Change Your Image
davidkopf
Reviews
Crash (2004)
A film that demeans us all
The basic gist of "Crash"? Everyone in Southern California is bigoted to the point that they are always on the razor's edge of glocking one another. Honestly, is there anyone or anything in this film that doesn't hinge on race? This is nothing like real life, and certainly nothing like the multicultural megalopolis that is the great Los Angeles Basin.
Moreover, as film making goes, this is pure manipulative opera bordering on propaganda. I mean honestly, the scene with the Persian guy and the Latino guy's daughter? That's not film making. That's not drama. That's not story telling. So what is it" It's the cheapest of plot devices to fire up the base emotion in the viewer.
Giving this the Oscar for Best Picture is a crime against film making. Crash? How about a train wreck?
Under the Tuscan Sun (2003)
Cynical with a capital "C"
My wife and I were joking because we rented our daughters (2- and 4-years-old) "Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus" (or something along those lines). We were chuckling over the fact that the film -- which features, purple flying horses, ice skating princesses, baby polar bears, fairies and elves, etc., etc. -- could only be the byproduct of multiple focus groups conducted with girls aged 3 to 5.
Then my wife popped in "Under the Tuscan Sun," which features a divorcée from the States buying a quaint Tuscan villa where not a shred of anything tasteless can be seen so that she can start her life over. Romance and foregone conclusions abound. Bla, bla, bla...
Tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony here.
Academically (acting, writing directing, etc.), this is an average movie, so I'll give it a 5.
But it if you love movies -- I mean honestly LOVE them -- this movie is proof that Hollywood hates them.
Session 9 (2001)
Points for tone and mood, but seriously weak plot
I want my two hours back. "Session 9" is yet ANOTHER movie that left me exasperated at the end. Moreover, I am really surprised that people are lauding this film with terms like 'genius' and 'fascinating' -- 'Session 9' is neither.
What is clever about 'Session 9' is its setting, story set-up, casting and cinematography. The film deftly sets its mood and is expert at transition the audience between the moods, so that the viewer is relaxed one moment and seriously creeped-out at the next moment.
The problem is that this is all for naught. The storyline is obvious and the ending is predictable. Worse yet, the ending is so predictable, that the movie spends most of its time trying to throw you off the track. That is NOT clever writing – it is the byproduct of desperation for a good story to tell.
If you're anything like me, if you watch this film, you will be throwing your remote at the television screen by the time the credits roll, angry that yet another precious bit of your life has been leached away by shoddy film making.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)
BVD: Subtle Satire or More Meyers Muck?
There are generally two types of responses to BVD: "How could anyone make a movie this bad?" or "Duh, it's satire." Here's the problem: In either case, this movie fails utterly to achieve it's goals.
If you judge the film on face-value, it's obvious that it is the worst morality play ever conceived. But, if you're judging this film on face value, you're missing the point.
BVD is supposed to be satire, but it does a miserable job at it. An example of good satire is "High Anxiety". Mel Brooks takes hilarious stab after hilarious stab at Hitchcock flicks. "High Anxiety" is memorable for its satiric genius.
Simply put: Satire is supposed to be *funny* -- BVD is never, ever, ever funny. It's not funny in a "so bad it's funny" way, and it is certainly not funny from a social/cultural critique standpoint. Absolutely none of the satirical elements in BVD generate one giggle or snigger whatsoever. BVD fans will call it subtle, but that's simply because they are desperate to be in on the joke -- and it is a very, very bad joke.
Yeah, a lot of BVD fans (apologists?) say it's brilliant, but that's because they are quite obviously brain dead. Do NOT believe their hype. Saying the Meyer's/Ebert concoction is subtle is a crock. It's simply terrible no matter how you dress it up.
Attraction (2000)
Lamely blurring the line between plot twists and randomness
I just watched this movie on HBO last night and came away from it sorely disappointed. "Attraction" is proof-positive that good movie-making cannot start without good writing.
I think I can safely say without spoiling the story that `Attraction's' story line is entirely focused on delivering `surprising' plot twists. Unfortunately, these twists and turns only come as non-sequiturs, because the character development (non existent), plot (if you can call it that) and dialogue (embarrassing) do *NOTHING* to support the `twists' that are supposed to surprise (rather than confuse) the viewer. Ham-fisted doesn't even begin to describe the ensuing on-screen mess.
Furthermore, the characters are so bland and come off as so many cookie-cutter, self-absorbed Gen-Xers that the viewer is left with no one to identify with, or any character to anchor what takes place on screen.
In the end, `Attraction' comes off as two hours documenting meaningless characters as they behave in completely random fashion.