POSSIBLE SPOILERS
There are several major problems with this film. The most obvious, as has been pointed out by many other reviewers is the pretentiousness. To expound, the concept is so grandiose, trying to create a human analogy for Mother Nature and God as a couple, it is so incredibly obvious it just wreaks of a writer's extreme ego.
At the same time it takes itself so seriously. Add to that all the preconceived notions people have about religion and you have a recipe for story telling disaster.
Then there is the issue of genre classification. Calling the destruction of all of earth a horror story is such a massive under statement. If you somehow take this premise seriously you should be so far beyond horrified by the actual reality of our situation, being shown an analogous morality play is not dissimilar to the the classic pouring salt in the wound.
The worst part for me was seeing Jenifer Lawrence, an artist I previously respected, playing her part with such honest passion and fervor. Suffice it to say, this makes it difficult for me to continue being a fan.
Anyway, there are people who love it and I can see how that could be the case. But it is just waay too heavy handed for my taste. I would rather just have a zealous Greenpeace activist and door knocking Mormon beat me in the head with a bible and a tree branch for a while.
Reviews
26 Reviews
Mother!
(2017)
Sometimes Ideas are Too Big to Play as a Film - POSSIBLE SPOILERS
10 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Midsommar
(2019)
SPOILERS! If you have expectations based on Hereditary be prepared to switch gears
31 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!
This is a very engaging movie with an interesting premise, decent writing, gorgeous cinematography and excellent acting. The two big problems are a lack of depth in terms of character development and difficulty relating to or investing in the protagonists. Ari Aster is a brilliant director and writer but spent a little too much screen time setting the tone and atmosphere that would have been better spent on a little more time with the character's backstory. If we knew more about Dani and Christian's motivations, expectations and emotional history it could have made everything about their actions fall into place. As it is I couldn't help but feel that neither of them, or their friends, made significant attempts to escape once they realized that the group they were among was clearly a dangerous cult. They clearly were supposed to be reasonably intelligent people but they sure didn't act like it. I realize there were a number of plot devices designed to make this seem natural, such as being drugged, distracted, separated etc. But it just made it all seem a bit contrived that they didn't make any serious attempts to escape. Anyway, it is kind of sad and frustrating, because otherwise it was a so well done. With 2 1/2 hours to burn he really should have given us more to go on, or made their actions seem a bit more realistic. Also, Florence Pugh is a brilliant actor, her depictions of her character's reaction to extreme grief were very real and unnerving. The scene of the firemen going through her parents house was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. In fact, I believe it was so disturbing that if anyone saw that who had any experience with anything similar I would be concerned about them seeing that.
UPDATE: Having given this film a couple of additional viewings I revise my previous thoughts somewhat. I am now coming around to seeing the theatrical edit (haven't seen the Director's cut yet) as more complete than I originally thought. I am not certain more backstory would make as much difference as I thought. In fact, the film is pretty close to perfection as is. The scenery, set pieces and little vignettes weave a pretty rich tapestry to draw from. I highly recommend anybody who is on the fence after an initial viewing to give it at least a second chance.
UPDATE: Having given this film a couple of additional viewings I revise my previous thoughts somewhat. I am now coming around to seeing the theatrical edit (haven't seen the Director's cut yet) as more complete than I originally thought. I am not certain more backstory would make as much difference as I thought. In fact, the film is pretty close to perfection as is. The scenery, set pieces and little vignettes weave a pretty rich tapestry to draw from. I highly recommend anybody who is on the fence after an initial viewing to give it at least a second chance.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
(2014)
What are these people thinking?
2 May 2014
Okay, first I am a huge fan of the original comic books, However, I don't mind writers and directors messing with the characters mythology or story arch to make things flow better, to modernize the story or just in the interest of improved story telling for a different medium. That said, I really don't care for the way the writers, director and editor of this series have cherry picked certain plot elements to change and others to leave intact. Also, I am very appreciative of the excellent acting skills and chemistry the principals bring to the table so I feel like there is a lot of potential wasted here.
The two things that really bother me are the pacing and the way the story telling talks down to the audience. First of all, this movie, as well as the first one, in the series, suffer from very long exposition up front and then break into the action later in the film, which is not always explained as well. In this case it causes serious problems in that there are several major story elements late in the film that are not explained and the audience is just supposed to go along with, without sufficient explanation. Also, they just pull some crap out of their posteriors late in the film that makes no real sense and feels like they really have no respect for their audience. Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this turkey already. I will re-watch the Sam Raimi versions over the weekend to clear out the bad taste.
The two things that really bother me are the pacing and the way the story telling talks down to the audience. First of all, this movie, as well as the first one, in the series, suffer from very long exposition up front and then break into the action later in the film, which is not always explained as well. In this case it causes serious problems in that there are several major story elements late in the film that are not explained and the audience is just supposed to go along with, without sufficient explanation. Also, they just pull some crap out of their posteriors late in the film that makes no real sense and feels like they really have no respect for their audience. Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this turkey already. I will re-watch the Sam Raimi versions over the weekend to clear out the bad taste.
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
Visually Amazing, Horribly Written
27 June 2012
I will make this as simple as I can. The look and feel of the film was beautiful. The combination of cinematography, lighting and effects was just stunning at times. Unfortunately, the script was awful. I never felt any empathy for these characters. So, even though, conceptually, the plot had some compelling points, I was never drawn into the story. Then I remembered, this is the same writer behind Lost and it all made sense. I tried to watch that meandering train wreck of a series for the first two seasons before I realized that the writers idea of motivation for characters was either painfully corny are made purposely and unnecessarily ambiguous. So, if you enjoy blatant, phony manipulation using overwrought abstract concepts, you might enjoy this. Otherwise, spend your ten bucks elsewhere. Too bad, 'cuz Ridley Scott is generally a good director.
Ah, I see now that same guy produced and wrote stupid Cowboys and Aliens too, that explains that movie's stupidity then too. Wow, talk about a crappy character. Poor Harrison Ford, they made his character so despicable that it made no sense that he was supposed to have this huge change at the end and you were supposed to like him, whatever. Sorry, I hate crap writing, especially when they con me out of money to be exposed to it.
Oh, and I really feel a little ripped off by the it's not really a sequel BS too. I mean, really? You are going to have all these concepts and characters but then show us creatures that require some evolution or explanation as to why they are what they are. Just seems ill-conceived if you ask me. I hope they either don't do sequels to this or at least try to clean up some of the mess if they do.
Ah, I see now that same guy produced and wrote stupid Cowboys and Aliens too, that explains that movie's stupidity then too. Wow, talk about a crappy character. Poor Harrison Ford, they made his character so despicable that it made no sense that he was supposed to have this huge change at the end and you were supposed to like him, whatever. Sorry, I hate crap writing, especially when they con me out of money to be exposed to it.
Oh, and I really feel a little ripped off by the it's not really a sequel BS too. I mean, really? You are going to have all these concepts and characters but then show us creatures that require some evolution or explanation as to why they are what they are. Just seems ill-conceived if you ask me. I hope they either don't do sequels to this or at least try to clean up some of the mess if they do.
Mission Ridiculous - SPOILERS
28 December 2011
Fortunately, there were a lot of things to like in this installment of the M.I. franchise. Tom Cruise, as usual, did a great job in the lead role, the chemistry among the team members was decent, if not great, and the overall look and feel of the film was good.
The negatives for me were few, but nearly overwhelming. The Simon Pegg character's comic relief moments were too many and over the top. The chemistry among the team was decent but not great. The female leads character, when she tried to do the seduction thing, was weak. And, the really big problem, for me anyway, was the fact that any and every thing that could go wrong did. A few mishaps in their strategy, or a few gadgets not working as planned is one thing, but just about every single angle they tried to play went badly wrong in one way or another. I don't know about anybody else, but for me, I have a much harder time suspending my disbelief when the Mission Impossible team is constantly screwing up and having equipment failures and nearly blowing the whole thing repeatedly. Of course, this results in another problem, that every scenario goes down to the absolute last second to barely succeed, really? Plus, the villain was weak and not developed as a character at all. Also, the ending was way long and overly schmaltzy.
Anyway, it was all saved for me by Tom Cruise and Jeremy Renner doing a great job with the action, even if it was over-directed. Otherwise, I would have given this a much lower score.
The negatives for me were few, but nearly overwhelming. The Simon Pegg character's comic relief moments were too many and over the top. The chemistry among the team was decent but not great. The female leads character, when she tried to do the seduction thing, was weak. And, the really big problem, for me anyway, was the fact that any and every thing that could go wrong did. A few mishaps in their strategy, or a few gadgets not working as planned is one thing, but just about every single angle they tried to play went badly wrong in one way or another. I don't know about anybody else, but for me, I have a much harder time suspending my disbelief when the Mission Impossible team is constantly screwing up and having equipment failures and nearly blowing the whole thing repeatedly. Of course, this results in another problem, that every scenario goes down to the absolute last second to barely succeed, really? Plus, the villain was weak and not developed as a character at all. Also, the ending was way long and overly schmaltzy.
Anyway, it was all saved for me by Tom Cruise and Jeremy Renner doing a great job with the action, even if it was over-directed. Otherwise, I would have given this a much lower score.
Super 8
(2011)
Mixed, could have been good but falls flat
19 June 2011
Wow, I really, really wanted to like this movie. I had mixed expectations going in. On the one hand, I expected a typical Spielberg style kids vs. monster type flick, on the other, I have been disappointed by Abrams before with Cloverfield.
So, for the first three quarters of the movie, I was actually enjoying the ride. At least this time, Abrams managed to make characters that I could care about. I was able to suspend my disbelief and go along in spite of many problems with physics and continuity. As the story went on, the unexplained bits and pieces of the plot began to wear thin.
Basically, if you read the negative reviews on here you will see the problems with this film; the complete rehashing of so many Spielberg clichés, multiple goofy continuity problems, and poor plot exposition and so on. I actually could have overlooked most of this for the positives, if it weren't for the particularly flat ending.
The rest of the film had enough great production values, character development and a great feeling of an old time 50's monster movie I really was having fun, until it got toward the end. They just couldn't pull all the plot elements together in a satisfying way. Worst yet, the ending fell totally flat. Where there should have been some tension building with a good climactic scene, it just kind of ended, plop, that was it, very unsatisfying.
I don't understand the trend with filmmakers like Abrams, Shyamalan and a others these days. There is a tendency to have characters with strong but contrived story lines, where the plot exposition is so minimal and choppy that it is difficult to actually develop an emotional connection with them. Then, it is difficult to tell where some of their motivation comes from. Ultimately, these characters act in ways that seem inappropriate under the circumstances. Anyway, I just tire with this kind of half-ass story telling. These guys need to watch some classic Hitchcock, Lumet, Reiner etc. and get some tips on plot and character development.
Bummer, this was so close to being a really good movie, if not great, it just needed better storytelling and a decent ending.
So, for the first three quarters of the movie, I was actually enjoying the ride. At least this time, Abrams managed to make characters that I could care about. I was able to suspend my disbelief and go along in spite of many problems with physics and continuity. As the story went on, the unexplained bits and pieces of the plot began to wear thin.
Basically, if you read the negative reviews on here you will see the problems with this film; the complete rehashing of so many Spielberg clichés, multiple goofy continuity problems, and poor plot exposition and so on. I actually could have overlooked most of this for the positives, if it weren't for the particularly flat ending.
The rest of the film had enough great production values, character development and a great feeling of an old time 50's monster movie I really was having fun, until it got toward the end. They just couldn't pull all the plot elements together in a satisfying way. Worst yet, the ending fell totally flat. Where there should have been some tension building with a good climactic scene, it just kind of ended, plop, that was it, very unsatisfying.
I don't understand the trend with filmmakers like Abrams, Shyamalan and a others these days. There is a tendency to have characters with strong but contrived story lines, where the plot exposition is so minimal and choppy that it is difficult to actually develop an emotional connection with them. Then, it is difficult to tell where some of their motivation comes from. Ultimately, these characters act in ways that seem inappropriate under the circumstances. Anyway, I just tire with this kind of half-ass story telling. These guys need to watch some classic Hitchcock, Lumet, Reiner etc. and get some tips on plot and character development.
Bummer, this was so close to being a really good movie, if not great, it just needed better storytelling and a decent ending.
Southland Tales
(2006)
Sorry excuse for story telling
23 April 2011
Well, what is there to say that hasn't been said, and so why am I saying anything at all? I find it rude to require viewers to read prequel materials to even begin to understand a story they are investing time in. Also, the writing was a huge disappointment after Donnie Darko. I stuck with it, but it was just awful. this is the sort of thing that appeals to folks who want to feel like they are special because they "get it". This makes them feel like they understand an artistic effort in some way that less intelligent people aren't capable of. In fact, they are just willing to waste time buying into the "artist's" cult of personality.I should know, I bought into Donnie Darko in this same way. To me, the big difference is that Donnie Darko stood entirely on it's own as a very good piece of entertainment. It was not nearly so self indulgent and was enjoyable with no knowledge other than what was presented in the film. Finding the back story just added to a more thorough understanding and enjoyment of the film.
With Southland Tales I was confused a great deal of the time. I was not really able to enjoy the culture bashing due to the really bad dialog and inability to connect many elements of the story. So, if you like bad dialog, poorly developed characters (more like caricatures), a screwed up story that makes no sense without reading the prequel and a badly directed and edited film, watch this, or maybe The Box (another Kelly debacle). Enjoy!
With Southland Tales I was confused a great deal of the time. I was not really able to enjoy the culture bashing due to the really bad dialog and inability to connect many elements of the story. So, if you like bad dialog, poorly developed characters (more like caricatures), a screwed up story that makes no sense without reading the prequel and a badly directed and edited film, watch this, or maybe The Box (another Kelly debacle). Enjoy!
The Tale of Despereaux
(2008)
Confusing Storyline and Dubious Morality
28 December 2008
I was very disappointed. So much so, I do not want to waste much time commenting. Suffice it to say, the plot had many confusing elements and the characters actions made little sense. The morals to the story were muddy at best. There were too many different character's tales being told and most of them with little depth or understanding.
We went in with fairly high expectations based on the previews. That was, of course, a big mistake. I kept thinking that there must be a lot more in the book version that explains some of the things that happen in the film, since there were so many things that did no make sense. Oh well, live and learn. I do feel bad for the many good actors that gave their voices to this junk.
Bottom line, I do not recommend this film for anyone.
We went in with fairly high expectations based on the previews. That was, of course, a big mistake. I kept thinking that there must be a lot more in the book version that explains some of the things that happen in the film, since there were so many things that did no make sense. Oh well, live and learn. I do feel bad for the many good actors that gave their voices to this junk.
Bottom line, I do not recommend this film for anyone.
Makes Me Sad
29 May 2008
The fine members here on IMDb have already said everything that needs to be said about the specifics of why this film is unworthy as a sequel. By the way, it is not particularly entertaining either.
Just to get my two cents in, the comments of many of the folks that say they did enjoy this movie makes me sad. I just feel like the crap that is being pawned off on the viewing public has really sunk to such a low level that people will pay to see very sub-standard fare and like it. The number of reviews and posts on the message board where someone says something like "people who didn't like this movie are a bunch of fan-boy, haters, nit-pickers, cynical, hyper-critical, blah blah blah, and etc." are very disturbing. In other words, rather than articulating their counterpoint why those who are negative are wrong, they just say that there is something wrong with them, er me, er us.
I think the viewing public has been made to accept anything with some wild action sequences as good entertainment and that is sad. They no longer seems to care at all about a good story. I am sorry, but I want to be motivated by decent story telling to be interested in what happens to the characters. That is what makes the action engaging in the first place.
Of course it is especially sad to see guys that used to seem to care about what they did sell out.
I will watch my DVDs of the first and third movies again to get this bad taste out of my mouth.
Just to get my two cents in, the comments of many of the folks that say they did enjoy this movie makes me sad. I just feel like the crap that is being pawned off on the viewing public has really sunk to such a low level that people will pay to see very sub-standard fare and like it. The number of reviews and posts on the message board where someone says something like "people who didn't like this movie are a bunch of fan-boy, haters, nit-pickers, cynical, hyper-critical, blah blah blah, and etc." are very disturbing. In other words, rather than articulating their counterpoint why those who are negative are wrong, they just say that there is something wrong with them, er me, er us.
I think the viewing public has been made to accept anything with some wild action sequences as good entertainment and that is sad. They no longer seems to care at all about a good story. I am sorry, but I want to be motivated by decent story telling to be interested in what happens to the characters. That is what makes the action engaging in the first place.
Of course it is especially sad to see guys that used to seem to care about what they did sell out.
I will watch my DVDs of the first and third movies again to get this bad taste out of my mouth.
Where the Truth Lies
(2005)
Horrible Film
2 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I will not waste a lot of anybody's time on this, especially mine. I was already duped out of 106 minutes of my life for this piece of junk. First of all the movie switched gears repeatedly, it could never find it's pace. The sex scenes were too graphic for a mediocre mystery drama not that I am against hot sex scenes but they felt out of place in the context of the rest of the story. None of the actors ever seemed to fit their role. The 60's look and feel they were trying for was so badly done I wasn't sure what time period they were supposed to be in at several points during the movie. Also, either Alison Lohman didn't buy the ultra cheesy dialog or she is a mediocre actress at best.
As much as I love the, "oh wait, there is another twist" and the "let's replay this scene for the umpteenth time to see what really happened" plot devices, both are way over-used in this stinker. Save your time and brain cells and watch L.A. Confidential again, or Mullholland Drive.
As much as I love the, "oh wait, there is another twist" and the "let's replay this scene for the umpteenth time to see what really happened" plot devices, both are way over-used in this stinker. Save your time and brain cells and watch L.A. Confidential again, or Mullholland Drive.
Batman Begins
(2005)
Great Concepts, Poor Execution
31 October 2006
I just learned that Memento, this film and The Prestige were all directed by Chris Nolan. I know, "what, have I been living under a rock or something?" Right, but, I really liked Memento, a lot. Now, I can see a lot of similarities directorially between the three films once I thought about it. It also occurs to me that one of the things a dislike so much about Batman Begins and The Prestige is that they have so much going for them and they fail to deliver. They both have great actors, good plots for the most part, very good atmosphere and pretty good story telling on some levels. Unfortunately, they all three rely to much on some type of gimmick. Memento was done before the clever twist was so overused which helped it a great deal. It was also done in a particularly clever fashion with the story telling mimicking an aspect of the protagonist's situation. Batman Begins, while it does not rely on one major plot twist, does rely on a series of gimmicks for its main story. Even though this is typical of comic book inspired stories, Nolan does not handle these elements very well and I found it very hard to suspend my disbelief. The same thing happened to me with The Prestige. I think Nolan likes stories that have mostly dark characters that do not have any of the typical redeeming qualities we are used to seeing in main characters in stories. He seems to like characters that allow their obsessions to overtake all the other aspects of their lives. I have to applaud him for being willing to take on these types of characters. However, I think he spends so much time on their dark side that is very difficult for audience members, or, at least for me, to invest any real interest in the outcome of their story. It worked in Memento because the character had a physical flaw that made it difficult for him to deal with his character flaws. In Batman Begins, as well as The Prestige it falls flat.
Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the time we live in that these films get the high ratings they do. Maybe very few people are able to believe that there is actually good in most people even some that do bad things. We went from having clear cut heroes, to having the anti-hero, to just having different shades of villains all mixing it up with one or the other arbitrarily winning. I know, the Batman fans out there are saying "but this is one chapter in a much larger story". Even though I am a comic book fan I look to the film makers of this genre to make the films episodic for maximum entertainment value. This was very nicely done with the Spiderman series, by the way. On the other hand, Batman Begins doesn't make me sympathetic enough to the protagonist to really care one way or another how things turn out. Save the price of the DVD and go buy some of the comics, I am sure it will be a better experience.
Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the time we live in that these films get the high ratings they do. Maybe very few people are able to believe that there is actually good in most people even some that do bad things. We went from having clear cut heroes, to having the anti-hero, to just having different shades of villains all mixing it up with one or the other arbitrarily winning. I know, the Batman fans out there are saying "but this is one chapter in a much larger story". Even though I am a comic book fan I look to the film makers of this genre to make the films episodic for maximum entertainment value. This was very nicely done with the Spiderman series, by the way. On the other hand, Batman Begins doesn't make me sympathetic enough to the protagonist to really care one way or another how things turn out. Save the price of the DVD and go buy some of the comics, I am sure it will be a better experience.
The Prestige
(2006)
Waste of Time and Energy
31 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
!!CONTAINS SPOLERS!!! One of the worst films I have seen in a while. Multiple mean-spirited characters doing nasty things to one another for over two hours does not constitute a good story. The only message I could possibly see here was that mean poor people should triumph over mean rich people. There was not one character that I felt any sympathy or empathy for by the end of the film. They all double crossed each other and sold each other out repeatedly. On top of that, the film makers double crossed the audience, by strategically leaving things out only to reveal the true facts of various interactions later on just to fool the viewer. How could anyone walk away from this feeling even okay, much less good, about the film? The high rating it is getting is an absolute amazement to me. The trend in films now seems to be if you can have enough screwy twists to keep the audience thinking about the twists, character development, moral lessons, decent plots and story lines don't need to exist. This really took off with "The Sixth Sense" (which was actually a pretty decent movie)and continues to be the trend. There have been a few good films with interesting plot twists but the popularity of misdirection just for its own sake has gotten completely out of hand.
I wish the movie going public would stop rewarding these kind of lame efforts and pay more attention to the important elements of story telling. Like having at least one or more characters that you can empathize with at least a little bit. Or things like a story that doesn't have to have some bizarre deus ex machina to make it work.
I may be living in a fantasy world, but one can at least hope.
UPDATE 05-29-2008 - I like the actors in this film so much I gave it a second chance. Going in with lowered expectations after my first viewing helped, and I actually found myself enjoying the journey of the characters. The story itself is actually not bad just ambigous. I have to admit, even though I don't exaclty love this movie, it was not as bad as I initlially thought. Still not one I would highly recommend, but alright for late night cable TV fare.
I wish the movie going public would stop rewarding these kind of lame efforts and pay more attention to the important elements of story telling. Like having at least one or more characters that you can empathize with at least a little bit. Or things like a story that doesn't have to have some bizarre deus ex machina to make it work.
I may be living in a fantasy world, but one can at least hope.
UPDATE 05-29-2008 - I like the actors in this film so much I gave it a second chance. Going in with lowered expectations after my first viewing helped, and I actually found myself enjoying the journey of the characters. The story itself is actually not bad just ambigous. I have to admit, even though I don't exaclty love this movie, it was not as bad as I initlially thought. Still not one I would highly recommend, but alright for late night cable TV fare.
Miami Vice
(2006)
Mediocre Action - No Real Drama
3 August 2006
Another reviewer, Anandare, pretty much said exactly what I was thinking. I just wanted to add a few additional comments. There was no real point to this movie. The story was lacking any real rise or fall to the plot line, what little plot there was to begin with. The characters and dialog were very superficial and it was impossible to see why any of them acted as they did, much less care. There was no chemistry between any of the actors, even the sex scenes were flat. Overall, this was a waste of time. Even all the cool, fast, cars and boats were just used as props, there wasn't even one decent chase scene thrown in. If this is the direction Michael Mann has taken, he needs to rethink what he is doing., Heat this ain't, I think my four stars is pretty generous.
Hulk
(2003)
Excellent Adaptation - Really Adds to Comic Book Mythos
12 December 2005
I am really disappointed by all the negative reviews. As is so often the case it seems to me to be mainly caused by false expectations. I am a big fan of the original comic book and I though this was a wonderful treatment of the story. I imagine the younger audience this was likely to appeal to just didn't have the patience to give the film time for the pay off. But when the action gets going it is very well done. Ang Lee deserves praise for tackling such a fantastic story with so much humanity and attention to detail.
The other positive reviews here have said pretty much all the same things I would so I will spare everyone the repetition. Suffice it to say I thought the film had great action, excellent drama, good script and acting and was very true to the feeling of the original comic book.
The saddest thing is that the kind of negative reaction this film got will just continue to dumb down the industry and make some of the best film makers think twice before they consider trying to tackle fantastic subjects in a serious way.
The other positive reviews here have said pretty much all the same things I would so I will spare everyone the repetition. Suffice it to say I thought the film had great action, excellent drama, good script and acting and was very true to the feeling of the original comic book.
The saddest thing is that the kind of negative reaction this film got will just continue to dumb down the industry and make some of the best film makers think twice before they consider trying to tackle fantastic subjects in a serious way.
Saw
(2004)
Wasted too much time already on this stinker
26 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
**********SPOILERS************ I actually saw this at the theater when it first came out so it has been a little while. I just remember feeling like there were such huge holes in the story I wished I had the time back I wasted on this crap.
The reason I am writing this now is I just got snookered into seeing Saw 2 and it was as nearly as bad as the first one. For one thing the killers premise is badly flawed "making people appreciate life by facing death" doesn't make any kind of sense, not even in a twisted sick killer sort of way. Not to mention most of his victims had little or no chance to survive as the killer seems to think. I also disagree with everyone who says that in a life or death situation people would not pay attention to details. I think that if your life was really on the line you would pay very close attention to everything. Anyway, I thought it was really stupid, the dialog, direction and acting were mediocre at best. I will work on avoiding such ridiculous contrivances in the future.
The reason I am writing this now is I just got snookered into seeing Saw 2 and it was as nearly as bad as the first one. For one thing the killers premise is badly flawed "making people appreciate life by facing death" doesn't make any kind of sense, not even in a twisted sick killer sort of way. Not to mention most of his victims had little or no chance to survive as the killer seems to think. I also disagree with everyone who says that in a life or death situation people would not pay attention to details. I think that if your life was really on the line you would pay very close attention to everything. Anyway, I thought it was really stupid, the dialog, direction and acting were mediocre at best. I will work on avoiding such ridiculous contrivances in the future.
Hide and Seek
(2005)
Solid Thriller
26 November 2005
Granted, I really thought this movie was a 7 or 8 but I gave it a 9 to try to slightly offset the bad reviews this film has undeservedly received.
I thought it was a good solid thriller with very good performances and an intelligent script and well above average direction. I was lucky enough to go into the movie with no real expectations. I think I had seen the trailer at some point but it had been long enough that I didn't remember much to have any preconceptions. This helped me quite a bit to enjoy the film since I didn't know what to expect. DeNiro was great giving a fine subtle performance and Dakota Fanning did a great job with her character as well.
I also give this movie high marks for the exposition of the story since it kept me interested throughout and I was watching it late at night. If the suspense had not built so well I would have most likely been fast asleep pretty quick. I can't understand the low score this received. I just viewed Saw 2 and I believe it got a much higher score. This makes me very worried that audiences have really been messed up and completely dumbed down in recent years. Saw 2 had plot holes you could park an aircraft carrier in and didn't have near the quality of writing or direction Hide and Seek had. It is sad that people value cheap thrills and blood and gore over subtle suspense. I know this movie borrowed a couple of tricks from some other films but it was still very well done. I would much rather see a film like this that was at least written as if the viewer had a little intelligence as opposed to the typical crap these days that assumes totally stupidity on the part of the audience.
I am adding to this review after having read many of the other reviewer's comments and I think I see why I had a slightly different experience from those who gave it a bad review. I think that the story up until the end was told from the perspective of Emily's father, David. This is why so many things don't entirely make sense because they are from his perspective. I will admit there are problems with some of the events toward the end but I was able to overlook the few minor goofs due to the excellence of the rest of the production. I am generally pretty picky about thrillers like this but this one impressed me nonetheless.
I thought it was a good solid thriller with very good performances and an intelligent script and well above average direction. I was lucky enough to go into the movie with no real expectations. I think I had seen the trailer at some point but it had been long enough that I didn't remember much to have any preconceptions. This helped me quite a bit to enjoy the film since I didn't know what to expect. DeNiro was great giving a fine subtle performance and Dakota Fanning did a great job with her character as well.
I also give this movie high marks for the exposition of the story since it kept me interested throughout and I was watching it late at night. If the suspense had not built so well I would have most likely been fast asleep pretty quick. I can't understand the low score this received. I just viewed Saw 2 and I believe it got a much higher score. This makes me very worried that audiences have really been messed up and completely dumbed down in recent years. Saw 2 had plot holes you could park an aircraft carrier in and didn't have near the quality of writing or direction Hide and Seek had. It is sad that people value cheap thrills and blood and gore over subtle suspense. I know this movie borrowed a couple of tricks from some other films but it was still very well done. I would much rather see a film like this that was at least written as if the viewer had a little intelligence as opposed to the typical crap these days that assumes totally stupidity on the part of the audience.
I am adding to this review after having read many of the other reviewer's comments and I think I see why I had a slightly different experience from those who gave it a bad review. I think that the story up until the end was told from the perspective of Emily's father, David. This is why so many things don't entirely make sense because they are from his perspective. I will admit there are problems with some of the events toward the end but I was able to overlook the few minor goofs due to the excellence of the rest of the production. I am generally pretty picky about thrillers like this but this one impressed me nonetheless.
Sin City
(2005)
Overdone gore and CGI
14 May 2005
Okay, cool looking stylized graphics and a graphic novel style of story telling is different. But like lots of things that could be good, when misused and over-used, even good elements can result in a bad film. Oh, the film noir narration also got to the point of just being annoying.
I went into this with pretty much no expectations and was still very disappointed. The actors that really had a chance to give good performances were so altered both in look and voice by the special effects that most of the subtleties of their acting were lost.
I must be getting old or something but the gore seemed excessive, gratuitous and generally exploitative. I don't mind heavy gore but it did not seem necessary to go quite so over the top in the context of these vignettes, at least in my opinion.
Overall, watching this was just not an enjoyable or entertaining experience.
I went into this with pretty much no expectations and was still very disappointed. The actors that really had a chance to give good performances were so altered both in look and voice by the special effects that most of the subtleties of their acting were lost.
I must be getting old or something but the gore seemed excessive, gratuitous and generally exploitative. I don't mind heavy gore but it did not seem necessary to go quite so over the top in the context of these vignettes, at least in my opinion.
Overall, watching this was just not an enjoyable or entertaining experience.
Primer
(2004)
I agree with all of the previously posted opinions
14 May 2005
I loved this movie, it clearly has more thought behind it than most films being made these days. I love to watch movies that cause me to think and discuss ideas and concepts.
I hated this movie, it is frustrating to have to put too much effort into understanding the details of a film. I love to watch movies that keep me entertained and have writing and characterizations that I can relate to, and stories that draw me into them.
Yes, I am either suffering from multiple personality disorder, or this film succeeds and fails on many levels.
My compliments to the filmmaker, he clearly has a great imagination and some interesting ideas he has tried to put forth.
My personal issue with the story is that I was never able to relate to the characters. This could be for one of two reasons: one would be that I am not able to comprehend the minds of such ultra scientific types, which is very possible. The other is that I just can not understand how anyone would be so small minded and petty with such a fantastic invention. Wouldn't you want to use it to deal with much bigger issues right away? Instead of worrying about making a buck, wouldn't you look for major disasters where you might be able to help save a large number of lives first?
My philosophical problem with movies like this is the way they divide the audience. There are always going to be people who are "smarter than thou" and have to insist that if you didn't "get it" you are an idiot. Then there will always be people who insist that they are confused and were not entertained because it wasn't easier to understand or did not have enough action, or special effects or whatever. I personally have a high regard for films that are a little better at providing something closer to a common experience for the audience.
I think Donnie Darko is a good example of a film that is entertaining and fun to watch on the surface but has fairly complex underpinnings. I have discussed Donnie Darko with a number of people from different backgrounds and most enjoyed it in some way. Yet there is enough of a complex back story, if you want to learn a deeper explanation for the events in the story you can. I doubt this would be the case with Primer.
I wish Primer had been made with a bigger budget and more collaboration with other, more seasoned, professionals. I think it is a great story that just needed a little polish to be more palatable for a slightly wider audience. Had I found even one of the characterizations to be more sympathetic, or even accessible, and the acting a bit better, I would have really enjoyed this film. As it was, I was interested in what was happening because of the subject matter and the depth of the event sequences but I really didn't give a damn what happened to any of the characters one way or the other. It doesn't add up to a film that I would spend too much more time on, although after reading a bit on the message board here I am compelled to go through it once more with the director's commentary just to see if it makes it any more interesting.
Then again, I gave Signs a second chance and I would do almost anything to get back the 106 minutes I totally wasted on that piece of poop.
I hated this movie, it is frustrating to have to put too much effort into understanding the details of a film. I love to watch movies that keep me entertained and have writing and characterizations that I can relate to, and stories that draw me into them.
Yes, I am either suffering from multiple personality disorder, or this film succeeds and fails on many levels.
My compliments to the filmmaker, he clearly has a great imagination and some interesting ideas he has tried to put forth.
My personal issue with the story is that I was never able to relate to the characters. This could be for one of two reasons: one would be that I am not able to comprehend the minds of such ultra scientific types, which is very possible. The other is that I just can not understand how anyone would be so small minded and petty with such a fantastic invention. Wouldn't you want to use it to deal with much bigger issues right away? Instead of worrying about making a buck, wouldn't you look for major disasters where you might be able to help save a large number of lives first?
My philosophical problem with movies like this is the way they divide the audience. There are always going to be people who are "smarter than thou" and have to insist that if you didn't "get it" you are an idiot. Then there will always be people who insist that they are confused and were not entertained because it wasn't easier to understand or did not have enough action, or special effects or whatever. I personally have a high regard for films that are a little better at providing something closer to a common experience for the audience.
I think Donnie Darko is a good example of a film that is entertaining and fun to watch on the surface but has fairly complex underpinnings. I have discussed Donnie Darko with a number of people from different backgrounds and most enjoyed it in some way. Yet there is enough of a complex back story, if you want to learn a deeper explanation for the events in the story you can. I doubt this would be the case with Primer.
I wish Primer had been made with a bigger budget and more collaboration with other, more seasoned, professionals. I think it is a great story that just needed a little polish to be more palatable for a slightly wider audience. Had I found even one of the characterizations to be more sympathetic, or even accessible, and the acting a bit better, I would have really enjoyed this film. As it was, I was interested in what was happening because of the subject matter and the depth of the event sequences but I really didn't give a damn what happened to any of the characters one way or the other. It doesn't add up to a film that I would spend too much more time on, although after reading a bit on the message board here I am compelled to go through it once more with the director's commentary just to see if it makes it any more interesting.
Then again, I gave Signs a second chance and I would do almost anything to get back the 106 minutes I totally wasted on that piece of poop.
Adaptation.
(2002)
An Excellent Movie for the Gullible
25 March 2004
This movie is far too sophisticated for the average viewer. However, it is a wonderful film for the psuedo-intellectual but gullible audience for which it is intended.
Folks like me who love to be entertained and have our chain yanked at the same time just eat this stuff up. We love to sit around for hours just wondering about what it all means and whether or not Charlie portrays himself and other characters realistically, or if it is all in his imagination. We also love spending hours pouring over the various reviews and critiques from other smarter folks who seem to grasp the concepts even better than ourselves so that we can learn from their understanding. Not to mention reading the attempted reviews from the folks who think the movie had some deep meaning, hahahahaha!
So, the bottom line is, if you are looking for a movie with truly deep meaning that only a few very smart people can benefit from, or a mindless entertaining romp jam packed with action then you may want to look elsewhere. But if you want an awesome excuse to discuss a movie with lots of people, and like to be manipulated, then this is the perfect film. Besides, as it turns out Charlie really does have a brother and they were both nominated for an Oscar for the screenplay. So, maybe it is all pretty much just based on facts anyway.
Folks like me who love to be entertained and have our chain yanked at the same time just eat this stuff up. We love to sit around for hours just wondering about what it all means and whether or not Charlie portrays himself and other characters realistically, or if it is all in his imagination. We also love spending hours pouring over the various reviews and critiques from other smarter folks who seem to grasp the concepts even better than ourselves so that we can learn from their understanding. Not to mention reading the attempted reviews from the folks who think the movie had some deep meaning, hahahahaha!
So, the bottom line is, if you are looking for a movie with truly deep meaning that only a few very smart people can benefit from, or a mindless entertaining romp jam packed with action then you may want to look elsewhere. But if you want an awesome excuse to discuss a movie with lots of people, and like to be manipulated, then this is the perfect film. Besides, as it turns out Charlie really does have a brother and they were both nominated for an Oscar for the screenplay. So, maybe it is all pretty much just based on facts anyway.
Michael
(1996)
Lovely Capraesque Comedy Drama
21 February 2004
It has been quite some time since I last saw this film. However, the amazingly low IMDB score has prompted me to jot down a few thoughts and memories I have regarding this under-appreciated masterpiece.
I find it appalling that this film would score so poorly in this arena. It is a wonderful, life affirming story with a positive message. Perhaps this is what we have come to. The comedy is not gross enough, the message too sentimental and the meaning too simple for modern "sophisticated" audiences. Well, I for one, absolutely loved every minute of it. It is easily Andie MacDowell's best performance. William Hurt is fantastic as the cynic who comes around in the end and the whole supporting cast does a wonderful job. Of course, John Travolta is superb. This is one of my favorite roles Travolta has played and it is simply resplendent. I would have to say this is in my top twenty of comedy-dramas ever. I just happen to love the way the film unapologetically illustrates how wonderful life is. How even the little things that we take for granted, like pie, are fantastic and how we should enjoy every minute like it was our last.
For a much more detailed and well written review see the fine work of jhclues who echoes my feelings about the movie so much that I feel it would be redundant of me to restate, probably poorly, all that they have already committed to page.
It is also interesting that so many people really hated it. I wonder if they weren't just put off by the "less than traditional" view of a religious subject.
I find it appalling that this film would score so poorly in this arena. It is a wonderful, life affirming story with a positive message. Perhaps this is what we have come to. The comedy is not gross enough, the message too sentimental and the meaning too simple for modern "sophisticated" audiences. Well, I for one, absolutely loved every minute of it. It is easily Andie MacDowell's best performance. William Hurt is fantastic as the cynic who comes around in the end and the whole supporting cast does a wonderful job. Of course, John Travolta is superb. This is one of my favorite roles Travolta has played and it is simply resplendent. I would have to say this is in my top twenty of comedy-dramas ever. I just happen to love the way the film unapologetically illustrates how wonderful life is. How even the little things that we take for granted, like pie, are fantastic and how we should enjoy every minute like it was our last.
For a much more detailed and well written review see the fine work of jhclues who echoes my feelings about the movie so much that I feel it would be redundant of me to restate, probably poorly, all that they have already committed to page.
It is also interesting that so many people really hated it. I wonder if they weren't just put off by the "less than traditional" view of a religious subject.
Adaptation.
(2002)
AHA! Moment
20 June 2003
I have figured it out! There are two distinct types of viewers who dislike this move. One, the folks who insist on way over-analyzing and over-intellectualizing films, and two, individuals who want basic entertainment and don't want to have to think to get it. Both ends of the spectrum seem to be almost insulted by this movie on some level.
I, for one, really enjoyed this! It truly appealed to both the "Charlie" and the "Donald" in me. I was very impressed by Nicolas Cage's performance. Meryl Streep was also in fine form. I always enjoy a film that makes you think and this did a fine job.
There is a lot more I could say, but I think anyone who enjoys a little harmless mental exercise as part of their entertainment should check it out and see for themselves.
I, for one, really enjoyed this! It truly appealed to both the "Charlie" and the "Donald" in me. I was very impressed by Nicolas Cage's performance. Meryl Streep was also in fine form. I always enjoy a film that makes you think and this did a fine job.
There is a lot more I could say, but I think anyone who enjoys a little harmless mental exercise as part of their entertainment should check it out and see for themselves.
Signs
(2002)
Signs of what?
9 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Signs of great filmmaking? I don't think so.
First of all I am pretty angry about several things. First, I am particularly distressed that the individuals posting here who liked the movie insist on accusing those of us who didn't of needing some kind of over the top special effects to enjoy a film. WRONG! I can think of many great films that did not need exploitative or gratuitous effects and were fantastic films. I can also think of films that had great effects and were still pretty bad movies, Independence Day comes to mind. My taste runs from Woody Allen to John Carpenter and I try hard to judge each film on its own merits. Speaking of John Carpenter he did a bang up job with Starman with minimal effects and the Jenny Hayden character was able to regain her faith after the death of her husband without me feeling totally manipulated and ripped off. Secondly, I am a bit confused by the overall rating of 8+ when so many people seem to share my sentiments. Mostly I am mad that I paid good money and wasted the time to see this film.
!!CONTAINS SPOILERS!!
I do not understand the comparisons to Hitchcock. I am a big Hitchcock fan and the only thing I can think of that is similar is the theme of an average guy caught up in unusual circumstances. I guess you could also say that Shyamalan is trying to build suspense through psychological terror instead of doing it overtly. Unfortunately he uses every obvious psychological gimmick in the book to yank the audience's chain. Hitchcock was much more subtle with a long buildup and lots of character exploration prior to things getting heavy. The main problem with this film is that the story fails to perform the most important function to make the premise work. There is very little information given to help us understand or like these characters. The most glaring example of this is the characters' reaction to the two dogs dying. The main characters are totally insensitive to the deaths of the beloved family pets. When the boy kills the first dog the family is barely upset about it and the second one is carelessly left outside for the evil aliens to massacre. If I ever wanted to try to like these characters or care about them it eventually becomes impossible. Then there is the matter of a total lack of background and believability. As many others have stated, why is he a farmer as well as a preacher? If he is a farmer, does he do any farming type stuff, ever? Where was Merrill before all this happened? What compelled him to come help Graham out? Neither Mel Gibson's nor Joaquin Phoenix's character reacts or behaves as one would expect people in this rural setting, or anywhere else for that matter, to act. They also do not seem to behave consistently within the parameters of who they are supposed to be. Actually, so little background is given, it is hard to figure out who they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that anybody who was just told that their neighbor has an alien locked in the pantry would not even try to pry some additional information from them. I don't care what the history between the two people is, basic survival instinct would dictate that you would want to know as much as possible. Same thing when they are locked in the house and then the basement. I am appalled that these guys supposedly care about these kids and don't even pick up one of the many gardening tools lying about to prepare to even try to defend themselves. Especially since Merrill was the baseball player who would swing at anything. It was almost painful to see two really good actors like Mel and Joaquin made to play such two-dimensional characters with such rigid, stilted dialogue. Mel's monologue about there being two kinds of people was good but seemed out of place when the rest of the time his character was basically despondent. Why was the stuff about the redneck neighbors even mentioned? The little boy was precocious to the point of being annoying. The little girl was cute and quirky. The lady sheriff was an engaging character and very well portrayed by Cherry Jones. She was actually the one saving grace of the film.
I could go on and on about the ridiculousness of the whole aliens with an aversion to water who are going to invade our planet to harvest humans using ground tactics nonsense but I think we need to go ahead and bury that horse. There are so many holes in the plot and script that my head is ready to explode trying to comprehend how M. Night could have made this film. I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I thought his slow, deliberate style of storytelling was totally appropriate in the context of those two films. However, Mr. Shyamalan needs to recognize that different stories require different treatments. Just because this formula worked a couple of times before does not mean he can make every movie using the same kind of devices and stylistic elements. I think he is a very talented writer and director who just needs to grow up and get over himself.
I also share the sentiment of many who feel cheated by virtue of the trailers for this film. I do believe that when we, as the paying, movie going public are marketed to, that the filmmaker or distributor should have a responsibility to make the marketing reflect at least some of the flavor of the film. I basically feel like I was tricked into watching what was essentially an exercise in how much the viewer could be manipulated with the fewest possible resources in terms of sets, effects and dialogue. A kind of minimalism carried to the point of absurdity.
I will see M. Night's next exploit, only because I now feel like he owes me something and I would like to give him the chance to make up for this fiasco.
One last comment: One of the other reviewers on this board suggested that this was all a nightmare the little girl was having. That would actually make the most sense out of everything. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the intended twist. I think M. Night would have made it more obvious at the end if that was the case. I really wish that he had.
First of all I am pretty angry about several things. First, I am particularly distressed that the individuals posting here who liked the movie insist on accusing those of us who didn't of needing some kind of over the top special effects to enjoy a film. WRONG! I can think of many great films that did not need exploitative or gratuitous effects and were fantastic films. I can also think of films that had great effects and were still pretty bad movies, Independence Day comes to mind. My taste runs from Woody Allen to John Carpenter and I try hard to judge each film on its own merits. Speaking of John Carpenter he did a bang up job with Starman with minimal effects and the Jenny Hayden character was able to regain her faith after the death of her husband without me feeling totally manipulated and ripped off. Secondly, I am a bit confused by the overall rating of 8+ when so many people seem to share my sentiments. Mostly I am mad that I paid good money and wasted the time to see this film.
!!CONTAINS SPOILERS!!
I do not understand the comparisons to Hitchcock. I am a big Hitchcock fan and the only thing I can think of that is similar is the theme of an average guy caught up in unusual circumstances. I guess you could also say that Shyamalan is trying to build suspense through psychological terror instead of doing it overtly. Unfortunately he uses every obvious psychological gimmick in the book to yank the audience's chain. Hitchcock was much more subtle with a long buildup and lots of character exploration prior to things getting heavy. The main problem with this film is that the story fails to perform the most important function to make the premise work. There is very little information given to help us understand or like these characters. The most glaring example of this is the characters' reaction to the two dogs dying. The main characters are totally insensitive to the deaths of the beloved family pets. When the boy kills the first dog the family is barely upset about it and the second one is carelessly left outside for the evil aliens to massacre. If I ever wanted to try to like these characters or care about them it eventually becomes impossible. Then there is the matter of a total lack of background and believability. As many others have stated, why is he a farmer as well as a preacher? If he is a farmer, does he do any farming type stuff, ever? Where was Merrill before all this happened? What compelled him to come help Graham out? Neither Mel Gibson's nor Joaquin Phoenix's character reacts or behaves as one would expect people in this rural setting, or anywhere else for that matter, to act. They also do not seem to behave consistently within the parameters of who they are supposed to be. Actually, so little background is given, it is hard to figure out who they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that anybody who was just told that their neighbor has an alien locked in the pantry would not even try to pry some additional information from them. I don't care what the history between the two people is, basic survival instinct would dictate that you would want to know as much as possible. Same thing when they are locked in the house and then the basement. I am appalled that these guys supposedly care about these kids and don't even pick up one of the many gardening tools lying about to prepare to even try to defend themselves. Especially since Merrill was the baseball player who would swing at anything. It was almost painful to see two really good actors like Mel and Joaquin made to play such two-dimensional characters with such rigid, stilted dialogue. Mel's monologue about there being two kinds of people was good but seemed out of place when the rest of the time his character was basically despondent. Why was the stuff about the redneck neighbors even mentioned? The little boy was precocious to the point of being annoying. The little girl was cute and quirky. The lady sheriff was an engaging character and very well portrayed by Cherry Jones. She was actually the one saving grace of the film.
I could go on and on about the ridiculousness of the whole aliens with an aversion to water who are going to invade our planet to harvest humans using ground tactics nonsense but I think we need to go ahead and bury that horse. There are so many holes in the plot and script that my head is ready to explode trying to comprehend how M. Night could have made this film. I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I thought his slow, deliberate style of storytelling was totally appropriate in the context of those two films. However, Mr. Shyamalan needs to recognize that different stories require different treatments. Just because this formula worked a couple of times before does not mean he can make every movie using the same kind of devices and stylistic elements. I think he is a very talented writer and director who just needs to grow up and get over himself.
I also share the sentiment of many who feel cheated by virtue of the trailers for this film. I do believe that when we, as the paying, movie going public are marketed to, that the filmmaker or distributor should have a responsibility to make the marketing reflect at least some of the flavor of the film. I basically feel like I was tricked into watching what was essentially an exercise in how much the viewer could be manipulated with the fewest possible resources in terms of sets, effects and dialogue. A kind of minimalism carried to the point of absurdity.
I will see M. Night's next exploit, only because I now feel like he owes me something and I would like to give him the chance to make up for this fiasco.
One last comment: One of the other reviewers on this board suggested that this was all a nightmare the little girl was having. That would actually make the most sense out of everything. Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the intended twist. I think M. Night would have made it more obvious at the end if that was the case. I really wish that he had.
New York Stories
(1989)
A lovely trilogy for fans of the city or these directors
5 August 2002
I just saw this film again after many years and I enjoyed it more than ever. I really like all three segments for different reasons. While they are three very different types of stories they are each representative of a different aspect of New York. The diversity of the three segments is a perfect compliment to a city that is so many different worlds all in one place.
The first segment directed by Scorsese is a wonderful little vignette about an extremely dysfunctional and destructive relationship between an egomaniacal artist and a young woman in the throws of an identity crisis. They are both using each other and at the same time feeding off each others emotions. Anyone who has been in a relationship with any of these dynamics will appreciate this piece. Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette are both superb in their rolls. I think it is a great romanticized portrayal of the New York art scene of the late 70's - early 80's. I also really enjoyed all the music in this segment.
I am amazed at how many people panned the Coppola segment. It is an adorable piece. This is a real tribute to the boundless imagination of a child. It could truly be a real story or it could be the fairy tale world of a child in a totally different circumstance, or anything in between. For all we know, Zoë's father could be the street musician. In a city like New York anything is possible. At least this was the way I interpreted the story.
The Woody Allen segment definitely showcased Woody at the top of his form. A very funny short film that I will always treasure. It will always remind me of my own mother, who, even though she is not Jewish thinks she is. Besides the great play on Freudian psychology I also loved the way the city just accepts the bizarre situation. I also love Allen's take on the human desire to explore any avenue to try to come to terms with the strangeness in life.
So, there you have it, three unique stories by three master story tellers. Each one giving the viewer a little taste of a different world within a world. The huge range of experiences and possibilities are what makes New York one of the great cities of the world, if not the greatest. For those who didn't care for one segment or another, I urge you to spend a little time in the city doing a variety of things. Go to the symphony, take in a museum, eat a hot dog on the street corner, take a walk in the park, talk to bum on the street, listen to some street musicians, hang out in Chinatown or Little Italy on a Sunday afternoon. Then, go back and watch the movie again. I believe you may see it in a little different light.
The first segment directed by Scorsese is a wonderful little vignette about an extremely dysfunctional and destructive relationship between an egomaniacal artist and a young woman in the throws of an identity crisis. They are both using each other and at the same time feeding off each others emotions. Anyone who has been in a relationship with any of these dynamics will appreciate this piece. Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette are both superb in their rolls. I think it is a great romanticized portrayal of the New York art scene of the late 70's - early 80's. I also really enjoyed all the music in this segment.
I am amazed at how many people panned the Coppola segment. It is an adorable piece. This is a real tribute to the boundless imagination of a child. It could truly be a real story or it could be the fairy tale world of a child in a totally different circumstance, or anything in between. For all we know, Zoë's father could be the street musician. In a city like New York anything is possible. At least this was the way I interpreted the story.
The Woody Allen segment definitely showcased Woody at the top of his form. A very funny short film that I will always treasure. It will always remind me of my own mother, who, even though she is not Jewish thinks she is. Besides the great play on Freudian psychology I also loved the way the city just accepts the bizarre situation. I also love Allen's take on the human desire to explore any avenue to try to come to terms with the strangeness in life.
So, there you have it, three unique stories by three master story tellers. Each one giving the viewer a little taste of a different world within a world. The huge range of experiences and possibilities are what makes New York one of the great cities of the world, if not the greatest. For those who didn't care for one segment or another, I urge you to spend a little time in the city doing a variety of things. Go to the symphony, take in a museum, eat a hot dog on the street corner, take a walk in the park, talk to bum on the street, listen to some street musicians, hang out in Chinatown or Little Italy on a Sunday afternoon. Then, go back and watch the movie again. I believe you may see it in a little different light.
The Spanish Prisoner
(1997)
A Stylish Thriller
30 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!!
This was a wonderful and unique thriller in the distinctive Mamet style. It certainly is not for everyone, but for those who appreciate Mamet's emphasis on the written word it is quite an enjoyable outing. Those who criticize the "stiffness" of the actors, the stilted dialogue or the "stupidity" of the main character are missing the point. This story is meant to be presentational as opposed to strictly representational.
What I am getting at is that all of the elements that people are singling out as negatives are intentional devices to define the style of the film. In my opinion, these stylistic choices perform several important functions. The actor's reading of the dialogue in the somewhat monotone style really accentuates the script. It also gave me the feeling of reading a mystery novel and being left to imagine some of the character's internal thoughts and feelings for myself as opposed to having them acted for me. It also seems like Mamet is poking fun at the unnatural quality of dialogue in many novels.
As far as the main character's stupidity, well, I am one of the worst at being able to suspend my disbelief but I found several easy justifications for this. For one thing, his image was continuously reinforced as the "boy scout", always "courteous", trying to do the right thing. Not to mention, pretty much everyone was in on it, from his boss to his buddy that ended up dead. Lastly, I have known people that could solve complex equations in their heads but could barely tie their shoes. So, I was able to empathize with this character despite his many screw-ups. As for the vagueness surrounding "the process". This is very typical of old, classic cornball detective stories, where there is always some secret formula or another to be worried about falling into the wrong hands. Hell, back in the day it was all in the brilliant scientist's head and it had to be tortured out of him. If nothing else the film certainly has a unique look and feel to it.
I thought that overall it was an extremely clever and entertaining story. I find Mamet's style to be refreshing and unique.
This was a wonderful and unique thriller in the distinctive Mamet style. It certainly is not for everyone, but for those who appreciate Mamet's emphasis on the written word it is quite an enjoyable outing. Those who criticize the "stiffness" of the actors, the stilted dialogue or the "stupidity" of the main character are missing the point. This story is meant to be presentational as opposed to strictly representational.
What I am getting at is that all of the elements that people are singling out as negatives are intentional devices to define the style of the film. In my opinion, these stylistic choices perform several important functions. The actor's reading of the dialogue in the somewhat monotone style really accentuates the script. It also gave me the feeling of reading a mystery novel and being left to imagine some of the character's internal thoughts and feelings for myself as opposed to having them acted for me. It also seems like Mamet is poking fun at the unnatural quality of dialogue in many novels.
As far as the main character's stupidity, well, I am one of the worst at being able to suspend my disbelief but I found several easy justifications for this. For one thing, his image was continuously reinforced as the "boy scout", always "courteous", trying to do the right thing. Not to mention, pretty much everyone was in on it, from his boss to his buddy that ended up dead. Lastly, I have known people that could solve complex equations in their heads but could barely tie their shoes. So, I was able to empathize with this character despite his many screw-ups. As for the vagueness surrounding "the process". This is very typical of old, classic cornball detective stories, where there is always some secret formula or another to be worried about falling into the wrong hands. Hell, back in the day it was all in the brilliant scientist's head and it had to be tortured out of him. If nothing else the film certainly has a unique look and feel to it.
I thought that overall it was an extremely clever and entertaining story. I find Mamet's style to be refreshing and unique.
America's Sweethearts
(2001)
A Light Romantic Comedy
23 September 2001
Okay, for anyone expecting a "sophisticated" comedy this would be somewhat of a disappointment. If you have that expectation you probably have not been paying attention to Billy Crystal's style of humor. He has been in more clever comedic films (most notably When Harry Met Sally). But that was the product of a brilliant director and screenplay. Same with Harold Ramis' direction in Analyze This. Not that Billy is not very funny you just have to have a slightly different expectation.
Anyway, on to my likes/dislikes. I will get the negative comments out of the way first. One of my pet peeves is the tendency for films about making films to do this crazy way over the top depiction of their industry. The super cornball movie titles and trailers have become so cliche it makes me a little nuts. The other recent examples that come to mind are State and Main and Notting Hill. The only good reason for this that I can think of is to purposely distance themselves from the reality of the business so as not to step on toes. Perhaps they think if they make it obviously a fantasy, industry insiders can not possibly be offended if they cross over into reality a bit. That is my main complaint about this film and it gets particularly over the top at the end with the nutty director having flipped out and exposing everyone with his behind-the-scenes footage. I really could not quite buy into that whole premise, especially with his home movie style shooting. That plus a few moments of very juvenile sexual humor were disappointing in relationship to the rest of the story.
Now for the flip side. John Cusack is fantastic. I have always liked his acting, although in the past he has not had the best of roles. Other than Being John Malkovitch this is my favorite performance from him to date. Julia Roberts was also quite good as she is in just about everything she does. Catherine Zeta-Jones also gave one of her finest performances and displayed remarkable comedic timing. Billy Crystal was also very funny and, as always, has a great screen presence.
These days it seems like ninety percent of the comedies that come along are geared for the teenage crowd, so it was nice to see something with a little more mature sense of humor. I definitely would not consider this a "sophisticated" comedy. However, it gave me quite a few good laughs and was reasonably entertaining.
Anyway, on to my likes/dislikes. I will get the negative comments out of the way first. One of my pet peeves is the tendency for films about making films to do this crazy way over the top depiction of their industry. The super cornball movie titles and trailers have become so cliche it makes me a little nuts. The other recent examples that come to mind are State and Main and Notting Hill. The only good reason for this that I can think of is to purposely distance themselves from the reality of the business so as not to step on toes. Perhaps they think if they make it obviously a fantasy, industry insiders can not possibly be offended if they cross over into reality a bit. That is my main complaint about this film and it gets particularly over the top at the end with the nutty director having flipped out and exposing everyone with his behind-the-scenes footage. I really could not quite buy into that whole premise, especially with his home movie style shooting. That plus a few moments of very juvenile sexual humor were disappointing in relationship to the rest of the story.
Now for the flip side. John Cusack is fantastic. I have always liked his acting, although in the past he has not had the best of roles. Other than Being John Malkovitch this is my favorite performance from him to date. Julia Roberts was also quite good as she is in just about everything she does. Catherine Zeta-Jones also gave one of her finest performances and displayed remarkable comedic timing. Billy Crystal was also very funny and, as always, has a great screen presence.
These days it seems like ninety percent of the comedies that come along are geared for the teenage crowd, so it was nice to see something with a little more mature sense of humor. I definitely would not consider this a "sophisticated" comedy. However, it gave me quite a few good laughs and was reasonably entertaining.
Tell Your Friends