Reviews

There's something pretty gee-whiz, gosh-darn hammy about this Trek series. It's the humans.

The show is going light years out of its way to display humans as the chummy, backwater yuksters of the universe. Sometimes it's cute, occasionally it's funny, but mostly it's - well - just hammy. Captain Archer might be considered the embodiment of it all - macho, humbly swaggering, interminably curious and eager-to-please - but gosh-darn it, he has integrity and determination and all that other stuff we like to see in captains. These things convince us that he - and his crew - will mature into a more knowledgeable and sophisticated stage over time, and that gives us something to look forward to.

Love the Doc. T'Pol (another Trek formula of big mouth and bigger breasts) began as very transparently emotional for a Vulcan, but appears to be improving.

I'm enjoying the show and the salt I take with it, but I cannot swallow that theme song. Please lose it!

Philadelphia's sights, history, architecture, residents, and personality give writers and film-makers plenty to work with, and many have. Unfortunately, it hasn't been utilized as much as it might have (and I think it deserves). From what I understand, this is mostly because it lacks a permanent soundstage. Although Ben Franklin Parkway and other areas were closed off at times over the summer for filming the outdoor shots of 'Philly', most or all of the indoor shooting is being done on the west coast. The recreated interior of City Hall looks pretty good.

'Philly' plays the Hostile City's gritty reputation to the hilt. It has drawn some heat locally for its portrayal of city corruption - but not surprisingly, I haven't heard an official word on the likelihood of a mini-skirted, model-gorgeous, whip-smart, heart of gold attorney.

I have enjoyed Philly's first two episodes, but my reception is cooled by the hero-or-villain take on some of its characters. The show makes it clear that Kathleen McGuire (Kim Delaney) has adopted a tough exterior only to do her job; she's really a gentle, altruistic soul who cries into a teddy bear at the end of a bad day (two of 'em so far). She is, at least, very strong - one wonders how she gets through what she does with her head up. But while I'm biting on that, I'm also wondering how she - as a good judge of character - ever hooked up with her (ex-, or separated) husband, a district attorney so unlikeable only a bad writer could love him.

There are other question marks. From tonight's episode, for example: Would a resident of the city (no matter how well-meaning) leave a near-stranger, possibly guilty of a knife attack, alone in her apartment for the day? Is this the same city I live in?

Still the show has promise. It has an edge, a ready quip, a fast pace. It can amuse and surprise. Everyone in the cast appears to be up to the task of the characters they play, right down to the Judge's Pommie.

And there are some nice shots around the city. Cept, what's up with the burning trash can?

7/10 stars.

I can only imagine why this film didn't get Best Picture - perhaps it was too complex, and pushed the envelope a bit much, for a large segment of its audience.

But for me the film was compelling from start to finish. First and foremost: Soderbergh's direction and Gaghan's writing were stunning individually; but in combination created something beyond that, something that carves out a new and personal appreciation for gritty drama and dark irony. Director and writer worked closely on this and it shows; it's something directors should do more often.

The acting was superb, without exception (something I've never before said of Catherine Zeta Jones). The party that Wakefield (Michael Douglas) attended was a treat; I cackled aloud as Orrin Hatch and the other senators opined there - but you know that Orrin, He-Devil, has an excellent singing voice.

During the first few scenes I squirmed a bit, worried the entire movie would be washed in uncomfortable tints; but at the first true-color scene I relaxed, and found it well-chosen thereafter.

I found it difficult to read the subtitles at times, which struck me as a pretty beat snafu given the skill of the rest of it, but overall this movie is among my favorites and a no-brainer 10.

I don't think anyone is going to enjoy this movie if too intent on its passing a test of Political Correctness. Babbit's film parodies both sides, showing us a few central, more-or-less believable characters against a background of hetero- and homosexual stereotypes; and playful, Retro-American UltraSchlock like that from a Richard O'Brien movie (Shock Treatment, or Brad and Janet's wedding in Rocky Horror). If it's anti-anything, it's anti-self-righteous.

The message, "Be yourself", extends itself as indiscriminantly as the parody. So does a subtext message, driven by the over-the-top backdrop and the movie's careless pace: "Relax, have fun, get over it."

I enjoy every glimpse into this time period that I can get. That is one thing that saved this film from not being worth seeing.

Others: Gillian Andersen is good. Not outstanding, but good, and I liked seeing a bit more of her range. In the beginning she seemed so utterly shallow, through an unreflecting vanity and coyness, that her later shift to wanting to marry for love seemed abrupt and nonsensical. Some of that I attribute to the directing. She portrayed the awkwardness of the Edwardian rich girl trying to work very well, but her moments of tears and deepest emotion seemed pushed and maybe overacted. Jodhi May, in her role of Grace, carried her griefs off with a lot more naturalism.

The costumes and scenery were nice, but I didn't like some of the shooting. There was a quality to it that made me feel boxed into the wrong viewpoint, as if more interesting things might be going on elsewhere in the space.

The movie starts off with some coy, game-playing dialogue between Lily Bart and Laurence. We dont know or care about the characters yet, and they are speaking in extremely vague terms about things unknown or uncared about as yet. Nothing in what they say holds my interest, or causes me to begin to care in the first few minutes.

This could have changed, but unfortunately, a lot of the first half of the movie carries on in this way: short scenes with vague snippets of dialogue that I dont always understand or care about. By the time I could have become engrossed, too much damage was already done, and I was awaiting the end of this 2 1/2 hour long debacle of a woman who makes decisions bad enough to put an end to Darwinistic theory.

This movie reaches out and offers you many things, as if on a large, golden platter, and I enjoyed all of the fare that I could actually swallow. The visuals were grand and satisfying, almost haunting - particularly the opening battle with the Germanic tribe(s) in the forest (which was stunning), and first historic recreational battle in the Big Ring. The costumes were very good. Oliver Reed stood out as thoroughly enjoyable and believable; and it was nice to have a face that was fresh (to me) in the starring role of a budget monster, instead of, say, Mel Gibson's.

But though Crowe was good, I don't think he was better than Geoffrey Rush in Quills, who also had the nomination. Crowe showed depth but no remarkable vulnerability; Rush had both. Joaquin Phoenix put good effort into his role as the naughty Commodus, with just that precisely awful affect that you could see his effort to do so. He engaged in some intense acting that looked like that - intense acting (a bit like Angus MacFadyen as Robert the Bruce in Braveheart, but more obvious). Commodus' emotions looked drummed up from the actor, not flooding up from the natural depravity of the man who brought back the Games.

Nevertheless the movie still has a sum greater than its parts (no easy feat in the whirlwind of filmmaking's many disjointed pieces). I've seen it twice and would see it again.

That's what I like about it - it's a movie that works within the small physical scope and silence (soundtrack? what soundtrack?) of a stage play. Raw character soup at its best. (Pacino gives us the alphabet letters; Cazale the meat and veggies.) This is like Twelve Angry Men in character development, but with two brought forward, close to the lens. It is very sharp on them and just as fuzzy on the rest (love the head teller!).

But. Anyway. Why so many cops? Nothing else goin' on in Brooklyn '72?

That's right, pretty and tedious. I enjoy period films, and have enjoyed many films that other users here call boring, so I don't use the term lightly - this film made me restless, made me say, "So? When will it end?". I could get up and go into another room for a while and come back, fully confidant that I'd missed nothing that could not be guessed.

This was a visual film and I enjoyed that, there was a nice color use (save the eyesore bumblebee dress) and I think my eyes enjoyed this more than I did. Kristin Scott Thomas seemed artificial to me for much of it, I just didn't believe her a lot of the time; the careful pronunciation of words seemed unnatural on her. The rest of the acting was good. As a villain, the Edgar character was far too cut and paste hiss-and-boo for my taste. Can't we have grey areas?

But I enjoyed all in it that reflected the interest in natural sciences of the time, and as ever I can appreciate a film that doesn't ONLY display female nudity and shy away from the male.

I didn't expect much from this film when I rented it. Another Improbable Hero Kid movie?

The fine point of it is: No. If you run screamin' at the mention of Home Alone or Goonies, you needn't be afraid of a movie like this.

The kids impart a genuine, unself-conscious mood to everything in the film, contributing in large part to its subtle and pervasive good humor. I marvelled at the creativity of the Ballydowse kids, and was at the same time satisfied that their rivals were never reduced to mindless obstacles to rouse our sympathy.

As we can see the war from the kids' view, we can see its reflection in their parents, and of course, in adults everywhere. But the film keeps its subtlety here too; we're never beaten over the head with the analogy, but given the right views to delight in it - their creativity and intelligence belongs to all ages.

My one reservation is the soundtrack; it's manipulative and lacks the subtlety of the rest of it.

Three favorite scenes: Little Con breaking his eggs and marooned for a bit with the Carrick boys, the teacher translating Riley's passed note, and the carousal and tractor.