you care enough to learn why they say what they say and are interested enough to listen and think about it, this movie is one of the finest things ever put on film.

Tom Stoppard is a mad genius to tie in so many deeply thoughtful and hilarious ideas to a pair of literature's most underwhelming red-shirts. My god but this is a phenomenon of a film. It is not for everyone, and by that I don't mean it's obtrusively French or maudlin or vague. It's none of those things. What it is, you see, is frighteningly lucid and brilliant. Something for the intelligentsia to chew over and marvel at. If you are one of the ones who gets it... Then we're glad to have you in the club.

John Waters gets it. Maybe you get it. I don't. I know that Waters is smart enough to realize that his films are crap. He revels in it and probably wouldn't be happy until he had induced all of the available crappiness out of each frame and utterance.

I'm still p***ed-off that I wasted my time here though. Waters is one of those guys who creates things that 95% of the world will hate. Not so that he'll sell tickets to the 5% who don't hate it, but so that he can wink and nod to the 1% who love it. It's all about separating themselves from the flock and standing firm against mediocrity and boring suburban white people and rolling your eyes at anyone who doesn't "get it".

Yes, it's all very precious saying "well if you don't understand it I'm certainly not explaining it to you", but that's just to give Waters and his little clique a tiny thrill at one-upping people in the cultural coolness department.

Hey, if you want to set yourself apart from the "normals" how about creating something brilliant? I know. It's hard. But try integrity and precision over irreverence and cheese sometime. You might like what you get.

Why aren't I talking about the film? its characters? the plot? the directorial decisions? the acting? Because it does not matter. This is a weird movie. It's intended to be weird first, weird second and weird third. Nowhere on anyone's list was the notion of storytelling or communication with the audience written or scribbled hastily as it were a memo to oneself. They only wanted to be bizarre and you know what? They succeeded. Way to go.

So my recommendation... If you're into watching movies that are off-beat for the sake of being off-beat, then have to. If you care a whit about story, keep your distance. Also, if you meet John Waters, set his hair on fire. Tell him it was from me.

Certain movies gain a status whereby their name becomes an invocation. Star Wars, Psycho, Citizen Kane, Jaws, Titanic and certainly Casablanca qualify as movies that virtually anyone can get a freeze frame in their mind. They can name the key actors, recite dialogue, and even give an overview of the plot without necessarily even having seen the film in person.

The legend of Casablanca exceeds most films ever produced. The film is held in a near religious regard which is normally reserved for fans of genre films. (Witness the slavish devotion to the Star Wars product line despite the increasing evidence that the creator of these films has lost not only touch with reality, but even a rememberance of what made the first film so compelling.) And having finally seen Casablanca for myself I am left unsetteled at how unimpressed I was by this classic of modern cinema.

The setting for the story is unique enough. Nazi controlled North Africa is not a familiar device for gushy romances. But a city does not a movie make. The story itself isn't terribly deep. Old lovers reunited. Unfinished business must remain that way. They part unfulfilled. And the characters are not written in such a way as to give them depth and persona beyond their plot-driven dialogue. Cinematography is to my untrained eye, dull and unremarkable. O.K. the sets are nicely done.

But the greatest deficiency of them all is the performance given by the leading man. Humphrey Bogart is a legend among tough guy actors. Why was he cast in the role of an introspective gentleman entrepeneur? While even uttering these thoughts has in past and undoubtedly will again make me the target of jihad by the most bloodthirsty classic movie fans, I must say I've seen better performances on Murder, She Wrote. Honestly.

In fact I would go so far as to say that people in need of an object lesson in miscasting and insufficient artistic depth would do well to take notes on Bogey's performance here.

I would be remiss if I did not interject here the beatific Ingrid Berman and the scene stealing Claude Rains. These two people are about the only enjoyable part of the entire process and keep the film from being a shambles.

The saving grace that I repeatedly hear offered up in defense of this film is that it is old. I find this utterly insufficient. Noting that a film was made prior to 1970 seems to excuse all manner of technical and story related problems. Everyone wants to put it into the context of how bad every other movie was back then. Now perhaps if I had not seen more modern dramas, I would be thrilled with this movie, but using the same measuring stick by which I judge any new film, this one comes up terrible short.

So you might wonder if a film about dancers attempting to succeed might make a statement about losing the joy of the dance in the flurry of competition.

You might also wonder if to get an attractive group of dancers to play the parts, this movie may not have used acting strength as the final casting arbiter.

You might further go on to ponder whether it will have pushy stage mothers, back-stage crushes, brushes with failure, catty exchanges, tragic injuries, demanding teachers and happy endings with valuable lessons learned.

Regarding this film: Yes it does.

A film clearly dreamt up to showcase the natural lessons of life that talented young people must learn, the script unfolds with the narrative pacing of a Sweet Valley Twins book.

Characters are established in their first minute of screen time and never show any real breathtaking leaps in development. The only character who appears believable, the star pupil who is destined for greatness falls apart just towards the end though at least makes what is probably a healthy if somewhat unrealistic choice at the story's end. The other characters are one-note and simplistic; each advancing a thematic element on their own while supporting and fleshing out the other characters not at all.

On the positive side there is some good dancing in this film but the high-energy scenes lack the spontaneous punch and fire of better dance films, and that is a sort of critical element in this reviewer's opinion. The huge breakthrough number at the end was just a bit anti-climactic.

Reserved for the high school age dancers set only. For most others the film will provide no real insight or surprise and not even amazing enough dancing to pull the ratio up.